Men are the new "women"

Post Reply New Topic

No clue.

But seeing as how all of my attempts at being "practical" have failed, I'm going to do something impractical, which I'm at least going to enjoy.

As good a reason as any, though it will have its practical uses too.

How can you be genderfluid? I thought only rich white men could be anti-feminist ... because feminists told me so!
[/joke]

Fair enough

I don't want to be one of those guys who says men have a million problems and we're super oppressed and yada yada yada. That sort of thing is obvious hyperbole. I don't condone those MRAs who say men are victims of everything or MGTOWs who are literally gynophobic. I find MRA/MGTOW fear mongering to be just as laughable as feminist fear mongering.

For example, all these MRAs who go on about how men get raped by women too. I find it absurd. How could a woman overpower a man. And penetrate him. With what? Any man who's scared a woman is going to rape him is just being a sissy. MRAs need to drop that argument and focus on making arguments that are less likely to induce laughing fits.

I prefer a more balanced approach. Focus on things that matter and don't exaggerate. Certainly the majority of my interactions with women have been pleasant. Not all of them but there are millions of women so they can't all be good. Most of my interactions with feminists have been ok too. The most obnoxious feminists I've encountered were the male feminists, who pushed feminist rhetoric with stereotypical male aggression.

My concerns about feminism and about men's status in the world is not that I think men are being horribly oppressed but that dissent against feminism is becoming taboo and the relatively small number of men who have relevant problems won't be taken seriously.

Not having your problems taken seriously because you should "man up and take it" is what makes men the new women, not being raped or catcalled. True the above phrase was not invented by feminists.

But what surprises me is that feminists say that feminism will help men by eliminating the macho culture that is harmful to some men (fine by me so long as they don't go to the opposite extreme) and then they end up using that same macho culture they claimed they want to eliminate.

It's all part of their shaming tactics. Shaming tactics should be abolished not only because they're immoral but because they're fallacious. They don't actually prove anything. Feminists have done an excellent job of ending woman-shaming, victim blaming for rape victims, etc. This is a good thing. Of course women shouldn't be shamed. Why can't the same be extended to men?

By whom? By MRA groups? By feminist groups? Some feminists groups say they want to help men. I think they genuinely do but this is misguided. It's like they think feminists groups are the only groups that should help men. I think men should have some representation in the group that's helping them and some say in how they're helped.

Imagine if a feminist group was all men or if the NAACP membership was entirely white people. Women have made some very valuable contributions to MRA and they're very welcome in such groups but it shouldn't be 100% women, as it would be if help for men came only from feminists groups.

Especially if they say "we know what's best for you". I think people know what's best for themselves. The trouble is, some of these groups think they're moral authorities and that they know what's best in all matters of morality because they're the Good Guys™

Of course I realise not all feminists are in one cohesive group. Some of them want to help men (without representation) and some of them say the goal of feminism is to help women. This could get confusing. There's a famous case of a university in Canada. Feminists shut down a group to help men with depression by claiming it was a misogynist hate group. When asked where they depressed men could go the feminists suggested the depressed men could seek help at the feminist group's healing circle. How would that go? Would they be turned away at the door because the doorwoman is one of those feminists who thinks feminism exists to help women (a valid opinion but this could get confusing). Would he be allowed into the circle and have all problems blamed on him? Even his own.

I've read feminist articles on male depression that said male depression is caused by toxic masculinity. I'm surprised to see this kind of victim blaming from a group that claims to be against victim blaming.

It's this sort of silencing tactic that I'm most concerned about. The problem men face is that their strength is their weakness. I understand why some MRAs go too far in self-victimizing in order to elicit sympathy, they've seen it work for feminists (not that I'm condoning that sort of thing from either side).

I've seen MRAs who are genuinely misogynist but the way the media characterises them all like that, it's just as wrong as saying all feminists are misandry (the majority of feminists aren't misandrists). I'm not an MRA (or a member of any ideological group) but I'm sure most MRAs have better things to do then send death threats on twitter. The ones that do that need to get a life.

You know which male stereotype I hate the most? That all men are rich and powerful. Here's an example, a feminist article that uses that stereotype.

https://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2009 ... it-hit-me/

The article characterises all men as privileged millionaires. #NotAllMen are millionaires. Yes I know that's stating the obvious but there are feminists who really say men hold all the power - correction some men hold all the power. Less then one percent of men hold all the power. I'd like to see women in government as much as anyone else but I fear millionaire women in politics will be just as out of touch as millionaire men are.

I find it quite bizarre that there are feminist articles saying the phrase "not all men" is sexist. This coming from a group that claims it wants to end sex based stereotypes. It seems like they want to perpetuate them.

Yes it's hypocritical and I think like most hypocrisy, it's done without awareness on the part of the perpetrator. Most people don't wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to be a hypocrite today". The vast majority of hypocrites don't know they're hypocrites. They could do with a dose of self-awareness.

This applies to the MRAs too. When evangelist MRAs see misandry in everything it's just as exagerated as when evangelist feminists see misogyny in everything.

MRAs claim that feminists can't be egalitarians because they have "fem" in the title. If that's true that MRAs can't be egalitarians either because the M in MRA stands for "men".

Anyway this post has gone on for too long, congratulations if you made it to the end.

Not sure congratulations are in order. Commiserations may be more appropriate.



