The UCSB shooter--an Aspie with a rant against women
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
29 May 2014, 6:36 am
Hopper wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
ok I see, as I said before, if he was in relationship he would have killed his wife/gf at some point.
Anyway:
http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-School ... e-Shooting
Anyway:
http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-School ... e-Shooting
Oh, definitely. He couldn't even go on a date. The minute a man had been at all friendly to his date - say, a barrista smiling at them both as he took their order - that would have been it.
This for me underlines the nonsense of the idea that such men just need help getting relationships. Someone who thinks that way about women will, at best, be a f***ing terrible boyfriend. Likely as not, they'll actually be psychologically and physically abusive.
I've been repeating this point for n times but only few noticed (ie. Janissy) - his problem was not his virginity, not his lack of sex and relationships. I don't agree with Softwareengineer's argument that it's the lack of help for him getting a relationship was a factor.
29 May 2014, 8:04 am
Hopper wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
ok I see, as I said before, if he was in relationship he would have killed his wife/gf at some point.
Anyway:
http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-School ... e-Shooting
Anyway:
http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-School ... e-Shooting
Oh, definitely. He couldn't even go on a date. The minute a man had been at all friendly to his date - say, a barrista smiling at them both as he took their order - that would have been it.
This for me underlines the nonsense of the idea that such men just need help getting relationships. Someone who thinks that way about women will, at best, be a f***ing terrible boyfriend. Likely as not, they'll actually be psychologically and physically abusive.
Exactly. It's actually good that he died a virgin and never entered any kind of relationship with any woman. That's what I've been saying to someone for days, yet he just won't get it. I really don't get what's so difficult about it.
_________________
Crazy cat lady, unfortunately without the cats.
(not a native speaker)
29 May 2014, 8:34 am
AspergianMutantt wrote:
elkclan wrote:
I've read every post in this thread (I think)
When I heard about this guy and his sense of entitlement and his engagement with the PUA community and his diagnosis, I thought about this sub-forum immediately. I've seen so many similar comments in this sub-forum like:
American/Western women are no good, you need to get a foreign woman
Women are gold diggers
PUA stuff and failing to apply PUA stuff
The whole 'rating' system of men and women and how all women rate men solely on certain criteria (looks, wealth, cars, other status markers)
The pursuit of sex as a points system
That it's men and only men who suffer rejection
An unrealistic assessment of their own attractiveness as a mate or sexual partner - either positively or negatively - leading to negative assumptions about other people's motivations.
Aspies are always going to have a harder time with relationships because that's the nature of the condition - e.g. certain types of empathy and understanding context and subtext and non-verbal communication. In hetero contexts, women do often make the first move but it's usually non-verbal communication which Aspies often have a hard time with. Women do NOT (as a rule) choose sexual partners because of their car, their wealth, their height or even their looks. True enough superficial sexual encounters are often based on superficial criteria. Partners for longer lasting relationships are chosen on less superficial criteria (as a general rule, not saying some people don't choose based on superficial criteria, but I don't think they'll be happy in the long run).
Aspies can and do form long-lasting relationships with a sexual component. But to make them successful they need to understand the needs of their partners (and vice versa) that's what a loving relationship is.
Guys who fool themselves with this PUA nonsense are handicapping themselves in finding a partner. This stuff is seriously off-putting. The sense of entitlement and the gross generalisations about women are offensive and unattractive. These guys come off as users and users are dangerous - and I mean dangerous as in they can kill you (see all the links that Tarantella has provided).
I see most of the women in this thread making some very sensible arguments and explanations and I see a lot of men ignoring what they're saying.
No one has the right to someone else's body or emotions. Period.
When I heard about this guy and his sense of entitlement and his engagement with the PUA community and his diagnosis, I thought about this sub-forum immediately. I've seen so many similar comments in this sub-forum like:
American/Western women are no good, you need to get a foreign woman
Women are gold diggers
PUA stuff and failing to apply PUA stuff
The whole 'rating' system of men and women and how all women rate men solely on certain criteria (looks, wealth, cars, other status markers)
The pursuit of sex as a points system
That it's men and only men who suffer rejection
An unrealistic assessment of their own attractiveness as a mate or sexual partner - either positively or negatively - leading to negative assumptions about other people's motivations.
