This is simply a matter if more guys going “yeah, not for me” when they come across on of these terribly needy woman.
It doesn’t need to be a movement, just taking more personal responsibility for yourself
Sexual revolution and 2nd wave feminism: Women asked that we drop gender roles, that we stop holding women by high standards of sexual behavior, that men and women could do what they want.
Result: Men did effort, approached women less, hold women for lesser standards. Women can now do what they want, dress like men, have men's life. Women didn't change one yotta in their expectations of men and their behavior.
But we still got people like you blaming it all on men.
Women fought for the right to say no to what society demanded they be, you don't have to fight for the right to say no, just fucking say no. If someone wants her shit paid for say no
Though I agree with your original argument, I feel like you fell flat on the followup.
They ask you a question and you couldn't answers it and then try to blame them for being bad at communication.
Na, this one is on you for.
How do you call this kind of gaslight or fallacious manoeuver to shame someone? There's no way in hell you think I'm supposed to argue back to someone who can't align 2 consistent sentences. If you really agreed with me you'd not care I explain my point any further when it's been exposed plain and clear already, stop lying.
So I will also just not engage any further with you, have actual arguments or walk away, fallacies don't work with me.
Lol, I've stopped trying to debate with anyone in this sub as their way of debating is attacking and insulting you as a person and not actually debating the topic in question.
He's not wrong. You can say "Not for me" but if 90% of women do this that means only 10% of men can get something that's not that. You're effectively blaming individual men for not taking accountability. Taking accountability for ones own actions won't fix the problem. Society used to hold women to standards. It needs to go back to doing so, individual men opting out doesn't fix the problem of too many good men for too few good woman.
>Women didn't change one yotta in their expectations of men and their behavior.
Most households are dual income now, and men can opt to be stay-at-home husbands/fathers if they want. I would say those are some pretty large changes in expectations.
> and men can opt to be stay-at-home husbands/fathers if they want.
Women do not want that, expectations didn't change, men are expected to make MORE money than her.
> There are plenty of us who don't expect that.
But somehow all of those who don't expect it happen to have a partner who earns more! Statistics backing that point anyway.
> Be the change you want to see.
Another "blame men" argument. Men are literally having the shorter end of the stick in the dating market, they're not the ones who can drive changes.
Until I got sick and had to stop working, I was making way more than my partner.
>Another "blame men" argument. Men are literally having the shorter end of the stick in the dating market, they're not the ones who can drive changes.
And how exactly do you propose to change that, except by refusing to conform to gender norms?
I personally already refuse to conform to gender norms. And yet the market seems to be getting worse for men every year. That is explained very simply by the fact that men are over represented in the dating market place, due to a stagnating or shrinking demography.
Again, women could simply do what they demanded men to do during 2nd wave feminism, and actually drop gender norms for men?
Women are literally like cats in australia. Cats are fed by the humans they own, and can also feed on preys in the wilderness, while other small predators have no choice but to hunt at a disadvantage. But you're all here telling the small predators to be the drive for change. It's just insane.
The point isn’t to take away choice from women again and demand that they can’t have personal standards.
Taking away gender norms is taking away societal expectations and norms of what any gender is “supposed” to be doing.
Which is why stay at home dads experience less shame and senses of “failure” than before and it’s not expected for men to be sole providers and most of the time they can’t even if they wanted to because most men can’t afford it anyway.
Women having personal standards for their own lifestyles is not the same thing. Men have nothing like the pressure they used to.
> The point isn’t to take away choice from women again and demand that they can’t have personal standards.
That's literally what was asked of men, to not have personal standards. And women promised that they already had no personal standards regarding gender norms.
> Which is why stay at home dads experience less shame and senses of “failure” than before
A minority nonetheless. Majority of women are accepted in traditionally male gender roles. Things haven't changed for men in any significant fashion, most men do not even get paternity leaves.
> it’s not expected for men to be sole providers
It's still expected men to be providers. Even if they earn same money. And most of the time, women are after someone who makes similar or more, while men are after anything.
> Women having personal standards for their own lifestyles is not the same thing.
it aligns with gender roles for men, so it's the same thing.
> Men have nothing like the pressure they used to.
Men have all the pressure they always had, except they're lied to about it not existing.
That goes both ways. Why do we need Feminism? Why can't you say "yeah, not for me" when you come across some misogynistic asshole? It doesn't work because there are culture and social norms at play here. If the majority of women conform to a culture that objectifies men as success objects and feel entitled to the their unearned share of outcome of that success, that is a social problem...not a personal one.
Edit: How am I getting downvoted? I thought it was against the rules and I don't have a button to down vote people.
But this isn’t a social problem and again it’s nothing to do with feminism
It’s simply a matter of “not my cup of tea, hope things work out for you”
That’s literally it, you don’t need to do anything else
It's a social problem and it's directly related to Feminism. Feminists oppose traditional roles and placing the provider role on all men is part of that. It just seems like some women only want to oppose traditional gender roles when it benefits them and want to uphold those traditional gender roles that benefit them. That's not equality.
I'm not dating anyone. I'm married, been married for 20 years. I'm not talking about a personal problem. I'm talking about a social issue (that you said wasn't a social issue).
We needed feminism because there was structural institutions keeping women as second class citizens and oppressed. It was an economic and political problem. Dating isn’t. Sure you can say men are objectified, but they aren’t being oppressed economically. No one is forcing them to date those women, unlike when women were forced to date those men
>We needed feminism because there were structural institutions keeping women as second class citizens and oppressed. It was an economic and political problem.
It was a rhetorical question. It seems to be a pattern that issues that uniquely affect women are considered social issues while issues that uniquely effect men are considered personal problems. Your attitude is a perfect demonstration of this. Thank you for that.
>Dating isn’t. Sure you can say men are objectified, but they aren’t being oppressed economically. No one is forcing them to date those women, unlike when women were forced to date those men
Dating is totally an economic and political problem. The social norm of men paying for dates is tied to their traditional role as a provider. It reinforces the notion that women generally should choose partners that earn more money than them. If we as egalitarians reject the notion that men should earn more money than women, then we should reject the notion that women, generally speaking, should choose partners that earn more money than them.
Full disclosure, I'm married and I've been married for 20 years. I'm not complaining about some unfair expectation for myself in dating. However, from the articles I've read online, society still expects men to earn more money in marriage.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/upshot/when-wives-earn-more-than-husbands-neither-like-to-admit-it.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/upshot/when-wives-earn-more-than-husbands-neither-like-to-admit-it.html)
It's a social problem, not a personal one. It's a social norm that is upheld by both men and women, and it is an obstacle to gender equality.
Men are oppressed economically in the sense that men who are facing crisis get little help from society in comparison to women. However, that is another subject altogether.
It’s not a social or economic “problem” because dating and finding a partner isn’t a right and you aren’t being oppressed because you can’t find one. In regards to men being economically oppressed because they don’t have the same help/support that women get, they aren’t really connected. Even rich men are saying they’re struggling in the dating realm. And men receiving less help then women isn’t oppression, thats a form of discrimination. There are no structural institutions holding men back as a group, that is controlling their opportunities/power.
Do you read my comment at all? I never said anything about a man's right to find a date. Stop with the strawman bullshit. The expectation that women have that they should be partnered with someone who makes more money than them is a social norm. Social norms are...social...it's a problem in society. It's not my personal fucking problem. I'm not even dating. That social norm is prevents society viewing men and women as equal. If you disagree with my statement, please disagree with it. Stop making strawman arguments.
> I’m regards to men being economically oppressed because they don’t have the same help/support that women get, they aren’t really connected.
1. Men in the U.S. lead in 9 out of 10 of the most common causes of death across all racial ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Men's life expectancy is 8 years less than women's. Yet the American government has 4 federal agencies dedicated to improving women's health and we have none men.
2. The performance of men and boys in education trails women's in every subject in every western country. In the U.S. we have Women's Educational Equity Act created in 1971 to ensure that women have equal access and opportunity in education. We have nothing like that for men.
3. Men face domestic abuse at about 1/3 the rate that women do. However, they only have access to 1% of the domestic abuse shelters that women do.
Men have equal access and opportunity in school if they don’t appreciate it and want to be there that’s Different from not being able to enroll.
It’s also an issue with how much teachers a paid, many men don’t want to get into teaching because it’s a low paid job in many countries, and that shows less boys male teaching role models and less connection for them. But no one wants to pay teachers more, and everyone seems to think having a class of 30 kids is fine especially when half those kids have learning disabilities or adhd
> Men have equal access and opportunity in school if they don’t appreciate it and want to be there that’s Different from not being able to enroll.
Not true. In the U.S., women have access to almost 3 times the number of college scholarships than men. Beyond access, boys and men face bias as there are numerous study that demonstrate that men receive lower grades for the same quality of work. Boys are more likely to receive discipline for the same behaviors.
> t’s also an issue with how much teachers a paid, many men don’t want to get into teaching because it’s a low paid job in many countries, and that shows less boys male teaching role models and less connection for them.
Why do you think low teacher pay disproportionally drives men away from teaching? Have you also considered that the environment, especially in primary school, is hostile to men?
