Mens Rights: Do we need a movement

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Baffle2:

Gorfias:

A huge topic and what launched this series is his outrage that he states people are though negligence or bad faith, calling Elliot Rodger an MRA, stating he subscribed to a number of MRA channels. He holds the guy belonged to zero. None. He was at best an Incel, not an MRA or MGTOW. Your thoughts? Might make for another thread if Bane could do 61 hours on it!

My thought is that I have absolutely zero idea who Bane is and that I don't use YouTube to get my news. And, not to be difficult, but what kind of proof is 'he holds the guy belonged to zero'? At the point it's just an opinion, and currently we have 'people are' (plural) vs 'He holds' (singular), which suggests Bane is kind of outvoted on this one.

But imagine an incel being the best you can be?! Is that not like winning a chronic diarrhoea‎ competition?

1: In these days of fake, corporate MSM news, youtube, at the moment, seems to be a breath of fresh air. (Hmmm, new thread!)
2: Bane may be a lying bastard but taken at his word, when someone calls ER an MRA due to his web browsing, he asks for links and never gets any.
3: Calling him being an Incel at best, I mean, giving those who call him an MRA the benefit of the doubt: maybe they're confusing being an Incel with MRA. That's the best excuse I can come up with for those making the charge.

Gorfias:

undeadsuitor:
Of course women spend more. Bras, makeup and tampons/pads cost money that men don't have to spend to interact with society

Found out recently that my wife let my daughter spend $300 on our credit card having a hair cut and coloring. That is what my g-d damn Xbox One cost!!!

Women spend money for a lot more reasons than a simple need to interact with society.]

Aren't you curious as to why women's hair cuts cost more

undeadsuitor:

Gorfias:

undeadsuitor:
Of course women spend more. Bras, makeup and tampons/pads cost money that men don't have to spend to interact with society

Found out recently that my wife let my daughter spend $300 on our credit card having a hair cut and coloring. That is what my g-d damn Xbox One cost!!!

Women spend money for a lot more reasons than a simple need to interact with society.]

Aren't you curious as to why women's hair cuts cost more

I have my suspicions. I've heard the argument that for women, doing things like this is a display of power and dominance over other women: "Look at me. I have the power to spend frivolously". And the ultimate chicken/egg question. Do preening women attract men and procreate, or do women preen in order to attract and procreate or both or neighter. Your thoughts?

Gorfias:

undeadsuitor:

Gorfias:

Found out recently that my wife let my daughter spend $300 on our credit card having a hair cut and coloring. That is what my g-d damn Xbox One cost!!!

Women spend money for a lot more reasons than a simple need to interact with society.]

Aren't you curious as to why women's hair cuts cost more

I have my suspicions. I've heard the argument that for women, doing things like this is a display of power and dominance over other women: "Look at me. I have the power to spend frivolously". And the ultimate chicken/egg question. Do preening women attract men and procreate, or do women preen in order to attract and procreate or both or neighter. Your thoughts?

I mean, could it just be that hair styling is a skilled labor, and time/supplies cost money? Combined with supply/demand where good hair stylists are hard to find and harder to keep which allows them to charge more for their individual services as per basic capitalism

This entire thread you've gone straight to blaming women for every slight inconvience you have in your life. Why?

undeadsuitor:

I mean, could it just be that hair styling is a skilled labor, and time/supplies cost money? Combined with supply/demand where good hair stylists are hard to find and harder to keep which allows them to charge more for their individual services as per basic capitalism

And societal expectations. I shave my head. Costs about ?15 a year (it's about ?8 for 100 razor blades, then the shaving foam/gel). No one bats an eyelid.

undeadsuitor:

Aren't you curious as to why women's hair cuts cost more

I have my suspicions. I've heard the argument that for women, doing things like this is a display of power and dominance over other women: "Look at me. I have the power to spend frivolously". And the ultimate chicken/egg question. Do preening women attract men and procreate, or do women preen in order to attract and procreate or both or neighter. Your thoughts?

I mean, could it just be that hair styling is a skilled labor, and time/supplies cost money? Combined with supply/demand where good hair stylists are hard to find and harder to keep which allows them to charge more for their individual services as per basic capitalism

That might explain why her haircut cost of $300 rather than $290 or $310. But $300 rather than the $10 plus tip I spend on my hair? And the boy has clippers. He just shaves his own head.

So, why is she spending $300 on her hair rather than something that sounds more reasonable?

*Confession: I'm sure my wife doesn't spend $300 on her hair and it looks nice. She's the one that complained at how much the girl spent. Maybe more like $60 plus tip?*

This entire thread you've gone straight to blaming women for every slight inconvience you have in your life. Why?

I'm currently in 2 threads so I may be referring to the wrong one but I thought I had addressed this:

Rank and file men have issues that are in part society's fault or at a minimum, suffer society's neglect which should be addressed.

Society needs disposable men to die in wars and bad jobs for the good of society. They are a disposable utility. If a child needs support, look for any reason to take from a man for that support, even if the guy can prove the child is not his. They face discrimination in family and criminal courts. They pay more in taxes and receive less in government support and more.

By operation of law, government programs, court decisions and social convention, money is transferred from the men who earn it to women that did not.

