Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Having read the article now (thanks Wibbs) it is just a car crash of a piece and to mix suicide into it was just weird. One would think the family man who is into car restoration or what not is a happy chap yet this harpy thinks its her business to poke them. The jurno no doubt is a cliched feminist, not married and no kids, yet thinks she is qualified to tell everyone else how to live their lives

Good of you to eventually read the article who's headline was enough to trigger a response.

So after posting a terrible article that you hadn't actually read until provoked to do so, what did you thinking the message about men's sheds?

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Good of you to eventually read the article who's headline was enough to trigger a response.

So after posting a terrible article that you hadn't actually read until provoked to do so, what did you thinking the message about men's sheds?

It's an interesting way to ask a question if you genuinely want a response: sentence one berate the poster, sentence two berate the poster some more, then ask them a question.

One would almost think you're more interested in baiting the poster into an unproductive row.

Just saying is all.

Wibbs

maybe

silverharp wrote: »

Having read the article now (thanks Wibbs) it is just a car crash of a piece and to mix suicide into it was just weird.

Weird indeed S, but not a surprise coming from this busted philosophy. Though for me all of this nonsense peddled by these idiots and hacks is summed up in that previously linked/picture to another article on the site. By the same writer.

With a slightly unfortunate placement and cropping of the neon letters in the background(one hopes it was intentional. if it was, fair bloody play :-) ).

I mean just drink that in if you will. If you want to see how far up its own arse this right on stuff goes you've got your all in one yardstick right there. A picture paints a thousand idiots.

Masculinity bad, if even definable. Half the time their whinge in search of an argument is that masculinity isn't definable. That instead it is a culturally defined and imposed thing. But they agree it's bad. Oh yes. Very bad. Toxic even. For men, who might be kinda expected to represent the word, given it's from the latin for man. But as we note they appear to have different dictionaries, where caves are "degrading". However in their cognitively dissonant worldview it's a source of pride and "stunning" and apparently definable, even stereotypical for women? One such interviewee notes she's happiest "remaining true to [her] authentic masculine presenting self". Authentic too. Oh yes. Authentic masculinity is a positive for women.

Imagine them reading an article entitled "12 stunning portraits of "macho" men who are proud to be masculine"? Where a man said he was happiest reaming true to his authentic macho masculine presenting self. They'd have a collective sh1tfit and mass attack of the vapours and accuse it of being toxic and misogynist. They'd certainly not see it as something to be celebrated or "authentic". Quite the opposite.

This progressive, feminist, intersectional social justice stuff is the parody that writes itself. That so many think it so valid a philosophy and that it gets this much mainstream exposure and apparently enough avid readers is... well I dunno what it is TBH.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

It's an interesting way to ask a question if you genuinely want a response: sentence one berate the poster, sentence two berate the poster some more, then ask them a question.

One would almost think you're more interested in baiting the poster into an unproductive row.

Just saying is all.

Maybe you're right.

The were 2 points which should have been spaced out. It's surely worth noting that it was a newsdump where the poster hadn't even planed to read the article. Posted in a thread about sexism personally experienced or heard of. So the headline was enough for the poster to experience sexism? That's precious by any standard and would surely have been noticed in another context.

The second part is the question about the men's sheds movement which gets lots of attention and positive coverage. Its the same thing a lot of posters say about the men's shed movement and it's positively highlighting a place for men to gather together. That hasn't really even been a acknowledged on all the analysts so far.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Posted in a thread about sexism personally experienced or heard of. So the headline was enough for the poster to experience sexism?

I set up a separate thread on examples of sexism against men that were not personal experiences but it was decided that this thread would cover both

See for example:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88692671&postcount=875

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Posted in a thread about sexism personally experienced or heard of. So the headline was enough for the poster to experience sexism?

I set up a separate thread on examples of sexism against men that were not personal experiences but it was decided that this thread would cover both

See for example:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88692671&postcount=875

Noted. And is it normal to post screenshot of a newspaper headline without any intention to read the article or give an opinion in it's contents?

It's a side issue anyway. Nobody has an opinion on the portion of the article that gushes over the men's shed movement and discusses the importance of men socialising and having places to socialise together?

At the same time it won't be long before posters are back saying that feminists try to stop men socialising together etc.

I think you're the only poster so far to even acknowledge the articles support for the men's shed movement. While at the same time saying that feminists haven't been supportive of these things in the past. I'd have thought more people would be Happy to see progress.

DamoKen

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe you're right.

Posted in a thread about sexism personally experienced or heard of. So the headline was enough for the poster to experience sexism? That's precious by any standard and would surely have been noticed in another context.

Might be worth reading the mod note on post 1 of this thread. It's not up to you to decide what is or isn't fit for inclusion here. It's bad enough that you seem to have made it your mission to derail any worthwhile thread in this forum, to belittle any poster you disagree with (i.e. whinge, moan, precious), to minimise and misrepresent any post that falls outside your very rigid viewpoint without now dictating what can be posted.

El_Duderino 09

DamoKen wrote: »

Might be worth reading the mod note on post 1 of this thread. It's not up to you to decide what is or isn't fit for inclusion here. It's bad enough that you seem to have made it your mission to derail any worthwhile thread in this forum, to belittle any poster you disagree with (i.e. whinge, moan, precious), to minimise and misrepresent any post that falls outside your very rigid viewpoint without now dictating what can be posted.

Im not dictating anything up anyone. Not am I telling anyone what to post.
I brought attention to the fact that the poster hadn't read the article and only posted a screenshot of the headline. I fail to see why pointing that out is controversial.

Anyway, we're getting off topic. Not going along with the crowd seems to be enough to 'derail' the thread. I've asked a few times what people think of the message about the men's sheds movement in the article and it seems that nobody has an opinion on it beyond the bits of the article that they disagreed with.
Did you have an opinion on the article?

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've asked a few times what people think of...

You reap what you sow.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've asked a few times what people think of...

You reap what you sow.

Lol. I suppose you do. If you're not willing to take offended at anything that discusses men, it does t go over as well.

One big advantage to not engaging with the positive message from the article, the message that chymes almost perfectly with the views often expressed on these forums, is the ability to feint ignorance in the future. So before long the topic will resurrect, of men not having enough male friends and men having nowhere to hang out with other men. And the blame will be laid squarely on the feminists etc. Blame will be safely out of the reach of men who could actually do anything about it. Even when presented with an article that gushes over the men's shed movement the focus is solely on the triggers, and not at all o the positive content. That way the responsibility is on giving out about the other side rather than actually having to do anything about solving the problem.

