It's pretty much accepted and undebatable that certain traits in men or women are more generally appealing, such as in terms of raw-physical attraction. In men, this includes traits such as risk-taking, independence, physical strength, and resiliency.
Nevertheless, positive traits are desirable across the board in both men and women (e.x. courage is desirable not only in men, but in women such as Joan of Arc; intellectual achievement is desirable both in men like Einstein and women like Marie Curie).
This can easily be observed both in nature and in human culture - though when observing nature, observations are usually limited to purely physical traits and instinctive behaviors, while human culture encompasses many higher traits such as intellect, reason, intuition, creativity, and so on.
---
Now come some of the problems in trying to discuss these truths and facts with some individuals:
*The phenomenon of "devaluative masculinity". This is the trend of dishonest or ill-informed people attempting to devaluate the reality of certain traits being more generally-appealing in one sex or the other - and thereby impose a form of apathetic conformity on people who are too misinformed to discern this. (While it can be used with women as well as with men, it is more common for individuals to do the former than the later.)
This is a form of sexism and misogyny because denies the inherent wants and needs of women as a whole in regards to their general culture desires for raw, physical attraction in the men they encounter, and attempts to deny women equality - in regards to women having an equal right or impetus to seek out their generally desired masculine traits in men or other partners (rather than some women being forced to deny themselves these traits just to please some jealous or disgruntled man).
This is particularly common in "incels" (or people in miserable marriages or relationships who just barely skirt by the definition of "incel" but otherwise demonstrate similar behaviors and attitudes). The predictable routine is generally for the incel to pretend or imagine himself to be a "nice guy", which always devolves into him blaming or hating women as a whole for his own lack of romantic success, imagining they only like guys who are "jerks" and refuse to date or sleep with him because he's "too nice". When in reality, he's just a creep or a loser, and the "jerks" are much better catches than him.
It's a form of sexism and anti-feminism which attempts to deny women their general and elective preference for masculine traits such as those mentioned (e.x. risk-taking, strength) and force all women to deny themselves and conform to his own selfish wants, entitlements, and needs - with such behavior always indicating a resentment of women no matter how poorly the individual in question tries to hide it. (e.x. Such people merely wish or demand that women be "meek and submissive" toward them simply because they exist, regardless of their lack of any desirable, masculine traits, or even purely material possessions, which would give any woman a reason to care beyond a sense pure entitlement or insincerity; likewise they may engage in a "posturing" act such as voting for Hillary or endorsing some "feminist" event simply so they can go and immediately tell others about it, because they imagine that women are as dumb and easily fooled as they are ,and when it doesn't work, they may rebound in the polar opposite direction).
This creepy, stalker-ish routine among incels and quasi-incels is so cliche and predicable ,that it's been dubbed "nice guy (TM) syndrome", and entire communities (such as "nice guys" on Reddit) have been created and devoted to mocking these guys. Any serious discourse on gender studies (without the need for superfluous or anti-intellectual jargon) does a good job covering the realities and perception of these traits, and what fate naturally befalls the "incels" or disaffected males who selfishly try to deny women their preference from masculine traits out of a selfish sense of entitlement.
It's also worth noting that such individuals often try to put a public emphasis on being or getting married. While marriage is little more than an irrelevant legal institution primarily for the purpose of resolving property disputes, such incel-ish individuals emphasize it because they like to think that it gives them power and control over a woman and her desires (with the law, both presently and historically putting external pressure on the woman to "stay married" to an individual even if he is a loser.
Since they know that this form of sexism and misogyny is more than subtle, often they will go out of their way to publicly emphasize the opposite in another failed effort to hide it (for example, a man may refuse to work and put the sole burden on his wife - not with the intent of necessity or supporting her career decisions, but simply because he wants a weak, submissive woman to serve his every material need, naturally trying to hide this or portray it otherwise).
But any sign if this, just like the others mentioned, is concrete proof of resentment towards women and shouldn't be ignored.
*Framed objectification:
This is a form of sexism which attempts to deny women their ability to aesthetically or artistically express themselves in ways which aren't reasonably seen to be self-objectifying (such as legal definitions of pornography, obscenity, exploitation, etc).
Typically, this is associated with archaic, anti-feminist sentiments such as jealousy and misogyny (for example, a fundamentalist Islamist or member of a fundamentalist Mormon cult might view a woman showing her ankles to be "pornographic" or "objectifying", but this isn't the case in Western or developed countries with a history of feminism or women's rights).
Likewise, such attitudes are often accompanied by selfish-ineffective "sexist placeboism" - or publicly engaging in trite, obsessive-compulsive behaviors related to the notion of "fighting" or "promoting" one's cause which the individual knows are ineffective and do nothing beyond allowing them to posture. This is naturally sexist and denigrating towards the struggles of legitimate, successful activists such as Rosa Parks - which is why Alinsky, and possibly Foucault referred to such irrelevant people as simply conflating "pathology" for "ideology", and dismissed them as irrelevant, disposable individuals who don't matter towards the purpose of realistic activism or radicalism.
---
I think this does a good job covering some of the challenges and interactive difficulties involved in for starters.
Nevertheless, positive traits are desirable across the board in both men and women (e.x. courage is desirable not only in men, but in women such as Joan of Arc; intellectual achievement is desirable both in men like Einstein and women like Marie Curie).
This can easily be observed both in nature and in human culture - though when observing nature, observations are usually limited to purely physical traits and instinctive behaviors, while human culture encompasses many higher traits such as intellect, reason, intuition, creativity, and so on.
---
Now come some of the problems in trying to discuss these truths and facts with some individuals:
*The phenomenon of "devaluative masculinity". This is the trend of dishonest or ill-informed people attempting to devaluate the reality of certain traits being more generally-appealing in one sex or the other - and thereby impose a form of apathetic conformity on people who are too misinformed to discern this. (While it can be used with women as well as with men, it is more common for individuals to do the former than the later.)
This is a form of sexism and misogyny because denies the inherent wants and needs of women as a whole in regards to their general culture desires for raw, physical attraction in the men they encounter, and attempts to deny women equality - in regards to women having an equal right or impetus to seek out their generally desired masculine traits in men or other partners (rather than some women being forced to deny themselves these traits just to please some jealous or disgruntled man).
This is particularly common in "incels" (or people in miserable marriages or relationships who just barely skirt by the definition of "incel" but otherwise demonstrate similar behaviors and attitudes). The predictable routine is generally for the incel to pretend or imagine himself to be a "nice guy", which always devolves into him blaming or hating women as a whole for his own lack of romantic success, imagining they only like guys who are "jerks" and refuse to date or sleep with him because he's "too nice". When in reality, he's just a creep or a loser, and the "jerks" are much better catches than him.
It's a form of sexism and anti-feminism which attempts to deny women their general and elective preference for masculine traits such as those mentioned (e.x. risk-taking, strength) and force all women to deny themselves and conform to his own selfish wants, entitlements, and needs - with such behavior always indicating a resentment of women no matter how poorly the individual in question tries to hide it. (e.x. Such people merely wish or demand that women be "meek and submissive" toward them simply because they exist, regardless of their lack of any desirable, masculine traits, or even purely material possessions, which would give any woman a reason to care beyond a sense pure entitlement or insincerity; likewise they may engage in a "posturing" act such as voting for Hillary or endorsing some "feminist" event simply so they can go and immediately tell others about it, because they imagine that women are as dumb and easily fooled as they are ,and when it doesn't work, they may rebound in the polar opposite direction).
This creepy, stalker-ish routine among incels and quasi-incels is so cliche and predicable ,that it's been dubbed "nice guy (TM) syndrome", and entire communities (such as "nice guys" on Reddit) have been created and devoted to mocking these guys. Any serious discourse on gender studies (without the need for superfluous or anti-intellectual jargon) does a good job covering the realities and perception of these traits, and what fate naturally befalls the "incels" or disaffected males who selfishly try to deny women their preference from masculine traits out of a selfish sense of entitlement.
It's also worth noting that such individuals often try to put a public emphasis on being or getting married. While marriage is little more than an irrelevant legal institution primarily for the purpose of resolving property disputes, such incel-ish individuals emphasize it because they like to think that it gives them power and control over a woman and her desires (with the law, both presently and historically putting external pressure on the woman to "stay married" to an individual even if he is a loser.
Since they know that this form of sexism and misogyny is more than subtle, often they will go out of their way to publicly emphasize the opposite in another failed effort to hide it (for example, a man may refuse to work and put the sole burden on his wife - not with the intent of necessity or supporting her career decisions, but simply because he wants a weak, submissive woman to serve his every material need, naturally trying to hide this or portray it otherwise).
But any sign if this, just like the others mentioned, is concrete proof of resentment towards women and shouldn't be ignored.
*Framed objectification:
This is a form of sexism which attempts to deny women their ability to aesthetically or artistically express themselves in ways which aren't reasonably seen to be self-objectifying (such as legal definitions of pornography, obscenity, exploitation, etc).
Typically, this is associated with archaic, anti-feminist sentiments such as jealousy and misogyny (for example, a fundamentalist Islamist or member of a fundamentalist Mormon cult might view a woman showing her ankles to be "pornographic" or "objectifying", but this isn't the case in Western or developed countries with a history of feminism or women's rights).
Likewise, such attitudes are often accompanied by selfish-ineffective "sexist placeboism" - or publicly engaging in trite, obsessive-compulsive behaviors related to the notion of "fighting" or "promoting" one's cause which the individual knows are ineffective and do nothing beyond allowing them to posture. This is naturally sexist and denigrating towards the struggles of legitimate, successful activists such as Rosa Parks - which is why Alinsky, and possibly Foucault referred to such irrelevant people as simply conflating "pathology" for "ideology", and dismissed them as irrelevant, disposable individuals who don't matter towards the purpose of realistic activism or radicalism.
---
I think this does a good job covering some of the challenges and interactive difficulties involved in for starters.
Last edited:
