We can keep this non-political if we're careful...

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There have been numerous studies that show that women do prefer:

1) Men over 6' tall

2) Men with higher incomes

3) Men with lower BMI

My intent was not to disparage women, though my "tic toc" comment may have came off that way.  As others and I have noted, the internet is a great way for people to wallow in self-pity and find their own bubbles.  That's much easier than self-improvement.  Focusing on what one can control is a better strategy.  Get educated in useful skills.  Take care of your body.  Don't become a parent until you are ready.  Stay out of prison.  

As far as "shallow", most men and women fall into that definition.  Love isn't all puppy dogs and roses.  It's work, it's commitment, and at least as far as marriage goes, it's a contract between those people.  Like any contract, the terms of it are written by the parties who are entering into it.  

The most popular of those videos probably has less than 1 million views. That's a small percentage of the US population not to mention the world. 

I think people make the mistake of putting too much emphasis on what they see on social media without realizing that a large majority of the population doesn't watch it nor could they care less. 

Do young men have issues attracting girls? Yep. They have throughout history. Is it harder now? Maybe, maybe not. Pulling the kids out of school for two years certainly didn't help. 

Beer Baron said:

I'm dealing with a lot of stuff lately, and it's hard to share with my wife.When I go to her looking for emotional support, I often end up being the one who has to provide the emotional support for both of us.

That's part of what is called "burden of performance". 

Broader topic:  MRA, Red Pill Theory, etc is all part of the 'manosphere' which is what a lot of the referenced YouTube videos are a component. Like pretty much everything, the extremists get all the attention. At the base, however, there is some good information. "Take what makes sense and leave the rest" is an applicable mantra here. Part of comprehending the game that is intersexual relationships is realizing a lot of what you assumed/society taught you is wrong. And that generates the anger phase, which is where a lot of the crap comes from.

Men and women are different. Understanding and accepting that, then choosing to work within the framework for the good of both, should be the goal. A lot of guys get stuck on the 'women are different so must be evil' mentality. 

But, pointing out that women think differently than men nowadays instantly means you are a misogynist, and the discussion grinds to an abrupt halt. For all the pronouncements that one should "follow the science" when it comes to intersexual dynamics all of a sudden we can't do that. 

ddavidv said:

Beer Baron said:

I'm dealing with a lot of stuff lately, and it's hard to share with my wife.When I go to her looking for emotional support, I often end up being the one who has to provide the emotional support for both of us.

That's part of what is called "burden of performance". 

Not quite. I think this tries to, but does not accurately describe what is going on. Or describes something adjacent, but separate.

I am not afraid that having stress, emotional reactions, or anxieties will make me less competent or manly, or that she will perceive me as such. Just like how bravery isn't the absence of fear.

I do not feel judged by her for my emotions or anxieties.

Rather, the issue is with my wife not knowing how to deal with them. She doesn't know how to not be made anxious by my anxiety, or how to set that anxiety aside to deal with my stress first.

I agree with this in terms of the need to be Competent, much like the need to be Brave. But Bravery is not the absence of fear. It's the ability to move and act in spite of fear.

This is like... seeing someone trying to drop in on a ramp for the first time at a skatepark. They are afraid. They say so. The helpful thing is people around them acknowledging that fear and saying it's okay to be afraid. But those people are not afraid themselves. They're calm. This helps the person who is afraid.

If instead the people they tell react by ALSO being afraid for themselves, that makes it harder for the person to do what they need to.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

In reply to stroker :

As a young man whos watched all this unfold...

Everyone so far in comment, is basically right. Mr_Asa correctly brought up that there's truth to some claims (Men's suicide rates are like, 3-4 times womens and we have few to no resources if we're being abused) but the whole manosphere is very much a predatory universe. All of them are selling the ideal of confidence and success- see their marketplaces and patreon deals lmao- but wrap it all up and sell it in typical methods and numbered goals. Their targets are always doing everything wrong, are never hard enough, and are always told in a super authoritative tone. It's always an easy forumla to improve- just go 2 gym! Get money! Look important! Be aloof! They're all these very easy things that don't demand emotional stability or reflection- they're just easy numbers you can hit on the cable pull-down. All of this is intentional because these young men who aren't seeing success in dating or relationships (or have never had one) don't yet understand that all dating is all hard and demands time and failure in particular. Who would a young man rather listen to? A guy telling him in a calm nice tone, that you're just gonna have to fail repeatedly at dating to make it worthwhile? Or a dude who's forearms are so shredded he's got garden hoses for veins telling him that women don't want any man who can't bench 225?

Also to Mr_Asa, it's an issue of nuture, I've worked with many men who were told that men don't cry. Testosterone is the aggression hormone, which is why us young men have the highest rates for spinal injuries. We're #1 again babey!

