Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

ligerdub

The article says that men tend to go for younger women, not considering people of their own age, but then also saying that "Younger men are drawn to older women as much as older men are drawn to younger women. And this is not a new phenomenon".

I used to laugh at this sort of stuff, but it's frequently a source of something beyond irritation. This stuff is taken as gospel and has spread out into the ether. It needs to be challenged to the same extent as the counterpoint anti-women stuff which occasionally pops up. There is too much fear or pandering when it comes to these sort of assertions. The obvious internal hypocrisies are also quite frequent.

By all means they can put this stuff out there if they so wish, but you better have a point and have some sort of back-up argument bar your friend Sharon and Karen who both, aged 45, spent the last 20 years focusing on their careers and dismissing 90% of their potential suitors.

red ears

ligerdub wrote: »

Younger men are drawn to older women as much as older men are drawn to younger women. And this is not a new phenomenon"..

Not for long term relationships though.

silverharp

it comes back to biology , after ~30 men are going to be thinking with their big brain and not their little one. Where young men might not see crazy in their 20's once they are older and wiser their choices will be more rational . I havnt read the whole article but 40 something women in the UK will only really have the option of 40 or 50 something men many of whom will have probably been burned by divorce in the past. of course if will be a case of "where have all the good men gone"

Buffman

ligerdub wrote: »

I used to laugh at this sort of stuff, but it's frequently a source of something beyond irritation. This stuff is taken as gospel and has spread out into the ether. It needs to be challenged to the same extent as the counterpoint anti-women stuff which occasionally pops up. There is too much fear or pandering when it comes to these sort of assertions. The obvious internal hypocrisies are also quite frequent.

Yep, it would almost be humorous except for it being taken as gospel by so many.

Absolutely it should be challenged, however finding someone who'll take that issue on in the media would be difficult IMO. The recent erasure and retrospective censorship from media history of Kevin Myers shows what will occur if you're deemed to step out of line. At least the DM comment section allows free speech.

As you alluded to, if the sexes were reversed in that 'story', there would be uproar.

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe in Journalist cat lady land

Yep, urgent delivery of cat food, kleenex and wine required!

Wibbs

maybe

Buffman wrote: »

As you alluded to, if the sexes were reversed in that 'story', there would be uproar.

Thinking more on it at different ages they might well be. Take those women in the "article". They're attractive enough women but at 25 their dance card would have been well full of suitors and I doubt you'd have heard the "no men around" complaint back then. The "market" for want of a crude term, would be in their favour and they'd have more choice. Far more than averagely attractive men of that age as a general rule. fast forward a few years and the "market" has swung more in favour to the men's side. They're seeing the "can't find a partner" vibe that would have been found more among men at 25.

Now this can be explained in a few ways, not least basic reproductive biology. The plain fact is a man at their age, if he so chose to, can start a new family, a woman can't(beyond going the IVF route, which is a very recent innovation). That is well dug into our biology. Something that they seem entirely blind to.

Men, indoctrinated over generations to pursue younger women, are instinctively reluctant to consider those of a similar age to their own, even ones who look youthful and attractive.

She actually hit it in one word; "instinctively". It has much less to do with indoctrination.

Plus there is also the tendency of women to "marry up". Now these are apparently successful women, but men of equal success levels are either a) already in a long termer/have been snapped up(the female equivalent would be the good looking 25 year old who is rarely "on the market), or b) will have far more choice in the dating/mating game than them and will choose younger all things being equal. If they spread their net wider to men below them in the success front, I'd bet they'd have more choice going on.

Problem being the blinkers are set to full coverage and it's easier to moan there are no good men left. Just like the guys(usually younger) who think they're somehow owed a relationship.

silverharp

I reckon feminism has rotted their brains somewhat, they seem to think men rate women the same way women rate men. they really should ask some men for their opinions before they write these articles.

One eyed Jack

Buffman wrote: »

This 'author' also writes in the Irishtimes and has a specific 'target market' for her work, but this article has so many generalisations it's almost funny. Plenty of alternative views in the comments section though!:D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4754914/Where-good-men-gone.html

I know it's the Daily Mail (and worse again, the 'Femail' segment in the Daily Mail), but I'm a mixture of amused and bemused reading that article tbh. It appears on the one hand to be a bunch of women lamenting the availability of 'good men' at their age, while at the same time suggesting that their lack of success in finding 'good men' is because they themselves are too good for the vast majority of men their own age?

I'm very confused after reading that :pac:

My take on just the women in that article alone is that it isn't their age is a barrier to them being attractive to men, but rather it's their attitude. And this particular old chestnut never seems to go out of fashion as a way of telling themselves they're not the one with the problem, it's men who want nothing to do with them are the problem -


‘I have two children and a career to manage and I’m forthright. I think men find women like me intimidating.
‘I want a strong, independent man. Why is that so hard?’


There just aren't enough facepalms sometimes, but it's not because I'd feel intimidated that I would have no interest in someone like that, it's because they are an utterly delusional narcissist.


‘At this stage of my life I need someone who is independent. I’ve set the bar now and I don’t want someone who needs looking after —unless he shows he can look after me first.’


That's quite possibly the most confusing statement I've ever read - wants a man who is independent, but only if the man can show her she can depend on him, so that she can be independent...

Fcuk, I'm off for a drink, it's Friday! :pac:

mzungu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know it's the Daily Mail (and worse again, the 'Femail' segment in the Daily Mail), but I'm a mixture of amused and bemused reading that article tbh. It appears on the one hand to be a bunch of women lamenting the availability of 'good men' at their age, while at the same time suggesting that their lack of success in finding 'good men' is because they themselves are too good for the vast majority of men their own age?

