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

rightmove

What happens the sons of these chauvinistic feminists

Calhoun

rightmove wrote: »

What happens the sons of these chauvinistic feminists

Really depends, there are some videos online of really depressed individuals who have mothers that essentially treat them like they are rapists ect.

iptba

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I'd be curious about the effect if men gave up work for a day to protest housing/suicide/homelessness. Rubbish wouldn't be picked up for one, dishes wouldn't be washed in restuarants, chefs wouldn't be there to cook, buses wouldn't arrive, and so on and so forth.



Or there would be twitter stories saying that there is no effect and men are useless. :P

Swiss women strike en masse to end 'scandalous' gender pay gap
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/14/swiss-women-strike-end-scandalous-gender-pay-gap/

It is an interesting idea. I think a men's movement would need to be stronger before trying that. It would need, for example, people who are publicly willing to do interviews and the like.

Kimsang

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a massive stigma in being a stay at home mum among working mothers. I have seen it firsthand with my wife, who is highly educated, and has a high level career now.

Stay at home dads are not looked on fondly by men, I'll give you that. Interestingly they are also the most likely to have affairs.

Men don't care what other men do. The stigma house-husbands receive is not from men.

It is the hypergamy of women that persist this stigma.

One eyed Jack

Kimsang wrote: »

Men don't care what other men do. The stigma house-husbands receive is not from men.

It is the hypergamy of women that persist this stigma.

They do of course, and the stigma that persists against men choosing to stay at home instead of working outside the home has nothing to do with the hypergamy of women. I view men who choose to stay at home as having voluntarily emasculated themselves.

I know plenty of women who elevate men who choose to work in the home, wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with such a man themselves, and who also take a dim view of women who choose to work in the home. Their attempts to elevate men who choose to work in the home come off as patently disingenuous tbh.

Kimsang

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They do of course, and the stigma that persists against men choosing to stay at home instead of working outside the home has nothing to do with the hypergamy of women. I view men who choose to stay at home as having voluntarily emasculated themselves.

Being honest with myself I realize you are right and I was wrong with regards to men caring what other men do. I only had to remember thinking about Phillip May or Prince Phillip.

I would still challenge your argument underlined though. The shame and stigma on heterosexual men comes from women. Look at how the white feather was used during war time to shame men into enlisting. Men cannot shame other men in this manner.

We all know men have to do, while women have to be; which is why no matter how much women convince themselves, generally they are the ones not happy with a house-husband.

Alexandra Killewald's research reveals the number one predictor of divorce for marriages formed after 1975 is whether the husband is in full time employment or not. Wive's homemaking, economic independence and total household income are not predictive of divorce. Expectations of wive's home-making may have eroded, but husband's bread-winning expectation are still in full swing.

In a 2016 American Sociological Review article, Killewald demonstrated that if men are not employed full-time, this greatly increases their probability of divorce, but low earnings, per se, do not effect the probability of divorce. Killewald interpreted this to show that the failure to fulfill the social expectation of being a breadwinner threatens men's likelihood to stay in a marriage, not financial strain.-wikipedia

One eyed Jack

Kimsang wrote: »

Being honest with myself I realize you are right and I was wrong with regards to men caring what other men do. I only had to remember thinking about Phillip May or Prince Phillip.

I would still challenge your argument underlined though. The shame and stigma on heterosexual men comes from women. Look at how the white feather was used during war time to shame men into enlisting. Men cannot shame other men in this manner.

The white feather was an idea used by men precisely to shame men into enlisting? It played on men’s insecurity about their own virility - they were cowards if they wouldn’t fight. Women were only too willing to go along with the idea because it played into their expectations of men and their perceptions of virility and cowardice too. Playing into those insecurities motivates men to want to prove themselves as men, not just to women, but to other men, and most importantly - to themselves.

Kimsang wrote: »

We all know men have to do, while women have to be; which is why no matter how much women convince themselves, generally they are the ones not happy with a house-husband.

Alexandra Killewald's research reveals the number one predictor of divorce for marriages formed after 1975 is whether the husband is in full time employment or not. Wive's homemaking, economic independence and total household income are not predictive of divorce. Expectations of wive's home-making may have eroded, but husband's bread-winning expectation are still in full swing.

Yeah I’d generally agree with that - basically men see themselves as providers, and are expected to be providers, and their perceptions of themselves as men is tied to their ability to be able to provide. I don’t think expectations of women’s homemaking actually have eroded, and men are somewhat lucky in that regard at least - women are expected to be able to do it all, whereas men as you point out are still only expected to be bread-winners.

