One Eyed Man

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

@ReviewsPossum They were successful, by the way.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

@ReviewsPossum Something similar happened in Italy. There, feminists protested. They wanted billboards to be taken down. The billboards were against violence towards men.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

You can’t have both worlds. If women have the same rights as men, they also have the same duties. You don’t get to cherry-pick the parts you like and throw out the rest. If they can drive, prescribe medicine, fly planes, and run companies, then they can also take punches. That’s the deal. If they want special protection instead, then they are like children. It's fine too, but children don’t drive cars, open bank accounts, or become CEOs. Children get protection because they don’t get authority. At that point they will follow their father and husband’s leadership. If they make a mistake, the male authority answers for it.

[Carrie Gress @CarrieGress]

Here's a visual graphic that destroys the myth that there was once a pure kind of feminism that we can restore. These first wave feminists were hell-bent on eliminating Christianity while promoting leftist values. #feminism

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

@CarrieGress Is it possible to extend this to the second wave? A full map would be useful.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

I think @TheTinMenBlog know this too. But basically, they introduced the concept of femicide into the law. When a man kills a woman reasons of gender-based hatred (whatever that means...) the case can be prosecuted under femicide statutes rather than ordinary homicide law. Femicide carries an automatic sentence of life imprisonment. In effect, the law treats the killing of a woman as automatically more serious than the killing of children or men. All other cases remain ordinary homicide.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

@europasnow @Juanodlc @Aristotle7777 @Lazarus3271 Of course! I never went to the brothel, and didn’t pay.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

@meaingoflife @JamesLNuzzo Those only apply to men. Didn’t you get the memo?

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

@blacknight6575 @Arindam8999 @Frogmann80 @NicoB84027061 What can I say? I have a talent for overcomplicating things. 😆

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

Ah yes, you’re right about that. The correct one is. "When someone says 'men find women attractive', they mean the majority of men."

But my point still stands. Words have to be taken in context. You should not have to add “not all men” or “not all women” every two seconds. If you do, conversation becomes mechanical and you cannot actually talk.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

Sure psychology is interesting. But It is closer to philosophy than to medicine or science. Right now, psychology mostly collects clusters of symptoms and attaches a label to them. That is proto-science. The field will change when those labels can be tied to reliable biomarkers. Until then, much of it remains invented language and hypothesis: useful for talking, sometimes useful for treatment, but not yet science.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

Knowing how to communicate requires two different skills.

The first is the semantic function: that is the one you are using. It is a basic, elementary skill. it consists in translating words into their literal meanings. Machines can do this too very well.
The second is the pragmatic function: the level at which those words are placed in context. This si more complex. An average intelligent person person has both. That is why they can understand that the discussion is about group dynamics, and that almost all phenomena are distributed along a Gaussian curve. As a result, there will always be people at the two extremes: so there will also be men who do not find women attractive, even if the majority do.

If the two interlocutors are intelligent enough and know how to communicate, they automatically understand that when someone says “straight men find women attractive,” they are referring to the majority of men. Pragmatic competence does that on its own, without any need to spell it out.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

If a man goes to war, comes back, and says he has PTSD, can he go get tested for it?

No. Not in the way you get tested for a disease. PTSD is not the disease. It is a label stuck onto a cluster of symptoms. You collect a list of experiences: nightmares, jumpiness, flashbacks, avoidance, and you attach a name to the list. That name is not the condition underneath. It does not tell you why those symptoms are there. That person might have this symptom because of a thyroid disorder or because of the war. This is merely a list of symptoms.

It is like going to a doctor with a stomach ache and being told, “You have stomach-ache disease.” That is not a diagnosis. A real disease would be gastritis, an ulcer, cancer, an infection. Dr Sami Timimi makes this point well in Searching for Normal. Psychiatric “diagnoses” are descriptions of behaviour and distress, not explanations of an underlying disease. There is no blood test, scan, or biomarker that confirms PTSD the way a lab result confirms diabetes. That is why psychology is called a soft science. It does not rest on the same kind of hard, independent evidence that physical medicine does.

I was intentionally provocative, calling it pseudoscience, but only because people have forgotten what real science is. If I have time, I will tell you an interesting personal story later about this concept.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

@kgrace4056 @mrkmcknz @Chairforce007 If a man has high cholesterol, I can run a blood test to see whether he is affected or not. Can you do the same thing with attachment styles? Can you look at an MRI scan of a person and tell me whether the patient is unaffected, or doubly affected, by this condition?

