How celibate woman became a threat.....

[Cryptid]

The continuation of 'The Patriarchy' ideology is an economic necessity for those in the clicks business

No, the Patriarchy is a social system in which positions of dominance and privilege are held by men. The term 'patriarchy' is used both in anthropology to describe a family or clan controlled by the father or eldest male or group of males, and in feminist theory to describe a broader social structure in which men as a group dominate women and children.

Patriarchal ideology acts to explain and justify patriarchy by attributing gender inequality to inherent natural differences between men and women, divine commandment, or other fixed structures. Sociologists tend to reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy and contend that socialization processes are primarily responsible for establishing gender roles. They are the basis of discrimination of women. Sociobiologists compare human gender roles to sexed behavior in other primates and some[who?] argue that gender inequality comes primarily from genetic and reproductive differences between men and women. Social constructionists contest this argument, arguing that gender roles and gender inequity are instruments of power and have become social norms to maintain control over women.

Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious, and economic organization of a range of different cultures. Most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.

Read the complete and unedited article HERE .

 

[Xinyta]

Personally. I feel like like the world's on fire in alot of socail ways. And it just happens one of the biggest ones is the romantic relationship. The whole hole is poisoned.

But in my perspective. I see little point to all the things people do socially. Dating included. I would say it's immaturity, on my part, to not want date, if I were a brainwashed fool. But truthfully. I have avoided the whole thing. Because of my mental immaturity, psych problems, and maybe even porn watching.

I personally see myself unready to face the world of men/women who do seek proper relationships. Maybe I am not ready. Or maybe I am just not interested. I do sometime question if I am a 'ace in the hole'. A asexual.

But putting me aside as a person, for moment. I don't blame women choosing celibacy. It is the safest option, in a world overran by all kinds of deviants, at this point. Not just sexual.

 

[thejuice]

What I am sceptical about is the charachterisation of a competency based hierarchy as purely being about a cabal of men out to exploit women.

 

[marc_101]

I do feel judged, for having zero interests in hookups. Do any others feel this way? I think tons of porn on the internet aren't really helping either, this misleads men to formulating incorrectly that we all run around actively looking. Being ASD, also doesn't help much either. I don't see how my needs of feeling safe and looking for healthy relationships get crossed over into Bumble me......, (not).

I understand some men here may be upset about this, but l truly like to foster healthy discussions. I also noticed that there are a lot of very sensitive and respectful men here at the forum. So their imput is very welcomed.

I didn't read the Time article, but my first reaction is, what threat? What trend? Maybe because my field is statistics, the "trend journalism" genre has always bothered me. I want to see real stats to believe there is a trend (see the article at the bottom).

Journalists need to write articles. They find people who express an opinion and then write a "trends article" out of it. But I bet that nothing in that article speaks of actual statistics of most men being threatened. The talk about more people not having sex is based on some real stats but the change is very small and in part affected by the pandemic. There is plenty of people having sex. Lots of it.

So, I don't see how some women not wanting sex is a threat to me or most men because for every woman not having sex there are plenty who do want sex. And for the life of me, I don't see in which way a woman not wanting sex is a threat to me. It would be a threat if those women are also hunting men to kill them.

Also, people getting tired of dating apps does not mean that the same people are not finding mates in some other way.

https://devonpowers.com/wp-content/...ournalism-definition-history-and-critique.pdf
"One, two, trend” has long been one of those jokes that American journalists make
amongst themselves, referring to how three examples of anything seems sufficient evi-
dence of a burgeoning phenomenon. But it is not so easy to discard the trend as a
way of coming to terms with a changing culture. If the goal is to hold trend journalism
to a higher standard, that will require serious thinking about some of journalism’s most
difficult and intractable concerns."

 

[Hypnalis]

@Cryptid

Not disputing that you linked that wikipedia article in good faith, but it's from the part of wikipedia that's most politicized.

The article is is heavy on ideology, heavy on definitely false claims, and light on facts where it matters.

It would be interesting to discuss it IRL, but not here. Too much effort and probably no real value to either of us.

FWIW I stopped scanning it when I saw:
"Sociologists tend to reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy and contend that socialization processes are primarily responsible for establishing gender roles."

This is an exercise in politically motivated spin - a false opening (note the "weasel words"), followed by a series of actual lies, getting further and further from the truth as the paragraph continues, ending with this:
"Even in modern, developed societies, however, gender messages conveyed by family, mass media, and other institutions largely favor males having a dominant status."

It's quite well done, but well-packaged and delivered spin is still spin

I'm not sure if the wikipedia article is still accurate, but the overall approach is called "Social Constructionism". Something which is true sometimes, but very easy to misuse, and in the 21st century, very frequently misused.

If the early reference to "neo-Marxism" in the Social Constructionism article is still absent, the article can't be entirely trusted.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

An interesting article. The thing that was interesting for me was the description of wanting emotional intimacy first before physical intimacy and is something that the dating apps fail at. I think I am a bit atypical for a male, because when I finally was maturing socially I needed that emotional intimacy to feel safe in being vulnerable to a woman. Before that I had even turned down a proposition because I did not have an emotional connection with the woman, i.e. I was not ready for sex.

I wonder how easy access to porn consumption is affecting things. I liken guys looking at porn to learn how to please a woman to learning surgery by watching a butcher.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Gerald Wilgus

Porn is politicized - don't pay attention to any use of it in the popular press to explain male behavior.

A data point: women "taking care of themselves" is celebrated. For men it's sharply criticized (though arguably medically necessary.

Make it make sense

 

[Wolfnox]

I was warned that there were many married men on them. Not really sold on dating apps as the new normal.

Or useful. Mostly fake profiles and scammers. With payment being needed for simple text interactions.

 

[Wolfnox]

I do feel judged, for having zero interests in hookups. Do any others feel this way? I think tons of porn on the internet aren't really helping either, this misleads men to formulating incorrectly that we all run around actively looking. Being ASD, also doesn't help much either. I don't see how my needs of feeling safe and looking for healthy relationships get crossed over into Bumble me......, (not).

I understand some men here may be upset about this, but l truly like to foster healthy discussions. I also noticed that there are a lot of very sensitive and respectful men here at the forum. So their imput is very welcomed.

Your choice is your choice.

 

[marc_101]

Porn can't explain much. It has always existed, everywhere. The first law of technological innovation is that it will be first applied to porn: the printing press, audio, VHS, the internet, AI, and so on. Women consume a lot of porn in the form of romance literature. Just check the bestseller lists...

An aside: the classical protagonist in romance lit: strong guy with the sensitivity of a puppy. The malboro guy with muscles who cooks and cries while providing protection like a German shepherd. And very smart on top of it.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Women have sex drives also lets not deny this ask the doctor my wife who got pissed at when he would not give her a straight answer when i was had had a catheter he was a bit too cavalier.

 

[Judge]

This isn't false. But you ignored the implication: such a woman is completely unsuitable as a wife and mother.
So the avoidance strategy is working both ways, with great effect on society.

It isn't that I ignored such a consideration. It's that I simply don't think that way. The perception of a universal standard of condemnation that deems persons "unsuitable" simply because they exercise freedom of choice or have different beliefs. What a grim thought. I realize that some have such mindsets, but I don't- or try not to.

In the few relationships I had with women, I judged them based on how they related to me personally - and in real time. Without considering any "implications" of them based only on their past. Had I done that, I would have likely rejected all of them.

Worse still, to consider the reciprocal. That they would have rejected me had they determined or I told them that I was autistic. After all, we constitute less than two percent of society and stigmatization and stereotypes don't help how we are perceived. That much is true, often to our own detriment.

No, I refuse to think in that manner. Whether the masses actually do or don't.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Judge

Your approach works when there are no children currently or planned.

But what is dating for? There are many correct answers to that. They are definitely not all equal.
In some cases it will be over in a couple of hours. Others last longer, but neither side has any obligation to the other.
There are LTRs where neither party intends or hopes it will be permanent or formalized.

For "tactical" relationships, "100% freedom" is fine.


But once children, or the intention of having children, come into the picture, other factors come into play.
Parents have a responsibility to their children, from birth until at least adulthood. Both parents. Equally.

Nothing in normal life "trumps" that responsibility, especially not some selfish concept of freedom.

Of course, since the 1960's, people who want freedom have been able to easily avoid having children, and the tech for this keeps improving. So unselfish freedom is readily available.

It does make you wonder at the statistics for single-parent households though.

 

[Magna]

I echo a previously stated sentiment posted here after reading the article: Who are they a threat to?

A full 30% of men from what I gather are celibate. Maybe the "threat" would just be an increase in that percentage of celibate men?

Also, anyone, I repeat, anyone in the world who believes there's threat of over-population should be very happy about such trends toward celibacy of the sexes because said trends will work smashingly at radically reducing the human population over time. If said trends were to continue in an incrementally constant fashion then the population reduction would eventually result in the extinction of our species, but hardly something for us to worry about in our lifetimes...

 

[Judge]

@Judge

Your approach works when there are no children currently or planned.

I thought this was about women, choice and celibacy. Not parenthood per se.

After all, the term celibacy was used by the OP. If one wants to remain celibate and/or single, that's their right. And if they literally follow through with it, they will not be having any children. Right?

Yes, if they have children it changes the equation. Of course. But even that doesn't negate or diminish a basic right of those remaining women who choose not to have them, or not to be in relationships.

 

[Cryptid]

Interesting . . . most of the men posting in this thread seem to believe they know "what's what" when it comes to women, their behavior, their desires, and their needs. This is prima facie evidence that the Patriarchy is alive and thriving, even on this website.

Wake up, boys; you don't know as much about women as you think you do.

 

[thejuice]

the Patriarchy is alive and thriving, even on this website

This forum has a patriarchy. Absurd.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Judge

It's all related to a poorly handled rebranding by "feminist dating app" (their words) Bumble.
The use of the word "celibacy" is from a failed ad campaign that was part of the rebranding.

The OP linked an opinion piece about this.

So if it's about anything it's about Bumble, then Dating Apps (because Bumble is one), then the weird and wonderful opinion pieces, TikTok and YouTube videos, blog posts, etc that have been created (from thin air in most cases) talking about this.

The initial change made by Bumble (before the Ad campaign) was this:

They changed the in-app contact model from "Only women can made the first move" to "Anyone may make the first move". Since that was their main "pro-feminist" feature and primary differentiator vs other dating apps, it naturally caught people's attention (not least the many click-baiters out there).

The underlying causes of this are actually very interesting. But in my opinion AF isn't the right place to discuss it.

Since I enjoy absurdities, here are two comments from "the web" (I got them from a YouTube Video):

"Everyone deleting Bumble for coming after celibacy instead of actually addressing the reasons none of
us are dating wasn't something I had on my 2024 bingo card"

"Casual sex is generally not good for any of us
We were peer pressured into promiscuity in the early 2000s
People are now realizing it's been detrimental"

The blame shifting (onto feminism!) in the second was the high point of my day

It also influenced my focus on children in my earlier replies to your posts. I'm liberal (somewhat progressive by US political standards) about adult freedoms, but you've seen how I feel about adult responsibilities towards their children. So I'm much closer to "traditional" (by US political standards) in that respect.

FWIW I think our opinions are fairly close (though not identical) IRL. But it wasn't clear earlier - it can take a while to get clarity in a forum discussion. Or maybe we just don't agree

 

[Aspychata]

This post is to inspire others to think about it, not to critique other's posts. If you wish to counter someone's else opinion, then present your written thesis, with an apple on my desk by 12:00 noon.

 

[Cryptid]

. . . If you wish to counter someone's else opinion, then present your written thesis, with an apple on my desk by 12:00 noon.

Patriarchy (n): Derived from the Greek words "pater" ("father") and "arkhēs" ("ruler"). Literal meaning is "the rule of the father". Used to refer to a social system where men control a disproportionately large share of social, economic, political, and religious power, and inheritance usually passes down the male line.

(Author's Note: Patriarchy is inherently evil, resulting in abuse, oppression, and violence against women. Call out and denounce the Patriarchy at any and every opportunity.)

• • •

You May Be Part of The Patriarchy if You Believe That . . .

. . . any custom, law, or rule against adultery, infidelity, or promiscuity applies only to women, and not to men.

. . . any idea expressed by a woman means nothing unless it is later expressed by a man, when it is given every due consideration.

. . . any woman expressing sexual desire for a man is expecting something in return from that man for her "favors".

. . . any woman who divorces her husband for anything other than outright abandonment is undeserving of any rights or respect whatsoever.

. . . any woman who is beaten or raped has somehow "asked for it".

. . . any woman who makes eye contact with a man is either challenging his authority or expressing sexual desire for him.

. . . any woman's highest ambitions should be to serve her husband in every way and to bear her husbands' children regardless of how many children she bears and how childbearing impacts her health.

. . . boys should be raised to be active, aggressive, and in control.

. . . boys who show compassion, empathy, or love are weak and pathetic, deserving only to be abused until they become more 'manly'.

. . . education is wasted on women.

. . . every man has the right to any woman's body.

. . . every man has the right to dictate laws regarding every woman's reproductive choices.

. . . everything a woman owns should belong to a man, including her own body.

. . . girls should be raised to be passive, submissive, and controllable by men.

. . . it is appropriate to pay women less than men for performing the same duties as a man.

. . . menopause makes a woman fit only for domestic labor or care-giving.

. . . menstruation is a curse imposed upon all women for the actions of only one woman in the dim and distant past.

. . . only males can buy, own, sell, or inherit property.

. . . only men should have money and own property.

. . . only men should make economic and political decisions.

. . . that girls as young as 8 years of age can be married to a boy twice her age or to a man who is even older.

. . . the only things that matter are what men do, what men think, and what men want.

. . . women are fragile, frail, weak, and prone to sickess more often than men.

. . . women are inferior to men in every way.

. . . women must ask permission from their husbands before making decisions.

. . . women must have permission from their fathers to get married.

. . . women should be denied the right to free speech, the right to petition for redress of wrongs, and the right to avoid self-incrimination.

. . . women should be evaluated solely on their appearance and on their abilities as caregivers, homemakers, and procreators.

. . . women should be physically punished for denying or resisting men's sexual advances.

. . . women should be seen in public only if they are accompanied by an adult male relative; otherwise, unaccompanied women should not be seen in public at all.

. . . women should function solely as caregivers, homemakers, and procreators.

. . . women should never be allowed to own or handle a firearm.

. . . women should never be allowed to vote, to hold public office, or to own property.

(It is 09:15 on Saturday, 2024-05-18)​