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

Wibbs

maybe

ancuncha wrote: »

Whats wrong with making good shows or roles with women rather than taking men's roles?

That would require imagination. Something all too lacking in some areas of media. Look at Hollywood, chock full of reboots, sequels and reimaginings. New stuff doesn't get green lit nearly so often.

Dark Matter, Star Trek Voyager both strong female main roles and very good series IMO

+1 I wouldn't be a trekkie or anything, loved it when I was a kid of course and have watched it a few times when it's been on and TBH I thought the captain of that Voyager series was damned good. Of the new post 60's bunch IMHO about the best. And she didn't reflect the usual thing of putting a woman in a role and making her speak and act like a man with more shouting and unbeatable in unarmed combat against huge men nonsense.

Just look up the Ed Skrein bull****. It's race rather than gender but it's along the same lines. Have a black girl play Hermione, pretend she wasn't white in the books. :P Have a white guy play an Asian guy? OMG racist!

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

That would require imagination. Something all too lacking in some areas of media. Look at Hollywood, chock full of reboots, sequels and reimaginings. New stuff doesn't get green lit nearly so often.

Ghostbusters. I knew it would be bad, but had no choice except to see it (due to numerous nieces/nephews), and Oh lord, it was bad. Totally killed the original for me. I've since gone back to a stoner weekend and it had lost a certain magic.. couldn't get the memory of the remake out of my skull.

+1 I wouldn't be a trekkie or anything, loved it when I was a kid of course and have watched it a few times when it's been on and TBH I thought the captain of that Voyager series was damned good. Of the new post 60's bunch IMHO about the best. And she didn't reflect the usual thing of putting a woman in a role and making her speak and act like a man with more shouting and unbeatable in unarmed combat against huge men nonsense.

Because they're always over-compensating. They don't create realistic characters. There's no real depth to them. Instead, they're poster child creations of the some mythical liberal sensitive feminist. Or they're trying to be humorous introducing a woman that has male characteristics in a friendly goofy way. Yay!

Which is a pity because the movies from before 2000, generally were well developed, and had strong female characters. Sure, there were the shallow female roles out there, but there were plenty of those for men too. I recently watched 'Romancing the Stone' with Michael Douglas, and Kathleen Turner. Hilarious. Goofy humor with mild sexism but nothing insulting.

(Yes, there are plenty of good movies being released... but TBH there are far more crappy movies being released and most of them are showing men to be morons.)

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

Well it is the BBC. In many ways it has become the Jezebel/Tumblr of networks. The usual response trotted out as it was with Dr Who is diversity and redressing of balance. That franchise of late has gone full daft and quite openly "male bashing". Some of the lines trotted out if the genders were reversed would result in much gnashing of teeth and tribunals and sackings. Imagine this line spoken by a man: "What's that face? Are you thinking? Stop it! You're a woman, it looks weird". Cue uproar. I'd have little issue with such lines, if it was going both ways, but it isn't(it had been) and no way would such lines going the other way get off the page.

Well one could have also said the same of the above Dr Who, but not anymore as that would be "sexist". So of course they went full on and made him a woman and the upcoming show runner's previous includes Broadchurch, where all the men are unsympathetic rapists, liars, weaklings and the women are #sostrong, so you just know where the new team will be going with this.

Redressing the stupidity of the past is a good thing, claiming you're doing so while repeating the stupidity of the past is beyond moronic.

The Star Wars franchise did similar. Putting in a Mary Sue can do no wrong cos boobs main character(by contrast the original Luke Skywalker was about the most inept, flawed and useless heroes in all of popular culture). In their case they were going more for the hit every demographic option. The new Star Trek series is pushing more of the "right on" line. Now to be fair it always did. Its "thing" was to be very reflective of wider society and the politics of the producers/writers. So we had a Black woman as a main character back in the 60's. So in this ever more polarised political and "gendered" world of media their main character is a Black woman called Micheal, the Klingons are closed border xenophobic types who just want to be left alone(IE must be racist nazis) and the federation is multicultural and "diverse" and "open", except when another culture wants to be left the hell alone, then of course they can't be having that and set Ironies to Kill.

One can only hope that they commercially flop except the BBC doesnt have to make a profit. Star Wars can probably get away with a Mary Sue but most other shows wont have the "no expense spared" to paper over it.
Its funny with Star Trek v Orville , people prefer the fan fiction cos it apes the 90's Trek where there were decently written female characters.

