Angry men on the Internet.

AllForIt

Errashareesh wrote: »

But I don't think anyone is disputing that?

Well, the thread is specifically about angry men, not abusive men. It's totally fine to be angry is what I said. So I don't know why you are bringing abuse into it? One can be angry but not abusive.

southstar

I guess it's better than burning the neighbourhood down....ranting that is...now who else does that stuff

Frankie Machine

Skippyme wrote: »

Incel means extremist terrorist.

I thought it was a portmanteau term for...

Involuntary Celibate.

ILoveYourVibes

Skippyme wrote: »

OVERLY sensitive is the kind of put down that harms men in general but especially if there are mental or emotional circumstances where we all need a friend

They ARE overly sensitive. Its not a put down. Its an observation. I am not saying it to harm people. Being overly sensitive goes hand in hand with low EQ.

I mean this in many ways.

1. They are overly sensitive for their own emotional well being. Part of being emotionally intelligent is the ability to predict your reactions and moods and monitor them well. It is recognizing there are two people in a conversation and another person's perception of you doesn't have to be true or affect you. People tend to think being emotionally intelligent is being more emotional. That's not the case. Its monitoring your emotions around other people as much as anything.

Lack of emotional intelligence is linked to a lot of emotional and mental issues.

People with low EQ often struggle to understand and control their emotions. They might lash out reactively without understanding what they are really feeling or why they are so upset.A person who lacks EQ might also have unexpected emotional outbursts that seem overblown and uncontrollable

A lot of people both men and women who are angry a lot have low EQs.

You are correct they DO have mental and emotional circumstances that they are unable to monitor themselves.

I often hear men complain about .....women don't like nice men etc. Or they are unsuccessful with women. Whilst they might be good hearted people. In reality they have low EQ a lot of the time. Women tend to like men who are emotionally intelligent. In fact other men like men who are emotionally intelligent too. But its not a skill we focus on or teach in schools.


It's not just true of men.

I am female and i personally wish i had higher EQ. But i do think its something you can learn in adulthood too. So i am trying.

Low EQ affects mental health A LOT.

A high EQ is necessary for good mental health. It's probably much more important in your life and career than IQ tbh.

By the way its not just men. Its young girls too who are suffering.

A lot of anxiety in teens girls surrounding body image and things like depression and managing emotions can be traced back to low EQ its hard to spot in smart people though of both genders. People with a very high IQ can have low EQ we see this when we say smart people make stupid decisions.

ILoveYourVibes

southstar wrote: »

I guess it's better than burning the neighbourhood down....ranting that is...now who else does that stuff

There is nothing wrong with ranting.

It's just that some of the things they say and the pictures they paint of themselves and self image are not happy pictures. It seems like they are suffering and are unhappy deeply.

southstar

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They ARE overly sensitive. Its not a put down. Its an observation. I am not saying it to harm people. Being overly sensitive goes hand in hand with low EQ.

I mean this in many ways.

1. They are overly sensitive for their own emotional well being. Part of being emotionally intelligent is the ability to predict your reactions and moods and monitor them well. It is recognizing there are two people in a conversation and another person's perception of you doesn't have to be true or affect you. People tend to think being emotionally intelligent is being more emotional. That's not the case. Its monitoring your emotions around other people as much as anything.

Lack of emotional intelligence is linked to a lot of emotional and mental issues.




A lot of people both men and women who are angry a lot have low EQs.

You are correct they DO have mental and emotional circumstances that they are unable to monitor themselves.

I often hear men complain about .....women don't like nice men etc. Or they are unsuccessful with women. Whilst they might be good hearted people. In reality they have low EQ a lot of the time. Women tend to like men who are emotionally intelligent. In fact other men like men who are emotionally intelligent too. But its not a skill we focus on or teach in schools.


It's not just true of men.

I am female and i personally wish i had higher EQ. But i do think its something you can learn in adulthood too. So i am trying.

