Does male homosexuality relax tensions in society?

[Luke_Krebbs_Ewing]

Does that equate lots of gay sex with little people? (I mean size, not age).
A friend wants to know.

Leave me out of this buddy! I should never have got you to ask that for me.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I'm trying to blame women for much of male violence, people. Will anybody help me out??

 

[Frank Underwood]

I'm trying to blame women for much of male violence, people. Will anybody help me out??

Many women are master provocateurs who've been taught they can get away with doing anything to a man because men aren't allowed to retaliate.

The problem is sometimes they do. Bill Burr has a great bit on the subject.

If you're referring to male violence in general, I know some women get turned on seeing their man beat up another guy. It plays into the "protector" role many women want men to fill. Of course, some women are naturally brutal. We've seen that with the likes of Margaret Thatcher, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, and Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure why society infantilizes women and views them all as innocent doves, as they can be quite vicious.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Are you talking about male violence against women?

Not specifically. Just male violence in general. My question being: how much of a role do women. as a group, have in helping cause it?

And has the historical suppression or abject disapproval of male homosexuality been implemented by women and their needs to be the recipient of all male attention and resources (except when she doesn't). Affecting and squelching platonic affection even between straight men.

And what are the long-term ramifications of that -- how much does male anger simmer and stew and then erupt as the result of that dynamic and expectation?

Sure, in recent years, western cultural "acceptance" of homosexuality in general is greater than it once was, but it hasn't really changed those western expectations of what qualifies as "a real man." The outrageous demands of the "LGBTQIA+" and "queer" community have not resulted in dispelling stereotypes but instead reaffirming them.

So any thinking gayish guy doesn't want to have anything to do with it. So why then wouldn't straight men still want to avoid the stereotype, still feeling unable to engage in the kinds of platonic affection that have always been discouraged?

If so, many women are master provocateurs who've been taught they can get away with doing anything to a man because men aren't allowed to retaliate.

Again, stats show that in hetero households with mutual domestic violence is initiated by women and men 50/50, both partners smacking each other knowing they'll get smacked back. But in households with unilateral domestic violence, it's initiated by women 70% of the time.

That's something you won't much hear. And violence against men -- or by women -- just isn't taken very seriously... And when there is any attempt to discuss it, women conveniently fall back on the "well, men are bigger and stronger" trope they only seem to selectively remember when it's useful. (And a man's superior physical strength is irrelevant if he's not hitting her back).

Let's also face the fact that ugly stereotypes about men and women have a basis in reality, although sometimes applied unfairly to individuals.

There is a restless churning in women that exists, while men tend to be more complacent. And there is a shit-testing pattern which a lot of women apply to see how far they're allowed to go (perhaps biologically hardwired in, as she has to constantly test in order to check if her male partners are "strong" protectors and providers).

In the media, men are accused of "ordering up women like pizzas" on dating apps, but that's not supported by the data: since the dating app era started, women's sexual activity has gone up (slightly) but male sexual activity has gone off a cliff, it's crashed. The reason being that the women's standards are much, much higher, all the women going after the top tier 2 or 3% of men, while the men's demands are much more modest.

It's true that 99% of the spree shooters or serial killers are men. But very, very few men are spree shooters or serial killers.

Why do so many wives overtly or covertly act to isolate their husbands from his male friends, while the reverse happens far less often?

And the default setting we have regarding our perceptions of men and women are wildly different. We tend to view the very best of female behavior as being what women are at their core, while viewing the very worst of male behavior as being what men are at their core. As if we're one vast sea of Mother Teresas ("if you'd just stop raping us!") and Ted Bundys with privilege.

Where does that come from? Voltaire said that if you want to know who rules you, then just ask who you're not allowed to criticize...

And we tend to prefer women who lie -- and get caught lying -- to men who might be proven innocent. (Amber Heard was caught on audiotape, audio played in that May 2022 trial, admitting that it was she who was the abuser and what she found so frustrating about Johnny Depp was that he refused to fight with her and that he would leave the room to avoid such conflicts, Heard asserting that if their case went to court, Depp would lose because he's a man and "I'm a thin blonde woman." And Heard's legal history of domestic abuse -- beating her female lover years earlier -- wasn't allowed in the trial. Can you imagine a man's domestic violence history being kept out of the record??)

