Follow TV Tropes

Following

Sexism and Men's Issues

Go To

MOD NOTE: Please note the following part of the forum rules:

If you don't like a thread, don't post in it. Posting in a thread simply to say you don't like it, or that it's stupid, or to point out that you 'knew who made it before you even clicked on it', or to predict that it will end badly will get you warned.

The initial OP posted below covers it well enough: the premise of this thread is that men's issues exist. Don't bother posting if you don't believe there is such a thing.


Here's hoping this isn't considered too redundant. I've noticed that our existing threads about sexism tend to get bogged down in Oppression Olympics or else wildly derailed, so I thought I'd make a thread specifically to talk about discrimination issues that disproportionately affect men.

No Oppression Olympics here, okay? No saying "But that's not important because women suffer X which is worse!" And no discussing these issues purely in terms of how much better women have it. Okay? If the discussion cannot meaningfully proceed without making a comparison to male and female treatment, that's fine, but on the whole I want this thread to be about how men are harmed by society and how we can fix it. Issues like:

  • The male-only draft (in countries that have one)
  • Circumcision
  • Cavalier attitudes toward men's pain and sickness, AKA "Walk it off!"
  • The Success Myth, which defines a man's desirability by his material success. Also The Myth of Men Not Being Hot, which denies that men can be sexually attractive as male beings.
  • Sexual abuse of men.
  • Family law.
  • General attitudes that men are dangerous or untrustworthy.

I could go on making the list, but I think you get the idea.

Despite what you might have heard about feminists not caring about men, it's not true. I care about men. Patriarchy sucks for them as much as it sucks for women, in a lot of ways. So I'm putting my keyboard where my mouth is and making a thread for us to all care about men.

Also? If you're male and think of something as a men's issue, by golly that makes it a men's issue fit for inclusion in this thread. I might disagree with you as to the solution, but as a woman I'm not going to tell you you have no right to be concerned about it. No "womansplaining" here.

Edited by nombretomado on Dec 15th 2019 at 5:19:34 AM

Cylink It's broken.... Since: Sep, 2009
It's broken....
#9251: Apr 2nd 2014 at 6:11:24 PM

Oh boy. I'm a page topper.

@Gabrael: Personally, I found it to be condescending. Not the video itself, but the message given with the video. There's this assumption that the average guy will jump a woman the very second she's vulnerable and has to be taught otherwise.

edited 2nd Apr '14 6:13:00 PM by Cylink

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from a handcart heading to Hell Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#9252: Apr 2nd 2014 at 6:14:18 PM

accept the reality that men get victimized as often as women.

Why is this massively important? If people accept that men are victimized, that it's a bad thing and that we should put money and resources into stopping it, do we really need to start a debate on who is victimised more? Can't we just call it a win if they're in agreement that men face victimization and that we should be trying to stop it?

Seriously, this is a big problem I have with a lot of MRA group, why do we need to talk about women so much?

Edit: [up]I'd love to agree with you, but there are enough guys out there who don't get it that I'm gonna say fair enough. I still get shocked looks from guys when I tell them that age 13 (while drunk) I was moral enough to turn down a drunk girl who I knew didn't actually want anything and was just after me because she was going though a bit of a crisis.

edited 2nd Apr '14 6:17:49 PM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Mastah Since: Jan, 2014
#9253: Apr 2nd 2014 at 6:28:48 PM

Why is this massively important? If people accept that men are victimized, that it's a bad thing and that we should put money and resources into stopping it, do we really need to start a debate on who is victimised more? Can't we just call it a win if they're in agreement that men face victimization and that we should be trying to stop it?

Because this is used as an argument to deny men any kind of help. And if they get any help it's going to be insufficient because it's based on wrong numbers. I don't want this to be about who is hurt most and just about helping everyone but if the alternative is to do nothing more than what little society finds acceptable, I will argue.

Seriously, this is a big problem I have with a lot of MRA group, why do we need to talk about women so much?

The same could be said about many feminists, especially on this topic. Only one of the groups advocates for equal treatment in that regard though.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from a handcart heading to Hell Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#9254: Apr 2nd 2014 at 6:49:10 PM

Because this is used as an argument to deny men any kind of help.

By who? I don't see anyone arguing that men shouldn't be given help because they are victimised less than women, I see arguments over recourse allocation when resources are limited and we need to help as many people as possible, but that's a different story. People don't cry racism when the Red Cross decide that they're money is able to help more people in Syria than in Palestine.

