Patriarchy DOESN'T EXIST? | Infuriating Debate with BeckettOfCrabs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 авг 2023
- Thumbnail "Corn King" art done by Emperor Neuro
NewGrounds - emperorneuro.newgrounds.com/
Twitter - / emperor_neuro
Intro "Maizelbub" art by Dan Rossi
Website - danrossidraws.artstation.com/
Twitter - / danrossidraws
Catch all my streams LIVE at / actualjake
#Politics #Debate #Twitch 
Развлечения
This guy is real hung up on the minority of women who gravitate towards bad guys. Most people are drawn to people who make them feel comfortable and safe. Period.
Women are drawn to traditional masculinity, which *is* toxic masculinity.
They are frequently hurt by patriarchy and are indoctrinated into thinking they need power to be safe. They are further told toxic men are powerful. The selection of toxic men is often a misguided attempt to find shelter from patriarchy by attaching themselves to a toxic patriarchal man (shelter through power)
This, of course, backfires. That experience leads more women to question patriarchy. That's why the younger women are the greater the frequency of dating toxic men becomes. They are more influenced by society at a young age (patriarchal hegemony) and have less experience with the world directly (lacking context).
The men who *are* toxic will find less and less romantic success over time, but what would cause them to self reflect? Patriarchy blames women so patriarchal men do the same. Men don't grow from toxic relationships, women do (broadly speaking. Many exceptions, of course)
Men refuse to give up the benefits patriarchy promises. Simple as. Women aren't promised much at all, so they more readily question hegemony when expectations are not met.
@@Pensnmusicnah you’re wrong about the first part. Some women are attracted to toxic men because it’s familiar. It’s not about any specific aspect, it’s a reflection of relationships they had growing up.
“Bad boys” usually have more of a personality anyway. The type of guy who complains about women dating bad boys usually have no personality while having more entitlement.
@@franjkav The majority of these men have awful personalities & lack self awareness.
@@Pensnmusic Funny how the only time women have criticised my behaviour, it was the toxic parts of my masculinity that I hadn't addressed yet.
Also that's when they left me.
So, no, women aren't attracted to men who treat them like crap, unless those women are equally messed up by society and have massive self-worth issues.
But even then I'd argue they're not really attracted to that, rather they simply think they don't deserve better, or that this is just what all men are like.
@@franjkav Yeah, "bad boys/guys" doesn't refer to toxic masculinity, it refers to independence and internal motivation.
Men who have clear goals in life and are pursuing them regardless of what others tell them.
That's not toxic at all, in fact, that's pretty healthy as long as those goals don't involve actively hurting people.
As a woman, I've had _far_ too many conversations with guys like this to think that there's not at least a little misogyny at play here
Yup. I also like his he’s so confidently wrong with so many of his arguments too. I’ve talked about it in other comments here, but I’m amused he thinks queen’s husband not being called a queen somehow means she’s more powerful than all the kings. The reason is xenophobia and patriarchy!
much like other bias issues, the overwhelming majority of people who view themselves as outside a biased group are unable to recognize their own actions that would be inconsistent with their professed lack of bias.
I personally believe we should have better education on the concept of bias and the associated 'isms therein built into school curricula.
Um...more than a little. Definitely.
@@jaybee4118even that little bit about medieval weapons was way off.
He basically said that the crusades were in the 1600s 😂
Basically he started off wrong and kept going down hill.
@@Nerobyrne honestly, I don’t know how he’s grown up in Britain and can be so, so wrong about almost everything royal and the history! I know our entire education isn’t Royal family related (thankfully!) but it’s like he just shut down his brain for for everything.
I just tortured myself by watching all four hours of all that. Beckett is one of the most infuriating people I've ever heard.
two minutes in and he's already wrong on medieval weapons ^.^
Firstly, the crusaders didn't use broadswords, they used arming swords.
And they most certainly weren't blunt, they were kept sharp, because they were used to cut people. If you wanted to beat people with a heavy object, you used a mace/hammer. Which Samurai armor was actually better against than sharp swords ....
And boy howdy that's only the first two minutes!
Admitting patriarchical systems are a thing is this guy's kryptonite.
So basically this guy has no idea what intersectionality is?
