Modern women want emotionally intelligent and kind men and are then stereotyped, blamed, and gaslit when they don't accept immature and manipulative men instead.
Emotionally intelligent and kind men also want emotionally intelligent and kind women.
I don't want to say much more beyond this, but I don't think that ideal is the standard behavior for either sex. The common person wants someone better than them and they're not entitled to it.
that’s interesting, I’ve always wanted people who were complementary to me, not strictly “better” - I want people I can learn from, and I hope to reciprocate and be someone my partner can learn from in turn.
Talking about differences between genders lands you in hot water quickly nowadays. People may simply wish not to discuss it or think it should not be discussed, hence the downvotes.
Men are famous for hitting on women. Men are even more famous for doing this behind screens, like thru DMs or Tinder.
Women WILL be pursued by every man that wants them. Then, the women already has loads of guys who aren't at the top echelon of attractiveness, so naturally when THEY initiate, it's to people who wouldn't initiate with them.
It's literally the same reason you could easily see dudes trying to swipe on women better than them: people want to date someone "out of their league"
Your comment is deliberately omitting the other half, and I'm open to correction: while they might want the former, what is more desirable, is higher social status, regardless of emotional profile. Kind men who are not socially respected, and who do not offer resource security are largely sidelined as uninteresting. With good reason, too.
We are sleepwalking into disaster in all the directions.
I think this movement will collapse and people will return to traditions/religion.
Others part of society that don’t will self extinguish as is already apparent in the birth rate and divorce rate.
I appreciate your analysis and projection without filters.
We have to see clearly what is coming to us.
> I think this movement will collapse and people will return to traditions/religion. Others part of society that don’t will self extinguish as is already apparent in the birth rate and divorce rate.
That will probably take a long time, as the "part of society that ... will self extinguish" will parasitically attach itself to the parts that don't (e.g. through compulsory education and mass media), dragging everything down in the process.
Luckily, this may be a convenient way to dispose of all the excess labor that capital will no longer will need once it's been made obsolete by AI and automation.
There's already too many humans on the planet. A reduction would be really welcome. Humanity can't keep growing forever. The planet can only sustain so many. I think a reduction will actually stave off disaster though in terms of climate change we're already too late.
I don't think the reduction in birth rate has anything to do with religion and a conservative religious society sounds like a nightmare to me personally.
For me the reason for not having kids is simply that life is already expensive enough even with a double income, and life is much more fulfilling without the responsibility of having to raise kids. I've seen so much of the world that I wouldn't have if I'd be rushing between work, school and judo clubs.
I think it's a really good thing that people no longer have to have kids for economic / pension reasons (or lack of decent contraception) but just have them if they really want to. Personally I don't and I don't think I'd be a good father so it's better not to have them.
It’s the new atheist religion:
- human are bad, there are too many, we are a cancer on the pristine planet, it would better if we disappear (original sin)
I think:
- We live in the most abundant and easy time ever in the history of mankind.
- The news, media and education have completely demoralised people, we are either victim or oppressor, no longer the hero of our lives
- Our religious traditions was the backbone of our society and sanity, as we cast it away everything break down.
In what way is this post "analysis" rather than ham-handed moral posturing?
This kind of moral panic has galvanized conservatives ever since urbanization, industrialization, and first-wave feminism in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Its impressive how everyone sounding this alarm seems to suffer from (s)elective amnesia, championing the good ol' days without admitting that doing so is more a political posture than a historical one.
I think religion (christianity) is recipes that worked for the human race for thousands of years. Now, don’t get me wrong, a lot of stuff is no longer useful, is not used or need updates.
But on the other hand we change things at a speed that we can’t keep up as a society.
My mother had 8 siblings, I had one and and most now will have zero on won’t exist. A society that does that disappear in a few generations. Much of the west subsist on immigration at the moment. What that mean is that our civilisation will change drastically or disappear.
Personally, I was an atheist scientific that rejected religion for most of my life. Recently to my great surprise I find out that the wisdom I was seeking was there all along.
At the same time, I don’t want to believe in fairy tales and the bearded magician in the sky, but there is a deeper symbolic meaning hiding behind the stories for those ready to dig deeper.
It's the other way around. Older men simp over their friend's daughters. It will bring them to ruin.
It used to be the boys who simped over the daughters. After the Anakin-esque Marian dramas ended, the Fathers started to simp.
The real problem is the complete destruction of the image of women. You stay on porn for some time and you will forget that modesty and imagination ever existed.
Porn also encourages a kind of erotic symbolism divorced from a real human. Normal erotic symbolism focuses on the hair, the smell, ect of a real loved woman. Engaging in the unnatural, abnormal symbolism, ensures that man's desire will be alone, never to find 'grounding' on a real person. (Havelock ellis mentions this idea).
Porn gives back almost no feedback except for sight and sound. The men who become accustomed to this, are satsified with a weak feminine response. It's not wise to capture weak women, a man is better pleased going for the strong feminine response.
Porn is here to stay, sure. But engaging with it is illogical.
>In the Western world, "modern women" want established older men to take care of them, or complete independence and hookups that they consider "empowering."
Uhhh… Being taken care of by an older man is not modern sensibility. That’s an outdated gender role thing. Complete independence and hookups is a much more modern aim.
Fair, but I see that as just an evolution of porn, in the same way that daily pills, hormonal inserts, and the morning after pill are separate technologies, but ultimately all means of "birth control."
If you are not a fascist, misogynist dick who supports policies harmful to women, women won't avoid you. Demography is in your favor. You have no excuse.
This post is like someone who has a crap product claiming there is a "market failure" preventing sales. Women can smell misogyny, trumpism, etc. a mile away. Your product sucks. That's why nobody is buying.
This is also why Jordan Peterson is no help. He just makes men think they don't have to abandon odious beliefs if they vacuum the floor and get out in sunlight occasionally. Actually, it's the other way around: Women will tolerate a slob if they are nice. Women will tolerate more than you can imagine.
Do you have some sources for these, or are you just typing "common knowledge" that is almost certainly coming from a massive place of societal bias against women?
Even IF I were to accept the BS that women only care about money, that doesn't excuse the part of the comment that says "complete independence and hookups that they consider 'empowering'", you can see the sneer on this commenter's face as he says that.
It literally is a neckbeard saying 'women don't want to be with me, they only want to be "empowered" by Chad or a sugar baby for Brad'
If you want to acknowledge differences, you must:
* first not make ridiculous generalizations
* second provide sources
* third not try to rug sweep the part of the sentence that gives away its motivations to avoid acknowledging your own prejudice
It's pretty dang hateful to imply women only care about money or being sluts. It's also very telling that MEN who want hookups are merely doing so because they "look for beauty and purity".
I'm honestly enraged, this is ridiculous. Straight out of the 90s shit.
Of course it’s not only money, there is many factors. That’s the thing, it’s often impossible to highlight difference without being cast a strawman and exaggerations.
It’s a difference in the sense that men don’t care about it for their partner, it might even be a negative where for women it’s high in the list.
Again it’s a general pattern, it’s not everybody, there is exception, yada yada.
I see you are enraged and protest to this, but it’s based in biology. Women have to care for babies and thus are wired to look for a men that is taller, stronger, and have more resources(money, power). The biological reason is that while they care for little kids they need their partner to provide and protect.
That’s why it’s not a factor for men, they don’t need it, they look for beauty(good genes) and fertility(curves, yought)
So a men need to be successful, tall, strong, confident, good looking to maximise his chances
A women: beautiful, young, in good shape, happy/smiling/caring
There is plenty of exception, and people will settle for less or have different desires, but everyone know that’s the general rules.
Yeah. The "modern woman" is definitely to blame, and not the stagnant wages, exploding housing prices, and rising inequality--not to mention weak social safety net--that make raising children cost prohibitive.
