The red pill movie. A 0?!

Recommended Videos

Combustion Kevin

New member
Nov 17, 2011
1,206
0
0
The Decapitated Centaur said:
Sounds like a problem with people's concept of masculinity. Quite frankly I'd say it seems like the thing to fix is this atrocious concept of masculinity and this pathetic desire to appear masculine. It's so utterly unnecessary and it is detrimental.
So I have to ask, "What exactly is masculinity and why do people hold it dear to them?"
What is so important about the masculine identity?

Masculinity is actually quite fluid, historically speaking, several strange fads (Like the dueling craze in Germany and Austria in the 19th century) have arisen and faded again, but there are also traits that persist, one such an example is that it is men must risk their lives first for the sake of their children and women folk, the military comes to mind.
Other observable traits that are persistent are the emphasis on strength, self-sacrifice and affluence, more on that later.

Another persistent trait is that men must impress women, we are a sexually competitive species after all, usually by means of some sort of contest but not always so, it can also be done by means of display.
You ever wonder why men buy expensive watches in the digital age when clocks are EVERYWHERE? or why they buy expensive cars and suits while less expensive brands fulfill the exact same purpose just as well? it would appear very unmanly to value items more based on aesthetic rather than function, right?
These are social status symbols that represent affluence, and affluence is one of those core ideals, it is very important to attracting a mate.

Strength is another ideal and is far simpler in it's expression as well as it's application:
Strength is useful, it allows one to be stronger and more industrious than someone that has lesser strength, however, this trait is becoming increasingly less relevant since the digital age but still retain some use, not everything can be automated and strong people are still needed in today's society.

Self-sacrifice is a tricky one, it can be expressed in many different forms but can generally be split up in two different categories: commitment and charity.
Charity is easy, because that can also be used to signal affluence, but we are also still a social species and we value people who act in an altruistic fashion, this is a generally valued trait.
For commitment, I want you to remember all those cheesy romantic movies you've seen throughout your life, you know the ones, "boy and girl fall in love, boy does something girl doesn't like, boy gets shit together and impresses girl, love speech follows and they ride into the sunset.", you'll often notice (though not always, I'm sure) that it is the boy that has to prove themselves and commit to their love interest to win her affection.

As simplistic as Hollywood tropes are, this is often how the human mating dance works, the men must show their commitment through material and personal investment, paying for dinner, buying the engagement ring or, indeed, providing the majority of the household income are examples of very material ways of expressing it, paying homage, compliments and professing their affection are signs of personal investment.

So, why is this rambling relevant?

The Decapitated Centaur said:
I think that ties into your play the game talk in the post above it too. You're defending people clinging on to a concept they don't need to. Their choice to cling on unnecessarily is their own problem, not something for reason to cave to.
It does very much tie into my game talk indeed, and I would pose that "masculinity" is all about making yourself useful and attractive to the opposite sex for the sake of mating and child raising, it's a concept as old as humanity itself and this is what I think of when I think of the term "masculinity".
So by that reasoning, it would make total sense for men to stick to that concept, it's how they get married in the first place, it's how they rise up in the eyes of their peers and are deemed worthy of respect, why would clinging to this be a pathetic thing to do? what is so atrocious about it?

And no, I believe "unemotional" and "homophobic" are not part of masculinity, tears used to be a sign of integrity and if a man would shed them it was a sign that he actually gave a shit, this is a very recent development.
Homophobia as it exists today is a product of the gay-scare back in the 40s and 50s and was intentionally linked to predatory and pedophilic practices, the consequences of which we still witness and suffer to this day, this persecution was carried out by men and women alike.
 

Combustion Kevin

New member
Nov 17, 2011
1,206
0
0
Smithnikov said:
Combustion Kevin said:
I don't think women need to be forced to stay at home, they would love to, and men would too if they could afford it
I'll thank you not to tell me or other people what they want out of life, please.

And I would rather be at my job than having to wrangle a midget psychopath for an equal amount of time. I hate kids.
Pardon me, let me rephrase that, then.

I don't think mothers need to be forced to stay at home, they would love to, and fathers would too if they could afford it.

Because, lets be real, if you actually hate kids you should probably not be having them. :)
 

Smithnikov_v1legacy

New member
May 7, 2016
1,020
1
0
Combustion Kevin said:
Smithnikov said:
Combustion Kevin said:
I don't think women need to be forced to stay at home, they would love to, and men would too if they could afford it
I'll thank you not to tell me or other people what they want out of life, please.

And I would rather be at my job than having to wrangle a midget psychopath for an equal amount of time. I hate kids.
Pardon me, let me rephrase that, then.

I don't think mothers need to be forced to stay at home, they would love to, and fathers would too if they could afford it.

Because, lets be real, if you actually hate kids you should probably not be having them. :)
You didn't rephrase anything.

And one would THINK that would be the case, but if what you say is true, I secretly harbor a desire to stay home and deal with thie little shits...
 

Combustion Kevin

New member
Nov 17, 2011
1,206
0
0
Smithnikov said:
You didn't rephrase anything.

And one would THINK that would be the case, but if what you say is true, I secretly harbor a desire to stay home and deal with thie little shits...
So wait, you're a parent and you hate kids?
No offense, but that sounds like a terrible life choice! D:

Like, do you hate your own kids too?
 

Secondhand Revenant

Recycle, Reduce, Redead
Legacy
Oct 29, 2014
2,566
141
68
Baator
Country
The Nine Hells
Gender
Male
Combustion Kevin said:
The Decapitated Centaur said:
Sounds like a problem with people's concept of masculinity. Quite frankly I'd say it seems like the thing to fix is this atrocious concept of masculinity and this pathetic desire to appear masculine. It's so utterly unnecessary and it is detrimental.
So I have to ask, "What exactly is masculinity and why do people hold it dear to them?"
What is so important about the masculine identity?

Masculinity is actually quite fluid, historically speaking, several strange fads (Like the dueling craze in Germany and Austria in the 19th century) have arisen and faded again, but there are also traits that persist, one such an example is that it is men must risk their lives first for the sake of their children and women folk, the military comes to mind.
Other observable traits that are persistent are the emphasis on strength, self-sacrifice and affluence, more on that later.

Another persistent trait is that men must impress women, we are a sexually competitive species after all, usually by means of some sort of contest but not always so, it can also be done by means of display.
You ever wonder why men buy expensive watches in the digital age when clocks are EVERYWHERE? or why they buy expensive cars and suits while less expensive brands fulfill the exact same purpose just as well? it would appear very unmanly to value items more based on aesthetic rather than function, right?
These are social status symbols that represent affluence, and affluence is one of those core ideals, it is very important to attracting a mate.