I'm very confused after reading that :pac:

My take on just the women in that article alone is that it isn't their age is a barrier to them being attractive to men, but rather it's their attitude. And this particular old chestnut never seems to go out of fashion as a way of telling themselves they're not the one with the problem, it's men who want nothing to do with them are the problem -


‘I have two children and a career to manage and I’m forthright. I think men find women like me intimidating.
‘I want a strong, independent man. Why is that so hard?’


There just aren't enough facepalms sometimes, but it's not because I'd feel intimidated that I would have no interest in someone like that, it's because they are an utterly delusional narcissist.


‘At this stage of my life I need someone who is independent. I’ve set the bar now and I don’t want someone who needs looking after —unless he shows he can look after me first.’


That's quite possibly the most confusing statement I've ever read - wants a man who is independent, but only if the man can show her she can depend on him, so that she can be independent...

Fcuk, I'm off for a drink, it's Friday! :pac:

Aye, I wouldn't be surprised if all those quotes were made up, it reads like something from The Onion.

py2006

Wibbs wrote: »

She must live in reverso land to my experience as in my experience that works far more with the genders reversed. I struggle to think of one man of my acquaintance that worked like that, but about half of the women of my acquaintance did/do. On

I totally agree here. It was always very much the opposite way around to me

Wibbs

maybe

mzungu wrote: »

Aye, I wouldn't be surprised if all those quotes were made up, it reads like something from The Onion.

Because of my advanced years I have heard very similar M, but it was a minority and a particular type going on. At least in my small sample group. A generalised description would be women of a certain blonde and of a certain age(mid-late 30's in my examples), above average in looks and fashion when young, the rugger bugger/media crowd, with various unlabelable jobs masquerading as careers, who got lots of attention from "suitable" and unsuitable" men early on. And usually went for the latter. More excitement as it were. Now the wild oats were sown the draw to the burbs hit like salmon mindlessly rushing upstream to the rivulet of their birth and they were looking for the domesticated kind of cereal. A man of a type that would pass muster among her peers, who would look fine in FaceBook photos of their all pine and promise scandi kitchen on tick, but would slowly go out of focus over time, to be replaced in the foreground by pics of her kids.

py2006 wrote: »

I totally agree here. It was always very much the opposite way around to me

It generally is, all things being equal. In the sense that the averagely attractive man has fewer choices in their twenties compared to the averagely attractive woman, but that starts to go into reverse in the 30's and even 40's and it seems according to that article even into their 50's.

Though on that note I smell some extra topping of BS on top of the existing large serving. Yeah a guy in his mid 30's who doesn't look like he would be better served ringing bells in Notre Dame, hasn't gone to seed and is in receipt of a regular monthly rather than weekly pay packet has a fair few options and can certainly choose to go for younger if that's his thing. In a few rarer again cases that might hold true into his forties. By the fifties that percentage is small. Beyond that you had better be a member of the Rolling Stones*. It would be my humble that beyond fifty the "market" pendulum that has swung from one gender to the other settles more in the middle. No matter how many life punched and paunched grecian 2000 men, or multiple incoming cats and classes in watercolours women like to fantasise otherwise. So again IMH it sounds like those particular women are more akin to those ageing lotharios in both living in an ego preserving fantasy world.




*in my own average love life my "peak" was between 35 and 40ish. And I was a late bloomer. When I say peak, I mean that I got the most interest from the widest range of women of my age and younger at that time. Yes I have gotten interest since, but it was generally women closer to my age and any much younger women were a case of a phase/fancy/fling, rather than seen as anything like a long term prospect.

ligerdub

Wibbs wrote: »

Because of my advanced years I have heard very similar M, but it was a minority and a particular type going on. At least in my small sample group. A generalised description would be women of a certain blonde and of a certain age(mid-late 30's in my examples), above average in looks and fashion when young, the rugger bugger/media crowd, with various unlabelable jobs masquerading as careers, who got lots of attention from "suitable" and unsuitable" men early on. And usually went for the latter. More excitement as it were. Now the wild oats were sown the draw to the burbs hit like salmon mindlessly rushing upstream to the rivulet of their birth and they were looking for the domesticated kind of cereal. A man of a type that would pass muster among her peers, who would look fine in FaceBook photos of their all pine and promise scandi kitchen on tick, but would slowly go out of focus over time, to be replaced in the foreground by pics of her kids.

It generally is, all things being equal. In the sense that the averagely attractive man has fewer choices in their twenties compared to the averagely attractive woman, but that starts to go into reverse in the 30's and even 40's and it seems according to that article even into their 50's.

Though on that note I smell some extra topping of BS on top of the existing large serving. Yeah a guy in his mid 30's who doesn't look like he would be better served ringing bells in Notre Dame, hasn't gone to seed and is in receipt of a regular monthly rather than weekly pay packet has a fair few options and can certainly choose to go for younger if that's his thing. In a few rarer again cases that might hold true into his forties. By the fifties that percentage is small. Beyond that you had better be a member of the Rolling Stones*. It would be my humble that beyond fifty the "market" pendulum that has swung from one gender to the other settles more in the middle. No matter how many life punched and paunched grecian 2000 men, or multiple incoming cats and classes in watercolours women like to fantasise otherwise. So again IMH it sounds like those particular women are more akin to those ageing lotharios in both living in an ego preserving fantasy world.




*in my own average love life my "peak" was between 35 and 40ish. And I was a late bloomer. When I say peak, I mean that I got the most interest from the widest range of women of my age and younger at that time. Yes I have gotten interest since, but it was generally women closer to my age and any much younger women were a case of a phase/fancy/fling, rather than seen as anything like a long term prospect.

