How celibate woman became a threat.....

[Aspychata]

It was said in jest only.
@Cryptid - but thanks for s-p-e-l-l-i-ng it out.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Cryptid

Most of that doesn't correspond to any actual patriarchy ever.

For example, historically rape in normal life got the man killed by the woman's family.
This new perspective is self-serving propaganda.
(Before anyone tries to snap back about rape in wartime, think very carefully about current events).

And historically, the male side of a bonded pair did not mistreat the mother of their children.
And as above, mistreating a member of a different family was not safe.

The 21st century new and "improved" definition of the patriarchy is a self-serving malicious straw-man aimed at manipulating everyone on all sides (there are more than two).

Note: this is a case where evidence has to be provided to support those claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". And not one example, or a practice in one culture that was nowhere bear as harsh as that list implies. Real, generally applicable facts. Good luck.

"No receipts" means it's fake.

 

[Cryptid]

While all the items on my list may not be endemic to any one culture, past or present (although certain Middle-Eastern cultures have embodied some of these beliefs as part of their criminal laws), each has been expressed to me by men who seemed to actually believe what they were saying or writing.

So, while it is not an all-or-nothing list, the more of the listed beliefs a person may express, the more likely the person is an element of the Patriarchy (whether they admit it or not, or whether they believe the Patriarchy exists or not).

 

[Mr. Stevens]

Thanks for sharing, @Aspychata.

It seems like the main problem is poor character, rather than anything especially "modern" about dating. I know many women are upset with husbands who don't share housework, for example, meaning that even if they get through dating and boyfriend/girlfriend phases relatively happy, that specific marriage does not always work for them. It's easy to see why many want to opt out, at least temporarily. On top of that, dating apps seem particularly unnatural, so I can relate to that distaste in my own, small way.

So much of human history and relations has to do with our handling insecurity and connection. Marriage "worked" better when women were jobless and trapped. It seems, as a species, we are now reckoning with our own immaturities and poor coping skills, having to learn to actually love ourselves and appreciate others. The fact that this is a massive blindspot for a species so technologically advanced--in our own minds--is one we will not accept easily. Not to mention the hurdle of personal defense mechanisms.

 

[thejuice]

I wonder if Bumble took a calculated risk of a backlash with the controversial ad campaign. Did they make the edgy, ironic ads because they will grab attention and the risk of it blowing up in their face was a known risk they were willing to take.
The seemingly predictable reaction on social media and trad media from the global feminist network is not so bad as "there's no such thing as bad publicity". The short term damage of unsubbbing/ app deletions is heavily mitigated by the brand visibility of the app. It also seems to be part of a pivot to a bigger, more profitable male market. But the whole thing implodes if the women go.

 

[Seladon]

I can certainly understand why a lot of women feel this way and I don't fault anyone for feeling this way. I think a lot of men need to come to terms that we fundamentally view women as objects we possess in order to inflate our status among other men. Sort of like the nice cars we buy or the nice furniture, house, etc. It's not to impress women - it's to impress and achieve status with other men.

I read something the other day that put it in a way I had never thought of before.

In the game of patriarchy, women are not the opposing team; they are the ball​

Which is basically saying that the patriarchy is a system designed to allow men to compete with one another using women. Women aren't the enemy of the patriarchy, they're its tools.

And I can see why women are sick of this and leaving it behind. It's shameful.

Sad, but true.

It would be ideal to have a female-only
ASD board, or even a private room on here just for us (idk how you’d gatekeep that, but). There’s so few spaces in this world we can safely congregate and speak and exist free from men and their rapace, it’s so damaging.

The patriarchy hurts us all, but us most of all. We’ve inherited a legacy of pain and loss, from our grandmothers in thrall all the way to us in the present time. Men don’t understand that ancestral wound, or perhaps just don’t want to since their forefathers caused it and they perpetuate it for their own gain. If they’ve turned us into nothing more than pawns in their sick power games, can they be shocked-pikachu’d to realise that we’re using the only true currency we’re allowed (sexuality) to withdraw from the game?

 

[Seladon]

It would be a threat if those women are also hunting men to kill them.

Fictional Amazons—like Wonder Woman—would. Iirc some interpretations of the Goddess Artemis depict het doing that.

Women consume a lot of porn in the form of romance literature. Just check the bestseller lists...

Equivocating written or drawn erotica with filmed black-market systemic SA is a disingenuous, even insidious take.