Low EQ affects mental health A LOT.

A high EQ is necessary for good mental health. It's probably much more important in your life and career than IQ tbh.

By the way its not just men. Its young girls too who are suffering.

A lot of anxiety in teens girls surrounding body image and things like depression and managing emotions can be traced back to low EQ its hard to spot in smart people though of both genders. People with a very high IQ can have low EQ we see this when we say smart people make stupid decisions.

I guess that rules out the Trumps then

ILoveYourVibes

Frankie Machine wrote: »

I thought it was a portmanteau term for...

Involuntary Celibate.

It actually means both. The terms are unrelated to each other.

I would wager both types of person lacks emotional intelligence though.

All depends on your framing really.

You ask why there are so many angry men on the internet and many men will feel aggrieved at the generalisation and vocalise it, thus feeding into your theory and make it look like you were correct.

I guess putting up a "why are there so many whinging women on the internet?" thread would also get pushback from women.

The difference is, you would be castigated and branded mysogynistic for putting up the latter.

It's a popular opinion at the moment that "cis" white men are the baddie at the moment so it's an easy and safe target to hit.

Some people (rightfully in my opinion) think that racism, sexism and discrimination based on sexuality should be frowned upon no matter who it's aimed at.

dublinman1990

Would people here agree with me that the term of the angry men on the internet equating or acting the same as so-called tough guys or "hard men"?

At this point; I would assume they would be mainly would be to into things that gives them the power to make them have a tough exterior on the inside & on the outside towards others. They also would be into gossiping about other men behind their backs because they would secretly hate them.

It acts as a form of competition on one man against another. A big part of that happens in Ireland & it makes me sad to see it.

Skippyme

Skippyme wrote: »

It's a blanket term for what it is. Racism is a blanket term or Cyber Bullying & like you mentioned white privilege or supremacy etc is a blanket term. We know not all white people are racist. Toxic Masc. refers only to men part of the negative or condescending judgemental mindset & influence etc.

Except racism is not applied to a whole gender. That's a crucial difference. Do we see anything like the same approval for a toxic femininity, in spite of all the negatives associated with the variety of female cultures? Nope. Not that I would want people to be harping on about toxic femininity, simply because the term is used so horribly, and the scope of it's usage is so wide.

And you're classifying toxic masculinity the way you want it to be, not the way that it is used in the media, and online.

We classify all sorts of bullying from Toxic Masculinity to Domestic Abuse, Rape or Racism. Do we think all men do all of these, no.

No, but it defines manhood within very negative aspects.

Ironically it is the goal of Toxic Masculinity to do just that - remove individuality & promote & insist on tickling boxes & staying within lines. As for denying it's exitence & being disgusted & adamant of only a pretence or confusion of Toxic Masculinity even existing - what about women who could not convince others of Rape within marriage. There was a time people would not hear of it. The people telling the truth are often branded as ludicrous

Except when the people telling "the truth", are just telling one biased side of it.

Let's take your example: Women who weren't believed about rape in marriage. They weren't disbelieved solely because of men, or rather aspects relating to male 'manhood'. They were also disbelieved by other women. In many cases, it was mothers, sisters, friends, etc who convinced women to accept the abuses they received. That men did the same and engaged in such rape is assured, but it was an aspect of society, and as society shifted in it's perception of morality, and what was acceptable, so too did the attitude towards males engaging in rape.

Or as we're starting to see now, against women engaging in domestic violence. Society was the factor. Not masculinity. You're simply promoting the view that women throughout history had zero influence over the world they lived in. Which doesn't match reality. In many cases, throughout history, other women were the major opponents of social change, and of keeping women confined to certain narrow roles, including that of being the good silent housewife.

ILoveYourVibes

southstar wrote: »

I guess that rules out the Trumps then

Ah well you can have low IQ and low EQ too.

He has a high machiavellian intelligence though. MQ.:o

I read a study that said

Machiavellian men with high emotional intelligence (EI) are less prone to depression.

