male contraception pill.

df001i6876

In news on tv and most news papers .IN the UK . THERES talk about the pill for men? the trials are about to start in London +Manchester sometime this year. my first re action was great and at last. But the more i think about it /. IF it work out ok for men , will we remember too take it for sake off our lady friends. And will we still remember to protect against aids ?I was teenager when the girls + ladys off my time took the pill free love and hippies + peace . Do you think theres nothink too worry. about or am i just a old fool /.?

BrianD3

The notion that men are too forgetful/irresponsible/incompetent to be trusted to take a contraceptive pill is a stupid stereotype in my opinion.

Of course there are stupid men out there - but there are also plenty of stupid women who engage in irresponsible sexual activity and then go running to the doc the next day to get the morning after pill.

It bugs me that it's perfectly acceptable in modern society to bash and stereotype men. Just look at advertising - how many ads portray men as being useless, incompetent, scruffy, lazy slobs who are only interested in three things (beer, sex and football) Whereas women are usually portrayed as being smart, intelligent and beautiful and are often shown getting the better of some male idiot.

BrianD3

PHB

I heard the funniest story a while ago, well it was also kinda distressing.

A girl walked into a doctor, and was eventually told she was pregnent. She was confused. She said she was taking her pill eveyrday, and when she forgot, her boyfriend took it for her.

df001i6876

Originally posted by BrianD3
The notion that men are too forgetful/irresponsible/incompetent to be trusted to take a contraceptive pill is a stupid stereotype in my opinion.

Of course there are stupid men out there - but there are also plenty of stupid women who engage in irresponsible sexual activity and then go running to the doc the next day to get the morning after pill.

It bugs me that it's perfectly acceptable in modern society to bash and stereotype men. Just look at advertising - how many ads portray men as being useless, incompetent, scruffy, lazy slobs who are only interested in three things (beer, sex and football) Whereas women are usually portrayed as being smart, intelligent and beautiful and are often shown getting the better of some male idiot.

BrianD3

ITS not the stupid men or women out there in this modern society . IT work both ways its, just will man now have ? lets say it works ok . the power to have children when he wants if he puts condom on he will all so stop any chances receiveing aids. were the lovely women do not . The women can get the morning after pill . Too stop a pregnancy. but the women as no power off this kind [ to stop aids ] only the man will if it works? But in 1970 womem + men seen love with out have ing kids as great time. What i am trying to say ? pill for men if it works would have the power off life +death .

df001i6876

Originally posted by PHB
I heard the funniest story a while ago, well it was also kinda distressing.

A girl walked into a doctor, and was eventually told she was pregnent. She was confused. She said she was taking her pill eveyrday, and when she forgot, her boyfriend took it for her.

well if work out ok now he can ? nice one

dr_manhattan

Brain D3, what does this have to do with a contraceptive pill? In fairness, I don't think anyone is stereotyping anyone: when people discuss the female pill, forgetting to take it is ALWAYS discussed too - does that mean we're "stereotyping" women as Irresponsible?

"It bugs me that it's perfectly acceptable in modern society to bash and stereotype men. Just look at advertising - how many ads portray men as being useless, incompetent, scruffy, lazy slobs who are only interested in three things (beer, sex and football) Whereas women are usually portrayed as being smart, intelligent and beautiful and are often shown getting the better of some male idiot. "

Brian D3, you seem to have a serious chip on your shoulder here: you know how I get over the fact that I'm stereotyped as dumb and incompetent in a few stupid commercials?

Well, I sit back and think that, as a man, there are more opportunities, better wages and general control of society available to me as a white man than would be from any other place in the world.

Then I think that, if the ads distress me too much, I can reassure myself by turning them OFF, and turning on 90% of all movies, and noticing that male leads with ridiculous abilities and intelligence, suavite and wit are usually the focus of them.

Then I look at the fact that men are responsible for well over 80% of ALL crime, that we have been almost 100% responsible for the creation of this STUPID world and all it's wrongs (remember, the 15% of the world that is the west only let women vote less that 100 years ago before you retort to that one. Elsewhere women still get killed for dating the wrong man) and look at the fact that most men I know ARE most interested in beer, sex and football, and I think:

Is this really harming me? Is this such a problem?

Cos a woman could just as easily get wound up that, while in ads (and practically nowhere else except trite social dramas) they are portrayed as slinky geniuses, in their own lives they are patronised, bullied, harassed, underpaid, and generally treated like a useless twat? Unless of course they put on a short skirt or low cut top in which case everyone wants to talk to their "personality"... do you really think that some ads that use stereotypes (and ALL ads use stereotypes) are really harming you?

Honestly, we men are such whinging bitches - we have to put up with 50 years of moving about a bit after well over 7,000 on top of the world, and suddenly we're oppressed by stereotyping? It's hilarious.

And incidentally, in half the "modern societies" in the world, it's NOT acceptable to take the piss out of men at all.


And as for the male pill: it won't solve any problems. It may change some things, but condoms will still be necessary in casual sex, so I don't think it'll change a lot: it may make things a bit more fair though, I'll say that.

Given that the female pill is a dangerous, mood-altering, cancer- encouraging piece of pharmaceutical profiteering, I know I'm not gonna be queuing up to take the male one for quite some time: but if it works, and doesn't destroy people's bodies, then I'm all for it in principle.

Commissar

I don't see how it could work in general. It seems to me the pill is much easier to take retro-actively. i.e. It's more likely a woman will think "I had sex last night, better take the pill," than a man would think "I might have sex tonight, better take the pill."

dr_manhattan

...yup: and it's a HELL of a lot more likely that a bloke, with no condoms, will pull the "oh, I'm on the male pill" routine just to get a shag.

And this is not stereotyping men: unless of course it's stereotyping men to say that men are unable to get pregnant and thus care much, much, MUCH less about protection than women.

Also, the nature of female vs male physiology means that women have to come to an agreement with their body's reproductive cycle in order to get anything sorted - so they're much more likely to stick to a course of medicine with regard to reproduction. The classic male mindset would not, IMHO, be as inclined to keep on the programme.

So I'm guessing this will not affect the casual sex market one bit, unless men on the pill can get a certificate ;-) (and even then, it'll need to be combined with one o' them porn industry safe certs before it gets you laid with no protection...)

anyways, another 2 cents, hahaha ;-)

Cake Fiend

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
...yup: and it's a HELL of a lot more likely that a bloke, with no condoms, will pull the "oh, I'm on the male pill" routine just to get a shag.

More fool the woman who shags him then.

Originally posted by df001i6876
but the women as no power off this kind [ to stop aids ] only the man will if it works?

Eh... you what? The woman has no power over having unprotected sex with a man??
It takes two to tango. Both parties should take responsibility for protection. A woman who has unprotected sex with a stranger, even (especially?) one who says he's on the male pill is recklessly irresponsible. On the flip side, a man who has unprotected sex with a stranger is just as irresponsible.

Contraceptive pills are more suitable for established, monogomous, regular sex between a couple than for casual sex, for obvious (I should hope!) reasons. I'd certainly be interested in trying it out (preferably along with the female pill) should I find myself in the position to do so. It could even be worth using along with condoms for casual sex, for added protection, if it's a success.

dr_manhattan

"...yup: and it's a HELL of a lot more likely that a bloke, with no condoms, will pull the "oh, I'm on the male pill" routine just to get a shag.

More fool the woman who shags him then."

Not necessarily more or less: and anyway, given the peer pressure most blokes habitually bring to bear on girls in this regard, often foolishness is not the question: for example, the typical male seeks out younger girls for many reasons: one often being a younger girl has less confidence.

but anyways, the scenario described above was more about establishing that blokes are generally less responsible than women, and therefore a pill which only works when they use it responsibly is gonna be that much more likely to fail, ya get me?

