Posts by Ryan Wood98

Eric Gray2 said:No. Like I mentioned before, there are people who—with full consciousness and what most would call a "sound mind"—choose to end their lives because they are facing a terminal diagnosis. They’ve come to terms with the inevitable and simply want to stop relying on machines to handle their vital functions.

@hipersenzibilna, just like I pointed out in that other thread—if you don't want to help and you don't know how, I really don't think it's your place (especially as a layperson) to encourage suicide. If listening to a friend's venting is truly that exhausting for you, then you don't have to do it—it's your right to walk away from people like that. It's no different than choosing not to read posts from people struggling with various issues here on the forum.
There are plenty of people for whom a suicide attempt is actually a cry for help or even a way to seek attention, but those situations need to be handled differently—not by telling someone to "just kill yourself."

Back when I was in college, there was this story circulating about one of our professors, who doesn't actually work in clinical practice. Apparently, he happened to be near the phone in his office one day when it rang, and he picked up. The story goes that the person on the other end stated they wanted to take their own life.

The professor supposedly began systematically explaining the most straightforward ways to go through with it.

Now, for us students, it was a bit of a dark joke (regardless of whether it was actually true), because it fit that professor's cynical personality perfectly. However, I think I’ve heard a similar scenario elsewhere; perhaps those who have played Baldur's Gate might recall a situation where you encounter a suicidal character on a cliffside. If your goal is to save them and earn points, I believe the "correct" dialogue choice involves saying something like, "Go ahead, jump."

I think we saw a similar dynamic in the movie Lethal Weapon.

In any case, there appears to be a theory suggesting that for people using suicide threats as a "cry for help," it might be useful to confront them with the actual reality of the situation, whereby they would presumably have to reveal that their intentions aren't truly suicidal. 🤷 I don't specialize in this field, so I can't say if this idea originated from Hollywood movies or if it was something we actually studied in our American university courses. It was quite a long time ago 🙂

Eric Gray2 said:We really shouldn't lump euthanasia in with suicide. Even if they look identical on paper, euthanasia requires the individual to be mentally sound and free from depression—though, to be honest, I’m not entirely sure how much weight that holds, given the counterargument that the very desire to die could itself be a symptom of depression.
As for suicidal ideation, my understanding of how things work here in the States is that the standard practice is to hospitalize someone against their will. I actually find that pretty understandable; it isn't meant to strip away someone's freedom (even if it feels that way), but rather to provide help—since, as I mentioned before, wanting to end one's life usually points toward an underlying disorder, most often depression.

Even though they aren't quite the same thing, you could draw a parallel to how we legally restrict certain business responsibilities for people dealing with specific mental health issues. So, I would argue that yes, we do have a right to intervene to prevent someone from committing suicide, especially when those thoughts are just a symptom of an illness.

Do you think it’s actually possible to experience suicidal ideation without it being a symptom of an illness?

In other words, if someone is feeling suicidal, does that automatically mean they aren't capable of healthy resonance? It seems to me like that might be the prevailing view in American society.

Let’s try to move away from those clichés about self-help, spirituality, or the idea that "Life is a Journey with a capital J" and that answers will just reveal themselves naturally.

🙄

So, I suppose you are suggesting that an individual shouldn't be allowed to end their own life—if not for their own sake, then perhaps because of the suffering such a decision would inflict on others?

Or, to put it another way, does the well-being of society effectively limit an individual's right to decide their own fate?

Frank Williams7 said:You’re nitpicking every single word I say, Ryan Wood98, even though you're probably missing the point entirely.

In my book, encouraging anyone to take their own life is nothing short of a crime.

Look, I’m not going to sit here and argue that a person doesn't have the right to decide what happens to them.

My point is that the people close to him—and the medical professionals—have a fundamental duty to try and talk him out of it. At the end of the day, I believe life is worth living. Most Americans back in the 90s felt the same way, and most people battling terminal illnesses feel the same way too. There really isn't any room for all this overblown philosophy when it comes to this topic.

But wouldn't you agree that the practice of automatically holding someone responsible—or forcing hospitalization—is itself a way of restricting one's autonomy over their own life?

Following that logic:

wanting to end one's life = being mentally unstable = being incapable of making independent decisions.

Just because you and most other people (including myself, or perhaps those in their 90s or facing terminal illnesses) believe something to be true, I suppose that shouldn't necessarily mean it applies to absolutely everyone, right? 🤷

I mean, just so there is no misunderstanding, I would likely also intervene if someone told me they wanted to take their own life, but I find myself wondering if I am necessarily in the right, or if there might be room for doubt. 🤷

Since you brought up the concept of a crime, I assume you believe that an individual doesn't actually have the right to decide when their own life should end?

I suppose if you didn't feel that way, you wouldn't be using the word "crime" in this context.

Frank Williams7 said:If you aren't prepared to handle people's actual answers or their opinions, then don't bother starting a thread on this forum. Period.

Ever heard of a "cry for help"?

You'll find the answer to my question if you just stop and think about what you’d actually want to hear in a hypothetical situation where you were feeling suicidal: "Just go ahead" or "Life is worth living"?

So, you seem to think that reaching out to a psychologist implies that the person doesn't actually intend to follow through with suicide?

And in a hypothetical scenario where it isn't a cry for help, but rather that person truly intends to do it?

As for what I would want to hear in such a moment, I couldn't say, since I have never been in that position. Furthermore, I don't necessarily believe that everyone in that situation would want to hear the same thing. I suspect that both the individuals and their circumstances vary quite a bit.

Somewhere on this forum, there was a thread where a user expressed a desire to end their life.
Then, other users stepped in to offer support and responses.
However, a few individuals then chimed in by essentially telling them, "just go ahead and do it."
Those specific users were subsequently penalized with moderation actions.

Now, looking at the specifics of this situation, we are dealing with a minor—someone under 18—which makes it a somewhat sensitive and difficult example to dissect.

For the sake of this discussion, let us assume for a moment that we are talking about an adult.

Does an adult truly have the right to decide the fate of their own life, including choosing to end it voluntarily?

From an ethical standpoint, I wonder if a psychologist has the right to intervene and prevent someone from committing suicide.

(I am aware that in the US, it is standard practice for psychologists to always intervene to prevent suicide, possibly due to professional ethical codes; however, I am not referring to official regulations here, but rather to your personal sense of what is right.)

It is known that certain countries have laws that penalize suicide or attempted suicide (for instance, I believe the United Kingdom had laws in the early 20th century where attempted suicide was a capital offense 😂), yet other regions have legally regulated assisted suicide.

So, what is the correct course of action? Do we actually have the moral authority to stop someone from taking their own life?

Furthermore, do we have the moral right to issue penalties against those who tell suicidal individuals (again, assuming we are talking about ADULTS) "okay, if that is what you want, just make it as painless as possible"?

🤷

I see that John Doe has been banned, though I couldn't find any specific warnings while scanning through his recent posts. Since I suppose I am a bit nosy by nature, I was wondering what happened?

It is especially surprising given that he was such a dedicated and frequently read member of this community.

I want to be clear that I am not intending to criticize the decision; I am simply curious about the reasoning behind it. 🤷

ruggedscout91 said:No man has done more than men in that regard. It’s simply impossible.
You hunt for sponsors, and you get them. Then comes the inevitable whining: what on earth is wrong with women?
You got exactly what you asked for.
So, what's the deal? Are we really ignoring the hardworking women out there—the ones holding their families together through eighteen-hour workdays—just because they aren't walking models? Does beauty really matter more than grit?
You won't find those types of women on the covers of glossy magazines in skimpy outfits. You won't see them singing along to country hits or chasing after chauffeurs. They are nothing more than bottom-feeders—even if they happen to be the wealthy kind. Just trash.
So, what now?
Who is going to bear the children? Who will foot the bill for them, and who will actually raise them? Who is left to be the soul of their own home or the head of their own firm?
Who will be responsible for raising the next generation of men and women—those capable of identifying true values within human society?
Are we really suggesting this won't just be women who have spent their lives performing in adult films, posing for provocative photoshoots, or even picking their boyfriends' pockets? Are these the individuals tasked with raising the next generation of honorable men or virtuous daughters? Is that the plan? Give me a break.

As the old-timers say: you can't get something new out of the same old cat.

I suppose you could flip that logic around to suggest that women who experience abuse are to blame because they chose those men, or that women handling both career work and all the household management are responsible simply because of their choice in partners.

Your argument implies that we are all entirely responsible for our own choices and that, consequently, no one has any right to complain about the outcomes.

Well, I guess one could look at it that way, 🤷 but I suspect things might be a bit more complex than that.

goldenranger5 said:

Ryan Wood98 The user states:
I find myself unable to concur with this.

I am glad this was put into writing. It clearly illustrates exactly what fuels the backlash against feminism.

In theory, the fight for equality sounds noble enough. In practice, however, we are faced with two distinct phenomena:

It’s hard to ignore the blatant bias against men during divorce proceedings. It feels less like a pursuit of justice and more like a rigged game where the deck is stacked from the start.
There is a certain tendency among some women to link everything—even the most nonsensical grievances—to the concept of patriarchy. If an action is directed at men, they immediately frame it as a systemic issue. They present themselves as victims of a discrimination that simply doesn't exist.

One. A textbook example of blatant discrimination against men. I’m not disputing that it exists, but in my earlier posts, I laid out exactly why this happens—specifically regarding the elevated role of motherhood within our mainstream culture, which serves as a direct byproduct of the influence exerted by the dominant religion here in America.

That "series of events" can be broken down into a vast number of what others might call "obvious cases of gender discrimination." These instances will undoubtedly be... More than one.Their attempt to downplay everything by pointing to that one single outlier is, predictably, driven by what our mainstream culture still insists is a woman's primary—if not only—purpose. You simply cannot reconcile the claim that "discrimination doesn't exist" with the sheer volume of actual incidents reported. What are those incidents supposed to be? Mere coincidences?

Ryan Wood98 The user states:
Patriarchy inherently relies on Male Power, granting men significantly more leverage than women. In such a society, if a man and a woman find themselves at odds over child custody, the woman stands virtually no chance.

Let’s start by reviewing the definition of patriarchy. If we intend to have a serious discussion, we should probably agree beforehand on which sources we're actually going to consider relevant.

Ryan Wood98 The user states:
We could certainly discuss the way gender roles are stereotyped within our society—how they are reinforced by both the media and the public school system—but I refuse to label this phenomenon as "patriarchy," nor will I pin the blame on men. In fact, given that women make up the vast majority of the workforce in our education system, if anyone is responsible for perpetuating these stereotypes, it would arguably be those women.

The version of ourselves we eventually become as adults is essentially a byproduct of this stereotyping. It triggers various behavioral patterns across both genders. But where does this stereotyping actually originate? Isn't it precisely the very thing we claim to be fighting against—even if we tackle it through various, sometimes rather absurd methods under the guise that any publicity is good publicity?

For the sake of further discussion, I ask that we move past the notion of "attributing" behavior to men or holding them responsible for these systemic issues.

Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination.

Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender, according to Wikipedia.

goldenranger5 said:

Ryan Wood98 The user states:
I find myself unable to concur with this.

I am glad this was put into writing. It clearly illustrates exactly what fuels the backlash against feminism.

In theory, the fight for equality sounds noble enough. In practice, however, we are faced with two distinct phenomena:

It’s hard to ignore the blatant bias against men during divorce proceedings. It feels less like a pursuit of justice and more like a rigged game where the deck is stacked from the start.
There is a certain tendency among some women to link everything—even the most nonsensical grievances—to the concept of patriarchy. If an action is directed at men, they immediately frame it as a systemic issue. They present themselves as victims of a discrimination that simply doesn't exist.

One. A textbook example of blatant discrimination against men. I’m not disputing that it exists, but in my earlier posts, I laid out exactly why this happens—specifically regarding the elevated role of motherhood within our mainstream culture, which serves as a direct byproduct of the influence exerted by the dominant religion here in America.

That "series of events" can be broken down into a vast number of what others might call "obvious cases of gender discrimination." These instances will undoubtedly be... More than one.Their attempt to downplay everything by pointing to that one single outlier is, predictably, driven by what our mainstream culture still insists is a woman's primary—if not only—purpose. You simply cannot reconcile the claim that "discrimination doesn't exist" with the sheer volume of actual incidents reported. What are those incidents supposed to be? Mere coincidences?

Ryan Wood98 The user states:
Patriarchy inherently relies on Male Power, granting men significantly more leverage than women. In such a society, if a man and a woman find themselves at odds over child custody, the woman stands virtually no chance.

Let’s start by reviewing the definition of patriarchy. If we intend to have a serious discussion, we should probably agree beforehand on which sources we're actually going to consider relevant.

Ryan Wood98 The user states:
We could certainly discuss the way gender roles are stereotyped within our society—how they are reinforced by both the media and the public school system—but I refuse to label this phenomenon as "patriarchy," nor will I pin the blame on men. In fact, given that women make up the vast majority of the workforce in our education system, if anyone is responsible for perpetuating these stereotypes, it would arguably be those women.

The version of ourselves we eventually become as adults is essentially a byproduct of this stereotyping. It triggers various behavioral patterns across both genders. But where does this stereotyping actually originate? Isn't it precisely the very thing we claim to be fighting against—even if we tackle it through various, sometimes rather absurd methods under the guise that any publicity is good publicity?

For the sake of further discussion, I ask that we move past the notion of "attributing" behavior to men or holding them responsible for these systemic issues.

I suppose I don't see why I should exclude that idea, given that it seems to be a factual reality. 🤷 It appears in several posts within this debate, and I think it stems from the premise that we live in a patriarchal society—that is, a society managed by men, which would imply that those same men are responsible for the flaws inherent in that society.

slymaker9 said:Any concept of discrimination can be weaponized. Racism and nationalism can easily be used as covers for phenomena that have nothing to do with actual discrimination. However, one must recognize that true discrimination doesn't even exist; if it did, no one could exploit that fact.

Feminism is simply a fight against discrimination, plain and simple.👍

Unfortunately, I suppose that only holds true in theory.

slymaker9 said:It wasn't until I entered the workforce that I truly realized we are still living under a fraternity-style patriarchy. I have to point out that certain women contribute significantly to this dynamic, and frankly, it infuriates me. Most of the discrimination I’ve faced has actually come from other women; they judged me far more harshly than they ever would a man, working perversely to keep me in a subordinate position. It is clear that many women are actively undermining the push for true equality.
Men use crude, sexualized remarks to maintain their status through sheer tribalism, but I highly doubt any man has ever actually stepped down from his throne voluntarily. At the same time, women can be toxic toward one another—especially when you see older women undermining younger ones, or high school girls tearing down college students.

Here’s an example regarding Christmas Eve: My colleague mentioned she would call that coworker just to wish him a Merry Christmas, but personally, I think he should be the one calling me since I'm a woman.
I mean, seriously? Is he a coworker or are you two just flirting? It doesn't matter who is male or female in the professional world—it’s about showing respect. You should be wishing people a Merry Christmas regardless of gender.
I tried being a bit more tactful with her, but she just ended up calling me names.
This is simply idiotic behavior. It’s as if women are treated like passive dolls, supposedly incapable of wishing someone a Merry Christmas just because they have a vagina.

Men aren't saints, and they certainly work to maintain their privileged status as a gender. However, women are just as much to blame for enabling this system. In principle, they facilitate the very hierarchy they complain about, and the moment a woman dares to claim the same rights as a man, she is instantly branded a lazy slut by the collective.

I cannot access or watch YouTube videos directly. Please provide a transcript or a summary of the video's content, and I will rewrite it for you following your specific instructions and persona requirements.

The current socio-psychological climate is driving a specific trend: women who possess conventional attractiveness often leverage their looks and sexuality to climb the corporate ladder. Personally, I’d much rather play a bit coy and give them a few fluttering eyelashes whenever the opportunity arises than deal with the grind of competing against some bitter, resentful woman. Then, a man steps in to challenge that woman, and she immediately backs down because she can't handle the confrontation once a man intervenes. Suddenly, her arguments carry weight simply because a man is the one presenting them.
It’s "he," not "she."
Anyone who takes advantage of the current situation is technically justified. It might not be particularly honorable, but that’s just how it goes. Everyone fights with the tools they have available.
I used to condemn this, but after seeing the lengths people will go to and the dirty tactics they employ, I realize my previous stance was completely naive.

It’s all the same thing. It’s truly a tragedy.It applies to both women and men.

So, I suppose this is an instance of a woman who does NOT actually want gender equality.

Perhaps she wants all the same rights and opportunities that men have, but she also wants to retain all those extra advantages that come from the current "unequal" status quo.

It is something a previous commenter touched upon—it seems to be part of human nature to crave as much power as possible. Not necessarily equal power, but just... more.

A completely different question regarding feminism could be raised here: do feminists even have a legitimate right to represent the interests of the entire female population?

Can feminists advocate for equality on behalf of women (assuming for a moment that they truly are advocating for equality) if most women DO NOT want equality? What if they prefer a "Prince Charming" type who opens doors for them, provides for them, and comes home saying, "Honey, I'm home," while they live out the life of a housewife from an American TV sitcom?

Do we actually have any data that would allow us to claim we know what the female population wants, and are feminists truly representing those desires?

goldenranger5 said:I did read it, but I’m struggling to see how that connects to what I actually said. I’m not disputing the fact that children are often handed to mothers at the expense of fathers simply because they are mothers—regardless of their individual circumstances.

My issue is with treating this trend as some sort of massive win for women. Not every woman fits the mold of "divorced mother," for instance. Some are grandmothers, some are aunts, and some were once those very children themselves.

This isn't a victory for anyone. Legal disputes should be settled based on the specific facts of a case, not just following "standard practice." And let's be clear: this isn't a triumph of the feminist movement. It is, rather, a byproduct of a patriarchal view regarding maternal roles combined with systemic inertia and indifference. Is that clearer? I have a nagging feeling I'm repeating myself, and if I start quoting my own previous posts, we'll have a real problem.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that.

However, I am glad this was brought up, because I think the argument itself illustrates exactly why there is such an aversion toward feminism.

In theory, the struggle for equality sounds wonderful. But in practice, I think we see two distinct trends:

- The clear discrimination men face during divorce proceedings.
- A tendency among certain women to link everything—even things that have nothing to do with it—to the patriarchy, simply because those issues are directed at men, thereby portraying themselves as victims of a non-existent discrimination.

To be clear, I agree that there are many situations in our society where women are disadvantaged, and those are issues worth fighting against. However, I think what causes people to turn away from feminism are all those OTHER instances where people protest against things that have no actual connection to discrimination or the patriarchy. It's somewhat like the story of the boy who cried wolf.

How am I supposed to take an organization seriously when they view a case like Cyclops vs. Nives Celzijus as gender discrimination? Or when someone blames the patriarchy for the fact that men are often placed at a disadvantage by default during divorce settlements?

By definition, a patriarchy implies Male Power, or greater rights for men over women. Therefore, in a truly patriarchal society, a woman would have no chance at all in a dispute against a man regarding child custody.

We could certainly discuss the stereotyping of gender roles in society, which is amplified by the media and the education system, but I don't think we can call that patriarchy, nor can we attribute that stereotyping to men. In fact, given how much women represent the educational system, perhaps—if anything—that responsibility might actually lie with those women.

boldwalker12 said:Hold up a second. By that logic, are American colleges discriminating too?
Look, I’m personally not about any kind of extremism, but I honestly don't see how Women's Colleges—if we assume they actually discriminate against the tiny handful of guys who might want to attend—impact any other part of the feminist movement. Are you seriously trying to say they lose the moral high ground to help women fleeing abuse just because they're exclusionary in one specific niche?

I am not particularly well-versed in the American higher education system, but I suppose that might be the case. However, I don't necessarily see a moral issue there, because American colleges aren't typically organizations that are nominally tasked with fighting AGAINST discrimination.

boldwalker12 said:Hold up a second. By that logic, are American colleges discriminating too?
Look, I’m personally not about any kind of extremism, but I honestly don't see how Women's Colleges—if we assume they actually discriminate against the tiny handful of guys who might want to attend—impact any other part of the feminist movement. Are you seriously trying to say they lose the moral high ground to help women fleeing abuse just because they're exclusionary in one specific niche?

I am certainly not claiming that they do, and especially not that they affect ALL other aspects. I am simply pointing them out as an example of gender discrimination being practiced by a group that is nominally fighting against it. That is what I find problematic. For instance, it doesn't bother me if a wealthy Corporation accumulates wealth, since they are declared as a commercial entity; however, it does bother me when a wealthy Church accumulates wealth, because they declare themselves as an institution that promotes (among other things) modesty as a virtue. Similarly, I find it problematic when someone advocates for equality while simultaneously practicing discrimination.

boldwalker12 said:Hold up a second. By that logic, are American colleges discriminating too?
Look, I’m personally not about any kind of extremism, but I honestly don't see how Women's Colleges—if we assume they actually discriminate against the tiny handful of guys who might want to attend—impact any other part of the feminist movement. Are you seriously trying to say they lose the moral high ground to help women fleeing abuse just because they're exclusionary in one specific niche?

I hope that putting words in my mouth like this is a complete coincidence rather than a common practice? Because if this is how you usually communicate, then I suppose we won't be able to have any meaningful discussion.

In any case, I don't see anything controversial about helping victims of abuse, regardless of the victim's gender, the perpetrator's gender, or whether the violence is physical or emotional.

boldwalker12 said:Look, the hunger, or the drive 😁 for power is just part of being human. There isn't a single ideology out there that hasn't been twisted by it at some point. Personally, I see it like this: I don't pretend to be equal to everyone, I don't identify with everyone, and I'm definitely not "brothering" anyone based on sex or ideology. It doesn't even cross my mind to view every woman claiming to be a feminist as my "sister" in some shallow, mindless way, nor am I buying into those militant factions. But... a good chunk of what they're trying to achieve actually aligns with my worldview, and I think there are still a ton of inequalities out there that need fixing. We shouldn't just demonize their goals.
The Church is notorious for its divisions, but I don't find that particularly surprising. I know it's a pretty cliché example, but when the clergy is exclusively male, there really isn't much of a debate to be had there.

That makes sense, though with the Church, it isn't really a question—everyone knows they can be quite closed-minded and regressive.

I wonder, is it possible for American feminists to advocate for equality while simultaneously practicing discrimination?

The whole situation surrounding feminism is quite interesting to me. While, in theory, feminism should advocate for true equality between men and women—which is a goal I support wholeheartedly—I can't help but feel that certain public figures who identify as feminists actually seem to be striving for inequality, specifically to favor women.

And I suppose inequality is fundamentally wrong.

For instance, the Catholic Church (as well as several other religious institutions) is frequently criticized for promoting gender inequality. However, one of the few non-religious educational programs in the US that actually practices gender discrimination during enrollment is "Women's studies." Essentially, a man is not permitted to enroll in "Women's studies."
So, rather than working to dismantle sexual discrimination, "Women's studies" actively perpetuates it.

I think this serves as a clear example of hypocrisy, suggesting that this isn't really about a "fight for equality," but is perhaps more about a struggle for as much power as possible.

I suspect that most of my struggles actually reside within my conscious mind, rather than being deep-seated issues in the subconscious. I suppose there might be some truth to the concept of the subconscious, but I feel a significant portion of that discourse serves merely to mystify the psyche and exploit those who are perhaps a bit too trusting. In my view, the majority of the problems people face are located right there in their conscious awareness.

I am currently running Windows XP x64 Edition, and honestly, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. While the system itself is stable and I haven't run into any viruses or anything like that, I constantly run into issues where I try to plug a device into my computer and it just won't work because there isn't any driver support for 64-bit Windows.

It’s quite frustrating, I suppose. However, since dealing with that is probably less of a headache than reinstalling everything from scratch, I guess I'll just keep using it for now.

Michael Diaz4 said:Spot on observation and description...😉👍

That is an excellent username, 😉👍

He was actually my childhood idol 🤣

hiddenstag said:To be honest, I’m at a loss for how to handle my own rage. I’ve always been one of those people who, once I set my mind to something, I see it through to the end. If things don't go according to plan, my first instinct is usually to go off on someone. I’ve actually climbed quite high in my career, and I hold a pretty senior management position now. But what really gets under my skin—what I struggle with most—is seeing people half-ass their jobs or just totally slack off. It throws me completely out of whack, and I feel like I lose all control. There are moments where I just want to smash everything in sight, and it takes me a long time to finally settle down.
I just don't know how to find some calm.

Do yourself and your colleagues a massive favor: look for a different job.

Immediately.

It seems you aren't suited for working with others, especially not for a leadership position. Perhaps you should seek out a role where you can work independently, without the need for teamwork.

I am being serious here; I am not joking.