Guy avoids acknowledging misogyny and patriarchy are the issue, then points to class, but also uses princes being sent away from home to end up kings as the example to disprove that misogyny and patriarchy exist. My guy too damn smort
Poor male monarchs, having to leave home. Women never had to do that, not even a little-definitely wasn’t a requirement for many women and modern day women don’t face any pressure to uproot themselves and leave everything they know. Nope!
🤦♀️ a few years ago my grandma literally said I needed to move to be with my partner at the time lol.
And just a reminder while princes were sent away to marry as well, they dominated the relationship
The queen did not run the country, the king did
The queen had some power but while the man was alive she was not the powerhouse
And many queen regents were couped or removed by male successors because they were not supported or deemed fit rule
And it was common for the closest male heir to the crown to be drugged up to take over, over allowing the queen to stay in power alone.
Only a few very clever queens or females were able to hold onto power and usually they had to remarry or rely on male support to keep them in power.
"women did all the background political maneuvering"
but the men were allowed to be kings and inherit property and have autonomy and didn't need an escort just to go outside so like... that doesn't sound like a fair deal
(also, I think he just literally can't see the patriarchy)
He also doesn’t have a clue why queen’s husbands weren’t kings. A, kings wives aren’t queens, they are queen consorts and using queen is just shorthand. B, it’s xenophobic because they didn’t want to give a foreigner that power. C, it was patriarchal because king is essentially a better title.
With the “political manoeuvring” I think he’s mistaking some kings mistresses being able to sway the kings opinion occasionally (though more successfully with some than others) as it happening all the time.
@@jaybee4118he doesn’t understand that the few Queen regnants were most likely not in control in the same way as typical kings. They were female kings due to primogeniture laws, but that says nothing about things worked outside of the law.
@@jaybee4118 Yeah, he seemed to think that kings/dukes/etc, were all just puppets that they wives were controlling to do their bidding, which - if that were somehow the case (which, idk what history books he's looking at but the ones I've read don't say that) - WHY DIDN'T THEY GIVE WOMEN MORE RIGHTS?
Like, I think his rebuttal there would be like "because rich lady hate poor lady!" But couldn't they just give women the right to vote and convince us all to vote for them in the name of womankind? You know... like the way the patriarchy convinces poor men that rich men have their best interests at heart-- whoops! No, patriarchy doesn't exist, I forgot about that. 🙄🙄🙄
@@franjkavI love how a queen he brings up to bolster his argument is Victoria, yet her WHOLE parliament was made up of men. You'd think an english person would understand how the english government works.
I will always remember the conversation that put into perspective for me how pervasive misogyny is. It was about a year and a half out from finishing college, and I was talking with one of my close friends I made there. For a long while, she and I just kind of talked to one another about whatever--I was a support for her when she was going through some tough breakups. She reminded me of an interaction that we had at school where she asked me to help her with her dress for a formal event that she was attending. At the time, I had a crush on her, and even now I still find her really attractive, but I was aware of that, and specifically because I was aware of it, and afraid of myself saying, or doing something stupid, I turned her down. When we talked that day, I realized very quickly, that I wasn't afraid of messing up her dress, I helped my mother and sister with theirs. I've helped my friends with their outfits before; what made this one any different? Because she was a woman that I found attractive; the use of "woman" is important, because she was _not_ just a woman, she was my friend of almost a year and a half at that point.
Admitting that to her, and learning how disappointed she was that I wouldn't help her because of that, when she wanted my help and trusted me to do so tore my heart out. I had interacted just fine with her in so many other places, shared lewd jokes, shot the breeze, whatever the hell else, and I still treated her like someone different because she was a woman. It's not particularly evocative, but realizing how stupid that was, really opened me up to the fact that I could have just treated it as if I was helping someone with their suit, or their cosplay. I could have just treated it like anything else, and that's only one interaction that she's had. And in figuring that out, I became a better friend to not only her, but many of my other friends. That wasn't something I did on my own; that was something that had to be taught to me, and it made me a worse friend.
Yes! Good analysis. May you have many good relationships!
Beckett doesn't even consider the idea that men also oppress each other in the patriarchy in order to be the guy on top. He's completely ignoring the big picture and has no idea what it's like to be a woman in this shit. As a trans woman that not only has done voice training but also can still use an incredibly masculine voice, I can literally experience both sides of the patriarchy on the phone if I want.
