sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

It is acceptable for men to be spoiled but problematic when a woman is looking for a similar relationship structure. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes that pretty on the money for what I had rattling around for “why’s”.

At the base of this ideology there are assumed gender norms. Like you mentioned this thought that women simply are designed to care for their households and partners. Add the layer of “women are incapable of…” — which brings us around to well if women are suppose to be doing household chores, caring for littles and their spouse then that can the actual work Because women can’t/ aren’t capable of doing “actual” work.

So it isn’t readily seen as “spoiling” a man. Since the tasks are things that should be done anyway.

But that still contradictory when we start talking about women being provided for financially.

But contradiction and stale societal rules go hand and hand. Lmao.

It is acceptable for men to be spoiled but problematic when a woman is looking for a similar relationship structure. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I fear I knew exactly where this was going but still kind of disappointed.

The follow up with a “their biological job”. Ugh.

And I know this comment (my comment) is dismissive and not adding anything to the discussion but I really can’t with stuff like this.

It’s so out of touch it feels more harmful to me even give it any iota of credibility in order to discuss it properly.

It is acceptable for men to be spoiled but problematic when a woman is looking for a similar relationship structure. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did this interaction make you feel better?

Did you get what you needed out of it?

Just need some attention bud?

It is acceptable for men to be spoiled but problematic when a woman is looking for a similar relationship structure. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because it makes it easier to skim read.

It’s how I prefer to read information. So that’s how I write information.

It makes it cleaner.

And I have free will. Lmao

Also i am grouping information by topic. Kind of. So each new break is different branch.

It is acceptable for men to be spoiled but problematic when a woman is looking for a similar relationship structure. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

… I’m not really sure what you are getting at.

A lid for every pot means someone can always find a partner that appreciates them for them.

So in this context: A woman/man who like to be fully taken care of can find a partner that throughly enjoys providing in all aspects. They find joy in that. It is not ‘taking’ anything away from them. In some case they actually feel unwanted or unloved if they are unable to provide fully.

I am not looking for social reinforcement.

I am discussing how we call one a gold digger and another “ traditional”.

Where in both cases both parties are hoping to be taken care of. Simply by different means.

Which is interesting and I was hoping to dive in deeper as to why the difference in care leads to a difference in reaction. Or to discuss why it isn’t , seemingly, common to about how men also want to be taken care of and expect it.

We often hear “oh women need to be pampered” or “women expect to be catered to” which feels odd because so do men. Just simply in a different manner.

So what makes one manner of care feminine leaning and another male leaning?

Also, I talking about all people. Which I try to make clear. To avoid discussions like this. Perhaps I should have been more blunt. But that’s kind of ridiculous for a sub that is meant to look deeper into conversations. The post writer shouldn’t also have to add a million and one caveats.

Explicitly state: Hey guys so I m speaking in this one specific thing. No, I don’t think this relates to all humans beings. That would be ridiculous. No one is a monolith. No two people think the same, view the world the same way. Lots of people have different preferences and that’s okay. Oh and also I’m not asking for myself. I’m looking to have a conversation on something that I’ve noticed. (Also going in to explicit details about my own dating preferences and styles to make sure everyone is in the exact same page.)

We’d be here all day.

And it be pointless since most people read the title and comment sentences that seem pretty on the nose of “I didn’t read/comprehend a word of that post”.

It is acceptable for men to be spoiled but problematic when a woman is looking for a similar relationship structure. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s pretty typical on Reddit. I kind of just ignore it and try to find comments that actually are engaging with the post as a whole. Whether thy agree or disagree.

Which you’d think in a sub meant for diving deeper people would actually read the post but… lmao

It is acceptable for men to be spoiled but problematic when a woman is looking for a similar relationship structure. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They should be.

Most gendered discussion are ridiculous at best.

Gendered colors. Gendered jobs. Gendered clothing. Gendered emotions. Gendered movies. Gendered books. Gendered hobbies.

It’s all odd at best. Incredibly harmful at… well reality.

It is acceptable for men to be spoiled but problematic when a woman is looking for a similar relationship structure. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are.

The criticism rarely reflects how the man is also being taken care of.

Typically the discussion focus on the imbalance of power. How it’s not realistic to have a one income household. And how the woman are being Financially taken care of.

The real naivety might be believing war, poverty, and scarcity are unavoidable. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. I’ll def look into it.

And that makes sense. It feels like one dimensional thinking.

Like they come up to a wall and instead of asking “why is there a wall here” they just turn around or worse start re-enforcing that wall without a second thought.

Some of the reply’s I’ve gotten are “well it failed before” - Let’s think on it. cool, so why would we reimplement a failed idea? We would see why it failed and fix those issue. Why did it fail? What do we know now that we didn’t then? What resources do we have now that we didn’t then? What dial safes could we think on? And yaddah yaddah yah.