But Heard was her own worst witness on the stand, and so the jury found the case for Depp. That verdict instantly set off a fire storm in the media, a very feministicized media, claiming that Depp's geriatric sex appeal and star power somehow swayed the jury. 6 months later, centenarian Gloria Steinem came out to defend Heard, so once the queen of second and third wave had spoken, dozens of feminist groups came out to support her... Not because they really believed Amber Heard, but because they knew she'd been caught -- so that's who they circle the wagons around.

Does this help women who've been genuinely abused? Of course not. If anything, it unfairly hurts the credibility of women who are telling the truth as we stumble over ourselves to defend all the women who lie.

So why would the feminists do this, when it hurts women who've been genuinely abused?

I think the answer is fairly simple: feminists don't really care very much about women, and they certainly don't care very much about women who've been legitimately abused. Feminists care about feminists, and they care most about feminists like Amber Heard who get caught red-handed lying.

That "believe all women" standard is not about protecting a woman's right to not be raped or exploited or abused, it's instead about protecting a woman's right to lie and to lie with impunity (even when, or especially when, she gets caught in her lies).

Sounds like a bunch of oppression going on there.

But male disposability is so important to the survival of society, we're not allowed to talk about it or even admit it exists (some feminists even assert that male disposability in war is actually part of male privilege). And female entitlement is so pronounced, we're not allowed to talk about that.

Men expect to be maligned, justly or not. Women go into major freak out when they're insulted, collectively or individually -- stunned, shocked and furious, which automatically elicits angry questions about "why do you hate women??" and accusations of "misogyny." Always.

Not to get sidetracked, but the gender stuff (not the transgender junk from recent years) is so very interesting.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

This sheds an interesting light on the male-female dynamic -- if you grant any credence to such spooky topicality:

Betty Eadie in her 1994 book talks about her prolonged Near-Death Experience in 1973. To make a lengthy story short, she went thru that tunnel we've all heard about, had a few more transitions (numerous NDE subjects report culture specific objects, things they "like," to make the transition less traumatic), experienced a multi-dimensional life review in a matter of seconds, and she eventually would wind up in a room with a Counsel of 13 "male" authority figures to answer her questions.

Being a '60s feminist, she wondered where the "females" were (apparently, we retain a gender of sorts even over there) and she was at first taken aback at women's exclusion from this particular juncture. But it was explained to her that each sex has their role, and that women were more restless and dissatisfied with their situations by nature, while men are more complacent (and men are more emotionally-impacted by women than women are by men, interestingly). So women in excessive power therefore could be dangerous because "when evil overtakes the women, the men will quickly follow."

And Eadie internally knew that this was true, despite her earthly feministic background.

No one was calling for women to be abused or genuinely oppressed or even sidelined, but that if women were allowed to run things too much, it was ultimately dangerous -- even more dangerous than the deeply-flawed men running things, because women as a gender were innately more graspingly dominant and have more influence over men than men do over women. So the more power women have, a kind of blood-in-the-water thing eventually kicks in and then nothing is ever enough. (Remember, Eve was dissatisfied even in literal Paradise, and then bugged wimpy-simpy Adam to take the bait). So not giving women, who already ran society, too much power politically was the only way to keep a comparatively healthy balance.

In other words: when evil overtakes the men, the women can sometimes contain it or rein it in or modulate it, because of the greater influence women have on men; but when evil overtakes the women (which we're not supposed to admit ever happens) the men cannot or will not do anything about it, or even recognize the need to do so.

How that applies to Adam & Steve, and Eve's response to it, is anybody's guess.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Not specifically. Just male violence in general. My question being: how much of a role do women. as a group, have in helping cause it?

And has the historical suppression or abject disapproval of male homosexuality been implemented by women and their needs to be the recipient of all male attention and resources (except when she doesn't). Affecting and squelching platonic affection even between straight men.

And what are the long-term ramifications of that -- how much does male anger simmer and stew and then erupt as the result of that dynamic and expectation?