And more.

And a major complaint of the MRAs: when we do try to draw attention to our problems, we are shamed for bringing them up. We're just supposed to shut up, man up. We're blaming our problems on someone else. Gets old.

Gorfias:

And a major complaint of the MRAs: when we do try to draw attention to our problems, we are shamed for bringing them up. We're just supposed to shut up, man up. We're blaming our problems on someone else. Gets old.

Feminists are against that though. The very phrase 'man up' is part of that old patriachy stuff they go on about. 'Man up' is like the epitomy of toxic masculinity they talk about. When a man refuses to seek psychological help because he considers admitting he has feelings of depression 'weak'. Then he might go and blow his brains out one day after bottling up his shit for years. Men dont talk about their shit until they lose their temper one day.

The people who tell you to man up arent likely to be feminist, they are likely to be the very people feminists are struggling against. An idea of what a man should be automatically implies a woman shouldn't be it too, so you can see they have an interest in taking apart this stuff both ways and getting equality for you guys too.

Feminism is defined as wanting social and politcal equality, and women cant be equal to me without men being equal to women obviously.

MRA's should be on the same side as feminists 99%, the only genuine bone I can see is abortion issues because unfortunatly biology is inherently unbalanced, but most of the time you should be on the same team as you are both against gender stereotypes and unfair treatment based on sex because you both appear to want equality but for some reason you just bicker and I dont get why...
Unless they base their entire understanding on what feminism is based on that it the word has 'fem' in it.

So the movement you yearn for may already be here, as feminism.

Fieldy409:

Feminists are against that though. The very phrase 'man up' is part of that old patriachy stuff they go on about. 'Man up' is like the epitomy of toxic masculinity they talk about. When a man refuses to seek psychological help because he considers admitting he has feelings of depression 'weak'. Then he might go and blow his brains out one day after bottling up his shit for years. Men dont talk about their shit until they lose their temper one day.

The people who tell you to man up arent likely to be feminist, they are likely to be the very people feminists are struggling against. An idea of what a man should be automatically implies a woman shouldn't be it too, so you can see they have an interest in taking apart this stuff both ways and getting equality for you guys too.

Feminism is defined as wanting social and politcal equality, and women cant be equal to me without men being equal to women obviously.

MRA's should be on the same side as feminists 99%, the only genuine bone I can see is abortion issues because unfortunatly biology is inherently unbalanced, but most of the time you should be on the same team as you are both against gender stereotypes and unfair treatment based on sex because you both appear to want equality but for some reason you just bicker and I dont get why...
Unless they base their entire understanding on what feminism is based on that it the word has 'fem' in it.

So the movement you yearn for may already be here, as feminism.

You may have a point about the term "man up". And Feminists say they want men to be more women in terms of expressing themselves. But if they do express themselves, again, image

And don't hold your breath waiting for true social, political and economic equality of the sexes. Women, who arguably have a superior position in all 3 are not going to be surrendering anything anytime soon.
Example: women have, control and spend more than men.
My wife would lose her shit if the law required direct deposit to individual checking accounts, end joint tax returns, do whatever possible to steer men towards greater financial autonomy.

Social? Many jurisdictions have this: https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/Child_Safety/baby_moses.asp

Giving a new mom time to, no questions asked, surrender a child she is not ready to raise.

Men get no such opportunity really. In fact, they can be required to provide child support in times when they can show they are not the bio dad.

As a sexist, I'm against exact equality. I'd like fairness which can be elusive when trying to be defined. But I'm not looking for even fairness in the Feminist movement. Hence, the need for a separate Men's Rights Movement.

Gorfias:

As a sexist, I'm against exact equality.

Oh. As a sexist? Okay nevermind.*

Gorfias:

And don't hold your breath waiting for true social, political and economic equality of the sexes. Women, who arguably have a superior position in all 3

I've found it guys! There really is life on other planets!

Of course men need a movement. While feminism has done some good for mens rights through bringing attention to and addressing parts of toxic masculinity, a more directed movement that specifically focuses on the issues men face would be incredibly beneficial.

It's just you're the kind of doozy bastard who should be kept 50000000000000000000000 feet away from any kind of movement that tries to do anything remotely positive for men. Pro-tip: when you say 'as a sexist', you don't exactly come across as the kinda bloke who'd have mens best interests in mind.

Also given how much you complain about your wife, maybe file for a divorce? For your sake or your wife's.

Gorfias:
A Defendant is supposed to be able to offer any evidence that is more probative than prejudicial.

And we live in a society where that sort of evidence is prejudicial. That's the problem.

Gorfias:
As for the gender pay gap, I would deal with it by finding the 1st Amendment, with its guarantee of a right to association, over-rides any attempt at closing the "gap".

Ah, so you've decided to acknowledge that we know for a fact that the gender gap exists, and are defending it with the US constitution?

Gorfias:
Just hire who you want at a bargain for exchange. Women have, control and spend much more than men. If they find they're being irrationally discriminated against, form their own companies and hire who they like.

In no way is that an adequate solution. If you want to prove me wrong, go found a multi-million dollara company, set up your own hiring practices and make sure they are well known. I'll wait.

Thaluikhain:

And we live in a society where that sort of evidence is prejudicial. That's the problem.

It is. But probative is more important in this case. If as a juror, I am biased and think no one would ever want to do a thing and this thing was done, I now have a bias thinking this movant could not have consented to it. But if she did in the past, I, the juror, am wrong in a way that could end up convicting an innocent defendant. So, due to failure of due process, you must acquit.

Ah, so you've decided to acknowledge that we know for a fact that the gender gap exists, and are defending it with the US constitution?

Like Jordan Peterson, I would say it is there, but not due to unreasoning bigotry.

In no way is that an adequate solution. If you want to prove me wrong, go found a multi-million dollara company, set up your own hiring practices and make sure they are well known. I'll wait.

What do you think will happen?

Baffle2:

Gorfias:

Thaluikhain:
If you want to prove me wrong, go found a multi-million dollara company, set up your own hiring practices and make sure they are well known. I'll wait.

What do you think will happen?

It'll go wrong and you'll blame your wife.

Can't help you or respond to irrational and vague (it will go wrong: what will go wrong?) concerns. I'm betting Thaluikhain has a rational reason for stating the previous and, agree or disagree, I'm looking forward to reading it.

Gorfias:

As a sexist

......*Sigh*

No offense, as a man who has dealt with a lot of toxic male bullshit, this is the kind of mindset I do not want helping other people like me.

Gorfias:
It is. But probative is more important in this case. If as a juror, I am biased and think no one would ever want to do a thing and this thing was done, I now have a bias thinking this movant could not have consented to it. But if she did in the past, I, the juror, am wrong in a way that could end up convicting an innocent defendant. So, due to failure of due process, you must acquit.

And allowing that evidence ends with juries being wrong in way that could let a rapist walk free, which is far more likely.

Yes, you might lock up innocent people, but so long as you lock up anyone, for anything, that's a risk. In the case of rape, it is vastly exaggerated, the statistics show that it's not the epidemic of false convictions people claim. Excepting when race or class is a factor, however.

Gorfias:
What do you think will happen?

I'm thinking that you won't create a multi-million dollar company, and nor will I or the vast majority of users here. Now, to an extent there's a limited amount a consumer can do, but so many of the big important companies are up to something dodgy, you can't boycott them all (and people get unreasonably angry with boycotts anyway).

Unless you happen t be Bill Gates or Rihanna or someone, you (personally) can't improve an industry that way.

Thaluikhain:

allowing that evidence ends with juries being wrong in way that could let a rapist walk free, which is far more likely.

I don't know if it is far more likely but sure, more likely. And that's fine. That's what due process is about. Better to let 100 guilty go free than convict an innocent man.

I like boycotts that force companies be fair. Without government involvement, civil rights types were forcing companies to change well before MLK. I think that sort of thing preferable to the kind of HR overhead, added legal insurance costs, etc. that big government brings.

Gorfias:
3: Calling him being an Incel at best, I mean, giving those who call him an MRA the benefit of the doubt: maybe they're confusing being an Incel with MRA. That's the best excuse I can come up with for those making the charge.

I'm pretty sure that's deliberate. It's essentially the approach that Clinton so clearly demonstrated with the "basket of deplorables" -- I'm good, therefore anyone who disagrees with me is evil, therefore they are all the same regardless of what they might call themselves or what beliefs they claim to have -- I can simply assign them the worst traits of anyone in the "basket", because they're all the same anyways. (One example I use is that my employer mostly works for oil/gas/petrochem companies. A lot of people where I work vote Republican across the board specifically because the GOP is good for oil/gas, which is good for their paycheck. Therefore, they are Nazis.)

You see, people who hate pick up artists for being ineffective are the same thing as pick up artists because they both want to manipulate women into sleeping with them. Those are the same thing as MRAs because noted PUA Roosh V runs a site in which he explicitly rejects being an MRA. Roosh V is also a rapist if you take some of his claims at face value, therefore if you think the family courts are unfair or that perhaps the model used in the justice system to deal with domestic violence effectively creates statistics that support it by making male victims incapable of doing anything about it without being deemed perpetrators or that maybe just maybe that the law in NC making assault a different class of crime depending on the genders of the perp and victim is an explicit and obvious violation of equal protection under the fucking law, you are a rapist or at least a rape apologist. Welcome to the basket.

undeadsuitor:
Aren't you curious as to why women's hair cuts cost more

I feel like you are going to answer that it's a result of male oppression somehow, though I expect it's because most popular women's hairstyles tend to be more elaborate than men's, and women are much more likely to dye their hair. There are expensive men's cuts too, but the vast majority of men get very cheap simple cuts.

Fieldy409:
Then he might go and blow his brains out one day after bottling up his shit for years. Men dont talk about their shit until they lose their temper one day.

...and Clementine Ford speaks for Lifeline Australia. She describes herself on Twitter as "Unfuckwithable feminist demogorgon" and is notable for how often she references male tears and killing men. She is a speaker for a fucking suicide hotline. Think about that one, and remember if you have a problem with her in that position you just hate women.

Fieldy409:
An idea of what a man should be automatically implies a woman shouldn't be it too, so you can see they have an interest in taking apart this stuff both ways and getting equality for you guys too.

That implies a level of consistency that they don't have to demonstrate, and accordingly often don't bother to. There's a reason that you don't see feminists pushing for equality of things where women don't benefit with any frequency. Maybe we should close the gender gap in sewer workers? Or rough sleeping homeless? Or on the job fatalities? No? Funny that.

That's without touching on some of the more extreme positions -- for example, I'm a fan of routine DNA testing before assigning any man paternity, it's a policy that benefits everyone involved except for women who cheat -- men have certainty of their paternity and kids have accurate medical family histories, and the tests are fairly cheap. Instead, I've seen articles suggesting that DNA paternity testing is misogynistic, and in France it's illegal unless the mother consents or there is a court order (specifically to keep men from testing their own children if they suspect). I'm also a fan of not forcing men into child support for children produced by sexually assaulting him, children for whom he is merely a sperm donor, and in cases where the child is provably not his but he was deceived into believing otherwise I think she should be required to repay the support (possibly with interest) once the child is no longer receiving said support as restitution for the damage caused.

Fieldy409:
Feminism is defined as wanting social and politcal equality, and women cant be equal to me without men being equal to women obviously.

...which is why the largest feminist lobby group in the US opposes the idea that courts should start from the position of assuming equal custody is best unless there's a reason to believe otherwise, arguing that anyone who believes fathers should have access to their children is instead promoting and encouraging domestic abuse.

Fieldy409:

MRA's should be on the same side as feminists 99%, the only genuine bone I can see is abortion issues because unfortunatly biology is inherently unbalanced, but most of the time you should be on the same team as you are both against gender stereotypes and unfair treatment based on sex because you both appear to want equality but for some reason you just bicker and I dont get why...
Unless they base their entire understanding on what feminism is based on that it the word has 'fem' in it.

So the movement you yearn for may already be here, as feminism.

I don't see feminists taking issue with the Duluth model of domestic violence, "primary aggressor" policies, or anything descending from those (which are essentially "when in any doubt at all, the nearest man is at fault" without phrasing it as such, to the point where there was at least one case where a woman called the cops on her mom and upon arriving they beat her dad to death instead).

I don't see feminists wanting to close the various gender gaps in the criminal justice system (women are less likely to be prosecuted for a crime, less likely to be convicted when prosecuted, and receive lesser sentences when convicted and all of these gaps are as large or larger than the racial gaps), in fact I see feminists backing making those gaps *wider* (hint: Look at who is encouraging non-custodial sentencing for women specifically).

Gorfias:
image

"Male tears" being a slang for semen, I've always liked to think of that as her advertising her advocacy for bukkake. I find the notion amusing.

Wrex Brogan:
Of course men need a movement. While feminism has done some good for mens rights through bringing attention to and addressing parts of toxic masculinity, a more directed movement that specifically focuses on the issues men face would be incredibly beneficial.

I'm going to ask something that usually gets denied but is often illustrative. What would you consider examples of positive masculinity?

Usually when I ask that I either get examples of men demonstrating superficial feminine qualities (implying that positive masculinity is defined by being feminine) or men behaving specifically to benefit women, sometimes to their own detriment (implying positive masculinity isn't about men at all but about how it can be used to benefit women).

Gorfias:
I don't know if it is far more likely but sure, more likely. And that's fine. That's what due process is about. Better to let 100 guilty go free than convict an innocent man.

Then you need to massively reduce the number of people convicted, and that would apply to crimes other than rape, which is the one people tend to talk like that about.

Schadrach:

"Male tears" being a slang for semen, I've always liked to think of that as her advertising her advocacy for bukkake. I find the notion amusing..

Thanks. I'll try doing that. Maybe it will make me feel better!

Thaluikhain:

Then you need to massively reduce the number of people convicted, and that would apply to crimes other than rape, which is the one people tend to talk like that about.

I think you have to do it in a process by process basis. Maybe there is no problem in due process with grand theft auto. Why make any changes?
But criminal prosecution reform is a topic for another time. I've read of those saying the conviction rates, including plea bargains in general are too high. As in you have over-zealous prosecution. Interesting by itself.

Gorfias:

I like boycotts that force companies be fair. Without government involvement, civil rights types were forcing companies to change well before MLK.

Citation Needed.

Smithnikov:

Gorfias:

I like boycotts that force companies be fair. Without government involvement, civil rights types were forcing companies to change well before MLK.

Citation Needed.

Ya got me on the first thing that came to mind:

http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2013/12/a-timeline-of-the-montgomery-bus-boycott.html

MLK was there but it was 1954, years before modern civil rights law. This was an economic win.

Even if there are earlier wins w/o MLK, this was the first one that came to mind so, point to you.

EDIT: And there is a court ruling that helped, so not pure economics.

EDIT: But economics of boycotts can be effective: "Sales at the boycotted stores dropped by a third, leading their owners to abandon segregation policies"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins

Lil devils x:

No, "Toxic Masculinity" is a term created by a Man (Shepherd Bliss) working to improve men's rights. As Already linked in this thread, but will link again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoetic_men%27s_movement

It should benefit you to learn about the earlier Men's rights movements to gain a better understanding of why this is so important rather than attack that which you do not understand. Feminists who have helped further their cause are not " against men" they are trying to help them as they have done so numerous times already.

Oh for crying out loud. It hardly matters who coined a term when it's so blatantly obvious it's used as a catchall for "whatever a man does, thinks or feels that displeases me at the moment." And while I'm personally not familiar with this Bliss individual (appears to be some kind of neckbeard marijuana farmer with tenure), I at least do actually know about the "mythopoetic" Men's Movement. Like, enough to see what's missing there. The "R" in "MRA" stands for "rights", something that even the Wikipedia link informs us the movement wasn't overtly concerned with. Which might be why they didn't call themselves "Men's Rights Movement", unlike you seem to suggest.

Now, could we please stop trying to substitute self-help therapy for social and legal lobbying in this conversation? It's almost as if you're trying to cloud the issue. Or is that some form of helping we menz just can't understand?

StatusNil:

Lil devils x:

No, "Toxic Masculinity" is a term created by a Man (Shepherd Bliss) working to improve men's rights. As Already linked in this thread, but will link again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoetic_men%27s_movement

It should benefit you to learn about the earlier Men's rights movements to gain a better understanding of why this is so important rather than attack that which you do not understand. Feminists who have helped further their cause are not " against men" they are trying to help them as they have done so numerous times already.

Oh for crying out loud. It hardly matters who coined a term when it's so blatantly obvious it's used as a catchall for "whatever a man does, thinks or feels that displeases me at the moment." And while I'm personally not familiar with this Bliss individual (appears to be some kind of neckbeard marijuana farmer with tenure), I at least do actually know about the "mythopoetic" Men's Movement. Like, enough to see what's missing there. The "R" in "MRA" stands for "rights", something that even the Wikipedia link informs us the movement wasn't overtly concerned with. Which might be why they didn't call themselves "Men's Rights Movement", unlike you seem to suggest.

Now, could we please stop trying to substitute self-help therapy for social and legal lobbying in this conversation? It's almost as if you're trying to cloud the issue. Or is that some form of helping we menz just can't understand?

No, it is not a "catch all" at all, as it has a definition that the only people I see that seem to misunderstand it are the ones claiming that it is "anti men".

There can be no "men's rights movement" without addressing Toxic Masculinity as that is the first step to actually advancing men's rights. The issue here is that Men have to actually address actions of other men to be able to progress on the issue at all since it is other men that are the ones preventing them from doing so.

It does not help that those who claim to be "champions for men's rights" are self admitted Sexists, which will only set men's rights back further rather than advance their cause. It is not clouding the issue at all when the goal here is to change these things that set men back, in order to do that you have to first look at what is is causing the problem and how you go about solving it. There is no way to just ignore toxic Masculinity, as that is the Snorlax blocking the path forward. That IS the how and why that has to be changed in order to make the changes that have to be made to advance mens rights. Otherwise nothing ever changes.

I was under the impression that the goal was to have these things changed, not just complain about womenz and "life no fair".

Schadrach:

...and Clementine Ford speaks for Lifeline Australia. She describes herself on Twitter as "Unfuckwithable feminist demogorgon" and is notable for how often she references male tears and killing men. She is a speaker for a fucking suicide hotline. Think about that one, and remember if you have a problem with her in that position you just hate women.

"Male tears" being a slang for semen, I've always liked to think of that as her advertising her advocacy for bukkake. I find the notion amusing.

Talking about male tears is obviously just a joke, like how you just joked about these women wanting to be in graphic pornography. I'd say the fact this Lady I've never heard of is working to help people not kill themselves says more to her character.

I made jokes about dead babies, I also voluntarily give blood that helped save babies. Don't get paid for it here so what's more important? A poor taste joke or what I actually do?

People need to chill over jokes, everyone on everyside seems to lose their shit over jokes but I guarantee we've all made dark jokes just as 'bad' in our own time so they are all hypocritical for coming down on jokes.

Fieldy409:

Schadrach:

...and Clementine Ford speaks for Lifeline Australia. She describes herself on Twitter as "Unfuckwithable feminist demogorgon" and is notable for how often she references male tears and killing men. She is a speaker for a fucking suicide hotline. Think about that one, and remember if you have a problem with her in that position you just hate women.

"Male tears" being a slang for semen, I've always liked to think of that as her advertising her advocacy for bukkake. I find the notion amusing.

Talking about male tears is obviously just a joke, like how you just joked about these women wanting to be in graphic pornography. I'd say the fact this Lady I've never heard of is working to help people not kill themselves says more to her character.

I made jokes about dead babies, I also voluntarily give blood that helped save babies. Don't get paid for it here so what's more important? A poor taste joke or what I actually do?

People need to chill over jokes, everyone on everyside seems to lose their shit over jokes but I guarantee we've all made dark jokes just as 'bad' in our own time so they are all hypocritical for coming down on jokes.

The thing about jokes is people need to realize that even if they did not mean to offend, sometimes people are offended and are not wrong for being offended. 'Its just a joke' should not be a defense, an explanation but not a defense. Like "I am sorry, I was just making a joke and was not trying to offend, and I apologize for offending you' as opposed to 'It was just a joke, get over it'.

