Mens Rights Thread

kiffer wrote: »

The harm comes later when you've internalized "big boys don't cry" so heavily that you feel shame for crying and you find yourself with one one "allowed" emotional outlet for when you feel sad... anger.

Not true. Boys are generally also encouraged to suppress anger. In reality, the one "allowed" emotional outlet for emotion in general, for males, is... sport.

Madam_X wrote: »

I have addressed your points sufficiently Zulu in my last response.

In fairness, you've not. You interjected originally with an accusation that there was an 'anti-women' undertone in this thread. When pressed, you were only able to show 'anti-Feminism' examples, which is certainly not the same thing. Further pressed, it turns out that this undertone is in reality a 'feeling' and not actually based on rational argument or evidence.

Now another accusation has come in the form of Piliger seeking to "keep the women out" - except he hasn't. Did you guys exchange PM's and so we missed out on this, or has the line between what you 'feel' is being said and what is actually said become so blurred for you, that you are now 'Fixing Everyone's Posts'?

All before we get into your general tone of dismissal at the 'whining' carried out here, and of the men's rights movement in general.

I certainly do not agree with every example of 'anti-male discrimination' that is raised here, but at least I try to argue rationally and constructively why, and not dismiss it all simply as 'whining'. And you have been challenged on a number of your points and accusations here and, let's be honest, rather than engage in discussion, you are actually ignoring them at this stage and instead using "light-hearted" tactics to this end.

kiffer

smash wrote: »

So where's the line? Historically, since history began, men have been hunters, warriors etc. so is telling someone to toughen up really a taught bias that damages men?

I don't think it is. It's not like she's saying "get a job and buy me diamonds"

The harm comes later when you've internalized "big boys don't cry" so heavily that you feel shame for crying and you find yourself with one one "allowed" emotional outlet for when you feel sad... anger.

Toughen up also tends to be "toughen up, shut up and take it", rather than "toughen up and do somethings about it".

Madam_X wrote: »

FYP is a light-hearted thing people use on social media, it's hardly serious.

Why did you edit my quote ?

You were of course referring to me, not Iptba earlier: when someone said I'm a she (like you needed to be told) you said "Should have guessed, keep the women out!" Noice.

So you just refuse to read the original post. Great. We are unfortunately discovering a lot about you now.

Piliger wrote: »

And I suggest there is a difference between a genetic predisposition and a learnt and taught bias.

So where's the line? Historically, since history began, men have been hunters, warriors etc. so is telling someone to toughen up really a taught bias that damages men?

I don't think it is. It's not like she's saying "get a job and buy me diamonds"

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

Madam_X wrote:

Oh and lol at you assuming "Madam X" and a

woman avatar is a man - and then acting as if you hadn't known when it was

pointed out to you, with "I should have known". I mean... really? You honestly thought I am a guy? Sure...

Wrong. For the second time in a week I have to bring to people's attention that their attributions to me are incorrect !.

This is the post where I made the original remark. And if you read it correctly you will notice that I was not actually referring to you at all, but "iptba".

You were referring to me or replying to me? It didn't seem like you were referring to me in that post.

Madam_X wrote: »

I have addressed your points sufficiently Zulu in my last response.

No you haven't.

While you acknowledged that you were incorrect in presuming an attack on women & thinly veiled anti-woman sentiment on this thread, you've done nothing to address your dismissal of mens concerns, or most of your flippant unfounded comments!

You've done nothing to correct/withdraw your incorrect assertion that I blame feminism for not setting up a mens movement.
You've done nothing to correct/withdraw your "whinging" attack on posters yet.
You've done nothing to correct/withdraw your "reverse herpa derp" belittlement of comments.
You've done nothing to correct/withdraw your false accusations of being labeled a misandrist.
You've done nothing to correct/withdraw your assertion that I have not worked in the area of mens rights.

...but who's counting?

You claim you are here because you have an interest in mens rights? If you want to be a constructive part of this conversation, I suggest you correct your false accusations and assertions, and then refrain from making any more.

Madam_X

Zulu wrote: »

Thats a little rich of you Madam_X considering you still continue to ignore most of the questions I put to you. If you're unable to answer questions put to you, don't accuse other of being unable to address your posts.

Ms. Kettle, I'd like you to meet Mr. Pot!

I have addressed your points sufficiently Zulu in my last response.

Piliger wrote: »

I find it deeply objectionable that you place a quote of mine in your post - but edit it to suit your ends ??

This is despicable behaviour.

FYP is a light-hearted thing people use on social media, it's hardly serious. You were of course referring to me, not Iptba earlier: when someone said I'm a she (like you needed to be told) you said "Should have guessed, keep the women out!" Noice.

Madam_X wrote: »

FYP.

I find it deeply objectionable that you place a quote of mine in your post - but edit it to suit your ends ??

This is despicable behaviour.

smash wrote: »

Would you lobby against parents buying dolls and miniature kitchens for their daughters? Or buying wrestlers for their little boys?

