What the fuck is reddit?

This is true, and disgusting. A slow castration of masculinity and the idea of being a father/family unit. Feminists genuinely think that oppressing and abusing men will make up for women being oppressed and abused in the past.

>Le ebin redditors are retarded
No shit. Go back.

It's not that they want to be equal, it's that they want to be at least equal. That's why they talk so much about the gender pay gap, but not about the death gap or homelessness gap, or about the fact that the gender pay gap actually goes the opposite direction (with women making significantly more than men) when it comes to millennials.

I think a lot of men (even progressive men) are coming to the realization that the gender debate has just become a sort of Nietzchean power-struggle between women as a tribe and men as a tribe, rather than a movement for genuine equality (a la 1960s civil rights).

If I had to 'choose' a losing side with millennial, it is without a doubt the young men that are losing. Young men are finding it increasingly difficult to get and keep jobs. However, yes, the us vs. them idea is getting increasingly tiring.

My biggest gripe is the complete ignorance when it comes to male suicide rates. These stats mean literally nothing to feminists. Many of them couldn't care less that our young men feel so disenfranchised that they would rather take their own life. Men have nowhere to go, nowhere to talk, to build bonds, for camaraderie.

Maybe, just maybe, some young men don't want to live in a world where it is normal for your wife to cheat on you and rinse you in a divorce.

>Patriarchy hurts men too
Congrats, you're now a third wave feminist.

where did I say that?

>My biggest gripe is the complete ignorance when it comes to male suicide rates.
The way that stat is spoken about by feminists is so fucked up. They dismiss the problem by saying "well women attempt suicide more," without understanding that there are multiple types of self-harm that speak to different levels of alienation. A woman will self-harm in a way that indicates to other people that she's in emotional pain (she'll cut or take pills), while a man will flat-out kill himself without indicating to anyone beforehand that he was suffering in any way. The latter is a much more pressing problem, but feminists don't care. Women "attempt" suicide more, therefore it's a wash.

I'm not into Tucker Carlson at all, but he did have a very interesting and relevant piece on this recently: youtube.com/watch?v=LrhHkQhglig

Women 100% want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to this. "Patriarchy" won't end until women stop sexually selecting for men who exhibit those traits. I stopped being a sensitive male feminist when I realized that my asshole right wing friends were getting laid way more often. And guess what happened when I started performing masculinity? I got laid way more often. WOMEN PROPAGATE THE PATRIARCHY, NOT MEN.

It comes back to
>become a sort of Nietzchean power-struggle between women as a tribe and men as a tribe
where the response to something like that is "well, women attempt it more!"

>a man will flat-out kill himself without indicating to anyone beforehand that he was suffering in any way
which is both the problem and the symptom.

Once again, there is nowhere for men to go or to talk. Despite what feminists push, it is still frowned upon for a man to show his emotions. This causes a man to build a resentment towards himself and others and will lead to suicide. However, this doesn't matter in 2018, because those victims are male.

>My biggest gripe is the complete ignorance when it comes to male suicide rates. These stats mean literally nothing to feminists. Many of them couldn't care less that our young men feel so disenfranchised that they would rather take their own life. Men have nowhere to go, nowhere to talk, to build bonds, for camaraderie.
True, I agree.

meant to quote

Ah right, I see. I guess because I am young and have essentially been raised in a woman's world I find it hard to see the 'patriarchy' in first-world western countries.

I don't think that that's a problem inherent to a patriarchal society. I think that male spaces are being dismantled and invaded by women (frat houses across the US are being banned), which leaves no space for men to express themselves in ways they know how to. Men are deracinated and atomized in ways they've never been, and we live in an objectively less patriarchal society than we've ever have.

And men don't talk about their problems because women make fun of them when they do. Just see how twitter perceives male losers talking about their issues. They call them bitter and entitled. The female equivalent of male losers, on the other hand, (single moms, drug addicts, whores) are spoken of only in terms of how they're victimized by society.

I suspect that women are literally hardwired not to care about men. Because of how disposable men are genetically (a single man can impregnate an entire society of women, while a single woman can't be impregnated by an entire society of men), I think that women are just incapable of caring about men as a group, but only as individuals, and only when those men are genetically related to them.

They either make fun of them, or just block their ears and pretend it isn't happening.

When I went to therapy, most of my 'male' issues e.g. fragile ego, feeling emasculated, life not aligning to my ambitions were all disregarded with basically a 'it's happening to everyone, get over it'. I tried to point out that the universality of it made it worse for me, but again, completely dismissed.