Agree.  I think it's 90% nurture.  I grew up in a house where my father treated my mother like a queen, got bristled when he saw a man disrespecting a woman, and I was never EVER told that boys don't cry.  When I played with my sister and her dolls, I was never told it was wrong.  When I wanted to join the 4H sewing club, I was encouraged.  When I joined choir and theater groups, Dad would actually skip a day of hunting (gasp) to come support me at a performance.

Any compulsion I have to not show emotion comes strictly from my adolescent experiences of bullying when I did express emotion.  Being an emotional kid amidst an ocean of "tough kids" meant I was a wuss or a fag.  (This was the 80s, after all)  But the foundations of my emotional support from my parents were certainly not any different than my sister's.  Emotions were real and expressed.

As a result, I am a bit of an oddity, especially in the romance world.  Women (extreme generalizations here about straight couples) are somewhat conditioned to have the expectation that their man will have some of these antiquated misogynist tendencies, and part of their experiential foundations lead them to gloss over them as chivalry, or protectiveness.  "I know he abuses me, but I know he loves me."  I can't tell you how many women have dated me and been entranced by my emotional availability and safety only to deny it because it must be too good to be true, or doesn't fit the traditional paradigm.  Fortunately, I have found someone who truly appreciates that facet about me and loves me for what that means.

I've been impressed with how the youth today are handling it.  Yes, suicide rates are way up, but there is a silver lining to this pendulum swing.  Kids are feeling again.  If our mental health support were vaguely able to handle the flood, we wouldn't have quite the number of suicides.  The deaths are heartbreaking, but it's a sign that we're not as quick to tell boys that they can't have emotions and they need to suck it up.  I just think the preceding generations aren't equipped to handle the fallout of their children.

I find it ironic that many young men who think that the world is out to get them (except the female world) are also loners with similarly idiotic friends or no friends at all. 

Easiest way to find a date? Have friends. 

I remember in my younger years hearing the statement from a lady that she would date a less attractive man if he rolled with a group of other attractive guys because she felt like even if it didn't work out she'd now have a dating network within that group. 

"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed
desperation."

- Henry David Thoreau

pheller said:

because she felt like even if it didn't work out she'd now have a dating network within that group. 

Waiting in the dugout - Leykis 101.

I'm a bit fascinated by this topic, for no particular reason at all. 

I just deleted a whole bunch, not because it was political, but because I was rambling.

It boils down to this.  I have a real problem with the modern philosophy of, "Love yourself as you are, no matter how big a loser you are."

Introspection.  Accepting that maybe the group of people that don't like you, have only one thing in common- You.  Figure out why you are a jerk.

I've had a couple of pretty big moments in my life where I made a decision to behave in a different fashion.  Not always easy, always rewarding.

Grow.  Know yourself.  Learn new things.  Delete Instagram.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

 

Agree.  I think it's 90% nurture. 

I don't.  I know there is an element of nurture, but there are characteristics that are directly attributable to whether the testosterone or estrogen is dominant.  

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

GIRTHQUAKE said:

In reply to stroker :

 

 

The deaths are heartbreaking, but it's a sign that we're not as quick to tell boys that they can't have emotions and they need to suck it up.  

 I don't think I agree with this. I'm 55 and was never told I couldn't have emotions or to suck it up and deal with it. What I was told and taught is how to not let my emotions control me. They were to be examined, discussed, and shared, but not at the cost of control. The thinking brain needs to control the emotive brain. I was given the tools to do that starting at a young age. Anger was acceptable, temper tantrums were not. Hate was acceptable but acting on that hate was not. Love was expected but being completely consumed by it was not. Emotions are a fact of life, but they should not have control over the person. 

We have told kids that emotions are OK, but we've stopped giving them the tools to control them. 

Streetwiseguy said:

It boils down to this.  I have a real problem with the modern philosophy of, "Love yourself as you are, no matter how big a loser you are."

That sentiment is not inherently unhealthy. It's in how you interpret it.

I'll bring up Fred Rogers, because... man was incredibly wise. Mr. Rogers loved everyone exactly as they are. But he also knew they could learn and be better.

Part of loving yourself is wanting to be better. To grow. To improve.

You don't need to wait until you've reached a certain level to be "good enough" to love yourself. Life is a process, not a destination. Loving yourself is valuing that you are making progress.

Beer Baron said:

Streetwiseguy said:

It boils down to this.  I have a real problem with the modern philosophy of, "Love yourself as you are, no matter how big a loser you are."

That sentiment is not inherently unhealthy. It's in how you interpret it.

I'll bring up Fred Rogers, because... man was incredibly wise. Mr. Rogers loved everyone exactly as they are. But he also knew they could learn and be better.