And if they get any help it's going to be insufficient because it's based on wrong numbers.

Why do the numbers for men when compared to the numbers for women effect funding? A men's problem with 500 victims needs the same amount of money whether the mirror women's issue has 300 victims in need of help or 3,000. Why does the differential between the men's number and the women's number matter?

Now gaining recognition that the women effects 500 men instead of 5 is certainly an issue, but I don't get how that's connected to the number of women effected by the mirror issue.

The same could be said about many feminists, especially on this topic.

You and I obviously interact with very different feminists. The ones I interact with (both here and elsewhere) don't talk about men much, they talk mainly about women. That's actually something that I (and I think others in this thread) get annoyed about occasionally, feminists appearing to hijack discussion in this thread and turn the topic to about how women are effected. It can't go both ways, either feminists talk about men to much when they should talk about women, or they are hijacking men's discussions to talk about women when we should be talking about men, I'm pretty sure you can't have both.

edited 2nd Apr '14 7:24:45 PM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#9255: Apr 2nd 2014 at 7:06:44 PM

On that last part: except that some issues women face will, overall help men's issues if dealt with. For exammple, the whole "men being expected to take care of women" caveat. If women are given the power to take care of themselves, that ceases to be a serious problem.

Doing anything else will not fix the problem. It will only shift the problem to a different form.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from a handcart heading to Hell Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#9256: Apr 2nd 2014 at 7:33:31 PM

Sure dealing with some women's issues will help men, and there are some men's issues that helping men with will help women (ending A Man Is Not A Virgin helps everyone) but that's par the course.

Doing anything else will not fix the problem.

I disagree with this massively, you appear to be arguing that the only way to deal with men's issues is to fix women's issues (if you're not arguing that then feel free to correct me), which strikes me as massively sexists and just strait up wrong. Yes pretty much every big gender issue has a flip side for the other gender from which the battle can (and should be) be fought, but that goes both ways and I've yet to see a reasonable argument as to why we should only only focus on the female side of the issue instead of fighting the issue from both sides and acknowledging that they are both important battles to be fought as part of a wider war against a core issue of people being forced into certain roles based upon if they are a man or a women.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#9257: Apr 2nd 2014 at 7:52:04 PM

I was talking about that issue (breadwinning) in specific.

However, while I don't think solving women's issues will automatically solve all men's, it would solve the vast majority. And this is talking about actual solutions...not just reversals.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from a handcart heading to Hell Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#9258: Apr 2nd 2014 at 8:08:57 PM

Even on that specific issue I think you're wrong, if you fix the issue of women not being allowed to care for themselves without fixing the issue of men being expected to care for women you could easily get a situation where men are expected to care of women but nobody if expected to take care of men. So if a women falls on hard times her man if meant to take care of her, while if a man falls on hard times it is his own fault and his women certainly shouldn't be caring for him (even though she could). Or even the more unlikely scenario where I women could make the choice to be dependant upon a man and the man has to oblige (though I find it very unlikely that there are many women would would make such a choice).

Either way, you've fixed the issue of women not being allowed to care for themselves while still leaving behind several issues for men.

However, while I don't think solving women's issues will automatically solve all men's, it would solve the vast majority. And this is talking about actual solutions...not just reversals.

Do you apply this both ways (so solving men's issues would solve the vast majority of women's issues)? And if not why not?

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
RhymeBeat Bird mom from Eastern Standard Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: In Lesbians with you
Bird mom
#9259: Apr 2nd 2014 at 8:15:18 PM

The opposite has already happened. That's what makes Single Mother's job hell. Bosses pay women less on average because it's socially expected for the husband to pick up the slack. Children who have absent or unemployed fathers still need to be cared for. Thus single mom's are stuck with the worst of both worlds. It happens to a lesser extent in married women. The work may be split up about evenly but it's Mom who has to do the majority of the childcare stuff.

edited 2nd Apr '14 8:21:11 PM by RhymeBeat

The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#9260: Apr 2nd 2014 at 8:19:30 PM

Yeah, my mother had a serious problem with that. She was the only breadwinner in the house and every job she took she'd get crap pay and no chance for any sort of vertical movement.

While men at her work got these nice company trucks, bonuses, vacation time, and all she got was more work for no extra pay.

