ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '21
No bio...
User ID: 1012
I agree that men who complain about that stuff are ridiculous. "My female feminine wife acts like such a woman! How could this happen to me? Who could have forseen this?" It's silly.
I imagine it's probably pretty different for gay guys, so my OP probably doesn't apply to them
Trigger warning: traditional gender roles
But I enjoy providing, protecting, and listening. That's what men by nature want to do. I think men who don't want to do that have something wrong with them, like women who hate children or want to spend their life in an office cubicle instead of marrying . Those men are either abnormal or immature (I believe "manchildren" is the hip term).
I don't want my girlfriend to be my friend, she's not a dude, she's a romantic partner. She fulfills a different need. I have male friends who fill the other role. A tomboy just seems like subpar gf mixed with a subpar buddy.
I don't understand the seemingly recent popularity of "tomboy gfs" (bonus meme).
There's a lot of meta-ironic shitposting on 4chan and sometimes reddit about how tomboys are the best because, as far as I can understand the arguments, they're bros that have a pussy. I can kind of see how a bro-gf might have appealed to 14 year old me who thought feelings and femininity were totally gay, dude, and who just wanted to play Halo with my bros while we farted and laughed and punched each other. But I can't imagine any well-adjusted man over age 25 feeling this way unless they're particularly feminine themselves (in which case they would be attracted to "tomboys" for a different set of reasons).
I've been attracted to feminine girls my entire life (yes, even as a 14 year old retard) and have, for as long as I can remember, found their femininity mysterious and alluring. Is there an element to tomboy popularity that I'm missing? Is there an emotionally mature segment of men who are still into tomboys? Or is it all just a forced meme?
Edit: Since this post has caused some confusion, let me clarify -- I'm asking about a narrow definition of tomboy as described in the meme and in threads about "tomboys", not "any woman who isn't 100% feminine in every way." For those who don't want to click on the meme, the "tomboy gf" has the following non-traditional qualities:
-
Thinks makeup is stupid
-
Likes porn
-
Likes video games
-
Rough speech like "I'm gonna kick your ass/suck my dick/fag"
-
Gets mistaken for a boy (presumably due to hairstyle and clothing)
-
Puts you in headlocks/wrestles with yoy
Are there synonyms for international or global that start with âTâ?
Transnational?
Is it fear, or is it just business sense? Toy Story was a hit in part because it used a setting and characters familiar to an American audience (suburban childhood life, old fashioned cowboy toy, newfangled spaceman toy, slinky, green army men, Mr potato head). Ghibli movies are universally loved it Japan because of all the very-Japanese details and cultural references woven into them (likely both intentionally and unintentionally) -- see Totoro, Pom Poko, Spirited Away, or My Neighbors The Yamadas. I think the term "love letter" is trite when describing a movie, but these films are love letters to the childhoods and shared experiences of their respective audiences. They target a specific culture and a specific slice of space and time.
Modern family films don't really seem to do that anymore. Everything is either engineered to appeal to the widest possible audience (gotta appeal to the East Asian market) or, when they do try to set a film in a specific culture, it's a theme park version created by outsiders (Coco, Moana, new Mulan) that is still designed to be widely palatable. In both cases the end product is sometimes entertaining but never beloved as it doesn't connect with our own memories or experiences on more than a superficial level.
If you're not convinced, try this -- imagine a 2024 Disney remake of Totoro, complete with the newfangled 3D animation, the gender roles updated, the clothing modernized, interiors of the homes genericized, still vaguely Japanese (in the way a Japanese-American from California might imagine "Japanese") but mostly just anodyne and inoffensive, Totoro's wood has been expanded to cover a huge expanse of land and Catbus has a new origin story, and now Mei has a cute comic relief Makurokurosuke sidekick that hangs out on her shoulder (merchandising!). It would probably make a good trailer or two and I bet it would make some money at the box office, but a lot of the themes, images, and dare I say SOVL would have been lost in the quest to broaden appeal.
It really adds 30 years.
Kind of a shower thought, but could it be that it's just really hard to write an interesting, unique badass hero nowadays without being excoriated for toxic masculinity and being retrograde? Indiana Jones and Han Solo get grandfathered in as endearing classics of a bygone age, so you get a pass if you recycle them (although you probably have to pay some tribute to wokeness in the form of retcons and script changes).
Perhaps also there's also a suspension of disbelief problem. Millennials and zoomers are permanently on seven layers of irony and have grown up on endless trope subversion. How could you write a straight action hero who would appeal to such an audience?
Edmond Dantes was in deep despair while imprisoned in Chateau D'If for an unspecified crime on the accusation of an unknown person. Only when he finally deduced what his "crime" had been and who was responsible for his wrongful imprisonment did he regain his will to act.