I would not lobby to have them prevented. But I do think that parents who do not provide a balance in their child's play is doing them a disservice.

And I suggest there is a difference between a genetic predisposition and a learnt and taught bias.

Also this is a case of promoting a video which promotes a sexist stereotype that damages men as they grow.

Madam_X wrote: »

FYP.

Thats a little rich of you Madam_X considering you still continue to ignore most of the questions I put to you. If you're unable to answer questions put to you, don't accuse other of being unable to address your posts.

Ms. Kettle, I'd like you to meet Mr. Pot!

Madam_X

Piliger wrote: »

The rest of your post I am unable to reply to.

FYP.

Piliger wrote: »

It's an example of low level early pressure on a little boy that he needs toughen up ..

What would happen if the roles were reversed and the older boy were to tell the little girl to be more compliant and passive, the way a little girls should.

One can only imagine the firestorm.

Would you lobby against parents buying dolls and miniature kitchens for their daughters? Or buying wrestlers for their little boys?

Madam_X wrote: »

Oh and lol at you assuming "Madam X" and a woman avatar is a man - and then acting as if you hadn't known when it was pointed out to you, with "I should have known". I mean... really? You honestly thought I am a guy? Sure...

Wrong. For the second time in a week I have to bring to people's attention that their attributions to me are incorrect !.

This is the post where I made the original remark. And if you read it correctly you will notice that I was not actually referring to you at all, but "iptba".

The rest of your post is not really worth replying to.

smash wrote: »

Oh I wasn't suggesting it was misandrist. I was just pointing out there there are worse ads out there than someone saying "Man up" to their brother.

I agree - but to say that there are worse out there is, in my view, missing the significance of early, low level, brain washing of this type. It may appear humorous and harmless but it is at this age that these kinds of prejudices start.

I would be equally against the reverse.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd see this as an example of taught misandry, TBH. Bullying, in general, and pretty poor parenting, sure - but misandry, I think would be a bit of an exaggeration.

It's an example of low level early pressure on a little boy that he needs toughen up ..

What would happen if the roles were reversed and the older boy were to tell the little girl to be more compliant and passive, the way a little girls should.

One can only imagine the firestorm.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again this is not altogether misandrist and can also be argued to be misogynist as it portrays a message of "a woman's place is in the home". In fact, the matriarchal image of a woman without whom a man would fall apart is hardly a modern invention, but is in reality a throwback of patriarchal role models. So in itself, it's not really misandrist.

Oh I wasn't suggesting it was misandrist. I was just pointing out there there are worse ads out there than someone saying "Man up" to their brother.

smash wrote: »

Personally I'm more insulted by most boots adverts on the TV which seems to portray men as being weak willed and needing to be taken care of. At the same time, I don't see how women don't find the ads sexist too, as the women seem to be housewives doing chores and minding the kids while the husbands are at work.

Again this is not altogether misandrist and can also be argued to be misogynist as it portrays a message of "a woman's place is in the home". In fact, the matriarchal image of a woman without whom a man would fall apart is hardly a modern invention, but is in reality a throwback of patriarchal role models. So in itself, it's not really misandrist.

Women make up something like 95% of home makers and stay at home parents. It's the primary reason that any pay gap still exists between men and women in the same careers. While this was originally a patriarchal concept, the problem now is that it has become something that discriminates against men also and which has largely been ignored by Feminism.

Why do I suggest this? Because Feminism stopped being about equality and became about choice some time back and so making things equal on who gets to choose to stay at home, or has control over the children would actually affect women's choice to do so. As such, instead of this, Feminism's entire focus has been on retaining this bias in the home, and instead employing positive discrimination in traditional male roles so that choice may be maximized - for women.

Madam_X wrote: »

As for what I said re here: ok, so the intention is not to be hostile to women, but it feels that way.

You mean like Piliger felt that the video was hostile to men?

Just as I, and others, then disagreed and suggested that this was not the case with him, you too should realistically more objective about what you 'feel' too. After all, as has been pointed out, if there has been any hostility its been twoards Feminism, not women and unless you want to equate the two, it pretty much dispels your accusation.

I am just saying not all feminists are the unreasonable individuals you make them out to be.

Absolutely. You're always going to find all colours in any movement or ideology. However, as a movement or ideology, Feminism is an abject failure in terms of seeking equality and has been so for several decades, and at this stage we're probably at a point where it is more than likely that in this regard Feminism does more harm than good to that goal.

Corinthian, seeing as any women who gets defensive on this forum is immediately dismissed as "a feminist" (when she may not be one at all) that would be the reason for me viewing attacks on feminists as hostility towards women.

If so, I stand corrected, however, so far all you've done is cite attacks and criticisms against Feminism, not women.

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

I don't mean making it men-only, I mean making it from men's perspective. That's reasonable. Doesn't exclude women, but is primarily for men. That's valid.

I don't think the powers that be consider that reasonable, unfortunately.

Emeraldy Pebbles

Zulu wrote: »

No. They won't.

