"Diversity" is obviously the big thing these days, with faculty job postings even increasingly demanding "diversity" statements; so as part of your resume and everything you have to include a statement about how diversity macht frei.
There is, however, a kind of "diversity", people tend not to talk about. (Or actually there are two kinds since liberal identity politics don't care about old-fashioned class and see unemployed white men simply as privileged white men, but that's another thread).
What I mean is the fact that there's generally more diversity among men than among women. There is generally more variability among men than among women. For better or worse.
Consider the great artists: all the great artists are men, but the "reading's just for faggots"-types are also mostly men. As far as I know, people with an IQ above average are mostly men, but people with an IQ below average are also mostly men. The funny people, the comedians, the ones who make the whole class laugh, are always men. But the super serious depressed poets, Sinners-in-the-hand-of-an-angry-God-preachers are also men.
There are men who are into tall women, but there aren't any women into short men. There are men into fat women, but there aren't any women into men with short dicks. There are men who are into dominant women, but there aren't any women into submissive men. According to some study, even TYT debated, the majority of young women these days consider themselves to be "beyond the labels" of homo- and heterosexuality. And yet, the same amount of women would never date a bisexual man.
Likewise, I've met men (and read about studies as well) who said they'd be fine with a relationship in which the female outearns them or they'd even stay at home and cook. But it's women who are LESS likely to support such a relationship.
With women, it often feels like if you know one, you know them all. They all have the same social attitude (hypergamous), the same sexual preference (submissive and masochist), the same aesthetic preferences (tall, big dick, etc.) the same interests (travel, coffee, making snapshots in foreign countries and in front of places of worship of religions their parents didn't belong to), the same opinions, the same non-existing humor, etc.
Male writers always get shit about the way they portrait women. But women should actually be flattered. Because the only really interesting women are the women men have created in media. The women men create actually have more character, more personality than RL women!
This is one of the reasons why I hate this right-wing, tradcuck, anti-"degeneracy", anti-gay, etc. part of antifeminism. I think among men there should be a trend that we accept that there's relatively much "diversity" among us. Otherwise we just end up fighting each other over stupid identity stuff, while women can go on to be like the borg because they all just want the same anyway.
There is, however, a kind of "diversity", people tend not to talk about. (Or actually there are two kinds since liberal identity politics don't care about old-fashioned class and see unemployed white men simply as privileged white men, but that's another thread).
What I mean is the fact that there's generally more diversity among men than among women. There is generally more variability among men than among women. For better or worse.
Consider the great artists: all the great artists are men, but the "reading's just for faggots"-types are also mostly men. As far as I know, people with an IQ above average are mostly men, but people with an IQ below average are also mostly men. The funny people, the comedians, the ones who make the whole class laugh, are always men. But the super serious depressed poets, Sinners-in-the-hand-of-an-angry-God-preachers are also men.
There are men who are into tall women, but there aren't any women into short men. There are men into fat women, but there aren't any women into men with short dicks. There are men who are into dominant women, but there aren't any women into submissive men. According to some study, even TYT debated, the majority of young women these days consider themselves to be "beyond the labels" of homo- and heterosexuality. And yet, the same amount of women would never date a bisexual man.
Likewise, I've met men (and read about studies as well) who said they'd be fine with a relationship in which the female outearns them or they'd even stay at home and cook. But it's women who are LESS likely to support such a relationship.
With women, it often feels like if you know one, you know them all. They all have the same social attitude (hypergamous), the same sexual preference (submissive and masochist), the same aesthetic preferences (tall, big dick, etc.) the same interests (travel, coffee, making snapshots in foreign countries and in front of places of worship of religions their parents didn't belong to), the same opinions, the same non-existing humor, etc.
Male writers always get shit about the way they portrait women. But women should actually be flattered. Because the only really interesting women are the women men have created in media. The women men create actually have more character, more personality than RL women!
This is one of the reasons why I hate this right-wing, tradcuck, anti-"degeneracy", anti-gay, etc. part of antifeminism. I think among men there should be a trend that we accept that there's relatively much "diversity" among us. Otherwise we just end up fighting each other over stupid identity stuff, while women can go on to be like the borg because they all just want the same anyway.
