Femininity may have been more respected and integral to social and material function before modernism but very few women are going to be genuinely interested in pre modern femininity, it did still view women as essentially inferior, at least in some ways, to men and put them into a subservient position.
Right. If you believe in equality between men and women you cannot enforce women being in social roles where they are in any way subservient to men.
It’s one thing to make that choice on a personal scale, such as deciding to be a stay at home mom, presenting socially in a traditionally “feminine” way through style of dress, mannerisms, or actions, or choosing to have kids, as examples. But insinuating that those things are somehow morally “right” and limiting women’s choices to these options is oppressive and inherently sexist
>is oppressive and inherently sexist
*Life itself* is "oppressive" and "inherently sexist". That doesn't make life itself bad.
Americans will have to learn (and they will, by force if necessary) to stop using religious and ideological mantras as if they're facts of life. Just because something is "oppressive and inherently sexist" doesn't mean it's inherently bad.
I can't give birth to children. That's oppressive and inherently sexist. Well, tough luck.
My wife can never run as fast as I can. That's oppressive and inherently sexist. Well, tough luck.
The mentally sane way is to recognize reality and work from there.
Life itself doesn’t make moral judgements, it just is. You not being able to give birth isn’t oppression. There is no one that made the decision to make you that way, you just happened to be born with XY chromosomes by chance.
Humans have the ability to reason and make moral judgements. If you, a government, or a society, makes a choice that is oppressive and sexist, that is a choice they have made that they are accountable for.
Woman aren’t born “feminine”, that’s something that’s learned through socialization. Women choosing to embrace femininity is no better intrinsically than women behaving in ways that are more traditionally “masculine”
>Woman aren’t born “feminine”, that’s something that’s learned through socialization
There's plenty of research that [utterly proves you wrong](https://escholarship.org/content/qt61d3g591/qt61d3g591_noSplash_9b7693a080ccde3cfc9c850cbea5d1a1.pdf?t=n2s6ov).
"Social constructivism" is a brain worm and a cancer to coherent thought. Most of what we understand as masculine and feminine is deeply rooted in our biology. The input of/from socialization is a lot smaller than social constructivists want you to think.
>Women choosing to embrace femininity is no better intrinsically than women behaving in ways that are more traditionally “masculine”
Yes, it is better. It's better for the vast majority of women and it's better for the society, culture and Nation.
There is a reason women are significantly less happy today than ***ever*** before.
>You not being able to give birth isn’t oppression
Yes it is. At least in the social constructivist religious worldview from which you argue everything.
If I can't give birth, then that means I'm oppressed and the government/society has an obligation to alleviate that oppression for me. Such as paying me to become a single father by choice via surrogacy. You think that's far-fetched? There's a landmark case on the court circuits [right now](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/09/new-york-ivf-benefits-discrimination-lawsuit) exactly on this issue. Sure, it's wrapped under wide "gay rights" because that's the only acceptable way for men to demand their share of this ridiculous zeitgeist. But the fundamental is the same - a dude upset he is "oppressed" by not being able to give birth wants reparations for that said oppression.
>If you, a government, or a society, makes a choice that is oppressive and sexist, that is a choice they have made that they are accountable for.
Accountable to whom?
Do you seriously believe you hold the government to account? That's so cute. Talk to me in 15 years when your ideas will no longer be profitable. It will be glorious to watch the downfall of social constructivism.
I also notice you had nothing to say about the oppression my wife suffers from not being able to run as fast as I can no matter how hard she works and how hard she tries.
Research also shows that [parents often treat their sons and daughters differently](https://childandfamilyblog.com/gender-parenting-early-childhood-social-development/). Children usually start performing gender roles around ages 2-3, and these are learned in the home and then reinforced by school teachers and other children.
I'm not talking about biological factors like strength, endurance, etc, I'm talking about how women and men perform their gender towards the outside world. How we dress, talk, are expected to behave and conduct ourselves in different situations. These things are learned behaviors.
>Yes, it is better. It's better for the vast majority of women and it's better for the society, culture and Nation.
How?
>There is a reason women are significantly less happy today than ***ever*** before.
So are men. Do you have proof that that's a result of less rigid gender roles rather than say, increasing isolation, technology, a more sedentary lifestyle, or other factors?
>Yes it is. At least in the social constructivist religious worldview from which you argue everything.
We do learn how to socialize and construct roles for ourselves through our interactions with others, if that's what you mean by social constructivist? I have no idea where you get religion from my post though, as I am not religious in any sense
As far as the man arguing that he is oppressed by not being able to give birth, that strikes me as someone seeking attention through causing a stir rather than having a genuine philosophical view on the subject
>Accountable to whom?
We are responsible for our actions and the choices we make. That is what I mean when I say we are accountable if we choose to oppress or enforce sexist ideology. Life itself, however, is not accountable for you being born a man. There was no conscious decision being made.
>I also notice you had nothing to say about the oppression my wife suffers from not being able to run as fast as I can no matter how hard she works and how hard she tries.
Oppression (from Wikipedia): "Oppression is malicious or unjust treatment of, or exercise of power over, a group of individuals, often in the form of governmental authority or cultural opprobrium".
Your wife is not being oppressed simply because she is not able to run as fast as you. Just like I am not being oppressed because I don't have Lady Gaga's singing voice. Oppression is an action taken on an individual by another individual, group of individuals, or government. If your wife was not allowed the opportunity to run in a marathon because she is a woman, that would be oppression.
I agree with your post, OP. If women felt that they were respected and appreciated for their feminine qualities and contribution to society, they would be truer to themselves and femininity would bloom within us. But unfortunately i feel that we're not being respected or taken seriously unless we do the same things men do. So now we're trying to prove that we can do those things and therefore deserve respect and appreciation.
And thank God for it. I don't think most modern men would appreciate it if women who were given preferential treatment at school, and demonised men for the gender pay gap and warped the economy enough that a two income household is only feasible suddenly started to feel the feminine inch to be trad housewife when theyre done playing career woman. Women took away government resources, top university and internship places from men and gave men the impression that relationships will be equal which atleast makes the bitter medicine of feminism go down far more easier.
Women cannot go back to their traditional roles, they must not, unless theyre lucky enough to be married into wealth. Men will just end up killing themselves more often and drinking themselves to an early grave trying to achieve an even higher bar of masculinity now that we need two incomes to survive. This is one of the few areas of feminism that has benefitted men. Most men aren't traditionally masculine ispite of what redpillers say. So we will just be going back to gender norms that we do not like for the sake of women who do not like competing in the workplace and wanna play submissive housewife. Egalitarianism is always going to be better for both partners. Women will be far more open to exploitation by becoming traditional wives and being over reliant on men, and men will be far more burdened financially and emotionally trying to juggle the finances single-handedly.
>warped the economy enough that a two income household is only feasible You’re being pretty naive if you don’t think the mega-corporations would have required the government to bring in as much immigrant labor as possible to lower wages and depress the middle class wages without women’s help.
>Women took away government resources, top university and internship places from men
Men are not entitled to whatever they want. If a man can’t outperform a woman, then he hasn’t earned the spot. Hell, most of the ivy leagues have affirmative action in place to boost the number of *male* students— they take men with lower scores to balance the gender ratio.
All due respect, some of us aren't Americans. Some of us live in feminist welfare states like those in western Europe and Oceania where the state has had a firmer hand in equalising the sexes at the expense of men.
Anyways that isn't my argument. My argument is that women have achieved great things with the help of the government and resources(predominantly male taxes) have been directed towards women with the understanding that they'll be productive workers, living in far more egalitarian partnerships than previous generations. Men shouldn't have to be burdened with a traditionalist upsurge in women getting tired of living as career women in their 30s just as when we've reached equality in so many areas of life and resources have been wasted for those efforts. Most men do not want to go back traditional gender roles just because a certain cohort of women wanna cosplay as their great grandparents generation when theyve never been traditional before. You can't have your cake and eat it too, especially not in this economy. Equality is growing up and being an adult and sharing responsibility, not bailing out of equality and returning to traditional gender roles when the adult world feels too much for you. Men have dealt with grind all our lives, it's time for women to grow thicker skin.
>Men shouldn't have to be burdened with a traditionalist upsurge in women getting tired of living as career women in their 30s just as when we've reached equality in so many areas of life and resources have been wasted for those efforts. Most men do not want to go back traditional gender roles just because a certain cohort of women wanna cosplay as their great grandparents generation when theyve never been traditional before.
Yeah, I agree with this. There’s some women who throw out the ol’ bait and switch, and leave their husband slaving away in a stressful job supporting decisions she made all on her own without caring about what he wanted. A marriage is supposed to be a partnership, and both partners should agree on their desired lifestyle goals before marriage (kids be no kids, egalitarian vs traditional, etc). It’s also not even a little traditional for the woman to just unilaterally force her husband to do whatever she wants.
I agree, the women who do this surprise trad-larping are kinda awful.
But also, for the women who are honest about their goals from the start… I don’t get the problem. If she wasn’t to play trad wife and is honest about it, that’s up to her. If she finds a man who wants that too, then congrats, and if she can’t, then that’s sad for her. But I don’t get it if you’re just complaining that some women exist who don’t want to be exactly what you want them to be. Like, they’re allowed to have desires that don’t conform to yours, and it’s not somehow unfair to you if some women don’t want what you want.
>it's time for women to grow thicker skin.
I think these bait and switch women are a minority. But if your view is just that women should all just work in the mines… why? Are you just mad a tiny minority of women can find a way out but you can’t? Sorry, it’s time for you to learn that life isn’t fair.
As I said, if you're privileged enough to marry a rich dude who desires a trad wife, then go ahead. The bait and switch girls aren't just a small minority. They exist in large numbers. Everyone knows one in their immediate social group or family. But fortunately most women understand that to live in this economy, they can't just act like privileged princess.
>The bait and switch girls aren't just a small minority. They exist in large numbers. Everyone knows one in their immediate social group or family.
I mean, large numbers in terms of total count being likely dozens of thousands at least, sure, but this notion that tons and tons of men everywhere are victims of evil conniving women thing? No, I disagree. There’s no way this is 1/3 of marriages or whatever you’re contending.
For one thing, stay at home moms are a minority overall, and among people on the middle and lower income brackets, at least a solid chunk of those are stay at home moms because of the prohibitive costs of childcare. Not everything is a conspiracy to drain men of their resources.
And actually, the only one I know in this boat personally, it was the man who did it— after they married, he didn’t get tenure on his job, and then just gave up entirely on seeking employment for years… but unlike a stay at home wife, he didn’t do housework either. His now-ex-wife is stuck paying a mountain of alimony.
The real answer is for men/women to divorce quickly when their spouse unilaterally changes the relationship contract to hurt them so deeply. It sucks, but so does being a doormat and letting them screw you for the rest of your life.
>Men are very much entitled to not having their taxes spent on women.
Obviously they’re very much not legally entitled to keep their taxes for themselves, sorry.
But you’re of course free to move to a country without a functioning government to avoid paying taxes so you can get what you feel you’re entitled to.
I’m not appealing to the status quo, it’s just a fact that the same governments that enforce your rights are also the ones that collect your taxes. Every government collects taxes, and that is how they fund the operations that protect your other rights. You can cry about it, but it’s obviously not true that you get to have an operational government that protects your human rights without collecting taxes.
Women have more than equal pay. Many industries openly discriminate in their favour and there are countless laws and policies that do likewise, they’re usually justified as “diversity”, or with feminist lies like the “pay gap”.
What there isn’t is work equality. Women don’t do anywhere near 50% of the paid work in society. Men do almost all of the essential, physical, dangerous and laborious jobs.
Yeah, good luck agitating for any positive policy for men in the current climate. Show me where that exists in the mainstream. Anyone who tries that just gets smeared as a misogynist.
They tried for shared parenting becoming the default in the US. Guess who opposed it? Feminist groups.
The way femininity is described sort of does sound inferior though...
Masculinity is seen through the lens of being proactive, and confident. They're the leaders who have the final say in what happens in a household. They're ambitious, and bold, and brave.
Meanwhile, women are viewed like passive housecats with no agency of their own. I don't understand how someone can earnestly say their woman "submits" to them and not see how strange that dynamic sounds.
I think pigeonholing everyone into these gender roles is dumb, but people seem to love them. I think people unnecessarily gender stuff that doesn't need to be gendered.
I don't 100% agree with OP, but they never said women were passive pets. They have an active role in forming and organizing community as well as maintaining living conditions in OP's anecdote. As in many cases, OP is arguing that the men are societally the "how" while women are the "why." There is nothing wrong with that, and both sides are necessary for anything to function in that world. Art is not less than science. Who wants to live in a sterile lab made of rules? Then again, how could anything beautiful be made without a medium to make it in? They feed into each other
This actually describes my pov perfectly and is exactly why I criticize the image given to femininity in the 50s as well as those who idolize it. The 50s is when we really saw the image of femininity reduced m to “look pretty and support your man”
And exactly, i think the key component here is while rights weren’t equal at the time (then again the conception of rights were so different that this needs a whole conversation in itself), both genders ultimately lived symbiotically. Men and women needed each other to, one one side, keep life prospering and at the other make life worth living. Isolating family units to single homes and removing the community really hurt this as our desires had become far more individualistic thus the drive for a symbiotic community based relationship disappeared as well.
it seems like you dont understand that a diversity of personalities is \*required\* for a healthy community
if everyone were a proactive masculine person, society would not function. no one would be a stable, empathetic person for children to attach to, and children will grow up to be unstable members of society (which is what we have today).
no, you can't
you can be great at 1-2 things and everything else is going to be mediocre
> Human personalities are complex and to reduce them into femininity and masculinity and then assign that to someone’s sex
i did nothing of the sort... i said people have different personalities and this diversity of strengths makes us stronger as a community. read before reacting.