I make jokes about my friends, but I am not trying to offend them. If it ever does, I would feel bad about it and apologize.

Saelune:

Fieldy409:

Schadrach:

...and Clementine Ford speaks for Lifeline Australia. She describes herself on Twitter as "Unfuckwithable feminist demogorgon" and is notable for how often she references male tears and killing men. She is a speaker for a fucking suicide hotline. Think about that one, and remember if you have a problem with her in that position you just hate women.

"Male tears" being a slang for semen, I've always liked to think of that as her advertising her advocacy for bukkake. I find the notion amusing.

Talking about male tears is obviously just a joke, like how you just joked about these women wanting to be in graphic pornography. I'd say the fact this Lady I've never heard of is working to help people not kill themselves says more to her character.

I made jokes about dead babies, I also voluntarily give blood that helped save babies. Don't get paid for it here so what's more important? A poor taste joke or what I actually do?

People need to chill over jokes, everyone on everyside seems to lose their shit over jokes but I guarantee we've all made dark jokes just as 'bad' in our own time so they are all hypocritical for coming down on jokes.

The thing about jokes is people need to realize that even if they did not mean to offend, sometimes people are offended and are not wrong for being offended. 'Its just a joke' should not be a defense, an explanation but not a defense. Like "I am sorry, I was just making a joke and was not trying to offend, and I apologize for offending you' as opposed to 'It was just a joke, get over it'.

I make jokes about my friends, but I am not trying to offend them. If it ever does, I would feel bad about it and apologize.

I think the point is that they don't feel bad about it. In fact, hurting someone else makes them feel good

5 pages in and what have we learned? Men = bad and the cause of all inequality.

Saelune:

Fieldy409:

Schadrach:

...and Clementine Ford speaks for Lifeline Australia. She describes herself on Twitter as "Unfuckwithable feminist demogorgon" and is notable for how often she references male tears and killing men. She is a speaker for a fucking suicide hotline. Think about that one, and remember if you have a problem with her in that position you just hate women.

"Male tears" being a slang for semen, I've always liked to think of that as her advertising her advocacy for bukkake. I find the notion amusing.

Talking about male tears is obviously just a joke, like how you just joked about these women wanting to be in graphic pornography. I'd say the fact this Lady I've never heard of is working to help people not kill themselves says more to her character.

I made jokes about dead babies, I also voluntarily give blood that helped save babies. Don't get paid for it here so what's more important? A poor taste joke or what I actually do?

People need to chill over jokes, everyone on everyside seems to lose their shit over jokes but I guarantee we've all made dark jokes just as 'bad' in our own time so they are all hypocritical for coming down on jokes.

The thing about jokes is people need to realize that even if they did not mean to offend, sometimes people are offended and are not wrong for being offended. 'Its just a joke' should not be a defense, an explanation but not a defense. Like "I am sorry, I was just making a joke and was not trying to offend, and I apologize for offending you' as opposed to 'It was just a joke, get over it'.

I make jokes about my friends, but I am not trying to offend them. If it ever does, I would feel bad about it and apologize.

But people act like theres no difference. You can joke about things you don't really believe in. What would offend you more, the guy jokingly saying "Hitler was right." or the guy with a stone cold serious expression saying "Hitler was right."

Whether something was a joke or not is important context. To pretend it isnt is to just ignore natural human behaviour and label people things they might not really be.

See this guy using a picture of a chick wearing a shirt that says 'Male tears' as his argument that they really hate men. At the end of the day maybe its a bit offensive but its a leap to say that alone means she really hates men.

Fieldy409:

Saelune:

Fieldy409:

Talking about male tears is obviously just a joke, like how you just joked about these women wanting to be in graphic pornography. I'd say the fact this Lady I've never heard of is working to help people not kill themselves says more to her character.

I made jokes about dead babies, I also voluntarily give blood that helped save babies. Don't get paid for it here so what's more important? A poor taste joke or what I actually do?

People need to chill over jokes, everyone on everyside seems to lose their shit over jokes but I guarantee we've all made dark jokes just as 'bad' in our own time so they are all hypocritical for coming down on jokes.

The thing about jokes is people need to realize that even if they did not mean to offend, sometimes people are offended and are not wrong for being offended. 'Its just a joke' should not be a defense, an explanation but not a defense. Like "I am sorry, I was just making a joke and was not trying to offend, and I apologize for offending you' as opposed to 'It was just a joke, get over it'.

I make jokes about my friends, but I am not trying to offend them. If it ever does, I would feel bad about it and apologize.

But people act like theres no difference. You can joke about things you don't really believe in. What would offend you more, the guy jokingly saying "Hitler was right." or the guy with a stone cold serious expression saying "Hitler was right."

See this guy using a picture of a chick wearing a shirt that says 'Male tears' as his argument that they really hate men. At the end of the day maybe its a bit offensive but its a leap to say that means she really hates men.

Well, there is always context. If you are going to make a 'Hitler is right' joke, make sure it is clear it is a joke. If you always are 'sarcastically' praising Nazis, eventually it does not seem sarcastic.

