Why are we hating all the men?

cloudatlas · 15-05-2017 12:37PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

The male students doing agriculture at UCD are a fictional group? Someone would want to let the faculty know...

Yes sorry the newspaper should have wrote an apology to all men studying Agriculture at UCD because of a fictional story that wasn't true, that makes sense.

One eyed Jack · 15-05-2017 12:41PM

silverharp wrote: »

they are completely different in scale though , and the latter is more a critique of the former. Surely its good to have a well of discussion on feminism/society from an uncensored male perspective, something which would be impossible in the media.

I wouldn't call what you may be describing as a critique, so much as flinging shít at a wall and hoping something sticks. In order for something to meet the criteria of critique, I would expect it's premise to have some validity, and while I can say feminism is responsible for many things in society, the position in which men find themselves, isn't one of them.

Bojangles hit the nail squarely on the head IMO when she pointed out that what you would describe as pragmatism, she would describe as apathy. It's because of this apathy that feminists have been able to co-opt men's welfare under the banner of feminism and point fingers to suggest that men are our own worst enemy because of what feminists term 'toxic masculinity'. That immediately implies that under this same paradigm, now not only are women 'victims' of 'male oppression', but men are victims of 'male oppression' too!

Of course I think it's good to have a discussion on feminism/society from an uncensored male perspective, but I don't think it's a good idea to suggest that feminism is responsible for the position in which men find themselves, and your explanation for that is that men are pragmatic, the inference being that women aren't. Of course they are.

The real difference, and this IMO if you want an uncensored male perspective on the issues facing men, is that men simply don't care about their own welfare as much as women care about everyone's welfare, and that's why as misguided as feminism often is, it will still gain more traction in society than men's welfare because men simply don't care as much about other men.

Lux23 · 15-05-2017 12:48PM

I just think most people aren't particularly aware of how their behaviour affects others and the internet seems to amplify this lack of awareness. So when a man complains that he is always friend-zoned he doesn't understand that it seems like he is whinging about how women owe him sex. And when a woman says this guy is entitled without considering how he might feel about always finishing last when it comes to relationships. And on the internet people never like to admit when they are wrong so it just goes on and on.

The internet isn't real life though.

Pac1Man · 15-05-2017 12:50PM

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Thankfully, I identify as demigender.

I identify as a man mostly but with regards to any aspect of anything related to rape culture I identify as a woman.

Checkmate, Feminists.

Be careful you don't rape yourself.

Sky King · 15-05-2017 12:50PM

Re: Mansplaining - How can one tell if one is being helpful or if one simply a cunt?

Genuine question. I enjoy explaining things.

Widdershins · 15-05-2017 12:51PM

Pac1Man wrote: »

Be careful you don't rape yourself.

Happens to me all the time.

Widdershins · 15-05-2017 12:53PM

Sky King wrote: »

Re: Mansplaining - How can one tell if one is being helpful or if one simply a cunt?

Genuine question. I enjoy explaining things.

If you're explaining something in an unsolicited way, especially to someone who might already be knowledgeable about the subject, and talking over/down to them, I think that's mansplaining.
Nothing wrong with explaining, otherwise.
I ask a lot of questions and enjoy having the answers explained to me. It's how I learn.

silverharp · 15-05-2017 12:55PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't call what you may be describing as a critique, so much as flinging sh?t at a wall and hoping something sticks. In order for something to meet the criteria of critique, I would expect it's premise to have some validity, and while I can say feminism is responsible for many things in society, the position in which men find themselves, isn't one of them.

Bojangles hit the nail squarely on the head IMO when she pointed out that what you would describe as pragmatism, she would describe as apathy. It's because of this apathy that feminists have been able to co-opt men's welfare under the banner of feminism and point fingers to suggest that men are our own worst enemy because of what feminists term 'toxic masculinity'. That immediately implies that under this same paradigm, now not only are women 'victims' of 'male oppression', but men are victims of 'male oppression' too!

Of course I think it's good to have a discussion on feminism/society from an uncensored male perspective, but I don't think it's a good idea to suggest that feminism is responsible for the position in which men find themselves, and your explanation for that is that men are pragmatic, the inference being that women aren't. Of course they are.