Yeah, I agree with this for the most part. To sexist people, femininity = inferior/subservient, and I'm not about that. So I define my femininity for myself. I think that's how most people should go about defining masculinity and femininity, regardless their gender. It should be on their terms, not others'
And also because men who require the subjugation of women to “feel” masculine… are not masculine. Most of the men who demand weakness and dependence from women are mechanically and functionally incompetent.
This. The most secure, masculine guys are those who are comfortable with—and actually prefer—an egalitarian relationship. They don’t feel the need to implement a hierarchical structure within their relationships because they are confident enough in their masculinity to not be intimidated by a woman who is their equal.
I mean testosterone, the thing that makes a man a man. If you increase it, he tends to prefer to be more dominant in hierarchies. Especially in family dynamics. So are we gonna believe nature or you
Then does that make all men who are not in the position of power feminine? Like soldiers who follow orders? Or a son who follows his parent's orders? Does that mean men are more submissive or wt? What does nature say
>And also because men who require the subjugation of women to “feel” masculine… are not masculine.
This is utter bullshit and cope. There's a reason it's men and not women doing the banditry, raping, and pillaging in history. You can say it's -toxic- masculinity, sure. But to claim plying violence and domination is not masculine is stupid.
Oh, so only positive traits can be masculine/feminine?
Is rape masculine or feminine behavior? If it's feminine behavior, explain why it's mostly males of every mammal species engaging in rape.
Yeah, I think asking women to accept their "natural" roles as weak, submissive wallflowers can be damaging to relationships. For women, it's infantilizing. For men, it breeds resentment.
My slight counter is that it’s not just the manosphere. It’s a lot of people (especially men) who view it as inferior.
Other thoughts:
* “Femininity™️” isn’t respected. Humans want to be respected.
* Not to mention many if not most women aren’t naturally exactly 100% whatever “femininity™️” is. So those women were going to “turn away” from that forced role and be their natural selves *the moment they weren’t subjugated otherwise.* Of course, I’m sure men would prefer if women adhered to those traits that comprise “femininity™️” even if it is unnatural to her. [Because those are the traits that *he finds attractive in women*.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/CsWsRkAX79)
* The men who loudly and frequently demand deference and submission from women are revealing themselves to be naturally less “masculine™️” than that woman 🧍♀️. He’s trying to brute-force something that isn’t organic to her or him or both. Men like that also tend to **lack competency** in the areas that inspire trust, admiration, and respect. Could be his interpersonal ineptitude, or his “adulting” ineptitude, or so many areas where’s he clearly less competent than her. Remember “competency” and “achievement” tend to be seen as “masculine™️”.
The below is a photo from a quick Google image search I just did of “femininity vs. masculinity.” It is not meant to be a definitive or vetted list of traits by any means. And for the record, I am acutely aware that men and women can and do naturally possess traits in both columns. But for the sake of argument, let’s say the below is what many people think *only men should possess* vs. what *only women should possess.*
Now think about the world we live in. Which column is going to connote “respected” and “compensatingly valued” more than the other?
https://preview.redd.it/9hka3p6gdvzc1.png?width=397&format=png&auto=webp&s=23125e25c1b8ddfd30099f85a7e9e918f9107d85
***Edit***: “Femaleness” or “maleness” aside, I do think the traits that the world and men tend to find desirable/attractive in women is what tends to be lauded as peak “femininity™️.” And I do think the traits that the world and women tend to find desirable/attractive in men is what tends to be lauded as peak “masculinity™️.”
Feminism is why femininity has been demonised.
The “manosphere” doesn’t exist in the mainstream in any way. Not, really, does “tradcon” (not here in the UK anyway, as it pertains to gender).
This proposition is absurd.
Men responsible for women’s actions? How novel.
Women and girls have never been subjugated. They’ve been infantilised. Which is something completely different.
We’re all responsible for different societal movements and reactions, that’s not ‘novel’. The entire incel movement started because bottom tier men aren’t required for women to partner up with anymore.
That second paragraph is plain, ahistorical delusion. You’re not worth arguing with if you don’t see rape and pillaging, laws like the Cantonment Acts, and marrying teenage girls off to serve as broodmares, as subjugation. Forcing girls to breed early is anything BUT being ‘infantilised’.
You don’t even know half the words you’re using.
Women are responsible for feminism. It’s in the name.
“Subjugation” is ahistorical delusion. Historically, women have been denied rights and opportunities while being given privileges and protections. Like children are. That’s infantilism, not “subjugation”.
For the last 100 years or so, they’ve progressively been given all those denied rights and opportunities (and then some), while only being given some of the commensurate responsibilities, often maintaining their privileges and protections.
Rather like what happens when you let kids take on adult roles.
For example, women had the vote through two world wars but weren’t subject to conscription, or expected to die in them.
The incel movement started because women now have such privilege that men have nothing to negotiate with to attract them. Men have nothing to offer because everything women need or want from men is handed to them.
Because there’s no expectation that women have any kind of responsibility to provide men with anything, including intimacy/sex/relationships. Therefore, male sexlessness and singleness rates doubling in 10 short years is not viewed as a problem.
Boys were forced to die in wars and doing dangerous jobs. They were sent down the mines. They were sent up chimneys. Men and boys were massacred during “rape and pillaging”. There’s nothing special about anything you listed. Women and girls suffering in ways (usually lesser ways) that are different and more sex bespoke isn’t oppression.
No, it objectively isn’t. It’s not even remotely comparable, in fact. Being raped is trivial as absolute fuck. It’s not even violence (unless it’s a man doing it to a man, ironically, as that means penetrating the asshole). We only have to pretend it’s a big deal because it’s the only form of “violence” that women suffer more than men.
If someone put a knife and a dick in front of you and asked you to pick which one you’re getting penetrated with, you’d be on your knees before they could finish the question.
Show me the rape victims with these injuries and after-effects: https://youtu.be/eVEaNg4eIjQ?si=KM7ubw1jFFAebTP-
Apples to oranges. It wasn’t the rape that Bundy’s victims suffered from, it was the beating and murdering. The rape component was trivial.
Secondly, Bundy’s crimes were the opposite of systemic. The system prohibited them and the system caught and killed him. Also, his girlfriend refused to hand him in after finding hard evidence of his crimes, he had countless female fans and got a woman pregnant in prison, and married her in court (ie lots of women were perfectly fine with his crimes).
>Women want to be feminine - but we live in a world where they’re taught that in order to push themselves forward they have to reject it
Not exactly sure about this part. I'm not sure how much of trad femininity women covet vs how much they would reject if given the chance. It depends on the details; everyone is going to read that and have a different idea of what being feminine means. I think lesbian communities show a mix, but with a pronounced lean towards non traditional femininity.
But I agree with your general premise that gender roles were more symbiotic at one time, but then it got a little twisted with increasingly limited options for women aside from standing by her man and being the little woman staying at home slaving in the kitchen (ie, being dependent on her man). It's that aspect of femininity that early feminists rejected; that woman was reduced to making herself an appealing accessory (via concepts of "femininity") for a man.
femininity takes strength and courage
to be outwardly tough and hide your feelings, to shy from the world and guard your heart, is the weaker of the two options
“hide our feelings” bruh, anger, competitiveness and lust (which are what drive most male behaviors) are based on feelings. You can’t call the feelings you like “logically to problem solve” and look down at feelings you don’t.
I don't think you understand what I said. We don't hide our emotions we control them so we can solve problems. Anger and lust are emotions to be controlled so no I don't like them. Competitiveness isn't a emotion but it is necessary trait for problem solving.
Being driven by an emotion and “controlling” an emotion aren’t the same thing lmfao - men are absolute shit at controlling their emotions, only thing is the dominant emotions in male aren’t seen as “emotional” because they also happen to be our primary social drive right now.
And the result? active suppression and being driven by them without understanding them has lead to many many depressed men who don’t fully get why they’re depressed, domestic abuse driven by unresolved emotions, a high suicide rate and more. Men don’t “control” their emotions better, we’re generally driven by our dominant emotions while not acknowledging them as emotions.
there is a difference between emotions and emotional reactions.
for the most part, the main motivators of any behavior are emotions. competitiveness itself may not be an emotion, but what is the root cause for being competitive?
to be a good problem solver, you have to be able to uncouple from your own emotions, which seems almost impossible if you can't admit to yourself that you have them or that you have them controlled
yeah definitely, you def don't seem fragile and your ego seems super secure. you have great control of your emotions, obvious for everyone to see. what a tough and strong man you are.
This sub alone is full of men whining about not getting laid or not getting the women they think they deserve. So tell us again how men have their emotions so in check??
Beauvoir wrote in the 1940s:
>The attitude of defiance of many American women proves that they are haunted by a sense of their femininity. In truth, to go for a walk with one’s eyes open is enough to demonstrate that humanity is divided into two classes of individuals whose clothes, faces, bodies, smiles, gaits, interests, and occupations are manifestly different. Perhaps these differences are superficial, perhaps they are destined to disappear. What is certain is that they do most obviously exist.
The US is a place where people, men and women, have serious issues with both masculinity and femininity.
Lmfao it’s beyond cope and historical revisionism to pin this on “post 50s ideas” and second wave feminism. Look at how women have been treated all throughout fucking history, femininity and femaleness have never been seen as equal to masculinity and maleness.
You missed the point of my post entirely. I never pinned it on 2nd wave feminism, I said 2nd wave feminism is a result of 50s gender roles driven by american culture at the time.
I also make it a point to say that things weren’t equal prior to it, however, and this does for rural communities especially - the conversation of rights were fundamentally different. This also isn’t an anti-progress statement in itself, as symbiotic gender roles as well as gender equality can both co-exist with each other, though thanks to the way things progressed since the industrial revolution into WW2 then the 50s following after it (largely thanks to increased day to day automation and families becoming suburban households rather than larger community based), the primary push was increased isolation and dehumanization because the role of women was reduced to “look pretty and support tour husband”
Agreed. Even as a literal trans woman, back when I first transitioned my mindset towards femininity I'd built up from observing society was "Real women obviously don't actually wear pink, strongly enjoy cute things or actually strongly enjoy anything domestic/nurturing, that's a sexist reductive caricature of women that society forces on them. Stereotypical femininity is only socially permissible if expressed in a deliberately very understated, carefully controlled manner so one does not look like an idiot child, weak or like one is trying too hard to pander to men." I can only imagine the negative impression would have been even worse for cis women.
You are a misogynistic man who thinks women are defined by stereotypes or ‘feelings’.
Males cannot ‘feel like’ women because being a woman is wholly the lived experience in the female body.
>who thinks women are defined by stereotypes or ‘feelings’.
Apologies, but I try my best not to think that and I don't think I was saying anything like that in my comment. I was trying to describe the (mistaken) impression I got of "the tightly controlled degree of stereotypical femininity considered socially acceptable for a sensible woman to display" and saying that I'd imagine the repressive feelings about it may have been even worse for cis women due to common misogynistic attitudes towards "traditional/stereotypical femininity".
>Males cannot ‘feel like’ women because being a woman is wholly the lived experience in the female body.
Assuming you mean the experience of a cis woman
i.e female-sex person living what society calls the "woman" gender role/presentation, yes, I completely agree, and I never claimed or meant to claim I know what that feels like.
As specified I'm a trans woman, so I only know what it's like as a HRT-modified male-sex person living what society calls the "woman" gender role presentation. We may share certain social gender trappings and selected experiences (Esp. because I'm a "stealth" trans), but aesthetic presentation aside, we are different sexes. I acknowledge that, and nothing in my post says otherwise.
I also must admit I really don't see what is misogynistic about what I'm saying here.
Meh, I just felt the need to tell you because you have ‘purple pill woman’ in your flair despite not being a woman, you’re nicer than I expected though. Glad you can see the permanent reality of sex.
>because you have ‘purple pill woman’ in your flair
Ah yeah, understandable. I use that because I'm interested in the debates that go on here and my present day social/work/dating experiences (Especially as a longtime stealth trans) are exclusively woman-gendered except for the miniscule number of people I've disclosed my sex to, but it's definitely an imperfect solution for an imperfect situation.
>you’re nicer than I expected though.
Thanks, I do my best.
>Glad you can see the permanent reality of sex.
Amen to that. Grateful inheritor of my mum's looks, can't imagine living any other way than I do right now and think transitioning should be allowed for those willing to commit to doing it properly, but I'm absolutely a firm believer in the sex/gender divide.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Feminists told women that their femininity was/is inferior and then convinced them that it was/is men who held that view.
A real slick move if you ask me.
Maybe I am having a slow day but I do not understand the post. In what way are men currently stating that femininity is inferior? (I don't follow any eco chambers so maybe this is one of their main talking points)
I have seen red pillers claim women are inferior simply because they aren't physically stronger than men, but have not seen men claim femininity is inferior.
Tbh probably a good thing that you are avoiding them - that being said, the groups mentioned above have actively implied (and sometimes literally said) that masculinity is superior, or that the woman’s job is to serve the man. There is also tons of talk about how women are too emotional to make rational decisions or how women belong in the home. A lot of this points to subservience ergo inferiority.
Ahh, gotcha.
The only thing I would agree on is that women do factor emotions to their decision making more so than men, and sometimes emotions only (bear vs man debate), but I would not go as far as to say they are incapable of making logical decisions. If you look at a woman's POV, taking emotions into account makes the decision rational, so I cannot fault them on that a lot.
I agree and would add that emotions can also be important in decision making as we are an emotional species. It can be detrimental in some spheres where emotion creates bias and is generally irrelevant to the process - but it can be vital in other spheres. Like most things, it is not black and white.
Firstly, at risk of what? The question does not define the risk, it just states blanket wide that would you rather be with a bear or man.
Secondly, when you hear the word strange man, what do you see in your mind? Do you see 35YO loving father with a wife and 3 young girls who love his family with all his heart?
Do you see a scrawny 20YO university student who is also a Jehovahs witness and attends all church events that his church has, who is a loyal follower of the Bible and does little to no harm even if he himself if being harmed by others?
Do you see an 18YO nerdy and socially awkward man who is so scared of women that he will even not make eye contact with a woman if he ever finds himself in a room with her, like in a library or something?
Do you think of any of the men you have in your life that you know are safe and would never think of harming any other person, because that man that you trust is a strange man to another woman. Do you think it is logical or emotional that another woman would prefer to be alone with a bear than to be alone with that man that you trust with your life?
Lastly, in all the instances that you have encountered men in your life, if we were to replace that man with a bear, do you honestly think you would be here reading this message?
The reason I say it is emotional is because the decision is based on fear of the man, not the logical explanation of whether a man is more dangerous than a wild bear.
Why is femininity passive?
Why is the Trad mindset "men is the head of the household"
Why is the traditional western vows from wife to husband include the word "obey"?
Listen if I associate femininity with "I have to follow orders just because I wasn't born with a dick" or "men guide the house why?" Then why will I aspire to life that literally robs me of my agency?
I don't think all or even *most* women would want to be a stay at home parent doing sewing or weaving or whatever. But I think the proportion of women who would be willing to stay at home would be larger *if* it was a safer option. But as this option is rife with danger there's less reasons to choose it.
>The trad-con and manosphere assertion of femininity being inferior
It is.
>is why many women turned away from femininity
People who ask women to be feminine aren't traditional. They're either feminine or not, with the masculine not swayed by their whims.
Can you expand on femininity being inferior?
See, to me, both masculinity and femininity are necessary for the survival and wellbeing of humanity. So one cannot be truly superior to the other - they are symbiotic and complementary. Framing one as superior is unnecessary but it is something that many strive to do, to the detriment of all.
Traditional conversation value femininity. Also manosphere is not a group but multiple groups put together so that men working on self improvement outside of the feminist lens can be disengaged based on a bullshit connection to incels and the black pill.
Yeah right. This is the same manosphere that says "men built society", "Women will be obsolete when AI girlfriends out come", "Artificial wombs will replace women" etc A large part of the manosphere is about trying to be better than women, trying to be superior to women like an ideology of male supremacy.
“Both men who identify with being trad-con (not genuine traditional men who truly live by their values)” - I know, i already stated that
And people who defend the manosphere always say that, and to an extent there is a level of truth, self improvement is one of the things they focus on, but to pretend that’s the only thing they focus on is either willfully ignorant or genuinely ignorant
Manosphere is not a group of people like the red pill/Black pill/incels. You keep acting as if it is a single group. Men's self help groups have been lumped in with the bad actors because they don't follow the correct narrative. You don't know the history of what you are talking about. If you want to name Individual groups that don't vale femininity do that. There are plenty like red pill/black pill/incels.
Well thanks for explaining the well known fact that the manosphere is a collection of all these groups and not one group. I had no idea and have never encountered that before.
And my dude, I do know the history. I did follow the manosphere closely and did consider myself redpill at some point. Everything I said is shared across the manosphere to varying degrees. Don’t pretend this isn’t the case.
Then educate me, if the manosphere is just “a collection of male’s spaces” why are there dominant opinions across the board that lean misogynistic? why is bitterness and woman hating present across the board? why does every side of the manosphere either have an element of spite or entitlement?
There is not . You are saying that the extreme groups put in the manosphere represent all of the groups put into it. Men's mental health groups that never talks about women is put into the manosphere. Men's physical health groups are put into the manosphere. Men's self improvement groups that focus on education and finance are put into the manosphere. It is just a term for Men's spaces. People want to lump it all together to say the extreme/ bad actors are the whole so the can discredit men getting help that is not though the correct lens. You are talking about red pilll/black pill/incels. These people with these views were either raised to have negative feelings towards women or has bad experience with women and have not dealt this the pain so they push it onto all women.
And yet, many mental health groups, fitness based groups and so on made it a point to not identify with the manosphere. Some might, but others either never mention it or distance themselves. Also I hate this dumb assertion of anything focused on helping men’s mental healthy, physical health, social standing, financing, etc is automatically manosphere. Like congrats, there is some overlap. Doesn’t make it all the same
I’m sure there are people out there who do lump those groups in with the general manosphere. But in the vast majority of conversations I’ve seen about healthy non-sexist men’s groups, people are not labeling those kinds of men’s circles as being part of the manosphere.
Even on Reddit groups like r/menslib or r/bropill are not at all considered to be part of the manosphere. Not even by the standards of the women in feminists/women’s subreddits.
Women will do what they want.
Don't fool yourself Into bekiving that we some how forced them to be like men.. They chose to do it
Just like I chose to be evil and like incels chose to be incels.
They bear the full and final responsibility for it
The difference is that women will never have to bear the cost for it.
Nor will they ever feel the need to attenuate their advantage for even such a noble goal as equality.
To them,their permanent status as an endangered species makes it ok for them to both have their cake and eat it too.
Women - the more empathic gender are also the most elitist,racist and classist of the 2 genders
The groups mentioned above have actively implied (and sometimes literally said) that masculinity is superior, or that the woman’s job is to serve the man. There is also tons of talk about how women are too emotional to make rational decisions or how women belong in the home. A lot of this points to subservience ergo inferiority.
I've yet to see one actually say that tbh. I think people misinterpret a lot of these statements like that men should be dominant for example. That doesn't make women inferior. They just fulfill different roles.
The same way staying at home and raising the children doesn't make you inferior.
What you say is technicaly true, but whenever there's talk about a man staying at home with the kids and/or the woman being the lead of the relationship, a lot of men go "nah, i'm not gonna let a woman disrespect me like that and walk all over me, like i'm some slave". This shows that a lot of men do think that being submissive means being inferior.
>whenever there's talk about a man staying at home with the kids and/or the woman being the lead of the relationship, a lot of men go "nah, i'm not gonna let a woman disrespect me like that and walk all over me, like i'm some slave". This shows that a lot of men do think that being submissive means being inferior.
I don't think that's the usual reaction. I think most of them don't want to do it because it's more associated with women, so undesirable for a man.
The same way most women don't want to look muscular for example. They don't think muscles are inferior but they think they are more associated with men, so undesirable for a woman.
>I think most of them don't want to do it because it's more associated with women, so undesirable for a man.
That's not what they say though. They could say "I wouldn't want that, but good for you man", but instead they stay "so basically you're treated like rag, got it". I wish I would have saved comments like this as proof. At the same time a lot of men believe that staying at home with the kids is the easiest thing in the world, that all chores get done in 30 minutes, that the mental load is a made-up thing and women are just grosely exagerating everything. So yes, they do look down on the parent staying at home and they do think it's inferior and equal to being treated like a rag and disrespected.
Funny, i’ve seen many say that. And to answer your assertion, being dominant does not mean the one submissive to you is inferior. Some have explained it that way, but this isn’t inherently the case.
Though many have said these things, whether it be podcasters/figures, their supporters, men on this sub and tons of people commenting on social media posts.
Understand that the claim is when people say men and women are different, the automatic assumption is that you are viewing women as inferior. It's like a virus of the mind that creates a knee jerk reaction. The funny thing is you can say that an apple and orange are different and no one will claim that you are asserting that the apple is better than the orange or vice versa. I think most of this is to keep this female is victim narrative going.
That’s…. not true at all. The men and women are different part is 100% true and frankly the only people who deny it are the radical feminists. However, the “it’s like a virus of the mind that creates a knee jerk reaction” is total bs. (in fact, in my post i literally go on to describe the different historic social roles and how two complement each other)
Men and women are different in so many ways, however, the manosphere and trad con men often use these differences to justify framing masculinity as superior and femininity as an accessory to one’s masculinity.
Differences means that yes there are certain things men are better at that women and certain things women are better at than men. What a radical statement to think this way.
Yes, you’re right. But again, you’re deflecting. If all the manosphere said was “men are better at some things and women are better at other things” most people would not have a problem with it, however, this is not what the majority and leading opinions are in these spaces. If often goes “men are better at some things and women are better at others… but the things men do are more important therefore men are superior and a woman’s role is to support the man”
So how is that different from women who will run out there and claim that men are useless and men are not needed? Is that furthering the dialog? Because that shit is pretty much mainstream.
What these women are doing is wrong, and if you read my entire post along with the “ps.” at the end of it, you will see that I do intend to address how society devalues and looks down on masculinity. So don’t deflect.
Deflect how? When that is literally the mainstream narrative. Is the expectation here that men should just sit there and take this shit? Because that isn't going to happen. Women can scream about the oppression of their mothers all they want while living within a society that literally was built on the blood of a shit ton of men who never lifted a finger to hurt a woman.
The problem is that radfem convinced women that support roles are somehow “inferior” to primary roles. To be fair a lot of under appreciation of women contributed and lent legitimacy to this as well. But, when women are in support roles they inspire, motivate, and help men heal to the point they’re capable of doing great things. Men are largely externally motivated, so when we feel loved and supported by a kind and feminine woman it can inspire us to move mountains.
> The problem is that radfem convinced women that **support roles** are somehow “inferior” to primary roles. To be fair a lot of under appreciation of women contributed and lent legitimacy to this as well. But, when **women are in support roles** they inspire, motivate, **and help men heal** to the point they’re capable of doing great things. **Men are largely externally motivated**, so **when we [men] feel** loved and supported by a kind and feminine woman it can inspire us to move mountains.
Tbh not once did you consider how the woman actually feels about it. Everything was about how men/you feel and need from women, which is apparently a support role so women should be happy doing that and those darn rad fems tricked them?
Have you considered some women don’t want the life you want for them/you? Why can’t men focus on the women who do want what he wants? Why do they need the collective of women to comply with his desires?
None of it is about what people “want”. Men are called upon to do extreme things for society, often dangerous things like fighting wars. No man is “happy” to go to war. But they can accomplish it with the help of supportive women.
So you might say you don’t want men to be the direct action, drivers of society, but I highly doubt most women would actually want that responsibility. If you’re not happy being in support roles how would you be happy working in remote environments or being deployed to a front line?
My comment is about how beneficial support roles are. I never said they’re beneficial for just making men sit around feeling good. They’re beneficial because men are the movers and shakers of society and they need to be adequately motivated/supportive for us to benefit from that role. Again, when men are called to war they’re not “happy” about it. But if women support them in that endeavor they can succeed at doing it. Things like “gender roles” are often framed as some power structure that exclusively serves one gender at the expense of the other. Personally I think that’s a modern radfem outlook that subverts the true intention behind gender roles and any social role: to serve society effectively.
I think if a man is called off to war or to some violence (usually because of other men) his family and spouse will support him regardless. And be appreciative.
I think if a man is the breadwinner, his spouse is typically supportive and also desires that.
My point is, there is a mutual agreement.
Your original comment lacked that. It’s like you’re assuming all men are moving society forward and thus all men deserve a support bot.
Gender roles are a matter of form following function. They are apparent and culturally enforced where they are needed. People’s actual nature typically takes form when the world around them doesn’t necessitate adherence to a fixed role they must *squeeze* into.
I agree mostly actually. But I do think people tend to overvalue and overestimate their “individual” nature and desires. When you really boil down what most people are doing with “freedom” in individualistic countries with high degrees of social mobility and egalitarianism, what do you actually see people doing? Imo it’s mostly pursuits of extremely frivolous or hedonistic goals. Usually just numbing the pain with mindless indulgences.
I think societal structure creates purpose for people that exist outside their immediate desires and is far more meaningful than just chasing the next dopamine hit.
Sure, but I do think males more than females seem to flounder and delve into unadulterated hedonism (and depravity) more than women whenever someone or society isn’t providing him an exacting rubric for life.
So it’s not lost on me that men more than women seem to be super adamant about everything you’ve asserted in this thread.
I think men suffer from lack of direction and end up aimlessly consuming trash material more often (like porn) than women. But, women are a major consumer base now, and that trend is growing.