Aspies are always going to have a harder time with relationships because that's the nature of the condition - e.g. certain types of empathy and understanding context and subtext and non-verbal communication. In hetero contexts, women do often make the first move but it's usually non-verbal communication which Aspies often have a hard time with. Women do NOT (as a rule) choose sexual partners because of their car, their wealth, their height or even their looks. True enough superficial sexual encounters are often based on superficial criteria. Partners for longer lasting relationships are chosen on less superficial criteria (as a general rule, not saying some people don't choose based on superficial criteria, but I don't think they'll be happy in the long run).
Aspies can and do form long-lasting relationships with a sexual component. But to make them successful they need to understand the needs of their partners (and vice versa) that's what a loving relationship is.
Guys who fool themselves with this PUA nonsense are handicapping themselves in finding a partner. This stuff is seriously off-putting. The sense of entitlement and the gross generalisations about women are offensive and unattractive. These guys come off as users and users are dangerous - and I mean dangerous as in they can kill you (see all the links that Tarantella has provided).
I see most of the women in this thread making some very sensible arguments and explanations and I see a lot of men ignoring what they're saying.
No one has the right to someone else's body or emotions. Period.
In many ways I agree, but in other ways I think its one sided and flawed.
In what ways do you think it's onesided and flawed? I thought it was straight-up sensible all the way through.
29 May 2014, 8:48 am
tarantella64 wrote:
AspergianMutantt wrote:
elkclan wrote:
I've read every post in this thread (I think)
When I heard about this guy and his sense of entitlement and his engagement with the PUA community and his diagnosis, I thought about this sub-forum immediately. I've seen so many similar comments in this sub-forum like:
American/Western women are no good, you need to get a foreign woman
Women are gold diggers
PUA stuff and failing to apply PUA stuff
The whole 'rating' system of men and women and how all women rate men solely on certain criteria (looks, wealth, cars, other status markers)
The pursuit of sex as a points system
That it's men and only men who suffer rejection
An unrealistic assessment of their own attractiveness as a mate or sexual partner - either positively or negatively - leading to negative assumptions about other people's motivations.
Aspies are always going to have a harder time with relationships because that's the nature of the condition - e.g. certain types of empathy and understanding context and subtext and non-verbal communication. In hetero contexts, women do often make the first move but it's usually non-verbal communication which Aspies often have a hard time with. Women do NOT (as a rule) choose sexual partners because of their car, their wealth, their height or even their looks. True enough superficial sexual encounters are often based on superficial criteria. Partners for longer lasting relationships are chosen on less superficial criteria (as a general rule, not saying some people don't choose based on superficial criteria, but I don't think they'll be happy in the long run).
Aspies can and do form long-lasting relationships with a sexual component. But to make them successful they need to understand the needs of their partners (and vice versa) that's what a loving relationship is.
Guys who fool themselves with this PUA nonsense are handicapping themselves in finding a partner. This stuff is seriously off-putting. The sense of entitlement and the gross generalisations about women are offensive and unattractive. These guys come off as users and users are dangerous - and I mean dangerous as in they can kill you (see all the links that Tarantella has provided).
I see most of the women in this thread making some very sensible arguments and explanations and I see a lot of men ignoring what they're saying.
No one has the right to someone else's body or emotions. Period.
When I heard about this guy and his sense of entitlement and his engagement with the PUA community and his diagnosis, I thought about this sub-forum immediately. I've seen so many similar comments in this sub-forum like:
American/Western women are no good, you need to get a foreign woman
Women are gold diggers
PUA stuff and failing to apply PUA stuff
The whole 'rating' system of men and women and how all women rate men solely on certain criteria (looks, wealth, cars, other status markers)
The pursuit of sex as a points system
That it's men and only men who suffer rejection
An unrealistic assessment of their own attractiveness as a mate or sexual partner - either positively or negatively - leading to negative assumptions about other people's motivations.
