Why are we hating all the men?

mzungu

silverharp wrote: »

back up though , you can argue it away but could still link you to main publications discussing why more men are avoiding marriage, one can posit that the perception of likely divorce and the other party holding all the legal cards plays into that. Surely its a good thing to raise this as a cultural discussion if a rebalance is needed instead of trying to brush it under the carpet?

I thought marriage/co-habitation figures were on the up?

mzungu

Bambi985 wrote: »

I wasn't talking about the more extreme/bonkers PUA red pill stuff. Most of us even in here will agree on that being batsh1t. I was talking in general about the weird anti-feminism slant in here, the disproportionate number of threads that turn into the same argument with the same voices that get 70 "thanks" for harping on about the "gender pay gap myth" and Louise O'Neill and how women have it better than men and feminism = misandry and blah blah blah. You'll see the re-reg phenomenon out in force in those threads too, these lads that pop up with a post count of 2 that sound scarily similar to one of your usual proponents of these arguments.

It's weird and unsettling and not representative of anything I've ever seen or heard offline.

Aye, the personal abuse on threads mentioned above is numptyism of the highest order. You have no arguments from me there.

Regarding the disproportionate number of threads, this would be related to how often it gets aired in the media. Like it or not, this stuff gets pushed out in most mainstream Irish news outlets, so the amount of threads in here correlates with that. Same with over in the politics forums and whistleblower threads or other scandals etc. More controversy means more threads.

In Irish media you will get things like the "pay gap" pushed. As I said a few pages ago, since this is not a like for like comparison (even the studies don't hide this) I do find it to be misleading. So I see no problem with pointing that out. Where is the harm in questioning accepted narratives? I see no issue in any of these things being discussed, as long as things don't descend into personal jibes and sweeping generalisations.

Lux23

Wibbs wrote: »

Colour me shocked by a "feminist" avoiding the point and any responsibility. More likely incapable of seeing it.

Why do you have to put the word feminist in inverted commas? You might well have a point but when you're deliberately antagonistic like that its very hard to read and digest your opinions.

cloudatlas

Wibbs wrote: »

Colour me shocked by a "feminist" avoiding the point and any responsibility. More likely incapable of seeing it.

1)I know fact/fiction may be a difficult geography for some to get their heads around, but it was an actual group of young men accused of this. Not "fictional", though the story was.

2) If you railed against this group of young men with zero evidence normal adults would see this as morally dubious.

3) if you did so through the national media while going full hysteric about questioning men in general about their "hidden agenda", while primal screaming, normal adults would feel a retraction was in order.

And yet you see no responsibility involved? Of course you don't. As I said the avoidance of personal responsibility mentality of the modern "feminist" never ceases to amaze me, nor their juvenile take on the world(when it suits them of course).

If actual individuals were being investigated privately by the University they probably did receive some kind of acknowledgement that they were exonerated, my understanding was that they were looking for evidence on social media, they found one comment by a guy saying he didn't want to be involved with what was going on but it was all hearsay, I wasn't privvy to the details. Don't think commentators should apologise though, loads of people believed the story. If you want to put me in some kind of a category you've created then good luck, I'm sure it'll make you feel better to neatly stick a label of 'hysteria' on me, just a way of dismissing any point made really and the purpose of the thread.

"2) If you railed against this group of young men with zero evidence normal adults would see this as morally dubious."

Nobody was charged, people make moral judgement all the time based on media reports and the morass of internet commentary. You are obviously very special if you are immune from doing this.

silverharp

mzungu wrote: »

I thought marriage/co-habitation figures were on the up?

probably needs its own thread , seems to be an institution that is not on the increase . not getting married in your early 20's is probably a good thing for some but if everyone leaves it too long you end up with a weird game of musical chairs. or if cohabiting is explaining a good part of the difference it still means a certain reluctance to commit

http://http://www.parliament.uk/ImageVaultFiles/id_11221/cf_578/olympic-housingandhomelife-marriages-chart1-standa.jpg

Will I Am Not

Lux23 wrote: »

Why do you have to put the word feminist in inverted commas?

The word has lost all meaning. There's nothing wrong with being what would traditionally be known as a feminist, it's a good thing.

