Is the Western World anti-man?

Kev W · 19-08-2015 05:42PM

Old Jakey wrote: »

I can't find your answer.

You quoted it, you should be able to find it.

Eugene Norman · 19-08-2015 05:43PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Bingo. Emma Watson gave a speech about inequality to the united nations a while back. Emma went to a better school than 90% of Americans because she was born into privilege. That's inequality Emma not some idiot saying women can't be engineers.

Well both are ( but who ever says the latter). Chelsea Clinton is also obsessed with the gender pay gap but not, apparantly , the gap in income and wealth between the daughters of US presidents and the rest of humanity.

It's almost as if you could end the gender pay gap and still have the massive inequalities so necessary to capitalism.

Old Jakey · 19-08-2015 05:44PM

Kev W wrote: »

You quoted it, you should be able to find it.

Who's they?

wakka12 · 19-08-2015 05:46PM

NorthStars wrote: »

The western world isn't 'anti-man', it's 'anti-hetrosexual man'.

You know, oppressed minorities actually standing up to the ****ty ways they were being treated doesn't mean 'anti heterosexual man' . It just means they want change , and that involves straight men acting differently to the lifestyle they've been accustomed to.

Kev W · 19-08-2015 05:48PM

Old Jakey wrote: »

Who's they?

You're just trolling at this point.

zeffabelli · 19-08-2015 05:48PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, no, it's 'anti-heterosexual, white, under 50's, two arms and two legs... men'

Anyone else want to add some labels so they can feel like a victim?

Oh christ I nearly forgot - married men are victims, unmarried men are victims, separated and divorced men are victims...

It's like there's an endless list of ways in which the Western world is anti-men after all! I wonder what about the Eastern world and why the Eastern world was not included in this analysis?

Because the premise of the thread is simply ridiculous and should never be taken seriously.

I really dont get how the world can be anti man or how there can be such a thing as a feminist since the latest fad is there is no such thing as gender in the first place.

Kev W · 19-08-2015 05:49PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

I really dont get how the world can be anti man or how there can be such a thing as a feminist since the latest fad is there is no such thing as gender in the first place.

Nobody has claimed that there's no such thing as gender.

One eyed Jack · 19-08-2015 05:49PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Oh really. Well, whenever it is that you feel like letting us know just why that is, do let us know won't you.

Well it's a matter of perspective IMO. Like I said earlier - I'm a man, I can think for myself. Do I think the Western world is anti-man?

Of course not. A sweeping statement like that as a premise for an argument is just stupid. It's not even worth entertaining because people can either narrow or widen the scope of the argument to suit their own agenda and define their own parameters for what they want to discuss. We were only a few posts in when a thread about the persecution of men became a vehicle to pour more scorn on feminism, because of course, women are the problem, and if it weren't for women, men's world would be peachy.

I see a problem if you follow that line of argument to it's logical conclusion, do you?

zeffabelli · 19-08-2015 05:51PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Victim culture. You can hardly blame men's rights activists for aping a strategy that has served women so well.

Has it really served women?

I would not be certain of that.

Noobas2 · 19-08-2015 05:52PM

Kev W wrote: »

Interstingly there have been studies showing that this is more to do with the manner in which men commit suicide than anything else. Men tend towards violent methods like hanging and (in countries where it's an option) shooting themselves. Women on the other hand tend towards methods such as poisoning /overdoses, which have a higher rate of survival. Failed suicides tend not to try again (not that they never do, but that is the tendency) so the result is a higher rate of successful suicides among men.

Well to be honest about it most of these men wud be effeminate men who can't keep up with the real men. While the women who get all the looks and easy jobs like modelling wud be masculine in the sense that they have y chromosomes. It's well proven male animals retain their good looks longer than females. So considering all this it most certainly is a male dominated world with the shallowness of the west.

Old Jakey · 19-08-2015 05:54PM

Kev W wrote: »

You're just trolling at this point.

Still waiting on your answer. You can surely type up the gist of it again can't ya?

Kev W · 19-08-2015 05:54PM

Noobas2 wrote: »

Well to be honest about it most of these men wud be effeminate men who can't keep up with the real men. While the women who get all the looks and easy jobs like modelling wud be masculine in the sense that they have y chromosomes. It's well proven male animals retain their good looks longer than females. So considering all this it most certainly is a male dominated world with the shallowness of the west.

Women don't have Y chromosomes. Not even the models.

The_Valeyard · 19-08-2015 05:54PM

Noobas2 wrote: »

Well to be honest about it most of these men wud be effeminate men who can't keep up with the real men. While the women who get all the looks and easy jobs like modelling wud be masculine in the sense that they have y chromosomes. It's well proven male animals retain their good looks longer than females. So considering all this it most certainly is a male dominated world with the shallowness of the west.

They do say that some men get better looking as they age.

Penny Tration · 19-08-2015 05:54PM

Noobas2 wrote: »

Well to be honest about it most of these men wud be effeminate men who can't keep up with the real men. While the women who get all the looks and easy jobs like modelling wud be masculine in the sense that they have y chromosomes. It's well proven male animals retain their good looks longer than females. So considering all this it most certainly is a male dominated world with the shallowness of the west.

You believe the large number of men who kill themselves are just effeminate men who can't keep up with "real" men?

Sweet baby Jesus, I thought I'd seen ignorant posts here in AH, but that just takes the biscuit.

Kev W · 19-08-2015 05:56PM

Old Jakey wrote: »

Still waiting on your answer. You can surely type up the gist of it again can't ya?

You're asking me to explain why feminists didn't report on the Rotherham scandal even though they did?

Fine, I'll answer when you explain to me why the sun didn't come up this morning.

Old Jakey · 19-08-2015 05:56PM

Noobas2 wrote: »

Well to be honest about it most of these men wud be effeminate men who can't keep up with the real men. While the women who get all the looks and easy jobs like modelling wud be masculine in the sense that they have y chromosomes. It's well proven male animals retain their good looks longer than females. So considering all this it most certainly is a male dominated world with the shallowness of the west.

Agreed. Too many pussies and crybabies these days.

wakka12 · 19-08-2015 05:58PM

Noobas2 wrote: »

Well to be honest about it most of these men wud be effeminate men who can't keep up with the real men. While the women who get all the looks and easy jobs like modelling wud be masculine in the sense that they have y chromosomes. It's well proven male animals retain their good looks longer than females. So considering all this it most certainly is a male dominated world with the shallowness of the west.

Its proven that males keep their looks longer? Are looks a scientific fact now? Because last time I checked looks were subjective, and apart from that Ive never heard any of my female friends call any more men over 50 hot than my male friends have women over 50.

steddyeddy · 19-08-2015 05:59PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Well both are ( but who ever says the latter). Chelsea Clinton is also obsessed with the gender pay gap but not, apparantly , the gap in income and wealth between the daughters of US presidents and the rest of humanity.

It's almost as if you could end the gender pay gap and still have the massive inequalities so necessary to capitalism.

On another note Chelsea and Emma went to the best schools in the country. They didn't earn that privilege personally so I wouldn't personally call that capitalism. That's very much my opinion and I realise that.

NachoBusiness · 19-08-2015 05:59PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A sweeping statement like that as a premise for an argument is just stupid. It's not even worth entertaining..

Yet here you are.

..because people can either narrow or widen the scope of the argument to suit their own agenda and define their own parameters for what they want to discuss. We were only a few posts in when a thread about the persecution of men became a vehicle to pour more scorn on feminism, because of course, women are the problem, and if it weren't for women, men's world would be peachy.

So, you expect a discussion on how western society seems to revolve around the wants and needs of women, with scant regard for men's, to someone also simultaneously not mention women, particularly a subset of them which has militantly fought for their wants and needs to be addressed for well over four decades. And you don't see the flaw in your thinking there?

The Corinthian · 19-08-2015 06:00PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Has it really served women?

Well, the objectives of second wave feminists.

Feminism was originally a movement for equality. This meant taking the good with the bad. Then a funny thing happened when the second wave came along and the emphasis moved from equality to choice.

Unfortunate, but there it is.

zeffabelli · 19-08-2015 06:00PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't blame MRA's for aping a strategy that has served women so well, but MRA's are missing exactly why it has served women so well - because they're women!

The same strategies just don't translate all that well when we try and apply them to men's issues. Do men really want to be seen as victims? I don't think they do. That's why MRA's aren't relating all that well to the men they need to relate to and are having to take women in among their ranks again to put a softly softly approach on their efforts.

They're making a complete balls of men's welfare IMO, because they don't want to relate to ordinary men, they're only out for what they want for themselves. Where feminism is middle class white women, masculism is middle class white men.

But don't you realise we are all the same? They have to do it all equally....good for the goose is good for the gander.

They are both equally deluded, that's about where it starts and ends.

Wibbs · 19-08-2015 06:04PM

Noobas2 wrote: »

Well to be honest about it most of these men wud be effeminate men who can't keep up with the real men. While the women who get all the looks and easy jobs like modelling wud be masculine in the sense that they have y chromosomes. It's well proven male animals retain their good looks longer than females.

What. The. Actual. Fcuk.

That's some atomic powered ignorance being peddled there. Ignorance is a euphemism...

Kev W wrote: »

Women don't have Y chromosomes. Not even the models.

So Kev W is now transphobic? Sweet. I win the internets.

Kev W · 19-08-2015 06:09PM

Wibbs wrote: »

So Kev W is now transphobic? Sweet. I win the internets.

Oh no! I am unmasked!

One eyed Jack · 19-08-2015 06:16PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Yet here you are.

It's not worth entertaining, I'm not entertaining it. I'm saying that it's nonsense.

So, you expect a discussion on how western society seems to revolve around the wants and needs of women

No, I expected a discussion on how Western society is anti-men to revolve around the idea that Western society is anti-men.

with scant regard for men's, to someone also simultaneously not mention women, particularly a subset of them which has militantly fought for their wants and needs to be addressed for well over four decades.

Precisely.

And you don't see the flaw in your thinking there?

I don't see the flaw in my thinking there, because society is made up of both men and women, and there isn't any small subset of anyone who is able to influence a whole society to that degree where it is anti-anyone. I don't accept that for a minute, and certainly not based on their gender.

If you were to say paedophiles, then it's a pretty safe statement to say society is anti-pedophiles. Adulterers - society is anti-adultery, etc.

But anti-men or anti-women? Seriously?

I'm not going to take one gender over another and thrash out which one has it better or worse in Western society, or on a global scale or whatever, or even in Ireland, because there's no point. You'll never get an accurate picture from social statistics - all you'll get is someone with an agenda.

hatrickpatrick · 19-08-2015 06:42PM

desertcircus wrote: »

Pretty much everyone who isn't deranged is in total agreement on what Gamergate was: vicious, misogynistic slut-shaming perpetrated by entitled sociopaths.

First of all, how exactly was it slut shaming? Don't want to drag the thread off topic, but the word "slut" derogatorily refers to a woman who is sexually promiscuous. That's all. If you're sexually promiscuous while cheating on your current partner, you're a lot worse than just a "slut". So GamerGate involved cheat-shaming, not slut-shaming.

Not that that makes it any better, just a gripe I have. Being promiscuous when you have no commitments to anyone and being promiscuous as a form of betrayal are two entirely different behaviour and shouldn't be conflated with a single word, as far as I'm concerned. Shaming people for sleeping around is slut-shaming. Shaming people for serially cheating on their partners is not the same.

Eugene Norman · 19-08-2015 06:49PM

wakka12 wrote: »

Its proven that males keep their looks longer? Are looks a scientific fact now? Because last time I checked looks were subjective, and apart from that Ive never heard any of my female friends call any more men over 50 hot than my male friends have women over 50.

Except Patrick Stewart, Tom cruise, Johnny depp, Liam Neeson etc.

One eyed Jack · 19-08-2015 06:52PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

First of all, how exactly was it slut shaming? Don't want to drag the thread off topic, but the word "slut" derogatorily refers to a woman who is sexually promiscuous. That's all. If you're sexually promiscuous while cheating on your current partner, you're a lot worse than just a "slut". So GamerGate involved cheat-shaming, not slut-shaming.

Not that that makes it any better, just a gripe I have. Being promiscuous when you have no commitments to anyone and being promiscuous as a form of betrayal are two entirely different behaviour and shouldn't be conflated with a single word, as far as I'm concerned. Shaming people for sleeping around is slut-shaming. Shaming people for serially cheating on their partners is not the same.

I doubt people who actually use the word to describe any woman are all that bothered about the semantics tbh. I don't think it exclusively used in a derogatory fashion either to be fair. It's one of those words where context is king, or queen, if you will, just not the feather boa flipping kind of queen who is proud to be called queer.

Individualism, wonderful world we live in :pac:

Icemancometh · 19-08-2015 06:52PM

Kev W wrote: »

Women don't have Y chromosomes. Not even the models.

Actually, there's a condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome where a person is genetically XY but doesn't respond to male hormones and develops largely female characteristics. These genetic men are often tall and quite thin, with narrow waists and hips due to a lack of oestrogen, and as such it is thought to be more common among catwalk models than any other group.

wakka12 · 19-08-2015 06:54PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Except Patrick Stewart, Tom cruise, Johnny depp, Liam Neeson etc.

Julianne Moore, Sharon Stone, Marcia Cross,Michelle Pfeiffer. I can name celebrities who spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on their appearance to look attractive into old age too, regardless of gender

Im talking about normal people on the street, your average 50 year old man is no 'hotter' than any 50 year old woman.

con___manx1 · 19-08-2015 06:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I have some close female friends.

From hearing what they go through, objectification, abuse, groping, and just the general way in which they are treated like meat and how many men, even married friends of mine, have tried it on with them, assuming they hardly have the self esteem to not want to be a dirty little secret, it's depressing. The worst are the many men who go from pleading to abuse when knocked back.

i have been groped by older women several times on nights out.I have been treated like a piece of meat and im sure plenty of other men have too. you just don't hear about it because men don't care. that is the difference

Is the Western World anti-man?

Comments