Aspies are always going to have a harder time with relationships because that's the nature of the condition - e.g. certain types of empathy and understanding context and subtext and non-verbal communication. In hetero contexts, women do often make the first move but it's usually non-verbal communication which Aspies often have a hard time with. Women do NOT (as a rule) choose sexual partners because of their car, their wealth, their height or even their looks. True enough superficial sexual encounters are often based on superficial criteria. Partners for longer lasting relationships are chosen on less superficial criteria (as a general rule, not saying some people don't choose based on superficial criteria, but I don't think they'll be happy in the long run).
Aspies can and do form long-lasting relationships with a sexual component. But to make them successful they need to understand the needs of their partners (and vice versa) that's what a loving relationship is.
Guys who fool themselves with this PUA nonsense are handicapping themselves in finding a partner. This stuff is seriously off-putting. The sense of entitlement and the gross generalisations about women are offensive and unattractive. These guys come off as users and users are dangerous - and I mean dangerous as in they can kill you (see all the links that Tarantella has provided).
I see most of the women in this thread making some very sensible arguments and explanations and I see a lot of men ignoring what they're saying.
No one has the right to someone else's body or emotions. Period.
In many ways I agree, but in other ways I think its one sided and flawed.
In what ways do you think it's onesided and flawed? I thought it was straight-up sensible all the way through.
I bet he feels it's not realistic.
29 May 2014, 9:09 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Hopper wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
ok I see, as I said before, if he was in relationship he would have killed his wife/gf at some point.
Anyway:
http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-School ... e-Shooting
Anyway:
http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-School ... e-Shooting
Oh, definitely. He couldn't even go on a date. The minute a man had been at all friendly to his date - say, a barrista smiling at them both as he took their order - that would have been it.
This for me underlines the nonsense of the idea that such men just need help getting relationships. Someone who thinks that way about women will, at best, be a f***ing terrible boyfriend. Likely as not, they'll actually be psychologically and physically abusive.
I've been repeating this point for n times but only few noticed (ie. Janissy) - his problem was not his virginity, not his lack of sex and relationships. I don't agree with Softwareengineer's argument that it's the lack of help for him getting a relationship was a factor.
Oh, yeah. The guy couldn't stand anyone's having anything he didn't get. Or anyone's getting anything else good at all. The misogyny stories in PUAland just gave his hatred a focus. But that's part of the problem with all those hate stories, misogyny, anti-semitism, racism, doesn't matter. They give twisted-up, miserable people someone to hate and a whole mythology about why that group is the one making their lives horrible.
Not all those twisted-up miserable people are going to go on shooting sprees, but you can bet they'll be pretty awful to people from their scapegoat group anyhow -- and not in trivial ways. I've worked in legislatures, I've seen up close how really sick in the head a lot of those elected reps are. And it's appalling how many hate-filled miserable sickos actually *marry* people from their scapegoat group and then spend the marriage abusing them. (For their own good, of course. And because they deserve it.)
One of the things that runs through all these stories is a gargantuan self-pity. I've learned, expensively, to run from any guy who's got a whole sad, angry story about how his world/ex/bosses/parents/government/neighbor done him wrong. He's talking to himself and any "friend"'s job is to agree and be On His Side, because of course it's a fight in which he's the blameless victim, and it won't end well, especially if you, the friend, are happy, doing well, etc. The resentment generated by that self-pity, and the meanness that comes out of it, holy cow, just run.
One thing I've been thinking about a lot lately is the role of failure in all this, and the perceptions of what failure is and means, for guys in particular. I've worked with scientists for a long time, and learning to fail is built into the training: most of your ideas will be wrong or not right enough or too slow; most of your experiments will show nothing useful; most of your grant proposals will be rejected; most people will not understand what you're doing or why it's interesting or important; you may well lose your career in your 40s and find yourself untrained for anything else. Writers get this, too: most of your stories or poems or plays will suck, there will be no money, all your college friends will have houses and children when you're still living like a shabby student, and nobody will want to publish you. Those are professional failures, though, and while they hurt, there are standard, learned ways of handling them.
