hannahbanana

I commented on it...I feel like someone should put a voice of reason in there: ' "Hitting your wife is not marital abuse, beating your wife is"....not even 100 years ago, people would be saying the exact thing about marital abuse. (There was even a law saying how long the stick you could use to beat her should be - look up the origins of "rule of thumb.") Just because it happened to them and they turned out fine, does not make it right.'

I'm surprised they took his "intent" into account so much...at least in America, unless it's up for debate as to whether it was self-defense or not, you either DID commit the crime, or you DIDN'T. He killed someone, obviously not in self-defense, and the best intentions in the world can't change that fact.

I think it started hitting me hard a couple years after I started listening to the group..before that I just thought it was a good song. But I had just taken a long (possibly permanent) split from my boyfriend, who had been going through a very difficult identity crisis at the time and began acting like an entirely different person...but I was still in love with who he was before. So I knew exactly the kind of loneliness that was in the song, and I felt like it expressed my own feelings perfectly. Now, even though my problem has been worked through, I still listen to the song and feel the exact same feeling as I did 2 years ago. But now, in a sense, it is beautiful as well as sad.

Here are some things you could also think about, going either way...it's much less than what other posters have said, but it's what comes to my mind: If you dropped out of college and tried to start a business, there are 2 things that could happen. 1) your business works out, and that's great! or 2) your business doesn't work out. BUT, you'll have that to put on a resume, and from what I've noticed there is appreciation out there for young entrepreneurs. Employers appreciate a worker who understands how a business works. If you stayed in school and also did your business at the same time, I know there are many places that have scholarships, contests, workshops, etc. for young people starting a business. You could also find other like-minded people to collaborate with (although there's nothing stopping you from doing that even if you aren't in college). Personally, I'd only go to school if I was absolutely ready and sure about it. I meet many people in school who either don't know why they're in college (undecided majors) or don't put the effort in/skip all their classes, which is really just a waste of their money. And hey, if your business didn't work out, you could always re-apply and go back to school later if you wanted. It's not a limited time-slot.

I saw a response to Women Against Feminism...it told a bunch of hypothetical stories about women who live in 3rd world countries who face actual violence because they are weaker or more vulnerable as women, and therefor we need feminism...even though mainstream feminism has barely anything to do with women in 3rd world countries. I wouldn't be surprised if their posts are all "me me me," because that's most of what most feminists are all about too.

I think an issue that engineers can face in such a topic is just how far you're willing to look back in applying UPB. For the case of a bomb or missile, there would be the engineers designing the actual bomb, but what about the engineers who helped build the GPS that is used to guide the missile? Or the engineer who helped build the satellite that uses the GPS? Technically none of them "pulled the trigger" so to speak, so I'm not sure how you could hold one accountable and not another. However, I do know it is a real concern that engineers face, and I know many who turned down high paying jobs specifically because they felt like it was too close to actually carrying out some violent action.

Thanks for the response, you bring up good points I guess I wasn't saying that gender differences don't exist, I'm more sharing in the frustration that we are unable to have candid discussions about them (which is what you just said, correct?). But my point before was that, to add to the confusion, there are some expectations put on boys and girls to be separate from one another, or to accentuate their differences, thus making it unclear as to what is a 'real' difference and what is a 'fake' difference. And then, to make matters EVEN worse, it is disapproved of to acknowledge real differences and sometimes even impossible (since it is supposedly bad to have a friend of the opposite sex, divisions make it difficult to have a proper dialogue with most people). It frustrates me that these things are so obviously obstructions, and yet the people who claim to care seem to do nothing about it, especially since these things affect children so much.

What a great first post.

I agree that the amount of pressure for gender-conformity in children there is now is pretty heartbreaking. And I feel like if there was a real desire to generate equality between sexes (in cases where there really is inequality, for men and women), they would look first to children. You see it in the way kids are treated by all adults (the mischievous boy versus the well-behaved girl), the toys that are provided (boys' toys are focused on problem solving and creation, girls' toys are focused on aesthetics and domestic topics), and the way they are expected to treat each other ("no girls allowed" and the idea of cooties). To act in the opposite way gets you possible disapproval from adults and teasing/ostracism from other children. No wonder people grow up treating the opposite sex like another species, because they are treated as such as children. But most gender-equality movements don't seem to give a shit, and that makes me really sad.