Everything must be viewed in context. As for this woman? Well, I think it is a joke in that she is bothered by sexism against women and wears clothing like that as a means to vent. I also think she is justified in wanting to vent about it.

Mothro:
5 pages in and what have we learned? Men = bad and the cause of all inequality.

1) Not all men are responsible for inequality.
2) Only " bad" when they participate in something "bad" or enable bad things to happen.
3) there are plenty of men doing something about it. Not all men are promoting Toxic Masculinity, there are men who are actively trying to fight against it, for example:
http://www.mencanstoprape.org/
http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/
https://www.malesurvivor.org/index.php
http://www.batteredmenshelpline.org/
https://mankindproject.org/
http://menengage.org/
http://xyonline.net/

And all these groups of men actively making things better for men unite with women to make things better rather than attempt to tear down the good work that has been done. They are all openly Pro feminists and feminists help further their work. If more men stopped complaining about feminists and instead worked with them to make things better they would be able to get a hell of a lot more done.

Lil devils x:
It should benefit you to learn about the earlier Men's rights movements to gain a better understanding of why this is so important rather than attack that which you do not understand. Feminists who have helped further their cause are not " against men" they are trying to help them as they have done so numerous times already.

Just because the concept of "Toxic Masculinity" comes from some esoteric hippy circle trying to justify their construction of new faux maculinity rituals as some kind of back-to-the-roots move to some imagined old real masculanity does not mean they are right in any way.

There can be no "men's rights movement" without addressing Toxic Masculinity as that is the first step to actually advancing men's rights. The issue here is that Men have to actually address actions of other men to be able to progress on the issue at all since it is other men that are the ones preventing them from doing so.

Well, no.

I won't deny that there are toxic ideas about masculinity somewhere that should better vanish sooner than later. But that has precisely nothing to do with "advancing men's right". At least if you are not meaning "all gender rolesa are bad for individualism and thus infringe on freedom", which would have some merit but is not particularly linked to toxic masculinity.

It gets worse with this whole "men have to adress other men". That is the same faulty reasoning that plagued the He-for-She initiative. Men are not particularly likely to pay attention to what other men think, if they have no special reason to do so. Who changes the viewpoint because some random stranger with some other viewpoints voices disagreement ? No one. The chance a man has to pursuade another man is not any better than the chance a woman has to do so. And the chance for the discussion to escalate to something ugly is not smaller.
And then we have the tendency of humans to gather in groups of like-minded individuals in the first place. Leading to even less interactions where one "could say something". There are no regular gatherings of men where they discuss masculinity. Actually there are hardly any getherings of men left due to blurring roles, most men don't participate in any activity with exclusively other men and don't seem to miss this particularly. (Leading to further evidence that those mythopoetics have it wrong and provide a solution hardly anyone needs.) The idea of closed manly social spaces where men can influence other men and women can not is mostly faulty and is getting more wrong by the day.

"Men have the responsibility to stop rape" and the idea that they could is basically the same thing as with "Muslims have the responsibility to stop islamic terrorism". It is an act of simply blaming the whole group for what a subgroup they don't control does.

Satinavian:

Lil devils x:
It should benefit you to learn about the earlier Men's rights movements to gain a better understanding of why this is so important rather than attack that which you do not understand. Feminists who have helped further their cause are not " against men" they are trying to help them as they have done so numerous times already.

Just because the concept of "Toxic Masculinity" comes from some esoteric hippy circle trying to justify their construction of new faux maculinity rituals as some kind of back-to-the-roots move to some imagined old real masculanity does not mean they are right in any way.

There can be no "men's rights movement" without addressing Toxic Masculinity as that is the first step to actually advancing men's rights. The issue here is that Men have to actually address actions of other men to be able to progress on the issue at all since it is other men that are the ones preventing them from doing so.

Well, no.

I won't deny that there are toxic ideas about masculinity somewhere that should better vanish sooner than later. But that has precisely nothing to do with "advancing men's right". At least if you are not meaning "all gender rolesa are bad for individualism and thus infringe on freedom", which would have some merit but is not particularly linked to toxic masculinity.

It gets worse with this whole "men have to adress other men". That is the same faulty reasoning that plagued the He-for-She initiative. Men are not particularly likely to pay attention to what other men think, if they have no special reason to do so. Who changes the viewpoint because some random stranger with some other viewpoints voices disagreement ? No one. The chance a man has to pursuade another man is not any better than the chance a woman has to do so. And the chance for the discussion to escalate to something ugly is not smaller.
And then we have the tendency of humans to gather in groups of like-minded individuals in the first place. Leading to even less interactions where one "could say something". There are no regular gatherings of men where they discuss masculinity. Actually there are hardly any getherings of men left due to blurring roles, most men don't participate in any activity with exclusively other men and don't seem to miss this particularly. (Leading to further evidence that those mythopoetics have it wrong and provide a solution hardly anyone needs.) The idea of closed manly social spaces where men can influence other men and women can not is mostly faulty and is getting more wrong by the day.

"Men have the responsibility to stop rape" and the idea that they could is basically the same thing as with "Muslims have the responsibility to stop islamic terrorism". It is an act of simply blaming the whole group for what a subgroup they don't control does.

