Status Anxiety Pt. 2. (2 of 5)

[CMink7777]

Heres what I do know based on all your arguing about feminism. You have men prolems somewhere in your life....maybe as far back as a non existant father

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

You could write a novel based on the stuff you are coming up with about my life. Maybe it'll even be a bestseller.

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy you could make cup cakes that look like vaginas and sell them. Your slogan could be "better than penis cup cakes". You could also write a book, " A bunch of big words worded together in such a form that sounds intelligent yet could have been written on one page."

[CMink7777]

The only thing Im sick of us your ignirance to facts. 100 years agi homosexuals didnt have kids. Families were different as I have said. If thats a problem for you then you have a problem with the idea of what has been regarded in the past as a famiy unit. This tells me you are euther a homosexual or extremely defensive wimen who us taking things too much to heart. Because you want to feel that your differences are normal so to accept the past as it was is to deny yourself. Not true

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

Ohoh bringing in the homosexual defense eh? Again making assumptions on my nature and character- isn't it taking it a little too personally? I've taken an opposing stance mainly to point out the holes in your statements, not to "accept myself" or to "feel that my differences are normal". What I actually feel about it is secondary to what I actually think about it.

[CMink7777]

Im getting really fucking sick of repeating myself and trying to defend myself to whoever the fuck you are. I am a good person who isn't against women working. Your arguments are becomming very emotion based not fact based..i e do women not have hands and feet etc. For the last fucking time I dont think wimen are inferiir and Im sick you actually trying to cast me.

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

Whether or not you are a good person is subjective, why bring that up? To bring up your personal attributes into an argument isn't it you who are being emotional not logical? I'm not trying to cast you, I'm simply pointing out the logical fallacies and hypocrisy in your statements- why feel sick about this?

[CMink7777]

It's less about having the material 'status symbol' than it is mating the status symbol human being. The laws of attraction always come before the desires of material goods. Material goods are a close second-what women want after they have been "Danielle Steel Cocked out" by the dirt balls they are addicted to...while saying they want a "good guy". They are sexually compatible with dirt balls but not lifestyle compatible with them....then they settle for fat guy with bank roll and no sex drive.

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

You are generalizing the reasons for attraction and stereotyping women into narrow packed slots. While you do have a thread of coherence in seeing relationships as status symbols, the evidence you've brought up shows a bias towards the idea of women being unthinking, hormonal animals with no ability to look past materialism or sexual appeal-- which could very well be applied onto men as well. Blaming "the feminist movement" for greedy materialistic women is no different from...

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy Not all women are like this. However I would argue that the thread of coherence I have shared is more of a chord of reality. Men aren't perfect, they have faults. My argument is that good and bad women are as a rule attracted to faulty men. I never suggested that women are faulty and men arent. I have seen enough with my own eyes...experienced enough of my own experiences and studied this topic for quite some time. Its not a new phenomenon...just the competitive nature of humanity

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

...blaming "the influx of mexicans" for the loss of American jobs. Just as the Nazis blamed the Jews for the imbalance of wealth and affluence, these reasons are little supported by actual factual evidence, just personal opinions and stereotypes developed out of personal and one-sided experiences with "representatives" of your self-labelled categories.

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy who said anything about mexicans? I think you are confused. Dirt ball refers to trashy men of any race that women are attracted to. The comment refers to the fact that regardless of how much money a man has, when women are young they go for physical attraction only. Then once theyve sewed their wild oats with men that ruin their lives they settle for someone that isnt their first choice for money

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

I'm using an analogy. You have created an opinion based on your own perspective about the world and are now treating it as a god given fact. It is easy to take an assumption and believe that it applies to everyone simply because you "see" it. However like I said, your thread of coherence has been distorted by your bias towards the assumption that 80% of women are foolhardy, silly creatures who can't stop themselves from falling for a bad guy. And that pop culture=reality.

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy your right, that pop culture does equal reality. Otherwise it wouldnt sell by the millions. Pop culture sells based on emotions...targets young womens emotions. Everyone treats their opinion as fact, including you, hence your apparent open desire to debate with me...must have struck a chord...as some people would say, "If you spot it you got it." You might be the type that looks at the world and wants to accept everything...ie having no opinion and acceptance of everything. I'm not.

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

I was actually trying to make the point that pop culture =/= reality. It sells millions simply because it panders to the unrealistic fantasies and delusions of millions. Who would want to pay for plain old boring reality? There is enough of it to last us our whole lives. My desire is to point out the fallacies in your statement and that by making assumptions, you are opening yourself to criticism from others. And yet again you make another assumption, this time alluding to my nature-

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy delusions that reflect true primal feelings that transfer into lifestyles. You just said it, "who wants plain old boring reality?" Its more fun to be in love with a criminal according to brittany spears. So I guess the criminal is at a more desired fantisical level of desire than the average hard working man...according to what sells. The only person thats criticised me is you and its been about a yr since i even looked at this vid.

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

I wouldn't call delusions true primal feelings. Delusions are fun simply because it isn't reality, the moment you live in your delusion it becomes your reality and that changes your perception. I wouldn't make that sweeping statement, there are many reasons why something sells-- brand name (Britney Spears), peer pressure, compulsive hoarding etc etc. So I wouldn't assume that it sells only because of that.

And....why does that matter?

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

-by assuming a character defect onto my person and thus creating a strawman argument out of that. FYI I've never met anyone who truly wants to accept everything. They may preach and appear to open their arms to everyone in the world, but when it comes to action take a completely different course. Oh yes, you are referring only to 80% of women in the world, and your information comes from very reliable sources I see. Ah a disclaimer, and how exactly did you define this as a "trend"?

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy assuming a character defect onto your person? Creating an argument? Im defending. You are arguing. For every opinion I have of which I don't have harvard research to back up, what statistital data do you have to disapprove my opinion? None. It's called dialectic logic...you can't prove me wrong and I din't have documented research...therefore your opinion is as null as mine. End if discussion.

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

You were trying to nullify my opinion by creating the impression that I had no real opinion of my own, and that I was arguing out of ignorance-- unlike you, who has a solid opinion and isn't indiscriminate with your belief. I have no official statistical data to back my assumptions up, but then again I'm not the one making assumptions and sweeping statements.

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy I wasn't trying to nullify your comment. I cant believe I'm even having this discussion.....

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

I know very well why I am having this debate. Shouldn't everyone?

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777 That logic would work if we were arguing for the same things, but I'm not trying to demolish a stereotype, just your assumption that you can pluck numbers out of thin air and proclaim it as the gospel truth.

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy ok, so your suggesting that you aren't necessarily in agreement or disagreement with my overall opinion but that it was the number 80% that got you going? Such a small meaningless detail. Just change that number ti "a large portion" or "many it seems" and we would be in accord apparently...

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

I disagree with your assumption that your opinion applies onto a majority. It wasn't the 80%, I was using an analogy again. It was actually "You can also blame the feminist movement..women went to work and are independent-now they dont need men." that got me going. Whether the number is "a large portion" or "many it seems" does not change my stance, since I'm actually attacking your stance that it is alright to flippantly make sweeping statements not whether the 80% is more or less

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy I am not against women working at all. I am all for it. However if you look at the American family over the last 100 years, it has changed drastically. Apparently the rockafellers pushed for the feminist movement in the 1930's because they were only collecting taxes on men (being part of the fed reserve bank) and wanted more$. Another completely seperate topic. However, while its great that women work it has changed lots of varuables. Since the 1970's. Women have to work now.

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

What I've quoted from you has nothing to do with our personal stance on why women work or the political forces behind. Rather you expressly said that the feminist movement is partly responsible for the kind of silly, foolish women who only go for sexual appeal or wealth. You made an assumption, a sweeping statement and I took offense to the way you generalized/demeaned an entire movement to support your one-sided opinion as a supposed fact of life.

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy Im sorry but you must have taken it completely wrong. Wow. Two completely different topics. I was referring to the change from women going from staying at home to working over the last 100 years and its affect on American lifestyle. Seperate from relationship choices. I suppirt women who work. Its their choice. And I actually admire a lot of working women.

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

If that truly is your view why then have you typed this?

"You can also blame the feminist movement..women went to work and are independent-now they dont need men."