Sure, in recent years, western cultural "acceptance" of homosexuality in general is greater than it once was, but it hasn't really changed those western expectations of what qualifies as "a real man." The outrageous demands of the "LGBTQIA+" and "queer" community have not resulted in dispelling stereotypes but instead reaffirming them.

So any thinking gayish guy doesn't want to have anything to do with it. So why then wouldn't straight men still want to avoid the stereotype, still feeling unable to engage in the kinds of platonic affection that have always been discouraged?


Again, stats show that in hetero households with mutual domestic violence is initiated by women and men 50/50, both partners smacking each other knowing they'll get smacked back. But in households with unilateral domestic violence, it's initiated by women 70% of the time.

That's something you won't much hear. And violence against men -- or by women -- just isn't taken very seriously... And when there is any attempt to discuss it, women conveniently fall back on the "well, men are bigger and stronger" trope they only seem to selectively remember when it's useful. (And a man's superior physical strength is irrelevant if he's not hitting her back).

Let's also face the fact that ugly stereotypes about men and women have a basis in reality, although sometimes applied unfairly to individuals.

There is a restless churning in women that exists, while men tend to be more complacent. And there is a shit-testing pattern which a lot of women apply to see how far they're allowed to go (perhaps biologically hardwired in, as she has to constantly test in order to check if her male partners are "strong" protectors and providers).

In the media, men are accused of "ordering up women like pizzas" on dating apps, but that's not supported by the data: since the dating app era started, women's sexual activity has gone up (slightly) but male sexual activity has gone off a cliff, it's crashed. The reason being that the women's standards are much, much higher, all the women going after the top tier 2 or 3% of men, while the men's demands are much more modest.

It's true that 99% of the spree shooters or serial killers are men. But very, very few men are spree shooters or serial killers.

Why do so many wives overtly or covertly act to isolate their husbands from his male friends, while the reverse happens far less often?

And the default setting we have regarding our perceptions of men and women are wildly different. We tend to view the very best of female behavior as being what women are at their core, while viewing the very worst of male behavior as being what men are at their core. As if we're one vast sea of Mother Teresas ("if you'd just stop raping us!") and Ted Bundys with privilege.

Where does that come from? Voltaire said that if you want to know who rules you, then just ask who you're not allowed to criticize...

And we tend to prefer women who lie -- and get caught lying -- to men who might be proven innocent. (Amber Heard was caught on audiotape, audio played in that May 2022 trial, admitting that it was she who was the abuser and what she found so frustrating about Johnny Depp was that he refused to fight with her and that he would leave the room to avoid such conflicts, Heard asserting that if their case went to court, Depp would lose because he's a man and "I'm a thin blonde woman." And Heard's legal history of domestic abuse -- beating her female lover years earlier -- wasn't allowed in the trial. Can you imagine a man's domestic violence history being kept out of the record??)

But Heard was her own worst witness on the stand, and so the jury found the case for Depp. That verdict instantly set off a fire storm in the media, a very feministicized media, claiming that Depp's geriatric sex appeal and star power somehow swayed the jury. 6 months later, centenarian Gloria Steinem came out to defend Heard, so once the queen of second and third wave had spoken, dozens of feminist groups came out to support her... Not because they really believed Amber Heard, but because they knew she'd been caught -- so that's who they circle the wagons around.

Does this help women who've been genuinely abused? Of course not. If anything, it unfairly hurts the credibility of women who are telling the truth as we stumble over ourselves to defend all the women who lie.

So why would the feminists do this, when it hurts women who've been genuinely abused?

I think the answer is fairly simple: feminists don't really care very much about women, and they certainly don't care very much about women who've been legitimately abused. Feminists care about feminists, and they care most about feminists like Amber Heard who get caught red-handed lying.

That "believe all women" standard is not about protecting a woman's right to not be raped or exploited or abused, it's instead about protecting a woman's right to lie and to lie with impunity (even when, or especially when, she gets caught in her lies).

Sounds like a bunch of oppression going on there.

But male disposability is so important to the survival of society, we're not allowed to talk about it or even admit it exists (some feminists even assert that male disposability in war is actually part of male privilege). And female entitlement is so pronounced, we're not allowed to talk about that.

