Is the Western World anti-man?

ceadaoin. · 20-08-2015 05:27PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

A fairly ridiculous man-hating article in the Guardian today, about a woman who lives under a self-imposed curfew because she knows "from experience that something bad might happen if I have to get home after midnight and the streets are full of potentially terrifying men who might not take it well if I don't want to stop and say hello." Basically every man is to be regarded as a potential rapist.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/20/sexual-harassment-women-curfew

She actually wants a police crackdown on flirting. How do silly little twits like this get paid for writing such tosh? And who buys this crap?

Where does she say she wants a crackdown on flirting? Flirting is a mutual thing. She is talking about unwanted harassment. Granted, it's a bit extreme to be home in bed by 11 just avoid it!

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 20-08-2015 05:31PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

This is just nothing but far-right nonsense. It's gone from immigrants are stealing are jobs to women are stealing are jobs. What's next kittens & puppies stealing you're jobs?

I know for a fact that there is discrimination in favor of women in some extremely high level jobs. But also racial and ethnic discrimination so it's not just a sexist thing. Source; sister recruits for some very high level organisations.

frostyjacks · 20-08-2015 05:32PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Where does she say she wants a crackdown on flirting? Flirting is a mutual thing. She is talking about unwanted harassment. Granted, it's a bit extreme to be home in bed by 11 just avoid it!

"We need the support of British Transport Police, and all law enforcement bodies, to spread the message that it isn't flirting if it feels frightening."

How are the police going to go about that task? I'd rather they go catch actual criminals than some guy failing at chatting up a woman.

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2015 05:37PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

A big part of why western society, in my view, has become and is becoming more and more misnadric and gynocentric by the hour is because of certain type of man. Men who are only too willing to be disparaging about their own gender if and when they feel there could be a pay off for them (there usually is).

Some men and women are competitive, with the prize being having their ego stroked, I don't think at all that's an exclusively male phenomenon.

More often than not such men self identify as a male feminist. Every single time I read an article written by one of these male feminists I can't believe what I am reading. How does any man end up thinking so little of their own sex. Were they read Andrea Dworkin penned articles for bedtime stories as kids or something? Whatever is responsible for spawning these clowns, I hope it eventually recedes, for everyone's sanity.

The latest drivel dished up by one of these asshats:

Now I know the whole point of your post is men being disparaging of other men for some perceived payoff, but where's the actual payoff there? There's just no words for that level of cognitive dissonance! Usually I'll try and find an explanation or an underlying reason for some people's behaviour, but that sort of thing - bizarre!

(I can think of a few choice words alright, but then that would be disparaging towards my own gender, which is the point of your post? Makes an honest opinion kinda awkward! :pac:)

ceadaoin. · 20-08-2015 05:38PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

"We need the support of British Transport Police, and all law enforcement bodies, to spread the message that it isn't flirting if it feels frightening."

How are the police going to go about that task? I'd rather they go catch actual criminals than some guy failing at chatting up a woman.

"It isn't flirting if it feels frightening"

Well, it isn't. It's harrassment. Not exactly the same as her calling for a crackdown on all flirting.

K-9 · 20-08-2015 05:38PM

Extremes are never good, be it the feminazi types or the men's rights misogynists. Don't read too much into either type and you'll be fine.

Both sections are fond of "no true Scotsman" type fallacies which are dead giveaways.

tempotaschen · 20-08-2015 05:46PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now I know the whole point of your post is men being disparaging of other men for some perceived payoff, but where's the actual payoff there? There's just no words for that level of cognitive dissonance!

Explore yourself, explore your submissive self! Go on, you don't know what you're missing!

DrFloppy · 20-08-2015 06:00PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now I know the whole point of your post is men being disparaging of other men for some perceived payoff, but where's the actual payoff there?

Female 'acceptance' and sex I'd imagine.

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2015 06:16PM

DrFloppy wrote: »

Female 'acceptance' and sex I'd imagine.

I actually went and read the rest of the article, as there's a good many of these made-up trollbait articles vying for viral credibility nowadays (one outrageous article draws traffic to the site, and whaddya know, it works

), and it actually makes for quite depressing reading.

The guy admits himself he's miserable being a SAHF, his wife is having the time of riley while he's at home with the children (rivers of wine being consumed, I would hope that was hyperbole, can't be good for children having alcoholic parents, and that's aside from all the other WTFery!)...