Oh really when?
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from a handcart heading to Hell Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#9261: Apr 2nd 2014 at 8:38:16 PM

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is disagreeing that that's a horrible situation that many women face, but Zeal was saying that by fixing that problem we would also fix all of the mirror issues that men face, which is what I'm disputing.

edited 2nd Apr '14 8:38:25 PM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#9262: Apr 3rd 2014 at 1:37:35 AM

Silas, I don't know where you get that scenario from. The point being made is that women are not expected to take care of themselves, and thus men are expected to take care of them. Nobody should be expected to take care of anyone else. Men should not be expected to take care of women and women should not be expected to take care of men. Being expected to take care of someone (breadwinning) is not the same as taking care of them when they're in legitimate trouble. You're adding a new scenario that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

And as for solving men's issues having the inverse effect of solving women's issues, you'll have to be more specific. What men's issues are you talking about?

edited 3rd Apr '14 2:35:37 AM by KingZeal

SilasW A procrastination in of itself from a handcart heading to Hell Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#9263: Apr 3rd 2014 at 3:24:15 AM

Zeal, fair point on my adding to it, but the point I'm trying to get across is that I don't see why ending the idea that women can't take care of themselves will automatically end the idea that men should take care of women.

As for the flip side men's version, what about childcare? If we end the idea that men can't take take of children (similar to ending the idea that women can't take care of themselves) then should it not automatically end the assumption that women must take care of children? Though I'm more getting at the general idea, you seem to hold a general position that solving a women's issue with solve the flip men's one, what is it that gives you that general view for women's issues but isn't there for men's issues? Is it just that you've gone over most women's issues and noticed a connection but haven't when going over men's issues?

O and can I point out to others that despite me not getting what Zeal was arguing exactly right, he didn't claim that I was strawmaning.

edited 3rd Apr '14 3:26:05 AM by SilasW

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Mastah Since: Jan, 2014
#9264: Apr 3rd 2014 at 3:30:02 AM

By who? I don't see anyone arguing that men shouldn't be given help because they are victimised less than women, I see arguments over recourse allocation when resources are limited and we need to help as many people as possible, but that's a different story. People don't cry racism when the Red Cross decide that they're money is able to help more people in Syria than in Palestine.

Male domestic violence victims not getting any money is the effective status quo in many western countries. Earl Silverman, who I mentioned before, had the only domestic violence shelter for men in all of Canada and he never received any money. The arguments brought forth against even one such shelter was that so few men suffered that it was barely worth the effort.

Why do the numbers for men when compared to the numbers for women effect funding? A men's problem with 500 victims needs the same amount of money whether the mirror women's issue has 300 victims in need of help or 3, 000. Why does the differential between the men's number and the women's number matter?

Now gaining recognition that the women effects 500 men instead of 5 is certainly an issue, but I don't get how that's connected to the number of women effected by the mirror issue.

The problem is that the actual number is much higher than those brought forth by ideologues. This is basically you complaining about the language I use, which I don't find a compelling argument at all. Do you honestly believe that if women got the fraction of the funding for a problem they suffered in about equal numbers to men that feminists wouldn't be up in arms about that?

You could also ask feminists why they feel the need to portray domestic violence as an (almost) exclusively women's problem. The only difference is that their numbers are wrong. I would rather not have to settle for less financial help than I could get for my cause based on a lie.

You and I obviously interact with very different feminists. The ones I interact with (both here and elsewhere) don't talk about men much, they talk mainly about women. That's actually something that I (and I think others in this thread) get annoyed about occasionally, feminists appearing to hijack discussion in this thread and turn the topic to about how women are effected. It can't go both ways, either feminists talk about men to much when they should talk about women, or they are hijacking men's discussions to talk about women when we should be talking about men, I'm pretty sure you can't have both.

The women's issue thread brought rather quickly some complaints about how problems affecting both genders are really only affecting women, backed up by very sketchy number juggling. It's very hard to talk about one gender and not the other, to have something to compare it too. Feminists usually do it by putting women on a pedestal and bashing men.

Mandemo Since: Apr, 2010
#9265: Apr 3rd 2014 at 4:41:29 AM

How these discussion seem to go always. Like a comedian once said:

"Once, there were men and women, each with different roles. Then we started to equalize them, because it was not fair.

Nowdays, there is *dramatic pose* the woman! And then there is the asshole *points to himself*. No in between."

There is no acknowledgement that men might need help anyway. Only that women need help. Any attempt to work on both sides is deemed misogynist, because "it takes from the women!"

