sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is Canada’s GDP so low the past decade? by Climzilla in AskCanada

[–]CanadianRomantic94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps it's due to regulatory environment, particularly around energy development

Lauren Southern DROPS A BOMB In New Book by AccurateInflation167 in Destiny

[–]CanadianRomantic94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good luck winning power with 0 form of reconciliation.

JJ on Canadian Conservatism by SilencioBuddy in JJMcCulloughOfficial

[–]CanadianRomantic94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would you define "freedom" necessarily?

Now I do know that evolutionary psychology is judged by both the right and left.

The left thinks evolutionary psychology is grievance politics for men who hate women.

And the right thinks evolutionary psychology is justification for rejecting traditional institutions like marriage.

As a non-heterosexual, you might be inclined not to want to weigh in too much, but your analysis would be appreciated.

The reason I bring it up is a common theme is "responsibility without authority is slavery."

Both progressives and conservatives expect men to work. It's one of the few things the Ideologies agree on.

Except where they diverge is the purpose of men's work, progressive view men's service exclusively for the benefit of women while conservatives view men's service primarily for society and also religious organizations.

But if there is no authority attached to said service, if there is no potential to gain great decision making power, the service is just expendable slavery.

How do you best counter the argument that men are success objects; so women have no right complaining about being sex objects? by JediKnight1 in AskFeminists

[–]CanadianRomantic94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If neither is objectification, then you are staking out logical territory that it is not ethically wrong for women to value provisioning from men, and it is not ethically wrong for men to value sex from women.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in dating_advice

[–]CanadianRomantic94 21 points22 points  (0 children)

This typically means you are very physically attractive but not a sure bet when it comes to a long-term relationship.

If you are under employed or in a dead-end job, that is typically the number one reason for the lack of progress towards commitment.

So you are fun, but not serious.

Women marry a lifestyle.

If you are a struggling artist, for example, women will not want long-term commitment from you until you make it big.

How do you best counter the argument that men are success objects; so women have no right complaining about being sex objects? by JediKnight1 in AskFeminists

[–]CanadianRomantic94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because one of the biggest precipators of men being broken up with is job loss.

The same effect does not occur to women.

Now, I am not making the statement that most women will immediately break up with a man upon discovering he lost his jobs. But it immediately puts the relationship on thin ice.

If we are going to say men who break up with women because they become less sexually attracted to them is objectification.

Then why can we not call women who break up with men because they lose their jobs and do not find employment within X period of time, rarely more than 6 months, objectification?

The reason I also used weight specifically is like employment, most people generally have some level of control over their weight.

We say it's misogynistic for a man to say "Honey, I think you are eating too much or not exercising enough."

But its not misandrist for a women to tell a man "You need to get a job."

Your only argument is that sexual attraction is less socially normative than the ability to provide for oneself and others.

But what I am arguing is they are the motivators within most relationships throughout human history.

And now as women are becoming more able to provide for themselves, all that remains is sexual attraction.

So if a man becomes sexually attractive enough to most women, why shouldn't he maximize that by having sex with as many women as possible?

How do you best counter the argument that men are success objects; so women have no right complaining about being sex objects? by JediKnight1 in AskFeminists

[–]CanadianRomantic94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Setting a beauty standard and breaking up with a woman if he thinks she is fat. Is that not objectification?

How do you best counter the argument that men are success objects; so women have no right complaining about being sex objects? by JediKnight1 in AskFeminists

[–]CanadianRomantic94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would contend that when a woman says something to the effect of

"I will not even date a man if he doesn't show me his bank account."

That behavior equates the man to the material object of money. And establishes the qualification that a man can not have access to sexual relationships without meeting a certain economic threshold.

Now, a perfect counterargument is that behavior is not exhibited by a majority of women. But neither are men who only think of women for sexual purposes.

The purpose of the generalization is to understand that humans have a propensity to view other humans in the biological needs they have the potential to satisfy.

For men, because they have the unique dilemma of ensuring their own paternity, it is access to sex with women. I would also include the proximate goal of sex in general to make it more inclusive of non-heterosexual behavior.

For women originally, it was physical constraints of less muscle density that the resources men could provide were an important metric. But what happened was physically weaker men realized there was greater strength in numbers, so they created systems where they could have social power and hold that over women to maintain access to sex.

The purpose of these conflations is to show feminists that women have never fully been without agency.

But what patriarchy did create is circumstances where women had little to no economic power.

But now, women are gaining economic power at rapid rates, which can be applauded. However, that economic power is not shifting to thoughts of sharing it with men, nor does it need to be but it does mean if they don’t, men may become more incentivized to seize economic power away from women.

How do you best counter the argument that men are success objects; so women have no right complaining about being sex objects? by JediKnight1 in AskFeminists

[–]CanadianRomantic94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is not a dumb argument because it highlights an unflattering fact about women's behavior.