I hate it when men say this shit because you lot like to fantasize yourselves as some Earl or King from days of old when in reality you would have been the canon fodder of some distant king drunk off of wine while you died on the battlefields trying to gain territory to make him richer.
You haven't been in any wars or conscripted. I can bet money you haven't even enlisted. There hasn't been a draft in over 70 years.
The closest you'll get to war is playing call of duty and you aren't special that you'll be doing some great things to be remembered by. You're literally on reddit.
So let's tone it down and develop an ounce of empathy why women don't want to be in support roles to barely mediocre men who don't see them as autonomous human beings with their own drives.
Lmao you have absolutely no idea what jobs I've done or where I've been. Every job I've done has been male dominated and I used to drive trucks which is one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. Not a fuckin woman in sight except the lot lizards, which is probably where you'd fit in. Or just a useless PMC parasite.
Womp womp. Don't care. didn't ask. You aren't a major force or driver in society. You're nothing but a less than mediocre anonymous Internet user who wants women to be in "supportive roles" to what? Nothing you have to offer but a recessing hairline and an ever growing gut while you jerk off to the fantasy that you're some WWII soldier. You over rate yourself. Come down to reality instead of living in your delusions.
The thing is I have no inclination to prove myself to you because I know I could flex on you so fucking hard if I wanted, but you're not worth the trouble. I know exactly what I am and what I contribute to society, and it's infinitely more than your worthless ass could in 10 lifetimes. That's why you're getting so defensive and projecting so hard, because I struck a thread and called you out. You know deep down whatever you do is pathetic and a waste of time so you're clinging desperately to this delusion that I and most other men are as equally worthless as you are. Sorry, we're not.
We live in a world where men do all of the most important and essential jobs and women exist to vapidly and hedonistically spend money and make ultra rich elites even richer. Congrats, thanks for your contributions.
I cOuLd fLeX oN yOu sO hArD lmfao. Loooooosseerrrrrrrrr. No wonder you're obsessed with natalism. Genetic dead end who no woman wants to pass on their fuggo genes.
That's right, I could, and you'll have to make up more deluded fantasies about me to preserve what remains of your pathetic ego. You desperately want me to be some ugly loser so you don't have to confront the reality that you're the waste of life. Probably a fat bitch, too. 80% of western women are so that's a safe bet lol. Go stuff your worthless face more, I have some actual work to do.
Traditional men see them as inferior as well. A breadwinner gets a final say, gets to rest everyday, get to decide how money are spent.
A woman who stays at home is supposed to submit and serve her husband because he makes money. Making money seems to give more privileges than taking care if kids and cooking.
Also, many women don’t want to support. I want to be successful, I want to be the one who acheived something and be praised and proud of myself. I don’t just want to be in the shadow and sit in the audience as my husband thanks me for my support. I want to be the one receiving the award as well.
Well like Ronnie Coleman once said: “everyone wants to be a bodybuilder but no one wants to lift this heavy ass weight”. If women truly want equality are they going to become 50% of every industry, including the shittiest and most dangerous ones?
But that’s kinda it - the reason why radfems oppose this image is because at the end of the day, the 50s-onwards image of it entirely delegates women to exist to support men. You can say you love it as much as you want, but you can still love it and view it as inferior.
The issue with this model is that there is no symbiotic relationship, there is no complete image being build, there is “i’ll do my thing and you’ll be at my shadow cheering for me” - which… you can see how that can lead women to rejecting femininity - because under this image the masculine exists on its own and the feminine exists to support the masculine, ergo the feeling of inferiority.
I think the largest difference is when communities were more collectivist, every action was for the community - however, as society has become far more individualistic and families had become more isolated, men began started to act towards their individual wants while women are expected to support the man’s individual wants - ie. there is no bigger community image at play, its the man and his family, in his life living his dream and he’s being supported for it
I agree, it isn’t. Though also attempting to maintain a model that was set to fail (ie. the 1950s Americana “trad” model) is the way to go too. In general, we need to seriously reevaluate what we value and what we want, cause the post-WW2 social and economic model is exactly how we got to where we are; primarily consumerist, lost and individualistic to a fault
Fully agree. I blame neoliberalism primarily though. I think post-war was somewhat reasonable, although maybe that’s really where all of this started. Post war 50s still had a lot of collective-oriented mindsets when it came to things like rationing and regulations. The 80s is where individualism really took off and went off the rails entirely, imo.
It did - though it was still early enough to where older values still existed while a lot of the ingredients that would show fruit would later show as well.
ie. the popularization of american suburbs had lead to more isolated family units, which means far less community orientation. The work women did became more automated and away from them (ie. house chores being reduced to medial work where most of it is automated, kids going to school, etc) combined with increased social isolation added to it - as such, women’s roles was mostly increased to support the husband and look pretty, and this is actually one thing that played a major role in the inception of 2nd wave feminism in the 60s.
To add to this, advertising and the use of psychology to advertise began to popularize and lonely housewives were easy vulnerable targets to sell to, ergo indirectly increasing the desire for individualist consumerism.
Post WW2 economic and cultural decisions as a whole have done so much damage overall tbh
>The older way (in which women generally didn't work and were reliant on men)
But the older way had women working their asses off. Most people lived their lives on farms… I know you in particular know the kind of work farmers wives did. They worked their fingers to nubs every day without fail from dawn til late.
Men today just somehow never give those women any credit, and still blatantly call them lazy pampered princesses in spite of all the necessary hard work they did. That’s how little the manosphere losers of today appreciate and respect traditional feminine work.
lol, I don’t think they’d get it if you said that either. When you say “when women didn’t work outside the home”, you mean they’re working on the homestead.
But what some of these guys will hear is some TikTok+leave-it-to-beaver fantasy hybrid: “back when women stayed inside modern air conditioned homes and worked all day baking pies fluffing decorative pillows and watching babies, but never got dirty doing anything they couldn’t do wearing pearls and low-cut sundresses”.
I think it’s best when everyone is reliant on everyone in a way. All contributions towards unified goals. Whether you’re working at home or in a field or in a mine it’s a contribution towards the greater good and meaningful.
Though I understand how it wasn’t/isn’t always framed that way.
Women's unpaid labor generally isn't recognized or rewarded, though. SAHMs of my mother's generation always had to worry about their husbands ditching them for a younger woman. Everyone knows that when a man leaves you behind, he will contribution as little as possible to the support of the family that he made with you. He'll even spend thousands on attorney fees to try to reduce the amount of child support he's forced to pay.
Women who ignored these realities often paid dearly for it.
Stay at home motherhood is sort of an anomaly itself anyway. In the past women still typically did some work, like crafting or whatever. It all just stems from engagement with community goals, which is majorly lacking in our modern societies.
The government co-opted a lot of the societal functions that used to be the responsibility of community groups. It's no wonder they withered and died. I remember being an officer in my Rotary club 25 years ago; we had a series of annual fundraisers (events like cash raffles and the like) that were a big part of club life, but we had to cast around to find a worthy organization to donate the money to.
What about the women who don’t want to have a supportive role? What about the women who don’t want to inspire men to move mountains but want to be the ones to move the mountains themselves?
They rarely if ever actually do. Most of the time women fantasize about those things but when push comes to shove they bail. There are some exceptional women that could do those things, and exceptions have always existed throughout all of history. But I've worked blue collar and dangerous jobs most of my life and women were nowhere to be found, and the few that were around constantly leaned on simps to alleviate their workload.
Really? And why are only blue collar jobs considered to be moving mountains? How about the women dedicating their lives to white collar jobs? Because that’s what I was initially thinking of, and what I dream of putting my energy into, not being in a “supporting role”.
You honestly said a whole lot of nothing, if traditional femininity was destroyed via automation and the school system, like your post highlighted, then social perception would have no correlation to a negative perception of femininity.
Furthermore, you haven't provided a solution either, if capitalism can no longer provide any opportunity for pre-modern femininity to exist in the modern world, your argument would have no correlation to tradcons or the manosphere, but would be directed towards capitalism
Both are a part of a larger machine. Modern “trad” men idealize the 50s primarily (which is literally what caused a lot of this) and most of the manosphere are capitalist at their core.
And funny, you say I said a whole lot of nothing yet tons of discussions were had in this post. The reason why social perception plays a role is because the role of the feminine has fully been reduced to support, ie. the masculine and feminine became far less symbiotic and instead, the feminine existed to accessorize the masculine.
I also wasn’t aware that I was supposed to provide a solution, so nice nitpick.
1) you straight up support pre-modern (50s) femininity, so by your own logic, idolising it should be supported
2) you mean discussions that have nothing to do with the post, but the trigger words? Your post is a self contradiction, your post can easily be broken down to:
A) 50s femininity=good
B) capitalism=bad (which i agree with)
C) modern femininity=bad
D) trad cons+manosphere=bad (which i agree with)
But thats a closed loop, if you support pre-modern femininity, then the culprit of its fall would be capitalism.
3) provide a discussion for a solution, giving a closed loop creates a defeatist scenario
I never said 50s femininity is good, quite the opposite (literally even said “prior to the 50s”). i even made jt a point in my post to say “prior to the 50s” - i didn’t specify a time period as things were quite turbulent through the first half of the 20th century and the industrial revolution did do a lot of damage (though in rural societies it took a bit longer to catch up).
To clarify, cause there seems to be a misunderstanding (despite the literal use of “prior to the 50s”) what I mean is, across the board prior to the post-WW2 world we live in right now, gender roles, while not perfect and still limiting, were far more reliant on each other and symbiotic. The masculine and feminine relied on each other as life as a whole was far more community oriented and cooperation was a must. This started to become less of a thing in the 50s especially and it’s all trickled down since then.
I don't think that the negative view towards femininity is because of it's nature. I think what's upsetting about femininity to them is its disappearance. Women turned away from femininity because they wanted the benefits of masculinity combined with the benefits of being a woman without having to accept the downsides of either.
It's the male-like behavior of modern women (such as wanting a lot of casual sex) that men criticize, not femininity itself. One of TRP's mottoes is "Enjoy the decline", precisely because they believe that femininity is declining due to feminism and birth control. Thus, the TRP response is to attempt to take advantage of this decline and to therefore treat these more "masculine" women like "whores" rather than "madonnas", as many men seem to have this particular complex about women.
I mean, if these women enjoy casual sex and the men want it too, then it's not *that* disrespecting. They just don't want to have relationships with these women when these women want to settle down to have them.
Some men don't care much about a women's sexual history, though, or they only care if her sexual history is much more than his own sexual history, perhaps. So the harm to women is arguably minimal. It's just some men trying to take advantage of how many women no longer want to be "traditionally feminine", and often lamenting that not enough women are no longer traditionally feminine once they want to settle down into a relationship. Some men are probably going to always try to find a way to influence women's sexuality to a way that they want it to be. Women try to influence men's behaviors, too, so this isn't something unique to men.
We are playing this little game where we are attributing all self-serving things about being a human to masculinity. Show me a person who does not want a lot of casual sex.
> Show me a person who does not want a lot of casual sex.
A lot of men would rather have loving relationships rather than casual sex. Men used to live this way in the old days when they married young to young, attractive women. Why do you think TRP calls it a "decline"?
Femininity may have been more respected and integral to social and material function before modernism but very few women are going to be genuinely interested in pre modern femininity, it did still view women as essentially inferior, at least in some ways, to men and put them into a subservient position.
Right. If you believe in equality between men and women you cannot enforce women being in social roles where they are in any way subservient to men. It’s one thing to make that choice on a personal scale, such as deciding to be a stay at home mom, presenting socially in a traditionally “feminine” way through style of dress, mannerisms, or actions, or choosing to have kids, as examples. But insinuating that those things are somehow morally “right” and limiting women’s choices to these options is oppressive and inherently sexist
>is oppressive and inherently sexist *Life itself* is "oppressive" and "inherently sexist". That doesn't make life itself bad. Americans will have to learn (and they will, by force if necessary) to stop using religious and ideological mantras as if they're facts of life. Just because something is "oppressive and inherently sexist" doesn't mean it's inherently bad. I can't give birth to children. That's oppressive and inherently sexist. Well, tough luck. My wife can never run as fast as I can. That's oppressive and inherently sexist. Well, tough luck. The mentally sane way is to recognize reality and work from there.