Men expect to be maligned, justly or not. Women go into major freak out when they're insulted, collectively or individually -- stunned, shocked and furious, which automatically elicits angry questions about "why do you hate women??" and accusations of "misogyny." Always.

Not to get sidetracked, but the gender stuff (not the transgender junk from recent years) is so very interesting.

This uber vilification and disposability of men feels like it was kicked into overdrive ten years ago, and the ramifications are Gen Z men becoming increasingly conservative.

Women are blaming this on young men feeling "emasculated" by "female empowerment." I read an article the other day that bemoaned the failure of "well-meaning school assemblies on toxic masculinity." Maybe the problem is treating little Johnny like he's toxic simply because he's a male, while little Suzy is treated like a perfect princess.

As the saying goes, you reap what you sow. In contrast, Taylor Swift is celebrated for being "patently not in need of a man but having zero trouble getting one," while being "out playing packed stadiums under the adoring eye of her American footballer boyfriend." It's interesting how Swift's current boyfriend (whom they don't even mention by name) is being treated as a gender-swapped trophy wife, despite his own success. Of course, this is one of many double standards feminists have. Swift has left a lot of boyfriends in her path to super stardom, and she's praised for "not settling." In contrast, guys that have had a lot of girlfriends are thought of as players that treat women like disposable objects. The author of the article takes yet another swipe at men, asking "why on earth would the Swiftie generation want to settle down with men who seem to hate them..." Are they really so tone deaf that they can't see this is exactly how many men feel about women? This is what happens when you constantly lecture men on their "toxic masculinity."

The ridiculousness of the author doesn't end there, as she also pointed to Swift's endorsement of creepy hair sniffer Joe Biden as another sign of "female empowerment." In their world where the ends justify the means, anything that upsets MAGA is apparently empowering. However, can one support a war monger and still be a liberal?

Full article here:

I was puzzled by younger women’s reaction to Barbie. It turned out Gen Z men held the answer​

Taylor Swift is many things. But she did not, at least until recently, look like the battleground on which an election could be fought.

Though on reflection, maybe it makes a weird kind of sense. Like Donald Trump, whose allies are said to be threatening a remarkably silly-sounding “holy war” against the singer, Swift is an unstoppable cultural phenomenon with a deep hold over the American psyche. She epitomises what many young women want to be – powerful but joyful, financially independent, patently not in need of a man but having zero trouble getting one – while he stands for all those threatened by this subversion of the patriarchal order.

How dare Swift not suffer the supposedly inevitable fate of 34-year-old women who haven’t yet settled down and had a baby, namely panicking at the prospect of dying sad, lonely and surrounded by cats? (Though she definitely has the cats, she looked anything but sad posing with one of them for the cover of Time when it made her Person of the Year.) By now she should be bitterly regretting being so picky, not out playing packed stadiums under the adoring eye of her American footballer boyfriend.

Set aside Trump’s obvious fear of her endorsing Joe Biden, and what seems to trigger a small but furious minority is the female empowerment she personifies, which they interpret as male emasculation. What makes all this worth taking seriously, meanwhile, is how startlingly young some of these grumpy reactionaries are.

Something is happening to Gen Z that belies lazy “woke” stereotypes. As young women become dramatically more liberal, young men are getting more conservative, not only in the US but – according to a Financial Times analysis – from South Korea to Germany, Poland to China. Though the divide is relatively modest in Britain, polling this week found that one in five British men aged 16 to 29 who have heard of him think warmly of Andrew Tate, the YouTube misogynist currently facing charges in Romania of rape and human trafficking (which he denies). So much for all those well-meaning school assemblies on toxic masculinity.

Studying those graphs, meanwhile, explains something that’s puzzled me ever since Greta Gerwig’s Barbie came out, which is why a film that seemed fun but cheerfully shallow to many middle-aged women was taken deadly seriously by many of their daughters. The world of “She’s everything, he’s just Ken”, with all the suppressed male resentment that implies, is closer to their reality than ours – though I know of more than one liberal mother aghast to hear her teenage sons parroting arguments from Tate videos.