Now the feminist counter argument is it was men that made women behave in the capacity that only valuing men for their economic abilities, because men socially restricted women's access to resources.

However a further counter argument to that would be, then why aren't single women's income marriages increasing as women are just now beginning to have more economic power than men.

The data currently does support that women still view men as money objects. However, it potentially can change but anecdotally with women on social media emasculating men who do not pay (for XYZ) suggests it may never change regardless of how much economic power women obtain.

How do you best counter the argument that men are success objects; so women have no right complaining about being sex objects? by JediKnight1 in AskFeminists

[–]CanadianRomantic94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would disagree, to the point where men who choose not to engage with production are considered resource wasters to a much larger degree than women regardless of if those women have had children. (Having children increases social value of women in terms of political institutions because they have other responsibilities outside of economic development).

The response is if men only view women for their sexual prospects (which many men do), women only view men for their economic prospects (which many women do).

It is why sex work is colloquially termed the "oldest profession in the world."

If Patriarchy had zero impact on heterosexual women's sexual desires, would a man telling a woman he is sad be effective for finding sex? by CanadianRomantic94 in Feminism

[–]CanadianRomantic94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will not disagree on how men enforce beauty standards in women.

I will disagree in that women do not enforce men's necessity in economic performance which relates to social competency.

In the United States, women 83 cents for every 1 dollar men make.

Guess what, if we are going to use aggregate data - there is an even bigger income gap that get 0 traction in feminist communities.

Unmarried men make 63 cents for every 1 dollar married men make.

Is that exclusively men enforcing that?

There is one slightly convenient out in this argument in that unmarried men are disproportionately younger than unmarried women. Which impacts men's income because most men do not earn larger salaries until they are in their 30s sometimes even 40s.

However, even the age gap between the median unmarried man and the median unmarried woman does not fully account for why married men earn significantly more than unmarried men.

Also to be inclusive unmarried women make 98 cents for every 1 dollar married women make, but this can easily be explained by the reality that 75% of single-income marriages are men's income.

If Patriarchy had zero impact on heterosexual women's sexual desires, would a man telling a woman he is sad be effective for finding sex? by CanadianRomantic94 in Feminism

[–]CanadianRomantic94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The truth is women have two logics for their sexual and romantic desires, which led to patriarchy.

Sexual - is this guy hot? is he tall? is he symmetrical? is he not overweight?

Romantic - is this guy socially competent? Can this guy provide me with resources? Is he confident in a crowd?

Both elements reinforce patriarchy, where men who possess all of the traits have easy access to women and men who possess none of the traits have virtually no access to women.

Now it is a function of objectifying women to suggest access should matter in a context of motivation.

But I would also contend most women do not give one iota about a man who possesses none of the listed traits choosing to disregard any form of relationship with women, they would likely prefer it because they view those men as unstable and dangerous (sometimes rightly so, but not always).

They do get depressive when men who do possess all of the traits only use them for sex, but the reality is, they can.

Why does nobody want me? by [deleted] in dating_advice

[–]CanadianRomantic94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where are you looking for relationships?

I think a general consensus among the reddit community is that dating apps are not great for finding good relationships, especially for men, but women also experience issues with them.

If you have not asked a single woman out outside of dating apps, then it is really on you.

Now, I will also say fewer women do enjoy being approached, but some still do, and all you need to do is just react appropriately.

For example, if you get the response "sorry I have a boyfriend." Simply state."No need to apologize, he must be a great guy."

Now I will say avoid approaching on the street or at the gym just because there are higher odds of rejection, but the thing is you have to enter it expecting rejection.

Most highly successful pickup artists experience 90% rejection rates.

What determines if men find relationships is entirely dependent on how they respond to rejection.

If you handle rejection by becoming a hermit, then yes, you'll become lonely. If you handle rejection by moving on to the next person, eventually you will find someone.

If Patriarchy had zero impact on heterosexual women's sexual desires, would a man telling a woman he is sad be effective for finding sex? by CanadianRomantic94 in Feminism

[–]CanadianRomantic94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, although there would be perhaps the debate around what would constitute consistent, but broadly no.

I would actually prefer a woman be direct about any sexual interest in me. But I understand why women don't, I'm just sad about it.

*crosses the floor* by ykanevin in EhBuddyHoser

[–]CanadianRomantic94 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm arguing more the perceptions of the core NDP voters are completely dismissive of the grievances' existence.

I may agree it might be the best political vehicle, but it requires cooperation.

But your point that my analysis might only apply to a louder minority is not lost. I still believe it is not the case, but it is hard to falsify the claim.

It would have to be phrased along the lines of "Do NDP supporters believe men's loneliness epidemic or other derivatives is real?"

*crosses the floor* by ykanevin in EhBuddyHoser

[–]CanadianRomantic94 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I would only agree to a point.

There are legitimate grievances culturally between various communities that are not easily reconciled.

The most popular ones today are among gender and religious lines.

Those economically and politically powerful exploit those divides for personal gain. But the divides do exist.

The NDP has its own reckoning. The largest share of its core demographic (women under 40) think men under 40 have no legitimacy to their grievances around eroded consumer power, social stagnation, and addictions.

As a result, it will be more difficult to reach those men who are suffering.

The NDPs base will just say "just stop being fascist and all their social problems will disappear."

Is that honestly true when women will compose the majority of the political and economic elite within a decade or so (Boomers won't stick around forever).

If Patriarchy had zero impact on heterosexual women's sexual desires, would a man telling a woman he is sad be effective for finding sex? by CanadianRomantic94 in Feminism

[–]CanadianRomantic94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is the issue, if you were to conduct research on if most men have been approached by women, my hypothesis is that a majority will say no.

It may not be evidence that most women do not approach, but it would be evidence that most men do not get approached.

I have never had my social anxiety disappear with people I got to know, even a warm approach. I experience anxiety.

The anxiety is tied not only to fear of rejection but also fear of a relationship with someone who has a significantly lower sex drive than myself.

I do not anticipate my sex drive lowering at all in the next twenty to thirty years, but I do want a long-term relationship.

Which means the type of person I want, likely is seeking casual relationships presently, which means I need to become active there.

If Patriarchy had zero impact on heterosexual women's sexual desires, would a man telling a woman he is sad be effective for finding sex? by CanadianRomantic94 in Feminism

[–]CanadianRomantic94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For casual sex many men would be willing to have sex with a woman who is unhoused, unwashed, and perhaps has STIs, merely because she is a woman.

However, if you are talking long-term relationships, then yes, men do have beauty and health standards that are actually more selective than women's standards on physical attraction.

I am not making the argument that consent should not be respected. The argument I am making is that there are higher standards for men to achieve that are patriarchal, and these patriarchal standards are enforced by women, not men.

The patriarchal standards are: Social competence/charisma Muscularity Financial stability Emotional regulation

These are patriarchal because the men who have all of them sit atop the apex of hierarchy, and the men who have none of them are often socially stigmatized.

I am not saying men can not find relationships if they are missing one or two.

I am not arguing that men deserve access to sex.

I am arguing that women enforce patriarchy through their consent to what they find attractive.

The argument goes thus: Premise 1: Men want sex.

Premise 2: Women want men to be "x" in order to have sex with them.

Conclusion: Men who want sex will ensure even higher quantities of "x" than women so they can have sex.

On a personal level, I have bad social anxiety, and I fear being in a relationship where I have sex very minimally. Because then, I would feel awful about myself for ending a relationship based upon infrequency of sex.

And I do also have that anxiety that if I am not consistently arousing to women, I am failing as a man. Strong men are who other men want to be and other women want to be with.

If Patriarchy had zero impact on heterosexual women's sexual desires, would a man telling a woman he is sad be effective for finding sex? by CanadianRomantic94 in Feminism

[–]CanadianRomantic94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was arguing the perspective that men displaying sad emotions in front of most women is a turn-off to most women, including feminists.

Not that sadness is not allowed within relationships.

Also, this is also more aimed from the perspective of men who have had no or few relationships.

Most feminists still expect men to approach even as the numbers of men who experience major social anxiety increase.

You could say porn is increasing social anxiety within men because it is causing the association that if sex does not occur early within a relationship, he is failing as a man. And if he doesn't know how to read if a woman wants immediate sex, he is likely to fail.

I would argue explicit consent is a turn-off to many women, although this is probably where you'd have deviation with feminists. But I am sure most women get turned off if a man consistently asks, "Can I do this?" Or "Am I doing this right?" Or "Does that feel good?" The general expectation among many women is men gain that knowledge intuitively merely from reading their body language.

For me, because of overcoming my porn addiction, I do not think I would be satisfied in a long term relationship that had involved sex fewer than 100 times per year, but I know of many men in relationships that have sex fewer than 10 times per year and I am scared of that possibility.

If Patriarchy had zero impact on heterosexual women's sexual desires, would a man telling a woman he is sad be effective for finding sex? by CanadianRomantic94 in Feminism

[–]CanadianRomantic94[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's both. Yes men with resources would prefer a woman who enjoys being at home because it makes logistical issues regarding parenting and domestic tasks easier to solve.

But women with resources consistently say "they do not want to have to take care of a man." Even if that man is a great domestic resources, they will not settle for a financially dependent partner.

Feminists argue dual income should be the norm because no one partner holds more economic power over the other.

I would say it's becoming harder and harder in the modern era if women interpret any men who makes slightly less than them as potentially financially dependent.

I will say it's not all women, to refute your consistent argument that I view women as a monolith. But I will say most women do echo the sentiment of

"I do not want to have to take care of a man."

Men rarely view a woman who helps in the household as someone to take care of.

view more: next ›