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

Yes. When stupid people speak, everything is taken literally. When normal people speak, they know we are talking about group dynamics and they know what a Gaussian curve is, so they assume we mean the average. There is no need to specify that every single time. That is automatically assumed when you talk about sociology and group dynamics.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

@mrkmcknz @Chairforce007 Just another word coined by pseudoscientists. They call it psychology.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

you are 100% correct. Because force is used to enforce rights and men have had the monopoly on organized force and so it is they who enforce the order. Women did not take on equal rights; those rights were given to them by men and still rely on that enforcement, which is the reason why men and women have historically had different rights and duties. Societies have always regarded the two sexes as differing in capability and have therefore assigned them different roles until we decided that they should be considered the same. Women have been given men's rights but as a group cannot assume the same duties since you can't send them to war and expect to win. The outcome is a group that has rights but no equivalent duties which they are able to undertake and that imbalance represents a growing cost to society, just as if you paid a monthly fee and got nothing in return.
Unfortunately we have a lot of sneaky fuckers in our society right now and we are trapped in this gynocentric vortex. I am afraid things will have to get worse before they get better. I do not have a solution to this problem but I can diagnose the cause and many others can too.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

omg. This is insane. 🤣🤣

What do they teach you in school?

That’s Afghan women in the 60s and 70s. History isn’t a straight climb..

“White women will let you go extinct first.”

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. We all know what happened when the Nazis invaded France. You’re projecting your own feeling onto the majority of women. The survival instinct is extremely strong. And what makes you think men would simply let you go extinct?

“Oh, and criminal sentencing is not the same as the family courts. Men get a free pass to be bad fathers.”

You’re moving the goalposts. You said the courts don’t favor women. And that you had a some evidence about it.

“The court system does not favor women. There have been reviews into it.”

I showed that’s not true. This is how debates work.

“Men get a free pass to be bad fathers” is also false, but a different topic.

You’re not arguing in good faith. You’re clear have some issues with men, for some personal reason. An abusive father? A terrible boyfriend or husband? Who knows. But instead of resolving your personal issues, you’re posting this nonsense. You clearly don’t know history. You don’t have the data. Have you actually read any feminist books, or are you just know buzzwords? You’ve got personal trauma and a keyboard. That’s it. Very sad.

[One Eyed Man @OneEyedMan1984]

I don’t know which review you're talking about. The data I have tell a different story: Sonja B. Starr, Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases (University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository); U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2023 Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing. The same pattern shows up outside the United States: Ministry of Justice, Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2023 (UK); Pecorella–Dova and Associazione Antigone (Italy, my country). This is a well studied phenomenon.

"Women are now a majority in some work places because we have different strengths."

Sure, I have no doubt that women have different strengths. It is also undeniable that there are laws that explicitly favor women. One example is the EU Gender Balance on Corporate Boards Directive. It requires listed companies to meet minimum quotas for women among non-executive directors and on boards as a whole. I have worked in STEM for more than a decade and have been affected by this too. More than once HR asked us to prefer a woman for an engineering role, even when other candidates had stronger qualifications. This is not “women have different strengths.” This is favoritism.

“Toxic masculinity exists.”

You don’t even have a shared definition of masculinity. How can you have a definition of “toxic masculinity”? If I ask ten people what masculinity is, I will get ten different answers. The answer of a conservative Christian man will be very different from that of a feminist. In any case, if “toxic masculinity” exists, then prove it! It should be demonstrable in the same way we can prove that a person has high cholesterol or cancer. You should be able to show, with a clear test, that a specific person is affected by toxic masculinity.

“I hope you understand that women will abort the babies of dysgenic scum. We will return to the old ways. Appreciate women or you will lose it all”

This sounds like the rambling of a madman. But let’s pretend you’re right, and that women have enormous power over men. Then why aren’t Afghan women using it against the Taliban? Why aren’t they rebelling? Why, in that photo, are the Taliban celebrating, not them? Men have a monopoly on force. They can impose themselves by force. That is the point. That is why, historically, women rarely dealt with men through force or open aggression. They relied more on charm and indirect influence.