The more I think about it, and I know "male feminists" exist, but as K-9 says, this really is the extreme. I can't help but wonder either is the payoff for this guy revelling in his martyrdom, or is it simply a trollbait article written from the perspective of some hypothetical woman in that scenario who knows her husband is stepping out... resigns herself to her lot... but they've simply reversed the genders?

I'm probably giving that article too much credibility, but nowt queer as folk.

The Corinthian · 20-08-2015 06:23PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And when they both experience pregnancy the same way, then the comparison might be valid, but until then I'm reminded of a question Robert DeNiro asks Ben Stiller in "Meet the Parents"

And when a child is only for nine months I won't consider that comparison cretinous.

K-9 wrote: »

As somebody who was a main carer for my son, you're bull****ting yet agsin.

He's not and all you've done is dismiss his view without saying why - again.

You've argued that a man should have absolutely no right to block a unilateral adoption by the mother based upon a prejudice that it could only be for negative means and a mother could only want to put that child up for adoption for positive means. That's a complete crock of crap, it's a generalization right up there with black people are all stupid and you can't even see it or the injustice that it facilitates.

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2015 06:44PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

And when a child is only for nine months I won't consider that comparison cretinous.

An equally cretinous comparison to the idea of any comparison between mothers and fathers IMO, the difference being that mine was intentionally cretinous, to demonstrate the sheer ridiculousness of the preceding comparison.

If people aren't prepared to acknowledge basic biology, then they shouldn't expect to gain much support for their idealism.

Nodin · 20-08-2015 06:46PM

Terrible. If it isn't muslims, its the wimmin.

I'd be more scared of the wimmin meself.

Eugene Norman · 20-08-2015 06:50PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

"It isn't flirting if it feels frightening"

Well, it isn't. It's harrassment. Not exactly the same as her calling for a crackdown on all flirting.

The problem is of course what's frightening is often subjective.

More americanised nonsense btw. The British don't even talk to each other on trains.

The Corinthian · 20-08-2015 06:56PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

An equally cretinous comparison to the idea of any comparison between mothers and fathers IMO, the difference being that mine was intentionally cretinous, to demonstrate the sheer ridiculousness of the preceding comparison.

No one is arguing that there are not biological differences, but they are rejecting that:

These differences cannot be legislated towards to protect the rights of those negatively affected by them, as we already do in society, and
these differences justify the discrimination where it comes to parental rights.

You've simply failed to rebut either of those two points and have just repeated yourself on this point as if these biological differences can magically rationalize a blanket policy of gender monopoly in matters of children.

Ultimately, there's a simply argument that can't be denied. Not all good mothers are good mothers. As such it is insane to blindly hand over all rights to mothers simply based upon a premise that is false (that all mothers are good mothers), regardless of biology.

The biological capacity to reproduce does not a parent make.

Old Jakey · 20-08-2015 06:56PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

A fairly ridiculous man-hating article in the Guardian today, about a woman who lives under a self-imposed curfew because she knows "from experience that something bad might happen if I have to get home after midnight and the streets are full of potentially terrifying men who might not take it well if I don't want to stop and say hello." Basically every man is to be regarded as a potential rapist.

She actually wants a police crackdown on flirting. How do silly little twits like this get paid for writing such tosh? And who buys this crap?

I laughed but then I realised it's quite sad a man hating femanazi like her is allowed to write for a major paper.

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2015 07:11PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one is arguing that there are not biological differences, but they are rejecting that:
These differences cannot be legislated towards to protect the rights of those negatively affected by them, as we already do in society, and

these differences justify the discrimination where it comes to parental rights.

You've simply failed to rebut either of those two points and have just repeated yourself on this point as if these biological differences can magically rationalize a blanket policy of gender monopoly in matters of children.

These differences have been taken into account in drafting legislation that balances the rights of all involved in as fair a way as possible IMO.

You and other posters have a valid argument that from your perspective the legislation doesn't go far enough to give fathers equal rights to mothers. I don't have a problem with the legislation, and I haven't read a compelling argument yet to change my opinion on the matter.

Ultimately, there's a simply argument that can't be denied. Not all good mothers are good mothers. As such it is insane to blindly hand over all rights to mothers simply based upon a premise that is false (that all mothers are good mothers), regardless of biology.

That isn't the premise upon which a determination is made (tender years doctrine has been abolished a long time now), the determination is made in the interests of the child, not in the interests of the parents, and more and more judges are beginning to take other criteria into account besides gender. They'll be forced to now with the introduction of marriage equality, where gender will be of absolutely no consequence whatsoever.