Probably one of the best posts I've ever seen.....hats off

Wibbs

maybe

Buffman wrote: »

Yep, it would almost be humorous except for it being taken as gospel by so many.

Ah I dunno B, I'm not so sure how many are buying into this stuff. Beyond - in the Irish context - the environs of Montrose or TV3's Loose Women Midday, with its coterie of well coopered cacklers.

File photo.

TV3 all rights reserved © ™

Absolutely it should be challenged, however finding someone who'll take that issue on in the media would be difficult IMO.

In the media sure, but "when the rubber meets the road" as our Yank cousins would say, reality is the biggest challenge of all. And that reality tends to prove that "mature, independent, confident women, I don't need no man, but really I do" who self describe themselves as such are up there in the deluded olympics with every middle aged and up bald man who thinks he looks like Patrick Steward/Sean Connery/Jason Statham and can pull the blonde barmaid working her way through university. Did'ya see the way she looked at me lads...

That's disgust you mong, disgust at avoiding beer breath oul lads her da's age, so that she can get some extra to help with the rent, while she's boning up on her biochemistry books.

It's just that the deluded women are given far more airtime. In TVland at least. Mostly because in that section of the media it's mostly made up of women of a similar bent. In Hollywoodland where it's more men of that type that's why you're more likely to see your Brad Pitts and the like paired off with near embryos in tube tops. It is what it is.

The recent erasure and retrospective censorship from media history of Kevin Myers shows what will occur if you're deemed to step out of line.

Again in the media and certain outlets.

At least the DM comment section allows free speech.

Aye B, but as a worthwhile example of how that should work it's not a good one, given it seems to be mostly populated by little Englanders, reactionaries and dribblers on day release. But I suppose that's the risk one takes when all comers are welcomed/encouraged. The nitwits tend to have the most polished keyboards and vocal chords. *looks at keyboard. Realises the irony. Crap...

H3llR4iser

py2006 wrote: »

I totally agree here. It was always very much the opposite way around to me

Count me in on that - I've never met any guy who would be in a "constantly attached" state, but the majority of women I know are like that; They'd always be in some sort of a long-ish relationship (at least in the intentions), and barely a month or two of "singledom" would happen in between those.

On the other hand, I do know an absolute load of "Permasingle" guys, who I'd never seen dating someone or that very, very rarely do with very long hiatuses in between. I'll give you that, I work in IT - so in a a few cases the reason is total, utter and devastating social ineptitude (Sheldon Cooper from TBBT would look like an unrelenting party animal, in comparison); Mostly however is due to preference and choice.

We could discuss ages about why this is the case (my feeling is that a lot of "serial daters" of either gender do it due to boredom with their own life, but I digress), but that's my own experience, echoed by more than one as I can see...

Wibbs wrote: »

Because of my advanced years I have heard very similar M, but it was a minority and a particular type going on. At least in my small sample group. A generalised description would be women of a certain blonde and of a certain age(mid-late 30's in my examples), above average in looks and fashion when young, the rugger bugger/media crowd, with various unlabelable jobs masquerading as careers, who got lots of attention from "suitable" and unsuitable" men early on. And usually went for the latter. More excitement as it were. Now the wild oats were sown the draw to the burbs hit like salmon mindlessly rushing upstream to the rivulet of their birth and they were looking for the domesticated kind of cereal. A man of a type that would pass muster among her peers, who would look fine in FaceBook photos of their all pine and promise scandi kitchen on tick, but would slowly go out of focus over time, to be replaced in the foreground by pics of her kids.

And I thought I was going to write an interesting and articulate post; This, my man, goes right up there with the "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe..." speech.

Wibbs wrote: »

It generally is, all things being equal. In the sense that the averagely attractive man has fewer choices in their twenties compared to the averagely attractive woman, but that starts to go into reverse in the 30's and even 40's and it seems according to that article even into their 50's.

Though on that note I smell some extra topping of BS on top of the existing large serving. Yeah a guy in his mid 30's who doesn't look like he would be better served ringing bells in Notre Dame, hasn't gone to seed and is in receipt of a regular monthly rather than weekly pay packet has a fair few options and can certainly choose to go for younger if that's his thing. In a few rarer again cases that might hold true into his forties. By the fifties that percentage is small. Beyond that you had better be a member of the Rolling Stones*. It would be my humble that beyond fifty the "market" pendulum that has swung from one gender to the other settles more in the middle. No matter how many life punched and paunched grecian 2000 men, or multiple incoming cats and classes in watercolours women like to fantasise otherwise. So again IMH it sounds like those particular women are more akin to those ageing lotharios in both living in an ego preserving fantasy world.

*in my own average love life my "peak" was between 35 and 40ish. And I was a late bloomer. When I say peak, I mean that I got the most interest from the widest range of women of my age and younger at that time. Yes I have gotten interest since, but it was generally women closer to my age and any much younger women were a case of a phase/fancy/fling, rather than seen as anything like a long term prospect.

The biggest issue the women in the article have is that they wouldn't take any "less" than themselves; In a nutshell, they won't "date down" - if one of them met a handsome, smart, polite and caring gentleman in his 50s, which however worked as a carpenter or delivery driver, he'd be "unsuitable" to them or "not good enough"; On the other hand, the successful male professional in his 50s won't have a single problem dating, say, a 30 years old cleaning lady (I say this with the utmost respect for the mentioned occupations, which still are the foundation of society - try being an high flying solicitor without a roof on your head, in a filthy room and with nobody delivering avocado bagels at lunch time!).

I would actually say that they're looking above themselves even, kind of still trying to find the "carer/provider" fantasy - they're basically shooting for the highest possible tier; It goes without saying that men in that position will have plenty of choice and it'll work against a 50-something woman.