The real difference, and this IMO if you want an uncensored male perspective on the issues facing men, is that men simply don't care about their own welfare as much as women care about everyone's welfare, and that's why as misguided as feminism often is, it will still gain more traction in society than men's welfare because men simply don't care as much about other men.

they aint making stuff up though, one issue that pops up are issues around divorce looking at the US or UK , family courts , excessive alimony is a real thing. Pragmatically all a man can do is choose based on his risk tolerance is discuss the environment and discuss options. A lot of these guys probably saw their dads being pulled through the ringer when they were kids.
What do they say, politics is downstream from culture, as far as history goes its only in the last 5 or 10 years ago have men been able to discuss these issues informally. Lord knows try raise it formally and the feminists will try to get it closed down as mysoggykness hate speech
Men react to social change differently than women which is why men are likely to just disengage and say whats the point, its like trying to argue with fog especially when a lot of men especially ones with influence will broadly agree with the feminists.

Bambi985 · 15-05-2017 12:55PM

mzungu wrote: »

Check out the PUA or "Red Pill" related threads and you will see that it goes down like a lead balloon. The cheerleaders for it have their ideas debunked pretty sharply.

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.

Foxhound38 · 15-05-2017 01:00PM

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yes sorry the newspaper should have wrote an apology to all men studying Agriculture at UCD because of a fictional story that wasn't true, that makes sense.

It does when they chose to publish it without any sort of fact checking, chose to describe it as endemic and systemic within that specific Department and those that studied there, and then proceeded to use it to try to prompt a nationwide conversation about "rape culture" and so-called "toxic masculinity" that is supposedly endemic in our society (read: all men are pigs etc etc) - all based on a load of shyte that didn't actually happen. Then when it was proven to be a load of shyte, the same commentariat just shrugged their shoulders, explained it away because it was "plausible" and patriarchy and we live in a rape culture so it obviously must be happening *somewhere* and absolved themselves of any basic responsibility.

You're damn right those students deserved an apology.

jobbridge4life · 15-05-2017 01:02PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

It does when they chose to publish it without any sort of fact checking, chose to describe it as endemic and systemic within that specific Department and those that studied there, and then proceeded to use it to try to prompt a nationwide conversation about "rape culture" and so-called "toxic masculinity" that is supposedly endemic in our society (read: all men are pigs etc etc) - all based on a load of shyte that didn't actually happen. Then when it was proven to be a load of shyte, the same commentariat just shrugged their shoulders, explained it away because it was "plausible" and patriarchy and must be happening *somewhere* and absolved themselves of any basic responsibility.

You're damn right those students deserved an apology.

I'll be dead and mouldy in my grave before I apologise to an ag-science 'student'.

Sorry, not sorry.

15-05-2017 01:12PM

Yourself isit wrote: »

It's maybe because you are in more locker room situations with younger guys than most people your age. In which case speak up. No point complaining about a culture that surrounds you (but clearly not is universal) on the Internet if your don't in real life.

Oh tee hee, such innuendo. Though hadn't heard the "you're gay" stuff in 10 or 15 years.

cloudatlas · 15-05-2017 01:12PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

It does when they chose to publish it without any sort of fact checking, chose to describe it as endemic and systemic within that specific Department and those that studied there, and then proceeded to use it to try to prompt a nationwide conversation about "rape culture" and so-called "toxic masculinity" that is supposedly endemic in our society (read: all men are pigs etc etc) - all based on a load of shyte that didn't actually happen. Then when it was proven to be a load of shyte, the same commentariat just shrugged their shoulders, explained it away because it was "plausible" and patriarchy and we live in a rape culture so it obviously must be happening *somewhere* and absolved themselves of any basic responsibility.

You're damn right those students deserved an apology.

Nope doesn't wash legally or otherwise, newspapers would be apologising for all kinds of opinion pieces, stories where no one is defamed and just apologising to large swathes of society, there would be no newspaper left to read if the legal team enforced such nonsense.

WinnyThePoo · 15-05-2017 01:20PM

It should really be Louise o Neill apologising. She did go on the radio and wrote articles.

As far as I'm aware she refused ucd investigation outcome.

Pac1Man · 15-05-2017 01:24PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh tee hee, such innuendo. Though hadn't heard the "you're gay" stuff in 10 or 15 years.

