Sexodus- Males In Crisis

[vt]

I don't agree with all of this. It seems that a youth culture with always on mobile devices, Facebook, and other distractions from normal human interaction may be a part of this "crisis". Maybe the fact that they've done everything imaginable in this realm by the time they get to college also plays a part.
There is no mystery, no dedication.


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...Out-Of-Society

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...lity-In-Crisis

[Forrest]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

Once upon a time, people actually married to have children, and to stay together in lifetime relationships. When children became optional, expensive,and not the main point of marriage, the main reason to marry disappeared...for both sexes.

Relationship desires don't fit into the current 'all for myself' lifestyle. Male or Female, once your society becomes self-obsessed rather than other oriented, it fails.

[Adeptus]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

I think some of this has to do with economics too though. These days with youth unemployment being so high in so many western countries, delaying marriage and kids, or walking away from it all together makes good short-mid term financial sense. But yes, despite the article reading like some guy who needed to vent in public, rather excessively I might add, I do think that easy access to pornography, the demystification and outright ridiculization (yes I just made up that word up) of religious beliefs - even if rightly deserved, combined with ever more addictive video games and cheap drugs (meth) and/or ever more powerful pharmaceuticals, does add up to some percentage of the sexes going their own way.

That said, I don't for a second believe males have given up on sex. It's more like they've given up on the chase. Just not worth the effort, cost, time, trouble and walking on so many eggshells. There are plenty of articles in the past 2-3 years of the same scenario relating to Japanese youth, where I believe the statistics are even more accentuated.

On another tangent, during the 2011 Occupy movement, I actually spent some time talking to all kinds of feminists on the ground. I found that on one hand they had high integrity and with very strong moral values, but on the other, in the name of 'equality', would ensure every white male did not have a chance to stand out in the crowd or speak more than anyone else; regardless of whether the individual was qualified to or not. In several cases I sensed a dash of anger and jealousy of men. It wasn't until months later that I discovered nearly all of these very determined feminists were lesbians or had some variance of "daddy issues" in their childhood - or both. After this, their heightened sensitivity to any alpha male with the potential of dominating a situation or group became understandable, but simultaneously in part, unjustifiable, as their feminist values were clearly rooted in personal psychological imbalances or a life-time (thus far) of being under some degree of oppression for being the odd ones out as far as being gay. The occupy movement, was for them, a chance to rise up and shift the balance in their favour. Totally understandable, but lacking in deeper introspection - not uncommon of youth of any gender.

Now every time I meet a devout feminist I immediately question (in my mind), their underlying causes for having become one. I don't mean because of inequality between the sexes. I mean, what psychological crisis or oppressive experience that marked their lives has made them such devout feminists. Like any typical character imbalance in humans, the psychological tendency is to go towards the opposite, in the extreme. If you were always poor, you might crave possessions beyond the average person. If you were abandoned in youth, you may overtly crave to be surrounded by people, have a large number of friends or aim to have a very large family. If you lacked self-esteem, you place excessive emphasis on your looks or on what people might be saying about you. etc. In regards to feminists, I don't even think they are aware of why their motives are so strong. I think in most cases their passion is rooted in subconscious underpinnings they have not yet explored, understood and specifically come to peace with. This is not to say that the striving for equality, it certainly is, but then I ask: Why not call their movement equalism and themselves equalists, rather than feminists?

On the flip side, I have also known plenty of women who crave dominant men, so not all hope is lost for the heterosexual young male. Today, though, the array of mentalities, moral belief systems, psychological traumas and cultural intermixings is so vast and common that it is no wonder young men might be confused. It's hard enough for young men to understand women when they are all white heterosexual females of the same cultural and religious backgrounds and values... but when you throw all kinds of curveballs into the mix, it becomes a far more difficult situation.

[flintlock]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

There definitely is a noticeable trend going on. Young men today more and more tend to fall into either the metrosexual or the exaggerated macho camps, with fewer in the middle. They are either disinterested in sex or they want to treat it in a very casual, even misogynistic manner. I think some of the mystery and appeal of sex has been removed by all the constant media attention and overt sexual ads, shows, etc. I think women are told they have to become rabid feminists and that the alpha male is the enemy. I think men are told they have to be what the feminists want them to be. In reality neither is very attractive to the other.

