It's hard being a man.

The King of Moo

py2006 wrote: »

This thread and others similar to it demonstrate how difficult it is for men to bring up issues relating to men. It is met with the provocative and dismissive attitude from the, "grow a pair and get over it" brigade.

Admittedly, AH is probably the wrong place for it.

I don't think there's too much of an attitude like that.

These issues are often brought up in different threads, and the general reaction is "Yes, I know about that, it's terrible that these forms of discrimination exist. But what would you like me to do about it?"

I think some users get frustrated and take that for dismissal, and then the issue comes up again and the cycle repeats itself.

Everyone's aware of the situations mentioned by the OP and others. That's why I don't think there's much need for discussion or awareness-raising. Also, changes are happening. More men are reporting domestic and sexual abuse, and they're becoming normalised subjects, not ones that are laughed at.

For outstanding issues, political action is what's needed.

Just don't dress up in superhero outfits outside Leinster House.

leggo

I said this in the thread on discrimination against women and it has happened here also: people try and use discrimination against the other gender as a basis for dismissing the facts at hand.

Why does one gender need to suffer more for it to be examined as a serious subject? Do men have to commit suicide twice as much as women to be taken seriously?

They are two separate discussions. Both of which have perfectly valid points worthy of being examined individually. Saying that women have it harder than men is irrelevant here, we're discussing the merits of male discrimination, not who has it worse.

Fromthetrees

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Oh dear

Fathers have no rights from the moment their child is born, I think your kind of agreeing with me. My point is I'm just pointing out some basic inequalities that men face, and they do, I just don't think you want to accept it.

Damokc

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Men die younger.

Blame God for that one

:rolleyes:

Fromthetrees

The King of Moo wrote: »

I don't think there's too much of an attitude like that.

These issues are often brought up in different threads, and the general reaction is "Yes, I know about that, it's terrible that these forms of discrimination exist. But what would you like me to do about it?"

I think some users get frustrated and take that for dismissal, and then the issue comes up again and the cycle repeats itself.

Everyone's aware of the situations mentioned by the OP and others. That's why I don't think there's much need for discussion or awareness-raising. Also, changes are happening. More men are reporting domestic and sexual abuse, and they're becoming normalised subjects, not ones that are laughed at.

For outstanding issues, political action is what's needed.

Just don't dress up in superhero outfits outside Leinster House.

I think that most people have no idea about family law, and in many cases it can be too late for a father to do anything about getting his children back when he does find out he has no automatic rights. No hyperbole, just facts.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sad-day-as-eu-court-rules-father-has-no-custody-rights-132735.html

Spread

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Men die younger.

Blame God for that one

Another anti religious post in disguise

hondasam

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Fathers have no rights from the moment their child is born, I think your kind of agreeing with me. My point is I'm just pointing out some basic inequalities that men face, and they do, I just don't think you want to accept it.

How do you think this should be changed?
Parents often end up arguing over kids and who gets access, for some it's just a way to get at each other. I know it's not the same for all parents btw.
In an ideal world children will live with both parents but the child's happiness should be the priority for both parents, how do you propose they share the kids equally without causing damage to the children in the long run.

The King of Moo

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I think that most people have no idea about family law, and in many cases it can be too late for a father to do anything about getting his children back when he does find out he has no automatic rights. No hyperbole, just facts.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sad-day-as-eu-court-rules-father-has-no-custody-rights-132735.html

Most everyone seems to be aware of it in every thread it's brought up in on this forum. Again, the sexism thread was a perfect example. It's also an issue that gets a fair bit of media attention.

I do sympathise with you to an extent: there is some anti-male discrimination out there. I'm just not sure how useful a thread like this is.

Damokc wrote: »

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Madam_X

All totally valid concerns and depressing realities, but how do these specific areas in which men face discrimination (i.e. not all areas - by a long shot) which affect not all men make it "hard being a man"? If the title were "It's hard being an estranged unmarried father" I would fully agree. Or if the title was "It's hard being a teenage boy deemed a sex offender because of having consensual sex with a girl the same age" ditto.

Men die younger/higher rate of male suicide - these are forms of discrimination?

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Men definitely lead harder lives.

How? Not that women lead harder lives either - in the West anyway. It's about equal from what I can see.

Drake66

So we can say, subject to other statistics being presented, that men are overwhelmingly more likely to die by suicide than women; and that young men being significantly more at risk than any other age group is not a myth?

Fromthetrees

hondasam wrote: »

How do you think this should be changed?
Parents often end up arguing over kids and who gets access, for some it's just a way to get at each other. I know it's not the same for all parents btw.
In an ideal world children will live with both parents but the child's happiness should be the priority for both parents, how do you propose they share the kids equally without causing damage to the children in the long run.

A. Children do best when the time spent with each parent is as close to 50% as practically possible;

B. Children of divorce/separation do better with shared parenting than with any other structure, including living with their mother and a step dad;

C. Badmouthing behavior which, can alienate the children from the other parent, is very damaging; and

D. Children do best when the divorced/separated parents live close to each other.

I wish judges and politicians would come at the issue from a different perspective instead of the man is bad angle which in reality is the default situation that faces fathers.

Madam_X

Drake66 wrote: »

So we can say, subject to other statistics being presented, that men are overwhelmingly more likely to die by suicide than women; and that young men being significantly more at risk than any other age group is not a myth?

Did someone say it is?

gara

I think both men and women experience discrimination but the media pounce on it more and turn it into a sob story when it's against a woman

Drake66

Onixx wrote: »

Did someone say it is?

Post 7

pragmatic1

Onixx wrote: »

All totally valid concerns and depressing realities, but how do these specific areas in which men face discrimination (i.e. not all areas - by a long shot) which affect not all men make it "hard being a man"? If the title were "It's hard being an estranged unmarried father" I would fully agree. Or if the title was "It's hard being a teenage boy deemed a sex offender because of having consensual sex with a girl the same age" ditto.

Men die younger/higher rate of male suicide - these are forms of discrimination?

How? Not that women lead harder lives either - in the West anyway. It's about equal from what I can see.

We die younger, are more likely to die from diseases than women, don't have the same level of social supports that women have, have to be strong and silent even in the most stressful circumstances, disproportionately victims of violent crimes, the education system is more female-centric, genetic conditions tend to be more pronounced in males than females, more likely to die violently, not as emotionally stable as women, etc.

hatrickpatrick

py2006 wrote: »

Unfortunately this is true to a certain extent as well. I only really became aware of this through Boards. There are been a few posters on Boards that just jump in and try to ridicule men for bringing up such topics or try to twist it into women have it worse etc etc.

Believe it or not, I've actually been accused of being a misogynist on this forum, after I pointed out that the state institution of marriage and divorce laws are hugely unfair to men in a similar debate a year or two ago. As should probably be clear from my comments in threads about dating, nightclubs etc, this couldn't be further from the truth.

You really can't win.

Ole Rodrigo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y

The King of Moo

pragmatic1 wrote: »

We die younger, are more likely to die from diseases than women, don't have the same level of social supports that women have, have to be strong and silent even in the most stressful circumstances, disproportionately victims of violent crimes, the education system is more female-centric, genetic conditions tend to be more pronounced in males than females, more likely to die violently, not as emotionally stable as women, etc.

Who says we have to? That's an old-fashioned stereotype. Also, lots of that (life expectancy, violent deaths, genetic conditions) can't really be attributed to discrimination.

And what would you like us to do about these issues? They're all pretty common knowledge. Except for the stuff that's wrong that I didn't notice at first, like men being less emotionally-stable than women.

Madam_X

- Look after your health better

- No man "has to be" strong and silent

- How is the education system more female-centric?

- Women are more emotionally stable than men? Surely it's about equal?

Many of the examples you give are worst-case scenarios - dying violently, more likely to be a victim of a violent crime (men are more likely to get into fights - not saying it's right, but they are), genetic conditions; if those are realities, I'm not dismissing them, but they do not mean everyday, run-of-the-mill life is harder for men.

The "We have it worse than you" stuff from a few men on this board is baffling...

hondasam

Fromthetrees wrote: »

A. Children do best when the time spent with each parent is as close to 50% as practically possible;

Hardly fair on the child is it living between two homes. It is not practical for very young children imo.

B. Children of divorce/separation do better with shared parenting than with any other structure, including living with their mother and a step dad

;

I don't disagree kids need both parents but it's not always practical.

C. Badmouthing behavior which, can alienate the children from the other parent, is very damaging; and

Yes I agree but unfortunately it's what happens when some relationships end.

D. Children do best when the divorced/separated parents live close to each other.

Again parents don't always think of the children when relationships end and some parents are unwilling to compromise.