It really is the exact reverse of the average or even above average 20-something guy who only runs after supermodel types and complains he gets none, without realizing that every single man in any room these young women walk in, wants to be with them - which means they have the choice to dismiss anyone but the top of the crop.

tritium

Theres a certain hypocrisy here too. Younger men who cant seem to get a date are almost seen as nerds or creepy loners in the media. Any they make to fix it is met with wailing about pua and manipulation. Generally theyre told they dont have any right to a date so they should know their place.

Fast forward 20 years and women who are in the same position are told its so unfair, poor you by the, admitedly womens rag elements mainly, of the media.

A strange double standard imho...

silverharp

tritium wrote: »

Theres a certain hypocrisy here too. Younger men who cant seem to get a date are almost seen as nerds or creepy loners in the media. Any they make to fix it is met with wailing about pua and manipulation. Generally theyre told they dont have any right to a date so they should know their place.

Fast forward 20 years and women who are in the same position are told its so unfair, poor you by the, admitedly womens rag elements mainly, of the media.

A strange double standard imho...

when I think back to the 80's in retrospect lads had less information and were led by the nose in the whole dating scene. I reckon part of the ire now is that is that men and teenage boys have access to more information. If a lad uses some bit of pua its no more manipulative than a girl using push up bra or a very creative use of makeup

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Theres a certain hypocrisy here too. Younger men who cant seem to get a date are almost seen as nerds or creepy loners in the media. Generally theyre told they dont have any right to a date so they should know their place.

Fast forward 20 years and women who are in the same position are told its so unfair, poor you by the, admitedly womens rag elements mainly, of the media.

A strange double standard imho...

Is that really the case? The poster H3llr4iser mar this exact point 2 posts before yours ;

h3llr4iser wrote:

"On the other hand, I do know an absolute load of "Permasingle" guys, who I'd never seen dating someone or that very, very rarely do with very long hiatuses in between. I'll give you that, I work in IT - so in a a few cases the reason is total, utter and devastating social ineptitude (Sheldon Cooper from TBBT would look like an unrelenting party animal, in comparison); Mostly however is due to preference and choice."

Maybe H3llr4iser is part of the dreaded media. Or else it's not just the media who use this image.

Some men can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault.
Some women can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault. This notion is more about making the same old point than commenting on anything in reality.

Buffman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know it's the Daily Mail (and worse again, the 'Femail' segment in the Daily Mail)

Not a section of the interweb I'd normally be perusing, I don't think I'd be in their 'target demographic'!:D

A friend sent me the link to it in a humorous context. I was bemused reading it, but apart from the funny side, it was the combination of delusion, entitlement, hypergamy, hypocrisy and misandry in the one article that prompted me to post it here.

Saying that, the article definitely needs to be read in context with it's medium, a tabloid who just cares about profit and which is aimed at a certain target market.

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah I dunno B, I'm not so sure how many are buying into this stuff. Beyond - in the Irish context - the environs of Montrose or TV3's Loose Women Midday, with its coterie of well coopered cacklers.
....................
In the media sure, but "when the rubber meets the road" as our Yank cousins would say, reality is the biggest challenge of all. And that reality tends to prove that "mature, independent, confident women, I don't need no man, but really I do" who self describe themselves as such are up there in the deluded olympics with every middle aged and up bald man who thinks he looks like Patrick Steward/Sean Connery/Jason Statham and can pull the blonde barmaid working her way through university. Did'ya see the way she looked at me lads...

That's disgust you mong, disgust at avoiding beer breath oul lads her da's age, so that she can get some extra to help with the rent, while she's boning up on her biochemistry books.

It's just that the deluded women are given far more airtime. In TVland at least. Mostly because in that section of the media it's mostly made up of women of a similar bent. In Hollywoodland where it's more men of that type that's why you're more likely to see your Brad Pitts and the like paired off with near embryos in tube tops. It is what it is.

Yep, numbers wise I'd agree that (hopefully) it's not a majority of people who buy into this type of propaganda. For those that do, it probably does lead to a type of self-fulfilling prophecy and when 'reality bites', it's easy to have your believes reinforced by 'stories' like this one, rather than look in the mirror.

Putting the dating side of it to one side, it's when one sided media propaganda like this starts having real life implications for everyone that we've to keep an eye on, even if it's only 'softening' up public opinion so that the likes of 'positive' discrimination gender quotas get on the books with little or no discussion/opposition.

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye B, but as a worthwhile example of how that should work it's not a good one, given it seems to be mostly populated by little Englanders, reactionaries and dribblers on day release. But I suppose that's the risk one takes when all comers are welcomed/encouraged. The nitwits tend to have the most polished keyboards and vocal chords. *looks at keyboard. Realises the irony. Crap...

Yep, agreed, the DM comment section might not be the most savory example of free speech, but at least readers of that 'story' got an opportunity to read some alternative realistic views on it.

H3llR4iser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that really the case? The poster H3llr4iser mar this exact point 2 posts before yours ;

Maybe H3llr4iser is part of the dreaded media. Or else it's not just the media who use this image.

Some men can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault.
Some women can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault. This notion is more about making the same old point than commenting on anything in reality.

Oh hold on, I see what you're doing here - fine, but please let me make a clarification

Both situations DO exist; What is important is to be objective enough to recognize reality and make the proper distinctions.

The super-insecure, socially challenged "nerd" type IS NOT an invention of the media; They exist for real and come in both male and female flavour, although for some reason or the other the former seems to be vastly outnumbering the latter. Being involved in IT for the last two decades, I can guarantee you that I've met an absolute tonne of them through College and then work; I'm sure that at least in the past, an external observer would have easily classified me in the group - I'm a rather extreme introvert who had to learn how to be sociable for the sake of professional and personal life quality

It is obvious that a lack of social aptitude will put someone of a rather dramatic backfoot - just about anybody else in the room will seem more appealing and lively. A simple, hard boiled reality of life and interaction.

