What It Means to Be a Man – According to Men

FiveThirtyEight and WNYC partnered with SurveyMonkey for a nationwide survey of 1,615 adults who identify as men. We asked respondents to reflect on their ideas of masculinity, workplace culture and intimacy, among other things. The results: A majority of men in the workplace say they haven’t rethought their on-the-job behavior in the wake of #MeToo; a little more than half of men feel it’s at least somewhat important that others see them as masculine; and nearly half of all men say they sometimes or often feel lonely or isolated.”

Takeaways and Surprises:

Pop culture was a source of inspiration for an understanding of manhood for younger men (42 percent of those age 18 to 34), while only 17 percent of men 35 to 64 and 12 percent of men 65 and over said the same. It would literally NEVER occur to me that I should take cues on manhood from pop culture. MAYBE Esquire when I was younger, but certainly not TV or movies.

Sixty percent of men agreed that society puts pressure on men in a way that is unhealthy or bad. And the younger a man was, the more likely he was to believe that. Maybe it has to do with taking your cues on masculinity from pop culture. 🙂

Sixty percent of men agreed that society puts pressure on men in a way that is unhealthy or bad.

Men worry about many of the same things women do. Weight. Finances. Health. Physique. Incredible. Men…they’re just like us!

Men don’t see male privilege. Close to 1 in 4 said men are taken more seriously than women at work. But most suggested that there were no advantages to be had. I think it’s the phraseology. Most men don’t feel like they’re given an advantage as men, just like most whites don’t feel they’re given an advantage for being white. What they don’t calculate are the disadvantages of being a woman or a minority, which subtly translates to being an advantage for white men. This is a much longer discussion but it felt important to acknowledge this blind spot.

Men are still taking on the “male” role in dating as most women prefer, but that is waning with the younger generation. Sixty-one percent of men said they felt as though it was expected of them to make the first move in romantic relationships, and 49 percent said they always tried to pay when on dates. Younger men, however, were less likely to pay for their dates than their older counterparts, with 12 percent of those 18 to 34 saying they never try to grab the check first. Good luck to those 12 percent!

Men are still taking on the “male” role in dating as most women prefer

Finally, in regards to #MeToo: Only about a third of the men in our survey said they ask for verbal consent when they want to be physically intimate with someone. I think these different definitions of consent are going to be an issue for many years to come. And since I don’t know what to think, I don’t have a constructive solution. I’m just glad that I finished up with dating before everything got so much more confusing for both genders.

Your thoughts, on the study, or on any of my takeaways above, are greatly appreciated.

Join our conversation (95 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 1
    mgm531

    As a straight white male I believe one of the reasons for the white male privilege ‘blind spot’ is because of the automatic assumption that straight while males just got ‘lucky’ and that everything came to them easy and without any work.  Which I can tell you, it patently false.  It’s the perceived notion that any success a straight white male acheived was due primarily to privilage and any success that a non straight white male acheived was due to hard work and perseverance.  As a straight white male I am not naive enough to believe that I don’t have a certain privilege for being straight white and male.  Clearly I do.  But this also doesn’t mean that I didn’t work hard to get the life that I have and didn’t have challenges along the way.

    1. 1.1
      Persephone

      mgm531: First let me start by saying that I absolutely adore men, and I hold no resentment toward them except for the ones they don’t appreciate my hard efforts to get somewhere in life. Also I’d like to say that I haven’t been in a man’s shoes because I’m a woman, but I have sure been in some interesting positions that most women have not been. If you read on, you’ll know what I mean, and you’ll see why I believe that I think I know what I’m talking about.

      You said the following:

      “But this also doesn’t mean that I didn’t work hard to get the life that I have and didn’t have challenges along the way.”

      I’m sure you did. The majority of US, male and female, must work hard to get the things that we have in life. However, there is no denying that you can put men and women in the same setting, and the men will always be handed easier advantages, and they will always throw down obstacles in the way of the woman. I’ll use myself as an example below.

      For over a decade I worked in an almost exclusively male environment. Some of the big bosses came from out of town to work at our location, and they weren’t used to our little country culture. They gave me excellent performance evaluations at my job. I learned things that many of the men did not have the capacity to learn, and it made me rule at my position. I was physically fit and never got a workplace injury, where men twice my size left and right of me would fall. Yet it wasn’t good enough. The small percentage of men who objected to a woman being there for the ones who complained the loudest. My hopes worth it if I paid my dues in the most difficult, physically demanding, intellectually challenging position that existed in that place, that I, too, could advance. Just like all the men before me. I paid my dues, just like they did. But when it came time for me to advance, they changed the rules on me to keep me out. One of the supervisors told me I should be working at a bank somewhere where I could look pretty, instead of that place where I was covered up in a hard hat in a uniform and grease. They started making up lies about me, and tricking me. I didn’t know I had to go in the next day, after a 65 hour work date, and working additional 12, to make 72 hours per week. They were trying to break me down so that I would quit. They couldn’t stand having a female there. This was a Southern Baptist preacher that did this to me, and I didn’t see the notice because he hid it underneath other paperwork. That’s how they were able to fire me.

       

      So, mgm531, yes, you do have white male privilege not have these kinds of games fight against you. It is too bad that you don’t see it, and that’s by design. They want to make you think that I got fired because of some deficiency in my performance, which absolutely was not true.

      1. 1.1.1
        mgm531

        @Persephone:  First, I am sorry that you’ve had to experience the unfairness and unjustified discrimination because of you being a woman.  I do not doubt that things would have been different if you were a man.  Secondly, as I mentioned in my comment I am not blind to my white male privilege because, as I stated in comment, clearly I do.  However I do stand by my belief that when most people speak of white male privilege what they are referring to is some fictional notion of a person that has lived a charmed and carefree life that has not earned ANY of the success that he may have had.  Which, as I have said, is ridiculous.  Privilege or no, I have had my fair share challenges, unjust and unfair circumstances that have determined my fate.  I have also not been given a ‘free ride’ in life and had to work hard for it.  There is no doubt that I have been provided educational and employment opportunities that others may not have had given their race, gender or the color of their skin.  But those were opportunities that I had to work to earn and keep.

        For this reason I suspect that most straight white males will in fact be blind to their privileage because most of them have had difficult times in their life, just like anybody and everybody else does.  So when they hear someone tell them that they have had an ‘easy’ time in life because of their white male privileage they naturally saty ‘WTF are you talking about?!’ because for most of them their life has been anything but easy.

  2. 2
    John

    The whole thing about “male privilege” makes me laugh. Women have their privileges as well. If you focus on all the privileges you don’t have, you tend to act like a victim and envy the advantages others have.

    I saw a guy on YouTube who is a 3 feet tall, has a genetic disease and is relegated to a wheel chair to get around.

    This guy is a professional speaker, makes good money and has a wife who is physically “normal.” This guy made the best of his situation and doesn’t go around complaining that most people are taller and not forced to get around in a wheelchair.

    Here is a link to the guy on YouTube. Whenever I feel like a victim, I watch it. After I watch the video, I am filled with gratitude.

    1. 2.1
      Persephone

      Thank you! He is certainly quite inspiring. I just sent the link to this video to numerous people and then posted on my Facebook page. This is one of the many reasons I love Evan Marc Katz. I’m an attorney, and I have suggested  numerous divorce clients go to Evan’s blogs.

  3. 3
    sylvana

    hmm..interesting. Funny part is, the first thing that comes to mind when I think masculine is protective. Not in the jealous type of way, but in a good sense. Isn’t protection the number one job of around 99% of all males of all species in this world? Yet protectiveness isn’t even mentioned here.

    And it’s not just about the physical. It’s about making his wife, kids, loved ones, friends, etc. feel safe with him, in every regard. Physically, mentally, and emotionally.

    Next, to me, would be strength. Both physical and mental. Which also kind of loops back around to feeling safe around him.

    And one that is so often overlooked, and men rarely get credit for:

    A good bit of selflessness. (which also circles back around to protectiveness, I guess).

    Something as small as walking on the street/car side of the sidewalk, doing the heavy lifting, ensuring she doesn’t slip on the ice, etc. I think a lot of women don’t even realize how often a good man will actually put his own well-being on the line, and be willing to take the risk of physical injury to ensure the well-being of others. Often, unconsciously.

    To me, this is what it all boils down to. The number one thing that makes a man masculine is making others (or at least those he cares about) feel safe. Physically, mentally, and emotionally. I find it weird that there isn’t even a mention of it in this study, though.

    Sadly, it seems to be something that the younger generation has completely forgotten.

    The high number of men feeling lonely or isolated does not surprise me. Men definitely do not have the same kind of support system in place as women do. And loneliness, in general, is drastically on the rise.

    I think we need to get back to encouraging all the good masculine traits in men (and women, for that matter). Start giving young men a purpose again. Males of just about all social species were designed to be protective. Take that away from them, and they’ll either end up feeling lost, suicidal, or nasty of character.

    Most of the many men I’ve been friends with could likely not really give you an answer to what they thought was masculine. When you ask them what makes them feel pride, or makes them feel like men however, the answers generally all boil back down to that basic protective instinct.

    I think this is also the reason a lot of men complain about women being too masculine, too independent, too strong these days. It’s not so much about a woman being able to provide for herself, or having equal rights. It’s all about men no longer feeling needed, valuable, or having a purpose if they cannot “take care” of her in a sense of making her feel safe.

    It doesn’t have to be in a major way. Something as small as grabbing his arm when she climbs into the bed of a truck will do. Or when the walkway is slippery. That doesn’t make a woman helpless, but it’ll sure make his day.

    If a woman ever wants to see her man’s face light up, all she has to do is tell him he makes her feel safe (which will also check the whole “admiration” thing off the list).

    But I’d like to know what you men think about this. It might just be the type of men I’ve been lucky enough to be around my whole life.

     

    1. 3.1
      Tron Swanson

      Sylvana,

      I can’t say I’ve ever thought about being “protective” all that much. I’m not strong, either, and have never really wanted to be, aside from being able to function in a basic way. I’ll have to add that to the list of reasons why women aren’t interested in me: between my non-macho personality and my physical build, I must not make them feel safe.

      Similarly, I never put much thought into what it meant to be a man…I simply didn’t (and still don’t!) care. It wasn’t until my problems with women that I was forced to think about this ridiculous issue. To me, gender is biological (notable exception for trans people), there shouldn’t be anything cultural about it. It’s futile to wish for that, I realize, but I’m happy being me, I’m not interested in conforming to anyone’s expectations.

      I’m highly skeptical of the whole “just teach young men to be traditional and it’ll all be okay” thing. My parents tried to get me to be more traditionally masculine…not only did it not work, but it made me miserable. So, I’m sure that some young men will like the Jordan Peterson stuff, but some won’t, because it just isn’t who they are. Personality and individuality come before gender, in my opinion. That’s why some men/women are happy with traditional roles, some are happy with the opposite, and some are happy with a mixture of the two.