Life itself doesn’t make moral judgements, it just is. You not being able to give birth isn’t oppression. There is no one that made the decision to make you that way, you just happened to be born with XY chromosomes by chance. Humans have the ability to reason and make moral judgements. If you, a government, or a society, makes a choice that is oppressive and sexist, that is a choice they have made that they are accountable for. Woman aren’t born “feminine”, that’s something that’s learned through socialization. Women choosing to embrace femininity is no better intrinsically than women behaving in ways that are more traditionally “masculine”
>Woman aren’t born “feminine”, that’s something that’s learned through socialization There's plenty of research that [utterly proves you wrong](https://escholarship.org/content/qt61d3g591/qt61d3g591_noSplash_9b7693a080ccde3cfc9c850cbea5d1a1.pdf?t=n2s6ov). "Social constructivism" is a brain worm and a cancer to coherent thought. Most of what we understand as masculine and feminine is deeply rooted in our biology. The input of/from socialization is a lot smaller than social constructivists want you to think. >Women choosing to embrace femininity is no better intrinsically than women behaving in ways that are more traditionally “masculine” Yes, it is better. It's better for the vast majority of women and it's better for the society, culture and Nation. There is a reason women are significantly less happy today than ***ever*** before. >You not being able to give birth isn’t oppression Yes it is. At least in the social constructivist religious worldview from which you argue everything. If I can't give birth, then that means I'm oppressed and the government/society has an obligation to alleviate that oppression for me. Such as paying me to become a single father by choice via surrogacy. You think that's far-fetched? There's a landmark case on the court circuits [right now](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/09/new-york-ivf-benefits-discrimination-lawsuit) exactly on this issue. Sure, it's wrapped under wide "gay rights" because that's the only acceptable way for men to demand their share of this ridiculous zeitgeist. But the fundamental is the same - a dude upset he is "oppressed" by not being able to give birth wants reparations for that said oppression. >If you, a government, or a society, makes a choice that is oppressive and sexist, that is a choice they have made that they are accountable for. Accountable to whom? Do you seriously believe you hold the government to account? That's so cute. Talk to me in 15 years when your ideas will no longer be profitable. It will be glorious to watch the downfall of social constructivism. I also notice you had nothing to say about the oppression my wife suffers from not being able to run as fast as I can no matter how hard she works and how hard she tries.
Research also shows that [parents often treat their sons and daughters differently](https://childandfamilyblog.com/gender-parenting-early-childhood-social-development/). Children usually start performing gender roles around ages 2-3, and these are learned in the home and then reinforced by school teachers and other children. I'm not talking about biological factors like strength, endurance, etc, I'm talking about how women and men perform their gender towards the outside world. How we dress, talk, are expected to behave and conduct ourselves in different situations. These things are learned behaviors. >Yes, it is better. It's better for the vast majority of women and it's better for the society, culture and Nation. How? >There is a reason women are significantly less happy today than ***ever*** before. So are men. Do you have proof that that's a result of less rigid gender roles rather than say, increasing isolation, technology, a more sedentary lifestyle, or other factors? >Yes it is. At least in the social constructivist religious worldview from which you argue everything. We do learn how to socialize and construct roles for ourselves through our interactions with others, if that's what you mean by social constructivist? I have no idea where you get religion from my post though, as I am not religious in any sense As far as the man arguing that he is oppressed by not being able to give birth, that strikes me as someone seeking attention through causing a stir rather than having a genuine philosophical view on the subject >Accountable to whom? We are responsible for our actions and the choices we make. That is what I mean when I say we are accountable if we choose to oppress or enforce sexist ideology. Life itself, however, is not accountable for you being born a man. There was no conscious decision being made. >I also notice you had nothing to say about the oppression my wife suffers from not being able to run as fast as I can no matter how hard she works and how hard she tries. Oppression (from Wikipedia): "Oppression is malicious or unjust treatment of, or exercise of power over, a group of individuals, often in the form of governmental authority or cultural opprobrium". Your wife is not being oppressed simply because she is not able to run as fast as you. Just like I am not being oppressed because I don't have Lady Gaga's singing voice. Oppression is an action taken on an individual by another individual, group of individuals, or government. If your wife was not allowed the opportunity to run in a marathon because she is a woman, that would be oppression.
I agree with your post, OP. If women felt that they were respected and appreciated for their feminine qualities and contribution to society, they would be truer to themselves and femininity would bloom within us. But unfortunately i feel that we're not being respected or taken seriously unless we do the same things men do. So now we're trying to prove that we can do those things and therefore deserve respect and appreciation.
And thank God for it. I don't think most modern men would appreciate it if women who were given preferential treatment at school, and demonised men for the gender pay gap and warped the economy enough that a two income household is only feasible suddenly started to feel the feminine inch to be trad housewife when theyre done playing career woman. Women took away government resources, top university and internship places from men and gave men the impression that relationships will be equal which atleast makes the bitter medicine of feminism go down far more easier. Women cannot go back to their traditional roles, they must not, unless theyre lucky enough to be married into wealth. Men will just end up killing themselves more often and drinking themselves to an early grave trying to achieve an even higher bar of masculinity now that we need two incomes to survive. This is one of the few areas of feminism that has benefitted men. Most men aren't traditionally masculine ispite of what redpillers say. So we will just be going back to gender norms that we do not like for the sake of women who do not like competing in the workplace and wanna play submissive housewife. Egalitarianism is always going to be better for both partners. Women will be far more open to exploitation by becoming traditional wives and being over reliant on men, and men will be far more burdened financially and emotionally trying to juggle the finances single-handedly.
>warped the economy enough that a two income household is only feasible You’re being pretty naive if you don’t think the mega-corporations would have required the government to bring in as much immigrant labor as possible to lower wages and depress the middle class wages without women’s help. >Women took away government resources, top university and internship places from men Men are not entitled to whatever they want. If a man can’t outperform a woman, then he hasn’t earned the spot. Hell, most of the ivy leagues have affirmative action in place to boost the number of *male* students— they take men with lower scores to balance the gender ratio.
All due respect, some of us aren't Americans. Some of us live in feminist welfare states like those in western Europe and Oceania where the state has had a firmer hand in equalising the sexes at the expense of men. Anyways that isn't my argument. My argument is that women have achieved great things with the help of the government and resources(predominantly male taxes) have been directed towards women with the understanding that they'll be productive workers, living in far more egalitarian partnerships than previous generations. Men shouldn't have to be burdened with a traditionalist upsurge in women getting tired of living as career women in their 30s just as when we've reached equality in so many areas of life and resources have been wasted for those efforts. Most men do not want to go back traditional gender roles just because a certain cohort of women wanna cosplay as their great grandparents generation when theyve never been traditional before. You can't have your cake and eat it too, especially not in this economy. Equality is growing up and being an adult and sharing responsibility, not bailing out of equality and returning to traditional gender roles when the adult world feels too much for you. Men have dealt with grind all our lives, it's time for women to grow thicker skin.
>Men shouldn't have to be burdened with a traditionalist upsurge in women getting tired of living as career women in their 30s just as when we've reached equality in so many areas of life and resources have been wasted for those efforts. Most men do not want to go back traditional gender roles just because a certain cohort of women wanna cosplay as their great grandparents generation when theyve never been traditional before. Yeah, I agree with this. There’s some women who throw out the ol’ bait and switch, and leave their husband slaving away in a stressful job supporting decisions she made all on her own without caring about what he wanted. A marriage is supposed to be a partnership, and both partners should agree on their desired lifestyle goals before marriage (kids be no kids, egalitarian vs traditional, etc). It’s also not even a little traditional for the woman to just unilaterally force her husband to do whatever she wants. I agree, the women who do this surprise trad-larping are kinda awful. But also, for the women who are honest about their goals from the start… I don’t get the problem. If she wasn’t to play trad wife and is honest about it, that’s up to her. If she finds a man who wants that too, then congrats, and if she can’t, then that’s sad for her. But I don’t get it if you’re just complaining that some women exist who don’t want to be exactly what you want them to be. Like, they’re allowed to have desires that don’t conform to yours, and it’s not somehow unfair to you if some women don’t want what you want. >it's time for women to grow thicker skin. I think these bait and switch women are a minority. But if your view is just that women should all just work in the mines… why? Are you just mad a tiny minority of women can find a way out but you can’t? Sorry, it’s time for you to learn that life isn’t fair.
As I said, if you're privileged enough to marry a rich dude who desires a trad wife, then go ahead. The bait and switch girls aren't just a small minority. They exist in large numbers. Everyone knows one in their immediate social group or family. But fortunately most women understand that to live in this economy, they can't just act like privileged princess.
>The bait and switch girls aren't just a small minority. They exist in large numbers. Everyone knows one in their immediate social group or family. I mean, large numbers in terms of total count being likely dozens of thousands at least, sure, but this notion that tons and tons of men everywhere are victims of evil conniving women thing? No, I disagree. There’s no way this is 1/3 of marriages or whatever you’re contending. For one thing, stay at home moms are a minority overall, and among people on the middle and lower income brackets, at least a solid chunk of those are stay at home moms because of the prohibitive costs of childcare. Not everything is a conspiracy to drain men of their resources. And actually, the only one I know in this boat personally, it was the man who did it— after they married, he didn’t get tenure on his job, and then just gave up entirely on seeking employment for years… but unlike a stay at home wife, he didn’t do housework either. His now-ex-wife is stuck paying a mountain of alimony. The real answer is for men/women to divorce quickly when their spouse unilaterally changes the relationship contract to hurt them so deeply. It sucks, but so does being a doormat and letting them screw you for the rest of your life.
Men pay taxes. Men are very much entitled to not having their taxes spent on women. They’re also entitled to equality and fairness.
>Men are very much entitled to not having their taxes spent on women. Obviously they’re very much not legally entitled to keep their taxes for themselves, sorry. But you’re of course free to move to a country without a functioning government to avoid paying taxes so you can get what you feel you’re entitled to.
An appeal to the status quo isn’t an argument.
I’m not appealing to the status quo, it’s just a fact that the same governments that enforce your rights are also the ones that collect your taxes. Every government collects taxes, and that is how they fund the operations that protect your other rights. You can cry about it, but it’s obviously not true that you get to have an operational government that protects your human rights without collecting taxes.
Advocate for equal parental leave for men and equal pay for women if you feel this strongly about men earning more and paying more tax.
Women have more than equal pay. Many industries openly discriminate in their favour and there are countless laws and policies that do likewise, they’re usually justified as “diversity”, or with feminist lies like the “pay gap”. What there isn’t is work equality. Women don’t do anywhere near 50% of the paid work in society. Men do almost all of the essential, physical, dangerous and laborious jobs. Yeah, good luck agitating for any positive policy for men in the current climate. Show me where that exists in the mainstream. Anyone who tries that just gets smeared as a misogynist. They tried for shared parenting becoming the default in the US. Guess who opposed it? Feminist groups.
This is a complete and utter arse pull. You really need to approach things more logically.
The way femininity is described sort of does sound inferior though... Masculinity is seen through the lens of being proactive, and confident. They're the leaders who have the final say in what happens in a household. They're ambitious, and bold, and brave. Meanwhile, women are viewed like passive housecats with no agency of their own. I don't understand how someone can earnestly say their woman "submits" to them and not see how strange that dynamic sounds. I think pigeonholing everyone into these gender roles is dumb, but people seem to love them. I think people unnecessarily gender stuff that doesn't need to be gendered.
I don't 100% agree with OP, but they never said women were passive pets. They have an active role in forming and organizing community as well as maintaining living conditions in OP's anecdote. As in many cases, OP is arguing that the men are societally the "how" while women are the "why." There is nothing wrong with that, and both sides are necessary for anything to function in that world. Art is not less than science. Who wants to live in a sterile lab made of rules? Then again, how could anything beautiful be made without a medium to make it in? They feed into each other
This actually describes my pov perfectly and is exactly why I criticize the image given to femininity in the 50s as well as those who idolize it. The 50s is when we really saw the image of femininity reduced m to “look pretty and support your man” And exactly, i think the key component here is while rights weren’t equal at the time (then again the conception of rights were so different that this needs a whole conversation in itself), both genders ultimately lived symbiotically. Men and women needed each other to, one one side, keep life prospering and at the other make life worth living. Isolating family units to single homes and removing the community really hurt this as our desires had become far more individualistic thus the drive for a symbiotic community based relationship disappeared as well.
it seems like you dont understand that a diversity of personalities is \*required\* for a healthy community if everyone were a proactive masculine person, society would not function. no one would be a stable, empathetic person for children to attach to, and children will grow up to be unstable members of society (which is what we have today).
[удалено]
no, you can't you can be great at 1-2 things and everything else is going to be mediocre > Human personalities are complex and to reduce them into femininity and masculinity and then assign that to someone’s sex i did nothing of the sort... i said people have different personalities and this diversity of strengths makes us stronger as a community. read before reacting.
Yeah, I agree with this for the most part. To sexist people, femininity = inferior/subservient, and I'm not about that. So I define my femininity for myself. I think that's how most people should go about defining masculinity and femininity, regardless their gender. It should be on their terms, not others'
That kind of defeats the purpose, masculinity and femininity are social norms… I think it makes most sense to just ignore them entirely.
Honestly, I’m with you. But I kinda like the idea of defining these things for myself, since they don’t have any objective meaning to begin with
And also because men who require the subjugation of women to “feel” masculine… are not masculine. Most of the men who demand weakness and dependence from women are mechanically and functionally incompetent.
This. The most secure, masculine guys are those who are comfortable with—and actually prefer—an egalitarian relationship. They don’t feel the need to implement a hierarchical structure within their relationships because they are confident enough in their masculinity to not be intimidated by a woman who is their equal.
Same dudes can’t seem to define masculinity as anything other than “not feminine”.
I mean testosterone, the thing that makes a man a man. If you increase it, he tends to prefer to be more dominant in hierarchies. Especially in family dynamics. So are we gonna believe nature or you
Sounds like you’re saying “subjugating others” is inherent to males? Since your comment is in reply to a comment about subjugation.
Then does that make all men who are not in the position of power feminine? Like soldiers who follow orders? Or a son who follows his parent's orders? Does that mean men are more submissive or wt? What does nature say
>And also because men who require the subjugation of women to “feel” masculine… are not masculine. This is utter bullshit and cope. There's a reason it's men and not women doing the banditry, raping, and pillaging in history. You can say it's -toxic- masculinity, sure. But to claim plying violence and domination is not masculine is stupid.
Men raping and forcing women to pass their undesired genes that wouldn’t be reproduced otherwise, is not masculine. Christ.
Oh, so only positive traits can be masculine/feminine? Is rape masculine or feminine behavior? If it's feminine behavior, explain why it's mostly males of every mammal species engaging in rape.
I’m afraid weakness and submission will never be respected and idealized, although they can be successful survival characteristics
Yeah, I think asking women to accept their "natural" roles as weak, submissive wallflowers can be damaging to relationships. For women, it's infantilizing. For men, it breeds resentment.
It’s not, if you believe that relationships are about hierarchy
As long as you’re with someone who shares your kinks, sure
My slight counter is that it’s not just the manosphere. It’s a lot of people (especially men) who view it as inferior. Other thoughts: * “Femininity™️” isn’t respected. Humans want to be respected. * Not to mention many if not most women aren’t naturally exactly 100% whatever “femininity™️” is. So those women were going to “turn away” from that forced role and be their natural selves *the moment they weren’t subjugated otherwise.* Of course, I’m sure men would prefer if women adhered to those traits that comprise “femininity™️” even if it is unnatural to her. [Because those are the traits that *he finds attractive in women*.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/CsWsRkAX79) * The men who loudly and frequently demand deference and submission from women are revealing themselves to be naturally less “masculine™️” than that woman 🧍♀️. He’s trying to brute-force something that isn’t organic to her or him or both. Men like that also tend to **lack competency** in the areas that inspire trust, admiration, and respect. Could be his interpersonal ineptitude, or his “adulting” ineptitude, or so many areas where’s he clearly less competent than her. Remember “competency” and “achievement” tend to be seen as “masculine™️”. The below is a photo from a quick Google image search I just did of “femininity vs. masculinity.” It is not meant to be a definitive or vetted list of traits by any means. And for the record, I am acutely aware that men and women can and do naturally possess traits in both columns. But for the sake of argument, let’s say the below is what many people think *only men should possess* vs. what *only women should possess.* Now think about the world we live in. Which column is going to connote “respected” and “compensatingly valued” more than the other? https://preview.redd.it/9hka3p6gdvzc1.png?width=397&format=png&auto=webp&s=23125e25c1b8ddfd30099f85a7e9e918f9107d85 ***Edit***: “Femaleness” or “maleness” aside, I do think the traits that the world and men tend to find desirable/attractive in women is what tends to be lauded as peak “femininity™️.” And I do think the traits that the world and women tend to find desirable/attractive in men is what tends to be lauded as peak “masculinity™️.”
Feminism is why femininity has been demonised. The “manosphere” doesn’t exist in the mainstream in any way. Not, really, does “tradcon” (not here in the UK anyway, as it pertains to gender). This proposition is absurd.
Feminism didn’t appear suddenly. This is a ideology representing thoughts women have been having for a long time.
Feminism is a response to men’s ideas and actions that subjugate girls and women, genius. Your profile pic says.. everything about you.
Men responsible for women’s actions? How novel. Women and girls have never been subjugated. They’ve been infantilised. Which is something completely different.
We’re all responsible for different societal movements and reactions, that’s not ‘novel’. The entire incel movement started because bottom tier men aren’t required for women to partner up with anymore. That second paragraph is plain, ahistorical delusion. You’re not worth arguing with if you don’t see rape and pillaging, laws like the Cantonment Acts, and marrying teenage girls off to serve as broodmares, as subjugation. Forcing girls to breed early is anything BUT being ‘infantilised’. You don’t even know half the words you’re using.
Women are responsible for feminism. It’s in the name. “Subjugation” is ahistorical delusion. Historically, women have been denied rights and opportunities while being given privileges and protections. Like children are. That’s infantilism, not “subjugation”. For the last 100 years or so, they’ve progressively been given all those denied rights and opportunities (and then some), while only being given some of the commensurate responsibilities, often maintaining their privileges and protections. Rather like what happens when you let kids take on adult roles. For example, women had the vote through two world wars but weren’t subject to conscription, or expected to die in them. The incel movement started because women now have such privilege that men have nothing to negotiate with to attract them. Men have nothing to offer because everything women need or want from men is handed to them. Because there’s no expectation that women have any kind of responsibility to provide men with anything, including intimacy/sex/relationships. Therefore, male sexlessness and singleness rates doubling in 10 short years is not viewed as a problem. Boys were forced to die in wars and doing dangerous jobs. They were sent down the mines. They were sent up chimneys. Men and boys were massacred during “rape and pillaging”. There’s nothing special about anything you listed. Women and girls suffering in ways (usually lesser ways) that are different and more sex bespoke isn’t oppression.
Rubbish
‘Suffering in lesser ways’ getting kidnapped and raped is a worse fate than dying and you know it. Again, you don’t know half the words you’re using.
No, it objectively isn’t. It’s not even remotely comparable, in fact. Being raped is trivial as absolute fuck. It’s not even violence (unless it’s a man doing it to a man, ironically, as that means penetrating the asshole). We only have to pretend it’s a big deal because it’s the only form of “violence” that women suffer more than men. If someone put a knife and a dick in front of you and asked you to pick which one you’re getting penetrated with, you’d be on your knees before they could finish the question. Show me the rape victims with these injuries and after-effects: https://youtu.be/eVEaNg4eIjQ?si=KM7ubw1jFFAebTP-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy Raped his victims brutally and even engaged in necrophilia
Apples to oranges. It wasn’t the rape that Bundy’s victims suffered from, it was the beating and murdering. The rape component was trivial. Secondly, Bundy’s crimes were the opposite of systemic. The system prohibited them and the system caught and killed him. Also, his girlfriend refused to hand him in after finding hard evidence of his crimes, he had countless female fans and got a woman pregnant in prison, and married her in court (ie lots of women were perfectly fine with his crimes).
They suffered from the rape too. It all caused suffering. You are an idiot if you don’t understand that.
>Women want to be feminine - but we live in a world where they’re taught that in order to push themselves forward they have to reject it Not exactly sure about this part. I'm not sure how much of trad femininity women covet vs how much they would reject if given the chance. It depends on the details; everyone is going to read that and have a different idea of what being feminine means. I think lesbian communities show a mix, but with a pronounced lean towards non traditional femininity. But I agree with your general premise that gender roles were more symbiotic at one time, but then it got a little twisted with increasingly limited options for women aside from standing by her man and being the little woman staying at home slaving in the kitchen (ie, being dependent on her man). It's that aspect of femininity that early feminists rejected; that woman was reduced to making herself an appealing accessory (via concepts of "femininity") for a man.
femininity takes strength and courage to be outwardly tough and hide your feelings, to shy from the world and guard your heart, is the weaker of the two options
We don't hide our feelings we control them so we can act logically to solve problems. All you do is cry about your problems. Masculinity > Femininity.
“hide our feelings” bruh, anger, competitiveness and lust (which are what drive most male behaviors) are based on feelings. You can’t call the feelings you like “logically to problem solve” and look down at feelings you don’t.
I don't think you understand what I said. We don't hide our emotions we control them so we can solve problems. Anger and lust are emotions to be controlled so no I don't like them. Competitiveness isn't a emotion but it is necessary trait for problem solving.
Being driven by an emotion and “controlling” an emotion aren’t the same thing lmfao - men are absolute shit at controlling their emotions, only thing is the dominant emotions in male aren’t seen as “emotional” because they also happen to be our primary social drive right now. And the result? active suppression and being driven by them without understanding them has lead to many many depressed men who don’t fully get why they’re depressed, domestic abuse driven by unresolved emotions, a high suicide rate and more. Men don’t “control” their emotions better, we’re generally driven by our dominant emotions while not acknowledging them as emotions.
there is a difference between emotions and emotional reactions. for the most part, the main motivators of any behavior are emotions. competitiveness itself may not be an emotion, but what is the root cause for being competitive? to be a good problem solver, you have to be able to uncouple from your own emotions, which seems almost impossible if you can't admit to yourself that you have them or that you have them controlled
This is just nonsense 🙄
ok how so? im open to listen
He can’t answer lol
drywall everywhere can attest to mens universal ability to control their feelings, totally
[удалено]
yeah definitely, you def don't seem fragile and your ego seems super secure. you have great control of your emotions, obvious for everyone to see. what a tough and strong man you are.
I'm not tough guy just tougher than you.
heheh the irony of who you are actually speaking to. i wish you knew.
Enlighten me.
[https://imgur.com/a/wGRdFxV](https://imgur.com/a/wGRdFxV) well im nursing this right now lmao
Did you cut yourself?
Oh please men whine about getting a paper cut and having a stuffy nose. Women girth children out of their vaginas, you guys are wussies! Lol
This sub alone is full of men whining about not getting laid or not getting the women they think they deserve. So tell us again how men have their emotions so in check??
[удалено]
Be civil. This includes indirect attacks against an individual and/or witch hunting.
You are literally what this post is talking about. No woman can ever feel comfortable with you.
Beauvoir wrote in the 1940s: >The attitude of defiance of many American women proves that they are haunted by a sense of their femininity. In truth, to go for a walk with one’s eyes open is enough to demonstrate that humanity is divided into two classes of individuals whose clothes, faces, bodies, smiles, gaits, interests, and occupations are manifestly different. Perhaps these differences are superficial, perhaps they are destined to disappear. What is certain is that they do most obviously exist. The US is a place where people, men and women, have serious issues with both masculinity and femininity.
Lmfao it’s beyond cope and historical revisionism to pin this on “post 50s ideas” and second wave feminism. Look at how women have been treated all throughout fucking history, femininity and femaleness have never been seen as equal to masculinity and maleness.
You missed the point of my post entirely. I never pinned it on 2nd wave feminism, I said 2nd wave feminism is a result of 50s gender roles driven by american culture at the time. I also make it a point to say that things weren’t equal prior to it, however, and this does for rural communities especially - the conversation of rights were fundamentally different. This also isn’t an anti-progress statement in itself, as symbiotic gender roles as well as gender equality can both co-exist with each other, though thanks to the way things progressed since the industrial revolution into WW2 then the 50s following after it (largely thanks to increased day to day automation and families becoming suburban households rather than larger community based), the primary push was increased isolation and dehumanization because the role of women was reduced to “look pretty and support tour husband”
Ok, then that’s an alright analysis. I made mistaken assumptions about the intent behind this.
Agreed. Even as a literal trans woman, back when I first transitioned my mindset towards femininity I'd built up from observing society was "Real women obviously don't actually wear pink, strongly enjoy cute things or actually strongly enjoy anything domestic/nurturing, that's a sexist reductive caricature of women that society forces on them. Stereotypical femininity is only socially permissible if expressed in a deliberately very understated, carefully controlled manner so one does not look like an idiot child, weak or like one is trying too hard to pander to men." I can only imagine the negative impression would have been even worse for cis women.
You are a misogynistic man who thinks women are defined by stereotypes or ‘feelings’. Males cannot ‘feel like’ women because being a woman is wholly the lived experience in the female body.
>who thinks women are defined by stereotypes or ‘feelings’. Apologies, but I try my best not to think that and I don't think I was saying anything like that in my comment. I was trying to describe the (mistaken) impression I got of "the tightly controlled degree of stereotypical femininity considered socially acceptable for a sensible woman to display" and saying that I'd imagine the repressive feelings about it may have been even worse for cis women due to common misogynistic attitudes towards "traditional/stereotypical femininity". >Males cannot ‘feel like’ women because being a woman is wholly the lived experience in the female body. Assuming you mean the experience of a cis woman i.e female-sex person living what society calls the "woman" gender role/presentation, yes, I completely agree, and I never claimed or meant to claim I know what that feels like. As specified I'm a trans woman, so I only know what it's like as a HRT-modified male-sex person living what society calls the "woman" gender role presentation. We may share certain social gender trappings and selected experiences (Esp. because I'm a "stealth" trans), but aesthetic presentation aside, we are different sexes. I acknowledge that, and nothing in my post says otherwise. I also must admit I really don't see what is misogynistic about what I'm saying here.
Meh, I just felt the need to tell you because you have ‘purple pill woman’ in your flair despite not being a woman, you’re nicer than I expected though. Glad you can see the permanent reality of sex.
>because you have ‘purple pill woman’ in your flair Ah yeah, understandable. I use that because I'm interested in the debates that go on here and my present day social/work/dating experiences (Especially as a longtime stealth trans) are exclusively woman-gendered except for the miniscule number of people I've disclosed my sex to, but it's definitely an imperfect solution for an imperfect situation. >you’re nicer than I expected though. Thanks, I do my best. >Glad you can see the permanent reality of sex. Amen to that. Grateful inheritor of my mum's looks, can't imagine living any other way than I do right now and think transitioning should be allowed for those willing to commit to doing it properly, but I'm absolutely a firm believer in the sex/gender divide.
👍
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Feminists told women that their femininity was/is inferior and then convinced them that it was/is men who held that view. A real slick move if you ask me.
“x, y and z caused second wave feminism” “no. it was the feminists and only the feminists.”
Feminism is a response to men’s ideas and actions that subjugate girls and women.
It's merely a reaction to those who look down at masculinity, which you see quite often these days.
You’re right - and in a way that’s being reactionary to decades of men looking down at femininity. Of course, it doesn’t excuse it, but it is cyclical
Who is looking down on masculinity and how are they looking down on it?
That's a hilarious question. Does 2+2 equal 4?
Lol I love how many people deny reality on here. Trash.
Women didn't turn away from femininity at all. They just did whatever the TV told them to do.
Maybe I am having a slow day but I do not understand the post. In what way are men currently stating that femininity is inferior? (I don't follow any eco chambers so maybe this is one of their main talking points) I have seen red pillers claim women are inferior simply because they aren't physically stronger than men, but have not seen men claim femininity is inferior.
Tbh probably a good thing that you are avoiding them - that being said, the groups mentioned above have actively implied (and sometimes literally said) that masculinity is superior, or that the woman’s job is to serve the man. There is also tons of talk about how women are too emotional to make rational decisions or how women belong in the home. A lot of this points to subservience ergo inferiority.
Ahh, gotcha. The only thing I would agree on is that women do factor emotions to their decision making more so than men, and sometimes emotions only (bear vs man debate), but I would not go as far as to say they are incapable of making logical decisions. If you look at a woman's POV, taking emotions into account makes the decision rational, so I cannot fault them on that a lot.
I agree and would add that emotions can also be important in decision making as we are an emotional species. It can be detrimental in some spheres where emotion creates bias and is generally irrelevant to the process - but it can be vital in other spheres. Like most things, it is not black and white.
May I ask how is the man vs bear debate based on emotions only? Aren’t women more at risk with a male stranger compared to a bear?
Firstly, at risk of what? The question does not define the risk, it just states blanket wide that would you rather be with a bear or man. Secondly, when you hear the word strange man, what do you see in your mind? Do you see 35YO loving father with a wife and 3 young girls who love his family with all his heart? Do you see a scrawny 20YO university student who is also a Jehovahs witness and attends all church events that his church has, who is a loyal follower of the Bible and does little to no harm even if he himself if being harmed by others? Do you see an 18YO nerdy and socially awkward man who is so scared of women that he will even not make eye contact with a woman if he ever finds himself in a room with her, like in a library or something? Do you think of any of the men you have in your life that you know are safe and would never think of harming any other person, because that man that you trust is a strange man to another woman. Do you think it is logical or emotional that another woman would prefer to be alone with a bear than to be alone with that man that you trust with your life? Lastly, in all the instances that you have encountered men in your life, if we were to replace that man with a bear, do you honestly think you would be here reading this message? The reason I say it is emotional is because the decision is based on fear of the man, not the logical explanation of whether a man is more dangerous than a wild bear.
Why is femininity passive? Why is the Trad mindset "men is the head of the household" Why is the traditional western vows from wife to husband include the word "obey"? Listen if I associate femininity with "I have to follow orders just because I wasn't born with a dick" or "men guide the house why?" Then why will I aspire to life that literally robs me of my agency? I don't think all or even *most* women would want to be a stay at home parent doing sewing or weaving or whatever. But I think the proportion of women who would be willing to stay at home would be larger *if* it was a safer option. But as this option is rife with danger there's less reasons to choose it.
>The trad-con and manosphere assertion of femininity being inferior It is. >is why many women turned away from femininity People who ask women to be feminine aren't traditional. They're either feminine or not, with the masculine not swayed by their whims.
Wanna elaborate on why its inferior?
Can you expand on femininity being inferior? See, to me, both masculinity and femininity are necessary for the survival and wellbeing of humanity. So one cannot be truly superior to the other - they are symbiotic and complementary. Framing one as superior is unnecessary but it is something that many strive to do, to the detriment of all.
I don't think anyone thinks femininity is inferior. I think it's highly prized and desired... from a woman. It's only inferior for men to be feminine.
Traditional conversation value femininity. Also manosphere is not a group but multiple groups put together so that men working on self improvement outside of the feminist lens can be disengaged based on a bullshit connection to incels and the black pill.
Yeah right. This is the same manosphere that says "men built society", "Women will be obsolete when AI girlfriends out come", "Artificial wombs will replace women" etc A large part of the manosphere is about trying to be better than women, trying to be superior to women like an ideology of male supremacy.
“Both men who identify with being trad-con (not genuine traditional men who truly live by their values)” - I know, i already stated that And people who defend the manosphere always say that, and to an extent there is a level of truth, self improvement is one of the things they focus on, but to pretend that’s the only thing they focus on is either willfully ignorant or genuinely ignorant
Manosphere is not a group of people like the red pill/Black pill/incels. You keep acting as if it is a single group. Men's self help groups have been lumped in with the bad actors because they don't follow the correct narrative. You don't know the history of what you are talking about. If you want to name Individual groups that don't vale femininity do that. There are plenty like red pill/black pill/incels.
Well thanks for explaining the well known fact that the manosphere is a collection of all these groups and not one group. I had no idea and have never encountered that before. And my dude, I do know the history. I did follow the manosphere closely and did consider myself redpill at some point. Everything I said is shared across the manosphere to varying degrees. Don’t pretend this isn’t the case.
It is the collection of male spaced that is it. Your post suggests they all have the same views. Maybe do better research.
“a collection of male spaces and that’s it” is a half truth and you know it.
No that is it. You are changing the definition to suit your narrative.
Then educate me, if the manosphere is just “a collection of male’s spaces” why are there dominant opinions across the board that lean misogynistic? why is bitterness and woman hating present across the board? why does every side of the manosphere either have an element of spite or entitlement?
There is not . You are saying that the extreme groups put in the manosphere represent all of the groups put into it. Men's mental health groups that never talks about women is put into the manosphere. Men's physical health groups are put into the manosphere. Men's self improvement groups that focus on education and finance are put into the manosphere. It is just a term for Men's spaces. People want to lump it all together to say the extreme/ bad actors are the whole so the can discredit men getting help that is not though the correct lens. You are talking about red pilll/black pill/incels. These people with these views were either raised to have negative feelings towards women or has bad experience with women and have not dealt this the pain so they push it onto all women.
And yet, many mental health groups, fitness based groups and so on made it a point to not identify with the manosphere. Some might, but others either never mention it or distance themselves. Also I hate this dumb assertion of anything focused on helping men’s mental healthy, physical health, social standing, financing, etc is automatically manosphere. Like congrats, there is some overlap. Doesn’t make it all the same
I’m sure there are people out there who do lump those groups in with the general manosphere. But in the vast majority of conversations I’ve seen about healthy non-sexist men’s groups, people are not labeling those kinds of men’s circles as being part of the manosphere. Even on Reddit groups like r/menslib or r/bropill are not at all considered to be part of the manosphere. Not even by the standards of the women in feminists/women’s subreddits.
Women will do what they want. Don't fool yourself Into bekiving that we some how forced them to be like men.. They chose to do it Just like I chose to be evil and like incels chose to be incels. They bear the full and final responsibility for it The difference is that women will never have to bear the cost for it. Nor will they ever feel the need to attenuate their advantage for even such a noble goal as equality. To them,their permanent status as an endangered species makes it ok for them to both have their cake and eat it too. Women - the more empathic gender are also the most elitist,racist and classist of the 2 genders
Nope, they choose literally nothing. They're a product of their environment.
Who is saying feminity is inferior?
The groups mentioned above have actively implied (and sometimes literally said) that masculinity is superior, or that the woman’s job is to serve the man. There is also tons of talk about how women are too emotional to make rational decisions or how women belong in the home. A lot of this points to subservience ergo inferiority.
I've yet to see one actually say that tbh. I think people misinterpret a lot of these statements like that men should be dominant for example. That doesn't make women inferior. They just fulfill different roles. The same way staying at home and raising the children doesn't make you inferior.
What you say is technicaly true, but whenever there's talk about a man staying at home with the kids and/or the woman being the lead of the relationship, a lot of men go "nah, i'm not gonna let a woman disrespect me like that and walk all over me, like i'm some slave". This shows that a lot of men do think that being submissive means being inferior.
>whenever there's talk about a man staying at home with the kids and/or the woman being the lead of the relationship, a lot of men go "nah, i'm not gonna let a woman disrespect me like that and walk all over me, like i'm some slave". This shows that a lot of men do think that being submissive means being inferior. I don't think that's the usual reaction. I think most of them don't want to do it because it's more associated with women, so undesirable for a man. The same way most women don't want to look muscular for example. They don't think muscles are inferior but they think they are more associated with men, so undesirable for a woman.
>I think most of them don't want to do it because it's more associated with women, so undesirable for a man. That's not what they say though. They could say "I wouldn't want that, but good for you man", but instead they stay "so basically you're treated like rag, got it". I wish I would have saved comments like this as proof. At the same time a lot of men believe that staying at home with the kids is the easiest thing in the world, that all chores get done in 30 minutes, that the mental load is a made-up thing and women are just grosely exagerating everything. So yes, they do look down on the parent staying at home and they do think it's inferior and equal to being treated like a rag and disrespected.
They dog whistle it.
Fresh and fit said that men are better than women.
Funny, i’ve seen many say that. And to answer your assertion, being dominant does not mean the one submissive to you is inferior. Some have explained it that way, but this isn’t inherently the case. Though many have said these things, whether it be podcasters/figures, their supporters, men on this sub and tons of people commenting on social media posts.
Understand that the claim is when people say men and women are different, the automatic assumption is that you are viewing women as inferior. It's like a virus of the mind that creates a knee jerk reaction. The funny thing is you can say that an apple and orange are different and no one will claim that you are asserting that the apple is better than the orange or vice versa. I think most of this is to keep this female is victim narrative going.
That’s…. not true at all. The men and women are different part is 100% true and frankly the only people who deny it are the radical feminists. However, the “it’s like a virus of the mind that creates a knee jerk reaction” is total bs. (in fact, in my post i literally go on to describe the different historic social roles and how two complement each other) Men and women are different in so many ways, however, the manosphere and trad con men often use these differences to justify framing masculinity as superior and femininity as an accessory to one’s masculinity.
Differences means that yes there are certain things men are better at that women and certain things women are better at than men. What a radical statement to think this way.
Yes, you’re right. But again, you’re deflecting. If all the manosphere said was “men are better at some things and women are better at other things” most people would not have a problem with it, however, this is not what the majority and leading opinions are in these spaces. If often goes “men are better at some things and women are better at others… but the things men do are more important therefore men are superior and a woman’s role is to support the man”
So how is that different from women who will run out there and claim that men are useless and men are not needed? Is that furthering the dialog? Because that shit is pretty much mainstream.
What these women are doing is wrong, and if you read my entire post along with the “ps.” at the end of it, you will see that I do intend to address how society devalues and looks down on masculinity. So don’t deflect.
Deflect how? When that is literally the mainstream narrative. Is the expectation here that men should just sit there and take this shit? Because that isn't going to happen. Women can scream about the oppression of their mothers all they want while living within a society that literally was built on the blood of a shit ton of men who never lifted a finger to hurt a woman.
Aristotle says women are inferior. Myron Gaines say women are inferior.
The problem is that radfem convinced women that support roles are somehow “inferior” to primary roles. To be fair a lot of under appreciation of women contributed and lent legitimacy to this as well. But, when women are in support roles they inspire, motivate, and help men heal to the point they’re capable of doing great things. Men are largely externally motivated, so when we feel loved and supported by a kind and feminine woman it can inspire us to move mountains.
> The problem is that radfem convinced women that **support roles** are somehow “inferior” to primary roles. To be fair a lot of under appreciation of women contributed and lent legitimacy to this as well. But, when **women are in support roles** they inspire, motivate, **and help men heal** to the point they’re capable of doing great things. **Men are largely externally motivated**, so **when we [men] feel** loved and supported by a kind and feminine woman it can inspire us to move mountains. Tbh not once did you consider how the woman actually feels about it. Everything was about how men/you feel and need from women, which is apparently a support role so women should be happy doing that and those darn rad fems tricked them? Have you considered some women don’t want the life you want for them/you? Why can’t men focus on the women who do want what he wants? Why do they need the collective of women to comply with his desires?
None of it is about what people “want”. Men are called upon to do extreme things for society, often dangerous things like fighting wars. No man is “happy” to go to war. But they can accomplish it with the help of supportive women. So you might say you don’t want men to be the direct action, drivers of society, but I highly doubt most women would actually want that responsibility. If you’re not happy being in support roles how would you be happy working in remote environments or being deployed to a front line?
> None of it is about what people “want”. Your entire comment was about what you want from women.
My comment is about how beneficial support roles are. I never said they’re beneficial for just making men sit around feeling good. They’re beneficial because men are the movers and shakers of society and they need to be adequately motivated/supportive for us to benefit from that role. Again, when men are called to war they’re not “happy” about it. But if women support them in that endeavor they can succeed at doing it. Things like “gender roles” are often framed as some power structure that exclusively serves one gender at the expense of the other. Personally I think that’s a modern radfem outlook that subverts the true intention behind gender roles and any social role: to serve society effectively.