It’s weird he hasn’t considered it. He’s basically crying about being oppressed…but can’t fathom all possibilities for who is oppressing…. Hmmmm 🤔
Nobody hurts men like other men do and there are billions of examples of this you can easily find. Just ask yourself if you are walking alone at night do you feel more threatened by a group of 5 guys or a group of 5 girls? Just going by the stats those 5 guys are way more likely to do you harm. Who were the people in power in history that oppressed the poor? It was mostly men. Men made most of the rules that screw over other men. This is kind of true of women as well. Women are more likely to harm women than they are men. You can really see this in law. Fun fact in cases where a female judge was present men were much more likely to get a more lenient sentence whereas females got harsher sentences, just as women were more likely to get leniency when there was a male judge and males got harsher sentences .
@@zenbear9952 You're such a nasty pos that you believe if you're a man then you benefit from supply side economics bc rich ppl just love sharing their money with other ppl of their gender. Fucking evil.
You assholes always have to make it seem like men are suffering from a position of privilege and not as oppressed members of the proletariat. You're an upper middle class group (feminists) trying to make it seem like you're oppressed compared to ppl with less money than you. Evil.
Ideally, we start at people are human beings which we respect, we don’t “get there”. Him saying that is a tacit expression of where his beliefs lie.
You know you're a reactionary when words that were coined fifty years ago somehow they still hurt you today.
Embarrassing.
As someone from the UK this dude must have just tuned out during History lessons in school about England being a patriarchal society for pretty much all of the medieval times and beyond.
Even I remember that much from being a kid haha.
This dude is basically r/ConfidentlyIncorrect but as a person
As a teacher, I can say from years of experience that children are naturally empathetic, and the whole “not sharing” thing is a phase they go through. It’s very rare to come across children over the age of like 6 who don’t like sharing. It’s part of how they socialize with each other.
48:28 oh for heavens sake. The Queens husbands weren’t king because then they would have as much, or more power than the queen but because they were foreigners the government didn’t want to give them that much power in case they took away that power from the british! It’s a patriarchal thing, as well as a xenophobic thing. Dude ignores that women only became queen is because they ran out of men in the line of succession. Women got that power rarely. (Edited to hopefully make more sense than I did originally)
What class reductionism does to a mfer
Which is funny because he's a liberal so it's basically just an excuse.
My singular thought throughout this entire debate… aside from “what a crybaby.”
Many men in my life refuse to take ADVIL, let alone seek out healthcare or therapy.
My dad is this way. He almost completely avoided medication. He did do some therapy and later admitted it helped but he won’t go back. It’s why I mostly ignore him.
I can speak as a cis woman who'd been manipulated by rightwing forces to see the fact of trans women as a threat. I absolutely was able to think my way out of it.
Holy shiii, he seriously forreal said woman are plotting and scheming. I’m dying. Please tell me he was trolling
You could use this guys exact arguments to claim white supremacy doesn't exist because class
When I popped in towards the end I basically made this argument and he claimed "race is different"
@@legndofphoenix im listening to him try to say that medieval peasants who were women had equal social power as medieval peasants who were men and I want to throw my phone in the ocean
@@Jeremy-hx7zjduhhh that’s why male preference primogeniture was a thing. To make sure women didn’t have too much power. It made things more equal
🤦♀️
@@franjkav Agnatic* Primogeniture 😉
Just hit "women are better at leading but they arent hired for that because..." And i think he didn't actually answer that WEIRD
He's arguing "we need more patriarchy" wtf
As a Katana bro, I am very glad that he told those people off; slashing weapons do not fare well against plate armor at all, and most damage that you'll get from a slashing weapon against plate armor, is by attacking exposed areas, which is really hard in the heat of battle. You need bludgeoning damage against plate.
and a dagger. Daggers, especially ones meant for stabbing/thrusting are infamous knight killers
It's kind of just a silly conversation to begin with. Everything that existed in one of those places, used by one of those groups -- plate armor, bludgeoning weapons, guns, explosives -- also existed in the other place, used by the other group, and both were simply human people, with all the variety that brings, neither group inherently special. That conversation is kind of always just "but if I give YOUR guys THIS thing they would lose" against "no but if YOUR guys had the thing then THEY would lose", and it's really just dudes who aren't Superman or Goku arguing about whether Superman would win against Goku while gesturing vaguely at the idea that their conversation is somehow more "real" than that. In reality, "who would win, knights or samurai" isn't even a question that makes sense; it's just nerds trying to establish dominance by proxy.