      1. 3.1.1
        sylvana

        @Tron,

        I’m glad to hear you chime in on this one!

        I think you are placing way too much emphasis on physical strength alone (and asshole/macho attitude). Feeling safe and secure is about so much more than just the physical, though. 

        For example, having an alarm system installed in the house counts as protective. Taking her car to the shop to make sure it has maintenance and repairs done counts as protective. Having an appliance fixed before it blows up in her face counts as protective. There are countless ways a man can ensure a woman’s safety without ever needing any physical strength. Just knowing she can rely on him gives her a sense of safety and security. While the physical is the most visible of them all, it plays only a small role.

        Protectiveness basically means ensuring her safety and well-being in whichever way you can.

        And I absolutely agree with you when it comes to “traditional roles”. They are pretty much nonsense. They completely dismiss the combination of feminine and masculine traits that play together to determine each person’s character, personality, and natural dominance regardless of actual gender.

        That’s why I said we need to get back to encouraging the GOOD masculine traits in men (and women), and teach women how to recognize them. Not that we need to get back to traditional roles. Lord forbid, I’d be totally screwed…lol

        I think working with animals my whole life has given me a bit of a different outlook on what masculine and dominant actually means. It does often surprise me that the asshole macho dude gets mistaken for a dominant alpha (by both women and men).

        The same goes for a lot of the pretty boys with the muscular bodies. So many women find them so attractive. Most of the time, I look at them and think “but that’s a woman.” His energy is feminine, not masculine.

         

        I’m happy being me, I’m not interested in conforming to anyone’s expectations.

        This statement of yours, I found extremely interesting. You do realize that that, right there, is strength? If you weren’t strong, as you claim, you’d do your best to blend in and conform.

         

        I’ll have to add that to the list of reasons why women aren’t interested in me: between my non-macho personality and my physical build, I must not make them feel safe.

        Repeat after me: It does not take a macho attitude and physical strength to get out of the car and help a small turtle to the other side of the road. It does, however, take a strong protective instinct. Compassion and care (from the feminine side) will make you emphasize with the turtle’s plight. Protectiveness (from the masculine side) will make you take action. No matter your gender, or its supposed “role”.

        The macho dude, however, would likely run the turtle over on purpose. Because he has something to prove (his manliness, likely). It’s a classic case of high-range masculine traits (aggression) combining with high-range feminine traits (insecurity) to turn a personality into an asshole.

        Women flock to those guys (and hot ones with very few positive traits), because they give women a thrill. They will never give a woman a sense of security and safety, though. I think this is also often what Evan points out.

        From a lot of your statements, I’ve actually gotten a sense that you are a man with a lot of positive masculine qualities. That’s why I once told you I suspected you were actually a rather attractive man.

        Compared to someone else here, whom I won’t name, who displays mostly feminine traits: Vanity (I’m so good-looking, so desirable, make so much money), insecurity (I’m better than everyone else and have to constantly point that out), inattentiveness and hurtfulness – the opposite of protectiveness (no one holds my attention for long, I feel the need to insult others), etc.

        Not a single one of those are actually masculine traits. The majority of the energy/traits he utilizes come from the extreme feminine end, with a bit of aggression and competitiveness from the masculine side. Not a combination that equals a pleasant or admirable personality. And certainly not one that equals masculine.

         

         

         

         

        1. Tron Swanson

          Sylvana,

          Thanks for the compliments, and my apologies for the slow reply. I’ve increasingly lost interest in women over the last few months, so I haven’t been here as much.

    2. 3.2
      ashd

      Evan didn’t include all the data in his results, but right behind “physique” (33%) in things men worry about on a daily or near daily basis is actually “your ability to provide for your family, current or anticipated” (32%).

      1. 3.2.1
        sylvana

        @Ashd,

        that does sound completely logical to me. Thanks for pointing that out.

    3. 3.3
      Emily, the original

      Sylvana,

      Next, to me, would be strength. Both physical and mental.

      I think an offshoot of this is decisiveness and taking the lead. Or as cliched as it sounds — a man with a plan.

      1. 3.3.1
        sylvana

        Emily,

        Well, I’d have to say yes and no. It’s sometimes easy to mistake natural dominance with strength (mental or physical).

        Decisiveness and taking the lead are dominant traits.

        Yet grief, loss, the feeling of failure, etc. in his/her personal life can destroy a naturally dominant person. Especially if the sense of failure comes from the failure of keeping someone they were “in charge of” safe, protected, or provided for.

        On the other hand, even the most submissive personality can display a tremendous ability to overcome grief, loss, horrible circumstances, and therefore – incredible mental strength.

        That same strength can also make them go completely against their nature and make decisions and take the lead if ever needed. (A man/woman with a plan – having the determination to succeed, or in times of loss/grief, etc.).

        They can fight and claw their way out of a hole, refuse to give up, no matter the circumstances, be strong for others when needed, even take charge when needed… but don’t dare ask them to plan a dinner date or make a decision about where to go/what to eat, take charge of a situation while there is a more functioning dominant person around, etc. Zero leadership skills, but tremendous determination and strength.

        Yes, a naturally more dominant person tends to deal a lot better with stress, pressure, emergencies, etc. And they are strong because of it.

        But I would not advise judging a person’s actual strength by the dominant traits of decisiveness and taking the lead. If a woman actually wants a more dominant, take-charge man, then count it in.

        But she better be of a more submissive nature. A woman needs to keep in mind that a man with those type of dominant traits is also much less likely to support her with her own goals or give her the support needed to restore/keep up her own strength. In plain English: She’s not his equal. He’s in charge (dominant), she submits (and no, that does not mean abuse). He leads, she follows.

        This is where a lot of women mess up. They claim they want a man with more dominant traits, but they also want to be equals. It doesn’t work that way. What most women truly want is a man who is all right with making decisions and taking charge at times, but is also willing to let her make decisions and take charge. 

        In which case a true, take-charge kind of man might not actually be that good a match for her.

        Us dominant personalities aren’t exactly known for being any type of good at (gulp) compromise. It’s a dirty word, I swear.

        If she is looking for a man to be strong for her if/when she needs it, to support her own goals and wishes, decisiveness and taking the lead should actually come with a bit of a caution flag. She needs to make sure that he’s also willing to step back without begrudging it. 

        And while indecisiveness in general will drive anyone nuts, a woman shouldn’t think for a moment that a man with much less of a take-charge personality will not be strong in exactly the way she needs it.

        I think this is part of the problem with society’s gender roles. Gender roles claim that being decisive and taking the lead is part of being a man. But it’s not. It’s part of being a dominant man. Just like it is part of being a dominant woman.

        So now we have men with less dominant personalities believing they aren’t “strong”. Or not masculine enough. And women mistaking the guy who actually likes to get his own way and boss people around for someone who will care and be there for them if they need him. Or, if he’s actually a good guy overall, mistaking him for someone who will let her be dominant when she chooses without it leading to major friction in the relationship.

         

         

         

        1. Emily, the original

          Sylvana,

          But I would not advise judging a person’s actual strength by the dominant traits of decisiveness and taking the lead.

          I don’t think a man approaching a woman, asking her out, getting her number, calling her up and planning the date shows dominance. Maybe confidence, but that’s what I meant by decisiveness. A man who makes it clear the woman isn’t going to have to nudge things along, guide him, direct him in what to do in terms of courting. For instance, I have a guy friend who only calls women if they initiate by first giving him their phone number. (This is if the meet randomly out at bar, for example. Not online.) He’ll talk with them but won’t ask for the number. That’s not decisive. That’s not taking the lead. Taking the lead is what he’s waiting for the woman to do, which is fine if that’s what a woman wants to do, but his initial courting behavior is very indicative of how he’ll be in the rest of the relationship.

        2. Yet Another Guy

          @Emily, the original

          Au contraire!  Within the animal kingdom, which includes humans, leadership is all about dominance. The leader is usually the individual who exhibits the most dominance, either by force of strength or personality/mental acuity.

          I personally do not believe that “leading” is a good way to describe the pursue, plan, pay paradigm.  What you are gauging is the strength of his urge to pursue as well as his confidence to act upon it (i.e., how bad does he want you? and what is he willing to do to obtain you?).  That has nothing to do with leadership.  With humans, leadership is about mostly about getting people to imitate you because if a person is imitating you, he/she is following you.  When I was going through leadership training in the Navy, we were taught that leadership is setting an example worthy of imitation due to this reality.

        3. Emily, the original

          YAG,

          The leader is usually the individual who exhibits the most dominance, either by force of strength or personality/mental acuity.

          Actually, the BOLDEST one–the one with the most strength–is the one who stands outside the group and doesn’t give two shits where he fits in the hierarchy of things.

        4. sylvana

          YAG,

          You’re determined to make me suffer here, lately. That’s twice now I actually have to agree with you…ha ha.

        5. sylvana

          Emily,

          I agree that courtship behavior does not equal dominance. But I do think that a lot of women tend to get courtship behavior and dominant traits mixed up, or think one relates to the other.

          That’s why I had originally said “yes and no”.

          Courtship behavior displays just that. Heck, there are a lot of men who will take charge in courting just because it’s expected of them. Not because they are confident. They can be knee-shaking, nauseous with nerves as they plan the date. And still plan it. But that certainly doesn’t mean they’re confident. It also doesn’t mean that the man will continue this behavior as the relationship progresses.

          Likewise, some of the most confident men I know actually will not pursue a woman.

          So, overall, I’d still say that women need to look at courting as just that: Courting. It does not indicate anything else. And women need to look at it separate from traits, such as confidence, taking the lead, etc.

          You do seem to separate the two to a degree. But a lot of women don’t.

           

           

        6. Emily, the original

          Sylvana,

          Courtship behavior displays just that. Heck, there are a lot of men who will take charge in courting just because it’s expected of them. Not because they are confident. They can be knee-shaking, nauseous with nerves as they plan the date. And still plan it.

          That’s ok!  I’m probably nervous myself. I’m just at the point now where I’ve noticed there are men who need a lot of encouragement to pursue and I’m not interested in that.  It’s too much work.

        7. Persephone

          All this is making me crazy.  What you all believe is so different than what I believe.  I prefer an equal partner who values me as a human and communicates with me, rather than a bossy man with a personality disorder.  Some of you women should go to the Incel board to pick up men, if you are trying to pick up the type of men you are promoting here.