"I'd certainly be interested in trying it out (preferably along with the female pill) should I find myself in the position to do so."

nah, mate: the female pill wouldn't work for you. A woman would have to take it.

LOL ;-)

BrianD3

when people discuss the female pill, forgetting to take it is ALWAYS discussed too

Not in my experience it's not. Or if it is discussed, it's not the major topic of discussion. In contrast, any time I've heard a discussion about the male contraceptive pill, the main topic has not been about the pill itself but rather "can men be trusted to take a pill" The general opinion is no, because all men are sex-crazed, irresponsible idiots who don't give a sh1t about contraception and who's brains are located in their d!cks :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone is stereotyping anyone

Huh? How about your followup post. You talk about the "typical male" and how "most men" put "peer pressure" on young women to have sex with them. If this isn't stereotyping, I don't know what is.

what does this have to do with a contraceptive pill

Because I believe there is a relationship between the view that "men are too irresponsible to take a contraceptive pill" and the way men are portrayed in advertising. The more ads that portray men as being useless gobsh1tes, the more people will start to believe it. Never underestimate the power of the media and advertising. These days, it has become fashionable and a part of popular culture to ridicule men.

you seem to have a serious chip on your shoulder here

Why, because I don't toe the feminist line? Seems that any time men speak out against perceived discrimination or negative stereotyping, they are accused of being whiney, of having a chip on their shoulder and then inevitably someone wheels out the good old misogynist accusations :rolleyes:

Then I think that, if the ads distress me too much, I can reassure myself by turning them OFF

I do more than turn them off. I boycott products if I take offence at the advertising. Example: I will never purchase a Meteor mobile phone, because I did not like a certain advertisement. I urge all males who take offence at ads to do likewise. It's a very small step but it is a start. It also allows men to counter the argument that they merely sit around moaning and whining and never do anything to try to change things.

and ALL ads use stereotypes

Of course all ads stereotype to some extent but it seems that white males are very often the butt of the joke. Lets say that there was a recurring theme in ads where black people or homosexuals or women or Jewish people or Catholics or any other group that you can think of were ridiculed. Let's say that there were numerous ads on TV which portrayed Jewish people as being tight-fisted and mean. How would that go down? Would you regard that as being acceptable?

in their own lives they are patronised, bullied, harassed, underpaid, and generally treated like a useless twat?

<snip rest of rant>
Whether women as a group are or aren't downtrodden and underpaid has nothing to do with the argument. We're talking about the male contraceptive pill. I stated that I felt that men were being stereotyped unfairly as being too untrustworthy and irresponsbible to take a pill. There are plenty of men out there who could be trusted to take a pill in my opinion. I then used the example of how men are portrayed in advertising to give another example of what I regard as similar negative stereotyping.

Is this really harming me? Is this such a problem?

You may not have a problem with this. Perhaps you've been brainwashed by the feminist lobby into thinking that knocking men is justified because of hundreds of years of oppression of women etc. etc. Actually, from the tone of your post, I would say that this is a pretty good summing up of your attitude.

BrianD3

sceptre

Originally posted by PHB
I heard the funniest story a while ago, well it was also kinda distressing.

A girl walked into a doctor, and was eventually told she was pregnent. She was confused. She said she was taking her pill eveyrday, and when she forgot, her boyfriend took it for her.

I'll tell you a story that distressed me (you may read the last words as "that I found hilarious"). Apparently, there was a push on in China for contraception about twenty years ago (I'm too lazy to find a link). There was a TV campaign and everything. The authorities were astounded to find out that birth rates actually went up in the year following the campaign. After some research they found that hundreds of thousands of couples were following exactly the same procedure as featured on the adverts: men were taking the pill and men were unrolling the condom on to their finger before having sex.

May just be a myth, but nevertheless, a good will is useless without a good set of instructions.

bizmark

Let's say that there were numerous ads on TV which portrayed Jewish people as being tight-fisted and mean. How would that go down? Would you regard that as being acceptable?

they are accused of being whiney, of having a chip on their shoulder and then inevitably someone wheels out the good old misogynist accusations

How very true

dr_manhattan

brain D3, I'm afraid I can't take you seriously.

"Of course all ads stereotype to some extent but it seems that white males are very often the butt of the joke."

Yeah: top of the world, yet butt of the joke. Pardon me but yes, I do think it's actually more acceptable to take the piss out of white males because white males spend most of their time taking the piss out of everyone else.

If you feel advertising is oppressing you as a white male, then you fight that fight, Brian.... you strike me as yet another white male who takes his position in the world far too seriously.

"These days, it has become fashionable and a part of popular culture to ridicule men."

Then act like a man, and take a joke, huh? What's the problem with having the piss taken out of you? How much advertising portrays women as fickle idiots or diet obsessed fools? You are bieng just like a dogmatic feminist who freaks out cos there's a chick with a bikini on the TV. And like I would say to a feminist also: chill out. Who cares. Advertising is the armpit of society, so what?

I would worry about a black man who was similarly angered by a 'lilt' ad: sure it's sterotyping to have a black man with a jamaican accent singing about lilt: but if that gets to you, then you;'re gonna have a hard time in life.

Word in your ear, BrianD3: it's only advertising. Boycotting a product because of its advertising is exactly the same as buying it because of its advertising - you're buying into the hype of the campaign.

Might I ask what you think you're achieving with this? The uplifting of the oppression of the white male? Look around you, pal: white men are not being oppressed.

And as for your inevitable tag of "misogyny" - well, in my experience, people with as big a chip (and it is a chip - if you were talking about anything, irish nationality, the WTO, then this would be a chip. Ya better realise it) as you eventually start blaming women for everything. So if you act like a woman hater, then yes, I will call you one.

IMHO, your rant about feminist brainwashing is enough to make me wonder.

So anyways, as I say, HOW do these "stereotypes" affect you adversely?

And btw, it's all about context: if anyone had ever tried to wipe out white males because of such racial traits as incompetence and ignorance, if anyone had ever enslaved white men because of myths of their aggressiveness, if anyone had ever denied white men anything based on racist ideas of their inferiority, then yes, I would worry about stereotypoing of white men: but only to a certain degree.

Some jewish people objected to the stereotyping in the maureen lipmann BT ads - I think this is valid, but pointless. Just like getting angry at the old el paso ad ("call you in the morning...if I'm still aliiiive") is valid, but utterly pointless.

but actually, the above treatment has generally been given OUT by white european men to everyone else in the world. This is the reason why all us people who have been "brainwashed by a feminist agenda" think that it's actually not such a big issue to take the piss out of white men. Stupid, humourless, arrogant, paranoid white men.

Naturally, you're right, it's not the best thing to do, but that's mainly because people like YOU have no sense of humour, and don't understand that there's no global conspiracy against you.

Anyways, this is all off topic: as I said, whenever I discuss the female pill with female friends, the subject of forgetting it comes up. However, as I said, women, who have a menstrual clock that they follow anyways, and are in many ways ruled by this menstrual cycle, are for HUNDREDS of reasons, more likely to remember to take a pill than a man is. You know this, everyone does.

Now as to stereotyping: it's not a stereotype that men commit most crime, and almost all violent crime: it's a fact. Nobody knows why, I personally believe it's because men made this society, and so have the most issues within it, but some might say it's because of testosterone being a dangerous, antisocial drug.

It's not a stereotype that men tend to be less responsible with money than women, tend to pay their bills later, tend to be more physically violent, yadayadayada.

Now, YOU brought up advertising, etc., but the essential question is: there is a firm basis for saying that men tend to be less responsible than women. Any woman I know, when the pill is first brought up, will talk about a time when they messed up and forgot to take it, whatever. To be honest, EVERYONE, when the pil is mentioned, thinks of times when it ****s up.

