Hypocritical Misandry

Outlaw Pete

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Men make the laws..

Legislation is often drafted with considerable consideration given to the views of female lobby groups on any proposed laws. Here in Ireland the Romeo and Juliet law for example (which allows the prosecution of teenage boys for having sex with teenage girls but not vice versa) was drafted after women's rights lobbyists had complained that if girls were also open to prosecution like boys that result in them not reporting rape out of fear of being prosecuted. The notion that if laws negatively effect males the blame lies squarely with men.... is naive, at best.

Then there is this kind of crap which can also effect / hinder proposed legislation in favour of women. Whereas if a men's lobby group tried the same they would be laughed at. The simply do not have the same kind of leverage in today's society. Women's rights lobby groups are quite often government funded too. The NWCI is 50% publicly funded for example.

men are mostly making the decisions in courts...

Again, more naivety. Judges are no more immune from making decisions based on feminist societal manipulation than anyone else but even if that were not the case, feminists have a yet more direct impact on the courts than that. Here's an article written last year by a female Barrister in the UK:

Feminism turns British justice against men

The Crown Prosecution Service is meant to be one of the guardians of the British public. Its duty is to tackle criminality without bias, regardless of the background of either perpetrator or victim.

Its guiding spirit should be the famous, blindfolded figure of Justice that stands on top the Old Bailey, reflecting the ideal that we’re all equal before the law.

But, as a barrister myself, I fear the service is sliding towards the status of a noisy pressure group in the grip of feminist dogma.

No longer the stern, impartial bulwark of our legal system, it now appears to be increasingly driven by fashionable politics and ideological fads.

That’s certainly the outlook that shines through the CPS’s annual report on Violence Against Women And Girls, published earlier this week. In triumphant language, the document spells out a lengthy catalogue of success for the modern feminist agenda.

Much of this focus on offences against women has been driven by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, who took up her post in November 2013, and has since been regularly embroiled in controversies over her decisions, such as her refusal to prosecute the late Labour peer Lord Janner on multiple allegations of paedophilia.

But it is her attachment to a doctrinaire brand of feminism that is the most disturbing feature of her CPS leadership.

In Ms Saunders’ brave new world, a rape suspect may have to show the steps he took to establish that consent was ‘fully and freely given’, which rather inverts that age-old British tradition: innocent until proven guilty.

Hardline feminists may be glorying in Ms Saunders’s tenure. The rest of us should surely be concerned that the organisation is in danger of losing its sense of purpose and proportion.

I am not, of course, arguing that crimes against women should not be prosecuted with the full rigour of the law. In the name of genuine justice, such an approach is essential, and it is true that in the past, prosecutors often ignored offences such as rape within marriage and domestic violence.

But what profoundly concerns me is the CPS’s lack of balance.

Amid all the eagerness to celebrate the prosecution of offensive tweeters and misogynistic bloggers, the questions have to be asked: are similar resources being put into the fight against other crimes, such as theft and burglary?

Is the same energy devoted to incidents where men are overwhelmingly the victims? Grievous bodily harm, for example?

The feminist lobby likes to talk grandly about gender equality, but the reality is that in this focus on women’s rights, men increasingly receive a raw deal.

In practice, the CPS — and much of the rest of the political establishment — now gives the impression that offences against women are treated with more robustness than those against men.

We see that in the rash of new legislation designed to meet the demands of the feminist creed.

Indeed, the CPS report this week is full of references to recent laws, including the Malicious Communications Act (under which ‘revenge porn’ cases are prosecuted) and the offence of ‘controlling and coercive behaviour’, which is aimed at domestic abuse.

Yet most of this legislation is not necessary, since personal abuse and harassment are already against the law. Was the recently introduced Modern Slavery Act — designed to fight people-trafficking, where most of the victims are female — really necessary? We already have a barrage of anti-slavery legislation that covers these sorts of crimes.

The feminist lobby is endlessly demanding new laws to signal their virtue and campaigning zeal, and the CPS, under Alison Saunders, is only too happy to accommodate them.

__Alex__

bnt wrote: »

My advice to women who are bothered about MGTOW 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?

Added the bolded bit myself. Why would women who don't give a crap about the MGTOW movement ask themselves any of those questions? No more than men, we're not a hive mind.

Outlaw Pete

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

Or, as often happens also, put these views down to men merely being bitter as a result of being burned as Philip Scholfield cheaply does here (@ 2m20s):

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

RDM_83 again

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'm not sure I believe that because you haven't had conversations about this doesn't mean that people don't care a bit, for example the idea of having a negative opinion feminism is a niche thing among men (and woman too) just isn't true*.

Additionally its a major assumption that because a poster has a strong opinion on things means it dictates someones real life interactions.

*https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/05/treat-women-equally-dont-call-it-feminism/

Caroline Juicy Verb wrote: »

I've met maybe one, I think, and he was an internet person. And I have conversations about gender issues very frequently, I'm actually active enough in activism about suicide prevention which is a very gendered issue so the topic comes up.

That shít you're talking about doesn't fly in real life, nobody gives a fúck about Louise O Neill and nobody needs a waaaambulance about how hard Tindr is for lads. In the past I've kind of assumed that lads would care (because I spend far too much time on the internet) and I'm met with blank looks all around. Do people care about men? Sure. Do people care about the shíte that gets moaned about here? No, not in my experience.

People moderate the opinions they put forward a lot depending on their audience, even if a lad does think Tinder is rough on a lot of men its likely they wouldn't put forward this opinion to you because complaining about something like that can be taken as a signal of a lot of negative characteristics, if you were a sympathetic man you might get a different response because I've definitely had that conversation in a real life a few times.

The whole audience thing is massively important in the type of opinions that get aired, for example I know from myself that I've talked a good bit in real life with other men about the way physical tasks are often assigned in my field. Another example relating one particular company how promotion favoured woman of a certain age (likely because the HR/office staff were mainly this demographic too), I'd never heard this brought up in the presence of mixed company until we were out one night and one of the younger women brought it up which signaled it was a safe topic.

I agree that the blatant sexism or misogyny is pretty rare thankfully in real life, ironically despite the view that often prevails that its guys who are unsuccessful with the opposite sex that hold these views I've found its directly opposite.

In short don't presume there is a blanket unawareness of these issues because they aren't raised with you and remember that as the poll I linked to points out holding a negative opinion of feminism etc really doesn't imply sexism and misogyny