Engaging with the topic beyond the triggers seems to be asking too much.

Rinse and repeat.

Calhoun

If i may interject i think it is right that we should constantly challenge our ideals, group think and circle jerking are never a good thing and end up causing more problems in the long run than they solve.

However saying that if i am to be blunt your delivery Duderino is lacking, you come across as someone who doesn't really like this forum and only wants to talk down to the folk that post in it. So while for the most part you bring up some very valid points you get the backs up of allot of the other posters hence why even if they did agree with you on parts of what they say they are unlikely to say it.

So yes we should always challenge ourselves and question everything but to use a boards phrase post like a dick and you wont win many friends.

Important to note that above is just an observation, i see what you do as being valuable but i also can see why people are getting annoyed which is why i say it.

El_Duderino 09

Calhoun wrote:

If i may interject i think it is right that we should constantly challenge our ideals, group think and circle jerking are never a good thing and end up causing more problems in the long run than they solve.

However saying that if i am to be blunt your delivery Duderino is lacking, you come across as someone who doesn't really like this forum and only wants to talk down to the folk that post in it. So while for the most part you bring up some very valid points you get the backs up of allot of the other posters hence why even if they did agree with you on parts of what they say they are unlikely to say it.

So yes we should always challenge ourselves and question everything but to use a boards phrase post like a dick and you wont win many friends.

Important to note that above is just an observation, i see what you do as being valuable but i also can see why people are getting annoyed which is why i say it.

Thanks for the honesty. My delivery mirrors that of lots of posters but the difference is that I'm not going along with the crowd. There's no objection to calling someone a 'full retard', in fact it's celebrated as long as it's lobbing a grenade at the other side. Since you brought it up, I would say my delivery is tamer than a lot of the posters and certainly never as vitriolic as some of the responses directed at me but I don't complain.

The idea that people would refuse to acknowledge a good point or go out of their way to disagree with an opinion they actually hold but felt the need to fight it because they disagree with the delivery, shows that the commitment isn't to supporting the cause, it's more about opposing the other side.

The inclination to get offended by the any slight stands in the way of men getting together to deal with the issues that actually matter to men. This article headline that was posted was a knee jerk offense reflex. I'm not saying the poster wasn't offended by the headline, but I would say their offense threshold is very low.

Calhoun

Your not wrong, i think we should all look into how we post. I personally am the worst for it, like you my tone at times comes of very harsh and i sometimes dont explicitly spell out what i mean so makes me look like a harsh arsehole.

I personally have found of late that by changing my stance on things i leave the door open for dialogue.

I think its is important for all of us to challenge this because you are right, because you have an unpopular opinion you are being singled out. I have seen many a forum fall to an in crowd becoming hostile and we don't want that to happen either. Not that i am saying it will as the moderators are fairly on point but i think we should all keep an open mind and not get so caught up in it.

I am trying i hope others will also.

iptba

The article didn't simply promote men's sheds, it also said spaces for men in their own homes were both bad for them and sexist. Even if a man does go to a men's shed, most probably aren't going to go that often meaning there is a lot of other time to play with.

This article promotes the idea that men doing a fairly innocuous activity are both harming themselves and others. It is not hard to imagine that if the genders were reversed and a male men's rights activist had written a similar article about women, some would be unhappy.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The inclination to get offended by the any slight stands in the way of men getting together to deal with the issues that actually matter to men.

I'm not happy for you to decide which issues matter or don't matter.

And I'm not convinced that is your primary motivation. Again and again it seems your main motivation is that you don't like feminism criticised/you want it to be seen in a positive light.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

The article didn't simply promote men's sheds, it also said spaces for men in their own homes were both bad for them and sexist. Even if a man does go to a men's shed, most probably aren't going to go that often meaning there is a lot of other time to play with.

This article promotes the idea that men doing a fairly innocuous activity are both harming themselves and others. It is not hard to imagine that if the genders were reversed and a male men's rights activist had written a similar article about women, some would be unhappy.

I didn't agree with much of the first part of the article so I didn't take much from it. Did it actually say men are harming themselves and others by using their man cave?

I do think it made a fair distinction (though it used hyperbole to exaggerate the distinction) between a solitary retreat and actively socialising with other men.

The last point that keeps coming up 'imagine if a man wrote thus kind of thing [...] someone would be unhappy'. There's no need to imagine anything. Look at the scenario exactly as it is people are unhappy. You and several other posters have voiced your unhappiness. And what? The author cries herself to sleep and is cowed into never writing again?

Life goes on. Someone writes an article and some people get upset. Most people read an article and disagree with parts and agree with other parts and that's it. I read it and mostly ignored the parts in the first half that were then dissected by other posters. I saw some interesting points in the second half of the article and those posters haven't even acknowledged that part exists. Weird

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Did it actually say men are harming themselves and others by using their man cave?

Sample quotes:

Tristan agrees that man caves support gender inequality in the home. “These spaces often play on the cultural notion that men can't really be themselves when women are around.”

“The idea that men need their own space, separate and away from everyone else, is a privileged position. And, even when couples I've interviewed use the term tongue in cheek, I still think the spaces support inequitable relationships between women and men.”

---

But when the pressures of masculinity is literally killing men - suicide takes the lives of more men aged between 20 and 49 than road accidents or heart disease in the UK - perhaps it’s wrong to dismiss the idea that they need unique ways to express themselves and share their emotions. It seems that what men need is the opposite of a man cave.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The inclination to get offended by the any slight stands in the way of men getting together to deal with the issues that actually matter to men.

I'm not happy for you to decide which issues matter or don't matter.

And I'm not convinced that is your primary motivation. Again and again it seems your main motivation is that you don't like feminism criticised/you want it to be seen in a positive light.

I have told you what's important and what isn't. But You can infer it from this; If you read that article and thought the first half was worthy of a verbose cartoonish rebuttal, and the second half about the men's shed movement wasn't worth a mention, then I think your focus is clear. And what you find unimportant is also clear. And I wouldn't share those priorities.

Would you say whether the first or second half of that article is more interesting to you?