It is however also undeniable that the reaction to these personality traits are often unjustifiably hostile; Not enjoying being the centre of the attention, being shy, enjoying things most people can't or don't want to understand does not make someone a bad person nor "undesirable" - and it is evident that, in this specific situation, there is quite a bit of cultural influence from the media. It's also interesting to see how it is changing over time - when I was a teenager, the simple mention you had anything to do with computers would make people run a mile; Now it's just a normal thing, even a viable topic of conversation. Maybe the cool kids in 2136 will be chatting about Schrodinger's cat at pool parties

Lastly, let me cover the concept of "creep" - it's a term that boils my p1ss; Actually no - it sublimates it (nerd reference alert!).

It's essentially a very offensive term (look past the "undesirable man" meaning, it actually implies "disgusting" and even "revolting" characteristics) that is nonchalantly thrown around, mostly (yet not exclusively) by women, to tar any guy they don't like; And most of the media are indeed culprit for condoning and even spreading the use of it. It's perfectly fine not to like, or even dislike, somebody - but it doesn't give you the right to offend that person.

El_Duderino 09

H3llR4iser wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that really the case? The poster H3llr4iser mar this exact point 2 posts before yours ;

Maybe H3llr4iser is part of the dreaded media. Or else it's not just the media who use this image.

Some men can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault.
Some women can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault. This notion is more about making the same old point than commenting on anything in reality.

Oh hold on, I see what you're doing here - fine, but please let me make a clarification

Both situations DO exist; What is important is to be objective enough to recognize reality and make the proper distinctions.

The super-insecure, socially challenged "nerd" type IS NOT an invention of the media; They exist for real and come in both male and female flavour, although for some reason or the other the former seems to be vastly outnumbering the latter. Being involved in IT for the last two decades, I can guarantee you that I've met an absolute tonne of them through College and then work; I'm sure that at least in the past, an external observer would have easily classified me in the group - I'm a rather extreme introvert who had to learn how to be sociable for the sake of professional and personal life quality

It is obvious that a lack of social aptitude will put someone of a rather dramatic backfoot - just about anybody else in the room will seem more appealing and lively. A simple, hard boiled reality of life and interaction.

It is however also undeniable that the reaction to these personality traits are often unjustifiably hostile; Not enjoying being the centre of the attention, being shy, enjoying things most people can't or don't want to understand does not make someone a bad person nor "undesirable" - and it is evident that, in this specific situation, there is quite a bit of cultural influence from the media. It's also interesting to see how it is changing over time - when I was a teenager, the simple mention you had anything to do with computers would make people run a mile; Now it's just a normal thing, even a viable topic of conversation. Maybe the cool kids in 2136 will be chatting about Schrodinger's cat at pool parties

Lastly, let me cover the concept of "creep" - it's a term that boils my p1ss; Actually no - it sublimates it (nerd reference alert!).

It's essentially a very offensive term (look past the "undesirable man" meaning, it actually implies "disgusting" and even "revolting" characteristics) that is nonchalantly thrown around, mostly (yet not exclusively) by women, to tar any guy they don't like; And most of the media are indeed culprit for condoning and even spreading the use of it. It's perfectly fine not to like, or even dislike, somebody - but it doesn't give you the right to offend that person.

So this stereotype does exist as you outline and use in an example, but the media is wrong if it uses the same stereotype in the same context?

If someone is less appealing to the opposite sex, it's hardly up to the opposite sex to change what they find appealing to include the individual in question. Yet that seems to be the implication. If a man is socially inept and can't find a partner, then it's the media's fault or the feminist's fault or the women's fault.

Maybe it's just a function of society that some people partner up and others don't. That goes for men and women.

Calhoun

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So this stereotype does exist as you outline and use in an example, but the media is wrong if it uses the same stereotype in the same context?

If someone is less appealing to the opposite sex, it's hardly up to the opposite sex to change what they find appealing to include the individual in question. Yet that seems to be the implication. If a man is socially inept and can't find a partner, then it's the media's fault or the feminist's fault or the women's fault.

Maybe it's just a function of society that some people partner up and others don't. That goes for men and women.

Is that not what was argued earlier in this thread ? That the actions of these people male or female are what has them single ?

El_Duderino 09

Calhoun wrote: »

Is that not what was argued earlier in this thread ? That the actions of these people male or female are what has them single ?

It might be. The consensus tends to hoop in this thread without any noticeable questioning. As long as the conclusion is that fault lies with women, feminism and the media, the arguments take various forms.

Calhoun

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It might be. The consensus tends to hoop in this thread without any noticeable questioning. As long as the conclusion is that fault lies with women, feminism and the media, the arguments take various forms.

Yah for sure I think there is an element of blame on both sides it's always easier to blame outwards than reflect inwards.

I do however think there is some merit in the effect isms have on people. Does a certain ideological view point close off an ability to compromise.

El_Duderino 09

Calhoun wrote: »

Yah for sure I think there is an element of blame on both sides it's always easier to blame outwards than reflect inwards.

I do however think there is some merit in the effect isms have on people. Does a certain ideological view point close off an ability to compromise.

Well it depends on what the problem is and who needs to be blamed.

The most acceptable view on this forum is that the career women are probably feminists who only want to marry up and can't find men who interest them - women/feminists fault. On the other hand is men who can't find a relationship which is because the women dong want them because of the media portrayals of these guys as nerds - media/women/feminists fault.

