[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

If we replaced all males with non-males, I think the world would be no lesser or greater over the long term. There are always people who tell others what they're going to be in life, as if everyone's life isn't their own to live. Toxic masculinity is chock full of men and women who do that, but they're far from the only ones.

I see the value in role models, but next to no value in having them all be the same (the point is to have all kinds of ways kids can live life and be proud of who they are). Imposing an arbitrary condition upon role models like gender is a kind of 'meh' to me, though I get it... kids want to see someone like themselves that's okay in a world full of people who say bullsh*t like being a color, a gender, or whatever has to mean something specific about who you are as a person.

Docjoe wrote:

Gents, I’d be interested in some thoughts about something that has been banging around in my head.

My wife was reading an article to me about all of the things that women due to keep a household going and to pick up the slack in a relationship that the man is not providing. This was of course intended as a “hey ahole, do better”.

It got me thinking, besides the chromosomal material needed to carry on the species, what do men (in the “traditional” sense) bring to both a relationship and society?
....
Maybe a better definition of a radical feminist for men is not just to support women but to try to emulate them?

Butting in with an opinion and maybe some suggestions. Please let me know if you'd prefer I not post in this thread in the future.

Spoilering for butting in

Spoiler:

I don't think this has anything to do with gender intrinsically. If all men vanished, there would still be these issues within relationships. In the western world, women are generally socialized to do the housework and emotional upkeep. If someone shows up at my house and the house is a mess, I'm more likely to be judged for that than my husband.

In relationships, this comes down to communication.
When I was a child and both my parents were in school, they had a chore list on the fridge with each day and who was responsible for what. Things like making dinner, cleaning up, but also getting kids to bed. My husband and I had similar discussions at many different points in our relationship and made up chore lists.

One of the difficulties is in agreeing what a "complete" job is. I'm fine folding clothes, giving them to my son, and letting him just stuff them in his dresser. A friend isn't yet able to give up that much control with her daughter's laundry. As a result, I'm less sympathetic when she complains about how much laundry she has to put away.

It definitely takes time to work through the discussions and then to let go of things not being done "my way". That's a communication and relationship issue rather than a gender issue. It's important to have those discussions and look at ALL the work that's going on. Who is taking care of medical and dental appointments for kids? Who's taking care of car maintenance? Who's responsible for school stuff, clothes shopping (noticing when kids need new clothes or shoes). Who keeps in touch with relatives? Who takes care of buying gifts? Some of those things take up constant energy and space in the brain.

My husband does everything with our son's school. I homeschooled him through 8th grade and then he fired me to go to public high school, so spouse deals with school entirely. This also means that I have to work on biting my tongue and letting go of checking if homework is done. It's tough to let go. I think that is where much of the tension and rough spots will arise if both partners are making a real effort.

You also have to want to make changes to the roles.
If gender "traditional" roles work for you, that's great. If they don't, make changes. But be willing to discuss (and discuss, and discuss, and renegotiate) ALL the work. Don't make assumptions about it.

We've done marital counseling for issues with boy's high school when we weren't communicating well. Boy is a junior now and we have pretty much worked things out.

I wouldn't want my husband or son to disappear. It is "easier" for them with male privilege in this society, but my son has had the role model of a father who does the grocery shopping, cooking, and cleaning. He doesn't see any work as "women's work" or "men's work" other than what is biological. They both would say they're feminists, and neither is emulating women.

Communication.

LouZiffer wrote:

If we replaced all males with non-males, I think the world would be no lesser or greater over the long term. There are always people who tell others what they're going to be in life, as if everyone's life isn't their own to live. Toxic masculinity is chock full of men and women who do that, but they're far from the only ones.

Maybe, but there's just *so* much baggage that goes along with the male identity, the short and the medium term might be a lot better. Just because things wouldn't be perfect doesn't mean they wouldn't be substantially better.

I see the value in role models, but next to no value in having them all be the same (the point is to have all kinds of ways kids can live life and be proud of who they are). Imposing an arbitrary condition upon role models like gender is a kind of 'meh' to me, though I get it... kids want to see someone like themselves that's okay in a world full of people who say bullsh*t like being a color, a gender, or whatever has to mean something specific about who you are as a person.

There would still be plenty of diversity even if that one example was gone, though.

My male role model is my dad.

He was the family's emotional support. In fact, he was the extended family's emotional support. When sh*t was hitting the fan, he was there to clean things up. When my mother was going off (she has a short temper) on yet another tirade about something else, he's there to calm her down and sooth whoever happened to be a target. He even said sorry for her, because she was often too proud to say it herself, even when everyone knew that's what she wanted to say. He was endlessly patient with my grandmothers - both his own mother and my mom's mother, and would often intercede between fights. He knew just what to say and what not to say, and he did the work, often thanklessly, day in, day out, week after week, for decades.

He is also tireless. Wasn't a fan of sports, but he often played chess with my mother on weeknights when there was nothing much to do, and they often played chess over who got to do chores. They played Scrabble, too. He played even when he was tired and didn't want to, and he washed the dishes when it was obvious my mother didn't want to. He would lose the game on purpose - but not too obviously because my mom would flip whenever she caught him doing that.

When he wasn't cooking or doing chores or driving people around, he'd do his little projects - fix something around the house, make tables and chairs, or do cute dioramas for the kids. He loved kids and often volunteered to look after scores of children on his own. With us, he was indulgent, but fair. He didn't lay down many rules, but whenever he laid down a rule, we knew he would carry it out without favor or failure. You broke the rule, you got the penalty. No amount of tears moved him on this. He didn't threaten. He simply said what was going to happen, so you didn't cross the line without thinking about it very, very hard. It was easy because the rules were simple, and there were not many.

When my mother got a spinal tumor and had to stay home, his income supported the family alone, and he was both mother and father for the years she was largely unable to walk. He also took care of her and never left. Never once did I see him regret, or feel downtrodden or put upon. To him, it was a privilege to even take care of her and us.

When she was diagnosed with breast cancer, HE was so devastated she had to comfort him (as did we). It was his one weakness, but we all knew that. He lives for her, and I doubt he will survive her for long if she dies first. He often jokes that it'd be better if he went first. But it's probably not that much of a joke.

I have never seen him lose his temper. I know what irritates him and he probably gets angry a bunch - but never in front of the kids. He manages it, sometimes quite visibly. He's also generally nonviolent. I say "generally" because we lived in a tough part of town, and he has to deal. But you wouldn't know it looking at him - soft spoken, congenial, and diplomatic. But once I got old enough, I heard things. He takes care of things, but on the down low - preferring something diplomatic, but apparently he does what's necessary.He kept a revolver in his drawer until he found out we knew about it. Then he ditched the gun. Or kept it somewhere else. I never found out and he swears he got rid of it.

You know, seeing parents with sons post here, it kinda just hit me--I don't have as much of a connection to the future of men as they do, regardless of gender.

Today's episode of the Ezra Klein show features a conversation with Kate Manne about changing the way we conceptualize misogyny and patriarchy, and how doing so might help us do a better job of grappling with the part we play in it and to see the insidious ways it perpetuates itself particularly when it ISN'T causing an acute flareup of social conflict.

The core idea is a shift from thinking of it as just a thing that men feel and do to a thing that women experience as part of the culture we create and inhabit together -- sort of as the cultural enforcement arm of patriarchy -- but as with many really worthwhile ideas there's a lot more complexity and nuance to it. I recommend giving it a listen if you get a chance, but annoyingly Vox doesn't seem to provide episode specific linkable pages for their podcasts, so you'll have to either find it in your podcast player or head over to the show page and look for the January 31, 2019 episode titled "This conversation will change how you understand misogyny."

That sounded familiar as a thesis so I tried to find where I heard it before and yes here is Kate Manne writing a forum about misogyny as the enforcement arm of the patriarchy in the Boston review. It would be good to see how her thinking has evolved in the past two years.

Dudes, I literally posted Kate Manne's work pages ago and not one of you stopped to read and comment.

Nevertheless, yes she is amazing and on point and her approach to breaking down the difference between structural oppression (patriachal systems) and their enforcement (misogyny) is really applicable to all other kinds of bigotry and oppression.

And worth noting (and she notes in her book) her book is a lot about clarifying whete a lot of feminist thought has been heading (wrt to what misogyny is) for the last 10/20 years

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

FWIW I can see multiple ways in which men can be beneficial to their partner and family:

1. Sexual and general physical intimacy
2. Two incomes - definitely nothing to sneeze at in the modern economy
3. Extra pair of hands for child rearing - yes that means stepping up but an involved father is a force multiplier
4. A positive male role model who can counteract some of the negative stereotypes in pop culture

This is not to say single moms or same sex couples are deficient - only that men can be far from worthless.

I don't think the point was that all men are worthless and you could replace them with, like, a stuffed animal or something. I think the question was more like "replace all male people with a non-male person, and is the world a better place or a worse place?" (edit) The middle two can be met by non-male people, the first one means there's some disappointment, and the fourth...that's an interesting question, because it makes men sound like the Arnie Terminator in T2: Judgement Day.

As someone AFAB and looking to transition to transmasculine non-binary, or male, it's been my experience that 1 through 3 are 100% absolutely positively achievable by women, non-gender conforming people, trans folks, etc. I don't think disappointment is the word I would use! In regards to women, they are generally quite good at providing sexual and physical intimacy with one another! One of the things that folks who are socialized female rely on female friend groups for is reinforcing non-sexual physical intimacy through hugs and physical contact as well. It's more socially acceptable, so that's where the development of those met needs can occur.

In queer co-habitation and co-parenting, there's less tendency to trend towards traditional gender roles, so both partners are likely to contribute equally and delegate roles as preferred or needed. They often come at it equilaterally. Sure, there's going to be some cases where people assign those roles to their dynamic, but that tends to be by choice instead of assumed by society.

1-3 are needs met on a case-by-case basis and don't require gender in order to be met. But 4? Putting that last is burying the lead. It is by far the most important thing men can do. It's a hard thing to maintain and requires vigilance, maturity, kindness, consideration, wisdom, empathy, and a bunch of other abstract and complicated concepts that one embodies in order to be a positive contribution to society on the daily. That is the furthest thing from the Terminator I can think of.

In regards to previous conversations, I've dated and married progressive, forward-thinking feminist men. I've cohabitated with these wonderful people. Yet...it's still assumed I'm going to do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, planning, coordinating, emotional labor, and so forth. I honestly don't think any of them were aware they did it. I think from their perspective, it was balanced and fair because in contrast to what they're used to, they're definitely more progressive than their parents, or even most of their peers in regards to the delegation of roles based on gender.

Somewhere in my twenties, I got frustrated living with (male) partners and roommates who assumed "someone" would take care of the domestics in the house, be the go-to person when they were having relationship problems, so I stopped doing those things, too. I started living and behaving just like the bachelors I lived with. It felt good, like one of the boys.

Mind. Blown! It was so freeing! I can see why some guys do this. It's so easy to just default to it being someone else's responsibility. Not my problem. Honestly, if I don't feel like cleaning, I just throw stuff away. If I don't feel like talking about feelings, I deflect and distract. So Liberating. And the emotional labor part? I stopped doing the lion's share of that, too.

The distancing and isolating aspects of absorbing toxic masculinity and not being emotionally available certainly contributed to the dissolution of my marriage, though. I certainly have regrets regarding that, and that's something I'm going to have to unlearn, as well, if I'm expecting to have relationships again.

So yeah. Even as a full-grown adult trying to define what masculinity means to me, it is important that good men exist as examples for me to learn from, as well. Toxic masculinity permeates everything our society does, and it's going to take vigilance for us as a society to consciously address it and unlearn it and do better.

Amoebic wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

(edit) The middle two can be met by non-male people, the first one means there's some disappointment, and the fourth...that's an interesting question, because it makes men sound like the Arnie Terminator in T2: Judgement Day.

As someone AFAB and looking to transition to transmasculine non-binary, or male, it's been my experience that 1 through 3 are 100% absolutely positively achievable by women, non-gender conforming people, trans folks, etc. I don't think disappointment is the word I would use!

Heh, I meant it in the sense that there are people who would be disappointed if men were gone. Like, no matter how many other options there were, I'm sure some people have a sexual orientation where they want that option as part of the available mix.

1-3 are needs met on a case-by-case basis and don't require gender in order to be met. But 4? Putting that last is burying the lead. It is by far the most important thing men can do. It's a hard thing to maintain and requires vigilance, maturity, kindness, consideration, wisdom, empathy, and a bunch of other abstract and complicated concepts that one embodies in order to be a positive contribution to society on the daily. That is the furthest thing from the Terminator I can think of.

I was kinda thinking of this part tongue-in-cheek

In all seriousness though, what I actually meant was the sense in which the Arnie Terminator is no longer necessary once he defeats the other Liquid Terminator (I always forget the model numbers). Like, if the point of men is to be role models for other men, if there are no more men you don't need role models in the first place. But you bring up a good point:

So yeah. Even as a full-grown adult trying to define what masculinity means to me, it is important that good men exist as examples for me to learn from, as well. Toxic masculinity permeates everything our society does, and it's going to take vigilance for us as a society to consciously address it and unlearn it and do better.

I've thought about that when it comes to race, but I guess I never thought about it in regards to gender. That maybe there's a level of power that the 'default' category has to undo things that other categories don't. That even if men were gone, toxic masculinity would still endure.

Then again, would it still be a net gain, though? Like, if men were just gone, would it still be easier for everyone else to figure it all out even without good role models? I mean, there's no way to measure it and it's not going to happen anyway anytime soon, but I guess I still lean towards it being a net gain.

edit: I guess I should also say that I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here. Like, from the things people have said, maleness is a process of becoming more comfortable with gender, or undoing negative experiences from the past, or connection to a child or a partner or all that. (edit) From those perspectives I would imagine that the loss of the male gender seems unimaginable. From my perspective, though, I think people would adjust a lot quicker and a lot better than we're imagining.

Great post, Amanda!

Somewhere in my twenties, I got frustrated living with (male) partners and roommates who assumed "someone" would take care of the domestics in the house, be the go-to person when they were having relationship problems, so I stopped doing those things, too. I started living and behaving just like the bachelors I lived with. It felt good, like one of the boys.

Mind. Blown! It was so freeing! I can see why some guys do this. It's so easy to just default to it being someone else's responsibility. Not my problem. Honestly, if I don't feel like cleaning, I just throw stuff away. If I don't feel like talking about feelings, I deflect and distract. So Liberating. And the emotional labor part? I stopped doing the lion's share of that, too.

The distancing and isolating aspects of absorbing toxic masculinity and not being emotionally available certainly contributed to the dissolution of my marriage, though. I certainly have regrets regarding that, and that's something I'm going to have to unlearn, as well, if I'm expecting to have relationships again.

This is stunning insight.

*General mod note*

I'd like to see the side-conversation about "what if there were no men though" move on to its own thread if there's a burning desire to discuss further. Sometimes an an impossible hypothetical can spurn new insights but eventually it starts going in circles.

"Where we see violence against women we'll act in the strongest terms," - NRL ban Ben Barba for life after he assults his partner - other sports you're on notice.

Long overdue.

I was listening to the most recent giant bomb cast and in it the movie Groundhog Day was discussed. During the discussion Will Smith (the gaming one) commented that Andie MacDowell's character is in a horrible position as essentially being trapped in the time loop as not much more than a prop for Bill Murray's character arc.

It got me thinking that I am not sure what trope that fits into. It does not strike me as manic pixie dream girl, at least from my decade+ old recollection of the film. Does it fall under a general female characters as not much more than set pieces, or is it problematic in other ways.

Garrcia wrote:

I was listening to the most recent giant bomb cast and in it the movie Groundhog Day was discussed. During the discussion Will Smith (the gaming one) commented that Andie MacDowell's character is in a horrible position as essentially being trapped in the time loop as not much more than a prop for Bill Murray's character arc.

It got me thinking that I am not sure what trope that fits into. It does not strike me as manic pixie dream girl, at least from my decade+ old recollection of the film. Does it fall under a general female characters as not much more than set pieces, or is it problematic in other ways.

She's a redemption prop, a human Macguffin that Phil (Murray's character) has to pursue. She's literally a means to an end.

Her rejection of Phil when he's a jerk is played for laughs, with a quick montage used to show the thousands of hours of her being harassed by Phil.

Edit: Wrong thread for mental noodling!!

I never jumped on the subject but I'll replace my post to say that this forum has been a big part of my awareness of gender roles, assumptions, privilege, and listening. I've tried to practice that more here and in my own life. I'm still working on it. I'm good about not beating myself up even though I make mistakes almost every day that would be in some way solved by listening more and being confident in myself without having to project out that confidence in some way on others. We've seen a few people here who spiraled down that hole of self blame after seeing the mistakes they've made in their past or continue to make. Part of listening is being confident as a listener that you are still valuable and are still contributing even by your silence or smaller contribution when you support or make space for others.

Anyway, glad I got my post changed pretty fast and thanks for being a good space here.

Jolly Bill wrote:

This is almost certainly a distinction without a difference (as she's definitely a prop for his redemption and it is a trope) but it is possible to have a time travel movie with a sole protagonist that doesn't use the non-time traveling characters as props for the main character's development?

There's props and there's props.

Groundhog Day is particularly egregious as it entirely jettisons McDowell's characters agency, and reduces her to a series of contortions Phil must perform to trick her into f*cking him. Like, the key to the time loop door is apparently kept in her underwear.

it's pretty grim.

Jonman wrote:

There's props and there's props.

Groundhog Day is particularly egregious as it entirely jettisons McDowell's characters agency, and reduces her to a series of contortions Phil must perform to trick her into f*cking him. Like, the key to the time loop door is apparently kept in her underwear.

it's pretty grim.

I think that's oversimplifying to make a point. The point isn't sex - I would fully expect that there were plenty of days where they had sex that didn't break the loop. The point is Phil legitimately not being a giant douchehole.

(She still has agency in the film. Not disputing that.)

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Jonman wrote:

There's props and there's props.

Groundhog Day is particularly egregious as it entirely jettisons McDowell's characters agency, and reduces her to a series of contortions Phil must perform to trick her into f*cking him. Like, the key to the time loop door is apparently kept in her underwear.

it's pretty grim.

I think that's oversimplifying to make a point. The point isn't sex - I would fully expect that there were plenty of days where they had sex that didn't break the loop. The point is Phil legitimately not being a giant douchehole.

(She still has agency in the film. Not disputing that.)

Eh. The point is still that Phil has to trick her into loving him by stalking her for literally years of subjective time without her knowledge.

The movie is 100 minutes of him metaphorically standing outside her window holding a boombox over his head, frantically swapping tapes in and out until he finds the one that makes her horny enough to break him out of time jail with her vagina.

Jonman wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Jonman wrote:

There's props and there's props.

Groundhog Day is particularly egregious as it entirely jettisons McDowell's characters agency, and reduces her to a series of contortions Phil must perform to trick her into f*cking him. Like, the key to the time loop door is apparently kept in her underwear.

it's pretty grim.

I think that's oversimplifying to make a point. The point isn't sex - I would fully expect that there were plenty of days where they had sex that didn't break the loop. The point is Phil legitimately not being a giant douchehole.

(She still has agency in the film. Not disputing that.)

Eh. The point is still that Phil has to trick her into loving him by stalking her for literally years of subjective time without her knowledge.

The movie is 100 minutes of him metaphorically standing outside her window holding a boombox over his head, frantically swapping tapes in and out until he finds the one that makes her horny enough to break him out of time jail with her vagina.

There's an entire section of the movie where that's proven false. He tries all dialogue trees to sleep with her and that only gets him so far. There's even a montage showing him failing quicker and quicker until he gives up. It's only when he accepts that he may never leave the loop and starts using the time for self-improvement and trying to actually care about the townsfolk he considered beneath him even before he was stuck in time that she sees something in him that isn't a facade for sex. What breaks the loop is when she bids on him in a bachelor auction. He doesn't make her do that. She chooses him in that moment because of the person he has become (admittedly needing decades to get over himself). It's her choice that breaks the loop, not some con for sex. That's the way I saw it at least.

Grenn wrote:

There's an entire section of the movie where that's proven false. He tries all dialogue trees to sleep with her and that only gets him so far. There's even a montage showing him failing quicker and quicker until he gives up. It's only when he accepts that he may never leave the loop and starts using the time for self-improvement and trying to actually care about the townsfolk he considered beneath him even before he was stuck in time that she sees something in him that isn't a facade for sex. What breaks the loop is when she bids on him in a bachelor auction. He doesn't make her do that. She chooses him in that moment because of the person he has become (admittedly needing decades to get over himself). It's her choice that breaks the loop, not some con for sex. That's the way I saw it at least.

Right, so she chooses the guy who's been lying to her for decades (for him) about who he is and what's going on, who only resorts to being a better person after years of not getting laid AND subsequently failing to kill himself numerous times.

Like, Phil's choice to be a better person only occurs after he's exhausted every single other option, including ending his own life.

It's a f*cking bleak read of humanity, man.

That's how I see it too, Grenn. The main negative criticism I have about the movie is that Phil basically gets the ultimate 'do-over' privilege, though that is more of a curse than anything else. It's his own personal purgatory from which everyone else is spared. They all get a good timeline. He gets years of looking in the mirror at his own BS.

EDIT: I'd say Phil is the outlier in the movie, and humanity celebrates his joining them in the end.

I suppose you could look at it as a broken human finally learns that life is better if you treat people well and see a story of redemption.

The other is that it’s basically just a trope using a woman who holds the key to redemption between her legs.

I kinda think it’s a bit of both. It was lazy writing though that sleeping with the woman breaks the curse so can see where people can view it as pretty gross.

You could point to aspects of the film as a redemptive/personal growth story for Phil, who starts as an essentially unpleasant person (such as the Ned Ryerson character).

Regardless of how Phil got to the exit point Rita existed solely as the last gate he had to pass to prove he changed enough to break the loop. Regardless of there being a physical element (i.e. sex) or not it reduces Rita to just being essentially a prop.

Docjoe wrote:

I suppose you could look at it as a broken human finally learns that life is better if you treat people well and see a story of redemption.

The other is that it’s basically just a trope using a woman who holds the key to redemption between her legs.

I kinda think it’s a bit of both. It was lazy writing though that sleeping with the woman breaks the curse so can see where people can view it as pretty gross.

Um, actually it's heavily implied that Phil doesn't have sex with Rita. Or he did and then put his jeans back on and went to sleep which would be weird.

Her declaring her love after one day is bad writing, though.

Rococo's Basilisk Day, staring Elon Musk and Grimes

Jonman wrote:
Grenn wrote:

There's an entire section of the movie where that's proven false. He tries all dialogue trees to sleep with her and that only gets him so far. There's even a montage showing him failing quicker and quicker until he gives up. It's only when he accepts that he may never leave the loop and starts using the time for self-improvement and trying to actually care about the townsfolk he considered beneath him even before he was stuck in time that she sees something in him that isn't a facade for sex. What breaks the loop is when she bids on him in a bachelor auction. He doesn't make her do that. She chooses him in that moment because of the person he has become (admittedly needing decades to get over himself). It's her choice that breaks the loop, not some con for sex. That's the way I saw it at least.

Right, so she chooses the guy who's been lying to her for decades (for him) about who he is and what's going on, who only resorts to being a better person after years of not getting laid AND subsequently failing to kill himself numerous times.

Like, Phil's choice to be a better person only occurs after he's exhausted every single other option, including ending his own life.

It's a f*cking bleak read of humanity, man.

You both have encapsulated my take on the movie as well.. in the end its not all the earlier things that get him out but rather him giving up after everything else he has tried. It's a redemption story but holy sh*t he doesn't really get there in the best of ways... and who knows if even after all that he doesn't simply go back to the person he truly is.

In some explanations its said that he is there for a 100 years.

TheGameguru wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Grenn wrote:

There's an entire section of the movie where that's proven false. He tries all dialogue trees to sleep with her and that only gets him so far. There's even a montage showing him failing quicker and quicker until he gives up. It's only when he accepts that he may never leave the loop and starts using the time for self-improvement and trying to actually care about the townsfolk he considered beneath him even before he was stuck in time that she sees something in him that isn't a facade for sex. What breaks the loop is when she bids on him in a bachelor auction. He doesn't make her do that. She chooses him in that moment because of the person he has become (admittedly needing decades to get over himself). It's her choice that breaks the loop, not some con for sex. That's the way I saw it at least.

Right, so she chooses the guy who's been lying to her for decades (for him) about who he is and what's going on, who only resorts to being a better person after years of not getting laid AND subsequently failing to kill himself numerous times.

Like, Phil's choice to be a better person only occurs after he's exhausted every single other option, including ending his own life.

It's a f*cking bleak read of humanity, man.

You both have encapsulated my take on the movie as well.. in the end its not all the earlier things that get him out but rather him giving up after everything else he has tried. It's a redemption story but holy sh*t he doesn't really get there in the best of ways... and who knows if even after all that he doesn't simply go back to the person he truly is.

In some explanations its said that he is there for a 100 years.

10,000 years.
I'll be honest, this seems to be an overly cynical reading of the story. You're not wrong that hopefully any actual human would learn their lesson faster. But this is effectively a morality parable. Being a nihilist dick might be fun, but it leaves you empty. Being an arguably good person, pick your definition of that, is how to have a fulfilling life.
Also, given the ambiguity of the timeline, we don't know the ratio of time being a tool and time trying to be a better person.

I could see how this tale could be told better, but it's also a 20 year old movie.

From the other thread:

ClockworkHouse wrote:

"Toxic femininity" is the "reverse racism" of gender.

I liked RnR's post in the other thread. I didn't know toxic femininity was a thing, and it gave me something to think about. Then I saw Clockwork's reply and it really clarified the issue for me. I didn't get to see the deleted replies, but I can guess what they were...

I guess long story short, without RnR's post we don't get Clockwork's fantastic reply.