It has everything to do with advancing men's rights. Without Toxic Masculinity, for example, you would not have the idea that women are too weak to take care of themselves, that women should not work but instead be taken care of by a man. Once that idea is purged, you can then address men ensuring women have equal access to finances and self sufficiency, that then leads to men no longer being forced to support women financially under the law. All of these things are related. You cannot just cut off financial support for women until you address why they deem the financial support necessary. It will continue to be necessary as long as there are women who are being denied access to their own finances by their own spouse, not allowed to work,and considered too weak or inferior to earn a living income.

http://www.thehotline.org/2013/07/09/when-money-becomes-a-form-of-power-and-control/
https://www.forbes.com/2010/09/02/women-money-domestic-violence-forbes-woman-net-worth-personal-finance.html#13fcd1a31047
https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/allstate/how-money-traps-victims-of-domestic-violence/750/
https://nelsnewday.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/2903/

Sadly, it is still common for men to have financial control. As long as that continues, courts will order men to support women. Men who do this make it more difficult on the men who do not, so society as a whole must address the men who do this in order to make it better for the men who do not. It should not just be women addressing this, of course men have to address other men as well. The problem is not enough men are addressing other men. You cannot expect women to do all the work.

Toxic Masculinity has defined the roles for men in the workplace by empowering men who conform to their predefined roles and punishing men who break from those roles. Men who show emotion, take off to spend time with their families, or do not conform to their standards of masculinity are passed up for promotion, excluded from events, and frequently demoted or terminated regardless of their actual job performance.

https://hbr.org/2015/05/stop-punishing-the-family-man
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/dissecting-toxic-masculinity-over-aggressive-competitondgt/

In order to advance men's childcare rights and financial responsibility rights, you have to address Toxic Masculinity in the workplace as well as the courts. As long as the stereotypes are enforced as acceptable, men will continue to be punished financially, emotionally and socially for not fitting that stereotype. How can the man have time to care for his child and spend quality time with his family if he is punished by employers and coworkers for doing so? As long as the man is expected to work and the mother be the one who stays home with the child, the courts will continue to award women custody over men as well as expect the men to pay for the time off the mother has to take from work. The only way this can change is by addressing the underlying stereotypes being created and enforced by toxic Masculinity.

Luckily, there have been more and more men willing to combat Toxic Masculinity in this time and hopefully we will see it less and less over time allowing for it to be more socially acceptable to have stay at home Dads, and for men to take off from work to care for their sick child or to even take them to the zoo. The more this changes, the better it will be for men long term.

EDIT: also the idea that "Men can stop rape" is not remotely comparable to "Muslims can stop terrorism" as they are very different things. You are comparing apples to oranges. Terrorists kill more Muslims than any other group, they are not actually Muslims and could care less what Muslims have to tell them, they do not care what anyone tells them, they are terrorists, they will kill you for thinking about telling them anything. Men are still men and do have an actual impact on what is socially acceptable among men.

"Men can stop rape" is doing good work to combat the toxic ideas such as: "man deserves to have sex", " A woman owes a man sex" , and " if a woman is passed out it is okay to have sex with her" ( We actually had a member of this site that did not know it was rape to have sex with an unconscious woman BTW)

It is doing everyone a disservice to attempt to portray rape as something only monsters do, someone separate from society when the reality is it is family, friends, neighbors, who just happen to have raped someone. Men can stop rape help people realize that and change the way people think about rape.

These things NEED to be addressed, and that is what the Men can stop rape organization is doing. They are actually doing something to help, why attack the very organizations that are improving things for both men and women long term?

ALSO, Men do pay attention to what other men say/do when that is the majority of society. Expanding understanding one person at a time is how you get there. It is not about " random stranger" it is about employers, coworkers, teammates, friends, family doing this, not just " random strangers". It changes when you have people willing to help change it rather than continue to turn a blind eye. The goal here is to reduce the number of men who promote toxic ideals or bully other men into conforming to those toxic ideals. The less prevalent this is in society, the less it will happen overall. We cannot hope to stop it, all we can hope to do right now is greatly reduce the amount of it happening over time. Much of the time the guys doing this stuff actually think it is normal, that "everyone is doing it" and that they are in the right. That can be changed when the people they interact with let them know that is not the case and not acceptable to them.

There are plenty of spaces, in person and online that men get together and discuss things. Whether it is on video games, at work, at sporting events, or just online, there are still plenty of male dominated spaces where conversations can take place. Even the Rock is talking about it:
https://www.askmen.com/news/sports/the-rock-talks-mental-health-and-toxic-masculinity.html

And if you look over the links I provided to the post you quoted above, there ARE men's groups and organizations addressing this where it is being discussed. This is not something that has to only discussed by men though, it is okay to have a conversation about it whether some friends are just hanging out at the house or anywhere for that matter.

Mothro:
5 pages in and what have we learned? Men = bad and the cause of all inequality.

Are you interested in anything explained in depth, or do you just want to criticise anything associated with feminism for the sake of opposing anything to do with feminism?

I don't mean this to be insulting, I ask because it's fair to let people know whether it's worth them spending time and effort constructing a thoughtful response of no interest or value to you.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked