What's bad about men's issues?

Post Reply New Topic

I know many minorities are since it's basically the same tactic that the non-minority always try to use - which makes it so easy to see through.

Prometheus, also:

1) Your original premise was that women in the 1920s were already equal. Thus, you just admitted that you were wrong and that there have been many advancements since that time - and there still are advances to be made.

Such as:

2) I can see you skipped over Business Insider and Forbes. Wonder why.

3) No, men are ALWAYS involved in a woman getting pregnant. Women don't reproduce like amphibians - on their own. Your DAD had to impregnate your MOM and unless there was rape involved (which I highly doubt) that means a MAN without rape impregnated a WOMAN which means BOTH genders were involved.

4) "Feminine" is not defined by a woman taking on and accepting a lower standing in society to meet what men expect from them. This should be common sense: women should be able to do what they want to do and it is only women (not men) who can define what they want to be able to do. If this also isn't common sense by now - "no means no" as well, that one's a freebie.

To Chronos:

Point #4 is one of the types of things people always bring against minorities as well that people who are fighting for equal rights are "insecure" or "misled" since they can't "accept their 'God given' place" as defined by some majority. It's like fill in the blank and apply this group here. This is what makes it easy for, at the very least, minorities to easily see through it.

I wish you'd quote the passage where I contradict my original statement; I've looked over my previous post and can't kind find it. I believe that the legal position of women had reached parity with that of men in the West with their being given the vote. Since the 60s or so it is men who have been in the legally impoverished position.



I agree that i shouldn't have done so, though my intention wasn't dishonest; I merely thought I had made myself sufficiently clear on the point of business ethics - there are some inequalities here, sometimes favouring men - more often women, but this is a result of economic factors which are outside of anyone's control, and not an example of legal oppression.



Unless she was raped, a woman always consented. But in the post I think you're referring to I make clear that I also despise the sorts of men who reproduce without considering the consequences. Either way, it's the woman who has to carry the child. She may not like it, but wishing things were otherwise doesn't make it true.



I don't believe there's anything undignified about loving one's family so much as to insist on working for it permanently. Indeed I believe this to be infinitely more dignified than to race to obtain riches and "success" out of sheer egomania while neglecting one's children and husband. I don't believe such an attitude is at all feminine and, indeed, is little better than animalistic - perhaps worse. I know that if I were a woman I should have the greatest love for my husband and children, and should exert myself to the utmost for them - anything else I would consider beneath me. As a man I also consider anything else beneath a woman.

1. "Feminism had achieved all of its aims by the 1920s."

2. At men being more impoverished - . Dudes who act like we guys are victimized more than women truly make all of us look bad. Truly. It'd be like me - as a rich guy - complaining that we have it worse than the working class; self-obsessed plutocrats do believe that despite it being the farthest thing from the case.

3. It doesn't matter who carries the child, both men and women play a role in pregnancy which means both share the responsibility. This is all really common sense in the modern age.

4. Again men cannot tell women what they can and cannot do, that is sexism.

5. Seriously, good luck with finding someone, man. Final post since this is too circular and it's clear you would have loved living in the 1920s for very obvious reasons.

I don't think feminism, humanism or *cringe* MRAs have achieved any of the equality they claim to support.

To an extent I disagree on emphasis here on one point - there are far more men who'd shag anything that walks, but speaking of both - how would one enforce such in a free country with a bill of rights? You can argue maybe, to some effect, that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was right about the problems with the Great Society, that it may have even to some extent been intended to have racist consequences (which I think is a credible possibility considering that this was even ten years or so before the crack epidemic), and maybe they should consider restructuring it to keep the fathers in the home. We could get a lot of mileage out of solving problems that we simply haven't had the political will to solve, if we could find the political will, but that's a big if.

There are a few levels that you need to think about this on. One is that nature is ice-cold, and our genetic drives have little or no positive correlation with long-term happiness aside from their occasional relief. Another challenge is that male and female drives and priorities are somewhat counterpoised against one another, partially perhaps as a sort of quality control that arose naturally but it's one where both sexes can be carried away on cocaine rafts each to their own programming - for men a really obvious example might be infinite free porn, with women there's the perfect deal of provision by the state without a man. I'm not even sure those are both the best or only salient examples, just that both gender's goal vulnerability can be exploited, sometimes politically and sometimes through corporate advertising and mass marketing, but its probably fair to say that there's a lot floating around out there that's really beneficial to political parties keeping power for another four to six years, or companies selling cheap products continuing to make money, that has either no constructive effect on society or even has pernicious/destructive effects.


I worry that we'd have to go through some incredibly dark times, like nicking the edges of our own extinction, before we got over ourselves enough to consider that we do need a unifying metaphysic or unified code of conduct that keeps us from running off into the gutter. Once society can't keep that from happening, and to an extent deconstruction and rapid technological change has smashed a lot of that apparatus, it almost has to just run its course until people are sickened enough by the results that there's consensus agreement that we need to pull back from the edge somehow.

That's precisely why it hasn't made any advancements since.



I believe everybody is worse off in society. On the front of sexes, men are slightly worse off than women, but I don't really see this as important. I believe in human beings rather than sexes, races, nationalities and so forth. These divisions only serve to weaken and disunite us, which is why big business (which really runs the world) is so keen to keep us obsessing over identity politics.




Yes, which is why neither sex should be encouraged to reproduce at the cost of the next generation, but it's the woman who must take maternity leave as a result, which was the original issue.



Again, the distinction here between the two sexes is a spurious one. There are women who hold my views as well as men.




Thank you, but I do not hold high hopes. I would much rather have been around in the 20s.

What’s bad about men’s issues?

The way they’re presented, and the way they’re discussed.

I agree that humanity's chances are slim - and getting slimmer, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort.

But, don't you know? We guys are the ones who are the most oppressed! We are in control of most of the seats of power in this country and we're paid more, but the system is against US guys! !!

Women's roles are in the kitchen and they should have the sole responsibility for child rearing due to getting pregnant - no man did that to them, they did that on their own! Women had it better in the 1920s when they had few job opportunities, less pay, could be harassed by potential employers and their husbands, and couldn't get their own line of credit!

Their subservience to us is actually female empowerment because that is what they're meant to be so says I as a guy who loves women. They're creatures that should be treated delicately whether they like it or not. Anything else is an assault on all men and any women who tries to not be subservient is just being misled since that is for their own good!

(all of the above is sarcasm)

Then guys wonder why they can't get dates.

I hate that these kinds of guys give us a terrible reputation that's only getting worse. It's like Andy Kaufman's wrestling comedy routine, but for real rather than for satire.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 23 Sep 2018, 4:26 pm, edited 9 times in total.

I don't know if we're as bad off as we would be if massive social media censorship were enacted, ie. to ensure tripe and discourage/remove uncomfortable but necessary conversation.

Where I think we are is a place where we need to really get good at sorting out who uses information to get at and best approximate truth, who uses it only instrumentally to serve personal goals, and tell that last group from people who might be struggling to find truth but doing so poorly or while still holding onto one form of cherished dogma or another.

While we're on the topic of men's issues, I think the Men's Discussion sub forum should be brought back so we can talk about the issues that we have.

Your opinion is not my reality. I'd give my two eye teeth to serve on the front lines and I'm no weakling either.

Yes, I think materially we're better off now than at any time in the past, but spiritually and morally the opposite is true.


I don't see the point you're trying to make here.

Now people are talking about feminism and what women get and should and shouldn't be able to do instead of men's issues.

Isn't that always the case?

(rhetorical, know the answer is yes - the odd thing is that some can't see that this is the case)