Same applies to trains, jets, whatever: as soon as they're mentioned, chances are, someone will think of a time when they ****ed up badly. Or mention the possibility. Is that sexist against (mostly male) pilots or drivers? No. It's just a tendency to think of when things go wrong rather than right. No feminist agenda.

And then there's the fact that men cannot get pregnant, DUH - so of course we're not as worried as women about conception. Simple biology.

So why is it such a wounding thing for you to hear it discussed that men may not take a pill? Why does it grate so much? When people discuss taking the female pil, I've NEVER heard women get all "are you saying we're so feckless we can't remember?"

I would suggest that, if you want to stand up for white men, you start acting like a man, and choose your battles more wisely. Your sensitivity to the tiniest suggestion that men may not be 100% betrays a willingness to play the victim IMHO

androphobic

Very interesting posts so far. Personally I wouldn't bother getting my boyfriend to take the male pill. Not because he's hugely irresponsible but because I wouldn't have complete piece of mind. I'd continue using other methods of contraception regardless and I don't see the point in both of us taking things (I'm not a big fan of the pill anyway).

I can honestly say that it's not a matter of trust.. I trust him entirely. The thing is, people mess up, people forget about things.. human error.. but generally the girl is the more cautious one.. not because men are stupid and irresponsible, but because at the end of the day, she is the one who will carry the baby, should one be concieved.

I'd prefer to be in control of what happens to my body. Depending solely on the male pill would take this control away and I wouldn't be prepared to let that happen.

BrianD3

brain D3, I'm afraid I can't take you seriously

Then why not just ignore me instead of posting another rant.

I do think it's actually more acceptable to take the piss out of white males

Some jewish people objected to the stereotyping in the maureen lipmann BT ads - I think this is valid

I would worry about a black man who was similarly angered by a 'lilt' ad

So you think double standards are perfectly acceptable. Glad we got that much straight.

If you feel advertising is oppressing you as a white male

Show me where I stated that I felt oppressed by advertising which shows men in a bad light. I disagree with it. I am annoyed by it. I *never* compared it to things such as enslavement of blacks, women being denied the vote etc....It's *you* who brought these up and started a long-winded, off-topic rant about how white male oppressors are responsible for all the evils in society etc. etc.

Boycotting a product because of its advertising is exactly the same as buying it because of its advertising - you're buying into the hype of the campaign

Huh? I'm not following you here. If I refuse to buy a product because I don't like the way it's advertised then I'm not buying into anything. The purpose of advertising is to sell the product. If large numbers of potential consumers fail to buy that product, then the advertising has failed.

Look around you, pal: white men are not being oppressed

I never said they were.

you eventually start blaming women for everything.

You can predict the future now can you :rolleyes:

So if you act like a woman hater, then yes, I will call you one. Your rant about feminist brainwashing is enough to make me wonder

Try to understand the difference between the words "feminist" and "woman". Me disagreeing with certain aspects of feminism or disagreeing with the way men are portrayed in the media does not make me a misogynist or woman hater. You accusing me of being one displays your ignorance - I suggest you consult a dictionary to look up the definition of misogyny. Also, another suggestion: try to avoid coming out with tired old cliches about chips on shoulders and about men who complain about anything having no sense of humour or not behaving like real men.

if anyone had ever denied white men anything

I can think of two areas straight away where Irish men appear to suffer unfair treatment a) family law b) men's health issues
But I guess men who speak out against this should just shut up and accept it for fear that someone who doesn't understand plain English starts making accusations of misogyny.

start acting like a man

Try to take on board what I said about the cliches.

And btw, it's all about context: if anyone had ever tried to wipe out white males because of such racial traits as incompetence and ignorance, if anyone had ever enslaved white men because of myths of their aggressiveness....I would worry about stereotypoing of white men

Irish people were oppressed by the English for centuries. Does this give us the right to produce ads that portray English people as lager-swilling, loudmouthed, aggressive football hooligans with BNP tattoos. Hey lets do it! It'll be payback time for all that oppression. It'll be real mature and will be a good laugh and hey if there are any English that don't like it then **** 'em after all they're just a pack of evil oppressors :rolleyes:

BrianD3

dr_manhattan

Brian, you're not reading a single thing I posted: cutting and pasting my stuff out of context doesn't make me inconsistent:

I said that a black man getting angry over a lilt ad would be "worrying" (as in, uptight and sad, as in, a bit like you),

I said that jewish people getting angry over maureen lipmann were "valid, but pointless" (you left out the last bit, well done there brian that's a great tactic)

And I said that white male getting wound up (as you no doubt are) about their image on the TV is PATHETIC and SAD. I didn't talk about anyone's right to do anything else, I am talking about angry men who think they are being somehow opressed by media charicatures.

And if you don't think you're being opressed and/or mistreated, then WHAT exactly is your problem that provoked your intial outburts about stereotyping?

Now, *you* brought accusations of misogyny into this, so no, I won't look it up in the dictionary: you obviously don't realise it, but you're proving me right here with your defensiveness.

as far as this goes:

"you started a long-winded, off-topic rant about how white male oppressors are responsible for all the evils in society"

Actualy, I simply defended against your points about hypotetical protrayal of jews in the media, and provided further examples. What i am trying to point out to you is that white men should shut their whinging ****ing mouths and find something else to act the victim about. To read you self righteous ****e about the portrayal of men in advertising, you'd swear it was causing you problems, now once again I ask:

what is your problem? What damage does this stereotyping of men do you? What proof do you have that this is doing damage? Why are you acting like a martyr?

Which is what i asked in the first place.

Next:

"Try to understand the difference between the words "feminist" and "woman""

Brian, it was YOU who accused me of being brainwashed by feminists. Why don't YOU understand the difference? What are you talking about? Do you really have anything to say?

Any question of you hating women was raised by YOU.

Any mention of feminism was started by YOU.

Any mention of other stereotypes (i.e. jewish) was again, YOU.

And as for this:

"Irish people were oppressed by the English for centuries. Does this give us the right to produce ads that portray English people as lager-swilling, loudmouthed, aggressive football hooligans with BNP tattoos. Hey lets do it! It'll be payback time for all that oppression. It'll be real mature and will be a good laugh and hey if there are any English that don't like it then **** 'em after all they're just a pack of evil oppressors"

Actually, it gives no right to anyone whatsoever. I did not say anyone had the right to lampoon males via stereotypes, I just asked you what the big deal is, and why you can't just shut up whinging: I actually said that your whinging was valid, it's just pathetic. You can whinge all you want about male stereotypes, just don't expect to be taken seriously.

However, your line there about "payback" has finally convinced me that you think this stereotyping of men in advertising is about some kind of "feminist" (your words) "payback"

In otherwords, like all white men, you think that everything in the world revolves around you. That there's an agenda of convincing everyone that men are dumb going on in "the media" and that if we're not careful, people will "believe" it (your words)

Fact is, if and when we take the piss out of the brits, they take it a damn sight better than we do. However, I fail to see the parallels between a dumb man in an ad, and "lager-swilling, loudmouthed, aggressive football hooligans with BNP tattoos"

You see, your perspective is utterly warped on this: if you can name an advertisment that portrays men as above, then I'd like to hear about it. Until then (and even possibly after) I will remain unable to take your views seriously.

And in answer to your first question, I'm not passing up the opportunity to skip work and pick your twisted brains for free, nosiree. If I didn't post this ****e, I'd have to do a daysd work hahaha.

dr_manhattan

PS - I just noticed:

(you quoting me)
"So if you act like a woman hater, then yes, I will call you one. Your rant about feminist brainwashing is enough to make me wonder

(you on a rant)
"Try to understand the difference between the words "feminist" and "woman". Me disagreeing with certain aspects of feminism or disagreeing with the way men are portrayed in the media does not make me a misogynist or woman hater. You accusing me of being one displays your ignorance - "

Brian, the evidence for you being an utter paranoid mounts:

1) YOU brought up misogyny and accusations thereof, saying that you expected to be called one. Obviosuly you expected to a lot, cos you then just assumed you were being called one.
2) I never accused you of anything, I simply said that you saying that I had been brainwashed by feminists made me WONDER about you. I said before this that IF you act like one, I will call you one. But I never did, not then nor before.