Modern feminism is very much unable to accept criticism or that it might be wrong somewhere. It makes any discussion about men's issues problematic, because moment someone mentions them, feminist feel this strange urge to silence the discussion. As we have seen again and again in this thread.

edited 3rd Apr '14 4:47:04 AM by Mandemo

SilasW A procrastination in of itself from a handcart heading to Hell Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#9266: Apr 3rd 2014 at 4:49:11 AM

There is no acknowledgement that men might need help anyway.

This is simply untrue, every single feminist in this thread has acknowledged that men have issues and need help, the disagreement is over if the help is best placed and if it hurts more than it helps.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#9267: Apr 3rd 2014 at 5:00:04 AM

[up]

Worse, people have actually provided the details of very good sites and organizations which help men, only for them to be dismissed - without a shred of evidence - as "just feminist organizations that help men on the side." Classy stuff.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#9268: Apr 3rd 2014 at 5:35:38 AM

Zeal, fair point on my adding to it, but the point I'm trying to get across is that I don't see why ending the idea that women can't take care of themselves will automatically end the idea that men should take care of women.

The first thing I'd point out is that I didn't limit my answer to "the idea" that women can't take care of themselves. The goal is to eliminate anything that prohibits women from taking care of themselves—including the expectation that men take care of them. For comparison, we expect children after a certain age to be able to take care of themselves to a certain extent, but we still ultimately hold the parents responsible for their well-being. A child, no matter how capable, is still "protected" from certain things. Similarly, women cannot receive an equal amount of support or expectations for their own well-being if it's still expected that men will be their ultimate providers or moral authorities.

You are correct in that you can't completely fix the problem without men being removed from the expectation of taking care of women—but the only way you can do that is to put the same expectations, and opportunities, on women that men have.

As for the flip side men's version, what about childcare? If we end the idea that men can't take take of children (similar to ending the idea that women can't take care of themselves) then should it not automatically end the assumption that women must take care of children?

The idea that women are "better" caretakers than men is a flip-flopping circular ideology that comes and goes throughout history. From what I've been able to tell through research, it usually arises during eras when men are expected to be away from home (going to war or, more recently, to work) which means that children are going to be placed exclusively in the mother's care while Daddy goes and does manly things.

This necessity, combined with the fact that women weren't typically expected to adhere to a Macho Masochism standard, typically meant that women were seen as embodying more "virtuous" traits. And since that was the case, an even further logical leap was made to say that women were "naturally" better nurturers due to these virtues they supposedly embodied.

At all other times, women were actually held to be bad for children. Especially boys. Once boys got to a certain age, men were expected to get them the hell away from their mothers as fast as possible before she wussified him or corrupted him. Boys were expected to be with their fathers (or some other mentor figure) in order to learn from him and become a "proper" man.

Long story short, all removing the "men can't raise children" stigma would do is once again shift the circular trend back in the other direction. Especially if the "breadwinner" problem (and a host of other ones) haven't been fixed, because then we wind up back with the pre-Victorian system where fathers tended to get the children by default because single mothers had no means of taking care of them.

Though I'm more getting at the general idea, you seem to hold a general position that solving a women's issue with solve the flip men's one, what is it that gives you that general view for women's issues but isn't there for men's issues?

For the most part, nearly every gender issue or system we have in place today were designed to keep certain male privileges intact. Even policies created ostensibly to "help" women almost always had underlying expectations that male privilege would remain. And because of that, there's a complicated web of problems that can't be eliminated until those privilege are either revoked or shared with women.

Is it just that you've gone over most women's issues and noticed a connection but haven't when going over men's issues?

That's exactly what it is.

A couple years ago, I decided to dedicate myself to gender issues because I had a lot of complaints that MR As also bring up. There were a number of things that I found to be "unfair" to men. In my case, I had spent some time as a porn writer and was amazed at some of the things I learned about both genders during that time. In particular, I was shocked by the number of feminist women I'd met with a strong interest in my stories. My mental picture of feminists was of the Femi-nazi types that MR As always point at, and I didn't think that it was possible for feminists to like this stuff without being hypocrites.

After I learned this, I grew tired of the automatic assumption that liking Fanservice, pornography, or sex culture made you a "pervert". I started learning more about gender issues and decided that I wanted to get a good idea of what both men and women wanted and just where the negative assumptions about each other started. In doing my research, I found that most of the stigmas and taboos about sex-related things were, in large part, perpetuated with male interests in mind. For example, the assumption that women are not interested in pornography is residue from the All Women Are Prudes and Madonna-Whore Complex.