I think this is an accurate reflection of how many people internally experience oppression by a specific person with intelligible motives versus oppression by an impersonal, alien force to which they are merely unnoticed collateral damage.
"Why is my rent going up this month? Isn't there anything you can do?" "Nope, sorry, the computer system says your rent goes up $125 this year. Corporate sets the rules, there's nothing I can do."
Indeed, âHe who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.â Without a "why," the "how" is often unbearable.
There's a bit of a dogpile here in the vein of "Well why do we still celebrate ${holiday commemorating event}??" which I think doesn't grasp the point you're trying to make.
Pride Parades used to be more in-your-face, freak out the squares squares type events that were held as protests. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" Now that everyone's either "used to it" or afraid of drawing the wrath of HR and/or Twitter mobs, there should no longer be any need for protests.
But Pride Parades turned out to be great opportunities to siphon off bit of the heady nectar of the latest "civil rights victory." If you're queer, you can go there and celebrate defeating bigotry and bask in the righteousness of the cause ("Fuck hate! Love conquers all!") If you're normal you can go there and enjoy the same as an "ally." As mentioned in this thread, corporations got involved to sell stuff and also to get a little of that civil rights glory for themselves, likewise for the city government. And so it is no longer a protest, but a big, well-funded party where you can have a blast and showcase your righteousness.
This is why you run your own Plex server. If you don't want to buy all the hardware, you can rent a seedbox that runs Plex. My kids only watch pre-2000 cartoons and movies.
FWIW I tend to downvote those, but I often won't engage since there's usually not even an interesting point to be made. I even report ones that are especially egregious, although certain posters on "my side" of the culture war seem to be allowed to get away with low effort snark that I think would get me moderated.
I agree with you that there are a lot of them and that they should be more aggressively moderated since they drag down the discourse.
I don't come to The Motte for wiki links and one liners. That's Reddit-tier discourse. If someone has a point to make, they should state it explicitly so the countours of the argument are plain.
Thank you. I would argue that they would have been fully justified in not fighting for a state that had been actively persecuting them. In hindsight they seem virtuous and heroic because public opinion ended up reversing course on Japanese internment, but they couldn't be sure that that would happen two decades before the Civil Rights Act. They would have seemed foolish in a different timeline where the U.S. had remained a country where Japanese were seen as un-American and alien.
Same goes for black soldiers in WW2. Why volunteer to fight for a country that sees you as a subhuman? I think black draft dodgers during WW2 would also have been on solid moral ground.
I'm not denying that they were courageous, optimistic, and virtuous, but simply that their virtue was beyond what could be reasonably demanded in the circumstances. And so I think a young white British man would be perfectly justified in giving the finger to a system that apparently actively dislikes and seeks to diminish his kind. Pinging @Gdanning.
I've seen you post comments in opposition to idpol many times now but I'm still not sure what you believe. To me the argument that adopting idpol in the U.S. is tantamount to pressing the "defect" button in order to benefit at the expense of other groups who must coexist with you. So the logical response is for those other groups to start pushing "defect" themselves lest their lunches get eaten.
I'm not a fan o white nationalism and I think that "white" is a very incoherent, borderline-nonsensical concept in the U.S. But it seems like as a non-BIPOC person my long term choices are "do nothing and eventually pay reparations" or "start advocating for my racial group or coalition in order to counter enemy idpol tactics." I would prefer a third way. You seem to think there is one, so what is it?
Care to speak plainly? The rhetorical questions are getting tired.
she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question - "Is this all?"
I've always thought this was a ridiculous question. The answer is clearly "yes" and I don't think this would have been difficult for most people before WW2. Indeed, Ecclesiastes said millennia ago:
Men are born only to die, plant trees only to displant them. 3 Now we take life, now we save it; now we are destroying, now building. 4 Weep first, then laugh, mourn we and dance; 5 the stones we have scattered we must bring together anew; court we first and then shun the embrace. 6 To-dayâs gain, tomorrowâs loss; what once we treasured, soon thrown away; 7 the garment rent, the garment mended; silence kept, and silence ended; 8 love alternating with hatred, war with peace. 9 For all this toiling of his, how is man the richer?[1] 10 Pitiable indeed I found it, this task God has given to mankind; 11 and he, meanwhile, has made the world, in all its seasonable beauty, and given us the contemplation[2] of it, yet of his own dealings with us, first and last, never should man gain comprehension. 12 To enjoy his life, to make the best of it, beyond doubt this is manâs highest employment; 13 that gift at least God has granted him, to eat and drink and see his toil rewarded.
The human condition is the indignity of being an eternal soul bound to a finite body, trapped in a fallen world filled with suffering. Even non-Christians feel a similar void. I'm no Nietzschean but I sympathize with him when he says:
âIf there were gods, how could I bear not to be a god? Therefore, there are no gods.â
The default experience is to "struggle alone," to wrestle with the apparent fact that life has "no goal, no ambition, no purpose," feel that one is "buried alive" by the hideously mundane, tedious, and exhausting demands of daily life.