This rubbish that's masquerading as feminism today is a different kettle of fish.

Lux23

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

The word has lost all meaning. There's nothing wrong with being what would traditionally be known as a feminist, it's a good thing.

This rubbish that's masquerading as feminism today is a different kettle of fish.

And what makes you an authority on what is acceptable feminism?

Will I Am Not

Lux23 wrote: »

And what makes you an authority on what is acceptable feminism?

Nothing. My opinion. Or am I not allowed have an opinion on it because of the ol' penis thing?
If someone wants to use quotations around the word feminism because they think it's not an accurate description well that's their business too.

Outlaw Pete

Here's the perfect illustration of how third wave feminists manipulate society today:


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/695695593302315009

....privileged white marginalized young male sees his chance at some female approval and so replies with the following....


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/695643260044341248

Hey presto, a woman has noticed he exists!

And all he had to do for this doggie biscuit was roll over and denigrate his own shameful gender..... I despair.

OldNotWIse

drugstore cowboy

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Here's the perfect illustration of how third wave feminists manipulate society today:


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/695695593302315009

....privileged white marginalized young male sees his chance at some female approval and so replies with the following....


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/695643260044341248

Hey presto, a woman has noticed he exists!

And all he had to do for this doggie biscuit was roll over and denigrate his own shameful gender..... I despair.

Horrible thing for Louise to say imo

Rubberchikken

didn't know we were 'hating all the men'. i'm guessing it's the same few wimmen who should know better but obviously don't.
haven't a clue who this louise o neill is and not going to bother finding out as i think i wouldn't be impressed.

Wibbs

Lux23 wrote: »

Why do you have to put the word feminist in inverted commas? You might well have a point but when you're deliberately antagonistic like that its very hard to read and digest your opinions.

I put it in inverted commas because I consider modern Feminism to be a busted flush, it started out well, but has become ever more mired in ever circling ridiculousness and IMH too often promotes the idea that women are child like creatures incapable of agency.

And what makes you an authority on what is acceptable feminism?

I'm a thinking adult member of the human race perhaps? Or should we all just blindly follow received dogma?

cloudatlas wrote: »

IDon't think commentators should apologise though, loads of people believed the story.

So? Lots of people bought into the Loch Ness monster, it doesn't mean it's not a nonsense. If nonsense is promoted against a group, then it behoves people to acknowledge this. That you fail to see this as a problem, says much. But again, not surprised.

If you want to put me in some kind of a category you've created then good luck, I'm sure it'll make you feel better to neatly stick a label of 'hysteria' on me, just a way of dismissing any point made really and the purpose of the thread.

Sorry, I failed to divine too many points so far.

Nobody was charged, people make moral judgement all the time based on media reports and the morass of internet commentary. You are obviously very special if you are immune from doing this.

You --- Country Mile --- Point.

eyerer

pangbang wrote: »

Conflict breeds distraction
Conflict grabs attention
Conflict provides something to "do"
Conflict divides and conquers
Conflict steals critical thought

conflict, basically = Money, and fooooking lots of it.

Men versus women? Money
Europeans versus Americans? Money
Black versus white? Money
Religion A versus Religion B versus atheism ? Money
National versus international? Money

And if it isn't money the powers-that-be get, it will be power. And power......

= MONEY

Why do you think all these issues are getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger?????????????? You don't make money from unity and solidarity, ye foooooking eejits :P

That's how my dad explains it. I kinda hope it's right, because otherwise it would mean there are sick people in charge of Western countries and media outlets. Though greed is sick too I can understand that moreso than the powers that be not valuing my own rights or equality. They clearly promote division and in their minds equality doesn't mean equal. George Orwell had it right, some are more equal than others.

Ulysses Gaze

Outlaw Pete

drugstore cowboy wrote: »

Horrible thing for Louise to say imo

Well, with regards to the double standards, of which that's undoubtedly one, when it comes to objectification, LON most certainly doesn't have the monopoly on that.

