It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Sexodus: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society

page: 3
92
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

I'm not arguing against the progress that women have made in our society towards equality. I think it is a good thing and I would never deny that women had a bad lot back in the day. I just don't like feminism. It is just replacing male dominated society with a female dominated society. Why does one side need to dominate the other to begin with? Hence humanism. Humans dominate society.


Radical feminism is a small group, albiet loud - "Can anybody hear us?" ... yes, but only the very few on ATS.

I would not worry too much about this small group of radicals changing the world for their world domination purposes, we, you and I, all of us, have the insurmountable task to teach our children, educate ourselves, and take part in political issues if we want to make a global positive change in this crazy world where the going paradigms just do not work.



+3 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

It is my belief that change starts in the wording of your movement. By wording the movement "feminism" you are giving power to women. This may have been a good thing back when women had little to no power in society, but now that landscape has changed. As women take more and more power, they lose sight of what they've gained and forget to slow down and stop when they've acquired enough.

Humanism gives power to both sexes since makes no distinction between the two. They are equal, even in the wording. An extremist humanist would be FAR less dangerous to society than an extremist feminist since the humanist would be fighting for equal rights for all regardless of the gender (heck throw race, sexuality, and whatever ism you want in there as well. This argument applies to all of them), their tactics would just be a little more off the wall than most.

In other words, social justice creates and breeds the very division it is trying to correct.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

This can apply to a whole lot of things going on in this world!

"The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization." ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

I have said all along that political correctness will be our downfall.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

It is my belief that change starts in the wording of your movement. By wording the movement "feminism" you are giving power to women. This may have been a good thing back when women had little to no power in society, but now that landscape has changed. As women take more and more power, they lose sight of what they've gained and forget to slow down and stop when they've acquired enough.

Humanism gives power to both sexes since makes no distinction between the two. They are equal, even in the wording. An extremist humanist would be FAR less dangerous to society than an extremist feminist since the humanist would be fighting for equal rights for all regardless of the gender (heck throw race, sexuality, and whatever ism you want in there as well. This argument applies to all of them), their tactics would just be a little more off the wall than most.

In other words, social justice creates and breeds the very division it is trying to correct.


Well Said



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Feminism is an umbrella term of a whole host of disparate groups and movements and certainly some of them could be characterized as trying to bring about a "female dominated society" but is that really where the mainstream is at?



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
It is a necessary part of evolution.

The fact that humans are no longer desiring human partners is a natural part of that evolution/revolution.

Our current world is evolving beyond the human and into
a world ruled by AI within the next 30 years.

There is a collective unconscious realization of this
and so the population is adjusting accordingly.


Read this article
www.theconnectivist.com...

Very soon,
within the lifetime of the reproductive capable male,
there will be little need for humans at most jobs.


Most jobs will be done by robots and machines.

There is now a collective consciousness regarding depopulation
it has accelerated in Japan (google and read about it).

All industrialized countries have extreme negative birth rates among the native population.
It is only through immigration that the populations are being kept near replacement rate.

Even Mexico is nearing the threshold of negative population growth.
(I have written extensively on this on ATS and have been warned about posting the proof over and over, and so leave it to you to discover yourself the truth of this.)

The steep decline in native born birth rates in the US is why the government is trying to stabilize the population through the influx of stolen children from south america. Without them social security and medicare would implode for lack of workers to pay into it to cover the payouts for the next 20 years when the peak will come.

I foresee in the very near future that men and women will take robotic lovers,
lowering the population even more to a point
where the AI can have the humans it needs to survive
as it gradually takes over all the governmental functions.

A evolution is underway and the lack of interest of men in sex with real women is a part of the natural evolution.

There are even now quite realistic sex bots with realistic skin, etc that can be had for $12K.


edit on 11Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:29:23 -0600am120912amk092 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I see very similar analogies to this study.