By using "blame" does that not imply some sort of wrong on the part of feminists? And then continuing on to associate women working and being independent with not needing men. Work is work, but then you brought in the statement "not needing men" does that not imply an association with relationship choices?

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy thats not blame nor is it meant to be. Its 100 stat based opinion. The average family unit was a male and a female plus kids a hundred years ago. In America men earned most if not all the money during that time-fact. Woman worked equally as hard and were in my opinion equally important to men however didnt as a rule earn. When women started earning, it changed the avg. American family structure over time. Everyone can be an independant now. Why is that so hard for you?

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

Because I can't stomach the use of opinions in place of facts to support a sweeping statement. Again these stats you are quoting are colored by politics, by heresy, by personal opinions. To say "Everyone can be an independent now" presumes that previously a portion was dependent on others. To quote the Industrial Revolution as an example, women were already earning their own living then- if they have been working since the 18th century how can you say that it is a modern revolution?

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy I do have facts from fucking harvard economists. Im done arguing about your personal feelings of loss and hoarding. I'd rather talk about irony. Hippies that use gasoline. Cops that beat their wives snd well regarded football coaches in rape scandals.

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

Facts do not excuse statements such as "You can also blame the feminist movement..women went to work and are independent-now they dont need men." which makes assumptions on not just economical factors but moral characters, human relationships and the ethics of humanity.

:( A thousand apologies, for making you feel so frustrated by my refusal to ignore your blatant hypocrisy and to leave you be. I assumed that personal feelings are irrelevant- it appears I was wrong.

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy I could care less what you think. I could care less what you think of my opinions. I wasn't born to please you. I am not anti woman. However, all you did this entire conversation is go around my questions in an attemt to restate what I said in a form you felt was more intelligent...while I was direct and to the point. As far as the feminist movement goes, to heck with them and you. Under dog movements are no longer needed in a society that has clearly reached ethnic and gender equality.

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy I hate to stereotype again but your profile suggests you are 91 and from Singapore...with an apparent major in Japanese Animation. Unless you have spent a considerable amount of time in the US, I highly doubt you are well versed enough to delve into a debate about Meriticracy. Maybe if you ever come here we can go out for some moo goo gai pan and talk socioeconomics.

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

You still going on? Haha, a 3 year old could have come to the same conclusion after looking at my profile.

You clearly have no idea what I know or do not know, using the USA as a hammer to blunt my arguments is meaningless when what we've been arguing about could very well apply anywhere, US included. Besides, American culture is well known and well publicized-- it is the building block of the global internet culture and I'm much more familiar with it than you are with mine.

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

And btw, Singapore functions on the very ideals of meritocracy. Most if not all my country's governmental policies are set with the idea that there isn't a free meal in life- work hard and you'll be rewarded. Laze and you'll end up with nothing.

What in the world is moo moo gai pan?

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy nothing to do with could or should women have worked. Nothing to do with how capable they were. Just a non emotional fact. They were smart. They were capable. Times were different.. thats all.

[CMink7777]

I suggested that the change of the american family due to women working and complete indeoendence if every individual vs. Family unit has changed the attitude of some women toward men. Our society has more focus on what i would call indivudual success vs. Family success. For example, in the old days statistics show that families owned houses as opposed to today where many single people own houses

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy my opinion about women working us not at all about ethics. Its more about economics. The American family, household income, cost of living, etc. at one time women could have the luxury to not work...which was good if they choose to stay home and raise a family...now they almost have to. The face of american finacial independence is changing...however I think its hard to disagree that because of this direction, women as a whole need men less than say 60 years ago.

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

How can you say it is not about ethics when you are making assumptions on the ethical nature of an entire gender. You may have used economic analogies to support your point, but in the end it is still to argue that women have changed morally for the worse. I've never understood this perception that not working is a "luxury" and that women haven't been "working" since god knows how long. Just because they aren't paid for their efforts does not imply a lack of "work".

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

The idea that raising a family is easier than working in society is something I do not agree with. Besides in the past during Wars when the men are away fighting, women also worked in factories producing their equipment and supplies. Assuming that all women in those times had nothing better to do than to change diapers is not something I state so readily. What exactly is this need you refer to? Apart from reproduction, I think women are perfectly capable of finding a living whether-

[spikkiy]

@CMink7777

-in the present or the past. To say that women need men- well that is merely a social construct in my opinion. Do women not have hands and feet as well? Do they not have a mind of their own? To assume that a women's livelihood used to be dependent on men, and now that it isn't women are changing for the worst-- nope, I don't think that is valid.

[CMink7777]

In addition, as I've clearly already stated, Im not referring to everyone. I know plenty of women in healthy relationships who agree with me on this topic as well as complain about their female friends that are what I have described. My statement again and for the last time isnt sterotyping everyone or directed at one group. It simply realizes that a trend does exist.

[CMink7777]

@spikkiy turn on the radio and listen to popular music. Ie the new brittany dpears song about being in love with a criminal. It perfectly represents what 80% of women are addicted to and its really annoying

[CMink7777]

It fails to mention that relationships themselves 'status symbols." The people we choose to date reflect the partners that those around us would choose-which we learn by influence. So, by dating these archtypes we gain love from our peers..or jealousy. For example, if a woman was in love with a fat guy but was influenced to like skinny metrosexual men by her friends, she will have a tendency to throw out her heart of hearts to follow the crowd (what her friends approve of) for their approval.

[timothymorganevans]

all capatalist societies only allow those living within them to be free simply to persue wealth and to conform like sheep to this desire, when all we in fact need is food and water. We create our chains so we can free ourselves from them

[CMink7777]

Some of these status items are merely Americanized pussy getting tools, that are becomming more popular because having money or looking like a celebrity is becomming one of the only ways to find a partner these days. There simply isn't two people that just fall in love and stay together through thick and thin anymore...it's a game and women have the leverage...they have lots of choices. You can also blame the feminist movement..women went to work and are independent-now they dont need men.

[Mangina9000]

@CMink7777 That is the most inane thing I've ever read on the internet. Congratulations.

[anz10]

@CMink7777 If this is all you got from this I feel sorry for you.

[CMink7777]

@anz10 I said everything and more....what did I miss? The guy who made this video didn't really go into any detail about how relationships themselves are status symbols.

[13bulletz]

@shipcomesin: Families and close friends give you all the attention you need. The rest of this "status" is artificially induced by this material society, which is a bitch :)

I'm sorry, but the rest of your dilemmas seem irrational to me.

[shipcomesin]

ok he's right generally, but i wonder: if you don't want to make a good impression at all, can't that mean that you don't really care for others and not even for yourself? isn't it *partly* true that you can't love others if you don't love yourself? modestly of course..

[shipcomesin]

all you need is love? :)

[chantalbernard]

well he HAS a Rolex, of course :)

[edewasseige]

Meritocracy rewards financially just a little fraction of people in our society. Meritocracy is made over the principle that we have all the same abilities and opportunities and this is simply not true. The fact is just the contrary: we don't have the same abilities and we don't have the same opportunities. Meritocracy is the world to legitimate those (perhaps less than 10%) who have succeed financially. Just one of many, many examples : meritocracy apply for mentally ill ???

[kieronj]

I agree. But this whole paradigm will collapse soon as resources run out, people at the bottom (most) become more cynical and environment groans

[lordaardvark2]

I have the same feeling... but my question is simply, "When?" Unfortunately, I don't believe that there is a predictable answer. I to believe in the power of the masses (particularly the "proletariat," if you will, but I always wonder how much they'll take before they decide enough is enough.

[kieronj]

just wait my man this financial crisis is the tip of the iceberg of huge cultural change coming. we havn't done anything so reality is forcing it on us.

[edewasseige]

Status Anxiety emerges today principally because of the unjust meritocratic society. Aristocratic society was not just, nor the meritocratic. The first rewarded financially almost the same families over the centuries. The meritocratic society rewards financially just a minor fraction of the population, those who have specific abilities and opportunities in life. The vast majority of people that don't have the abilities or the opportunities struggle with status anxiety.

[jchien]

More than that, meritocracy equates money with your merit as a person, assuming there is a direct relationship between money earned and contributions made. Capitalism rewards work with wages, capital and ownership with profits.