Part of loving yourself is wanting to be better. To grow. To improve.

You don't need to wait until you've reached a certain level to be "good enough" to love yourself. Life is a process, not a destination. Loving yourself is valuing that you are making progress.

Absolutely.  Not sure everyone goes that deep, though.

MRA? Why do you guys post so many acronyms? Too tired to type the whole word?

Makes it difficult to follow some of these discussions....

Beer Baron has an interesting point. So often I expect my wife to know and understand when something is bothering me, but unless I actually say "hey, this is bothering me" it's never brought up, where if I detect a slight change in the weather for her.....I have to know when it's OK to ask and when to head to the garage for a day of wrenching or just staying out of sight.

Streetwiseguy said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

 

Agree.  I think it's 90% nurture. 

I don't.  I know there is an element of nurture, but there are characteristics that are directly attributable to whether the testosterone or estrogen is dominant.  

I think it's 10% nature and 90% nurture.

Broadly speaking, there are characteristics somewhat related to dominant hormone.

But people don't need to be dumb brute animals.  If you apply your human intelligence and will, you do not have to be driven by those very generalized physical tendencies.

Success in that goal really boils down to whether you are taught to value that ability or to deny it.  If you are told that men are / must be one certain way and women another, it's going to be much harder to have the will to overcome the stereotypes... assuming you even want to try.

To me, that's a much bigger factor than whether you have testes or ovaries.

Social media (present forum excluded) seems to make every human interaction worse. Dating via social media sounds like a hellscape. 

Are issues with pair bonding showing up in the data yet?

In reply to Duke :

Sure, but you are talking about educating ourselves out of our nature.  What about kids (of all generations in history) who were raised by wolves?  

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

They end up very standoffish. You don't need to worry about them other than keeping them from eating your chihuahua. 

In reply to MiniDave :

MRA = Men's Rights Activism. (I had to look it up, but I have heard of the movement). 

Yeah... one of the big things with my ex-was her getting PO'd about some random thing, refusing to tell me what she was pissed about, me going about my merry way, then her blowing her stack because I'm not a mind-reader...  

One of the great falsehoods of social media is it deludes us into believing we are truly communicating with each other, when in reality we are not. 

Streetwiseguy said:

In reply to Duke :

Sure, but you are talking about educating ourselves out of our nature.  What about kids (of all generations in history) who were raised by wolves?  

And I'm saying that the nature really isn't that strong any more.  It's not matter of "educating ourselves out of our nature", it's a matter of deciding we don't need to educate ourselves into reinforcing what's left of the old nature any longer.

Never underestimate the conservative** tendency toward maintaining tradition for its own sake, long past any real constructive value.

**Not in the political sense.

Toyman! said:

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

You don't need to worry about them other than keeping them from eating your chihuahua.

Or you could let them.  Just sayin.

Streetwiseguy said:

In reply to Duke :

Sure, but you are talking about educating ourselves out of our nature.    

Disagree.  We have educated ourselves away from our nature by nurturing a false discrepancy.  Of the nearly 200 countries on the planet, the regions which celebrate misogyny and patriarchy have less gender equality, but countries that celebrate the equality of the genders and sexes have far less rape, inequality, and social discourse surrounding gender.

If this weren't true, the countries and regions with greater equality would be the ones with the greater discourse if they were fighting a natural instinct for patriarchy, but they aren't.  It's the unequal nature of the countries who celebrate the disparity that are having the most struggle with gender equality.  E.G.... Iran and Afghanistan vs. Northern Europe.

I don't think nature has much to do with it at all.  There are millions of men who have the same testosterone/estrogen balance who have ended up being widely different... some of them abusive women-haters, some of them feminist activists.  It's what they were taught that is what made them who they are.

Duke said:

Streetwiseguy said:

In reply to Duke :

Sure, but you are talking about educating ourselves out of our nature.  What about kids (of all generations in history) who were raised by wolves?  

And I'm saying that the nature really isn't that strong any more.  It's not matter of "educating ourselves out of our nature", it's a matter of deciding we don't need to educate ourselves into reinforcing what's left of the old nature any longer.

Never underestimate the conservative** tendency toward maintaining tradition for its own sake, long past any real constructive value.

 

**Not in the political sense.

 

I don't agree, but thats fine.  I've tamed my inner wolf, my testosterone levels are dropping as I age, and I don't need to climb through the computer and puff myself up to prove you wrong...

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There have been numerous studies that show that women do prefer:

1) Men over 6' tall

2) Men with higher incomes

3) Men with lower BMI

200 years ago, this was totally not the case.  This list 200 years ago might look like:

1) has enough land to grow the food we need

2) fat enough that he won't die during harsh winter

3) owns more than one mule