+6 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Feminism is an umbrella term of a whole host of disparate groups and movements and certainly some of them could be characterized as trying to bring about a "female dominated society" but is that really where the mainstream is at?


The term feminism is loaded by the very nature of it. You cannot seek equality while falling under a banner of special interest. True equality by it's very nature cannot be special interest. It is here that the issue of feminism falls apart. The big battles have already been won, is a subtler battle now. Now is the time for humanism, not special interests. We have everyone fighting for special interests rights while stepping all over each others toes and calling each other the enemy.

Honestly it's a joke these days.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

It is my belief that change starts in the wording of your movement. By wording the movement "feminism" you are giving power to women. This may have been a good thing back when women had little to no power in society, but now that landscape has changed. As women take more and more power, they lose sight of what they've gained and forget to slow down and stop when they've acquired enough.

Humanism gives power to both sexes since makes no distinction between the two. They are equal, even in the wording. An extremist humanist would be FAR less dangerous to society than an extremist feminist since the humanist would be fighting for equal rights for all regardless of the gender (heck throw race, sexuality, and whatever ism you want in there as well. This argument applies to all of them), their tactics would just be a little more off the wall than most.

In other words, social justice creates and breeds the very division it is trying to correct.


That's the problem, some men and women believe that our social realm is not just in many ways.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Seems to me that a lot of the crap in this Brietbart article is nothing more than the now all-to-typical conservative whining. Conservatives, by their very nature are traditionalists and as such, many of them have a very romanticized view of specific points in the past — the colonial era, the 1950's and now in many cases, the Reagan years.

There should be a proverb of some sort to explain this false nostalgia — mabye, "the grass was always greener."

I'm not terribly surprised to see outpourings of consternation posted on a website that promulgates a concept that the traditional "American way of life" is under attack. Some people will always feel as though there is a national identity crisis because they're unable/unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances. Basically any social movement where a group seeks equality is twisted to fit this narrative and ascribed to a sinister agenda:

- the gay agenda
- the anti-white agenda
- the anti-Christian agenda
- the feminists agenda

They all have boogeymen (feminazis! militant gays! atheists! community organizers!) and typically the most radical fringe of any movement is presented as being representative of the mainstream.
edit on 2014-12-9 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

Considering they are little no.

When they get bigger I'll teach them how to actively use their second amendment rights.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I agree with people who said it's not exactly feminism, i too feel there's much more than that (And surely both sexes are to blame).
To some extent it has to do with the fact that people (Both sexes) in general are sick...So realizing it (Subcounciously or not) they figure out it's not worth it and stay away from each other (And it isn't even a choice if you don't fit the usual insanity). I think smartphone craze is another sign of that problem. They are the perfect escape for people to avoid interacting with each other (Whether it will be browsing or listening to music)


Anyway, what i notice here in Bulgaria:
1. Chat-rooms. 80%+ males (Most of them gay) and 5-% females (Most of which don't seek anything at all)
2. Dating sites. There are two types of dating sites. Sex-oriented and love-oriented. In the sex-oriented ones, 99.9% off all females are asking for money (And most men are gay, most of them also asking for money)...

In the other type, again males greatly outnumber females (They just don't seem interested in anything (Well except for money). Not sure whether this have something to do with feminism or really the fact that society as a whole is too messed up, but either way you almost have no choice but to give up)



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Seems to me that a lot of the crap in this Brietbart article is nothing more than the now all-to-typical conservative whining. Conservatives, by their very nature are traditionalists and as such, many of them have a very romanticized view of specific points in the past — the colonial era, the 1950's and now in many cases, the Reagan years.

There should be a proverb of some sort to explain this false nostalgia — mabye, "the grass was always greener."

I'm not terribly surprised to see outpourings of consternation posted on a website that promulgates a concept that the traditional "American way of life" is under attack. Some people will always feel as though there is a national identity crisis because they're unable/unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances. Basically any social movement where a group seeks equality is twisted to fit this narrative and ascribed to a sinister agenda:

- the gay agenda
- the anti-white agenda
- the anti-Christian agenda
- the feminists agenda

They all have boogeymen (feminazis! militant gays! atheists! community organizers!) and typically the most radical fringe of any movement is presented as being representative of the mainstream.


Doesn't everyone who belongs to a "GROUP" have an agenda?

I find it odd that you believe only the groups you agree with have a right to complain!

Todays political activists have taken "Tribalism" to a nuclear level!

All groups are guilty of creating division with the exception of those not being allowed to be heard saying, "Why can't we all just get along.".....
edit on 9-12-2014 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

Extremist is all bad unless is in feminist form it seems, if you dont like that you are a ranting ignorant.

Did you read the link?


Why should I be worried that a handful of men are giving up sex and relationships because their ideal woman only exists in their dreams? I feel sorry for them but it's quite pathetic to try and blame all of it on feminism. Troll on.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

From 1z observation there may be something going on that could cause major issues with the species... But maybe its time for the ALPHA males of HUMAN society (and not just alpha because of financial power) but alpha in behavior leadership qualities are required to step up more to help drive the species in the correct directions...



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Some of us just see a bunch of people who should be working together but because of division and special interests can never make a real difference in a modern culture where the grand battles have already been won. I dislike feminism because I feel the term is loaded, divisive and by the very nature of how it's spelled implies something very different then the equality it claims to stand for. There are no more clear grand battles, they are all small, and as such, they cannot get the backing they need by such divisive methods.

I believe in humanism, not gay rights, women's right's, men's right's, black rights, but human rights. The second you say, I'm looking for equality for women in a culture dominated by men, you've clearly demonstrated a lack of grasping reality and the complexity thereof.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I simply see the lack of male interest in women a
s a part of the natural evolution that is taking place in the world.


It is necessary and desirable for society
for humans to stop or greatly slow reproduction
because robots are gradually doing away with
the majority of jobs for human beings.

Within 20-30 years there will be very little need for humans
to run the planet.
www.theconnectivist.com...

So rather than a male/female
or feminist thing
it is a survival mechanism for the species

The fewer humans the more likely
the human race will survive
the AI revolution.

The humans who can not serve the AI
through programming and repair functions
and through adaptive creativity

will be as useful to the AI society
as pets
with the vast majority who are not
useful or pets being euthanized

So male disinterest in females is a unconscious
survival of the species mechanism.



edit on 11Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:36:34 -0600am120912amk092 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Hate to break it to you, but choosing to be/live alone and without complications of relationships has been uptrending for quite some time now globally and regardless of gender or even age, although it is more prevalent among the younger gens.

So to the OP, two comments: 1, Welcome to the club, and 2. interesting spin/rationalization of the trend.


But I would say for different reasons...

Some men are becoming single/alone/celibate to give up on ticking ever more demanding female boxes and women are choosing to be single to provide a larger pool of box tickers to meet their needs without having to worry so much about commitment to a single source.

At the end of the day I can say without a doubt that 14 years of celibacy has worked wonders for me....and I don't seem to have aged as fast as some of my male friends. Coincidence?



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Feminism is an umbrella term of a whole host of disparate groups and movements and certainly some of them could be characterized as trying to bring about a "female dominated society" but is that really where the mainstream is at?


The point isn't what the mainstream is doing. You only hear from the troublemakers because they make the most noise. So regardless of what the mainstream wants, the image that is seared in the collective consciousness is the female dominated ideal.

Like I said, I WANT equality for women, but I don't want that to come at the expense of men. You may recognize that isn't equality at all.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I agree that women aren't completely equal in America yet, but they are getting close. Yet the feminists charge full speed ahead like they still have much ground to cover. This is why I tie it all back to the name. By expressing interest in human equality, one can see that as female rights equalize they will recognize to slow down and not overtake men's rights.
edit on 9-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join