The premises of the argument don't seem to matter in this thread as long as the conclusion is that the blame lies with the media/women/feminists.

Calhoun

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well it depends on what the problem is and who needs to be blamed.

The most acceptable view on this forum is that the career women are probably feminists who only want to marry up and can't find men who interest them - women/feminists fault. On the other hand is men who can't find a relationship which is because the women dong want them because of the media portrayals of these guys as nerds - media/women/feminists fault.

The premises of the argument don't seem to matter in this thread as long as the conclusion is that the blame lies with the media/women/feminists.

Well I don't think that is the premise overall the discussion was of an article in which a female author was doing exactly as you have said.

This is a men's forum sonof course there will be more with a view like you have described.

Why are you policing it though ? Don't do the same in the woman's forum?

El_Duderino 09

Calhoun wrote: »

Well I don't think that is the premise overall the discussion was of an article in which a female author was doing exactly as you have said.

This is a men's forum sonof course there will be more with a view like you have described.

Why are you policing it though ? Don't do the same in the woman's forum?

I'm not policing anything, I haven't asks anyone to do anything. I'm simply pointing out the double standard. I find this forum useful but I don't think the pity parade that media/women/feminists are to blame for all the woes every man faces, is helpful. When it's blatant, it should be challenged. Would you disagree?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

but I don't think the pity parade that media/women/feminists are to blame for all the woes every man faces, is helpful.

thats your strawman though, nobody has said that.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

but I don't think the pity parade that media/women/feminists are to blame for all the woes every man faces, is helpful.

thats your strawman though, nobody has said that.

Read through the last few pages and see if you can seriously stand by that. It's a ream of lamenting the media and reasons why it's all the women's fault anyway. Not to forget your own comment on post 6407 which suggests that "feminism must have rotted their brains somewhat".

Doesn't seem like a straw man if you read back.

Calhoun

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not policing anything, I haven't asks anyone to do anything. I'm simply pointing out the double standard. I find this forum useful but I don't think the pity parade that media/women/feminists are to blame for all the woes every man faces, is helpful. When it's blatant, it should be challenged. Would you disagree?

Sorry for the delay, I am at a scarecrow festival and signal is crappy.

I don't disagree with your intent but I wonder about the delivery maybe I am taking it wrong but you seem to be very annoyed or offended by what you see in this forum . Much like the ladies forum this is also a safe place for men to discuss stuff

Not that we need the he-man woman hating club (little rascals ) but others have said similar to you and they aren't coming at it so blunt.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Read through the last few pages and see if you can seriously stand by that. It's a ream of lamenting the media and reasons why it's all the women's fault anyway. Not to forget your own comment on post 6407 which suggests that "feminism must have rotted their brains somewhat".

Doesn't seem like a straw man if you read back.

but who said "everyman" and "all the woes" . its clear we are talking about marginal statistics here and possibly looking at how either sex ignores or games the current situation. As for the media well its clear it has a fairly consistent pro female bias and isnt neutral, surely its good to point this out if we want a society where both sexes are cherished?

H3llR4iser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So this stereotype does exist as you outline and use in an example, but the media is wrong if it uses the same stereotype in the same context?

If someone is less appealing to the opposite sex, it's hardly up to the opposite sex to change what they find appealing to include the individual in question. Yet that seems to be the implication. If a man is socially inept and can't find a partner, then it's the media's fault or the feminist's fault or the women's fault.

Maybe it's just a function of society that some people partner up and others don't. That goes for men and women.

Don't twist my words.

What the media does is take these and make them into stereotypes, affixing more undesirable characteristics to a specific group of people who, on their own, already had way more than enough difficulties in life.

Moreover, they actively extend the stereotype by binding it to certain jobs, hobbies and preferences - e.g. computer programmers, Sci-Fi fans, Comic book lovers, "Bronies" and so on. All treated like they're unwashed shut-ins, living in a basement filthy with discarded Doritos bags and half-drank bottles of Mountain Dew. There are such cases, I give you that, but they're not representative of 100% of the sample.

It's easy to see how somebody who didn't have any specific opinion nor idea about it, would easily be swayed but such influence - "So you like Star Trek eh? Sorry, I remembered I need to wash my hair straightener tonight, bye!". Most of the times, the person reacting like this has absolutely no idea what the subject actually is; An ex-girlfriend of mine "hated" anything that was "Star-something"...turned out, she had never watched a single episode, movie or whatever of anything related. She picked up her "hate" on nerd types shown in movies and TV series.

Is it the only differentiator? By all means NO; For the millionth time, there are undeniably off putting characteristics that apply to a general level - we as humans are intrinsically programmed to respond to certain cues, be it a nicely shaped face, a curvaceous body, muscly arms or a confident attitude, and dislike others.

Can these preferences amplified? They can; And by all means, some people are indeed just not meant / made to "pair off", absolutely; We should all understand that, and maybe stop demonizing these individuals for still having sexual and romantic desires despite their difficulties, if what I mean is clear - afterall, we do live in an hypersexualized, hyper-romanticised world.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that really the case? The poster H3llr4iser mar this exact point 2 posts before yours ;



Maybe H3llr4iser is part of the dreaded media. Or else it's not just the media who use this image.

Some men can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault.
Some women can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault. This notion is more about making the same old point than commenting on anything in reality.

Oddly neither myself or h3llraiser made any link to feminism, yet you made that leap. I suspect your post sayd more about your mindset than anyone elses....

iptba

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Lastly, let me cover the concept of "creep" - it's a term that boils my p1ss; Actually no - it sublimates it (nerd reference alert!).

