Hypocritical Misandry

storker

jimgoose wrote: »

Yeah. Like, maybe, men and women might actually, like, complement and boost each other, or some such??

That's crazy talk.

osarusan

It's just a bunch of emotionally fragile people who are blindly parroting nonsense about how they're oppressed and it's all somebody else's fault, after being manipulated into doing so by somebody laughing their arse off on their way into the bank.

It's only a fraction of people though, a few anonymous internet blowhards. I've never been affected in the least by anything the evil feminazis or Roosh crew said or did, and I've never met anybody who has either.

Mostly it's those few people blowing utterly insignificant things out of all proportion to give legitimacy to their rants and beloved victimhood.


I'e posted this before, but I think it encapsulates it from my perspective:

Snowflake Leftie: F**k sake did you see the latest NONSENSE Katie Hopkins came out with!

Snowflake Rightie: Haha, look at those triggered lefties. How much of a snowflake do you need to be to be wound up by Katie Hopk...JESUS CHRIST!! DID YOU SEE WHAT LOUISE O'NEILL JUST TWEETED!!!

storker

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Reading the recent thread here about young girls having to go without sanitary products, and some women's accounts of their own experiences, it definitely had me thinking "Ohh thank fcuk I'm a man!!" :eek:

My wife's pregnancies had the same effect on me. She actually asked me if I felt jealous that I couldn't have babies. I reassured her that I was cool with it...well, it was more along the lines of "Are you kidding? I've never been so glad I was a man..."

storker

Caroline Juicy Verb wrote: »

I mean, maybe, possibly, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe, it's not actually a competition? Maybe 'there are things that are difficult about being a woman' and 'there are things that are difficult about being a man' can both be true at the same time without the world exploding.

Unfortunately I think for some people it really is a competition in which victimhood is a zero-sum game..."If I acknowledge yours, then there's less for me..."

Outlaw Pete

storker wrote: »

Unfortunately I think for some people it really is a competition in which victimhood is a zero-sum game..."If I acknowledge yours, then there's less for me..."

Exactly, which is why some took issue with this thread's very existence in the first place and as Mark Twain once said:

"Misery loves company, but hates competition".

Scratch below the surface of a lot of these people that would have us see them as paragons of equality and you'll find that quite often what lies beneath is someone that actually sees their sex as being superior to the other. Erin Pizzey found that out in the 70's and more recently Cassie Jaye (director of The Red Pill). What else can fuel such attacks from feminists at women merely telling the truth other than misandry.

The following not really indicative of misandry but something of a hypocritical mask slipping moment for a self declared anti-sexism proponent nevertheless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrZ97IzKfP0

dark crystal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The following not really indicative of misandry but something of a hypocritical mask slipping moment for a self declared anti-sexism proponent nevertheless.

Where was the 'mask slipping' moment in that clip?

Outlaw Pete

dark crystal wrote: »

Where was the 'mask slipping' moment in that clip?

Streep speaks out against sexism almost on a weekly basis, about how we should all be striving for equality (has even called out RottenTomatoes.com for not having enough female critics and says that until they do it shows how the film industry is sexist) then she closes a speech with a sexist quote, the essence of which is that men talk about doing things while women get them done.. and you're asking me where the mask slipping moment is? Really?

Well, I'll tell you where it is so: it's spread right across her face at the end of the clip while all the women in attendance are getting to their feet to whoop and cheer what she has just said.

Glenster

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The Feminism thread is there. Others have had to take personal attacks on the chin and carry on, so I don't see why you or anyone else can't do likewise.

Don't try and pull me into this.

Feminists don't hate me, they might hate you, that's your own business.

I assume we're both blokes so its unfair to call any of their perceived dislike of you misandry.

Maybe they hate and undermine you for another reason.

I wouldn't want to speculate on what it might be.

oneilla

tigger123 wrote: »

I've never met other men in real life that have the kind of chip on their shoulder attitude that I see on boards with regard to women, feminism, misandry and gender politics.