The biological capacity to reproduce does not a parent make.

Indeed, but that doesn't help any argument that unmarried fathers should be automatically granted guardianship based on the fact that they managed to reproduce.

ceadaoin. · 20-08-2015 07:18PM

Old Jakey wrote: »

I laughed but then I realised it's quite sad a man hating femanazi like her is allowed to write for a major paper.

The cheek of her, not relishing male attention however unwanted and uninvited it is. She should be grateful and flattered. Yep, clearly a man hater

Eugene Norman · 20-08-2015 07:23PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The cheek of her, not relishing male attention however unwanted and uninvited it is. She should be grateful and flattered. Yep, clearly a man hater

That argument to snark probably only works in your mind.

Cold War Kid · 20-08-2015 07:25PM

She doesn't say that she wants a police crackdown on flirting and I know theres some desperate anti men stuff in the Guardian/jezebel etc, but I don't see that here - shes only recounting her and others' experiences. There's very little of that in Ireland though - must be a population thing.

K-9 · 20-08-2015 07:25PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

He's not and all you've done is dismiss his view without saying why - again.

If somebody wants to make assumptions intended to rile somebody, so be it.

You've argued that a man should have absolutely no right to block a unilateral adoption by the mother based upon a prejudice that it could only be for negative means and a mother could only want to put that child up for adoption for positive means. That's a complete crock of crap, it's a generalization right up there with black people are all stupid and you can't even see it or the injustice that it facilitates.

What is it with ye lot. I've argued no such thing. Stop projecting.

I've said it is reasonable that if a father can't be found or had no contact with a child, that the mother could then adopt the child without his say so.

Argue that point, not some made up one that you want to argue.

B_Wayne · 20-08-2015 07:50PM

DrFloppy wrote: »

I don't believe the Western World is anti-male anymore than it's anti-female. The people of the Western World are, relatively, privileged.

But I utterly, utterly despise this horrid, toxic 3rd wave feminism doing the rounds at the moment.

When I hear the middle class Irish women that I grew up with talking about how angry they are about being oppressed, 'the patriarchy' and 'white heterosexual male privilege' I just want to drop kick them in the f**king face.

You're a white, middle class Irish woman who grew up in the 80's. Along with the white, middle class Irish men that you grew up with, you're lucky to be one of the most privileged, spoilt, pampered and entitled human beings on this earth. Rather than pi55ing and moaning about some fabricated oppression, show some f**king gratitude for the amazing life you've been fortunate enough to be gifted with and the opportunities that have come with it (Celtic Tiger, free 3rd level education, etc, etc).

If you're a middle class Irish woman and you're life is crap and you want to complain - don't blame men - blame yourself. It's probably your own fault. You spoilt f**king brat.

Right. I'm off to take my blood pressure medication. :mad:

Examples of inequalities for all women in Ireland, women are forced to travel for abortions. This includes fatal foetal abnormalities. My sister is not a radical feminist of any sort, but she has experienced plenty of sexism in the workplace. Encountering bull**** like that is a part of being a woman in Ireland, all my female friends have encountered it.

I've been out in pubs at night and have encountered plenty of men who have stated that since a woman is drunk, she's 'easy' and would happily use that situation to have sex with a woman who is incapable of consenting.

As a male, I face no level of bull**** comparable to that. I face no fear walking at night as the threat is simply not there for me. I do know women who have been raped and can understand why my female friends would be uncomfortable being alone in a taxi on their own. But sure, they're middle class Irish women and it's all good?

frostyjacks wrote: »

"We need the support of British Transport Police, and all law enforcement bodies, to spread the message that it isn't flirting if it feels frightening."

How are the police going to go about that task? I'd rather they go catch actual criminals than some guy failing at chatting up a woman.

What that quote describes is not flirting, it is harassment.... It's a pretty straight forward sentence.

frostyjacks · 20-08-2015 07:51PM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

She doesn't say that she wants a police crackdown on flirting and I know theres some desperate anti men stuff in the Guardian/jezebel etc, but I don't see that here - shes only recounting her and others' experiences. There's very little of that in Ireland though - must be a population thing.

She does more than that, it's scaremongering. "I can't believe we live like this in 2015", she says. We don't, it's all in her head. I can understand stuff like that in Jezebel, but the Guardian is a reputable newspaper, it shouldn't pander to these idiots.

ceadaoin. · 20-08-2015 07:58PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

She does more than that, it's scaremongering. "I can't believe we live like this in 2015", she says. We don't, it's all in her head. I can understand stuff like that in Jezebel, but the Guardian is a reputable newspaper, it shouldn't pander to these idiots.