It's essentially a very offensive term (look past the "undesirable man" meaning, it actually implies "disgusting" and even "revolting" characteristics) that is nonchalantly thrown around, mostly (yet not exclusively) by women, to tar any guy they don't like; And most of the media are indeed culprit for condoning and even spreading the use of it. It's perfectly fine not to like, or even dislike, somebody - but it doesn't give you the right to offend that person.

What Britney Spears does in this short clip (37 seconds) could be described as creep shaming, though the word creep isn't explicitly used:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAEwDZ0b9-U

Here's a list of some other shaming tactics men can face:
‘The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics’
https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

Carlos Orange

No

France is literally weighing men down so women can compete.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/racing/2017/02/03/female-jockeys-france-receive-2kg-allowance/

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that really the case? The poster H3llr4iser mar this exact point 2 posts before yours ;



Maybe H3llr4iser is part of the dreaded media. Or else it's not just the media who use this image.

Some men can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault.
Some women can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault. This notion is more about making the same old point than commenting on anything in reality.

Oddly neither myself or h3llraiser made any link to feminism, yet you made that leap. I suspect your post sayd more about your mindset than anyone elses....

You're right. Your posts were limited to bemoaning the media and didn't mention feminism. My observation isnt limited to your posts

Pawwed Rig

I was expecting this guy to get fired

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40859004

but to fire him and then talk about free speech is slightly absurd.

El_Duderino 09

H3llR4iser wrote: »

What the media does is take these and make them into stereotypes, affixing more undesirable characteristics to a specific group of people who, on their own, already had way more than enough difficulties in life.

Moreover, they actively extend the stereotype by binding it to certain jobs, hobbies and preferences - e.g. computer programmers, Sci-Fi fans, Comic book lovers, "Bronies" and so on. All treated like they're unwashed shut-ins, living in a basement filthy with discarded Doritos bags and half-drank bottles of Mountain Dew. There are such cases, I give you that, but they're not representative of 100% of the sample.

It's easy to see how somebody who didn't have any specific opinion nor idea about it, would easily be swayed but such influence - "So you like Star Trek eh? Sorry, I remembered I need to wash my hair straightener tonight, bye!". Most of the times, the person reacting like this has absolutely no idea what the subject actually is; An ex-girlfriend of mine "hated" anything that was "Star-something"...turned out, she had never watched a single episode, movie or whatever of anything related. She picked up her "hate" on nerd types shown in movies and TV series.

Is it the only differentiator? By all means NO; For the millionth time, there are undeniably off putting characteristics that apply to a general level - we as humans are intrinsically programmed to respond to certain cues, be it a nicely shaped face, a curvaceous body, muscly arms or a confident attitude, and dislike others.

Can these preferences amplified? They can; And by all means, some people are indeed just not meant / made to "pair off", absolutely; We should all understand that, and maybe stop demonizing these individuals for still having sexual and romantic desires despite their difficulties, if what I mean is clear - afterall, we do live in an hypersexualized, hyper-romanticised world.

I didn't mean to twist your words and thanks for elaborating on the point.

You mention the media effect on your girlfriends attitude to Star Trek. First, it didn't stop her going out with you. I love Star Trek and it never held me back in conversations. If it comes up then you own it like any other quirk of your personality.

Secondly, is it much different to the way shows aimed mostly at men talk about shows aimed mostly at women like Sex and the City? Family Guy did a bit where Brian said "SATC, that's the show about 3hookers and their mom, right?". I'd imagine plenty of men have a negative view on SATC without having seen very much of it.

It's a bit precious to get so offended. Do the same posters get that offended by every stereotype used in media? This situation is ripe for the word "triggered".

Carlos Orange

No

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I was expecting this guy to get fired

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40859004

but to fire him and then talk about free speech is slightly absurd.

I find this bit most strange "To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK". I haven't read the full document but I'm pretty sure it talked about genders not colleagues. It is a bit like someone saying women are shorter than men and then firing them for claiming people they work with are short.

Wibbs

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I was expecting this guy to get fired

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40859004

but to fire him and then talk about free speech is slightly absurd.

Well "free speech" is an idea, not a reality. It's a idea with culturally agreed limits.

TBH PR I'd have fired him in a heartbeat, not for his opinions but that he was so monumentality bloody stupid and lacking in awareness about how this would have gone over and how it would have affected people in the company in practical terms.

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

Well "free speech" is an idea, not a reality. It's a idea with culturally agreed limits.

TBH PR I'd have fired him in a heartbeat, not for his opinions but that he was so monumentality bloody stupid and lacking in awareness about how this would have gone over and how it would have affected people in the company in practical terms.

I'd need more information, did he abuse the platform? I'd agree that if someone just emailed it around he'd be taking liberties but if its an internal discussion forum, and google allegedly promote out of the box thinking then this can be played as google being Big Brother

Carlos Orange

No

Wibbs wrote: »

lacking in awareness about how this would have gone over and how it would have affected people in the company in practical terms.

I don't think he lacked awareness about how it would go over since he said people feel the need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. He might not have expected it to be leaked to the media which would be a bit silly if true.

Wibbs

maybe

psinno wrote: »

I don't think he lacked awareness about how it would go over since he said people feel the need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility.

Which in my mind P would make him an even bigger idiot lacking in basic awareness.

who_me

Was reading the cnn.com front page earlier and found the juxtaposition of some of the stories fairly interesting. (It's since changed, I think they rotate the stories fairly frequently).

- The story about the Google exec being fired for his anti-diversity memo.
- A story about how women will always get window or aisle, never middle seats on an airline (Vistara) due to "the scourge of manspreading". (I'd have thought wider seats and more legroom would be far more effective, but I guess that costs money).
- A story on "how to avoid the male gaze".

