There's a quote I can't find from like a CEO lady saying that she found it bullshit that she can be so successful and has to compete for men with a waitress.

But this is true, and it is a big reason why we still see more career-driven men and stay at home mothers.

If a man doesn't get a decent career, his dating pool is tiny.

If a woman doesn't, it doesn't matter much for dating.

I'd love a career-driven lady. I'd love to be a stay-at-home dad.

But the way our culture works simply doesn't afford me the luxury of not being career-driven.

​

Whenever women focused subreddits like EvilWomanInc or BlatantMisogyny is brought up, theres always a guy talking about how if someone made a sub just to "bash women" like those do to men, it wouldn't last a week. but that's just objectively not true lmao

there are multiple mainstream subreddits in which the entire point of them is misogyny. ItsThatBad openly posts saying women shouldnt have rights and SipsTea often makes it to the front page.

Blank because I’m tired of the comments

I remember a time where it was mostly used to describe someone who was simply involuntary celibate. Now the term encompasses people who hate women, and yet also can’t get laid.

Sometimes I genuinely can’t tell which definition people are using, because some will use the first, and some will use the second.

Not only this, but people are quick to call someone an incel simply because they say something they disagree with. I know this is the internet, and you can’t exactly expect people to converse in good faith, but still, it’s ridiculous. I’ve seen married men called incels, simply because they say something that isn’t even bad, but people simply want to prosecute their morals (which they can’t possibly know) instead of actually engage with the point

Where has good faith discussion went?

Its obvious that you don't understand the purpose or meaning of higher education if you genuinely use the "gender studies" argument as an argument against college education.

No degree is just going to be teaching you from a book about a certain topic. each one is meant to grow your skills in different departments, gender studies focusing on critical thinking, interpersonal work and advocacy. Its a very useful degree to have for social work and outreach services.

And no, nobody is getting a degree in "underwater basket weaving."

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/EastwickFinkel2008_JPSP.pdf

In general, physical attractiveness predicted relationship initiation quite well: Correlations were .43 (men) and .46 (women) for reports of speeddating partners/matches and .26 (men) and .31 (women) for reports of write-ins

People always post opinions on here about/against trans people that everyone ends up agreeing with and upvoting (obviously, its not actually unpopular). Being able to go on HRT or Puberty blockers 9 times of of 10 improves a trans kids life tenfold and allows them to live a normal one rather than robbing them of their childhood like many trans adults who could only transition after 18 end up feeling like happened to them. HRT should not be used until the kid has reached an age range where it would be normal for their gender to go through puberty though.

Ok so hopefully this makes sense from a strictly logical standpoint. How do people who say nature made a mistake im a woman when at birth they had male genitalia, Or the inverse for women, know its their body that is wrong. Like if they have male genitals, male hormones and all the signs of being male then isn't the odd one out the brain that makes them think they should be female instead?

Basically if I buy a gasoline powered car but it has a engine computer for a diesel, why would I change the engine and all related systems when its just one part that is wrong for the configuration?

Not bashing Trans people. I dont agree but im not going to stop them nor ridicule them. Its not my place and doesnt effect me.

It’s very strange how our society puts guys that get laid a lot on a pedestal but dudes who women feel safe around are laughed at at times. It encourages a very predatory culture toward women. Many dudes I met who get “laid a lot” also tend to act kind of creepy and coercive to women to the point that I don’t wanna be associated with them. I don’t care if I get made fun of for being a virgin who can’t attract women as there are lots of women who feel safe around me and I value that much more.

Women’s gym attire over the past 10 years or so have been criticized for being a bit too revealing at times. The padded shorts, tight leggings, and now the low rise sweatpants at times. Now of course throughout history women’s attire has been a topic rather they wearing long dresses or booty shorts, but we will stay within the gym context.

If you look at gym attire from both men and women historically it’s always been a bit revealing. Back then especially the 70s and 80s for sure. I mean Arnold could’ve launch a OF if he wanted too. And it make sense why gym fits can be this way, because your body heats up quickly so having less layers can help. Also being fit or athletic can make body parts more attractive which can make the outfit more appealing.