As I started looking more and more into these issues, and talking to both men's groups and women's groups, I started to notice a few things. Such as things you yourself have mentioned in this thread. I started noticing that women's groups had a better grasp of what was going on, had more accurate data to work off of, had better proposals for how to fix these issues, and encouraged self-critique and inclusivity. The men's groups, on the other hand, seemed more interested in harboring hate, were constantly fudging figures and misinterpreting data, and typically refused to self-critique and recognize a "privilege".

Of course, this didn't mean that I thought women were totally right all the time or that men were totally wrong all the time. I got into heated debate with a feminist group when I suggested that one thing which would help gender issues is mandatory paternity testing for newborns. Most of the women vehemently opposed the idea and compared it to Slut-Shaming. I can see their concern (women already get enough shit as it is and certainly don't deserve to be treated as if they're "sluts" by default), but as I tried to explain, I can logically see the benefits in creating such a system. The majority of women I've mentioned it to don't see it that way, so on that point we disagree...but I agree with many of their points otherwise.

edited 3rd Apr '14 7:31:46 AM by KingZeal

Mastah Since: Jan, 2014
#9269: Apr 3rd 2014 at 7:01:51 AM

This is simply untrue, every single feminist in this thread has acknowledged that men have issues and need help, the disagreement is over if the help is best placed and if it hurts more than it helps.

So, you think ignoring men's issues and only working on women's is a viable strategy to do things?

Worse, people have actually provided the details of very good sites and organizations which help men, only for them to be dismissed - without a shred of evidence - as "just feminist organizations that help men on the side." Classy stuff.

I'm sorry that I'm skeptical of links provided by someone who has a history of dismissing and minimizing men's issues. Yeah, I know I haven't provided much reason why they don't do their jobs as good as they could at least but so far every time a feminist tried to convince me that people other than MR As actually do stuff about men's issues I have been sorely disappointed.

I started noticing that women's groups had a better grasp of what was going on, had more accurate data to work off of, had better proposals for how to fix these issues, and encouraged self-critique and inclusivity. The men's groups, on the other hand, seemed more interested in harboring hate, were constantly fudging figures and misinterpreting data, and typically refused to self-critique and recognize a "privilege".

That's the complete opposite from what I've experienced. Feminists are notoriously bad at recognizing anything which doesn't conform with their world view, however massive the amount of evidence might be. Domestic violence is a perfect example of this. And while most men's activists (not only MR As) will recognize that men can and are advantaged in certain areas, it's feminists who refuse to call any advantages women have privilege. Hate in the feminist movement I don't only see as more prevalent and extreme, it's directed towards an entire gender instead of a group consisting of people hating an entire gender. Feminists who don't hate men might be more prominent than I think but they do a terrible job of denouncing them and police their own ranks.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#9270: Apr 3rd 2014 at 7:14:45 AM

So, you think ignoring men's issues and only working on women's is a viable strategy to do things?

...

Silas, do you want to say it, or should I?

That's the complete opposite from what I've experienced. Feminists are notoriously bad at recognizing anything which doesn't conform with their world view, however massive the amount of evidence might be. Domestic violence is a perfect example of this.

No generalizations, please. Which feminists are you talking about?

And while most men's activists (not only MR As) will recognize that men can and are advantaged in certain areas, it's feminists who refuse to call any advantages women have privilege.

Well, let's hash that out now. What privileges do you think they don't recognize?

Hate in the feminist movement I don't only see as more prevalent and extreme, it's directed towards an entire gender instead of a group consisting of people hating an entire gender.

An example, please?

Feminists who don't hate men might be more prominent than I think but they do a terrible job of denouncing them and police their own ranks.

Again, some examples, please.

edited 3rd Apr '14 7:15:35 AM by KingZeal

Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#9271: Apr 3rd 2014 at 7:18:09 AM

women already get enough shit as it is and certainly don't deserve to be treated as if they're "sluts" by default
If every woman is considered a slut by default, you canot shame them anymore with it. It would just become the new normal.tongue By insisting that women are not sluts, those people are actually still thinking that sluttery is something bad and ironically engage in slut shaming themselves.

typically meant that women were seen as embodying more "virtuous" traits.
That only holds true for the 19th century. In ancient times and the middle ages women were the embodiment of moral corruption (Eve for example).

