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

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you have any issue condemning abuse? I don’t. It doesn’t cost me a second thought. I condemn it and anyone who does it. Case closed, next issue. I don’t identify with people who do it and I don’t assume any guilt by association with them because I’m not associated with them.

You're human aren't you?

In every story of abuse I've ever read the abuser is a human. A human just like you.

So don't try to avoid responsibility. You are human and abusers are human. Just take responsibility.

Let's imagine The Guardian says: A - "Why it's wrong to demand that all humans condemn abusers"

Let's imagine The Guardian also says: B - "Not all humans commit abuse but all must condemn it"

They are contradictory points of view.

What if we took "humans" and split them up into smaller categories? "Man" or "Woman". "Christian" or "Muslin" or "Atheist".

Then what if we took our contradictory statements A and B and applied them to the different categories of humans.

We could end up saying "It's wrong to demand that all members of Group A condemn the actions of other members of Group A" while also saying "Not everyone in Group B does bad things but all members of Group B must condemn it".

That would be a bit hypocritical, in my opinion, and may actually be symptomatic of an underlying prejudice or bigotry towards certain groups.

How could you not see this? Or maybe you do see it but agree with it on some level?

silverharp

Saruhashi wrote: »

I must be missing something here.

Silverharp shared 2 Guardian headlines with the comment "Guardian logic " and no other commentary.

My personal assumption is that this was just having a laugh at the contradictory nature of Guardian articles. I thought it was pretty funny myself.

I like the cut of your jib! bang on an everyone except for El got it, not sure what he read into it that wasnt there

El_Duderino 09

Kidchameleon wrote:

I demonstrated with personal experience how the deluge of such headlines *literally* makes victims of men. I havnt complained about feminism?

You made a tenuous link between headlines and suicide. It's a far cry from a demonstration of anything. As I said already, making spurious claims like that to score a point only trivialises the very real issue of men's suicide.

tritium wrote:

As usual you spin the past to give it a dishonest slant to suit your narrative. What Silverharp posted was a (very good) example of the hypocricy attaching to a well known feminist leaning publication.

It was a good example of cheap point scoring based on the headlines alone absent the articles content.

tritium wrote:

You of course went on the offensive, completely ignoring the point that had been made in favour of your own interpretation (how can i be offended, let me count the ways......);

I haven't registered offense at anything. Simply pointing out the nonsense that gets a free pass in lieu of anything to do with actual sexism or anything to do with men's rights.

Saruhashi wrote:

My personal assumption is that this was just having a laugh at the contradictory nature of Guardian articles. I thought it was pretty funny myself.

Not the articles, just the headlines They don't tend to read the articles, they just post the headlines. Reading the articles would have rendered the exercise useless so they're careful not to read them.

Saruhashi wrote:

It is a bit crap, and a bit sexist, that all men are expected to go out of their way to condemn men who do bad things.

Go out of their way? How are they being asked to go out of their way? Simply holding the attitude that abuse is wrong and being willing to oppose abuse if they encounter it would be more than enough. Being a decent person and making opposition to abuse part of their moral code as part of the changing world.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

How could you not see this? Or maybe you do see it but agree with it on some level?

This is amusing because the article addresses this point in a way. For example the Muslims are a discourage group by the fact that they have distinct sects. They also have representative bodies which can speak on behalf of specific groups or multiple groups. So when the British Muslim council took out ads to condemn Isis, there isn't really a men's equivalent group.

So now we have a major difference in the way he groups are organised and the way the groups express themselves. But they are being asked to express themselves. Men don't have a national council in the way Muslims do so the onus is on the individual.

Do you have a problem with condemning abuse or something? Seems like it would be easy for anyone to do.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

I like the cut of your jib! bang on an everyone except for El got it, not sure what he read into it that wasnt there

I read the articles. They're the bits under the headlines.

Kidchameleon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You made a tenuous link between headlines and suicide. It's a far cry from a demonstration of anything. As I said already, making spurious claims like that to score a point only trivialises the very real issue...

Why is it tenious? Have you ever worked the emergency line for Pieta house? Anything that makes a lad feel more sh*tty about himself is a contributing factor if he decides to kill himself. I can tell you as a bloke the current climate of man hating makes me feel awful, particularly when I see it rub off on my daughter. Get your head out of the sand and throw your soap box away and maybe we can have a discussion with you.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I read the articles. They're the bits under the headlines.

Yeah, I read the articles too and my previous comment still stands. My personal assumption is that this was just having a laugh at the contradictory nature of Guardian articles. I thought it was pretty funny myself.

So there you go.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you have a problem with condemning abuse or something? Seems like it would be easy for anyone to do.

No problem at all. I certainly don't like being told what to do though.

I'm not going to speak up and condemn abuse because someone wants to make a point about how bad men are and thinks they can guilt trip me into agreeing.

Why focus on gender at all? We know that humans of all types abuse other humans of all types. I don't know why a specific subset of humans should be specially singled out.

Pretty sure that the people doing the abusing already know that what they are doing is wrong. Unless they have some kind of condition.

I can say "that's terrible" if I hear about abuse and I can say "stop that now" if I witness it but I'm not going to get into self-flagellation because I happen to have some commonality with some abusers. That's just daft.

El_Duderino 09

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Why is it tenious? Have you ever worked the emergency line for Pieta house? Anything that makes a lad feel more sh*tty about himself is a contributing factor if he decides to kill himself. I can tell you as a bloke the current climate of man hating makes me feel awful, particularly when I see it rub off on my daughter. Get your head out of the sand and throw your soap box away and maybe we can have a discussion with you.