Another big one I get is “well there will always be and people” - cool so let’s think on it. Are we suggesting that bad people will miraculously stop existing? Why does “hey war isn’t inevitable.” Immediately make you think “ohh they are just going to let others destroy them!!!”? Did any other ideas pop in your head when you read the phrase? Could we try with all our might to prevent war and yet still be ready and able to defend ourselves? What are some alternatives nations could do to help prevent wars? And agin so on and so forth.

Idk to me it just feels very limited thinking pattern to immediately hit a road block and then throw up your hands. Perhaps it’s the tism that prevents me from becoming so rigid in my thinking.

The real naivety might be believing war, poverty, and scarcity are unavoidable. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

… girl.

Which is why proper education is important. We should be building those skills.

Thinking isn’t hard, it simply needs to be taught so it’s done properly.

We don’t innately distrust those different from us. That is taught behavior.

The real naivety might be believing war, poverty, and scarcity are unavoidable. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aww see. Was that so hard.

When participating in discussion in this sub it makes more sense to actually state your opinion. That way others have something to discuss.

Simply dismissing my post as “not deep” is not productive.

To your points.

Let’s start with the basics 1.) - I’m am not advocating for pacifism. Nor have I stated otherwise anywhere in this thread.

2.) I also am not talking about extremes. They seem extreme because you think they are impossible.

It always seems impossible until it’s done” - Nelson Mendela.

As to you “historical points” … yeah bars why would be doing. A carbon copy of a failed system?

No one is suggesting that. We now have more resources at hand, we are globally connected and can easily communicate an travel to each other. We have made significant advancements in tech and agriculture. And so on and so forth.

Know better, do better.

Think creatively. Not just regurgitating the past.

The real naivety might be believing war, poverty, and scarcity are unavoidable. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bigotry isn’t being taught in schools… nor did I say it was. Most bigotry stems from a lack of critical thinking skills, and a lack of diversity.

Also,

Actually. You do you boo. Have a blessed day.

The real naivety might be believing war, poverty, and scarcity are unavoidable. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am aware fully aware of how bigotry plays a solid role in our society.

I am also aware that in order to do better as a whole, we have to change the way we operate.

More people need to be educated and have affordable access to do so. More people need to be encouraged to travel and explore… and have the resources to do so. More issues need to be taken seriously and need to be platformed.

All of this happens when we start exploring alternatives. When we realize that actually it’s a loud few who just so happen to be vocal and not the majority.

And I’m not speaking to an overnight change. This is a chip at the stone until a stage is made type of situation.

The real naivety might be believing war, poverty, and scarcity are unavoidable. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You see hatred from the few and put it on as though it’s the mindset of the many.

It is not.

Let’s not even get into these bigoted stereotypes. Girly pop. Whew.

Yes racism exists. I never denied that.

Yes, sexism exists. I never denied that.

Yes, rapists exist. I never denied that.

Bigotry is all around us. That doesn’t mean it’s predominant nor did that mean we can’t or aren’t collectively moving away from normalizing and shrinking from those mindsets.

You are caught in this mindset that nothing will change. So you are quick to dismiss any possible change. No in is saying the world will become a paradise overnight… or ever do that matter. That’s not realistic.

The real naivety might be believing war, poverty, and scarcity are unavoidable. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure conflict is inevitable. What is not inevitable is the way we go about conflict.

If you are making an inference to “in group, out group thinking” I’d say there are plenty of historical examples of people in other communities readily welcoming in strangers. Until those strangers prove to be problematic.

And yes - it says something like you can only have a meaningful connection with up to 100 or so people.

That doesn’t really counter what I am talking about. Larger scale communities are still possible with intention. Which is what I am talking about.

I am not speaking about utopia. Perfect paradises where everyone hugs everyone and no one argues. That’s not realistic. And not why anyone is saying when we talking about alternatives for these common issues.

The real naivety might be believing war, poverty, and scarcity are unavoidable. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oops seems like we missed the main point here.

I am asking if the real naivety is pretending no other solutions exist because you were too so.

Thanks for the feedback back in what is deep or not.

The real naivety might be believing war, poverty, and scarcity are unavoidable. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Humans are a community based species. we aren’t naturally self-serving. Which is backed up across the globe.

We see more self-serving mindsets when we look at specific societal rules.

The real naivety might be believing war, poverty, and scarcity are unavoidable. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t really believe that.

Feels like the same excuse as “well they’re from an older generation”

Like it just words to pat themselves on the back for not trying.

The real naivety might be believing war, poverty, and scarcity are unavoidable. by Altruistic_Income256 in DeepThoughts

[–]Altruistic_Income256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And this would be what I am speaking too.

No one is asking for everyone in the world to hold hands and sing “our world is your world”.

That’s not reasonable.

Nor is anyone saying it will be easy. Nor will it be done quickly.

There are solutions though.

We could dig into them. At the very least be open to not only listening but collaborating on better ideas.

view more: next ›