[aaron]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

Thank you for the post. I was up to 4 a.m. reading and following links.

Almost everything in that article is true, at least in my corner of the world. I am 40, but spend much of my time with younger folks.

I found this site a couple of months ago:

http://judgybitch.com/

[Woodsman]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

... It wasn't until months later that I discovered nearly all of these very determined feminists were lesbians or had some variance of "daddy issues" in their childhood - or both. After this, their heightened sensitivity to any alpha male with the potential of dominating a situation or group became understandable, but simultaneously in part, unjustifiable, as their feminist values were clearly rooted in personal psychological imbalances or a life-time (thus far) of being under some degree of oppression for being the odd ones out as far as being gay.

....Now every time I meet a devout feminist I immediately question (in my mind), their underlying causes for having become one. I don't mean because of inequality between the sexes. I mean, what psychological crisis or oppressive experience that marked their lives has made them such devout feminists. Like any typical character imbalance in humans, the psychological tendency is to go towards the opposite, in the extreme. If you were always poor, you might crave possessions beyond the average person. If you were abandoned in youth, you may overtly crave to be surrounded by people, have a large number of friends or aim to have a very large family. If you lacked self-esteem, you place excessive emphasis on your looks or on what people might be saying about you. etc. In regards to feminists, I don't even think they are aware of why their motives are so strong. I think in most cases their passion is rooted in subconscious underpinnings they have not yet explored, understood and specifically come to peace with. This is not to say that the striving for equality, it certainly is, but then I ask: Why not call their movement equalism and themselves equalists, rather than feminists?

First, I struggle to understand your viewpoint but I don't mean any of what I write to suggest that you personally want any harm or hurt or even so much as inconvenience coming to people who do not identify as heterosexual.

I have to ask if you apply this approach to all people? Do you think it would it have the same value if you were to replace "feminist" with "conservative" or "liberal" or "fascist."

I note that your post uses "feminist" and "lesbian" almost as if they were synonymous and that seems to me something of a concern. Personally, I'm skeptical that this approach would get very far past personal bias and prejudice. Unless it's true that every time you meet a conservative you "immediately question the underlying causes for having become one," I'd be inclined toward the impression that you yourself might be acting out similar "subconscious underpinnings [you] have not yet explored, understood and specifically come to peace with."

This sort of popular amateur psychology always seem to ends in tears. I might be off base, but I can't detect anything in your note that indicates formal training in psychology, social work or human sexuality. It might interest you to know that the leading professional associations in the fields of psychiatry, psychology and social work do not make the hard connection between homosexuality and so-called character imbalances you seem to do:

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

“ In 1952, when the American Psychiatric Association published its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, homosexuality was included as a disorder. Almost immediately, however, that classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. That study and subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation. As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.

In recognition of the scientific evidence, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities." After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals "to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations." The National Association of Social Workers has adopted a similar policy.

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

This is not to say that people who are gay do not suffer from mental illness or character deficiencies. But is it not more likely that such people suffer mental illness not because of their sexual orientation but rather the hostile actions of other people in reaction to their orientation? I expect the stress and stigma of living with the ever present hostility and fear directed at gay and lesbian people would indicate higher incidences of depression and anxiety in those populations. And young people are especially at risk for suicide due to the stigma they suffer and the prejudice and discrimination they experience.

One good way of reducing stigma and diminishing the harm of prejudice and discrimination is to associate oneself with like minded people with similar orientations and this likely accounts for much of the experiences you recounted. While connecting with communities of support is a coping strategy used by all humans suffering from stigma and discrimination, studies indicate it is particularly true of lesbians:

The more widely a woman disclosed her sexual orientation the less anxiety, more positive affectivity, and greater self-esteem she reported. Degree of disclosure to family, gay and lesbian friends, straight friends, and co-workers was related to overall level of social support, with those who more widely disclosed reporting greater levels of support. Participants who more widely disclosed their sexual orientation were less likely to engage in anonymous socializing, had a larger percentage of lesbian friends, and were more involved in the gay and lesbian community. Path analyses revealed a mediating effect of social reactions (both initial and current) on the relation between identity development and self-disclosure.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1.../J082v35n02_03

As for the politics, feminism falls generally under those political philosophies oriented toward, as you say, egalitarianism and equalism. It is not a monolithic entity and there are various strains and tendencies within it, as with all social movements. It is a political doctrine and a social philosophy and not an indication of any emotional or character deficiency; at least no more than conservatism or libertarianism might be.