You can have high MQ with high EQ. People often confuse MQ with EQ but they are separate. Being machiavellian is not bad by the way. It can be a very good thing. But accompanied with low EQ usually means the person will be very unhappy deep down. As they are unable to predict and monitor their moods and prepare.

i_surge

Errashareesh wrote: »

But I don't think anyone is disputing that? The OP is being provocative but pretty unambiguous. He's not talking about people saying things he disagrees with, just plainly people who are extremely hostile and aggressive. Now I know that's not just a male thing of course - some women's vitriol blows my mind - but there is that grubby woman hating contingent brimming with incandescent rage because they resent women for not fancying them.

There is of course nothing wrong with passion but that's not what the OP is talking about.

There is a noticeable bias against men in many walks of life at the moment. We are regularly accused of being creeps and misogynists, stupid schmuck caractures, serious concerns lazily called mansplaining and so on.

A reaction to that is understandable on a few levels especially if someone doesn't have a lot of success in their life and see others being championed and adored on the basis of having a vagina first and talent second.

I don't think the reactions are good in the slightest but the source of frustration is understandable.

I can see how anyone could slip into that quick if they aren't that successful with women to begin with or in life generally.

When someone goes on a rampage killing a load of people, there is a very tiny bit of guilt attributable to society having marginalised them to get to such a low in the first place.

ILoveYourVibes

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Would people here agree with me that the term of the angry men on the internet equating or acting the same as so-called tough guys or "hard men"?

No quite the opposite. Not that the term should be different. But my perception of the 'angry men' is completely different.

I see them as the opposite of the hard man trope.

ILoveYourVibes

i_surge wrote: »

A reaction to that is understandable on a few levels especially if someone doesn't have a lot of success in their life and see others being championed and adored on the basis of having a vagina first and talent second.

I don't think the reactions are good in the slightest but the source of frustration is understandable.

What makes you think the people around you have the ability to understand this reaction?

Because watching people react to that reaction would give me the impression that they cannot understand it or empathize with it at all.

Now i am not saying that is RIGHT. But if were one of these men ....i might realize that most people don't seem tho think this is understandable.

Society doesn't understand these men. It doesn't empathize either with them. That's bad. But its important to realize that. Because it helps us understand what the reactions are going to be when we DO have these rants online.


Going on a rant when you want to piss people off ..cool ..or when you at least know you are going to cool.

Going on a rant expecting to be understood when you are going to be villainized is not so fun.

If they want to be understood we need to give them better tools and insight into how they are seen and what reactions to them might be.

Then they can explain themselves in a way society can better understand.

i_surge

i_surge wrote: »

There is a noticeable bias against men in many walks of life at the moment. We are regularly accused of being creeps and misogynists, stupid schmuck caractures, serious concerns lazily called mansplaining and so on.

A reaction to that is understandable on a few levels especially if someone doesn't have a lot of success in their life and see others being championed and adored on the basis of having a vagina first and talent second.

I don't think the reactions are good in the slightest but the source of frustration is understandable.

I can see how anyone could slip into that quick if they aren't that successful with women to begin with or in life generally.

When someone goes on a rampage killing a load of people, there is a very tiny bit of guilt attributable to society having marginalised them to get to such a low in the first place.

I agree with everything you said apart from the last paragraph.

ILoveYourVibes

It goes both ways.

I mean why are there so many angry Karens???

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It goes both ways.

I mean why are there so many angry Karens???

Because women are stupid

ILoveYourVibes

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Are there angry men and women on the internet of course they are.
However some people like blowing a tiny comment out of proportion or they can't take any little bit of negativity or criticism.

I agree.

But part of that is just the online world. We are being affected by the way we communicate i.e being online.

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

Because women are stupid

*licks you* grunts in karen.:D

People with low EQ are stupid.

The perfect title for this thread would be. Why are there so many angry people with low EQ ranting online!

