Why do men keep putting me in the Girlfriend-zone?

TrollfaceDeux · May 23, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
You're right, but I think I made my point.
If any of you would like to be further schooled, you know where to find me.

#MalePrivilege

Tanoomba · May 23, 2013

Trollface_sl said:
#MalePrivilege

Finally!Thank you, I was waiting for someone to pull out that old chestnut.
Guess what?
Feminists don't want men to go to war for them while they stay safe at home.

NEXT!

TrollfaceDeux · May 23, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Finally!Thank you, I was waiting for someone to pull out that old chestnut.
Guess what?
Feminists don't want men to go to war for them while they stay safe at home.

NEXT!

strawmanatfinest.

Phazael · May 23, 2013

This thread has been entertaining, but as much as I feel like Tanoomba's feminism regurgitations put him in the "may as well start sucking dicks" column, I stand by my original assertion that its possible for older guys to have genuine female friends. The thought of fucking them is going to cross your mind at some point, but much like the thought of punching a friend who is being an asshole might cross your mind, it is an impulse that your intellect puts aside. Its not something that would work for everyone, though.

TrollfaceDeux · May 23, 2013

What does privilege blind mean?

It means that in the culture, each gender has/had both obligations and entitlements or benefits. When you live your whole life with certain entitlements, you usually don't realize that you have them, or the ways you benefit them, or that the other doesn't have them and cannot benefit from them.

Most feminists call traditional male entitlements "privilege". They call traditional female entitlements "benevolent sexism" (because like most people who benefit from their entitlements, they can't really see they have them). They call traditional female obligations "oppression". They call traditional male obligations "rights" (i.e: the right to earn income, the right to be self-sufficient, which was actually an obligation men complied with or else, and still is) or "patriarchy hurts men too".

What feminism has really done in the advancement of women's interests is take men's patriarchal obligations, apply them to women, and cast them as "rights" that women can choose or not as they see fit. It--with the help of advancements like the pill--has also toiled to free women from their patriarchal obligations while holding onto as many entitlements as they can. Like removing the obligation to marry for life or provide their husband with children that are his in a meaningful way, while keeping the entitlement to his financial support.

And please don't get me wrong. I'm not a traditionalist in any way shape or form. But I do live in reality, and I know what's been happening over the last 40 years.

The problem with what's going on now is that as women are released from their obligations (to men and to society), without giving up corresponding entitlements...things are getting unbalanced. The system we had before sucked for a lot of people, but it was at least equitable for both genders--it afforded enough entitlements to offset each member's obligations. When you remove obligation from one member while holding onto the entitlement, this places more obligation (and less entitlement) on the opposing member.

A great deal of women's traditional benefits used to be provided by men on an individual basis (financial support, partnership, protection, etc), but now men have been kicked out of the house, so to speak. Because women have so much more choice now--because they claimed things like earning income as rights rather than obligations--and because they owe nothing to anything other than personal fulfillment...well, choices cost. They cost economically, socially and politically.

Men aren't being allowed to fulfill those benefits on reasonable terms anymore--women have broken the old social contract, and when we took away men's benefits without replacing them with others, we soured the terms of the deal for them. Now we need more government, more social, legal, enforcement and corporate structures to provide women with help, support and protection, or to extract those things from unwilling men. None of those structures are "non-profit". They take a huge cut before what's left trickles back down. They're a very resource-hungry middleman, so we need more productivity on the ground in order to feed that. Most of that productivity comes from men, one way or another, even though their few remaining benefits no longer make it worthwhile to them.
That means we're trying to chain men even more inexorably to their old obligations. There's a reason everyone in the media is in a tizzy over men not "manning up". Men have always either provided for women and children, or been economic generators for government and corporate coffers. They've always put more in than they've taken out--women drive 80% of consumer spending. Now they're being asked to put even more in, and get less out.
Let me put it this way. Women make up about 60% of med students right now. Very progressive. The government spends millions of dollars to train her, because paying to train doctors is a wise investment. Doctors earn out the wazoo. This generates tax revenue and economic activity, which helps recoup the cost, and doctors provide a valuable service to society that helps keep everything stable. Spots in med school are finite because of the cost of training, and the woman beats out several male candidates for that spot in school.

