Women typically vote left. Men typically vote right. Yet men self sacrifice, they vote for responsibility, independence and freedom because imposing on others is unthinkable to us.
Women don't self sacrifice. They use their vote to make others share and sacrifice on a society wide level. And so they effectively cajole and compel others to do what they won't. Leftism is the ultimate collective form of the lazy nagging self righteous bitch.
Leftism is rooted in guilt shame and envy. If you're a male leftist, you think like a woman and nothing you say or do can be trusted.
I think that's a bit too simplistic. There are some good people on both sides, and some bad people on both sides.
Good right: independence, responsibility, freedom
Bad right: if you get raped it's your fault, if you're poor it's your fault, and if you have cancer and can't afford medical treatment it's your fault, hate the gays blacks immigrants and anyone who is different.
Good left: social support, inclusivity, safety
Bad left: nothing women do is their fault so men have to protect them and pay for them, you must tolerate and accept what others tell you to or else you're an -ist or a -phobe, guilt and shame for "oppressors" (aka white men) and giving more without any oversight to "oppressed" groups with no oversight or plan, taxes and wealth redistribution via costly social programs that don't always work.
There's gotta be a balance of both, and trying to get as much good from both and as little bad from both as possible.
Saying "if you're a male leftist you think like a woman and nothing you say can be trusted" is too far, because it's basically the same thing but flipped when feminists say "if you're a white conservative man you think like a misogynist and nothing you say can be trusted".
Let's not make ourselves a mirror image of their hatred and bigotry, yeah? It's unfortunately easy to fall to their level and hard to walk the high road, but it's worth doing. We are better than them.
I think you replied to the wrong comment, and you meant to reply to mine :p
I did say good right: independence, responsibility, freedom.
You don't espouse those?
I hear you.
I'm Canadian, not American, but politics are politics. At the end of the day I believe it's more important to hold to values and ideals, than it is to hold to a political party. The political party can represent or stray from the ideals, so following a party can and will lead you amiss, but if it's the ideals you follow it makes it far easier to know what the right or wrong choices are.
Yeah sorry - not buying it.
> you say can be trusted" is too far, because it's basically the same thing but flipped... Let's not make ourselves a mirror image of their hatred and bigotry
That's a straw man. Calling out the left's vilification of men and Caucasians, hunger for social control, the left's willingness to bend the truth because their "ends justify the means..." That isn't hatred and bigotry. It's calling out an evil force and reacting justifiably wary.
> We are better than them.
That's one part I agree with at least. Yet it's wholly at odds with what you wrote elsewhere in your comment.
>That's a straw man. Calling out the left's vilification of men and Caucasians, hunger for social control, the left's willingness to bend the truth because their "ends justify the means..." That isn't hatred and bigotry. It's calling out an evil force and reacting justifiably wary.
I agree but I want to make an important distinction here. It'S the vilification of men and caucasians, hunger for social control, etc etc etc, that is evil and needs to be called out. I entirely agree with this.
However, saying "Every male feminists thinks this and says this" is a step too far. There are many male feminists who have been lied to and manipulated into the position they're in. You can't convince them all, but you can convince some, just by showing how the lies feminism told them doesn't pan out in reality.
Then we will have more ex-feminists, people who left the cult, and nothing is more threatening to a cult than ex members who left and who are calling out the lies that manipulated them while they were still in the cult.
Again, you can't convince every male feminist to change their mind, but even if it's only 20% of them, it's still worth making the effort to open up to them and try to convince them. If we fail to convince them we haven't lost anything, but if we do convince them then we've got one more ally to call out the feminist bullshit.
"We are better than them" and yet we are losing. Why? Because people are constrained by their strengths rather than their weaknesses.
If you speak 20 languages and I speak one, we're bound to speaking that one if we are to communicate.
Stooping down at their level is a necessity.
Look! Ukrainian soldiers are shooting the Russians instead of preaching on the battlefield. You become who you fight against or you lose.
We are losing because of many reasons. First there is the [women-are-wonderful effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect), which makes people think women are more innocent and need more protection. This goes hand in hand with the [gender empathy gap](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-do-life/202004/the-gender-gap-in-empathy), where unfortunately people just care more about women. People don't care as much about men, and men are unfortunately seen as disposable.
All of this combined is a powerful advantage for feminism even before taking anything else into account, but then feminism has also had decades to poison the well and spread lies against men out of hatred, like making a domestic violence program called the Duluth model that just outright assumes that domestic abusers are men, not women, when the truth is that in Canada, [most of domestic abuse victims are male](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332917590_Prevalence_and_Consequences_of_Intimate_Partner_Violence_in_Canada_as_Measured_by_the_National_Victimization_Survey). Same with sexual assault, feminists basically convinced the CDC to specifically and deliberately ignore male victims of rape, calling it made to penetrate instead, just so they can perpetuate the myth that the majority of rape victims are women, when again, [it's closer to 50/50](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/).
You absolutely can and should fight back against injustice, I'm not saying you have to turn the other cheek and pray the other side changes their mind.
However, Ukrainians don't need to do like Russians and bomb Russian hospitals and Russian schools full of children to win the war. You can fight back without stooping to the level of your enemy.
We want to fight back against injustice and inequality, we don't want to make more of it.
Nope, sorry - nothing you say will ever be trustworthy to me. Even your misrepresenting of my comment shows you're insincere.
I never said it was about tribalism only. It's moreso about coercion, as it takes from the productive involuntarily, and giving to others. The vilification of the productive is just a means to the end - the left's necessary step to vilify and dehumanize the victims of its theft.
Who are the others benefiting from leftism? Unfortunately the modern left mostly gives to the undeserving.
Maybe 70-90 years ago the left was judicious in how it reallocated what it stole. Not anymore. Now it's a means for cynical power grabbers to manipulate the lazy and guilt-ridden into giving them more power.
“Nothing you say”
You already decided you’re impervious to arguments. That’s literally the definition of a closed mind. Good luck living in reality, you’ll need it.
(ps: I dare you post it in r/changemyview)
> You already decided you’re impervious to arguments.
Shit tier straw man.
I'm saying nothing you say can be trusted. But even an untrustworthy source can occasionally speak truth. If what a leftist says aligns with observable reality, or if they make a sound argument and their premises are demonstrably true, I'll believe what they say. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan citing a Russian proverb, "distrust but verify."
You're inflating my default to skepticism when engaging with leftists, with total incredulity. Skepticism is a sensible default state to not trust those who have consistently proven to be selfish, manipulative, illogical or naive.That's much different than being *"impervious to argumentation."*
This is circumstantial evidence that you're a leftist yourself. Your emotional defence of leftism, reliance on a strawman to mischaracterize me, only reinforces my premise about leftists being dishonest.
Thanks, in a way.
It may be to a greater extent now, but to some extent this is old. Difference is, until recently, men were at least told "thank you" in several ways. But now? In exchange for our sacrifice we're told we're patriarchal oppressors. So some men are finally waking up. Not enough, but some.
I've noticed this as well.
Men are always told "What can YOU provide?" or "How can YOU improve?" We're basically just seen as a walking, talking resource.
Meanwhile, women are always told how they're amazing just the way they are. They don't have to change themselves in any significant way, they don't have to provide anything. They just need to *exist.*
>Remember: no matter how much you love her, and no matter what she says, once you lose your usefulness from an economic standpoint, she's probably gone
Someone needs to tell young men this fact.
>Remember: no matter how much you love her, and no matter what she says, once you lose your usefulness from an economic standpoint, she's probably gone.
Once I asked a girl in university out and she rejected me. I asked her why and she replied with "You're too inexperienced and you dont have career plans. I want someone who takes care of me whom I dont have to take care of."
I never understood the whole daddy kink. To me having sex with your daddy would be repulsive, and any kind of secual attitudes towards very young women is icky to me personally.
On the other hand though I can't help but notice more and more that if women want a man who provides for her, gives her gifts, takes care of her, makes her feel safe, etc etc etc, she is in effect looking for a man to do for her what her dad did, except she also gets to have sex when she wants to with him.
I'm taking more time to understand what the fuck is going on with all the daddy issues, because this is something that apparently is everywhere in society, but that flies completely under the radar and that nobody talks about it. I want to make sure I'd be able to recognize the red flags, I missed a ton of them with my ex and went through an abusive relationship, I don't need to do that a 2nd time.
>When a woman earns more than her husband, the likelihood of divorce increases by 50%. Happiness rates for the woman while married are also significantly lower.
Maybe it was a different study I read, but if I remember the divorce rate didn't increase if the woman earned more before they got married.
Divorce rates increased if, during the marriage, the woman started making more than her husband, and this was regardless of whether she was making more money, or if he was making less.
So it's not necessarily women making more at any point, it's specifically women marrying a man who made more than her, and then she exceeded his income after they were married.
Also interesting to note is that it's never talked about, but men's suicide rate goes from 4x higher than women, to 9x higher than women post-divorce for up to two years.
Women's suicide rate remains completely unchanged before or after divorce.
You also hear a lot of victim-blaming from feminist saying that the man lost his job and became frustrated, shitty, and hostile to his wife, which is why she divorced him.
Notice though that if a woman found out she was infertile during the marriage, and became shitty, frustrated, and hostile due to her perceived loss of value and loss of purpose, that the husband must stand unequivocally behind her and if he divorces her he's a piece of shit for abandoning her.
Basically, no matter what he has to support her, but she has no obligation to support, empathize with, or understand her man, and the moment she feels she can do better it's her god-given right to bail on him whenever she feels like it.
Gotta love living in a patriarchy with all that male privilege.
> Remember: no matter how much you love her, and no matter what she says, once you lose your usefulness from an economic standpoint, she's probably gone.
From any standpoint really. They have expectations from you that they will not compromise on in the smallest even if they make no sense.
My last serious girlfriend was always upset because I never did anything around the house. I never did anything around the house because I was making enough money to hire out. Housekeepers, landscapers, handymen, etc. Everything was getting done. She was just pissed that I personally wasn't doing it. Those things were MY job in her mind.
She cheated on me.
Yeah, I've been in this same boat. Paying someone to do the oil change or mow the lawn "proved" how lazy I was. While she didn't do anything. Men are meant to be servants and an ATM for women. They will never actually love you but only love you for what you can do for them. Once they feel are no longer useful, they are gone.
Go your own way and never ever get married!
BS - first there are other ways to be useful. 2cd, don't you want to be useful? What would anyone want with a useless person. 3rd - I see plenty of old women bringing old men to the doctor well past the man's usefulness expiration date.
Often understood to make it clear, in case some people misunderstand, and in case some other people didn't know in the first place.
Doesn't hurt to educate people properly about red pill stuff so they don't fall for feminist lies.
Read Rich Coopers book Unplugged Alpha. Society makes the rules either follow them or stay out. I am telling you many women would be happy to join harem of a 1% men, that's how female nature is. Consider female pov, she want to pass her genetic legacy, where she has the best chance a guy who is lower middle class or a harem of a 1% man.
Rich cooper is a grifting shill, and not worth listening to
Also wasn’t the main complaint from society that men _are_ staying out?
Hope society pulls its head out of its ass with that attitude, because participation isn’t mandatory and so far men get a better deal walking away
And it’s women relentlessly demanding 1% men that will continue to cause society to fall apart, and nothing will change until this behavior changes in women.
Marriage was meant to curb it, but now that women are empowered to make their own decisions they get to figure it out all on their own.
Very true, and they still complain about it
Society gave women a ranked and sorted by attractiveness list of men, and they still can’t get what they want.
Ironically, that exact list _ensures_ women end up with the players they hate, because anyone not that leaves the dating pool, and women on average stop swiping long before the pool of players has been swam through
Hopefully it has an impact sooner than later. Women are taking up leadership positions and will not make decisions that will benefit men. But I think overall the more men drop out of society (not by choice but circumstance) the more this issue gets to light.
Even on a smaller scale like paying for everyone or staying a bit longer at work so that the others don't have to. There's a video on YouTube I recommend called "Don't be a hero" by HuMan.
Just say no. I would never fight or die for my country. Not because I am a coward (which in a way I am - why would that be a problem? - would you care if you were?) but because there is nothing for me there. The modern national state is just an amalgamation of collectives that might or might not share a common ancestry, nothing more, we have social structures that are designed to take care of the weak and the power relations with other states. Each collective is separated by social classes and other social forms. Refuse to take part in the game, the game is rigged from the get go. Other men may belittle you, who cares about what others think anyway. Some women will laugh at you, who cares anyway. But some women will see that you are real and that you can understand and preserve yourself. There is nothing women like more than confidence and cheekiness. Just play it cool with everyone. Put your needs first and let them guide your interactions with your fellow humans. You will be much happier and more focused. You are you. There is no one you owe anything to. Not to God (if he is real), not to other men or women, not to your country. To no one. Be free, be smart. I am NO one’s protector or saviour. I don’t owe anything to anyone on this rock, and I am pretty sure you don’t either. Best of luck. Deal your own cards.
Exactly. Don't participate. There is nothing in it for us. I wish to god I had someone beat that into my head 30 years ago. I could have retired a millionaire at 35.
Men don't realize how badly society sucks them dry until it's far too late.
I agree with you but this craziness is a recent phenomenon in historic sense. Jordan Peterson is right when he said that the birth control pill completely altered the gender relationship. With women having greater control over their reproductive health, men are seen as disposable.
We as a society are yet to figure out a new set of rules to manage the roles of each other. Something that humans have never had to do.
I mean, men have always been seen as disposable. Men were economic labour tools, to die in the mines and in the factories, to have back-breaking labour in the fields, and seen as disposable pawns in wars.
What the pill changed is not just how women have control over their own reproductive health, but that women can choose to have sex and not be pregnant, and not spend their entire lives caring for children and family.
This fundamentally changed how society worked, because it's damn hard to participate in society when you're pregnant 9 months out of every 2 years, and that by the time the newborn baby is old enough to be weaned and not needing mom's constant attention, there's a good chance she'd be pregnant again.
We definitely need to figure out a new set of rules to manage each other. The problem is that while the idea of seeing men and women as equal with equal voting rights and etc is good, feminism is treating equality like a one-way street that exclusively benefits women.
We need to figure out a new set of rules, but we've given over control of who sets the rules to a group of people who want to benefit one group exclusively and sees the other group as basically savages who can barely control themselves. Is it any wonder the rules that have come up as a result are terrible?
I believe historically there was balance in the natural sacrifice of women (eg death through childbirth and sexual vulnerability linked to said childbirth) and the coordinated sacrifice (disposability in comparison to women being a bottleneck to survival needing to be protected) of mens roles.
The pill changed the balance and gave advantage to women, whilst not changing anything for men: men were still disposable whilst women were no longer a bottleneck to species survival requiring special protection and dispensation, yet demanded it anyway without balancing compensation.
Women have taken this advantage as a signal they can achieve much more and have been agitating for their own greater advantage since then, notably the desire to not have any discomfort in life without any consideration of corresponding advantage for men or thought of the consequences to them and society.
It's the metaphoric equivalent of giving an inch and taking a mile and is going to be a replay of Adam & Eve all over again.
There has been a recent surreptitious move by women to get paid more for doing less work (ie to be given resources for nothing) by introducing menstrual and menopause leave, which does not apply to men and for which men get no corresponding advantage. Men are still required to sacrifice to provide resources to women, in this case, all men forced to sacrifice further through higher prices to fund womens free money in the commercial sector. It's blatant discrimination and selective advantage, when men don't get paid if they have to take personal leave, beyond the enshrined paid leave that both men and women receive. If women need to take extra personal leave, then fine, but it shouldn't be paid if men don't get paid for a similar thing.
Ultimately its not about the roles themselves, but equality in performing those roles regardless of gender. The equality requirement actually filters out those not suited to certain roles, because fundamentally, roles are based on biological differentiation and whilst there is some flexibility, it only stretches so far before losing efficiency and effectiveness, unless an individual is augmented to better perform a role; then it becomes a matter of discrimination in augmenting one group but not another.
>whilst women were no longer a bottleneck to species survival
Uuh, they still are dude. In fact, everyone's worrying about the declining fertility rates of developed nations such as Japan.
Only from a perspective of keeping ponzi schemes going.
Japan wasn't going extinct in the past at half the population or less and its going to take a long time for it to drop that far, assuming nothing is done about fertility.
Women aren't the bottleneck like they were in the past, because they aren't dying in greater numbers than men through childbirth, limiting the number of children that can be born.
Japan is going to have to import migrant workers soon to keep its economy stable, fertility absolutely matters if you want to maintain a society.
>because they aren't dying in greater numbers than men through childbirth,
It didn't matter if Women died during childbirth or not, they they had 5-10 kids to make up for that 1 loss.
>limiting the number of children that can be born.
Exactly my point, modern women literally have reduced the amount of kids they have.