That’s why I did an eye roll when Blindboy said young men need to embrace feminism, and gave an anecdote about the young men he’s met who claim they have nothing to offer women. His “solution” of course was to tell them to embrace feminism. Even if I were to take his anecdote as credible (I don’t :pac:), he completely misses the point men who are disenfranchised are making. They’re saying straight out that they’re insecure about the fact that they cannot provide, which has a devastating impact on their virility and their perception of themselves. Embracing feminism isn’t going to do anything to address that. Generally speaking, gaining employment and being able to provide, restores men’s belief in themselves.

It’s being able to provide for themselves and for others that fulfils men’s sense of purpose and responsibility and has a whole host of other benefits. Suggesting that men allow themselves to be emasculated and accept their fate is only going to make men feel worse about themselves in the long term, because they don’t believe it to be acceptable themselves.

You’ll find that the suicide rates among males has a strong correlation to their ability to provide for themselves and others, which is why you’ll notice that during recessions when male unemployment rates are high, the suicide rates also spike. Telling men to embrace feminism as though it’s supposed to offer men anything is just stupid, frankly. It’s worse than suggesting women are responsible for men’s feelings of impotence when they are unable to fulfil their role as the breadwinner and provider. I don’t blame women for preferring a man who can provide for them over one who can’t.

Reviews and Books Galore

Imo, if your feeling disenfranchised, feminism isn't really good for you in the same way any kind of activism isn't good for you. I wonder would MGTOW be good for them if you ignore the bitter vibe?



Also, about the use of shame for social correction, that is actually a part of female dynamics. It's really quite interesting when women argue in the fact that it does resemble that whole Jordan Peterson interview where it becomes a blame game.



To sum up this rather pointless post, I've always felt that modern feministic thought has done a disservice to the power that women have had and have in older and current societies and social engineers and social morality. Imo, women had power in the past, it was just less 'tactile' than male power.

iptba

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Imo, if your feeling disenfranchised, feminism isn't really good for you in the same way any kind of activism isn't good for you. I wonder would MGTOW be good for them if you ignore the bitter vibe?



Also, about the use of shame for social correction, that is actually a part of female dynamics. It's really quite interesting when women argue in the fact that it does resemble that whole Jordan Peterson interview where it becomes a blame game.



To sum up this rather pointless post, I've always felt that modern feministic thought has done a disservice to the power that women have had and have in older and current societies and social engineers and social morality. Imo, women had power in the past, it was just less 'tactile' than male power.

I remember Pat Kenny of all people talking about the “sexual power” women have. If a woman is unhappy with a man, they will have less frequent sex or maybe none at all. This doesn’t end when one is in a long-term relationship. So men need to constantly prove themselves and make sure their female partner is happy. As I have heard it summed up as “happy wife, happy life”.

One eyed Jack

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Imo, if your feeling disenfranchised, feminism isn't really good for you in the same way any kind of activism isn't good for you. I wonder would MGTOW be good for them if you ignore the bitter vibe?

If one ignores the bitter vibe in MGTOW, I can’t think of anything that’s left, tbh. The whole philosophy of MGTOW is built around the premise of “Society doesn’t reject me, I reject society!”. Basically it’s a falsehood impotent men will put out there to try and suggest that it’s really they who have “the upper hand” as opposed to the society which completely and outright ostracises them. They’re not all that different from PUA philosophy which tries to make something noble out of involuntary celibacy. There’s fcukall noble or healthy about it.

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Also, about the use of shame for social correction, that is actually a part of female dynamics. It's really quite interesting when women argue in the fact that it does resemble that whole Jordan Peterson interview where it becomes a blame game.

I don’t agree that the use of shame for social correction is anything to do with female dynamics tbh. It’s more of an “in group / out group” dynamic, the in group tries to shame the out group into submission. That matters if you’re in the outgroup but want to be accepted by the in group, any in group, and when your self-esteem is that low you’re incredibly susceptible to any amount of ideologies peddling nonsense. Jordan Peterson and a host of other charlatans come to mind alright - the modern equivalent of religious communities in increasingly secular societies, are online communities. People with low self-esteem are more susceptible to shame and exclusion and wanting to fit in. A lot of these online communities fulfil that need. Outside of their online communities these people revert back to feelings of low self-esteem and not wanting to participate in a society which they feel rejected by.