Lost count how many times we have heard the complaints that female politicians and female sports starts are objectified needlessly when we should be paying attention to what they have to offer us in a professional capacity. Seen it labelled as an example of misogyny so many times.... but yet seems perfectly okay for women to objectify male politicians and even reduce Olympic athletes down to the size of the bulge with little or no sense of irony.


https://twitter.com/cosmopolitan/status/761762687940370432?lang=en

https://twitter.com/marieclaire/status/835226358619983872

Chose tweets from these two publications as both have whinged about objectification when it has been gone the other way. I have absolutely no doubt that if publications aimed at males had articles about which female Olympians had the best camel toes or which female politicians had the best tits, there'd be at outcry from these '3rd wave feminist' hypocrites.

To be clear, I have no issue with women objectifying guys, couldn't care less... but it's the nauseating hypocrisy that when it happens to women they will act all put upon and whinge it being an example of misogyny and will invariably imply also that it's a sign that any man doing so must have no respect for women.... when it's they very damn behavior they themselves are comfortable with when it;s their own gender engaging in. Not only comfortable with, but will high five one another over (virtually, or otherwise) and act as if they're doing something rebellious, like some kind of resistance movement, when in actual fact nobody would give a fcuk about them objectifying men if they just stfu harrumphing men for doing the same.

Equality and all that.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

Sure men are the innovators and mostly create the new tech trends, sports etc. something like 90% of the content creators on Youtube are male just as over populated journo courses made up of women are trying to get that last unpaid internship on a crappy 2nd rate tv station or dying out newspaper. But I dont see that innovation transferring to the political sphere

You'll never see innovation in politics, simply because people for the most part, are generally conservative, they like things just the way they are. Scratch beneath the surface of even the most liberal, and you won't be long finding out they're really a conservative chestnut underneath.

A good example of this phenomenon would be Hillary Clinton's classic snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. She has always been a conservative republican dressed in liberal democrats clothing, and she was a shoo-in for the presidency, until she rolled that godawful Lena Dunham out on stage and people thought "Ohhhh fcuk no!", and decided there was no other alternative but to vote for Donald Trump, as a means of putting that particular ideology back in it's box! :pac:

silverharp wrote: »

that is mostly just men unwinding, the online discussion is new and allows for a sharing of ideas not possible in the past

The medium is new, but the ideas are the same as they always were. The online discussion only allows for men of letters to disseminate their ideas faster. There isn't really an historical equivalent of women of letters... curiously enough

silverharp wrote: »

back up though , you can argue it away but could still link you to main publications discussing why more men are avoiding marriage, one can posit that the perception of likely divorce and the other party holding all the legal cards plays into that. Surely its a good thing to raise this as a cultural discussion if a rebalance is needed instead of trying to brush it under the carpet?

Oh absolutely it's a good thing to raise a discussion as to why you feel more men are avoiding marriage, but that in itself is begging the question as to whether men are actually avoiding marriage, or are more couples simply choosing alternatives to the institution of marriage itself. Given that historically it's women were the losers in marriage, from any perspective you can think of - legal, cultural or social, I'm not surprised that a rebalancing of the relationship dynamics is putting some men's noses out of joint with regards to marriage.

Whether women actually do hold all the legal cards or not would also be on the table for discussion, because it appears to me at least that there are the same minority of women who are now independently gaining assets that they would rather keep to themselves than the thoughts of losing said assets in the event of a divorce.

If I were to be honest with you though, I would suggest that the MGTOW types are more than welcome to keep going their own way. They appear to have very little interest in contributing to society, and appear to be only interested in why society isn't giving them what they feel they are due.

cloudatlas

Wibbs wrote: »

I put it in inverted commas because I consider modern Feminism to be a busted flush, it started out well, but has become ever more mired in ever circling ridiculousness and IMH too often promotes the idea that women are child like creatures incapable of agency.

I'm a thinking adult member of the human race perhaps? Or should we all just blindly follow received dogma?

So? Lots of people bought into the Loch Ness monster, it doesn't mean it's not a nonsense. If nonsense is promoted against a group, then it behoves people to acknowledge this. That you fail to see this as a problem, says much. But again, not surprised. Sorry, I failed to divine too many points so far.

You --- Country Mile --- Point.

They did acknowledge it, it was largely reported that no evidence was found hence why the investigation came to a hault, loch ness monster reference you're stretching now.

