I have a question for male feminists

Page 5 of 9 [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Darkrose50
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2015
Age: 42
Posts: 46
Location: Chicago

20 Sep 2017, 12:20 pm

I don't understand this SJW meaning. It seems to be something conservatives call folks who promote modern liberal cultural changes brought on by modern women controlling their reproductive rate, and/or via technology consolidating subsets of the population (giving them curage). The later being something that folks of all political perspectives don't like about a great many subsets, many of them that can be quite troubling.

Can someone enplane this SJW stuff to me?

-----

I know that it would have been impossible to study as a male teenager if there were girls in bikini's about in school.

Saying girls cannot wear bikini's to school is likely widely agreed upon.

Saying that girls cannot wear the same shorts boys wear to school is something different. Especially if there is a functional need for shorts (to keep the person cool).

Boys and girls just learn better when they are taught separately. They should still intermingle.



Last edited by Darkrose50 on 20 Sep 2017, 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,435
Location: Queens, NYC

20 Sep 2017, 12:23 pm

"SJW" has a few meanings. It's an acronym for "social justice warrior."

Sometimes, it's used in a sarcastic manner to refer to people who might take "political correctness" too far. One example: thinking that a white person has "appropriated" African culture by wearing dreadlocks.



Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,926

20 Sep 2017, 1:09 pm

Marknis wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
Basically it's like this:

Image


The problem is that the SJW feminists here keep calling me a "bigot" without explaining why. Just because I don't agree with SJW feminists doesn't mean I don't think women don't deserve a voice. If these people met my older brother, it would vaporize their perception about me. I also live in the Bible Belt which cancels out "white male heterosexual privelege" in my case because I am not an iron pumping alpha jock. I get labeled as being "priveleged" without actually receiving any of those supposed "priveleges".

Your response is very of off topic as it doesn't relate to the point of the thumbnail........this only reinforces my point about "not all men" being a fundamentally discussion derailing phrase. Nevertheless, I will attempt to respond.

I know nothing about you specifically, nor do I care to find out. Your use of the term SJW to describe anyone with feminist leanings and obsession with privilege is a bit of a red flag but it's not enough for me to point to anything specific you've done.

However, I do know this forum and how it tends to be dominated with socially awkward, low self-esteem, incel types who have developed regressive attitudes about dating and women which they learned in an online echo chamber from other awkward low self-esteem guys. These views fundamentally take what would otherwise just be normal socially awkward guy and render them highly toxic to the opposite sex. If you don't fit that description, you shouldn't worry about it.

I'm extremely socially awkward and I'm married to another awkward person. I know plenty of other socially awkward aspie types with feminist/liberal leanings capable of happy and healthy long-term relationships, even if it took extra time and struggle to find them. Many exist on this very forum.

It's possible that some exist, but I've never heard of an MRA type being in a non-toxic relationship. It seems like most can't even get out of the starting gate and it makes them bitter, distrustful and angry of nearly all women. I do feel sorry for people like that as I'm sure most are not bigots at all (just misguided.) However, these guys have willfully CHOSEN to embrace views that they know are toxic and self-sabotaging to their chances of finding a partner so my pity can only extend so far.

These self sabotaging attitudes are not exclusive to men either. The same could also apply to my more bitter feminist friends and acquaintances (who have a low opinion/distrust of men) who only seem to find toxic relationships.

If anyone (male or female) does hold regressive and bitter attitudes about dating or the opposite sex, that's entirely their prerogative and right, but they shouldn't be surprised or upset when the opposite sex stays as far away as possible, as a result.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,544
Location: The end of the northwest passage

20 Sep 2017, 1:36 pm

Geekonychus wrote:
^^^Don't mind Boo, jrjones. He's just trying to stir the pot. He's actually fairly harmless.


