77 karma · joined March 3, 2016
And if it shouldn't be free then why don't men get an extra check for consuming extra calories? The question is to demonstrate how ridiculous the idea is. The levels that people go to in order to sympathize with women are quite high and seem to be for the purpose of giving men a sense that they should feel bad or sorry for the condition of being a woman when really, if you want equality, you treat women like you treat men. You assume they are strong and they can handle the problem. Yes $7 a box by 9 boxes a year is definitely extra cost of living. But are we really going to make this one thing free or tax free just because it only affects women? It's such an oversensitivity to women and it should be considered offensive to them that anybody even considers that kind of special treatment.
Any smart business will ignore diversity in an effort to maximize the bottom line, because skin color and genitals of the CEO do nothing for an ad agency or a customer trying to purchase a smart phone app.
Intent is everything and giving into pressure like this just reinforces consideration of every word you speak or write and in what possible dimension it can be deemed offensive. In your life you can contort your language and behavior to please everybody but at some point you are no longer behaving for yourself but for everyone else. You have to pretend like you want to speak different pronouns, you have to pretend that calling someone black is much more offensive than calling them African American. You have to make sure that you specifically don't interrupt women, you have to double check (and counter) your implicit bias towards women and minorities when you think they didn't do a good job in the interview.
Some of these things are hyperbole and some of them are not. I know the standard response is that I'm over exaggerating but its par for the course to get diversity training, to have quarterly updates on how more women are being hired! (as if the company were actually eliminating discrimination instead of just bumping numbers up). This is all new and its moving faster and faster.
The common link between Rick and jbp is that they speak to young men in a way that nobody else does. Rick is careless, extremely independent and a risk taker. Peterson, maybe over stepping his boundaries, gives concrete individualistic direction and life "rules" that young men happily buy into and find success with.
I was thinking the other day about how similar Wolf of Wall Street and Fight Club are. One is sadistic and anarchists, the other is hedonistic and capitalist. Yet I think they inspire men in the same way. They describe figures who defy social norms, who are impulsive and independent. It's interesting that both of these movies are considered the pinnacle of toxic masculinity, but in some way speak to men in a way that inspires. If the concept of toxic masculinity seeks to eliminate these character types and these themes, it makes me wonder what would replace it and if the inspiration that a young man finds for these lawless models will persist or if out culture can instill new ideals that make men more docile and better socialized.
If it becomes transphobic to not date a trans person, purely on the basis of them being transgender, it necessarily affects everyone who interacts with a trans person who hits on them.
If it becomes sexist to watch and produce porn that can be interpreted as degrading to women, it necessarily changes decisions the porn that all people watch. If it is sexist for women to not be represented 50/50 for specifically high paying tech jobs, it necessarily affects that works with women or own a tech company. It almost certainly will make those changes through coercion rather than eliminating sexism in the interview process. People will pretend like all of these changes are justified but deep down it doesn't change the way we think and it only builds resentments against movements which restrict and criticise behaviors which are fair.
Some of the issues that these movements take on simply do not have a place for choice. It affects the entire landscape.
Helping women deal with "unrealistic beauty standards" would not work by ensuring that men don't prioritize or advertise with women that are beautiful (if you raise a bit and glorify images of women who are traditionally considered ugly, it will not work). If a boy is castrated at birth through a medical accident, and is raised as a girl and even given hormones, it still doesn't change traditionally male behaviors and sexual preference. People are not blank slates and I think we need to be careful that we set up a society that fundamentally works against ones nature.
Not that we should give in to every impulse, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at. At a work interview, women should be measured only in merit. Under the law, men and women should not be treated differently, except in manners that can only affect women or men (abortion, circumcision, etc.) In a social system, changing the way that people think about their attraction to women is just twisted.
I think it would be better to work on an individual level to help a person change the way they think about themselves to resolve the self esteem issues that photoshopped advertisements, or cookie cutter models and newscasters produce.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that there is inequality. If the study doesn't demonstrate inequality then you can not use the study (in isolation) to prove inequality or to throw the burden of matching the statistics on the other side.
Every news anchor's appearance is carefully curated to present a safe face for the network.
Feminism will struggle against the tendency of women's attraction to be more heavily weighted by appearance than by character or economic status like men are.
I feel like from there men and women have organized themselves and their "competition" according to the criteria set by the opposite sex. Women will become more critical of other women's appearances and men will be more critical of masculine criteria (how much money do you make, can you defend yourself, are you tough/independent/emotionally stable) including penis size, because that is oh so important to making a woman happy.
Maybe men and women impose the harshest standards on themselves because they want to appease the opposite side more. And maybe even though it's true that those are characteristics we value in the opposite sex, we don't objectify the opposite sex as much as they objectify themselves.
Some men and women will resent the way they are "judged", blaming their "judges" for their feelings of inferiority. Some men and women will try to capitalize on the others insecurity to their own gain. Mostly the inferiority is self imposed.
It's a strange balance to acknowledge that (for example) appearances are important, and that it will be more difficult for either sex, particularly women, to find a partner if they don't take care of their appearances. And while that might be true acknowledging that you aren't an object and subjective qualities outside of the rubric of attraction actually do matter and are valuable to people you want to attract.
I don't think attraction will ever be negotiated, and that's where feminism will fail and frustrate people. It might become more taboo to admit you like her cause she's a lingerie model, or that he's a catch because he makes 7 figures, but those things are always going to make a person stand out no matter how angry or inferior it makes us feel.