That is hardly what was being insinuated!

cloudatlas · 15-05-2017 01:26PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It should really be Louise o Neill apologising. She did go on the radio and wrote articles.

As far as I'm aware she refused ucd investigation outcome.

Maybe neither here nor there but the editor of the UCD college newspaper who is a man also refused the outcome.

WinnyThePoo · 15-05-2017 01:29PM

cloudatlas wrote: »

Maybe neither here nor there but the editor of the UCD college newspaper who is a man also refused the outcome.

He chose to report something and could not back it up. Of course he should apologize aswell.

Will I Am Not · 15-05-2017 01:31PM

Anyone see that advert where the woman points to a child's drawing of a muscular man on the fridge labelled "mammy's gym friend" and says something along the lines of "I'll just show him this" if her husband doesn't agree or do something.

Can't remember exactly how it went but it's bizarre. Basically threatening to f*ck a big muscly man if the husband doesn't behave himself.

B0jangles · 15-05-2017 01:39PM

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Anyone see that advert where the woman points to a child's drawing of a muscular man on the fridge labelled "mammy's gym friend" and says something along the lines of "I'll just show him this" if her husband doesn't agree or do something.

Can't remember exactly how it went but it's bizarre. Basically threatening to f*ck a big muscly man if the husband doesn't behave himself.

Yeah I saw that, it's really manky

kleefarr · 15-05-2017 01:40PM

Maybe lesbianism is becoming more popular?

cloudatlas · 15-05-2017 01:41PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

He chose to report something and could not back it up. Of course he should apologize aswell.

There is a huge difference between saying all men who are studying Argiculture at UCD are misogynists taking part in revenge porn and saying we need to support the victims of this crime whilst writing about other trends in universities of this kind of behaviour and drawing parallels but it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things because again the story was found to be false, not legally actionable so any discussion is moot.

jobbridge4life · 15-05-2017 01:41PM

kleefarr wrote: »

Maybe lesbianism is becoming more popular?

Funny lesbianism never seems to be more popular than among straight men.

Arne_Saknussem · 15-05-2017 01:43PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Funny lesbianism never seems to be more popular than among straight men.

And among lesbians, i would imagine.

jobbridge4life · 15-05-2017 01:45PM

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

And among lesbians, i would imagine.

Eh... between the teenage lads I grew up with and the lesbians I know today... those lads have it by a long shot.

One eyed Jack · 15-05-2017 01:54PM

silverharp wrote: »

they aint making stuff up though, one issue that pops up are issues around divorce looking at the US or UK , family courts , excessive alimony is a real thing. Pragmatically all a man can do is choose based on his risk tolerance is discuss the environment and discuss options. A lot of these guys probably saw their dads being pulled through the ringer when they were kids.

I'm squinting hard at that one :pac:

So just to take your point regarding excessive alimony being a real thing. In proportion to the rate of divorce in the US, the UK and of course Ireland, how real a problem is it exactly? The point I'm suggesting is that of the number of divorce cases, excessive alimony actually applies to only a tiny minority of them. Of course in any case of divorce, more generally speaking, a man will consider the financial hit he has to take because again, generally speaking, in most marriages - the woman is the primary caregiver, and the man is the primary income provider.

That's why often times, in the interests of the children's welfare, it's an equally pragmatic decision that their mother continue to be the primary caregiver, while the father continue to be the primary provider. The Courts aren't excluding the father from being in his children's lives, they just aren't going to allow the children to be considered as property of the marriage when it come to the parents choosing to divorce each other.

silverharp wrote: »

What do they say, politics is downstream from culture, as far as history goes its only in the last 5 or 10 years ago have men been able to discuss these issues informally. Lord knows try raise it formally and the feminists will try to get it closed down as mysoggykness hate speech

I think you could go back a bit further in history than the last 5 or 10 years to a time when men were discussing the issues of the day informally, gentleman's clubs for example, or the working men's clubs. I went to a couple of the modern equivalent of these clubs a couple of times around the country - men's sheds. Really not my scene at all at all, and I'll leave it at that because to give my honest opinion of them, it wouldn't be very favourable.

silverharp wrote: »

Men react to social change differently than women which is why men are likely to just disengage and say whats the point, its like trying to argue with fog especially when a lot of men especially ones with influence will broadly agree with the feminists.