I haven’t worked for Pieta house. Have you worked for them? Is there anything to link article headlines and suicide apart from you saying so?

If these article headlines have such a detrimental effect on your self esteem, then we need to ask if it’s a ‘you’ problem which you need to address or a problem with the headlines. I presume you’re suggesting the headlines are to blame. Are you suggesting banning article headlines that aren’t flattering to men? What are you actually suggesting should happen?

I wonder if you’d take the same approach with another topic? If someone told you ‘Grid girls’ in formula 1 or the totty birds in action movies had a detrimental effect on their self esteem, would you make the same link to suicide? And call for them to be similarly removed?

Is this the definition of PC gone mad? Are you a big supporter of the PC option or are you making a special exception in this case?

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote: »

No problem at all. I certainly don't like being told what to do though.

I'm not going to speak up and condemn abuse because someone wants to make a point about how bad men are and thinks they can guilt trip me into agreeing.

Why focus on gender at all? We know that humans of all types abuse other humans of all types. I don't know why a specific subset of humans should be specially singled out.

Pretty sure that the people doing the abusing already know that what they are doing is wrong. Unless they have some kind of condition.

I can say "that's terrible" if I hear about abuse and I can say "stop that now" if I witness it but I'm not going to get into self-flagellation because I happen to have some commonality with some abusers. That's just daft.

If you already condemn it, then the article is just agreeing with the opinion you already hold.

Who’s guilt tripping you? You already hold the opinion.

Why focus on gender? There are differences in the types of abuse perpetrated by men and women so of course it makes sense to deal with the types of abuse that matter to you most. If you have a particular issue that’s important to you, you’re free to focus on it.

Take the sexual abuse coming up since Weinstein. It’s mostly perpetrated against women and all have been by men. What’s the point in treating it as if it’s 50:50 male and female perpetrators when that’s not the case?

There are some issues which are in the middle of cultural change like street harassment. It used to be normal, now it’s seen as wrong.

Why would you get involved in self flagellation? You already hold the opinion and attitude. Somehow the existence of an article to the same effect gives you a sad feeling and it’s the article’s fault.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why focus on gender? There are differences in the types of abuse perpetrated by men and women so of course it makes sense to deal with the types of abuse that matter to you most. If you have a particular issue that’s important to you, you’re free to focus on it.

Take the sexual abuse coming up since Weinstein. It’s mostly perpetrated against women and all have been by men. What’s the point in treating it as if it’s 50:50 male and female perpetrators when that’s not the case?

Gender doesn't matter though.

Woman A: I think we should eradicate 100% of domestic and sexual abuse.
Woman B: Woah there. You're a woman aren't you?
Woman A: Yes.
Woman B: So why don't we just focus on female victims? Let the men deal with their own problems?

Right so next time I see one of those ads on TV asking for donations for starving kids in Africa I can just refuse to donate because I'm not black and those kids are so it's not my problem. That's someone else's problem?

I'm sorry but if you are looking at an issue and instead of aiming to deal with 100% of the problem you are saying "well actually I'm going to deal with the part of the problem that affects people like me, I don't want to help those other people" then you are a bigot.

I feel so strongly about this because it is basically a form of bigotry that modern society has deemed acceptable. Just like many societies before us has rampant prejudice and bigotry that went unchallenged.

It's not 50:50 so lets all but ignore the abuse against men. It's not 50:50 so let's all invest mostly in helping women and if men want to help other men then they are free to focus on it. Without the same level of funding or exposure or assistance, or course, but they are "free to focus on it".

I feel the same way about suicide or homelessness or other supposed "men's issues". It's an issue that affects all genders.

What the hell happens to people who don't identify as male or female? If they are only making up 1 or 2% of the population then they will be a very small number of the total victims of abuse. Certainly they will not be numerous enough to focus on it themselves. So we just cast them aside?

We can argue on whether or not there are only 2 genders but if an individual does not consider themselves to be a "man" or a "woman" then they are unlikely to seek help from a men's group or a women's group.

Since abuse affects all genders, efforts to tackle abuse should be gender neutral and anyone calling out "men" specifically or only helping "women" is clearly a bigot.

That's why Silverharp's post that started this was spot on. The Guardian calls out bigots but also engages in bigotry. They are hypocrites and they stand side by side with the Alt-right etc in that regard. Complaining that "our" people are the victims of bigotry while also complaining non stop about "those" people.

(and before you try to claim that this thread does the same thing I would like to point out that "Feminist" does not mean "woman" and having issues with an ideology is not the same as having issues with people based on their race or gender etc)

Saruhashi

Looks like the entire thread has been debunked anyway.

"It's impossible for women to be sexist towards men".

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

So there you go.

manonboard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you have any issue condemning abuse? I don’t. It doesn’t cost me a second thought. I condemn it and anyone who does it. Case closed, next issue. I don’t identify with people who do it and I don’t assume any guilt by association with them because I’m not associated with them.

I can’t understand why you would be offended on behalf of an abuser. Do you feel you need to defend abusers or something? I feel I could drop them like a hot snot so it doesn’t knock a feather out of me to say I condemn that behaviour. Simple as that.

Hi El_Duderino.

Im hoping it's ok i engage you on a point in this post. It stood out to me because i related to it alot in my past.
I read some of your other recent posts in this thread and i largely agree with alot your thoughts, and probably all of your intentions.

This point here though niggled at me and i wanted to bring it up if thats ok.

