Of Course You Know What "Woke" Means

Given that you associate men with depravity, if you had a son, you would discourage him from identifying with the masculine presumably?

Would you discourage him from identifying as male?

What is “toxic empathy”, Craig? 🙄

I’m just here for the lols

Because you already know it all clearly.

I don't think he used that term. Anyway, by and large, women have a higher capacity for empathy than men. This can go wrong in a few ways. The most apparent example is overabundance of maternal instinct. When a mother is caring for her baby, she has to be there to comfort it at all times. However, as the child grows, if she overidentifies with that emotion and is unable to let go and allow them figure things our for themselves, it stunts their development.

I don't think men should be giving life lessons on how women should behave - and the other way around.

I would also would never encourage my daughter to not act like a woman - w/e that even means. That is some sadistic ****.

We're figuring out that gender is just a set of stereotypes in this thread?

FYP.

It’s too common to demonize it. Let’s bring it into the light instead.

The first question to any self identified feminist should be, “What is a man?”

Some people are

Not at all. Empathy isn't always toxic. In fact, it's necessary, but only good when applied in a healthy way.

It’s not a life lesson. It’s an observation.

Sadistic is that statistically the most likely person to kill me is my husband. Men are broken. It’s been known for a while. The incel and mass murder movements have proven it enough.

And my wife is still the most likely person to kill me. Spousal homicides seems somewhat close to one another and I wouldn't cast blame on my wife if women were to creep higher in that statistic than men - because her own capabilities trump that of the collective statistics of that entire group, and that much more accurately determines whether or not she's considered broken.

If being incel was a movement it wouldn't be called incel owing to the semantic composition of the morphemes that make up that portmanteau.

As for the mass murder movement that's also an interesting one.

Cite

I assume they'd be called procels fwiw.

I’m still waiting to hear about “toxic empathy”

I wonder if it has anything to do with safetyism

What if I said I would just abort all male fetuses?

Women don't look to be too far behind in the killings. The problem is that men are far more likely to die from a whole host of other factors.

Who Kills Whom in Spouse Killings? On the Exceptional Sex Ratio of Spousal Homicides in the United States

Results revealed that for every 100 men who killed their wives in the United States during 1976-85, about 75 women killed their husbands. Women committed a substantially larger proportion of spousal homicides in the United States than elsewhere. In fact the spousal sex ratio of killing (SROK) is more than twice that in the other Western countries. However, this contrast cannot be attributed to greater gun use in the United States nor to a general behavioral and psychological convergence of males and females in the United States. Instead, significant predictors of the SROK include registered versus de facto marriage, co-residency versus separation, ethnicity, and age disparity. However, the impacts of these variables are not sufficient to explain the difference in the victim sex ratios in the United States and other countries. Tables and 94 references

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-librar...

The problem is that you seem to have made a final judgment on men. Let’s agree that men are a work in progress.

Can you be open to the possibility that men are capable of progressing toward virtue?

And that this virtue is not simply to become entirely feminine?

Nobody would be particularly surprised, then they'd roll their eyes.

They might make the "yap yap yap" gesture with their hands to a nearby dude and politely wait for you to finish being insane, because men are nice like that.

A lot of it is just 1) how we are positioned and 2) how we view things.

1) It's men's job to be aggressive and fight and stuff. And women want us to do that job. Wolves of Wall Street. Drug lords. Women line up for them. That's part of what motivates those men. Those women aren't morally superior to the men, it's just that the man's role is to do the crimes. The women are thrilled by the crimes and enjoy their fruits with less risk.

A lot of male misbehavior is driven by insecurity. Travis Bickles. Women make new life, so are valuable. Men have to create some role to be valuable. If they don't, they are nothing. Prison, homelessness or the front lines await. Or just being a loser. So guys are insecure and do bad things.

I don't see female politicians as more war averse or really any different at all. Hillery illary is among the most bellicose politicians of our lifetimes. Thatcher.

2) goes back to accountability. Fetal alcohol syndrome and similar is an even worse thing to do to someone than rape. Abuse survivors can go on to lead normal lives. If you have an 85 IQ and hardwired emotional problems, you're whole life is greatly diminished and there is no escape. Plus, such people commit more crimes on third parties. Google results show very wide estimates on how many are affected. But it's a lot. One source says it's a hidden epidemic. Wonder why.

We see campaigns for men to correct behavior from date rape and sexual harassment down to spreading our legs when sitting, setting the AC to a temp we find comfortable or explaining things. FAS is a total non issue.

It is necessary for men to be more accountable than women in some ways. Women assault their partners all the time, but usually don't really hurt them. Men can hurt/kill, so must learn more restraint. That doesn't make women superior. Women commit more child abuse and it's certainly less reported, especially emotional abuse.

This is going to be more a reflection of the political system and the sort of people who get promoted within it than anything it might say about differences between the sexes.

The center of life is feminine and originally all of life was female. Life proliferated solely through cloning identical copies of the female within the center.

Further, these female life forms were immortal. Death could not penetrate the boundaries of the center.

However, in order for life to evolve, it needed to expand beyond the boundaries of the center. The problem is females are incapable of venturing beyond the protected center.

Within death exists the male, who is capable of crossing the current boundaries of life. A deal with the devil was made. Death was allowed to penetrate the center in order for the male to enter into life. The result was the introduction of sexual reproduction and genetic variation. The cost was mortality.

No longer was the boundary impenetrable by death. Men were expected to detach themselves from the center, protect the boundary from death, and expand the boundary of life.

At some point during this process, life forgot about the deal it had made with the devil. It forgot that, as part of the deal, death imbedded itself in the foundation at the center of the center of life, so that it can parasitize life.

It’s always been the role of the female to protect the center of the center of life by casting out threats. It’s always been the role of the male to confront death and defeat it in a final way. The female is incapable of confronting and facing death, as this role has been exclusively delegated to the male.

In other words, the female is blind to the reality that death is imbedded right at the foundation. Therefore, when the male discovers death in the center and makes his way back toward the center with aggression, an inevitable conflict arises between the male and the female.

The only way this conflict can be resolved and death defeated is if the female builds trust with the male and allows the male to penetrate the center of the center. There is risk because, since the male has been associated with death since the beginning, allowing penetration of the center by the male is risking suicide.

Coming full circle, the female must build enough trust with the male in order to risk the same deal made with the devil from the beginning. The male must earn that trust by becoming worthy of it.

Women at the very top of any organization aren't representative of women as a whole.

Anyway it can't be random that it's economically rightwing parties that elevate women to the top much more than leftwing parties.

Thatcher of course but also Benazir Butto in Pakistan, Sonya Gandhi in India, Meloni on Italy.

as with everything else, the right opens the doors and the left closes them