My view is that when it comes "Hero" characters there is more demand to see Male hero characters and that throttling male characters is being pointed out more often and once you see it you cant enjoy the particular show.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

You really are incapable of not putting your own spin on things arent you?

If you mean offering my opinion then yes. That's the point of a discussion forum.

I've listed the men's rights issues that I find compelling. But I won't jump on board with every theory they chimes with theied rights narrative. Issues like this CNN LV shooting theory are guff and should be called out. Simple as that.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you mean offering my opinion then yes. That's the point of a discussion forum.

I've listed the men's rights issues that I find compelling. But I won't jump on board with every theory they chimes with theied rights narrative. Issues like this CNN LV shooting theory are guff and should be called out. Simple as that.

But you seem to be jumping up and down, trying to really hard to keep the emphasis on some crack pot theory.. but rarely seem to bothered with actual men's issues. You must be on 50+ posts on this CNN thing alone.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

But you seem to be jumping up and down, trying to really hard to keep the emphasis on some crack pot theory.. but rarely seem to bothered with actual men's issues. You must be on 50+ posts on this CNN thing alone.

That might be true. I discuss the men's rights issues that interest me as they gone up.

I found it pretty shocking that nobody else was willing to challenge that level of nonsense when it's posted. But any criticism of the nonsense is met with plenty of opposition. That alone is interesting to me.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That might be true. I discuss the men's rights issues that interest me as they gone up.

I found it pretty shocking that nobody else was willing to challenge that level of nonsense when it's posted. But any criticism of the nonsense is met with plenty of opposition. That alone is interesting to me.

Is it? I can't say I've seen that.. perhaps you're just interpreting it that way. All I've seen is you criticizing people for not explicitly commenting on it to disagree.

I can honestly say I haven't seen you speak as passionately about ANY genuine men's issue as you have about this CNN point.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

Is it? I can't say I've seen that.. perhaps you're just interpreting it that way. All I've seen is you criticizing people for not explicitly commenting on it to disagree.

Yes, it is interesting to me. If you don't find it interesting, that's fine. The first thing I did was criticise the theory, which prompted disagreement with me. That's what interesting to me that nobody would openly object to the theory but were prickly about anyone criticising it.

givyjoe wrote: »

I can honestly say I haven't seen you speak as passionately about ANY genuine men's issue as you have about this CNN point.

I'm flattered that you take such interest in my posting excitement levels. I usually just lurk if other posters are saying the things I would agree with.

Though I find all the "imagine if the roles were reversed, they're be calling for his execution " stuff to be petty and untrue in a lot of cases so I don't tend to get involved when the discussions either already say whether I agree with or lose credibility by being OTT.

Zulu

No

Zulu wrote: »

Lets see the insults then...

...no? I didn't think so.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But I won't jump on board with every theory ...

Yet you expect everyone else to comment on your particular example.

givyjoe wrote: »

But you seem to be jumping up and down, trying to really hard to keep the emphasis on some crack pot theory.. but rarely seem to bothered with actual men's issues. You must be on 50+ posts on this CNN thing alone.

Exactly this. It's as obvious as night and day their motivation.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That might be true. I discuss the men's rights issues that interest me as they gone up.

I found it pretty shocking that nobody else was willing to challenge that level of nonsense when it's posted. But any criticism of the nonsense is met with plenty of opposition. That alone is interesting to me.

What level of nonsense?

The way I read it the poster was saying that if CNN and the like are on a bit of a trend of demonizing certain groups (the right wing, Trump supporters, white people, men) then it follows that there might be a rise in violence towards, or from, those groups.

Here is the comment you are STILL banging on about.

"If I was to widen that out I'd go as far to say that he was possibly radicalised by CNN. They demonise white men, Trump supporters combine that with an unstable personality and bad things happen"

I noted the word "possibly" right away. So...

I don't necessarily agree or disagree because
1. I don't watch CNN regularly.
2. I don't know if CNN demonizes anyone.
3. I don't know what the motivations of the shooter were.
4. I don't have time to thoroughly look into these things.

BUT I don't see any reason why this is to be filed under "complete nonsense".

If what the poster says about CNN is even partially true then it's OK for
the argument to be made that this kind of reporting could have a real world impact.

Not sure why I have to come out and say that the poster is full of nonsense when I don't really have the prerequisite knowledge to be able to call it out.

Why don't you just explain how CNN don't demonize anyone, and even if they did demonize anyone it wouldn't have any real-world impact, and that'll be the end of it?