          Dominance is not the best way to choose leadership. Dominance involves using power, coercion, and intimidation. The men who have this display qualities such as arrogance, superiority, and conceit. This reminds me of a pack of horses.  The dominant mare gets that way by being able to artfully place hoofmarks on the hide of the other horses in the herd. She is often the ugliest, least desirable nag in the pasture. Dominant “leaders” like this have higher-than-average levels of aggressive, disagreeable, manipulative personality traits. Dominance works as a tool to gain power over one’s partner.  Unequal. Leaders high in dominance go to great lengths to safeguard their power. Abuse will be considered. They will used reward and punishment as abusive measures toward their partner. 

          Prestige is another way that leaders surface.  Those who use prestige often show humility and pride. Personality-wise, prestige is marked by self-esteem, agreeableness.  What is prestige?  It is through being good at communicating with a partner, having integrity (ie will he call like he said he would), having good values, having goals and a vision for his life, having good values, having passion for something in life (ie music?  cooking? a knife collection?), confidence (which is not the same as dominance), Curiosity, and a positive attitude.  

    4. 3.4
      Noquay

      Sylvana

      Really agree with you on these points. It’s as though younger men no longer know how to be men. I am one of those chix the men here, in this pretty much uneducated town, think of as “too masculine, too snobbish”. Frankly, in order to maintain my home, farm, etc, I’ve HAD to become pretty masculine, also in terms of protecting myself. It may be a regional/cultural thing, but a lot of the men either have few skills or do not wish to utilize them. I’ve had live in boyfriends who wished I’d give up my home, lifestyle because they didn’t want to feel obligated to do chores of any sort, yet I’m still expected to cook, clean etc. I’m up on 30’ ladders, painting, hanging doors, running power tools because if I want it done, that’s what I must do. It’s as though a work ethic, doing a job right, has vanished. These same dudes despise that I’m outearned them and am much better educated. I understand there are folk with learning issues, but for most here, they chose not to be educated yet don’t wish to accept the consequences of that decision. My ex husband, best friend, current sort of partner are in their 80’s or nearly so. Despite two of them now being disabled, they help with chores, hold open doors, two were good role models for their kids, we’re community leaders, all three are well read, articulate, sober, drug free, value fitness, are clean and well groomed, have a strong work ethic and worked hard to get an education yet have many real world skills too. I feel sorry for the young women here whose only choices are pot smoking ski/snowboard dudes who cannot commit, hold onto a job, refuse to self improve.

      1. 3.4.1
        Persephone

        No Quay: you are amazingly awesome! You and I would get along very well, because I do those things, too. And yet people tell me I’m very feminine. My long hair is almost to my waist, and everyone tells me I’m pretty. When I’m not painting or getting muddy, I wear cute dresses. But I also weld, run chainsaws, and even know how to plow a mule.  The work ethic you are  describing is not being manly–it is being an adult.

        I would describe being a man first of all as being an adult. The rest will fall into place by its biology. My boyfriend is very much a man, and he’s not at all intimidated by my skills.

        1. Noquay

          Persephone

          I too am complimented on my femininity by some. Despite my years (58), I have long, shiny, Black hair down to my posterior. I am smallish of build yet muscular.  When I dress up, it’s high end feminine, with high end jewelry, yet I often don’t dress up here as there’s so few things to dress up for and most men aren’t dressed up even when they should be. My 80 y.o. partner and 79 year old best friend are not at all intimidated by my skills and both are actually proud of me. My male students admired who I was. The resentment comes from less educated guys a decade on either side of my age so I assume it’s a generational thing.

      2. 3.4.2
        sylvana

        Noquay,

        You make a very good point there. I see it all too much these days, as well. Men expecting women to be “feminine”. Yet totally forgetting that in order to be feminine, we have to be vulnerable. Which is only possible if we feel safe and protected.

        Rather much impossible to do when a woman constantly has to take on the masculine role in order to survive.

         

        1. Persephone

          Sylvania:  I disagree that vulnerability is necessary to be feminine.  I am very feminine, but I am less vulnerable than the average woman. I can even run a chainsaw and a backhoe. My amazing boyfriend is a soccer player, in super good shape, but he probably knows I can hold my own if it ever came to that.  Let him put on a pair of my pumps with us both in equal footwear, and let’s see who can outrun the other!  : )

    5. 3.5
      Persephone

      Sylvana:

      I’m a better shot with a gun than my boyfriend is, so he feels safe around me. But then I know my teeth aren’t going to be knocked out by him like they were by men in my past, so yeah, I feel safe. The thing is, we feel safe with each other.

       

      You said:

      “women don’t even realize how often a good man will actually put his own well-being on the line, and be willing to take the risk of physical injury to ensure the well-being of others. Often, unconsciously.”

      Yes, thank goodness for the men out there who make us feel safe! I’m not taking away from these amazing men, but isn’t that just as much what mamas do, as well? Yes, you describe some amazingly wonderful characteristics that I want to see in a man. But those great characteristics I also think belong in me, a confident woman. I see it as part of being a grown-up. Protecting someone that you love. Sticking together for those are supposed to be together with. Having each other’s backs.

      Yeah, I’ll take this chivalry any day. I’ll let him in walk on the street side for me, open doors, and hold my arm while I get up into the pickup truck. And in return, I let my long hair down to look beautiful for him, and put on a pretty flowy dress that he loves. I’ll give him extra special kisses when he gives me those dozen red roses that he actually gave to me. In return, he’ll get the best massage ever.  It should be a two-way street.

       

       

       

      1. 3.5.1
        sylvana

        Persephone,

        absolutely. Each person (man or woman or other) has masculine and feminine traits. Some simply lean more toward one end than the other. And sometimes, depending on the situation, we use mostly traits from one of the two sides.

        A mother defending her children, for example, will at that moment draw only from the masculine side (protection, aggression, etc.).

        While a man acting out of compassion and empathy will, in that moment, draw mostly from the feminine side.

        It’s never a black or white issue. Both work together to form a whole.

         

        1. Persephone

          @sylvana:

          Each person (man or woman or other) has masculine and feminine traits. 

          Perhaps there is something wrong with me, Doc. Can someone help me out in my demented state?  Aside from having a peen or vaj, (and even that is not definitive as in case of congenital anomalies) I don’t know what the masculine and feminine traits are.

          It seems to me that a mother racoon attacking someone who goes near her cub is a very female protective response–not a male one.

          It also seems that “compassion” and “protectionism” are closely related, therefor I don’t understand the division in gender.

          I keep repeating that it’s more about being an adult than anything. A man acts like an adult and the rest falls in place.  Some of the most “male” adults I know are queer, but they are responsible, caring, kind, compassionate.  I know of pro-football players who are very many, but also queer.

          In some cultures, it is manly for a grown man to hold hands with other heterosexual men. We should do some introspection to see what really matters as far as being a man.  I am not a man, so maybe I am the wrong one to speak out on this.  But I counsel a lot of men.  I also worked around a lot of men in a former job in heavy manufacturing.  Men cry more than women–and that is okay.  I have more men cry in my office than women.  Perhaps because they know it’s a “safe” place. I have gone inside jail to see male clients for criminal cases, and they cry.  Therefore, it’s not about hiding emotions, or not having any.  Crying is not an indication of weakness. It’s an indication of strength.

          Let’s do away with these god-forsaken cultural expectations and just all be adults.

          I love to see my boyfriend play ball. He is awesome.  If that is what we can call “manly” then at least it is something.  I would play ball, too, if there were a team.  No other women want to join teams.  The females stop playing once they hit that age of responsibility. And if I didn’t have so many other responsibilities and interests I would play, too.

  4. 4
    Karl R

    Regarding Male Privilege:

    I believe this is (at least partly) a flaw in the way the survey was phrased. I believe that male privilege exists. But at my place of employment, in the six categories the survey listed, men don’t have an advantage.

    If I were to identify any male privilege in my office, it’s tied to things that occur outside of the workplace.

    1. There’s a small lingering difference in how men and women perform at math. This “privilege” occurs in the educational system, but the effects would persist inside of the workplace.

    2. Of my coworkers with children, the men do less than 50% of the child-rearing (several have stay-at-home wives), while the women do more than 50% of the child-rearing.

     

    Rethinking Work Behavior, Post #MeToo:

    Most men haven’t thought differently about their work behavior due to #MeToo. Count me among them.

    I work in a corporate culture where that behavior wouldn’t be tolerated. That culture is heavily set from the top down. Personally, I’ve had a life-long policy against dating at work. In addition, when in doubt, I tend to err on the side of caution / professionalism at work.

    That doesn’t leave a lot to rethink.

     

    Witnessing Sexual Harassment, or Not:

    Again, this relates to seeing sexual harassment at work. Most harassers try to avoid having witnesses (aside from the victims). If I give my coworkers the impression that I frown on that sort of behavior, then potential harassers will conceal that behavior from me.

    There are exceptions. If the person at the top is the harasser, then he/she won’t care if other underlings are witnesses. There’s nothing that the witness can do either.

    I’ve seen sexual harassment at work, but it was well over a decade ago.

    1. 4.1
      sylvana

      Karl R,

      don’t you think that the whole “male privilege” also very much depends on the situation? I don’t doubt that it still exists in some places. But women are also quick to forget that there are plenty of situations where there is actually such a thing as “female privilege”.

      I highly doubt women are screaming male privilege in the world of professional cheerleaders, for example. Or supermodels. Nurses? Caretakers? Any predominantly female occupation, for that matter.

      Let’s not even mention strippers and sex workers (cam shows, pictures, dominatrixes, etc.). Yet, for some reason, in those cases actual female privilege gets turned back around to men exploiting women. When, technically, it’s women exploiting men. Unless she was forced to do so (and therefore a victim of a crime), she volunteered for the job, and is doing it because it provides her with easy money.

      And let’s open a whole other can of worms: Women in power who abuse their power the same way men do. Or even women in general. Yes, I’m talking sexual harassment, or inappropriate advances, inappropriate touching, etc. Talking about getting away with it.

      I think when it comes to the entire “me-too” movement, women need to start being a bit more aware of the behavior of other women as well. And step in, if needed.

      Because we all know that pretty much no one will back up a man claiming sexual harassment by a woman.

      I don’t know why people think it’s funny when a drunk chick rubs her hands all over a guy who’s obviously not interested in her. But if a drunk man did the same to a woman, it would be the end of the world. Same goes for the female executive in the office, thinking (or should I say knowing) she can get away with rubbing her hand up a married man’s thigh.

      Female privilege, once again? Since we’re women (and physically weaker), and men are sexual creatures (and physically stronger), men are automatically assumed to enjoy the attention. Not ok.

      Another example: A woman gets mad and slaps, or even punches a man. It’s not considered all right. But she likely won’t face much of a consequence. Now what happens if a man did the same to a woman, even if she did it first? Personally, I’ve always believed if she wants to fight like a man, she can go down like one. But apparently society thinks otherwise.

      Yet another sign of clear female privilege.

      So ladies, take a look around you. I’m not trying to belittle women who’ve had bad experiences. But we all need to acknowledge it’s a two-way street.