Strength is another ideal and is far simpler in it's expression as well as it's application:
Strength is useful, it allows one to be stronger and more industrious than someone that has lesser strength, however, this trait is becoming increasingly less relevant since the digital age but still retain some use, not everything can be automated and strong people are still needed in today's society.

Self-sacrifice is a tricky one, it can be expressed in many different forms but can generally be split up in two different categories: commitment and charity.
Charity is easy, because that can also be used to signal affluence, but we are also still a social species and we value people who act in an altruistic fashion, this is a generally valued trait.
For commitment, I want you to remember all those cheesy romantic movies you've seen throughout your life, you know the ones, "boy and girl fall in love, boy does something girl doesn't like, boy gets shit together and impresses girl, love speech follows and they ride into the sunset.", you'll often notice (though not always, I'm sure) that it is the boy that has to prove themselves and commit to their love interest to win her affection.

As simplistic as Hollywood tropes are, this is often how the human mating dance works, the men must show their commitment through material and personal investment, paying for dinner, buying the engagement ring or, indeed, providing the majority of the household income are examples of very material ways of expressing it, paying homage, compliments and professing their affection are signs of personal investment.

So, why is this rambling relevant?

The Decapitated Centaur said:
I think that ties into your play the game talk in the post above it too. You're defending people clinging on to a concept they don't need to. Their choice to cling on unnecessarily is their own problem, not something for reason to cave to.
It does very much tie into my game talk indeed, and I would pose that "masculinity" is all about making yourself useful and attractive to the opposite sex for the sake of mating and child raising, it's a concept as old as humanity itself and this is what I think of when I think of the term "masculinity".
So by that reasoning, it would make total sense for men to stick to that concept, it's how they get married in the first place, it's how they rise up in the eyes of their peers and are deemed worthy of respect, why would clinging to this be a pathetic thing to do? what is so atrocious about it?

And no, I believe "unemotional" and "homophobic" are not part of masculinity, tears used to be a sign of integrity and if a man would shed them it was a sign that he actually gave a shit, this is a very recent development.
Homophobia as it exists today is a product of the gay-scare back in the 40s and 50s and was intentionally linked to predatory and pedophilic practices, the consequences of which we still witness and suffer to this day, this persecution was carried out by men and women alike.
It is pathetic because as talked about in the prior post it is about image. One can have good values because they are good. You can praise and value self-sacrifice or strength without it becoming a gendered thing. Masculinity has no value on its own. Any trait associated is good because the trait is worthwhile in and of itself. It's like praising Christianity because of charity. One can be charitable without it. The correct thing to do is praise charity instead. Praise self-sacrifice and strength if you like. I'd say the protect the women and children thing is garbage, protect those who you can within your ability sure, gender has nothing to do wit it.

If you're taking your cues from movies then blame yourself. If you choose to adhere to these traditions and defend them rather than break from them then don't you dare ask others to bow to your choice to live that way when reason dictates otherwise. There is a cultural norm for these interactions, okay. Doesn't meant it is a good one. If you choose to follow it and not fight it then don't ask that people ignore the importance of a primary caregiver just because of how you chose to live.

This 'mating dance' stuff is nonsense and an approach you chose to adhere to get what you want. It's your choice to do it. Personally I wouldn't bother with someone who would want me to adhere to it. Reeks of desperation to me because it involves being something I'm not and have no intenation of being. The standard dance lacks the honesty, openness, and equal respect for each I expect. If you want to adhere to it, go ahead, but why should I sympathize and believe things should change for a choice? They're the natural negatives that come with it.

And to reiterate why I hate it, because as a system for worth it is awful. It isn't valuing qualities for their own sake, it's doing it for appearance and for the shitty reason of gender. A quality that is good for someone should be good regardless of gender. What is good behavior is a standard that I think applies for all humans and masculinity says otherwise, it adds gender into the equation for what is good. That is something I find atrocious. That and that doing things for the sake of masculinity is valuing them for the wrong reasons.

Also it only raises you in the eyes of your peers if they buy into it to. I see no reason anyone should be buying into it.

Lastly, you don't get to dictate what masculinity is. It doesn't have some true form. It's a shared cultural thing. What it is is a standard that changes when people's ideas of it change. If current ideas of it are no emotion and homophobia then you can't just ignore them for what you WANT it to be. You can say it can change but it's bullshit to act like 'true' masculinity doesn't include them because there is no true masculinity. There is just what society belives on the subject
 

Combustion Kevin

New member
Nov 17, 2011
1,206
0
0
I think we are talking past each other.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
It is pathetic because as talked about in the prior post it is about image. One can have good values because they are good. You can praise and value self-sacrifice or strength without it becoming a gendered thing. Masculinity has no value on its own. Any trait associated is good because the trait is worthwhile in and of itself. It's like praising Christianity because of charity. One can be charitable without it. The correct thing to do is praise charity instead. Praise self-sacrifice and strength if you like. I'd say the protect the women and children thing is garbage, protect those who you can within your ability sure, gender has nothing to do wit it.
Strength, self-sacrifice and affluence are not gendered qualities, indeed, any one person regardless of gender can demonstrate them and anyone who does so adequately will be praised for it.
Masculinity, however, is dependent on the judgement of others, you can praise Christianity for the charity it does but you can not praise masculinity for the strength that is has.
You judge a man BY his masculinity for the strength that HE has.
And yes, I agree that one should protect anyone irregardless of what their gender/age/whatever is, but society insists on obligating men to play the role of protector, enforcing it by law if need be, this can be observed from as late as fifty years ago all the way into antiquity.