But what's this? She sees that career as a right rather than an obligation. She has virtually unlimited choice as to what she wants her life to look like. So, like about half of all female doctors, within ten years of getting her MD, she will be working part time or not at all. Her male colleagues saw their career as an obligation, and expected to be working 50-70 hours/week for at least 30 years, providing valuable service to society and generating all kinds of economic benefit.

That female doctor has just taken out of society more than she's put in. Someone not only has to pay for that, and take up the slack. We all pay, with our tax revenue, and by having to wait to see a doctor, and her male colleagues pay in the longer hours many will choose to work to fill the gap she left in her wake. And because women represent more than half of all doctors, the fewer males ones will have to take on even more burden in order to ensure you and I can get an appointment.

And I'm not saying that women shouldn't be doctors--hell, my sister is one. But I AM saying that though women have made inroads into the male roles, they haven't embraced them in any meaningful away, because it actually sucks to work 70 hours a week and barely see your family, whether you're a man or a woman, and society doesn't enforce this role with women the way it does with men.

You won't find a single feminist wanting to talk about this stuff. They won't even accept that women have, and have always had, female privilege. All those spots on the lifeboats while the men went down with the ship? That was just another form of oppression to them.

You're young. You seem exceptionally bright and well-spoken, and you have every right to feel dismissed and disregarded by the people on AskFeminists. They are writers of revisionist history and revisionist reality--emotional reasoners who form narratives to explain their emotions, instead of living in reality. Please don't get sucked in by them.

There are women's issues, but feminism seems to mostly work at cross-purposes to those issues. How can you complain that women are not trusted in positions of political power--how even women won't vote for them--and then in the next breath cast women in this role of needing perpetual help and support just to survive their own lives, all the while whining that purses are oppressive? I'm a woman, and one of the biggest problems I have with feminism is that it does not give women any credit.

Tanoomba · May 23, 2013

Trollface_sl said:
strawmanatfinest.

How do you figure? Feminism is about equal opportunities for all genders. Sending men to war and protecting the women at home is part of patriarchy which feminism is against.
A lot of you like to pretend that women are enjoying the benefits of inequality on the one hand while whining about how hard they have it on the other, but that is in no way what feminism is about.

That video with the woman talking about the "disposable male" hits the nail right on the head! The situation she describes is exactly what feminism is trying to fix. Feminists don't want women's lives to be valued above men. They don't want women to be kept out of factories or wars.
So many people jump to the conclusion that feminism is about giving women more, more, more. It's not. It's about eliminating this imbalance in how society treats any gender.

Drinsic · May 23, 2013

Pretty sure the term you're looking for is equality. No one believes feminism is actually about gender equality or they would just call it gender equality.

TrollfaceDeux · May 23, 2013

it's called egalitarianism, to be exact.

Tanoomba · May 23, 2013

Trollface_sl said:
What does privilege blind mean?

It means that in the culture, each gender has/had both obligations and entitlements or benefits. When you live your whole life with certain entitlements, you usually don't realize that you have them, or the ways you benefit them, or that the other doesn't have them and cannot benefit from them.

Most feminists call traditional male entitlements "privilege". They call traditional female entitlements "benevolent sexism" (because like most people who benefit from their entitlements, they can't really see they have them). They call traditional female obligations "oppression". They call traditional male obligations "rights" (i.e: the right to earn income, the right to be self-sufficient, which was actually an obligation men complied with or else, and still is) or "patriarchy hurts men too".