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

*licks you* grunts in karen.:D

People with low EQ are stupid.

The perfect title for this thread would be. Why are there so many angry people with low EQ ranting online!

Jokes on you... I like when Karen's lick me....

(There's a sentence I never thought I'd type)

Perfect title for this thread would be....

"Why are differing opinions never tolerated or respected anymore and when did we become so entrenched in our beliefs that we can never admit we are often wrong"

I'm as guilty of the above as anyone else. It's very sad sometimes to realise that there is no middle ground. I've lost a lot of people who were good friends because our beliefs were diametrically opposed on certain subjects; subjects which we would very rarely speak about in general conversation.

Skippyme

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They ARE overly sensitive. Its not a put down. Its an observation. I am not saying it to harm people. Being overly sensitive goes hand in hand with low EQ.

I mean this in many ways.

1. They are overly sensitive for their own emotional well being. Part of being emotionally intelligent is the ability to predict your reactions and moods and monitor them well [/B]

EQ as you refer to would be more individual based for example people abducting someone and maybe one of the crew has more empathy towards the victim but if they still go along with it at a gentler pace they've supported & enabled it.

Also EQ takes into account all aspects of personality and abilities to charm others. Some people with high EQ may not be able to act out in reality what they picture in their head or orchestrate it clumsily yet be able to give complex working advice to improve someone else's try.

i_surge

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

What makes you think the people around you have the ability to understand this reaction?

Because watching people react to that reaction would give me the impression that they cannot understand it or empathize with it at all.

Now i am not saying that is RIGHT. But if were one of these men ....i might realize that most people don't seem tho think this is understandable.

Society doesn't understand these men. It doesn't empathize either with them. That's bad. But its important to realize that. Because it helps us understand what the reactions are going to be when we DO have these rants online.


Going on a rant when you want to piss people off ..cool ..or when you at least know you are going to cool.

Going on a rant expecting to be understood when you are going to be villainized is not so fun.

If they want to be understood we need to give them better tools and insight into how they are seen and what reactions to them might be.

Then they can explain themselves in a way society can better understand.

I'm not following you sorry?

The actions are usually lamentable but i can understand the source of frustration that leads to them. Just that.

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

Jokes on you... I like when Karen's lick me....

(There's a sentence I never thought I'd type)

Perfect title for this thread would be....



I'm as guilty of the above as anyone else. It's very sad sometimes to realise that there is no middle ground. I've lost a lot of people who were good friends because our beliefs were diametrically opposed on certain subjects; subjects which we would very rarely speak about in general conversation.

JOKES ON YOU I AM ALL THE COOTIES ..wait no joke is on me

"Why are differing opinions never tolerated or respected anymore and when did we become so entrenched in our beliefs that we can never admit we are often wrong"

This is irrelevant. Unless of course you feel it is and it's relevant to you in which case i have to consider it. Do you get me?

Our intellectual capability to accept other ideas doesn't affect a low EQ.

But some people do need to be told ....women don't like you because ...'you are not emotionally intelligent. Maybe you could work on that.'

You are unsuccessful in life because you are not emotionally intelligent. You have no friends because ....yada yada

Heck i need to be told this sometimes.

EQ is under emphasized in schools. And in society.

Errashareesh

But it's not about different opinions. I dislike the way that line gets used in relation to when people are being unreasonably hostile and aggressive - not simply because they hold counter opinions. And yes, it's not just a male thing. (Although I hate the "Karen" thing probably as much as some guys here hate the term "toxic masculinity"). If the OP is talking about behaviour by some men though (and it's surely clear what type he's talking about - the Elliott Rodgers types) I don't think that's grounds for all men to feel slighted. It doesn't mean all men.

Shur there's moaning about different types of women online day in day out, and I know not all women are being referred to (most of the time anyway).

i_surge

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree with everything you said apart from the last paragraph.

Only a very very minuscule amount of culpability but there is some.