What I hear more often in middle-aged guys -- the ones I have the deepest conversations with -- is a sweaty terror of just having done it all wrong and failed globally on a personal level -- or maybe a persona level, the person they project to the world. It makes it impossible for them to look themselves, their lives, square in the eye. And it's obvious that the failure is in comparison to other guys' lives -- they can talk easily to me because they don't care about what I do, unless they notice that although they'd assigned me a totally low place on the totem pole (woman, single mom, not rich, no fancy job), my life's actually quite nice, my house is pleasant, my kid is lovely, and I've been successfully doing the things I wanted do. And then their failure's all the more horrible because omg, even a single mom with no boyfriend did better than they did. I've actually sat watching multiple men collapse at that point of recognition, and saying things like, "I did it all wrong." When, you know, obviously that's inane -- they're healthy people in the prime of life with nice families, roofs, food, interests, vacations, etc. But there's always some friend they talk about, someone who's held up as a sort of hero, who really Did It Right, and oh man, do they hate that guy.
(It occurs to me actually that the "women who try to negotiate for the money they're worth are ball-busting b*****s" thing actually comes from this terror -- I mean girls aren't even supposed to be in the competition, get them the hell out, stomp those fingers on the ladder rung till the b***h falls off.)
I think it's much harder for men to be happy with their lives, to accept them as okay. It seems to me there's an intense "you must be like this" pressure, and few ways of accepting "failure" in that regard. I think it's a serious problem.
29 May 2014, 9:09 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I've been repeating this point for n times but only few noticed (ie. Janissy) - his problem was not his virginity, not his lack of sex and relationships. I don't agree with Softwareengineer's argument that it's the lack of help for him getting a relationship was a factor.
He was frustrated because of his lack of 'good life' and relationships. Sex is part of a healthy relationship (and by this I mean romantic, long term, the works).
Even with his megalomania the deciding trigger in my opinion was his loneliness due to lack of relationships.
Had he had a GF I doubt his lack of money or 'the good life' would have triggered the violence.
Had he had all the money and the good life he wanted he still would gone on a rampage if he had no GF.
Had he had a GF his jealousy/anger at others for what they have would still be present but not to such an explosive degree.
His lack of socializing skills/GF is almost certainly due to AS.
His megalomania could be something he was born with or it could have been a bad side effect of whatever medication he had been on for quite some time.
I'm not excusing or justifying what he did, merely pointing out that the lack of relationship/GF was 'it'.
WIth that being said, can you 'blame' AS for this ? Yes, quite rightly. It was the primary factor that led to it. AS cannot be blamed for a psychotic violent attack though, thats up to the individual. If it was the medication then that's another matter.
29 May 2014, 9:27 am
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Quote:
This is a very slippery slope. We need to come up with a set of rules and guidelines that are reasonable. Now what is "reasonable" may not mean the same to different people, we just need to find a common ground (to the best that we can) on what's and what's not acceptable.
What we don't need is to placate people who are overly sensitive and start banning people over every little thing someone finds offensive.
What we don't need is to placate people who are overly sensitive and start banning people over every little thing someone finds offensive.
I do believe Tarantella is bringing someone from her women's study department and maybe she can give sound suggestions.
Right. To clarify, she's the director of the university women's center here (sorry, am trying not to be too specific partly to protect my own ID). From the "regarding moderation" thread:
Quote:
Okay, so I talked to the director of the women's center here about helping us come up with a reasonable policy for moderating sexism (I imagine the same policy can be used as a template for moderating other -isms). She thought it sounded like a great project, and says she's in. A little about her background and what the center does (I have her permission to tell these stories):
She is sensitive to issues to do with life on the spectrum. For her, that awareness and training started in childhood; her brother has Down Syndrome, and at the time, where they grew up, the schools put Down's and autistic kids in the same classrooms; her brother had many autistic classmates. So she was exposed to autism quite early, at a time when that was unusual, and is sensitive to disability generally.
The women's center does counseling for those who can't afford a counselor or want a feminist orientation; the counselors are doctoral students in psychology, usually. The director helps train them in counseling autistic clients. She also helps the local rape crisis center with programming/counseling for autistic victims of sexual abuse.
As for men's programming, the women's center has run programs with a volunteer group of men for six years. They do anti-violence programs, bystander training, and programs for the fraternities, and have some considerable background in social pressures on men, particularly to do with gender policing (men pressuring men to "be male" in particular and narrow ways).