Now once again, I ask you, what is your problem?

And also, why not reply to androphobia? She said pretty much the same things as I did, in a much shorter post - has she been brainwashed too?

BrianD3

<Sigh> :rolleyes: I see you've resorted to more name-calling and insults. I think what I wrote was pretty clear but obviously I'll have to spell it out to you once again, seeing as you have difficulty understanding. And judging by your language and insults, it's YOU who's getting wound up here. Might help if you were a little less hysterical.

Brian, you're not reading a single thing I posted: cutting and pasting my stuff out of context doesn't make me inconsistent

Not true. I have read everything you wrote and quoted you fairly and in context (with the exception of leaving out the word "pointless") So, one more time lets talk about your double standards and inconsistency. According to you:
-if A Jewish person protests about the BT ad you reckon the protest is "valid" but "pointless"
-if a black person is offended by a Lilt ad you would "worry" about him.
-if a white male gets offended by an ad he is a "whinging bitch" has a "chip on his shoulder" is "stupid" "humourless" "arrogant" paranoid" "pathetic" and "sad" and should "shut his whingeing mouth" etc. etc.

If you don't see the inconsistency here, you must have a screw loose.

WHAT exactly is your problem that provoked your intial outburts about stereotyping

I already answered this, are you blind? Here is what I wrote:
"Because I believe there is a relationship between the view that "men are too irresponsible to take a contraceptive pill" and the way men are portrayed in advertising. The more ads that portray men as being useless gobsh1tes, the more people will start to believe it"

Just stating my opinion. I don't like these ads and I don't like to see negative stereotyping of any group. I shouldn't have to explain to you why stereotyping of any group is undesirable.

As for outbursts, you've gotten me beaten there. You've gotten progressively more abusive, hysterical and off topic as this thread has gone on. And you accuse me of getting wound up.

Now, *you* brought accusations of misogyny into this, so no, I won't look it up in the dictionary: you obviously don't realise it, but you're proving me right here with your defensiveness

Yes, I brought up the term misogyny as in my experience when men are accused of being whingers (which seems to be a favorite term of abuse of yours) very often misogyny accusations soon follow. There's a strong sense that if you disagree with any aspect of feminism, or if you point out stereotyping of men in the media, you must be a misogynist/woman hater. Many people have a poor understanding of the term misogyny. Including you it would appear.

While I concede that you did not accuse me directly of being a woman hater, you did WONDER if I might be or might become a misogynist because of my views on feminism etc. The fact that you even tried to make a link here confirms my opinion that you have a poor understanding of the issue. Because there is NO link between misogyny and having a certain opinion on feminism or having a certain opinion on the stereotyping of men in the media.

What you need to do is get clear in your little brain the difference between the terms "feminist" and "woman". Not all women are feminists, not all feminists are women, similarly, not all misogynists are men and not all misandrists are women. Even if I were to come out with a line like "I hate femininists" (which I don't at all BTW) you could not conclude from this that I was a misogynist. Get it? Or are you still having difficulty understanding plain English?

Also you predicted that I would "eventully start blaming everything on women" which is another pretty stupid thing to say. I believe this is known as projection or speculation. Two more words for you to look up.

I actually said that your whinging was valid

Where? Please point out where you said that. Anyhow, if my opinions are valid, then surely it's not whinging. If someone was expressing an opinion that is valid, then to use the term whinging in the same sentence suggests something of a contradiction. Plus this valid statement goes against what you said earlier (the chips on shoulder comments etc.)

However, your line there about "payback" has finally convinced me that you think this stereotyping of men in advertising is about some kind of "feminist" (your words) "payback"

Now you're being really stupid. I was being sarcastic you idiot. Go back and read what I wrote. It should be quite obvious to any reasonably intelligent person that the scenario I described (Irish people trying to get back at the English through stupid advertising stereotypes) was completely ridiculous and bizarre.

I wrote this to counter what seems to be your main point. As far as I can make out (and it's tough as your posts are so damn inconsistent) you think that stereotyping of a group is OK as long as that group has never been downtrodden/oppressed in the past. Hence it would be OK for the Irish to poke fun at the English but not vice versa. It's also OK to poke fun at white males, but it's not OK to poke fun at just about any other group. There are countless quotes littered throughout your posts which demonstrate this. I am not going to dig them out.

In otherwords, like all white men, you think that everything in the world revolves around you. That there's an agenda of convincing everyone that men are dumb going on in "the media" and that if we're not careful, people will "believe" it (your words)

Again, you're speculating and making unfounded, sweeping statements. I don't believe negative stereotyping of men in the media is some sort of deliberate ploy or conspiracy to make men out as being dumb. You're the one who brought that idea up, not me.

If I didn't post this ****e, I'd have to do a daysd work hahaha.

Good for you :rolleyes:

Anyhow, I think I have had enough of this discussion as it is getting farcical at this stage.

BrianD3

amp

Originally posted by BrianD3
<Sigh> :rolleyes: I see you've resorted to more name-calling and insults.

I'm not seeing name-calling or insults. Please report them by using "report this post" or pm'ing myself or Micro.

Do not reply to this. Back on topic.

df001i6876

Originally posted by Sico
More fool the woman who shags him then.



Eh... you what? The woman has no power over having unprotected sex with a man??
It takes two to tango. Both parties should take responsibility for protection. A woman who has unprotected sex with a stranger, even (especially?) one who says he's on the male pill is recklessly irresponsible. On the flip side, a man who has unprotected sex with a stranger is just as irresponsible.

Contraceptive pills are more suitable for established, monogomous, regular sex between a couple than for casual sex, for obvious (I should hope!) reasons. I'd certainly be interested in trying it out (preferably along with the female pill) should I find myself in the position to do so. It could even be worth using along with condoms for casual sex, for added protection, if it's a success.

so common sense is best ? And lets put a warning on the pill for men if workout ok /? stops pregnancy but not[ aids ] That should do it problem solved. thanks.

b3t4

Originally posted by androphobic
human error.. but generally the girl is the more cautious one.. not because men are stupid and irresponsible, but because at the end of the day, she is the one who will carry the baby, should one be concieved.

I agree.

A.

dr_manhattan

(sigh) again, briand3:

"Because there is NO link between misogyny and having a certain opinion on feminism or having a certain opinion on the stereotyping of men in the media."

No, brian, but there IS a link between misogyny and men who assume that saying that men are prone to be less responsible sexually is a part of a campaign of stereotyping to make men appear oafish in advertising: and that link is that these men usually start ranting (as you did) about feminist brainwashing and about how they can't do anything without being accused of being a misogynist.

Think about it: I only wondered about whether or not you hated women because you said that in your experience people accuse you of it. Reason 1. and because you used that laughable cliche of "feminist brainwashing". Reason 2. I'm not accusing you of being a misogynist based on anything you've written. But you best believe that, having read between the lines, I think you have issues.

now, as you say, this debate is becoming tiresome. But I'm not rolling over and allowing you to make these bullying, tedious assertions:

-if A Jewish person protests about the BT ad you reckon the protest is "valid" but "pointless"

Yes, as I said, I think people who get wound up about adverts are pointless and pathetic. However only 50 years ago there was an attempt to wipe out jewish people, so I see their paranoia as more valid than other peoples: I still think it's missing the point to say that advertising is the cause or effect of anything real.

-if a black person is offended by a Lilt ad you would "worry" about him.

Yes, as I said, I think people who get wound up about adverts are pointless and pathetic: so I would "worry" about anyone who thinks it's worth the time to protest at astereotyping in a lilt ad. However it was only 200 years ago that the first black people were "allowed" to rule themselves, and there has been considerable genocide, slavery and racism in that time: so I see *their* paranoia as more valid than other peoples: I still think it's missing the point to say that advertising is the cause or effect of anything real, and a waste of time to talk about conspiracies of "supremacist", "anti semetic" or indeed "femimist" brainwashing.

-if a white male gets offended by an ad he is a "whinging bitch" has a "chip on his shoulder" is "stupid" "humourless" "arrogant" paranoid" "pathetic" and "sad" and should "shut his whingeing mouth" etc. etc.

A western white male - Yes, he is. Western white males are the top of the food chain on planet earth, and day-to-day are responsible generally for the worst aspects of what is going on. They get better pay than their female conuterparts, they enjoy unprecedented privilege and security which comes from a birthright that most of them fail to acknowledge.

So yes, I do think it's pathetic when they start acting like racism against whites is the exact same as racism against other races: well spotted.

Because that's a fact in this world: pretending that things are now equal is all fine and dandy, but things are not equal in the world. And until they are, I think white males should develop a sense of humour or else keep their whinging mouths shut.

And as for whinging, which is what you are doing by talking about "name calling" (and then, I notice, calling me an idiot - very consistent) and demanding that you be treated with kid gloves by me - I will call people whingers when they whinge.

You may think it's the worst thing in the world to have to watch an ad that makes white men seem stupid, but all I can say is, if that's the worst thing you have to sit through, then you're a very lucky man: there's half the world that don't even ever get to see a television, and trying to say that you're somehow being puit down by TV ads is nothing short of pathetic.

and finally:

"Because I believe there is a relationship between the view that "men are too irresponsible to take a contraceptive pill" and the way men are portrayed in advertising."

So, once again, how come no reply to androphobic? Who has explained, in the same way as I have, why men are less likely to take the pill? (and why you are an oversensitive paranoid who thinks that everyone is out to get men)

"...The more ads that portray men as being useless gobsh1tes, the more people will start to believe it"

So it IS a conspiracy then, hmm?

As I say, advertising is not the problem: there was a HELL of a lot more racism, sexism, violence, prejudice and greed in this world before advertising came along. Stereotypes are harmless because... wait for it... NOBODY takes them seriously. Because stereotypes are ape-like charicatures and the only people who get a problem with them are:

Over-paranoid people with chips on their shoulders!

And finally, I know the difference between a feminist and a woman. This is obviously a soap box of yours, as you seem to enjoy jumping back to it again and again. You seem to forget, once again, that YOU brought up feminism, YOU brought up misogyny, and this whole thing is all taking place in your oversensitive head, okay? So once again, explain it to yourself if you want, but in fairness, you are NOT the only person who knows the difference between a woman and a feminist, okay?

You may, however, be the most overbearing, self assured, self righteous person I've ever debated with.

Zulu

Originally posted by dr_manhattan

-if a white male gets offended by an ad he is a "whinging bitch" has a "chip on his shoulder" is "stupid" "humourless" "arrogant" paranoid" "pathetic" and "sad" and should "shut his whingeing mouth" etc. etc.

A western white male - Yes, he is. Western white males are the top of the food chain on planet earth, and day-to-day are responsible generally for the worst aspects of what is going on. They get better pay than their female conuterparts, they enjoy unprecedented privilege and security which comes from a birthright that most of them fail to acknowledge.

While I don’t disagree with most of you points....

The western white male is perfectly entitled to feel threatened, and advertising is responsible for enormous pressure. Considering that these are the same people MOST likely to commit suicide this is very worrying.

Because he is "top of the food chain" is perhaps the worst argument to pursue. That is a very relative comment and means nothing to the homeless white males in the western world. We could argue (then by that logic) that the western white female has no need for a liberation/female rights movement, when compared to other countries; they have is really sweet. ...but we all know that’s rubbish.

I wonder why you feel so vehement about white western males? Why is it so hard for you to sympathise with the fact that these portraits are hard to swallow? You realise that the same people a generation ago could joke/slag everyone and anyone, but this generation have become sensitive and in general bite their tongue. I personally think young western white males should be applauded!

It appears that there are plenty of people with chips on their shoulders here.

dr_manhattan

Okay, just to cover:

"The western white male is perfectly entitled to feel threatened, and advertising is responsible for enormous pressure. Considering that these are the same people MOST likely to commit suicide this is very worrying."

Hmm... threatened is quite a strong word. Given that this entire "debate" has been composed of vast generalisations, I would point out that the advertising that "threatens" white males is largely created and published by... white males.

This is why I used the analogy of 'top of the food chain' - yes you are corrected that many white males *are* disempowered in this world - however, realtively speaking, and given that their status is under attack usually from other white males, as opposed to women, non-whites or whatever, I'll stand by my point.

I'll put it this way, homeless white males have never complained about being 'stereotyped' to me. It's not really on their list of complaints, in my experience. Disempowered, yes - but not stereotyped by advertising.

"...that the western white female has no need for a liberation/female rights movement, when compared to other countries; they have is really sweet. ...but we all know that’s rubbish."

You see, this is the thing: I never actually said that white males are in total control of their lives and have no reason to complain, I simply said that whinging about being stereotyped in advertising is a very small complaint. You seem to think I am ssaying white males have no problems - I am not. I am simply saying that I have no real sympathy for the idea of white men beoing sterotyped in advertising; given that white males invented advertising, and have used stereotyping for years.

As I said before, everybody is stereotyped. Everybody, every culture, every ethnicity, every minority, has their problems. I'm just saying that to jump into the middle of a debate about the male pill, ranting on for no reason about how men are stereotyped as dumb, etc. is like all this crap about the tragedy of Diana's death - yeah sure it was tragic, but I can see a million more tragic things in this world, and if there is a queue of wrongs to be righted, I think the stereotyping of white males should come well towards the back.

"I personally think young western white males should be applauded!"

I disagree: given the current state of the planet, I can't see anyone that deserves a round of applause. White, black, yellow or brown.

"It appears that there are plenty of people with chips on their shoulders here."

This is the internet - anyone who types more than 40 words at a time usually does. Once again, note that in accusing BrianD3 of having issues, I didn't say I didn't have any:

Now, to explain why I "feel so vehement about white western males" - and you did ask:

it is because I was brought up by an arabic translator who worked all over the middle east, and have spent a lot of my life in contact with people from these areas. Meanwhile my mother and sisters were heavily involved with what BrianD3 would no doubt term "feminist brainwashing" - you know, setting up refuges for battered wives, rape crisis hotlines, abortion info numbers, and all that type of stuff.

As a result I have witnessed close up what a horror it can be to be born with the wrong skin colour / genitalia / opinions: I have witnessed a struggle in this country, for example, for reproductive rights which is still ongoing. I have also been, as a result of this, subjected to the heavy end of white male aggression. My family home has been the subject of vandalism, death threats, and the like. My sisters have been assaulted in public, and their pictures circulated and defamed.

And it has taught me that white males have a serious obligation to think about their privilege. It has taught me that, although I might feel a bit bad when someone calls me "whitey", that I have much more of a comfort zone to deal with this insult than other people do with the terms "ni**er" and "bi**h", "p*ki" and "wh*re"

And that if things are going to get solved in this world, white males are going to have to swallow their white pride, and realise that, **** as their lives may be, they have it a damn sight easier than most.


Anyways, rant over - gott go work ;-)

Zulu

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
I would point out that the advertising that "threatens" white males is largely created and published by... white males.

The group being the same is irreverent (and perhaps its a different generation calling the shots to the one being alienated), the fact that someone/some people are being alienated is what’s important. THAT is wrong. White male, purple female, blue transsexual, it doesn’t matter - they have a valid reason and a right to complain and to be listened to.
One apparent cause of the ethnic cleansing (extreme example I know, but bear with me) in Rwanda began with a group seizing control of the radio/media, and continually degrading another group. They slowly undermined the credibility of a population group, and bad things happened.
When the Nazi's were a growing force in Germany, they did the same to the Jews. (Used media forms to degrade the social standing of a particular group)

If an advertisement portrayed a black people as oafish morons, there would (rightly so) be uproar. ...but White men aren't allowed to defend themselves if they feel threatened.
One rule for all.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
I'll put it this way, homeless white males have never complained about being 'stereotyped' to me. It's not really on their list of complaints, in my experience. Disempowered, yes - but not stereotyped by advertising.

The point wasn't about the homeless being stereotyped, it was about them not being privileged. (...but I think you knew that)

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
advertising is a very small complaint.
"I personally think young western white males should be applauded!"

Media manipulation isn't a "very small complaint" if consider above, but even disregarding that (there's a slim chance we're targeted for ethnic cleansing), I reference another topic. "Women members in Portmarnock golf club." That is a "very small complaint", but BY GOD - you just try to stop women arguing for it!

dr_manhattan

Chers for the feedback zulu, I'll try and make my points here:

"White male, purple female, blue transsexual, it doesn’t matter - they have a valid reason and a right to complain and to be listened to."

Well, you see, this is possibly where we disagree. Yes, a right to complain. But in a world where problems must be prioritised, I simply do not accord the same level of importance to the complaints of white western males who feel they are being intimidated by advertising.

"(there's a slim chance we're targeted for ethnic cleansing)"

Damn right there is. And to claim that rwanda has ANY bearing on the situation of a white male being sterotyped is reaching, don't you think?

Now, this is on a very generic, generalising way - but the point I am trying to make here is that often the west gives huge credence to an idea of "fair play" which isn't actually that fair at all. When you say "one rule for all" you have to remember that you are talking about one rule for all on a playing field which is absolutely uneven.

Take the idea of "racist remarks" for example. here is an example of amrican racism:

White people call black people "******"
Black people call white people "cracker"

So these are both the same, right? I personally do not feel they are. I think there is a history to both words that makes one much less hurtful than the other: both refer to a history of slavery in the US. Both are hateful descriptions of the opposing class in that slavery. But one (cracker) refers to the people who OWNED the slaves, and one (******) to the people who WERE OWNED.

Whether because of this, or because of other, phonetic reasons, the words are undeniably different. I have been called a cracker by black people many times, it does not hurt. I imagine being called a ****** would hurt a lot more.

But I don't have to: I have the example I was born with. Because of my fathers time ion the british army, I have been called a "brit", "seonin", "traitor", etc. by irish people. And because I am irish, I have also been called a "paddy", "bogtrotter" and "mick" by english people. And I have been beaten up by both.

And I know which one hurts more: to be called a paddy.

(I hate posting links, but this is a tricky one, so - More on this subject here:

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-06/24wise.cfm

and more from Tim Wise here:

http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=96

sorry to be a net lawyer ;-) )

So IMHO, once you realise that the same terms of abuse CAN be different under different cicumstances, you realise what is involved in the idea that "reverse racism" as it is often called, can exist.

And then you apply it to other divides: Men to Women is very similar. And you look at the maps of the world, and notice that the poverty that exists outside of areas dominated by europeans is NOT a coincidence. And you begin to realise that not only is half the world very, very angry at white people (not just males) but that a lot of the problems that cause their anger are our fault.

So perhaps now you think I am a liberal apologist, determined to feel guilty about what my ancestors did to the world, steeped in meaningless liberal guilt. Well I'm not: I am simply someone that thinks that these problems will not be solved by us pretending that this planet works via "one rule for all"

It does not, and it never has, and to pretend that it does is to reinforce and perpetuate the injustice represented by these inequalities.

So yeah, in summary, you're right, I do have a chip on my shoulder, but not as big as Time Wise's, LOL - however, I have to say, he's a very good man with a very solid grasp of the way that social difference works and reinforces itself.

One final point btw: the examples you use of rwanda and the nazis are weak IMHO, but they do deserve to be addressed.

Firstly, this is not the 1930s, and people no longer believe (for the most part) in supremacy. I may be wrong, but I think that here in the UK and Ireland, and indeed europe, stirring up hatred to a genocidal degree against ANYONE, let alone the white people that make up an overwhelming part of the population, would be much more difficult.

You might ahve better used the example of Zimbabwe and the hatred against white settlers. Now this IS a situation where white males SHOULD feel threatened - but there again one could argue that the main causes for ill feeling against them are their own doing. Nobody forced them to colonise a huge tract of africa and call it "rhodesia" did they? Not saying they deserve what they're getting, not at all - but it's a complex situation.

As for Rwanda, to be honest you're really reaching. The tension was pretty high already: I think that those radio stations may have said a *little* bit more than broadcasting adverts that sterotyped one side or the other as irresponsible? Likewise with the nazis.

I mean, come on:

"Heinz beans are great"
"Oh really, does that mean I am human trash and should be gutted, raped and murdered as soon as possible?"
"yes it does, you racially inferior scum!"
"eat heinz beans!"

Of course I would ahve a problem with that. But that is beyond sterotyping. This "white male under threat" bull**** has really got to get itself sorted out, cos people have to be able to distinguish between a genuine threat and a mild annoyance.

later

McGinty

To get back on topic re the male pill, well there are some benefits for men. As a woman I would continue to take care of both my sexual health and fertility, however in my experience I have dated/bedded men who are responsible for their fertility (not many but a few) so the male pill is ideal for a man who does not want to father any children. It will allow men some control with regards to their fertility, as there are occasional cases where a woman gets pregnant in the hope to 'keep' the man, even though he does not want a child.

As to men being stereotyped in adverts, I would have to agree, but considering I watch very little telly these days I am not as aware of it, but more importantly I don't agree with any stereotyping, be it male, female, etc. labelling is wrong in my eyes, and leads to arguements such as the one here. Personally if we left the labels out of it, life would be a lot more peaceful. Question the labelling? In actual fact I'm going to start a thread on this.

Zulu

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
"White male, purple female, blue transsexual, it doesn’t matter - they have a valid reason and a right to complain and to be listened to."

Well, you see, this is possibly where we disagree. Yes, a right to complain. But in a world where problems must be prioritised, I simply do not accord the same level of importance to the complaints of white western males who feel they are being intimidated by advertising.

Forget about my media abuse point then, you've seemed to have missed it.

But in essence, you say, because of history, we should be more sensitive towards certain ethnic groups. (correct me if I'm wrong)
"I personally do not feel they are. I think there is a history to both words that makes one much less hurtful than the other" ...But this is all relative.
I can not agree with you here. You can never have a different set of rules for someone because of a birth right - you seem to be argueing for the very thing your try to prevent!
Laws have to be the same for everybody - otherwise you create the very thing your trying to compensate for.

As for the "fiarness" issue of western world/third world... it's off topic so I'll leave it.

Barbie_666

ladies...I dunno bout y'all, but i wouldnt trust a guy to take no damd pills!!!
Guys are more forgetful than elephants, with a skin twice as thick, and a brain one twelveth of the size....:D

Zulu

Originally posted by Barbie_666
ladies...I dunno bout y'all, but i wouldnt trust a guy to take no damd pills!!!
Guys are more forgetful than elephants, with a skin twice as thick, and a brain one twelveth of the size....:D

Yea - but we know the difference between a bolt and a screw

Commissar

So in effect what you are saying dr_m. , is that because an ethnic group has suffered under another, their racism towards that second group is mitigated.

White people call black people "******"
Black people call white people "cracker"

So these are both the same, right? I personally do not feel they are.

Is racism (to a certain degree) acceptable then?

Barbie_666

Originally posted by Zulu
Yea - but we know the difference between a bolt and a screw

lol

Zulu

Originally posted by Commissar
So in effect what you are saying dr_m. , is that because an ethnic group has suffered under another, their racism towards that second group is mitigated.

Is racism (to a certain degree) acceptable then?

Thats what I understand him to be saying aswell (you phrased it a bit better )

dr_manhattan

"So in effect what you are saying dr_m. , is that because an ethnic group has suffered under another, their racism towards that second group is mitigated.

Is racism (to a certain degree) acceptable then?"

You see, the problem here relies on the idea that "racism" is something that remains unchanged by context: and I simply believe that racism is only really racism in certain contexts. We have just seen someone compare stereotyping of men to the holocaust and Rwanda's ethnic cleansing, and all I am saying is that, while both may consist of media campaigns, and both may denigrate an area of the community, they are ABSOLUTELY NOT comparable.

For example, that cartoon in Michael Moore's "bowling for columbine" - stereotypes white americans very badly. Is it racist? Really? Racist like hate pamphlets about jews? Or do we just ignore it because we all liek to take a pop at white americans?

What I would ask zulu is, are you REALLY saying that the genocide of the nazis and rwanda is comparable to some Television stereotyping? Because that comparison is exactly the type of knee-jerk defensive behaviour I've come to expect from white males in my lifetime - to start trying to make their grievances sound serious by comparing them to much worse experiences, holocausts, ethnic cleansing, etc.

Because you didn't answer that one. How is it that, from talking about the male pill and me trying to rebutt someone's way OTT remarks about stereotyping of white males, we have covered "feminist brainwashing", "misogyny", and now Rwanda and the holocaust? None of which I have brought up: I only brought up the issue of racism because sometimes it's easier for people to grasp than sexism, where very often men are so fond of their comfort zones that they just discount anything a woman does as "sexist"

The fact that zulu discounts "the fairness" issue between the west and the third world as being off topic speaks volumes: fact is, the issue of "fairness" is exactly what's being discussed here, and whether or not it's "fair" for the most privileged clique on the planet to claim that discrimination against them is the same as their discrimination against everyone else. The "fairness" issue also exists between men and women, you know: in exactly the same way as the race issue.

It's like a boss of a company claiming that people attempting to bully him is the same as him attempting to bully others: there's an entire context to the action that changes it completely. Or a man claiming that, when a woman makes lewd remarks at him, that he's being "sexually harassed" - it ignores the contextual nature of such actions, and relies on the deceptive nature of the english language to make someone sound aggrieved when they are not.

unfortunately, the past 30 or 40 years has seen a huge rise in aggrieved peoples (women, ethnic groups, you name it) attempting to claw back some space, so now it's become popular, everyone wants to be oppressed. It's like HipHop, hahahahaha.

So to say that "racism" is acceptable in certain circumstances is not what I'm saying, in fact. What I'm saying is that *real* racism is only really possibly in certain contexts: even now, in the 21st century, there are very few places where white people can be made to feel the brunt of racism in the same way that non-whites have been made to.

For example, the white settlers in Zimbabwe may be evicted by black militias, but will they be made to feel that this is because they are racially inferior? OR because their heads are the wrong shape, or they have no soul, or they are a subspecies, or created by the devil?

Because these are all things that we have said in reverse, whilst we were running all over the world - and up until VERY recently, we whites explained to the rest of the world that the reason we run everything and they are poor is because we are naturally brighter than they are. And THIS is racism: true racism which props up one side of the world against the other.

And to say that we know how that feels is bull****: ESPECIALLY if we say that we feel that negative advertisements about men make us feel the same way.

Insulting words, stereotypes, charicatures, blackface, these are all *by-products* of racism - but once you open your eyes you'll realise that racism itself is much different.

In the area of sexism, white males (and men in general) are starting to bring up this idea that a pendulum of authority has now "swung far enough", and that things have "gone too far" - and that it's time for men to assert themselves again: how convenient then, that this comes before women have achieved any real equity in anything.

Still in the west, men dominate public office, corporate office, we earn more than women by upwards of 15% in this country, we are *always* handed the cheque in restaurants, most expensive serious products are marketed at us: things haven't changed a whole lot in essence. And yet you get men talking along the lines of "Women want everything, they want doors held open for them, AND they want blah blah blah blah" - which is why I use the word "whinging"

It's sour grapes. There is still huge inequality in the world, there is still massive work to be done, and what I'm saying is that white men should be able to put up with a bit of harmless stereotyping on the TV without talking about Rwanda and Hitler - I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I'm saying that, if we are to become equal with other races and the opposite sex, we are going to have to learn to deal with day-to-day stereotyping and grin and bear it.

So if that means I'm saying racism is acceptable, then fair enough. But if you really think about what I'm saying, and check those wrtitings by tim wise, you'll realise it's NOT what I am saying.

Zulu

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
What I would ask zulu is, are you REALLY saying that the genocide of the Nazis and Rwanda is comparable to some Television stereotyping? Because that comparison is exactly the type of knee-jerk defensive behavior I've come to expect from white males in my lifetime - to start trying to make their grievances sound serious by comparing them to much worse experiences, holocausts, ethnic cleansing, etc.

Ok, sorry I didn't read ALL of you post - it's a little bit long...
To answer your question...
You have missed my point again. I'm not comparing the act of genocide to Television stereotyping.
I am comparing the media manipulation that happened BEFORE the genocide. I am comparing the undermining of a social/ethnic group with the use of media. (This is very relevant, this is how these crimes gain acceptance with the public)

The point of mentioning the genocide was to highlight want CAN happen if the media go unchecked. Sorry if I've confused you.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
You see, the problem here relies on the idea that "racism" is something that remains unchanged by context: and I simply believe that racism is only really racism in certain contexts.

You're beginning to talk like a Nazi, be careful. "Racism" is "racism" in ALL contexts. A Nazi wouldn't believe that the holocaust was terrible, because, "well they were Jews!" - some even deny it ever happened.
A white South African wouldn't have believed it was racism, because "well they were black!"... you can see where I'm going...
It has to be one rule for everybody - only - with no exceptions.
Your concept of racism and REAL racism, is quite frightening to me.

Zulu

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
[BThe fact that zulu discounts "the fairness" issue between the west and the third world as being off topic speaks volumes: fact is, the issue of "fairness" is exactly what's being discussed here, and whether or not it's "fair" for the most privileged clique on the planet to claim that discrimination against them is the same as their discrimination against everyone else. The "fairness" issue also exists between men and women, you know: in exactly the same way as the race issue. [/B]

ok finished reading your post... phew!
There are enough lose issues being dragged in with out involving the third world.
As I've stated - I was argueing the point of media manipulation - I used examples, I regret that now, because you've gotten confused and started off on a different point.

...I'll endevor not to use examples in future.

dr_manhattan

"I'm comparing the media manipulation that happened BEFORE the genocide"

and so am I: and when we are talking about advertising that says that everyone's economic problems are caused by white men, and that they're racially inferior, and that people should go out and burn down their homes, I will agree with you. But we are not: we are talking about stereotyped advertising, which as I said, does not say these things: comparing ads here to the rwandan/nazi campaigns is absolute hysteria.

however, if you think that any ads contribute to genocide against white males in this way, could you name them?

i have already said that i would worry about a black man who is upset by a lilt advert, even though it contains the same stereotyping: I would think he should worry about more important things. For example, if a jamaican felt sterotyped by recent puma campaigns or bacardi ads, I would say that there's worse things in this world than being stereotyped.

And you will find that most non-whites DO worry about more important things, such as rights to housing and day-today issues of racism. I have never seen a rally about stereotyping in advertising personally.

