Female Fury - Watch out!

Reviews and Books Galore · 19-09-2019 10:26pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Yeah, I have a theory that the absurd amount of rapes/abusive male figures in popular culture is going to lead to a generation of men who show the same signs of boys raised with abusive father figures.

One of these 'signs' is passivity around women, not standing up for themselves and a fear of anyway aggresive behaviour from themselves.

And aggresive behaviour is important so that they do not get abused by abusive women and notice red flags before they become an issue.

El_Duderino 09 · 20-09-2019 9:11am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

[...]And I think a lot of men are completely in agreement with the vilification of out and out misogyny - most lads would agree that front page body shaming and scrutiny of womens' relationships etc is total bullsh!t and just trashy - but there's a resentment that there's no corresponding societal outrage against articles like these.

I wish we could all just agree that looking at any human being and making literally any assumption about them based on what you see or hear, without actually interacting with that person, is f*cked up, inaccurate, and just wrong. The idiotic identity politics groups which want to divide right and wrong based on who the target is ("it's ok to openly treat men like sh!t in public life because privilege or some such buzzwords") are just that, idiotic. It's a real shame they've managed to gain such a foothold in modern culture, because as far as I'm concerned up until the mid-2010s society was actually going very much in the right direction, in terms of most ordinary people uniting behind the "how about just don't be a f*cking asshole to other people" banner.

The divisiveness which has crept back in to mainstream culture on the back of this clickbait crap is just sad.

Here's the thing though. Are the only bad generalisations made about men? Or do you gloss over all the other generalisations made about every group that doesn't affect you personally? Or do you get this animated about every generalisation you see?

How often do you watch a film or TV show where the black person speaks like they're from the ghetto? Even in middle class situations, the black woman is the office ghetto Queen. How often do you get animated about that kind of thing?

I could bring up lots of examples of standard generalisations that are used in media but that should be enough to be getting on with.

1. Do you get annoyed about that kind of trope or do you gloss over it? Or would you deny it even exists?

2. If you're opposing all use of stereotypes in media, wouldn't you be accused of being a member of the PC brigade?

El_Duderino 09 · 20-09-2019 9:20am

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Yeah, I have a theory that the absurd amount of rapes/abusive male figures in popular culture is going to lead to a generation of men who show the same signs of boys raised with abusive father figures.

One of these 'signs' is passivity around women, not standing up for themselves and a fear of anyway aggresive behaviour from themselves.

And aggresive behaviour is important so that they do not get abused by abusive women and notice red flags before they become an issue.

Be fair though. Another "sign" of an abusive father is being an abusive man. So how would you ever tell if there was an effect?

Also be fair, is there any evidence that abusive TV men are more prevalent than in the past?

suicide_circus · 20-09-2019 9:35am

i dont have an account so cant read why "boys and men are the ones we need to educate" in order for girls to cycle to school.

https://m.independent.ie/life/family/parenting/tanya-sweeney-if-we-want-schoolgirls-to-start-cycling-education-is-key-and-boys-and-men-are-the-ones-we-need-to-educate-38516114.html

hatrickpatrick · 20-09-2019 3:50pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Here's the thing though. Are the only bad generalisations made about men? Or do you gloss over all the other generalisations made about every group that doesn't affect you personally? Or do you get this animated about every generalisation you see?

How often do you watch a film or TV show where the black person speaks like they're from the ghetto? Even in middle class situations, the black woman is the office ghetto Queen. How often do you get animated about that kind of thing?

I could bring up lots of examples of standard generalisations that are used in media but that should be enough to be getting on with.

1. Do you get annoyed about that kind of trope or do you gloss over it? Or would you deny it even exists?

2. If you're opposing all use of stereotypes in media, wouldn't you be accused of being a member of the PC brigade?

To clarify, I'm speaking very specifically about the mainstream factual media as opposed to fictional. Pretty much all demographics get stereotyped and lambasted in fictional media in one way or another, my own regularly included, and as a writer I believe writers should be free to write whatever kind of characters they feel fit best with the story they have in their head without worrying about being socially aware. That's just my opinion, obviously.