I notice this a lot in "Men's Rights" discussions. The idea that if everyone, to a man, doesn't jump up and condemn the worst elements of online "MRA" content then we are all "just as bad". I suppose Feminists have to deal with the same.

One person makes a questionable, but hardly controversial, point and we all have to fall over ourselves to condemn?

Maybe we should all just get up on stage and apologize for being men?

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

Zulu wrote: »

Lets see the insults then...

...no? I didn't think so.
[/QUOTE
Here's the most recent example;

Zulu wrote: »

This is untrue and ill conceived, but I suppose, par for your course.[/QUOTE

Zulu wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But I won't jump on board with every theory ...

Yet you expect everyone else to comment on your particular example.

As I said already. I don't expect everyone to condemn everything they disagree with. Nobody disagreed with the crackpot theory, but lots of posters took exception to me pointing out that it's a crackpot theory.

givyjoe wrote: »

But you seem to be jumping up and down, trying to really hard to keep the emphasis on some crack pot theory.. but rarely seem to bothered with actual men's issues. You must be on 50+ posts on this CNN thing alone.

Exactly this. It's as obvious as night and day their motivation.

As a said already, I gave a list of issues that I see as important men's rights issues that I support. I'm honest enough to call nonsense when I see it though, which seems to be a bit of a faux pas.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Instead I'm getting grief for pointing out that a baseless theory, is baseless.

You didn't simply say the theory was baseless, you have spent a number of posts criticising other people who follow this thread. If people are criticised, many will try to defend themselves. Some people will do this by attacking the person and/or posts attacking them

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Here's the most recent example

I see, so for clarity - when you are challenged, it's a insult?
And yet you complain that people aren't engaging you in debate, and that this thread is an echo chamber. And, you're not disingenuous, right?

:rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

I see, so for clarity - when you are challenged, it's a insult?
And yet you complain that people aren't engaging you in debate, and that this thread is an echo chamber. And, you're not disingenuous, right?
:rolleyes:

No, not simply Shannon challenged that wasn't a challenge it was a way to dismiss a simple and true point (nobody except me challenged the CNN LV theory). But when anything I post that doesn't go with the consensus, is branded disingenuous, it's an odd form of defensiveness. There are examples in this thread where I state my position and it's branded disingenuous or word play.

Post 6814 givejoe says; Isn't that your opinion in every post..? Moreover, your opinion that every such claim is unjustified, always...?

I respond saying that I think this specific claim is unjustified (the CNN LV) theory. And givejoe says that's word gymnastics.

Anything that goes against the consensus is dismissed out of hand as disingenuous or word play.

Why is there such a need to shield from back and forth discussion? Why the instinct to dismiss rather than discuss? Is it the fragility of the argument or a fragile sense of masculinity that can't bare inquiry or what?

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why is there such a need to shield from back and forth discussion?

There isn't. And this is evidenced in other posters back and forth.

Why the instinct to dismiss rather than discuss?

This is the question that has been leveled at you time and again. I'd suggest that it's your dismissive and pejorative posting style that has brought you to this point. Other posters aren't interested in discussing with you as you've displayed, in the past, a lack of interest in civil debate yourself. Time and again you've sought out to bait and shut down others so it's little wonder you're being met with the same.

Is it the fragility of the argument or a fragile sense of masculinity that can't bare inquiry or what?

It's neither, it a weariness in dealing with the futile.

Additionally, I find it hilarious that the only "insult" you could find was someone challenging you, yet you imply it's others with a fragility.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No, not simply Shannon challenged that wasn't a challenge it was a way to dismiss a simple and true point (nobody except me challenged the CNN LV theory). But when anything I post that doesn't go with the consensus, is branded disingenuous, it's an odd form of defensiveness. There are examples in this thread where I state my position and it's branded disingenuous or word play.

Post 6814 givejoe says; Isn't that your opinion in every post..? Moreover, your opinion that every such claim is unjustified, always...?

I respond saying that I think this specific claim is unjustified (the CNN LV) theory. And givejoe says that's word gymnastics.

Anything that goes against the consensus is dismissed out of hand as disingenuous or word play.

Why is there such a need to shield from back and forth discussion? Why the instinct to dismiss rather than discuss? Is it the fragility of the argument or a fragile sense of masculinity that can't bare inquiry or what?

You're some chancer.. My point was you find fault or reason to disagree with literally every gripe or claim of sexism that is posted here.. your position is nearly ALWAYS that it's somehow an over reaction. over sensitivity or whining. You've fleetingly acknowledged the issues raised and spent most of your time arguing against it, feverishly so at times.

And you're still banging on about this CNN crap. Christ. Move on.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

You're some chancer.. My point was you find fault or reason to disagree with literally every gripe or claim of sexism that is posted here.. your position is nearly ALWAYS that it's somehow an over reaction. over sensitivity or whining. You've fleetingly acknowledged the issues raised and spent most of your time arguing against it, feverishly so at times.

And you're still banging on about this CNN crap. Christ. Move on.

I know that was your point. Obviously i don't agree with it and I stated my position which was that I disagree with the issue at hand. You called that word gymnastics. As I said, if it's not in line with the consensus, it's dismissed.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm flattered that you take such interest in my posting

New drinking game where you take a shot every time this guy uses one of his standard old chestnuts.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm flattered that you take such interest in my posting

New drinking game where you take a shot every time this guy uses one of his standard old chestnuts.

Here's another one of your favourite hits:
One of these fine days you'll show an interest in actually discussing an issue rather than just whining about my posts.

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Here's another one of your favourite hits:
One of these fine days you'll show an interest in actually discussing an issue rather than just whining about my posts.

Priceless. Would you like some cheese with that whine?

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Here's another one of your favourite hits:
One of these fine days you'll show an interest in actually discussing an issue rather than just whining about my posts.

Priceless. Would you like some cheese with that whine?

How's it whining? The same poster posts about me but not in relation to anything relevant to sexism or men's rights.

I'm not asking them to do anything, simply pointing it out.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

One of these fine days you'll show an interest in actually discussing an issue rather

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

just whining about my posts.

Chin chin

Double shot :pac:

El_Duderino 09

The most striking thing I've learned trough this forum over the last few years is about the demographic of the active posters.

I see lots of posts about how men are being victimised and masculinity is being derided. I thought the posters would be uber macho lads who were falling foul of modern feminism because of their natural machismo.

In actual fact what I've found is posters who's sense of masculinity is brittle and fragile. So many posters talk about being men who can't find a partner, can't provide for a family, can't compete for jobs, can't meet women/other men because they live in a rural area, can't hang out with men because their wife bosses them around, find offence in news article headlines without even needing to read the article contents. All these problems tend to be blamed on women or feminism or modern society in one form or another.

There are some serious issues facing men in 21st century Ireland. The bulk of issues raised here are trivial, which is a shame because there are real issues that could be addressed. I can safely say that a strong and realistic sense of masculinity is missing in a lot of men. Not the narrow sense of masculinity '1950's dad' style, but all the ways to be a decent man. I'd add that to the list of issues worth addressing.

iptba

‘The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics’
https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

Shaming Tactics
https://www.mgtow.com/shaming-tactics/

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

In actual fact what I've found is posters who's sense of masculinity is brittle and fragile. So many posters talk about being men who can't find a partner, can't provide for a family, can't compete for jobs, can't meet women/other men because they live in a rural area, can't hang out with men because their wife bosses them around, find offence in news article headlines without even needing to read the article contents. All these problems tend to be blamed on women or feminism or modern society in one form or another.

Would it not make sense that men with the most problems would have the biggest issue with a narrative that paints life as uniquely easy for men?

I think modern discussion in general is overly inclined to hand wave problems as "society" so I don't find it odd that it happens in this case too. Particularly if you consider the overall message is "If you're not a straight white male then your problems aren't your fault. If you're a straight white male then you're only successful because everything is easy for you. If you're a straight white male and you're not successful then you're doubly pathetic, particularly for complaining about it"

The problems you list sound fairly serious to me - can't find a job, can't find a partner, can't provide for their family. How can you wave all this away as "brittle"?

Outlaw Pete

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The most striking thing I've learned trough this forum over the last few years is about the demographic of the active posters.

I see lots of posts about how men are being victimised and masculinity is being derided. I thought the posters would be uber macho lads who were falling foul of modern feminism because of their natural machismo.

In actual fact what I've found is posters who's sense of masculinity is brittle and fragile. So many posters talk about being men who can't find a partner, can't provide for a family, can't compete for jobs, can't meet women/other men because they live in a rural area, can't hang out with men because their wife bosses them around, find offence in news article headlines without even needing to read the article contents. All these problems tend to be blamed on women or feminism or modern society in one form or another.

There are some serious issues facing men in 21st century Ireland. The bulk of issues raised here are trivial, which is a shame because there are real issues that could be addressed. I can safely say that a strong and realistic sense of masculinity is missing in a lot of men. Not the narrow sense of masculinity '1950's dad' style, but all the ways to be a decent man. I'd add that to the list of issues worth addressing.

And you wonder why male feminists have such a bad rep?

Which each post you reinforce the stereotype.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

‘The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics’
https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

Shaming Tactics
https://www.mgtow.com/shaming-tactics/

Was this meant in response to my post? Am I man shaming in your opinion?

Did you know these links have exactly the same info?

As a matter of interest, are any of those specific to gender discussions? They seem like a list of things that could be used seen in any argument in After Hours.

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And you wonder why male feminists have such a bad rep?

Which each post you reinforce the stereotype.

Its what you see when looking around this forum. At first I thought it was just joking but I've come to realise they some men are genuinely threatened by the trivial issues raised here.

Would it be unfair to point out that you haven't made any attempt to play the ball in that post? Feel free to address the post

Wibbs

maybe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The most striking thing I've learned trough this forum over the last few years is about the demographic of the active posters.

I see lots of posts about how men are being victimised and masculinity is being derided. I thought the posters would be uber macho lads who were falling foul of modern feminism because of their natural machismo.

In actual fact what I've found is posters who's sense of masculinity is brittle and fragile. So many posters talk about being men who can't find a partner, can't provide for a family, can't compete for jobs, can't meet women/other men because they live in a rural area, can't hang out with men because their wife bosses them around, find offence in news article headlines without even needing to read the article contents. All these problems tend to be blamed on women or feminism or modern society in one form or another.

[Translating....]: no wonder, sure they're not Real Men, fragile of ego, they probably live in basements and can't get girlfriends, sure what woman would look at them.

Oh man, that's a classic. :pac: If you were any more transparent than you've already shown yourself to be you'd pass fair muster as a window. Ah well, back to ignoring you. I find that the best policy. Unless you happen to come up with cogent arguments, rather than your usual shifting narrative bordering on trolling. And pigs might fly.

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The most striking thing...

Classic El_Duderino; you're sure to encourage civil debate by needlessly insulting all the posters. :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The most striking thing I've learned trough this forum over the last few years is about the demographic of the active posters.

I see lots of posts about how men are being victimised and masculinity is being derided. I thought the posters would be uber macho lads who were falling foul of modern feminism because of their natural machismo.

In actual fact what I've found is posters who's sense of masculinity is brittle and fragile. So many posters talk about being men who can't find a partner, can't provide for a family, can't compete for jobs, can't meet women/other men because they live in a rural area, can't hang out with men because their wife bosses them around, find offence in news article headlines without even needing to read the article contents. All these problems tend to be blamed on women or feminism or modern society in one form or another.

[Translating....]: no wonder, sure they're not Real Men, fragile of ego, they probably live in basements and can't get girlfriends, sure what woman would look at them.

Oh man, that's a classic. :pac: If you were any more transparent than you've already shown yourself to be you'd pass fair muster as a window. Ah well, back to ignoring you. I find that the best policy. Unless you happen to come up with cogent arguments, rather than your usual shifting narrative bordering on trolling. And pigs might fly.

I used actual examples that have arisen in these threads over the last few, so no need for cartoonish paraphrasing. If I thought they weren't real men who live in basements, I would have said so. I know some of them can't get girlfriends because they've explicitly said so in these threads. I do think there's a real problem with men having a strong and realistic sense of masculinity though. The fact that it can be so easily injured is testimony to that.

As I said, and you complete ignored, I think masculinity in the 21st century is an issue which ought to be addressed.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

Classic El_Duderino; you're sure to encourage civil debate by needlessly insulting all the posters. :rolleyes:

As i said in the response to Wibbs, the examples are from these threads over the last few weeks ; "can't find a partner, can't provide for a family, can't compete for jobs, can't meet women/other men because they live in a rural area, can't hang out with men because their wife bosses them around, find offence in news article headlines without even needing to read the article contents",

They're real life examples do I don't see them as insulting. It's just reality as reported by posters.

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote: »

Would it not make sense that men with the most problems would have the biggest issue with a narrative that paints life as uniquely easy for men?

I think modern discussion in general is overly inclined to hand wave problems as "society" so I don't find it odd that it happens in this case too. Particularly if you consider the overall message is "If you're not a straight white male then your problems aren't your fault. If you're a straight white male then you're only successful because everything is easy for you. If you're a straight white male and you're not successful then you're doubly pathetic, particularly for complaining about it"

The problems you list sound fairly serious to me - can't find a job, can't find a partner, can't provide for their family. How can you wave all this away as "brittle"?

Life is different for everyone. Donald trump started wealthy and that's obviously an advantage in life. I think being male and white brings some advantages and has some unique drawbacks. I wouldn't agree with anyone who says life is uniquely easy for men or you're only successful because you're a straight white man. Though in some ways it's less difficult (in other ways more so).

Those issues are serious, no doubt about it and it must be difficult for someone who can't find a partner or isn't allowed to spend time with other men because their partner bosses them around. What I don't see is how they relate any of that to societal problems or feminism. The chances are that those problems are much more localised than some feminist/societal plot to harm men. The solutions are likely to be found locally too.

Making out that it's a big conspiracy is passing the buck

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Life is different for everyone. Donald trump started wealthy and that's obviously an advantage in life. I think being male and white brings some advantages and has some unique drawbacks. I wouldn't agree with anyone who says life is uniquely easy for men or you're only successful because you're a straight white man. Though in some ways it's less difficult (in other ways more so).

Those issues are serious, no doubt about it and it must be difficult for someone who can't find a partner or isn't allowed to spend time with other men because their partner bosses them around. What I don't see is how they relate any of that to societal problems or feminism. The chances are that those problems are much more localised than some feminist/societal plot to harm men. The solutions are likely to be found locally too.

Making out that it's a big conspiracy is passing the buck

Your post doesn't have anything to do with "sexism that you have personally experienced or heard of". Maybe there is some other thread that would be appropriate to your musings about feminist plots.

Carlos Orange

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Making out that it's a big conspiracy is passing the buck

Calling something a conspiracy is usually just a cheap way to dismiss it.
Has anyone else called it a conspiracy? You seem a bit caught up on the word.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Your post doesn't have anything to do with "sexism that you have personally experienced or heard of". Maybe there is some other thread that would be appropriate to your musings about feminist plots.

Are you speaking as a mod or just point scoring?

El_Duderino 09

Well I've outlined what I've observed to be a brittle sense of masculinity. Hypersensitivity to discussion of men that isn't complementary is one way I would say it manifests, blaming unrelated problems on women and feminism would be another.

I would say The same applies to women. I don't have any examples of it from this forum but I'd say it manifests in women who are likewise hypersensitive to criticism and see patriarchy as the root of all their personal problems

El_Duderino 09

psinno wrote: »

Calling something a conspiracy is usually just a cheap way to dismiss it.
Has anyone else called it a conspiracy? You seem a bit caught up on the word.

I don't think anyone has explicitly called it a conspiracy. They seem to see it as a concerted attack on masculinity and men. Whether or not they think CNN and Time magazine and the Irish Times are deliberately conspiring to do it or not is unclear. Some posters say it's a profit motive, others just point to disparate headlines (with or without reading the articles) and declare men are under attack. It's hard to know if those posters think it's a conspiracy or not

Gbear

gizmo555 wrote: »

Don't bother engaging with it ...

There's more to free speech than the law enshrining it.

Sometimes I hear the line that if you're defending what you're saying purely through arguing that you're entitled to free speech it doesn't say great things about what you're arguing for.

I think the flip side (or something approximating the the flip side) of that is true as well.
If you're trying to shut down a debate purely on the basis that you only have to tolerate people's speech legally and don't have to actually engage with them or debate in good faith then that doesn't say much about your position either.

There is a principle of free speech and open debate separate from the law.

Of course there are arguments made in bad faith that aren't entitled to be aired wherever the one making the argument likes, but there is also a tendency to bury one's head in the sand when one is confronted with arguments one doesn't like.
I don't have a problem with sponsors pulling out, for example, or writers getting fired if they say something controversial, because in both cases it's a business decision entirely consistent with what the company is about.
The association was built on the advertiser benefitting from viewers having a positive assocation between their product and the content, or the writer's position was based on attracting people to the publication. Once that stops working it doesn't make sense to continue regardless of politics or philoshopical opinions.

On the other hand, no-platforming people giving talks or debates, particularly in institutions aimed specifically at fostering dialogue and debate like Universities, is far more insidious and troubling.
It only serves to further entrench the opposite sides and destroy nuance, and that, I would argue, is the biggest threat to public discourse today.

Further to that, the authoritarian streak in the kind of people who I'm taking issue with also means they often have issues with free speech laws as they are, and they often seek to undermine those principles or increase the limits already set upon them.

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Those issues are serious, no doubt about it and it must be difficult for someone who can't find a partner or isn't allowed to spend time with other men because their partner bosses them around. What I don't see is how they relate any of that to societal problems or feminism. The chances are that those problems are much more localised than some feminist/societal plot to harm men. The solutions are likely to be found locally too.

Making out that it's a big conspiracy is passing the buck

Well ok but it seemed a lot like you were trivialising the problems being faced earlier. You don't really come off as someone that cares about these issues or the people facing them, merely having concerns for how they've attributed blame.

You say they're passing the buck by blaming society - is this different to the discourse on issues affecting other groups? If you consult a group of feminist women are they talking mostly about their own personal responsibility for the issues they face and how they're responsible for improving their own lives?

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote:

Well ok but it seemed a lot like you were trivialising the problems being faced earlier. You don't really come off as someone that cares about these issues or the people facing them, merely having concerns for how they've attributed blame.

I was very definitely not trivialising those problems. Even being upset by news headlines shows that some men are hurting whether hurt was intended or not. Those are all real life examples that were shared by posters over the last few weeks and they all deserve to be heard. The part I take issue with is that instead of looking for any actual solutions or ways to improve things, attention switches to blaming feminism and society. It's a waste of momentum to build up an issue only to shoot it into space rather than aiming at an actual solution.

sharper wrote:

You say they're passing the buck by blaming society - is this different to the discourse on issues affecting other groups? If you consult a group of feminist women are they talking mostly about their own personal responsibility for the issues they face and how they're responsible for improving their own lives?

I don't know if it's different to discourse on issues affecting other groups. It's probably very similar in other groups. Like when feminists blame unrelated things on patriarchy. I'd say one difference is that the feminists actually organise and do the heavy lifting to get things changed. I don't see much of that action on the men's side which is a pity. If the feminists just complained about the patriarchy and didn't really follow through to get things done, then the group's would be doing just about the very same thing.

gizmo555

Gbear wrote: »

...no-platforming people giving talks or debates, particularly in institutions aimed specifically at fostering dialogue and debate like Universities, is far more insidious and troubling.

I've no interest in "no-platforming" anyone, nor has anyone actually been no-platformed. Everyone's free to post what they want.

But when "dialogue" gets reduced to this kind of sh1te, I personally wouldn't bother engaging with it:

tritium wrote: »

Wow way to completely and deliberately misrepresent what i said

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Here's another one of your favourite hits:
One of these fine days you'll show an interest in actually discussing an issue rather than just whining about my posts.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd say one difference is that the feminists actually organise and do the heavy lifting to get things changed. I don't see much of that action on the men's side which is a pity. If the feminists just complained about the patriarchy and didn't really follow through to get things done, then the group's would be doing just about the very same thing.

One thing that could put men off being active (under their own names) is the shaming they may endure from highlighting men's issues. An example of this can be seen in your very own post(s) earlier today attacking and shaming/trying to shame posters to this thread.

If I recall correctly this issue (of men been shamed/similar for highlighting such issues and the effect it might on activism) was highlighted to you on a previous thread but that didn't stop you making your attack(s).

Words are cheap, you will need to prove by your behaviour that your main interest is any sexism against men or related issues rather than what it has always appeared to me to be: disliking feminism being criticised.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The part I take issue with is that instead of looking for any actual solutions or ways to improve things, attention switches to blaming feminism and society. It's a waste of momentum to build up an issue only to shoot it into space rather than aiming at an actual solution.

I, for one, would love to hear some of your solutions rather than all the criticisms of other peoples posts. I'm serious. I can't recall you posting any examples of sexism directed towards men, and how to really resolve them.

Apart from getting off our collective asses and marching. Other than that, what other solutions can you suggest? (with some details)

[I'm not planning on taking apart your suggestions. I'd just like to see something different posted by you]

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know if it's different to discourse on issues affecting other groups. It's probably very similar in other groups. Like when feminists blame unrelated things on patriarchy.

Ok so these men have legitimate and serious problems and respond to them in much the same ways as others do. Why do you take particular issue with them?

I'd say one difference is that the feminists actually organise and do the heavy lifting to get things changed. I don't see much of that action on the men's side which is a pity. If the feminists just complained about the patriarchy and didn't really follow through to get things done, then the group's would be doing just about the very same thing.

Let's be honest here, what do you think would happen if a bunch of Irish men organised to try and address problems faced only or mostly by Irish men? What would the news articles look like? What would the twitter discourse be? What type of people would want to associate themselves by showing up, even if they have real problems?

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote:

One thing that could put men off being active (under their own names) is the shaming they may endure from highlighting men's issues. An example of this can be seen in your very own post(s) earlier today attacking and shaming/trying to shame posters to this thread.

If I recall correctly this issue (of men been shamed/similar for highlighting such issues and the effect it might on activism) was highlighted to you on a previous thread but that didn't stop you making your attack(s).

I'm not up on the lingo, does shaming have a specific meaning in this context?. What have I done to shame posters? If shaming has the same meaning as normal and means getting abuse, then isn't that bound to happen any time someone engages in activism? The vocal feminists among many other active groups, get dogs abuse. They endure it and actually get things done.

iptba wrote:

Words are cheap, you will need to prove by your behaviour that your main interest is any sexism against men or related issues rather than what it has always appeared to me to be: disliking feminism being criticised.

I do care about men's rights. Placing blame for things at feminisms food is a poor substitute for actually discussing the reality of the situation and finding ways to improve men's it in life. The world is always changing and it's everyone's responsibility to keep up. Complaining that things have changed is one thing, blaming the feminists is another and discussing the reality to find solutions is a completely different thing altogether.

ligerdub

I saw a post on twitter earlier this evening. Some chap was posting about mental health and how it was time we addressed the issue of "toxic masculinity" to help this.

I thought he was saying it in jest. I was wrong. I made the error of replying to him that the mistake was to buy into this anti-male propaganda.

I was then set about that I was a "muppet" and was part of the problem, by the original tweeter himself. My notifications went off the wall. It started from one woman lecturing me on the extent of my error. A seemingly never ending purge of passive aggression/aggression and projections. It snowballed from there into her pack of wolves. Not a pleasant experience.

I have a problem with prescribed behaviour regardless of what it is (well within the realm of legality, roughly speaking). In the past it was a problem for more sensitive men to be seen as sensitive within a male environment (still true to some extent). This was/is unfair on those guys. The polar opposite was seen as obsolete and wrong to the tweeter though, i.e. the classic traditional male stereotype. It might not be all that popular these days, but what is inherently wrong with those people if that's who they are and that's how they want to behave? It seems to me that the most damaging thing you can do to somebody's confidence is to project on them that they are somehow wrong, incomplete, bad, unacceptable, less wanted. Maybe we should give our young boys, and indeed men, a bit of slack here, stop demonising them for their penis and the pro's and con's that come with that.

A frustrating aspect of this exchange was there was a degree of common ground from both parties here, but ironically the level of aggression directed at me by those who think "toxic masculinity" is a problem was very high. The problem I had with this was the hypocrisy of this guy's call to action. He stated that it needed to be more acceptable for men to be gay (it seems to me this problem has stopped and then some). There's a subtle undertone here that men are committing suicide more than women, and that to solve this problem we need to weed out this masculinity. It is this explanation of "why" which bugs me. "This is why it's happening, and this is what we need to stop it".....twaddle!

I needn't state (but I will anyway) that most of the people telling me what was wrong for men were indeed women.

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote:

Ok so these men have legitimate and serious problems and respond to them in much the same ways as others do. Why do you take particular issue with them?

I only take issue when they get the energy together to do something, then just blame feminism rather than actually do anything.

sharper wrote:

Let's be honest here, what do you think would happen if a bunch of Irish men organised to try and address problems faced only or mostly by Irish men? What would the news articles look like? What would the twitter discourse be? What type of people would want to associate themselves by showing up, even if they have real problems?

I imagine it would be similar to any other movement. Thy would have sensible people and hooligans attend. It would be up to them to decide whether or not to challenge the hooligans.

The twitter discourse would be similar to the way I imagine any other twitter discourse. Polarised and nasty. I don't bother with twitter. It gives me a headache to look at it so I wouldn't be best place from comment. Generally it would be very similar to any other movement. Those who oppose it or support the status quo would be on the other side. I imagine if you asked the activists of almost any movement what it's like to be on the leading edge, they'd say they endure dogs abuse. That's reality. I wouldn't like it but that's the way the world is.

tritium

gizmo555 wrote: »

I've no interest in "no-platforming" anyone, nor has anyone actually been no-platformed. Everyone's free to post what they want.

But when "dialogue" gets reduced to this kind of sh1te, I personally wouldn't bother engaging with it:

Not sure why you quote my post tbh, think you may be missing something.....