About 8 years ago, I started to learn self improvement. (i'm 32). Before that, I had no idea of my own ignorance and problems. I was pretty stupid in that regard, but i always had a knack for not being afraid to look at difficulty objectively.
I used to believe i was not a bad person, nor an abuser, and that is why i wanted to approach you over the very black and white line i'm interpreting in your post.

My behavior towards others was usually something people would always describe as nice and well. However, as i learned more about my emotions, intentions, alot of that came crumbling down in my view. It was only 'nice' because its the way everyone else is and they agree with their own opinions. I realized that society had brainwashed me to believe that normal things were healthy, when in fact they were all on the same path to harm/abuse as others. Emotions such as anger, jealously, fear, desire for safety, desire for others attentions/desire for pleasure. These all were things i practiced as a standard human being. I would often be labeled non possessive by people, its a strong point of mine. However there are many things such as trying to protect your relationship, labeling others as XYZ or not XYZ. I found even basic speech to be loaded with all these judgement and accusations, and void of wisdom, and full of ignorance. Stuff that would sound perfectly ok to most people.

Your statement above draws a very big dis-identification with abusers. This is a very dangerous view in my opinion. It immediately sets up a few traps such as confirmation biast, and also a huge blind spot to see that you are also an abuser at times. It could be as small as speaking to others in a way that makes them feel insignificant and you more rightous/correct, or it could be something as simple as encouraging someone to serve some of your needs and therefore reducing them to a transactional item. Maybe when you said 'drop them like a hot snot' you meant physically abuse someone?
These things happen every day, for each of us. It's a huge spectrum and our failure to admit that we are all infact on it, is one of the big reasons it still happens. It encourages shame to be on it, to admit it, and without being able to bring our self awareness to that admission, we can never really tackle it in ourselves.

I wanted to say this to you, though of course you may entirely disagree, because it seems like you would like to have a very just and right world. Noble sentiments and a worthy cause, and i just wanted to point to an area that is often a blocker of your goal.

tritium

Saruhashi wrote: »

Looks like the entire thread has been debunked anyway.

"It's impossible for women to be sexist towards men".

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

So there you go.

Ah yes that nonsense again. Framing it so its alright to be an asshole once she belongs to the 'right' group based on privelige or similar nonsense

Saruhashi

tritium wrote: »

Ah yes that nonsense again. Framing it so its alright to be an asshole once she belongs to the 'right' group based on privelige or similar nonsense

A big part of what ticks me off about these people is it lays the groundwork for far worse people to come in and use these "tactics" to cause real damage.

I am sure that the author doesn't want to harm anyone but what we are seeing here is a template for getting away with bad behavior.

If we redefine "sexism" then there is a loophole to disrespect one of the sexes while avoiding the label sexist.

On one level we can just say "that's a bit cheeky" and dismiss it as nonsense.

We see people everyday who treat staff in restaurants and shops and supermarkets like dirt and don't think anything of it because in their mind they aren't being a complete @$$hole because "they are paid to serve me". They give themselves a free pass with a supposedly "rational" explanation that ignores the fact that people working in customer service are still actual humans deserving of respect. They do this because in their mind the existence of the "customer" and "server" roles overrides the need to be a decent human being.

On another level you can look at how these people view Trump and you can imagine what would happen if Trump came out and used the same redefinition tactic. Maybe he redefines "extremist" or "terrorist" or "supremacist" to sneakily exclude some right wing groups. Nobody would stand for that.

He kind of did it already with the "both sides" thing after Charlottesville and people went absolutely mental.

But if we have mainstream article declaring that the meaning of "sexist" has been redefined and now women cannot be sexist towards men then it is being acknowledged as a valid tactic.

So why is it not just accepted when Trump says "both sides"? If he is defining political violence in a certain way and both sides, by that definition, were using violence and violent rhetoric then it's fine to say "both sides".

They already gave the green light to use that tactic so why not?

An alt right extremist might publicly promote the idea that white people can't "murder" black people because they have a different take on the definition of "murder".

The "women can't be sexist against men" crowd can't really object to that because the tactic is one that they have fully supported.

Usually when we get to the stage of saying "this has gone to far" it's already too late.

When I hear people talk about "oppression" in recent years I often feel like they haven't read up on historical examples of oppression and how the oppressors would use concepts like "privilege", tricky definitions of words and twisted interpretations of laws and morals to seize the power and then wield it with devastating effect.

If we could put the author of that article in charge of the nation then how long before that minor bias and prejudice against men is running wild and out of control?

Calhoun

It would run out of control but to what end? We have two societies in Ireland as it is, one that law abiding citizens follow and the unlawful one where status is achieved through violence. When more men get disenfranchised it will be interesting to see how things go, especially considering how poor our police force is.

I also find it funny how bit by bit the feminists and social justice folk are changing and deeming sexual assault, nice own goal.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

Gender doesn't matter though.

Now, the posters are constantly reminding each other that men and women are different. Wibbs would go spare if they saw you say gender doesn't matter. As they piously remind us they 'gender is not a social construct'. Its a significant dividing line in how people behave. The Weinstein abuse claims are an example of how men and women behave differently. Going be the evidence we have it's reasonable to conclude that most instances of these types of abuse are perpetrated by men. That gives clues about how to understand, prevent and deal with perpetrators and victims.

What's the point in pretending that abuse is 50:50 male and female perpetrators? Just to be politically correct?

Saruhashi wrote:

Right so next time I see one of those ads on TV asking for donations for starving kids in Africa I can just refuse to donate because I'm not black and those kids are so it's not my problem. That's someone else's problem?