But my post is directed at the news media and "respected" voices, basically. It's one thing for someone to write a fictional film about how all men are pigs, but it's a very different matter when it's being featured on the front page of a respected factual newspaper, particularly where young people are concerned. To see a headline like the "boys need to be educated so girls can cycle to school" crap mentioned in another thread alongside a factual headline such as "Taoiseach speaks out against Trump comments" or "Gangland figure arrested in dawn raid" gives such statements a horrible level of "legitimacy". I guess you could say it's like the difference between Leo Varadkar making comments from a bar stool when off the clock that get leaked to the public, and making official statements in front of the camera - the latter affect society's narrative far more than the former. The fictional media can portray all men as scumbags, or to take your example, all black people as speaking with a ghetto accent - but it's a completely different matter if a respected, factual, broadsheet newspaper or publicly funded television or radio news channel does the same. And my issue is that in the current climate, the factual media would not get away with such generalisations as you've cited, while they get a totally free pass to sh!t on men as a demographic day in, day out. If the Irish Times ran an article written by a man about how "women need to change" or "men are upset and it's all womens' fault", they would be forced into an apology by the inevitable societal backlash. But they wouldn't run such a story to begin with, because it's not considered socially acceptable.

The fact that what is and is not considered socially acceptable is based not purely on the thing itself, but on the demographic identity of the intended target, is the problem. I regard that as a fundamentally toxic situation which is fuelling a huge proportion of the bitter divisiveness we're seeing creeping back into mainstream society. I don't think fictional TV shows depicting men as assholes or bumbling idiots have a significant effect on society's mainstream narratives, but stories carried by mainstream, respected news sources absolutely do.

Jmsg · 21-09-2019 4:22pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How often do you watch a film or TV show where the black person speaks like they're from the ghetto? Even in middle class situations, the black woman is the office ghetto Queen. How often do you get animated about that kind of thing?

Have you been in a cave the past two decades? Every black person in US film and TV is always portrayed as angelic and as unghetto as possible. It's gotten ridiculously over the top lately in how blatant the self-consciousness of avoiding portraying any negative stereotypes of blacks has become.

21-09-2019 4:39pm

zapper55 wrote: »

The title is quite clickbaity but her point holds. Moat couples I know both have full time jobs but the women sorts the childcare, their clothes, remembering family presents and events. They handle far more of the mental load.

I don't doubt this, but why do they persecute themselves with that mentality? Leaving aside negligent parents of both sexes, if the mother were not there all those practical needs would, in fact, be looked after by the father. There are intelligent ways for women to reduce that mental load, if they really wanted to.

21-09-2019 4:45pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't doubt this, but why do they persecute themselves with that mentality? Leaving aside negligent parents of both sexes, if the mother were not there all those practical needs would, in fact, be looked after by the father. There are intelligent ways for women to reduce that mental load, if they really wanted to.

"It's your Mother's fault that I am a deadbeat Dad kids. If she wasn't always showing up to her job and prepping lunches and doing laundry, I'D be allowed to step in here and the the hero, for once. Fcukin bitch. I think we all know who's truly oppressed here #metoo"

El_Duderino 09 · 21-09-2019 4:55pm

Jmsg wrote: »

Have you been in a cave the past two decades? Every black person in US film and TV is always portrayed as angelic and as unghetto as possible. It's gotten ridiculously over the top lately in how blatant the self-consciousness of avoiding portraying any negative stereotypes of blacks has become.

Is that so? You don't see the grouchy ghetto Queen behind the counter at the DMV? Or the ghetto nurse on the reception desk?

I wonder if you genuinely think they those characters don't exist. OK imagine they do exist, just for a moment. The question I asked the poster was whether they get upset about them too or just u flattering portrayals of men. They responded they they only consider news sources. (Take a loom at the Gillette add thread and you'll see loads of people getting dross about an ad that they feel doesn't flatter them enough. So you'll find people who get cross about all kinds of portrayals. But they rarely notice similar unflattering portrayals about groups that they're not a part of. It's called Confirmation bias.

21-09-2019 5:14pm

Jmsg wrote: »

Have you been in a cave the past two decades? Every black person in US film and TV is always portrayed as angelic and as unghetto as possible.

Orange is the New Black is the most successful series produced by the most successful streaming service known to man. Give it a shot.

hatrickpatrick · 24-09-2019 1:40pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that so? You don't see the grouchy ghetto Queen behind the counter at the DMV? Or the ghetto nurse on the reception desk?