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

To sum up this rather pointless post, I've always felt that modern feministic thought has done a disservice to the power that women have had and have in older and current societies and social engineers and social morality. Imo, women had power in the past, it was just less 'tactile' than male power.

I’d agree with that much though, modern feminism like many of these ideologies does a disservice to both women and men. That’s why some feminists are trying to double down on their stupidity... or rather as I think you’re alluding to, using shame to make themselves out to be “a better feminist”, kinda like MGTOW types going “monk” or atheists promoting Atheism+

Women still have plenty of power in the same way as men still have plenty of power, but for those who feel disenfranchised, their tactics still include trying to shame people into submission by attempting to use guilt tripping and playing the victim. That’s why they’re generally ignored, which only reinforces their victimhood complex.

iptba

Kimsang wrote: »

Being honest with myself I realize you are right and I was wrong with regards to men caring what other men do. I only had to remember thinking about Phillip May or Prince Phillip.

I would still challenge your argument underlined though. The shame and stigma on heterosexual men comes from women. Look at how the white feather was used during war time to shame men into enlisting. Men cannot shame other men in this manner.

We all know men have to do, while women have to be; which is why no matter how much women convince themselves, generally they are the ones not happy with a house-husband.

Alexandra Killewald's research reveals the number one predictor of divorce for marriages formed after 1975 is whether the husband is in full time employment or not. Wive's homemaking, economic independence and total household income are not predictive of divorce. Expectations of wive's home-making may have eroded, but husband's bread-winning expectation are still in full swing.

In a 2016 American Sociological Review article, Killewald demonstrated that if men are not employed full-time, this greatly increases their probability of divorce, but low earnings, per se, do not effect the probability of divorce. Killewald interpreted this to show that the failure to fulfill the social expectation of being a breadwinner threatens men's likelihood to stay in a marriage, not financial strain.-wikipedia

I wonder does this continue past the traditional retirement age. And whether that means men should continue working. It is not my age group but I have seen articles about more older couples breaking up.

Kimsang

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The white feather was an idea used by men precisely to shame men into enlisting?

I completely agree that feminism is not the answer to solving the problem of gender roles, as it only advocates for women's rights not factoring in men.

But wasn't it women who dished out the white feathers? In fact they were referred to as "white feather girls", and were a militant arm of the suffragette movement at the time(One time they were not all pacifists).

Either men refused to try to dish out these white feathers also, or more likely it served no purpose when one received one from a man. I would argue this is the stigma that still motivates us, approval from our spouse, or in search of one.

Kimsang

iptba wrote: »

I wonder does this continue past the traditional retirement age. And whether that means men should continue working. It is not my age group but I have seen articles about more older couples breaking up.

Correlation is not always causation, but these figures seem to suggest it does continue past retirement age.

In 2017, the highest suicide rate (20.2) was among adults between 45 and 54 years of age. The second highest rate (20.1) occurred in those 85 years or older. Younger groups have had consistently lower suicide rates than middle-aged and older adults. In 2017, adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 24 had a suicide rate of 14.46.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190316192704/https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

https://www.okrehab.org/blog/suicide-facts-and-statistics/

One eyed Jack

Kimsang wrote: »

I completely agree that feminism is not the answer to solving the problem of gender roles, as it only advocates for women's rights not factoring in men.

But wasn't it women who dished out the white feathers? In fact they were referred to as "white feather girls", and were a militant arm of the suffragette movement at the time(One time they were not all pacifists).

Either men refused to try to dish out these white feathers also, or more likely it served no purpose when one received one from a man. I would argue this is the stigma that still motivates us, approval from our spouse, or in search of one.

It’s undoubtedly what motivates many men, and Admiral Penrose knew it at the time too and used it to his advantage -


In August 1914, Admiral Charles Penrose Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather. He deputized thirty women in Folkestone to give out white feathers to any men not in uniform. The concept was based on the old cock-fighting lore that a cockerel with a white feather in its tail is a coward.

Order of the White Feather

Of course there were women who used the concept to their advantage too. I’m not denying that, but the point I’m making is that the Admiral was able to use shame to coerce men to enlist, or be branded a coward.

Kimsang

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course there were women who used the concept to their advantage too. I’m not denying that, but the point I’m making is that the Admiral was able to use shame to coerce men to enlist, or be branded a coward.

But even per the example you give, he wasn't able to do it himself. He enlisted the help of 30 women to do it. Surely he had more men at his disposal than women at that time. Do you think a feather coming from another man would have the same impact?