El_Duderino 09

*haven't told you what's important and what isn't

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Did it actually say men are harming themselves and others by using their man cave?

Sample quotes:

Tristan agrees that man caves support gender inequality in the home. “These spaces often play on the cultural notion that men can't really be themselves when women are around.”

“The idea that men need their own space, separate and away from everyone else, is a privileged position. And, even when couples I've interviewed use the term tongue in cheek, I still think the spaces support inequitable relationships between women and men.”

---

But when the pressures of masculinity is literally killing men - suicide takes the lives of more men aged between 20 and 49 than road accidents or heart disease in the UK - perhaps it’s wrong to dismiss the idea that they need unique ways to express themselves and share their emotions. It seems that what men need is the opposite of a man cave.

Ah yeah sure you don't have to agree with everything in he article ( I don't) but I think you're taking liberties by saying it claims it's harming themselves and others. I don't think it really says that.

Like I said, I think it's using hyperbole to make a distinction between solitary man caves and socialising in men's sheds. I think my FIL enjoys his garage most of the time but he also has almost no male friends. I'm sure some people are completely happy on their own but most people need a social network. The article isn't entirely accurate but it's making the point about men's sheds that others have repeatedly made but now can't bring themselves to agree with. That's noteworthy in itself.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Like I said, I think it's using hyperbole to make a distinction between solitary man caves and socialising in men's sheds. I think my FIL enjoys his garage most of the time but he also has almost no male friends. I'm sure some people are completely happy on their own but most people need a social network. The article isn't entirely accurate but it's making the point about men's sheds that others have repeatedly made but now can't bring themselves to agree with. That's noteworthy in itself.

It's interesting that you say that. Perhaps you're right about women in that they need an extensive social network. Most women I know have heaps of different circles of friends, acquaintances, colleagues, etc.

But with men I think you have to realise that with technology & the decline of the bar scene things have changed quite a bit. Sure, if the guy is into sports then he'll have a circle of friends.. It's much easier to create a large social following in a city too. But outside of the cities, there are less options especially if you're a guy that has returned to Ireland after a long time abroad. (I'm back in my hometown after being 10 years away, and while I could meet 'old' friends, we have little in common, and without the bar scene, it is weird trying to meet new people)

The thing is that most western men I know have few actual friends. Back when bars were a meeting place, this was different since you had a reason to bump into the people you didn't want to see regularly.. (but enjoyed their company sometimes) unless, of course, you met them somehow through your work. But I've found that most men I know are professionals in industries whereby they're working alone or they've turned to becoming 'digital nomads'.

I can remember female friends saying that their biggest fear was being alone as they got older... I've never heard a man say that. In fact, quite a few guys I've known, are avoiding marriage/relationships because they want to be alone. There's a lot of freedom and personal comfort in being alone.

I have extensive lists of friends on my various social media. Actual real friends, but none of them are from where I live now. And Im perfectly comfortable with that. I, like many other men, have spent most of our lives alone.. and it's in all honesty, what I prefer.

tigger123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can remember female friends saying that their biggest fear was being alone as they got older... I've never heard a man say that. In fact, quite a few guys I've known, are avoiding marriage/relationships because they want to be alone. There's a lot of freedom and personal comfort in being alone.

I have extensive lists of friends on my various social media. Actual real friends, but none of them are from where I live now. And Im perfectly comfortable with that. I, like many other men, have spent most of our lives alone.. and it's in all honesty, what I prefer.

There is freedom in it alright and it might work for you (and good luck with it) but for most people that would spell out a pretty lonely existence. No friends, or significant other?

Anyways, I like Duderino's posts. There's a lot of men out there that think like he does, myself included. This thread is a real echo chamber (and that's being polite).

If nothing else he's putting across a differing point of view.

backspin.

iptba wrote: »

This article promotes the idea that men doing a fairly innocuous activity are both harming themselves and others. It is not hard to imagine that if the genders were reversed and a male men's rights activist had written a similar article about women, some would be unhappy.

It's pretty ridiculous how these journalists, (normally female too) want to control men. A large part of the feminist movement has been about removing control men had over woman. Read their articles and you see a very controlling attitude from these journalists believing they know what men need and should do.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

It's interesting that you say that. Perhaps you're right about women in that they need an extensive social network. Most women I know have heaps of different circles of friends, acquaintances, colleagues, etc.

I think some of that is a social construct. Women are more inclined to invite a friend around for a chat or phone for a natter. I think it sometimes feels that men need a reason for calling each other and that's it.

Deleted User wrote:

But with men I think you have to realise that with technology & the decline of the bar scene things have changed quite a bit. Sure, if the guy is into sports then he'll have a circle of friends.. It's much easier to create a large social following in a city too. But outside of the cities, there are less options especially if you're a guy that has returned to Ireland after a long time abroad. (I'm back in my hometown after being 10 years away, and while I could meet 'old' friends, we have little in common, and without the bar scene, it is weird trying to meet new people)

The thing is that most western men I know have few actual friends. Back when bars were a meeting place, this was different since you had a reason to bump into the people you didn't want to see regularly.. (but enjoyed their company sometimes) unless, of course, you met them somehow through your work. But I've found that most men I know are professionals in industries whereby they're working alone or they've turned to becoming 'digital nomads'.

I have to say, that's not my experience. So I think it's fair to assume we're drawing on different samples.

Deleted User wrote:

I can remember female friends saying that their biggest fear was being alone as they got older... I've never heard a man say that. In fact, quite a few guys I've known, are avoiding marriage/relationships because they want to be alone. There's a lot of freedom and personal comfort in being alone.

I have extensive lists of friends on my various social media. Actual real friends, but none of them are from where I live now. And Im perfectly comfortable with that. I, like many other men, have spent most of our lives alone.. and it's in all honesty, what I prefer.

I wouldn't be surprised if women are more aware of their need for social networks. I'd say loneliness is rife among rural men but they think they can't really express it because they think men are supposed to enjoy solitude.

Is being alone what you prefer or is it imposed on you by the conditions you outline above? Rural area, without a bar scene, digital world, moving back after 10 years away and not living near actual friends.

I know some people are perfectly happy on their own but I also know that the research is conclusive that having an active social life is positive for body and mind. It's one of the major risk factors for older people and people who retire. If they lose their social network, they become sicker, less happy and die younger.

I think it's interesting that you say you know people who are avoiding relationships and marriage. I'd see those as things you have to actively pursue rather than things that you need to avoid.

There's something that I think is often forgotten about and it's that having relationships with your male friends takes active participation. Someone has to actively suggest getting together to do something together. Whether it's going to a match or having the lads around for Game of Thrones or whatever. Or as that article suggests, men's sheds movement

silverharp

tigger123 wrote: »

This thread is a real echo chamber (and that's being polite).

that's a bit unfair, maybe in a lot cases the examples cited has no redeeming qualities. You have to admit there is some awful journalism out there and double standards, the fact that there would be a consensus is not the same an echo chamber

kunst nugget

maybe

Deleted User wrote: »

I can remember female friends saying that their biggest fear was being alone as they got older... I've never heard a man say that. In fact, quite a few guys I've known, are avoiding marriage/relationships because they want to be alone. There's a lot of freedom and personal comfort in being alone.

I have extensive lists of friends on my various social media. Actual real friends, but none of them are from where I live now. And Im perfectly comfortable with that. I, like many other men, have spent most of our lives alone.. and it's in all honesty, what I prefer.

As a man, I'd not like the thought of being alone as I got older at all. I love conversation and company. I grew up in a big family that always talked to each other. Don't get me wrong, I like time to chill out by myself as well and engage in several solo pursuits but to end up by myself, pottering around in old age would be a tad depressing.

I suppose I'm happily married with children so to end up alone in old age would mean not having them in my life anymore so that would probably be why it doesn't hold any appeal to me.

Wibbs

maybe

tigger123 wrote: »

This thread is a real echo chamber (and that's being polite).

It's the nature of speciality forums. But consider this; in the Ladies Lounge there were various feminism threads and if you had typed that sentence above the post would likely have been reported and equally likely you would have been warned, even banned. I know, I warned/banned people for similar when I modded the forum. I'll say this from the other side of the curtain, there is a major difference in this "echo chamber", we get vanishingly few reported posts when someone disagrees with the consensus. I can't recall the last one TBH. It might be an "echo chamber" but it seems a remarkably open one.

If nothing else he's putting across a differing point of view.

I have no issue with differing points of view. I do take issue with how different points of view are made. When they're deflective, avoiding, dishonest and drifting close to a wind up I find them best ignored and whatever legitimate points that may be made that signal is lost in the noise. Again taking the above example of how the subjects are approached from different "sides", the poster you're referring to wouldn't have lasted very long at all on tLL. TBH back then I'd have nuked him from space and would have had the full backing of my fellow mods and the site itself to do so. I'd personally welcome more and better rebuttals from folks who disagree. I genuinely would.

Now to give some background on tLL at the time, there were other reasons for being more heavy handed as there were too many muppets(and not just men) who questioned the very existence of a specific forum for women on Boards and I had zero patience for them as someone helping curate the forum. And yep I did and do see that attitude as misogynistic at heart and frankly was an eye opener for me as a mod there. I still have a lot of time for tLL and am glad to see it still motoring along and with far less fly by muppetry than we sometimes had to deal with in the past.

However - and especially as someone who has had a foot in both camps as a curator of a forum - I do think it illustrative of how the two positions are seen by the wider public/current status quo. This forum and especially these threads have had questions over them. I've read a few times on other forums about how much of an echo chamber it is and even deeply misogynistic the forum is(only last week there was a flurry of them), yet no sanction or much in the way of defence. If you had tried that with the Ladies Lounge feminism threads there most certainly would be(a few guys got actual site bans for it).

Women talking about how sexism might affect them and how feminism helps them is seen as great, empowering and not to be debated much beyond general agreement and any that did are to be rounded upon. Men talking about how sexism might affect them is seen as not so great, an echo chamber, a bit daft and even whining. To the degree that an ex C Mod tasked with oversight of this very forum referred to this thread as full of men whining. They would have been roasted alive if they had said the same of a thread in support of feminism, something that wouldn't have even occurred to them to say in the first place. Or equally head scratching when men or women do bring up actually valid points about how society can treat men negatively, the general go to advice is to embrace feminism there too, because were all "fighting for the same cause", when plainly and on a few fronts "we" aren't.

Do I agree with some of the points raised in this thread? Hell no(just as I didn't in various feminism threads elsewhere). A few I think "ah here get over ourselves". I think most of the MRA crowd are just as bad as the feminist crowd with equally daft justifications for their nonsense. Don't get me started on MGTOW eejits and the conclusions drawn by the Red Pill stuff went full retard very early on. Thankfully we don't get much in the way of the latter two positions. But as I say the difference in the current baseline attitude to points and problems that affect women and those that affect men are treated quite differently and that is something that needs more examination. And more examination outside the politic of current feminism with it.

Wibbs

maybe

kunst nugget wrote: »

As a man, I'd not like the thought of being alone as I got older at all. I love conversation and company. I grew up in a big family that always talked to each other.

I didn't grow up in a big family so I suppose I'm far more comfortable on my own than most normal men. My idea of hell could be summed up by those Denny adverts that were doing the rounds with families all stuffed into a house clucking at each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ-oE1Ejkw

I could take the above for about ten minutes before I became murderous

So yeah I'm not normal, which is fine and more I'm fine with that. However for the average normal man out there family life is the better option for mental and physical health. If they find themselves in a healthy relationship.

There's the rub. I've known far too many that haven't and it's pretty dismal for both parties. Lives of quiet and not so quiet disgruntlement. It has been my experience and observation that it very much depends on the man's base personality. The more flexible he is, the more easy going, the wider his criteria for a partner, the more likely he'll "pick well". Would I be into a long termer relationship? Certainly. I was never opposed to it, beyond some childish post bad breakup lashing out phase. That said I've not picked so well, or found that level of compatibility that made it worth it for both. So far anyway.

I have also known men who claimed they were more like my personality and didn't want relationships, but the plain fact was they didn't have much choice in the matter. I would put a large proportion of the MGTOW types in that category.

tigger123

tigger123 wrote: »

There is freedom in it alright and it might work for you (and good luck with it) but for most people that would spell out a pretty lonely existence. No friends, or significant other?

Hold on a second... I didn't say no friends. I have plenty of friends. I said that I don't need this circle of friends meeting regularly that Duderino suggested was necessary.

Anyways, I like Duderino's posts. There's a lot of men out there that think like he does, myself included. This thread is a real echo chamber (and that's being polite).

If nothing else he's putting across a differing point of view.

Err... that's nice that you like his posts... Did I suggest anything against his posts?

As for being an echo chamber, it's a thread about sexism towards men, in a sub-forum for men. Stands to reason that the thread would follow a general theme of men disgruntled with Female sexism..

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

I have also known men who claimed they were more like my personality and didn't want relationships, but the plain fact was they didn't have much choice in the matter. I would put a large proportion of the MGTOW types in that category.

Watching this on line you never know the quality of people behind the posts, for example the lad below doesn't get to choose mgtow, mgtow chose him, hit the gym lard ass....


However in the US , I'd give the benefit of the doubt that a good number are at least average but that being young and a guy being average isn't good enough especially in big cities where the perception is that the girls are looking for better than average or bust. Plus maybe they come from backgrounds where they saw their dads being treated badly in family courts etc. so its a self selecting group there just wasn't a collective term in the past
If I had to guess I'd say its a phase and when they get older and start getting money and a career under their belt that their views would moderate.
I'd at least respect someone who has options going down a particular path as opposed to someone who hasn't created options howling at the moon

kunst nugget

maybe

Wibbs wrote: »

So yeah I'm not normal, which is fine and more I'm fine with that. However for the average normal man out there family life is the better option for mental and physical health. If they find themselves in a healthy relationship.

That really is the crux of the issue. I'm in a very happy relationship so the thought of being alone is not one I'd relish.

Wibbs wrote: »

There's the rub. I've known far too many that haven't and it's pretty dismal for both parties. Lives of quiet and not so quiet disgruntlement. It has been my experience and observation that it very much depends on the man's base personality. The more flexible he is, the more easy going, the wider his criteria for a partner, the more likely he'll "pick well". Would I be into a long termer relationship? Certainly. I was never opposed to it, beyond some childish post bad breakup lashing out phase. That said I've not picked so well, or found that level of compatibility that made it worth it for both. So far anyway.

Myself and my brothers (no sisters) are all pretty easy going, I guess from being from a large-ish family (5 sons) and probably used to the art of compromising due to the fact that there was limited enough resources at home. In terms of relationships, we're all happily married at this stage (as far as I can possibly know) to partners that all get along with each other which, given what I read on boards sometimes, can seem like a rarity. Is that down to luck or an inbuilt flexibility in us borne from how we were reared? I don't know…

I do see the flipside of the coin and the utterly awful relationships some people persist in keeping alive and it looks absolutely horrendous. Why would you bother fighting to keep something going when all it seems to involve is more fighting? In those instances, I don't understand why being alone would seem so frightening.

And those relationships were the couple are constantly taking potshots at each other, disguised as banter, when you're chatting to them. Eeuuurgh…

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think some of that is a social construct. Women are more inclined to invite a friend around for a chat or phone for a natter. I think it sometimes feels that men need a reason for calling each other and that's it.

True enough.

I have to say, that's not my experience. So I think it's fair to assume we're drawing on different samples.

Of course we are... I didn't expect you to agree completely. We are different people with different experiences and a different mindset. The people we know will be, dare I say it? Different.

I wouldn't be surprised if women are more aware of their need for social networks. I'd say loneliness is rife among rural men but they think they can't really express it because they think men are supposed to enjoy solitude.

Yup, and a large part of that is social conditioning. Those are part of the gender roles in the more traditional context.

Is being alone what you prefer or is it imposed on you by the conditions you outline above? Rural area, without a bar scene, digital world, moving back after 10 years away and not living near actual friends.

Imposed on me? Seriously? I can hop on a plane and go anywhere in the world tomorrow. I can get a visa to stay in most countries relatively easy.. and I could choose to go back to living in a big city.

I find that it's only people who have never travelled outside of the sun holiday resorts, and those in a serious relationship, that find themselves trapped in Ireland. Once you leave Ireland behind even for a short time, you can realise that you have the freedom to live just about anywhere, and better than that freedom, the knowledge that its possible to do without much effort.

I know some people are perfectly happy on their own but I also know that the research is conclusive that having an active social life is positive for body and mind. It's one of the major risk factors for older people and people who retire. If they lose their social network, they become sicker, less happy and die younger.

Yup. If they lose their social network. If they're already comfortable with being alone, or have a smaller group of friends, then they're less affected by it.

I'm originally from West Galway, near Carraroe (although I'm living in the Midlands now). I have relatives who spent their whole lives in small cottages out in the bog, only meeting others when they when to mass on the Sunday or other religious days. They lived alone for the most part. And they lived to ripe old ages...

I think it's interesting that you say you know people who are avoiding relationships and marriage. I'd see those as things you have to actively pursue rather than things that you need to avoid.

haha... why? Why would I seek marriage when almost every couple I know of my generation or younger is divorced within ten years?

Why would I seek to bind myself to a legal and social contract that has a serious bias towards the female? To be perfectly honest, the only way I would marry, would be if I wanted to have children, since I am somewhat traditional... but marriage for any other reason? God no. It just puts pressure on relationships and forces the couple apart.

There's something that I think is often forgotten about and it's that having relationships with your male friends takes active participation. Someone has to actively suggest getting together to do something together. Whether it's going to a match or having the lads around for Game of Thrones or whatever. Or as that article suggests, men's sheds movement

Perhaps. I'm not disagreeing, exactly... I just dont have anything worth saying about it.

py2006

tigger123 wrote: »

If nothing else he's putting across a differing point of view.

I don't think anybody has a problem with "a differing point of view". Its the nature of the delivery and the questionable posting that some here have taking issue with. I think you are well aware of that to be fair.

tigger123

I'll try to respond to the quoted posts later today, but...

Would it be far to say that a vast majority of people who post in this forum hold a similar view with regard to feminism? And that they largely agree with each other?

And would it be also fair to say that posters challenging that point of view would be in the extreme minority?

Perhaps I'm incorrect in expecting debate on topics in here (defining debate as an exchange of ideas between two differing sides).

That to me is an echo chamber. Nobody posts here to debate it: its the same point of view reinforced by other users, again and again.

The other thread "What Are Your Views on The Recent Controversy on Feminism" feels like a parody of this one.

silverharp

tigger123 wrote: »

I'll try to respond to the quoted posts later today, but...

Would it be far to say that a vast majority of people who post in this forum hold a similar view with regard to feminism? And that they largely agree with each other?

And would it be also fair to say that posters challenging that point of view would be in the extreme minority?

Perhaps I'm incorrect in expecting debate on topics in here (defining debate as an exchange of ideas between two differing sides).

That to me is an echo chamber. Nobody posts here to debate it: its the same point of view reinforced by other users, again and again.

The other thread "What Are Your Views on The Recent Controversy on Feminism" feels like a parody of this one.

if you were trying to push blue haired 3rd and 4th wave feminism then I'd imagine you would get a consenus against that view.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

tigger123 wrote: »

This thread is a real echo chamber (and that's being polite).

[...] I t might be an "echo chamber" but it seems a remarkably open one.

I'd agree with that. It's a remarkably open echo chamber a lot of the time.

If nothing else he's putting across a differing point of view.

I have no issue with differing points of view. I do take issue with how different points of view are made. When they're deflective, avoiding, dishonest and drifting close to a wind up I find them best ignored and whatever legitimate points that may be made that signal is lost in the noise. Again taking the above example of how the subjects are approached from different "sides", the poster you're referring to wouldn't have lasted very long at all on tLL. TBH back then I'd have nuked him from space and would have had the full backing of my fellow mods and the site itself to do so. I'd personally welcome more and better rebuttals from folks who disagree. I genuinely would.[/QUOTE]

You needn't look too far from home for posts that sail close to the wind. How would your catchphrase, complete spastic or total retard or whatever it is, fly in the forum you're talking about? You'd probably be nuked along side me in tLL if you're being honest.

So while I think it's remarkably open and I welcome it, I don't think it's as open to contra echoing opinions as it thinks it is. 'Going full retard' is fine when aimed outward, but 'whining' is below the belt when aimed into the chamber.

Wibbs wrote: »

Don't get me started on MGTOW eejits and the conclusions drawn by the Red Pill stuff went full retard very early on. Thankfully we don't get much in the way of the latter two positions. But as I say the difference in the current baseline attitude to points and problems that affect women and those that affect men are treated quite differently and that is something that needs more examination. And more examination outside the politic of current feminism with it.

The MGTOW movement is a mystery to me. They used to be called confirmed bachelors. Now they club together which is fine. I imagine that lots of them are happy on their own but I can't help thinking that lots of them aren't happier on their own but are just unable to get a partner for one reason or another. It's a bit pathetic but also very sad. The ones who don't want partners are on the pigs back. If you don't want a partner I can't imagine how you would end up with one by accident. You could get someone pregnant by accident I suppose but I doubt there is much difficulty in staying single if that's what they want to do.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The MGTOW movement is a mystery to me. They used to be called confirmed bachelors. Now they club together which is fine. I imagine that lots of them are happy on their own but I can't help thinking that lots of them aren't happier on their own but are just unable to get a partner for one reason or another. It's a bit pathetic but also very sad. The ones who don't want partners are on the pigs back. If you don't want a partner I can't imagine how you would end up with one by accident. You could get someone pregnant by accident I suppose but I doubt there is much difficulty in staying single if that's what they want to do.

Seems to me that you've either forgotten what dating is like or you got into relationships easily, but for many men, that's not the case. There's nothing sad or pathetic about it. Modern dating is often quite nasty. I don't particularly agree/like the MGTOW movement, but only because they're accepting the frame that modern dating puts them in.

If you're not naturally outgoing, have a sixpack or through life coincidences thrown into a circle of female encounters, then dating can be extremely difficult especially when you look at how a lot of it has gone online. Apps like tinder promote an attitude for women to be aloof and waiting for 'better' men. Women see themselves having 1000 likes and think that makes them special, and therefore, they can wait for someone 'worthy' of them. They typically don't respond to nice friendly guys looking to make friends and have a chat. They're looking for the guys that typically have well-toned bodies and a nice car. There is a seriously superficial level to online dating that doesn't help those that don't have those things.

I grew up a rather shy guy with a shaking disorder. I can remember clearly the nasty responses by women when I tried to enter the dating scene. I responded by withdrawing into myself and didn't bother with it for years afterwards. I then re-entered the dating scene, but sought advice/improvement from others, and moved past the problems I had as a teenager or early 20s. But it took a lot of work and the attitude of not reacting to the negativity of women.

Now, I'm in my 40s and I have no issues with dating... but only because I refuse to accept the bull**** that women throw-back through dating. Alas for many boys/men, they're back where I used to be, feeling worthless and unable to compete with the more charismatic men.

Modern dating is difficult if you don't have friends willing to 'introduce' (matchmaking) girls to you, or you don't have the active environment to find available girls in real time. It also helps to realise that charisma can be learned.. but for many people, they see themselves as being unable to change.

Wibbs

maybe

As a thought experiment Tig apply your post to a thread on feminism in the Ladies Lounge.

tigger123 wrote: »

I'll try to respond to the quoted posts later today, but...

Would it be far to say that a vast majority of people who post in this forum hold a similar view with regard to feminism? And that they largely agree with each other?

And would it be also fair to say that posters challenging that point of view would be in the extreme minority?

Perhaps I'm incorrect in expecting debate on topics in here (defining debate as an exchange of ideas between two differing sides).

That to me is an echo chamber. Nobody posts here to debate it: its the same point of view reinforced by other users, again and again.

Would that also not apply point for point? Do a search for it and you'll see exactly the above, however with one crucial difference, regular challengers of the subject might be the minority here, but are not warned or banned for holding that differing view.

No such restrictions are in place here. As I said there were/are good reasons for the above, ones I supported and support still, but again it is illustrative that people can view one as an echo chamber in a bad way, yet the other as an echo chamber in a good way(if they consider it an echo chamber at all).

Again this is no way a criticism of tLL. I'd be a moron if I thought it one considering my five years plus helping out there. It's a great forum. It is an example of how unconscious biases can be applied to a viewpoint.

This is also reflected in the wider media and general discourse. Particularly in Ireland. There is almost no questioning of the feminist position much less dissent. If there are echo chambers afoot, then one, including its extremists gets far more of a free ride than the other.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

complete spastic or total retard

This - if any more examples were required - is a perfect example of your continuing and transparent dishonesty as a poster on the matter. Please point out an example where I typed the words "total spastic" or "total retard". Both dishonestly imply insults aimed at a person or persons, rather than ideas(which I have described as going "full retard"*, inc. Red pill and MGTOW and much of MRA), which you well know.




*oh how I well know that word flips some out. Funny enough words like; idiotic, moronic, imbecilic don't, yet all are words also once used medically to describe cognitive dysfunction. Even more ironically given how much of this gender war BS hails from America where "retarded" isn't nearly so much an issue. QV mainstream Hollywood film meme.

silverharp

I actually wished a few real "blue haired" feminists actually posted here and you could have a proper debate , there is too much "im not that type"

kunst nugget

maybe

Deleted User wrote: »

If you're not naturally outgoing, have a sixpack or through life coincidences thrown into a circle of female encounters, then dating can be extremely difficult

I honestly don't get this fatalism that is constantly thrown about on this forum. I'm not naturally outgoing but I worked on my confidence to get to a point where I was comfortable talking in front of a crowd and at this stage it doesn't bother me and talking to strangers is not an issue. I really don't think a six pack is the be all and end all if you actually take a bit of pride in your appearance and look after yourself but there really is nothing stopping the vast majority of us having a six pack if we're willing to put in the effort.

Wibbs

maybe

kunst nugget wrote: »

I honestly don't get this fatalism that is constantly thrown about on this forum. I'm not naturally outgoing but I worked on my confidence to get to a point where I was comfortable talking in front of a crowd and at this stage it doesn't bother me and talking to strangers is not an issue. I really don't think a six pack is the be all and end all if you actually take a bit of pride in your appearance and look after yourself but there really is nothing stopping the vast majority of us having a six pack if we're willing to put in the effort.

+ a bazillion. This whole six pack stuff is yet again more of an American import, as is the oft disaster that is online dating, hell "dating" in general. It becomes more like a marketplace driven by different criteria and different pressures depending on the demographic you belong to. EG young guys are more on the back foot than older guys, younger women are getting more swipes than older etc.

Wibbs

maybe

tigger123 wrote: »

That to me is an echo chamber. Nobody posts here to debate it: its the same point of view reinforced by other users, again and again.

Further to this point Tig; given that a contrary view is welcome and certainly won't be censured from on high, including as we've seen even when it's not exactly playing the game, it does beg the question why so few do offer up a contrary view?

It would be my humble that it has been all too easy to label "misogyny" and "echo chamber", including calling the forum and its locals "awful" and "whiners", but it does seem not so easy to actually debate many of the points raised. Hell, even many points that are really bloody stretching credulity aren't questioned too often.

And it would be my opinion that is largely because a) many, if not most people just accept many such points as accepted givens without questioning them and b) if they have questioned them they seem to find it hard to debate to the contrary. So the easy out is to say "Nothing to see here. Misogyny".

I've seen it in action on a couple of the feminist debate points down the years. The pay gap one such example. Of course it exists! followed by statistics referenced by reputable links inc the Woman's Council of Ireland(who have since removed one link) showing that it's not that simplistic and that in fact the average Irish woman is more educated than the average Irish man and gets paid 17% more than the average Irish man before kids come along. Cue people slinking off. Or the domestic abuse point, where again reputable research and stats shows that partner abuse of all forms is more equally balanced between the genders, that in subdivisions of said abuse it's more likely to be women instigating it and that lesbian couples show a much higher rate of partner abuse than heterosexual couples(gay male couples being about the lowest) and again people who hold the feminist view toddle off. When it is shown that there is an increasing issue with male education again people back off and off they go. Or all of the above is just blamed on "patriarchy" #stillmensfault.

Now I wouldn't kick off in a thread on sexual abuse and claim that it's equally split between men and women. I'd be jumped on. Rightly. That is demonstrably eye rollingly wrong, as women are far more the victims of sexual abuse(and no prison rapes in US gaols is neither a balance nor an argument), but when other areas that are demonstrably wrong but don't fit the current feminist narrative all you get by way of debate is silence(or insult). For a position held by so many to be obviously right, I find it odd they all too often simply can't back many of their deeply held positions up.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

complete spastic or total retard

This - if any more examples were required - is a perfect example of your continuing and transparent dishonesty as a poster on the matter. Please point out an example where I typed the words "total spastic" or "total retard". Both dishonestly imply insults aimed at a person or persons, rather than ideas(which I have described as going "full retard"*, inc. Red pill and MGTOW and much of MRA), which you well know

Quite right. Your catchphrase is 'full retard' rather than complete spastic or total retard. Obviously it's completely interchangeable with the 2 alternative versions I used.

You'll notice that I actually didn't use it to apply to people any more than your catchphrase does. 'How would your catchphrase, complete spastic or total retard or whatever it is, fly in the forum you're talking about'.

I get it and the 2 variations were to demonstrate the distinction without a difference.

Now that that's it out of the way you'll notice you dodged the question of how your chosen version would fly in tLL back in the good ole days (completely without intention, I'm quite sure. It's only me that does that kinda thing, right?)

The difference is that you don't like what I'm saying. But if you think all the 'full retard' stuff is raising the tone, then lol.

Zulu

No

silverharp wrote: »

I actually wished a few real "blue haired" feminists actually posted here and you could have a proper debate , there is too much "im not that type"

There no "proper" debate with those types. Much like all these threads.

It generally come down to one/small few contrarians who are more interested in dragging the topic down rabbit holes and berating and baiting other posters. It a tactic to shut down the topic, which is really all they are after - that and having a childish pop at the other side.

ligerdub

Deleted User wrote:

If you're not naturally outgoing, have a sixpack or through life coincidences thrown into a circle of female encounters, then dating can be extremely difficult especially when you look at how a lot of it has gone online. Apps like tinder promote an attitude for women to be aloof and waiting for 'better' men. Women see themselves having 1000 likes and think that makes them special, and therefore, they can wait for someone 'worthy' of them. They typically don't respond to nice friendly guys looking to make friends and have a chat. They're looking for the guys that typically have well-toned bodies and a nice car. There is a seriously superficial level to online dating that doesn't help those that don't have those things.

To be honest I think this works both ways. Online dating is primarily superficial across the board (not in every case though obviously)

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Is being alone what you prefer or is it imposed on you by the conditions you outline above? Rural area, without a bar scene, digital world, moving back after 10 years away and not living near actual friends.

Deleted User wrote: »

Imposed on me? Seriously? I can hop on a plane and go anywhere in the world tomorrow. I can get a visa to stay in most countries relatively easy.. and I could choose to go back to living in a big city.

I just asked. It doesn't sound like you would have many avenues for making new friends in your area. So even if you're happy in your own company, I imagine that most people enjoy having social groups so there are probably a lot of other people who are in your situation but aren't as comfortable with it as you are.

I think it's interesting that you say you know people who are avoiding relationships and marriage. I'd see those as things you have to actively pursue rather than things that you need to avoid.

Deleted User wrote: »

haha... why? Why would I seek marriage when almost every couple I know of my generation or younger is divorced within ten years?

Why would I seek to bind myself to a legal and social contract that has a serious bias towards the female? To be perfectly honest, the only way I would marry, would be if I wanted to have children, since I am somewhat traditional... but marriage for any other reason? God no. It just puts pressure on relationships and forces the couple apart.

We're at crossed purposes here. I thought it was curious that you said you know people who avoid relationships/marriage. I don't think anyone has to avoid them. If they don't want them they just need to not actively pursue them.

That's what I think about a lot of the MGTOW lads. They couldn't get a relationship and then said they never wanted one anyway so their going their own way. Sure the are people who just prefer their own company too.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems to me that you've either forgotten what dating is like or you got into relationships easily, but for many men, that's not the case. There's nothing sad or pathetic about it. Modern dating is often quite nasty. I don't particularly agree/like the MGTOW movement, but only because they're accepting the frame that modern dating puts them in.

If you're not naturally outgoing, have a sixpack or through life coincidences thrown into a circle of female encounters, then dating can be extremely difficult especially when you look at how a lot of it has gone online. Apps like tinder promote an attitude for women to be aloof and waiting for 'better' men. Women see themselves having 1000 likes and think that makes them special, and therefore, they can wait for someone 'worthy' of them. They typically don't respond to nice friendly guys looking to make friends and have a chat. They're looking for the guys that typically have well-toned bodies and a nice car. There is a seriously superficial level to online dating that doesn't help those that don't have those things.

Now, I'm in my 40s and I have no issues with dating... but only because I refuse to accept the bull**** that women throw-back through dating. Alas for many boys/men, they're back where I used to be, feeling worthless and unable to compete with the more charismatic men.

Modern dating is difficult if you don't have friends willing to 'introduce' (matchmaking) girls to you, or you don't have the active environment to find available girls in real time. It also helps to realise that charisma can be learned.. but for many people, they see themselves as being unable to change.

You're probably right in that. I have probably forgotten what dating is like. I had a normal amount of difficulty getting into relationships but I've never used online dating. It sound harsh though.

My Mrs has mates who are using online dating and it doesn't sound easy for women either. It's easy to get a date but very difficult to find someone they're compatible with. I find it very strange that you have to give away a load of information in 'CV' form. You can firm all kinds of opinions about someone before ever hearing their voice or seeing them smile. Then you meet them and they're not what you were expecting. It sounds weird to me so i can't really comment.

I take back saying that MGTOW is pathetic. I don't understand it enough to really give an opinion.

Wibbs

maybe

Zulu wrote: »

There no "proper" debate with those types. Much like all these threads.

Which kinda proves the their position on a few matters isn't very defensible. Though to be fair I have had some decent debates down the years, but yeah it's all too rare. It's nearly always avoidance of the obvious holes in the argument and coming from the position where they are convinced that you must hate women and/or a sad bastard if you question feminism.

ligerdub wrote: »

To be honest I think this works both ways. Online dating is primarily superficial across the board (not in every case though obviously)

I'd agree. There's most definitely an element of that in it alright. Plus the whole "shopping online" with what appears to be endless choice. Throw in many people's long shopping list of expectations and it can be a minefield*. Though I've known a few couples who did get together via online dating. I've known more who got together on the back of forum/facebook/ meets though.



*Stereotypes might be the average guy who only wants to swipe right on the top 2% of good looking women or the mid 30's woman on a rush to the altar, nursery and suburbia with a long list of growing expectations where even one box not tied means the guy's out. They're stereotypes for some good reason mind you. Now that stuff went on pre the interwebs, but it has been concentrated since.

Calhoun

kunst nugget wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

If you're not naturally outgoing, have a sixpack or through life coincidences thrown into a circle of female encounters, then dating can be extremely difficult

I honestly don't get this fatalism that is constantly thrown about on this forum. I'm not naturally outgoing but I worked on my confidence to get to a point where I was comfortable talking in front of a crowd and at this stage it doesn't bother me and talking to strangers is not an issue. I really don't think a six pack is the be all and end all if you actually take a bit of pride in your appearance and look after yourself but there really is nothing stopping the vast majority of us having a six pack if we're willing to put in the effort.

I am a natural introvert, stresses the hell out of me in public situations so dating was always a problem. However for things that mattered i challenged this part of myself and work to over come.  If i didnt my life would be a hell of allot horrible as i would be single and my career wouldnt have got very far.
So i could not agree with the above more, the only limitations guys have in doing anything starts with them. Don't get me wrong im not away with the fairies i know there are other challenges but as the saying goes nothing worth doing comes for free if it really matters you will make it happen.

Calhoun

Interesting alternative topic that you guys are having comparing the posting style between this place and the ladies lounge.  I find merit in both arguments, for me there is an element of whats good for the goose is good for the gander.  There should be an element of a space for mento think about how the world impacts them and discuss without being called "insert label".

At the same time i am also very much aware if the impact group think can have on discussion and how groups can become a cliche and bully people from opposing views. I have seen it one too many times on different forums on boards.
My line of thinking is more in line with the majority on this forum however, i don't feel like i am powerless in what i am doing but i do think there are wider societal views at the moment that are damaging to men that should be discussed and challenged without fear of being silenced. I don't even know what group i would fall into or what group i am allowed say i should fall into, i am not a feminist for sure but i am also not a masculist or anything like that. I would have always thought i prescribed to a more egalitarian view but find that is seems harder to have that viewpoint in 2017.
So my question then is what viewpoint are the "other men" (what tigger said). Are you guys male feminists and what and how do you think should be the view point that men take on this subject.
One final thing, i think its great we can even have this discussion in a mature format.