Modern feminism is very much unable to accept criticism or that it might be wrong somewhere.
This ain't true. Are you not aware on how much feminists debate with each other?

Hate in the feminist movement I don't only see as more prevalent and extreme, it's directed towards an entire gender instead of a group consisting of people hating an entire gender.
I have yet to meet a feminist who hates men. I have studied Gender Studies and thus met dozens of them in person. Not one of them harbored any ill will against men. So forgive me if I call bullshit on that assumption.

Mandemo Since: Apr, 2010
#9272: Apr 3rd 2014 at 7:29:20 AM

Ah yes, NAFALT. Not All Feminist Are Like That.

Funny enough, when you surf the web and try to check anything, you tend to run to common narratives more than changes.

Zeal is particular good at this, dismissing entire MRM as misogynist, but insisting each feminist to be treated separately from the general movement.

Yes, feminist debate among themselves, but it's not debate of "Wait, maybe we got were wrong about this", it's debate of "No, it's this much worse than what you claim". Oppression Olympics and complains that not enough is being done or who is or isn't "feminist".

Perhaps most of the feminist are okay. Maybe most of the are cool bunch of people.

Problem is, that the idiots are allowed to run the show. The ones that people keep insisting "aren't feminist". No doubt not every Republican is a gun-toting bible thumping tea bagger, but guess what their party looks to an outsider?

SilasW A procrastination in of itself from a handcart heading to Hell Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#9273: Apr 3rd 2014 at 7:39:02 AM

Zeal, my pleasure.

So, you think ignoring men's issues and only working on women's is a viable strategy to do things?

Not at all, but I'm starting to think that ignoring you when you make such obvious strawmans may be a very viable strategy.

I'm sorry that I'm skeptical of links provided by someone who has a history of dismissing and minimizing men's issues. Yeah, I know I haven't provided much reason why they don't do their jobs as good as they could at least but so far every time a feminist tried to convince me that people other than MR As actually do stuff about men's issues I have been sorely disappointed.

So you're just going to ignore evidence because it's presented by someone you don't like?

Plus Zeal isn't the only one linking to stuff, Achaemenid provided a link to a great site.

Ah yes, NAFALT. Not All Feminist Are Like That.

Well they kinda aren't...

Zeal is particular good at this, dismissing entire MRM as misogynist, but insisting each feminist to be treated separately from the general movement

A few pages back I'd probably have agreed with you, but you'll notice that Zeal hasn't dismissed groups like the one Achaemenid linked to, groups that focus on helping men rather than "getting even" with feminists.

Problem is, that the idiots are allowed to run the show.

Would you care to source this for me? I'm not aware of the militant crazies being in charge.

edited 3rd Apr '14 8:02:39 AM by SilasW

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#9274: Apr 3rd 2014 at 7:44:25 AM

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2013/11/12/men-holding-signs-quoting-their-rapists/

First: words cannot express the admiration I have for these brave souls.

Second: not only is this the first project I have seen like this, they also flat out acknowledge transgendered people from the beginning

Third: we need more empowering projects like this. Its not perfect, but it's a good start.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#9275: Apr 3rd 2014 at 7:48:32 AM

"Ah yes", the "Ah yes" rebuttal. Where you attempt to pull an instant Ad Hominem by making your opponent's argument look common while doing absolutely nothing to refute it.

Zeal is particular good at this, dismissing entire MRM as misogynist, but insisting each feminist to be treated separately from the general movement.

Like this, for example. Are you actually refuting something here? Is this supposed to be an argument?

You're the one who constantly groups feminists into one cohesive blob of misandry. I've asked you (and Mastah) for specifics and never get it. The difference, though, is that we can actually point to MRM groups and specific arguments they've made. Iaculus has been giving decent links the whole time. We can point to these people, and the people who follow their ideals, and say what we think are wrong. That's not possible when all we have to go on is "Ze Femineets".

Yes, feminist debate among themselves, but it's not debate of "Wait, maybe we got were wrong about this", it's debate of "No, it's this much worse than what you claim". Oppression Olympics and complains that not enough is being done or who is or isn't "feminist".

That's not my experience with feminists at all. I've been in discussion groups where one group has flat out called others on wrongness. And that's not even mentioning the backlash against "White Feminism".

edited 3rd Apr '14 8:29:38 AM by KingZeal


Total posts: 21,837
Top