Movies do not inform us on how we should behave, unless it's propaganda, which I don't believe romcom's are, but art often does convey the values of the time within the culture they are created, they can act as a mirror which is why I brought it up as an example.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
This 'mating dance' stuff is nonsense and an approach you chose to adhere to get what you want. It's your choice to do it. Personally I wouldn't bother with someone who would want me to adhere to it. Reeks of desperation to me because it involves being something I'm not and have no intenation of being. The standard dance lacks the honesty, openness, and equal respect for each I expect. If you want to adhere to it, go ahead, but why should I sympathize and believe things should change for a choice? They're the natural negatives that come with it.
It's not at all nonsense, it's an observation of the human as an animal, we are, after all, still animals, subject to primal urges and instincts, it is our cognitive ability to analyze and judge these instincts that set us apart from most (if not all) other animals, we can choose what to respond to and what effects it has on us, but the fact remains these instincts are still very much there.
I'm not defending masculinity, rather, I seek to define it and convey to you why I think people do value it, people hang on to things they consider valuable, it's not an arbitrary thing or set of rules someone concocted one day on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Here's the thing about masculinity, and femininity as well: These terms serve to judge one's worth specifically as a man/woman, usually when it comes to mating potential.
That sounds incredibly negative from the start and, yes, it has been used in damaging ways on many occasions, but at it's core, masculinity is a means of promoting a boy to become a "good man", and a good man is a functioning member of society that can be what others need them to be, given a profession or craft to master, being masculine means making yourself valuable.
You can, and are expected to, be honest open and respectful to the people around you, especially your spouse, the gender roles are meant to teach someone how to be a good person, in the eyes of the society that upholds them, of course.
They take the form of ideals, not rules.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
And to reiterate why I hate it, because as a system for worth it is awful. It isn't valuing qualities for their own sake, it's doing it for appearance and for the shitty reason of gender. A quality that is good for someone should be good regardless of gender. What is good behavior is a standard that I think applies for all humans and masculinity says otherwise, it adds gender into the equation for what is good. That is something I find atrocious. That and that doing things for the sake of masculinity is valuing them for the wrong reasons.

Also it only raises you in the eyes of your peers if they buy into it to. I see no reason anyone should be buying into it.
What is considered good behaviour is not so universal, you will find, there are some values that are extremely common across cultures such as altruism, but there is no objective "good" as far as morality is concerned.
Each society tries to instill certain virtues in their citizens in order to make them functional members of society, liberty and freedom of expression are common in ours, piety and subservience to your elders are more common in others.
As I said, gender roles do not define what are good qualities to have, rather, they are meant to judge someone for the qualities it deems important for that particular gender, as a person, showing these qualities is still a respectable endeavour.
Doing things for the sake of masculinity is a superficial effort and would miss the point of it entirely, that said, it has been used that way to peddle garbage or manipulate people into doing horrible acts.

And even if you don't "buy into it", you would respect someone that is indeed a strong and generous person that has made a decent living for themselves through their labour, even if that lines up with traditional masculine ideals.
Unless they "don't actually mean it", which I find a strange suspicion to have of someone's life choices.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
Lastly, you don't get to dictate what masculinity is. It doesn't have some true form. It's a shared cultural thing. What it is is a standard that changes when people's ideas of it change. If current ideas of it are no emotion and homophobia then you can't just ignore them for what you WANT it to be. You can say it can change but it's bullshit to act like 'true' masculinity doesn't include them because there is no true masculinity. There is just what society belives on the subject.
I never assumed to dictate what it is, I merely offered my perspective on what I think it is, and you are free to disagree.
I base my perception on it's historical trends and it's universality across all human cultures, there is not a single culture that makes no distinction between a male and a female citizen and the expectations they have of them are generally very similar.

Masculinity is not an ideology, there is no "believing" in masculinity, it simply exists, and as I've stated before, it is a value judgement placed upon another person to gauge them according to what is expected of them in fulfilling their gender role.
It's not a nice system, I agree, it's prone to manipulation and getting rid of it would be great, but that would only be possible if both men and women desired the same things from one another and expect exactly the same from one another, as a sexually dimorphic species, I find that very unrealistic.

That, and gender identity is actually quite important, even among individuals that experience no deviation from what is known as "cisgender", I don't think getting rid of the male identity does anyone any favors, it is also something we can use for good.
 

Smithnikov_v1legacy

New member
May 7, 2016
1,020
1
0
Combustion Kevin said:
Smithnikov said:
You didn't rephrase anything.

And one would THINK that would be the case, but if what you say is true, I secretly harbor a desire to stay home and deal with thie little shits...
So wait, you're a parent and you hate kids?
No offense, but that sounds like a terrible life choice! D:

Like, do you hate your own kids too?
Oh no, certainly not a parent, and that's precisely why.

Okay, NOW I see what you rephrased, my apologies.
 

Secondhand Revenant

Recycle, Reduce, Redead
Legacy
Oct 29, 2014
2,566
141
68
Baator
Country
The Nine Hells
Gender
Male
Combustion Kevin said:
I think we are talking past each other.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
It is pathetic because as talked about in the prior post it is about image. One can have good values because they are good. You can praise and value self-sacrifice or strength without it becoming a gendered thing. Masculinity has no value on its own. Any trait associated is good because the trait is worthwhile in and of itself. It's like praising Christianity because of charity. One can be charitable without it. The correct thing to do is praise charity instead. Praise self-sacrifice and strength if you like. I'd say the protect the women and children thing is garbage, protect those who you can within your ability sure, gender has nothing to do wit it.
Strength, self-sacrifice and affluence are not gendered qualities, indeed, any one person regardless of gender can demonstrate them and anyone who does so adequately will be praised for it.
Masculinity, however, is dependent on the judgement of others, you can praise Christianity for the charity it does but you can not praise masculinity for the strength that is has.
You judge a man BY his masculinity for the strength that HE has.
And yes, I agree that one should protect anyone irregardless of what their gender/age/whatever is, but society insists on obligating men to play the role of protector, enforcing it by law if need be, this can be observed from as late as fifty years ago all the way into antiquity.

Movies do not inform us on how we should behave, unless it's propaganda, which I don't believe romcom's are, but art often does convey the values of the time within the culture they are created, they can act as a mirror which is why I brought it up as an example.
The problem is when you get to the line 'You judge a man BY his masculinity'. You have provided nothing useful that masculinity provides that simply valuing those other attributes on their own doesn't.

Please provide all these laws that have been obligating men all the way into antiquity. Then tell me why anyone should care about ancient laws when it comes to how we ought to behave NOW. Because what you are defending is people following these notions. I am all for being rid of them.

And people don't need to continue to sustain foolish traditions and if they try to they have no one but themselves to blame. I'd have sympathy for those who don't try to sustain them, but if you do try then that is your own problem.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
This 'mating dance' stuff is nonsense and an approach you chose to adhere to get what you want. It's your choice to do it. Personally I wouldn't bother with someone who would want me to adhere to it. Reeks of desperation to me because it involves being something I'm not and have no intenation of being. The standard dance lacks the honesty, openness, and equal respect for each I expect. If you want to adhere to it, go ahead, but why should I sympathize and believe things should change for a choice? They're the natural negatives that come with it.
It's not at all nonsense, it's an observation of the human as an animal, we are, after all, still animals, subject to primal urges and instincts, it is our cognitive ability to analyze and judge these instincts that set us apart from most (if not all) other animals, we can choose what to respond to and what effects it has on us, but the fact remains these instincts are still very much there.
No, it isn't observation. It is at tradition. An observation has no compelling force to it.