Reviews and Books Galore

"If one ignores the bitter vibe in MGTOW, I can’t think of anything that’s left, tbh."

It's interesting, but in America women are being told that they can be whatever they want, but men are still expected to lay down their life and become a provider.

I'm not surprised there is a movement where men try and live there life outside of fatherhood/husbandhood

One eyed Jack

Kimsang wrote: »

But even per the example you give, he wasn't able to do it himself. He enlisted the help of 30 women to do it. Surely he had more men at his disposal than women at that time. Do you think a feather coming from another man would have the same impact?

No, of course not, and because he did have more men at his disposal at the time, men found guilty of cowardice were put to death by other men -

Shot at Dawn: Cowards, Traitors or Victims?

The men who were found guilty of cowardice did receive a pardon from the British Government in 2006 -

Pardoned: the 306 soldiers shot at dawn for 'cowardice'

But even in 1993 John Major, the British PM at the time, suggested that pardoning the men would be an insult to those men who died honourably on the battlefield -

Britain was one of the last countries to withhold pardons for men executed during World War I: In 1993, John Major emphasised to the House of Commons that pardoning the men would be an insult to those who died honourably on the battlefield and that everyone was tried fairly.

Kimsang

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, of course not, and because he did have more men at his disposal at the time, men found guilty of cowardice were put to death by other men -

Appreciate that. Although your argument about men found guilty of cowardice is beside the point.

I am making the point that there were some 'cowards' that received the feather and joined the army that wouldn't have done having not received the feather.

There is no stigma that another man can put on another man like this, I believe the stigma comes from women.
A man threatening another man with death for cowardice could hardly be described as stigma. Surely that would be an ultimatum.

One eyed Jack

Kimsang wrote: »

Appreciate that. Although your argument about men found guilty of cowardice is beside the point.

I am making the point that there were some 'cowards' that received the feather and joined the army that wouldn't have done having not received the feather.

There is no stigma that another man can put on another man like this, I believe the stigma comes from women.
A man threatening another man with death for cowardice could hardly be described as stigma. Surely that would be an ultimatum.

There is, and that’s why this whole conversation came up - because of the stigma perpetuated by men against men who choose to stay at home instead of going out to work and providing for others, be it their girlfriends, their wives or their children. They’re seen as immature and wanting to avoid responsibility, and tbh I’d struggle to disguise my contempt for such men. That’s why I disagree with the way R&BG has framed the MGTOW “movement” above. I see those men simply as overgrown children wanting to avoid responsibility and trying to make out as though there’s anything noble in their cowardice.

Reviews and Books Galore

I agree about the children part some times, but the cowardice is a little bit silly. The male breadwinner supporting the household isn't really as important as it was.

iptba

I have looked at MGTOW forums before. I did find them bitter so I haven’t tended to go back. But I don’t accept the characterization being made that they are mostly or all incels and the like who never grew up. One forum specifically required people who posted to describe a long-term relationship they had before people could post. Most of the men were divorced and bitter about how they were treated in the previous relationship and also the legal settlement.

Calhoun

The problem I find is men caught in the middle are told they need feminism, having an organization on our own get demonized very fast.

So while I am not a fan of MGTOW I can understand why men go for it as what else is there.

Reviews and Books Galore

Calhoun wrote: »

The problem I find is men caught in the middle are told they need feminism, having an organization on our own get demonized very fast.

So while I am not a fan of MGTOW I can understand why men go for it as what else is there.

MGTOW is wonderfully bitter :P

Silentcorner

There's a heap of men on youtube giving awful advice about women to I presume young men, it is genuinely awful stuff...it's horrible to think that young men may be influenced by these headbangers to believe the pursuit of happiness in a healthy relationship is not worth the hassle...the best days of your life will be spent with a loved one, no matter how much you enjoy the company of your friends.

I met a flatearther recently, they are as indoctrinated as feminists are if you can believe that!!! Between, the MGTOW/Feminist/Flatearther movements and countless others, social media rabbit holes have a lot to answer for...

Pawwed Rig

Silentcorner wrote: »

Between, the MGTOW/Feminist/Flatearther movements and countless others, social media rabbit holes have a lot to answer for...

Don't forget the anti vaxxers and creationists

iptba

(USA)

Clemson opens female-only programs to everyone to end federal investigation

Mark Perry, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan-Flint, filed a sex discrimination complaint against the public university in late January in connection with a series of programs only available to female students.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/clemson-opens-female-only-programs-to-everyone-to-end-federal-investigation/

Calhoun

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

MGTOW is wonderfully bitter :P

Indeed having a central position and treating all people equal is generally the best way to go.

