Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

robotnixon

Members
  • Content count

    593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About robotnixon

  • Rank
    Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ
  1. This is one of the best posts ever.

  2. Respect! Your reasoning here in this thread is quite impressive! Where did you get all that theory from?

  3. Pedantic point, but "prescribed" and "proscribed" aren't the same thing. I think you mean "prescribed gender roles" here.

  4. I've obviously struck a chord here, because you're agitated. Feminism can't be about women. Indeed, women don't exist by the standards of many feminists (i.e. there is no gender binary). Feminism is about decoupling societal roles from [binary/socially assigned] biological sex. And if it isn't, then it is a fairly shitty movement. Fuck the old boy's club, fuck your dreams of an old girl's club. I'm going to get drunk and play board games.
  5. Gee, you might think twice about putting that on the brochures. I seem to recall a series of posters at my rather progressive university featuring men saying that feminism was about them (nor was it the view of the self-declared feminists I dated - including one women's studies professor). So it was all a nice hug? A sop to increase recruitment? Your version of feminism is no different from the MRA cesspit you despise, with different beneficiaries. It's an unfortunate attitude as well. The political tipping point for the civil rights movement happened when white people marched in the streets and embraced civil rights. The tipping point for the gay rights movement came as homosexuality achieved mainstream acceptance. That happened because different people recognized - if for a moment - their common humanity. "Hey, they're people just like me". And that momentum stopped when the conversation changed from "how can we make a beautiful world together" to "how do I get mine". ---------- Post added 06-22-2013 at 10:07 AM ---------- I don't contest that. In fact, I said that pretty clearly. But the repercussions aren't just about me, they are about people like me. If there is no place for men that defy their proscribed gender roles in the status quo (indeed, if there is less of a place for them than there was in the 1950's), why should they sign onto such a system?
  6. So it's okay to talk about income inequality between men and women, but not okay to talk about non-economic inequalities? That is a ridiculous proposition, and it underscores why income equality between men and women represents inequality. When people take higher risks, they tend to get higher rewards (to compensate for the fact that they might die or be seriously injured). Disproportionately the fields that follow this pattern employ men - mining, the military, etc. I wouldn't lay the blame for inequality in reproductive success at the doorstep of either gender. It is the fault of men for sleeping around, and the fault of women for allowing their sexual desire for an "alpha" male to trump their reason (unless their goal is genuinely to sleep around). But there is an important way in which feminism encourages this behavior. There are two subsets of the sexual marketplace - there's a LTR market and a sex market. In the latter, women have much greater power, in the former, men can command a better "deal", due to the different sex drives between men and women. When feminists encourage young women to "have it all" - delaying marriage and childbirth - they ensure that people will be socialized in the sex market. This gives women inflated senses of their sexual market value. I have a friend who is average-looking and of average accomplishments. She was seeing a doctor with an Ivy League pedigree, and a very attractive musician - options which she felt were rather "meh". After women "eat, pray and love", and decide they want to settle down, they will find it difficult to adjust their expectations "why are there no good men?" In addition, the kind of men they now desire (men they turned down) are often poorer lovers, lacking the experience of the kind of men they used to bed. Their prime reproductive years have been monopolized, and they have been socialized to desire things that are incompatible with a relationship. This is why the feminist project will fail. Retrosexual males without the norms of the pre-sexual revolution era to constrain them are a serious problem. Feminism let them out of the bottle. Either you need a new man, or you need to go back to retrosexual expectations for women. The status quo is unstable, and harmful for a lot of people. I'd love to have the 1950's without proscribed gender roles, but it really isn't in the cards. I am single because I desire a sexually dominant female, and because I exude submissive qualities that are not desired in the sexual marketplace. There are substantially more submissive males than there are dominant females. Even though I am a good catch (people are interested in me in the non-BDSM sexual marketplace), it is virtually impossible to have a real relationship My viable options are: -be a cuckold to a desirable domme -develop a network of -have a relationship with an extremely ugly domme -have a relationship (with a mostly unsatisfying sex-life) with a desirable non-dominant woman -abandon the straight dating market (I vastly prefer dating Queer folk) -experience continued rejection Bullshit. Trade as a percent of US GDP is about 25%, versus 12.5% in the late 60s. Outsourcing represents a tiny percentage of jobs, mostly ones people don't want anyway. The vast majority of "global" corporations are regional if you look at their sales data. Globalization can explain changes in a few specific industries, but not all or most. I don't hate feminism. I view a world in which a person's sex ceases to be an important determinant of their outcomes in life. I do have some resentment towards the contemporary feminist project. It has harmed lower status males by abolishing male privilege but not female privilege. More people in the workplace means depressed wages, especially at the lower end where barriers to entry are weakest. The weakening of monogamy decreases the ability of low-status men to find love. Worse, as women rise in status, but do not adjust their desire to marry up, fewer men are able to monopolize the sexual marketplace. What we need is monogamy 2.0. That means social sanctions on promiscuous men and baby daddies. But it also means adjusted expectations and partner selection by women.
  7. The goal of feminism is to dismantle the patriarchy. You aren't doing a very good job of that if the position of the patriarchy is advancing (albeit at the cost of low status makes, as opposed to women). And if you haven't noticed there are efforts to create a "feminism" for men. That is what the men's rights movement is, that is what girlwriteswhat is trying to do. There are different voices in the man-o-sphere, sure, just as there are different voices under the umbrella of feminism. ---------- Post added 06-22-2013 at 08:05 AM ---------- But feminism hasn't challenged that power structure. Feminists harp on aggregate statistics showing inequality. The old boys club clucks in agreement (most corporations explicitly endorse feminist values), and redistributes resources from lower status males to women. They also laugh a little as women, now endowed with greater professional status, still yearn for higher status males than themselves. There isn't a cock carousel, exactly, but the sexual marketplace is less equitable (in terms of outcomes) than it once was. ---------- Post added 06-22-2013 at 08:46 AM ---------- It's economics. This is the labour force participation rate of the United States. From the 60s to the 90s, it surged (it has since fallen, though if you look at what industries crashed in the depression, they are industries that primarily hire men - manufacturing and construction). If you greatly expand the labour force, the bargaining position of employers will be substantially stronger. And the effects will be most pronounced where there are the fewest barriers to entry (i.e. low-skill jobs). What else can explain productivity-wage decoupling? Some people talk about globalization, but this misses the fact that the US doesn't trade that much. While it's true that the trend has been less pronounced among workers with advanced degrees, they haven't gotten much of a share of the pie either. If you look at Edward Saez's data, 45% of the income gains from 1993-2000 went to the richest 1%, as did 65% of the income gains from 2002-2007. This isn't a story about new industries creating demand for skills at the expense of blue collar workers. Let me clarify that I do think women should compete as equals in the workplace. But the free-for-all of the past 50 years has not served the interests of the vast majority of people. Homemaking is not only a socially valuable role, it is also an important source of market power for workers - fewer people on the job market means employers have bargaining less power. The 2008 mancession should have produced a beautiful new world in which newly unemployed workers became parents (indeed, there's a vast sea of father-less households that could use a dad). Of course that hasn't happened, and it hasn't precisely because feminists like plotthickens care only about abolishing male privilege. Trading on one's sensitivity, submissiveness, nurturing qualities, etc. is not likely to succeed in the dating market for men. Indeed, feminists have created the "nice guy" construct precisely to demonize such men - recasting them as pseudo-rapists (obviously some nice guys are exploitative jerks). Moreover, it is least likely to succeed among feminists! I went on dates with 45 women in the past year (I'm not bragging - I'm still single and I don't care about notches in my bedpost - it's just a pretty large sample of gals... and one guy). I am a fairly good embodiment of the post-feminist man. I hate socially proscribed gender roles, because I fit the masculine one so poorly. I subscribed to feminist values until recently, I am submissive, I am feminine and am very open to dating a woman that is my equal (or superior). Greater professional accomplishment, greater physical strength, more confidence - all of these are things I view as strong positives. A large percentage of the women I dated were self-avowed feminists, with whom I made little headway. There were two sub-groups here: straight feminist women disliked me because I wasn't sexually aggressive and dominant (and a number of them said as much). My straight, feminist friends exhibit similar behavior, dating high-status men and dropping them at a moment's notice. The bisexual feminists I dated liked me more, but were only interested in me as a cuckold. i.e. they were polyamorous and wanted me as a side-fling (some had boyfriends, others a network of men they slept with). The only women that strongly appreciated my adherence to feminist virtues were non-feminists. And indeed it makes sense that this would be the case. Being more likely to be marriage-minded, they would tend to prize the skills that make one a good mate. Moreover, much of what feminism has done is envy masculinity, while devaluing femininity. Cue accusations of my being butthurt. They're partly true, sure, because I don't see the point of endorsing a system that precludes me from finding the highest of human aspirations - love - precisely because I embody its values.
  8. Your boyfriend is really 5'10. But you're so short that everybody looks tall to you, and given the degree to which you fetishize height it's no wonder that he had to lie his way to the tallest 5%.
  9. But this is a case of GENDER INEQUALITY, which they are supposed to care about. It's their fucking mission statement. ---------- Post added 06-21-2013 at 10:17 PM ---------- But the different experience of men and women is baked into that choice. STEM is hard, and those studying it have a high probability of failure. Women only need to be mediocre in order to accomplish the basic goals that most humans have (love, material comfort), and thus do not need to become engineers. But that's yet another reason that the adjustments required by feminism are likely to fall on the poorest men - people that endure worse lives than women (even poor women) already. Also, the biggest gap is at the top 1%, where you aren't talking about engineers but CEO's.
  10. I think a lot of the debate is missing the point, which I think girlwriteswhat makes most strongly. There are disadvantages to being male that amount to a glass floor: -more likely to be homeless -more likely to die on the job (or the battlefield) -more likely to be in jail -"women and children first" And combined with that, men are less likely to have support networks that women do - we are discouraged from expressing emotions or asking for help. Men also face greater challenges in finding love than women do (historically 40% of men reproduced vs. 80% of women). I have seen precious little effort from feminists to highlight these issues, even if they don't contend with them in practice. Moreover, many of the specific policy solutions proposed by feminists make matters worse. The gender gap in income (and agency) is greatest at the higher echelons of society. But something like equal hiring/equal pay legislation isn't going to have any impact on the hiring of well-paid professionals. They are too specialized for anything but truly asinine legislation to have an effect. Moreover, there are other structural barriers to advancement into high offices by women - childbirth, obviously, but also motivation. Men are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the exceptional because of the 40-80 problem. To find love, men must achieve great things, while women need but exist. So what have we seen over the past 30 years? We've seen rising gender equality, amidst a serious downturn in income equality. Indeed, though GDP has increased greatly, the median male worker earns no more in real terms than he did in 1969. In this environment of intense labour market competition at the low end, employers were able to de-unionize and deregulate. And as marriages crumbled left, right and center in the wake of the sexual revolution (disproportionately hitting the poorest) many people ended up much poorer than in the 60's. Ask yourself this - if you're a rich white man, are you better off today (both absolutely and more importantly, relative to others) than you were 50 years ago in the "bad old days"? If the answer is "yes", and no progressive can deny that it is (cue inequality graph), what exactly has feminism accomplished? Low status males are the most marginalized group in society. Feminism, while possessed of good intentions, challenges elite males (who occupy the best position) in theory, but hurts low status males in practice.
  11. I think it is because the black sexual marketplace is slanted heavily against women. An appreciable percentage of young black males are incarcerated, and even ignoring that, the achievement gap is big. Moreover, it is harder for black women to date outside their race (you can dig up the relevant data on Okcupid's blog) than it is for black men. When good men are in short supply, you probably do get something like the cock carousel. And indeed, a lot of the negative social effects predicted in the piece do show up in spades in the African American sub-population. I don't think this has to do with race, by the way. In Sub-Saharan Africa, traditional marriage systems are reasonably stable (as they were in black America in the 50's).
  12. What kind of masculinity are you talking about - it's a multidimensional thing. Somebody might want a physically dominant mate with a young girlish face and inferior social status (e.g. they might want to fuck the poolboy). Is this a desire for masculinity? Femininity?
  13. I'm a sub, and if I resist you it is only because it is much much hotter when you try to overpower/take me. Clarifying that would kill the mood. If I don't want to have sex with you, I'll say "no". No means no unambiguously. Obviously some people may choose to communicate disinterest in less direct ways, but if their partner doesn't recognize the signals they are sending, it's the fault of the sender.
  14. I think part of the misconception comes from the belief among guys that they are not being sexually successful because they haven't slept with 10 or so women a year. I was actually surprised at how low the numbers were. The median male only has 8 lifetime sexual partners. When people have unrealistic expectations, they can be easily bamboozled into the belief that they are being jilted. That said, I almost wish some sort of alpha beta world prevailed. I do better in the general dating market than when I conduct more specialized searches. Male submissives are much more common than female dommes. As a result, satisfying my sexual nature puts me at a disadvantage (and in the fetlife world, a disproportionate number of female dommes are either professional or married to a dom but looking for a play partner... submission with intimacy and an LTR may not be in the cards for me... ah well - at least it's not as bad as when I used to fantasize about sex with women sporting genitalia that does not exist in nature). Also, granted that we are not wolves, is there some parsimonious way to summarize the human sexual marketplace?
  15. More recently I have become concerned that contemporary feminism poses a problem for the sexual marketplace due to the continuation of certain traditional female privilege (i.e. hypergamy, women marrying up) amidst workplace equality. As women gain economic status, there will be fewer higher status men available for them. Without social institutions discouraging promiscuity (namely monogamy), you get the oft-cited 80-20 problem. The most desirable 20% of men can monopolize the prime reproductive years of the majority of women, maintaining multiple partners (elegantly argued here: http://antimisandry.com/facts-figures/there-no-longer-someone-everyone-3653.html.) The result is rather dismal for everybody but desirable males. Most men become bitter and sexless (and buy copies of "The Game"). Women enjoy riding the "cock carousel" fulfilling their short-term sexual needs but then... kerplunk: It was with that in mind that I was rather heartened by an effort to actually look at the data on the number of sexual partners Americans have. The evidence does not support the 80-20 hypothesis. http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/ 10.4% of men and 6.8% of women (aged 15-44) had 3+ partners in the last year. The mode, by far, was for people to have had a single partner as was the case for 67.9% of men and 72.3% of women. More women than men had not had a sexual partner in the previous year (17.7% vs. 15.4%). In short, the sex party for "alpha" males portrayed by the manosphere has a different character. "Alphas" are not gaming "betas" out of nookie. Rather, there is a small subset of the sexual marketplace occupied by a few relatively promiscuous males that have sex with a slightly smaller group of relatively promiscuous females. In fact, the CDC data shows that the majority of sex that is happening in the United States takes place within married couples. Perhaps there are some advantages to projecting the "beta" characteristics that signal mate quality.