Ahh no, I don't agree with that at all at all. I think it's too simplistic to delineate adaptability to social change by gender. Look at just for example the social changes the creation of the Internet has brought. Men are leading the social changes in the direction the Internet is taking and being used, by a country mile! It's actually women who are lagging behind ferociously. They may use tools like social media better than men, but it's generally men who are creating and controlling the tools in the first place. The fact that a small minority of men are unable to adapt to change and therefore disengage, is equivalent to the same small minority of women who are unable to adapt to social change and therefore disengage. But both just as vocal in complaining about it.

It's not that men of influence actually agree with feminists, it's that those men's ideals for society just happen to correlate with feminist ideals for society. There are actually more men of influence whose ideals for society do not correlate with feminist ideals for society, but they don't correlate with MRA's ideals for society either.

silverharp · 15-05-2017 02:03PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh no, I don't agree with that at all at all. I think it's too simplistic to delineate adaptability to social change by gender. Look at just for example the social changes the creation of the Internet has brought. Men are leading the social changes in the direction the Internet is taking and being used, by a country mile! It's actually women who are lagging behind ferociously. They may use tools like social media better than men, but it's generally men who are creating and controlling the tools in the first place. The fact that a small minority of men are unable to adapt to change and therefore disengage, is equivalent to the same small minority of women who are unable to adapt to social change and therefore disengage. But both just as vocal in complaining about it.

It's not that men of influence actually agree with feminists, it's that those men's ideals for society just happen to correlate with feminist ideals for society. There are actually more men of influence whose ideals for society do not correlate with feminist ideals for society, but they don't correlate with MRA's ideals for society either.

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

I think you could go back a bit further in history than the last 5 or 10 years to a time when men were discussing the issues of the day informally, gentleman's clubs for example, or the working men's clubs. I went to a couple of the modern equivalent of these clubs a couple of times around the country - men's sheds. Really not my scene at all at all, and I'll leave it at that because to give my honest opinion of them, it wouldn't be very favourable.

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

silverharp · 15-05-2017 02:26PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm squinting hard at that one :pac:

So just to take your point regarding excessive alimony being a real thing. In proportion to the rate of divorce in the US, the UK and of course Ireland, how real a problem is it exactly? The point I'm suggesting is that of the number of divorce cases, excessive alimony actually applies to only a tiny minority of them. Of course in any case of divorce, more generally speaking, a man will consider the financial hit he has to take because again, generally speaking, in most marriages - the woman is the primary caregiver, and the man is the primary income provider.

That's why often times, in the interests of the children's welfare, it's an equally pragmatic decision that their mother continue to be the primary caregiver, while the father continue to be the primary provider. The Courts aren't excluding the father from being in his children's lives, they just aren't going to allow the children to be considered as property of the marriage when it come to the parents choosing to divorce each other.

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?

WinnyThePoo · 15-05-2017 02:29PM

cloudatlas wrote: »

There is a huge difference between saying all men who are studying Argiculture at UCD are misogynists taking part in revenge porn and saying we need to support the victims of this crime whilst writing about other trends in universities of this kind of behaviour and drawing parallels but it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things because again the story was found to be false, not legally actionable so any discussion is moot.

I dont have wally what your on about.

storker · 15-05-2017 02:38PM

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Anyone see that advert where the woman points to a child's drawing of a muscular man on the fridge labelled "mammy's gym friend" and says something along the lines of "I'll just show him this" if her husband doesn't agree or do something.

Can't remember exactly how it went but it's bizarre. Basically threatening to f*ck a big muscly man if the husband doesn't behave himself.

I think it's more about showing Dad that he has competition and he'd better up his game.

Can you imagine a role-reversed version of that ad where the kid's drawing shows a pneumatic babe in a short skirt titled "Dad's new tennis friend" and the howls of protest that would ensue?

Wibbs · 15-05-2017 02:57PM

cloudatlas wrote: »

How exactly would a broadsheet newspaper apologise to a fictional group?

BTW I assumed it was true as did others should I go round apologising to all the people I discussed it with. Sorry that the thing we thought was true was not true, and that I thought it was true and I feel apologetic towards the fictional group who were effected by...

:rolleyes:

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).

Why are we hating all the men?

Comments