Is the Western World anti-man?

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Neither of you know what literally actually is.

I am literally sh!tting bricks laughing at this. :pac:

Iseedeadpixels

Kev W wrote: »

If you thought you were being sarcastic then neither do you.

You must be bashing boards out of it because you were in before my edit, go forth Kev your powers are wasted here

Iseedeadpixels

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I am literally sh!tting bricks laughing at this. :pac:

I think you need to see a Doctor about that

Kev W

zeffabelli wrote: »

Well to use your example, let's call it rape hysteria, where perception is everything.... It's rape because I say it is.... Consensual reality aside and who gives a **** if I ruin someone's life over my re writing of history.... Because I didn't know how to assert myself so I quietly conceded even though I didn't articulate my discomfort.... So yeah it was rape.

If someone has to "quietly concede" to having sex with you, you shouldn't have sex with that person.

hatrickpatrick

B0jangles wrote: »

You're citing Reddit as a source?

In the media? Guess who the media love to put forward; the most controversial click-baitiest people they can find!

I'm sorry you know 3 intolerant asses; every movement has them. Thankfully they are a minority, but as an aside surely you agree they are entitled to express their opinion however distasteful it is to you - Freedom of Speech and all that?

Firstly, I of course agree with freedom of speech - in fact I welcome the fact that they can spit their venom, as it proves that people who claim such anti-male sentiment exists are not bullsh!tting.

Secondly, what should I cite for mainstream, ordinary feminists? You could say academic writing or whatever, but that's not the same as what the average, ordinary person who subscribes to the label thinks about it. Forums like Reddit are open to anyone to post in, so if you want an idea of what Average Josephine thinks about something (heh) it's not a bad place to start.

zeffabelli

Kev W wrote: »

If someone has to "quietly concede" to having sex with you, you shouldn't have sex with that person.

How is the other person supposed to know unless the other party articulates what they want and don't want and manifest their interior monologues?

Are people now expected to have ESP?

Kev W

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

You must be bashing boards out of it because you were in before my edit, go forth Kev your powers are wasted here

You getting anywhere near a point or do you want to just trade playground insults?

hatrickpatrick

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

I think you need to see a Doctor about that

I did, he told me I was full of crap

Medusa22

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They're called "mammy's boys" - doing everything their mammy tells them. So yes, in that sense men are often seen as being under the control of women, and then there's that whole "men marry their mothers", an idiom which is meant to suggest that some men are indeed attracted to women who have similar traits to the way their mother treated them, and you'll surely have heard of men who won't go for a drink with their friends because they're "under the thumb"?

Slightly disingenuous to suggest any number of men would never be seen to be controlled by a woman.

I think by 'under the thumb' you mean 'pussy whipped' :pac:

Kev W

zeffabelli wrote: »

How is the other person supposed to know unless the other party articulates what they want and don't want and manifest their interior monologues?

Are people now expected to have ESP?

Why would you even want to have sex with someone who's "quietly conceded". Personally I would find that lack of enthusiasm a turn off.

Iseedeadpixels

Kev W wrote: »

You getting anywhere near a point or do you want to just trade playground insults?

Considering you were the one that posted in caps and tried to be clever the playground stuff started with you. I think we finished with the points a while back at this stage its just our post count going up but ill let you have the last word if it makes you feel better?

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

Are people now expected to have ESP?

If you look at a lot of the "unwanted approach = harassment" sentiment that gets spread online, wherein a guy saying hello to a woman in a bar with the intention of seeing whether she might be interested in him is harassing her, because she didn't ask for the interaction, the only conclusion you can come to is that yes, some people do indeed think that ESP should be a requirement of normal human interactions.

Personally I feel ESP would make things far more awkward than it already is. I mean who hasn't been on a date with someone and been genuinely interested in what they're talking about, but at some point thinking "I need a break in this conversation or I'm going to piss myself, why did I have that second jagerbomb?!" or "that was close, thankfully most of my farts are silent ones"

Kev W

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

I think we finished with the points a while back at this stage its just our post count going up but ill let you have the last word if it makes you feel better?

Cheers.

sunshine and showers

zeffabelli wrote: »

Well to use your example, let's call it rape hysteria, where perception is everything.... It's rape because I say it is.... Consensual reality aside and who gives a **** if I ruin someone's life over my re writing of history.... Because I didn't know how to assert myself so I quietly conceded even though I didn't articulate my discomfort.... So yeah it was rape.

So you have to articulate your discomfort and have them continue for it to be sexual assault?