They aren't listening to you Wibbs they think Revenge porn should be a criminal offence- http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/upskirting-cyberstalking-and-revenge-porn-to-be-criminal-offences-1.3082855

Those crazy feminists at it again.

retro:electro

cloudatlas wrote: »

They did acknowledge it, it was largely reported that no evidence was found hence why the investigation came to a hault, loch ness monster reference you're stretching now.

They aren't listening to you Wibbs they think Revenge porn should be a criminal offence- http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/upskirting-cyberstalking-and-revenge-porn-to-be-criminal-offences-1.3082855

Those crazy feminists at it again.

Eh. Revenge porn should be a criminal offence- who is arguing against that? You know what else should be an offence, lying about being raped and ruining a person's reputation. And lying about a whole section of students in a college and outing them as taking part in revenge porn practices, when there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

cloudatlas

anna080 wrote: »

Eh. Revenge porn should be a criminal offence- who is arguing against that? You know what else should be an offence, lying about being raped and ruining a person's reputation. And lying about a whole section of students in a college and outing them as taking part in revenge porn practices.

Wibbs said it in the UCD Ag Science banter thread about the incident and I quote-

"Revenge porn", two words I never imagined I'd live long enough to read. WTF is wrong with such morons?' -Wibbs

retro:electro

cloudatlas wrote: »

Wibbs said it in the UCD Ag Science banter thread about the incident and I quote-

"Revenge porn", two words I never imagined I'd live long enough to read. WTF is wrong with such morons?' -Wibbs

Ya. I think you've taken him up totally wrong there.

cloudatlas

anna080 wrote: »

And lying about a whole section of students in a college and outing them as taking part in revenge porn practices, when there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

Did I say it was a good idea for someone to lie to authorities and the police? No I don't agree with that.

cloudatlas

anna080 wrote: »

Ya. I think you've taken him up totally wrong there.

Care to explain. Judging alleged perpetrators by any chance.

One eyed Jack

cloudatlas wrote: »

They aren't listening to you Wibbs they think Revenge porn should be a criminal offence- http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/upskirting-cyberstalking-and-revenge-porn-to-be-criminal-offences-1.3082855

Those crazy feminists at it again.

Lest you lose the run of yourself avoiding responsibility where it should be taken, and taking credit where it's not due, the new proposed legislation was not introduced by feminists at all. It was proposed following recommendations by the Law Reform Commission.

If 'crazy feminists at it again' really are your thing, well, there's a couple of 'em lost their shít when this happened -

Miss USA 2017 winner Kara McCullough slammed for comments on 'man-hating' feminism

Newly-crowned Miss USA 2017, Kara McCullough, has already lost some fans over her controversial anti-feminist stance and comments regarding healthcare.

Shortly before claiming the prestigious title, McCollough, 25, gave detailed and honest answers when asked for her opinion on healthcare and employment. The beauty queen, who hails from the District Of Columbia, said she believes medical care is a "privilege" and not a right, adding that the individual should be in employment to be entitled to the service.

Fuelling the backlash, McCullough also shunned the feminism movement, declaring: "I don't want to call myself a feminist. Women, we are just as equal as men, especially in the workplace."

Many on social media reacted with outrage at McCullough's statements, including one who commented on Twitter: "DC just disqualified herself with that answer #MissUSA," while another weighed in: "#MissUSA Miss DC just lost me with that answer....Affordable healthcare is a privilege? Girl bye."

Defending McCullough against the swarm of criticism, one supporter countered: "People are mad in the #MissUSA hashtag because the winner Kára McCullough is a scientist who describes feminism as man hate. Slay, queen," while another tweeted: "Kara McCullough just triggered every feminist on earth and I couldn't be happier. Let's be honest...it's man hate."

McCullough earned a chemistry degree from South Carolina State University and is employed at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Evidently passionate about education, McCullough leads a community outreach program, science exploration for kids (SE4K), which encourages children to study maths and science through interactive methods.

Remember that leadership I mentioned earlier? That's how it's done.

cloudatlas

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Lest you lose the run of yourself avoiding responsibility where it should be taken, and taking credit where it's not due, the new proposed legislation was not introduced by feminists at all. It was proposed following recommendations by the Law Reform Commission.