You can do that if you like but don't get the impression that I encourage that attitude. Of course it's fine to support people that aren't exactly like you. It's also fine to support people who are like you. It's possible to give support for starving kids in Africa and give support for starving kids in Ireland. I can't imagine how you're getting any of that from what I said.

Saruhashi wrote:

I'm sorry but if you are looking at an issue and instead of aiming to deal with 100% of the problem you are saying "well actually I'm going to deal with the part of the problem that affects people like me, I don't want to help those other people" then you are a bigot.

I do support tackling abuse against everyone so when I see a campaign to raise awareness of abuse of women, I support it because women are a subset of everyone. When i see a campaign to highlight abuse of men, I support it because men are a subset of everyone.

What you're actually doing here is refusing to support the starving kids in Africa because it's not also supporting all starving kids everywhere. This is exactly what you're doing and you called that behaviour bigoted. Thinking through.

Saruhashi wrote:

It's not 50:50 so lets all but ignore the abuse against men. It's not 50:50 so let's all invest mostly in helping women and if men want to help other men then they are free to focus on it. Without the same level of funding or exposure or assistance, or course, but they are "free to focus on it".

If a charity helps starving kids in Africa, are they wrong for ignoring starving kids everywhere else? And are Concern wrong for helping kids in Syria and ignoring kids everywhere else? Or are they to be commended for doing the good work they do?

Saruhashi wrote:

I feel the same way about suicide or homelessness or other supposed "men's issues". It's an issue that affects all genders.

Now that's completely against the grain of thought in this forum. Men's suicide is quantitatively different to female suicide. The causal factors are probably different and the solutions are likely to be significantly different. So why would we pretend they're the same? In the interest of political correctness?

I know it might be dreadfully unpopular to agree with me, but I have to point out that you're making claims that wouldn't be accepted unchallenged under normal circumstances.

Gender doesn't matter, male suicide and homelessness and "other supposed "men's issues"" should be treated the same as women's? I think you'll have to explain those ideas a bit further.

FWIW, I think there are legitimate men's issues (no need to call them 'supposed "men's issues"'.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now, the posters are constantly reminding each other that men and women are different. Wibbs would go spare if they saw you say gender doesn't matter. As they piously remind us they 'gender is not a social construct'.

This pedantry is already tiresome and boring.

In the context of solving issues of abuse and suicide etc then gender doesn't matter.

Sure, if we are talking about picking the best team for a 100 meter relay sprint race then gender matters.

You want to solve a problem then you solve the problem. You don't say "I want to solve the problem but only for certain groups".

If the argument is that male suicide and female suicide are different problems or that male victims and female victims are totally different then I'd need to hear that argument.

I don't give a damn if the board agrees with me or not. If someone comes to me looking for support or a donation for a charity helping suicidal people then I absolutely will not hear it if they are all but ignoring non-male suicides.

I see more similarities than differences and so I think maybe we give everyone the same level of assistance regardless of gender.

You DO support division and favoritism and bigotry if your willingness to help a theoretical victim of abuse is only clear once the gender of the victim is learned. You do support division if you are dividing victims by race or gender or whatever. Everyone deserves the best help. Not "members of Group A get the best help and members of Group B get the lesser funded, less widely available help". Especially not when it's the exact same issue they need help with.

I mean, what if I don't identify as male but I feel suicidal? I can't get the best help because... reasons?

What if I don't identify as female but my partner is knocking the crap out of me every night? Can't get the best help because I don't belong to the "subset" that gets the most funding?

If only there was a way to see this that meant everyone got the best possible help...

Again, I ask what the hell happens to people who don't identify as male or female? If they are only making up 1 or 2% of the population then they will be a very small number of the total victims of abuse. Certainly they will not be numerous enough to focus on it themselves. So we just cast them aside?

We can argue on whether or not there are only 2 genders but if an individual does not consider themselves to be a "man" or a "woman" then they are unlikely to seek help from a men's group or a women's group.

Who helps them? Is it fair that they should be excluded from getting the best help because it's been decided that dividing issues into "men's" and "women's" issues is the way to go?

You are the one who always says that women help other women because they care more about women and that men should help other men if they care so much about men. That's so divisive though. Why not just help everyone from the outset?

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now, the posters are constantly reminding each other that men and women are different. Wibbs would go spare if they saw you say gender doesn't matter. As they piously remind us they 'gender is not a social construct'. Its a significant dividing line in how people behave. The Weinstein abuse claims are an example of how men and women behave differently. Going be the evidence we have it's reasonable to conclude that most instances of these types of abuse are perpetrated by men. That gives clues about how to understand, prevent and deal with perpetrators and victims.

What's the point in pretending that abuse is 50:50 male and female perpetrators? Just to be politically correct?



You can do that if you like but don't get the impression that I encourage that attitude. Of course it's fine to support people that aren't exactly like you. It's also fine to support people who are like you. It's possible to give support for starving kids in Africa and give support for starving kids in Ireland. I can't imagine how you're getting any of that from what I said.



I do support tackling abuse against everyone so when I see a campaign to raise awareness of abuse of women, I support it because women are a subset of everyone. When i see a campaign to highlight abuse of men, I support it because men are a subset of everyone.

What you're actually doing here is refusing to support the starving kids in Africa because it's not also supporting all starving kids everywhere. This is exactly what you're doing and you called that behaviour bigoted. Thinking through.



If a charity helps starving kids in Africa, are they wrong for ignoring starving kids everywhere else? And are Concern wrong for helping kids in Syria and ignoring kids everywhere else? Or are they to be commended for doing the good work they do?