      1. 4.1.1
        Persephone

        Sylvana: well I’m not a screamer, I have even complained about male privilege and areas that are female-dominated.

         

        ” I highly doubt women are screaming male privilege in the world of professional cheerleaders, for example. Or supermodels. Nurses? Caretakers? Any predominantly female occupation, for that matter.”

        Let’s not even mention strippers and sex workers
         

        I’ll start with the strippers and sex workers. Men even get preference there. At places where women are strippers, the audience is supposed to behave, and the women will get arrested if they touch a male patron. At places where men are strippers it is anything goes– seriously. There is no cop standing there, making sure people don’t have sex on stage when the strippers are men.

        If a woman goes into a workplace that was previously all men, they make orgasm sounds over the intercom, and constantly change the rules so that she can never get ahead. If a man goes into the workplace that was previously all women, the females in the office fawning all over him and give him the best desk in the office. Oh, and you can be sure he’s on the fast track to be boss one day. The male nurses are always sought out. The women nurses want to work with them, because they want a work body, and they want someone strong who can do the physical work for bedridden patients who need to be moved.

        And Justice here several professional football teams made the news when they were adding male cheerleaders. Only guess what? The male cheerleaders are “stuntman.” See how they take the same thing that women have been doing for years, and when a man does this job the masters elevate it? And the men don’t have to show as much skin. The media is fawning all over them.

  5. 5
    Adrian

    I think the greater question is:

    “How much of what is considered a man today is natural and how much of it is a result of us men trying to be what women want a masculine man to be so we can attract them?”

     

    1. 5.1
      sylvana

      Adrian,

      look to nature, and the general role of males of non-solitary species, and you’ll have your answer.

      But remember to not mistake courtship behavior with masculine. That’s where the expectations come into play.

    2. 5.2
      Persephone

      Adrian, welcome to the world of women! We’ve been living that for years. The phenomenon you describe is only recent.

      “How much of what is considered a man today is natural and how much of it is a result of us men trying to be what women want a masculine man to be so we can attract them?”

      Men have always gotten to be who they want to be throughout the ages. Women who have tried to be what they want to be would get ignored. If a woman didn’t want to get married, they will be called a “spinster”, where a man got to be called a bachelor. If a  woman made a scientific discovery, the credit went to a man.

      Men like that aren’t real men at all, in my book. A real man will acknowledge the accomplishments, skills, and qualities of a good woman. It seems to me that posts that Evan approves are the ones that encourage gender stereotypes. There are so many gender stereotypes by the posters on these blogs, that it makes my head want to explode. I’m not sure if this is how the average American thinks, or not. Or the average person from a Western Society. I sure hope not. A man who thought that way would never have a chance of dating me, let alone getting married to me.

       

  6. 6
    Tom10

    Adrian asked #5:
    “How much of what is considered a man today is natural and how much of it is a result of us men trying to be what women want a masculine man to be so we can attract them?”
     
    sylvana replied #5.1:
    “look to nature, and the general role of males of non-solitary species, and you’ll have your answer.”
     
    So, let’s see, what do males of non-solitary species do?
     
    –          Hunt
    –          Murder their love rivals
    –          Kill rivals’ offspring so that females will become fertile again
    –          Rape
    –          Defend their own offspring. Sometimes.
     
    Yikes. Doesn’t look good, does it?  
     
    So to answer your question Adrian it seems the answer is the latter: men are the way they are now as “a result of us men trying to be what women want a masculine man to be so we can attract them.”
     
    —————————————————–
     
    Regarding “What It Means to Be a Man” I actually think we’re entering a non-binary, post-gender era, where the boundaries, roles and expectations of what it means to be a “man”, or indeed a “woman”, have become blurred to the point of undefinablity and irrelevance.
     
    We’ve entered the generation of the individual.
     
    Indeed I see no reason to maintain census data on the number of males/females in the population; just the number of individuals. Likewise with male/female bathrooms; why not just have individual stalls? Why not abolish gendered pronouns?
     

    So, what does it mean to be a man? It actually doesn’t matter anymore; what matters is what the individual chooses their life to mean for themselves. 
     

    1. 6.1
      Mrs Happy

      A fully grown adult male crocodile swims up and down his river and kills every single cute little male infant baby croc on the river and riverbank.  These are his sons, because he mated with all the adult female crocs, and he is the only adult male around.  He keeps baby females alive so they grow up.  They are his daughters.  We can all guess why he keeps them alive.  (I’m surprised a method creating such little genetic variation has survived since the dinosaur era, but it clearly works.)

      Male competition for breeding rights, in action.

      1. 6.1.1
        Chance

        This is what happens when females are indiscriminate maters.  Womens’ greatest contribution to humanity has been their sexual selectivity.  Humans got to where we are today because men did great things.  Men did great things because women rewarded men who did great things with sexual intimacy.

        1. Gala

          Women “rewarded” them? I am LMAO. No, men who did “great things” were able to get access to and rape more women. Men have treated women as property and have been women’s greatest mayhem since the dawn of days.

        2. Persephone

          Chance:

          I am not sure why Evan approves so many misogynist posts. You sound like someone who belongs in the Handmaidens Tale. If you haven’t read the book or seen the series on Hulu, it’s where certain women had no role in life other than to be breeding cows. This is what you comment feels like. Gross.

          I’m sure you’re not aware that many Famous Masters painters took credit for their wives’ and daughters’ work. Women’s work has been erased from the labor movement, civil rights movements, and over and over again in science. 

          Other examples of men taking credit for women’s work is with the game of Monopoly, which was invented by a woman, Elizabeth Magie. She called it landlord’s game, and made it to protest the bad behavior of big monopolist like Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller. ( I can only imagine what she would have thought of Fred Trump.) She was single for many years, and of course back then they called them spinsters. How degrading! A man named Charles Darrow sold it to Parker Brothers and made millions.

          A woman, Rosalind Franklin, discovered the DNA Helix. 2 years after she died a team of men got the Nobel Prize for discovering it. There was a book written in 2002 about this scandal.

          A woman, Lise Meitner, invented nuclear fission, but the Nobel committee gave the prize to a man, Otto Hahn.

        3. Evan Marc Katz

          I don’t read all the posts, but when I do read them, I approve just about anything that isn’t a direct insult to an individual. And if we’re keeping score, the women here are insulting YAG and Chance personally far more than they are insulting you. I would say I’m a pretty objective observer.

        4. Yet Another Guy

          @Chance

          Female sexual selectivity is born out in our genome, which can be seen in men.  There is much more variation in the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) that men get from their mothers as there is in the NRY (non-recombining Y) regions of the Y chromosome that men get from their fathers.  That means that fewer men have fathered children than women have had babies over the history of mankind (adding genetic credence to the saying that women would rather share a high quality man than be saddled with a faithful loser).  Another interesting fact is that our DNA shows that women were more likely to migrate to couple then men.  NRY differences are more regional than those found in mtDNA.

        5. Persephone

          Evan: Sorry but this is very significant in how I view your entire operation.  The misogyny on your blogs as of late has been rampant.  I took that as you allowing “freedom of speech” in some weird way, even though this is not a forum where such “rights” are legally protected.

          Gala hit the nail on the head, spot-on.

          It is up to you whether or not you, Even take this as an insult, but if you think that Chance’s comment, that “Men did great things because women rewarded men who did great things with sexual intimacy” is not insulting enough to garner 10 times the backlash it has already gotten then you are doing a disservice to women and should quit being their dating coach.  I am going to stop referring people to your message boards for this.  Gross, Gross, Gross ten thousand times over. 

          BTW, I am not a “feminazi” if that is what YAG et al want to call me.  YAG needs to receive more backlash than what he gets.  It has confused me why he does not, but now it’s clear that he probably does. You probably just reject those posts.  YAG has no place on your blogs. He is gross.

          I doubt you will publish this, and that is okay, because it’s meant for Evan Marc Katz.  I am not some run-of-the-mill bimbo in this matter. I am a professional.  I am an attorney who sees miserable people of both genders. Seeing these divorces gives me as much insight as you get–perhaps even more and from a better angle.

        6. Evan Marc Katz

          Persephone,

          I told you that I don’t read all the comments and can’t account for everything that’s published. My instructions to my assistant are to delete personal attacks and insults and that’s all. Because, yes, I think this is a freedom of speech issue, which entails not just speech that you agree with, but dissenting opinions, too. Chance has every right to state his perceptions of women, regardless of whether you and I agree. And if you think that this qualifies as “hate speech” and that by allowing it, I have somehow become less of an advocate for women, you can feel free to no longer read this site. I have been a dating coach for women for 15 years, but if women are too sensitive to listen to some strangers’ misogyny (which is a reflection of HIS point of view, not mine) and you can’t tell the difference, well, there’s not much I can do about that. I’m a party line liberal and self-proclaimed feminist, but, for the life of me, liberals are KILLING ourselves with our hypersensitivity and public shaming of any dissenters. You can’t turn your allies (like me) into enemies (like actual woman-haters) – simply because I treat both sexes the same on my message boards. There have been 130,000 comments on here. Far more of them have been angry missives against both men and yours truly. So unless you want to comb through the site and cry sexism against those women and call for them to be banished, perhaps you should keep a little perspective on the fact that the rest of the world doesn’t have to agree with you to have a point of view. If you don’t want to date Chance or YAG, then don’t. But please don’t judge me for being tolerant of the excesses of both angry men AND angry women. I’ve been doing it since 2007 and don’t plan to change any time soon.

        7. Persephone

          @Chance:  Womens’ greatest contribution to humanity has been their sexual selectivity. 

          Let’s just send all us gals to eugenics camp instead of universities if that’s all we have to contribute.  This is insulting on many levels. I am shocked this comment even was published.

        8. Chance

          Hi Persephone, Thanks for your comments.  My comment wasn’t in reference to what I think “women are good for” or what their role in society should be.  No one is saying that women aren’t equally capable of doing anything that men can do or that they shouldn’t be allowed to do so.  I’m speaking from an evolutionary perspective.  Womens’ sexual selectivity has forced men to be much more productive than both men and women would ever otherwise be compelled to be.  It’s even been postulated that womens’ sexual selectivity was the primary reason that we diverged from chimpanzees as female chimps are relatively indiscriminate maters.  If that’s accurate, than that is an extremely significant contribution to humanity.   Women have always been equally capable as men for doing anything they want.  They just haven’t been equally compelled to do so because they can get men to do it for them by exploiting (not necessarily in a nefarious, or even conscious, way) mens’ much higher sex drive.   Does that clarify things a little?

        9. Chance

          Btw Persephone, I haven’t the slightest desire to be with a woman who just stays at home and pops out kids.  A woman’s reproductive value has almost no impact on how I view her mate value.  You’d be quite surprised to know, I suspect, that I put an incredible amount of weight into a woman’s intelligence, work ethic, and most of all, her personality  in my choice of a life partner.  Her birthing capacity doesn’t factor in.

