https://www.trp.red/p/deeplydisturbed/1452
Comments are welcome.
Posted 2y ago in Uncategorized - Permalink - Locked - 2K Views
Created By kevin32
A community for men to share their stories and perspectives on the "Where are all the good men?" subject. Also the sister tribe of WhereAreAllTheGoodMen.
Rules of conduct:
1. No shaming men for any reason.
Rules for submission:
3. Submissions must be an essay which addresses the "Where are all the good men?" subject. Personal stories, theories, venting, and even how awesome life is as a MGTOW are all welcomed, but ultimately the reader should be able to understand from your perspective why women can't find a "good man", or why good men are avoiding commitment. Our Recommended Reading list contains great examples that fit our theme.
4. Essays should span more than a small paragraph. Short, low-effort posts will be removed.
5. No debate posts ("What do you guys think of x?"), or posts seeking advice on relationships or personal matters.
6. Articles from the internet are allowed provided it fits the theme, but cite the source at the top of the post, followed by your analysis/perspective. (Example)
Content Archive:
Recommended blogs:
Related forums:
Fairwareprovidence 2y ago
Men have bled, died and killed for their rights to exist. Women have had to stand in line and hold up signs for their rights to tell men what to do.
We are not the same.
I know someone is going to come in and say "but women have fought too!"
This is true. But they have 50 percent of the population and less than 1 percent of the fighting population where applicable. This is not worth accounting for.
[deleted] 2y ago
I am sooo fucking tired of this claim that women "had no rights at all before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and before Title IX".
I am soooo fucking tired of this claim that women had no right to work at all before about 1960.
Jesus H. CHRIST, people.
Women have always worked. Women could work...if they fucking wanted to.
From time immemorial, there have always been working single women and working wives. Yes, they worked in menial occupations doing manual labor, or they worked mostly in traditional female occupations: Teacher, nurse, flight attendant, secretary/clerical.
Most women did those kinds of jobs because they weren't physically strong enough to do the kinds of work men wanted to do and had to do. But mostly it was because they did not want to do the kinds of work men did, or work as hard as men do, or put in the kinds of work hours that men do. Mostly it was because they preferred getting married and having kids (and maybe working part time) to having to work like men.
No one ever stopped women from being doctors or lawyers or going into the professions. There were a few women physicians and lawyers in the 19th and early 20th centuries. There were some women in banking and other professions, and especially academia. Most of the women who did that kind of work, did it because they really really wanted to do it, or were just more masculine in outlook and mien, or came from money and Daddy was a "progressive" and paid for snookums to go to school for it, or never married and had the time and wherewithal and gumption to do it.
(It's really easy to be liberal and progressive and "woke" when other people's money, or Daddy's money, is paying for it.)
Most women didn't work in traditionally masculine fields because getting married to Joe Lunchpail from the next town over and raising Joe's kids was far, far preferable to having to work like Joe did and probably get killed at his job like usually happened to the Joe Lunchpails of the world. Or, if you were really lucky, you could get married to Stan Silkstockings or Chadwick Thundercockington IV, and you were set for life. (Sure, Stan and Chadwick worked like hell, did what they wanted, and cheated on you to beat the band, but hey, that's what you signed up for. That's the price of being Mrs. Silkstockings or Mrs. Thundercockington.)
And, most women just plain did not want to do it and would not do it.
Another thing: No one forced women to marry Joe Lunchpail. No one forced women to marry Willy WifeBeater or Sam Shiftless or Larry Lazyass or Alan Alcoholic or Gary GamblingAddict. No one ever forced women to get married (unless Snookums let Chaddy knock her up, in which case Chaddy needs to make an honest woman of Snookums). Women married men because they wanted to and because they preferred it to working and earning a living for the rest of their lives, and maybe having to live with a male relative because they didn't want to or could not work hard enough to support themselves. Or, they didn't want to go to school to get educated and credentialed to make more money.
Or, Occam's Razor, they married their men because they actually kind of liked and loved their men. They had more realistic expectations from their lives. They picked the best guy they could, made themselves available to him, gave him everything they had, and made the best of it. It wasn't perfect, but she and Joe built something and had a little something to give their kids. She was trained up and believed she had obligations and responsibilities to Joe, just as he had to her.
Whatever became of women, it was their choice. She could refuse to marry Joe, but then she'd have to keep working and probably keep living with her parents until the last one died, and then she'd have to live with relatives. She could make that choice if she wanted to. That was on HER. Most women didn't. Most women married - and had the proper attitude toward marriage and the men they picked.
No one made women do anything. No one forced women to work. No one forced women not to work. No one forced women to get married. No one forced women to have sex. No one forced women to have children. No one forced women to take work as spinsters (heh), seamstresses, launderers, maids, nannies, teachers, secretaries, stewardesses, or nurses. No one forced women to do or be ANYTHING.
Impressive-Cricket-8 Endorsed 2y ago
Besides, what is the alleged world's oldest profession? Isn't sex work actual work?
kiaeej 2y ago
Bro. You say all this but its preaching to the converted. They’re just gonna ignore all this and continue to scream about oppression.
[deleted] 2y ago
It's utterly ridiculous. Both of my grandmothers graduated college in the late 30s, had kids, and were in and out of workforce from WWII on.
DeeplyDisturbed1 2y ago
Or when the answers are simple and neat and feel good.
Well said on all the above. I was inspired by a post by /u/ogrilla99, which I alsoposted here.
[deleted] 2y ago
You and our brother ogrilla wrote it better than I ever could.
PMmeYourHopes-Dreams 2y ago
Who do they think worked the factories during war time?
[deleted] 2y ago
Rosie the Riveter? Who dat?
thefudmaster 2y ago
I've asked this question of feminists, redpilled men, and the antiwork crowd. "What is your ultimate goal, and what would it take to stop you complaining about your inequality or your perceived inequality?" The only solid answer comes from redpilled men, because the other folks simply want to complain and move the goalposts.
polishknightusa 2y ago
In discussions with feminists where I pressed upon a certain point they couldn't win such as the gender pay gap myth and how women are the ones whose personal choices result in their own inequalities, they'll try to change the subject or ultimately just close down the conversation and walk away and then almost like something out of The Matrix, pretend the conversation never happened and try to argue the same points over again.
For example: A recent study came out claiming that female doctors are paid less than men for the same roles and it's riddled with poor controls but feminists trot it out saying "See! Here's a study that claims to have controlled for equal work!" implying THEY KNOW THEIR EXISTING WAGE GAP STATISTIC IS A FIB.
My guess it that it's hamster brain: They have this narrative in their head of a hundred different forms of oppression that they'll rattle off and when you disprove one after another, they'll just juggle to another, engage in some selective amnesia, and whala! They're back at square one.
thefudmaster 2y ago
It is a completely hamster brained argument. People these days think they will be acknowledged and accepted for simply yelling louder than the other person.
polishknightusa 2y ago
"O'Brien silenced him by a movement of the hand. "We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn-by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation-anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wished to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature."" -- 1984, George Orwell
cryptothrow2 2y ago
In the antiwork crowd I am. I believe you should be able to rent a 1br or single room at most an hour total from your workplace without extras at minimum wage; gas station attendant money. Healthcare that doesn't make you have to avoid dropping your name at the ER because of crazy deductibles and drug prices. And wage theft being a more serious matter. Supreme court decisions recently about clocking in and searching staff were disappointing. And the recent injunction against nurses changing workplace was just beyond the pale.
I'm just glad it doesn't affect me anymore
thefudmaster 2y ago
I'm right there with you and I hope I didn't sound like I am against r/antiwork. There are some very legitimate complaints in that sub, and I think a worker's Bill of Rights would be something to be drafted. Rental prices and mortgage prices are insane right now, just as cost of living. I hope these issues get addressed in the court system soon. Additionally, I believe the court case has been updated to allow the nurses and medical professionals to leave their workplace and look elsewhere. However, the injunction on those individuals never should have been issued in the first place as it made the medical personnel affected to be slaves to their organization.
InevitableOwl1 2y ago
I mean I kind of agree with part of this. If you can’t afford to rent at least a room within an hour of where you work then the job isn’t paying enough for the area. And if the job can’t pay more due to margins or whatever then it is a house price issue. It is often both but heavily skewing towards the latter.
My mum was telling me recently of an older sister of a school friend who commuted up to london (hour train journey) to work. I am pretty sure she just worked in a shop. She certainly didn’t have an impressive enough job for my mum to take note (albeit it has been 50 years). So it’s not like she was a lawyer or banker because that would have been remembered
That isn’t affordable now both because house prices are unaffordable in the commuter belt (albeit this girl did still live in the family home) and train prices + station parking is super expensive. You work in London because it is either a job that only exists their and / or it is going in a direction where you can eventually make such a journey affordable
But never really heard of “antiwork” before
DicamVeritatem 2y ago
Hear hear.
The idea that women were slaves to the patriarchy prior to hormonal birth control, the rise of feminism, etc. is pure bullshit, reinforced constantly by the dominant culture.
My mother, the daughter of an immigrant owner of a small urban grocery store, got a four year degree as a Chemistry major from a quality private University in 1955. She quickly, without benefit of affirmative action, got a job as a staff chemist for Chrysler Corporation in Detroit. She did quit that gig a few days before delivering me. Once her kids were old enough, she became a high school chemistry teacher.
To today's entertainment, political, and big-corp culture, things like this absolutely never could happen.
[deleted] 2y ago
Your mom went to college and got a chem degree... BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO. She worked for Chrysler... BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO. She got married... BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO. She quit the job and had you.... BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO.
Hmm. let's see.
Did the big bad eeevil establishment slam the doors in her face because she was a woman? No. She got into college. She did the work. She earned the credential.
Did big bad eeevil Corporate America slam doors in her face because she was a woman? No. She had the credentials and some recommendations, and Chrysler hired her... because she could do and did do the work. And they kept her there because she wanted to stay there and she did the work.
And Chrysler let her keep working while pregnant with you. Hmm. Doesn't fit the stereotype of Big Bad Eeevil Corporate America.
She married because she wanted to. She had her kids because she wanted to. She quit working for Chrysler because she wanted to, and she could.
DicamVeritatem 2y ago
Just off the top of my head this morning...the blatant slanting of historical reality (revisionism) that was constantly shoved in our faces in every episode of Mad Men kept me from fully enjoying that otherwise well done series.
[deleted] 2y ago
Sometimes yes, sometimes no, at least not on Mad Men.
In reality, the "real" Peggy Olson works for a while longer then gets married. She doesn't become a creative director.
The real Joan Holloway Harris remarries to a very wealthy man.
The real Betty Draper Francis doesn't get lung cancer and stays a rich housewife married to Henry.
The real Megan Draper stays married to Don and no fucking way does Don give her a million dollar divorce settlement.
The most accurate depictions are of the more minor female characters: The secretaries, most of whom are average looking, remain secretaries, and either get married or stay in average marriages. And those secretaries can work as long as they want or need to (like the ancient Mrs. Blankenship). Or Mona Sterling, Roger's ex wife, who remains very rich off Roger's money, mostly well adjusted, gets along with Roger OK, but has something of a drinking problem. Or Kitty Romano, married to Sal the gay art director, trapped in a marriage to a man she thinks might be gay and who doesn't have sex with her. She probably quietly divorces him when the truth comes out.
And no fucking way does Harry Crane cheat on his wife with an average mousy secretary. The Harry Cranes of the world did not cheat. Because they could not - not even with a drunk off her ass, mousy, sexually repressed secretary. If Harry wants to cheat, he hires a hooker.
Rarely were women getting chased around the senior partners' desks. Sure, that happened sometimes, but it was nowhere nearly as common as women claimed it was. Nor were most women getting sexually harassed at work. Nor were most women getting literally sexually assaulted and mauled at work.
Most women were not getting cheated on in their marriages. Most men were not dumping their frumps to marry their hot secretaries. Most men could not do that even if they wanted to, and most men didn't want to. What most men want is a wife at home and a rotating harem of sidepieces for sex and fun. The men who could do that, did that. Most men did not, because they could not.
Impressive-Cricket-8 Endorsed 2y ago
Quite well written. Add some citations, and you could probably publish this in some scientific journal.
DeeplyDisturbed1 2y ago
Thanks. Unfortunately, "peer review" really means "system approved" Not interested.
Jihocech_Honza 2y ago
Well written. I would only add a little point about the nobility. Young aristocrats definitely did not have a careless childhood (the whole idea of childhood is as modern as the concept of marriage based on romantic love). The had not to work hard physically, but their days were organized - horse-riding, fencing and other martial arts, history, languages, poetry, conversation, manners...
Life of Kronprinz Rudolph von Habsburg is a good example.