The guy who is a winner at life is the guy that spends all his time playing Halo? So that’s what I’ve been doing wrong!
5 Likes
When you don’t have much to win at life, being a winner at least in Halo vs being a loser even in Halo can be a pretty damn meaningful difference.
7 Likes
Look at this asshole. Just look at it.
10 Likes
Considering that everyone around Master Chief tends to get killed, I’m surprised he isn’t more of an asshole since few will be around to remember him as such.
2 Likes
The findings aren’t surprising.
I would suggest that the interpretation of the data is slightly askew. Lower-skilled males may be threatened by the presence of women, particularly those who are of equal- or greater-skill. I believe it is also true that males of lower standing or rank are forced - by the inclusion of all women - to compete within a much larger field of agents all vying for power - if not the actual power held by high-status/ranking males and females then through their privileged allegiance with them. So, it is in fact the case, IMO, that males are threatened and challenged by the very presence of women as equals. Threatened directly and indirectly as well as challenged by the implicit dynamism that shapes the multitude of social ecosystems today’s adults must navigate. Examples of such social ecosystems can be found within and across the boundaries of work, home-life, recreation, education, mate “selection” and many other arenas. Males of lower social rank or contextually dependent skill can no longer depend upon the exclusive, sexist role definitions that guaranteed them at least some glimpses of power - even if narrow, fleeting or merely imagined.
3 Likes
No, no, “winning” = “accruing more Likes in a Boing Boing discussion thread”.
This is a timely reminder to behave civilly in any given discussion thread, because it could easily be part of someone’s research.
8 Likes
If only “status” and “dominance” were meaningful concepts, then this would really say something!
4 Likes
#notalllosers
2 Likes
It has meaning in a particular context.
2 Likes
Well, they are meaningful enough to get some people upset.
I just reat part of the article and realized that women may accept dominant behaviour from higher status men and not complain.
Just a thought.
6 Likes
That’s an extremely low semantic bar. I would even suggest that the less meaning there is, the more nontroversial upset is likely to result.
Check the group dynamics in any animal pack. Monkeys may be the best. We the People aren’t that much different.
1 Like
I’m not sure why we’re blaming Neanderthals, of which we only have a small percentage of DNA.
4 Likes
2 Likes
Not “anyone”. Just you.
1 Like
Actually Yes it is
Just look at the responses. A total of one person had anything meaningful to respond with. The rest were all some variant of “you’re an asshole!” or sarcasm, which is code for “we don’t need to hear what you have to say on the subject, because it’s not the same as my opinion”. This is what “equality” means to you people.
There was no discussion of my point of view or why I might have it. There was no acceptance of a differing point of view. In fact, all I got was a bunch of vitriol and hate for suggesting that treating women like victims all the time and men like villains all the time might, just might, be bad. This is what I expect from the bullshit SJW movements.
Modern feminism is NOT about equality. If it were they’d stop acting like victims and understand that the world is a hard place for everyone - men and women alike/ They might understand that personal struggles don’t fit neatly in to bin A and bin B. It’s like you people believe there’s no challenge in life for men. Like all we have to do is produce our White Male membership card and suddenly life is easy. No, fuck that. I’m tired of being unjustly vilified by people because of my gender, or the color of my skin. It’s just as bad as calling all African American people criminals, or all Chinese people bad drivers.
You people, who come here under the banner of tolerance, liberty, and freedom of speech don’t really even understand the depth of your own hypocrisy.
It’s still sexism when it’s reverse sexism. I don’t agree with walking all over men to support a notion of victimization in women. Having the next generation of women grow up to thinking they’re victims is a bad idea that doesn’t help anyone - least of all them. That’s all these articles do - try to convince all women they’re victims.
2 Likes
My first thought was to wonder if they took into account that high status men are often the biggest douches, especially to women.
Clearly marketing people know better:
3 Likes
Nothing IS about anything. It all depends upon who you ask. I agree that there are people who are tastelessly close to “reverse-sexism” and “reverse-racism”. But it is very easy to overgeneralize, which is what I suspect you might be doing. There is not as much consensus in life as most people suppose. So neither you nor I really know what feminism (or anything else) really is, as it is lived, by most people. Flip-flopping between absolutes only encourages rigid polarized thinking and actions, and makes any more considered or nuanced approach less likely. One risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater when there are genuine problems, and they let themselves overreact to a large scenario from only a single fixed perspective.
5 Likes
WTF? are you for real? This sounds awfully close to “check your privilege” which is a statement that is only ever used in an attempt to shut down an opposing view because you have no better way to do it. I’m sorry, but that’s a bullshit argument.
2 Likes