So, to get started then: she likes the idea of coming up with concrete examples of "sexist/not sexist and why, also why it matters", and she very much likes the idea of inviting questions about sexism and moderation of sexism from forumites to help generate a useful set of examples. So go for it -- ask away, think about (and/or post) your own thoughts about those questions, and we'll see what she's got to add to the process. I bet we can come up with something useful -- and, per SoftwareEngineer and others, educational -- by the end of the summer.
She is sensitive to issues to do with life on the spectrum. For her, that awareness and training started in childhood; her brother has Down Syndrome, and at the time, where they grew up, the schools put Down's and autistic kids in the same classrooms; her brother had many autistic classmates. So she was exposed to autism quite early, at a time when that was unusual, and is sensitive to disability generally.
The women's center does counseling for those who can't afford a counselor or want a feminist orientation; the counselors are doctoral students in psychology, usually. The director helps train them in counseling autistic clients. She also helps the local rape crisis center with programming/counseling for autistic victims of sexual abuse.
As for men's programming, the women's center has run programs with a volunteer group of men for six years. They do anti-violence programs, bystander training, and programs for the fraternities, and have some considerable background in social pressures on men, particularly to do with gender policing (men pressuring men to "be male" in particular and narrow ways).
So, to get started then: she likes the idea of coming up with concrete examples of "sexist/not sexist and why, also why it matters", and she very much likes the idea of inviting questions about sexism and moderation of sexism from forumites to help generate a useful set of examples. So go for it -- ask away, think about (and/or post) your own thoughts about those questions, and we'll see what she's got to add to the process. I bet we can come up with something useful -- and, per SoftwareEngineer and others, educational -- by the end of the summer.
29 May 2014, 9:49 am
elkclan wrote:
I've read every post in this thread (I think)
When I heard about this guy and his sense of entitlement and his engagement with the PUA community and his diagnosis, I thought about this sub-forum immediately. I've seen so many similar comments in this sub-forum like:
American/Western women are no good, you need to get a foreign woman
Women are gold diggers
PUA stuff and failing to apply PUA stuff
The whole 'rating' system of men and women and how all women rate men solely on certain criteria (looks, wealth, cars, other status markers)
The pursuit of sex as a points system
That it's men and only men who suffer rejection
An unrealistic assessment of their own attractiveness as a mate or sexual partner - either positively or negatively - leading to negative assumptions about other people's motivations.
Aspies are always going to have a harder time with relationships because that's the nature of the condition - e.g. certain types of empathy and understanding context and subtext and non-verbal communication. In hetero contexts, women do often make the first move but it's usually non-verbal communication which Aspies often have a hard time with. Women do NOT (as a rule) choose sexual partners because of their car, their wealth, their height or even their looks. True enough superficial sexual encounters are often based on superficial criteria. Partners for longer lasting relationships are chosen on less superficial criteria (as a general rule, not saying some people don't choose based on superficial criteria, but I don't think they'll be happy in the long run).
Aspies can and do form long-lasting relationships with a sexual component. But to make them successful they need to understand the needs of their partners (and vice versa) that's what a loving relationship is.
Guys who fool themselves with this PUA nonsense are handicapping themselves in finding a partner. This stuff is seriously off-putting. The sense of entitlement and the gross generalisations about women are offensive and unattractive. These guys come off as users and users are dangerous - and I mean dangerous as in they can kill you (see all the links that Tarantella has provided).
I see most of the women in this thread making some very sensible arguments and explanations and I see a lot of men ignoring what they're saying.
No one has the right to someone else's body or emotions. Period.
When I heard about this guy and his sense of entitlement and his engagement with the PUA community and his diagnosis, I thought about this sub-forum immediately. I've seen so many similar comments in this sub-forum like:
American/Western women are no good, you need to get a foreign woman
Women are gold diggers
PUA stuff and failing to apply PUA stuff
The whole 'rating' system of men and women and how all women rate men solely on certain criteria (looks, wealth, cars, other status markers)
The pursuit of sex as a points system
That it's men and only men who suffer rejection
An unrealistic assessment of their own attractiveness as a mate or sexual partner - either positively or negatively - leading to negative assumptions about other people's motivations.
Aspies are always going to have a harder time with relationships because that's the nature of the condition - e.g. certain types of empathy and understanding context and subtext and non-verbal communication. In hetero contexts, women do often make the first move but it's usually non-verbal communication which Aspies often have a hard time with. Women do NOT (as a rule) choose sexual partners because of their car, their wealth, their height or even their looks. True enough superficial sexual encounters are often based on superficial criteria. Partners for longer lasting relationships are chosen on less superficial criteria (as a general rule, not saying some people don't choose based on superficial criteria, but I don't think they'll be happy in the long run).
Aspies can and do form long-lasting relationships with a sexual component. But to make them successful they need to understand the needs of their partners (and vice versa) that's what a loving relationship is.
Guys who fool themselves with this PUA nonsense are handicapping themselves in finding a partner. This stuff is seriously off-putting. The sense of entitlement and the gross generalisations about women are offensive and unattractive. These guys come off as users and users are dangerous - and I mean dangerous as in they can kill you (see all the links that Tarantella has provided).
I see most of the women in this thread making some very sensible arguments and explanations and I see a lot of men ignoring what they're saying.
No one has the right to someone else's body or emotions. Period.
I agree with everything you've said, although I think the bolded statement wasn't needed. It's very antagonistic and was a needless generalization. I think you could've made your point perfectly w/o putting that in there.
29 May 2014, 10:22 am
Quote:
I agree with everything you've said, although I think the bolded statement wasn't needed. It's very antagonistic and was a needless generalization. I think you could've made your point perfectly w/o putting that in there.
I'm afraid it's absolutely needed. Not all the men in this thread, not even most. But a lot.
A lot of men just choose not to see/hear misogyny or the effects of misogyny. Maybe I'd be similar in the case of racism. I hope I wouldn't. But maybe I would.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
29 May 2014, 10:36 am
elkclan wrote:
Quote:
I agree with everything you've said, although I think the bolded statement wasn't needed. It's very antagonistic and was a needless generalization. I think you could've made your point perfectly w/o putting that in there.
I'm afraid it's absolutely needed. Not all the men in this thread, not even most. But a lot.
A lot of men just choose not to see/hear misogyny or the effects of misogyny. Maybe I'd be similar in the case of racism. I hope I wouldn't. But maybe I would.
Why? Are you a racist or blind to racism?
29 May 2014, 10:53 am
tarantella64 wrote:
I think it's much harder for men to be happy with their lives, to accept them as okay. It seems to me there's an intense "you must be like this" pressure, and few ways of accepting "failure" in that regard. I think it's a serious problem.
I think that is true.
We had this whole revolution that allowed so many people to reimagine their goals and lives, but men as a whole don't seem to have been able to reap the benefits of it or enjoy the freedom it was supposed to bring them, too. I don't know how much is societal or programmed in by evolution; it seems to be more difficult to solve than simple societal factors would suggest.
It is interesting on a personal level because my son is a really happy, centered, person, but I am seeing his need to compare taking more and more of that away. He says he doesn't care and he certainly doesn't want to care, but he still can't stop rating himself by comparison to others, even though he doesn't really see it that way (he sees it more as a world that insists on rating and ranking people by the wrong things, is how his rants usually go). Right now he has a healthy attitude towards women but could that change, too, as this need inside him racks up more losing scores? I don't know; I would like to think not, but if he isn't even aware he does this, how can anyone be sure where it will take him? One of the many things parents like me are left without a rode map for dealing with ...
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
29 May 2014, 11:05 am
DW_a_mom wrote:
tarantella64 wrote:
I think it's much harder for men to be happy with their lives, to accept them as okay. It seems to me there's an intense "you must be like this" pressure, and few ways of accepting "failure" in that regard. I think it's a serious problem.
I think that is true.
We had this whole revolution that allowed so many people to reimagine their goals and lives, but men as a whole don't seem to have been able to reap the benefits of it or enjoy the freedom it was supposed to bring them, too. I don't know how much is societal or programmed in by evolution; it seems to be more difficult to solve than simple societal factors would suggest.