Feminism demands that all people be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. It advocates the removal of economic inequalities among people and the decentralization of power. It seeks to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. In practice, it has proved to be one of the main forces behind major historical societal changes including universal suffrage, equal pay for women, reproductive rights for women and the right to enter into contracts and own property. I think this is why the Right is so virulent in its opposition to feminism. They understand its power and its history of success. They understand the threat it poses to the status quo.

As I see it, all you've done in this post is lay out a crude caricature of feminists and lesbians based on common and long held prejudices and stereotypes. Unexamined, it tends toward a "typical character imbalance in humans" and particularly as suffered by heterosexual males.

If I may assume you are a straight man, I have to ask how you've been able to learn so much about feminists and lesbians? How is it that you are able to declare you know more about themselves than they do? How have you come to your understanding of their motivations and "unexplored subconscious underpinnings?" Unless you are a trained mental health professional who has treated this population, it strikes me as a colossally arrogant statement.

Forgive me, but it's the kind of thing only a straight man could say with a straight face to a straight audience.

[seobook]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

Stereotypes might not be universally true, but it doesn't make all of them universally untrue either. Correlation does not guarantee causation, but you certainly don't need to have formal training to see common patterns in experiences and interactions with people. And I'd bet many people who attend demonstrations with the goal of changing the world or such are more vocal and more open & sharing than they might be in other social settings like at work or such.

demands that all people be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights

Living in the bay area, I've certainly seen some marketing for some events which made it clear some are more equal than others. Doing something which is deemed bad or offensive if party x does it, but changing the party one is choosing to discriminate against to discriminate against x, isn't really about treating people equally. Or if it is, it is more an endorsement legitimizing what is complained against, rather than something pushing to stop it.

[Adeptus]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

Hi Woodsman,

Sorry for the confusion. My first impressions of feminist movements was that women (all types of women) were fighting for equal rights, pay, etc. The statistics and conclusions of numerous studies certainly point to the inequality being a reality - I think there's little doubt about that. When I finally got around to speaking with self-proclaimed feminists (we're talking about 10 or so women, so certainly merely anecdotal experience), they certainly seemed to echo all these main inequality issues. To my surprise, after having interacted for a couple of months a few times a week with these women, which by the way, I gained a huge amount of respect for - not necessarily for their feminist viewpoints, but as extremely moral, just and caring human beings - in fact I was very moved to have met such people... my surprise was that it turned out that something like 8/10 of them were lesbians and at least 3 of 4 of them had "daddy issues". By that I mean, abandoned by father or never having met dad as they were adopted. Or father turned out to be an abusive alcoholic or street beggar (in 1 case - both), and at least in 1 case I suspected raped as a child.

Anyway, my point is that in *my* ignorance and naivete, I assumed feminists were mostly made up of women of all types and certainly assumed a majority of heterosexuals in equal proportions to general society (1/10 = gay? 9/10 = hetero?). And perhaps that is still the case, but my anecdotal experience surprised me that perhaps it is more like 8/10 being gay - in hindsight, perhaps that is an extreme case, I don't know though. This then raised suspicions as to what the feminist movement was really about, because externally the PR message seems to be about gender equality in rights, pay etc; however, if 8/10 are gay and IF that's the average of what makes up the feminist movement, then their message is highly suspect, given in the real world something like 9/10 women are hetero and (perhaps???) the vast majority of them don't care too much about the feminist movement to go as far as taking the time to participate and are just fine with the way things are (excluding extremes such as men raping or beating women, blunt discrimination in workforce etc). In other words, I got the sense that feminists - if my anecdotal experience were also true as the overall average (low probability of that being true) - were misrepresenting what their movement was really about and that in fact most women (with 9/10 being hetero) are not nearly as concerned as they seem to be.