For some young men, the anti-feminist backlash seems to have been a gateway drug to harder views on issues from immigration to social justice. As the Oxford academic James Tilley’s Radio 4 series The Kids Are Alt-Right recently highlighted, young people have fuelled the rise of far-right as well as far-left parties in France, Spain, Italy and Germany. Across Europe and the US, anti-immigration rhetoric is being explicitly linked with falling fertility rates and resulting demands for white women to knuckle down and have babies. On the fringes of British Conservatism, meanwhile, all this mingles with an ugly (and economically illiterate) argument that competition from immigrants is what’s really stopping the young getting on to the housing ladder or into top universities. Blame anyone but the government, in other words, for young lives being so tough; blame inclusiveness, if you feel left out in the cold. To boys who see their fathers as arguably having had life much easier, it’s a potentially powerful message.

But if the political implications are alarming, there are more intimate consequences, too. Why on earth would the Swiftie generation want to settle down with men who seem to hate them, ranting on dates about how feminism has gone too far and scoffing at ideas they hold dear? The angriest Kens may be heading for the kind of lonely lives that, if anything, might only intensify their embittered search for easy scapegoats.

It’s still unclear what exactly is driving all this, with possible causes ranging from social media polarisation to pushback against #MeToo, economic trends such as more women than men going to university (with consequences for lifetime earnings), or the so-called bachelor timebomb in South Korea and China, where young men outnumber women and so struggle to find partners. Such a complex phenomenon won’t have simple answers. But unless young people of both sexes are happy to end up living alone with their cats, it’s probably in all our interests to find them.

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/i-was-puzzled-by-younger-women-s-reaction-to-barbie-it-turned-out-gen-z-men-held-the-answer

 

[Frank Underwood]

This sheds an interesting light on the male-female dynamic -- if you grant any credence to such spooky topicality:

Betty Eadie in her 1994 book talks about her prolonged Near-Death Experience in 1973. To make a lengthy story short, she went thru that tunnel we've all heard about, had a few more transitions (numerous NDE subjects report culture specific objects, things they "like," to make the transition less traumatic), experienced a multi-dimensional life review in a matter of seconds, and she eventually would wind up in a room with a Counsel of 13 "male" authority figures to answer her questions.

Being a '60s feminist, she wondered where the "females" were (apparently, we retain a gender of sorts even over there) and she was at first taken aback at women's exclusion from this particular juncture. But it was explained to her that each sex has their role, and that women were more restless and dissatisfied with their situations by nature, while men are more complacent (and men are more emotionally-impacted by women than women are by men, interestingly). So women in excessive power therefore could be dangerous because "when evil overtakes the women, the men will quickly follow."

And Eadie internally knew that this was true, despite her earthly feministic background.

No one was calling for women to be abused or genuinely oppressed or even sidelined, but that if women were allowed to run things too much, it was ultimately dangerous -- even more dangerous than the deeply-flawed men running things, because women as a gender were innately more graspingly dominant and have more influence over men than men do over women. So the more power women have, a kind of blood-in-the-water thing eventually kicks in and then nothing is ever enough. (Remember, Eve was dissatisfied even in literal Paradise, and then bugged wimpy-simpy Adam to take the bait). So not giving women, who already ran society, too much power politically was the only way to keep a comparatively healthy balance.

In other words: when evil overtakes the men, the women can sometimes contain it or rein it in or modulate it, because of the greater influence women have on men; but when evil overtakes the women (which we're not supposed to admit ever happens) the men cannot or will not do anything about it, or even recognize the need to do so.

How that applies to Adam & Steve, and Eve's response to it, is anybody's guess.

"The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head anyway she wants."

 

[Biggie]

Some interesting comments above. Weighing in with my experiences, women are kinda placed on a pedestal by society and credited with a general perception that they worthy of canonization without scrutiny. That's, of course, complete BS.

I worked with a guy that was a man mountain that played rugby and the guy was built. He worked the doors in Swindon, bars and clubs. He said that the men were just loud mouth drunks while he had to give evidence in Crown Court on 3 occasions against women that had glassed him. I use to work behind the bar at a complete dump of a boozer, and the women in there drank more alcohol and did more drugs than the men. They were more volatile and acted the c**t in ways that were frankly impressive They were afforded extra leeway, because being a woman, a mother, therefore harmless. A guy acted up, the man was banned.

I've known women to fabricate nonsense about being a "domestic abuse survivor"... with the expectation of being believed, and vilifying the guy. For some reason they expect that I won't challenge their claims. Violence takes many forms and anyone can be the aggressor in any setting.

In the UK more men and boys are killed as a result of homicidal violence every year, so the police should prioritize safeguarding men and boys above women and girls. But they ignore the crisis pertaining to men/boys and focus on what is grabs headlines. Women,

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

If you're referring to male violence in general, I know some women get turned on seeing their man beat up another guy. It plays into the "protector" role many women want men to fill. Of course, some women are naturally brutal. We've seen that with the likes of Margaret Thatcher, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, and Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure why society infantilizes women and views them all as innocent doves, as they can be quite vicious.

In 2012, Harvard did a study that showed when men see women upset, they're disturbed by it and want to help. But when women see men upset, the women like it.

Given university's feministic bias -- and that of the media reporting it -- the results were quickly "spun" to say that it was because women's (sadistic) pleasure in men being upset was because he was finally emoting and sharing his feelings.

And, yes, female regents have a much higher warlike rate than male regents. (But that's been spun as queens trying to prove she's not "weaker" than the kings -- so it's still men's fault).

What could this all mean?

 

[Willie Oleson]

Women got dealt a bad hand, and that's not even counting their place in society from an historical point of view.

If I was born as a woman I would be super-evil and accuse everybody of everything if they wouldn't give me what I want. Or just because.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Women got dealt a bad hand, and that's not even counting their place in society from an historical point of view.

I'm curious about the details there.

If I was born as a woman I would be super-evil and accuse everybody of everything if they wouldn't give me what I want. Or just because.

But you chose to do otherwise as a guy.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

This is an observation I have had regarding my students over the years regarding cheating. Most students who get caught cheating, and all the evidence is there so there's no ambiguity, will admit it. However, the few who will never admit it despite the proof, have always been female. They will also use the phrase, "I am so hurt that you have accused me of cheating." Those few will often have their mothers come to their defense saying, "It's not cheating, it's 'cooperative learning,' " "What do you have against my daughter?'" "You're harassing my daughter," "My daughter is going through tremendous stress because of you," "My daughter no longer feels comfortable in your class because she feels you don't trust her so you need to show her you don't have anything against her." Once again this is despite all the incontrovertible evidence, including the other students involved in it admitting they cheated. Many other teachers have had similar experiences, so it's not uncommon.
99.9% of the girls don't do this, but the students who do are always female, and it's always the mother who gets involved in this way, not the father.
Another thing I have noticed is that it's rarely a matter of dropping the student's overall grade significantly or preventing them from getting into a college. It could have relatively minor repercussions regarding the grade, and yet there is a real overreaction on the mother and daughter's part.
Just some anecdotal evidence to add to this discussion.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

This is an observation I have had regarding my students over the years regarding cheating. Most students who get caught cheating, and all the evidence is there so there's no ambiguity, will admit it. However, the few who will never admit it despite the proof, have always been female. They will also use the phrase, "I am so hurt that you have accused me of cheating." Those few will often have their mothers come to their defense saying, "It's not cheating, it's 'cooperative learning,' " "What do you have against my daughter?'" "You're harassing my daughter," "My daughter is going through tremendous stress because of you," "My daughter no longer feels comfortable in your class because she feels you don't trust her so you need to show her you don't have anything against her." Once again this is despite all the incontrovertible evidence, including the other students involved in it admitting they cheated. Many other teachers have had similar experiences, so it's not uncommon.
99.9% of the girls don't do this, but the students who do are always female, and it's always the mother who gets involved in this way, not the father.
Another thing I have noticed is that it's rarely a matter of dropping the student's overall grade significantly or preventing them from getting into a college. It could have relatively minor repercussions regarding the grade, and yet there is a real overreaction on the mother and daughter's part.
Just some anecdotal evidence to add to this discussion.

Psychiatrists -- female psychiatrists -- who counsel prisoners in both male and female institutions, have reported that the male prisoners have no problem discussing his crimes more-or-less honestly (at least after his legal appeals have been exhausted) but that the female prisoners, regardless of the severity of what she's been prosecuted for, never admit guilt, maintaining a semi-ethereal detachment and vague victimy denial throughout their entire incarceration.

How much is cultural and how much is biological?

But female ego (and evil) seems to work a little differently than male ego.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Women got dealt a bad hand, and that's not even counting their place in society from an historical point of view.

Everybody has their lot in life. Men have typically been seen as disposable. Nobody ever says "men and children first" or "you never hit a man." For centuries, men have been sent to die in wars and have had to work labor intensive jobs. In divorces, women generally have been given custody of the children and receive alimony from their exes. Masculinity is called "toxic" by bad faith actors who conflate masculine traits with violence. In contrast, women are not accused of having "toxic femininity" whenever they make up sexual abuse claims, or when they see a man as nothing more than a paycheck and a protector. Anybody can be condescending, but nobody says "woman-splaining."

Everybody has valid reasons to play the victim if they truly want to.

If I was born as a woman I would be super-evil and accuse everybody of everything if they wouldn't give me what I want. Or just because.

Are we talking falsely accusing a lacrosse team of rape evil, or saying the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it" evil? Women take all forms.

 

[Frank Underwood]

This is an observation I have had regarding my students over the years regarding cheating. Most students who get caught cheating, and all the evidence is there so there's no ambiguity, will admit it. However, the few who will never admit it despite the proof, have always been female. They will also use the phrase, "I am so hurt that you have accused me of cheating." Those few will often have their mothers come to their defense saying, "It's not cheating, it's 'cooperative learning,' " "What do you have against my daughter?'" "You're harassing my daughter," "My daughter is going through tremendous stress because of you," "My daughter no longer feels comfortable in your class because she feels you don't trust her so you need to show her you don't have anything against her." Once again this is despite all the incontrovertible evidence, including the other students involved in it admitting they cheated. Many other teachers have had similar experiences, so it's not uncommon.
99.9% of the girls don't do this, but the students who do are always female, and it's always the mother who gets involved in this way, not the father.
Another thing I have noticed is that it's rarely a matter of dropping the student's overall grade significantly or preventing them from getting into a college. It could have relatively minor repercussions regarding the grade, and yet there is a real overreaction on the mother and daughter's part.
Just some anecdotal evidence to add to this discussion.

Gaslighting at its worst. There are many videos online of women acting this way when confronted for something they did wrong.

Here's some more anecdotal evidence. When I was in school, the majority of bullying I received was from girls. Fortunately, I also knew girls who were kind and friendly. As with men, women can be shallow and cruel, and they can also be compassionate and kind. Some people may come away from my posts thinking I have a hatred of women, but that's not the case. I just recognize that not all women deserve to be placed on a pedestal the way some people think they do. Every gender has their qualities, flaws, and hardships.

 

[Biggie]

Women got dealt a bad hand, and that's not even counting their place in society from an historical point of view.

No no no. Women have played the hand they were dealt in erudite fashion with little or no compunction. Speaking from my experiences, women are usually seen as more trustworthy when they make claims about being the victim of a man's criminal actions, violence, rape coercive behavior and so on. Their place in society from a historical perspective feeds the notion that women" being weaker sex" can never be belligerent or offer untrue statements. Anyone can be violent and make false claims.

If I was born as a woman I would be super-evil and accuse everybody of everything if they wouldn't give me what I want. Or just because.

They already do that. The paradigm is well established and I'd suggest in common practice. Sadly because of so many women making false DV and rape claims the justice system get clogged up, and perpetrators walk.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

19th century feminist activists and authors were nearly all well-to-do women (often with lesbianic tendencies) supported by their affluent fathers or husbands, writing from their perfumed parlors about the drudgery of working-class women's lives about which they had little or no experience.

There was nothing in their writings about love (unless it was lesbian and/or free-love for her -- and yes, they wrote about it) nor about the welfare of children nor the often-even-greater drudgery of men's lives -- most of whom ventured out daily to perform often horrible jobs to support his family at home.

Then and now, you'd think that the women were enslaved at home, cooking and cleaning and child-rearing, while the husbands go to their lavish CEO careers and issue dictates and demands and carouse and bend their secretaries over the desks in their Fortune 500 offices, then returning home on their whim to further enslave, beat and rape their wives. Only that's not how it really worked. At all.

