Nerd
I had sex with a vacuum, it sucked.
User ID: 1024
Nerd
2d ago
I mean yeah that might be her message overall, but I cant help but feel, intuitively, that there would be a deliberate avoidance to dating black men on her part, just based on the 1st NYC video, even if she wouldnt encourage her audience to think in this way directly. It is harder to date black men as a black women, she knows this, and she very likely avoids dating black men because of it. I think that this is ok for what its worth. But I dont think she is entirely free of non-discrimination. Besides that, sexual selection is the one aspect of life that is always discriminatory, and people have the right to do it, based on race or whatever characteristics, because someone has a right to decide who they want to sleep with, period.
Nerd
2d ago
I think the flaw with this explanation specifically is that pretty much everyone on the planet has a close relationship with the opposite sex by default, due to the fact that everyone has a mother and father, and has had at lease one romantic relationship. Plenty of men have close relationships with other women like a sister or a mom, that doesnt mean that anything a particular man is saying wouldnt be called misogyny, just because they have those connections. Andrew Tate probably has had his fair share of girlfriends and has a mother, lots of people think he is a misogynistic douche. Its not like he is just telling the truth about women because he has had personal relationships with them.
Nerd
2d ago
If she were to follow up her statement with “and so as a rule I don’t date Black guys” then we have a problem. That’s discrimination because it ignores the humanity of individuals (and also creates hard feelings that are often counterproductive on a societal level). I realize this is not always cut and dry (what if she says “and so I’m reluctant to date Black guys?”) but I strongly believe we should save the vast majority of the moral approbation for this kind of specific individualized behavior. Kindness is a bit of a skill.
I mean, if you watch the video, she basically admits to to most of her boyfriends being white, partially for stereotypical reasons. She actually has a whole video in depth talking about the issue dating black men as a black women.
Nerd
2d ago
I think this is it: nobody today, even the most self-described feminist really believes in a blank slate between the sexes in areas like physical strength and capacity for violence and criminality.
Many of the self described feminist, and many leftist i ran into quite literally believe this. Maybe its just been my experience, but I've ran into people both online an personally who think that men and women are essentially the same at birth, & that patriarchy makes us different. I agree this is not the case, but as I've addressed in the original post, this fact is rejected by many within our society, perhaps my experience with such people differ from yours.
A lot of the resistance to these facts probably come down to the fact that they: 1 - basically prove gender essentiallism to an extent 2 - Can be used to argue for gendered treatment of individuals. I dont think either of those are wrong, but a lot of theses types do.
Nerd
2d ago
I don't think it's sexist or racist to believe that men are more likely to be violent or that Muslims are more likely to be violent. I think prejudice occurs when you go from the real statistical understanding to collective blame and group punishment, treating every man or black person or Muslim or whatever else as if they aren't an individual who holds responsibility only to themselves and not to others who they have an attribute of theirs in common with.
This is actually what I meant to critique. Ill modify the post accordingly! (Although many people do think that simply believing this is wrong) Im trying to talk more about treating people within a given group differently based on these general facts. (Treating an individual man as if he would rape you, and profiling him, for example, because the majority of rape is men.)
What makes sexism more tolerable than racism?
So I was watching a video the other day about being a woman in NYC. And something this women said stuck out to me, and this something I notice In liberal/Progressive circles when it comes to Men specifically:
"I feel like with Black men in the city, I don’t really—like, I don’t trust them. I racially profile Black men a lot, just because I know whenever I see a group of Black men, they’re probably going to catcall me. Like, nine times out of ten. It's weird being standoffish to your own kind, but it’s like at this point, it’s not even like, 'Oh, like my fellow Black community member.' It’s just like, 'Oh, like that’s a man, and they are the enemy,' especially Black men. And I hate to say it, but like..."
There is often deep talk in many feminist circles, and society, generally, about how scary it is to be a women, and how fearful women are of Men. Im not here to argue that this fear is unjustified - I understand it fully, but here is what I think is a bigger problem with this: It is, by definition, prejudice. Thats honestly not the problem I have with it, the problem is a perceived double standard between prejudices.
Im sure everyone here is aware of the not so secret that Men as a group commit more violent crime than women - Mass Shootings, Rape, ect. As a response people are more fearful and more cautious of men as a whole. And for the most part, it seems that we consider this prejudice justifiable. No one would really refer to this as "Sexism"
Yet, with race & religion (and fascinatingly enough, this young women herself, despite being very liberal, is prejudice against her own race) we would reject this very reasoning. For example, according to the Global Terrorism Index, at least 75% of global terrorism comes from Islamic Groups. Yet, if some one says that they fear Muslims, or don't think they should be able to migrate into the country, many of these liberal types would revere this as a form of "racism", after all, not all Muslims are terrorist. Same for Black Men, they have a disproportionate amount of criminality, yet if you said what this young lady said as police officer, and that you profile Black Men more often because they are more likely to do it, you'd be cooked alive.
The obvious intuitive response someone could give here is that, Men & Women are obviously different in a way that people of different races and religions are not (unless you are a race realist). We know biologically that males are more aggressive, so them engaging in more criminality and being the scarier sex overall should be no surprise, thus, this prejudice isn't wrong. But the issue here is that this is obviously not a very progressive explanation, as these progressives typically believe that differences between the sexes are due to the social construct of gender, and that society is largely responsible for this difference. But this merely mirrors the same beliefs about differences we see between races and religious groups, no? If all these differences were indeed, socially constructed, and a product of patriarchy - white supremacy, etc, Than why wouldnt it follow that this prejudice is wrong too? Is it not sexist to believe that someone is inherently more likely to kill and rape you due to a immutable and arbitrary characteristic, like gender, in the same way believing that black people are Muslims are more likely to kill and rape others because of their faith & skin color, and treat individuals within these groups accordingly based on that? Its not something inherent about men (or muslims, black people) that make them more likely to be violent, society is to blame!
So the question here is this: Why is prejudice based on sex tolerable, but prejudice based on race & religion, not?
Nerd
3d ago
I actually ended up getting laid off of previous job, luckily i was already looking before hand anyway, and there is a good chance i nab one of these. But yeah, its definitely tough. Im really grateful that i've made it this far out.
Nerd
3d ago
Why'd you choose the ISP? Or was it just not your first choice, you just got a job? Honestly, I am actually thinking about taking bluecollar company job (Sadly, the financial firm fell through, and i suspect the engineering firm job has as well, leaving me with the 3 others remaining.) Its a combination of IT Support and some minor office administration work. I'm highly curious about it.
Nerd
4d ago
Yeah, I know it would be a shitty move, id just hate to accept an offer from one of these places, only to be given a better offer else ware.
Nerd
4d ago
Ill Copy & Paste the responsibilities for one of the roles here, so you can get a general idea, but titles in the IT world are notorious for not meaning shit.
Shift Coverage & Support
Manage the US shift starting at 12:30 PM EST while providing coverage for early Japan shift operations, delivering L2 support across Windows and Linux environments. Serve as an on-call resource during weekends and off-hours to oversee production changes and respond to critical incidents, ensuring 24/7 availability for Windows and Red Hat Linux infrastructure.
Technical Operations
Coordinate hardware break-fix activities with vendors including Microsoft, Red Hat, Cisco, and HPE. Plan and execute scheduled system changes during maintenance windows, including patching, updates, and routine maintenance across hybrid Windows and Linux environments. Fulfill user requests and ensure operational continuity across both platforms.
Incident & Change Management
Lead response efforts for production incidents by participating in bridge calls alongside application and infrastructure teams. Escalate complex issues to engineering teams and serve as a liaison throughout the resolution process. Partner with regional peers to plan and implement changes across global infrastructure, adhering to ITIL best practices for incident, problem, and change management.
Cross-Platform Integration
Drive seamless interoperability between Windows and Linux environments in support of hybrid cloud and on-premises infrastructure. Maintain accurate, up-to-date documentation covering system configurations, operational procedures, and cross-platform dependencies to support team continuity and knowledge sharing.
Nerd
4d ago
@pigeonburger @YoungAchamian @The_Nybbler @bolido_sentimental
So i made post a while back about the job search. I've got some good news! I got callbacks recently, And Im coming up on 5 opportunities.
2 - Sys Admin positions: One that pays about 65k, for an engineering firm, another that pays 75k, but its a financial institution.
Internship (Network Engineer) - Traveling internship that pays 17 an hour, Im kinda hoping that I can work my way up and score a full time job there.
IT Support full time at a school institution - 45k a year, not too much different from what Im doing right now.
IT Support Assistant - Another support job for a building maintance/blue collar company, about 25 an hour.
Im not 100% done with the interview process for all of them. But im done with the engineering firm, the Internship, and i have a 3rd final round interview with the school institution. Im doing a phone screening for the building maintnce company and a 2nd round interview with the financial.
Im excited, but I dont know:
How to keep each opportunity in arms reach... (Obviously i wan the best paying one, but I kinda dont want to be in a situation where i get a call back from one of these places 1st, say yes, and then bail once another opportunity comes in, id like to be sure i can fall back on something if i dont get an offer for whatever reason)
And Im honestly kind scared, a little bit. I dont know how much good ill be at these jobs, imposter syndrome is real. Ive never maintained real live enterprise equipment before, so this will be a first.
Ideally I get call backs for all 5 and can choose, but honestly, Im grateful if i get at least one (regardless of the pay, its better than where Im at now!)
The point with the "be yourself" advice is that there is substantial variation in what people value
Perhaps, but there is also substantial overlap. Most people value someone if they are good looking for example, its just something that happens in the subconscious.
Nerd
12d ago
Your post has its points, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that all girls are sort of latent beautiful princesses. And would that this were so. I'd suggest that you're missing (as many who suggest that women just have to sit around being beautiful, picking and choosing which man to allow in) is that arguably most women are simply not very physically attractive in a conventional sense. This is especially true once a girl gets older and no longer has the lithe thinness of the teenage years (but many do not even have that.)
Ok, i wouldnt say all women, i think an overall baseline attractiveness is there, at least initially. But i probably edit this post to incorporate some of these critiques. You (and others) do make a good point here.
This cuts no ice with gender abolitionists because they're social constructionists and their response to something like this is simply to demand society change this judgment.
They can demand what they like, but its probably always gonna be the case to some extent or another. The amount of evidence we have that the sexes are different makes a social constructivist view unsurmountable.
Masculinity and femininity as general pro-social concepts are only really useful when there is a division of gender roles
Id argue that the masculinity and feminity, to the extent they are socially constructed are just attempts to understand and navigate the base biology of two sexes. There is more to that than just the "roles".
To the extent that men and women are attracted to different things women also need to learn how to be feminine in order to be attractive
Hmm, im curious, whats your argument here?
Nerd
12d ago
Most girls aren't "born sexy," and even those with favorable genetics can totally make a mess of things if they just go with whatever seems fun and exciting in the moment.
Meh, Ok perhaps this was poor framing on my part. Im gonna narrow it down a bit. Many girls arent born thin (there are many that are) or born with make up (though make up really just enhances whats already there naturally). But id still maintain that the option to leverage beauty exists more often, and the emphasis of beauty is clearly slanted towards women more. And the skills necessary to maintain it arent really as complex and difficult as the skills for climbing the social ladder.
Yes you can make yourself ugly with bad decisions, but the point here is that you'd have to make the decision to begin with - you'd still be starting with a baseline of attractiveness handed to many via the lottery of genetics, and then losing it due to your own decisions. Attractiveness is not as valued in men to start with (although it matters). To put this into perspective, women are rated as more attractive than men, id argue just because they are - well, women.
I'd bet money that if you asked people whether Chris Evans was more attractive than Scarlett Johansen, Scarlett would probably win. Even thought they are "close" in attractiveness.
but she's more right than this rubbish about how all women are valued for gestating fetuses, as though women with a bunch of kids and various baby daddies get so much status and respect for their femininity.
The loss in status here has more to do with how reproduction was facilitated. Yeah, its low status, because its blatantly irresponsible behavior. Its the same reason boxers and UFC fighters would have high status on the male side of things, as opposed to a thug and a gangster starting fights, despite both actors utilizing masculine characteristics, such as strength and toughness: context matters!
Because poor, fat, socially inept women get so much respect. No!
I mean, yeah, i see your point, but again, the social effects here are disproportionate. We see men who are poor and socially inept judged more harshly and given less grace - homeless men are a good example: people will see a homeless men as a lazy and a bum, unworthy of compassion or help. This leads to many in our society giving less help towards, and women being given more (there being more womens shelters and the like). It likely contributes to men being more likely to be homeless in general.
Bear in mind here, im not saying women have it "easier". Just that the 2 experiences are unique.
So "Into The Manosphere" is a netflix documentary, that im sure many here have heard of.
Here is a video on it that I watched, by a psychiatrist. Although I enjoyed it enough, there is a common sentiment that deserves to critiqued, one that was echoed in the video, that i will simplify with a youtube comment (note: this comment is in response to another comment, the context of which i will be representing by {} brackets):
See, this is what has always genuinely confused me, too.{Why should we be good men? Just be a good person bro?} Why is there so much emphasis on the man part{of male role-modes} (except maybe that's literally part of patriarchy, too)? I didn't grow up thinking about how to be a woman, I grew up thinking about wanting to be a scientist and wanting to travel and be a generally good and mostly happy person. The whole being a woman thing was just something society forced on me that I mostly resented. Just teach people to be good, healthy, functional people.
But a lot of men, including people I genuinely respect and agree with on sociopolitical issues still seem to think there's value in some type of male identity. And maybe there is, but no one has been able to explain it to me. But the need for some kind of masculine identity just seems like insecurity and needing a set of rules to live by from the outside, instead of doing the work of learning to be a whole, messy, beautiful human being.
And don't get me wrong. I think men get confined to a tighter box in terms of acceptable behavior than women, even as that box often comes with higher social standing. Sometimes, I feel really sad for boys that have to grow up in this mess. But also, how hard is it to just learn to be yourself without all the weird, gendered expectations? I'm really very baffled by it all.
I think this gender abolitionist framing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Men & Women are judged and valued by society differently. Men are valued based on their ability to climb up social hierarchy to obtain status. Women's value is more reflected by their attractiveness, and reproductive capabilities. Masculinity (attempts) to provide useful guidelines and structure to achieve this end. Women simply do not exist in the same space, so their variation of being a role model wouldn't be a good representation of the male position. It would be a kin to a white man trying to be a role model for black boys - the critical social context is not there.
Women don't grow up thinking about how to be woman, because much of what defines femininity is there by default. You are simply born a sexy girl - you simply gestate a fetus - and then give birth to it. There is little to no skill barrier required in comparison.
EDIT: Ok, the above statement was hasty initially. There are some aspects that are require skill in some capacity. Not all women are born pretty butterfly's, you need make up, nails, hair, ect, and this requires skill in its own right. But none the less, i wouldn't say this is equivalent to the skills sets required for Masculinity.
The problem with "being yourself" as so often espoused by liberal types is that, it provides 0 road map to achieving the traits that women (and people in general) value in men. & this is the same general issue I take with the manosphere opponents - Many of these individuals believe completely asinine and reality denying ideas like "Looks don't matter" or "You just need to be a good person to be attractive". The manosphere, for all its misogyny and toxicity, is at least calling out the reality of the situation: If you are poor, fat, and socially inept - as a man, you will be harshly judged and looked down on within our society. This is - arguably - one of the main appeals of the manosphere to begin with. If one really wants to see the manosphere go away - we need to start looking at these realities of life straight to the face. Only then can one begin to provide meaningfully positive alternatives.
Nerd
17d ago
This is an interesting trend in history, but i think another way to look at it is why its happening, and why certain societies and not others?
First and foremost, this doesn't seem to follow geo politically. It seems to be a phenomenon that's unique to specific societies, like the US, and this "progress" is not uniform nor takes place everywhere.
Most of east Asia is much more "racist" & "sexist" than the west. China is insanely oppressive and controlling, they are not democratic in the slightest. Out of wedlock births are few and are stigmatized in those societies, they do not allow gay marriage.
Ukraine is currently "losing" its war with Russia.
What would be the morally correct position on the Israel-Palestine conflict? Can we say that history is bending towards Palestine, Israel, or a 2 state solution?
The Taliban taking over in Afghanistan.
There is a loss of privacy & general alienation that comes with modern technology.
Why does this only happen in certain countries and not others? If its about morality, why is history permiting some "immorality" in some places and not others. What makes progressives such a cultural power house in the states?
Nerd
17d ago
There is not always a long arc of morality.
So this article is interesting, but the pessimist in me cant help but think that this is "wrong" in the long run.
Im not a fan of progressives by any means. I'm sure many here are not either but i also think that we must look reality straight in the face: Most conservative positions (Id argue at least 65% ) lose in the long run. Primarily due to demographic shifts. Primarily in age cohorts, but we cant be naive that race is likely playing a factor as well.
One example he takes that is in my opinion, quite poor, is Abortion. First and foremost, there have only been 3 states that have been to defend the pro-life position successfully at the ballot box recently, Florida (only be a 60% technicality), South Dakota, and Nebraska respectively. Many deeply red states have voted for the practice (Kansas, Kentucky, etc). And lets not forget the fact that there are 5 states in the union including DC, that have 0 gestational limits, and attempts to add limits failed in Colorado and New Mexico. This an extremist position by western standards, in is not law in the majority of the world.
This one particularly bothers me, because of how fucking disgusting and twisted many of these doctors who do these later terminations are, the fact that states protect them, and the fact that the mainstream media & democrats lie about them taking place on healthy children and mothers.
The pew research link ive sighted above also reveals that many among Gen Z support some level of gender ideology (well, surprisingly, most still think that gender is determined at birth) But id probably bet money that this could be shifted as well.
Lets all face the music, Conservative America is simply going the way of the dinosaurs. We have a declining birth rate, religiosity is going down the toilet, marriage rates are going down toilet. Same thing with "patriotism". I would love to optimistic here, but i simply don't see it. America is becoming a more progressive society, like it or not. While i don't think this is "Inevitable"... I also see no way it could be practically prevented. It just seems like historically and currently, winning the public over and tilting the overton window rightward is just really difficult.
But hey, who knows, maybe im wrong, and 50 years from now, we will be laughing at the idea of multiple genders, mass immigration, or secularism.
Nerd
24d ago
Huh, interesting to know that the big wigs at Harvard & Yale arent that much better than the rest of us!
Nerd
25d ago
I know this isnt the main point, but what draws you the GOP/vote for republican.
Nerd
1mo ago
I can't seem to find a male friend to do these things. I suppose maybe I should have joined the military, or failing that a criminal gang, you need stakes like that to get a lifelong friend. Lacking that, sex seems to be the only tie that binds. I've had on-and-off lovers remain close for a decade, who would answer my call and I'd answer theirs.
I honestly think it just takes consistently going out and doing things with someone. Ive had a best friend for 8 years now. I cant imagine my life without him, we met in college. I just asked him if we wanted to see a movie. Im mid 20s, i dont know how old you are, but thats what got me started.
Nerd
1mo ago
Parenting: I thought fertility was declining, so which is it?
Meh I don't feel like this is necessarily contradictory. Even if fertility is falling for many people, the people that are parents still have their time pre occupied with children more often, even as the number of parents declines as a share of the population. They are so pre-occupied with their children that they don't make time for their friends, hence the friendships fracture.
I'm actually surprised by the lack of mobility, though. Perhaps more people think like me than i thought.
As a side note, hours worked has also declined. We've had car infrastructure for a bit as well, and we also see the decline in countries that don't have that infrastructure.
Looks like technology might be a key killer here.
Nerd
1mo ago
Another factor, I suspect, is labor mobility. I'd have to double check (I won't), but I believe an ever greater share of people are moving significant distances for work. This puts them in the position of breaking existing relationships and puts them in the awkward spot of being an adult with no real social connections in their new community. And they may do this several times over their career.
I was kind trying to say this in the main post, & Richard is saying this specific thing in the video.
Thing is, i have no idea how one would go about rectifying this. The labor market is just insanely competitive and difficult, and many industries that are high paying or may be of interest to a specific person aren't evenly distributed across the country (there are more software engineers in California than Alabama, because Cali & 'Bama have fundamentally different economies). The alternative seems to be just biting the bullet and accept working $6 per hour at a gas station and buying the substandard trailer, whose best amenities consists of roaches & mold, for those who live in fundamentally poorer areas of the US. Not a very attractive proposition.
I am intentionally comparing prejudice against men to prejudice against Muslims because both often stem from fear-based logic.
My critique focuses on the specific progressive argument that prejudice against men is "valid" because women’s fear is backed by the reality of male-driven misogyny and violence. By accepting this "valid reason" as a justification for sexism, one inadvertently creates a logical pathway to justify prejudice against specific racial or religious groups based on similar statistical or anecdotal fears. Afterall this is the reasoning given for the different treatment of sexisms that you suggest.
The core of my point is this: if we validate differential treatment of men based on their collective actions, we undermine the fundamental argument against racial or religious profiling, as the same logic of "justifiable prejudice" could then be applied to any group.
More options
Context Copy link