        10. Persephone

          @Chance:  Thanks for your response.  I see so much misogyny on this blog–whether intended or not.  Yes, your clarification helps. Your original post seemed off color. It’s easy to post without editing, and without understanding how it will initially come across.  I am glad I had an opportunity to give a finger shaking, and that you responded.

        11. shaukat

          Hi Chance,

          Do you have a source for the claim that the divergence between humans and chimpanzees could have been triggered by greater sexual selectivity on the part of the females of the former species? I’m also quite interested in evolutionary theory, but I haven’t come across that hypothesis, so I’d be interested in reading more about it.

        12. Yet Another Guy

          @Persephone

          BTW, I am not a “feminazi” if that is what YAG et al want to call me. 

          I would not call you a feminazi.  I would call you an overly sensitive women who does not truly understand men.  You want to understand men.  You talk about adoring men, but you are like progressive women who include “Swipe left if you voted for Trump” in their profiles.  You would rather bite your nose off to spite your face than accept that the majority of men see things very differently than women.  It does not mean that women are wrong.  It just means that men and women often see things very differently.

          I believe that Chance worded things poorly, but the general idea that men have to be successful to get a quality woman holds because women tend to be drawn to status.  After all, status is female primal trigger just like hip-to-waist ratio is a male primal trigger.  Granted, not all women are drawn to status, but enough are that the general principle holds.  Not all men are drawn to women who look like Barbie (who just happens to be busty with a good hip-to-waist ratio); however, enough are that women have no bones about mentioning it in their profiles.

          I will agree that not all women are like the women I have known, but to deny their existence is to deny that the planet is round.  When it comes to relationships, men are shaped by the women in their past just as women are shaped by the men in their past.  The problem I have is that it is okay for women to discuss questionable male behavior on this blog, but if a man does discusses questionable female behavior without interjecting psychobabble, he is labeled a misogynist.  That is a page out of the progressive feminist handbook, silence opposing opinion and dissent through shame.  I do not buy into that BS.  I am man with serious protective streak who would step in the path of a moving vehicle to protect those I love.  I know what means to be a true man, which means protecting and providing for those who cannot protect and provide for themselves.  It means not shirking one’s responsibilities when they are inconvenient.  I know the true meaning of honor and valor.  I laid my hide on the line for my country.  No one put a gun to my head.  No one threatened me with incarceration if I failed to do so. I volunteered, so that my country could successfully end conscription.  There are men who are willing to step up and do the dirty work when necessary, and there men who would rather let other men make the ultimate sacrifice.  In a perfect world, this sacrifice would not be necessary, but we live in an imperfect world.

        13. Emily, the original

          YAG, 

          The problem I have is that it is okay for women to discuss questionable male behavior on this blog, but if a man does discusses questionable female behavior without interjecting psychobabble, he is labeled a misogynist

          You’re labeled a misogynist because you don’t like women, deeply distrust them and resent them because, despite your protestations, you need them. This attitude bleeds out of every one of your posts.

        14. Persephone

           @YAG:

          “It does not mean that women are wrong.  It just means that men and women often see things very differently.”

          No….it means you and I see things differently. Many men see things differently than you do. The Red Pill is a cult for men “who don’t understand women.”

          I understand men very well. I understand you very well. I think that the problem here is that you do not understand me.

          I don’t have a “swipe left” kind of profile. Gross.  Women like that are gross.  BTW, my BF hates Trump, too.  And I didn’t meet him on a swipe type thingy.  I met him in real time through like-minded friends. He saw me in person, and then specifically looked for me on Facebook through the friends list of his roommate.  Then he sent me roses.

          When I lived in town, people used to call me Barbie behind my back.  My husband and I were “Barbie and Ken” and I would have preferred they not tell us that.  We both actually had done some modelling, but they didn’t know that.  We kept that private.  We separately had each  gotten offers without pursing anything, and just needed the extra money  to get down payment for a house, raise a child, ect.   I was surprised to find out people on our street called me Barbie, and it hurt my feelings.  I was thin and in shape–not busty. Other women have tried to “beat me up” for no reason other than my looks. I hated being “barbie.”   The nickname came from my next door neighbor college professor who never responded positively to my efforts to make friends. I was a nice person to her. She made me feel like a freak of nature.  These nicknames  seem like compliments to people who are not called those names, but they can be quite hurtful to the ones they are directed toward.

          You are in “our house” so to speak.  You are on a woman’s blog. You use “psychobabble” that seems to originate from men’s tech groups, such as Incel groups.  You are the main person on this blog who uses this terminology from the “Manosphere.” No man from the so-called Manosphere will interest me.  I am certain that I will not interest them, either.

          If you, YAG, cannot understand why the terminology on this page grosses me out, then there is no hope for you to understand me.  It gets even worse, here.

          I have laid my life on the line for my country, too. I have had a gun held to my head. This is not something only men can do, ya know.

          Aren’t you a big city guy?  That is a lot of the difference.  I imagine that many of the Red Pill types are from big cities.  It’s not that we rednecks don’t have a share of country guy misogyny to worry about, but it’s different. I think misogyny is less in our part of the world.  Perhaps you don’t mean to be misogynist on purpose.  I think you cannot help it. How are you going to know any better if we don’t tell you?

        15. Chance

          @Shaukat –

           


          “Do you have a source for the claim that the divergence between humans and chimpanzees could have been triggered by greater sexual selectivity on the part of the females of the former species? I’m also quite interested in evolutionary theory, but I haven’t come across that hypothesis, so I’d be interested in reading more about it.”

           

          Well, I used my words carefully (e.g., “it’s been postulated”) because I am not sure of where the idea originates.  I know that Jordan Peterson has mentioned it on several occasions, and it appears that he might be getting some of this from Chimpanzees and Human Evolution.

           

          http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674967953

           

          I don’t know if we’ll ever know what triggered the divergence in evolution from chimpanzees to humans, but this does make some sense.  Mrs. Happy was discussing crocodiles’ propensity for infanticide.  From what I can tell, infanticide can lead to monogamous pair bonding within species as they evolve (as is the case with humans), which then can lead to hypergamous optimization since so much more is riding on a female’s mate choice in contrast to what would be the case in an indiscriminate mating strategy.

           

          While the role that women’s sexual selectivity played in our evolution from chimpanzees to humans is highly theoretical (as far as I can tell), what is much more clear is the influence that it has had in our evolution as humans.  It’s all around us.

      2. 6.1.2
        Persephone

        Mrs. Happy,

        I’m not sure the animal kingdom behavior always transfers well to human behavior. And I’m not sure that reptilian Behavior transfers well over to mammalian behavior. Female bears in zoos have been seen eating their newborn babies. The story I read,  one out of three babies was saved and it had a higher white  blood cell count.   The zookeepers nurtured the baby back to health and gave it antibiotics. Alligators are best when left to their own devices, without human intervention, we’re mammals such as bears can be helped. As far as humans, if we displayed any of those behaviors toward human babies we would go to prison or get the death penalty.

        1. shaukat

          @Persephone,

          This isn’t the first time you’ve pushed for censorial, autocratic responses to comments you dislike here. I’m guessing you live in Europe.

          Btw, my criticism of your attitude has nothing to do with whether I agree with Chance’s comment above (I don’t). You can’t pick and choose when it comes to free speech, though as a private company/blog owner you have the right to restrict whatever you want. However, I am referring to your general mentality, which is clearly autocratic.

          The ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march through a town in Illinois in the 80’s before the Supreme Court, and I absolutely defend that right as well.

        2. Persephone

          @Shaukat:

          autocratic responses to comments you dislike here

          Pot calling the kettle black, eh?  “autocratic responses” is code words for “feminazi.”  As I posted above, I predicted someone would call me that for pushing back against misogyny. You apparently are for “freedom of speech” for your viewpoint, but not for my viewpoint.

          I feel that as a place that promotes a particular product, (dating services for successful women), that it is counterproductive for the client base to be insulted.  The posts that I often read here are not helpful means to those ends. Ultimately, it is EMK’s decision–not mine.  However, in being a responsible person, it is certainly my right and my responsibility to call out horrid behavior.

          Wrong as to where I am from. No.  I am not from Europe. I am a good ‘ol girl redneck from the southeast USA.  I wear cowboys hats, cowboy boots, and drive a muddy 4X4 pickup truck with a shotgun and a machete behind the seat. I worked my butt off working a blue collar job in heavy industry where no woman had worked before, and I paid cash for law school so that I could do the kind of cases I want to do and not have to worry about law school loans.  As a result, I can help my other redneck friends and neighbors with low-bono divorces and cases where strong and powerful try to run over the weak and powerless. My comments come as a result of the things I learned from representing both men and women in divorce and child custody cases.   I walk the talk, which means I stand up for my beliefs that one of my roles is to stand up for the weak. When someone throws an insult as to gender, race, whatever, I will come back atcha.

          You don’t like that?  There is a scroll button somewhere on your computer or phone.

        3. Evan Marc Katz

          Persephone said: “You apparently are for “freedom of speech” for your viewpoint, but not for my viewpoint.”

          You seem to forget that YOU were the one who called for a fellow commenter to be banned. No one else did. Now stand up for your beliefs and stop commenting on my website. I’m not banning you; I’m encouraging you to walk the talk.

        4. Shaukat

          @Persephone,

          Lol @ autocratic being a code word for “femi-nazi.” I also think Trump is autocratic in many ways, am I accusing him of being a “femi-nazi?” The term actually isn’t even in my vocabulary.

          And I absolutely support your right to express your views, I didn’t request that you be banned.

          Apologies for getting your location wrong, but it is a trend I’ve noticed.

        5. Persephone

          @Evan:

          No….  I was pointing out that  Shaukaut was contradicting his/hersel.  I said You apparently are for “freedom of speech” for your viewpoint, but not for my viewpoint.

          I have already stated that this is not a forum for protected speech.  This is a woman’s forum. I am not saying that men should not be allowed, but I refer y’all to Emily the original’s post under 6.1.1., when she said to YAG, You’re labeled a misogynist because you don’t like women, deeply distrust them and resent them because, despite your protestations, you need them. This attitude bleeds out of every one of your posts.

          At some point in time, you, Evan, should realize that we will eventually get tired of hte misogynist crap from YAG.

        6. Persephone

          To add to my last post, when you are in a guest’s house, you should be on your best behavior. Men should be like guest in a woman’s house.  They shouldn’t be coming here, a woman’s forum, to degrade us.

        7. Persephone

          @Evan:  I don’t see where I have have been misogynist to women, and that no longer posting would be “walking the talk.”  I am sorry, I don’t follow you.