I wonder if you genuinely think they those characters don't exist. OK imagine they do exist, just for a moment. The question I asked the poster was whether they get upset about them too or just u flattering portrayals of men. They responded they they only consider news sources. (Take a loom at the Gillette add thread and you'll see loads of people getting dross about an ad that they feel doesn't flatter them enough. So you'll find people who get cross about all kinds of portrayals. But they rarely notice similar unflattering portrayals about groups that they're not a part of. It's called Confirmation bias.

Advertisements aren't fictional media, and right here in Ireland, ads which discriminate on demographic grounds are generally blocked by the BAI. You explicitly referenced fictional writing, which is a medium which I and many others consider to be distinct from factual / "real world" media.

Let's talk about ads, then - can you cite any ads which attack women as a "collective" on demographic grounds in the same way that the Gillette ad did?

El_Duderino 09 · 24-09-2019 2:24pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Advertisements aren't fictional media, and right here in Ireland, ads which discriminate on demographic grounds are generally blocked by the BAI. You explicitly referenced fictional writing, which is a medium which I and many others consider to be distinct from factual / "real world" media.

Let's talk about ads, then - can you cite any ads which attack women as a "collective" on demographic grounds in the same way that the Gillette ad did?

Just to be clear, you said TV shows don’t count because you only wanted to discuss factual media. Now you’re shifting the goalposts again to say adverts aren’t fictional.

Are adverts factual, in your opinion? I’d see adverts as fictional, made up stories designed to advertise product/brands. They’re not factual media like you said was stage only type that counted.

But adverts are usually very complementary of women (apart from the “use our products or you’ll be a fat, old cow” narrative). Some people say it’s because women tend to do the shopping so they’re the ones companies aim their ads at.

Tv and movies are different. But ads tend to be happy clappy and complementary of the target market.

So just to confirm, you only count factual media, but now you want to include ads in factual media? Just take the wheels off the goalposts and say what you think.

Ipso · 24-09-2019 6:09pm

Jmsg wrote: »

Have you been in a cave the past two decades? Every black person in US film and TV is always portrayed as angelic and as unghetto as possible. It's gotten ridiculously over the top lately in how blatant the self-consciousness of avoiding portraying any negative stereotypes of blacks has become.

That's not even wrong.

El_Duderino 09 · 24-09-2019 8:44pm

Ipso wrote: »

That's not even wrong.

It really is. Some blacks are portrayed as angelic heroes, like the narrative in Blazing Saddles mentioned earlier. Others aren’t. Some are just there to add a bit of ghetto

Earthhorse · 24-09-2019 9:33pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Here's the thing though. Are the only bad generalisations made about men? Or do you gloss over all the other generalisations made about every group that doesn't affect you personally? Or do you get this animated about every generalisation you see?

Why not slice the cake another way though? Why not ask, are women equally upset about negative portrayals and ideas of men as they are of themselves? But if you do you’ll be told that they have enough to be getting agitated about without worrying about men and if men are concerned about such things they should speak up about it. But when we do, like in this thread and the other one about cycling, we’ll be asked questions like the above (which aren’t to be asked of women) and on and on in a hypocritical loop.

So either we all have to be animated about everything equally or we get to pick and choose which things we get animated about. You can’t have it both ways.

Like hp I’m not especially concerned about fictional portrayals of men, even negative stereotypes like the bumbling dad, the lame nerd, the caveman jock etc. Done skillfully they can be amusing and done unskillfully I trust in people’s judgement and they are forgettable.

But I am concerned when I read article after article suggesting boys and men need education in how to behave properly. It’s a hugely insulting idea that is gaining a lot of momentum to the point where I think it may become a campaign promise in future elections. It paints all men in an unjustifiably negative way and I don’t want to see it become official policy.

You may argue that even if well behaved boys receive this education it’s no harm but the harm is in the underlying assumption becoming accepted truth.

It’s also my belief that attempts to educate people away from anti social behaviour are largely failures. So what we'll get is a lot of back clapping in media about the introduction of such programmes but, much like anti drugs, anti drink and anti bullying education they won’t actually produce results nor be expected to and we’ll waste a load of resources on something that doesn’t work just to keep the angry mob happy and defer coming up with real answers to anti social behaviour for another generation. Hurray!

coffee_cake · 24-09-2019 10:20pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

But if you do you’ll be told that they have enough to be getting agitated about without worrying about men and if men are concerned about such things they should speak up about it. But when we do, like in this thread and the other one about cycling, we’ll be asked questions like the above (which aren’t to be asked of women) and on and on in a hypocritical loop.

because a good number of men who do any speaking up only ever seem to do it when it's a women's issues thread.
men who say they have issues like in tgc are left alone to discuss it from what i can tell.
people get agitated in threads like - 'women have a problem with...' - 'well actually what about men'.
it makes it seem very not genuine and just used as a trump card to shut people up.
bonus points when it then turns into 'well yes, that is a genuine issue for men, should do something about that' to be responded with 'no i don't want to it's not a big deal'

It’s also my belief that attempts to educate people away from anti social behaviour are largely failures. So what we'll get is a lot of back clapping in media about the introduction of such programmes but, much like anti drugs, anti drink and anti bullying education they won’t actually produce results nor be expected to and we’ll waste a load of resources on something that doesn’t work just to keep the angry mob happy and defer coming up with real answers to anti social behaviour for another generation. Hurray!

yeah. i feel like we kinda got there with drink driving though. in some areas at least

Earthhorse · 24-09-2019 10:34pm

I get that that there are insincere actors and also sincere ones who are misogynistic but with the media focus on these issues articles like this and the one on cycling are going to serve as jumping off points for men's concerns.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-09-2019 8:15am

Earthhorse wrote: »

Why not slice the cake another way though? Why not ask, are women equally upset about negative portrayals and ideas of men as they are of themselves? But if you do you’ll be told that they have enough to be getting agitated about without worrying about men and if men are concerned about such things they should speak up about it. But when we do, like in this thread and the other one about cycling, we’ll be asked questions like the above (which aren’t to be asked of women) and on and on in a hypocritical loop.

So either we all have to be animated about everything equally or we get to pick and choose which things we get animated about. You can’t have it both ways.

Hold on a second. I asked the poster if they get animated about other groups representations because they’re here to be asked. The fact is that there’s a “poor men being picked on again” thread every other day. There are almost no threads with a similar narrative started and populate by women or any other group.

So while it’s true that those questions aren’t asked of women, on boards.ie that’s a function of the complete lack of women whinging threads and abundance of men whinging threads.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-09-2019 8:17am

Earthhorse wrote: »

I get that that there are insincere actors and also sincere ones who are misogynistic but with the media focus on these issues articles like this and the one on cycling are going to serve as jumping off points for men's concerns.

I’d love if that were the case. But they invariably start and end with whinging about feminism. If the conversation actually kicked on a bit towards men organising and achieving something, it would be infinitely more useful.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-09-2019 8:31am

bluewolf wrote: »

yeah. i feel like we kinda got there with drink driving though. in some areas at least

And other issues like smoking, wearing seatbelts, using condoms and STI awareness, racial abuse, homophobia. The list of things which have been successfully overcome through campaigns centred around education is pretty long.

Information is always at the centre of attitude change (attitude is a crucial lever on behaviour change). But it takes time so it’s easy to forget and pretend the information campaign never happened or weren’t effective.

Tea drinker · 25-09-2019 8:45am

Keyzer wrote: »

And there we have it, descending into patronising comments.

Bravo !!!

Maybe you mean matronising comments?

B0jangles · 25-09-2019 8:47am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Hold on a second. I asked the poster if they get animated about other groups representations because they’re here to be asked. The fact is that there’s a “poor men being picked on again” thread every other day. There are almost no threads with a similar narrative started and populate by women or any other group.

So while it’s true that those questions aren’t asked of women, on boards.ie that’s a function of the complete lack of women whinging threads and abundance of men whinging threads.

Try searching for the word 'feminism' and 'feminist' - first in The Ladies Lounge and then in The Gentlemen's Club
The results will shock and amaze you!

El_Duderino 09 · 25-09-2019 8:55am

Petroleum Guzleum wrote: »

Criticising feminism does not equal whinging about feminism. It seems to be a tactic of yours to dismiss valid criticism.

The “criticism” in these threads amounts to whinging about feminism. It doesn’t come within an masses roar of a call to action.

At the moment the people writing the articles that get these posters outraged/interested, are delighted. I’d say their target audience is in large part, these men.

Katie Hopkins is one of the best at her genre of producing outrage pieces. She doesn’t just write for people who agree with her, she writes mostly for people who disagree vehemently. Authors of articles like the one this thread is based on, are laughing.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-09-2019 9:02am

B0jangles wrote: »

Try searching for the word 'feminism' and 'feminist' - first in The Ladies Lounge and then in The Gentlemen's Club
The results will shock and amaze you!

It’ll leave you speechless!

It would be instructive though. On boards.ie men go on about feminism. Almost nobody supports actual men’s issues - except a few people who are also feminists

El_Duderino 09 · 25-09-2019 9:05am

Petroleum Guzleum wrote: »

Who said anything about a "call to action"? I don't think you understand what criticism is if you think it requires a "call to action".

Oh absolutely none of the men whinging about feminism have said anything about a call to action. That’s for certain. They’re a million miles away from that. In fact they tend to talk down the importance of a calm to action.

Criticism doesn’t require a call to action. But if it just keeps going round and round in circles, it can reasonably be described as whinging.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-09-2019 9:11am

Petroleum Guzleum wrote: »

Modern feminism is about advancing an ideology in the interests of first world women. Gender equality is not the true goal, if it were equal treatment by the judicial system would be a key priority of feminism.

Oh wow, you’ve rumpled the feminists. They’re more concerned by women’s issues than men’s issues. You can dine out on that stunning realisation for ever on these threads. Have you seriously been expecting feminism to fix your problem? I doubt it.

I’d say a men’s rights group or a judicial reform group would be the best way to redress the disadvantage men experience in judicially system. I wouldn’t expect feminism to achieve it. They have other priorities, as you’ve already said.

So what’s the solution? Chat ad nausium about how dreadful feminism is and how isn’t doing enough for men?

El_Duderino 09 · 25-09-2019 9:13am

Petroleum Guzleum wrote: »

It's perfectly possible to point out the solipsism and duplicity of feminism while also not caring about men's rights. One can be amoral and enjoy exposing the hypocrisy of people and groups such as feminists.

And that’s what it amounts to. Whinging about feminism under the guise of caring about men. But it’s fairly clear that what you described (enjoying whinging about feminism without any interest in men’s issues) is the main concern.

Mad_maxx · 25-09-2019 9:15am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Petroleum Guzleum wrote: »

Modern feminism is about advancing an ideology in the interests of first world women. Gender equality is not the true goal, if it were equal treatment by the judicial system would be a key priority of feminism.

Oh wow, you’ve rumpled the feminists. They’re more concerned by women’s issues than men’s issues. You can dine out on that stunning realisation for ever on these threads. Have you seriously been expecting feminism to fix your problem? I doubt it.

I’d say a men’s rights group or a judicial reform group would be the best way to redress the disadvantage men experience in judicially system. I wouldn’t expect feminism to achieve it. They have other priorities, as you’ve already said.

So what’s the solution? Chat ad nausium about how dreadful feminism is and how isn’t doing enough for men?

Any kind of lobby group which attaches itself to a men's rights banner is at best mocked or else labelled as being part of this alleged " far right" monster in our midst.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-09-2019 9:23am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Any kind of lobby group which attaches itself to a men's rights banner is at best mocked or else labelled as being part of this alleged " far right" monster in our midst.

Oh right. So what you’re saying is that they would face opposition. The feminists or the gays were lucky they got exactly what they wanted without having to face opposition and fight for it.

Obviously every lobby group faces opposition. That’s not a reason not to do it. If they want to spend their time whinging about women and feminism then they would easily be painted as bad actors. If they focus on men’s issues, it would be easy to stay on message.

The level and type of opposition would depend on what the message is.

B0jangles · 25-09-2019 9:28am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Any kind of lobby group which attaches itself to a men's rights banner is at best mocked or else labelled as being part of this alleged " far right" monster in our midst.

Yeah, any lobby group which seeks to change a status quo which is comfortable for some tends to get demonized and mocked - e.g. 'feminazis', and 'fat pink haired loons who can't get a man and are also hairy and ugly'.

Or look at what is said about 'Black Lives Matter' activists - they are regularly called Black Supremacists and terrorists. For fighting for black americans to receive equal treatment by the law/law enforcement.

Or as just mentioned - gay rights activists were and still sometimes are dismissed as perverts who just want to Destroy Society/ Destroy Marriage/ Destroy The Family.

It goes with the territory -anyone who expects to get nothing but support and admiration for trying to change society is in for a very rude awakening.

Female Fury - Watch out!

Comments