Now that's completely against the grain of thought in this forum. Men's suicide is quantitatively different to female suicide. The causal factors are probably different and the solutions are likely to be significantly different. So why would we pretend they're the same? In the interest of political correctness?

I know it might be dreadfully unpopular to agree with me, but I have to point out that you're making claims that wouldn't be accepted unchallenged under normal circumstances.

Gender doesn't matter, male suicide and homelessness and "other supposed "men's issues"" should be treated the same as women's? I think you'll have to explain those ideas a bit further.

FWIW, I think there are legitimate men's issues (no need to call them 'supposed "men's issues"'.

Do you actually read anyones posts here or do you just skim them to apply against a template as to why anyone who could potentially criticise feminism or disagree with them must be wrong/ flawed/ hypocritical?

Genuine question btw. As several posters have repeatedly demonstrated to you recently your answers strongly tend to take what people have posted and either completely misrepresent it or look for an almost jesuitical interpretation to get the conclusion you want to draw

El_Duderino 09

manonboard wrote:

Your statement above draws a very big dis-identification with abusers. This is a very dangerous view in my opinion. It immediately sets up a few traps such as confirmation biast, and also a huge blind spot to see that you are also an abuser at times. It could be as small as speaking to others in a way that makes them feel insignificant and you more rightous/correct, or it could be something as simple as encouraging someone to serve some of your needs and therefore reducing them to a transactional item.

I get you. The position I hold is largely due to my life experiences. Some of those experiences are a source of pride and other are not. For example I have been a bully in secondary school. I was never one of the bad ones but I've time I realised that I treated some people unfairly. I apologized to one guy in particular. Bumped into him at a match and said him I gave him **** and he didn't deserve it and I was being an arsehole.

I was around a lot of sexual stuff that I'm not proud of in my late 20s as part of the Uni rugby team social nights. I didn't do any of the dodgy stuff but I didn't say anything to stop it and I laughed along with the stories the next day. I didn't see anything wrong at the time, it's only on reflection that I see what I did and didn't do.

I say this to illustrate that I'm fine with looking at my actions and seeing where they're right or wrong and adjusting how I deal with things in the future.

manonboard wrote:

Maybe when you said 'drop them like a hot snot' you meant physically abuse someone? These things happen every day, for each of us. It's a huge spectrum and our failure to admit that we are all infact on it, is one of the big reasons it still happens. It encourages shame to be on it, to admit it, and without being able to bring our self awareness to that admission, we can never really tackle it in ourselves.

I said I'd drop hem like a hot snot but I don't mean in a vigilante way, I'm not into violence at all. I mean I feel no problem with condemning the actions of those people. I don't feel any need to defend them and I think it's right and proper for people to stand together and condemn those behaviours.

This was in the context of 'all men should condemn abuse of women' and obviously agree with the statement. I also agree with the statement 'all men/women should condemn abuse of men/women by men/women. If those were the headlines, I would also agree with them.

If you look back at the last few pages there was something strange going on. The posters did condemn the abuse but we're somehow annoyed that it was written that they should condemn the abuse unless everyone else was being told they should also condemn the abuse committed by their own group too. The most unusual position I've see in a while was the idea that we should just condemn all abuse by everyone and not make any distinction between any abuses or groups even where they exist. That's not rational to me.

manonboard wrote:

I wanted to say this to you, though of course you may entirely disagree, because it seems like you would like to have a very just and right world. Noble sentiments and a worthy cause, and i just wanted to point to an area that is often a blocker of your goal.

I appreciate your point of view. I don't think I'm particularly in disagreement with any part of it.

manonboard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

.....

Thank you very much for your courteous and respectful response. I appreciate you sharing the views and experiences you had and looked back on. Im very glad we see eye to eye on it all (for the sake of society! ).
Again, much gratitude for your response and reason.

iptba

Highlighting particular groups are more likely to do some unhelpful behaviour might have a value if it done fairly. However if it is not, either due to political correctness or for some other reason, there can be a problem. It seems reasonable to point out possible double standards in this regard.

Related to this is that not all victims may have equal status so that for example it could be the case that male victims of some types could have less status or have less concern shown towards them.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This was in the context of 'all men should condemn abuse of women' and obviously agree with the statement. I also agree with the statement 'all men/women should condemn abuse of men/women by men/women. If those were the headlines, I would also agree with them.

If you look back at the last few pages there was something strange going on. The posters did condemn the abuse but we're somehow annoyed that it was written that they should condemn the abuse unless everyone else was being told they should also condemn the abuse committed by their own group too. The most unusual position I've see in a while was the idea that we should just condemn all abuse by everyone and not make any distinction between any abuses or groups even where they exist. That's not rational to me.

it doesnt make sense, there are no male reps that can comply with this feminist rhetoric. its just virtue signalling or trying to browbeat political opponents.

Outlaw Pete

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you look back at the last few pages there was something strange going on. The posters did condemn the abuse but we're somehow annoyed that it was written that they should condemn the abuse unless everyone else was being told they should also condemn the abuse committed by their own group too.

The contradiction you're suggesting took place, didn't.

Just because some people condemned domestic violence, doesn't mean that they agree with The Guardian that all men "MUST" do likewise, which is the stretch you're making.

Iseedeadpixels

I just got my head punched and lips bitten by a woman! Id be done for assault if it was me!!!

Kidchameleon

iptba wrote: »

Highlighting particular groups are more likely to do some unhelpful behaviour might have a value if it done fairly. However if it is not, either due to political correctness or for some other reason, there can be a problem. It seems reasonable to point out possible double standards in this regard.

Related to this is that not all victims may have equal status so that for example it could be the case that male victims of some types could have less status or have less concern shown towards them.

There was an ad campaign recently put out by the Department of Justice & Equality. Two ads were part of the campaign, one where a dude abuses a chick and another where a chick abuses a dude. I'm convinced that the man on woman violence one was given much more air time despite the possibility* that women are more likely to be violent.

This is the one I always see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH3zXk4s0mw

And this is the one I've seen literally once:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Min3O_D_wM4

Maybe its just me and the second video is shown to female target audiences but I'd love to see the stats on how much the department aired each of the ads.

*I can find stats that back up either claim (that men are more likely to be violent or that women are more likely to be violent) but from my personal experience and observations, I have seen that chicks are more likely although I'd say men would tend to do more damage due to their physical superiority. The worst case of domestic abuse I can personally vouch for involved a mother cracking her sons head open by repeatedly slamming his head with a door. Absolute c*u*n*t of a woman.

Kidchameleon

You know what, I can tell you that that guards would probably not believe him and or not care, and I tell you that from personal experience.

Kidchameleon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I haven’t worked for Pieta house. Have you worked for them?

Yes

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I presume you’re suggesting the headlines are to blame.

Now hang on there young lady, can you show me where I said that? Go ahead and quote the post. You have a seem to have a tendency to take peoples responses out of context and or exaggerate them. I said that I believe they are a contributing factor (however minute or substantial that may be) to low male self esteem based on my personal experience.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are you suggesting banning article headlines that aren’t flattering to men?

Again, please show me where I said that. I never once suggested anything being banned. I believe in free speech by the way.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What are you actually suggesting should happen?

I don't believe I suggested anything at all. Again, please show me where I made a suggestion of action.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I wonder if you’d take the same approach with another topic? If someone told you ‘Grid girls’ in formula 1 or the totty birds in action movies had a detrimental effect on their self esteem, would you make the same link to suicide?

I have no doubt that a female persons self esteem can be affected by what they see in the media and if low self esteem was something that suicidal females reported, only a bloody idiot would try to separate the two. Would I suggest that the media is the number one cause of female suicide? No! And its not what I suggested in my previous post. So please stop putting words in my mouth young lady.

Wibbs

maybe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So please stop putting words in my mouth young lady.

I'd not waste my keystrokes KC, this is the near given in how he(BTW) "debates". Extremely dishonest debater.

I'd agree with that alright G. Uphill struggle mind you as quite a few societal changes will need to happen and not just within the Guards. I've known a few Guards down the years and they know this happens, but they also know trying to pursue it is a lot more difficult than violence going the other way. Plus they hate domestic abuse crime. Real soul destroying stuff.

Iseedeadpixels

Nope waste of time, plus fairly drunk so just wanted out of the situation.

Iseedeadpixels

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

Nope waste of time, plus fairly drunk so just wanted out of the situation.

And it will continue to be a waste of time as long as it's not reported and followed up on.

It's really quite simple. Women's rights in the last few decades gained most of its momentum once the public got on board. And the public nowadays responds greatest to statistics. It doesn't matter whether they understand the stats or not, but many people tend to blindly accept what they hear from reports featuring statistics. Just the way our society has developed.

The only way for men's rights or equality to happen is if men stop this attitude of dismissal regarding any harassment/abuse and promote that it's not acceptable anymore. Its how the feminists have managed to gain the support of the public, and just shrugging it all off, just gives them an unopposed advancement of women's rights without any consideration of how men's rights are affected.

manonboard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And it will continue to be a waste of time as long as it's not reported and followed up on.

It's really quite simple. Women's rights in the last few decades gained most of its momentum once the public got on board. And the public nowadays responds greatest to statistics. It doesn't matter whether they understand the stats or not, but many people tend to blindly accept what they hear from reports featuring statistics. Just the way our society has developed.

The only way for men's rights or equality to happen is if men stop this attitude of dismissal regarding any harassment/abuse and promote that it's not acceptable anymore. Its how the feminists have managed to gain the support of the public, and just shrugging it all off, just gives them an unopposed advancement of women's rights without any consideration of how men's rights are affected.

I think you make a very good point.

In fact, the thinking that men have when deciding not to report issues like that or to publicise them, is very likely a result of the inherent sexist damaging gender role men are conditioned with. Teaching men not to express thier experiences related to vunerability or hardship, then beating them with 'proof' that there are no reported issues.
One leads to the other n creates a cycle.

silverharp

an editor of the huffpost

Wibbs

maybe

Clearly she's a bloody moron. That's not at issue, nor of particular concern to normal people. What is a bit of an issue and concern is that she and her ilk are an exact mirror of the chauvinistic "Red Pill/MGTOW" morons, yet the obvious difference is she and morons like her are in positions of relative power, especially in the media, in a way no red pill moron would get to. She and her ilk should be like them, mired in circle jerks on Reddit and Twitter.

backspin.

silverharp wrote: »

an editor of the huffpost

If anyone is in any doubt about double standards. This woman will remain in her job.

manonboard

manonboard wrote: »

I think you make a very good point.

In fact, the thinking that men have when deciding not to report issues like that or to publicise them, is very likely a result of the inherent sexist damaging gender role men are conditioned with. Teaching men not to express thier experiences related to vunerability or hardship, then beating them with 'proof' that there are no reported issues.
One leads to the other n creates a cycle.

Oddly enough I have to wonder though at whether all of these assumptions are true about whether the Gardai/police would/wouldn't respond to an accusation made by a male towards a female.