One of which guys? Can you give an example? I'm not sure who the target is, but I feel like someone, somewhere is the victim of a strawman here.



So the kind of guy who says it is being hyperbolic, rather than making a claim of ubiquitous man oppression. In other words, literally any man could say it and not be taken seriously, meaning your objection is to being any man. That's literally all I can salvage from this absurdity of an opening to your post.

If you're confused at all, allow me to offer further explanation. When you labelled everything after "guys" as "hyperbole" you rendered it a narrative redundancy. Your opening essentially reads that you don't want to be one of those "guys". Have you considered you may be transgender?



For the former, provide some examples so we know what you're talking about. For the latter, I think gynophobia is probably the most legitimate argument a MGTOW could make in defence of their ideology, regardless of whether you condone it.



I find most fear-mongering to be laughable, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's appropriate for me to mock.



Psychologically. The core of partner abuse is emotional and mental, with physical abuse constituting a secondary tool - rather like a whip is secondary to chains.



Is it rape if a woman has intercourse with an underage boy? If so, why is penetration a necessary component of rape? Not all jurisdictions recognise the "penetration by sex organ" definition as necessary, including all those which class the example I cited as "statutory rape". Basically you're arguing semantics. I see no reason that non-consensual vaginal envelopment cannot be referred to as "rape".



Having read through the entire post, I find this at odds with your later lauding of people who oppose victim-blaming. What is your working definition for "sissy"? Are you not simply admonishing a victim for being too weak to confront their abuser?



They should drop the argument that abuse of men by women is a genuine societal issue because you'll use it as an excuse to mock victims of it? Are you advocating we ignore male victims of abuse if their abuser is female?



All the evidence thus far points to the contrary.



So you're defining female abuse of males as "not something which matters". Presumably your "balanced approach" includes doing the same for female victims of males, yes?



And the plural of anecdote, as we all know, is evidence!



That's certainly a problem, but I'd like to see your figures on the "relatively small number of men who have relevant problems". Relevant to whom, and in what context?



If men are being emotionally, physically and sexually abused by women, your argument is at odds with itself as these are things which you yourself have admitted you do not take seriously. There is an appalling degree of inconsistency already in your post, and we're barely halfway through it.



Not relevant if they're the ones using it, but thus far you've neglected to point to a single example of what you're speaking about in the real world, so we can take this hypothetical scenario wherever we wish.



Again, which feminists are doing this? Yes, I've witnessed both types of behaviour in feminists, but I can't say with certainty that I've seen both exhibited concurrently.



But we should always mock any man who claims to be the victim of a woman, and call them a "sissy".



Typically when I see a feminist using shaming tactics its to silence dissent rather than to prove anything.



Because we can't grant men the same privilege and call them sissies, duh! As for what feminists have done in the service of women regarding shaming, I'd personally rank many feminists amongst the foremost woman-shamers of all time, were there a leader-board for such.



It doesn't matter what labels apply, nor which characteristics are present in the person offering aid, as long as said aid is genuine and focused on the result rather than external perception of the process. The politicking and back-patting revolving around helping victims can often be sickeningly counter-productive.



Imagine to what end? Would it be correct to judge them by their genitals and skin colour, or would it be more appropriate to judge the outcome of their endeavours?



Same objection, with the additional suggestion that an all-woman group advocating for men's rights would actually be preferable to an all-men group due to the socio-political climate in which they must necessarily operate.



Any group which includes this as part of its philosophy is not an advocacy group, unless preceded by the phrase "we've listened to your feedback" and followed up with "because that's what you've told us you need".



I disagree. I'm not sure most people have the slightest clue what is best for themselves, but they know what they want and what they do not, which trumps any third-party opinion.



Considering yourself a moral authority isn't a problem in and of itself. When it becomes an issue is when you believe yourself to be such when you are not, and when you also happen to have reach and influence. In other words, we all consider ourselves to be moral, the dangerous part is the authority.



As I've so often suggested, it'll be far less so after they elect a Femipope.



Are men with depression not also to be labelled "sissies" or some other derogatory epithet?



Whereas I'm surprised that anyone would be surprised by seeming feminist hypocrisy, especially someone who recognises the amorphous, nebulous, disparate non-homogeneity of feminist ideology.



Hah! Sissy! Real men aren't weak! Grow a pair! Because one cannot both have their cake and eat it.

The problem is not that their strength is their weakness, it's that their weakness is their weakness. The vulnerability of men is well-understood by many (even most) women, some of whom use it as a means of abusing them.



Again, I'd need to see an example of what you're objecting to here.



I perceive it to be far more nuanced than the picture you're framing here. The most rabid feminists and men's rights advocates are often those who have suffered abuse at the hands of a member of the opposite sex. Consider a woman who has been the victim of an abusive husband. Would you be understanding if she demonstrated discomfort or loathing towards you if you tried to interact with her, or would you dismiss her as being misandrist?

The problem with the majority of your post is that you're approaching everything in either general, vague or unattributed terms, whilst simultaneously pointing out that you're aware of the folly of such. Feminists, MRAs, Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc must all be considered on the merits of their individual cases and arguments. If they happen to represent a collective too, that too can be addressed, but primarily we should concern ourselves with the individual.



Much as feminist is a nebulous identity, as feminism is a nebulous ideology, so too is MRA a nebulous term. I don't perceive MRAs to be an ideological group because they aren't one, but there are ideological groups that are formed on the basis of that shared characteristic (again, much like atheists, though less so Christians and other groups who have an actual universal doctrine in book form).

MRA describes an action. It's a verb as well as a label. It specifically means one who advocates for the rights of men. It applies to me, because I have done so in this very post. It also applies to you, as you have done so in the post I am responding to. It's feminine counterpart would be "WRA" and not, as so many people seem to conclude, "feminist".



I'm not sure why you've "gone there". Who precisely are you referring to?



Whereas I question the motivation behind the author's blanket hatred for men. Whilst it might be interesting to explore the ways in which misogyny is deemed sinful whilst misandry is righteous in certain circles, it would be far more beneficial to determine precisely why this person is so enraged as to perceive an entire gender in such a hateful light.



Refine and reduce it down to the common denominator. The actual complaint is "I don't have any of the power, I want the power". Common wisdom dictates that the worst candidates for power are those who most ardently crave it.



You're still making the mistake of arguing against your own understanding that feminists are not a homogeneous group except when it suits their agenda. That's how group activism functions.



For instance, one might consider beating someone over the head with their suggestion that male victims are sissies until they realise the error in their thinking.



I have to ask at this point, is there a specific MRA or MRA group that you're referring to? If so, providing an article, video or blog might be far more useful than continued vague references to straw-people.



The common objection is that feminists can't be egalitarians because their ideology is specifically defined as the pursuit of rights and equality of women (n.b. no mention of regards to or in relation to men). That the term itself is synonymous with a feminine perception, and that it is derived from a term which originally meant feminine quality or character and that many of its writings and advocates have married both meanings of "feminism" and created an ideology which is fundamentally 'toxic' to masculinity - ironically enough.

But let's assume you're correct, that the objection to feminist is that it's simply terrible nomenclature for an egalitarian ideology. How many MRAs claim that "MRA" is synonymous with "egalitarian"? Can you provide even a single example? Does being an MRA preclude one from being a WRA? Can one be both a feminist and an MRA?

I suggest that feminism, as practiced by many, is incompatible with egalitarianism as such people are fundamentally opposed to individual rights. The same can not be said of those who advocate for the rights of men unless they simultaneously argue against the rights of women and/or of individuals. MRAs are not the opposite of feminists, but they are generally in opposition to them.

I don't want to be one of those guys who says men have a million problems and we're super oppressed and yada yada yada.[/quote]One of which guys? Can you give an example?[/quote]Here you go.

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1016370/

Note that I'm not saying men aren't oppressed, I'm just saying it shouldn't be exaggerated.

Here's a more sensible, article about how men are oppressed

http://www.rooshv.com/american-men-are- ... -oppressed I'm not saying "man oppression" doesn't exist, I'm saying it shouldn't be exaggerated Funny that you should complain about strawmen after that. I did not define female victims of male abuse as "not something that which matter".So do all anecdotes from feminists count as evidence as well?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= mDns83UTDx4[/youtube]

Look! Here's 5 anecdotes from people who went to Heaven! If the plural of anecdote is evidence, that means this is evidence that Heaven is real! Praise the Lord! : lol: Not having your problems taken seriously because you should "man up and take it" is what makes men the new women, not being raped or catcalled.[/quote]If men are being emotionally, physically and sexually abused by women, your argument is at odds with itself as these are things which you yourself have admitted you do not take seriously.[/quote]Nope. I never said I don't take emotional, physical and sexual abuse seriously.

I don't take sissy guys who think women are going to rape them seriously.So that's your problem with my post. I'm trying to see both sides of the conflict and this must be very confusing for you.

I'm sure it would be more satisfying for you if I presented everything as black and white, if I said feminists were always wrong and MRAs and MGTOWs were always right.Which evidence would that be and how does it show I don't prefer a more balanced approach?My what an active imagine you have. You think I said male victims are sissies but I said "any man who's scared a woman is going to rape him", that's not the same thing as a victim.Nope. I said "any man who's scared a woman is going to rape him", not any man who's the victim of a woman.

I hate to repeat myself but it's funny that you should complain about strawmen after you've claimed I've said things I didn't say just so you could defeat them.Oh but we can. I think women who think every man is going to rape them are sissies too.

There's your equality. Unwarranted fear from either sex makes them sissies.I see this one flew over your head.Then why disagree?Then it's always an issue because believe me they all consider themselves to be moral authorities when they're not.

You're never going to find a group that says "we're immoral, we're wrong about everything and our opponents are right".I don't think they heard your suggestion. They will remain inconsistent That's a part of life but for some strange reason inconsistency seems to offend you.Nope.Yes and the idea that men are supposed to be strong is used both on men and on third parties (cops, jurors, etc).http://www.mamamia.com.au/threats-against-emma-watson/

I don't agree with the stuff Emma Watson says but sending her threats is just giving her more power, which means her message spreads further.For instance, one might consider beating someone over the head with their suggestion that male victims are sissies until they realise the error in their thinking.[/quote]This again? I did not say male victims are sissies.Why should I? I never claimed MRA was synonymous with egalitarian and I never claimed MRAs themselves thought MRA is synonymous with egalitarian.

Once again you've shown your lack of comprehension by misreading what I wrote. You sure do like using strawman arguments for someone who complains about strawman arguments.Individual rights are not needed for egalitarianism. There are communists who consider themselves to be egalitarian and we know communists aren't concerned with individual rights.

Now before you start complaining about the lack of an example, here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Communist_PartyHow's that been working for them? Has being in opposition to feminism done them any good? Has it stopped the harm wrought be feminists? Is it going to?

You're saying that, to you, the most abhorrent thing about stormfront board members is that they exaggerate the problems men face? If you have to dig into a cesspit to find an example it's hardly surprising that you strike excrement.



So you don't want to be a stormfronter, but you're down with the PU artists? N.B. not that I'm dismissing the article (In actual fact, I agree with Roosh on many of those points, though he wasn't the first to make them), nor am I making a value judgement, but you framed this in terms of association.



But you specifically referenced stormfront. I'm sure you can see how that's completely redundant.



I said female abuse of males, not female victims of males.

"Any man who's scared a woman is going to rape him is just being a sissy. MRAs need to drop that argument and focus on making arguments that are less likely to induce laughing fits."

That's the point you made immediately before stating that we should instead "focus on things that matter". So no, returned to its proper context, and having corrected your comprehension error, that's not remotely a strawman.



Evidently you're not familiar with an incredibly common expression (and subject of a widespread internet meme) which I was sarcastically inverting to point out a flaw in your argument.



"Any man who's scared a woman is going to rape him is just being a sissy."
"I don't take sissy guys who think women are going to rape them seriously."

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ ... 2010-a.pdf

"Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported having been made to penetrate someone else in his lifetime (Table 2.2). Too few women reported being made to penetrate someone else to produce a reliable estimate (Table 2.1).

"Approximately 1 in 9 men (11.7%) reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact in his lifetime, which translates to an estimated 13 million men in the United States (Table 2.2)."

As previously stated, your argument is at odds with itself. The plight of male sexual abuse victims and the quite reasonable fear they have of unwanted female contact is something you not only do not take seriously, you quite wilfully choose to mock it.



Just a few of my manifold problems with your post include the fact that you're making sweeping generalisations with no basis in evidence or data, that you're not actually close to representing any side in any conflict (except, apparently, the incredibly marginal perspective of a handful of stormfront members), that you're drawing broad conclusions from the incredibly limited perspective of your own personal experiences and that you've dismissed the legitimacy of "any man who fears sexual assault at the hands of a woman. In light of the above, I have since added "pitiful attempt at condescension" to the list of objections.

Your intentions may well be flawlessly noble, and yet you've elected to dismiss and denigrate victims - whose fear is very much genuine and reasonable - as "sissies".



Wherein you highlight the folly of making uncharitable assumptions absent evidence. What would be satisfying would be if you could demonstrate that you actually have an iota of understanding of any of the subjects about which you have made such broad statements. However, you chose to cite stormfront instead.



The entirety of your post to the point at which you stated the above.



On the contrary. The type of man who would be scared a woman might "rape him" is one for whom such fear is relevant. Any man who genuinely fears sexual assault from a woman is a man who has been victimised by a woman. Male psychological response to sexual assault is no different than female response, except in terms of coping responses. One such coping method is to internally minimise the severity of sexual abuse, leading to near-unanimous expert opinion that there is significant under-reporting by men who are victims of sexual assault at the hands of both men and women.

Should you encounter any man who actually holds such a fear, the appropriate response would be to consider the rationale behind it rather than dismiss him as a "sissy".



See previous response.



"Any man who's scared a woman is going to rape him is just being a sissy."
"MRAs need to drop that argument and focus on making arguments that are less likely to induce laughing fits."
"Focus on things that matter and don't exaggerate."

Which words did I attribute to you which are not your own? Either there are millions of men out there who have an unwarranted fear of sexual assault at the hands of a woman, or the majority of men who have such a fear are entirely justified in their belief. I propose that the latter is true, and I've provided data in support of such. If you wish to dispute that up is in fact down, by all means find a credible source which supports your position that "any man" (i.e. "all men") who have this fear are merely "sissies" and not to be taken seriously.



Or have a signifcant majority of such women also experienced abuse at the hands of men? Even though such a fear is irrational it does not necessarily follow that it is unreasonable.



And there's the crux of the matter. You've expressed the opinion that such fear is unwarranted in every case. Not only does this fly in the face of common knowledge of the psychological profile of victims of abuse, it's one of a litany of useless generalisations you've made which don't serve to forward the conversation in any meaningful way.







What an absurd question. The answer you seek is contained in the text you quoted. I disagree because I do not share your opinion. To agree would be dishonest, to neglect to respond might be misinterpreted as silent assent.



As I said, it's only an issue when you have legitimate reach and influence, i.e. the power to create legislation or to control the platforms of discourse. And frankly, as we're discussing the subject of morality, it's very much up to individuals what they want to believe, regardless of how odious you or I find their beliefs to be.



That's the joke.



Are you basing your opinion on anything I've directly confided, or are you making the mistake of confusing criticism with offence taking? Am I to conclude that this is projection, that those things which you object to are things you find offensive? Perhaps you find victims of sexual assault offensive, hence your labelling of them as "sissies". Or perhaps you're quite aware that you're doing the debating equivalent of brandishing your own excrement in your fist and declaring what a big boy you are, yet content for your fingers to smell of dung if it perchance results in the scoring of a point.



How about those with hereditary conditions who fear eugenics?



If you are aware that the above is true, how can you possibly hold to the opinion that "any man" who fears sexual assault at the hands of a woman is "a sissy"?



Are you claiming there was some sort of MRA conspiracy, that representatives of the movement targeted Watson with hurtful messages on twitter? Are you suggesting that this kind of response to a public figure getting involved in politics is unique? Can you point to a single legitimate death threat from a self-identified MRA who wasn't merely engaging in the mud-slinging clown festival that is social media?

Regardless of your responses, how should we address this? Should we shut down discussion of men's rights because some people can't control their urge to express themselves in this manner? Should we do as others do and tar every group whose rhetoric is used by trolls with the same brush? What actual point are you trying to make here and is it one which serves a useful purpose?

My advice is to not waste your time and energy worrying about twitter and its legions of trolls. They're representative only of what becomes of human interaction when participants are limited to 140 characters, but granted the ability to directly address anyone who participates.



People have been known to manufacture threats in the absence of such. At this point, I'm inclined to believe it makes little-to-no difference. It gives her power with people who were already influenced by the ideology she was preaching and with people who are gullible enough to fall into the trap of supporting a cause because some anonymous halfwits said some stupid things (who are already a subset of the former group, for the most part).

Speech has consequences, this might be considered one of them.



I've already demonstrated why this statement is false.



One of the reasons you should avoid cherry-picking on a forum is that it takes just a few clicks to navigate to the post being quoted out of context and reinsert the missing text:

"MRAs claim that feminists can't be egalitarians because they have "fem" in the title. If that's true that MRAs can't be egalitarians either because the M in MRA stands for "men"."

What you claimed is what I quoted you as claiming.

You're challenging the logical consistency of the notion (which you seem to have invented or gained from an equally spurious source"), on the grounds that the same applies in reverse. In order for your objection to be upheld, you must necessarily demonstrate that MRAs consider MRA to be synonymous with egalitarian. Feminists claim that feminism is synonymous with egalitarianism, you need look no further than this very forum for examples. Most feminists seemingly would sooner headbutt a wall than consider themselves an MRA. MRAs do not claim that MRA is synonymous with egalitarian, nor would they claim that being an MRA is antithetical to being a WRA.

The point being, that it is reasonable to question feminists who claim that feminism is an egalitarian movement, yet it is ridiculous to object to MRAs who do not claim that the MRM is an egalitarian movement. We're left with two possible conclusions:

1: You were implying that criticism of the MRM as being non-egalitarian is equivalent to criticism of feminism as being non-egalitarian.
2: You were aware of all the above and therefore you made a redundant statement without purpose or merit.

I leave it to you to decide which possibility best salves your ego. From my perspective, it's entirely moot either way.

All of this falls squarely within the specific context of your point. My original objection also included the suggestion that your premise was a misrepresentation of an actual argument I've commonly encountered from MRAs.



I again challenge you to point out which of your words were misrepresented. I also invite you to revisit my initial response and reacquaint yourself with the context in which I used the term "strawman".



I might consider myself to be a capable pilot, that's no reason to trust me to take the stick.



Why would an example of people holding false beliefs be necessary. Evidence required is subject to the specifics of the claim being made.



Should North relocate itself in order to reach an accord with South? They are generally in opposition to them because of ideological incompatibilities. Are you advocating that people simply give in and adopt views they don't believe in the face of adversity? Are advocacy and activism exclusively warm weather pursuits? Is your plan to roll over and let those harmful feminists tickle your belly?

When did I say the most abhorrent thing about stormfront board members is that they exaggerate the problems men face? You sure do love making sh*t up about me. Keep beating those strawmen You ask for an example of an abhorrent idea and then you're surprised it comes from an abhorrent place? Where did you expect it to come from Yes, prison rape is quite common. It doesn't count as being raped by a woman if they were forced to penetrate another man.

Your statistic doesn't say which fraction of men were forced to penetrate by a woman.Another strawman? That wasn't who I was mocking

Yes I'm sure my argument will seem to be at adds with itself if you don't understand it properly.I'll admit, I'll never be able to pull of condescension as well as you. You're the expert at condescension.Now who's making broad statements? Your hypocrisy is showing

Why bother making such a demonstration to you when you'd dismiss any demonstration at all.You already said that. You certainly have a talent for repetition.

Like I said before if you ask for an an example of an abhorrent idea it will come from an abhorrent place.Now I know you have no evidence. Your claim that I don't prefer a more balanced approach is baseless.This. And this.And this.And this.Either there are millions of men out there who have an unwarranted fear of sexual assault at the hands of a woman, or the majority of men who have such a fear are entirely justified in their belief. I propose that the latter is true, and I've provided data in support of such.[/quote]No you didn't. Your data showed how many were penetrated or received unwanted sexual contact by anyone, not at the hands of a woman.Nope. There is no evidence that the majority of women have experienced sexual abuse at the hands of men.Well we can both agree that it's irrational.No I didn't. I said such a fear, when unwarranted makes them sissies.You'd say that about anything I'd say. If I'm making a litany of useless generalizations you've made which don't serve to forward the conversation in any meaningful way then why do you bother to talk to me?Do I really have to explain this one to you?

You said what they want and what they do not want trumps any third-party opinion. This must include your own opinion.

Yes I'm sure my questions seem absurd when you fail to understand them.Yep. Neither one of us is likely to change anyone's beliefs. Neither one of us is likely to change each other's beliefs. I guess we're both wasting our time Nope.That statement says a lot more about your maturity level than it does about mine.

After all, you're the one who said it.Not them either.Nope. I'm claiming some jerks did it to get a rise out of our. That's not a conspiracy.I never made that claim.All those who made death threats were engaging in the "mud-slinging clown festival that is social media". That was my point. I doubt any of them actually untented to murder her.Nope.

I don't think phony death threats are a reason to shut down discussion of men's rights. I never did.

I wouldn't say they can't control their urge to express themselves in that manner. We all have free well. They choose to express themselves in that manner.

I was saying that if they're opposed to feminism they shouldn't make phony death threats because it makes feminism look gook and the opposition look bad.I never said ever member of the group is responsible. You just inferred generalization when I was criticising the individuals who commit a particular act. If you do that no wonder you think I'm generalizing MRAs should be worried since the mainstream media thinks those trolls are representative of MRAs.

Hell I'm worried about that too because I don't MRA to be defeated by feminism, I just want it to be more moderate, considerate and use better rhetoric.So it only works on gullible people? Ok so it works on most people.

True that they probably already supported her but why give her ammunition?No you didn't. One of the reasons you should avoid cherry-picking on a forum is that it takes just a few clicks to navigate to the post being quoted out of context and reinsert the missing text:

"MRAs claim that feminists can't be egalitarians because they have "fem" in the title. If that's true that MRAs can't be egalitarians either because the M in MRA stands for "men"."

What you claimed is what I quoted you as claiming[/quote]I said "MRAs can't be egalitarian". I didn't say MRAs had claimed they were synonymous with egalitarianism.No I mustn't because I never said MRAs consider MRA to be synonymous with egalitarian I'd be interested to hear if they did though.Again you demonstrate your talent for stating the obvious.That's a lot of typing if you think it's moot.

May I ask what your purpose for all this is? I know I'll never change your mind and you must realise you'll never change mine? What's the point of all this? Are we both wasting our time?No problem. Here's a couple more.and
I already know what a strawman argument is.A claim that people hold a specific false belief is still a specific claim.Nope. I'm saying we can't convince the feminists or the public at large to change their minds by merely arguing with feminists. Belittling feminists won't help either. In their minds it will simply prove them right. The best way is to corporate with them. In this way you can modify them into something less harmful. Turn them from RadFems into moderate feminists. Gradually turn them away from feminism and towards egalitarianism.

They won't listen to an MRA so an MRA can't do that. They won't listen to me either because I don't have a large influence.

I'm asking if that's your position. Are you unfamiliar with how questions function?



What did I make up about you? You haven't answered the question.



I had no expectations regarding your source. That's part of the problem with uncredited sweeping generalisations, further clarification becomes necessary. Nor is the idea abhorrent. Irrational, certainly, but palatable.



Prison rape is not classed as "made to penetrate", which almost always refers to non-consensual intercourse between a woman and a man, and in 4 out of 5 cases involves only women assailants.



Page 24: "a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%)"



"Any man who's scared a woman is going to rape him is just being a sissy."

That's entirely unambiguous.



Unless the words "any" and "man" have changed their meaning overnight, your argument is both elementary and derogatory towards male victims of female sexual assault.



If you feel at all patronised, that's your business. It might help to take the time to read sources that are provided so your arguments are a little more robust.



Except that was a very narrow - one might say direct - criticism of the complete lack of substance to your arguments on this matter, as I've demonstrated repeatedly. It would be hypocritical if I hadn't taken the required steps to support the statement. You've confused "made to penetrate" with "prison rape". You've classed "all men" who fear sexual assault by women as "sissies", then argued that you couldn't possibly be talking about the only demographic who might legitimately hold such a fear.

Frankly, I was being generous.



So you accept that my assessment is correct, otherwise there'd be no need to do so.



False. See the first response in this post and compare the point being made here to the question being asked there.



I asked for no such thing. I asked to whom you were referring, which is pertinent when the only groups of people you mentioned were MRAs, MGTOWs and feminists. It's rather like complaining about ideas posted in a thread on a parenting site, but not referencing it directly, before talking about how messed up the arguments of Muslims are.



No, you do not. What you have is an opinion that what you wrote constituted a "balanced approach". My specific criticisms against your post include a breakdown of the logical flaws inherent to some of your arguments, as well an indictment of your statement about "any man who".



You mean my rejection of your claim, surely?



We've covered this ground already. But by all means, I'll quote you again.

"Any man who's scared a woman is going to rape him is just being a sissy. MRAs need to drop that argument and focus on making arguments that are less likely to induce laughing fits.

I prefer a more balanced approach. Focus on things that matter and don't exaggerate."

If you still don't understand how this is placing female abuse of males outside of the category "things that matter" it's unlikely you ever will.



The previous response also covers this. You define "any man" who fears non-consensual sex will be forced upon them by a woman as a "sissy". Is it your contention that the term "sissy" is not derogatory?



"Any man[] is being a sissy"
"drop that argument and focus on making arguments that are less likely to induce laughing fits"
"Focus on things that matter"

It's right there in your post, Retro.



That's parody, not a strawman. Are you aware of the difference?



Those stats again:

79.2% made to penetrate by a lone woman.
83.6% subjected to coercion by a lone woman.

Your failure to read the data is no argument against its existence.



Read the above quote again, this time without the exclusion of the word I've emphasised. Now reconsider your response.



We'd be well beyond the ridiculous if you decided otherwise.