I think they're over represented on boards, in after hours and the sexism thread in The Gentleman's Club.

I've no clue why.

I've met one. He legit went on about how men are really hard-done by the internet feminists and how men are marginalised. Bizarre stuff. (He has a well paying job, house and car but maintains that women are the primary oppressors of women).

Outlaw Pete

The following Q&A which took place after a recent hard fought screening of Cassie Jaye's The Red Pill in the UK is well worth watching (all be it quite long) as many good points are made and from people who hold/held a wide range of differing views on the topic before the screening. No feminists in attendance who campaigned for the docu not to be screened unfortunately but still an interesting enough discussion all the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcqLfAjs-9s

Wibbs

osarusan wrote:

It's just a bunch of emotionally fragile people who are blindly parroting nonsense about how they're oppressed and it's all somebody else's fault, after being manipulated into doing so by somebody laughing their arse off on their way into the bank.

Exactly.

It's only a fraction of people though, a few anonymous internet blowhards. I've never been affected in the least by anything the evil feminazis or Roosh crew said or did, and I've never met anybody who has either.

True, though I would say that the "evil feminazis" have far more of a mainstream media and politics platform and their nuttiness is far more acceptable than click baiters like Roosh and the like.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The following not really indicative of misandry but something of a hypocritical mask slipping moment for a self declared anti-sexism proponent nevertheless.

Meh, again for me it's more of the "you go girl!" marketing hype. Follow the money. "Men are such eejits" sells stuff. And people. Now Ms Streep hardly needs to sell her talent, but she's just plugging into the marketing BS. Try and find a Hollywood starlet that hasn't come out with similar, or wears the "feminist" hat/tee shirt as publicly as possible(some male stars try to take scraps from that table too. Ryan Gosling as an example).

Some may actually believe it, living in Hollywoodland they tend to believe anything, but mostly it's self advertising to keep somehow relevant and marketable. QV Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham, Emma Watson, Jennifer Lawrence et al. All part of a particular market guided carefully crafted persona to get bums on seats. These crafted "star" personas were always in play in Hollywood, the only difference being the market changed.

It can backfire of course like Sarah Silverman, who tried to jump on the bandwagon but landed on her arse when she was called on it. The rejig of Ghostbusters another obviously targeted "you go girl" product, but was just too obvious and forced(all of the main actresses beat that same market drum too). It worked for Star Wars The Farce Awakens. Where they copied near scene for scene the 77 flic but swapped out Luke(one of the most useless and flawed heroes in drama) for Lucille Skywalker, the go girl Mary Sue who never puts a foot wrong.

This stuff sells. From clickbait to cinema screen.

As I say follow the money.

drugstore cowboy

storker wrote: »

That's not the point that was being made, though. Saying that higher suicide rates for men show that men's lives aren't necessarily all that easy, is not the same as saying men's lives are harder.

nail on head.

red ears

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Exactly, which is why some took issue with this thread's very existence in the first place and as Mark Twain once said:



Scratch below the surface of a lot of these people that would have us see them as paragons of equality and you'll find that quite often what lies beneath is someone that actually sees their sex as being superior to the other. Erin Pizzey found that out in the 70's and more recently Cassie Jaye (director of The Red Pill). What else can fuel such attacks from feminists at women merely telling the truth other than misandry.

The following not really indicative of misandry but something of a hypocritical mask slipping moment for a self declared anti-sexism proponent nevertheless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrZ97IzKfP0

As i have said before if they really are superior where the hell where they for the last 50 thousand years. Equal yes and various circumstances kept them down but a superior no, no superior group would play second fiddle for that long.

hatrickpatrick

Caroline Juicy Verb wrote: »

I mean, maybe, possibly, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe, it's not actually a competition? Maybe 'there are things that are difficult about being a woman' and 'there are things that are difficult about being a man' can both be true at the same time without the world exploding.

