My experience with game

[Lexicus]

Incidentally, I think I would say that "misandry" and "sexism against men" are two distinct concepts. I also would say that "sexism against men" does not really exist.

 

[Synobun]

Wasn’t being that serious, it’s just such a laughable sound byte that I really haven’t seen in a while. @Synsensa while I don’t think of you as far right, it is a far right position to assert the existence of sexism against men.

Cool, I proudly wear the far right label in that case. It reflects more on you than it does on me. The -isms don't work if they only apply to certain demographics. You can make an argument that misogyny (which is sexism) is a far more dominating force in society than misandry (which is sexism), and I would agree. What I don't agree with is that being prejudiced against an entire demographic is somehow exempt from being an -ism because there aren't centuries of power systems behind its will.

 

[Senethro]

Idk I kind of think centuries of power systems might be a somewhat relevant detail, because prejudice against people who laugh just slightly too loudly or enjoy pineapple on pizza doesn’t deserve equal attention.

 

[Lexicus]

Cool, I proudly wear the far right label in that case. It reflects more on you than it does on me. The -isms don't work if they only apply to certain demographics. You can make an argument that misogyny (which is sexism) is a far more dominating force in society than misandry (which is sexism), and I would agree. What I don't agree with is that being prejudiced against an entire demographic is somehow exempt from being an -ism because there aren't centuries of power systems behind its will.

That's fine, but then we just need to be clear when we're talking about -isms that are only active at the level of certain individuals rather than suffusing entire cultures, legal systems, etc.

 

[Synobun]

Idk I kind of think centuries of power systems might be a somewhat relevant detail, because prejudice against people who laugh just slightly too loudly or enjoy pineapple on pizza doesn’t deserve equal attention.

It's relevant in discussions of damage and prominence, definitely. But outright rejecting the premise doesn't parse alongside the definition of the term, and it's awfully centric on the state of our local society today. -isms only applying to certain demographics is self-defeating.

Believing that there's an inherent failure or superiority in a demographic that has no control over being what they are is absolutely an -ism. But that doesn't change that one iteration of that -ism has had far more impact than the other(s).

I don't see "men have been historically awful to women" as being incompatible with "it's possible for a woman to be sexist against men", because ultimately the definition is the same: one demographic feels that the other is inherently inferior or damaged. The difference is that "men have been historically awful to women" is a widespread reality that we're still dealing with, while the latter is at most an annoyance.

That's fine, but then we just need to be clear when we're talking about -isms that are only active at the level of certain individuals rather than suffusing entire cultures, legal systems, etc.

Yes, I'm 100% on board with that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Those laws weren't written by women!

Neither were most of the divorce/alimony laws you were moaning about earlier!

What is the missing piece of puzzle here for why those laws were written in that way?

(Aside: I acknowledge that while misandry didn't write the laws, misandry might, hypothetically, kinda, be maintaining them)

It is possible to demonstrate both misandry and misogyny without being the opposite gender. Even at the individual level, certainly at systemic levels.

Strictly speaking, women have a majority of votes when it comes to picking representatives to write laws, including laws that favor men. This does not mean that most women are intentionally voting for misogyny or that systemic misogyny is impossible. Examples of systemic misandry are in the same boat.

If you want to really see why some policies unfairly favor either men or women, a more useful place to look is the money trail. If we're considering a dude in a position of power voting for policies, it's reasonable to expect that he'd favor women some of them to get votes, but mysteriously women getting his position is something less encouraged and somehow manages to happen less frequently. It's a gross oversimplification, but hopefully you can see my point.

I find niqabs and burkas creepy to look at and can't imagine any advantage to wearing them.

The only one that comes to mind is if one intentionally doesn't want to do anything that makes hair look decent on a given day, it's possible to wear that and cover it.

Practicality aside, people have different fashion tastes. I don't like what these represent, but if we're just going by 100% objective appearance as derived from the piece of clothing, there are plenty of things I see worn voluntarily that are more questionable.

Nor should you be.

IMO this emotional strength is desirable even if one shouldn't have to endure it. The ability to rule one's own emotions rather than being beholden to a bad day from a random stranger (or even someone you know who's having a bad day) is valuable.

 

[Lexicus]

Relevant because we've already seen some evpsych stuff pop up in here and I have no doubt we're in for more, my spidey-senses are tingling, one might say

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ Evpsych is relevant to this thread though, and so is overcoming aspects of it that logic dictates would be beneficial to overcome.

We're at the beginning of the era of gene manipulation and are going to be automating a ton more things in the near future. Knowing this, precisely how we approach this as a species matters quite a bit to how humanity progresses.

 

[Senethro]

It is possible to demonstrate both misandry and misogyny without being the opposite gender. Even at the individual level, certainly at systemic levels.

Strictly speaking, women have a majority of votes when it comes to picking representatives to write laws, including laws that favor men. This does not mean that most women are intentionally voting for misogyny or that systemic misogyny is impossible. Examples of systemic misandry are in the same boat.

If you want to really see why some policies unfairly favor either men or women, a more useful place to look is the money trail. If we're considering a dude in a position of power voting for policies, it's reasonable to expect that he'd favor women some of them to get votes, but mysteriously women getting his position is something less encouraged and somehow manages to happen less frequently. It's a gross oversimplification, but hopefully you can see my point.

Yeah, yeah. To put my own point more explicitly: the divorce/alimony laws were written at a time when female workforce participation was lower (due to many non-neutral reasons) and due to the tendency for a mother to lose earning years. The apparent favouring of women was due to their lower/sacrificed earning power and a desire to keep single mother families off the street.

So kind of a different narrative than you're putting about.

But perhaps you can show that this is no longer necessary.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, seeing as the loss of earning years primarily comes from the raising of children, you will never change the logic of that argument or the reality of the structure if custody remains awarded to self-reinforce under the law.

Like algorithmic policing, "neutral and necessary" actors are quite capable of casting existing biases in iron, whatever narrative is rustling or tingling our janglies at the moment.

 

[The_J]

Who do you feel it's working for exactly? And nothing wrong with it? Wow, what a very male-centric and privileged way of thinking you're showing here. So you've never heard of sexual harassment, or worse, date rape?

I heard of it. It's awful. I have never done it. I hope all men in this thread have never done it. I'm gonna say that 95%+ of all men in western societies have never done it. I also hope you've never experienced it. I'm not denying it's existence. But it's not the standard. If I'm talking about "date", I am not talking about "rape". I'm talking about a nice evening which 2 people share with each other. I'm also not expecting that everyone I meet is a rapist or a murderer.

So a man approaches a woman and tries to "hit on her", and he'll gauge her reaction if she's reciprocating interest, and if he feels she is he can continue pursuing her, right? Well my problem is he's the one making judgement calls, and frankly I don't feel men have a very good track record at all with this sort of thing.

That men are not good at this might be true. But I don't believe that women don't manage to explicitely show a man that they are not interested. A "f*** off" in a public space would certainly do it.
And yes, I talked to women, and recognized that they are not interested, before they had to get insulting with me. It's not *that* difficult.

I feel your best way forward is getting to know someone before you even consider asking her about a romantic relationship .. like be friends or something. You can get involved in all kinds of things, and I guarantee you many single people are out there you can meet, get to know, and then decide if you feel maybe a romantic relationship would work. Why would you even want to just start dating someone you know absolutely nothing about? I really don't understand that.

How do you get to know someone? By spending time with them. And that's a date. I see someone who I find physically interesting. I ask them to spend time together, to figure out if personalities are compatible. Might take a while. MIght be fast. Who knows. But it's an option.

For the gettting friends or something... I'm also sure that you've heard about the term "friend zone". Means: There is a track record of this not working. Even if you manage it: You still need to make the move to approach the person, indicating sexual interest. And that is with friends even more scary, and not much different from getting a date with a random person.

I've never in my life had a positive experience with a man just approaching me out of nowhere.

Please read parts of this thread again .
The philosophy of game is to teach people to give women positive experiences when approaching them.
You're arguing against the people who you'd actually prefer to talk to, and lumping them with their exact opposite.

Think of this, how would you approach just some man you see on the bus who you've never met? Would you go up to him and invite him over to your house for fun when you know nothing about him?

Well, while in theory you could, there is this thing called "date", which normally comes before that.
But that's up to everyone themself.

This is why I think men should never romantically approach women outside of dating sites. It's guaranteed to be construed as harassment. If women want to date men, they'll have to take all the initiative.

You might be setting up yourself for a rather sexless life :/ .
I hope you don't.

 

[Sommerswerd]

And please don't call men "boys" unless you're a man yourself.

Are the words "boys" and "girls" in this context really that offensive to folks? If they are fine, but that's news to me, so I'd like to know why, if anyone cares to share.

This is why I think men should never romantically approach women outside of dating sites. It's guaranteed to be construed as harassment. If women want to date men, they'll have to take all the initiative.

I'm old enough to have missed the internet dating phenomenon, so I will admit that am still somewhat fuzzy about how it works, but I find it hard to accept that meeting face-to-face and engaging with others to find out if there is attraction/interest is completely obsolete. It seems more like what is going on is an evolution of roles and expectations whereby folks just have to learn the new realities/methods of romantic interaction, flirting etc., and clinging to conventional wisdom is what gets you accused of harassment.

For example, it does not seem like men trying to pick up women with lines/tricks is as viable. It may still be more viable for men to pick up men, but the old model whereby women were expected to "play hard to get" to signal their virtue is obsolete. In that system, women would be limited to giving nonverbal cues to signal a willingness to be pursued, either in general or to a specific potential suitor. But it seems we've gotten to the point women don't need to bother with that as much, or at least, they don't need to be as subtle. They can feel free to be more direct about what/who they want. This leaves the men in the position of developing their nonverbal cues to invite the women to give those explicit signals/invitations. I think another difference flowing from the "women don't need to play hard -to-get anymore" development, is that whereas in the past, men needed, and were indeed expected to be very persistent to signal that their affection was genuine... now guys need to be able to quickly recognize disinterest and back off, without feeling any need to follow-up or keep at it.

So I don't think its necessarily that men need to restrict their dating overtures to the internet, just that all you old dogs need to learn some new tricks. Joking aside, I think dating/romantic/sexual-focused interactions have become more equitable than in the past and as such have to be more transparent, thoughtful, genuine, and less formulaic, gimmicky, disingenuous than in days past... At least that's my hot take.

 

[red_elk]

This is why I think men should never romantically approach women outside of dating sites. It's guaranteed to be construed as harassment. If women want to date men, they'll have to take all the initiative.

I doubt you would like to live in a world where women take all the initiative. And I'm sure most of women wouldn't like that too. They already have a choice to take initiative, but 99% of them prefer not to.

Are the words "boys" and "girls" in this context really that offensive to folks? If they are fine, but that's news to me, so I'd like to know why, if anyone cares to share.

"Boys, please do remember that..." sounded like an elementary school teacher
Not offensive, but lecturer's tone is kind of misplaced here.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

I doubt you would like to live in a world where women take all the initiative.

I would. Maybe not all the initiative, but I also don't want to always be the one initiating contact, suggesting stuff, or taking control (including sex). Sometimes, it's nice to kick back and let other people do stuff. Luckily, many women I have met can get stuff done by themselves, so they don't have the inherent need to have a man, and that's actually great because if you get together and date, that means you are not fulfilling some kind of "i need a husband" role, but are actually a person who genuinely interests her.

Also, my biological clock is ticking, and I really want children, and I want to take care of my children. I would honestly much rather be a stay-at-home dad and see my kids grow up than be a breadwinner for the family.

You can call me "soyboy", but at least I am comfortable and free enough to be who I am and not what society tells me to be.

PS: Oh yeah, I also don't do any pickup stuff because it's very contrived and cringeeeee.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They already have a choice to take initiative, but 99% of them prefer not to.

The "hints" can get pretty strong if you ignore them and they're really interested actually.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Are the words "boys" and "girls" in this context really that offensive to folks? If they are fine, but that's news to me, so I'd like to know why, if anyone cares to share.

Obviously some of us do find them objectionable, since we've said so.

We're adults, not children.

 

[red_elk]

The "hints" can get pretty strong if you ignore them and they're really interested actually.

Yes. But still these hints are in most cases invitations for a man to take initiative. At least formally.

 

[Phrossack]

There are too many quotes here for me to address them all. I'll just try to address what I can.

I used the word "misandry" because there's no other word to describe the generalized hatred of men. I'm not implying that there's systemic misandry on the scale of misogyny--there isn't. It tends to be done by individuals, not systems, and in the grand scheme of things is unimportant. But that is of no comfort when you're a man and a woman is relentlessly mocking and humiliating you out of spite for men.