        8. Emily, the original

          Persephone,

          I have already stated that this is not a forum for protected speech.  This is a woman’s forum.

          I get tired of YAG’s comments, too, and would be happy to see him go, but in all fairness, it’s not my decision. This is Evan’s blog.

        9. Evan Marc Katz

          Indeed it is. And, if you’ve been reading for years, you know that I’ve run off many MGOTW/Red Pill types who spend more time attacking women than stating anything constructive. I don’t think YAG is one of those men. Even if I disagree, I think he’s bright and his views are within the realm of normal discourse. If this were just a “women’s forum,” you wouldn’t get all that much value out of the “understanding men” part of the site beyond what I write each Monday and Thursday. I think it’s valuable to have a spectrum of male readers who contribute to the dialogue. Jeremy and Karl R most echo my sentiments (and both are married) but Shaukat and Tom10 and Adrian and Chance and YAG and Buck (if he’s still lurking) all have useful things to say based on their valid life experience. To me, YAG is just speaking his truth, which is no more offensive than, say, Gala’s beliefs about men and relationships. This is not a safe space. Not for you and certainly not for me. Instead of cherry picking the comments that I agree with, I let them all through.

        10. Emily, the original

          . I don’t think YAG is one of those men. Even if I disagree, I think he’s bright and his views are within the realm of normal discourse. 

          I wouldn’t call his comments red pill, but they are just relentlessly negative. The other male commenters have more nuance.

        11. Tron Swanson

          Don’t forget me, Evan! I’ll gladly occupy the “chaotic neutral” square in the male-poster alignment…

        12. Yet Another Guy

          @Evan

          And, if you’ve been reading for years, you know that I’ve run off many MGOTW/Red Pill types who spend more time attacking women than stating anything constructive. I don’t think YAG is one of those men

          They always say that there are three sides to every story, his side, her side, and the truth.  I think that a lot of the stuff that is written on Red Pill sites is the male equivalent of extreme feminism.  Some of it is just plain wacky and misleading.  However, some of the information is on the money, but worded such that it makes men take an offensive position against women.  The same can be said about a lot of the posts made by women on this blog and other relationship-oriented sites that are targeted at women.

          I am a middle child, a true moderate, someone who is used to being between two warring factions. I support Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, but I also support the 2nd amendment and concealed carry, which makes me a pariah to the left and the right.  Some of the language I use is from the Red Pill world.  Some of it is from the female-dominated relationship sites.  It is the third side of this story that piques my interest.  I know there are things that I write that women detest. I could not care less.  Women write a lot of things that are difficult for me to stomach, much of which would fall under misandry if I was thin-skinned.  However, I am not going to play the shame card because women are writing that stuff for a reason.  It relates to their experiences.  I do not hate women.  I do not trust women, and that is because of my experiences.  Men are capable of unbelievably bad behavior, but so are women.  We are all perfectly imperfect.

    2. 6.2
      Persephone

      Tom10: Thank you, I love your answer. Being a man is very similar to what it means to being a grown-up. (Even women can be grown ups, ya know!)

      Examples of being a grown-up are as follows:

      Protecting those you love

      Making those you love feel safe

      Going to work when you don’t want to because you have to bring home a paycheck.

      Making sure the weaker members of your household or taken care of, such a small children, and sick family members.

      How does any of the above have anything to do with gender? I say that it does not.

      1. 6.2.1
        Marika

        Well..in fairness, this post is called What it’s like to be a Man. I’m actually interested in the guy’s unsensored views on that…

        The last guy I dated had a bunch of guy friends. Often we’d all get together and I’d be the only woman. They’d have a few drinks and forget I was listening. And, as my date pointed out, I didn’t know any of their wives well, so they weren’t worried I’d be ‘reporting back’.

        It was nothing bad, but they did talk a lot about porn (in detail!!), breasts etc, not getting enough sex at home…I didn’t love everything I heard, but it was like being a fly on the wall and I learned a lot.

        1. Emily, the original

          Marika,

          Often we’d all get together and I’d be the only woman. They’d have a few drinks and forget I was listening. And, as my date pointed out, I didn’t know any of their wives well, so they weren’t worried I’d be ‘reporting back’.

          Ohhh … that was disappointing. I had pictured you holding court with a bunch of single guys … and then you mentioned “wives.”   🙁

        2. Mrs Happy

          Breasts?!?!  Why?  What is it about breasts?  What on earth were they saying, I mean how much mileage is there in that topic … they’re soft and warm…. what else?

        3. Persephone

          @Marika:

          I love your story!

          Yes, it’s fun to be a fly on the wall. I like it better when people are themselves.

          I worked many 12 hour night shifts. When the machines would go down, and we polished handrails and swept floors until we couldn’t anymore, we would sit back and congregate.  Sometimes fire up the grill out back , or make a donut run.  They sometimes forgot I was there.  They would whisper, “Do you think she’ll tell on me and get me fired?”  No, I didn’t tell on them.

          I was like a fly on the wall, also.  I am very thick-skinned, so not  lot bothers me. No the doo doo jokes, not the hustler magazines pulled out of the lunch cooler, not the penis peeking from behind a door  with a face drawn on it.  The only thing, after 12 years, that bothered me was the guy who travelled to southeast asia for sex tourism for underage girls that he could pick out of a catalog. That was only one guy out of many I encountered.

          I was perfectly fine in that setting until they started making up things abut me supposedly shooting up steroids, because I was very fit and they hated a women being able to keep up with them physically.  That, also, was only one guy.  The majority are awesome.

  7. 7
    Tom10

    @ Shaukat
    “This isn’t the first time you’ve pushed for censorial, autocratic responses to comments you dislike here. I’m guessing you live in Europe.”
     
    To quote Jeremy; oi! Do you think that we don’t cherish and believe in free speech in Europe shaukat? We absolutely do!
     
    I could even make a strong argument that “Europe” (a diverse continent with a vast array of political systems and beliefs but, for the sake of argument, let’s deal with it as one entity) is a less censorious and autocratic society than the US.
     
    Now, as far as I can tell you live a little bit north of the border (?), but in the pursuit of critical thinking are you game for the debate? 😉

    1. 7.1
      Marika

      Look out, Shaukat, now it’s not only man v’s woman, you’ve created country v’s continent!… 😉

      You and I have been down this road before and I admit to being overly sensitive at times. This blog aside (where Evan calls the shots on what he feels is okay v’s not okay), for me the question is, when ‘freedom of speech’ becomes ‘hate speech’. Australia definitely imposes some limits on freedom of speech, to, in my view legitimately protect certain groups or individuals (or boneheadedness).

      Andrew Bolt, for example, an Australian social & political commentator, gets himself into trouble all the time for making racist comments about Indigenous Australians and even denying the legitimacy of the Stolen Generation (where Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their parents and raised by white families). He makes all sorts of ridiculous and hurtful comments, for reasons which are unclear, on topics he can never fully understand (as a white middle class guy born in the late 50s).

      Every time he’s sued or pulled up he calls any negative outcome a ‘restriction on freedom of speech’, whereas his free speech is actually hate speech which is damaging, ignorant and has no positive outcome.

      Just a personal thought on the broad concept of freedom of speech. But, hey, maybe that’s my 5th generation ago European roots talking..hehe… 🙂

    2. 7.2
      shaukat

      @ Tom & Marika,

      Tom, ha, I did not mean to give offense, and in many respects I agree that Europeans are far more progressive than Americans, especially on issues such as sex, drugs, income redistribution, healthcare, etc.

      However, on the issue of free speech, European laws are draconian, and such laws do percolate down into the culture and affect processes of socialization (just look at Marika’s comment above, which I’ll get to). You’re right about my location, and I’m not a nationalist, thus I don’t look favorably on the speech laws here either. To begin with , in the United States the bar for slander and libel is set extremely high. If I accuse you of libel in the US, the burden is on me, whereas in England and Canada, the burden is on you–corporations have effectively taken advantage of such laws in the latter two countries to bankrupt dissenting voices and publications, specifically those with less resources and power. Free speech laws in the US are far more progressive, despite the fact that there are many hypocrites in the country when it comes to that issue (on the right and left). But to make my position clear, no, I was not at all suggesting that Europe in general is more autocratic than the US. On a side note, I believe you’re in Ireland, correct? Never been, but it’s on my list. If I ever make it there we must bar hop, you can be my wingman;)

      Marika, I’m aligned with you when it comes to politics, but I strenuously disagree with you on this issue. Firstly, who exactly gets to decide what constitutes ‘hate speech?’ When Salman Rushdie published his classic novel, The Satanic Verses, he was accused of hate speech and blasphemy by the authorities in Iran and by groups in India, and as a result went into hiding for years. Liberals defended him, but have no problem when the state punishes and even imprisons those with less popular views. When protesters against the war in Nicaragua burned the US flag in the 1980s, nationalists and state officials labelled this as ‘hate,’ and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that such an act was protected speech. When critics of specific Israeli policies voice their concerns about human rights violations, supporters of Israel (not all, but some) label such dissent as ‘anti-Semitic’ hate speech. Should the state step in and censor such views, or fine those espousing them? When certain scholars raise concerns about the science behind transgender politics, and are labelled as ‘hateful,’ do you believe they should be punished? I can go on and on. Suffice it to say that great works of literature (Huck Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird) were censored on such grounds.

      So yes, I believe that the gentleman in Australia you cited is entitled to free speech protection, as are the Nazis who marched in Skokie Illinois, as are Klansman, etc. To claim that the state should be entitled to censor and punish ‘hateful’ speech is misguided at best, and Stalinist or Fascist at worst.

       

      1. 7.2.1
        Marika

        Haha, okay, okay, Shaukat. I thought you would probably disagree, but I see you very much disagree. And that’s okay. It’s not something we will ever see eye to eye on :).

        The gentlemen got into trouble under Racial Discrimination and Defamation Acts. Which are likely far more draconian, to use your wording, here, than they are in the US. I take your point..although I think you’re taking it to the extreme..but I’m glad laws like that exist to hold people who are publicly and loudly racist and defamatory to account. Much of what he says is not even based in fact (he’s a bit like a Holocaust denier and I’m pretty sure he’s a climate change denier too). Forget hate speech: I think we can easily judge if a person is making racist comments, and statements about other people which are blatantly untrue.

        Btw, I love To Kill a Mockingbird. Great novel! One of my faves. I will definitely steer clear of the next round of book burning.. 😉

      2. 7.2.2
        Tom10

        @ shaukat #7.2
        “ha, I did not mean to give offense”
         
        No offence taken; I just like to challenge fake news when I see it. 🙂
         
        “on the issue of free speech, European laws are draconian, and such laws do percolate down into the culture and affect processes of socialization”
         
        “If I accuse you of libel in the US, the burden is on me, whereas in England and Canada, the burden is on you”
         
        So by “Europe” you mean England and…Canada?
         