We have erred into this society of two sides trying to rip each other a new one with shame and reputation damage and it is causing serious havoc. I never imagined it would get so bad when I saw the seeds of it starting a few years ago.

i_surge

Errashareesh wrote: »

But it's not about different opinions. I dislike the way that line gets used in relation to when people are being unreasonably hostile and aggressive - not simply because they hold counter opinions. And yes, it's not just a male thing. (Although I hate the "Karen" thing probably as much as some guys here hate the term "toxic masculinity"). If the OP is talking about behaviour by some men though (and it's surely clear what type he's talking about - the Elliott Rodgers types) I don't think that's grounds for all men to feel slighted. It doesn't mean all men.

Shur there's moaning about different types of women online day in day out, and I know not all women are being referred to (most of the time anyway).

Mostly agree, one is mainstream and the other isn't though.

Similar with "ok boomer" but hopefully that is dead already.

i_surge

i_surge wrote: »

Mostly agree, one is mainstream and the other isn't though.

Similar with "ok boomer" but hopefully that is dead already.

Nah man that's hilarious!!!

Much Ike the Budweiser "whasssaaaaaaaaaap" and the Crazy Frog, it will be around forever

ILoveYourVibes

Skippyme wrote: »

EQ as you refer to would be more individual based for example people abducting someone and maybe one of the crew has more empathy towards the victim but if they still go along with it at a gentler pace they've supported & enabled it.

.

No ..in fact the member of the crew who helps the victims a bit might be less emotionally intelligent.

Why? because they don't understand how they are going to feel at that moment in time.

The FBS used to have a policy of 'shoot the women first'...referring to such situations. Because women understand how they are going to feel better in this situation. (or that was /is what the fbi though because its a REAL policy). Women who take hostages are more emotionally prepared. They don't break down.

‘
Shoot the women first’ was reputedly an instruction given to recruits to West Germany’s
armed anti-terrorist squad, and also the advice offered by Interpol to other European squads. I
have spoken to several members of these organisations, and though none of them would confirm
they had ever been given such an instruction, they considered it to be a damn good piece of
advice.

There are several examples where men who have been cornered have waited a moment before they fired, but the women shot at once.

Even better advice would be shoot the people with high EQ first. They have prepared emotionally to complete their task they know how they will react emotionally in the moment.

Skippyme

Deleted User wrote: »

Except racism is not applied to a whole gender. That's a crucial difference. Do we see anything like the same approval for a toxic femininity, in spite of all the negatives associated with the variety of female cultures? Nope. Not that I would want people to be harping on about toxic femininity, simply because the term is used so horribly, and the scope of it's usage is so wide.

Racism is applied to groups of people. Is it any fairer that an area may be portrayed as racist or any demographic ? Certain people due to age, location, wealth or experience with interacting with a diverse range of people may be more or less likely to be racist, same thing.

Toxic femininity isn't spoken about as much, must be less women irked by it. There's no point in saying let's not talk about Toxic Masc. as men based on that. It's more dangerous to be anorexic in the short term than the opposite of piling on the pounds initially but different ends of spectrum. Like I said we calling out Toxic Masc. does not mean women can't do same their end.

Deleted User wrote: »

No, but it defines manhood within very negative aspects

It only calls out the negative hence the Toxic term. We don't say new born toxic male. We don't say my toxic brother or son. We don't call Domestic Violence a quarrel and remove domestic because we can't confuse or add home to the mix - it could have happened anywhere or why not say assault instead but they were known to each other, don't say they lived together for example!!!

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's take your example: Women who weren't believed about rape in marriage. They weren't disbelieved solely because of men, or rather aspects relating to male 'manhood'. They were also disbelieved by other women.

I never mentioned men being the cause of disbelief. It was expected and thought of as odd long ago for the accusation to occur because they were married. By the same token men can't suffer at the hands of Toxic Masc. just because like Rape in marriage we apparently know it is a null point -NO

JJayoo

Brexit eh what's that all about