I felt the same. I still come across a lot of words I don't know when reading old books or technical stuff.
30,280 at 0.01 percentile. Checkmate gaytheists. I am apparently "Shakespearen" and have been granted license to add words to the dictionary. Literally my first act will be to revert the definition of "literally."
/images/16857141042367923.webp
I would also like to point out that I only took it once and while I was taking a shit.
Edit: Misspelled Shakespearean above. License revoked.
I love my kids and Iove being a dad, so I'm glad we had a third (and I'm actually hoping for a fourth). We have a huge SUV, but I like huge SUVs. We might end up in a 4BR house, but not due to the number of kids. We're just going to stick all the girls in one room and all the boys in another; that's how my siblings and I were raised and we were all fine with it.
My wife is a SAHM who does freelance work. I'd say it's impacted both of our careers. I've had to work harder and at a more stable line of work, and she's had to pass up some larger projects.
But overall there's never been a single moment where we've regretted having our third kid. He's awesome.
I'm always really suspicious of supposed statistical bias like this. People use percentages as a smarter-sounding way to say "almost none," "not enough," "some," "a lot," "too many," and "almost all." I notice that I do this quite a bit and other people seem to grok what I'm trying to convey.
So in your example, when Joe Blow says "Dang man, our office is half female now!" If you were to respond "Do you mean to say that you believe that precisely 37 individuals out of the 74 total who work in our office are female?" Joe wouldn't say "Yes, that is indeed my hypothesis." He'd say something like "Shit man, hell if I know, all I'm saying is that ever since that new HR lady and those two chicks from accounting got hired it feels like I can't crack a single joke without people freaking out on me!" Joe's not making a statistical statement, he's using "half" to mean "too many."
I can see where you're coming from given that my text example above doesn't specify any of the body language or other nonverbal cues. I'd still lean towards my original response though, even if she was visibly disgusted. The comment about the brother should be said with some irony so that it's a little ambiguous whether you're serious or not. Being able to confidently ride the knife's edge between sincerity and irony demonstrates social savviness. The key is still to shrug off the insult with confidence.
a lot of women have hair triggers about negging these days
N=1, but when I stopped caring about whether a girl would get upset by what I said, relationships with the opposite sex became so much simpler. Some probably thought I came across as a bit overconfident and arrogant, but so what? A lot of women actually enjoy being gently teased. My wife would tell you she doesn't like it if asked directly, but literal everything else she does says otherwise. There are definitely women who will respond to this with "How dare you/You're an asshole!" but tbh I always wanted them to identify themselves ASAP so I could keep my distance. They're real buzzkills, both romantically and platonically.
As a fellow male, I agree. But most girls aren't interested in hearing your nerd flexes, they're trying to figure out whether you have basic social skills and whether or not you're a weirdo/loser.
In the second example, I don't think she actually really has any particular strong feelings about MTG. She's just jabbing you a bit to see what you'll do. The correct response is to make a little joke and move on.
Your response IMO comes across as trying a bit too hard to convey "I'm totally not a dweeb!!" You're responding to directly to her little jab and "entering her frame," as they say. Plus you're calling her brother odd and she might think you're a dick for that (she's feels she's allowed to do that but you, a stranger, are not).
I took would like more examples of "hostile occupation of conservate Christians." I agree with FC that this just sounds like people being mad that their parents raised them in a religious tradition that they no longer believe in (likely because mass media and public education converted them to a rival religious tradition).
"Hostile occupation" sounds to me more like Francoist Spain where you needed letters of recommendation from your parish priest for a government position, or where the school curriculum is designed and monitored by the Church, or where major retailers wouldn't even consider a "Pride Month display" for fear of boycotts or falling afoul of the law.
Conservative parts of America have Pride displays at big box and book stores, their school curriculums are implemented by a body of teachers who are as a group quite woke, and although you don't yet need a letter vouching for your good character from your local DEIB commissar, if enough people learn that you're a heretic who opposes woke teachings you will be blacklisted from many government institutions and powerful corporations.
Given the above I have a really hard taking people seriously when they claim to have escaped a conservative hellhole because their parents made them go to church on Sunday and disapproved of their gender identity and oh yeah one time at a bar a drunk guy called them a faggot.
I dunno, man. I'm pretty sure that if Jan 6th was a bit hotter the cops would've started shooting people and would probably have been exonerated for doing so. Look how draconian the legal repercussions have been for Jan 6 participants.
Not so for BLM. I don't blame cops for not shooting BLM rioters, they knew that the full force of the radical left-wing political machines would come down on them and utterly ruin their lives.
More options
Context Copy link