I wish judges and politicians would come at the issue from a different perspective instead of the man is bad angle which in reality is the default situation that faces fathers.

I'm not sure judges and politicians think all men are bad. How would you like to see it changed?

py2006

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Believe it or not, I've actually been accused of being a misogynist on this forum, after I pointed out that the state institution of marriage and divorce laws are hugely unfair to men in a similar debate a year or two ago. As should probably be clear from my comments in threads about dating, nightclubs etc, this couldn't be further from the truth.

You really can't win.

You will be surprised the amount of times misogyny is suggested. There is a particular poster that should arrive any time soon. :rolleyes:

Fromthetrees

The King of Moo wrote: »

Most everyone seems to be aware of it in every thread it's brought up in on this forum. Again, the sexism thread was a perfect example. It's also an issue that gets a fair bit of media attention.

I do sympathise with you to an extent: there is some anti-male discrimination out there. I'm just not sure how useful a thread like this is.

I think most people don't know about it anyway. I don't think it gets enough media attention and the point of the thread is just to have a conversation about it. Break down a few wrong preconceptions that people have, I think it's worked on that level already.

Also, most Irish people on the net are not on boards, maybe someday someone will type in unmarried fathers into google and find a conversation like this and it will help them without even having to write a message, most people who read boards are lurkers who've never posted here just so you know.

I shouldn't have to justify the thread in my opinion, but, that's actually part of the problem I guess.

pragmatic1

The King of Moo wrote: »

Who says we have to? That's an old-fashioned stereotype. Also, lots of that (life expectancy, violent deaths, genetic conditions) can't really be attributed to discrimination.

And what would you like us to do about these issues? They're all pretty common knowledge.

Its pretty much self imposed.

I was asked by a poster how men have harder lives.

I'm not really bothered that anything is done about these issues, with the exception of mens health.

christmas2012

''So we can say, subject to other statistics being presented, that men are overwhelmingly more likely to die by suicide than women''

How is that discriminitory?

Piste

Fromthetrees wrote: »

A. Children do best when the time spent with each parent is as close to 50% as practically possible;

B. Children of divorce/separation do better with shared parenting than with any other structure, including living with their mother and a step dad;

C. Badmouthing behavior which, can alienate the children from the other parent, is very damaging; and

D. Children do best when the divorced/separated parents live close to each other.

I wish judges and politicians would come at the issue from a different perspective instead of the man is bad angle which in reality is the default situation that faces fathers.

Just wondering where you heard that? I'm doing research in this area so it would be nice to see if comparable research has been done in other areas.

pragmatic1 wrote: »

We die younger

A lot of that is due to the fact that Heart Disease is the number one cause of death in Ireland (source) and oestrogen is cardio-protective in women. Campaigns to promote cardiovascular health are gender-neutral, so that's not really due to discrimination, moreso genetics.

pragmatic1 wrote: »

don't have the same level of social supports that women have, have to be strong and silent even in the most stressful circumstances

This is particularly problematic and based moreso on a pervasive culture of men not sharing their feelings. It's not so much discrimination as a cultural phenomenon. That's not to say it's a good thing, of course it should be changed, but the only people who can really do that are men themselves.

pragmatic1 wrote: »

disproportionately victims of violent crimes

Also disproportionately aggressors of violent crimes

pragmatic1 wrote: »

the education system is more female-centric

That's true, mainly because girls mature faster than boys so a 17 year old girl will have more drive and focus than a 17 year old boy and so succeed in school a lot more. I'm not so sure what can be done to change this. Maybe have boys sit the LC a year or two later? I can't imagine pupils would be too happy about this though.

pragmatic1 wrote: »

genetic conditions tend to be more pronounced in males than females

Not discrimination, unless you think the second X chromosome is a female conspiracy!

pragmatic1 wrote: »

more likely to die violently

Again, more likely to involve themselves in violent behaviour, which is a personal choice.

pragmatic1 wrote: »

not as emotionally stable as women

I don't know about this one, sure men have testosterone making them aggressive and short-tempered, but women's hormones can make them equally as emotionally labile.

Shenshen

Fromthetrees wrote: »

A. Children do best when the time spent with each parent is as close to 50% as practically possible;

B. Children of divorce/separation do better with shared parenting than with any other structure, including living with their mother and a step dad;

C. Badmouthing behavior which, can alienate the children from the other parent, is very damaging; and

D. Children do best when the divorced/separated parents live close to each other.

I wish judges and politicians would come at the issue from a different perspective instead of the man is bad angle which in reality is the default situation that faces fathers.

I disagree, and I honestly have no words to say how much I disagree.

Yes, in some situation, shared custody might be best. But most definitely, and I cannot stress this enough, most definitely not in all situations.

In my own case, my parents separated when I was in my early teens. And I thank fortune every day of my life that they did, and that they had the honesty and decency not to drag custody to court, but to simply ASK their 3 children which way they would feel happiest.
I have not seen my father since that day, and am grateful for that. My brothers will occasionally visit him, but we all 3 decided to stay with our mother.

This whole debate infuriates me beyond words. Custody should never, NEVER ever be about the rights of any one parent. It should be only about the rights of the children, and nobody else.

Statistcs shoud never be brought into any discussion about the rights of any one individual, as they are utterly meaningless for any individual's situation.

hatrickpatrick

Onixx wrote: »

- How is the education system more female-centric?

Controversial viewpoint here, but IMO, the rapidly increasing levels of ADHD and ADD diagnosis in young boys in the West is a result of the female way of thinking being taken as the "norm" or "standard", and boys being judged against that benchmark.

The simple fact that young boys are full of energy and detest sitting still and doing the same thing for extended periods of time - a fact which goes back to the dawn of the human race - seems to be considered irrelevant now.

This goes beyond male/female issues by the way, the insane amount of psychological diagnosis of children, particularly boys, worries me on an incredibly deep level. We're raising a generation of labelled kids who'll grow up thinking there's something wrong with them at least, or at worst, be actively medicated.

I'm not denying that AD(H)D is a real condition, but to suggest that a 12 year old boy has something wrong with him because he'd rather play football than sit inside for hours is ludicrous. At no point in history have young boys actually enjoyed sitting in classrooms for hours, why is it suddenly being treated as some kind of abnormality?

ADD aside, there are other factors such as the emphasis on rote learning and others which appeal more to how girls learn. I read an article about this a few months ago, if I can find it I'll post a link here.

The King of Moo

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Its pretty much self imposed.

I was asked by a poster how men have harder lives.

I'm not really bothered that anything is done about these issues, with the exception of mens health.

By some men, but not all.

I don't think men have harder lives than women overall. There's discrimination in Ireland against both, as well as discrimination against other, non-gender specific demographics, but I don't think one gender has it noticeably harder than the other.
It doesn't mean men can't do something to stop discrimination agaisnt them. I just don't see the point in trying to figure out who's more discriminated against.

3ndahalfof6

who da man you da man, wemon had it bad long enough

hatrickpatrick

py2006 wrote: »

You will be surprised the amount of times misogyny is suggested. The is a particular poster that should arrive any time soon. :rolleyes:

Trying to guess, could be any one of several :P

I just find it a bit laughable since I spend to much time in other threads actually speaking out against the woman bashing that goes on in a lot of the threads about nights out
Apparently I suddenly become a psychopathic misogynist when I suggest that divorce laws give women a disproportionate amount of leverage if a relationship goes bad.

Madam_X

py2006 wrote: »

You will be surprised the amount of times misogyny is suggested. The is a particular poster that should arrive any time soon. :rolleyes:

Well, to be fair, I've seen noticeable levels of discussion finding/looking for faults among women in the last few weeks on this forum.
This isn't a woman-bashing thread but it wouldn't surprise me if it became one. A scan through the forum today also brings up "Do women have all the power?", a thread about what to do when a woman is scorned, and a thread about desperate women in their 30s.

Given the above, is it really so unreasonable for women here to feel a degree of hostility directed towards them?

nailvarnish16

Girls have periods, pregnancy, horrible diets and having to look perfect all the time but guys dont have any of those things going on so you've nothing to complain about

The King of Moo

py2006 wrote: »

You will be surprised the amount of times misogyny is suggested. The is a particular poster that should arrive any time soon. :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Trying to guess, could be any one of several :P

I just find it a bit laughable since I spend to much time in other threads actually speaking out against the woman bashing that goes on in a lot of the threads about nights out
Apparently I suddenly become a psychopathic misogynist when I suggest that divorce laws give women a disproportionate amount of leverage if a relationship goes bad.

83 posts in and still waiting for the misogyny accusations.

:rolleyes:

nailvarnish16 wrote: »

Girls have periods, pregnancy, horrible diets and having to look perfect all the time but guys dont have any of those things going on so you've nothing to complain about

In fairness, I do try to look perfect all the time, and usually succeed.

Madam_X

nailvarnish16 wrote: »

Girls have periods, pregnancy, horrible diets and having to look perfect all the time but guys dont have any of those things going on so you've nothing to complain about

Ah men do have stuff to complain about. Plus, girls don't have horrible diets or the need to look perfect all the time. And it's untrue men don't feel pressured to look good.
It's not a contest - why are some people so anxious to make it one?

3ndahalfof6

nailvarnish16 wrote: »

Girls have periods, pregnancy, horrible diets and having to look perfect all the time but guys dont have any of those things going on so you've nothing to complain about

only for a few years.

hatrickpatrick

Onixx wrote: »

A scan through the forum today also brings up "Do women have all the power?"

That's not a misogynist threads, it's a lighthearted discussion about sexual politics.
See this is what I mean, the word "misogyny" is thrown around so lightly these days it's lost all meaning. Describing that thread as misogynist is like describing someone as a racist because he or she disapproves of affirmative action. Tone it down a bit, and people might take it a bit more seriously, but one is not a misogynist for merely questioning double standards in society.

Would anyone accuse a woman of being a misandrist for challenging the slut/stud double standard? No, of course not.

The King of Moo

Onixx wrote: »

Ah men do have stuff to complain about. Plus, girls don't have horrible diets or the need to look perfect all the time. And it's untrue men don't feel pressured to look good.
It's not a contest - why are some people so anxious to make it one?

I think it's a natural setting for lots of people on an internet forum to try to "win." I find myself thinking that way a little myself sometimes.

Shenshen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...
I'm not denying that AD(H)D is a real condition, but to suggest that a 12 year old boy has something wrong with him because he'd rather play football than sit inside for hours is ludicrous. At no point in history have young boys actually enjoyed sitting in classrooms for hours, why is it suddenly being treated as some kind of abnormality?

ADD aside, there are other factors such as the emphasis on rote learning and others which appeal more to how girls learn. I read an article about this a few months ago, if I can find it I'll post a link here.

I've heard this before, but I can't help wondering: The system of education hasn't changed in centuries, possibly millenia. Students sit in a classroom and receive instructions. And for centuries, this seems to have worked reasonably well for boys. Considering that for most of this time, boys would have been the only one receiving instructions, surely it would have been changed back then if the inate nature of boys made them so unsuitable for this way of learning?

So why all of a sudden, when girls have now been receiving the same education for a few decades, is it deemed unsuitable for boys, but tailor-made for girls?
Why would this explain why girls perform better than boys?

The King of Moo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's not a misogynist threads, it's a lighthearted discussion about sexual politics.
See this is what I mean, the word "misogyny" is thrown around so lightly these days it's lost all meaning. Describing that thread as misogynist is like describing someone as a racist because he or she disapproves of affirmative action. Tone it down a bit, and people might take it a bit more seriously, but one is not a misogynist for merely questioning double standards in society.

Would anyone accuse a woman of being a misandrist for challenging the slut/stud double standard? No, of course not.

I think you and py2006 are the only people using the term, imagining misandry where it doesn't exist.

Madam_X

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Controversial viewpoint here, but IMO, the rapidly increasing levels of ADHD and ADD diagnosis in young boys in the West is a result of the female way of thinking being taken as the "norm" or "standard", and boys being judged against that benchmark.

The simple fact that young boys are full of energy and detest sitting still and doing the same thing for extended periods of time - a fact which goes back to the dawn of the human race - seems to be considered irrelevant now.

This goes beyond male/female issues by the way, the insane amount of psychological diagnosis of children, particularly boys, worries me on an incredibly deep level. We're raising a generation of labelled kids who'll grow up thinking there's something wrong with them at least, or at worst, be actively medicated.

I'm not denying that AD(H)D is a real condition, but to suggest that a 12 year old boy has something wrong with him because he'd rather play football than sit inside for hours is ludicrous. At no point in history have young boys actually enjoyed sitting in classrooms for hours, why is it suddenly being treated as some kind of abnormality?

That's female-centric... how?

I was fully sure boys who were too boisterous in class fifty years ago often got a sound hiding from... the "christian" brothers.

And has anyone actually said it's abnormal for a boy to prefer playing football to sitting in a classroom? Isn't it much more disruptive tendencies than that which lead to ADD/ADHD diagnoses?

py2006

The King of Moo wrote: »

83 posts in and still waiting for the misogyny accusations.

:rolleyes:

The King of Moo wrote: »

I think you and py2006 are the only people using the term, imagining misandry where it doesn't exist.

The suggestion of misogyny was in reference to other threads. As I said, the usual culprit/s haven't arrived here yet!

leggo

Shenshen wrote: »

I disagree, and I honestly have no words to say how much I disagree.

Yes, in some situation, shared custody might be best. But most definitely, and I cannot stress this enough, most definitely not in all situations.

In my own case, my parents separated when I was in my early teens. And I thank fortune every day of my life that they did, and that they had the honesty and decency not to drag custody to court, but to simply ASK their 3 children which way they would feel happiest.
I have not seen my father since that day, and am grateful for that. My brothers will occasionally visit him, but we all 3 decided to stay with our mother.

This whole debate infuriates me beyond words. Custody should never, NEVER ever be about the rights of any one parent. It should be only about the rights of the children, and nobody else.

Statistcs shoud never be brought into any discussion about the rights of any one individual, as they are utterly meaningless for any individual's situation.

I respect that viewpoint but I'm sure you can also appreciate that your own individual situation, while perfectly valid and worth considering, cannot thus speak for or affect the general laws for everyone. It is but one scenario. Your obviously poor relationship with your father could be another person's poor relationship with their mother. It isn't a man vs woman issue.

And there is simply no good reason for unmarried men to be discriminated against on the matter of custody. There is no valid evidence to say that single mothers are better equipped to look after children than single fathers (apart from the fact that they currently have better rights of custody).

I agree that children's rights are key here above the parents'. But statistics and research are completely necessary to figure out a workable solution to the problem, else you end up where we are with a completely generalised, gender-based law.

Madam_X

py2006 wrote: »

The suggestion of misogyny was in reference to other threads. As I said, the usual culprit/s haven't arrived here yet!

But as I was asking, you can perhaps see where the defensiveness comes from? Given the group of threads here blatantly or subtly putting down women today alone?

The King of Moo

py2006 wrote: »

The suggestion of misogyny was in reference to other threads. As I said, the usual culprit/s haven't arrived here yet!

Let's not hold our breath. If any posters come in here accusing people of being misogynistic when they aren't, I'm sure they'll be tackled for being wrong.

But they're not here now, so there's no point imagining hypothetical situations where they do post. It just unnecessarily raises the levels of antagonism and puts people on the defensive. There's no-one throwing around accusations of misogyny now, so let's just be happy with that.

pragmatic1

Onixx wrote: »

But as I was asking, you can perhaps see where the defensiveness comes from? Given the group of threads here blatantly or subtly putting down women today alone?

How exactly has this thread been "putting down women"?

Madam_X

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's not a misogynist thread

I didn't say it was.

it's a lighthearted discussion about sexual politics.

Reading through it, plenty of it looks anything but light-hearted.

See this is what I mean, the word "misogyny" is thrown around so lightly these days it's lost all meaning. Describing that thread as misogynist is like describing someone as a racist because he or she disapproves of affirmative action.

But I didn't say it was a misogynistic thread...

I just said there is hostility towards women here from a small few (NOT the vast, vast majority) - and was able to give examples from today alone.

Would anyone accuse a woman of being a misandrist for challenging the slut/stud double standard? No, of course not.

They'd just say that brain-dead thing about the lock and key.

Diego Maradona

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

who da man you da man, wemon had it bad long enough

lol wut?

py2006

Onixx wrote: »

But as I was asking, you can perhaps see where the defensiveness comes from? Given the group of threads here blatantly or subtly putting down women today alone?

I am not aware of them or how they relate to this thread. I was merely agreeing with that poster who spoke of his experiences of being accused of misogyny. It is a word thrown at men once they even remotely question that attitude/actions etc of a particular woman or section of women.

hondasam

Onixx wrote: »

But as I was asking, you can perhaps see where the defensiveness comes from? Given the group of threads here blatantly or subtly putting down women today alone?

You sound just like Dudess.

Daveysil15

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If you lack balls it is hard being a man.

Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take quite a pounding.