Yes, I've seen the reports of domestic violence where the male is blamed even though the female is unharmed, the male is injured and there are even witnesses to attest to the females violence. Domestic abuse by women definitely happens in relationships. I've seen a variety of research papers searching to reinforce the perspective of male-led domestic violence and getting surprising results showing the higher than expected female-led violence in relationships.

BUT... I've seen little evidence that men are being turned away by the police or being laughed at. Oh, I assumed it was the case still because I have had friends who experienced it themselves decades ago when they reported their own spousal abuse.

Anyone got any linkies about this, and whether the police are still so biased against men? within the last year or two, not ten years ago. Not for domestic abuse but for other forms of abuse by female strangers?

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Clearly she's a bloody moron. That's not at issue, nor of particular concern to normal people. What is a bit of an issue and concern is that she and her ilk are an exact mirror of the chauvinistic "Red Pill/MGTOW" morons, yet the obvious difference is she and morons like her are in positions of relative power, especially in the media, in a way no red pill moron would get to. She and her ilk should be like them, mired in circle jerks on Reddit and Twitter.

Actually I'd say it's an issue that she can say these things openly, and the "normal" people will laugh it off... but should a male write something similar, it will be seen as encouraging the abuse of women.

I'd suggest it's in the interest of men to oppose all of these kinds of gestures as being sexist, and hate speech. If women expect men to not behave/speak in a similar manner to the above, then women should also be bound by the same conventions. After all, every initiative by the government(s) is labeled about equality rather than simply female rights.

Otherwise, let us go back to the way things were before when anyone could speak as they wish, and we could ignore/accept it on our own terms. Modern feminism (not necessarily feminist but the female rights movement) seeks to remove that choice of ignore/accept when it comes to men. but that's not going to happen. There's no going back to the way things were before.

As long as we dismiss/ignore these kinds of statement on social media, in the mainstream media, etc. we are simply encouraging such statements to become accepted and commonplace.

Yes, I have started writing letters, emails etc. in opposition to obviously sexist articles/reports in the media. Haven't gotten into the full swing yet though.

Pawwed Rig

backspin. wrote: »

If anyone is in any doubt about double standards. This woman will remain in her job.

In the interests of research I read a few of her articles.

This one in particular was fun

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/i-dont-know-if-i-can-raise-a-good-man_us_5a09c7cae4b0bc648a0cae52

Nuggets like

Of course, we all want to raise feminist sons.

When I became the mother of a son, I thought I’d dodged a bullet. All I had to do, I figured, was make sure he never raped anybody, and I’d be OK.

Children never fully belong to their parents. I started losing mine to the world of men years ago

It goes on and on

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

Clearly she's a bloody moron. That's not at issue, nor of particular concern to normal people. What is a bit of an issue and concern is that she and her ilk are an exact mirror of the chauvinistic "Red Pill/MGTOW" morons, yet the obvious difference is she and morons like her are in positions of relative power, especially in the media, in a way no red pill moron would get to. She and her ilk should be like them, mired in circle jerks on Reddit and Twitter.

I wouldnt say mirror , they are reactionary whereas radical feminists are just out for a power grab. i'd see mgtow as mostly a twenty something male frustration with a dysfunctional dating scene combined with limited career prospects perhaps.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Wibbs wrote: »

Clearly she's a bloody moron. That's not at issue, nor of particular concern to normal people. What is a bit of an issue and concern is that she and her ilk are an exact mirror of the chauvinistic "Red Pill/MGTOW" morons, yet the obvious difference is she and morons like her are in positions of relative power, especially in the media, in a way no red pill moron would get to. She and her ilk should be like them, mired in circle jerks on Reddit and Twitter.

I think the prominent red pillers and MGTOW types have started prioritizing political pursuits in recent times whereas eejits like the above have stuck to spouting the same message.

py2006

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/938834647429115904

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/944001110339145728

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/942780814588293120

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/938834647429115904

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/938831265331122176

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/936276950951264257

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/936004440993226758

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/935934339845586946

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/935910138631852032

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/927664611863814144

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/927898531901394950

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/930176030911889408

https://twitter.com/msemilymccombs/status/926292699942129664

Iseedeadpixels

But but but I thought feminists dont talk about men just the issues they deal with :rolleyes:

Pawwed Rig

The hate is strong with this one. You have to pity her poor son

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

This pedantry is already tiresome and boring.

Gender does matter. It's regarded as an immutable truth that men and women are different and men's issues need more attention because men and women need different support. The men's shed movement, 'women talk face to face, men talk shoulder to shoulder', and all that jazz. Now gender is irrelevant to dealing with men's and women's issues? This forum is very strange at times.


It's not pedantry. It's exactly what you're saying. You wouldn't give to starving children in Syria because they're all but ignoring starving children everywhere else.

[

Saruhashi wrote:

You want to solve a problem then you solve the problem. You don't say "I want to solve the problem but only for certain groups".

In reality we do pick priority groups. Typically the most at risk group, the most readily reachable group, the group who would benefit the most, and how much will there is for people to get help for specific groups are important factors in determining which groups get most attention.

In a word of unlimited resources, we would treat every problem all at once. That's not the world we live in. We prioritise for better or worse.

Saruhashi wrote:

If the argument is that male suicide and female suicide are different problems or that male victims and female victims are totally different then I'd need to hear that argument.

In the context of solving issues of abuse and suicide etc then gender doesn't matter.

Of course it does. There are quantitative differences in rates of suicide among men and women's. The biological, psychological and social (bio-psycho-social) factors are different for lots of groups, such as young and old, male and female, they can be different for socioeconomic groups and lots of other ways to subdivide people better understand and help their specific problems.

So yea, gender does matter.

Saruhashi wrote:

I don't give a damn if the board agrees with me or not. If someone comes to me looking for support or a donation for a charity helping suicidal people then I absolutely will not hear it if they are all but ignoring non-male suicides.

Does that mean you would equally refuse to support a charity that deals with men's suicide because it doesn't also deal with everyone's suicide? Would you refuse to support a charity for Syrian children because it ignores African children? I think both have Merritt sonic support either

Saruhashi wrote:

I see more similarities than differences and so I think maybe we give everyone the same level of assistance regardless of gender.

Saruhashi wrote:

You DO support division and favoritism and bigotry if your willingness to help a theoretical victim of abuse is only clear once the gender of the victim is learned. You do support division if you are dividing victims by race or gender or whatever. Everyone deserves the best help. Not "members of Group A get the best help and members of Group B get the lesser funded, less widely available help". Especially not when it's the exact same issue they need help with.

Total misrepresentation of my point. Im not saying I will decide to support it once I know the gender. I would support a campaign to reduce harm regardless of gender. If it's a men's campaign, I support it. If it's a women's campaign, I support it. If it's for Syrian children id support it, if it's for African children id support it.

Saruhashi wrote:

Again, I ask what the hell happens to people who don't identify as male or female? If they are only making up 1 or 2% of the population then they will be a very small number of the total victims of abuse. Certainly they will not be numerous enough to focus on it themselves. So we just cast them aside?

As is the case with a lot of issues, minorities are under represented in support and outreach. Its the flip side of trying to help the most people with limited resources.

Saruhashi wrote:

Who helps them? Is it fair that they should be excluded from getting the best help because it's been decided that dividing issues into "men's" and "women's" issues is the way to go?

Gay and genderqueer groups help those people along with any of the other general groups. I imagine most groups aren't gender specific.

Saruhashi wrote:

You are the one who always says that women help other women because they care more about women and that men should help other men if they care so much about men. That's so divisive though. Why not just help everyone from the outset?

Clarification, I haven't said ' that women help other women because they care more about women' but I do think feminists are more effective at lobbying for issues that are important to them while this forum focuses on feminism and the success of feminist campaigns.

I do support helping everyone from the outset. I also think in a world with limited resources it makes most sense to prioritise. So I would support a campaign to support everyone and I would also support a campaign to help subsets of everyone if that's what's available.

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

I just got my head punched and lips bitten by a woman! Id be done for assault if it was me!!!

If you did that and she reported you to the police, you might well be done for assault. If she didn't report you then I doubt you'd be done for assault.

Did you report the woman?

El_Duderino 09

Kidchameleon wrote:

Now hang on there young lady, can you show me where I said that? Go ahead and quote the post. You have a seem to have a tendency to take peoples responses out of context and or exaggerate them. I said that I believe they are a contributing factor (however minute or substantial that may be) to low male self esteem based on my personal experience.

Ill phrase it as a question if that's more likely to get an answer. These article headlines are a contributing factor to you feeling bad about yourself (which you did say) so is it a problem with you or a problem with the articles? See below

Kidchameleon wrote:

... I can tell you as a bloke the current climate of man hating makes me feel awful, ...

Kidchameleon wrote:

Again, please show me where I said that. I never once suggested anything being banned. I believe in free speech by the way.

I asked if you think it should be banned. I asked what you think should be done and you responded thusly...

Kidchameleon wrote:

I don't believe I suggested anything at all. Again, please show me where I made a suggestion of action.

I know you didn't suggest anything at all. That's why I asked you what you would suggest. Lol. I was asking your opinion of you have one, feel free to share it.

Kidchameleon wrote:

I have no doubt that a female persons self esteem can be affected by what they see in the media and if low self esteem was something that suicidal females reported, only a bloody idiot would try to separate the two. Would I suggest that the media is the number one cause of female suicide? No! And its not what I suggested in my previous post. So please stop putting words in my mouth young lady.

So what would you suggest be don't about the media articles that make you feel awful about yourself and the grid girls if they make girls feel awfully about themselves? (That's a question, not putting words in your mouth)

I didn't say you think media is the number one cause of suicide in women. Where did you get that?
Lol i asked you a question about what you would suggest and you interpreted it as putting words in your mouth.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote:

I'd not waste my keystrokes KC, this is the near given in how he(BTW) "debates". Extremely dishonest debater.

The stuff that passes for immutable truth when posted by other posters ( E.g. gender is relevant to issues like suicide) is now being denied to argue with my point . And I'm being dishonest? Climb down off your little pony.

Pawwed Rig

backspin. wrote: »

BTW She is Parents Editorial Director ??

I am sure she gives Dad's a fair hearing

some other nuggets

As a feminist mom to a 5-year-old boy, I fear the day when the “man” part kicks in.

my boyfriend is constantly trying to show me weird sci-fi and fantasy things that I can’t follow because there are no women talking to each other

didn't understand this one

Can't look at anymore............

It does show that where students are not forced to grow up in the real world that they can maintain infantile opinions.

Eventually the world will click into place and new norms will be established. Some of what she says will, I think, come back to haunt her.

Pawwed Rig

LOL just found this nugget after reading article after article about her son

I wasn’t sure whether or not to write about this. I generally prefer not to write about my son, out of respect for his privacy

Iseedeadpixels

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you did that and she reported you to the police, you might well be done for assault. If she didn't report you then I doubt you'd be done for assault.

Did you report the woman?

No I didnt as I stated earlier it would be a waste of time the Garda wouldnt give a **** about a male.