Sure, I could use "man-hate" in the future to tiptoe around such objections, but objecting to the word rather than the act while I'm mentioning what I've been through feels like an attempt to diminish what I went through and shift blame to me.

I didn't object when others said "girls" because I think it would be demeaning for me to leap in for the rescue on women's behalf before they've even voiced their opinion, as if they're too weak to stand up for themselves. It's not my place to get offended for other people. I don't speak for women.

And normally "boys" would only very mildly bother me, but it's different when it starts a sentence calling me sexist. I couldn't let the irony of that slide. I'm not mad at you, @MaryKB --you're a genuinely good person, but that's why I was a little bit upset. But not that upset, don't worry

The woman who said, "Just don't talk to me" out of the blue on the sidewalk may have had a bad day, or bad experiences with men, or whatever, but I truly don't care. If I went around being nasty to people unprovoked, nobody would care how my day was. They'd be angry with me, as they should be. The incident bugged me for weeks--I thought, "what did I do wrong? What should I have done? Do women tend to dislike all men, or me in particular?" And when combined with daily complaints I hear towards men, and my abusive date, and all these other things I've seen, it contributed to the sense that many women will dislike me at first sight.

As for online vs. in-person dating, I think the latter still has a place for meeting people. But hitting up strangers at a bar is too risky. Better by far to only approach, if ever, in a situation where you're talking and getting to know each other anyway. Women get enough harassment without men talking to them in an attempt to flirt unasked-for. If women don't want to be approached by strangers but do want dates, they'll have to go look for dates themselves. That way they can take it at their own pace, when, where, and with whom they're comfortable, and everyone would be better off for it.

You might be setting up yourself for a rather sexless life :/ .
I hope you don't.

I don't have any good choices.

Dating, for me, is like tightrope walking. I want to get to the other side, which isn't sex so much as just having someone there for me. I am really not very interested in sex anymore due to serious depression, and lost that interest about two years ago. It never really came back.

If I fall over to one side by being too slow, not flirting enough, or worrying about not offending women in genral, I fail, but fall into a net. Idiots would call me a wimp, or a coward, but in truth I'd have fallen because I was being considerate. Going on a date and having nothing happen because I was too cautious is a waste of time but isn't a disaster.

If I go over to the other side too much by being bolder, more flirty, etc., I'll fall onto a crowd of women below. I get hurt, some of them get hurt. Maybe I learn lessons for the next time, but odds are that lesson will be "never try again."

It's a very fine line to walk, and I'd rather fall into the net or not walk at all than get everyone hurt. Most other men are much better tightrope walkers, or see falling on others as a "learning experience." I'm not good at it, not at all, but at least I'm not an inconsiderate jerk about it (not saying you are, but just in general). If that means sacrificing my shot at happiness in life to avoid being a jerk, I guess that's just what I have to do and accept it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I didn't object when others said "girls" because I think it would be demeaning for me to leap in for the rescue on women's behalf before they've even voiced their opinion, as if they're too weak to stand up for themselves. It's not my place to get offended for other people. I don't speak for women.

No, you don't speak for women in general, but supporting a fellow forum member once in awhile wouldn't go amiss. Several of us have spoken up for you; should we edit our posts because you're capable of speaking for yourself? Or will you just accept it as the gesture of friendship it was meant to be, as I accept it when one of the guys here speaks up for me on some occasions?

The woman who said, "Just don't talk to me" out of the blue on the sidewalk may have had a bad day, or bad experiences with men, or whatever, but I truly don't care. If I went around being nasty to people unprovoked, nobody would care how my day was. They'd be angry with me, as they should be. The incident bugged me for weeks--I thought, "what did I do wrong? What should I have done? Do women tend to dislike all men, or me in particular?" And when combined with daily complaints I hear towards men, and my abusive date, and all these other things I've seen, it contributed to the sense that many women will dislike me at first sight.

As I said, I wasn't excusing her. I was listing possible reasons as to why she was rude. You did nothing wrong. You shouldn't assume that because one woman was rude to you, that all women dislike you.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

I have actually told people of all genders "just don't talk to me"... just because I genuinely was not in a mood to talk to them or simply did not like them as people. Also, people have said the same to me... on this forum, btw.