- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
This is just a toxic gender wars meme. Go outside, touch some grass, meet someone nice and move on with life. Memes like this come from and perpetuate the loneliness epidemic.
Accurately observing that the “male loneliness epidemic” is self-inflicted bullshit isn’t “toxic gender wars” except if you are a right wing traitor lunatic.
Edit: if you genuinely believe there is a male loneliness epidemic that is not self-inflicted, you deserve a whole lot worse than prison.
Wow yikes. You sound like fun at parties. Go find someone to care about.
For the record, I think there is a loneliness epidemic for both genders.
> capitalism
> self-inflictedSure, bud.
Lmao is a worthless traitor dumbfuck trying to pretend that capitalism is the root cause of “male loneliness”? That’s some bottom of the barrel thinking even for incels. Reminds me of the braincel shitbag who said women should be redistributed via Marxism. Shore bud indeed, traitor.
Alienation. Exploitation. Heard of it?
Capitalism has bereft men even of the patriarchal provider role as there’s no fucking time in the day to earn both rent and have any type of social interaction, much less time to reflect on your approach to life. Your position as a gear churning out profit for the bosses has been meticulously designed and drilled into you while you were a kid, blind obedience instilled by teachers and BS “zero tolerance punish the victim” rules. There is no use for you aside from that assigned role, happiness, connection, community, work//life balance? Don’t make a profit. Get out of here with that commie nonsense we have quarterly figures to hit.
Or, maybe, yes, you do have a point: I should have said late-stage capitalism. The internal contradictions are actively eroding it by now.
That’s not at all what people mean at all. Men are not more alienated than any other gender by capitalist lunacy. This “male loneliness epidemic” is a euphemism for late stage male supremacy.
You’re right after that comes the patriarchal, or just gendered, double-whammy: Women culturally do have more of a support network, even just in the “friends hanging out” way, as the male “do things together, chop wood, go fishing” is regarded as work, not leisure, and thus co-opted by capitalism: “What do you need to chop food and fish for, go buy fuel and food are you poor or something”. Thus all the productive time men have is spent in a hierarchical worker-boss environment, never “pals doing stuff”, cue loss of connection, alienation from broader society, loneliness. Going bowling? Time not spent hustling, you’re a loser. That’s your mind on patriarchal capitalism.
Thus, even if the starting conditions inflicted by capitalism are, for the sake of argument, completely even, it still hits men harder when it comes to loneliness. Women are more affected in other ways. This isn’t an olympics, it’s analysis of the material conditions we live under.
Couldn’t agree more, matey :)
Memes is now shitting on genders ? Y’all fuckers don’t know shit about empathy, and about memes either.
Boys are taught to ignore emotions (“are you crying? Man up!”)
But emotions is what connects humans (and animals for that matter) and can’t really be ignored anyway
Join the two… and you get loneliness, frustration, rage.
We should start a conversation on emotional education (not only for boys but especially for boys)
I think it’s in our nature.
I’ve seen no evidence that these kinds of traits are inherently biological.
Regardless of the fact that we have significant evidence that these more “new” forms of masculinity that incorporate less domineering and aggressive mannerisms are beneficial to men, I simply haven’t seen any evidence that these traits are biological.
In the same way that when you don’t socialize a child to prefer certain clothes or toys, (or stigmatize against them) they generally just go with what they prefer in the moment along lines that don’t match the gender binary, from what I’ve seen, the same is generally true for behaviors. We’re heavily influenced by our cultures and by extension, our upbringing, to a degree that explains why these mannerisms are commonly expressed along gendered lines.
they generally just go with what they prefer in the moment along lines that don’t match the gender binary
Nope. Lego did a large behavioural study on this because this was their assumption, they thought they were doing completely gender-neutral stuff, but even controlling for parents’s biases their stuff wasn’t gender-neutral when it came to actually be interesting to kids. I’m talking about stuff like the city series, here: A street, bunch of houses, bunch of minifigs. Figures that the girls by and large where looking at the inside of the buildings, finding them empty, and lost interest while boys where seeing the streets, found ample of detail and also a car to drive around, and created stories. There are, of course, as always exceptions to the binary but the overall trend was undeniable.
That (and the insistence of US stores on not having gender-neutral isles and putting Lego in the boy’s section) made them create the Friends series: Detailed house interiors, larger, more detailed minifigs. The pink is for the stores and parents, the interiors for the girls, the build-what-you-want flexibility for the humans.
Generally speaking, I think that difference feminism has been discarded prematurely. Sure, none of the normative BS that many of its proponents espoused should ever see the light of day, but denying difference is harmful in its own way, and the reason is the inevitability of essentialising: If you say “there is no difference at all between men and women” you’re bound to essentialise everyone towards your own gender. And it’s way better to be essentialised as an apple when you’re an apple than it is to be essentialised as a pear.
Do you realise that kids before puberty don’t have much difference from biological point of view. Sexual organs are not developed or fully developed and no hormones to speak of.
The story of Lego you said… cool you can control parents behaviour… what about peer pressure? Or the idea was to control the parents of a whole town (including Cartoons and TV shows)?
Boys develop coarse motor skills first, then fine motor skills, for girls it’s the other way around. Which also means that girls are quite good at sitting still in primary school, boys, without getting tired out in recess, very much aren’t. Cue “behavioural issues”.
Lego did control for everything that could be controlled. They’re the OG “our toys are for everyone” company. They thought that their stuff was gender neutral, that stores and parents, society, were the problem, but had to admit that, no, kids actually do have, statistically speaking, different play preferences. Their female set designers didn’t catch it because they were not kids, any more.
And “no hormones to speak of” MF if there were no hormones involved male karyotypes would develop female.
Lego did a large behavioural study on this because this was their assumption, they thought they were doing completely gender-neutral stuff, but even controlling for parents’s biases their stuff wasn’t gender-neutral when it came to actually be interesting to kids.
Interesting. I can’t seem to find anything on this study, but maybe that’s just my search engine not providing very relevant results.
What is a relevant result is the study from just a few years ago that Lego also commissioned, which they’re using to justify making their product lines more gender neutral, after finding that:
“girls today feel increasingly confident to engage in all types of play and creative activities, but remain held back by society’s ingrained gender stereotypes” and that “Girls […] are more open towards different types of creative play compared to what their parents and society typically encourage.”
And they found a significant effect from parents pushing their kids into certain interests and hobbies influencing the behaviors of children:
Our insights further indicate that girls are typically encouraged into activities that are more cognitive, artistic and related to performance compared to boys who are more likely to be pushed into physical and STEM-like activities (digital, science, building, tools). Parents from this study are almost five times as likely to encourage girls over boys to engage in dance (81% vs. 19%) and dress-up (83% vs. 17%) activities, and over three times as likely to do the same for cooking/baking (80% vs. 20%). Adversely, they are almost four times as likely to encourage boys over girls to engage in program games (80% vs. 20%) and sports (76% vs. 24%) and over twice as likely to do the same when it comes to coding toys (71% vs. 29%)
And they even showed that kids felt pressured not to engage in cross-gendered play, even when they wanted to:
71% of boys vs. 42% of girls say they worry about being made fun of if they play with a toy typically associated for the other gender.
Now, a quick note on your other point.
If you say “there is no difference at all between men and women” you’re bound to essentialise everyone towards your own gender.
I don’t believe there is no difference at all between men and women. I simply believe that a lot of the things we say are inherent differences are actually not as inherent as people tend to believe.
For example, I’ve seen no evidence that women are inherently more kind/caring/empathetic than men in any biological way, only that society socializes them to be so, and thus we see that trend perpetuated over time. Yet if you ask most people, they’ll assume there’s something biological that makes women more like that emotionally.
I don’t believe there is no difference at all between men and women. I simply believe that a lot of the things we say are inherent differences are actually not as inherent as people tend to believe.
Depending on who you mean with “we” I definitely agree.
For example, I’ve seen no evidence that women are inherently more kind/caring/empathetic than men in any biological way, only that society socializes them to be so,
…and fails at doing so, if I may add. Male-pattern aggression is simply more obvious because it’s in your face physical while female-pattern is psychological, always ensuring plausible deniability.
Yet if you ask most people, they’ll assume there’s something biological that makes women more like that emotionally.
Women favour low-risk engagement, passive aggressiveness over overt aggressiveness. Thus you see emotional manipulation used way more often, one approach being self-victim-framing, and for that the narrative of “oh women are so delicate and emotional they have to be protected no matter what they do” fits the bill. Female viciousness is beautiful but I very much prefer it in the “never start a fight, but always finish it” version. Relevant symphonic metal. Also if you’re trying it with me you’re getting tickled into submission.
Having kids changed my view. Originally I believed nature influenced our gender roles. Since having kids I have seen in my kids and others that there are clear differences in how both boys and girls interact with the world and both are pretty incredible to watch. I think maybe the idea that being more stoic and less emotional is ok.
Saying all that, there are definitely cultural influences that can take these inherent traits to toxic levels.
I’d like to see studies showing when kids are left to their own that they will trend towards non traditional gender based toys. My gut is believing that this may not need proof that girls and boys do not experience emotions with similar intensity.
One thing I think is a clear difference is attention to details between men and women. What I worry is that if we start thinking men and women are more similar than they are we could run into problems when average people wrongly assume the other experiences things they do.
Downvoted for being unnecessarily antagonistic.
Ah, the classic generalization of men and women as singular groups where everyone acts as one.
There are certain shitty men who objectify women and play alphas. There is the general category of men who get shitted at because of it, whether they belong to the former or not.
Sure, being afraid of the shitty folks is a valid reason to be cautious around everyone, as you can’t easily tell one from the other. But saying that all men just made this stuff up while being total asses wouldn’t be fair or helpful.
To be clear: there is a male loneliness epidemic driven by ever increasing caution about men overall. Men are often unfairly denied attention they need because they are seen as potential dangers by women and might be ridiculed for speaking out about their feelings by men (which, in turn, do it to protect themselves from the same treatment in an unhealthy patriarchal culture).
This is not healthy; moreover, being in that state of loneliness and frustration is prone to radicalizing people, making sayings about dangerous men a self-fulfilling prophecy in one case, and just causing a lot of misery in the other.
If you’re a woman, I’d suggest giving a bit of attention to the men around you. There is a million of untold stories there, and making someone open up to you for the first time is a great and rewarding experience. Or just…be there, and that will be appreciated.
Uh where’s the generalization here? The post didn’t say “all men” anywhere in it. It’s suggesting that people who say the first things lead to saying the later things, leading to their loneliness. Not every man is lonely… but a lot who are make everyone uncomfortable because of the shit they say.
Valid perspective; but I think it’s quite clearly implied given the scale of the issue. The male loneliness is real, and shouldn’t be written off as shit misogynists say, even if it was popularized by them. This kind of discarding might hurt men who have nothing to do with misogynistic talking points, opinions, or actions.
I don’t think the loneliness epidemic is uniquely male though. It’s an affliction of this entire generation. There is a specific subset of men that have been radicalized against women as a scapegoat for the loneliness they feel, but the true cause is increasing social alienation driven by capitalism. The specific mechanism not being limited to the commodification of our attention that has been enabled by the advent of high speed internet.
Absolutely! Everyone gets lonelier as we are getting divided; it’s just that it’s even harder on men specifically, as there are additional factors at play. But it doesn’t mean women don’t experience similar things.
I disagree strongly and I don’t think you get what I’m saying. It’s not a competition and there’s no need to dismiss the feelings of one side or the other. If you are a man, and especially if you are occupied by a specific focus on men, you cannot know the extent of women’s loneliness or the impact that it has on women. The same goes vice versa. The issue is too nebulous, too subjective and complexly intertwined with too many different aspects of our lives as humans. It’s a fool’s errand.
It doesn’t matter who has it harder, because the root cause is the same. Addressing this root cause will help every person experiencing loneliness in the modern age regardless of gender. Any other solution is just treating the symptoms and will inevitably result in people being left out and marginalized. People who matter. It will inevitably result in division, which hurts our ability to unite and fight for a common cause.
This stoking of a needless war between the genders is a counter-revolutionary tactic employed by the ruling class to keep us fighting amongst ourselves instead of challenging their power. They want us focused on pushing forward half-measures; measures that can be easily struck down, agitated against, that will keep us going in circles; measures that do not fundamentally challenge the systems that created these issues in the first place and, in fact, depend on the persistence of these issues.
I totally agree with you that gender wars are artificial and meant to distract people from the core issues. Divide and conquer kinda thing.
But that sits exactly at the core of my initial argument. Blaming wide groups of people, among other things, provides completely unnecessary wars out of thin air.
This doesn’t deny the fact that people of each gender may face issues that are gender-specific to some degree. Men are more likely to be socially isolated, women are more likely to become victims of sexual abuse, etc. etc. This doesn’t mean we should measure who has it worse, but it has to be taken into consideration if we want to correct the course and make everyone actually equal. In this case, we need to address specific sources of male loneliness, as there are some factors unique to men that lead to this.
People acting on gender issues together, not as two divided groups, is a great exercise in civil power and unity, which is helpful for any revolutionary activity.
That’s their problem for feeling entitled to human interaction. You need to learn that none of us really matter, and the only one you can trust is yourself.
Learn to be content with just being, and surviving, or perish.
I’m really sorry you feel that way, genuinely, but this deeply antisocial sentiment is not a depiction of a reality that is compatible with human life. Please seek help from a qualified professional. I mean that.
My wife sometimes stops to compliment me because she knows men don’t often receive compliments. I always appreciate that.
That’s how you know she should be your wife :)
But really, this should be more normalized. I’ve heard the opinion that many men see compliments as a way to show sympathy when that wasn’t intended, but I think this is exactly because it’s so rare.
My girlfriend also takes time to compliment me, and I appreciate it.
Are these the same guys that think that eating pussy makes you gay?
It’s no fucking wonder they’re lonely.
Have they tried not being assholes?
Sopranos confirmed that…never made sense…
I’ll add that people aren’t being hugged, & touched enough. Also, infrastructure sucks to encourage socializing
Its an epidemic of that. We are social creatures. That’s our main motto
When we work together, live in groups, etc we all feel better. Reminds us of our tribe days
A big part of human connection is being physical with each other in a chill way. So try to hug your bros more, & get things done as a unit with women!
Both sides are supposed to be allies to each other
the problem is that incels focusing in that problem think that they are owed sex and attention from attractive women. when the real solution of to develop and use third spaces, and develop social connections of any kind.
This was a pivotal video about “nice guys” I watched growing up that imo everyone should watch.
Favorite line:
This is not a transaction where you walk up to the cashier and pull out your nice bucks and buy sex and romance.
Unfortunately, many men think hugging or touching each other is effeminate and gay.
if the problem is that men have loneliness issues i have a solution.
it’s men, more than one, become friends.
is there a issue with modern social alienation caused by individual atomisation? yes.
should we focus on it? yes
does it mean that women owe them sex? fuck no,
Oh man, my eyes are hurting 🫣 with so much toxic ignorance present in this dumb meme!!
More men should read The will to change by bell hooks. Patriarchy hurts men in different ways than it does women, we are all oppressed by it, including gender-nonconforming individuals. Patriarchy stunts male emotional health and creates these unhealthy repressed feelings. Rather than blaming women, men should look towards the systems that impact our daily lives and how they force us into little boxes we don’t always fit neatly into naturally, suffocating us and justifying the general subjugation of women, which in no unclear terms exceeds the suffering of men under patriarchy.
It is so fucking odd, how many people are claiming that e.g. the male loneliness issue is blaming women and then agree with your post.
I agree with your post. I just don’t understand how so many people here can agree that the patriarchy is harming men and is e.g. isolating men, but then turn around and act like mentioning the symptoms and talking about them, makes you misogynistic.
I don’t get it. Women have my support, I just hope I will have theirs too.
I support mens health.
Ive a million stories of hurt men who didnt deal or heal well with their hurt, and ended up hurting others (and themselves) for it. Usually its some tragic thing that happened when they were young and never dealt with it, because culturally men have been told to shove it down and man up for decades at least. But, I’ve been told many a tragedy from male family members, friends and ex lovers. And then watched them go from victim to abuser, or some other consequence, and its sad
Men should be taught, and allowed to express themselves. Its literally okay to cry, its a process of emotion.
Support fellow humans
I appreciate you taking the time to suggest steps for a better society. I followed the link and read what was available, but there were only a few pages until the index + the front and back cover. I’ll probably look into finding a full copy later. Thanks for thinking about us. <3
I'd like to share my personal story if that's ok. Wall of text incoming and only read if you genuinely want to.
I want to share this because I have an honest question from a place of wanting to be a better person. I realize this isn’t about me, but in order for me to be in service of people other than myself, it is necessary for me to understand some things. I’m respectfully requesting help with that, to you or those willing to educate.
The second part of the meme hits really close to home to me because it’s something lots of men are taught at a young age in a traumatic manner. In my case I can’t count the amount of times I was told to “be a man” or asked if I was “gonna cry like a girl” which could happen literally anywhere by anyone, especially caretakers.
I went to an all boys school. I vividly remember the father of one of my classmates coming to talk to the class when my classmate missed school one day. He begged. Literally, begged to the class to stop teasing and bullying his son because he was going to kill himself any day. This was the 8th grade and was not a one time thing. He was a sensitive kid and got teased for it. He got called the f word a lot in a place and time where coming out of the closet as sexually diverse was considered “valid” grounds for physical violence/abuse by most men. Verbal abuse at the very least.
I was a weird and sensitive kid myself and got teased and bullied as well, but never that much. Was really timid, awkward and shy, but I usually got away with not being beaten up all the time or being straight out emotionally tortured all day like some were, by letting other kids cheat off me. This got me “protection” from some bullies that sat next to me. When I think about how I felt back when I was a kid, all I can remember is fear and wanting to be invisible. Constant fear. I had a whole lot of anger too, but usually lashed out on myself alone. Too scared of everything and everyone to get angry at anyone but myself. My family setting wasn’t a picnic either, but that’s a different story.
Basically, any time anyone gave me any kind of attention, including my parents, I perceived it as a dangerous threatening situation that made me feel uneasy.
I realize most people have been wronged by one or more men in much worse ways. I’m sorry and those of us who have harmed or still harm have no excuse. I shared my story so you understood what became my responsibility and duty to unlearn and remedy to not continue the endless samsara of victimization. I genuinely have been putting in the work I’ve found useful to help me stop causing people harm. Have taken this very seriously for more than decade now.
Here’s my question, in honest good faith.
Do you understand that a book that is intended to be used as a blueprint for positive masculinity that begins by requiring men to “understand patriarchy” can feel, to some men, like when catholic missionaries went to “uncivilized cultures” and made sure everyone “understood the gospel” and was very clear about having original sin and being impure and them needing to be saved?
This is not a rhetoric device I want to use against you or anyone. I am requesting empathy and suggestions on how to deal with this. Like, do you understand that it feels like some people are telling us men that we are devoid of value or have no legitimacy as humans unless we adhere to a specific belief system or “treatment”? Do you have any advice or suggestions for us or idk can you offer insight?
I realize many broken people such as myself and my classmates can become full grown monsters and society should do something that avoids monsters being bred and to treat, lock or remove people that have become monsters.
I just want to know if you understand this, and if you do, my request is you please share your thoughts.
Having read your story, I think you’ll actually love what bell hooks has to say, here. When I said patriarchy affects men and women in different ways, your story is exactly what I mean. Patriarchy puts men into very narrow boxes of what is deemed “acceptable,” and destroys what is outside that boundary. Women are impacted more by patriarchy than men are, but The will to change is a call to action to liberate both women and men from its shackles. It’s a deeply empathetic work that touches on stories very similar to yours, not a condescending authority piece. hooks writes with a deep love and a desire for herself to grow as well, frequently she speaks of her own mistakes and negative feelings towards men such as her father, and how she came to forgive and love him.
Trust me, you’ll love this book by the sounds of it.
Thanks for reading. Gonna look it up right now.
No problem! As a pansexual man myself, who was often bullied relentlessly for being sensitive myself (I was closeted my whole life through schooling and am only recently coming out more), I never felt like hooks was invalidating my experience in any way.
I’m really sorry about what you has to deal with in your past. <3
I’m about 1/6th through the book now and feel the same way.
I mean, if i’m being perfectly honest, i feel like the term “patriarchy” is a little unfair but also I get why it would be chosen and a necessary concept to build from. I guess I feel like no one sex or gender built society on their own and the suggestion of attribution by nomenclature feels like a misleading simplification. This is not something that i’ll lose sleep over, though, and i’m open to hearing out why i’m wrong.
Gonna get back to the book now. It really is a compassionate message. Thanks again.
Glad I could be of help!
I haven’t read this one, but anything by bell hooks is a banger.
I liked it a lot! I know people talk about the patriarchy a lot, and thus a lot of what it puts forward isn’t “new,” but the depth hooks goes in on the various facets of patriarchy specifically really helps a lot.
Fr. A male friend of mine got into make up. Nail polish and such. I notice men who do this, stick to safe black. I asked if he wanted more colour, and he did. I remember cracking being a thing back in 2008 or so. A great caviat to go from just black, to black with colour! Perhaps men could bring this back into fashion lol
Removed by mod
hooks suggests that men need to develop a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of masculinity, one that values emotions, relationships, and mutual respect.
Yep, written by a woman. Replace that with “value traversing rivers on couches strapped to floats and having a blast with the pals” and you’ll get somewhere.
Valuing something already is an emotion so you’re being emotional about being emotional about something so, yeah, no. Go climb a tree, create a tasty recipe, fix a shoe. Shave the soap.
Appreciate the key points!
I’m currently a stay at home husband who does all the cooking, cleaning and dishes. I never felt manlier and have never been so attractive to women (according to my wifes friends at least). Looking forward to our first child arriving soon.
I have plenty of single male friends who seem stuck in their early 20s (even though they’re approaching 40). Their only care in the world seem to be “the economy” (something they barely understand), and whatever the newest *-maxxing scam is being promoted on Instagram that will magically make women gravitate towards them. They’re all pretty good looking and mostly nice people. The main problem being that they’re cheapskates and won’t lift a finger for anything not directly benefitting themselves. They don’t know how to cook, and learning anything unrelated to their jobs is seen as a “waste of time”.
I’m very happy I didn’t get stuck in that sort of rut as I’ve seen how easy it was for my friends.
There is nothing universally sexier than knowing exactly who you are and being perfectly satisfied with it. Good for you, man. Congrats for the bun in the oven too. <3
A lot of women find empathy sexy. The women who only go for alpha males are the ones you usually want to avoid.
Alpha male isn’t even a thing. Not even in nature. People who call themselves that are mostly delusional assholes no-one likes.
To add onto that, the guy that originally published the “alpha male” study spent a lot of time trying to correct public views and publish corrective studies because he discovered the behavior was only in wolves kept in captivity. IIRC.
No, they are biologically real, despite it being obsolete nomenclature iirc. Alpha doesn’t equate to “good” though. Just dominance.They exist in most if not all tournament species, but not so much in pair bonding apecies.
You can determine what category species fall under just by looking at average size differences of male and female skulls/other bone.
This provides a ton of information about mating habits, intersexual aggression, likelyhood of infidelity, role of males in raising kids and whole lot more.
Humans are in am evolutionary transition period from tournament to pair bonding.
All that being said, the traits selected to determine alphas can be about aggression and dominance and they can be about beauty, collaboration and territorial. Thia gets complex in birds and primates.
Alao, whatever strategy has the best chances of successfully reproducing and surviving through time does not automagically become legitimate, valuable or desireable. You need an extra ingredient for that. Priorities, which require value.
It’s kind of a thing in certain animals, but not wolves like originally claimed. The certain animals here being mostly primates, so it’s even more applicable.
That said, the politics of social primates are notoriously complex and many cultures have unique behaviors within the species, so there aren’t really any universal rules particularly among the most social groups.
TBH, Silverbacks are actually good role models: Big, bulky, sit around grooming the troupe, know everyone, emotionally support everyone, when someone wants to start a fight, intervenes, “You wanna fight? Yeah, fight me! Both of you at once, if need be!” – and then suddenly the others lost interest in fighting.
Proverbial gymbro speaking softly and carrying a big stick, far from a tyrant, you know the type. Chimpanzees are the closest to us, with warfare and everything. Bonobos are… well, they are what biologists start talking about when they want to get into your pants. Let’s just say there’s a reason you don’t see them in zoos, parents don’t want to hear kids asking those kinds of questions.
Isn’t it weird that for humans, sex is a private matter? Completely singular among all the animals. And that’s independent of social status, like a smaller sea lion seducing a female one while the big hunk de jure leading the pack isn’t looking, it’s universal. Even if sex is a group activity, then that group itself is putting up layers of privateness and propriety. Swinger clubs with fancy dress codes, doesn’t matter if you end up naked but you have to start out in suit and tie.
If a scientist would, today, discover humanity and describe their behaviour they’d be laughed out of any conference, “did you get your notes mixed up”. “Next thing you want to tell us camelopards are real”.
Most people can pull a trigger.
Reading this, specifically had me think of an old friend i had. He was always sceming. Every time i saw him he had a new one. Weather he was stealing company supplies from his employer, so he could start his own landscaping business, or asking me to use my doordash account, or wanting me to help him start a flower business, which i never helped with any of it because i dont agree with lying/cheating through life, while every bit of his life seemed some backdoor plan- I would have dated him, once apon a time, but ten years into the friendship, he sent me a ben Shapiro video, a d a few years ago, i terminated the friendship. Every thing was transactional with that man. He was good looking and kind, but my god these traits were such a turn off, I dont care if you work at hime depot, or the hardware store- my husband today is a chef- its better than scheming to rip someone off so you can get ahead. Thats selfish imo.
There really is a bit of a catch-22 in my book that’s centered completely around self confidence. If you are proud of who you are, if you are living up to your ideals, you are simultaneously much more attractive to others, and at the same time you realize that you don’t need others - but they sure are the cherry on top.
Pygmalion is real. Belief is a powerful thing. Some may even call it “faith”.
This is why hope is important.
Right on my dad was my stay at home parent when I was little and he was a green beret in Vietnam. He was by far my most nurturing and loving parent. I was very lucky to have had him
I’m currently a stay at home husband who does all the cooking, cleaning and dishes.
Easy to throw stones when you’re not the one responsible for keeping the lights on.
Who’s throwing stones? These friends are clearly unhappy and only getting worse because of dumb shit on social media. I’d help them if they’d listen.
You are.
The main problem being that they’re cheapskates and won’t lift a finger for anything not directly benefitting themselves. They don’t know how to cook, and learning anything unrelated to their jobs is seen as a “waste of time”
Maybe they’re stuck trying to get ahead in their career and don’t have the mental energy to focus on anything else. Most single dudes I know are focused on their careers because where they’re at doesn’t meet their needs or isn’t enough to meet their goals even if the goal is as simple as just owning a home and be able to retire someday.
Surely you would learn to cook your own food if you are a cheapskate? It’s so much cheaper making your own, I had to through necessity for a long time. While I already knew a few recipes I generally couldn’t afford them when I moved out. Beef mince? Hah! Not a chance.
Turns out making your own sourdough pizza from scratch is crazy cheap. Cheese is the most expensive part.
deleted by creator
The guys saying the top three things aren’t necessarily the same as those saying the bottom thing. But there is definitely some overlap. Which is depressing. Though, I mean is that really that surprising given the state of the world and how stupid the average person is?
The loneliness epidemic also effects women. We’re all more lonely and miserable these days. I think really men and women are alienated from each other in large numbers due to internet brain rot. And being too broke to do anything outside except like… go to a public park or a library or something.
The shitty rightwing politics comes after, the average person is too stupid to not get immediately sucked into manipulative rightwing grift when they’re painfully lonely.
I say this as I consume internet brain rot myself. Though at least its on Lemmy and not Tik Tok, Reddit, or Facebook, and its during work, not my free time.
boss makes a dollar,
i make a dime,
that’s why i Lemmy
on company timeBest time to do anything is company time.
But going to the park or beach is fun. My first date with my partner was drinking cider on a park bench by a river.
Not everyone loves meandering around a park or beach. Though I’ll admit its good for our brains to do so. It always feels like a chore to me, I get bored.
Also was it alcoholic cider? That would explain why it was fun.
Also those places aren’t really great for meeting people and even then you don’t want to make those locations the only dating locations.
Cider is always alcoholic in the UK unless specifically sold as low alcohol. Typically first dates are not the same place you first meet someone.
Typically first dates are not the same place you first meet someone.
I know, but that there aren’t a lot of places to meet people in person without spending a bunch of money is a major problem and meeting people online to date sucks.
My first date with ny husband we went on a walk on a trail near our home. We walked for 6 hours lol
Empathy being both a weakness and a sin…
What more proof do you need that America is a failed state?
I don’t understand misogyny at all. What’s it all about? If you were homosexual and were raised in an ancient Macedonian army or something perhaps you wouldn’t see a mother, sisters, daughters, lovers, work colleagues, neighbors, friends but who lives like that? Boys who live in front of a screen and are too anxious and scared to go outside? Racism I can kind of understand if you only have superficial knowledge of other people and cultures.
Once that testosterone kicks in at puberty women aren’t generally a physical threat to men. I don’t really understand all the fear of them. Some women are really, really cool. Like serious friend material and lifelong partner stuff.
A woman is absolutely a threat to another human. Any animal that size is. That you think women are harmless is ironically, misogyny.
There’s a couple of.good books about this - Delusions of Gender by Fine and Sex, Lies, and Brain Scans. Basically we have implicit and explicit biases in how we expect people to perform roles. However, these biases aren’t based in fact. When we police other people’s behaviors based on these biases, or otherwise force others into roles we’ve developed, it’s bad/abusive.
Women are a special type of role, because that role generally means they have babies (ofc we all know many women who don’t have babies). The ownership of their baby making ability is likely why men created the patriarchy, to endanger women by other men, to force women into proximity of whatever man was able to support them. This, and the narrative that men should fuck as soon as they feel any sexual urges because that’s “being a man,” form the basis for their abuse of women over thousands of years.
Imagine how damaged all our mitochondrial DNA is from our mothers because of this, generations of trauma. And further, the eggs that made up YOU, were inside your mom as a baby, when she was inside HER mom. Meaning your grandma’s stress during and before pregnancy with your mom, had a direct impact on you as an egg. And further further, you get 100% of your cells from your mother, and 50% of your DNA. But every cell of life in your body came from your mother. Her stress and abuse has caused damage to the human condition imo and it is therefore vital to treat women well even if you only care about men.
And a key piece of taking good care of humans, is freedom and bodily autonomy, which form the basis for respect in most animal species.
Which is why misogyny hates all of that and why misogynists also tend to like hurting animals too.
Honestly, this argument comes across to me as a horrible mangling of different pop-sci concepts to construct a victimology. There’s good evidence of the mechanism by which stress and trauma induce epigenetic changes in organisms. (Selective methylization regulating expression of genes.) There’s some evidence of epigenetic changes due to physiological trauma passed down through germ cells. But it’s a huge leap to ascribe mtDNA damage to psychological experiences.
The mitochondria have a degenerate genome, a tiny amount of DNA with (looking it up) 37 genes to support the processing of energy into ATP to power the cell. It is susceptible to epigenetic changes, which leads pretty directly to a number of metabolic disorders, but I can’t find any evidence that those changes result from life experiences of an animal. The idea that mtDNA has accumulated generations of damage from sexist trauma beggars logic, too, because there’s just not a lot of room to collect damage, and that damage leads to health problems fairly directly. If one got every cell of life from one’s mother, in turn, she got it from her mother, and so on all the way back to the first eukaryotic life. All of those generations of trauma, how are we even still living?
Furthermore, the assertion that “men created the patriarchy” ignores actual history and context. One simply cannot ascribe a singular intent to a class comprising billions of individuals across time and space. At best, one could describe patriarchy as an emergent phenomena of societies and cultures. About half of the individuals in those societies and cultures were women, so you’d have to conclude that women helped create patriarchy, unless you deny their agency or intelligence.
It’s literal science, you are mad because it celebrates women so you want to dismiss it as fake. That’s your misogyny.
Men created and upheld the patriarchy by their own personal every day actions. Including their speech, which, like yours, typically functions to uphold a male centered hierarchy.
Yes, the patriarchy literally denied women’s agency and thoughts and stole their ideas from them. Good job, kiddo, you finally got it. Lol omfg. Yes, that IS what I’m saying - Men ENSLAVED women, and we know this because they kept away rights like landownership and political authority and bodily autonomy. Do you even understand the words you type?
So you want us to blindly spew whatever you say, with no critical thinking? I have seen this before.
That would just lead to a few femcels taking over instead, which isn’t much better. And why would we willingly do that?
I have a better idea: focus on doing something against Trump, who is going to literally enslave you, rather than trying to find how everything random men online say is misoginy.
No. Strawman.
It wouldn’t and never has.
I can do many things. Trump is famously a misogynist, a gender narcissist, so being a feminist is indeed focusing in and fighting Trump. You aren’t entitled to dictating my behavior or thoughts.
You insult and accuse me, and many others indirectly. It was inevitable.
Coward.
Puh what a rant.
I actually just want to correct you on one thing and I am also Not sure what you really meant.
But we dont get 100% of our cells from our mothers. We get the mitochondria from our mothers. The cells that enclose those mitochondria are perfectly 50/50 after fertilisation.
Maybe they mean literally the body composition of a fetus when it starts to grow as it feeds off via placenta, like it literally gets 100% of the mass from the mother’s organism
Wrong. We get 100% of our cells from our mothers She grows every cell. The (1) cell contributed by the father, the sperm cell, is destroyed in the process of DNA exchange/fertilization. Only the egg cell remains, fertilized with 50% DNA from each parent, and it then begins to divide of course. And all of those divisions are of the mother, inside the mother, from the mother’s body. Every cell is created by your mother.
DNA is a different thing, our DNA is in all of our cells, and the information of that DNA is 50/50 (except mitochondrial DNA which 100% mother), but the actual physical amino acids of that DNA were all made by the mother’s body.
Eg I make a sandwich. 50% of the recipe came from me, 50% from Martha Stewart’s cookbook. I provide all ingredients, I make it, I eat it. Martha just provided instructions on how she makes hers and I replicated half of that along with half of my ideas to make a new sandwich.
Men only provide 50% DNA at conception which is 50% INFO, not actual biological material, not cells.
If you really want to get pedantic, you could say we inherit our first cell membrane and mitochindria from our mothers, 50% of our genetic material, and perhaps 95% of our first cell’s cytoplasm.
After that, our mothers provide material that the zygote/fetus uses to build itself. It sounds incorrect to say we get all our cells from our mother, since she’s not making the cells, but only providing material and a place to grow. I know what you mean and share your sentiment. When gardening, did I grow these plants or did they grow themselves? Did the workers build the car, or did the owner of the factory?
Also the info provided by the father is absolutely biological material.
She is making the cells. The cells are hers. Just like a cancer mass has different DNA from the host but we can recognize that it belongs to the host and was made by the host, and isn’t autonomous outside of the host. The cells can belong to both the tumor and the patient. Just like these cells are made by the mother, belong to the mother, and are also made by and belong to the fetus. Or do you not thing the original egg cell belonged to the mother?
The info provided is biological material in the sense that the initial DNA/RNA are a biological material, but they are not cells.
I don’t make a car or a plant in my uterus off my own life force, but nice try.
Okay no, that’s not how it works at all. The differences in DNA between cancer cell and non-cancerous cell are negligable when compared to the differences between mother DNA and zygote/fetal DNA. If those fetal cells escaped the placenta or uterus, the mother’s immune system would attack them because they’re not recognized as “self.”
Sure, it’s the mother’s egg, until it isn’t. It quickly becomes something else biologically at the moment of fertilization.
Again, the mother isn’t making the cells, the zygote/fetal cells are making themselves.
It’s clear you have some beliefs that are not backed up by science. You also did not understand my analogies. I’m sure you’ll eventually learn this stuff in school.
Okay, so let’s pretend the a zygote is an incest zygote, then it’s DNA will be much closer. Repeat the argument.
I understand you, I disagree and have explained thoroughly where I disagree.
Exactly when “isn’t” it hers? The zygote cannot create matter out of nothing - who gives it that material?
Omg…
Okay, so you do realize that there is no such thing as an „intrinsic mother essence“, right? These are just molecules.
It does NOT matter where the material came from, as long as the molecules are provided. That said, the cells will create most of the molecules variations themself from base molecules, e.g. in case of fatty acid derivatives. Molecules related to energy transfer like NAD or ATP e.g. are generally not provided by the mother but directly synthesized in the cells from predecessor molecules. Similar to all the proteins.
Additionally, there are molecules that are only provided by the mothers body but not synthesized like essential amino acids. They actually have an external origin.
Neither are your cells cow cells because you drink milk or tomato cells because you eat tomatos.
Not sure how the provision of building blocks makes these cells the mothers cells. They Are NOT cells of the mothers body.
You are absolutely clueless, I fear.
I never said there was a “mother essence”, don’t strawman.
Amino acids rarely come in their broken down form, the mother digests them to break them down. That’s how cow milk is broken down into its parts, as you so wisely point out later.
Further, she provides all those molecules and the first molecule.
She made those cells. Why do you want to deny this? It’s honestly so funny, like you’re discovering pregnancy for the first time
Look, whatever dude. Believe in a flat earth or whatever you like.
Still, The fetus‘ cells are not cells of the mother. The few molecules of the egg cell quickly dilute in a sea of newly synthesized molecules by the metabolism of the zygote and its repeating cell Division cycle.
You can keep repeating „because the building blocks are provided by the mother“. But that does not make the cells any more their mothers cells than, again, you being a cow when consuming milk. Your logic does Not make sense.
Its similar (not like) recycling. If I melt down metal from old computers to create a new computer. Then we have actually new components, a new computer. Its Not made up of the old Computer in a conventional sense. Sure on the atomic level its mostly the same atoms, but Talking about inheritance on that level brings the discussion to a completely ridiculous level.
Not sure how you justify any other view on this. Certainly not on the grounds of natural sciences or logic.
Lol it’s not flat earth. Who has the egg? Whose cell is the egg? The zygote is primarily made of the egg and the division and supplies for such are from the mother.
Again, cow’s milk goes in your mouth. Whereas this is being synthesized in your uterus. It’s different, no matter how much you want it to be the same. It’s more akin to a tumor.
The cells come from the mother. They certainly don’t come from the father or from nothingness. Ergo, from mom. That’s how that works. Matter neither created nor destroyed, thermodynamics, etc
A woman is absolutely a threat to another human. Any animal that size is. That you think women are harmlessly is ironically, misogyny.
Yes all people are potentially dangerous.
But the biomechanics in adults are very different and need to be recognised. Statistically the physical intimidation is mostly one way when you account for sexual dimorphism in height, weight, reach, muscle mass etc. There are always exceptions but women live in a very different threat environment. That isn’t misogyny.
If people tend to hate what they fear and mysogyny is literally hatred of women like what the fuck? Perhaps some men are terrified of emotional harm. I can understand that but perhaps they would be better off with some therapy or a bit of self awareness.
Maybe, but unfortunately some abusive men just become better at abuse, more sophisticated, when they do therapy because of how therapy can work in validating people. It’s actually not super recommended for a woman dating an abusive man to go to couples therapy or have him go to therapy for this reason. The only way for these men to change their mind, is if they are in groups with other men who enforce other views via discussion, OR if they choose to. The reason you can’t medically treat a narcissist is because it would be brainwashing and unethical to do so if it was possible.
Yes, many cix XY men who are testosterone dominant are taller and have greater arm strength and bone density than many cis XX estrogen dominant women. Not every man and woman fit the cis body ideal of an XX and XY with “perfect” proportions of estrogen, progesterone, GH, testosterone, SHGB, and various other angrogens and enzymes that all combine and compete to create a physical phenotype we call a “woman” or “man.” There are also physical disabilities too.
But look at Stephen Hawking. If we go off pure Oppression Olympics (without looking instead through intersectionality and abuse dynamics), then the girls he was sexually abusing with Epstein were arguably abusing him. They were able bodied, right? He could hardly speak. It’s not just about physical ability then, but about how the entire structure of the patriarchy now being so entrenched we automatically assume roles based on it, regardless of size or proximity to danger. We automatically dismiss the danger of those girls to Hawking because we know the patriarchy stops girls from being violent, it’s not their role.
Except in cases like Chrystul Kizer.
This is a perfect description of the male and female meta. It is why males are stronger. Not to protect or lead, but to control through fear and violence.
It’s a priviledge men developed a higher sensitivity to oxytocin to compensate for a lower expression of the stuff. Enabling men to give a damn about someone other than their desire to dominate. Men can love their partner, their family, friends, their pets because of this.
Chimps ain’t that lucky, and males would rather watch an orphan die from neglect (and eat it) than take care of it. The males are known to kill females for showing assertive behaviour.
Same goes for prolactin in the brain, that makes humans more monogamous and increases a desire to protect something you care about. It never was a male feature before, but it became one in humans. It even peaks after the baby is born and the father is exposed to seeing his baby. Over time, similar adaptations to the brains of pregnant women, are seen in father’s brains. Which is amazing.
Men ain’t that bad, but old habits die hard. Men are more aggressive, stronger, more impulsive and less afraid of consequences on average compared to women. Those who were better at avoiding male aggression, lived longer. Hence why estrogens play a role in stimulating brain development in areas essential to risk assesment, consequence sensitivity, resistance to suicide, thinking ahead, planning, reading emotions (of themselves and others), learning and memory, reducing own aggression, communication and impulse control. Giving women an edge in academical performance despite there not being a statistical difference in intelligence. (Imagine if men had these boons instead…)
While all those obvious “big scary male” traits in men makes them seem like a bigger threat, women are well equipped and know how to dominate and eliminate people indirectly.
None of this is true and shows an extremely shallow understanding of neurochemistry. Please watch Sapolsky. Read Delusions of Gender. Talk to trans people. Try out some hormones. You’re just wrong and it’s creepy and weird.
Look. My mother gave me more than enough trauma as a kid. I don’t need you telling me she started before SHE was even born.
Power to control women and force them to have sex with you. A bit like rape, but less crude.
They don’t hate women, they just like to dominate.
80% of car accidents here are caused by wreckless driving by guys.
Guys are more dominant, and dominating women is viewed as misogyny.
Do not misunderstand. There’s no hatred for women.
Except in niche cases like my mate that got his heart broken at age 15 when he was fat, then he went on and dated 5 girls at the same time because he didn’t trust them. Then basically kept 1 of them and is now in a long term relationship. The one girl never knowing that he did that.
He was raised by his grandparents/single mother.
His dad went on to have a 2nd family where he wouldn’t be a deadbeat father. So it’s kinda idk… it’s his stuff.
So I guess there can be some hatred for women when it comes to having a broken heart and trust issues. But that’s mostly for young guys.
Hating people is mostly a dumb thing to do, but it’s not always a choice. You get your heart broken, love turns to hate until enough time passes before it can become indifference and you move on.
Racism… 14 year olds are idiots. They segregate themselves by how they look and sound like and start fighting with eachother.
Russia phobia 😎 well, they done fucked up didn’t they?
What else do we have…
Sinophobia… scary government bruv
Western phobia… I’ll let LMs write that one out
Phobia’s a normal thing, gets eliminated by long term communication
As a fat highschooler, ehen, as a fat woman highschooler, i got rejected so many times. Never once did it make me hate and distrust men. Because every person is their own.
Get fit. Just do it. I started working out when I was 17, been doing for 12 years now. Best investment.
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
Please take the time to listen to this lecture. It will genuinely help you and it’s very entertaining imo.
Testosterone causes enforcement, not aggression or dominance of women. Enforcement. Sapolsky did a famous study on baboons about this, amd we also have a human example - Buddhist monks who go around “enforcing” peace by chanting and praying etc.
Men hate women because they believe they should, they abuse women because they give themselves permission to do so. No other reason. Anything else is an excuse and justification for it. Read “Why Does He Do That?” By Lundy or “Stop Caretaking the Borderline or Narcissist” to learn more.
Bigotry is a product of narcissism, which is based in delusional beliefs. A narcissist may never get better. A racial narcissist example is a white supremacist (“my race is best”), which is obviously delusional, which causes narcissistic supply every time they confront it and refuse to let the delusion be corrected. They then will act out, eg say racist slurs, to enforce their racial narcissism on others to satisfy their brain chemistry (it’s deeply uncomfortable to resist unlearning delusional beliefs when faced with evidence, so they satisfy the histamine with adrenaline rushes included by being antisocial).
Le chat:
"Men are statistically more likely to be violent than women, according to various studies and data. This tendency is reflected in higher rates of violent crimes, such as intimate partner violence, murder, assault, and rape, where men are the predominant perpetrators. Several factors contribute to this disparity:
-
Biological Factors: Evolutionary perspectives suggest that male aggression has been shaped by sexual selection, where men compete more intensely for access to mates. This competition has led to physical characteristics such as larger size and strength, which are associated with greater physical aggressiveness.
-
Social and Cultural Factors: Social conditioning and societal expectations play a significant role. Men are often encouraged to be aggressive and dominant, while women are typically socialized to be more submissive and passive.
-
Neurological Differences: Studies using fMRI and EEG have shown differences in brain activity related to aggression. Men tend to have higher amygdala activation during provocation, which is associated with impulsive aggression.
-
Behavioral Differences: From a young age, boys and girls exhibit different levels of physical aggression. While both genders peak in physical aggressiveness between two and four years old, girls learn to suppress these behaviors more quickly than boys.
-
Types of Aggression: Men tend to express physical, overt, and direct aggression more frequently, whereas women are more likely to engage in relational and indirect forms of aggression.
These factors combined contribute to the overall higher levels of violence observed in men compared to women."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4643362/
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/emotions/men-more-violent.htm
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281200287X
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/behavioral-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00081/full
Lol this proves my point, thanks for playing
Who downvoted you lol. But yeah, that’s literally just AI.
I use AI to provide a less biased view whenever I talk about subjects I’m not that experienced in.
Because the last thing I want is to be influenced by an extremist.
Edit:
Now now now now, the best thing is communication and not antagonising one another.
But that do be quite a challenge
-
Narcissism is a scapegoat. Since a narcissist doesn’t know they are a narcissist. So the person can never defend themselves against you calling them a narcissist.
The term has been overused in the past few decades. I would only accept it if a well trained psychologist/psychiatrist would claim it about people. Otherwise, just can’t trust the source.
Everytime some folks talk about racial supremacy… they always talk about white supremacy and call it bad. Then I’d just say something like what about Han supremacy? Then they just act like it doesn’t exist.
All this bullshit can be fun, but there’s a lot of factors at play.
You can’t say it’s all nurture and no nature. The differences are far too big. In Belgium guys and girls are raised together. The same schools, the same families, the same government funding.
Sure there vast differences between the two female CFO’s I’ve worked for. Same for the male employers I’ve worked for. The two that showed signs of aggression were both large people. A woman and a man. They physically had the ability to cause damage on someone else.
My mom was the one doing the reckless driving and my dad drives perfectly. Aggression comes from my mom’s side of the family and level headedness from my dad’s side of the family.
Ah, whatever. It’s far too broad of a subject to be definite about. Too many factors at play
Narcissists can know they are narcissists, it’s just extremely shameful to them to admit it. What they admit or acknowledge is irrelevant though, as the more important thing is to recognize them because it makes them immediately disadvantaged. Narcissts can’t defend themselves because being a narcissist, makes them disadvantaged, because they are delusional. That’s fine if a white supremacist is disadvantaged and can’t defend himself. That’s good. Lol.
I don’t care if you accept it or understand it.
There are other type of racial narcissists besides white supremacists. White supremacists are widely studied because of the KKK and the Holocaust, among others, plus the so obvious not being better thing… It’s a classic example. Stop defending it, it’s obvious you bring up other races so that you, a white supremacist, can engage in your delusions about hating other races and confirm it.
When you’re told that white people aren’t best, it’s irritating you, right? That’s histamine, it helps you learn. Brain is literally releasing it so you can change your mind. You’ve learned to combat this histamine rush with anxiety and adrenaline (the -phobia part of narcissism), and externalizing and confirming your delusions of white people being supreme, so you automatically switch to bashing PoC to create brain connections to solidify the delusion. No one wants to engage with you because you’re sick and misinformed and they don’t want to make it worse by adding to those connections when you need to clean up and prune other connections first.
You can’t say it’s all nurture and no nature
Then take hormones and tell us how different you are. Go live as a woman. No one is stopping you. The fact that agender and multigender and intersex people exist shows that these binaries don’t exist and if there are hormonal and genetic influences on gendered behavior, why does gender expression change over time and in different places? Why aren’t you wearing a white fluffy wig and button up boots? Why don’t you have long hair and a dress like Jesus? Are you a fishing guy, a football guy, a soccer guy, a DnD guy, a rock climbing guy, etc - all different expressions of male gender, right? Why is someone with XY genes and complete androgen insensitivity labeled a girl? What gender is someone with Klinefelter’s (XXY)?
Aggressive behaviors happen because the person doing them has given themselves permission to do so.
Would your mom act as aggressively in front of her boss or someone she wants to impress? Or is she more openly aggressive in front of her family? And many large people actually have a “gentle giant” reputation, it’s just down to whatever that person thinks is an acceptable behavior.
In “Why Does He Do That?” Lundy asks abusers why they didn’t keep going. He says something like, “you punched her and shoved her to the ground, why didn’t you kick her in the face then? You could’ve really gotten her good then.” And the abuser will look genuinely shocked and say, “I would never do THAT, that could seriously kill her or hurt her.” They know. They have control. They would change their behavior if there were witnesses they cared about. They CHOOSE those actions because they give themselves permission.
Yeah I can’t take you serious when you call me a white supremacist. When you antagonise people, they won’t care about all that much that you say.
Then you call them a narcissist so that you don’t have to care.
I am not going to experiment with estrogen, I like muscle.
It’s just an ad hominem argumentation. Very low quality
And what kind of ridiculous term is PoC. Trust me, I’m far more anti American than anti Asia/Africa/middle east/south American.
That term just signals me that you’re American, and because of that, I actually start being xenophobic against you. Which is quite fun innit.
When I see dead bodies and it’s said that it’s a russian. Then I won’t care.
Bloody fun thing, the human mind.
You are a white supremacist by your own words. Too ashamed to admit it, though, just like I said in my first paragraph.
That’s not what ad hominem is.
Sure, you can be a geographical narcissist (xenophobe) too on top of being a racial narcissist. A lot of narcissists overlap but not always, and that’s why we get unique narcissistic individuals. Physical narcissists, gender narcissists, intellectual narcissists, etc. Many ways they interact.
And then if I spoke with you about something that is neutral and doesn’t trigger your narcissism, like maybe video games, then we’d be okay and we could have a polite conversation. Because narcissism is primarily delusions-based.
Nah I’d prefer being called a European supremacist, can you do that instead? The child in my wife’s uterus is going to be Eurasian.
Now we got the choice between raising it in Europe or in Asia and I prefer Europe. Although it depends on where in these two locations. Belgium Vs Indonesia. My main concern is the heat. The rest is fine, but god damn I want my winters.
Everyone has narcissistic traits, we can just call it self esteem. But only a very small part of the population has Narcissistic personality disorder.
It is 50% genetic 👀 so we’re back to nature/nurture blabla.
My mom did have quite the symptoms of the disorder. Mainly she thought that everyone was envious of her and that anything someone did was just something to affect her.
Now personally I have different symptoms, it doesn’t use other people, it’s mainly self esteem stuff like: I can get sexually turned on by looking in a mirror. I think I’m above average intellectually able. I think I make good decisions. I love talking about the details of my life. (I’m also interested in details of others their lives, most people lack the desire to be transparent). I also like talking about details bout anything to be honest. It’s just that I know a lot of my own life.
Now. Psychologist puts all of that on “mild autism”. Since my dad is autistic.
Now… Call me autist supremacist 😎 literally different brain wiring.
Aight I’ll put it on for an hour on YouTube vanced
Edit:
This guy is of far higher quality.
The video you showed me, god damn… the rambling goes on and on. Do not pay for his lectures, he’s just stretching the hour and giving you no content. Just money money money
This guy (even though you might hate him for being Israeli) is brilliant though. World renowned.
He’s been one of the leading neuroscientists and primate behaviorists in the world for decades now. Its not rambling, it’s information, and your brain is tired of learning. That’s just what learning feels like. Don’t you know that by now? It’ll take you time to learn. And he’s not saying anything about money? He’s talking about his research literally. How sad, our planet really has fallen so far in terms of academic discourse. Genuinely disappointing.
Nah he’s quite bad at holding my attention unlike Yuval noah harari
I love learning, just it has to be interesting
How truly sad
You externalize your difficulty with learning on the speaker.
Perhaps don’t speak then about subjects you can’t even learn at an introductory 101 level.
I’mma try that. I’mma sell my services and when a customer isn’t happy about the quality of my services (the fella is literally being paid to teach a certain amount of time), then I’m just going to gaslight the customer that they are the ones at fault.
I gave you a substitute for a far better speaker.
I prefer to listen to his new book Nexus.
Do give me a break, this isn’t my native language. The quality of communication is rather important in order to transfer information into me.
like YouTube free documentary. That’s high quality communication.