What feminism has really done in the advancement of women's interests is take men's patriarchal obligations, apply them to women, and cast them as "rights" that women can choose or not as they see fit. It--with the help of advancements like the pill--has also toiled to free women from their patriarchal obligations while holding onto as many entitlements as they can. Like removing the obligation to marry for life or provide their husband with children that are his in a meaningful way, while keeping the entitlement to his financial support.

And please don't get me wrong. I'm not a traditionalist in any way shape or form. But I do live in reality, and I know what's been happening over the last 40 years.

The problem with what's going on now is that as women are released from their obligations (to men and to society), without giving up corresponding entitlements...things are getting unbalanced. The system we had before sucked for a lot of people, but it was at least equitable for both genders--it afforded enough entitlements to offset each member's obligations. When you remove obligation from one member while holding onto the entitlement, this places more obligation (and less entitlement) on the opposing member.

A great deal of women's traditional benefits used to be provided by men on an individual basis (financial support, partnership, protection, etc), but now men have been kicked out of the house, so to speak. Because women have so much more choice now--because they claimed things like earning income as rights rather than obligations--and because they owe nothing to anything other than personal fulfillment...well, choices cost. They cost economically, socially and politically.

Men aren't being allowed to fulfill those benefits on reasonable terms anymore--women have broken the old social contract, and when we took away men's benefits without replacing them with others, we soured the terms of the deal for them. Now we need more government, more social, legal, enforcement and corporate structures to provide women with help, support and protection, or to extract those things from unwilling men. None of those structures are "non-profit". They take a huge cut before what's left trickles back down. They're a very resource-hungry middleman, so we need more productivity on the ground in order to feed that. Most of that productivity comes from men, one way or another, even though their few remaining benefits no longer make it worthwhile to them.
That means we're trying to chain men even more inexorably to their old obligations. There's a reason everyone in the media is in a tizzy over men not "manning up". Men have always either provided for women and children, or been economic generators for government and corporate coffers. They've always put more in than they've taken out--women drive 80% of consumer spending. Now they're being asked to put even more in, and get less out.
Let me put it this way. Women make up about 60% of med students right now. Very progressive. The government spends millions of dollars to train her, because paying to train doctors is a wise investment. Doctors earn out the wazoo. This generates tax revenue and economic activity, which helps recoup the cost, and doctors provide a valuable service to society that helps keep everything stable. Spots in med school are finite because of the cost of training, and the woman beats out several male candidates for that spot in school.

But what's this? She sees that career as a right rather than an obligation. She has virtually unlimited choice as to what she wants her life to look like. So, like about half of all female doctors, within ten years of getting her MD, she will be working part time or not at all. Her male colleagues saw their career as an obligation, and expected to be working 50-70 hours/week for at least 30 years, providing valuable service to society and generating all kinds of economic benefit.

That female doctor has just taken out of society more than she's put in. Someone not only has to pay for that, and take up the slack. We all pay, with our tax revenue, and by having to wait to see a doctor, and her male colleagues pay in the longer hours many will choose to work to fill the gap she left in her wake. And because women represent more than half of all doctors, the fewer males ones will have to take on even more burden in order to ensure you and I can get an appointment.

And I'm not saying that women shouldn't be doctors--hell, my sister is one. But I AM saying that though women have made inroads into the male roles, they haven't embraced them in any meaningful away, because it actually sucks to work 70 hours a week and barely see your family, whether you're a man or a woman, and society doesn't enforce this role with women the way it does with men.

You won't find a single feminist wanting to talk about this stuff. They won't even accept that women have, and have always had, female privilege. All those spots on the lifeboats while the men went down with the ship? That was just another form of oppression to them.

You're young. You seem exceptionally bright and well-spoken, and you have every right to feel dismissed and disregarded by the people on AskFeminists. They are writers of revisionist history and revisionist reality--emotional reasoners who form narratives to explain their emotions, instead of living in reality. Please don't get sucked in by them.

There are women's issues, but feminism seems to mostly work at cross-purposes to those issues. How can you complain that women are not trusted in positions of political power--how even women won't vote for them--and then in the next breath cast women in this role of needing perpetual help and support just to survive their own lives, all the while whining that purses are oppressive? I'm a woman, and one of the biggest problems I have with feminism is that it does not give women any credit.

Good article, and kudos for attempting to make a point.

women have broken the old social contract, and when we took away men's benefits without replacing them with others, we soured the terms of the deal for them. Now we need more government, more social, legal, enforcement and corporate structures to provide women with help, support and protection, or to extract those things from unwilling men. None of those structures are "non-profit". They take a huge cut before what's left trickles back down. They're a very resource-hungry middleman, so we need more productivity on the ground in order to feed that. Most of that productivity comes from men, one way or another, even though their few remaining benefits no longer make it worthwhile to them.

What men's benefits are being taken away? Feminism isn't about taking away from men, it's about fixing the broken underlying structure of society.
Why do we need more government, etc to "protect" women? Feminism is about creating a space where women are not in need of extra protection.
I'm not going to pretend to know what "structures" this woman is talking about that are so costly. Maybe you can fill me in.

Let me put it this way. Women make up about 60% of med students right now. Very progressive. The government spends millions of dollars to train her, because paying to train doctors is a wise investment. Doctors earn out the wazoo. This generates tax revenue and economic activity, which helps recoup the cost, and doctors provide a valuable service to society that helps keep everything stable. Spots in med school are finite because of the cost of training, and the woman beats out several male candidates for that spot in school.

This led into what was almost a great point. The bit about women getting medical degrees and not sticking around to do the work could have had a really strong impact. After all, these women are taking up "finite" spaces in med school. Wait a second... why are women making up about 60% of med students? Is it because women are given preferential treatment when applying to med school? No, it's because she "beat out" several male candidates. In other words, this author would prefer inferior male students be given spots in med schools so they can become mediocre doctors because the women who get medical degrees have the audacity to do whatever the fuck they want with them?

And because women represent more than half of all doctors, the fewer males ones will have to take on even more burden in order to ensure you and I can get an appointment.

Sounds to me like if it wasn't for women we'd simply have far, far fewer doctors. And if there is an "extra burden" put on male doctors (which I'm not convinced of), feminism wants to see that shit eliminated.

You won't find a single feminist wanting to talk about this stuff. They won't even accept that women have, and have always had, female privilege. All those spots on the lifeboats while the men went down with the ship? That was just another form of oppression to them.

Bullshit. I can find you one right now.
Enjoy

Tanoomba · May 23, 2013

Drinsic_sl said:
Pretty sure the term you're looking for is equality. No one believes feminism is actually about gender equality or they would just call it gender equality.

Trollface_sl said:
it's called egalitarianism, to be exact.

Yes! Finally!
How about "humanism"? Does that work?

From the article I just linked:

Part One: Why Feminism Has "Fem" in the Name, or, Why Can't We All Just Be Humanists?

I wish, more than anything, that I could just be a "humanist." Oh, man, that would be amazing! Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something. Humanism is a gorgeous dream, and something to strive for. In fact, it is the exact thing that feminism is striving for right now (and has been working on for decades)! Yay, feminism!

Unfortunately, the reason that "fem" is a part of the word "feminism" is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as well?in its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can't make problems disappear just by changing "feminism" to "humanism" and declaring the world healed. That won't work.

Think of it like this. Imagine you're reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. They hold the majority of political positions, they make the most money (beast-bucks!), they dominate the beast media, they enact all kinds of laws infringing on the bodily autonomy of Flootches. Individually, most of them are perfectly nice beasts, but collectively they benefit comfortably from inequalities that are historically entrenched in the power structure of Beast Island. So, from birth, even the most unfortunate Fleetches encounter fewer institutional roadblocks and greater opportunity than almost all Flootches, regardless of individual merit. One day, a group of Flootches (the ones who have not internalized their inferiority) get together and decide to agitate to change that system. They call their movement "Flootchism," because it is specifically intended to address problems that disproportionately disadvantage Flootches while benefiting Fleetches. That makes sense, right?

Now imagine that, in response, a bunch of Fleetches begin complaining that Flootchism doesn't address their needs, and they have problems too, and therefore the movement should really be renamed Beastism. To be fair. The problem with that name change is that it that undermines the basic mission of the movement, because it obscures (deliberately, I'd warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches. It implies that all problems are just beast problems, and that all beasts suffer comparably, which cripples the very necessary effort to prioritize and repair problems that are Flootch-specific. Those problems are a priority because they harm all Flootches, systematically, whereas Fleetch problems merely harm individual Fleetches. To argue that all problems are just "beast problems" is to discredit the idea of inequality altogether. It is, in fact, insulting.

Or, if you didn't like that one, here's another ridiculous metaphor: When women say things like "misandry isn't real," we mean it the same way you might say, "Freddy Krueger isn't real." The idea of Freddy Krueger is real, Freddy Krueger absolutely has the power to scare you, and if you suspend your disbelief it's almost plausible to blame all of the unsolved knife-crime in the world on Freddy Krueger. Additionally, it is totally possible for some rando to dress up like Freddy Krueger and start murdering teens all over the place. But that doesn't meant that Freddy-Krueger-the-dude is literally real. He is never going to creep into your dreams at night and murder you. He has the power to frighten, there are isolated forces in the world that resemble him, but he is ultimately a manufactured menace.

ZyyzYzzy · May 23, 2013

60% of med students are females because they blow a bunch if the board members at a school to get in.

Tanoomba · May 23, 2013

Phazael_sl said:
This thread has been entertaining, but as much as I feel like Tanoomba's feminism regurgitations put him in the "may as well start sucking dicks" column, I stand by my original assertion that its possible for older guys to have genuine female friends. The thought of fucking them is going to cross your mind at some point, but much like the thought of punching a friend who is being an asshole might cross your mind, it is an impulse that your intellect puts aside. Its not something that would work for everyone, though.

This guy knows what he's talking about. Now who's up for some dicks?

zombiewizardhawk · May 23, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
How do you figure? Feminism is about equal opportunities for all genders. Sending men to war and protecting the women at home is part of patriarchy which feminism is against.
A lot of you like to pretend that women are enjoying the benefits of inequality on the one hand while whining about how hard they have it on the other, but that is in no way what feminism is about.

That video with the woman talking about the "disposable male" hits the nail right on the head! The situation she describes is exactly what feminism is trying to fix. Feminists don't want women's lives to be valued above men. They don't want women to be kept out of factories or wars.
So many people jump to the conclusion that feminism is about giving women more, more, more. It's not. It's about eliminating this imbalance in how society treats any gender.

How many women are fighting to be put into the draft pool? How many women are fighting to be given an equal share of combat roles/front line tours? I sure don't see many.

Tanoomba · May 23, 2013

Wizardhawk_sl said:
How many women are fighting to be put into the draft pool? How many women are fighting to be given an equal share of combat roles/front line tours? I sure don't see many.

How many feminists are fighting for a dismantling of the patriarchy that considers men more disposable and women more worthy of protection?

All the intelligent ones.

ZyyzYzzy · May 23, 2013

All the intelligent ones are sucking the D's of the men in power.

TrollfaceDeux · May 23, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
zzz

Cost of Woman Labour

Tanoomba's Shitty Article_sl said:
Unfortunately, the reason that "fem" is a part of the word "feminism" is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women

Oh, look. Women need help and the world is not safe for them.

Tanoomba_sl said:
How many feminists are fighting for a dismantling of the patriarchy that considers men more disposable andwomen more worthy of protection?

Tanoomba · May 23, 2013

Trollface_sl said:
Cost of Woman Labour

ummm... how many half-hour videos do you expect me to watch? the last two were great and illustrated actual feminist viewpoints, whether or not she realized it.
Can I assume these are more of the same, or is there any particular point you'd like me to get out of them?

Trollface_sl said:
Oh, look. Women need help and the world is not safe for them.

Where are the statistics for rape victims? Where are the statistics for harassment? Where are the statistics for domestic violence? There's more to feeling "safe" than being the gender that is murdered less.
Plus, I hope you understand that numbers taken out of context are often meaningless at best and intentionally misleading at worst.

For example, what the fuck is "divorce initiator" supposed to mean? Maybe more women initiate divorces because more women are in abusive relationships. I don't know if that's the case, but the number alone means nothing. Fuck it, let me check: "Among the many reasons given for wanting a divorce, most women claimed emotional neglect and verbal abuse."(Link)Are you suggesting that feminists should start emotionally neglecting and verbally abusing their husbands more if they want equality?

More men commit suicide. Let's see why:

women may be protected because of the way they think about problems and interact with others.
"Women process their experiences with friends. They discuss their feelings, seek feedback and take advice," Murphy says. "They are much more likely to tell a physician how they feel and cooperate in the prescribed treatment. As a result, women get better treatment for their depression."
That treatment may help protect them from suicide, but Murphy says there is more to it. The approach to problem-solving is what lands a woman in a psychiatrist's office in the first place. And that approach may be keeping female suicide rates lower than those of men.

(Link)

So women are more proactive about the depression they feel. You could argue that men feel pressure to be "manly" and not seek out help. Guess what? That's the patriarchy feminism is against again!

Victims of homicide? A study shows that "Although the overall risk of homicide for women was substantially lower than that of men (rate ratio [RR] = 0.27), their risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23)." Also, "Although women comprise more than half the U.S. population, they committed only 14.7% of the homicides noted during the study interval."(Link)So men are more likely to kill and be killed for a variety of reasons, but women have more reason to fear being killed by their significant other. What about that "variety of reasons"?

According to the FBI statistics, homicides attributed to 'other arguments' tops the list at 24% of all homicides. This category far exceeds the murders due to rape, robbery, motor vehicle theft, arson, romantic triangles, brawl due to alcohol, brawl due to narcotics, disputes over money or property, gangland killings, or juvenile gang killings.

(Link)

So men are more likely to get physically violent and kill someone, either because they're already committing a crime or because they're under the influence or because they're in a gang or whatever. Again: What the fuck does this have to do with feminism? Men are violent assholes who mostly kill other men, and this is used as a point to dismiss feminism?
This pretty much explains prison population too. "It's not fair! More men get sent to prison!" Guess what? That's not because of feminists. Men commit more crimes, genius.

Apparently being fatherless has a more serious effect on youth than being motherless. What does that have to do with anything? Feminists aren't fighting to keep kids away from their fathers. The idea that women are more nurturing and better caregivers than men is part of the patriarchy feminists are against.

Like I said before, the fact that more men die at war and at work is because of the patriarchal system feminism is against. Feminists would be happy to see those numbers skew in a more balanced direction, believe it or not. It's insecure men who have a problem with it, because then they're not the ones "taking care of business" anymore.

Did I miss anything? Any more "man problems" (caused by men) you'd like to blame feminists of ignoring?

See what happens when you use out-of-context statistics to try to prove a point? That chart was created by a misogynist assformisogynist asses. Congratulations, you fell for his ignorance.

ZyyzYzzy · May 23, 2013

More men commit suicide because death is just a little bit better than listening to the feminists around them.

zombiewizardhawk · May 23, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Dodge, duck, dip, dive, dodge.

Way to prove your case.

TrollfaceDeux · May 23, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
PATRIARCHY

Why do men keep putting me in the Girlfriend-zone?

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

ジョーディーすれいやー

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

ジョーディーすれいやー

privileged excrementlord

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー

RIP USA

ジョーディーすれいやー

Potato del Grande

ジョーディーすれいやー

RIP USA

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

ジョーディーすれいやー

RIP USA

Potato del Grande

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer