[ SECRET POST #5783 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5783 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 57 secrets from Secret Submission Post #828.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Because concomitant with the idea that the only thing men have to offer as people is their social role is the idea that the social role of being a man is per se valuable and entitles you to admiration, success, happiness, power, and spiritual and material rewards.

[meadowphoenix]

I agree with you, but I should clarify that I meant how they don't find it more depressing when the material reality simply doesn't match that ideal in personal relationships. Either they don't have the goods to excel in the social role (and then what do they do) or women have fulfilled it for themselves (and then what do they do).

We both know what they do is violence, but non-incel men usually ignore this avenue when talking about it. I was watching some old 90s oprah segment with steve harvey and a bunch of feminists and he was like "well if you have money and guns where do men fit it?" and you know he couldn't see how little he was recommending men as people. Literally couldn't fathom seeing men or anyone as valuable just because.

[(Anonymous)]

Hm, well, I think a lot of it is that for a long time society was structured in such a way as to actually give men those material rewards. So when men don't receive those rewards, its relatively easy for them to think that the system isn't working because of external threats, that is, feminism and equality have destroyed it and need to be rolled back and then the system will work again, or that they themselves need to be more manly to make the system work and then it'll be fine. There's people to blame it on, so they don't need to reject the system.

Also I think generally most people are philosophically inclined to be anti-existentialists. So they think in terms of fundamental unchangeable essences that determine reality. And usually, especially for people who tend to be uncritical thinkers, that essence is simply conflated with societal roles, even if that is in fact a recipe for misery and pain and awful.

[meadowphoenix]

i definitely agree with your second point. I quibble with the first...most hierarchical societies w/r/t gender were never structured to benefit all men or even most men (those which do benefit men significantly involve a variety of roles for both genders), and I think violence in response is inherently an externalization, but not necessarily of perceived progress. Religion complicates this quite a bit, too.

But your second paragraph, yeah. [that said the greeks who we have record of being very hierarchical with gender and very essentialist about character/purpose/humanity nevertheless still had a good deal of interest in seeing women and men as human too. idk where I'm going with that, thoughts to think I guess]