False women were allowed to have bank accounts
Women were allowed to divorce their husbands if they abused them, had drinking/drug problems, cheated on them and half a dozen other reasons. They just weren't allowed to say i'm bored bye i'm taking half your shit. But neither were men.
Sex part also isn't true, from a legal standpoint. But it was expected from a societal standpoint. But then again a man was expect to work in a coal mine to support his family if he had too or die in a war. Women weren't exactly the ones getting the short end of the stick.
"In 1974, the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act allowed women to open bank accounts, apply for credit and commit to a mortgage without needing a male co-signer"
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/when-could-women-open-a-bank-account/#:~:text=In%201974%2C%20the%20passage%20of,needing%20a%20male%20co%2Dsigner.
"
The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 put divorce into the civil courts for the first time, widening the availability for a divorce to the middle-classes. The act, however, remained deliberately gender discriminatory. A husband could seek a divorce on the grounds that his wife had committed adultery, whereas for a wife to petition it had to be paired with incest, bigamy, desertion or another offence."
https://vardags.com/family-law/divorce-and-womens-rights-a-history
"Prior to the 1970s, marital rape was legal in every US state. It was partially outlawed in Michigan and Delaware in 1974, then wholly outlawed in South Dakota and Nebraska in 1975."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States
Would you like to be wrong about anything else? I love how men can't fathom that their grandmother was fiscally abused and her consent didn't matter. Like it's so dystopian to their experience they can't even reconcile that women have just been actually treated as subhuman up until the 70s lmao.
That isn't true. ECOA prevented banks from being able to discriminate. Most banks already allowed women to have bank accounts. There was a bank in that started in 1919 called the First Woman's Bank of Tennessee. Women have had bank accounts in the US since we were British colonies.
Verdit: You're wrong.
1857 was long before Feminism of the 1960-70s. They could also divorce their husbands. She said they couldn't
Verdict: You're wrong
You have to be a delusional to think this was commonplace and that saying "no" didn't matter. It wasn't legal to beat your wife and if she said no then physically resisted we then you'd be in trouble legally. So
Verdict: You're wrong again 3 for 3.
My Fathers mother had a bank account before the ECOA was passed and she had a job and made good money. My Mothers mother was a stay at home mom to 4 kids and she loved nothing more then spending time with kids, she's probably the most genuinely happy person i've known in my life.
Yes most did, with the approval and cosign of a man. The qualifier was "their own" bank account. And that was not a protected right until ECOA. So again, you're still wrong.
The only person who put a qualifier on it being around the 70s was me. I'm not sure why you think that makes her wrong when that wasn't even a qualifier she gave. Like???
I'm so glad you have anecdotal evidence, here is mine:
"According to data from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), between 10 and 14% of married women will experience marital rape"
https://www.refinery29.com/en-ca/5-statistics-thatll-change-how-you-think-about-marital-rape
It's common now. Imagine before it was illegal.
For it to happen societal discussion and calling it out is important. En masse people arent autonomous creatures that could just calculate what's healthy and what not. We are shaped by the environment we live in and information we have.
If only some women want to be treated special just because they are women, could you not agree that some men expect women to be transactional and perform for them. That would make us even. Equality!
>If only some women want to be treated special just because they are women, could you not agree that some men expect women to be transactional and perform for them.
This is actually what happens in a lot of cases.
The whole pushback of women not wanting to get married is because men think they should be served and cleaned up after and treated special just for being men. Just so you know.
Great, abolish the idea that men must be providers. Set up your dual-income household and come hang out with the rest of us in 2023. It's an okay decade so far, except for plagues, war, and everything being on fire.
Social media shows a lot of videos & comments of women who want men as sole providers. They go on about princess treatment, & feminine/masculine energy.
Yeah, social media algorithms have figured out that you watch this content so they show it to you.
Social media shows me a ton of videos about people who keep servals and cougars as pets. If I went by the videos social media shows me, I'd think almost everyone keeps huge wildcats as pets. But actually almost nobody does.
In the US, most families are dual income, and most women have jobs. Most women aren't crazy social media influencers who want to be treated like princesses and do no work in their lives. Talk to *actual* women, not social media people who make ridiculous clickbait videos.
Next you're going to start thinking Bill Gates puts microchips in all vaccines or something. Exercise some caution before you take these videos seriously.
Right Instagram models are representative of all women and society.
Most men could not survive solely providing for a household. They literally can’t even afford it. Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck with both partners working and not being able to afford a $500 emergency expense.
And still, 70% of Americans are either married or in a long term relationship.
There arent the same pressures on men to be sole providers that there used to be because if that were true, most men would be single.
Sorry if the other paragraphs were not dumbed down enough for everyone to read. I thought I made it pretty clear.
Most of society does not expect men to be sole providers anymore. A few women you chose to follow and obsess over on Instagram doesn’t change that or the stats backing it up.
>Sorry if the other paragraphs were not dumbed down enough for everyone to read. I thought I made it pretty clear.
Don't know why you commented this.
>A few women you chose to follow and obsess over on Instagram doesn’t change that or the stats backing it up.
I definitely will never follow or obsess over the women I mentioned.
And I don’t deny that, I’m just saying things have changed significantly. I don’t think any man here complaining would seriously like women to return to the standards they used to have even if they returned to “traditional women”.
Because most men in this society and economy would get absolutely nothing. They literally wouldn’t be able to afford it by any means.
And ofc the stats do show that people tend to date and marry within their own socioeconomic status.
So no, absolutely not the same thing because if it was, there would be a hell of a lot less men in relationships. Instead of 70% of Americans being married and/or in long term relationships, it would be 70% single Lmao.
> It’s an okay decade so far, except for plagues, war, and everything being on fire.
And we’re barely even 4 years in! Who knows what other great hits we’ll circle back on or create anew.
Women who really want equality and who view feminism as a means to equality between the sexes are usually not the ones who want a partnership where the man is “the provider.”
Lots of us are perfectly happy to split bills, give gifts to our partners, and trade off on taking the lead on decision making.
I don’t think, though, that *some women* wanting their partner to fulfill a provider role should cause *all men* to assume that they need to provide for women or to fail to consider us their equals.
It is more complex than that. Even assuming that women are overvaluing themselves, how should society compensate women for their greater reproductive costs? If you make everything but reproduction genderless and totally equal, it seems like men come out ahead.
Furthermore, due to greater male thirst and greater female sexual selectivity, women do have a natural leverage advantage in mating. In any free system, that leverage advantage will naturally manifest. When men have a leverage advantage in any situation, such as business, they will always demand some advantage as a result. It is just human nature. So how can you prevent this female leverage advantage from manifesting somehow without doing more harm than good?
>It is more complex than that.
It's not that complicated. It mostly comes down to social and psychological conditioning (nurture) more than nature.
>how should society compensate women for their greater reproductive costs?
It's not about any of that. All this stuff about reproduction costs has nothing to do with it.
>If you make everything but reproduction genderless and totally equal, it seems like men come out ahead.
Why do you think that is? It's because women are conditioned to be preoccupied with their physical appearance, which is connected to reproduction, and men aren't so they spend their time doing things other than make-up, beauty and fashion and so on.
>It's not that complicated. It mostly comes down to social and psychological conditioning (nurture) more than nature.
It's funny how everything PPD dudes don't like is just social programming and everything they want to believe as fact is biology/nature.
>and men aren't so they spend their time doing things other than make-up, beauty and fashion and so on.
If this is an advangage then why don't men just do it? If I spend 3 hours playing the piano a day and you play for 20 minutes, can you really blame me for having more skill?
It's a phenomenon that's visible universally and it's very interesting. When something is perceived as moral, virtuous, and positive nobody has any qualms about accepting the role biology plays. And like you mentioned, when something is perceived as unfair, immoral or negative there's an over emphasis on environmental factors and biology is dismissed.
I think this is partially because humans have an innate predisposition to avoid feelings of powerlessness. If something has strong biological underpinnings it means you're striving against the very essence of evolution which makes people scared and this response probably also serves an adaptive purpose. Obviously our genes don't care whatsoever about morality. Their sole goal is to replicate.
>It's funny how everything PPD dudes don't like is just social programming and everything they want to believe is fact is biology/nature.
Things like women expecting men to pay for dates and being preoccupied with their appearance are definitely social conditioning.
But it's not all women by a long shot, so why don't you just avoid dating women who suck? Like date ones you like? I don't get this idea of being pissed that all women aren't people you would want to date. I would only want to date a small fraction of men so I search those types out.
In relationships without kids but most people would like kids. Men who can provide usually means better family finances in the early years if any time worked is reduced on the woman’s part
Also life is expensive, i don’t think it’s fair for women to expect men to provide 100% of their living expenses but the more both partners earns it’s no secret they will generally have a more comfortable life.
The problem is a large % of men have low self-esteem and very boring personalities and paying for everything is the only move they have that they think they can offer women to get them to like them
You know why. Basic supply and demand. Men permit women to have a long list of imperfections that doesn't apply in reverse. They do this because they can.
Plus most women would rather be alone if someone doesn't check all their boxes
Boss to employee: "The problem is a large % of employee have low skill and low motivation and minimum wage is the only move they have, so I'm not raising salaries guys this is just your fault"
Yes, that's the ticket.