I was kicked out of therapy when I was deemed not severe enough. I told her every week that I wanted to kill myself, and I guess the fact that I hadn't don't it already made her think I was lying or something. Maybe I am assuming, but I just don't see a young woman in my position being kicked out of therapy like that.

I can't say I agree with your genetic deterministic view at the end there. I think most of these problems are from a cultural shift that has come from the slow rise of feminism into third-wave tyranny.

I know genetic determinism isn't in fashion on Veeky Forums, but I think that there has to be something primordial about male disposability. Even prior to feminism men were the ones expected to take up the burden of physically-dangerous tasks. And whether it's culturally evolved or genetically evolved, the distinction between the cost of male and female procreation explains it in my opinion.

And i'm sorry to hear about your experiences with therapy. The only thing we can do is speak up about it in intelligent ways, and hopefully it'll change someday.

It isn't about men talking through their problems, at least I don't think it is from observation but I don't have a scientific paper on this if you ask for one. Yes there's still a massive stigma about it but it's been encouraged for decades now, it's objectively far more acceptable to say as a man "this is how I feel" than it ever has been. I think the route of the problem is as and pointed out there is nowhere for men to go, but not because they need to go there and talk about there feelings, they just need to go there and feel like they belong, they're an insider in some sort of group with peers they don't need to be on guard with. They can talk about literally anything, sportsball, nerdy Veeky Forums, /a/ or /v/ shit, Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums material is just as good as well, they important thing is having a community they feel like they belong in not talking through their problems, that's a female rather than male trait (not that I'm saying it never helps or is never needed for a male, I'm talking generalities rather than specifics here) and why female social interactions are flowing in compliments, they want reassurance that there feelings are valid, whilst males are generally taking digs and insulting each other, they want reassurance that they belong in the group and don't need to be careful about what they say there.

it obviously cuts both ways. Genetic probabilism is a more accurate outlook

I agree with a lot of what the two anons above have said, but I'll say that we have to avoid resenting women for what is largely the fault of stupid and malevolent "social engineers". I fear a lot of young men are going to end up converting to Islam because they'd rather be the abusers of women than the abused. Gender relations will only be made worse when we hold grudges and harden our hearts towards each other.

>I suspect that women are literally hardwired not to care about men. Because of how disposable men are genetically (a single man can impregnate an entire society of women, while a single woman can't be impregnated by an entire society of men), I think that women are just incapable of caring about men as a group, but only as individuals, and only when those men are genetically related to them.

No, I think women are "genetically hardwired" to care about men in general, it's just that women are sensitive and very easily fucked-up. A woman who marries young to a man she loves and haves children she can look after - most of the time she will be generally pleasant and caring to all the men she meets, and have a general interest in the social welfare of men even if she doesn't have the political understanding of how that should be enacted. Whereas a woman who has been "pumped and dumped" God knows how many times and who has been treated by men as a "cum dumpster" - she quickly becomes emotionally ravaged and filled with resentment towards men. The big lie is that we can have these casual relationships / casual sex where we use contraception to prevent pregnancy and where we don't get emotionally involved - the truth is it's impossible to not get emotionally involved on some level, especially for women, who generally have to fuck themselves up emotionally to be able to have many "casual partners". All this leads is to hard-heartedness, when sex is completely divorced from love and bonding. Also, serial monogamy where people go from one serious partner to the next, getting very emotionally involved only to have their hearts broken and move on to the next person - again, this tends to do more damage to women emotionally.

That's so depressing if that's the case, because the objective of 20th century feminism was to invade every male space and ensure that there was as much of a gender parity in it as possible. Guys have literally nowhere they can exist free from the strain of being around women (whom they have to behave differently around).

>but I think that there has to be something primordial about male disposability
to be honest I agree with you, but I did find that it was these kind of thoughts that lead to my low self-worth. Even if you are disposable to women, that does not make you inherently worthless.

I do believe that it will come to a head in a MGTOW-type fashion, where men will move so far away from the pedestalising of women that we will eventually have a large divide that won't be able to be fixed.

>And i'm sorry to hear about your experiences with therapy. The only thing we can do is speak up about it in intelligent ways, and hopefully it'll change someday.
Thank you, but I genuinely fear for myself and others, and that we will not be helped before it is too late.

We forget how much of male history is defined by the camaraderie between men. Clubs, platoons, teams, etc. The crackdown on 'locker-room banter' is neutering what men can say in private with each other. How exactly is the right? To take away free speech between friends? And then we are surprised when men become lonely and kill themselves.

I heard of one woman in the 60s at the time of the sexual revolution -

A man said, "Isn't contraception great! Now women can be sexually liberated!"

The woman said, "Great, now you can treat us like whores without paying for it."

This is basically the emotional situation of women post-sexual revolution, even if most women are not as blunt and honest as that woman was.

I used to be an islamophobe. At this point I genuinely do not care if they take over the West. I don't have any energy to defend my culture if this sort of alienation is what it inevitably leads to.

This is the thing though, Islamic culture also contains a great deal of alienation. Perhaps it's not as acute as postmodern nihilism, but it's still there. Nietzsche talks about how the Greeks turned to homosexual relations because women were so removed from Greek society, education, and culture that they came to be seen as almost subhuman and unattractive. Islamic cultures also have problems with pederasty, and I imagine for a similar reason. Polygamy and the extreme bondage of women prevents normal relationships / friendship between men and women, which is alienation.

You don't think that these problems arose out of particular material innovations, like birth control and online dating, rather than just shifts in values?

>I don't have any energy to defend my culture if this sort of alienation is what it inevitably leads to.
This. Western culture is a sickness and I don't care what happens to it anymore.

Women have to allow themselves to be fucked and treated like trash by lots of men. And they do it because they enjoy it on some level. If it fucks them up emotionally, I don't see any reason to pity them.

I'm not defending Islamic culture, but at least everyone has a discernible place. Ideally it would a Spanish Al-Andalus situation, where Islamism is mediated by a certain openness regarding outside knowledge.

>ITT: ressentiment

The most hilarious thing in the world is when feminists talk about how MRA types are just mad at how they're perceived sexually by women, as if the entire selling-point of their philosophy isn't their sexual treatment by men.

Also, I've been thinking recently that perhaps our current condition in the West is not as bad as it seems. The break down of all our ancient culture and tradition might be necessary so that we might come to realise the real importance of such things. I'm thinking for example of "cultural Christians" where people were Christian more out of convention than out of sincere faith and devotion. The central point of Kierkegaard's writing is that we'd all become sham Christians without any real faith or sincerity. Before the '60s we may have still had some of the outer trappings of Western civilisation, but the heart of it was long gone. What matters is not really manners, culture, art, tradition, custom, etc., what really matters is creed or what people call "ideology". In some ways the millennial who is authentically searching for some creed or ideology, something to believe in, is in a better situation than a man in the 1950s who was Christian by mere convention. I'm a convert to Catholicism out of genuine faith, not because I think it's what "Western civilisation" might need. Although I do happen to think that the only "ideology" that can restore it is Catholicism.

> This. Western culture is a sickness and I don't care what happens to it anymore.

As above, "western culture" as such doesn't really matter. It's not the loss of the cathedrals, the symphonies, and the refinement of manners that matters - it's the loss of that faith which inspired them that matters. Nietzsche's parable of the madman where he speaks of people in the West not realising just how momentous an occasion the "death of God" is - is spot on. Many western intellectuals have looked for sham ideologies to help fill the void, but things won't improve until there is a mass realisation that there is no replacement for God.

I referenced contraception. Technological innovations have definitely mattered, but the shift in values is the primary thing. For example, it's not the invention of contraception so much as the petty bourgeois attitude towards marriage where it's more about individual comfort and social attainment than about family as such, which causes people to artificially limit their families in order to live more "well-off".

SeeDismissing reasonable critiques of feminism because of how the ideology personally affected the people making those critiques is a bitch move

Damn... I love feminism now. There's a French word to dismiss all the pain it's caused people so I guess it's fine.

I think it's likely that one of the reasons that we're at the point we are *is* Christianity, not the lack of it.

>plague soaked island
Oh yeah, one of those.

I can't even imagine a day when Christian prescriptions regarding monogamy and women in the workforce are taken seriously again. That ship has sailed and sunk.

This. Jesus literally defended a roastie getting stoned for adultery, and refused to fight back when he was tortured. Christianity is a religion of self-debasement.

>Women have to allow themselves to be fucked and treated like trash by lots of men. And they do it because they enjoy it on some level. If it fucks them up emotionally, I don't see any reason to pity them.