Thanks for clearing that up, I guess I wasn't sexually assaulted by my friend then. I mean, sure, I was asleep when he started assaulting me, but I did wake up and stay frozen in shock and fear for a while when I should have been saying no. Silly me. All that time being traumatised over nothing.

And I "ruined" the poor fella's life by telling people. The poor wee petal.

kylith

The Corinthian wrote: »

Please stop trying to shirk responsiblity for women in the media and society. Other than the fact that the media generally follows demand, in which women are more than well represented (especially for daytime TV), they are equally capable of producing such misandrist content.

All this washing of one's hands because somehow men completely control everything and women are just along for the ride is a bit pathetic.

So women get the blame for content produced by men, and possibly for men?!

I'm not arguing that women can't produce misandrist content, what I'm saying is that misandrist content appears to be being produced by men, and I don't hear many men complaining about this content. Without knowing what programme this content had appeared on it's impossible to say what gender it was 'intended' for consumption by but I get the feeling that it wasn't the Lesbian Feminist Man Haters Hour, but rather a show designed for consumption for both genders.

zeffabelli

Kev W wrote: »

Why would you even want to have sex with someone who's "quietly conceded". Personally I would find that lack of enthusiasm a turn off.

Look I don't know either, but it's not the same as a rape charge.

The other party may have had no idea. We don't know.

The point us were now in a culture that is moving away from any consensual reality. And it's rape because well.... Looking back I really didn't mean it. Or now my friend is telling me I was raped. I've seen this happen.

frostyjacks

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Society is anti-heterosexual? Ah here...

Gay people being put on a pedestal/treated as overcoming adversity by some, does not automatically = anti heterosexual. It's possible to have that view on gay people and not have a problem with hetero people.

Look at that professor in England who was hounded out of his job for some innocuous remarks about women. Would the same thing have happened if it was a woman or a homosexual? Not a chance. Society is being feminised, men are being made to feel ashamed for being men.

hatrickpatrick

Kev W wrote: »

Why would you even want to have sex with someone who's "quietly conceded". Personally I would find that lack of enthusiasm a turn off.

So would I, personally (I like it wild and adventurous, which requires energy from both sides :pac: ) but the point is that it shouldn't be equated with something that can land someone with 12 years in prison on account of a misunderstanding.

I don't think "quietly conceded" was perhaps the best choice of words there, the point is that is no means no (which it absolutely should) then yes also means yes. It can't sometimes mean no.

The Corinthian

B0jangles wrote: »

You'd be staggered at the number of posters who leapfrogged over the distressed possible victim to leap to the defence of the totally anonymous man who had done this to her - to the extent of rewriting the facts as described by the OP to make the woman out to be a liar - totally without any evidence whatsoever.

I suspect you'd also be staggered at the number of posters who leapfrogged over notion of critical thinking to presume he was guilty as charged without need of a trial.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think mariaalice was suggesting that our current laws have their origins in Biblical times moreso than any correlation between feminists and Christians.

Perhaps so, but that cannot be used as an excuse for supposedly non-Christian movements supporting and advocating such laws.

Women were infantilised and perceived to be servile to men, and while the correlation nowadays between religious fervour and feminism is an interesting one, I think it's more accurate to point out that there are many female sex workers who consider themselves feminist who suggest that the new EU legislation is unfair to them as female sex workers.

I'd agree that areas such as sex work feminism is split, however mainstream (white middle class) feminism is in majority hostile to it.

Not a peep out of feminist sex workers though about the welfare of male sex workers, never has been up until very recently, and even then it's barely any more than a token inclusory amendment at the end of a paragraph all about the welfare of female sex workers!

Par for the course, regardless of whether one is pro or against.

Kev W wrote: »

Why would you even want to have sex with someone who's "quietly conceded". Personally I would find that lack of enthusiasm a turn off.

Oh look - subject change!

sunshine and showers

sunshine and showers wrote: »

So you have to articulate your discomfort and have them continue for it to be sexual assault?

Thanks for clearing that up, I guess I wasn't sexually assaulted by my friend then. I mean, sure, I was asleep when he started assaulting me, but I did wake up and stay frozen in shock and fear for a while when I should have been saying no. Silly me. All that time being traumatised over nothing.

And I "ruined" the poor fella's life by telling people. The poor wee petal.

So what's your opinion on women raping men?

Kev W

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So would I, personally (I like it wild and adventurous, which requires energy from both sides :pac: ) but the point is that it shouldn't be equated with something that can land someone with 12 years in prison on account of a misunderstanding.

I don't think "quietly conceded" was perhaps the best choice of words there, the point is that is no means no (which it absolutely should) then yes also means yes. It can't sometimes mean no.

The problems begin though when anything less than a firm, even aggressive "no" is considered to mean "yes" by default. Of course that aggressive "no" is often considered to mean "frigid bitch" or "cocktease".

sunshine and showers

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So what's your opinion on women raping men?

It's equally as bad as men raping women, women raping women, or men raping men.

It's not a competition.

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

Or now my friend is telling me I was raped. I've seen this happen.

Can I ask what this last one is all about? Seriously, it utterly baffles me on so many levels... Surely if you're friends with someone and they're happy, you don't want to make them unhappy about something which happened in the past and cannot be changed? Like, if I'm not traumatised about something, that's a good thing. You may think I should be traumatised, but trauma is an incredibly unpleasant thing to go through, so surely you're an utterly sh!tty friend if you "convince" me to be traumatised because my lack of trauma doesn't suit your world view?

I dunno, it's just something which has always seemed puzzling to me. It's like when that girl with down's syndrome had her photo circulated as a meme by a bunch of total assholes who were making fun of her. Her parents found out about it and told her, then explained why it was so horrible. They posed for news articles and what not.

Now it's fair enough being outraged, but if the daughter was herself oblivious and hadn't come across the photos herself (and might not even have recognised that it was her, given that it was a toddler photo and she was now 16), why upset her by showing them to her? That's manufacturing unhappiness which doesn't need to exist.

Just my two cents anyway. I question what the word "friend" means to someone who talks someone else out of happiness and into being upset about something which initially didn't bother them.

sunshine and showers

sunshine and showers wrote: »

It's equally as bad as men raping women, women raping women, or men raping men.

It's not a competition.

But obviously it isn't equally as bad, because legally a woman cannot rape a man.

MRnotlob606

The other day in a night club a woman pinched my ass.I was objectified.But nobody cares when your're a man.

hatrickpatrick

Kev W wrote: »

The problems begin though when anything less than a firm, even aggressive "no" is considered to mean "yes" by default. Of course that aggressive "no" is often considered to mean "frigid bitch" or "cocktease".

I agree, as I say I believe that a lack of yes means no, rather than no means no. But yes means yes, equally. If you say yes but don't really mean it, it's entirely your f*ck up for being a pushover, unless you were actually coerced in some way.

Kev W

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But obviously it isn't equally as bad, because legally a woman cannot rape a man.

I don't believe sunshine actually wrote that into the law. I'm willing to be corrected.

Iseedeadpixels

Ive had Women before say "haha I would rape ye" Could you imagine if I said that! Thats my problem with feminism is the little bits of hypocrisy and the fact they never seem to give a sh!t about what happens to Women in war torn Africa and are more concerned with small trivial things that the Women in Africa would love to have.

Kev W

Kev W wrote: »

I don't believe sunshine actually wrote that into the law. I'm willing to be corrected.

See, you can twist words as you want, but they said that it is equally as bad. However, if it was equal, then surely there would be equal punishments.

Therefore, it is not equally as bad.

kinsy

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, a lot of it is anti-men, but if you ever try to discuss this openly and honestly, you get shot down. Want to know something horrible? I once mentioned to people on two separate occasions about a lot of the issues facing men (including no legal protection if a woman rapes a man, not many shelters for men who are sufferers of domestic abuse, etc. etc) and you know what they told me? It's perfectly OK, because it's happening to men. I genuinely wish I was joking, I really do.

I have heard this sort of thing too, but I hear it from men just as much as I hear it from women tbh. Some (SOME) men can't let go of the machismo culture and embrace equality either.

I'm a woman, I'm a proud feminist who loves men, respects them (when they are respectful) and still strives for equality.
Some things that continue to highlight the lack of equality are things that aren't always deemed as important as issues like the pay gap. People refer to these things as tradition which is what they are, but they highlight just how patriarchal our society was and still is. Take women becoming Mrs when they marry and taking on their husbands names. I know it doesn't happen as much now but the default in people's heads is that the woman will become Mrs X. This isn't as big a deal as pay equality, equal rights for fathers or domestic abuse but it's indicative of a much bigger societal norm.

For the record, I also think it's important to recognise that men and women aren't the same, we do have traits that are more common to each sex but this isn't really about saying we are exactly the same. It's about being recognised as equally important and having equal rights (men as well as women). I don't know any feminists (and I know many- women and men) who think we should all now think the same or act in the same way. That's a whole other conversation IMO, and a fairly pointless one at that.