And please don't try this biological bullshit without citing how each thing you are talking about is instinct based on actual studies. People always make up bullshit about instinct here.

I'm not defending masculinity, rather, I seek to define it and convey to you why I think people do value it, people hang on to things they consider valuable, it's not an arbitrary thing or set of rules someone concocted one day on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Then tell me what is valuable about it that isn't just valuing things that you could value independently. Because the problem isn't valuing strength or something. You are arguing for traditions of men taking care of women etc, women working at home more when one has the freedom. You have seemed to be arguing that we shouldn't give the weight we do to primary caregivers when determining custody because it leaves traditionalists in the cold. Tell me why I shouldn't just call it their own fault for choosing to be traditionalists and not being the primary caregivers?

Here's the thing about masculinity, and femininity as well: These terms serve to judge one's worth specifically as a man/woman, usually when it comes to mating potential.
And? Oh wow, some people use a dumb standard. Why should we accommodate it? It's their choice. If people want to be some dumb freaks worrying over 'mating potential' then let them do that, but if that leaves them as not the primary caregiver then sucks to be them.

That sounds incredibly negative from the start and, yes, it has been used in damaging ways on many occasions, but at it's core, masculinity is a means of promoting a boy to become a "good man", and a good man is a functioning member of society that can be what others need them to be, given a profession or craft to master, being masculine means making yourself valuable.
You can, and are expected to, be honest open and respectful to the people around you, especially your spouse, the gender roles are meant to teach someone how to be a good person, in the eyes of the society that upholds them, of course.
They take the form of ideals, not rules.
And what benefit does having a gender role ideal instead of a gender neutral ideal give? Why should I want it in society? You've said something incredibly vague. A 'good man'. Great, why should I share this ideal and why should it be 'man' instead of 'person'? What is the additional benefit to it? Why should I want ideals of a good man or a good woman instead of a good human? What makes them any better? Why should there be a gender divide in it?

The Decapitated Centaur said:
And to reiterate why I hate it, because as a system for worth it is awful. It isn't valuing qualities for their own sake, it's doing it for appearance and for the shitty reason of gender. A quality that is good for someone should be good regardless of gender. What is good behavior is a standard that I think applies for all humans and masculinity says otherwise, it adds gender into the equation for what is good. That is something I find atrocious. That and that doing things for the sake of masculinity is valuing them for the wrong reasons.

Also it only raises you in the eyes of your peers if they buy into it to. I see no reason anyone should be buying into it.
What is considered good behaviour is not so universal, you will find, there are some values that are extremely common across cultures such as altruism, but there is no objective "good" as far as morality is concerned.
Each society tries to instill certain virtues in their citizens in order to make them functional members of society, liberty and freedom of expression are common in ours, piety and subservience to your elders are more common in others.
As I said, gender roles do not define what are good qualities to have, rather, they are meant to judge someone for the qualities it deems important for that particular gender, as a person, showing these qualities is still a respectable endeavour.
Doing things for the sake of masculinity is a superficial effort and would miss the point of it entirely, that said, it has been used that way to peddle garbage or manipulate people into doing horrible acts.

And even if you don't "buy into it", you would respect someone that is indeed a strong and generous person that has made a decent living for themselves through their labour, even if that lines up with traditional masculine ideals.
Unless they "don't actually mean it", which I find a strange suspicion to have of someone's life choices.
So what if it's not universal? Nothing I said required it to be.

I see no reason that qualities should be important for a particular gender. You're not selling me on it by telling me that some people do think some qualities should be important for a particular gender. I realize people think this. I see no reason to not seem them as utter fools.

The point is I don't *care* what traditional masculine ideals are. If someone is an admirable person and also happens to fit the ideal of a cult, I'm not going to respect the cult any more for that.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
Lastly, you don't get to dictate what masculinity is. It doesn't have some true form. It's a shared cultural thing. What it is is a standard that changes when people's ideas of it change. If current ideas of it are no emotion and homophobia then you can't just ignore them for what you WANT it to be. You can say it can change but it's bullshit to act like 'true' masculinity doesn't include them because there is no true masculinity. There is just what society belives on the subject.
I never assumed to dictate what it is, I merely offered my perspective on what I think it is, and you are free to disagree.
I base my perception on it's historical trends and it's universality across all human cultures, there is not a single culture that makes no distinction between a male and a female citizen and the expectations they have of them are generally very similar.

Masculinity is not an ideology, there is no "believing" in masculinity, it simply exists, and as I've stated before, it is a value judgement placed upon another person to gauge them according to what is expected of them in fulfilling their gender role.
It's not a nice system, I agree, it's prone to manipulation and getting rid of it would be great, but that would only be possible if both men and women desired the same things from one another and expect exactly the same from one another, as a sexually dimorphic species, I find that very unrealistic.

That, and gender identity is actually quite important, even among individuals that experience no deviation from what is known as "cisgender", I don't think getting rid of the male identity does anyone any favors, it is also something we can use for good.
Historical trends and universality is not much use to telling us what it is when what it is is defined by what it is viewed as now. I also don't give a damn if there is or is not a culture who doesn't distinguish. What is the value of that information? It doesn't make it right or reasonable. If you're suggesting it matters that seems like fallacious logic.

It exists as a concept in society, sure.

No, it doesn't require that men and women desire the same thing from one another to be rid of it. You stop putting the expectations on each other, you stop conforming to them when you don't want to. The expectations are hardly from just the opposite sex, and just men and women is a laughably narrow view of things when you consider human sexuality.

No, I don't think gender roles are important. Gender identity and a gender role aren't the same thing anyways.
 

Combustion Kevin

New member
Nov 17, 2011
1,206
0
0
The Decapitated Centaur said:
The problem is when you get to the line 'You judge a man BY his masculinity'. You have provided nothing useful that masculinity provides that simply valuing those other attributes on their own doesn't.
Yes, this is true.
However, this "system" is not meant to judge whether or not someone is a good person or not, not in the universal sense at least, human societies have always distributed it's labour between it's men and women and thereby measure them on their own separate merits, it's not something that has ever been agreed on to use.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
Please provide all these laws that have been obligating men all the way into antiquity. Then tell me why anyone should care about ancient laws when it comes to how we ought to behave NOW. Because what you are defending is people following these notions. I am all for being rid of them.

And people don't need to continue to sustain foolish traditions and if they try to they have no one but themselves to blame. I'd have sympathy for those who don't try to sustain them, but if you do try then that is your own problem.
I will not provide you with "all the laws" from now into antiquity, that would require several posts with lots of repetition in between, an obvious example of these would be conscription laws and non-criminal civil service, things that are still in effect to this day, even in the United States.
The value in observing these laws is observing how these roles are more than mere tradition, I use the term traditional as a shorthand to refer to old fashioned gendered values.

One might call them foolish, but societies are build upon these notions, not because they're good and just but simply because they work, that is the legal and societal aspect to it, placing a moral judgement on it is a futile affair.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
No, it isn't observation. It is at tradition. An observation has no compelling force to it.

And please don't try this biological bullshit without citing how each thing you are talking about is instinct based on actual studies. People always make up bullshit about instinct here.
Here are some:
https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiv16j2ydrSAhWGKMAKHeZ_DwgQFggpMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.321.2372%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&usg=AFQjCNFraMjKWh6iC54AMvklntilhj2I6A&sig2=LRMteHKJGjLS_xbPA512yQ&cad=rja

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiv16j2ydrSAhWGKMAKHeZ_DwgQFggzMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhumancond.org%2F_media%2Fpapers%2Fbuss89_sex_differences_in_human_mate_preferences.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGSgQv-K6c503l8i5zc1DpOdSoq_Q&sig2=un3BGQx3wQU3J39rWLllpA&cad=rja

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0ahUKEwiv16j2ydrSAhWGKMAKHeZ_DwgQFghdMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psyencelab.com%2Fuploads%2F5%2F4%2F6%2F5%2F54658091%2Fhuman_mate_selection_theory_an_integrated_evolutionary_and_social_approach.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHXbDOsT7hSzi0YcMzutm4pkBIbSA&sig2=feSjd8NCjM1B83fVq5mlmQ&cad=rja

There are many like it and these are just a few, but across the board you will see differences in preferences based on sex, women tend to value social status and the ability to provide more than men while men value signs of good health and fertility more, generally speaking.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
Then tell me what is valuable about it that isn't just valuing things that you could value independently. Because the problem isn't valuing strength or something. You are arguing for traditions of men taking care of women etc, women working at home more when one has the freedom. You have seemed to be arguing that we shouldn't give the weight we do to primary caregivers when determining custody because it leaves traditionalists in the cold. Tell me why I shouldn't just call it their own fault for choosing to be traditionalists and not being the primary caregivers?

Here's the thing about masculinity, and femininity as well: These terms serve to judge one's worth specifically as a man/woman, usually when it comes to mating potential.
And? Oh wow, some people use a dumb standard. Why should we accommodate it? It's their choice. If people want to be some dumb freaks worrying over 'mating potential' then let them do that, but if that leaves them as not the primary caregiver then sucks to be them.
Isn't the stay-at-home mother just as much of a traditionalist, though?
These standards are not rigidly or formally defined, they naturally form from the preferences that people generally exhibit.
Wanting to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex (or the same, whatever boats your float) is not a dumb or freaky thing to do, people do it all the time, it's why women put on make up and men work out at the gym, or buy expensive crap to show off.
These are not formally defined rules, they are natural, human, behavioral tendencies, you are not dumb for behaving like a human being.

And I still contest the notion that a father that spends less time at home should be considered enough of a non-factor to the development of the child to cut him out of the family by default, blaming them for the value judgement SOMEONE ELSE makes of them is masculinity in action right there: they were not fatherly enough, therefor, it is justified not to consider them.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
And what benefit does having a gender role ideal instead of a gender neutral ideal give? Why should I want it in society? You've said something incredibly vague. A 'good man'. Great, why should I share this ideal and why should it be 'man' instead of 'person'? What is the additional benefit to it? Why should I want ideals of a good man or a good woman instead of a good human? What makes them any better? Why should there be a gender divide in it?
Because certain ideals weigh more heavily on you depending on whether you are male or female, the collection of which are defined under either masculinity or femininity. not the other way around.
Being a good person is defined by different metrics, piety is one example of such, but a pious monk in medieval times would not be considered a good man despite how much of a good person they are because he does not embody the masculine values of the time.
Do not conflate the two, they mean very different things, masculinity is very much a father/brother/son sorta deal, the virtues of being a good person may overlap with them but they are judged separately.

The reason you should care? I dunno, why would you care? if being a good man equates to being a good person, why would you care how they define it?

The Decapitated Centaur said:
I see no reason that qualities should be important for a particular gender. You're not selling me on it by telling me that some people do think some qualities should be important for a particular gender. I realize people think this. I see no reason to not seem them as utter fools.
Ahh, it's funny in an age where we emphasize respecting people's choices and the way they live, we are very particular about what lifestyles we hold in favorable regard.
The reasons why I've addressed above, though.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
Historical trends and universality is not much use to telling us what it is when what it is is defined by what it is viewed as now. I also don't give a damn if there is or is not a culture who doesn't distinguish. What is the value of that information? It doesn't make it right or reasonable. If you're suggesting it matters that seems like fallacious logic.
It means that the concept of gender-based labour divisions are universal, and not bound to culture at all, some particulars may be bound to culture, but the concept of the masculine and the feminine are universal across humanity.
Now, the difference may not matter to you, but I would pose that masculinity and femininity are integral to the human experience, it being right or reasonable is like judging our need for emotional support and companionship, its just there.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
It exists as a concept in society, sure.
In every society, as a matter of fact.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
The expectations are hardly from just the opposite sex, and just men and women is a laughably narrow view of things when you consider human sexuality.
The conception of a child requires a heterosexual relationship, unless you plan to adopt, which is an incredible minority in the population.
Masculinity and femininity are supposed to compliment each other, this is why they are viewed in that context.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
No, I don't think gender roles are important. Gender identity and a gender role aren't the same thing anyways.
But they do tie into one another, you'll certainly agree, gender identity is not just what you feel your gender to be, it also refers to what it means to be that gender, it ties into one's personal identity.
If having a certain gender bears no relevance, why would we distinguish between the two? what would even be the point of transitioning between the two and how would we know someone CAN be transgender if we don't place any particular value or meaning on it?

If gender DOES matter, on the other hand, we seek to define it and give meaning to it, this is what human cultures have done since the dawn of civilization, that is what gender roles are in a nutshell.

To restate what may not have been plain, I do not defend masculinity, it simply exists and will continue to exist as long as there are males, the same can be said for femininity.
What I will defend are empathy and understanding, these are the tools with which we can analyze and solve our problems much more effectively than moral condemnation.
 

Secondhand Revenant

Recycle, Reduce, Redead
Legacy
Oct 29, 2014
2,566
141
68
Baator
Country
The Nine Hells
Gender
Male
Combustion Kevin said:
The Decapitated Centaur said:
The problem is when you get to the line 'You judge a man BY his masculinity'. You have provided nothing useful that masculinity provides that simply valuing those other attributes on their own doesn't.
Yes, this is true.
However, this "system" is not meant to judge whether or not someone is a good person or not, not in the universal sense at least, human societies have always distributed it's labour between it's men and women and thereby measure them on their own separate merits, it's not something that has ever been agreed on to use.
If you cannot provide it has any worth then I see no reason to coddle the decision to adhere to it.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
Please provide all these laws that have been obligating men all the way into antiquity. Then tell me why anyone should care about ancient laws when it comes to how we ought to behave NOW. Because what you are defending is people following these notions. I am all for being rid of them.

And people don't need to continue to sustain foolish traditions and if they try to they have no one but themselves to blame. I'd have sympathy for those who don't try to sustain them, but if you do try then that is your own problem.
I will not provide you with "all the laws" from now into antiquity, that would require several posts with lots of repetition in between, an obvious example of these would be conscription laws and non-criminal civil service, things that are still in effect to this day, even in the United States.
The value in observing these laws is observing how these roles are more than mere tradition, I use the term traditional as a shorthand to refer to old fashioned gendered values.

One might call them foolish, but societies are build upon these notions, not because they're good and just but simply because they work, that is the legal and societal aspect to it, placing a moral judgement on it is a futile affair.
I'm pretty sure you're just spouting BS when you say that it's been going on for all history.

If you cannot state their worth then you show nothing more than tradition. Just worshipping them because they've existed a long time is a stance bereft of logic. You fail to state actual benefits and give this dubious nonsense about how they must work because they've been around for a long time.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
No, it isn't observation. It is at tradition. An observation has no compelling force to it.

And please don't try this biological bullshit without citing how each thing you are talking about is instinct based on actual studies. People always make up bullshit about instinct here.
Here are some:
https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiv16j2ydrSAhWGKMAKHeZ_DwgQFggpMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.321.2372%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&usg=AFQjCNFraMjKWh6iC54AMvklntilhj2I6A&sig2=LRMteHKJGjLS_xbPA512yQ&cad=rja

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiv16j2ydrSAhWGKMAKHeZ_DwgQFggzMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhumancond.org%2F_media%2Fpapers%2Fbuss89_sex_differences_in_human_mate_preferences.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGSgQv-K6c503l8i5zc1DpOdSoq_Q&sig2=un3BGQx3wQU3J39rWLllpA&cad=rja

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0ahUKEwiv16j2ydrSAhWGKMAKHeZ_DwgQFghdMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psyencelab.com%2Fuploads%2F5%2F4%2F6%2F5%2F54658091%2Fhuman_mate_selection_theory_an_integrated_evolutionary_and_social_approach.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHXbDOsT7hSzi0YcMzutm4pkBIbSA&sig2=feSjd8NCjM1B83fVq5mlmQ&cad=rja

There are many like it and these are just a few, but across the board you will see differences in preferences based on sex, women tend to value social status and the ability to provide more than men while men value signs of good health and fertility more, generally speaking.
I'm asking for the specific things you've stated as being part of masculinity being instinct, not that there exist differences in preferences.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
Then tell me what is valuable about it that isn't just valuing things that you could value independently. Because the problem isn't valuing strength or something. You are arguing for traditions of men taking care of women etc, women working at home more when one has the freedom. You have seemed to be arguing that we shouldn't give the weight we do to primary caregivers when determining custody because it leaves traditionalists in the cold. Tell me why I shouldn't just call it their own fault for choosing to be traditionalists and not being the primary caregivers?

Here's the thing about masculinity, and femininity as well: These terms serve to judge one's worth specifically as a man/woman, usually when it comes to mating potential.
And? Oh wow, some people use a dumb standard. Why should we accommodate it? It's their choice. If people want to be some dumb freaks worrying over 'mating potential' then let them do that, but if that leaves them as not the primary caregiver then sucks to be them.
Isn't the stay-at-home mother just as much of a traditionalist, though?
Yes, and? I'm not gonna employ her if she lacks experience compared to others just to coddle her choice to be traditional.

These standards are not rigidly or formally defined, they naturally form from the preferences that people generally exhibit.
Not really, it's dumb to pretend societt amd culture have nothing to do with it.

Wanting to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex (or the same, whatever boats your float) is not a dumb or freaky thing to do, people do it all the time, it's why women put on make up and men work out at the gym, or buy expensive crap to show off.
Worrying about 'mating potential' is dumb and freaky.

These are not formally defined rules, they are natural, human, behavioral tendencies, you are not dumb for behaving like a human being.
No, buying expensive things is not a natural human behavior. Your biology has no concept of money, worth, and showing off material goods. That is something you learn. Don't believe being muscled and so on is either. Or make up. You're making absurd leaps.

And I still contest the notion that a father that spends less time at home should be considered enough of a non-factor to the development of the child to cut him out of the family by default, blaming them for the value judgement SOMEONE ELSE makes of them is masculinity in action right there: they were not fatherly enough, therefor, it is justified not to consider them.
No, this is stupid. It's not about not being 'fatherly' enough.

It's about the bond between a child and the one who is their primary caregiver. Value is placed on that because of psychology not because of some worthless tradition.

You want things to change because morons following a tradition will find that the tradition impedes their chances of being a primary caregiver. I, on the other hand, prefer to stick to actual reasons and am fine letting people damn themselves on that front for choosing to be more traditional. The important point is about whether the person is the primary caregiver or not, not whatever nonsense you imagine about fatherliness.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
And what benefit does having a gender role ideal instead of a gender neutral ideal give? Why should I want it in society? You've said something incredibly vague. A 'good man'. Great, why should I share this ideal and why should it be 'man' instead of 'person'? What is the additional benefit to it? Why should I want ideals of a good man or a good woman instead of a good human? What makes them any better? Why should there be a gender divide in it?
Because certain ideals weigh more heavily on you depending on whether you are male or female, the collection of which are defined under either masculinity or femininity. not the other way around.
Being a good person is defined by different metrics, piety is one example of such, but a pious monk in medieval times would not be considered a good man despite how much of a good person they are because he does not embody the masculine values of the time.
But you've failed to give a reason why the ideals should weigh heavier.