Dying in childbirth often meant during the first child, so they didn't have an opportunity for 5-10 kids.
Italy and Japan are expected to see their populations halve by 2100, assuming nothing changes. Interestingly, that is about the same population as 100 years ago. Would a population in Japan of 60 million people be a problem with the technology of today? It wasn't at the time it last occurred with far less technology and more human labour required.
That's 80 years away with at least current levels of automation and 80 years to develop greater advances and to change fertility rates.
One of the problems affecting fertility rates today is women being very selective over partners including quite ridiculous criteria such as "must be over 6'". Do they realise that 80% of women pursuing 20% of men means many men and women being relationship-less and thus not having families? It's irrational to cut off your nose to spite your face. Setting sights a little lower would result in far more overall happiness for everyone.
The economy will compensate: you can't expect anything to grow forever in a fixed system and such things that do are cancers.
I'm talking about the average Women's fertility rates, they were high enough to make up for high maternal mortality rates+male war related deaths. If you don't consider lowering living standards due to a decreased working age population a problem, then yes there's no "problem" at all. Humanity can survive on scraps but its not exactly ideal.
>That's 80 years away with at least current levels of automation and 80 years to develop greater advances and to change fertility rates.
OK man, you put your hopes in a science fiction utopia. I stick with what has worked for humanity since forever.
>One of the problems affecting fertility rates today is women being very selective over partners
It has nothing to do with that, they just don't want to be mothers until they're in their 30s.
Traditionally women died one in every four childbirths. This has dropped to 1 in 100 (less in western countries with affordable socialised healthcare)
So… we need a reevaluation. Almost like we need a mens rights movement. :p
I think men are taught to sacrifice in order to be considered a "real man".There is a social expectation placed on men to sacrifice themselves when necessary for the benefit of women and society.Whenever a woman is being attacked by some insane person,men are expected to defend the woman and risk their own life to protect her.Even if she is a random person he doesn't even know.Men are also expected to be conscripted to fight in wars when necessary.
Men also have an expectation placed on them to earn alot of money.Which is why you see articles talking about a [lack of economically attractive men](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/dating/marriage-rates-decline-reason-economically-attractive-men-jobs-income-a9098956.html).This expectation to earn alot of money is probably one major reason why the supposed "wage gap" which is actually an earnings gap exists.Men take on more dangerous,stressful,and inconvenient jobs to earn more money.
Yea I understand the statement. I just do not know how men are taught this. Do you mean expected to protect in their line of duty, such as police officer, fire men etc? I would believe that has to do with a male's genetic makeup being superior to a woman's in terms of strength, and physical build. Obviously it would make sense to have males in protective lines of service over women. They are stronger, and larger. Although where else is this the case? You said they protect random strangers? Most domestic violence victims are women killed by their male partners. How about men who mug, rape and beat up women? Whether it's random strangers or their partners violence against women is done on a huge scale to women. Women are usually the victims, not the ones protected. The crime statistics are shockingly male.
As for economics, for a very long period in history, men provided and women stayed home. Women therefore, were expected to take care of the home and birth/raise children. Men obviously had to pay the bills, to support his family. Now a days though, that is no longer happening in the majority of homes. Women in today's world, have to birth the child then hurry up and get back to work. It's become a new normal to see women working full time, while raising a children whether they are married or divorced. I can see why economic strength of men is definitely an important factor in the eyes of society and women. A man does not give birth, therefore he would be the one to provide if the couple chooses children. Many women may be observant if a man can provide for a house and home, if the woman was to become pregnant.That is if they want to have children this is absolutely an important aspect in a good partner.
However now a days we see many single mothers. Many men skip out on the children all together, not paying support at all. The average child support payment is very low. Women usually have to pay for childcare so they can work full time. So women with children really get the short end of the stick, although it takes both sexes to produce a child. Also these are not my opinions, these are facts and statistics. So to answer the question, maybe men are being pressured/taught to sacrifice, because they are doing so poor at protecting women now? Maybe older generations are just preaching what used to be common, to protect and provide for women. Maybe they are trying to help men, considering men are doing such a crappy job at it now?
A lot I women are choosing to be single mothers.
A lot of father's are trying to be there for there kids but the mothers won't let them.
Men have killed them self because of how much child support is.
Choosing to be single mothers? How does that happen? If the father is biologically the father by DNA, he has rights to the child after a dna test. Unless he is a delinquent, with some type of dangerous background. Not sure if you are speaking about "Single Mothers By Choice" who use sperm donations with no partner. That is entirely different story that does not involve men at all.
Mother's not letting the father see the child is illegal. If a father is the legal father of a child, and mother denied access to the child, the cops would arrest her. If she fled with the child, she would be charged with kidnapping. So, if a man is claiming a woman is not allowing them access to his child, my guess is he does not pay a dime in child support. Without support set up by the court he has no rights. He is not a legal father. However, most of the time, even when the father does not pay a dime, the mom still lets him see his kids. That is up to her. Again, this is in the US where parental rights have laws surrounding them, custody agreements can be renegotiated countless times at any point.
If men are "killing themself over child support", I would look at their mental history. The average child support payment is $400 a month. That is about 5k a year. So a father will leave the earth because he has to pay $400 a month towards supporting his own flesh and blood. That is sad for the children born to these men. Some car payments are more than child support payments. I know many women who get $150 per kid a month. But I guess through a males eyes that is unjust, but not the mother having to provide housing, food, childcare, and medical for the child? Not to mention the amount of mental and physical labor raising a child is.
Maybe you and your friends are in a very vulnerable spots. But what I am stating are facts you can research and check the claims. Maybe you feel like a victim as a man, but your sex has nothing to do with it. So if you are in a tough spot, I bet some woman somewhere has it worse.
>Yea I understand the statement. I just do not know how men are taught this. Do you mean expected to protect in their line of duty, such as police officer, fire men etc? I would believe that has to do with a male's genetic makeup being superior to a woman's in terms of strength, and physical build. Obviously it would make sense to have males in protective lines of service over women. They are stronger, and larger. Although where else is this the case? You said they protect random strangers? Most domestic violence victims are women killed by their male partners. How about men who mug, rape and beat up women? Whether it's random strangers or their partners violence against women is done on a huge scale to women. Women are usually the victims, not the ones protected. The crime statistics are shockingly male.
If you want to know how men are taught this I think you should look at my post on the [gender empathy gap](https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/s0m7tc/the_gender_empathy_gap_is_real/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). Men are taught this by the lack of empathy they receive from society when they struggle.This lets men know that there is this expectation for them to be strong and self sufficient in order to be helpful to others.There is also precarious manhood.Which is the idea that you have to earn the title of being called a man.This [video](https://youtu.be/nq4cLlYl1iA) goes over this stuff if you want to check it out.
Men are viewed as having more agency and are therefore considered more blameworthy,and responsible for the problems in society,but also in less need of help when they are victimized.That is why it is men who are expected to sacrifice by being conscripted into war, by being more stoic,and by protecting women and children in a crisis,etc.I think this may even extend to relationships with the notion of [happy wife happy life](https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/12/11/yes-dear-henpecked-husbands-and-one-sided-relationship-dynamics/) were men are expected to let their wives do more of the decision making to make her happy.
Now let me address your points about violence against women.
>You said they protect random strangers? Most domestic violence victims are women killed by their male partners
I was talking about the notion that women are entitled to protection from men they don't know.Also,most domestic violence victims [are not women killed by their male partners](https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/).As a matter of fact,serious male perpetrated domestic violence is the least common domestic violence situation.Most domestic violence is bilateral,and is not serious.
>How about men who mug, rape and beat up women?
This is a [small minority of men](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258203395_The_1_of_the_Population_Accountable_for_63_of_All_Violent_Crime_Convictions).It is not really a surprise that violent criminals don't care about what is socially acceptable.This doesn't disprove the claim that there is a social expectation placed on men to protect women.
>Whether it's random strangers or their partners violence against women is done on a huge scale to women. Women are usually the victims, not the ones protected. The crime statistics are shockingly male.
Men are victims of violence crime a [little more then women](https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/criminal-victimization-2021).Also,i'm not sure what you mean by a huge scale.Could you quantify that?
>As for economics, for a very long period in history, men provided and women stayed home. Women therefore, were expected to take care of the home and birth/raise children. Men obviously had to pay the bills, to support his family. Now a days though, that is no longer happening in the majority of homes. Women in today's world, have to birth the child then hurry up and get back to work. It's become a new normal to see women working full time, while raising a children whether they are married or divorced. I can see why economic strength of men is definitely an important factor in the eyes of society and women. A man does not give birth, therefore he would be the one to provide if the couple chooses children. Many women may be observant if a man can provide for a house and home, if the woman was to become pregnant.That is if they want to have children this is absolutely an important aspect in a good partner
Yes,women are attracted to men with good financial prospects.This is why men are expected to earn alot of money as I said.Women do work,but they don't have the same expectations placed on them to be the breadwinners in relationships which is my point.Women want men who make more money then them even if they already make alot of money.This pressure to be a high earner leads to men making more sacrifices to earn more money.
>However now a days we see many single mothers. Many men skip out on the children all together, not paying support at all. The average child support payment is very low. Women usually have to pay for childcare so they can work full time. So women with children really get the short end of the stick, although it takes both sexes to produce a child. Also these are not my opinions, these are facts and statistics. So to answer the question, maybe men are being pressured/taught to sacrifice, because they are doing so poor at protecting women now? Maybe older generations are just preaching what used to be common, to protect and provide for women. Maybe they are trying to help men, considering men are doing such a crappy job at it now?
This is not necessarily just due to fathers deciding to leave their kids.Women's choice and/or unfortunate events can also be reasons for single mothers.Maybe the father does leave when they have a kid,but parental alienation by women is also a thing as well.
Another thing that can also happen is that there are women who have sex with the same high status man and raise his kids alone.So it could be a repeat offender situation were one man gets multiple women pregnant and is not really present in his kids lives.Another possibility is that the father might have died.There are many reasons why a woman can end up being a single mother besides men just being deadbeats.
Do you not find posts as such overly emotional for reddit? Men are often said to not be emotional, but on social media I find them a lot more emotional than women. They are always very upset about females in general. I never knew women were hurting the modern young male so much just by not sleeping with them. The OP has been posting for years blaming women for him not having housing, a job, food. Lol
It seems like survival of the species. I could produce like 400 babies in a 9 months (I'm 50 it would be in the 1000s if I was 18). a women 1 or 2 in 9 months. And we are physically stronger. It is what it suck it snowflake and quit whining.
Bunch of whiners. Whoever told you it would be easy was lying to you. Whoever told you it would be fair was a big a liar! Put your big boy pants on and be a man. Show some kindness, some humility. Meditate or something.
This is weird way of looking at it. Maybe they used to be taught this. I do not see this taking place at all anymore. So wouldn't women make the ultimate sacrifice? Sacrificing their body and life to birth and raise a child. I mean, every single person walking this earth came from a females body. Thats a lot of sacrifice. That is a lot to give.
I don't see giving birth and raising children as the greatest sacrifice.Especially when you consider the fact that alot of women find this fulfilling and choose to do it.I would argue that being forced to fight in a war as young man is a much greater sacrifice.Imagine being in your late teens or early twenties,going to war,and then just dieing at such a young age before you even get the chance to really live your life.
That is the sacrifice that men in ukraine were forced to make.Also,even the expectation for women to have kids is sort of being suppressed by feminism.The greatest pressure women will receive to have kids is by their families,but this even applies to men as well.However,there is a whole social movement telling women it is okay to be independent and not start a family.Women are being liberated from their traditional gender roles while men are still expected to fulfill theirs.
>I would argue that being forced to fight in a war as young man is a much greater sacrifice.Imagine being in your late teens or early twenties,going to war,and then just dieing at such a young age before you even get the chance to really live your life.
Previously men were dying on wars or plantation farms, now men and their ambition are sacrificed at the corporate altar.
Women find it fulfilling to carry a child inside her? Oh ok. So if that is the case, men find it fulfilling to go to war. There is no draft in the US. They are volunteering not forced? Do you serve?
You are speaking of only the western world, as not being pressured to have children. Yes, well they just made abortion a lot harder to access in the states. However, yes a lot less children are being born today. So many women have chosen not to have a child, mainly because men can not provide like 30 years ago. They cannot have a child while working full time, without having to pay a lot of money for someone else to raise it.
Those two points though, no one is being forced to do anything. You stated carrying and, birthing the entire human race is not a sacrifice. You called it fulfilling, Instead argued war is. But serving in war is not forced either, and is a job with great benefits. Both choices. So what is the argument then?
>Women find it fulfilling to carry a child inside her? Oh ok. So if that is the case, men find it fulfilling to go to war. There is no draft in the US. They are volunteering not forced? Do you serve?
There is currently no draft,but men can be drafted into war because of selective service.Which is what I am talking about.
>You are speaking of only the western world, as not being pressured to have children. Yes, well they just made abortion a lot harder to access in the states. However, yes a lot less children are being born today. So many women have chosen not to have a child, mainly because men can not provide like 30 years ago. They cannot have a child while working full time, without having to pay a lot of money for someone else to raise it.
I don't see restricting access to one form of birth control that some people see as morally wrong to use as people pressuring women to have children.The reason people oppose abortion is because they believe you are killing a baby.It is not really about pressuring women to have kids.
>Those two points though, no one is being forced to do anything. You stated carrying and, birthing the entire human race is not a sacrifice. You called it fulfilling, Instead argued war is. But serving in war is not forced either, and is a job with great benefits. Both choices. So what is the argument then?
Serving in war can be forced.I specifically mentioned conscription, not voluntary service.Did you not hear about what happened in Ukraine?Also,I did not say that giving birth and raising children isn't a sacrifice.I said that I don't think it is the greatest sacrifice.Yes,having kids does involve sacrifice,but I don't think it is as sacrificial as someone literally dieing in a war to defend their country.
Women have children? Yea? Don't men and women both participate in creating a child, or have you not gotten that far yet? They used to both participate in raising the child also. Believe it or not some good men still do, the one's that don't view it as a woman's issue. You act like the creation of humankind is the fault of women. "Women have children" is just a new trend in the world, due to the pussification of western men, who refuse any type of responsibility. Your right women have children despite the cost. But when have men been doing? Getting addicted to Sissy Porn on youtube? The new age "man" is a real catch.
You started this thread talking about births and pregnancy wich men don't do. Sorry if my language was not as precise as your; but i think your confusion is due to not be a serious person.
Girls aren't really taught self preservation. [The normally struggle with low self esteem compared to boys ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013060317766)and are[ taught to put the needs of others before their own](https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/80-women-recognize-value-self-nurture-yet-few-care-selves-they-care-others). Being told by a few feminist motivational speakers to "put themselves first" is not easily going to change values that tell Girls to put others first which have been around for centuries.
Men create this society where men were expected to provide. So provide.
But then men get so upset about women choosing to be single and make their own money because now there’s a record number of single men. Make up your minds boys.
And it's backfiring for women who then yell that men are priveleged. Men are taught to take responsibility, so we are better workers, thus we earn more than women.
Feminists should know that gender inequality is a two headed beast, and they can't win the fight against just one head.
I no longer partake in that social norm anymore. Reason being is that I don’t feel like protecting or being a masculine male for woman (excluding my family) because of my life experiences. Woman have been unwelcoming and on many occasions disrespectful to me. I find it striking however when they change their attitude because they need to rely on my strength - I am a big guy. Needless to say woman are strong and independent so I don’t feel bad.
[удалено]
Welcome to the Matriarchy! You’ll be told it’s a patriarchy to protect it.
More like Gynocentrism
Women typically vote left. Men typically vote right. Yet men self sacrifice, they vote for responsibility, independence and freedom because imposing on others is unthinkable to us. Women don't self sacrifice. They use their vote to make others share and sacrifice on a society wide level. And so they effectively cajole and compel others to do what they won't. Leftism is the ultimate collective form of the lazy nagging self righteous bitch. Leftism is rooted in guilt shame and envy. If you're a male leftist, you think like a woman and nothing you say or do can be trusted.
I think that's a bit too simplistic. There are some good people on both sides, and some bad people on both sides. Good right: independence, responsibility, freedom Bad right: if you get raped it's your fault, if you're poor it's your fault, and if you have cancer and can't afford medical treatment it's your fault, hate the gays blacks immigrants and anyone who is different. Good left: social support, inclusivity, safety Bad left: nothing women do is their fault so men have to protect them and pay for them, you must tolerate and accept what others tell you to or else you're an -ist or a -phobe, guilt and shame for "oppressors" (aka white men) and giving more without any oversight to "oppressed" groups with no oversight or plan, taxes and wealth redistribution via costly social programs that don't always work. There's gotta be a balance of both, and trying to get as much good from both and as little bad from both as possible. Saying "if you're a male leftist you think like a woman and nothing you say can be trusted" is too far, because it's basically the same thing but flipped when feminists say "if you're a white conservative man you think like a misogynist and nothing you say can be trusted". Let's not make ourselves a mirror image of their hatred and bigotry, yeah? It's unfortunately easy to fall to their level and hard to walk the high road, but it's worth doing. We are better than them.
[удалено]
I am on the right and I don't believe any of the thing you espouse to me and people like me.
I think you replied to the wrong comment, and you meant to reply to mine :p I did say good right: independence, responsibility, freedom. You don't espouse those?
I hear you. I'm Canadian, not American, but politics are politics. At the end of the day I believe it's more important to hold to values and ideals, than it is to hold to a political party. The political party can represent or stray from the ideals, so following a party can and will lead you amiss, but if it's the ideals you follow it makes it far easier to know what the right or wrong choices are.
Yeah sorry - not buying it. > you say can be trusted" is too far, because it's basically the same thing but flipped... Let's not make ourselves a mirror image of their hatred and bigotry That's a straw man. Calling out the left's vilification of men and Caucasians, hunger for social control, the left's willingness to bend the truth because their "ends justify the means..." That isn't hatred and bigotry. It's calling out an evil force and reacting justifiably wary. > We are better than them. That's one part I agree with at least. Yet it's wholly at odds with what you wrote elsewhere in your comment.
>That's a straw man. Calling out the left's vilification of men and Caucasians, hunger for social control, the left's willingness to bend the truth because their "ends justify the means..." That isn't hatred and bigotry. It's calling out an evil force and reacting justifiably wary. I agree but I want to make an important distinction here. It'S the vilification of men and caucasians, hunger for social control, etc etc etc, that is evil and needs to be called out. I entirely agree with this. However, saying "Every male feminists thinks this and says this" is a step too far. There are many male feminists who have been lied to and manipulated into the position they're in. You can't convince them all, but you can convince some, just by showing how the lies feminism told them doesn't pan out in reality. Then we will have more ex-feminists, people who left the cult, and nothing is more threatening to a cult than ex members who left and who are calling out the lies that manipulated them while they were still in the cult. Again, you can't convince every male feminist to change their mind, but even if it's only 20% of them, it's still worth making the effort to open up to them and try to convince them. If we fail to convince them we haven't lost anything, but if we do convince them then we've got one more ally to call out the feminist bullshit.
"We are better than them" and yet we are losing. Why? Because people are constrained by their strengths rather than their weaknesses. If you speak 20 languages and I speak one, we're bound to speaking that one if we are to communicate. Stooping down at their level is a necessity. Look! Ukrainian soldiers are shooting the Russians instead of preaching on the battlefield. You become who you fight against or you lose.
We are losing because of many reasons. First there is the [women-are-wonderful effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect), which makes people think women are more innocent and need more protection. This goes hand in hand with the [gender empathy gap](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-do-life/202004/the-gender-gap-in-empathy), where unfortunately people just care more about women. People don't care as much about men, and men are unfortunately seen as disposable. All of this combined is a powerful advantage for feminism even before taking anything else into account, but then feminism has also had decades to poison the well and spread lies against men out of hatred, like making a domestic violence program called the Duluth model that just outright assumes that domestic abusers are men, not women, when the truth is that in Canada, [most of domestic abuse victims are male](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332917590_Prevalence_and_Consequences_of_Intimate_Partner_Violence_in_Canada_as_Measured_by_the_National_Victimization_Survey). Same with sexual assault, feminists basically convinced the CDC to specifically and deliberately ignore male victims of rape, calling it made to penetrate instead, just so they can perpetuate the myth that the majority of rape victims are women, when again, [it's closer to 50/50](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/). You absolutely can and should fight back against injustice, I'm not saying you have to turn the other cheek and pray the other side changes their mind. However, Ukrainians don't need to do like Russians and bomb Russian hospitals and Russian schools full of children to win the war. You can fight back without stooping to the level of your enemy. We want to fight back against injustice and inequality, we don't want to make more of it.
Because most people are selfish
[удалено]
> Please stay off of this sub No. > mens rights are inherently leftist Wrong.
That’s just bull. True left is not about tribalism but universal rights.
Nope, sorry - nothing you say will ever be trustworthy to me. Even your misrepresenting of my comment shows you're insincere. I never said it was about tribalism only. It's moreso about coercion, as it takes from the productive involuntarily, and giving to others. The vilification of the productive is just a means to the end - the left's necessary step to vilify and dehumanize the victims of its theft. Who are the others benefiting from leftism? Unfortunately the modern left mostly gives to the undeserving. Maybe 70-90 years ago the left was judicious in how it reallocated what it stole. Not anymore. Now it's a means for cynical power grabbers to manipulate the lazy and guilt-ridden into giving them more power.
“Nothing you say” You already decided you’re impervious to arguments. That’s literally the definition of a closed mind. Good luck living in reality, you’ll need it. (ps: I dare you post it in r/changemyview)
> You already decided you’re impervious to arguments. Shit tier straw man. I'm saying nothing you say can be trusted. But even an untrustworthy source can occasionally speak truth. If what a leftist says aligns with observable reality, or if they make a sound argument and their premises are demonstrably true, I'll believe what they say. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan citing a Russian proverb, "distrust but verify." You're inflating my default to skepticism when engaging with leftists, with total incredulity. Skepticism is a sensible default state to not trust those who have consistently proven to be selfish, manipulative, illogical or naive.That's much different than being *"impervious to argumentation."* This is circumstantial evidence that you're a leftist yourself. Your emotional defence of leftism, reliance on a strawman to mischaracterize me, only reinforces my premise about leftists being dishonest. Thanks, in a way.
Just more bull. Replace “leftist” by “right-wingers” and your argument remains the same.
Allow me to paraphrase your argument: > No, u Not convincing
They’re not "taught", at least not consciously. It's just nature.
Another thing I hate about gender stereotypes I forgot about
It may be to a greater extent now, but to some extent this is old. Difference is, until recently, men were at least told "thank you" in several ways. But now? In exchange for our sacrifice we're told we're patriarchal oppressors. So some men are finally waking up. Not enough, but some.
I've noticed this as well. Men are always told "What can YOU provide?" or "How can YOU improve?" We're basically just seen as a walking, talking resource. Meanwhile, women are always told how they're amazing just the way they are. They don't have to change themselves in any significant way, they don't have to provide anything. They just need to *exist.*
[удалено]
>Remember: no matter how much you love her, and no matter what she says, once you lose your usefulness from an economic standpoint, she's probably gone Someone needs to tell young men this fact.
That someone has a name: Rollo Tomassi
Most of them are never women first choice .If she wasn't with u when u were broke then she ain't the one
This is why you usually see young women dating older men. They want a dad who they can have sex with.
>Remember: no matter how much you love her, and no matter what she says, once you lose your usefulness from an economic standpoint, she's probably gone. Once I asked a girl in university out and she rejected me. I asked her why and she replied with "You're too inexperienced and you dont have career plans. I want someone who takes care of me whom I dont have to take care of."
Why go to university at all if her only ambition is to be taken care of? Wouldn't finishing school have been more appropriate?
She already was finished with university lol she was a bit older than me
Sorry, I think my last sentence lent itself to confusion. I was referring to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finishing_school
I never understood the whole daddy kink. To me having sex with your daddy would be repulsive, and any kind of secual attitudes towards very young women is icky to me personally. On the other hand though I can't help but notice more and more that if women want a man who provides for her, gives her gifts, takes care of her, makes her feel safe, etc etc etc, she is in effect looking for a man to do for her what her dad did, except she also gets to have sex when she wants to with him. I'm taking more time to understand what the fuck is going on with all the daddy issues, because this is something that apparently is everywhere in society, but that flies completely under the radar and that nobody talks about it. I want to make sure I'd be able to recognize the red flags, I missed a ton of them with my ex and went through an abusive relationship, I don't need to do that a 2nd time.
>When a woman earns more than her husband, the likelihood of divorce increases by 50%. Happiness rates for the woman while married are also significantly lower. Maybe it was a different study I read, but if I remember the divorce rate didn't increase if the woman earned more before they got married. Divorce rates increased if, during the marriage, the woman started making more than her husband, and this was regardless of whether she was making more money, or if he was making less. So it's not necessarily women making more at any point, it's specifically women marrying a man who made more than her, and then she exceeded his income after they were married. Also interesting to note is that it's never talked about, but men's suicide rate goes from 4x higher than women, to 9x higher than women post-divorce for up to two years. Women's suicide rate remains completely unchanged before or after divorce. You also hear a lot of victim-blaming from feminist saying that the man lost his job and became frustrated, shitty, and hostile to his wife, which is why she divorced him. Notice though that if a woman found out she was infertile during the marriage, and became shitty, frustrated, and hostile due to her perceived loss of value and loss of purpose, that the husband must stand unequivocally behind her and if he divorces her he's a piece of shit for abandoning her. Basically, no matter what he has to support her, but she has no obligation to support, empathize with, or understand her man, and the moment she feels she can do better it's her god-given right to bail on him whenever she feels like it. Gotta love living in a patriarchy with all that male privilege.
> Remember: no matter how much you love her, and no matter what she says, once you lose your usefulness from an economic standpoint, she's probably gone. From any standpoint really. They have expectations from you that they will not compromise on in the smallest even if they make no sense. My last serious girlfriend was always upset because I never did anything around the house. I never did anything around the house because I was making enough money to hire out. Housekeepers, landscapers, handymen, etc. Everything was getting done. She was just pissed that I personally wasn't doing it. Those things were MY job in her mind. She cheated on me.
Yeah, I've been in this same boat. Paying someone to do the oil change or mow the lawn "proved" how lazy I was. While she didn't do anything. Men are meant to be servants and an ATM for women. They will never actually love you but only love you for what you can do for them. Once they feel are no longer useful, they are gone. Go your own way and never ever get married!
BS - first there are other ways to be useful. 2cd, don't you want to be useful? What would anyone want with a useless person. 3rd - I see plenty of old women bringing old men to the doctor well past the man's usefulness expiration date.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's red pill axiom women are born men are made.
Red pill observation of how society treats men, not as something that should be
I thought that was understood.
Often understood to make it clear, in case some people misunderstand, and in case some other people didn't know in the first place. Doesn't hurt to educate people properly about red pill stuff so they don't fall for feminist lies.
Women have a hard time dissociating description from endorsement. Thanks for clarifying.
Read Rich Coopers book Unplugged Alpha. Society makes the rules either follow them or stay out. I am telling you many women would be happy to join harem of a 1% men, that's how female nature is. Consider female pov, she want to pass her genetic legacy, where she has the best chance a guy who is lower middle class or a harem of a 1% man.
Rich cooper is a grifting shill, and not worth listening to Also wasn’t the main complaint from society that men _are_ staying out? Hope society pulls its head out of its ass with that attitude, because participation isn’t mandatory and so far men get a better deal walking away And it’s women relentlessly demanding 1% men that will continue to cause society to fall apart, and nothing will change until this behavior changes in women. Marriage was meant to curb it, but now that women are empowered to make their own decisions they get to figure it out all on their own.
That's what is happening on tinder. If you have money, women would line up for you.
Very true, and they still complain about it Society gave women a ranked and sorted by attractiveness list of men, and they still can’t get what they want. Ironically, that exact list _ensures_ women end up with the players they hate, because anyone not that leaves the dating pool, and women on average stop swiping long before the pool of players has been swam through
Same reason why men going their own way is a problem, but women going their own way are empowered and independent
thats why mainstream talks about quiet quitting. men are starting to notice this and quit.
Hopefully it has an impact sooner than later. Women are taking up leadership positions and will not make decisions that will benefit men. But I think overall the more men drop out of society (not by choice but circumstance) the more this issue gets to light.
Women and girls are the greater good, didn't you know? \*(sarcasm tag)
Even on a smaller scale like paying for everyone or staying a bit longer at work so that the others don't have to. There's a video on YouTube I recommend called "Don't be a hero" by HuMan.
Just say no. I would never fight or die for my country. Not because I am a coward (which in a way I am - why would that be a problem? - would you care if you were?) but because there is nothing for me there. The modern national state is just an amalgamation of collectives that might or might not share a common ancestry, nothing more, we have social structures that are designed to take care of the weak and the power relations with other states. Each collective is separated by social classes and other social forms. Refuse to take part in the game, the game is rigged from the get go. Other men may belittle you, who cares about what others think anyway. Some women will laugh at you, who cares anyway. But some women will see that you are real and that you can understand and preserve yourself. There is nothing women like more than confidence and cheekiness. Just play it cool with everyone. Put your needs first and let them guide your interactions with your fellow humans. You will be much happier and more focused. You are you. There is no one you owe anything to. Not to God (if he is real), not to other men or women, not to your country. To no one. Be free, be smart. I am NO one’s protector or saviour. I don’t owe anything to anyone on this rock, and I am pretty sure you don’t either. Best of luck. Deal your own cards.
Exactly. Don't participate. There is nothing in it for us. I wish to god I had someone beat that into my head 30 years ago. I could have retired a millionaire at 35. Men don't realize how badly society sucks them dry until it's far too late.
The only way to win an unfair game is not to play. Ok, I think this is a quote from a movie.
It is. Ironically, "Wargames" Great flick too.
I agree with you but this craziness is a recent phenomenon in historic sense. Jordan Peterson is right when he said that the birth control pill completely altered the gender relationship. With women having greater control over their reproductive health, men are seen as disposable. We as a society are yet to figure out a new set of rules to manage the roles of each other. Something that humans have never had to do.
I mean, men have always been seen as disposable. Men were economic labour tools, to die in the mines and in the factories, to have back-breaking labour in the fields, and seen as disposable pawns in wars. What the pill changed is not just how women have control over their own reproductive health, but that women can choose to have sex and not be pregnant, and not spend their entire lives caring for children and family. This fundamentally changed how society worked, because it's damn hard to participate in society when you're pregnant 9 months out of every 2 years, and that by the time the newborn baby is old enough to be weaned and not needing mom's constant attention, there's a good chance she'd be pregnant again. We definitely need to figure out a new set of rules to manage each other. The problem is that while the idea of seeing men and women as equal with equal voting rights and etc is good, feminism is treating equality like a one-way street that exclusively benefits women. We need to figure out a new set of rules, but we've given over control of who sets the rules to a group of people who want to benefit one group exclusively and sees the other group as basically savages who can barely control themselves. Is it any wonder the rules that have come up as a result are terrible?
The pill itself isn't bad right ?
Absolutely not. It just changed the dynamics completely and we as a species need to figure it out.
Okay thanks I was just honestly curious
I believe historically there was balance in the natural sacrifice of women (eg death through childbirth and sexual vulnerability linked to said childbirth) and the coordinated sacrifice (disposability in comparison to women being a bottleneck to survival needing to be protected) of mens roles. The pill changed the balance and gave advantage to women, whilst not changing anything for men: men were still disposable whilst women were no longer a bottleneck to species survival requiring special protection and dispensation, yet demanded it anyway without balancing compensation. Women have taken this advantage as a signal they can achieve much more and have been agitating for their own greater advantage since then, notably the desire to not have any discomfort in life without any consideration of corresponding advantage for men or thought of the consequences to them and society. It's the metaphoric equivalent of giving an inch and taking a mile and is going to be a replay of Adam & Eve all over again. There has been a recent surreptitious move by women to get paid more for doing less work (ie to be given resources for nothing) by introducing menstrual and menopause leave, which does not apply to men and for which men get no corresponding advantage. Men are still required to sacrifice to provide resources to women, in this case, all men forced to sacrifice further through higher prices to fund womens free money in the commercial sector. It's blatant discrimination and selective advantage, when men don't get paid if they have to take personal leave, beyond the enshrined paid leave that both men and women receive. If women need to take extra personal leave, then fine, but it shouldn't be paid if men don't get paid for a similar thing. Ultimately its not about the roles themselves, but equality in performing those roles regardless of gender. The equality requirement actually filters out those not suited to certain roles, because fundamentally, roles are based on biological differentiation and whilst there is some flexibility, it only stretches so far before losing efficiency and effectiveness, unless an individual is augmented to better perform a role; then it becomes a matter of discrimination in augmenting one group but not another.
>whilst women were no longer a bottleneck to species survival Uuh, they still are dude. In fact, everyone's worrying about the declining fertility rates of developed nations such as Japan.
Only from a perspective of keeping ponzi schemes going. Japan wasn't going extinct in the past at half the population or less and its going to take a long time for it to drop that far, assuming nothing is done about fertility. Women aren't the bottleneck like they were in the past, because they aren't dying in greater numbers than men through childbirth, limiting the number of children that can be born.
Japan is going to have to import migrant workers soon to keep its economy stable, fertility absolutely matters if you want to maintain a society. >because they aren't dying in greater numbers than men through childbirth, It didn't matter if Women died during childbirth or not, they they had 5-10 kids to make up for that 1 loss. >limiting the number of children that can be born. Exactly my point, modern women literally have reduced the amount of kids they have.
Dying in childbirth often meant during the first child, so they didn't have an opportunity for 5-10 kids. Italy and Japan are expected to see their populations halve by 2100, assuming nothing changes. Interestingly, that is about the same population as 100 years ago. Would a population in Japan of 60 million people be a problem with the technology of today? It wasn't at the time it last occurred with far less technology and more human labour required. That's 80 years away with at least current levels of automation and 80 years to develop greater advances and to change fertility rates. One of the problems affecting fertility rates today is women being very selective over partners including quite ridiculous criteria such as "must be over 6'". Do they realise that 80% of women pursuing 20% of men means many men and women being relationship-less and thus not having families? It's irrational to cut off your nose to spite your face. Setting sights a little lower would result in far more overall happiness for everyone. The economy will compensate: you can't expect anything to grow forever in a fixed system and such things that do are cancers.
I'm talking about the average Women's fertility rates, they were high enough to make up for high maternal mortality rates+male war related deaths. If you don't consider lowering living standards due to a decreased working age population a problem, then yes there's no "problem" at all. Humanity can survive on scraps but its not exactly ideal. >That's 80 years away with at least current levels of automation and 80 years to develop greater advances and to change fertility rates. OK man, you put your hopes in a science fiction utopia. I stick with what has worked for humanity since forever. >One of the problems affecting fertility rates today is women being very selective over partners It has nothing to do with that, they just don't want to be mothers until they're in their 30s.
Men are treated as disposable and women are someone who is valuable .Men owe women respect care help but women don't owe shit
I have noticed this as well.
Traditionally women died one in every four childbirths. This has dropped to 1 in 100 (less in western countries with affordable socialised healthcare) So… we need a reevaluation. Almost like we need a mens rights movement. :p
Can you give some examples of being taught to sacrifice?
I think men are taught to sacrifice in order to be considered a "real man".There is a social expectation placed on men to sacrifice themselves when necessary for the benefit of women and society.Whenever a woman is being attacked by some insane person,men are expected to defend the woman and risk their own life to protect her.Even if she is a random person he doesn't even know.Men are also expected to be conscripted to fight in wars when necessary. Men also have an expectation placed on them to earn alot of money.Which is why you see articles talking about a [lack of economically attractive men](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/dating/marriage-rates-decline-reason-economically-attractive-men-jobs-income-a9098956.html).This expectation to earn alot of money is probably one major reason why the supposed "wage gap" which is actually an earnings gap exists.Men take on more dangerous,stressful,and inconvenient jobs to earn more money.
Yea I understand the statement. I just do not know how men are taught this. Do you mean expected to protect in their line of duty, such as police officer, fire men etc? I would believe that has to do with a male's genetic makeup being superior to a woman's in terms of strength, and physical build. Obviously it would make sense to have males in protective lines of service over women. They are stronger, and larger. Although where else is this the case? You said they protect random strangers? Most domestic violence victims are women killed by their male partners. How about men who mug, rape and beat up women? Whether it's random strangers or their partners violence against women is done on a huge scale to women. Women are usually the victims, not the ones protected. The crime statistics are shockingly male. As for economics, for a very long period in history, men provided and women stayed home. Women therefore, were expected to take care of the home and birth/raise children. Men obviously had to pay the bills, to support his family. Now a days though, that is no longer happening in the majority of homes. Women in today's world, have to birth the child then hurry up and get back to work. It's become a new normal to see women working full time, while raising a children whether they are married or divorced. I can see why economic strength of men is definitely an important factor in the eyes of society and women. A man does not give birth, therefore he would be the one to provide if the couple chooses children. Many women may be observant if a man can provide for a house and home, if the woman was to become pregnant.That is if they want to have children this is absolutely an important aspect in a good partner. However now a days we see many single mothers. Many men skip out on the children all together, not paying support at all. The average child support payment is very low. Women usually have to pay for childcare so they can work full time. So women with children really get the short end of the stick, although it takes both sexes to produce a child. Also these are not my opinions, these are facts and statistics. So to answer the question, maybe men are being pressured/taught to sacrifice, because they are doing so poor at protecting women now? Maybe older generations are just preaching what used to be common, to protect and provide for women. Maybe they are trying to help men, considering men are doing such a crappy job at it now?
A lot I women are choosing to be single mothers. A lot of father's are trying to be there for there kids but the mothers won't let them. Men have killed them self because of how much child support is.
Choosing to be single mothers? How does that happen? If the father is biologically the father by DNA, he has rights to the child after a dna test. Unless he is a delinquent, with some type of dangerous background. Not sure if you are speaking about "Single Mothers By Choice" who use sperm donations with no partner. That is entirely different story that does not involve men at all. Mother's not letting the father see the child is illegal. If a father is the legal father of a child, and mother denied access to the child, the cops would arrest her. If she fled with the child, she would be charged with kidnapping. So, if a man is claiming a woman is not allowing them access to his child, my guess is he does not pay a dime in child support. Without support set up by the court he has no rights. He is not a legal father. However, most of the time, even when the father does not pay a dime, the mom still lets him see his kids. That is up to her. Again, this is in the US where parental rights have laws surrounding them, custody agreements can be renegotiated countless times at any point. If men are "killing themself over child support", I would look at their mental history. The average child support payment is $400 a month. That is about 5k a year. So a father will leave the earth because he has to pay $400 a month towards supporting his own flesh and blood. That is sad for the children born to these men. Some car payments are more than child support payments. I know many women who get $150 per kid a month. But I guess through a males eyes that is unjust, but not the mother having to provide housing, food, childcare, and medical for the child? Not to mention the amount of mental and physical labor raising a child is. Maybe you and your friends are in a very vulnerable spots. But what I am stating are facts you can research and check the claims. Maybe you feel like a victim as a man, but your sex has nothing to do with it. So if you are in a tough spot, I bet some woman somewhere has it worse.
>So if you are in a tough spot, I bet some woman somewhere has it worse. I just wanted to say, you are an awful person with a black heart.
>Yea I understand the statement. I just do not know how men are taught this. Do you mean expected to protect in their line of duty, such as police officer, fire men etc? I would believe that has to do with a male's genetic makeup being superior to a woman's in terms of strength, and physical build. Obviously it would make sense to have males in protective lines of service over women. They are stronger, and larger. Although where else is this the case? You said they protect random strangers? Most domestic violence victims are women killed by their male partners. How about men who mug, rape and beat up women? Whether it's random strangers or their partners violence against women is done on a huge scale to women. Women are usually the victims, not the ones protected. The crime statistics are shockingly male. If you want to know how men are taught this I think you should look at my post on the [gender empathy gap](https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/s0m7tc/the_gender_empathy_gap_is_real/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). Men are taught this by the lack of empathy they receive from society when they struggle.This lets men know that there is this expectation for them to be strong and self sufficient in order to be helpful to others.There is also precarious manhood.Which is the idea that you have to earn the title of being called a man.This [video](https://youtu.be/nq4cLlYl1iA) goes over this stuff if you want to check it out. Men are viewed as having more agency and are therefore considered more blameworthy,and responsible for the problems in society,but also in less need of help when they are victimized.That is why it is men who are expected to sacrifice by being conscripted into war, by being more stoic,and by protecting women and children in a crisis,etc.I think this may even extend to relationships with the notion of [happy wife happy life](https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/12/11/yes-dear-henpecked-husbands-and-one-sided-relationship-dynamics/) were men are expected to let their wives do more of the decision making to make her happy. Now let me address your points about violence against women. >You said they protect random strangers? Most domestic violence victims are women killed by their male partners I was talking about the notion that women are entitled to protection from men they don't know.Also,most domestic violence victims [are not women killed by their male partners](https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/).As a matter of fact,serious male perpetrated domestic violence is the least common domestic violence situation.Most domestic violence is bilateral,and is not serious. >How about men who mug, rape and beat up women? This is a [small minority of men](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258203395_The_1_of_the_Population_Accountable_for_63_of_All_Violent_Crime_Convictions).It is not really a surprise that violent criminals don't care about what is socially acceptable.This doesn't disprove the claim that there is a social expectation placed on men to protect women. >Whether it's random strangers or their partners violence against women is done on a huge scale to women. Women are usually the victims, not the ones protected. The crime statistics are shockingly male. Men are victims of violence crime a [little more then women](https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/criminal-victimization-2021).Also,i'm not sure what you mean by a huge scale.Could you quantify that? >As for economics, for a very long period in history, men provided and women stayed home. Women therefore, were expected to take care of the home and birth/raise children. Men obviously had to pay the bills, to support his family. Now a days though, that is no longer happening in the majority of homes. Women in today's world, have to birth the child then hurry up and get back to work. It's become a new normal to see women working full time, while raising a children whether they are married or divorced. I can see why economic strength of men is definitely an important factor in the eyes of society and women. A man does not give birth, therefore he would be the one to provide if the couple chooses children. Many women may be observant if a man can provide for a house and home, if the woman was to become pregnant.That is if they want to have children this is absolutely an important aspect in a good partner Yes,women are attracted to men with good financial prospects.This is why men are expected to earn alot of money as I said.Women do work,but they don't have the same expectations placed on them to be the breadwinners in relationships which is my point.Women want men who make more money then them even if they already make alot of money.This pressure to be a high earner leads to men making more sacrifices to earn more money. >However now a days we see many single mothers. Many men skip out on the children all together, not paying support at all. The average child support payment is very low. Women usually have to pay for childcare so they can work full time. So women with children really get the short end of the stick, although it takes both sexes to produce a child. Also these are not my opinions, these are facts and statistics. So to answer the question, maybe men are being pressured/taught to sacrifice, because they are doing so poor at protecting women now? Maybe older generations are just preaching what used to be common, to protect and provide for women. Maybe they are trying to help men, considering men are doing such a crappy job at it now? This is not necessarily just due to fathers deciding to leave their kids.Women's choice and/or unfortunate events can also be reasons for single mothers.Maybe the father does leave when they have a kid,but parental alienation by women is also a thing as well. Another thing that can also happen is that there are women who have sex with the same high status man and raise his kids alone.So it could be a repeat offender situation were one man gets multiple women pregnant and is not really present in his kids lives.Another possibility is that the father might have died.There are many reasons why a woman can end up being a single mother besides men just being deadbeats.
[удалено]
Do you not find posts as such overly emotional for reddit? Men are often said to not be emotional, but on social media I find them a lot more emotional than women. They are always very upset about females in general. I never knew women were hurting the modern young male so much just by not sleeping with them. The OP has been posting for years blaming women for him not having housing, a job, food. Lol
It seems like survival of the species. I could produce like 400 babies in a 9 months (I'm 50 it would be in the 1000s if I was 18). a women 1 or 2 in 9 months. And we are physically stronger. It is what it suck it snowflake and quit whining.
Did you just tell me to suck it and call me a snowflake while telling me to quit whining? Your a bad person.
You're and what else is there? That stuff eats people up. Not worth it. Go enjoy the day. Put it God's hands.
Put it in*
Bunch of whiners. Whoever told you it would be easy was lying to you. Whoever told you it would be fair was a big a liar! Put your big boy pants on and be a man. Show some kindness, some humility. Meditate or something.
Pretty sure iv shown more kindness then you in my life.
That's good
Maybe add a little of the humility then.
This is weird way of looking at it. Maybe they used to be taught this. I do not see this taking place at all anymore. So wouldn't women make the ultimate sacrifice? Sacrificing their body and life to birth and raise a child. I mean, every single person walking this earth came from a females body. Thats a lot of sacrifice. That is a lot to give.
[удалено]
In a 10 year study, 1,492 loggers died in that period while 800-1200 women die per year giving birth.
4500-5000 men died last year from work fatalities.
I don't see giving birth and raising children as the greatest sacrifice.Especially when you consider the fact that alot of women find this fulfilling and choose to do it.I would argue that being forced to fight in a war as young man is a much greater sacrifice.Imagine being in your late teens or early twenties,going to war,and then just dieing at such a young age before you even get the chance to really live your life. That is the sacrifice that men in ukraine were forced to make.Also,even the expectation for women to have kids is sort of being suppressed by feminism.The greatest pressure women will receive to have kids is by their families,but this even applies to men as well.However,there is a whole social movement telling women it is okay to be independent and not start a family.Women are being liberated from their traditional gender roles while men are still expected to fulfill theirs.
>I would argue that being forced to fight in a war as young man is a much greater sacrifice.Imagine being in your late teens or early twenties,going to war,and then just dieing at such a young age before you even get the chance to really live your life. Previously men were dying on wars or plantation farms, now men and their ambition are sacrificed at the corporate altar.
Women find it fulfilling to carry a child inside her? Oh ok. So if that is the case, men find it fulfilling to go to war. There is no draft in the US. They are volunteering not forced? Do you serve? You are speaking of only the western world, as not being pressured to have children. Yes, well they just made abortion a lot harder to access in the states. However, yes a lot less children are being born today. So many women have chosen not to have a child, mainly because men can not provide like 30 years ago. They cannot have a child while working full time, without having to pay a lot of money for someone else to raise it. Those two points though, no one is being forced to do anything. You stated carrying and, birthing the entire human race is not a sacrifice. You called it fulfilling, Instead argued war is. But serving in war is not forced either, and is a job with great benefits. Both choices. So what is the argument then?
>Women find it fulfilling to carry a child inside her? Oh ok. So if that is the case, men find it fulfilling to go to war. There is no draft in the US. They are volunteering not forced? Do you serve? There is currently no draft,but men can be drafted into war because of selective service.Which is what I am talking about. >You are speaking of only the western world, as not being pressured to have children. Yes, well they just made abortion a lot harder to access in the states. However, yes a lot less children are being born today. So many women have chosen not to have a child, mainly because men can not provide like 30 years ago. They cannot have a child while working full time, without having to pay a lot of money for someone else to raise it. I don't see restricting access to one form of birth control that some people see as morally wrong to use as people pressuring women to have children.The reason people oppose abortion is because they believe you are killing a baby.It is not really about pressuring women to have kids. >Those two points though, no one is being forced to do anything. You stated carrying and, birthing the entire human race is not a sacrifice. You called it fulfilling, Instead argued war is. But serving in war is not forced either, and is a job with great benefits. Both choices. So what is the argument then? Serving in war can be forced.I specifically mentioned conscription, not voluntary service.Did you not hear about what happened in Ukraine?Also,I did not say that giving birth and raising children isn't a sacrifice.I said that I don't think it is the greatest sacrifice.Yes,having kids does involve sacrifice,but I don't think it is as sacrificial as someone literally dieing in a war to defend their country.
Men join the army for cash not fulfillment, women have children dispite the cost. Do you not see that.
Women have children? Yea? Don't men and women both participate in creating a child, or have you not gotten that far yet? They used to both participate in raising the child also. Believe it or not some good men still do, the one's that don't view it as a woman's issue. You act like the creation of humankind is the fault of women. "Women have children" is just a new trend in the world, due to the pussification of western men, who refuse any type of responsibility. Your right women have children despite the cost. But when have men been doing? Getting addicted to Sissy Porn on youtube? The new age "man" is a real catch.
You started this thread talking about births and pregnancy wich men don't do. Sorry if my language was not as precise as your; but i think your confusion is due to not be a serious person.
Girls aren't really taught self preservation. [The normally struggle with low self esteem compared to boys ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013060317766)and are[ taught to put the needs of others before their own](https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/80-women-recognize-value-self-nurture-yet-few-care-selves-they-care-others). Being told by a few feminist motivational speakers to "put themselves first" is not easily going to change values that tell Girls to put others first which have been around for centuries.
Did you read those links? Just shows how much better woman have yet they complain, which proves women are taught self preservation over anything else.
Much better in what? Networking? You can be rich and depressed at the same time.
In that list of how women put the needs of others before their own. Better than being poor and depressed.
Men create this society where men were expected to provide. So provide. But then men get so upset about women choosing to be single and make their own money because now there’s a record number of single men. Make up your minds boys.
>Men create this society where men were expected to provide. False.
Literally no one here even brought up women choosing to be alone and making their own money other than you much less are "upset" about it
And it's backfiring for women who then yell that men are priveleged. Men are taught to take responsibility, so we are better workers, thus we earn more than women. Feminists should know that gender inequality is a two headed beast, and they can't win the fight against just one head.
I totally agree !!
I no longer partake in that social norm anymore. Reason being is that I don’t feel like protecting or being a masculine male for woman (excluding my family) because of my life experiences. Woman have been unwelcoming and on many occasions disrespectful to me. I find it striking however when they change their attitude because they need to rely on my strength - I am a big guy. Needless to say woman are strong and independent so I don’t feel bad.