It's because men generally aren't warm and social with other men the way women are with other women. Men don't have emotional closeness with anyone but their SO, if even that. Women do. Men are much more alone. Also, men are more criticized by other men for being "weak" or "sensitive". You're not allowed to express any negative emotion other than anger.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
29 May 2014, 11:14 am
marshall wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
tarantella64 wrote:
I think it's much harder for men to be happy with their lives, to accept them as okay. It seems to me there's an intense "you must be like this" pressure, and few ways of accepting "failure" in that regard. I think it's a serious problem.
I think that is true.
We had this whole revolution that allowed so many people to reimagine their goals and lives, but men as a whole don't seem to have been able to reap the benefits of it or enjoy the freedom it was supposed to bring them, too. I don't know how much is societal or programmed in by evolution; it seems to be more difficult to solve than simple societal factors would suggest.
It's because men generally aren't warm and social with other men the way women are with other women. Men don't have emotional closeness with anyone but their SO, if even that. Women do. Men are much more alone. Also, men are more criticized by other men for being "weak" or "sensitive". You're not allowed to express any negative emotion other than anger.
The first thing a lot of fathers teach their little boys here "men don't cry".
but I've aslo heard from gals things like "c'mon you're a guy", "but you are man" for showing at times signs of physical weakness or hesitation or fear or things like that. This pressure is mostly made by other men but not *always*, little girls are fathered by the same fathers after all.
Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 29 May 2014, 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
29 May 2014, 11:16 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
marshall wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
tarantella64 wrote:
I think it's much harder for men to be happy with their lives, to accept them as okay. It seems to me there's an intense "you must be like this" pressure, and few ways of accepting "failure" in that regard. I think it's a serious problem.
I think that is true.
We had this whole revolution that allowed so many people to reimagine their goals and lives, but men as a whole don't seem to have been able to reap the benefits of it or enjoy the freedom it was supposed to bring them, too. I don't know how much is societal or programmed in by evolution; it seems to be more difficult to solve than simple societal factors would suggest.
It's because men generally aren't warm and social with other men the way women are with other women. Men don't have emotional closeness with anyone but their SO, if even that. Women do. Men are much more alone. Also, men are more criticized by other men for being "weak" or "sensitive". You're not allowed to express any negative emotion other than anger.
The first thing fathers teach their little boys here "men don't cry".
but I've aslo heard from gals things like "c'mon you're a guy", "but you are man" for showing at times signs of physical weakness or hesitation or fear or things like that. This pressure is mostly made by other men but not *always*, little girls are fathered by the same fathers after all.
We've never done any of that with our son, however.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
29 May 2014, 11:21 am
marshall wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
tarantella64 wrote:
I think it's much harder for men to be happy with their lives, to accept them as okay. It seems to me there's an intense "you must be like this" pressure, and few ways of accepting "failure" in that regard. I think it's a serious problem.
I think that is true.
We had this whole revolution that allowed so many people to reimagine their goals and lives, but men as a whole don't seem to have been able to reap the benefits of it or enjoy the freedom it was supposed to bring them, too. I don't know how much is societal or programmed in by evolution; it seems to be more difficult to solve than simple societal factors would suggest.
It's because men generally aren't warm and social with other men the way women are with other women. Men don't have emotional closeness with anyone but their SO, if even that. Women do. Men are much more alone. Also, men are more criticized by other men for being "weak" or "sensitive". You're not allowed to express any negative emotion other than anger.
well - I'd take exception to that. A lot of men, lovers and friends, have talked quite openly and articulately to me -- I understand that the social risk is lower, because I'm a woman, and actually there've been times when I've gotten quite annoyed with it; it's as though these guys think I'm a free therapy service, where they can just make an emotional deposit and then take off, no reciprocity of any kind. And I do see men expressing...well, more emotion than they likely think they're expressing, particularly with their children. And I just went running with an ex-boyfriend and his childhood friend, very much a guy. But yes, I do see men clam up with other men, rein in the conversation. What I actually see more often is a bunch of guys who're friends, one's rather open in conversation, a couple others join in, and then one guy can't take it and shuts everything down cold, and they all go along with it, move on to something else, instead of telling that one guy to go get an ice cream, or something.