I would also say that when a white male feels stereotyped, he is simply feeling the way women and non-whites feel all the time: it's a question of "welcome to the world".

"Racism" is "racism" in ALL contexts. A Nazi wouldn't believe that the holocaust was terrible, because, "well they were Jews!" - some even deny it ever happened.
A white South African wouldn't have believed it was racism, because "well they were black!"... you can see where I'm going...
It has to be one rule for everybody - only - with no exceptions."

Actually, though a nazi might have said "they were jews". I don't think any nazi would have denied a charge opf racism, as they said they were the superior race.

And any white south africans I have met have never denied racism: they simply argue that it was "necessary" or whatever excuse is handy. You're confusing knowing racism with acceptance of guilt here: and I honestly don't believe I am talking like a nazi here.

Bottom line is, as soon as white males are under the kind of threat that many, many non-whites are, I will be the first to acknowledge our case. But right now, from the top of the food chain, I cannot see how white males are so horrendously wronged by being stereotyped.

And if you can see my point there, perhaps you can read that tim wise article, and see how he sees it.

Saying that racism is the same on all sides is a denial of fact, and a reliance on the superficial meaning of the word. And you can call me a nazi as much as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that I am and have always been anti-racist, and it is my travels and work in this area that have lead me to this conclusion: if anything, I believe that those who insist that they are being persecuted when they are not are perpetuating a global racial supremacist myth, opften without even knowing it.

As a final attempt to get you to see where I'm coming from, I refer you to the Micahel Moore cartoon, which stereotypes white americans as violent and paranoid: is this racist?

Zulu

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
so am I: and when we are talking about advertising that says that everyone's economic problems are caused by white men, and that they're racially inferior, and that people should go out and burn down their homes, I will agree with you. But we are not: we are talking about stereotyped advertising, which as I said, does not say these things: comparing ads here to the rwandan/nazi campaigns is absolute hysteria.

You're not - you are refering to the crime "should go out and burn down their homes", it souldn't have to go that far before people can complain.
Midea manipulation, degrading a social/ethnic class etc... I'm gettin tired of repeating myself - so I won't.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
however, if you think that any ads contribute to genocide against white males in this way, could you name them?

missed my point - please re-read my post

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
I would also say that when a white male feels stereotyped, he is simply feeling the way women and non-whites feel all the time: it's a question of "welcome to the world".

...so that makes it ok then?

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Bottom line is, as soon as white males are under the kind of threat that many, many non-whites are, I will be the first to acknowledge our case. But right now, from the top of the food chain, I cannot see how white males are so horrendously wronged by being stereotyped.

Bottom line is - it's perfectly acceptable for white males to complain if they feel they are being degraded in the midea, just as it's perfectly acceptable for women to complain if they are being degraded in the midea, just as it's perfectly acceptable for any other ethnic group to complain.

dr_manhattan

In summary:

"So in effect what you are saying dr_m. , is that because an ethnic group has suffered under another, their racism towards that second group is mitigated."

Not as such: what I am saying is that the term "racism" is often abused by those who are not undergoing the same kind of abuse as others. What I am saying is that, much like any other human interaction, things should be weighed based on the situation before people start using powerful words like "racism"

Try this:

Some gay bars ask straight people to leave. I have no problem with this because in many ways, the open gay community are uncomfortable around people that used to persecute them. I do not think it is RIGHT. But I certainly will not complain that I am being persecuted.

Some straight bars ask gay people to leave. I have a problem with this, because of the above mentioned situation. I hope in the future we can all be mature enough to have straight only bars and it's not a problem: but for now, I think it's wrong to expel gays from a public bar just because they are gay.

So, if you want to use the word, I am, as a straight man, being "persecuted" in the above scenarios. And no, it isn;t right, it's kinda retarded. But If I have a fit about this, and start saying that I'm being persecuted, then I wind up insulting gay men who have REALLY been persecuted: and it simply serves to make any problems worse.

So as a white male, I take account of the fact that MOST doors have always been open to me, and I make a choice not to whinge about how hard my life is.

I realise the above posts are longwinded, but I do accpet this is a very serious issue for me, and I believe that if men, expecially white men, have a duty in this day and age, it's to THINK about the way things work, and realise that we have had 2,000 years of supremacy, and if we want things to change, we have to swallow our (white) pride and stop being so fragile about **** that doesn't really matter.

Because that way, if we ever DO encounter real racism, a real situation where we are denied housing, dignity, respect and an equal share because of our skin colour, then we will not be the whiteboys who cried wolf ;-)

cheers for the feedback btw, I hope nobody does think I'm a nazi.

Zulu

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Some gay bars ask straight people to leave. I have no problem with this because in many ways, the open gay community are uncomfortable around people that used to persecute them. I do not think it is RIGHT. But I certainly will not complain that I am being persecuted.

Some straight bars ask gay people to leave. I have a problem with this, because of the above mentioned situation. I hope in the future we can all be mature enough to have straight only bars and it's not a problem: but for now, I think it's wrong to expel gays from a public bar just because they are gay.

The gay guy should be entitled to enter the straight bar.
The straight guy sould be entitled to enter the gay bar.

One law/rule for everybody.

If the gey guy wants an exclusive bar, then he better be prepared not to be allowed into some straight establishments.
If the straight guy dosen't want gay people in a straight bar, he better be prepared to be refused from some gay establishments.

Nobody wants this second senario - it breeds contempt for social/ethnic groups.

dr_manhattan

Actually, I'm fine with the second scenario: because I recognise that you cannot force people to change. If you allow people to make their own boundaries, then eventually they will change. If you force them to change, they will react by becoming entrenched.

I agree that the first scenarios SHOULD be the case, but that's my whole point is - words often assume an evenhanded scenario which plain does not exist.

For example, I believe that the fundamentalist islamic and christian doctrines that *can* be used to subjugate women are totally wrong. But I do not believe that a woman should walk through an islamic or christian fundamentalist area wearing a bikini: I'll acknowledge she has a *right* to, but whether or not she should exercise this right is debateable.

So does that mean I am the same as a fundamentalist, because I think this should njot happen? No, I don't think so: it's simply standing back and looking realistically at the bigger picture.

And as I say, no it's not great that anyone should be stereotyped. But pretending that white males are somehow being persecuted by "feminist brainwashing" is insane. I realise the examples you used were just examples, but seriously: are white men really being threatened by stereotyping, or would we be better to just develop a sense of humour?

Zulu

Agreed (the sence of humour point that is) - it dosen't bother me, I have an easy going sence of humour...
...but the fact remains - if someone feels marginilised, they are entitled to complain, no matter of race/sex/creed.

Would you not agree to that? (yes or no please )

dr_manhattan

"yes or no please"

Damn you! Yes.




(struggles momentarily with the idea of a one word post)

But my issue is not about who's allowed complain, but who has a right to be LISTENED to: I don't see stereotyping of white males as right, I just see it as very low down the list of terrible things is all.

so there ;-)

cheers for keeping it civil, zulu - interesting discussion

Zulu

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
"yes or no please"

Damn you! Yes.




(struggles momentarily with the idea of a one word post)

But my issue is not about who's allowed complain, but who has a right to be LISTENED to: I don't see stereotyping of white males as right, I just see it as very low down the list of terrible things is all.

so there ;-)

cheers for keeping it civil, zulu - interesting discussion

Then my friend - we are in agreement.
I also agree that people should be listen to.
As for the credibility of some peoples arguments, I think we can take that to another thread

Thanks - I enjoy a good debate (...and othen find myself takeing point I don't personally believe!):(

dr_manhattan

cool runnings zulu, catch you on the boards

As regards playing devil's advocate, well... I'll admit to occasionally doing that ;-)

Now, back to that wierd thread about being normal, haha.

later mater