If 'crazy feminists at it again' really are your thing, well, there's a couple of 'em lost their shít when this happened -

Miss USA 2017 winner Kara McCullough slammed for comments on 'man-hating' feminism





Remember that leadership I mentioned earlier? That's how it's done.

I was joking :P

Wibbs

anna080 wrote: »

Ya. I think you've taken him up totally wrong there.

Well there's a shock...

cloudatlas wrote: »

Care to explain. Judging alleged perpetrators by any chance.

Well if you stalk my posts further you'll note that a) I was referring to the notion of "revenge porn" in general and the morons who would perpetrate it and b) on the basis of the first reports would brand such people as "morons" c) when it turned out to be nonsense I acknowledged that. None of this I did in a national newspaper. Now being an adult if I had publicly lambasted the faculty and by inference other men in general as a fair few "feminist" pundits did(a certain Ms O'Neill went full emotionals on the matter), I would retract that opinion in the same public manner. Then again I'm not a contestant in the victim olympics as so many of these public pundits are. Nor do I base my worldview, career and clickbait on perpetuating this utter drivel.

mzungu

silverharp wrote: »

probably needs its own thread , seems to be an institution that is not on the increase . not getting married in your early 20's is probably a good thing for some but if everyone leaves it too long you end up with a weird game of musical chairs. or if cohabiting is explaining a good part of the difference it still means a certain reluctance to commit

http://http://www.parliament.uk/ImageVaultFiles/id_11221/cf_578/olympic-housingandhomelife-marriages-chart1-standa.jpg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh absolutely it's a good thing to raise a discussion as to why you feel more men are avoiding marriage, but that in itself is begging the question as to whether men are actually avoiding marriage, or are more couples simply choosing alternatives to the institution of marriage itself. Given that historically it's women were the losers in marriage, from any perspective you can think of - legal, cultural or social, I'm not surprised that a rebalancing of the relationship dynamics is putting some men's noses out of joint with regards to marriage.

This would be my take on it. I think a lot of it is down to people having the freedom now to have whatever unions they wish. In times passed, getting married would have been the only game in town, but now there are loads of other options available.

I think the "men avoiding marriage" narrative makes for a sensational headline. A better headline would be "couples prefer cohabiting". I can't find the study now, but it was a recent one from the US that showed that between marriages, cohabitation and relationships, there are just as many men romantically attached as there ever was. IIRC the figures might have even showed that there are more in relationships now than before.

.........

B0jangles wrote: »

Yeah I saw that, it's really manky

like most ads depicting men and women these days

cloudatlas

Wibbs wrote: »

Well there's a shock...

Well if you stalk my posts further you'll note that a) I was referring to the notion of "revenge porn" in general and the morons who would perpetrate it and b) on the basis of the first reports would brand such people as "morons" c) when it turned out to be nonsense I acknowledged that. None of this I did in a national newspaper. Now being an adult if I had publicly lambasted the faculty and by inference other men in general as a fair few "feminist" pundits did(a certain Ms O'Neill went full emotionals on the matter), I would retract that opinion in the same public manner. Then again I'm not a contestant in the victim olympics as so many of these public pundits are. Nor do I base my worldview, career and clickbait on perpetuating this utter drivel.

Yes so you judged them morally. That's what you are condemning me and many other for doing, assuming that it was true, you've been saying that for several posts and now we see a turn around, but oh no it's different for others, and specifically different for you, you are a special case, yes gotcha.

Revenge porn is abhorrent and it is normal for people to react strongly against it wow we are actually getting somewhere.

.........

JayZeus wrote: »

This weekend I taught my wife how to change the oil filter and gap a new spark plug for the mower.

She showed me how to make bread dough in her 'new to her' Kenwood chef mixer.

Great. Why not. Well able for it.

I still cut the grass and she baked the bread.

Gender has SFA to do with any of it.

Now I might be accused of oversimplifying this, but the way I see it, let the raging mad nutcases scream and protest and label me as whatever they want.

Life will go on. I'll still burn the bread and my wife will still struggle to pull start an old lawnmower. Nothing will change there. There is no need for it to either.

I'm sorry but real life/world is not allowed.