Do not conflate the two, they mean very different things, masculinity is very much a father/brother/son sorta deal, the virtues of being a good person may overlap with them but they are judged separately.

The reason you should care? I dunno, why would you care? if being a good man equates to being a good person, why would you care how they define it?
The problem is it's gendered unnecessarily with different standards.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
I see no reason that qualities should be important for a particular gender. You're not selling me on it by telling me that some people do think some qualities should be important for a particular gender. I realize people think this. I see no reason to not seem them as utter fools.
Ahh, it's funny in an age where we emphasize respecting people's choices and the way they live, we are very particular about what lifestyles we hold in favorable regard.
The reasons why I've addressed above, though.
The problem is when you want coddling the traditionalists to overrun reason.

And quit the obnoxious shtick of acting like I'm supposed to be consistent with your imagining of 'this age'. I don't have respect for BS ideas. But the operative thing here is I oppose BS ideas being given weight over real reasons.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
Historical trends and universality is not much use to telling us what it is when what it is is defined by what it is viewed as now. I also don't give a damn if there is or is not a culture who doesn't distinguish. What is the value of that information? It doesn't make it right or reasonable. If you're suggesting it matters that seems like fallacious logic.
It means that the concept of gender-based labour divisions are universal, and not bound to culture at all, some particulars may be bound to culture, but the concept of the masculine and the feminine are universal across humanity.
Now, the difference may not matter to you, but I would pose that masculinity and femininity are integral to the human experience, it being right or reasonable is like judging our need for emotional support and companionship, its just there.
Pose all you like, you've failed to make an argument for it.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
It exists as a concept in society, sure.
In every society, as a matter of fact.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
The expectations are hardly from just the opposite sex, and just men and women is a laughably narrow view of things when you consider human sexuality.
The conception of a child requires a heterosexual relationship, unless you plan to adopt, which is an incredible minority in the population.
Masculinity and femininity are supposed to compliment each other, this is why they are viewed in that context.
The conception of a child is an utterly irrelevant point.

Supposed to? Now you're contradicting your narrative that they're all natural.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
No, I don't think gender roles are important. Gender identity and a gender role aren't the same thing anyways.
But they do tie into one another, you'll certainly agree, gender identity is not just what you feel your gender to be, it also refers to what it means to be that gender, it ties into one's personal identity.
I rather think that extra bit is learned. You're taught what is supposed to go with it.

If having a certain gender bears no relevance, why would we distinguish between the two? what would even be the point of transitioning between the two and how would we know someone CAN be transgender if we don't place any particular value or meaning on it?
Because of your actual physical body... Like, really? If someone is feeling their body ought to be that of the opposite sex that doesn't require gender roles. Like what even is this line of inquiry?

If gender DOES matter, on the other hand, we seek to define it and give meaning to it, this is what human cultures have done since the dawn of civilization, that is what gender roles are in a nutshell.

To restate what may not have been plain, I do not defend masculinity, it simply exists and will continue to exist as long as there are males, the same can be said for femininity.
What I will defend are empathy and understanding, these are the tools with which we can analyze and solve our problems much more effectively than moral condemnation.
The notion that men and women should behave certain different ways is hardly some eternal idea. It exists so long as it is perpetuated
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
Combustion Kevin said:
Phasmal said:
Cool I'mma quit my job, put my feet up and tell my boyfriend that if he complains, he just doesn't value me enough.
Nah, you'll find it far more effective to mock his lack of manhood and supposedly fragile masculinity, you'd be surprised how susceptible men can be to shame and guilt.
Would I? I was pretty sure my boyfriend doesn't put much stock in the concept of masculinity, but if you say so.
The problem that I had with your post is it seems to be very much working off the stereotype of 'a relationship' and not actually what rings true to me as a person who has been in relationships for considerable amounts of time.

Combustion Kevin said:
I do think we are miscommunicating here though, the division of labour is indeed not based on altruism but on pragmatic considerations.
However, in poor families, both parents work usually fulltime jobs, but when the household budget no longer requires two fulltime occupations you will usually see the mother lessen her professional workload sooner to see to domestic concerns.
In other words, the ability to dedicate more time to the household is won by affluence, that's how I see it.
You know what affluence buys? Childcare.
I made a post a while back which I think the forum sadly ate, saying that I am a childcare worker and childcare is freaking expensive. I work full time and unless my workplace cut me a special rate if I ever had kids it would not be in my best interest to put them in childcare. My entire monthly wage would basically go straight back to my work if I did that.
Poorer families often don't see the point in both parents working just so one wage can go to a nursery. That is generally why someone stays home.
And that someone is generally the woman because "that's the way it usually is". Traditions, expecations, all that jazz.


Combustion Kevin said:
And no, I'm not calling housework a "privilege" that women have
Well I hope not because that would be pretty dumb-


Combustion Kevin said:
again, affluence affords you more time at home, and since the ability to provide is one of the main attracting factors for a potential husband it is usually the father that will provide this level of affluence, whenever possible, of course.
Is it though?
Once again, this sounds more of stereotype than truth to me.
But hey, what do I know about women who are going to get married? I'm only a woman who is going to get married.

I think perhaps we just agree to disagree.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
Jesus Christ, the fact that a film got shitty reviews is somehow indication of a global feminist conspiracy?

Checked the RottenTomatoes page, 94% of users liked it. It's almost as if it exists solely to promote the Redpiller circlejerk.

By the way Redpillers, the film you adopted your shitty meme from was directed by two transgender women. I hope that stings.
 

Combustion Kevin

New member
Nov 17, 2011
1,206
0
0
Again, we're talking past each other, you're not arguing against points I am actually making.

So let me try this one more time:
The different sexes have different tendencies in their behavior and preferences, this includes the positions they take up in society and their domestic life.
These behaviours, over time, become an expected norm, not because someone has decided upon it, but because society has started to function by it.
When certain traits are especially prevalent in, for example, males, this is categorized under masculinity.

Nobody "decides to adhere to gender roles", nor does anyone hold it against them as if they SHOULD, unless they are trying to manipulate that person into doing something.
Whether or not I provide evidence completely misses the point, masculine and feminine identity exist, they simply do, this is not chosen, this is not decided, it is part of our psychology.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
I'm pretty sure you're just spouting BS when you say that it's been going on for all history.
One quick Google search would have told you that compulsory service is as old as the Babylonian empire, as far as recorded history goes, anyhow.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
Not really, it's dumb to pretend societt amd culture have nothing to do with it.
Which is made up by the people that live in it, and whom's behaviors give shape to that society and culture.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
Worrying about 'mating potential' is dumb and freaky.
If you phrase it like that you'll certainly raise a few eyebrows.
The wording you usually hear are desires to "feel wanted" or "feel attractive" or "feeling worthy" or any variation on that, people like being liked and people like feeling sexy, we are a social species and it should come to no surprise we put extra effort into that.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
No, buying expensive things is not a natural human behavior. Your biology has no concept of money, worth, and showing off material goods. That is something you learn. Don't believe being muscled and so on is either. Or make up. You're making absurd leaps.
Improving your social status is a natural human behavior, which is achieved by signalling and interacting with your peers.
The trappings of modern civilization are certainly not natural but the psychology is the same, this is how we're taught to signal, it takes a different form but the behavior is still the same.


The Decapitated Centaur said:
No, this is stupid. It's not about not being 'fatherly' enough.

It's about the bond between a child and the one who is their primary caregiver. Value is placed on that because of psychology not because of some worthless tradition.

You want things to change because morons following a tradition will find that the tradition impedes their chances of being a primary caregiver. I, on the other hand, prefer to stick to actual reasons and am fine letting people damn themselves on that front for choosing to be more traditional. The important point is about whether the person is the primary caregiver or not, not whatever nonsense you imagine about fatherliness.
"Damn" themselves eh?
Oh, what sinful traditionalism we are dealing with indeed.
So, can you conceive of any other reason as to why someone would "choose" to be "traditional" save for their boundless stupidity, foolishness and blindness?
Is it truly reasonable to condemn someone like that for doing what they believe is a positive and "good" thing?
What are "actual reasons" and would you entertain the notion that you might, not guaranteed, be wrong?

I disagree with the designation of "primary caregiver" as a means to default custody to a single parent, I have linked to information as to why I think that is, it is detrimental to the child primarily and nullifies the contributions of one of both parents, which I think is not reasonable or just.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
But you've failed to give a reason why the ideals should weigh heavier.
I did give you the reasons why, both genders have different ways of making themselves valuable to eachother, they generally have innate tendencies and preferences that give shape to what members of each sex prioritizes.
Asking this phenomena to justify itself is like arguing with someone's libido, it's there, and it ain't going anywhere.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
The problem is when you want coddling the traditionalists to overrun reason.

And quit the obnoxious shtick of acting like I'm supposed to be consistent with your imagining of 'this age'. I don't have respect for BS ideas. But the operative thing here is I oppose BS ideas being given weight over real reasons.
Traditionalist is a label that YOU apply, however, for exhibiting behavior or thinking in a way that YOU disagree with, reasons don't become less "real" when you don't agree with them though, and your contempt demonstrates a desire to deride, not to seek understanding.
And without understanding, how could there possibly be reason?

The Decapitated Centaur said:
The conception of a child is an utterly irrelevant point.

Supposed to? Now you're contradicting your narrative that they're all natural.
This refers to human mating strategies and preferences, of course its a relevant point, this entire discussion sprouted from custodial decisions and fatherhood.

And yes, supposed to, observe any holidays or traditions related to marriage, love or fertility and you'll find the represented values of masculinity and femininity to be complimentary.
I'm also not arguing the absolutist point anything being ALL natural, that would be absurd.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
Because of your actual physical body... Like, really? If someone is feeling their body ought to be that of the opposite sex that doesn't require gender roles. Like what even is this line of inquiry?

No, that is transsexual, being transgender and transsexual are not the same thing.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
The notion that men and women should behave certain different ways is hardly some eternal idea. It exists so long as it is perpetuated
They shouldn't anything.
They just do, and that is not wrong of them.
 

Combustion Kevin

New member
Nov 17, 2011
1,206
0
0
Phasmal said:
You know what affluence buys? Childcare.
Ew! D:
Like, no offense, especially considering your profession, but my experiences with childcare services have been profoundly negative and I would not trust 'em to send my child there if either I or my partner could be at home with them instead.

I could be (probably am) very biased about that because my girlfriend's sister works at one of those places, and it's a really...
REALLY...
really bad place.

Phasmal said:
Is it though?
Once again, this sounds more of stereotype than truth to me.
But hey, what do I know about women who are going to get married? I'm only a woman who is going to get married.

I think perhaps we just agree to disagree.
You do realize your account is anecdotal, right?
On the other hand, all I'm going with, besides my own personal experiences, is statistical data and some psychology reports, it's all generalities and very much subject to exceptions, perhaps the exception ratio is even 30% or such, I'll admit that.

Anyone who has worked with statistics will tell you that statistics are irrelevant to the individual, and this is true, but it does offer a look at the situation at large.

Oh, and congratulations on your betrothal, by the way! :D
 

Achelexus

New member
May 31, 2014
42
0
0
Did you read the reviews? They're not professional, it's just a tantrum from people suffering from having their world-views challenged.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
Dizchu said:
By the way Redpillers, the film you adopted your shitty meme from was directed by two transgender women. I hope that stings.
Why would it? Redpilling's been a thing in internet culture long before the people you're taking snipes at started using it in a slightly different way. And the concept has been a thing in literature for centuries before the Matrix, and was often recently(comparatively) popularized in some Victorian era Gothic lit. Hell, most of the popular and lasting science fiction for sixty years leading up to The Matrix being released has some element of it in there at the least.

Personally trying to figure out why the Wachowski's need to be brought in at all honestly. Last I understood, the subreddit doesn't really give a fuck about trans-women in any capacity outside of them being potentially deceitful dates.

Also, it's not about the audience disliking it(which is where your 94% is coming from), it's that CRITICS gave it a score lower than fucking Birdemic, a movie that is put in front of Film Students as an example of what not to do on all levels ranging from basic camera angles showing mics, community theatre tier acting, innane "storytelling", props that make Saban look like the cutting edge of technology and CGI, and just generally that it's a bad idea to shoot a morning scene as you can visibly see the sun setting in the background.

How a movie that was that objectively bad on all levels from technical to aesthetic scored higher with more than a few critics than something that has alot of documentary experience behind it. That's it. That's the entire thing people are annoyed with.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
Redryhno said:
Also, it's not about the audience disliking it(which is where your 94% is coming from), it's that CRITICS gave it a score lower than fucking Birdemic,
Birdemic is a masterpiece how dare you.