 

[Hypnalis]

Marriage "worked" better when women were jobless and trapped. It seems, as a species, we are now reckoning with our own immaturities and poor coping skills

As a species we evolved to live in relatively small groups, not in large towns or cities.
And we evolved to interact mainly with a small number of people, most of whom we know, or know of, personally, with whom we share a common cultures and similar life experiences.

Recorded history - all of it - describes a kind of life that does not match what we're evolved for.

For example, taming riding animals (and later, bicycles) had a huge impact on how humans live, because they increased the number of people we could closely interact with.

We are literally (and demonstrably) evolved for pair bonding. This is why marriage is cross-cultural: the pair-bonding came first, and formalization became natural as larger organized groups forms. We've disrupted that, partly by accident, partly deliberately. with as yet unknown consequences. But betting against our evolved nature usually doesn't work out well.

Seen in that light, the extreme social confusion of the 21st century, fueled by ever more "unnatural" technologies, is hardly surprising.

We did not evolve for the life we live. And we cannot evolve quickly enough to adjust to it.
Amusingly, 21st century western culture is in making generations longer (perhaps +50% already). Along with various other things that are (for the moment) irreversible, it means we've slowed evolution significantly.

Not long ago there were cultural norms shared across those parts of the world that developed and deployed the most socially disruptive technologies, and they operated to maintain cultural coherence reasonably well. But with some quite serious negative side-effects.

Now we're trying something new. The old approach has been discarded without being explicitly replaced, Opinions differ about whether the new one(s) will have better or worse side-effects, but given that they're mostly random, there will probably be some "discomfort" along the way.
We'll find out after they happen /lol.

As for dating: it's a modern invention. This is not how humanity got to the point where these mass-effect socially disruptive technologies became commonplace.
In its present form it's not "fit for purpose", and we're entering a "new norm" that's almost certainly unique (certainly at scale) in the entirely of human and pre-human history. It's not working well.

One of several major driving forces has been dwelling on the disadvantages of previous systems for maintaining social coherence without considering their value. We're building a new environment partly at random (e.g. the profit driver and consequent algorithms of Dating apps do not simulate what we evolved for), and partly as the opposite of the old systems (unrestrained freedom rather than conforming to shared norms).

IMO social coherence is too important to be changed by rolling dice, but that's the path we're on /lol.

Sounds too vague?

Most of us will find out in about 25 years when the effects of the population collapse really start to be felt.

 

[Cryptid]

. . . the patriarchy is a system designed to allow men to compete with one another using women. Women aren't the enemy of the patriarchy, they're its tools.

And I can see why women are sick of this and leaving it behind. It's shameful.

And as more and more women refuse to be both the gamepiece and the prize in some toxic men's competition, those toxic men will become more and more angry that fewer and fewer women want to take part in their games.

 

[Hypnalis]

And as more and more women refuse to be both the gamepiece and the prize in some toxic men's competition, those toxic men will become more and more angry that fewer and fewer women want to take part in their games.

This is just as true if you change "women" to men in the text. (Not joking at all - both "sides" are equally at fault).
Which means that's it's verisimilitude, not truth.

The relationship game is broken. Which doesn't mean unbalanced BTW. It's working badly for almost everyone.

Why? That's an uncomfortable topic, because a significant part of the problem is that on aggregate neither side trusts the other, neither as groups nor as individuals.
(Readers: please don't tell me about an irrelevant 1 in 100 exception - read what I wrote).

Trust is easy to lose, hard to rebuild.

Why the loss of trust? It no longer matters, but I'll provide a non-inflammatory example later.

What could be done? It's an interesting topic, but such a discussion would require clear and honest communication between all parties, so it's not happening in the right places and on the necessary scale /lol.

What's actually happening IRL? The statistics aren't good. There have been a few "thought leaders" talking about it for a while (more than 2 years, less than 5), and people are starting to notice. But no negotiations are possible.

In the age of TikTok and X, with a large-scale, medium intensity Culture War ongoing, this will be resolved by a fundamental rule of relationships:

The party that wants the relationship least controls it.

So we'll all just have to wait at out, and hope we really are a 1 in 10 exception.
And also lucky, because the fewer the potential partners, the greater the time, effort, and resources needed to find one.

 

[Magna]

And as more and more women refuse to be both the gamepiece and the prize in some toxic men's competition, those toxic men will become more and more angry that fewer and fewer women want to take part in their games.

Lysistrata! It worked once in fiction at least...