He and the people he was arguing with are equally pretentious.
@@HauntedTeacupRight, it’s just power level discourse for warrior castes. Which is fucked as a concept overall in terms of priorities, because both castes spent most of their time killing unarmed peasants at the behest of a landlord.
This was so hard to get through bevause this guy isn't even sitting at the table, so it's impossible to be able to discuss big boy topics with him, but towards the end when he said that racism "wasn't something we built over time" I was like 🤯. Like then why weren't Irish and Italians white in America up until the 60s-70s? Why are they suddenly white now? Like, what?
"It can't be patriarchy because lower class men didn't benefit!"
Lmfao
Then he follows up with men were slaves!
I can't even
@feralguyver Considering the life expectancy for those working class men, yeah they were borderline slaves. Capitalism has supplanted patriarchy. Two bad things don't always have to work together. Try telling men that they have privileges they don't have -- they're going to want to wring you out.
@@Scott-xb1ku
What?
This debate is the definition of liberal historical revisionism.
I feel like he’s been reading too many fantasy historical based novels when it comes to the belief that women have been in charge in the background through history.I think he’s mistaking some kings *sometimes* listening to their mistresses opinions as women having power.
@@jaybee4118 no it's the whole liberal Hollywood facade of historical minority famous people and then pointing to them like it's actually reality. That these people weren't oppressed their entire lives. This guy probably watched hidden figures and thought racism in science was over.
Bro probably watched Elizabeth the series and went "ah feminism"
I love how he brought up how women had the right to vote in the US before losing the right (and later regaining it)-a fact, though he was using it to prop up bad arguments. But then later claims women have always worked which is less true than not. Women have always labored and some women did work outside of the home rarely, but he seems to have overlooked the part of the history where marriage bars existed and how they limited to working a couple types of jobs and usually only when they were single and childfree. And additionally how woman took over vacant roles while men went to war but then were pushed back out when they returned.
@@franjkav the guy literally brought up "women had the right to vote in England during the 19th century, because voting came down to land ownership" women weren't allowed to own land in the 19th century only after passing the married women's act in fucking 1882 could MARRIED women own land and therefore vote. It's all just liberal revisionism.
These debates are I getting me through a long drive with nothing to think about. Went through the entire debate playlist on the way from midwest to west coast two weeks ago and now I’m on my way back and got half my driving hours accounted for tomorrow! Great
Timing.
It only got really bad towards the end where he is just refusing to accept the language despite completely agreeing with 90% of whats being said, then I was like come on dude.
That’s when it got bad?
@@jaybee4118 you just ignoring the word "really" or not know how to read? Words are there for a reason and change what a sentence means, for your education in this context it means it was bad throughout but was particularly bad at that point. So no, that's not when it started getting bad.
@@gazblackheart4596yes, I’m not that stupid, I understand. I’m trying to say it was *all* that bad. Edit, I’m sorry for not being clear enough. But maybe draw back a bit? Maybe you could have just said, “I think you’re misunderstanding” if you weren’t sure what i meant in my comment, rather then going right in with the insults?
The longer this goes on the more I can't be charitable to this guys arguments. Hes got like a blockage in his thinking.
He’s very low iq
Him believing women have or have had meaningful power is him giving up his own autonomy and power in an emotional and egotistical sense. It’s an act of misogyny in and of itself. It’s a deflection in the conversation and serves to prevent introspection and feeling feelings. It allows for inaction broadly. There’s clearly something even deeper here that he can’t address.
It’s too bad so many men seem to be sensitive but mostly don’t figure out how to use it for good.
one thing i think beckett needs to confront is that his view of words 1) isnt the end all be all of the word and 2) that people say specific words for reasons, it is not virtue signaling. the latter half was a belief i had also when i was starting out on my political journey, but he has to realize that people say specific words that mean things; and not in the way he has been primed into believing that the person saying the phrase, is bull shitting him.