"Any man who's scared a woman is going to rape him is just being a sissy."

You actually suggested that it's unwarranted in every instance. There were no qualifiers nor exclusions offered to "any man".



Also clearly false. I've directly responded to every point you've made, in a more substantial manner where such was necessary or appropriate. When I refer to your useless generalisations, I refer specifically to those points which are general and useless.



You are expressing ideas which I disagree with on a public forum of which I am an active member. Need there be any other motive?



Wasn't that made clear from context? The question is; why on earth should that cause me to be silent? As I stated, the answer is in the text you quoted. It applies to both quotes.

It trumps third-party opinion in the mind and in the hierarchy of decision-making of the individual. It does not negate my own opinion, nor does it prevent me from attempting to persuade them that an alternative is superior.



Should that actually occur, we'll have opportunity to test your hypothesis. For now, however, it remains an absurd question.



Why would you assume that my goal is to change your mind?



Sans an alternative, I'm afraid you're quite wrong there.



Indeed. But probably not in the way you imagine.



Guilty as charged. As use of colourful metaphor to illustrate a point is not typically thought of as immature, however, I fail to recognise your point.



Homosexual men with a fear of Islam?



So what makes these jerks relevant? What ties them to the MRM?



Nor did I accuse you of such.



So why bring them up in the first place? What was your motivation for referring to "MRAs" who "need to get a life" in that context?



That could easily lead us into a semantic spiral.



All it serves to do is out them as jerks, regardless of their actual intentions (or lack thereof). Just as anyone who credits twitter trolling as representative of anything outs themselves as a halfwit, an ideologue or both.



Again, nor did I imply such. I asked your opinion of a variety of possible "solutions" of which this was but one.



I inferred no such thing. I asked a question in order to ascertain your actual position because you did not offer it. Until you've answered said question, I can in no way infer anything other than you aren't putting your statements into any context (which you had not).



Or, despite the fact I'm doing no such thing, it's apparent you're generalising regardless.



The same mainstream media which has pushed its luck with that, as well as with other related narratives, and lost tons of credibility in the process? As per my previous post, advocacy and activism aren't fair-weather pursuits to such people. And let's be honest, activists of all breeds love to rage against the machine.



The MRM has survived this long despite feminists campaigning against it - thrived even. MRA and anti-feminist channels are heavily outperforming feminist channels on youtube, largely because they manage to be both entertaining as well as informative, as opposed to preachy. As long as the marketplace of ideas remains free, there's nothing to fear on that front.



I beg to differ. More and more I'm encountering healthy amounts of scepticism in people, much as I've noticed people finding their voices in opposition to the amorphous mass of SJW-related thinking, though they tend to perceive only a single head of the hydra initially; one might focus on PC language policing while another is more interested in "anti-fascist" violence, but they're all one and the same.



She already has a copious supply of such. I'm sure in their minds they're using what few tools they have to fire back, however misguided that might be. As for why? Because they want their voices to be heard.



I've now done so multiple times. Whether or not you agree with my perspective is immaterial.



Yet again, nor did I suggest you had. What I explained, in painstaking detail, is that is one of several reasons your argument is flawed. The initial objection is made because feminists claim to be egalitarian. It isn't logical to apply the same standard to people who don't claim their movement is egalitarian. Your argument necessarily requires both sides to make the same claim in order for the same criticism to be valid.

Let's try to simplify this.

Rex: I'm a cat!
Fido: Don't be ridiculous, you're a dog.
Rufus: Hey, you're a dog too!
Fido: Right, but I'm not a dog who thinks he's a cat, like Rex here.
Rufus: But it's just the same!

Fido covered his face with his palm and let out a deep sigh.

Does that work for you? It's not a perfect metaphor, but I believe it's more than functional.



It isn't necessary for you to do so. As long as you're implying that it's equivalent, it necessarily follows that the objection is based on an existing claim, otherwise it's a false equivalence. I actually answered that second part already. MRA is a title that also describes an action. It's a verb moreso than it is a noun. As long as it doesn't come in the form of an ideology unto itself, it's entirely compatible with egalitarianism - as is advocacy for women's rights. Many feminists who are dismissed by the more hardcore as being "wishy-washy" might gain some traction if they instead became WRAs.



That will happen when people don't grasp an idea on the first time of asking.



The outcome may be moot, the process I deem valuable.



Why do people insist on asking this question, and almost always with the same "what's the point?" phrasing? Is the intention to dissuade the other person from posting? This is a public forum on the internet. This specific board is well-known to frequent visitors as an arena of "lively" debate. If people object to having their ideas challenged here, they should find another medium upon which to express themselves. Whatever motivations I have for responding to those people whose views I disagree with, beyond the obvious fact of disagreeing with their views, are not relevant. I'm here to express my views, not to placate anyone, and I'm presumably not alone in this.

I might well ask why you're averse to having your ideas, opinions and beliefs challenged, but that would clearly be rhetorical. We may well be wasting our time, by whatever metric such things are measured, but it's ours to use as we see fit.



Questions seeking clarity are not misrepresentations. Let's revisit Fido and friends.

Rex: Do you like rap music?
Fido: Are you saying you like rap music?
Rex: Why are you misrepresenting me? I didn't say I like rap music.



"Any man" sans exclusions is equivalent to "every man". You provided no exclusions.



Did I suggest otherwise? My invitation stands. Point out where I actually directly accused you of constructing a strawman.



But not remotely close to an extraordinary claim. It easily meets the standard of "taken for granted" for the purposes of informal debate.



Who is merely arguing with feminists? Is that your perception of the MRM?



Mockery is one of the most useful tools available to counter authoritarianism. Why would anyone waste their time trying to persuade feminists to change their minds on subjects that are part of their core beliefs? You may as well try and persuade a Christian to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. When you offer opposition to a political or ideological viewpoint, the person you're opposing is the last person you're looking to convince that you're in the right.



No, it really isn't. Have you seen what happens when prominent men come under assault on social media, backed by the baying hounds of "Progressives"? Ask Tim Hunt how cooperation worked for him. For contrast, see Donald J Trump.



To what end? RadFems are just one of many groups of useful idiots. Those who are open to alternatives will find their way to them of their own volition, whilst the rest are effectively lost causes.



They're not your audience. You don't need to change yourself to appeal to people who are not your audience. In fact, this would be patently self-defeating because any change would be noticeably artificial in such circumstances.

See my previous post. I've already answered your question several times.

It's clear that debating you is a waste of time. If I answer your questions you'll just say I haven't answered for them. In that case there's no point answering them. If I provide the sources you request you'll dismiss them, even as you make claims without citing evidence such as saying I'm projecting.All you do is repeat the same things over and over again. I might as well be arguing with a broken record player.

If it makes it happy for you to interpret this as a win for you, then by all means do so. You've demonstrated that boring your opponent into quitting is an effective tactic. Anyway I'm off to find something useful or at least entertaining to do. You may waste your time analysing this post line by line if you wish.

And you were rebutted each time you made your unsubstantiated strawman claim with direct quotes from yourself. At no point have I attributed words to you that are not your own.



You've made no meaningful attempt to do such. Repeatedly declaring "strawman" when someone takes your words at their face value before adding their own perspective is not debating, it's avoidance of such. At worst you might accuse me of asking leading questions, but this is not a cross-examination.



Unless you develop the courage to test such a hypothesis, that amounts to an empty ad hominem excuse for not defending your arguments with honesty. By all means hide behind your false representation of me, but don't try to pretend it's anything other than what it is.



What case? You've made an unsupported claim about unknowable future responses from someone whose mind you are not intimately familiar with. You're admitting self-defeat without so much as kicking a ball.



If the subject at hand is vast, sweeping generalisations about MRAs or MGTOWs and your solitary example of such is stormfront, then yes, I'll dismiss it without so much as a second glance. Again, you've made no honest attempt to support your arguments with data, didn't bother to read the evidence I supplied in contradiction to your unfounded claims and you have the audacity to complain that I'm likely to ignore any actual evidence you provide.



Except you were the one who actually dismissed valid evidence without bothering to avail yourself of the data contained within it. You know, the faux pas you're accusing me of accusing in a hypothetical future scenario. That constitutes projection right there.

Further, I didn't actually say you were projecting until that previous example. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you're either unwilling or incapable of understanding words in their proper context. I informed you that I was left with no choice but to assume you were projecting as you were unable to support a churlish comment about myself and my theoretical motivations with no basis in fact.

Bizarrely, you've specifically cherry-picked it as if to prove your point, yet the quoted text doesn't support your assertion.



Note that this is a question. You insinuated that I was offended by inconsistency, based solely on the fact that I criticised you for being inconsistent. It is therefore a legitimate question to ask if you're basing this on behaviour of your own that you attribute to others. Asking you if you are projecting is not "saying [you're] projecting"

You responded with a single word answer, "nope". I responded thusly:



That is to say, you are incorrect as I am indeed to conclude that it is projection in the absence of a reasonable alternative. That's a clear invitation to offer one, or at the very least admit that you made an unsubstantiated, asinine claim.



You aren't arguing with me, you're avoiding doing so by making petty, irrelevant and unfounded criticisms. What I've primarily done, in the course of this particular discussion, is patiently respond to false accusation upon false accusation of logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks on my motives and evasion and distraction from any of the bogus arguments you made in the post I initially responded to, as well as exercising equal patience in my thorough explanations as to why I disagree with you.



Are you so shallow as to assume this is a competition of some sort?



"Boredom comes from a boring mind". Were you to actually engage yours in a bid to defend your arguments, you might surprise yourself.



Good luck with that.



Your permission to do so is neither sought nor required, though it's good to know you're aware on some level, at least, that of the two of us I'm the one investing time into comprehending the position of the other. Should you ever feel like reciprocating- except no, I'm resigned to the fact that's unlikely.

It's the view of a forest taken by a specialist in cataloguing trees who has a paralyzing fear of wild animals.

Back on topic, take the measured and perfectly rational article Schroedinger's Rapist. I saw howls of protest at the injustice towards men. Facing facts is a two way street.

The best way to discredit the right ideas about the sexist oppression of men is by preaching resentment of the people who fundamentally want fair treatment for women and men. Calling people part of a vast diabolical conspiracy stifles debate.

No shave November is a cancer support thing not a men's awareness thing. People grown their hair out to raise cancer awareness or donate to cancer organizations.

I have noticed an abundance of I <3 boobies wristbands relative to the number of I <3 cocks wristbands.

The ratio, in fact, approaches infinity.

But Movember is specifically to raise awareness of prostate cancer, because what goes together better than mustaches and prostate glands?