Comparisons to that forum have led to thread closures & warning etc. previously. This thread was doing quite well for a good while, and I'd like to keep it that way/open.

I don't mean making it men-only, I mean making it from men's perspective. That's reasonable. Doesn't exclude women, but is primarily for men. That's valid.

No. They won't.

Comparisons to that forum have led to thread closures & warning etc. previously. This thread was doing quite well for a good while, and I'd like to keep it that way/open.

Emeraldy Pebbles

Zulu wrote: »

Well it's certainly closed to the kind of posting we're seeing from Madam X! Unfounded claims, discrediting opinions, belittling legitimate comparisons, and trying to silence people certainly isn't accepted there (and rightly so).

Then take that up with tGC mods! It's a valid point so I'm sure they'd at least consider it.

Madam_X

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd see this as an example of taught misandry, TBH. Bullying, in general, and pretty poor parenting, sure - but misandry, I think would be a bit of an exaggeration.

Yup. Piliger, if it was a boy saying toughen up would you call it misandry? You find/look for misandry in strange places dude. You really think that girl's parents are teaching her to hate men?!! It's just women who tell men to man up, to get over it if a woman assaults/sexually harasses them... right...?
Oh and lol at you assuming "Madam X" and a woman avatar is a man - and then acting as if you hadn't known when it was pointed out to you, with "I should have known". I mean... really? You honestly thought I am a guy? Sure...
As for what I said re here: ok, so the intention is not to be hostile to women, but it feels that way. I am not being altruistic re feminists (I am not one - assume I am all you like, but I'm not, because I am also of the opinion that there should not be a monopoly on one group; I don't feel men should feel compelled to be feminists either). I am just saying not all feminists are the unreasonable individuals you make them out to be. I can think of examples of such women immediately. There are too many types to make the call you make. Corinthian, seeing as any woman who gets defensive (with good cause) on this forum is immediately dismissed as "a feminist" (when she may not be one at all) that would be the reason for me viewing attacks on feminists as hostility towards women. What was said about women here saying that women are more "needed" etc has got to be misinterpretation, because the women who post here are not unreasonable like that.

Zulu, I do not see this thread as a "threat" at all - the opposite actually. I would like to get involved in it because it is an area of interest to me and something I know quite a bit about, but my point is: it's hard to make contributions when there are hostile vibes/looking for misandry when there's none etc emanating from it.

Back on topic: that ad where the woman whimpers "I'd love a coffee" and expects her fella to go out in the pissing rain for it wrecks my head.

Piliger wrote: »

In today's Independent we see a video of a 4yo girl telling her little brother to 'toughen up' ........ it starts young, this kind of nasty misandry.

God help these kids, with parents like this .... Ref: their attempts to 'market' this and other vids of theirs.

Personally I'm more insulted by most boots adverts on the TV which seems to portray men as being weak willed and needing to be taken care of. At the same time, I don't see how women don't find the ads sexist too, as the women seem to be housewives doing chores and minding the kids while the husbands are at work.

Piliger wrote: »

I truly don't wish to be off topic, although I believe there is a relevance in the inequality of how men are treated in this issue.

Suffice it to say that the Charter for the Women's Lounge says:
"We do welcome male input, but do bear in mind that this forum is firstly for the women of boards to have their say, from their point of view."

There is no equivalent statement in the tGC Charter.

I completely accept this and also pointed this out in my response to you - but that's not "not closed to men", which is what you suggested.

As to tGC policy, well I made my views known on the recent feedback thread here. Feel free to conclude whatever to wish from the discussions there, not to mention the reforms that followed.

Piliger wrote: »

In today's Independent we see a video of a 4yo girl telling her little brother to 'toughen up' ........ it starts young, this kind of nasty misandry.

I'm not sure I'd see this as an example of taught misandry, TBH. Bullying, in general, and pretty poor parenting, sure - but misandry, I think would be a bit of an exaggeration.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, tLL is in fairness not closed to men. Of course, they do have a policy that threads should be from a 'female point of view', the equivalent of which is not followed here, so that can result in what you're suggesting.

I truly don't wish to be off topic, although I believe there is a relevance in the inequality of how men are treated in this issue.

Suffice it to say that the Charter for the Women's Lounge says:
"We do welcome male input, but do bear in mind that this forum is firstly for the women of boards to have their say, from their point of view."

There is no equivalent statement in the tGC Charter.

I won't post on this again as I am pretty sure it is not considered on topic, despite this gender disparity.

In today's Independent we see a video of a 4yo girl telling her little brother to 'toughen up' ........ it starts young, this kind of nasty misandry.

God help these kids, with parents like this .... Ref: their attempts to 'market' this and other vids of theirs.

Well it's certainly closed to the kind of posting we're seeing from Madam X! Unfounded claims, discrediting opinions, belittling legitimate comparisons, and trying to silence people certainly isn't accepted there (and rightly so).

...but that's off topic!

Emeraldy Pebbles

Piliger wrote: »

while the Women's forum is closed to men.

No it's not.

Even if you mean that figuratively. No it's not.