This is the hard-heartedness I was talking about. Behind every whore there is a damaged little girl that just wants to be loved and looked after, but they become so used to being treated this way that they believe it's the only form of love they can get from a man. Women have a very strong desire to be loved and care for by a man, but they also have a very strong desire to please men. So when they are surrounded by men that want to use them like whores, they suffer an interior conflict - whether to reject them and wait for a man that will love them properly, or give in to them in order to please them. A lot of women give in to the men and allow themselves to be mistreated, which leaves them emotionally stunted and confused. The big lie invented in the 60s is that it's natural for human beings to have sex like insects and just sleep around without any emotional involvement. This has left many women emotionally devastated because they don't know whether to give in to the new social convention and to the desires of men and allow themselves to be used, or to follow their natural need for a man to love and commit to them before sex. Plus they've been trained to be ashamed of their motherly instincts and desire for children and to pursue careerism instead.

I just don't care. I'll never get an ounce of sympathy from women about anything I've been through. If they've been hurt by their ideology that they love so much, tough shit.

>Christianity is a religion of self-debasement.
True, but a religion of self-abasement for the sake of love, whereas paganism is a matter of debasing yourself for the sake of pride and ambition.

I don't think Christianity is so much against women in the workforce. Women did work in the middle ages, it's just that motherhood / family was given a priority. The idea that a woman should be some doll house-wife is more of a Victorian thing than a genuinely Christian one.

As for monogamy - it's natural to human beings. It's what people truly want even if their sexual instincts sometimes mess it up for them.

I can't imagine that a woman's sexual masochism is learned. It seems to be more something she has to reveal despite its taboo nature rather than a coping mechanism of having to deal with emotionally-distant men. What is this is just what female sexuality looks like?

>I'll never get an ounce of sympathy from women about anything I've been through.

Not true. If a woman loves you she will give you more sympathy than any other human being, even your own mother. It's just that it can take time for a woman to genuinely fall in love.

>True, but a religion of self-abasement for the sake of love,
You don't say.

Attached: lovewins.jpg (1200x628, 30K)

Like I said, they have a natural desire to please men and to bend to the man's desires. By nature, she wants the man to love, caress, and care for her; but if the man wants to abuse her instead, her desire to please the man can lead her to that masochism you describe. It's just a corruption of the woman's naturally submissive and devoted nature.

>If a woman loves you she will give you more sympathy than any other human being,
I've been with plenty of women in my life and this has never happened. I've never seen it, which makes me think that it doesn't exist.

Yeah there's a great difference between the love of a crucified Christ and the "love" in a gay bar.

Honestly all your posts read like some dumb Christian shit about how men should marry single mothers and used-up whores because they're "victims." Fuck off.

There isn't when we're talking about abasing ourselves (and our families, nations, culture, etc) for the sake of others.

I don't think that there's a separation between a woman's sexual and emotional submissiveness. It's not a "corruption," it's part of the same mode of being.

I don't think it's ideal to marry a single mother or a used-up whore, but it's better than remaining bitter and resentful to women. I don't think they are entirely victims either - they are clearly guilty in many cases, often more guilty than men. But it still doesn't help to bear a grudge, especially when we're in such confused times as ours and people don't really know what they're doing half the time. I mean for God's sake, how many young women are cutting themselves for no discernible reason? How can you not feel sorry for them on some level?

I agree with that. All I'm saying is that their submissiveness can cause them to submit to a man who is abusive, rather than submit to a man who loves them and genuinely has their interest at heart.

I'm not accusing you of anything, but how many of the women you've been with have you genuinely loved and cared about?

t. ressentiment
memes aside, and I say this as someone who doesn't give a shit about women's or men's sexual issues, you should go talk to actual feminists. Circlejerking like ledditors is dumb and cowardly, if you want to actually learn something you need to talk with the opposite side.

>All I'm saying is that their submissiveness can cause them to submit to a man who is abusive, rather than submit to a man who loves them and genuinely has their interest at heart.
The problem is that i've been with women who perceive non-abusive sex as boring, and subtly demand that I treat them worse in that regard. It's not that they accept aggressive men, it's that they prefer them. Not all, obviously. But a decent percentage of them. And these women aren't "broken" abuse victims either.

>How can you not feel sorry for them on some level?
Your posts are the equivalent of asking homeless people why they aren't worried about middle-class alienation.

>The actual effects of X on your lives and the real world don't matter; you'll understand if you just study the theory behind it
Okay.

How do you know we don't? I have these conversations with women irl now and then. Problem is that the "mansplaining" accusation is a way of dismissing our points of view without having to actually engage with them.

At least 3 of them. And then I stopped once I realized that those feelings were never reciprocated. It's easier to detach yourself emotionally.

What does feminism have to say about the fact that 84% of women on tinder get dates while only 15% of men do?

I'm saying that circlejerking is pathetic and useless, retard. Dialogue is how society changes and evolves. How are womemes supposed to understand your problems if you don't talk with them?
Honestly I've never been accused of mansplaining but I've probably been lucky in this regard.