He's fairly harmless to me, but he and his boot-lickers create a toxic atmosphere in L&D. I can't count the number of female feminists who have left because of him. That crew may not want to date a feminist, but I do. By harming those women to the point where they leave, he hurts my chances.


_________________
A fish in water doesn't know it's wet


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,680
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

20 Sep 2017, 1:52 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
^^^Don't mind Boo, jrjones. He's just trying to stir the pot. He's actually fairly harmless.


He's fairly harmless to me, but he and his boot-lickers create a toxic atmosphere in L&D. I can't count the number of female feminists who have left because of him. That crew may not want to date a feminist, but I do. By harming those women to the point where they leave, he hurts my chances.



:lol: wtf? Ah I remember now, you love orgies.

Don't worry, you're so irresistible, they will return under different usernames (they always do) just to feel your charm.

That in case you're the guy who claims to be, I ll give you the benefit of doubt (yet I still highly doubt you).



Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,926

20 Sep 2017, 2:28 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
^^^Don't mind Boo, jrjones. He's just trying to stir the pot. He's actually fairly harmless.


He's fairly harmless to me, but he and his boot-lickers create a toxic atmosphere in L&D. I can't count the number of female feminists who have left because of him. That crew may not want to date a feminist, but I do. By harming those women to the point where they leave, he hurts my chances.

I don't disagree with you. I rarely post here for a reason.

My advice:

If your goal is to find a women to date, I would suggest looking elsewhere......basically anywhere but wrongplanet...... I was essentially able to figure out how to successfully date by doing the exact opposite of the advice usually given on this forum.

When the guys here ignore (or react with clear hostility) to the advice of women aspies or successful aspie daters in favor of embracing the proven terrible (low self-esteem reinforcing) advice of equally unsuccessful people, they are mostly just harming themselves in the end.

Most of the people I recognize that still post here regularly appear to be in the same position they were when I registered here 5 years ago (back when I was utterly clueless about dating.) Most still can't even get out the gate. That's because this forum it is not in any way a place people go for actual dating advice. It's a pity-party/echo-chamber.

Deep down, I believe most of these guys simply don't know any better. I would recommend trying to shift your attitude to one of pity rather than hostility as I think you'd have a higher chance of getting through to them that way (as remote as that may be.) Calling someone a bigot, although justified for certain posters, is the easiest way to get someone to not listen to you.

Truthfully, I actually like Boo and find him to be pretty funny and smart about certain things, but if someone could show me a single person who has benefited romantically from any of his dating advice, I would eat my own hat. :lol: Taking a clown seriously is a mistake.



that1weirdgrrrl
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 89

20 Sep 2017, 2:54 pm

Quote:
If your goal is to find a women to date, I would suggest looking elsewhere......basically anywhere but wrongplanet...... I was essentially able to figure out how to successfully date by doing the exact opposite of the advice usually given on this forum.


Where do you go for dating advice? I tried Reddit at one point but it was so quiet.

(For whatever it's worth some of my fave posts are by boo or kraftie lol)

Okay, carry on.



Marknis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,070
Location: The Vile Belt

20 Sep 2017, 5:29 pm

Geekonychus wrote:
Marknis wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
Basically it's like this:

Image


The problem is that the SJW feminists here keep calling me a "bigot" without explaining why. Just because I don't agree with SJW feminists doesn't mean I don't think women don't deserve a voice. If these people met my older brother, it would vaporize their perception about me. I also live in the Bible Belt which cancels out "white male heterosexual privelege" in my case because I am not an iron pumping alpha jock. I get labeled as being "priveleged" without actually receiving any of those supposed "priveleges".

Your response is very of off topic as it doesn't relate to the point of the thumbnail........this only reinforces my point about "not all men" being a fundamentally discussion derailing phrase. Nevertheless, I will attempt to respond.

I know nothing about you specifically, nor do I care to find out. Your use of the term SJW to describe anyone with feminist leanings and obsession with privilege is a bit of a red flag but it's not enough for me to point to anything specific you've done.


Where did I ever say anyone who has feminist leanings was automatically an SJW? My point was simply that SJWs feminists (making a distinction. I actually made it a few posts back) attack me for the wrong reasons. I am just pointing out how they overuse the term "privilege" against me because I do not buy into the concept. When you live in a place like the Bible Belt and don't fit the mold, you will immediately feel the pain of being considered "weird". I don't hate women so these accusations of me being a "bigot" or "MRA/redpill/MGTOW" are baseless and stupid. I just live in a messed up culture that praises being a loud aggressive jerk, had an abusive older brother (Someone who makes me look like a hippie in comparsion), and has received so many mixed messages that it has burned me out.



Last edited by Marknis on 20 Sep 2017, 9:31 pm, edited 6 times in total.

jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,544
Location: The end of the northwest passage

20 Sep 2017, 5:57 pm

Geekonychus wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
^^^Don't mind Boo, jrjones. He's just trying to stir the pot. He's actually fairly harmless.


He's fairly harmless to me, but he and his boot-lickers create a toxic atmosphere in L&D. I can't count the number of female feminists who have left because of him. That crew may not want to date a feminist, but I do. By harming those women to the point where they leave, he hurts my chances.

I don't disagree with you. I rarely post here for a reason.

My advice:

If your goal is to find a women to date, I would suggest looking elsewhere......basically anywhere but wrongplanet...... I was essentially able to figure out how to successfully date by doing the exact opposite of the advice usually given on this forum.

When the guys here ignore (or react with clear hostility) to the advice of women aspies or successful aspie daters in favor of embracing the proven terrible (low self-esteem reinforcing) advice of equally unsuccessful people, they are mostly just harming themselves in the end.

Most of the people I recognize that still post here regularly appear to be in the same position they were when I registered here 5 years ago (back when I was utterly clueless about dating.) Most still can't even get out the gate. That's because this forum it is not in any way a place people go for actual dating advice. It's a pity-party/echo-chamber.

Deep down, I believe most of these guys simply don't know any better. I would recommend trying to shift your attitude to one of pity rather than hostility as I think you'd have a higher chance of getting through to them that way (as remote as that may be.) Calling someone a bigot, although justified for certain posters, is the easiest way to get someone to not listen to you.

Truthfully, I actually like Boo and find him to be pretty funny and smart about certain things, but if someone could show me a single person who has benefited romantically from any of his dating advice, I would eat my own hat. :lol: Taking a clown seriously is a mistake.


I said that they didn't harm me much. I recognize that they have merely taken my chances of meeting someone here from slim to none.

If one group of people ruins the site for another group of people. I'll express my concern. Unless that second group consists of bigots. They harm the people they drive away, and that incidentally harms the rest of us who stay.


_________________
A fish in water doesn't know it's wet


Marknis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,070
Location: The Vile Belt

20 Sep 2017, 6:08 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
^^^Don't mind Boo, jrjones. He's just trying to stir the pot. He's actually fairly harmless.


He's fairly harmless to me, but he and his boot-lickers create a toxic atmosphere in L&D. I can't count the number of female feminists who have left because of him. That crew may not want to date a feminist, but I do. By harming those women to the point where they leave, he hurts my chances.

I don't disagree with you. I rarely post here for a reason.

My advice:

If your goal is to find a women to date, I would suggest looking elsewhere......basically anywhere but wrongplanet...... I was essentially able to figure out how to successfully date by doing the exact opposite of the advice usually given on this forum.

When the guys here ignore (or react with clear hostility) to the advice of women aspies or successful aspie daters in favor of embracing the proven terrible (low self-esteem reinforcing) advice of equally unsuccessful people, they are mostly just harming themselves in the end.

Most of the people I recognize that still post here regularly appear to be in the same position they were when I registered here 5 years ago (back when I was utterly clueless about dating.) Most still can't even get out the gate. That's because this forum it is not in any way a place people go for actual dating advice. It's a pity-party/echo-chamber.

Deep down, I believe most of these guys simply don't know any better. I would recommend trying to shift your attitude to one of pity rather than hostility as I think you'd have a higher chance of getting through to them that way (as remote as that may be.) Calling someone a bigot, although justified for certain posters, is the easiest way to get someone to not listen to you.

Truthfully, I actually like Boo and find him to be pretty funny and smart about certain things, but if someone could show me a single person who has benefited romantically from any of his dating advice, I would eat my own hat. :lol: Taking a clown seriously is a mistake.


I said that they didn't harm me much. I recognize that they have merely taken my chances of meeting someone here from slim to none.

If one group of people ruins the site for another group of people. I'll express my concern. Unless that second group consists of bigots. f**k bigots. They harm the people they drive away, and that incidentally harms the rest of us who stay. So expect no pity from me.


Not a bigot and you still fail to prove that I am.



Last edited by Marknis on 20 Sep 2017, 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,577
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

20 Sep 2017, 6:18 pm

Marknis wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
Basically it's like this:

Image


The problem is that the SJW feminists here keep calling me a "bigot" without explaining why. Just because I don't agree with SJW feminists doesn't mean I don't think women don't deserve a voice. If these people met my older brother, it would vaporize their perception about me. I also live in the Bible Belt which cancels out "white male heterosexual privelege" in my case because I am not an iron pumping alpha jock. I get labeled as being "priveleged" without actually receiving any of those supposed "priveleges".

First of all, I disagree with those SJW types you're talking about, so don't misunderstand this as an assault on you.

You ARE born into privilege, and I want to help you understand why. Have you ever been denied the right to vote based on sex? Have you had anyone from the opposite sex legislate what you can do with your body? Have you ever been denied the right to terminate your own pregnancy? Have you ever been denied birth control by your (predominantly opposite sex) insurance company? Have you ever been disproportionately denied salary or benefits from your job equal to that of the opposite sex for the same or greater workload? Have you ever been denied paid maternity leave? Have you ever been terminated from a job due to pregnancy or been given negative evaluations while pregnant? Have you ever received unwanted catcalls? Have you ever been denied a raise, a promotion, or even been terminated from your job for refusing to sleep with a coworker or supervisor?

If you answer "no" to ANY ONE of those questions, you have male privilege. You are part of the patriarchy.

Again, let me stress that I strongly disagree with the feminist agenda on the basis of feminism not being entirely, authentically devoted to egalitarianism. I disagree with feminist theory, partly because it's just wrong and mostly because the feminist "dialogue" really isn't. All I'm saying is this is the worldview you are confronting while being a male privilege denier. In order to understand your place according to feminist theory, it helps to understand some underlying assumptions--er, axioms--they hold to.

I'm a Christian. I accept that there is a God who created the universe as an indisputable fact. Climate change scientists accept the human role as the direct cause of global warming as an indisputable fact. Feminists accept patriarchy and oppression by men as an indisputable fact. You can't argue with me that there is no God, with a climate scientist that global warming isn't manmade, or with a feminist that men aren't inherently evil. For reasonable dialog to occur, both parties must accept the premise of the other. Without that, you are wasting your time.

And since we're discussing feminism specifically, you are dealing with a group committed to dismissing the premise that MRA types might actually be right about something. The instant you accept their premise and THEN attempt to argue how they are wrong, you are already beaten because they already know every argument and counter-argument.

By rejecting the premise, you force your opponent to take the defensive. The only way to win is to not discuss it. Example:

F: women cannot be empowered because of the continuing patriarchy.

MRA: What is this "patriarchy"?

Now the feminist HAS to do explain and defend. You aren't going to "win" the argument. But she will inevitably expose the flaws in her own argument. Keep asking, keep probing. Even if she doesn't "convert" to your outlook, the real win is you forced her to think about her position, something she herself has never challenged. If nothing else, you'll guide her to a more rational worldview and refined view of feminism.

And there ARE quite rational feminists. It's just we're never sure who we're dealing with. So if you question whatever talking point she's regurgitating from the old echo chamber and put her on the defensive, you'll start to see her true colors. The best strategy is to maintain a very calm, level, almost monotone voice. They WANT you riled, so when you refuse to let them rattle you, they get really unsettled. This is a dead giveaway. The more collected, rational types will respond in kind. The others will react on their own insecurities and lash out. It can be amusing, but it's more often sad.

Hope that helps. Good luck! lol



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,544
Location: The end of the northwest passage

20 Sep 2017, 6:43 pm

Darkrose50 wrote:
I know that it would have been impossible to study as a male teenager if there were girls in bikini's about in school.

Saying girls cannot wear bikini's to school is likely widely agreed upon.


According to a former gf, girls routinely wore bikini tops to her South Florida high school, and it did not seem to make much difference. Context matters.

Angel, I was with you except for the all feminists expect men to do evil part. The rest is so smart, but that's so dumb. Some do, but I'd you trace that to their personal experience of specific men who abused them, and a poor misunderstanding of the proper use of generalizations, you get someone who sounds a lot like Mark, from a different perspective.


_________________
A fish in water doesn't know it's wet


FunkyPunky
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 14 Aug 2017
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 64

20 Sep 2017, 7:35 pm

In my experience the biggest bigots are the ones running around calling other people bigots. Because they don't see the inherent hypocrisy of that word. A bigot is someone who believes their beliefs and opinions to be superior to anothers. Therefore by calling someone a bigot you are yourself being a bigot. This thread has done nothing to alter my views of that.

PS, don't ever expect to convince these people that they are bigots. The them the word "bigot" is a word that can never ever apply to them because they said so.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,544
Location: The end of the northwest passage

20 Sep 2017, 7:58 pm

FunkyPunky wrote:
In my experience the biggest bigots are the ones running around calling other people bigots. Because they don't see the inherent hypocrisy of that word. A bigot is someone who believes their beliefs and opinions to be superior to anothers. Therefore by calling someone a bigot you are yourself being a bigot. This thread has done nothing to alter my views of that.

PS, don't ever expect to convince these people that they are bigots. The them the word "bigot" is a word that can never ever apply to them because they said so.


Regarding the first part, bigots believe everyone (or near enough) in a class defined by inborn traits shares a set of other traits which make them personally inferior. Everyone thinks that they have the best available ideas until they hear a better idea. Don't they?

The second part makes sense. I just don't care to accept it at this moment. Astute of you, though. Props.


_________________
A fish in water doesn't know it's wet


Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,996

20 Sep 2017, 8:49 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Boxman108 wrote:
Over the years I've come to realize rights should be earned, not given. we have people living here, without citizenship and not paying taxes, that somehow get a lot of the same things we do or more. Bottom line, if you're not paying taxes and have not served in the military, I think that should be the standard to get to vote in the US.


One of the pretenses to the formation of the U.S. was no taxation without representation. The colonists were not represented but fellow colonists but by politicians in Britain, who they did not feel could adequately represent them, as they did not live in the colonies and did not understand the colonists needs and plights.

Women faced a similar problem, and still do in my respects. Before women's suffrage, we did not have adequate representation and those who were making decisions on our behalf did so without the understanding of our needs or problems. While women today have the right to vote (as we should), we still do not have adequate representation in government for some instances.

For example...

Image

The men above are discussing a health care bill, one of the points under discussion was whether the new bill should mandate that health insurance plans provide essential benefits, including maternity services.

These men will never have to be pregnant and are not really qualified to make policies concerning women's health issues based on that fact and the lack of knowledge of women's health problems that stem from the fact that they are not primarily applicable to them or something they have ever or would ever experience first hand.