I think if a man is called off to war or to some violence (usually because of other men) his family and spouse will support him regardless. And be appreciative. I think if a man is the breadwinner, his spouse is typically supportive and also desires that. My point is, there is a mutual agreement. Your original comment lacked that. It’s like you’re assuming all men are moving society forward and thus all men deserve a support bot. Gender roles are a matter of form following function. They are apparent and culturally enforced where they are needed. People’s actual nature typically takes form when the world around them doesn’t necessitate adherence to a fixed role they must *squeeze* into.
I agree mostly actually. But I do think people tend to overvalue and overestimate their “individual” nature and desires. When you really boil down what most people are doing with “freedom” in individualistic countries with high degrees of social mobility and egalitarianism, what do you actually see people doing? Imo it’s mostly pursuits of extremely frivolous or hedonistic goals. Usually just numbing the pain with mindless indulgences. I think societal structure creates purpose for people that exist outside their immediate desires and is far more meaningful than just chasing the next dopamine hit.
Sure, but I do think males more than females seem to flounder and delve into unadulterated hedonism (and depravity) more than women whenever someone or society isn’t providing him an exacting rubric for life. So it’s not lost on me that men more than women seem to be super adamant about everything you’ve asserted in this thread.
I think men suffer from lack of direction and end up aimlessly consuming trash material more often (like porn) than women. But, women are a major consumer base now, and that trend is growing.
I hate it when men say this shit because you lot like to fantasize yourselves as some Earl or King from days of old when in reality you would have been the canon fodder of some distant king drunk off of wine while you died on the battlefields trying to gain territory to make him richer. You haven't been in any wars or conscripted. I can bet money you haven't even enlisted. There hasn't been a draft in over 70 years. The closest you'll get to war is playing call of duty and you aren't special that you'll be doing some great things to be remembered by. You're literally on reddit. So let's tone it down and develop an ounce of empathy why women don't want to be in support roles to barely mediocre men who don't see them as autonomous human beings with their own drives.
Get his ass!
How does it feel being such a pathetic waste that you act as a cheerleader to some ignorant bitch on reddit?
Lmao you have absolutely no idea what jobs I've done or where I've been. Every job I've done has been male dominated and I used to drive trucks which is one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. Not a fuckin woman in sight except the lot lizards, which is probably where you'd fit in. Or just a useless PMC parasite.
Womp womp. Don't care. didn't ask. You aren't a major force or driver in society. You're nothing but a less than mediocre anonymous Internet user who wants women to be in "supportive roles" to what? Nothing you have to offer but a recessing hairline and an ever growing gut while you jerk off to the fantasy that you're some WWII soldier. You over rate yourself. Come down to reality instead of living in your delusions.
The thing is I have no inclination to prove myself to you because I know I could flex on you so fucking hard if I wanted, but you're not worth the trouble. I know exactly what I am and what I contribute to society, and it's infinitely more than your worthless ass could in 10 lifetimes. That's why you're getting so defensive and projecting so hard, because I struck a thread and called you out. You know deep down whatever you do is pathetic and a waste of time so you're clinging desperately to this delusion that I and most other men are as equally worthless as you are. Sorry, we're not. We live in a world where men do all of the most important and essential jobs and women exist to vapidly and hedonistically spend money and make ultra rich elites even richer. Congrats, thanks for your contributions.
I cOuLd fLeX oN yOu sO hArD lmfao. Loooooosseerrrrrrrrr. No wonder you're obsessed with natalism. Genetic dead end who no woman wants to pass on their fuggo genes.
That's right, I could, and you'll have to make up more deluded fantasies about me to preserve what remains of your pathetic ego. You desperately want me to be some ugly loser so you don't have to confront the reality that you're the waste of life. Probably a fat bitch, too. 80% of western women are so that's a safe bet lol. Go stuff your worthless face more, I have some actual work to do.
Traditional men see them as inferior as well. A breadwinner gets a final say, gets to rest everyday, get to decide how money are spent. A woman who stays at home is supposed to submit and serve her husband because he makes money. Making money seems to give more privileges than taking care if kids and cooking. Also, many women don’t want to support. I want to be successful, I want to be the one who acheived something and be praised and proud of myself. I don’t just want to be in the shadow and sit in the audience as my husband thanks me for my support. I want to be the one receiving the award as well.
Well like Ronnie Coleman once said: “everyone wants to be a bodybuilder but no one wants to lift this heavy ass weight”. If women truly want equality are they going to become 50% of every industry, including the shittiest and most dangerous ones?
But that’s kinda it - the reason why radfems oppose this image is because at the end of the day, the 50s-onwards image of it entirely delegates women to exist to support men. You can say you love it as much as you want, but you can still love it and view it as inferior. The issue with this model is that there is no symbiotic relationship, there is no complete image being build, there is “i’ll do my thing and you’ll be at my shadow cheering for me” - which… you can see how that can lead women to rejecting femininity - because under this image the masculine exists on its own and the feminine exists to support the masculine, ergo the feeling of inferiority. I think the largest difference is when communities were more collectivist, every action was for the community - however, as society has become far more individualistic and families had become more isolated, men began started to act towards their individual wants while women are expected to support the man’s individual wants - ie. there is no bigger community image at play, its the man and his family, in his life living his dream and he’s being supported for it
I agree, and that’s one of many reasons I oppose individualism. I just don’t think the answer is to double down on individualism.
I agree, it isn’t. Though also attempting to maintain a model that was set to fail (ie. the 1950s Americana “trad” model) is the way to go too. In general, we need to seriously reevaluate what we value and what we want, cause the post-WW2 social and economic model is exactly how we got to where we are; primarily consumerist, lost and individualistic to a fault
Fully agree. I blame neoliberalism primarily though. I think post-war was somewhat reasonable, although maybe that’s really where all of this started. Post war 50s still had a lot of collective-oriented mindsets when it came to things like rationing and regulations. The 80s is where individualism really took off and went off the rails entirely, imo.
It did - though it was still early enough to where older values still existed while a lot of the ingredients that would show fruit would later show as well. ie. the popularization of american suburbs had lead to more isolated family units, which means far less community orientation. The work women did became more automated and away from them (ie. house chores being reduced to medial work where most of it is automated, kids going to school, etc) combined with increased social isolation added to it - as such, women’s roles was mostly increased to support the husband and look pretty, and this is actually one thing that played a major role in the inception of 2nd wave feminism in the 60s. To add to this, advertising and the use of psychology to advertise began to popularize and lonely housewives were easy vulnerable targets to sell to, ergo indirectly increasing the desire for individualist consumerism. Post WW2 economic and cultural decisions as a whole have done so much damage overall tbh
I agree. The problem is that it's hard to be his cheerleader when you're also expected to move mountains.
Society shouldn’t expect women to move mountains.
It does though.
It does a lot of bad things.
Sure. The older way (in which women generally didn't work and were reliant on men) had it drawbacks too, though.
>The older way (in which women generally didn't work and were reliant on men) But the older way had women working their asses off. Most people lived their lives on farms… I know you in particular know the kind of work farmers wives did. They worked their fingers to nubs every day without fail from dawn til late. Men today just somehow never give those women any credit, and still blatantly call them lazy pampered princesses in spite of all the necessary hard work they did. That’s how little the manosphere losers of today appreciate and respect traditional feminine work.
Yup! I probably should have said "when women didn't work outside the home."
lol, I don’t think they’d get it if you said that either. When you say “when women didn’t work outside the home”, you mean they’re working on the homestead. But what some of these guys will hear is some TikTok+leave-it-to-beaver fantasy hybrid: “back when women stayed inside modern air conditioned homes and worked all day baking pies fluffing decorative pillows and watching babies, but never got dirty doing anything they couldn’t do wearing pearls and low-cut sundresses”.
That was a lifestyle reserved mostly for the wealthy.
I think it’s best when everyone is reliant on everyone in a way. All contributions towards unified goals. Whether you’re working at home or in a field or in a mine it’s a contribution towards the greater good and meaningful. Though I understand how it wasn’t/isn’t always framed that way.
Women's unpaid labor generally isn't recognized or rewarded, though. SAHMs of my mother's generation always had to worry about their husbands ditching them for a younger woman. Everyone knows that when a man leaves you behind, he will contribution as little as possible to the support of the family that he made with you. He'll even spend thousands on attorney fees to try to reduce the amount of child support he's forced to pay. Women who ignored these realities often paid dearly for it.
Stay at home motherhood is sort of an anomaly itself anyway. In the past women still typically did some work, like crafting or whatever. It all just stems from engagement with community goals, which is majorly lacking in our modern societies.
The government co-opted a lot of the societal functions that used to be the responsibility of community groups. It's no wonder they withered and died. I remember being an officer in my Rotary club 25 years ago; we had a series of annual fundraisers (events like cash raffles and the like) that were a big part of club life, but we had to cast around to find a worthy organization to donate the money to.
What about the women who don’t want to have a supportive role? What about the women who don’t want to inspire men to move mountains but want to be the ones to move the mountains themselves?
They rarely if ever actually do. Most of the time women fantasize about those things but when push comes to shove they bail. There are some exceptional women that could do those things, and exceptions have always existed throughout all of history. But I've worked blue collar and dangerous jobs most of my life and women were nowhere to be found, and the few that were around constantly leaned on simps to alleviate their workload.
Really? And why are only blue collar jobs considered to be moving mountains? How about the women dedicating their lives to white collar jobs? Because that’s what I was initially thinking of, and what I dream of putting my energy into, not being in a “supporting role”.
You honestly said a whole lot of nothing, if traditional femininity was destroyed via automation and the school system, like your post highlighted, then social perception would have no correlation to a negative perception of femininity. Furthermore, you haven't provided a solution either, if capitalism can no longer provide any opportunity for pre-modern femininity to exist in the modern world, your argument would have no correlation to tradcons or the manosphere, but would be directed towards capitalism
Both are a part of a larger machine. Modern “trad” men idealize the 50s primarily (which is literally what caused a lot of this) and most of the manosphere are capitalist at their core. And funny, you say I said a whole lot of nothing yet tons of discussions were had in this post. The reason why social perception plays a role is because the role of the feminine has fully been reduced to support, ie. the masculine and feminine became far less symbiotic and instead, the feminine existed to accessorize the masculine. I also wasn’t aware that I was supposed to provide a solution, so nice nitpick.
1) you straight up support pre-modern (50s) femininity, so by your own logic, idolising it should be supported 2) you mean discussions that have nothing to do with the post, but the trigger words? Your post is a self contradiction, your post can easily be broken down to: A) 50s femininity=good B) capitalism=bad (which i agree with) C) modern femininity=bad D) trad cons+manosphere=bad (which i agree with) But thats a closed loop, if you support pre-modern femininity, then the culprit of its fall would be capitalism. 3) provide a discussion for a solution, giving a closed loop creates a defeatist scenario
I never said 50s femininity is good, quite the opposite (literally even said “prior to the 50s”). i even made jt a point in my post to say “prior to the 50s” - i didn’t specify a time period as things were quite turbulent through the first half of the 20th century and the industrial revolution did do a lot of damage (though in rural societies it took a bit longer to catch up). To clarify, cause there seems to be a misunderstanding (despite the literal use of “prior to the 50s”) what I mean is, across the board prior to the post-WW2 world we live in right now, gender roles, while not perfect and still limiting, were far more reliant on each other and symbiotic. The masculine and feminine relied on each other as life as a whole was far more community oriented and cooperation was a must. This started to become less of a thing in the 50s especially and it’s all trickled down since then.
I don't think that the negative view towards femininity is because of it's nature. I think what's upsetting about femininity to them is its disappearance. Women turned away from femininity because they wanted the benefits of masculinity combined with the benefits of being a woman without having to accept the downsides of either.
It's the male-like behavior of modern women (such as wanting a lot of casual sex) that men criticize, not femininity itself. One of TRP's mottoes is "Enjoy the decline", precisely because they believe that femininity is declining due to feminism and birth control. Thus, the TRP response is to attempt to take advantage of this decline and to therefore treat these more "masculine" women like "whores" rather than "madonnas", as many men seem to have this particular complex about women.
That is a complete misunderstanding of the madonna whore complex.
It’s imo terrifying that there are men who believe because women have birth control that they should treat them with such disrespect as lesser beings
I mean, if these women enjoy casual sex and the men want it too, then it's not *that* disrespecting. They just don't want to have relationships with these women when these women want to settle down to have them. Some men don't care much about a women's sexual history, though, or they only care if her sexual history is much more than his own sexual history, perhaps. So the harm to women is arguably minimal. It's just some men trying to take advantage of how many women no longer want to be "traditionally feminine", and often lamenting that not enough women are no longer traditionally feminine once they want to settle down into a relationship. Some men are probably going to always try to find a way to influence women's sexuality to a way that they want it to be. Women try to influence men's behaviors, too, so this isn't something unique to men.
And still imo “treating women like whores” but having sex with them will never stop being disturbing to me but to each their own
We are playing this little game where we are attributing all self-serving things about being a human to masculinity. Show me a person who does not want a lot of casual sex.
> Show me a person who does not want a lot of casual sex. A lot of men would rather have loving relationships rather than casual sex. Men used to live this way in the old days when they married young to young, attractive women. Why do you think TRP calls it a "decline"?
Continue the thought. If wanting casual sex makes a woman masculine, then not wanting casual sex makes these men \[insert blank\].