The news report linked in the article makes it clear that it isn't all in her head

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33979568

The number of recorded sexual offences on trains and at stations has risen 25% to a record level, British Transport Police (BTP) figures suggest.
BTP recorded 1,399 sexual offences in 2014-15 in England, Scotland and Wales - up 282 on the previous year.
Recorded violent crimes also increased - up 8% to 9,149 - but overall crime fell for the 11th year in a row.
The force said the rise in sex crime figures was mainly due to a campaign to encourage reporting of these offences.
Project Guardian launched in 2013 with the aim of reducing sexual assault and unwanted sexual behaviour on public transport in London, after a survey suggested that 90% of such attacks went unreported.

namloc1980 · 20-08-2015 07:59PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The news report linked in the article makes it clear that it isn't all in her head

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33979568

Important bit:

"The force said the rise in sex crime figures was mainly due to a campaign to encourage reporting of these offences."

Eugene Norman · 20-08-2015 08:03PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The news report linked in the article makes it clear that it isn't all in her head

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33979568

Increases in reporting != increases in the act.

Ive been harrassed by drunken working class youths, but I'm still more privileged than they are.

ceadaoin. · 20-08-2015 08:08PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Important bit:

"The force said the rise in sex crime figures was mainly due to a campaign to encourage reporting of these offences."

Anything that encourages people to report their experiences is a good thing isn't it? It's often the fear of people thinking that it was all in their head or no big deal that prevents victims coming forward.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Increases in reporting != increases in the act.

Ive been harrassed by drunken working class youths, but I'm still more privileged than they are.

I didn't say anything about it increasing. Just that the article supports her claim that women are harassed and sexually assaulted on public transport

Cold War Kid · 20-08-2015 08:09PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

She does more than that, it's scaremongering. "I can't believe we live like this in 2015", she says. We don't, it's all in her head. I can understand stuff like that in Jezebel, but the Guardian is a reputable newspaper, it shouldn't pander to these idiots.

I'd completely agree if she was giving vague blather about how the world is so dangerous for women and we could be raped any minute (and radfems do do that, and try to make women feel like victims and afraid of our lives) but the woman in that article does talk about actual incidents, which aren't nice. Not rape, but still not pleasant and not behaviour anyone is entitled to engage in. Of course the vast vast majority of men don't do that crap though.
But I don't think she's saying that; she's just objecting to the minority who do.

tempotaschen · 20-08-2015 08:10PM

K-9 wrote: »

Extremes are never good, be it the feminazi types or the men's rights misogynists. Don't read too much into either type and you'll be fine.

Both sections are fond of "no true Scotsman" type fallacies which are dead giveaways.

Where is the debate then so? Where is the middle? Personally, I think this debate and the questions it raises are beyond the grasp of the people commenting on this thread.

Dodgy superfluous rhetorical comments, avoiding the main issue, seems to be all this thread is capable of!

Galwayguy35 · 20-08-2015 08:13PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Examples of inequalities for all women in Ireland, women are forced to travel for abortions. This includes fatal foetal abnormalities. My sister is not a radical feminist of any sort, but she has experienced plenty of sexism in the workplace. Encountering bull**** like that is a part of being a woman in Ireland, all my female friends have encountered it.

I've been out in pubs at night and have encountered plenty of men who have stated that since a woman is drunk, she's 'easy' and would happily use that situation to have sex with a woman who is incapable of consenting.

As a male, I face no level of bull**** comparable to that. I face no fear walking at night as the threat is simply not there for me. I do know women who have been raped and can understand why my female friends would be uncomfortable being alone in a taxi on their own. But sure, they're middle class Irish women and it's all good?

What that quote describes is not flirting, it is harassment.... It's a pretty straight forward sentence.

You might want to reconsider thinking nothing can happen to you walking alone at night, physical assaults on men especially at the weekends are very common often resulting in life changing injuries.

Cold War Kid · 20-08-2015 08:15PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You might want to reconsider thinking nothing can happen to you walking alone at night, physical assaults on men especially at the weekends are very common often resulting in life changing injuries.

Yeah i dont agree with all of B Waynes post. Men are significantly at risk of being assaulted if out late at night by themselves. I know plenty of lads who have been given a beating/mugging.

Is the Western World anti-man?

Comments