Is the Western World anti-man?

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually brought up the group in post no. 71 about taxi driver attacks. I pointed out that they are known for picking up girls who don't remember what happened to them.

Yes, but you subsequently brought it up again, as a direct response to a post about spiking.

Yes, there is a general acceptance that they spike drinks, that may not be correct because it has never been demonstrated.

Hear that, folks? Guilty until proven innocent. This accusation of drugging people may not be correct, because it has never been demonstrated. But you want everyone to assume it is, based on the wording of that, until proven otherwise? That's not how it works, I'm afraid.

What is known is that they pick up women who end up being treated in a pretty depraved manner.

Who is "they"?

In the creepiest way - the friend of mine thought she was getting a lift home and she was driven to a car park where others got into the car, and knowing those others and what they had done before she became very afraid when they started driving her out into the country despite her protests. And that's something I have not heard happens to women in this town.

And that is indeed a horrific and outrageous incident. Nobody is claiming otherwise. It's the generalisations and unproven tropes which you are inferring from it, and presenting as fact, that people are taking issue with.

osarusan wrote: »

Dr. Eireann Kerr.

Close, but no cigar

nullzero wrote: »

There is such double think around gender in society. If a group of men in a workplace pinch a woman's backside it is sexual harassment and law suits will be filed and jobs lost. If a group of women in a workplace pinch a man's backside it's all good fun and isn't he lucky to be getting the attention?

It's sexual harassment, and there's nothing stopping a man filing a civil suit if they want to.

If a husband in a sexless marriage has an adulterous affair he is a dirty cheating b@stard, he didn't work hard enough in his marriage and looked after his own needs at the expense of his wife who can divorce him and get to keep their home, everyone will fawn over the wife and worry about her emotional state after such a shocking experience.

It depends entirely on the circumstances and the people involved. Check out the thread about the gay rugby league player - so brave, oh he's so hot, ah sure his wfe is still young enough to find someone else.

If the wife in a sexless marriage has an adulterous affair she is affirming her sexual reawakening as is her right when her husband can no longer satisfy her. She will divorce him and get to keep their home and no one will give a damn about how the man feels.

Fcuking hell, that's just nonsense :pac:

Most ads on the telly show the husband/boyfriend/daddy to be an incompetent idiot.
Donal, Vodafone singing chef, Emma, Sausages with the dad's face painted, Rachel and Steve.

psinno wrote: »

Close, but no cigar

Eugene Norman wrote: »

In the Republic?

Because it happened in Derry?

I will let Wibbs decide if that rules it out or not.

Fiona G wrote: »

This is true.

It really isn't.

And why is this? Women are perceived as a weaker gender and are stereotyped to be victims more often than men. When we begin to view women as stronger or equal to men in strength, this idea that men cannot be victims in abuse or harrassment whether it be physical/emotional/sexual will be erased. This is equality and benefits both genders.

Women are neither stronger, nor equal to men in terms of their physical strength, their emotional capacity perhaps, but portraying anyone as victims in the pursuit of "gender equality" is nonsense IMO, and completely disregards people's inherent capacity for overcoming adversity. You're talking about completely infantilising adults and claiming this is of any benefit to them. It really isn't IMO.

The feminist movement I'm familiar with does not idealise a world where it is hard to be a man. All they want is equality.

I don't think you understand that by giving someone something, the people who already have it will feel threatened that you're taking it away from them, and they won't give it up easily. You might not intend to make the world harder for them, but by giving someone an equal footing, you're taking away the advantage that someone else takes for granted until it is under threat.

True gender equality is nothing more than an idealism, it has absolutely no grounding in reality and is inherently unachievable, because whether you're willing to accept it or not, men and women are fundamentally different - physiologically, psychologically, anatomically, consciously, unconsciously, different.

Gender equality advocates pay no attention to the basic human differences between genders, and that's what they're missing out on, the gap they're trying to bridge between genders is an impossible one, because men and women complement each other, they don't work in an environment where their differences aren't recognised. You can't talk about equality and diversity in the same sentence as if it's possible to recognise both.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Women are neither stronger, nor equal to men in terms of their physical strength, their emotional capacity perhaps, but portraying anyone as victims in the pursuit of "gender equality" is nonsense IMO, and completely disregards people's inherent capacity for overcoming adversity. You're talking about completely infantilising adults and claiming this is of any benefit to them. It really isn't IMO.

Not sure I understand where you're coming from here. How is asserting that men too can be victims of abuse "infantilising" anyone? It's a fact. Both men and women can be victims. Both men and women can have an inherent capacity for overcoming adversity. Gender isn't a factor. Honestly don't see what your issue is here in highlighting that fact.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I don't think you understand that by giving someone something, the people who already have it will feel threatened that you're taking it away from them, and they won't give it up easily. You might not intend to make the world harder for them, but by giving someone an equal footing, you're taking away the advantage that someone else takes for granted until it is under threat.

I'm probably picking you up wrong on that point too, it seems ridiculous. Let the privileged group keep their advantage so they don't feel threatened? What??!

One eyed Jack wrote:

True gender equality is nothing more than an idealism, it has absolutely no grounding in reality and is inherently unachievable, because whether you're willing to accept it or not, men and women are fundamentally different - physiologically, psychologically, anatomically, consciously, unconsciously, different.

I'm willing to accept every scientifically verifiable difference between men and women under the sun. Facts are facts I won't dispute them.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Gender equality advocates pay no attention to the basic human differences between genders, and that's what they're missing out on, the gap they're trying to bridge between genders is an impossible one, because men and women complement each other, they don't work in an environment where their differences aren't recognised. You can't talk about equality and diversity in the same sentence as if it's possible to recognise both.

Well, I accept your opinion and understand where you're coming from. But I genuinely do believe that a world where gender wasn't such a big "thing", if you will, would be a better functioning society. Both genders are constantly pushed into small boxes, although these boxes are getting bigger and overlapping in some places (terrible analogy).

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

So, given all of the claims of misandry/feminism/feminazism/misogyny in this thread, can someone clear something up for me?

What am I? I would have considered myself to be a feminist I guess? But apparently feminist is synonymous with Feminazi now?

You can self-identify as you wish really. Some may ascribe you a feminist when you talk about women's rights, some may ascribe you a masculinist when you talk about men's rights, and some may ascribe you egalitarian when you talk about equal rights for all people regardless of their gender.

It's not really the labels themselves that matter, it's what the views you hold mean to you personally is what's more important than the label you put on them.

I believe in equal rights for all. I believe single/separated fathers should have more rights

This one always bothers me. What rights do mothes have that fathers do not in Ireland, given that the court acts in the best interests of the child, and not in the interests of the parents?

I know there was something from John Waters about it during the marriage equality referendum campaign, relating to the CFR bill, but given it was John Waters, I wasn't paying too much attention (my bad).

I despise the current mainstream, misandric groups that claim to be feminists (because they're not, they want EXTRA rights for women and fewer for men!).

Despise them or not though, they're still entitled to identify themselves as feminists, there's no getting away from that one. It's like someone who identifies as a member of the RCC, there's no getting away from the fact that some people within the RCC who identify as RC are utter fcuknuts of the highest order. It doesn't mean they're all fcuknuts, just some of them, but if that's how that person chooses to identify themselves, then they've understood that they have to take the good with the bad.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

If all feminists wanted was equality, nobody would have an issue with them, or indeed, have ever taken issue with them. Quite obviously many second / third wave feminists have been misnadrists down the years. Nobody could spew the level of bile that many have them have put to print otherwise.



Aye, there's a new ad in the cinema at the moment that shows a guy calling engine parts the wrong names, a woman standing there looking at him and when he says he can't find the dipstick, she says 'I'm looking at him'. Not sure what it's advertising though.

not misnadrists

it's misandrists.

best way to remember is 'Miss And Wrists' Mis-and-rists. Got it?


and it's 'waving fems' (the waving is rhyming slang for raving) not 'waves of feminists'. (Unless they are surfing, then waves is correct)



Sigh. Well that's my good deed for the day/night.