I can't believe it took three and a half hours for someone to bring up intersectionality. It's like he thinks no other social issue can have any overlap with feminism.
he literally just thinks the words are scary, when words are so essentially categorized then you cease seeing humans
Beckett of Crabs = If deliberately obtuse was a person.
Dude really loves to hear himself talk, but doesn't really like to listen... typical brit.
That sounds more like a typical man more than a typical Brit.
@@jaybee4118 why not both
Big, I’m too smart for feminism, energy
Man this guy just hates the word patriarchy because he has no idea what it means. Another W for sarah and jake, but it's a day that ends in y, so that isn't surprising.
"I just think it feels like it seems like rejecting fallacious arguments is less effective than validating the bad faith framing that produces."
"I don't know how effective it is to be upfront to a bigot about their bigotry. Seems to me they would just double down."
And is that not their choice?!
At some point, you just have to call people like this patrick.
Thought it was Jack Saint
I can't believe he's denying women in the UK weren't forced into jobs during WW2 especially in the UK. Most had to become the ones that made the ammunition, be the engineers and even day to day jobs that men would do like being a bus conductor.
This guy has no clue
And here I thought I wasn't an emotional masochist, but I sat through 4 and a half hours of this guy denying patriarchy exists anyway.
4 and a half hours of a dude being assmad because using the word patriarchy hurts his feelings. Guy should sit with why women naming their oppression feels personal to hum.
i giggle a little every time i hear sarah in the background losing her mind
"Plate mail" isn't a thing. It's plate, or it's chainmail.
I’ve never encountered someone who used the word fuck as a crutch as much as this dude. It’s grating.
It took 2 hours for the guy to devolve to "behind every great man is a great woman, therefore the patriarchy is a lie."
This is literally the Patrick wallet meme for like 4 hours
This is the perfect example of a man who‘s trying to be in favor of women‘s liberation while also being a mysogynist trying to deny women‘s opression for some petty reason. It is really funny tho. Men like these are so fragile. They have one bad experience and then they‘ll throw the entire group to the fire out of spite. This is not a man. This is a condecending bitter manchild. And he‘s using women‘s opression to stick it to women cause one woman wronged him once.
You’re right, and so was Sarah when she said he can’t past his own trauma, which for the record, was women not allowing him to center himself in every conversation. He’s butthurt that a woman scoffed at him, and probably also butthurt about some woman he wants to fuck dating a (more overt) douchebag.
Damn, do i really have first comment status? Curious how this ones gonna go, and hoping Jakes doing well
I lost track of the twists and turns in the mental gymnastics employed to deny the patriarchy exists. It's wild he did a Masters on far right indoctrination and appears to have no self awareness.
"What do you mean, 'why was she "queen"?' "
Yeah, dude! Why couldn't she have been the "king"?!
I have finished the debate and I honestly believe that Beckett does not know what patriarchy is and therefore cant understand the simple concepts of:
1. Just because the men of a patriarchal system allowed a FEW women to have and KEEP primary access to wealth and power, doing so ONLY after those women experienced the tragedy of their husbands, fathers, brothers, and/or sons dying, does not mean that women had an equal part or even partially built the system they lived under (and that we still live under).
2. That women, who are usually the victims of patriarchy, can also defend, propagate, and perpetuate the patriarchy (aka being sexist); and that men, who are usually the ones who defend, propagate, and perpetuate the patriarchy (aka being sexist), can also be victims of the patriarchy.
3. Just because those things are changing (SLOWLY mind you) does not mean that it is still not a problem.
4. Therefor, it is the responsibility of those with the power to stop their abuse and the abused should not be/or feel obligated to help in that regard. (aka: It is men's job to stop other men/boys from abusing others with their patriarchal power and women shouldn't have to help. But yet we do and feminist prescribe that you create positive occupational relationships, friendships, romantic/sexual relationships (both of the latter should be men and women); go to therapy - take everything that they all say and do some personal introspection!)
I hope this guy doesn't cope in the comments like the last one 💀
Instead he coped on Twitter and called Jake a religious extremist
Just a reminder folks
In this guys cope stream after this Debate
He literally admits that the only reason he never ackbowledged patriarchy
Was because he would have lost the argument
He literally admits he kept this going because if he was truthful he'd have lost the argument.
What a ponce.
Basically, it's just business
I'm honestly curious as to what his opinion on the term heteronormativity is.
He keeps pushing that women's inequality is a class thijg
But how does class cause a women to not recive the same pay as a man for the same job?
Why are and were women barred from holding positions in various bussiness, organization and societal heirachy.
How does class cause women to be more likely and more expected to be secually assulted?
How does class cause religious books to describe women as subservient, literally layout how they cannot speak when a man is speaking, and oher oppressive tenents that regulated women as lesser?
How many examples do you have to give him? I'm a relatively wealthy woman who started with nothing and I had to fight the patriarchy every step of the way literally
3:16:20 sarah. sarah. Sarah. SARAH! SARAH! SARAH!
spitting hot fire as always
4hr vids are always a lot of entertainment
Okay, I'm only 24 minutes in, but I'm already getting annoyed with how the guest uses "intellectualism" to hide his misogynistic worldview. This guy didn't understand how Nature vs Nurture works. The argument isn't that how you are raised is deterministic, the idea is that how you are raised informs how you will be shaped as a person, which is obviously undeniable. Women are not predisposed to being bear-foot in the kitchen.
Acknowledging that patriarchy exists does not invalidate your experiences as a man, nor does it mean that you are bad for being male. As a guy who formally held a similar worldview to this guy, here is my advice; accept reality, deep down you know you are wrong (otherwise you wouldn't have to do so many mental gymnastics), and you will feel better for it by acknowledging it.
I’m at 2:45:00. This is getting me angry I’ll through my work shift, if nothing else lol.
He keeps describing patriarchy and thinking it's an argument for why patriarchy doesn't exist. I can't imagine being this obstinate about what should be an accepted truth across the board for anyone even slightly "left"
@xiggles You freaks who believe America is a patriarchy are like 10% of the population. You're an outlier of the left ie statistically unrepresentative of the wider left. You're just a bunch of rich pussies who want to prove they're oppressed compared to men with less money than them. Women aren't property any more and have no obstacles in the job market ie not a patriarchy you freak.
Dude should just read a book about intersectionality lmao
"B-But that doesn't sound like GAME OF THRONES!!!"
He keeps implying a false dichotomy between "creating safe spaces for incels in a pragmatic way" and "being honest and direct about the causes and solutions of the issues facing incels". It's as if he thinks the solution will be comfortable and convenient for the incels.
Alot of feelings with this guy
make health care eroded?
no. Male health care doesn't exist in the United States.
SARAH SARAH SARAH SARAH!!!
@Actual Jake, probably won't read this but I gotta know your take on a Conservative Juggalo 😂😂😂 hope good days
Women had a lot of power, because they were married to men with power and their men trusted them. was that really his point rofl
He thinks patriarchy is when men, in whole or in part, exclusively hold power for the sake of all men because of some innate flaw in men. You know that patriarchy is simply the recognition that the majority of resources have historically been controlled by men. You two are not the same.
Incredibly bad example right off the bat. The USSR was actually one of the only countries to allow women to serve on the front lines during ww2. Over 5 percent of military personnel were women. It's only after the war when that number dropped because of many military academies not allowing women and the difficulty in being promoted to officer roles. But patriarchy not real- read a book before you speak.
Also if gangstalking is analogous to inceldom then incels will not like my prescriptions. Because I believe that if a person believes they are constantly stalked by invisible agents they are a danger to themselves and others and require medical intervention that contains an element of deprivation of autonomy.
I really hate that this guy got hung up on acknowledging the patriarchal society we live in. Because I feel like he did touch on, but never got to explain more in detail some issues men do face. I'm not sure if I'd agree with him or not.
But I do agree on the one thing that as a man it does feel like because we come from a place of privilege, left leaning people often don't want to acknowledge any personal issues we face.
I don't want to get too personal, but I have had a lot of issues with dating. I don't think they come from misogynistic view of women on my end. Honestly, I feel like the women I have dated or attempted to date were more center politically than me.
And maybe that caused them to expect more stereotypical male characteristics in me. But ultimately I felt like my hesitancy to take initiative in the relationships or me seeming "not man enough" in certain aspect was on them.
But trying to talk about this in amongst fellow leftests always gets it put back on how worse women have it. Or how it's partof patriarchy and the fault of men. When for me at least, it's women rejecting me or aspects of me.
I don't know. I am just an idiot mostly. But I do feel strongly with him sayjng they kind of seem dismissive of the male experience. I come from a leftist pro feminist political view. But often feel so alienated from being able to talk about or hear how it negatively impacts men.
When I have had gone through tough dating experiences. I have had to step back from some of this discourse. Because I'll see men being up similar experiences to mine and get dismissed. And it really makes me feel alone.
Because I don't agree with the right wing, misogynistic incel community either. For many leftist men who struggle with dating it does feel like you are alone. I have few fellow leftists who sympathize with male related personal issues.
Most are other single men, or bi trans women who experienced trying to date when they were still identifying as male.
Probably didn't explain it well and my comment will probably be unread or ripped apart. But it's how I feel. And I imagine being a guy who doesn't understand patriarchy or get into politics at all, this discourse just pushed him away from ever considering it.
Dude, I know it sucks to not get a date, but consider the seriousness of "not getting a date" vs being horrified you're going to be killed for rejecting a guy. This is why people often feel dismissive to you. It's like listening to a rich guy complain about being broke. And there's plenty of ways to discuss your issues, but the way people have been doing it is presenting it as if men go through such unimaginable and unrelatable pain over being alone.
@@legndofphoenix That's kind of like telling a person who vents about not being able to afford rent in the US that people in third world countries have it worse. It's true. But dismissing or comes off as dismissing the person personal experience and emotions.
Guys are increasing killing themselves and when brought up, people say "well women's issues." Instead of engaging in a discussion why these group of people are hurting.
It hurts on an emotional level to not get love or affection. No you arent entitled to a person's love, affection or attention. But as a human you do need this.
That's all so many guys are trying to express. But they get dismissed and associated with the women hating types.
Women attempt suicide more than men, like its just that data isn't on the side of this idea that men are "suffering more."
The issue is that you do see other people's affection as something you're entitled to, you're just sad about it. being sad doesn't make you less of a misogynist or change the fact that you see women as an object that will fix you if you get one.
No one else can build friendships or relationships for you, you HAVE to be the one doing that. @@kronaperthro
@@legndofphoenix Again. Never said suffer more. Repeatedly you attempt to turn this back into what about ism and bring women into it. Women have legitimate issues. But that doesn't men we should ignore what men are feeling today.
Wanting love and intimacy isn't misogynistic. It's a desire to have normal human relationships. And it's something increasing difficult for people. And with dating, loneliness with dating in particular is very prominent with men. Women have a lot of issues with dating. But it's not the same issues men have and its different.
You can want to discuss these issues specific to men without jumping in but women have this issues, while still caring about women's issues and willing to address them too without wanting to constantly deflect back to their issues.
Yes friendship and relationships and building them are on the individual. But clearly it is becoming increasingly more difficult for people to have these relationships. And particularly a large portion of men are being affected by this. And people want to address this issue as it pertains to men.
I don't care if it's more or less than women's issues. It's an issue. And both men's issues and women's issues should be addressed.
I have to wonder what your response would be to a women feeling sad, depressed and lonely. Would you vall them entitled for wanting a healthy romantic relationship?
You can both need a specific relationship as a human being and also not be entitled to that attention from people.
People need healthy plantonic relationships. But they aren't entitled to make others have those relationships. (Nor would those relationships be healthy.)
I don't see a romantic one is different. It's a human need, but not something you are entitled to force upon another person.
Inb4 he comes to mald in the comments
I cannot imagine putting such a low value on my life that I'd spend 4 1/2 hours of it watching this. Sorry, dude, just too damn long for its level of import or interest. Just skipping around on that last putz's debate was hard enough. You stomped the sewage out of him but, still... not worth the time.
Jake sounds like he's trying proselytize his religion. everything is explained through patriarchy much like everything is explained through god. if a literal queen can't convince Jake that his patriarchy theory might need some revisions, idk what will
Is your brain pudding
Are you actually this stupid or pretending to be because you’re bored?