        But, to our American readers, before I outline my argument I’ll state I actually love American values and principles, I mean no offence and I actually think Americans and some of the kindest, friendliest and funniest people on earth. So the following is just for sport.
         
        Free speech encompasses far more than just libel:
         
        –          European porn is arguably wider-ranging with fewer restrictions on what is considered taboo or “obscene”, thus banned; I’ve done a lot of research.
        –          Indeed many European countries play hard-core porn as part of normal terrestrial free-to-air TV scheduling.
        –          It is true that many European countries reject and criminalize certain types of expression which are considered hate speech; however, free speech isn’t an absolute in the US either. I.e. one can’t threaten violence, encourage suicide, publish obscene material, infringe copyright or falsely advertise. Indeed, no place on earth has absolute free speech; it’s always a balancing act.
        –          The US is arguably the most litigious society on earth; therefore, although the burden of a libel lies on the accuser in the US rather than the accused in England and Canada, the risk of being sued is far higher in the US.
        –          Political correctness is arguably much more of a thing in the US than Europe
        –          There is arguably a smaller range of media opinion in the US; I believe there are about six main media players which largely control the entire US media? There are dozens of unrelated large media bodies in Europe.
        –          The US is a more homogeneous culture than Europe which can more easily lead to “witch-hunt” movements like the 1950s anti-communist hysteria and, cough cough, the present-day MeToo movement. These movements steam-roll any opposing views so people have to keep their heads down until it passes.
        –          It could be argued that the current US president isn’t really a big fan of free speech, considering his attacks on media (fundamental cornerstone of a free society) and lawsuits on former staff for…writing books.
        –          The FCC is far more restrictive of free-to-air broadcasting regarding such things as profanities and vulgarities than European bodies are.
        –          It could be argued that the NSA monitors a far wider spectrum of society than Europe agencies, thus casting doubt on how free speech is even in private homes.
         
        So shaukat, is free speech more restricted in Europe than America or just…restricted in different ways?
         
        “On a side note, I believe you’re in Ireland, correct? Never been, but it’s on my list. If I ever make it there we must bar hop, you can be my wingman”
         
        Yep absolutely; I live in the center of our main conurbation so I’d be honored to give you a tour of the joint if you’re ever in this neck of the woods! 😉

        1. shaukat

          Hi Tom,

          You actually make a good point, so just to be clear, I was referring solely to state vs citizen relations on free speech. In the US, aside from inciting violence directly (the imminent harm principle), and libel, all speech is legally protected, and cannot be punished based on the unpopularity of the views or whether they promote ‘hate.’

          However, when it comes to broader cultural boundaries and media ownership concentration, you’re right, a case could be made that there is a greater platform in Europe for the expression of a wider variety of views.

        2. Persephone

          @shaukat

           “all speech is legally protected”

          Not true. For further expl read my posts on this forum  regarding the subject.

      3. 7.2.3
        Marika

        A last question, Shaukat, as I know we disagree and this is a sub-thread of a sub-thread, but I’m genuinely curious, do you think Defamation or Racial Discrimination Laws should not exist? Is there a line you would draw anywhere at all?

        1. shaukat

          Hi Marika,

          Yes, I absolutely believe Racial Discrimination and Defamation laws should exist. However, I believe the bar for the latter should be high, so that large corporations cannot bankrupt dissenting publications simply because they’ve been criticized, and I believe discrimination should be judged based on acts, not speech.

          Thus, I believe there certainly should be laws against denying certain job candidates a position, or preventing patrons and customers from entering establishments, based on race, gender, religion, etc. However, I do not believe that expressing atrociously racist beliefs or views, such as promoting slavery or denying the holocaust, should fall within that category or be punishable by prison or fines, as they are in certain European countries, and in Canada.

          Finally, I do believe that there should be a distinction drawn in certain cases between the speech of a corporation and that of an individual. For instance, I don’t believe that a tobacco company should be able to advertise that their products are completely safe and harmless against all the evidence, though if a private citizen wants to make that claim, fine. And of course in the context of a workplace, there should certainly be policies against statements that could be construed as sexual harassment. I hope this makes my position clearer.

    3. 7.3
      Persephone

      Y’all are approaching  social media with some misguided expectations that aren’t based in reality, by  assuming  you’re entitled to free speech when it comes to participating in online communities  such as blogs, forums, Facebook, Twitter, and so on.

      I’m all for free speech. Free speech protection, however, does not extend to private homes or businesses. You may have the right to say what you like in a public forum, but you don’t have the right to enter a private home or business and do that. In such situations your right to free speech is subject to the discretion of the owner of that private forum.

      When you go to a privately-owned blog, there is most likely something called terms of service. When you were agreeing to these terms of service, you’re agreeing to a contract. You’re usually agreeing to contractually limit your rights to speech. You don’t actually have the same rights to freedom of speech as you do in a truly public forum. For most  online blogs  and social media  pages, you waived that right when you joined the service. That was a condition of your registration. Many online services also include some kind of catch-all clause which basically gives them the right to censor you however they see fit. 

      Why do so many online communities  restrict free speech? Isn’t the expansion of free speech the whole point? Why does Twitter reject who can tweet? Why do they get to kick Alex Jones off of Twitter?

      It takes a lot of time, money and work to  create a blog  or an online community. If someone is going to go through all the trouble, they want to make sure they have enough control of the site to fulfill their reasons for the community to exist in the first place. Unbridled free speech can easily degrade the quality of a community and run afoul of the site owner’s agenda.
      When you visit someone else’s online community, you’re a guest in the owner’s online home. Behave accordingly. Your participation is a privilege subject to the owner’s discretion.
      Anyone on this message board can be kicked out of Evan’s online “home” anytime he wants. Yep. Even me. It’s the same way with my home. There are certain things that you cannot say when you come to visit me at my house. There is no freedom of speech in my living room. I can imagine all of you would be like that if someone started trashing family members, for example. You would not only censor those people, but you would kick them out. You would tell them not only do you not like what they’re saying right there in your living room about your family members, but that they better get out now and never come back.
      If you’re going to come into somebody else’s private online home and behave like a jerk, you’re sadly mistaken if freedom of speech  will prevent you from being shown the door. 

      How would you react if you were invited  to your friend’s home  where he was hosting a party  for your friends, family, and community members, and someone waltzes in and starts treating your friends’ guests rudely or otherwise behaving like an obnoxious buffoon? Wouldn’t you question your friend if you didn’t see him saying anything to the other rude guest? Wouldn’t you question of party host who didn’t  demand that all of his guests treat each other with basic courtesy, politeness, and respect after your friend invited you all into his personal living room? 

      The idea that you have free speech on someone else’s forum is a delusion. Your participation is subject to the site owner’s consent. 

       

       

       

       

      1. 7.3.1
        shaukat

        @Persephone

        No one disagrees with your general point sweetheart, but the thing is, you’re acting as though Evan’s ‘home’ is your home. It’s not-he’s already stated he doesn’t support your approach, so stop whining;)

        1. Persephone

          @shaukat,

          I will  take it as a matter of pride being called a whiner. Numerous people on here talked about free speech, and didn’t like the fact that I don’t tolerate misogyny.

          There’s a saying that goes something like this. “All that’s necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and say nothing.” However for good men to say something, they better be prepared to be a “real man.” It is no task for the faint-hearted.

          They say that Colin Kaepernick and the Black Lives Matter movement is just a bunch of whiners. I say that Colin Kaepernick is a man with great courage, whether one agrees with him or not. They said that women wanting to vote, own property, or legally be allowed to make contract was just a bunch of whiners. They said that mislabeling food product so that they would make people sick was just a bunch of whining.  They said that crying out about unsafe  conditions in the workplace was just a bunch of whining  even when people got killed. It’s a pattern that is repeated over and over again.

          It leads us back to the headline of this thread. Of this entire blog. It’s about what it is to be a man. A man stands up against adversity, even when he’s told he’s a whiner. It takes courage to stand up against wrongdoing. It’s usually an unpopular view. I knew that my views would be unpopular. I’m experienced enough at this to know I would get a backlash.

          How many men are man enough to stand up in the face of such adversity? Is this part of what it takes to be a man?

          BTW, I’ve spent ten-fold more digital space stating that Evan has a right to choose what gets posted than I have as you call it “whining”.

      2. 7.3.2
        Clare

        Admittedly I’m very late to the party and don’t really know what this thread is about, but I wanted to comment on your points about free speech and make some observations of my own.

        When someone is behaving like an obnoxious idiot (either in one’s home or on one’s online forum) – breaking things, insulting people, being hateful or rude or doing something which is illegal – of course one has the right to kick them out. I think most people would agree with that premise. Nothing too controversial there. Someone who behaves badly can easily derail a conversation and ruin it for the others.

        However, what about someone who is behaving perfectly well – being polite, civil and calm, not insulting anyone – but simply saying things with which the host might disagree. Does the host still have the right to kick this person out? What about if that person is making intelligent, articulate and well-supported arguments that refute something else that is being said? Should they be shut down because they are challenging someone else? Where does one draw the line between having the right to decide what you will tolerate in your own home and being an authoritarian who refuses to tolerate debate or disagreement?

        And what about journalists? They walk a very fine line. On one hand, they work (most often) for private companies. On the other hand, their professional duty is to impartiality and the truth. Where does their loyalty lie? With the person who pays their salary, or to the public’s right to have all the facts? What if they stumble upon inconvenient information which contradicts their employer company’s beliefs? Do they have a duty to report it?

        I ask these questions because you (and others who make the argument that private people and organisations should be able to censor whatever they like) should not be so quick to relinquish your right to say what you think you should. Just be clear that it’s bad behaviour that should be censored. The concept of liberal values like freedom of speech is that they should encourage debate, not shut it down. The whole notion of privacy should not be a licence to silence anyone who disagrees with you.

        1. Persephone

          @Clare: 

          “Does the host still have the right to kick this person out?”

          If it is public maybe not. If it private, yes, absolutely, unless sometimes maybe not if you are a member of a  protected class such as race, per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).  The host on a private place can kick you out if they didn’t like the way you pronounced a word, or if they think your hair looks funny today, or if the guest turned down trying the new cheese dip when it was offered to them.  But the host, if running a privately operated business with people invited must weight this out with his or her business objectives.

          Journalism, if a  publication sold to the public, is different than a “forum.” With a forum, read my post above.  You have agreed to a “contract” for terms of service in most instances.

           

          “The whole notion of privacy should not be a licence to silence anyone who disagrees with you.”

          Take that up with the US Supreme Court and the 5th, 14th and 9th  Amendments to the US Constitution. FOS means strictly that which is governed by the government, also called “state actors.”  We have certain spaces that are free from “Big Brother.”

          . The right to privacy includes the right to be left alone.

          . Conversations are subject to private rules.

          . Neither Twitter nor EMK has responsibilities to free speech.

          . The internet is not a free speech zone.

          . We can complain all we want (yes, even me) but ultimately the owner of this forum, EMK, is free to do what he things is the best for business.

          . “Free speech” is often a shield people hide behind in order to say wacky things, even when it does not apply.

          .Most spaces on the internet are privately owned, and have no obligation to allow you to speak freely in their space. Whether it’s Facebook removing content that violates its own terms of service, a blog owner deleting a comment they find offensive, or a big company deleting user posts from its Facebook page, your speech may be censored, but you have no first amendment right to free speech in those places. 

          . Most companies know it’s in their own best interest to allow you to speak freely on their platforms. Most companies know that success means taking the bad with the good.  EMK is not obligated to take my suggestions. EMK is not obligated to post my suggestions when I submit them.  He chose to do so.  

          SO THEN WHAT IS FREE SPEECH PROTECTION?

          Censorship in the context of “free speech” is generally reserved for speech that’s suppressed by government or state actors.  If you have a post deleted, or not even published, even if you think the post was relevant or witty, this is not state suppression of your speech.  

          To summarize, I can suggest to EMK, but he is not required to follow my suggestion. It is his private company, not mine.

          Thanks, enough of this interruption and off-topic discussion, and carry on about “what is means to be a man.”

           

           

           

           

           

        2. Clare

          Persephone,

          I’m afraid your references to the U.S. Supreme Court and the various amendments to the U.S. Constitution were lost on me as I am South African and governed by different laws.

          I was just seizing an opportunity to try and get people to think differently about free speech (a cause close to my heart). I readily admit that my post was off-topic and I know nothing about the original discussion 🙂

      3. 7.3.3
        Mumia Obsidian Ali

        @Persephone:

        I have tried to read with care all of your remarks on this thread and I must ask: why are you here? I ask because it seems that very little of what you’ve said seems to have anything to do at all with the topic(!). I get that initially, you responded to the notion that “men don’t see (presumably White) male privilige” and then proceeded to tell us about the unfair treatment you received in a prior blue collar job/career. As a former union card carrying skilled blue collar brotha myself, I can relate to the experience, though not the mistreatment. Perhaps that was due to a “guy” thing and not a “color” thing (even though racism in the trades has a long, documented and bloody history?). I don’t know.

        OK, fair enough, you gone through it on the job in the past. Point taken. But then you go off into all these other tangents – “women can be “thus and so, too!”, even when that was never the topic at hand; discussions about censorship and the like, and so on.

        What does it all mean, Persephone?

        I mean look, if you’re going to argue that SOME men suck, you’ll get no argument from me in the least. I agree! SOME men DO indeed suck!

        If you’re going to argue that SOME women can do thus and so just like a man, again, you’ll get no argument from me – I’ve seen it firsthand!

        But I just don’t see the point of all the many, many words you’ve logged in on this discussion, the vast majority of whom fall far afield from the actual topic. And to be sure, I don’t know what to make of the topic myself, for a whole host of reasons. Still, I’m not here spamming up the place.

        So, please, because I really want to know:

        What’s eating you?

        Thanks,

        MOA

        1. Persephone

          @MOA:

          Not sure why your effort to squelch my post is any more valid than my effort to squelch others’ posts that  I perceived to be misogynist.

          I try to be polite by responding to people when they make comments directed at me. The reason they directed the comments at me is because I objected to misogyny. It’s not an easy game. Apparently, being misogynist in some people’s minds, makes them more of a man. So, as you see, it really is relevant to this thread.

      4. 7.3.4
        shaukat

        @Persephone,

        I also believe that Colin Kaepernick and the women who fought for the right to vote are people of great courage; however, you seem to have a real problem in distinguishing between calls for censorship (of which you are guilty) and expressing views/fighting for rights, so I see no point in continuing this dialogue. Just understand that I was responding to your attempt to get a poster BANNED.

        1. Persephone

          @Shaukat:

          If you do not want to dialogue with me, then simply don’t do it.

          I fully believe in censorship in the proper setting.  US law agrees with me.

          And so does Evan Marc Katz. EMK even has BANNED people, as shown by the following.

          “…that I’ve run off many MGOTW/Red Pill types who spend more time attacking women than stating anything constructive.”

          In the end, it’s EMK that makes the decisions here, not me, not y’all. Evan was very nice in his explanation to me, and in case he happens to see this post I thank him greatly for his response. It appeared to be very well thought out, and very well worded.

           

    4. 7.4
      Mumia Obsidian Ali

      @Tom10:

      I had no idea that you resided in Europe(!) – unless I read the above completely wrong, I had always assumed that you lived in the States. If not, my bad!

      Sometime back you had asked me a question that I wanted to answer: “what does (mating) justice look like?”. I  light of Dr. Jordan Peterson’s recent “enforced monogamy” remarks that were in my view completely taken out of context in the New Yorker magazine, I should like to reply, if you’re still interested in the answer.

      Please let me know. Thanks!

      MOA

      1. 7.4.1
        Tom10

        @ Mumia Obsidian Ali #7.4
        Well hello MOA; how have you been? How opportune to drop in just as shaukat and I are discussing free speech. I always enjoyed your posts, particularly your debates with our friend Adrian. 🙂
         
        “I had no idea that you resided in Europe(!) – unless I read the above completely wrong, I had always assumed that you lived in the States. If not, my bad!”
         
        Well my personal politics are probably more aligned with American values regarding individual autonomy, small government, free speech, low taxes etc. etc than your typical European. Also, out of habit, I often write using American spelling and phrases rather than my natural British/Irish vernacular – didn’t think I was successful at this but maybe I have been!
         
        “Sometime back you had asked me a question that I wanted to answer: “what does (mating) justice look like? I should like to reply, if you’re still interested in the answer. Please let me know.”
         
        Ah yes I remember that discussion now; yes absolutely I’d be intrigued to hear your response!
         
        For the benefit of readers I think you were arguing for justice for the perceived wrong-doings inflicted on you by women-kind?
         
        And my argument was that women aren’t to blame for what you perceive as their wrong-doings; rather the dating-game itself is to blame. Is that about right?
         
        So, MOA, what does (mating) justice look like? 🙂

        1. Mumia Obsidian Ali

          @TOM10:

          I think the answer to the question requires a bit of explanation; first, we have to consider the changes that have come down the pike over the past half a century insofar as the Sexual Revolution is concerned, and along the lines that Dr. Jordan Peterson has laid out:

          In the “brave new world” in which we now live, we have to be HONEST about the fact that there WILL be winners and losers out on the open mating market. And whether we as a society are willing to give a damn about the losers. One fix in that direction is to legalize prostitution and bring sex dolls/bots fully online. Another is to advance the development of artificial womb tech. None of these will be a panacea, but they WILL go a long toward easing tensions, etc. They will bring some semblance of “balance to the Force”.

          Moreover, we already have these things to some degree on the female side – IVF and sperm banks, vibrators and dildos, etc. exist for the ladies, none of which I have a problem with. Seems to me only right that we should have the same thing for the male side. As for prostitution, there are quite a few women willing to engage in that and related sex work. Always have been, and always will be. Let them do so.

          Again, I am not proposing that these are perfect fixes. What I am proposing is that they are sensible alternatives to what we have right now, which is, I think you might agree as a European, oddly retrograde for a major Western world power.

          Let’s begin the discussion right there, shall we?

          Thanks!

          MOA

        2. Tom10

          @ Mumia Obsidian Ali
          Thanks for your considered response. 🙂
           
          “In the “brave new world” in which we now live, we have to be HONEST about the fact that there WILL be winners and losers out on the open mating market.” 
           
          Agreed.
           
          Although there have always been winners and losers in dating. In life. Just that the criteria for winning and losing has changed from status, wealth and education to looks and charm (status, wealth and education still matter but only if the looks threshold is met).
           
          I guess one could argue that there were fewer “losers” previously when monogamy was more widely practiced and from a younger age.
           
          On balance, however, affording each individual the freedom to choose whomever and however they want to date is a superior dating world than any other. In my opinion.
           
          “And whether we as a society are willing to give a damn about the losers”
           
          Well I admit to having a somewhat dystopian Thatcherite view of society that nobody, in their heart of hearts, gives much of a damn about anything other than themselves and/or their immediate family really. So, unfortunately, no, we as a society don’t care about the losers; we just hope we’re not the one holding the short straw.
           
          “one fix in that direction is to legalize prostitution and bring sex dolls/bots fully online.”
           
          It’s funny; I mentioned this very suggestion just the other week when proposing how to mitigate the likelihood of young men becoming incels. See comment 2:
           
          https://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/sex/why-women-are-not-incels-and-never-murder-in-cold-blood/
           
          I agree with legalizing prostitution – from a general political/personal autonomy perspective. I also agree that there are a quite a few women willing to engage in such work and I see no reason for government to stand in their way (assuming vulnerable and/or un-willing women are afforded necessary state protection from coercion and/or trafficking).
           
          I hadn’t thought of bringing “sex dolls/bots fully online” but I think it’s a reasonable proposition.
           
          “another is to advance the development of artificial womb tech.” 
           
          Okay that’s a new concept for me; however, I see no reason to have a problem with it.
           
          “I am not proposing that these are perfect fixes. What I am proposing is that they are sensible alternatives to what we have right now, which is, I think you might agree as a European, oddly retrograde for a major Western world power.”
           
          Well as I mentioned in the Incel thread it seems that yes indeed we’ve reverted to a pre-civilisation version of dating; we’ve gone full-circle. Not necessarily retrograde but the inevitable end-point of the relentless march of personal liberty. Post-civilisation dating I guess.
           
          “Let’s begin the discussion right there, shall we?”
           
          I have no issue with your suggested solutions MOA but don’t really consider them as “justice” per se; rather suggestions to help alleviate the consequences of today’s brutal dating free-market (for it to be justice implies guilt which implies wrong-doing where I don’t see any).
           
          ————————–
           
          I think this debate is worth having as the consequences of ignoring it are serious and far-reaching, however; unfortunately the fundamental problem here is dating inequality, of unfairness:
           
          It’s just not fair.
           
          But this unfairness stem from nature and nature isn’t fair; so there’s not much the state, you or I can do to fully solve the problem at its core; all we can do is be maximize our individual strengths and be creative with our suggested solutions. 

  8. 8
    Marika

    Mrs Happy..

    RE breasts..I’ll let the guys answer that one.. 😉

  9. 9
    Marika

    Shaukat 

    Thanks for answering and the clarification, it makes things much clearer. I have no interest in protecting corporations, quite the opposite, my concern is having protections in place and recourse for the most vulnerable.

    As an aside, you sometimes challenge me and I don’t always agree, but I do respect your views and the way you present them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *