Do we have a chance at dating the really attractive ones?

Post Reply New Topic

Uhm, no. That's what I'm arguing against. It's because of that gynocentrism that women often end up in the focus on issues that men are more affected by, like suicides. But it *has* traditionally been like that. See the context, mate.

Yeah, all the feminists I know/speak to online are about women having options, having the right to make choices for themselves and determine their own existence--if a woman chooses to be a "protected" housewife/mother/caregiver, that's her prerogative. It's called autonomy: letting people choose for themselves how they want to live. We just want women to have the same kind of autonomy as men, that's the whole basic idea of feminism.

Actually, I agree.

"Protecting women" is one of the biggest excuses for sexism from both women and men. One of the reasons I don't consider myself a feminist is because I don't need "protection" from the realities of life.

And, IMHO, some women need to step-up and be responsible for their role in perpetuating sexist attitudes.

Statistically, more women abuse children than men.

That's because they have custody of them much more often.

I find this post fascinating. I would go so far to say that "feminism" as a term is outdated.

The thing about women being protected, or, really, ANYONE being protected, is it is an unfortunate facet of human nature that we have a tendency to exploit, abuse, or even take people as property. Thousands of years ago, even Biblical law took this into account and elevated the status of women considerably. Women as property and the institution of slavery were so ingrained into societies that they'd have collapsed with the wholesale elimination of these institutions. Hebrew law sought not to get rid of these practices, at least not immediately, but rather to make those institutions liveable.

It's not so much that any one gender or ethnicity needs to be protected in Western society. It's just that we need to protect ourselves and each other from the tendencies and desires to own and enslave. The slave-free West that we enjoy is still a relatively young and fragile society (think recent racial unrest and ongoing sex trafficking).

Maybe some women feel strongly that they don't need male protection. But just to be on the safe side, this man is going to remain vigilant and keep his wife and daughter close.

Yep. That's why I don't like the government or other large organisations trying to hard to "protect" us.

Obviously the military protects us from invading countries though I think that threat has been exaggerated.

But what I mean is I'm against the paternalistic attitude that we need to be protected from ourselves. Not only because it's insulting, not only because the paternalists don't know our individual needs but because it leads to dictatorship.

e.g. paternalistic attitudes in education make it ok to use schools for disseminating propaganda rather than teaching kids how to think. The self-declared intellectual class says these beliefs are best and we need to "educate" the masses until they agree with us. If someone disagrees, it's not because they're thinking independently, it's because they need to be "educated".

Part of the problem is that the ruling class thinks of us masses as mere statistics rather than individual people with our own wants and needs.

I think this will get worse in the future. Automation will make it so most people don't have to work. This will be destructive. Without the requirement to work, people will have little energy or motivation in life. How much energy you have is partly determined by how much energy you need (assuming you're not sick). Both physical and mental stamina grow with exercise.

Not working will make the populace very weak willed. They're lose their critical thinking abilities as they become further removed from reality.

Maybe 15% of the population will still work. For the government. Mostly as bureaucrats and a few as actual politicians. They'll become the new elite, shepherding the population into believing whatever they think is best. Saying the 85% unemployed class shouldn't be able to have control over their own lives or beliefs.

If you take away people's work you take their humanity. You take their willpower. People become soft. They become like mental marshmallows. I've experienced this personally during my "gap-decade". If someone is badly injured and they spend 6 months in a body cast, their muscles will atrophy. If you remove all mental challenge from life, your brain will atrophy.

Post-scarcity economics will be the new Communism and it will be just as destructive as the old.

I think this is already happening in Australia. We have the employed-class and the unemployed-class.

Many of the employed class work for corporations that put them in work on government contract work, essentially making them government bureaucrats.

Interesting that this thread is full of people claiming to know what feminists think and say, and yet when any actual feminists speak up and say "actually I know what I think and say, and it's not anything like what you're saying I think and say" you ignore us.

But I'm the sexist one for thinking women should have choices.

Please tell me some more about my own ideas and opinions, apparently as a woman and a feminist I need to be told how to think to not be sexist against women. The unintentional irony of this thread is epic.

That's all fine and dandy on paper, but in the real world, when the s**t hits the fan brave men protect women and children. We see it time and time again the world over, in virtually every terrible situation that ever unfolds. War, bar fights, schoolyard bullying, you name it.

I've never been in a combat situation. The closest it's come was when I was near the epicentre of a riot. Guess what happened when the violence was nearly upon us? The police ERT (SWAT) team tapped me to let me know what was coming our way & advised I help women and children get to safety ASAP. I thanked them and did exactly that, ensuring my cousin and God son could flee to one of the last trains away from the shitstorm. Then I stuck around and helped others as well as prevented other vulnerable people (an old man, a handicapped woman) so they wouldn't be hurt, or worse. I wasn't nearly as strong as I am now - but at my current 6'2" & 200lbs of muscle I'm all for women and children doing anything they set their minds to, but I guaran-f-ing-tee that if the s**t really hits the fan they'll be looking to guys that look like me to make sure they make it out OK on the other side of the storm. And I'm okay with that. It's been the way of the world since time began and doesn't cease to be so just because we're much more polite to one another now.

Retro: I'm not going to worry about it. Friends of mine all worked up worrying about Hillary Clinton being our new dictator-in-chief, well, I'd just say that a leftist government like the last 8 years or worse at least is still a government. We have at least a 2-year reprieve pending midterms, but in the meantime all I have to say is #MAGA.

I tend to be cautiously optimistic. I'm holding out hope that increased automation will further human innovation. Sure, there is the risk of laziness. However, people have a tendency to desire work and creative activity. So if you never had to work another day of your life again, what would you do? I'd do whatever I want. Which is, well, what I already do, anyway.

There is protection, and then there is "protection." I was a grad school student in upstate New York back in 2001 when I read a resident student policy that called for "reeducation" for non-compliance. I mean ACTUALLY USED that term. Like something straight out of 1984. So I'm not so naive to think this isn't already happening. Back then leftists were subtle. Heck, they were even nice, and we could have something we used to call "dialogue." Now, 15 years later? Feels a little more like "brave new world" every day!

Ok, going off-topic, sorry... I was hanging out in my gf's dorm room one night when a faculty lady walked in with my gf's roommate. It turns out the grownup was there to remove all sharp objects so the roomie wouldn't self-harm. Now we have big city mayors creating "safe spaces" for ADULTS butthurt about an election. Sure, I was upset about Bill Clinton back in the day, but DANG, it didn't take a professional counselor to talk me off a ledge! But that's just the reality these days.

Getting back to the point, yes, you do sadly have people that actually want the government to think for them and everyone else. And yes, that includes people who have a genuinely held belief that we need protection from ourselves. The best you can do is stay informed and insist on drawing your own conclusions over having your conclusions made for you.

On my wish list for the USA is for Texas to split into at least 4 separate states. In addition, as I recall, the Democratic Party was outspoken about secession back in the mid 1800's. I think if California were to secede right now, they might actually succeed without touching off a major war. Republicans might even encourage them this time!

I'm sorry but feminists are individuals

You can't speak for all of them because they all have different views

You're the best, if not one of the only kind of good Feminist's.

Do you believe a woman should have every right to choose to be a traditional, submissive housewife of her own free will and to have a patriarchal non-abusive household with her husband if this is what they both want?

If so you are truly a 1% Feminist in my humble opinion.

It definitely isn't just overweight and obese men who has body image problems.

It's true for skinny men who feel the pressure to be muscular, etc.

Personally I am a medium/average size for my age and I feel very jealous of guys skinnier or more muscular than me.

I may have more muscle on my body than skinny guys, but they have lower body fats and visible abs which girls my age are attracted to, and more muscular guys are also considered attractive for obvious reasons.

I hate it sometimes, my body is completely average but not out of shape.

I see lots of women say they like skinny guys, lots say they like muscular, lots say they like 'heavier set' who might be a bit chubby/overweight but also have a decent amount of muscle.

But I never see women say they like my type.

I'm not skinny enough for the girls into skinny guys, I'm not big enough for the ones who want a heavy built man, and I'm not muscular for the ones who want muscular guys.



My body is very similar to this guys but slimmer torso as I weigh slightly less. When I googled "male 5'9'' 165lbs/75kg" and saw this picture, straight away I knew 'Yep. Looks familiar and looks about right.'



Can't build muscle at the moment due to recovering from a broken wrist.

All women are free to choose to be that if they want but I wouldn't choose to be with that kind of woman.

I'm attracted to strong, ambitious women. Women who are career-minded. Women who speak up for themselves. Not fawning submissive women who are content to be a housewives.

That guy looks fine. A lot of women don't like extremely muscular guys because they have a reputation for being arrogant jocks who kiss their own biceps. Women want a guy to love them, not a guy who loves himself.

If that guy is 5'9 I'd say he needs to gain a few inches in height.

Height makes a man more impressive more than big muscles. Most of the successful politicians of the last hundred years have been over 6'0