As for character imbalances, we all have them. I was referring though to significant psychological imbalances that are rooted in the individual having gone through some profound negative experienced in life (aka. the daddy issues I was referring to), and that significantly affecting their perspective in life and specifically when it comes to men.. perhaps more so white man, and even more so alpha white men. Psychological imbalances can, in many cases be undone, unlike gender sexual preferences (in the vast majority of cases). So I see the two as separate things; however, when combined can even better explain the passion for feminism of the women I met. Psychological imbalances can be dealt with either via psychological treatments, psychiatric or in the case of very mature humans through intensive and long periods of introspection and radical self-honesty - the latter option is not common to most youth due to lack of wisdom/life experience, lack of understanding of human psychology and understanding of the processes of introspection... to say nothing of the will required to confront oneself and peer into one's darkest attributes.

If I may assume you are a straight man, I have to ask how you've been able to learn so much about feminists and lesbians? How is it that you are able to declare you know more about themselves than they do? How have you come to your understanding of their motivations and "unexplored subconscious underpinnings?" Unless you are a trained mental health professional who has treated this population, it strikes me as a colossally arrogant state

I am a straight man; however, I have actually lived with lesbians in my youth - for several years. I don't declare that I know more than all lesbians know about themselves. That would be completely absurd. I can however comment that several of the ones I met back in 2011 (which I did not live with and only met a few times a week for a couple of months) that to me clearly had "daddy issues", had not, in my non-expert opinion, confronted their psychological imbalances related to those psychological issues - which again, probably has nothing to do with them being lesbians; especially if we are to believe being gay is DNA related and not psychological - well at least for gay men. For gay women DNA based conclusions to my knowledge have not yet been reached with the same level of clarity, thus possibly, external factors do exist to trigger their same-gender sexual preference. The only time I see those two things (lesbian + daddy issues) having a commonality is that feminism greatly embraces both stereotypes and is a cause that defends both as it allows women who feel oppressed (either because they grew up as lesbians, or because men in their lives oppressed them) to stand up for themselves.

My opinions on these subjects are purely mine and based on my limited life experiences with a very very small number of women, thus I do not expect nor claim them to be accurate - they are more like personal observations and personal conclusions. Conclusions which are very open to being changed with more experience and through scientific studies on the matter, but not so much by general theories being thrown about in media, and even less by feminist PR essays that make me suspicious of what's going on behind the scenes now that I've had some limited experience in the area, or the opposite: men who feel oppressed by the feminist movement and some over-the-top feminists or oppressive women in their lives ... such as the article originally posted in this thread.


In regards as to whether I also question the root causes/underpinnings of somebody who claims to be a conservative/liberal/socialist or whatever, it depends, but mostly not. Why not? Quite simply because these political preferences are extremely common and thus less interesting to me. Also because the reasons for being affiliated with X political system are (I assume) probably easily decipherable and obvious; whereas feminism was an area I hadn't really touched before, thus my experience surprised me and put me and has put me a little on guard.

Overall, I remain suspicious of the feminist movement in the sense that they preach equality but call themselves feminists. They should just come out and say it: We want equality for oppressed women. That I think would be more honest, rather than making it sound like they are really out to fight for equal rights of everyone - when was the last time you heard of a feminist preaching for the equal rights of men in female-centric jobs? Further, I don't even subscribe to the concept of equality. It is quite simply not natural. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in nature is equal (at the macroscopic level). We are not born equal. We do not possess equal levels of intellect. We do not possess equal levels of physical strength, or will power, or psychological maturity, or spiritual maturity, or family values, or cultural values etc .. the list is a very long one of how we (humans) are not equal. Furthermore, there are clear differences between men and women - to pretend they should be equal is to ignore their natural makeups. What about equal rights? Yes I certainly do believe in that. But equal pay? I say no that should have nothing to do with gender, but should have everything to do with qualifications and performance and if it turns out that most men for X job type outperform women - then no, women should not receive equal pay. And what about patriarchal nature of our global societies? Should we change that to appease feminists? Only if the alternative is a natural outcome, one where the individuals in power are so because they are naturally suited to be in power and are strong leaders (whether male or female), not because we should have 50/50 splits of gender representatives in politics.

:-)

[vt]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

Perhaps we should ask a feminist:

"Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist."

