Ostroeuropa wrote:Fahran wrote:That's fair. However, I'm not certain I would write such behaviors off solely as the result of social indoctrination since, much like aggression among men, evolutionary processes may well have influenced such behaviors. Females who were better able to control their male partners, especially with regards to how they interacted with other females, may have reaped potential benefits. I don't think snooping through phones or getting frustrated when your boyfriend/husband wants to go out are necessarily good behaviors, but they're not exactly on par with taking a hammer to someone when they're sleeping or going full Lorena Bobbitt.
If your point is that some social constructs can have roots in evolutionary psychology you'll find no objection from me necessarily, but that doesn't mean they don't need to be addressed. This explanation also doesn 't account for "aggression".Studies on EQ do not necessarily reflect or substantiate your argument since EQ is not a measure of manipulativeness.
People use the tools available to them.I agree it's a compelling piece of evidence and needs something substantial to counter it. The EQ scores point was more about Saiwan noting "Women are manipulative and don't say what they want directly" and people rejecting that than specifically about this issue, which I suspect is more to do with slut shaming.It's a pretty massive piece of evidence. You'd need a compelling reason to assume she didn't mean what she said and "women are more manipulative than men because they tend to have a higher EQ scores" is not sufficient justification.There are intrinsic dangers in assuming that a woman who has expressed disinterest in you is being dishonest about her lack of interest, especially when you account for men tending to assume that women they find attractive will find them attractive and the lower EQ scores cited in your study. Following those arguments to their logical conclusion will lead to a higher occurrence of sexual assault.
I disagree this is necessarily the case when you account for men who hear what feminists have to say, understand elements of why it is wrong, and then categorically reject the entire conversation as valid, including those men who at first attempt to abide by feminist ideas and find they simply do not work in the real world. By rejecting the feminist conception of the issue and emphasizing a holistic effort to communicate and interpret signs while acknowledging that women do not always say what they mean and so on, those men can be reached.Body language can be subjectively read and, by admission of your own studies, men are not quite as gifted as women with regard to emotional intelligence.
Thanks to the behavior of women, the "No" can only be subjectively read too. Again, if you want that to be different, get your shit in order, don't blame us. As for gifted, it's more about early childhood investment and vocabulary choices in interacting with children, or at least, it very well could be that, as well as no incentive for men to have high EQ due to being punished when they display it. Farrell cites a study in his book (which i'm afraid I don't have at this location) where he notes that when men are offered five dollars in exchange for EQ challenges, they perform equally well to women because they actually try for once.They're also programmed, as I stated before, to assume to some extent that women they find attractive will find them attractive. When we account for all that, men pursuing women who have expressed disinterest because "her mouth said no but her eyes said yes" is a recipe for bad things.
It's also a recipe for good things in some circumstances where that turns out to be the case.
We should perhaps encourage more honesty in dating and courtship rather than encouraging people to disregad the clearest cues they often get.
AKA; Maybe you should get your shit together before offloading all this on men. But, you know, that's not really what feminism is about, is it.Poor flirtation skills and being a jackass are a separate issue. It's also a matter of knowing women better than they know themselves frankly. It takes work to get women in the mood and that can take time. Checking in and getting a no does not mean that with a little more effort that won't be a yes later. This is advice sex counsellors will give regarding dead bedrooms too. She says no, so identify sources of discomfort and distress and remove them and so on, then ask again. Stuff like that. However, because of that lack of self-awareness, if you simply ask again a lot of the time women will freak out because they already said no once, even if they now want to because you've created an environment and rappor with them where that has changed. So if you're not adept at it and blow your request early, your best bet is relying on other cues.No offense, but, if I'm at a bar and I tell a guy I'm not interested in him, I really don't think that me getting frustrated when he continues to pressure and guilt-trip me is that demanding or rude.
Because they rationalize nonsense to themselves rather than having self-awareness, very few will go; "Now it is a yes, I told you no earlier because the environment I was in was creating a certain emotional tone and I was unable to separate that from you as a person, in addition I had a lot of bullshit to do but you helped me with that so now i'll have the energy.", most will go;
"You CREEP, I already decided you're unattractive and obviously that was based on my evaluation of you as a person, not a bunch of unrelated nonsense that I didn't bother to articulate properly to you with 'yes, if you can help me with X and we go here instead.'.The consequences we're off-loading on y'all are that you might not date women who aren't good communicators and who are emotionally manipulative. The consequences you want to off-load on us are sexual assault and sexual harassment. They're not even remotely equal.
I'll be blunt.
Most men don't want to date feminists, at all. Imagine you are offered a choice;
Women must marry full on narcissistic misogynists only who view you with utter contempt, or else you can ignore those folk but the price of that will be some men face sexual assault sometimes.
It sucks for you. I hope you find a solution.
This one isn't it, and it isn't our duty to bail you out of it by only dating women who agree with your perspective.What does buying a drink mean? I usually take it as a polite gesture and an expression of romantic or sexual interest by a man in a woman. Most men are polite and sensible enough to expect a conversation and maybe a number out of it instead of full-on fondling, though they certainly won't object if that occurs in many cases. But what do you think?
I agree with you on what it means. My point is to highlight that this is an ordinary persons understanding of what buying a drink means. Much like ordinary people, including the vast majority of women, aren't feminists and do not view "No" the same way you do. You are the equivalent of that fringe minority who think "Can I buy you a drink?" is communicating something that most people disagree is being communicated.What?
If men operate according to how most women operate and then one day they come across a feminist who flips out because you don't share this view you're espousing, you're going to vilify them for it and say they should take women at their word and so on and how it's them being bad for not adhering to the "Weirdo fringe interpretation". They become at "fault". Listening to feminists on this issue screws men up, especially men in environments where feminists are super rare, like minority males and the working classes. It's one reason incels are red pill are becoming a thing. They're neo-misogyny specifically because these ideas you're pushing don't work in the real world and are categorical rejections of the entire conversation rather than rejections of the feminist approach to it.]
They're also growing movements.I don't agree with radical feminists about men just never approaching women, but I don't think disregarding very clear verbal cues because "women are manipulative" is a good idea. I mean... how would you feel if a man disregarded your verbal cues when you told him not to fondle you because "your eyes said you wanted this"?
Disregarding my no and taking note of elements of how i appear to have signs of interest and then deciding to push the matter later after putting some work in?
I wouldn't care. The problem is you don't understand the process and so you're jumping to "Oh so what if he just stuck it in you" instead of recipritory escalation and so on. You're also assuming, wrongly, that men can't influence your libido and it's an internal decision you're making based on your evaluation of them, so you're viewing this "No" as occurring at some end point where the action is imminent and the only agency you're affording the man in this scenario is sexual acts or accepting that no and walking away.
In reality, you can do other things.
I've never had a problem with feminists, consequently, I've never had a problem being around women, platonically, romantically, or otherwise. If you treat an individual like a person, you too can have an entire half of the species not repelled by you.