I'm not equating the three stories, but can't help but feel the acceptability of the stories is based on the gender being referenced and not the negative generalisation itself.

ligerdub

who_me wrote:

Was reading the cnn.com).

Say no more.

Carlos Orange

No

Wibbs wrote: »

Which in my mind P would make him an even bigger idiot lacking in basic awareness.

People standing up for their beliefs despite knowing there will be opposition from people in power isn't necessarily a lack of awareness. It might or might not be.

Pawwed Rig

Wibbs wrote: »

Well "free speech" is an idea, not a reality. It's a idea with culturally agreed limits.

TBH PR I'd have fired him in a heartbeat, not for his opinions but that he was so monumentality bloody stupid and lacking in awareness about how this would have gone over and how it would have affected people in the company in practical terms.

He was absolutely aware that he could be fired yet did it anyway.

H3llR4iser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I didn't mean to twist your words and thanks for elaborating on the point.

You mention the media effect on your girlfriends attitude to Star Trek. First, it didn't stop her going out with you. I love Star Trek and it never held me back in conversations. If it comes up then you own it like any other quirk of your personality.

Because I didn't mention it until a little bit into the relationship, and it basically came out more or less like "the new Star Trek movie came out" and her going "bah, that's stupid!". It sparked the whole discussion; One of her points was actually "You don't look like someone who likes Star Whatever!". Also, I think you figured this, that relationship didn't last much longer after that specific conversation

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Secondly, is it much different to the way shows aimed mostly at men talk about shows aimed mostly at women like Sex and the City? Family Guy did a bit where Brian said "SATC, that's the show about 3hookers and their mom, right?". I'd imagine plenty of men have a negative view on SATC without having seen very much of it.

It's a bit precious to get so offended. Do the same posters get that offended by every stereotype used in media? This situation is ripe for the word "triggered".

It's very different; We're talking about comparing a show whose central point is, essentially, making over-the-top fun of various cultural tropes (especially the ones considered mostly "positive" or "desirable") as opposed to shows/movies which portray lifelike or at least vaguely plausible scenarios and situations; Poking fun at specific people, occupations or interests has a very different meaning in each of the two.

I don't know where you get the "getting offended" or "triggered" angle, it's beyond forced. It's just observing and accepting reality - are there specific hobbies, fields of study and occupations that have long since been portrayed as "undesirable" in most mainstream media? Yes, there are; Can this further affect their perception on the part of society? It indeed can and does.

silverharp

I found the comment about not looking like a Star Trek fan amusing. I guess its normal to have preconceptions of people who watch certain shows but it wouldn't make me think less of someone because they liked a particular show.

Sleepy

I dunno, I certainly tend to think less of someone if I find out they're a fan of Sex and the City. I've sat through enough episodes (and regretably even the movies) to have a valid opinion on it and it's no more than escapist consumer porn with a side dose of "don't worry, a rich man will come along and fix all of your mistakes for you despite you having no redeeming character traits that would make you worthy of his time and attention". /vomit

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're right. Your posts were limited to bemoaning the media and didn't mention feminism. My observation isnt limited to your posts

Oh so your post is just 'bemoaning' then. Seems logical since there seems to be no connection to whats gone before on thread as far as i can tell and you happily quote me for no apparent reason...

H3llR4iser

silverharp wrote: »

I found the comment about not looking like a Star Trek fan amusing. I guess its normal to have preconceptions of people who watch certain shows but it wouldn't make me think less of someone because they liked a particular show.

In a nutshell, in her mind, Star Trek fans were morbidly obese neck beard types, living in some sort of permanent delusion about being in the show and unable to think about anything else; It seems silly, but come think of it - if you're never been in contact with something, have never known anybody into it and have only been exposed to its portrayal in a movie/TV series, you subconsciously form an idea based on that portrayal.

Sometimes, Star Trek fans exercise, don't live in a basement / attic, work a normal job and just talk and act like any other guy; Sometimes, they even look like these three:


Before anyone asks yes, they're "real" fans who just go to conventions in ST uniforms, they aren't "boot models"; Although they did raise to a bit of internet fame (as you can see, the picture is from TrekNews.net)...guess why? Essentially, because...yep, you wouldn't think they're Star Trek fans by just looking at them...the irony . Sometimes, the portrayal even affects the people inside the group.

Also, the power of portrayals/stereotypes is immense and affect us all to some level; I've relatively recently experienced it myself when a candidate came in for an interview at work: she showed up at the door in the company's Engineering/IT department, incidentally while I was going to the loo (which is outside), asking if she was at the right place. I asked her who she was meeting with, because she might need to go to a different floor - only afterwards, I realized what had happened: tall, pretty, nice dress, perfect make up - my subconscious had automatically decided "Sales/Marketing/HR". She was a software dev and, it turns out, a damn bloody good one at it; I felt like a proper idiot

Sleepy wrote: »

I dunno, I certainly tend to think less of someone if I find out they're a fan of Sex and the City. I've sat through enough episodes (and regretably even the movies) to have a valid opinion on it and it's no more than escapist consumer porn with a side dose of "don't worry, a rich man will come along and fix all of your mistakes for you despite you having no redeeming character traits that would make you worthy of his time and attention". /vomit

Mmm...no, and not just because of my own example - some of the most amazing ladies I've ever met have...guilty pleasures in the form of liking shows you wouldn't think of; We're talking about smart, witty, competent, self-confident young women who also happened to enjoy...Coronation Street or East Enders. I wouldn't watch ten second of footage from these shows, but the fact someone likes them, clearly, doesn't mean anything other than that - that they like these soaps.

On the other hand, 'though, I would be a bit wary of someone whose only hobby/pasttime/interest was to watch TV (in general)...and there are a lot of people like that.