Camille Paglia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROjOjDMr43M

http://time.com/3444749/camille-pagl...mprehend-evil/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-society.html

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...erican-Culture

[Adeptus]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

Well, there we go... perhaps my anectdotal experience is closer to the average of reality than I thought...

http://www.thesaid.net/culture/angry...study-reveals/

[quote]The study, headed by Ursula Virtanen from the Australian National University, surveyed a sample of 500 women who identified themselves as feminists. Close to 75 per cent of the women who were considered or considered themselves “radical” feminists also identified as queer – lesbian, trans, and intersex.[/quote]

[j4f2h0]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

Good post for sure! I am 33 and have een single for over 5yrs. I dated a bunch in my 20's but as that decade ended so did my drive to keep going on first dates! As much as i would like it to be different i do not socialize with women near as much as i would like. I do find that the religious people i know seem to be fairing better than non religious, as stated above they still have the directive from god to procreate where as the rest of us are not under tha same demands.

I can say income has nothing to do with it as i am more successful than most people i know my age. Starting a family, and getting married for me has been a circumstantial choice, not an economic one. If i met a girl and it made sense i would go there no problem. You really are damned if you do and damned if you dont. You either have to be that aggressive predator type who can handle rejection a dozen times a day or you just say fuck it, like i have. I focus on making money and being successful and whatever happens in between this happens. I see it as out of my control!

J4

[Raz]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

This sort of popular amateur psychology always seem to ends in tears. I might be off base, but I can't detect anything in your note that indicates formal training in psychology, social work or human sexuality. It might interest you to know that the leading professional associations in the fields of psychiatry, psychology and social work do not make the hard connection between homosexuality and so-called character imbalances you seem to do:
...
As for the politics, feminism falls generally under those political philosophies oriented toward, as you say, egalitarianism and equalism. It is not a monolithic entity and there are various strains and tendencies within it, as with all social movements. It is a political doctrine and a social philosophy and not an indication of any emotional or character deficiency; at least no more than conservatism or libertarianism might be.

Feminism demands that all people be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. It advocates the removal of economic inequalities among people and the decentralization of power. It seeks to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. In practice, it has proved to be one of the main forces behind major historical societal changes including universal suffrage, equal pay for women, reproductive rights for women and the right to enter into contracts and own property. I think this is why the Right is so virulent in its opposition to feminism.

There are no unbiased, reputable groups of psychiatrists who claim homosexualism to be genetically based.
There is every bit as much political science involved here as there is medical science.



You're quite a reader of books, Woodsman. Here's one I suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/Destructive-Tr...8339655&sr=1-1


And by "reproductive rights" we mean the legal sanction of murder for the most helpless of all Americans.
They can't even scream as they are killed.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

There are no unbiased, reputable groups of psychiatrists who claim homosexualism to be genetically based.
There is every bit as much political science involved here as there is medical science.



You're quite a reader of books, Woodsman. Here's one I suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/Destructive-Tr...8339655&sr=1-1


And by "reproductive rights" we mean the legal sanction of murder for the most helpless of all Americans.
They can't even scream as they are killed.

+1, they don't even pretend there is a gay gene anymore.

[Woodsman]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

Hi Woodsman...

That was a very thoughtful response, Adeptus. I appreciate your effort.

[Woodsman]

Re: Sexodus- Males In Crisis

Okay, I admit to never before having encountered the term "homosexualism." A quick Google search came up with stuff that on first blush seems kinda kooky. Stuff like "Sexual Bolshevism," whatever the hell that is. Reminds me of the Unabomber manifesto.

I'm with you on the identity politics thing and I've made my opposition to abortion clear in previous posts. I don't care to get into the abortion talk at all, but do have some thoughts on identity politics. Accepting as a given the genuine grievances of marginalized groups, I view identity politics as the politics of redirection and distraction.

It's a sop the powers that be give to distract and redirect people who in previous eras might be labor organizers or civil rights workers or some other conscious and mobilized element of a functional, activist Left. So instead of people organizing around principles of economic equality and class conflict -- principles that could actually threaten the interests of the plutocrats -- their energy is redirected toward intensely contentions, highly personal and effectively irreconcilable conflicts.

These conflicts, varied as they are in terms of focus and constituency, do share the common virtue of being utterly inconsequential to fundamental questions of politics, power, wealth and income - who rules and who gets gets what, when and how. So long as the poors are arguing about whose johnson should go in whose hole, dead babies and school prayer, the riches can go about their business unmolested.