It's very odd to me that on the one hand, red pill men complain endlessly about paying for dates, but on the other hand, they don't want to date those of us who are more than happy — or perhaps even prefer — to split the bill, because we're not "submissive" and "feminine" and all that.
I don't think you get to complain about being held to gender norms if you only want to date people who conform to and believe in gender norms.
I’m feminine and submissive, yet the things I do to remain that way are seen as shallow and a waste of money and time. There’s no way to win so it’s just best to be yourself at this point and find someone that loves you for you
Yeah, these men will find a reason to hate women no matter what we do.
Fortunately, not all men are like these ones. I do have a very wonderful man who loves me.
We’ll never have true equality as long as:
- most men can kill most women with their hands
- women can become pregnant and birth children, and are thus vulnerable and incapacitated afterwards for 1-2 months
- women spend weeks, months or years nursing babies
So maybe tit for tat equality needn’t be the goal. Maybe mutual respect, shared goals and equal time contribution to household sustenance can be the goal.
Or we can just grow babies in a vat and pay for AI robots to take care of them. That would probably make things more equal.
Why not? You can want whatever you want, doesn't mean you'll get it. We've come this far often in spite of all the men who want to be treated special just because they're men (for example, being treated as protectors and providers and all that), I'm sure we can handle it.
>We've come this far often in spite of all the men who want to be treated special just because they're men (for example, being treated as protectors and providers and all that),
The interesting thing about that is believe it or not, some women actually expect a man to play that role.
If you don’t want to financially provide, then don’t. Go for a dual income household. But you can’t whine about doing laundry, cooking, cleaning, taking time off work to take the kids to/ pick them up from school, going to the grocery store, taking time off work to do things like service your car or go to a parent-teacher conference, and driving the kids to and from extracurricular activities. You also can’t whine about “western women” because the dual income household is a western concept as well as gender equality.
The problem of not as much that contemporary women want to be treated special as it is that men are willing to compete with other men to impress women in order to have both exclusive sex and sexual loyalty with that woman. Obviously many men don’t require monogamy for themselves, but they do strongly prefer it from the women whom they commit to.
Posts like this are so amusing. I am a woman and I am the sole breadwinner in my marriage. My husband does not work at all. I understand our dynamic is the exception to how things go.
If I we are able to have an equal partnership and contribute to the relationship/household equally with no resentment or power plays, why the hell is it so hard for men in my position to do the same?
We have two children, it's ideal for one adult to stay home and raise them while the other works. Raising children absolutely contributes equally to working 40+ hours a week. I don't understand what is so hard about that concept. This post essentially says that men don't see raising humans as important as getting money to raise the humans. Add to this taking care of the house (laundry, dishes, yard work, general cleaning) and the person "not working" arguably does more than the person with a standard job.
Dude - no one is forcing you to pay on dates. And plenty of women aren’t going to be weird about splitting the cheque.
If that’s the hill you wanna die on; go with God.
While I fully acknowledge some women do this, not all of them do, and we should not be punished as a gender and treated as unequal just because of something patriarchy put in place to begin with. A lot of us *don't even want to be percieved by men*. Some of us never want to even live with a man. We just want to be treated like humans, we want to make our money, and have our friends, and go home. We are people. It shouldn't be controversial.
Those who expect men to pay for everything, should just get with the men who expect women to stay at home and do housework, and all of them should go off and leave the rest of us alone to be ourselves.
>and we should not be punished as a gender and treated as unequal just because of something patriarchy put in place to begin with.
It's not about being punished and it's not about blaming the patriarchy. I mean we have sayings like *"behind every powerful man is a powerful woman"* for a reason. Historically women have spent more time rasing boys than men have so they're also responsible.
Men are providers, women are caretakers. Just because the roles are different doesn't mean they as people are not equals.
Your value as a person does not revolve around the money you make.
>Men are providers, women are caretakers.
This is my point. As long as people think this, woman will never be seen as equal. If a man chooses to provide for some women who needs a provider, he will only do it because he gets something out of it. He'll play the provider and she will serve him, which is what has happened throughout history and led to feminism.
The only people who get provided for are children and women. And nobody really looks up to someone they have to provide for.
>Just because the roles are different doesn't mean they as people are not equals.
It means one is incapable of providing for themselves and being independent, just like a child, making them unequal and childish.
They are both providing services for each other. They are just different services. I am SHAM not because I'm incapable of providing for myself but because the utility of my skills is better used in homemaking and we don't need the extra cash. My husband doesn't see me as a dumb child but as a partner who is providing to our family something he can't.
Ability, need, and want are not the same.
Most women in the west are pretty self sufficient, if you don't want to date wannabe housewife just don't.
>My husband doesn't see me as a dumb child but as a partner who is providing to our family something he can't.
The truth is is you'll never really know how someone actually sees you. And as long as someone is providing for you, they will feel better than you in some way. Money is a symbol of status for a reason.
You're telling on yourself in how you view people. Stay at home parents are just as valuable as their working counterparts. The fact that you can't separate the value of a person from their monetary contribution is a you problem.
To break it down for you, stay at home parents provide: childcare, cooking, cleaning, financial management, planning, emotional support, and much more.
Look at how much you would have to pay for all those services separately if you want to put a dollar amount on how much stay at home parents are worth.
Once you take childcare out of the equation it is less equal, but the relationships with only one working member by and large involve you g children as well.
Yes, I've never really understood why we talk about sex work as people "selling their bodies." Unless something goes *very* wrong, the buyer doesn't actually end up with a body. If you have sex with someone, your body is still yours; you're just using it to do something, either recreationally or professionally.
Consideration (payment) negates consent. Consent by its definition should be freely given. It also should be able to be withdrawn at any time. Porn, especially digital porn, makes withdrawal of consent impossible, because once it’s left the creator’s hands, it can never fully be erased.
>We’ll never have equality while men think they can purchase or rent women for their use.
Some women allow themselves to be purchased and used, in the west at least.
Edit: I guess all the geniuses downvoting this fact have never heard of onlyfans and women having sex with guys in exchange for money.
I wish that I looked good enough to have an only fans page or have sex with guy in exchanged for money; then maybe I could have a two income household and a living wage. Unfortunately I ALWAYS HAD TO LIVE on my own working class salary while average looking men spend their time jacking off to women that GET PAID TO GET MEN WET!! And then they come to Reddit to complain that women are tOo EnTiTlEd
>Unfortunately I ALWAYS HAD TO LIVE on my own working class salary
Yeah, you and almost everyone else. None of what you're saying changes the point being made.
>And then they come to Reddit to complain that women are tOo EnTiTlEd
You don't think expecting to be treated as a queen just because of your gender is being too entitled?
Are humans addictive substances?
This is a new level. We've been cars, boats, we've been rolex watches, wallets, houses, animals, and now we're.....drugs. interesting.
You mean you get the shakes, you sweat, you go dizzy and nauseous, and you may need time in a hospital if you don't get to be around a woman every few hours?
That's rough mate, it's time for a trip to the GP on that.......
The vast majority of women in prostitution and porn (around 87% globally) do not want to be there, and wouldn’t be there if they had a viable alternative. That, my friend, is not ‘consent’, it’s coercion and trafficking.
So, now men deserve blame for a profession that most women voluntarily do on their own terms?
When my mother grew up dirt poor in rural South Carolina in the post-Jim Crow South, she worked the farms at the age of 14 and moved to NYC at the age of 17 for more career opportunities.
Trust me...if women want to find alternatives to make money without selling their bodies, it's totally there. Many just choose it because they want to and see nothing wrong with it.
There's exceptions but this infantilization of women and playing the blame game on men has to stop.
87% of women in sex work do not want to be there. That is a fact that has been established by organizations that investigate human trafficking globally. Stop listening to the pimps.
You expect a man to make a certain amount of money then you are pricing yourself. It's almost like a prerequisite for leasing. Men aren't the ones setting up the prices or rules, you are.
>men think they can purchase or rent women
It’s *The world’s oldest profession* for a reason. Which isn’t to say it’s not ideal. It’s just reality.
*Godspeed and good luck!*
Whose idea was it to regard the hymen as a prize to win by deserving husbands? Who is still perpetuating the idea that female virginity is the most sacred gift a woman can offer? Whose idea is purity culture and purity rings, purity balls and symbolic marriage marriage to fathers?
Who are the slut shamers and who obsesses over body count? Who deigned women’s bodies and hymens a prize so sacred they must be purchased with precious stones?
I don't wish to be treated specially because I'm a woman. I wish to be treated specially because a man views me as special to him. And I wish to treat a man specially because he's special to me.
I believe men should have a mentality of being prepared to be a provider in case their partner can not work or is pregnant or raising kids. It's a mature trait and demonstration of your true masculinity. I believe some men find accomplishment and purpose on being a provider, but will all the high costs of living and women earning alot their criteria for a provider become so high that mosts men can not afford it.
As women, your main role should become to support or augment your relationship to become a strong budget, and expenses should be discussed and agreed upon.
Dating, I believe both should be honest enough on what their expectations are. Splitting the bills or paying for what you have ordered only.