How the fuck am I supposed to know? Go and ask them. Use your goddamn right to free speech. Try not being purposefully infiammatory.

>Dialogue is how society changes and evolves. How are womemes supposed to understand your problems if you don't talk with them?
Yeah I'll go tell them what I think so I can be accused of mansplaining and called a bigot. I'll get right on it.

>I'm saying that circlejerking is pathetic and useless, retard. Dialogue is how society changes and evolves
Dude, talking with people who agree with you is how you actually form and sharpen your arguments. It's like a debating whetstone. It's also never something asked of feminists. They're not expected to go out and change the minds of men who disagree with them. In fact, expecting them to do so is perceived as problematic.

>Use your goddamn right to free speech.
Today that gets you fired from your job and ostracized, so I'll pass.

All I read in these posts is
>waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah women are mean waaaaaaaah life is unfair
First, I'm not defending feminism and feminists because I literally don't give fuck so please stop telling me that they're bad like it's my fault or something. Second, what I'm telling you is that since you guys clearly live this predicament everyday you have a better perspective on it so you should get out there and try to fix it. And dialogue, when do in a earnest way, is the starting point of all change. If a womeme accuses you of being a bigot who gives a fuck? If the feminists of the past managed to change society like they wanted you can do it too.

when done*

Yeah, these women want to abuse themselves and to become whores (at least emotionally) just for the sexual pleasure in it - they care more about the pleasure than the love/bonding with the man The problem is that once you give in to their stupid demand to debase them, they will have the emotional justification to cheat on you - they'd just be acting according to they're whorish desires (which you encouraged) by sleeping with other men. With these kinds of women you basically need to force them to love themselves and to treat themselves better, and to be treated as women (wives) and not whores - of course, you can never really force them, but you can at least demand it of them and get rid of them if they keep on refusing.

lol. I get your point but you have to admit that your resentment is fundamentally down to you and not them, however much women may have mistreated you. If you are so jaded that you can't feel sorry for them anymore that's your own problem.

Reddit thinks the absolute height of art is photorealistic pencil copies of celebrity press photographies.
Just ignore any opinion from over there.

>If you are so jaded that you can't feel sorry for them anymore that's your own problem.
It's actually not a problem because I don't feel anything from it. You're the one asking me to get upset about something I don't care about.

>Reddit thinks the absolute height of art is photorealistic pencil copies of celebrity press photographies.
To be fair 4cheng thinks that the absolute height of art is Bouguereau

When you've become so hard-hearted that you can't love anymore you're more dead than alive. This is the tragedy. Smiling at it cynically won't make it right.

ShinDol and Asanagi maybe.

>Before the '60s we may have still had some of the outer trappings of Western civilisation, but the heart of it was long gone
agree 100%. That's also the flaw in nat soc's forcible upholding of culture. I think we need to come up with something new, but I don't think it's something that's in our power to do consciously. Events will arise as culture gets more chaotic and something either will or will not emerge.

why secular humanists interpret everything in terms of power, authority, submission and think women who select men to service them are submissive to men?

Shill

Wanting to get slapped and have your hair pulled is genuine submissiveness

would be mildly redeemable if the ship guy wasn't like "we ain't selling" it just seems like the author was trying too hard to subvert the expectation of the reader

>This shit plagues everything. Isn't one of the benefits of being human our ability to make behavioral choices that may go against our 'nature'? Is this not how we have ended up with advanced technologies and societies?
redditor: umm sweatie you should just ignore ur natural distaste of these disgusting behaviors in that case lol

>this short story is shit guys
>thread turns into "the philosophy of the modern cuckold"
nice! and i'm not being ironic.

Reddit is even more underage than we are.

only forced cuckholdry is hot (aka darky rapes your gf). that's one to keep in your fantasies i think.

this

I liked it

Good discussion about the OP we're having.

>I mean for God's sake, how many young women are cutting themselves for no discernible reason? How can you not feel sorry for them on some level?
i can't empathize with something that is so completely an alien concept to me as injuring yourself to garner cheap attention, sorry

>if you want to actually learn something you need to talk with the opposite side
i don't need to, when, they talk to me, without my consent, constantly, and, in every form of media

go back to pol

that's not dialogue user

Hey Fellow Redditors, Just Stoppin By To Let You Know To Stay On Topic (SOT) At All Times! Bazinga!

>what a shitty writing
you mean "what shitty writing"

>don't judge them by what they do, but what they say to your face
okay