Women were kept in the home to protect them, not oppress them.

Now, did some women really want out of this deal? Undoubtedly. It sounds like drudgery to me, and it unavoidably became exhausting eventually, even for the women who'd chosen it. And some women, quite rightly, preferred not to do it at all... But most working-class men didn't have many more options than did the women -- back then, everybody's lives sucked unless they were wealthy.

The rhetoric has changed precious little since then. And it's not because it was all true.

Feminists will indignantly tell you that a woman couldn't even have her own credit card until the early-1970s unless it was co-signed by her husband or, if she was single, her father. That's always used as a sign of how economically oppressed she was. What they never tell you is that those laws also made those husbands and fathers financially responsible for his wife's and daughters' purchases, and so she had the capacity to put him in the literal poorhouse -- and sometimes did. And given that women, then and now, spend 85% of the consumer dollars, it was a protection for everybody.

Once women could have their own credit cards beginning fifty years ago, it was actually freeing for men, because the man was no longer responsible legally for her expenditures ---- and that's when credit card debt began to skyrocket. (No doubt that's why the banks wanted this to happen, if only for the interest profits alone. And pushing more and more women into financial independence, and tweaking the divorce courts into giving nearly everything, including custody, to her, the banks and corporations make a killing, because she'll spend it all -- and more -- while the ex-husband wouldn't).

But as has been said before: feminism and patriarchy have been hand-in-hand on the downlow since the very beginning.

 

[Frank Underwood]

No no no. Women have played the hand they were dealt in erudite fashion with little or no compunction. Speaking from my experiences, women are usually seen as more trustworthy when they make claims about being the victim of a man's criminal actions, violence, rape coercive behavior and so on. Their place in society from a historical perspective feeds the notion that women" being weaker sex" can never be belligerent or offer untrue statements. Anyone can be violent and make false claims.

I can attest to that. About 13 years ago, my family and I were evicted from our apartment. Our neighbors were a single mom and her two daughters. Their guests frequently blocked our garbage cans, mailbox, and cars. They played loud music, partied in front of our apartment, sat on our steps, etc. We reported this to our landlord. I had my back door open one summer day, and the mom yelled belligerently for me to come to the door. She proceeded to yell at me for calling the landlord, despite her family's bad behavior.

She proceeded to lie about us to the landlord, essentially projecting her family's bad behavior onto us. She said we were the ones blocking her vehicles and that we played our music so loud that it knocked the pictures off of her wall. None of that was true, and we told the landlord that she way lying. Now we knew our landlord was in a tough position because he didn't reside at the property, and it was literally a case of he said/she said. However, instead of at least trying to look into the matter, he simply chose to evict my family and me. His reasoning, and I quote, was "When it comes to disputes between men and women, I believe women every time." His own wife told me she didn't share her husband's point of view, but she ultimately went along with his decisions. She obviously knew women were capable of lying, but her husband was a typical "white knight."

They already do that. The paradigm is well established and I'd suggest in common practice. Sadly because of so many women making false DV and rape claims the justice system get clogged up, and perpetrators walk.

That's the sad reality, and people who point this out are often disingenuously cast aside as misogynists.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Their place in society from a historical perspective feeds the notion that women" being weaker sex" can never be belligerent or offer untrue statements. Anyone can be violent and make false claims.

They've done centuries of serving and suffering, only a few years of MeToo.
You all need to get a sense of proportion.

Everybody has valid reasons to play the victim if they truly want to.

It goes way beyond villainy and victimhood.

Nobody ever says "men and children first" or "you never hit a man." For centuries, men have been sent to die in wars and have had to work labor intensive jobs.

Sad, but true. Thankfully, most of those wars are over now, while women never stopped giving birth.

I just recognize that not all women deserve to be placed on a pedestal

The worst thing about being placed on a pedestal is the knowledge that you aren't the pedestal.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

They've done centuries of serving and suffering, only a few years of MeToo.
You all need to get a sense of proportion.

Well. Somebody certainly does. But it's a skill, taking tired shallowness and dressing it up as wizened insight.

Frankly, 35,000 year old spirits do it better.