Are women dressing like “whores” in the gym, ehh idk. I mean i see a lot of old dudes wear 3inch silky shorts with no underwear underneath. Like ball sweat just all over the place. I see some women wear low rise sweatpants and you can see if they shaved or not. So i get some people definitely getting a bit too comfortable. Overall though i think gym attire is fine.

To add i think some dudes are attracted to these women and maybe are upset that they aren’t dating them so they going home and watching instagram or even porn getting more upset about it.

Because a lot of the times their assumptions or “takes” aren’t even accurate

To be clear: staring, leering, ogling, catcalling, whistling, etc at women are absolutely wrong. But expecting men to constantly keep their heads down, be glued to books, newspapers, screens on phones, or look at the ground in public to avoid glancing or normally coming across other people while looking around is unreasonably restrictive.

Especially in crowded public transportations, cities, places, areas, cafés, hotels, restaurants, stations, tourist attractions, and other public locations, it's practically impossible to avoid looking around when people of all genders are constantly moving, walking, sitting, driving and interacting around you.

Men shouldn't have to always be straining their necks, backs and eyes with their heads always down or glued to a screen on phones or reading books/newspapers or looking continuously on the ground pavement out of fear that normally looking around might be interpreted as harassment.

Something I've been thinking about is whether men and women are really that different in terms of aggression, or whether physical strength has more to do with it than we like to admit.

Obviously, men commit more physical violence, especially serious violence. I'm not denying that. But I wonder how much of that difference comes down to men being physically stronger on average and facing fewer physical risks when confronting someone.

Look at how women treat each other sometimes. The bullying, the humiliation, the social exclusion, the attempts to ruin someone's reputation. Some women can be absolutely vicious to other women. So it's not like women are incapable of aggression or cruelty. It just doesn't always take the same form.

And what of men who get hit by their girlfriends or wives? 30% of men report having experienced some form of physical violence from a woman and 10% report experiencing severe violence from a woman. With these figures likely being higher because men are much less likely to report.

Plenty of men have experienced this, yet it's often played off as a joke. Imagine a man casually admitting he slapped his girlfriend. People would rightly take that seriously. But when a woman slaps her boyfriend, people sometimes laugh or ask what he did to deserve it. We've seen men immediately arrested for domestic disputes where they were the victim. Being stronger doesn't mean you can't be abused and it certainly doesn't make it acceptable to hit someone.

Something else I've noticed is the online trend of women talking about aborting boys simply because they're boys.

That is pretty revealing. Think about it. If a woman resents men but still wants to date them, sleep with them, or have their approval, she's in a strange position. She might not want to direct that anger at the men she's attracted to. So where does it go?

Sometimes, it seems to get directed at someone weaker. An unborn boy who hasn't done anything, can't defend himself, and hasn't even had the chance to become the kind of man she's supposedly angry at.

Obviously, not every woman who makes these "jokes" is serious and you can't generalize about all women based on internet posts. But there's something disturbing about the idea of punishing a child for belonging to the same sex as people you resent. If the point is supposedly to stand up to men, targeting a baby isn't exactly punching up, is it?

And that's really the bigger point. Having less physical power doesn't make someone less aggressive, it simply changes how they express their aggression and who they direct it toward.

If women were, on average, physically stronger than men, we would likely see the same patterns of physical violence.

People who currently avoid physical confrontation would be more willing to engage in it if they knew they had the upper hand.

I don't think anyone can know for sure. But I find it strange that we so often treat male aggression as proof of something fundamentally wrong with men, while female aggression gets explained away as insecurity, social behavior, or a reaction to how men treat them.

Maybe men and women do differ in some aspects of aggression. But I don't think women are inherently kinder or less capable of cruelty just because they're less likely to inflict the same level of physical violence.

Most women would consider this occurrence a blessing bestowed upon them and a monumental turnaround. Female sisterhood would grow even stronger than it already is, and women would start dressing even more provocatively. Women would party harder and lead more fulfilling lives. They would start traveling the world on their own, without any fear. There would be no mourning, as nothing other than worthless male attention would have been lost.Anyone who disagrees with this is lying or coping hard (mostly low status men).