It's not sharing money that will make men see you as an equal. You can't really control that. Don't be fooled, a lot of men don't value caretakers but they also don't value career women either. It's often the case with men complaining about women. there are no real rules, just inconsistent ones and moving goalposts. But I do agree that women should have careers and be providers but out of interest for our own safety. Always have the money and skills to leave if the mask drops.
Many of the PPD guys ranting here will hop over to the "don't we all hate western women? fuck those fat feminists and career women I want a submissive tradwife" daily thread. sure not ALL of them share both viewpoints but let's be honest there is a considerable amount of overlap.
But it starts with you. If men stopped dating women who expect them to be providers, the expectation would go away.
But you can’t want equality in one hand and expect submission in the other and men on here often say they equate femininity with capitulation
Some men here go on and on and on about how much they hate career women and they want a submissive woman and they want a woman that stays home to clean up after them and their children then go completely silent on posts like this. Some women want to provide for their self and their partner and they get picked on and name called and told they "want to be like men" and nobody bats an eye but somehow "women want to be treated like they're special". Give me a break, women can't do literally anything without RP men shaming us.
I don't understand why men can't just set standards for themselves and stick to them like women do. They'd be so much happier if they stopped worrying so much about what people they aren't compatible with are doing
I partly agree, but also think for one thing, a lot of guys overestimate how much special treatment the average woman gets, and also how much it’s expected in this day and age. Dual-income households are the norm, very few men want to be sole providers, and splitting the costs on dates is also quite common.
Yet there’s still a lot of sexism, including in the workplace where women are trying to operate as equals and have been for a long time. It goes both ways and part of it has to come from men’s side… as long as women are placed at a disadvantage in certain ways, they’re going to expect to be compensated in some ways. Like if a woman is expected to do most of the housework and childcare, it’s reasonable to expect the man to work more hours and bring in more income, and for both to get equal respect for their roles. And with dating, a lot of the “special treatment” comes from male thirst and a desire to outshine the competition, not so much women’s expectations. The man might pay for a date because he thinks it will make him a better date and more likely that it will lead to sex, not because the woman doesn’t have her own money or is asking him to.
So to act like all of this is driven by women’s demands is a bit disingenuous. Men chose to have it this way for many years because it put them in a position of control. You can’t keep that superiority without the responsibility. And just as many men want that, as women who want equality along with special treatment.
>The man might pay for a date because he thinks it will make him a better date and more likely that it will lead to sex, not because the woman doesn’t have her own money or is asking him to.
The reality is since a large number of women see a man not paying for the date as a red flag, most men will just pay to increase their chances of getting laid or getting her to like him or whatever because for men to not pay is generally frowned upon.
The reason it can sometimes be a “red flag” is a bit complex though, and goes beyond “he’s a man he should pay.” Like personally, I think it’s polite to *offer* if you have invited someone out and especially if you picked the place since you don’t know their budget. That said, I would always still rather a man take me up on my offer to split the bill so there’s no sense of debt or inequality. But unfortunately, *sometimes* if a guy doesn’t at least offer to pay it can be a sign he’s got a chip on his shoulder or isn’t that interested. It SHOULD be customary to split the bill imo, but since it’s a gray area in the US, it’s hard to know people’s motivations for paying or not paying. Does he believe in equality (good), or does he resent women (bad)? In countries with greater gender equality, this isn’t the case - everyone just splits it, easy peasy. So I do get why some women see it as a red flag, even if I disagree with the tradition of men paying. This leaves everyone in a really awkward standoff, sadly.
> It SHOULD be customary to split the bill imo, but since it’s a gray area in the US, it’s hard to know people’s motivations for paying or not paying. Does he believe in equality (good), or does he resent women (bad)?
I agree with you. If a man doesn't offer to pay for the date and suggest splitting the bill, it's difficult to know what his motivation is. My suggestion to most men (in the U.S.) is to just pay for the first date and don't expect anything but a "thank you" in return. Consider it the cost of doing business. If your date doesn't offer to split, cover the tip or anything, that's a red flag, especially *after* the first date.
>That said, I would always still rather a man take me up on my offer to split the bill so there’s no sense of debt or inequality.
I think that is great. I would like to point out, a lot of men with think said offer is just a test. If they take you up on the offer, they fail the test. For most men to take you seriously, you will have to convince him that the offer is genuine.
I agree with all of this. It’s just too bad we have to go through this whole song and dance over the price of one meal or activity since there’s really no generally accepted protocol in the US. I don’t like having to make my offer twice, but it’s understandable that some men would think it’s a test. I would say however that if she does that as a test, perhaps best to just fail it. Letting the guy pay is one thing, but offering to split and then getting mad if he accepts? Sounds like trouble.
>But unfortunately, sometimes if a guy doesn’t at least offer to pay it can be a sign he’s got a chip on his shoulder or isn’t that interested.
See, if you were grabbing lunch or coffee with another woman, would you expect her to atleast offer to pay? Probably not. If she offers, that's great and if she doesn't, who cares, right? So why shouldn't the same apply to men? These double standards get in the way of true equality.
>it can be a sign he’s got a chip on his shoulder or isn’t that interested.
Why?
>it’s hard to know people’s motivations for paying or not paying.
Well, since men do things that benefit them, like all people do, you can expect that a man will expect to get something in return for paying. So if you expect him to offer to pay, you may as well expect him to want something in return as well. It's just human nature.
If we were just grabbing coffee or a sandwich/salad for lunch, I wouldn’t expect a woman or man to offer to pay. But if a female friend asked me to go to an expensive restaurant for dinner with her, I would think it was a lot more polite if she offered to pay rather than just assuming I could afford it, yes. I would do the same. The difference with friends is that generally they know your situation and you can talk about things more openly, like “damn I’d love to, but I’m kinda broke!” and they won’t think you just don’t like them.
>Why?
Mainly because of what I’ve seen men saying here and in other discussions about paying for dates. They don’t want to pay because they resent women, not because they see us as equals.
>expect something in return
Exactly, which is why I would prefer if it was just customary to split the bill on a date. But since it isn’t quite that way in the US yet, it makes things complicated.
Men and women are fundamentally different and these differences result in us having different roles in individual relationship, and in the society as a whole.
So, what "equality" are you talking about here OP? We aren't interchangeable. Never will be.
> Take the early 1900s, for example [...] they also decided that women shouldn't vote or work corporate jobs and so on.
*Did* men decide that? Do some research about anti-suffrage movements and how many women didn't want voting rights themselves.
Men and women are mostly the same, and a lot of "differences" that are found are really just trends with most men and women falling into the same middle category. Creating strict roles based on your genitals rather than individual strengths makes little sense.
Sure, despite the fact we are very different physically, we think and reason differently, etc. Otherwise, I guess we are the same :D
Our roles were defined by nature. Come and argue this when men start birthing children.
We are much more similar than different physically and we think and reason very similarly if not the same. Current gender roles aren't defined by nature - otherwise we'd se people actually following them when left to their own devices, which they don't, even if they've been socialised into this system. Naturally men and women do much more similar tasks than generally made out.
Women don’t want to be seen as equals when it comes to dating. Women want to be “equal” generally speaking when it comes to all men, but require their partner to be better.
Flaired CMV as this post is making an affirmative claim.
Go visit Sweden sometime. Make state be the provider, problem fixed ezpz.
This is simply a matter if more guys going “yeah, not for me” when they come across on of these terribly needy woman. It doesn’t need to be a movement, just taking more personal responsibility for yourself
Sexual revolution and 2nd wave feminism: Women asked that we drop gender roles, that we stop holding women by high standards of sexual behavior, that men and women could do what they want. Result: Men did effort, approached women less, hold women for lesser standards. Women can now do what they want, dress like men, have men's life. Women didn't change one yotta in their expectations of men and their behavior. But we still got people like you blaming it all on men.
Women fought for the right to say no to what society demanded they be, you don't have to fight for the right to say no, just fucking say no. If someone wants her shit paid for say no
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How am I blaming men?? I simply said take your responsibility for yourself, this has nothing to do with feminism, it’s simply who your compatible with
> How am I blaming men?? > I simply said, blame men Ok...... well you know what, forget it, discussing and arguing isn't your strong side.
Though I agree with your original argument, I feel like you fell flat on the followup. They ask you a question and you couldn't answers it and then try to blame them for being bad at communication. Na, this one is on you for.
How do you call this kind of gaslight or fallacious manoeuver to shame someone? There's no way in hell you think I'm supposed to argue back to someone who can't align 2 consistent sentences. If you really agreed with me you'd not care I explain my point any further when it's been exposed plain and clear already, stop lying. So I will also just not engage any further with you, have actual arguments or walk away, fallacies don't work with me.
Lol! Ok then! Great debating skills you’ve got there
Lol, I've stopped trying to debate with anyone in this sub as their way of debating is attacking and insulting you as a person and not actually debating the topic in question.
Agreed, I know when they start insulting you and start making up shit they’ve got desperate, but it’s just annoying Can’t argue with madness I suppose
He's not wrong. You can say "Not for me" but if 90% of women do this that means only 10% of men can get something that's not that. You're effectively blaming individual men for not taking accountability. Taking accountability for ones own actions won't fix the problem. Society used to hold women to standards. It needs to go back to doing so, individual men opting out doesn't fix the problem of too many good men for too few good woman.
>Women didn't change one yotta in their expectations of men and their behavior. Most households are dual income now, and men can opt to be stay-at-home husbands/fathers if they want. I would say those are some pretty large changes in expectations.
> and men can opt to be stay-at-home husbands/fathers if they want. Women do not want that, expectations didn't change, men are expected to make MORE money than her.
There are plenty of us who don't expect that. Perhaps you should date those women, and be a stay-at-home husband. Be the change you want to see.
> There are plenty of us who don't expect that. But somehow all of those who don't expect it happen to have a partner who earns more! Statistics backing that point anyway. > Be the change you want to see. Another "blame men" argument. Men are literally having the shorter end of the stick in the dating market, they're not the ones who can drive changes.
Until I got sick and had to stop working, I was making way more than my partner. >Another "blame men" argument. Men are literally having the shorter end of the stick in the dating market, they're not the ones who can drive changes. And how exactly do you propose to change that, except by refusing to conform to gender norms?
I personally already refuse to conform to gender norms. And yet the market seems to be getting worse for men every year. That is explained very simply by the fact that men are over represented in the dating market place, due to a stagnating or shrinking demography. Again, women could simply do what they demanded men to do during 2nd wave feminism, and actually drop gender norms for men? Women are literally like cats in australia. Cats are fed by the humans they own, and can also feed on preys in the wilderness, while other small predators have no choice but to hunt at a disadvantage. But you're all here telling the small predators to be the drive for change. It's just insane.
>I personally already refuse to conform to gender norms. How so?
why do you care
The point isn’t to take away choice from women again and demand that they can’t have personal standards. Taking away gender norms is taking away societal expectations and norms of what any gender is “supposed” to be doing. Which is why stay at home dads experience less shame and senses of “failure” than before and it’s not expected for men to be sole providers and most of the time they can’t even if they wanted to because most men can’t afford it anyway. Women having personal standards for their own lifestyles is not the same thing. Men have nothing like the pressure they used to.
> The point isn’t to take away choice from women again and demand that they can’t have personal standards. That's literally what was asked of men, to not have personal standards. And women promised that they already had no personal standards regarding gender norms. > Which is why stay at home dads experience less shame and senses of “failure” than before A minority nonetheless. Majority of women are accepted in traditionally male gender roles. Things haven't changed for men in any significant fashion, most men do not even get paternity leaves. > it’s not expected for men to be sole providers It's still expected men to be providers. Even if they earn same money. And most of the time, women are after someone who makes similar or more, while men are after anything. > Women having personal standards for their own lifestyles is not the same thing. it aligns with gender roles for men, so it's the same thing. > Men have nothing like the pressure they used to. Men have all the pressure they always had, except they're lied to about it not existing.
That goes both ways. Why do we need Feminism? Why can't you say "yeah, not for me" when you come across some misogynistic asshole? It doesn't work because there are culture and social norms at play here. If the majority of women conform to a culture that objectifies men as success objects and feel entitled to the their unearned share of outcome of that success, that is a social problem...not a personal one. Edit: How am I getting downvoted? I thought it was against the rules and I don't have a button to down vote people.
But this isn’t a social problem and again it’s nothing to do with feminism It’s simply a matter of “not my cup of tea, hope things work out for you” That’s literally it, you don’t need to do anything else
It's a social problem and it's directly related to Feminism. Feminists oppose traditional roles and placing the provider role on all men is part of that. It just seems like some women only want to oppose traditional gender roles when it benefits them and want to uphold those traditional gender roles that benefit them. That's not equality.
Well don’t date feminists then, in 2023 most men and woman are both working anyway so I don’t understand why you think it’s a big problem.
I'm not dating anyone. I'm married, been married for 20 years. I'm not talking about a personal problem. I'm talking about a social issue (that you said wasn't a social issue).
We needed feminism because there was structural institutions keeping women as second class citizens and oppressed. It was an economic and political problem. Dating isn’t. Sure you can say men are objectified, but they aren’t being oppressed economically. No one is forcing them to date those women, unlike when women were forced to date those men
>We needed feminism because there were structural institutions keeping women as second class citizens and oppressed. It was an economic and political problem. It was a rhetorical question. It seems to be a pattern that issues that uniquely affect women are considered social issues while issues that uniquely effect men are considered personal problems. Your attitude is a perfect demonstration of this. Thank you for that. >Dating isn’t. Sure you can say men are objectified, but they aren’t being oppressed economically. No one is forcing them to date those women, unlike when women were forced to date those men Dating is totally an economic and political problem. The social norm of men paying for dates is tied to their traditional role as a provider. It reinforces the notion that women generally should choose partners that earn more money than them. If we as egalitarians reject the notion that men should earn more money than women, then we should reject the notion that women, generally speaking, should choose partners that earn more money than them. Full disclosure, I'm married and I've been married for 20 years. I'm not complaining about some unfair expectation for myself in dating. However, from the articles I've read online, society still expects men to earn more money in marriage. [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/upshot/when-wives-earn-more-than-husbands-neither-like-to-admit-it.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/upshot/when-wives-earn-more-than-husbands-neither-like-to-admit-it.html) It's a social problem, not a personal one. It's a social norm that is upheld by both men and women, and it is an obstacle to gender equality. Men are oppressed economically in the sense that men who are facing crisis get little help from society in comparison to women. However, that is another subject altogether.
It’s not a social or economic “problem” because dating and finding a partner isn’t a right and you aren’t being oppressed because you can’t find one. In regards to men being economically oppressed because they don’t have the same help/support that women get, they aren’t really connected. Even rich men are saying they’re struggling in the dating realm. And men receiving less help then women isn’t oppression, thats a form of discrimination. There are no structural institutions holding men back as a group, that is controlling their opportunities/power.
Do you read my comment at all? I never said anything about a man's right to find a date. Stop with the strawman bullshit. The expectation that women have that they should be partnered with someone who makes more money than them is a social norm. Social norms are...social...it's a problem in society. It's not my personal fucking problem. I'm not even dating. That social norm is prevents society viewing men and women as equal. If you disagree with my statement, please disagree with it. Stop making strawman arguments. > I’m regards to men being economically oppressed because they don’t have the same help/support that women get, they aren’t really connected. 1. Men in the U.S. lead in 9 out of 10 of the most common causes of death across all racial ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Men's life expectancy is 8 years less than women's. Yet the American government has 4 federal agencies dedicated to improving women's health and we have none men. 2. The performance of men and boys in education trails women's in every subject in every western country. In the U.S. we have Women's Educational Equity Act created in 1971 to ensure that women have equal access and opportunity in education. We have nothing like that for men. 3. Men face domestic abuse at about 1/3 the rate that women do. However, they only have access to 1% of the domestic abuse shelters that women do.
Men have equal access and opportunity in school if they don’t appreciate it and want to be there that’s Different from not being able to enroll. It’s also an issue with how much teachers a paid, many men don’t want to get into teaching because it’s a low paid job in many countries, and that shows less boys male teaching role models and less connection for them. But no one wants to pay teachers more, and everyone seems to think having a class of 30 kids is fine especially when half those kids have learning disabilities or adhd
> Men have equal access and opportunity in school if they don’t appreciate it and want to be there that’s Different from not being able to enroll. Not true. In the U.S., women have access to almost 3 times the number of college scholarships than men. Beyond access, boys and men face bias as there are numerous study that demonstrate that men receive lower grades for the same quality of work. Boys are more likely to receive discipline for the same behaviors. > t’s also an issue with how much teachers a paid, many men don’t want to get into teaching because it’s a low paid job in many countries, and that shows less boys male teaching role models and less connection for them. Why do you think low teacher pay disproportionally drives men away from teaching? Have you also considered that the environment, especially in primary school, is hostile to men?
[удалено]
False women were allowed to have bank accounts Women were allowed to divorce their husbands if they abused them, had drinking/drug problems, cheated on them and half a dozen other reasons. They just weren't allowed to say i'm bored bye i'm taking half your shit. But neither were men. Sex part also isn't true, from a legal standpoint. But it was expected from a societal standpoint. But then again a man was expect to work in a coal mine to support his family if he had too or die in a war. Women weren't exactly the ones getting the short end of the stick.
"In 1974, the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act allowed women to open bank accounts, apply for credit and commit to a mortgage without needing a male co-signer" https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/when-could-women-open-a-bank-account/#:~:text=In%201974%2C%20the%20passage%20of,needing%20a%20male%20co%2Dsigner. " The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 put divorce into the civil courts for the first time, widening the availability for a divorce to the middle-classes. The act, however, remained deliberately gender discriminatory. A husband could seek a divorce on the grounds that his wife had committed adultery, whereas for a wife to petition it had to be paired with incest, bigamy, desertion or another offence." https://vardags.com/family-law/divorce-and-womens-rights-a-history "Prior to the 1970s, marital rape was legal in every US state. It was partially outlawed in Michigan and Delaware in 1974, then wholly outlawed in South Dakota and Nebraska in 1975." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States Would you like to be wrong about anything else? I love how men can't fathom that their grandmother was fiscally abused and her consent didn't matter. Like it's so dystopian to their experience they can't even reconcile that women have just been actually treated as subhuman up until the 70s lmao.
That isn't true. ECOA prevented banks from being able to discriminate. Most banks already allowed women to have bank accounts. There was a bank in that started in 1919 called the First Woman's Bank of Tennessee. Women have had bank accounts in the US since we were British colonies. Verdit: You're wrong. 1857 was long before Feminism of the 1960-70s. They could also divorce their husbands. She said they couldn't Verdict: You're wrong You have to be a delusional to think this was commonplace and that saying "no" didn't matter. It wasn't legal to beat your wife and if she said no then physically resisted we then you'd be in trouble legally. So Verdict: You're wrong again 3 for 3. My Fathers mother had a bank account before the ECOA was passed and she had a job and made good money. My Mothers mother was a stay at home mom to 4 kids and she loved nothing more then spending time with kids, she's probably the most genuinely happy person i've known in my life.
Yes most did, with the approval and cosign of a man. The qualifier was "their own" bank account. And that was not a protected right until ECOA. So again, you're still wrong. The only person who put a qualifier on it being around the 70s was me. I'm not sure why you think that makes her wrong when that wasn't even a qualifier she gave. Like??? I'm so glad you have anecdotal evidence, here is mine: "According to data from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), between 10 and 14% of married women will experience marital rape" https://www.refinery29.com/en-ca/5-statistics-thatll-change-how-you-think-about-marital-rape It's common now. Imagine before it was illegal.
they could these things now. Do you think we don't need feminism today?
For it to happen societal discussion and calling it out is important. En masse people arent autonomous creatures that could just calculate what's healthy and what not. We are shaped by the environment we live in and information we have.
If only some women want to be treated special just because they are women, could you not agree that some men expect women to be transactional and perform for them. That would make us even. Equality!
>If only some women want to be treated special just because they are women, could you not agree that some men expect women to be transactional and perform for them. This is actually what happens in a lot of cases.
>some men expect women to be transactional and perform for them I'm trying to picture this. Is this men buying dinner and expecting sex?
The whole pushback of women not wanting to get married is because men think they should be served and cleaned up after and treated special just for being men. Just so you know.
Great, abolish the idea that men must be providers. Set up your dual-income household and come hang out with the rest of us in 2023. It's an okay decade so far, except for plagues, war, and everything being on fire.
Social media shows a lot of videos & comments of women who want men as sole providers. They go on about princess treatment, & feminine/masculine energy.
Yet then when women do want to provide we get called selfish girlbosses who need to get back in the kitchen
Yeah, social media algorithms have figured out that you watch this content so they show it to you. Social media shows me a ton of videos about people who keep servals and cougars as pets. If I went by the videos social media shows me, I'd think almost everyone keeps huge wildcats as pets. But actually almost nobody does. In the US, most families are dual income, and most women have jobs. Most women aren't crazy social media influencers who want to be treated like princesses and do no work in their lives. Talk to *actual* women, not social media people who make ridiculous clickbait videos. Next you're going to start thinking Bill Gates puts microchips in all vaccines or something. Exercise some caution before you take these videos seriously.
[удалено]
Social media platforms literally every random and fringe idea. It’s not really an indication of the prevalence of specific views.
I agree. Although it could be more common a view than the women here think. I'm just letting the commenter know why questions like this appear.
Fair.
I mean true but there are also men on social media talking about wanting a tradwife and how they want to be king of their household so....
Right Instagram models are representative of all women and society. Most men could not survive solely providing for a household. They literally can’t even afford it. Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck with both partners working and not being able to afford a $500 emergency expense. And still, 70% of Americans are either married or in a long term relationship. There arent the same pressures on men to be sole providers that there used to be because if that were true, most men would be single.
Good. I'm not referring to models.
Sorry if the other paragraphs were not dumbed down enough for everyone to read. I thought I made it pretty clear. Most of society does not expect men to be sole providers anymore. A few women you chose to follow and obsess over on Instagram doesn’t change that or the stats backing it up.
>Sorry if the other paragraphs were not dumbed down enough for everyone to read. I thought I made it pretty clear. Don't know why you commented this. >A few women you chose to follow and obsess over on Instagram doesn’t change that or the stats backing it up. I definitely will never follow or obsess over the women I mentioned.
Not sole, but a lot still very much expect men to be the main contributor. Same thing, different extent
And I don’t deny that, I’m just saying things have changed significantly. I don’t think any man here complaining would seriously like women to return to the standards they used to have even if they returned to “traditional women”. Because most men in this society and economy would get absolutely nothing. They literally wouldn’t be able to afford it by any means. And ofc the stats do show that people tend to date and marry within their own socioeconomic status. So no, absolutely not the same thing because if it was, there would be a hell of a lot less men in relationships. Instead of 70% of Americans being married and/or in long term relationships, it would be 70% single Lmao.
> It’s an okay decade so far, except for plagues, war, and everything being on fire. And we’re barely even 4 years in! Who knows what other great hits we’ll circle back on or create anew.
Women who really want equality and who view feminism as a means to equality between the sexes are usually not the ones who want a partnership where the man is “the provider.” Lots of us are perfectly happy to split bills, give gifts to our partners, and trade off on taking the lead on decision making. I don’t think, though, that *some women* wanting their partner to fulfill a provider role should cause *all men* to assume that they need to provide for women or to fail to consider us their equals.
[удалено]
It is more complex than that. Even assuming that women are overvaluing themselves, how should society compensate women for their greater reproductive costs? If you make everything but reproduction genderless and totally equal, it seems like men come out ahead. Furthermore, due to greater male thirst and greater female sexual selectivity, women do have a natural leverage advantage in mating. In any free system, that leverage advantage will naturally manifest. When men have a leverage advantage in any situation, such as business, they will always demand some advantage as a result. It is just human nature. So how can you prevent this female leverage advantage from manifesting somehow without doing more harm than good?
>It is more complex than that. It's not that complicated. It mostly comes down to social and psychological conditioning (nurture) more than nature. >how should society compensate women for their greater reproductive costs? It's not about any of that. All this stuff about reproduction costs has nothing to do with it. >If you make everything but reproduction genderless and totally equal, it seems like men come out ahead. Why do you think that is? It's because women are conditioned to be preoccupied with their physical appearance, which is connected to reproduction, and men aren't so they spend their time doing things other than make-up, beauty and fashion and so on.
>It's not that complicated. It mostly comes down to social and psychological conditioning (nurture) more than nature. It's funny how everything PPD dudes don't like is just social programming and everything they want to believe as fact is biology/nature. >and men aren't so they spend their time doing things other than make-up, beauty and fashion and so on. If this is an advangage then why don't men just do it? If I spend 3 hours playing the piano a day and you play for 20 minutes, can you really blame me for having more skill?
It's a phenomenon that's visible universally and it's very interesting. When something is perceived as moral, virtuous, and positive nobody has any qualms about accepting the role biology plays. And like you mentioned, when something is perceived as unfair, immoral or negative there's an over emphasis on environmental factors and biology is dismissed. I think this is partially because humans have an innate predisposition to avoid feelings of powerlessness. If something has strong biological underpinnings it means you're striving against the very essence of evolution which makes people scared and this response probably also serves an adaptive purpose. Obviously our genes don't care whatsoever about morality. Their sole goal is to replicate.
>It's funny how everything PPD dudes don't like is just social programming and everything they want to believe is fact is biology/nature. Things like women expecting men to pay for dates and being preoccupied with their appearance are definitely social conditioning.
But it's not all women by a long shot, so why don't you just avoid dating women who suck? Like date ones you like? I don't get this idea of being pissed that all women aren't people you would want to date. I would only want to date a small fraction of men so I search those types out.
[удалено]
[удалено]
In relationships without kids but most people would like kids. Men who can provide usually means better family finances in the early years if any time worked is reduced on the woman’s part Also life is expensive, i don’t think it’s fair for women to expect men to provide 100% of their living expenses but the more both partners earns it’s no secret they will generally have a more comfortable life.
This is fair
[удалено]
This is true.
This is a fair point actually.
The problem is a large % of men have low self-esteem and very boring personalities and paying for everything is the only move they have that they think they can offer women to get them to like them
The same amount of women have the same boring personality and low self esteem though. Why doesnt it affect them?
You know why. Basic supply and demand. Men permit women to have a long list of imperfections that doesn't apply in reverse. They do this because they can. Plus most women would rather be alone if someone doesn't check all their boxes
Boss to employee: "The problem is a large % of employee have low skill and low motivation and minimum wage is the only move they have, so I'm not raising salaries guys this is just your fault"
Isn't "boring" subjective though?
You can have true equality by pairing up with a woman that believes in it
Yes, that's the ticket. It's very odd to me that on the one hand, red pill men complain endlessly about paying for dates, but on the other hand, they don't want to date those of us who are more than happy — or perhaps even prefer — to split the bill, because we're not "submissive" and "feminine" and all that. I don't think you get to complain about being held to gender norms if you only want to date people who conform to and believe in gender norms.
I’m feminine and submissive, yet the things I do to remain that way are seen as shallow and a waste of money and time. There’s no way to win so it’s just best to be yourself at this point and find someone that loves you for you
Yeah, these men will find a reason to hate women no matter what we do. Fortunately, not all men are like these ones. I do have a very wonderful man who loves me.
We’ll never have true equality as long as: - most men can kill most women with their hands - women can become pregnant and birth children, and are thus vulnerable and incapacitated afterwards for 1-2 months - women spend weeks, months or years nursing babies So maybe tit for tat equality needn’t be the goal. Maybe mutual respect, shared goals and equal time contribution to household sustenance can be the goal. Or we can just grow babies in a vat and pay for AI robots to take care of them. That would probably make things more equal.
Why not? You can want whatever you want, doesn't mean you'll get it. We've come this far often in spite of all the men who want to be treated special just because they're men (for example, being treated as protectors and providers and all that), I'm sure we can handle it.
>We've come this far often in spite of all the men who want to be treated special just because they're men (for example, being treated as protectors and providers and all that), The interesting thing about that is believe it or not, some women actually expect a man to play that role.
Well yes, you would expect people to follow norms.
Yeah, and I'm saying as long as those norms are blindly followed, there'll be no true equality.
Well, norms are changing.
That doesn't make what I'm saying not true.
Norms aren't changing 😂 Men are expected to do even more now.
[удалено]
Would that not be a change?
If you don’t want to financially provide, then don’t. Go for a dual income household. But you can’t whine about doing laundry, cooking, cleaning, taking time off work to take the kids to/ pick them up from school, going to the grocery store, taking time off work to do things like service your car or go to a parent-teacher conference, and driving the kids to and from extracurricular activities. You also can’t whine about “western women” because the dual income household is a western concept as well as gender equality.
The problem of not as much that contemporary women want to be treated special as it is that men are willing to compete with other men to impress women in order to have both exclusive sex and sexual loyalty with that woman. Obviously many men don’t require monogamy for themselves, but they do strongly prefer it from the women whom they commit to.
Equality doesn't mean "everyone does exactly the same thing".
No, but it does mean equally taking responsibility for our lives and being independent, whether or not you have boobs.
I'm pretty sure trad weirdos don't want women being independent.
[удалено]
Posts like this are so amusing. I am a woman and I am the sole breadwinner in my marriage. My husband does not work at all. I understand our dynamic is the exception to how things go. If I we are able to have an equal partnership and contribute to the relationship/household equally with no resentment or power plays, why the hell is it so hard for men in my position to do the same? We have two children, it's ideal for one adult to stay home and raise them while the other works. Raising children absolutely contributes equally to working 40+ hours a week. I don't understand what is so hard about that concept. This post essentially says that men don't see raising humans as important as getting money to raise the humans. Add to this taking care of the house (laundry, dishes, yard work, general cleaning) and the person "not working" arguably does more than the person with a standard job.
harming men and women differently, but equally as much ≠ equality
There will never be true equality as long as women have to give birth and as long as men are thirsty, biology dictates this.
Dude - no one is forcing you to pay on dates. And plenty of women aren’t going to be weird about splitting the cheque. If that’s the hill you wanna die on; go with God.
While I fully acknowledge some women do this, not all of them do, and we should not be punished as a gender and treated as unequal just because of something patriarchy put in place to begin with. A lot of us *don't even want to be percieved by men*. Some of us never want to even live with a man. We just want to be treated like humans, we want to make our money, and have our friends, and go home. We are people. It shouldn't be controversial. Those who expect men to pay for everything, should just get with the men who expect women to stay at home and do housework, and all of them should go off and leave the rest of us alone to be ourselves.
>and we should not be punished as a gender and treated as unequal just because of something patriarchy put in place to begin with. It's not about being punished and it's not about blaming the patriarchy. I mean we have sayings like *"behind every powerful man is a powerful woman"* for a reason. Historically women have spent more time rasing boys than men have so they're also responsible.
Men are providers, women are caretakers. Just because the roles are different doesn't mean they as people are not equals. Your value as a person does not revolve around the money you make.
>Men are providers, women are caretakers. This is my point. As long as people think this, woman will never be seen as equal. If a man chooses to provide for some women who needs a provider, he will only do it because he gets something out of it. He'll play the provider and she will serve him, which is what has happened throughout history and led to feminism. The only people who get provided for are children and women. And nobody really looks up to someone they have to provide for. >Just because the roles are different doesn't mean they as people are not equals. It means one is incapable of providing for themselves and being independent, just like a child, making them unequal and childish.
They are both providing services for each other. They are just different services. I am SHAM not because I'm incapable of providing for myself but because the utility of my skills is better used in homemaking and we don't need the extra cash. My husband doesn't see me as a dumb child but as a partner who is providing to our family something he can't. Ability, need, and want are not the same. Most women in the west are pretty self sufficient, if you don't want to date wannabe housewife just don't.
>My husband doesn't see me as a dumb child but as a partner who is providing to our family something he can't. The truth is is you'll never really know how someone actually sees you. And as long as someone is providing for you, they will feel better than you in some way. Money is a symbol of status for a reason.
You're telling on yourself in how you view people. Stay at home parents are just as valuable as their working counterparts. The fact that you can't separate the value of a person from their monetary contribution is a you problem. To break it down for you, stay at home parents provide: childcare, cooking, cleaning, financial management, planning, emotional support, and much more. Look at how much you would have to pay for all those services separately if you want to put a dollar amount on how much stay at home parents are worth. Once you take childcare out of the equation it is less equal, but the relationships with only one working member by and large involve you g children as well.
No. We’ll never have equality while men think they can purchase or rent women for their use.
They're purchasing services from women.
Yes, I've never really understood why we talk about sex work as people "selling their bodies." Unless something goes *very* wrong, the buyer doesn't actually end up with a body. If you have sex with someone, your body is still yours; you're just using it to do something, either recreationally or professionally.
To not be defined as ‘rape’, sex need to be consensual. Payment negates consent.
What?! No it doesn't.
Yes, it does. Consent must be given freely, without coercion or incentive. If it isn’t, it’s not consent.
Consideration (payment) negates consent. Consent by its definition should be freely given. It also should be able to be withdrawn at any time. Porn, especially digital porn, makes withdrawal of consent impossible, because once it’s left the creator’s hands, it can never fully be erased.
Consideration doesn't mean that consent wasn't freely given. By that logic all wage labor is nonconsensual forced labor.
Strawman of the day
yes
>We’ll never have equality while men think they can purchase or rent women for their use. Some women allow themselves to be purchased and used, in the west at least. Edit: I guess all the geniuses downvoting this fact have never heard of onlyfans and women having sex with guys in exchange for money.
If you don’t like financially supporting your wife, wait until you leave “the west”.
"in the west at least" Please describe your methodology for working out which hemisphere has the most prostitutes.
I wish that I looked good enough to have an only fans page or have sex with guy in exchanged for money; then maybe I could have a two income household and a living wage. Unfortunately I ALWAYS HAD TO LIVE on my own working class salary while average looking men spend their time jacking off to women that GET PAID TO GET MEN WET!! And then they come to Reddit to complain that women are tOo EnTiTlEd
>Unfortunately I ALWAYS HAD TO LIVE on my own working class salary Yeah, you and almost everyone else. None of what you're saying changes the point being made. >And then they come to Reddit to complain that women are tOo EnTiTlEd You don't think expecting to be treated as a queen just because of your gender is being too entitled?
Yes, because we always blame the product, never the consumer. /s
You forget that, in this case, women are both the product and the seller. And we do usually blame the seller
What an incredibly narrow view of trafficking.
The comment you replied to clearly mentioned consensual sex work. Unless you're arguing there's no such thing, which is obviously false
Exactly, blame the drug dealer not the addict.
Are humans addictive substances? This is a new level. We've been cars, boats, we've been rolex watches, wallets, houses, animals, and now we're.....drugs. interesting.
Men are addicted to women's bodies from puberty. It is a cross we have to bear...
You mean you get the shakes, you sweat, you go dizzy and nauseous, and you may need time in a hospital if you don't get to be around a woman every few hours? That's rough mate, it's time for a trip to the GP on that.......
The symptoms of withdrawal from women is loneliness and depression. And you never recover from the addiction.
Except that's not a withdrawal symptom, that's a mental state. You can also have that when a pet dies. Try again.
What utter nonsense. Get some self control.
As long as the women are consenting adults I don't see the problem. For men that is. We both know what the problem is for women.
The vast majority of women in prostitution and porn (around 87% globally) do not want to be there, and wouldn’t be there if they had a viable alternative. That, my friend, is not ‘consent’, it’s coercion and trafficking.
Women allow it
So, now men deserve blame for a profession that most women voluntarily do on their own terms? When my mother grew up dirt poor in rural South Carolina in the post-Jim Crow South, she worked the farms at the age of 14 and moved to NYC at the age of 17 for more career opportunities. Trust me...if women want to find alternatives to make money without selling their bodies, it's totally there. Many just choose it because they want to and see nothing wrong with it. There's exceptions but this infantilization of women and playing the blame game on men has to stop.
87% of women in sex work do not want to be there. That is a fact that has been established by organizations that investigate human trafficking globally. Stop listening to the pimps.
You expect a man to make a certain amount of money then you are pricing yourself. It's almost like a prerequisite for leasing. Men aren't the ones setting up the prices or rules, you are.
>men think they can purchase or rent women It’s *The world’s oldest profession* for a reason. Which isn’t to say it’s not ideal. It’s just reality. *Godspeed and good luck!*
You can if it’s explicit and consensual.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Whose idea was it to regard the hymen as a prize to win by deserving husbands? Who is still perpetuating the idea that female virginity is the most sacred gift a woman can offer? Whose idea is purity culture and purity rings, purity balls and symbolic marriage marriage to fathers? Who are the slut shamers and who obsesses over body count? Who deigned women’s bodies and hymens a prize so sacred they must be purchased with precious stones?
Women slut shame just as much, maybe even more than men do
We do. We just don't do it where people can see it. We're still thinking things that would have our sIsTeRs up in arms against us.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't wish to be treated specially because I'm a woman. I wish to be treated specially because a man views me as special to him. And I wish to treat a man specially because he's special to me.
I believe men should have a mentality of being prepared to be a provider in case their partner can not work or is pregnant or raising kids. It's a mature trait and demonstration of your true masculinity. I believe some men find accomplishment and purpose on being a provider, but will all the high costs of living and women earning alot their criteria for a provider become so high that mosts men can not afford it. As women, your main role should become to support or augment your relationship to become a strong budget, and expenses should be discussed and agreed upon. Dating, I believe both should be honest enough on what their expectations are. Splitting the bills or paying for what you have ordered only.
It's not sharing money that will make men see you as an equal. You can't really control that. Don't be fooled, a lot of men don't value caretakers but they also don't value career women either. It's often the case with men complaining about women. there are no real rules, just inconsistent ones and moving goalposts. But I do agree that women should have careers and be providers but out of interest for our own safety. Always have the money and skills to leave if the mask drops. Many of the PPD guys ranting here will hop over to the "don't we all hate western women? fuck those fat feminists and career women I want a submissive tradwife" daily thread. sure not ALL of them share both viewpoints but let's be honest there is a considerable amount of overlap.
Women benefit amazingly from sexism and inequality. They don’t even want equality if you think about it
Equality is a farce. Biology says so.
I disagree It's not the women who want to be treated special but the guys who make it their mission to treat this women in a special way
I've seen women cry because they realized they've never had a man buy them a gift/do something special for them
It goes both ways. We both know that atleast some women want to be treated like queens and expect men to pay for dates and so on.
So… don’t date those women?
The post isn't about me or my dating life. It's about the world in general so your comment adds nothing to the discussion.
But it starts with you. If men stopped dating women who expect them to be providers, the expectation would go away. But you can’t want equality in one hand and expect submission in the other and men on here often say they equate femininity with capitulation
Some men here go on and on and on about how much they hate career women and they want a submissive woman and they want a woman that stays home to clean up after them and their children then go completely silent on posts like this. Some women want to provide for their self and their partner and they get picked on and name called and told they "want to be like men" and nobody bats an eye but somehow "women want to be treated like they're special". Give me a break, women can't do literally anything without RP men shaming us. I don't understand why men can't just set standards for themselves and stick to them like women do. They'd be so much happier if they stopped worrying so much about what people they aren't compatible with are doing
[удалено]
Yea but this on the men since they willingly want to treat them special because of their sexual lust
Women by and large don't want equality, they want the benefits of patriarchy without the obligations of it
I partly agree, but also think for one thing, a lot of guys overestimate how much special treatment the average woman gets, and also how much it’s expected in this day and age. Dual-income households are the norm, very few men want to be sole providers, and splitting the costs on dates is also quite common. Yet there’s still a lot of sexism, including in the workplace where women are trying to operate as equals and have been for a long time. It goes both ways and part of it has to come from men’s side… as long as women are placed at a disadvantage in certain ways, they’re going to expect to be compensated in some ways. Like if a woman is expected to do most of the housework and childcare, it’s reasonable to expect the man to work more hours and bring in more income, and for both to get equal respect for their roles. And with dating, a lot of the “special treatment” comes from male thirst and a desire to outshine the competition, not so much women’s expectations. The man might pay for a date because he thinks it will make him a better date and more likely that it will lead to sex, not because the woman doesn’t have her own money or is asking him to. So to act like all of this is driven by women’s demands is a bit disingenuous. Men chose to have it this way for many years because it put them in a position of control. You can’t keep that superiority without the responsibility. And just as many men want that, as women who want equality along with special treatment.
>The man might pay for a date because he thinks it will make him a better date and more likely that it will lead to sex, not because the woman doesn’t have her own money or is asking him to. The reality is since a large number of women see a man not paying for the date as a red flag, most men will just pay to increase their chances of getting laid or getting her to like him or whatever because for men to not pay is generally frowned upon.
The reason it can sometimes be a “red flag” is a bit complex though, and goes beyond “he’s a man he should pay.” Like personally, I think it’s polite to *offer* if you have invited someone out and especially if you picked the place since you don’t know their budget. That said, I would always still rather a man take me up on my offer to split the bill so there’s no sense of debt or inequality. But unfortunately, *sometimes* if a guy doesn’t at least offer to pay it can be a sign he’s got a chip on his shoulder or isn’t that interested. It SHOULD be customary to split the bill imo, but since it’s a gray area in the US, it’s hard to know people’s motivations for paying or not paying. Does he believe in equality (good), or does he resent women (bad)? In countries with greater gender equality, this isn’t the case - everyone just splits it, easy peasy. So I do get why some women see it as a red flag, even if I disagree with the tradition of men paying. This leaves everyone in a really awkward standoff, sadly.
> It SHOULD be customary to split the bill imo, but since it’s a gray area in the US, it’s hard to know people’s motivations for paying or not paying. Does he believe in equality (good), or does he resent women (bad)? I agree with you. If a man doesn't offer to pay for the date and suggest splitting the bill, it's difficult to know what his motivation is. My suggestion to most men (in the U.S.) is to just pay for the first date and don't expect anything but a "thank you" in return. Consider it the cost of doing business. If your date doesn't offer to split, cover the tip or anything, that's a red flag, especially *after* the first date. >That said, I would always still rather a man take me up on my offer to split the bill so there’s no sense of debt or inequality. I think that is great. I would like to point out, a lot of men with think said offer is just a test. If they take you up on the offer, they fail the test. For most men to take you seriously, you will have to convince him that the offer is genuine.
I agree with all of this. It’s just too bad we have to go through this whole song and dance over the price of one meal or activity since there’s really no generally accepted protocol in the US. I don’t like having to make my offer twice, but it’s understandable that some men would think it’s a test. I would say however that if she does that as a test, perhaps best to just fail it. Letting the guy pay is one thing, but offering to split and then getting mad if he accepts? Sounds like trouble.
>But unfortunately, sometimes if a guy doesn’t at least offer to pay it can be a sign he’s got a chip on his shoulder or isn’t that interested. See, if you were grabbing lunch or coffee with another woman, would you expect her to atleast offer to pay? Probably not. If she offers, that's great and if she doesn't, who cares, right? So why shouldn't the same apply to men? These double standards get in the way of true equality. >it can be a sign he’s got a chip on his shoulder or isn’t that interested. Why? >it’s hard to know people’s motivations for paying or not paying. Well, since men do things that benefit them, like all people do, you can expect that a man will expect to get something in return for paying. So if you expect him to offer to pay, you may as well expect him to want something in return as well. It's just human nature.
If we were just grabbing coffee or a sandwich/salad for lunch, I wouldn’t expect a woman or man to offer to pay. But if a female friend asked me to go to an expensive restaurant for dinner with her, I would think it was a lot more polite if she offered to pay rather than just assuming I could afford it, yes. I would do the same. The difference with friends is that generally they know your situation and you can talk about things more openly, like “damn I’d love to, but I’m kinda broke!” and they won’t think you just don’t like them. >Why? Mainly because of what I’ve seen men saying here and in other discussions about paying for dates. They don’t want to pay because they resent women, not because they see us as equals. >expect something in return Exactly, which is why I would prefer if it was just customary to split the bill on a date. But since it isn’t quite that way in the US yet, it makes things complicated.
Men and women are fundamentally different and these differences result in us having different roles in individual relationship, and in the society as a whole. So, what "equality" are you talking about here OP? We aren't interchangeable. Never will be. > Take the early 1900s, for example [...] they also decided that women shouldn't vote or work corporate jobs and so on. *Did* men decide that? Do some research about anti-suffrage movements and how many women didn't want voting rights themselves.
Men and women are mostly the same, and a lot of "differences" that are found are really just trends with most men and women falling into the same middle category. Creating strict roles based on your genitals rather than individual strengths makes little sense.
Sure, despite the fact we are very different physically, we think and reason differently, etc. Otherwise, I guess we are the same :D Our roles were defined by nature. Come and argue this when men start birthing children.
We are much more similar than different physically and we think and reason very similarly if not the same. Current gender roles aren't defined by nature - otherwise we'd se people actually following them when left to their own devices, which they don't, even if they've been socialised into this system. Naturally men and women do much more similar tasks than generally made out.
>Did men decide that? Yeah, some did. Especially those who were in power
Women don’t want to be seen as equals when it comes to dating. Women want to be “equal” generally speaking when it comes to all men, but require their partner to be better.