That is actually what most of us who argue these misandry things actually believe. The problem is fourth wave feminists insisting that "male privilege" literally means that sexism against men is a logical impossibility, that double standards against men do not count as real sexism or that if they do, they're not as bad as the exact same sexism against women because of the wider societal context.

Make no mistake about it, 21st century (and to be even more specific, 2010s onwards) feminists started the current culture wars, not traditional "men and women should be equal" feminists. The fourth wave *literally* argues that double standards are acceptable (for example, that UK equality officer who tweeted #KillAllMen as a joke and then insisted that because of 'privilege', it was impossible for her to be sexist against men but that of course #KillAllWomen should be a punishable offense)

That's why men are starting to get so pissed off about this stuff and why unfortunately you're going to see more and more threads like this, arguments like this, etc. Men are being told today that the discrimination they face does not matter, and that everything they do in life should be about self-sacrifice to keep women in general happy (a pretty classic gender role to be honest) - now there's absolutely nothing wrong with being told that you should be a good person (obviously!) but it's pretty galling when articles aimed at women in mainstream publications tend to be "how to make yourself happy" while articles aimed at men tend to be "how to not be a scumbag" or "how to resist your natural urge to be a scumbag", if you strip them down.

Let me give you one simple case in point to consider, and I'd be interested to hear your views and indeed those of anyone else who is on the fence in threads like these: Why is it that when the mainstream media reports that fewer women are getting married or wanting to get married, it's because "they're strong and independent", that "being married isn't a good deal for women anymore so why should they want to", that "there aren't enough high quality males out there" (yes, the phrase "high quality males" is literally used by the mainstream media as if choosing a partner is like buying a farm animal) etc - BUT, men such as MGTOW who have decided that the double standards society places on relationships, both in terms of how they should be and how they should end, have made the whole relationship experience hostile to men and not worth the potential hurt and drama it causes, are not likewise labelled "strong, independent men" and "being married isn't a good deal for men anymore so why should they want to", but instead attacked as anything from rabid misogynists to little boys in mens' bodies who are afraid to grow up, afraid of having responsibilities, etc?

The entire message coming from the mainstream (note - mainstream, womens' and lads' magazines don't count here) media is that women have rights, but men have responsibilities. Being a woman is all about being free, being a man is all about paying your debt to society, because you're a man. Simple as that.

I honestly find it difficult to understand how some people don't seem to notice this trend. You're lucky if you don't, I guess - I wish I didn't have this to feel resentful about, I wish I didn't have to have my blood boiled every few weeks by opening something mainstream like the Irish Times and seeing another article about how, as a man, basically everything wrong with society is somehow my fault and everything matters more than my own individual happiness as a person. But it's just the way it is right now. Likewise, I wish that women didn't have to open the papers and see articles about another woman being attacked while out for a run, or about how they need to stop messing around and have kids while they're still too young for that to be on their radar, or that they should look as if their skin is designed to show off every bone in their body.

None of us are claiming that men and women don't both suffer because the media is full of asshats. What we're resentful of is the modern, 2010s+ feminist ideal which says "yeah, but sexism against women actually matters. Sexism against men isn't even possible, it doesn't exist".

Gavinz

Is there a Chrome extension available to hide all of these buzzwords? Misandry, patriarchy and the like.

They're ruining the internet imo.

osarusan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

being a man is all about paying your debt to society, because you're a man. Simple as that.

Truly, I can say that never, even once, in my life, have I been made to feel that way, by anything or anyone.

irishguitarlad

osarusan wrote: »

Truly, I can say that never, even once, in my life, have I been made to feel that way, by anything or anyone.

Me neither but he's making reference to the media who keep saying this. I think not our generation of men but the generation after us will be pretty confused by the whole thing.

the_pen_turner

osarusan wrote: »

Truly, I can say that never, even once, in my life, have I been made to feel that way, by anything or anyone.

I hear that attitude at least once every few months.
only in the last 3 years really.

Carlos Orange

irishguitarlad wrote: »

Me neither but he's making reference to the media who keep saying this. I think not our generation of men but the generation after us will be pretty confused by the whole thing.

Something going on is obviously teaching young men in the UK to dislike maleness.

Zulu

that would be the patriarchy.

professore

psinno wrote: »

Something going on is obviously teaching young men in the UK to dislike maleness.

Wow that's staggering.

mzungu

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let me give you one simple case in point to consider, and I'd be interested to hear your views and indeed those of anyone else who is on the fence in threads like these: Why is it that when the mainstream media reports that fewer women are getting married or wanting to get married, it's because "they're strong and independent", that "being married isn't a good deal for women anymore so why should they want to", that "there aren't enough high quality males out there" (yes, the phrase "high quality males" is literally used by the mainstream media as if choosing a partner is like buying a farm animal) etc - BUT, men such as MGTOW who have decided that the double standards society places on relationships, both in terms of how they should be and how they should end, have made the whole relationship experience hostile to men and not worth the potential hurt and drama it causes, are not likewise labelled "strong, independent men" and "being married isn't a good deal for men anymore so why should they want to", but instead attacked as anything from rabid misogynists to little boys in mens' bodies who are afraid to grow up, afraid of having responsibilities, etc?

There is a big difference there. MGTOW is an entire movement that assumes women in general can't be trusted, hence make the decision to go it alone. I believe some of their gripes relate to things like bias against men in family courts, lack of action on false rape accusations - and as you mentioned above - double standards in relationships. IMO these are not valid reasons to to go it alone, it is a very defeatist outlook.

If they don't want double standards in relationships then have a relationship with one of the many people who also don't wish for double standards. There are plenty of decent people out there.

Regarding the laws, who made them in the first place? Mostly men. Why is it that the MGTOW movement never seems to recognise this? How is it women's fault?

As for the false rape accusation stuff, how often does that happen? Thankfully, very rarely. The MGTOW movement (and the MRA in general) only started with the "false rape accusation" mantra around the same time that the Tumblr and fourth wave "rape culture" stuff started to gain traction. That's all it is, just a bulwark to be used any time "rape culture" gets thrown around during Twitter gender war battles. Both viewpoints are equally as barmy.

The reason why MGOTW are not celebrated as being "strong and independent" is because the ideology of the movement stands up to no scrutiny. Is there anything "strong and independent" about writing off half of the planet? Besides, men (and women) have not been getting married for ages, there is absolutely nothing new there....this is why starting a movement around it comes off as a bit pointless. It encourages a negative outlook that is amplified by the many confirmation biases to be found on the internet. This is why that kind of insular thinking should never be celebrated, or even encouraged as an example of what being an independent person entails.

bnt

If the last US Election has taught you anything, it should be that applying insulting labels to whole groups of people, just because their opinions differ from yours, can backfire dramatically. Hillary must rue the day she spoke about a "basket of deplorables".

I don't agree with MGTOW views, but neither am I so quick to belittle and dismiss them. My advice to women would be: ask yourself how you contributed to the formation of such views, and what you think can be done about them. What would change a MGTOW follower's mind? Are you happy to sit back and let MGTOW happen, sniping from the sidelines, or are you willing to reach out to them without insulting them?

ceadaoin.

mzungu wrote: »

There is a big difference there. MGTOW is an entire movement that assumes women in general can't be trusted, hence make the decision to go it alone. I believe some of their gripes relate to things like bias against men in family courts, lack of action on false rape accusations - and as you mentioned above - double standards in relationships. IMO these are not valid reasons to to go it alone, it is a very defeatist outlook.

If they don't want double standards in relationships then have a relationship with one of the many people who also don't wish for double standards. There are plenty of decent people out there.

Regarding the laws, who made them in the first place? Mostly men. Why is it that the MGTOW movement never seems to recognise this? How is it women's fault?

As for the false rape accusation stuff, how often does that happen? Thankfully, very rarely. The MGTOW movement (and the MRA in general) only started with the "false rape accusation" mantra around the same time that the Tumblr and fourth wave "rape culture" stuff started to gain traction. That's all it is, just a bulwark to be used any time "rape culture" gets thrown around during Twitter gender war battles. Both viewpoints are equally as barmy.

The reason why MGOTW are not celebrated as being "strong and independent" is because the ideology of the movement stands up to no scrutiny. Is there anything "strong and independent" about writing off half of the planet? Besides, men (and women) have not been getting married for ages, there is absolutely nothing new there....this is why starting a movement around it comes off as a bit pointless. It encourages a negative outlook that is amplified by the many confirmation biases to be found on the internet. This is why that kind of insular thinking should never be celebrated, or even encouraged as an example of what being an independent person entails.

Men make the laws, men are mostly making the decisions in courts, men are the ones attacking other men (that one about how men are more likely to suffer violence is brought out anytime violence against women is discussed) but somehow women are to blame?

If MRAs/MGTOW came from a place of change rather than a backlash against feminism/women then maybe they might get something done

Carlos Orange

bnt wrote: »

I don't agree with MGTOW views, but neither am I so quick to belittle and dismiss them.

What is there to agree or disagree with? At a really high level it doesn't seem any different to when my mum told me she didn't need a man to be happy. That didn't make her a WGTOW. Granted that was before the internet so she didn't join a forum to talk about it.

hatrickpatrick

osarusan wrote: »

Truly, I can say that never, even once, in my life, have I been made to feel that way, by anything or anyone.

Oh listen, I don't feel it at all. I'm just saying that the media tries to push that narrative. Again go over my paragraph about the relationship avoidance thing - why is it that the mainstream media believes that women are great when they choose to be independent and look after themselves first, but that men literally have some kind of duty to womankind to provide sperm and support? The number of articles "blaming" men for mid-life women being childfree is simply appalling. Switch the genders - act as if women have a "duty" to men to provide them with children, and there would quite rightly be a huge backlash from people like Louise O'Neill, Una Mullally, the NWC, etc. And I'm not criticising that! I'd be right there with them telling the journalist in question to stop being a complete pr!ck - I'm just saying, it'd be nice for once to see the same level of outrage levelled at articles which suggest that men are somehow letting society down by wanting to pursue their own dreams and their own ambitions instead of becoming sperm cattle and sentient ATMs when "required".

hatrickpatrick

psinno wrote: »

What is there to agree or disagree with? At a really high level it doesn't seem any different to when my mum told me she didn't need a man to be happy. That didn't make her a WGTOW. Granted that was before the internet so she didn't join a forum to talk about it.

How does it not though? If you're a woman who decides that relationships aren't worth the bullsh!t, you are a WGTOW even if you don't label yourself one. That's all MGTOWs are as well - guys who have decided that relationships aren't worth the bullsh!t. I don't agree with them to be honest, I'm lucky enough to have had some good experiences as well as bad ones, but I can certainly see where they're coming from - just as I can certainly see where women are coming from too, when they decide to remain single. There's nothing wrong with either choice!

What I'm saying is, very bluntly, it'd be nice if every journalist who has ever used the expression "peter pan syndrome" would go and boil their head in oil.

Zulu

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Men make the laws, men are mostly making the decisions in courts, men are the ones ... but somehow women are to blame?

Wow. That's an incredibly bigoted opinion you have there.

People vote for governments.
Governments make the laws.

Thankfully a woman's vote is the same as a man's vote. That mean that both men and women share the responsibility of placing an elected government in power, and maintaining them there.

To so quickly and blithely dismiss women's votes is very, very telling of your ignorance in this gender conversation.

Kudos to you: you win the award for most kool-aid drank.

<edit: perhaps I jumped the gun; perhaps you are just suggesting that women are not to blame - in which case, of course they aren't. Men and women are to blame. But Feminism (western/4th wave or whatever) is now proving to be an active hinderance to any egalitarian progression in our society. ...so don't expect people to row in behind it>

mzungu

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Men make the laws, men are mostly making the decisions in courts, men are the ones attacking other men (that one about how men are more likely to suffer violence is brought out anytime violence against women is discussed) but somehow women are to blame?

I think it is a fair point (obviously excluding the women to blame part), but not when it is used in a game of internet victimhood one-upmanship. There are dangers out there for both men and women, no doubt about that. However, if somebody is worried about being attacked walking on the street (thankfully not an everyday occurrence) then statistically speaking it is more likely to happen if you are a man, but at the same time nobody should live their life like that. When I see that being used (talking about when I have seen it used on boards.ie), it is almost always in the context of "yep, there are dangers out there but you have to live your life and not be scared of what could happen". That in itself is good advice. In that context I think it is fine. But in the context of Twitter oppression Olympics, then not a chance.

Regarding the laws, I think MRA movements do need to realise this is not a conspiracy against them. Things are unfair, but this works both ways in other cases too. Women can be just as easily messed over by the legal system in other situations. These laws were not designed to be unfair, even if the outcomes sometimes are. This never seems to be recognised by either side.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If MRAs/MGTOW came from a place of change rather than a backlash against feminism/women then maybe they might get something done

It needs to diversify, that would be the sign of a healthy organisation. Most movements have a wide range out looks from left to right, the MRA are mostly right wing, and anything to to the left of that is Marx reborn. Anybody espousing left-wing views is given immediate marching orders. This could be down to the heavy US influence (all this stuff originates from there) where anything that remotely looks like being left-wing is communist and needs to be stamped out. Maybe that cold war mindset is still lingering in the background?

That said, I think if they dropped the ideology angle altogether (this goes for any potential new movement too) and focussed on the issues minus all the divisiveness, then it would appeal a lot more to mainstream audiences. When it comes down to it, how many average punters will be interested in hopping on board a movement that sees itself as the only bulwark against cultural Marxism stripping us all of our masculinity? Not many. Most people just can't relate to that stuff.

mzungu

Zulu wrote: »

Wow. That's an incredibly bigoted opinion you have there.

People vote for governments.
Governments make the laws.

Thankfully a woman's vote is the same as a man's vote. That mean that both men and women share the responsibility of placing an elected government in power, and maintaining them there.

To so quickly and blithely dismiss women's votes is very, very telling of your ignorance in this gender conversation.

Kudos to you: you win the award for most kool-aid drank.

<edit: perhaps I jumped the gun; perhaps you are just suggesting that women are not to blame - in which case, of course they aren't. Men and women are to blame. But Feminism (western/4th wave or whatever) is now proving to be an active hinderance to any egalitarian progression in our society. ...so don't expect people to row in behind it>

I believe the poster was responding to my comment here:

mzungu wrote:

Regarding the laws, who made them in the first place? Mostly men. Why is it that the MGTOW movement never seems to recognise this? How is it women's fault?

What I was saying was, any criticism of laws being biased against men in family courts is not a valid reason to write women off, mainly because it was men who wrote them in the first place. If MGTOW were being honest, why not acknowledge that this is not a Men vs Women thing? If one of their reasons for not pursuing relationships with women is because the law in family courts, then their ire would be better placed on the men who wrote the laws and not pass the blame onto Jane Bloggs who had zero to do with writing the law. I'm not saying men are to blame for the law btw. Just pointing out the reasons why I think groups like MGTOW are wrong to apportion the blame towards women for it.

Fairness works both ways. If MGTOW want equality and fairness, then they should lead by example. Getting bogged down in stuff like this is unhelpful and goes nowhere.