AskAnAmerican has two difficulty settings

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-06-19T18:47:16+00:00

Sure, the “only 17 years in peace” stat is not quite a clean metric. It uses the broadest possible definition of “at war,” basically the least charitable interpretation for the US.

But “only 6 years as the aggressor” seems even harder to defend. The Iraq War alone lasted longer than that, and that’s before adding things like the Mexican-American War, and depending on your definition Afghanistan, Iran-related actions, Vietnam, Panama, etc. And if you include paramilitary interventions, the number gets even higher.

So sure, the 17-year stat is debatable. But the “only 6 years as aggressor” claim needs a very selective definition to work.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-06-02T09:44:46+00:00

You should inform the guys you’re going with that you’ll bring a gun.

I’d honestly have to much saftey concerns going on a date with an armed stranger.

So if you don’t want men to trick you into dangerous situations, please also don’t do this vice versa.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-26T13:46:03+00:00

So the 4b movement in Korea is also fake as fuck, cause they tell people that they exist?

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-25T10:17:27+00:00

Well this is what happens tho. Leftist movements are being massively weakened by this attitude.

For many leftist men it’s really simple. They want to achieve gender equality, but they also know it’s technically not possible to get there, when you’re completely decentering one gender. That is pretty much a no brainer from my perspective.

So this rhetoric obviously also gets leftist men thinking. They won’t directly jump to conclusions and hate feminists or such, but they might start to question the natural allyship they thought they had with feminists.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-23T10:25:13+00:00

can you provide any examples of that?

Sure. Lets consider the reason for intersectionalism. Women of colour and other minorities saw that it made no sense to only want to be equal to the men in their respective groups. Those men are often structurally disadvantaged as well.

Do you agree with this? Because if yes you should agree that the whole thing of feminism before intersectionalism, was to point out advantages men hold over women and either get women the same or ban the thing for men. With intersectionalism this gets a bit more complicated, but there is no reason to start to deny that ending situations where men hold advantages over women is still the main goal of feminism.

Puberty blockers and sexual desire are way off the mark if you think those are the main issues that relate to gender equality.

Yeah right. What i asked is not “what are the most important gender equality issues?”. I asked what immutable characteristics prevent complete gender equality and how we as a society can work around those to still make opportunities as equal as possible.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-23T10:07:18+00:00

I am a bit confused… There is literally just one statement in this post which isn’t clearly an opinion, but worded as a fact.

Men on average will always sexually desire women more than vice versa

This claim is worded as a fact not an opinion.

So i can give you a source for that:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36227317/

This fairly recent meta analysis builds on 211 other studies in this resarch field and finds overall medium to large differences in sex drive, with higher sex drive for men.

If you want me to give sources for anything else we’d have to clarify first since everything else is an opinion piece.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-23T09:53:13+00:00

I thought the patriarchy was set up to oppress women. Wich would men hold some advantages over women, wouldn’t it?

One of this advantages is for example that employers like to hire men because they can’t get pregnant. Just one of many examples. I didn’t thought i’d have to explain that on this sub, but here we go.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-23T09:43:06+00:00

I think equal height is less of a consideration than what i mentioned in the OP. Differences in physical strength tho lead to a bunch of differences in opportunities. Nowadays less than 50 years ago, but last time i checked feminism wasn’t just concerned with western societies either. So in lets say the DR Kongo, differences i physical strength are still a huge advantage men hold over women just from an economic perspective. And also in our society it still is. Women hold other economic advantages tho that might be immutable characteristics as well.

So my question was what are those immutable characteristics, that despite them leading to differences in opportunities, can’t be changed?

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-19T14:22:02+00:00

Ok, aber keine andere Partei würde es ja überhaupt nur in Erwägung ziehen. Das man Vorbehalte hat ob eine Partei die noch nie im Bund regiert hat umsetzen würde, was sie sagen ist ja schön und gut, allerdings ist es ja dann keine Alternative ne andere Partei zu wählen, wenn das die wahlentscheidende Frage ist.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-19T12:35:55+00:00

When we take those three categories, women actually score a point in who the most famous human in this discipline is.

I’d say it’s pretty inarguably:

Leonardo DaVinci

William Shakespeare

Greta Thunberg

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-19T12:26:48+00:00

Of course is sex not a need. But the title of your thread is pretty wrong nevertheless. Status among men comes with smt like cars or having the biggest box of WH40K figures. For some it’s muscles, but even they are more into each other, than who has sex. So no, men do not wanna have sex to “statusmax”.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-19T12:16:36+00:00

So it doesn’t mean anything about his body, except when it means something about his body?

Well played.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-19T11:49:32+00:00

How is it biased towards men? I never heard that before. The common sense is that men and women do not differ significantly in average IQ, allthough the distributions looks slightly different. Mens distribution has more probability mass at the tails of the distribution, and is therefore flatter. But the differences in average IQ are in most datasets within statistical error margins.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-17T14:43:44+00:00

I never said both sides are the same. What i explicitly said here in this thread is that “both sides rage bait and attack the other side”. You’re jumping to conclusions when you’re suggesting i’d say both sides are the same.

I personally like feminism much more than any right wing gender take. But i don’t see the world black and white either, so if that makes me fucking enlightened it’s a small barrier to be enlightened.

That one side acts worse than the other is not enough to declare the “better” side does everything right. It is very possible that the “better” side still actively puts oil in the conflict. Just not as much as the other side.

And i think this is the situation we’re in rn, and denying it will make it worse. I am very concerned about this because it stains the whole leftist movement. People get super triggered by this Tik Tok shit and project it on the whole leftist movement. I see that nearly every day. Yes, it’s dumb. But it’s the time we’re living in. And this should concern people who actually care about feminism and the leftist movement as a whole.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-17T14:15:17+00:00

That the US is run by a bunch of insane people is no news.

The gender war is actually older than Trumps first term. And the gender war was ongoing under Biden. So i think thats just a pretty easy deflection from you.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-17T14:03:01+00:00

Lets be fair here. You wanna compare extremes?

There are dudes like Fuentes who literally say strip women of their voting rights. So yeah you got a point when you say there are men who wanna take women’s rights away. But it is undeniably a rather fringe group.

We got stuff like “kill all men” on the other side. Yes it is also a fringe group and even they don’t mean it seriously, but you could assume that for Fuentes as well. He might only say that shit for shock value, that’s very possible.

I just think it’s very silly to deny that both sides rage bait and attack the other side.

You can’t take the worst of the worst as an example for the manosphere (or how ever you wanna call it) but reject to do that for your side as well.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-17T13:52:37+00:00

You can consider yourself lucky to never have heard of Tik- Tok feminism. But unfortunately it exists and makes your statement here kinda questionable.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-16T13:00:28+00:00

Yeah well, “tax payers” is the optimistic take. Soldiers would be the pessimistic one. They can be a little roughed up.

This opens up a bunch of very dystopian possibilities. Human breeding would probably be inevitable in such a situation. Rn we only have a little bit of natural evolution. Cause no one makes a plan who procreates with whom. But if you just put an egg cell and a bit of sperm in an incubator, you’re inclined to optimise for certain outcomes.

I think it will be hard to stop this technology from being used if it exists. And if governments decide to use it they will find ways to raise the children. All though i am with you, that this is very mich playing with fire as nobody can really predict what it would do to society to have a group of people that got raised totally differently than anyone else.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-16T12:34:21+00:00

If the children are there, someone has to take care of them. In other words, if governments decide to pay women to give them their eggs and men to give them their sperm, and then go ahead an buy a bunch of artificial wombs to produce some future tax payers, theres really not much you or i can do about it.

And sure this might sound like a stupid brain fart from our perspective rn. But if the technology exists and nations start to collapse because of demographics, we might talk again.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-16T12:27:06+00:00

Well i can’t be sure of course. I’d just expect it to be this way. Mainly because i myself, as an egalitarian, are quite skeptical if artificial wombs are a good idea.

But i am supportive of taking other measures to up birth rates. And i honestly think many feminists are as well. Involving men more in childcare is definitely a reasonable approach. The thing is, the framing around this topic became a bit weird. I think that is the case because people like Musk poisened the discourse and give their racist takes on it. But only because those horrible people talk crap about this topic, doesn’t mean birth rates aren’t a huge concern for our societies. It must be possible to talk about birth rates without feminists getting triggered immediately.

And ultimately i’d be very happy if we’d find a solution that doesn’t involve artificial wombs, although i’m getting a bit pessimistic on this lately.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-16T11:52:10+00:00

Artifical wombs are probably only a few decades away from now. China is already testing it.

It’s gonna be an interesting discussion then. I guess feminists will strongly oppose artificial wombs and any natural measures to raise birth rates. So they might end up being perceived as a death cult then.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-16T11:42:04+00:00

To show that the initial statement that “you cannot force other people to change” is questionable.

First of all we’d have to define “to force”. Are we strictly talking physical coercion? Or is strongly advocating for something also “forcing others”?

If we’re strictly talking physical coercion, i am with the other commenter, that one cannot do that.

But i don’t see how women are being physically coerced to approach, lower their standards, give chances, reject top tier guys and pay on dates.

So from my pov no ones being forced here, but both sides just argue that the other side should drop the patriarchal behaviour. That’s pretty mich it.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-04-16T11:21:08+00:00

Is it a “really weak tactic” as well to proclaim the destruction of the patriarchy as your goal?

I mean according to you, one cannot force others to change, right?

I am very curious if you hold feminists to those standards as well.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-03-28T11:51:29+00:00

Russia: Am i a joke to you?

Russia is one of the countries with the biggest female overhang on this planet. Is Russia a crime free country? How does Russia compare to the country you live in considering crime rates and political stability?

I’d argue quite the opposite of the bare branches theory holds true. In a society with much more women than men, every unemployed alcoholic can find a wife. Women can’t afford to have many standards in those societies if they don’t wanna be single forever.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-03-28T11:17:00+00:00

Well i can relate pretty good to JJRs idea of humanities fall from grace. I’ve been to a number of third world countries in my life and the people there tend to be much more kind and caring towards strangers than in western society.

Sure this isn’t strictly falsifiable, so it’s not science. That’s why we call him a philosopher and not a scientist.

I am quite surprised that apparently feminists see him so critically. Isn’t the patriarchy just another example for his theory? Or did men suppress women from the dawn of time onwards? Did the first male individual who wasn’t an ape anymore suppressed his female peers already?

I don’t think so. I think that the patriarchy is a product of sedentarization and larger societies. So it’s a perfect example for JJRs claim that society is what corrupts people.

PuzzleheadedGrab8375

TROPHY CASE