Already women are suffering from mandates which allow employers to refrain from offering health insurance policies that exclude contraception, because "birth control" pills are actually hormone pills that are not just used to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but to treat a myriad of often painful, inconvenient, and sometimes infertility causing women's health problems that women often face. In fact 50% of women who take birth control pills do so to treat these medical conditions and not to prevent pregnancy.

To add to their woes, health insurance plans, regardless of whether or not they cover birth control pills, don't cover compounded medications. This is important to know because progesterone and estrogen don't come in a commercial form outside of birth control pills, and so have to be compounded if for some reason she can't take the form offered in the birth control pills. For example, maybe she can't tolerate the synthetic hormones, and needs natural hormones, or maybe she needs the progesterone but must avoid the estrogen. These policies leave women having to pay out of pocket or opt for invasive, expensive surgical procedures such as hysterectomies, because that's the only thing covered by the insurance that will treat her condition.

All of this is a result of men, with their lack of insight into female problems, making policies that pertain to women.

Also, your assertion that only those who serve in the military should be able to vote assumes a country that 1. Either support a large military. 2. Creates a situation where it's impossible for some people to vote, despite the fact that they may be more than qualified to make decisions on the issues on the ballot. 3. Would create a situation where significant swaths of the population are not represented, causing discontent, unrest, and instability, and 4. Assumes that the country even has a need for a large military, when ideally, the natural state of country should be at peace, and thus have small military. 5. Overlooks the valuable contributions and sacrifices of civilian volunteers and contractors (the military likes these people because they don't have to give them veterans benefits).

As for paying taxes, just about everyone does. Those who don't pay income tax pay sales tax, sometimes gas tax, property tax, utility tax, and so on.

Very ironically, it was actually the lack of women in government that lead to a strange situation in Victorian England. It started when a well educated woman sought to divorce her violent husband who had kicked her out of the house and was keeping her from their children. She was a wealthy woman with an income on account of inheriting her family's holdings, but had no access to that money as any money a married woman had, was legally the property of her husband. She was unable to obtain a divorce as only men initiate them, and he refused to divorce her, and without access to funds for a lawyer, she took it upon herself to teach herself the law.

She discovered two interesting things.
1. Married women had no legal personhood in England. This was an unintentional result of only men having a say in making policies.

2. Because she had no legal personhood, she could not only not own property or have her own money, but she could also not be responsible for any debt she incurred. This is like having a credit card but not being responsible for the bill.

So what did she do?

She ran up a bunch of debt in her husband's name. Keep in mind, this was a time when there were no social safety nets except poor houses and people still got thrown into debtor's prison.

Her ploy worked. Her husband finally divorced her, and her actions called to the attention to parliament the fact that, in the course of their all male law making from their all male perspectives of life, even though they all had mothers, wives, and probably sisters and aunts, they forgot to ensure that married women had legal person hood.

When people aren't allowed to represent themselves, they and their interests are overlooked.



Politics are dominated by males for the fact there's less female millionaires than male millionaires; seriously....only wealthy people can make it into high offices in politics. Politics is about power and networking, and through networking with powerful people, you get into politics; and the rich people dominate the networking game and help each other.

Another theory that the Freemasonry is exclusively male. lol

There's a common theory that says that women are less likely to get into because 'Women are still responsible for the majority of child care and household tasks' - I think this is rubbish because it only applies to poor and middle-class women, people who win political positions are often of the upper class or the mega rich class, they have maids to do the household tasks and even most of the child caring tasks, don't tell me that Hilary and Angel Merkel for example ever did their own laundry with their own hands in the last decade.


I was just using the photo and associated comments to illustrate the importance of adequate representation. However I do not disagree with your comments. To expand on the topic you presented, about women in politics, most female politicians seem to choose to stay at the local level in politics. City counsel members or mayors. I think one reason for this is that they may feel they can better affect change in their community in those positions.