I have a nice mattress but I stopped sitting on it or laying on it unless I'm going to sleep. I make sure for the hour before bed I turn off overhead lights and just use a lamp, and in the last hour I also refrain from screen use, except for brief moments. No matter how tired I am, I wait until the end of the hour to crawl into bed (build sleep pressure if it's there). Finally, and I just discovered this several weeks ago, I play white noise off my Google home (rain noise actually). That last step has added atleast an hour to my sleep every night, and I suddenly started having dreams again. And give yourself lots of time so that you never need to use an alarm.
A week of that routine and you will be falling asleep and waking up in extremely consistent ranges night to night. My target sleep is 10-630 and I estimate that I'm falling asleep 2 minutes after getting in bed and I wake up between 610-630 everyday.
Results: consistent mood, lower appetite, probably better learning and memory.
The warm up question was difficult and I was completely embarrassed that I didn't some it right away. As I walked out I knew for certain that was not a warm up question and was pissed that he had consciously shaken my confidence right off the bat.
1. We can still agree that men and women are humans and that we all deserve ways rights
2. The inevitable differences maybe show that men are less capable than women in a variety of fronts (wouldn't that be great for women's rights?).
3. Once a lie has been installed into every boy and girl, raising the truth will only become more and more difficult.
Making a decision to disseminate a lie constitutes gaslighting in the way that people will have hunches and experiences that society can suddenly deny. Speaking up will get you instant attention and result in a wreck for ones career. We are already seeing this today. I couldn't imagine posting this opinion except anonymously.
When the man walks into a room and finds there is someone of his height, or someone even taller present, the man begins to feel a sense of insecurity about this challenger. Suddenly he isn't the tallest guy in the room. It feels like a threat, it feels like competition.
I know this is a general feeling for certain. These men don't walk around thinking they are better than everyone else because they are taller but when they finally encounter someone of their height they are really sensitive to their presence.
I can't imagine women feel the same way. I've actually heard that women have insecurity about being too tall. If ones security about they masculinity and femininity can be shaken by their height, but in totally different ways, there might be something real about it. I do know that a lot of guys are excluded from the saying pool because of their height, and I know a lot of women value height in attraction.
The correlation of testosterone, power, and height in men are all in alignment. It's part of a male concept.
The infamous David Reimer case is a great example of how boys and girls are just different. David adopted all of the male stereotypes even though he was being raised as a girl with hormone therapy, psychological reinforcements (to try to teach and convince him he was a girl) from toddler through primary School. He still wouldn't conform and his brother knew something was wrong. When they found out it was an experiment the brother killed himself and David began to identify as a man again, he even went on to marry a woman. He killed himself in his 40s I believe.
The idea of a convenient truth and inconvenient truth need to be considered. I see it so much today that people are willing to twist facts and blow up supporting minutia to convince themselves that men and women have equal capabilities and have equal values as human beings (atleast evolutionarily).
I think this applies here. Freedom of speech is the right above all rights and limits to that right need to be extremely precise and generally agreed upon.
The western world is drunk on politics. Concepts of racism, harassment, violence, fascism and the like are creeping into inappropriate territories. This is not a time to start making decisions about what people are or aren't allowed to say.
Cost, time, stress, etc. At the benefit of seeing a part of you live on and be happy.
There are moderates who approve of plan b and who understand that the latter case is unjust.
Now for the rest of us we have to decide on a month/week/day or development milestone to figure out exactly when it no longer becomes ok to abort. Who has any right to decide the precise step in development process where it becomes unethical to abort. Yet we must draw a line.
Personally on this issue I am surprised people can feel so confident about what the right thing is to do.
You can have the same number of men and women and the older women have a hard time finding a man and the young men have a hard time finding a woman.
It makes sense if you think about older men and younger women being able to easily match up and older women and younger men not being able to find anyone.
One thing that is non-negotiable though is sleep, keep it consistent and try really hard to let yourself wake without an alarm.
What worked for me was detaching from work for 4 weeks or so and just be a human being whose self worth isn't tied to work. I would make sure I get out of the house, even if that meant browsing reddit at a coffee shop, or just walking around, really bad idea to take time off and spend it all in the house.
After that, getting a therapist was a tremendous benefit. Getting a professional outsider, who can not ruin your life (by sharing the gory details of whats going through your head with others) feels really good. Sometimes you can be locked in a fog where you just spiral down and can't see why. Having someone there who can look at it objectively, without that fog, and can deliver some insights while both of you try to figure out what is wrong.
A lot of times in mid 20s mental health issues will reveal themselves. I think the best way to go about that is see a therapist who actually believes in medicine being helpful (some therapists will advise their patients to avoid drugs but if thats the only thing beyond extreme will power that will fix the issue, do it). They will get to know you over a long period of time and eventually may suggest you see a psychiatrist. Psychiatrists usually don't spend that much time finding a diagnosis in my experience, its just a description of feeling, he trusts what you are feeling and slowly try a medication according to the symptoms.
Finding a therapist is probably the best way I was able to get out of my funk. Without her guidance I would've just been wallowing until I finally take drastic measures.
And there is reason to consider opposing opinions on vaccines, and then after the best evidence from both sides are provided a real conclusion can be made (it has already been made) and then it's no longer worth considering unless new evidence arises.