I've had a sort of similar experience as well, on a slightly smaller scale...I just transferred to a new school, which is much MUCH bigger than my old school. It's a shock to me just how many immature, self-centered and empty-headed people there are (many more than intelligent people, if you don't look in specific places). Although there are a few people within my classes who value knowledge, in my dorm hall there really aren't that many of those people around. I know that it's easier for me personally to deal with this by really focusing on my classes; that's really the reason I'm there, and I don't have to interact with dumb people while doing it. I would also suggest trying to get involved in a club at your school ASAP, since then you can be a little more specific in which types of people you're trying to meet. It sounds like you're having a really tough time, and I'm very sorry you're feeling that way. Isolation is not a fun feeling at all. If college isn't your thing, that's fine, but if you want to stick it through, I hope that maybe some of the things I mentioned above might be of some help. It can take some time to meet good people at school, especially if you're focused on forming real relationships (everyone goes totally crazy the first couple of weeks meeting people and partying, it can get a little weird). It took me months before I started feeling comfortable with other people when I first started college, and I only met those people because I joined a club. Before that, I focused on classes and doing things that helped me enjoy a solitary life. There's definitely some satisfaction in being comfortable enough with yourself to be alone at times.

Interesting that you'd say men are violent in nature...I guess I just didn't expect it I'm not sure...my parents never really had problems with each other, so my dad was around, but he almost always deferred final authority to my mother. He also worked a lot, but when he was home he tried to be very involved with me and my siblings. Seeing as the relationship with the father is the first relationship with a man, it probably plays a role. I also formed a very strong relationship with my brother in my mid-teens, even though we fought constantly before that. But I think a lot of it was school, I always connected better with boys and formed more friendships with them. My mother was a very non-feminine role-model and I never really liked the girlie games, fake boy-talk and superficiality that elementary school girls would always be doing. It felt like everyone was doing it just because they thought they were supposed to be doing it, in order to fit the stereotype of little kids who are grossed out by the opposite sex. A lot of my girl friends also tried using me for my possessions and intelligence, so I was pretty mistrusting afterwards. TL;DR: I think it was less of a strong positive male role model and more of disillusionment with other girls my age, which led me to turn to forming friendships with boys instead.

I know you guys are probably making generalizations about most women in society, but these comments make me feel a little uncomfortable, since I am a woman and I have NEVER fit within any of those categories. And I'm not just saying that. It's not like I am constantly fighting the instinctual urge lie and double-cross men (or people in general). Self-knowledge did not 'save' me from that fate, I just never felt that way. I seriously question the assumption that women act in a bad way just because of their nature. If you look at it on the flip side, you could say that men are biologically more aggressive, but I would not say that men are violent in nature. I can agree, however, that society encourages passive aggressiveness and just overall dysfunctional behaviors in relationships. It's not good for anyone involved. I don't know, maybe I shouldn't be taking this too personally; you've probably met a lot of dysfunctional women to base your opinion on, and who can blame you? Especially with the way men are treated in a society where feminism has so much power. But I can't help feeling uncomfortable about it, and I feel like that's important.

A very severe form of bullying happened to my brother when he was about 14ish, while he was at NCYC (National Catholic Youth Convention). He was beaten up by a group of boys at the conference because of how he looked, and because they knew he wouldn't fight back. When he went to the adult chaperone and told her about it, the chaperone did nothing and instead told him to "forgive and forget." After that, he never went back to church and denounced the religion. But I think the point here is that even though those kids were bullies for beating him up, the chaperone was also just as bad for acknowledging that he experienced suffering, and then saying that it would be wrong for him to do anything about it. And it's that sort of thing that just reeks of indoctrination; forgive and forget, turn the other cheek, that sort of thing. Saying that to a young child can hurt a lot, because it isolates them from pain and injustices done to them, even makes them feel like it's wrong to feel bad when they are hurt by someone. I'd call that bullying.

Interesting article, thanks for sharing It reminds me of how everyone thinks Bonobo monkeys have sex all the time, even though that was only based on a study of bonobos in captivity and were not like wild bonobos at all. But I'm a little intrigued here - your title says that the concept of alphas in wolves AND humans is incorrect, but there is nothing you said or anything in this article that addresses humans. True, the concepts and word choice of alphas/betas in humans is based on the flawed observations of wolf packs, but wolves and humans are very different from one another and have different social structure/communications. To disprove one does not disprove the other. Now, I don't have much experience with alphas/betas in humans, because I usually stick around with people who don't put stock in it, and don't really think much of it myself. Lately I've been trying to view others' behaviors through this lens in order to understand the concept a little better, and I can kind of see where it's coming from, at least in people who are not really self-aware. Most people here seem to take it as a given, but I'm really interested in your reasons as to why it ISN'T true for anyone. I think it would make me better able to see both sides of the topic, since like I said, I haven't really thought about it until recently. Thanks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MclBbZUFSag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbTbEvFSSF8 Pretty interesting stuff.

When people use the handicap door button for no reason. I remember getting out of a summer class, and every day there's be this girl who would hit the handicap door, wait for it to open all the way, then walk through. JUST OPEN THE FREAKING DOOR. It takes less time to physically open the door than to wait for it to open without sullying your nail polish. Ugh. It's probably the dumbest thing I've gotten annoyed about. Also, when people make dangerously shallow left hand turns into parking lots

I think that it's true that people value different traits in others, those traits giving someone status. That's just the nature of preferences. So in an intellectual or philosophical group, logic, knowledge and integrity may be highly valued and denote respect. But I think that one of the differences that separates the alpha/beta establishment over basic preferences is the amount of hostility, threat, and hierarchy that goes into it. So let's use the example of a group that values intelligence. In the situation you mentioned above, where there is virtue and self-knowledge, if I knew someone who wasn't as intelligent as another person, I wouldn't belittle that person because to a certain point there isn't a lot you can do about your base intelligence. But in a situation like that in normal society today, that person might get a lot of mean-spirited remarks, talking behind their back, belittlement and bullying because of others who feel that they need to assert their dominance in order to maintain it. Since it is assumed that the first community has virtue and self-knowledge, to be aggressive in that way would be unacceptable, and would probably be called out by others in the community. That's not to say that others might have more prestige based on their intelligence or virtue, but I don't think it would be so hostile to those with less rank. In terms of insecurities, I think that many of those are self-imposed only after a person has received negative comments from others. It's kind of like the "inner authority;" you hear responses from authority so long that you eventually start imposing those responses for the authority on your own. In an enlightened community, I don't think many people would unnecessarily hurtful comments towards others in that way, so there would be no chance for your mind to create that voice of insecurity.

Yeah, significant other...

Thanks for asking we actually had the conversation because my SO recently got into a heated fb conversation about men's rights after someone said "this is why all MRAs should be shot" in response to a feminist article, and my friend agreed with him. My SO spoke up about how messed up it was to say something like that, and my friend immediately took the "It was just a joke" approach. They brought it up with me, basically asking if I knew about it or thought my SO was being crazy or something. So I was defending him. I think that they thought I didn't know anything about feminism or MRAs...which is funny, because that would be counter to anything they knew about me for the past 7 years (I was previously pretty in to the common idea of feminism before learning more about it, don't typically make assumptions about things I know nothing about, am a fairly intelligent person, etc.) They approached the conversation as if I was just picking their brains about things, but I think they were uncomfortable and a bit worried about me being brainwashed by my SO or something. It's very troubling for me, as we've been good friends for quite a while.

I had a different thought as to why she would do that...since when she was talking about it, it was several years in the future (I think like almost 10 or something), she has developed a coping mechanism to deal with the trauma of his death. It's kind of like when people unknowingly laugh when talking about abuse that they experienced, or detaching themselves emotionally from a traumatic event. But that still worries me, because that means that she probably hasn't received any therapy or guidance as to how to deal with difficult events like her father's death. And, it seemed as if no one else in her family felt that it was odd she would act in such a way

That makes sense if value is the determining factor of alphas and betas. But then I've got to ask, why doesn't it seem like that's the way alpha and beta men are viewed? What I've gathered about the alpha/beta discussion, it sounds like both alpha and beta men have value, just in different ways. The alpha man's value is his attractiveness and physique, while a beta's value is his ability to provide stability, both financially and emotionally. However the attractive alpha is generally still the one in demand. In cases like Oprah, A) you could make the same case for men, for example taking a look at gold diggers who value exorbitant wealth over looks, and B) at least in Oprah's case, while she is rich and powerful, she spends a LOT of time looking good. Chances are you will hardly ever see her publicized without perfect makeup, hair, nails and clothes. So it seems like even she values looks a lot, and she has the money to make herself look a lot better than if she didn't have money to pay for her posse of makeup professionals. Maybe it would be better to modify this. It was initially the most difficult for me to define of those on my list anyway. Thinking about it, I don't think it's true that beta females wouldn't put stock into physical attractiveness. I suppose I was trying to think of where someone who doesn't buy into the paradigm fits in, but it sounds like that would be a zeta, as Kevin said. They'd probably still try to make themselves look as attractive as possible, it just doesn't work as well as the girls who are naturally gorgeous (and I think this is a large amount of girls out there). I've also just thought of another thing: even girls who are VERY pretty often don't see themselves as such. Yes, there are the self-assured ones who know how good they look, but there are also girls who get a lot of attention and think they are unattractive. I'm not sure if it is manipulation to receive complements, true lack of self-esteem, or both. Probably both. But I think that is definitely different from the typical alpha male, who sounds to me like he is very sure of himself. However, this could be because of the value of weakness in attractive girls. If they were too sure of themselves, it would be more of a masculine trait, opposite of the desired female passivity of the good 'ole days.

Interesting...I noticed how each of the children acted differently when talking about their father's death. The boy was the most emotional, while the girls were hardly emotional at all. The older girl even smiled when she talked about him hanging himself. That was what I thought about the most.

In the last few days, I've been meeting tons of new people in the back-to-school frenzy, and it's given me the chance to make some interesting connections between men and women. I'm interested in hearing what people think. This may have no connection at all, but I was wondering if there were "alpha and beta" women as there are men. 1. Alpha females are the attractive ones. Like alpha males, they rely on sexual appeal to attract men. They often care more about "shallow" traits such as clothes, hair, or makeup, rather than their ability to have a long-lasting relationship or provide value to a relationship. 2. Beta females are less attractive/don't place as much value in appearance, instead focusing on being a good friend etc. like a beta male, they might be the friend that people "love like a sister" eg. provide emotional comfort/support but never viewed in a sexual way 3. Beta females feel intimidated by alpha females, since many men will pay attention to the physically attractive women first. (I don't know if every man does this, but I've met a good few who always complain about the hot girls never want a good guy, while also ignoring the girls who may not care as much about looking sexually alluring) Following questions: If there are such things as alpha and beta females, do they approach finding a partner differently? There is the given explanation of how girls will want to have sex with alphas but have betas provide; could this be a mainly "alpha" behavior? It could explain why NAWALT. This could be completely wrong, but I've just been feeling too many of these comparisons in the last few days for me to ignore it. Any opinions, additions, criticisms, etc. would be very appreciated!

Yeah, I kept running into that. Every time I gave an example like #killallmen, or feminists saying that boys should be castrated because they are potential rapists, they kept saying "No, but that isn't really feminism." In order for me to continue the conversation, I had to hedge and refer to them as "radical feminists" and make the argument that it is troubling that they are gaining more clout in the feminist community. Our definitions of what feminists, radical feminists, and MRAs are were completely different and unable to be reconciled.

Ah, okay. I do improvisational comedy, and it is probably the best thing I have ever done (except maybe joining FDR, hahaha ). I agree, it has given me SO many benefits, including confidence in social situations, trust, and cooperation with others. 10/10 would recommend it to others