I often see posts parroted in feminist spaces like “Misogyny kills people, Misandry hurts your feelings. They are NOT the same.” or that misandry is always reactive.

Both are bullshit arguments. First you compare the most severe consequences of a phenomenon with the most trivial consequences of another.

I dare to say that when you treat men as inherently dangerous, morally inferior, disposable the issue goes beyond than just hurt feelings and can have serious consequences for people’s lives and mental well-being.

I see a growing trend of bigotry at the expense of men, and whilst true that this is mostly online, that doesn’t negate the impact of the issue since most of us spend a non-insigniciant amount of our lives on social media.

Prejudice can also become an ideology on its own right. Some of the misandry might come from genuine and legitimate trauma but it is also reinforced by social groups and online communities and someone hold can hold these beliefs without ever experiencing abuse or discrimination personally.

There is also something incredibly ironic on blaming the “patriarchy” on why some men have a hard time on opening up and talking about their feelings whilst under the same breath ridicule them and downplay their experiences when they do open up and criticize prejudice towards them.

Obviously everything I said here applies in both direction. Bigoted hatred should not be excused no matter which group of people it is aimed at.

I initially wrote this as an ‘in general’ men shouldn’t pay for their dates’ meals, but I guess as it’s becoming a consistent thing there should be some paying for meals. But I still think that’s kind of stupid.

Anyway, simply put, I don’t think men should be expected to pay for their dates’ meals/coffee for their first/second dates, or even at all.

I’m speaking from experience on this, but I have asked several of my dates, ‘hey you wanna split this?’ And the amount of blank stares or followed by ‘oh well, I thought you were going to pay for it’ is actually insane. I don’t even drink either but I’m paying for THEIR DRINKS???

I’ve genuinely just stopped dating due to this, it’s wayyy more cost effective to just not pay for another person’s meal. And I’ve also used it as a vibe check at times.

But that’s not even the most insane part, I’ve had a lot of friends tell me about how common this is, that their dates just don’t even bother to offer paying. Hell in one case he straight left a girl because he was in her phone as ‘free meals.’ Which I mean that’s disgusting

And it’s so baffling that at the turn of this century, it was becoming the norm for women to split the checks, that it was seen as fair and equitable and feminist, and now we’ve somehow gone backwards where it’s somehow seen as being an ‘incel’ or ‘broke’ for just asking to split the tab. (Which by the way I have been called an incel and broke over this point several times)

Anyway, 4 dollas a pound

You know the meme. A woman is alone in the woods; would she rather stumble across a bear or a man. The woman say they would pick the bear, saying it is less scary than the man. This has come back up a bit on social media recently in light of the Cornel 7 media circus.

It, of course, is a bold face lie. I'll tell you how I know. If women really thought that I, a man, was scarier than a bear every time they saw me they would run screaming in terror. They only do that about 2/3 of the time.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Women are often allowed to be considered inherently valuable simply for existing as women, while men are still expected to prove their value through what they accomplish, earn, build, provide, or become.

A man can be judged by his income, career, status, competence, confidence, social skills, physical appearance, and ability to provide. Meanwhile, telling women that their worth should depend on what they accomplish is often correctly criticized as dehumanizing.

I think both ideas can coexist: women shouldn't have to earn their basic human worth, and neither should men.

If equality means equal human dignity, shouldn't we also question the expectation that men have to accumulate external value before society considers them valuable?

Barring major incompatibilities, men will just settle for the most attractive woman they’re able to, and most of them will always be wishing they could’ve “done better”

This has got to be said: arguing perpetually about gender stuff, is a useless exercise in mutually ensured destruction. Both sides end up sexually frustrated, lonely and angry. Nobody wins.

Here is the critical question I have for any self prescribed MGTOW or feminist, (many of whom, are closer to mysoginists and mysandrists). It's hard to use these terms, because everyone has their own definition, and everyone insists their definition is right and just, even the most extremists of views on either side, will insist until they are blue in the face, that they are the reasonable ones.

If you are a heterosexual man or woman; what is the point of clinging to an ideology that makes you extremely hateful or critical of the opposite sex ?

Human biology hasn't changed. We still need each other sexually. The nuclear family is still the basis of all human society, and no amount of isolationist ideology can change that.

So why are we fighting each other ? Do we really want to be lonely? Do we want to die out and have an aging population of bitter lonely men and and women living separately hating each other ?

When I got married, I purposefully pulled back from many of those online communities, because I didn't want to poison my mind against my own spouse and turn myself in a bitter, lonely guy.

We've all been taught basic biology in high school. The logical conclusion of gender wars is societal collapse and extinction. We need to make love, not war. Wake up, people.

EDIT: for those hanging onto the phrase "nuclear family" I do not literally mean, 1950s man + wife and children in a white picket fence house, with nobody else in the house. I mean the fact that, human population only grows from the union of a man and a woman. That's just how human reproduction works.

Even if its an extended family or a found family household, at some point in time, a man and a woman had to have had sex for those children to exist.

cmon we are the most evolved species out there and found products that enhance our physical appearance and we decided to make it about gender? how stupid is that? if a man wears it he isn't jus wearing it he's expressing his sexuality like cmon. make-up should be fun and everyone should be able to experience it. It shouldn't be tied to masculinity or sexuality, make-up is jus makeup( I'm not homophobic and I'm also a woman). I just think it's fun and we shouldn't make a big deal about who is wearing it and jus enjoy the little things in life (I'm really sorry if I came off as someone tryna make makeup compulsory or smtg i really just meant ppl should wear what they want no matter man or woman)

I see this take a lot by people who actually seem to be reasonable: “Men and women are fundamentally different in XYZ way and the discourse about equal rights and dignity - totally reasonable concerns - ignores these fundamental differences.” That’s not an unreasonable take. My (I think lukewarm, frankly) take is that those folks actually have not thoroughly considered the supposed differences.

A couple of really common ones are the suitability of males to certain jobs because of increased physical strength, and the suitability of females to certain communication or multi-tasking roles due to brain development in girls. I have a rebuttal for both.

First, I don’t think anyone is going to argue that biological males are not, on average, physically stronger than biological females. My critique of the “men are stronger therefore should do the strong people jobs” ignores the fact that there is also an upper limit to male strength, and we design tools and processes around that reality. There is not job which exists which could not be adapted to be done by a person with the physical stature of a fifth grader. Those jobs require physical strength because we designed them that way, because we did not create tools which make up the difference to the degree that smaller people can do them. We defaulted those roles to the capacity of the average man. Women can, and do, all sorts of things which require physical strength beyond our capacity, by using tools, or rethinking procedures, or breaking the task apart in a different manner. So the fact that society has been physically designed around men is not an argument for the inherent fitness of men to do those tasks. It’s merely how we’ve designed it and have been reinforcing that design.

On to the next thing. There is plenty of evidence that female brains are more proficient in certain social and linguistic tasks. Girls develop certain language skills and social behaviors more quickly than boys, and there is biological evidence of actual brain differences. People take this to mean it’s inherently a sex-based difference. The monkey wrench I would like to introduce is the research into language deprived Deaf people. A quick and dirty summary is that Deaf adults who have no exposure to language during the critical learning window were studied, and after some time of language deprivation, they begin to show differences in their brain scans that is tantamount to brain damage. It’s horrendous neglect of a basic human need with profound consequences. How that relates: the physical structures of the brain are changed by what they are exposed to (or not). My hypothesis is that the differences between male and female brains in the research could very well be explained by socialization. It’s well known that how we interact with babies identified as male vs female is markedly different from before they’re even born. How we talk to them, what we ask of them, how we regulate their behavior. If normal, healthy babies born Deaf are acquiring the equivalent of brain damage due to a lack of language exposure, it’s not a wild leap to me to think that girls are developing these differences/aptitudes not biologically, but socially. V

I realize this is an untested hypothesis at this stage, but it’s absolutely plausible. Obviously everything is more complicated than that, but the point is that perhaps it’s not as inherently gender-based as we are assuming.

My whole purpose in raising this is not to convince any gender-essentialist to change their mind, it’s merely to expand the question to make room for more openness on the margins. Also, men do dangerous and difficult jobs, but how might men benefit from approaching that work the way women would need to? Maybe they don’t need to be so hard or so dangerous. Maybe men’s bodies don’t need to be subjected to the toll that kind of work takes. And maybe if men were socialized the way girls are in language and social reciprocity, they would have more language earlier in life to express their needs and feelings and be free to operate in nurturing spaces if they want to, with less stigma.

...and that is if some of us men don't see every woman as a potential romantic mate, or as a possibility of getting laid. I am also talking about the posts where you see the general F tag and is not necessarily addressed as seeking a romantic relationship.

(The romantic/sexual posts are in the trenches cos we all know who the majority of lurkers on reddit are lol...)

I actually used to think like this, just more of romantic and less sexual. It changed when I began to see women as people like any other and not like some mysterious beings who we can never understand. That you could talk to them about random or specific things and not just flirt incessantly.

Just talk to them to genuinely talk to them and you now have a new friend. Actually found platonic relationships with women are so wholesome as they are very expressive and caring.

Nothing wrong with trying your luck tho (if choice is respected), but I feel if some of us didn't think this way, a lot of the messages women receive would not be there. End of Hot Take!

8 years ago I was an overweight food service employee. I worked in dozens of restaurants in every position from cook to server to management.

I found dating nearly impossible always relegated to the friend zone and used for transportation or other help like moving or emotional support. Never had a girl actually flirt with me.

Through networking, a series of lucky accidents, and a little hard work I'm now a safety inspector for international airports all throughout North America. I'm making 6 figures and due to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, I've lost 85 lbs with diet and light exercise. I'm also married to a wonderful woman and have 3 children.

2 years ago I relocated my family to my hometown so that my wife would have a stronger support network while I was working.

I've ran into many of my former crushes who are now throwing themselves at me. I'm still the same guy personality wise, the only difference is a tailored suit, fat loss, and a nice car.

--big rant coming up-- tldr; Girl I was in love with friend zoned and used me, didn't recognize me years later and tried to give me her number.

A few hours ago I went to waffle house because it's the only place open at night. The server, Ashley used to work with me for 2 and a half years at a different restaurant years ago. I was extremely infatuated with Ashley, but when I finally worked up the nerve to ask her out she told me she "wasn't in a good mental space to be in a relationship" and promptly put me in the friend zone. She asked for rides to and from work, had me helping her with her duties at work, and borrowed money from me. 2 months later she was dating the kitchen manager.

She didn't even recognize me tonight. She just liked my car and started a full flirty conversation with me and still didn't recognize me until I told her who I was. Granted it's been almost 8 years, but this was someone who was (at least pretended to be) a close friend.

She made a point to tell me she was single and tried to give me her number. I asked if she noticed my wedding band and she said we should still keep in touch. I outright refused to take her number and didn't tip her.

--rant over--

I've noticed the same with most of the women in my own family. My sisters openly discuss and joke about their dating lives. They laugh about the guys they find unattractive trying to talk to them and their "locker room talk" is more disgusting than anything I've ever heard from a man.

Hell, even my own wife tells me she only wanted a one night stand, it only became a relationship because "the sex was so good"

Men (for the most part) only have 2 requirements for a mate. 1 don't be obese and 2 pleasant personality.

Women want fit, athletic, protective, wealthy, handsome, tall, great sex, emotionally intelligent but not sensitive, (the list goes on and on)

Men treat the women they find unattractive as invisible.

Women treat the men they find unattractive as disgusting creatures, slaves, or victims.

Today I already seen so many post on crying about how hard they have it in dating. Women have high standards for a reason and it is your job to met it and if you can't meet it then you shouldn't be dating. It is ridiculous to expect women to lower their standards.