Sinners praise in others the virtues they find least threatening to themselves.

Indeed, this is why it is most profitable (and flattering) to dispense the label of sinner.

I suppose you've got me there, Wilshire!

Cnaiur Vs Preditor

Perhaps I should have pitched the notion like he does. His diplomacy skill is higher than mine. He probably gets a CHR bonus.

It's more like the bishops are unhappy that the rooks are treated as more valuable simply because the subjective rules have given the rooks a move-set that, all other variables constrained, is objectively more advantageous to "chess-tern" society. The revelation is this: having a rook is more advantageous to a player in real-world chess than having a bishop -- but most people who know the rules of chess don't know that. Only those who are interested in the game and have looked into chess theory and want to approach the game with a serious and humble demeanor will learn that fact. And, only those who show an even greater interest will go beyond just knowing that fact; they will actually comprehend it and see it for themselves.

Yeah, but what good does comprehending it do if the rules of the game then go on being the exact same as before?

Surely were talking about the game of writing new games? How we negotiate writing a new rule set?

Comprehend it? Well I'd kind of agree it's comprehending it from within the framework of chess - the rook is 'objectively better'.

But that's like saying males are objectively better - the comprehension of such a claim is from within a certain framework. Saying there's male privilege again can only engage a comprehension from within a framework that treats men as having a better position as much as the rook does.

I mean in chess, there's nothing wrong with the rook being a better piece. So brining up that it's a better piece isn't exactly a call for making it balanced with the bishop. Saying rooks are better than bishops merely reinforces the idea of chess as it is. Saying men have privileges, as I estimate it, merely reinforces the patriarchal society as it is. Unless we start to redefine the word privilege and equate it with a heavy negativity like we do the words 'bullying' or 'crime'. Perhaps part of the notion of this from a demographic sometime refered to as working class, who generally resent any idea of 'privilege' as something toffs have, and so in this context it is used as a negative word?

Anyway, it's my concern that use of the term 'male privilege' (which really refers to male bullying and near criminal acts (as well as legally criminal acts)) simply supports the patriarchal system. So I'll keep being concerned. It would actually be nice to be wrong on the matter, because then I could stop being concerned about it.

Maybe it's all just semantic nuance on my part, no more important than whether you put an apostrophe before the s in 'grocers'.

Also I get venting. Frighteningly though, I think some people don't actually understand that they are venting and instead think that everything that comes out of their mouth is gospel (like acrackedmoon... (or Vox for that matter, but that's another subject kinda)).

Just because the bully feels bad inside or that he introduces chaos into the system doesn't mean that, as far as those who suffer from his outbursts are concerned, he is not above them in the hierarchy they occupy.

Just because someone is a victim, does not mean that their first thought and every thought that comes into their head about their victimisation is accurate.

I can't say I'm going to humour any idea that there is some ordered, intended system where they are now below the bully in rank. It sounds like self inflicted just word bias.

What the hell can you do if you accomidate that lower rank idea? - if you're really lower rank, then suck it up and try and get a higher rank via the system (the system that wont allow you to because you've made the bully the system).

I can't even reconcile the idea of both complaining about ones supposed rank, yet also a supposed acceptance of being in that rank. Which is it, complaining or acceptance?

To me it seems like trying to work at an instinctual level - the urge to make complaint and...how does that work? How it works (or doesn't) seems hidden, rather than explicit like the rules of chess are explicit and visible. In chess like terms, can you explain how the victim thinking he is lower on the heirachy somehow helps him?

I don't understand. I know you want it acknowledged that 'men are still in a position above women'. In terms of the workforce I'd probably agree. But in terms of sexaul objectification and sexaul assault, I would no more say men are above women than I would say a bully is above his victims.

men are still positioned above women in hypermasculine subcultures.

Do you want to say that if we can just get women respected in these hypermasculine subcultures, then these hypermasculine subcultures would be fine?

To me, it seems 'hypermasculine subculture' == 'bully subculture'. It wouldn't validate them if you got them to respect women (or they'd cease to be a bully subculture)

The point is, while in relation to other men, men are at a disadvantage because "womanly" feelings like compassion and empathy are discouraged, men are still in a position above women.

I'm trying to understand the crux of the conversation here - I'm almost reading a subtext here that men are always in a position above women? And men have to 'stay their hand' or something in regards to that?

Might not be what you're saying, but I'd disagree with it - men are more psychotic. I don't treat this as being 'above' anything. Chaos is chaotic, not some sort of order of above and below, some sort of structure. It's more like being a hacker who wrecks structure for their own selfish benefit. The hacker isn't above anyone in the structure as he wrecks that very structure.

I'm just guessing because I think were kinda talking past each other or something, just missing each other, and I'm trying to guess what the gap is?

Baztek, you're telling me to face up to something, then you're telling me a lesson about painting an entire gender with one brushstroke. When I said MRA probably aren't all bad/don't all need the one brush stroke (though I'd pay that likely the moderate ones might quit being a member after being put off by the extremists, thus making MRA have more extremists, so if you want to argue that, I'll take that on the chin)

I suspect nature uses males as the research and development sex - badly put together (particularly mentally), on the off chance a badly put together combination is effective in the environment.

But I think self esteem issues underly alot of male problems. But maybe you're right and it's all hard wired and there's not a jot to be done about 90% of it. I really hope not, but maybe you're right on that. However, I'm putting my chips on self esteem issues for 90% (the other 10% seems to slide into sociopathy)

Not to get personal, but I was in a very brief relationship with a woman prone to extremely violent outbursts. I only got a few slaps and loogies in my face for my trouble, but her next boyfriend she stabbed. The difference here is if I laid a hand on her I could have probably very seriously injured her, while that might not have been the case in reverse. Men can physically overpower women, so I'm not so inclined to start the waterworks for some poor 200 lb. guy who got chased around the house by a girl half his size.

This is your story, your life. But to me, you were a victim of domestic violence - and you covered it up. Normalised it. Maybe because you feel your supposed to be tough - not sensitive, not able to be hurt, not soft. Ie, none of the attributes we often associate with women. Because it'd be bad to sensitive...or something.

You talk about guys at a club causing fights - with my hypothesis, what if they were allowed to nuture a sensitive side, a soft side to themselves during their formative years? If they could develop such a side to themselves, would we see the number of fights plummet?

Or is it the role of men to be tough? To be spat upon and slapped and take it like a man? To take it like we don't deserve better than that (unless we become powerful, of course. Who spits in a kings face, eh? Or a CEO's?)?

Has mother nature set out to make us empty inside? And to keep each other empty as well?

I'd tackle 'men can overcome women' (and say it's merely a question of who is more psychotic, rather than some sort of formal test of strength. A bread knife between the ribs is enough - if the woman gives you the chance to wrestle, it's because she did not really intend to kill you, not because men can overcome women. A child with a breadknife could kill an adult, for petes sake!), but I feel I've been pretty controversial already.

I absolutely totally agree that if you subconsciously operate on the assumption every man you meet is out to get you, it will show, and that will turn people off from you, thereby feeding that hateful world view and fostering a very vicious cycle.

I'm not really talking about a womans POV, but a mans point of view, in regards as to whether he's worth something. Past all the jokes and posturing, I think if a survey looked into it, a terrible amount of men don't feel they have much self worth. The worst cases tend towards violence as a way of taking self worth by force.

I say this in a slightly misandrist way though, because raising mens self esteem is more like just a means to an end rather than the end itself. The end being a more liberated society for women, by making a society that has fewer men driven psychotic by self worth issues.