The only concern i have is that MGTOW is called out for what it is while feminist groups dont always get the same.

Kimsang

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

MGTOW is wonderfully bitter :P

The Tom Leykis radio show was awfully hilarious though. Give it a listen.

Kidchameleon

Kimsang wrote: »

The Tom Leykis radio show was awfully hilarious though. Give it a listen.

Tom Leykis is about as far from MGTOW as one can get but yeah, his show is amazing. Check out the angry women hate caller shows, pure gold

Kimsang

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Tom Leykis is about as far from MGTOW as one can get but yeah, his show is amazing. Check out the angry women hate caller shows, pure gold

Glad to see you are a fan too, but out of curiosity why would you say he's far from MGTOW?

I would say he threads a line between MGTOW and PUA. He certainly recommends men literally go their own way, and is definitely anti-feminist.

Kidchameleon

Kimsang wrote: »

Glad to see you are a fan too, but out of curiosity why would you say he's far from MGTOW?

I would say he threads a line between MGTOW and PUA. He certainly recommends men literally go their own way, and is definitely anti-feminist.

Well I thought that MGTOW means nothing to do with women as much as possible? Leykis teaches men how to pick up women. Perhaps I wrong though. Ah havnt listened to Tom in ages and have spent all morning doing so. Hes a legend

Kimsang

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well I thought that MGTOW means nothing to do with women as much as possible? Leykis teaches men how to pick up women. Perhaps I wrong though. Ah havnt listened to Tom in ages and have spent all morning doing so. Hes a legend

I watched 3 clips last night when I was reminded of it also :pac::cool:

silverharp

Leykis was funny to listen to, I caught some of them on Youtube, at the same time he was a celebrity with a net worth of over $20m , that lets him play by a different set of rules, without the cash he is just a fat slob

iptba

https://twitter.com/JaniceFiamengo/status/1167267131148234752

Kimsang

iptba wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JaniceFiamengo/status/1167267131148234752

Janice Fiamengo is a legend. The world needs more people like her.

Reviews and Books Galore

Kimsang wrote: »

Janice Fiamengo is a legend. The world needs more people like her.

https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/aug/29/men-women-workplace-study-harassment-harvard-metoo?__twitter_impression=true

Interesting article. Personally, women need to start speaking out against feminism or this is going to get worse.

I have actually zero problem with this tbh.

iptba

Kimsang wrote: »

Janice Fiamengo is a legend. The world needs more people like her.

https://twitter.com/JaniceFiamengo/status/1167878944672010240

H3llR4iser

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/aug/29/men-women-workplace-study-harassment-harvard-metoo?__twitter_impression=true

Interesting article. Personally, women need to start speaking out against feminism or this is going to get worse.

I have actually zero problem with this tbh.

Way to completely turn something out on its head - according to the author of that article, it's all about men being "angry" and "punishing" women for "#MeToo".



Not for a second she stops to think it might be because one sentence from a female colleague, about something that can't be independently verified (e.g., the "work trips" she mentions), and your career and possibly life are over.

Calhoun

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/is-joker-a-danger-to-society-38462306.html

Look at this little gem.

Reviews and Books Galore

Calhoun wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/is-joker-a-danger-to-society-38462306.html

Look at this little gem.

Some lovely catty comments in that peice. It's a shame we don't have a name for female incels, besides feminest



1) It's interesting how mysognist has been replaced by incel and I think it goes to show how that mysognist has been used in the past as belittlement rather than a real accusation.



2) Indiewire, meanwhile, goes further, describing the film as a "toxic rallying cry for self-pitying incels" and says it speaks "to the people in our world who are predisposed to think of Arthur as a role model: lonely, creatively impotent white men who are drawn to hateful ideologies because of the angry communities that foment around them.



That is a disgusting comment and the mention of impotent is so belitting that it is shocking.



3) Does anybody know that Elliot Rogers was a self hating asain rather than a white incel? :P

terryduff12

SNIP. Off topic.

silverharp

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Some lovely catty comments in that peice. It's a shame we don't have a name for female incels, besides feminest



1) It's interesting how mysognist has been replaced by incel and I think it goes to show how that mysognist has been used in the past as belittlement rather than a real accusation.



2) Indiewire, meanwhile, goes further, describing the film as a "toxic rallying cry for self-pitying incels" and says it speaks "to the people in our world who are predisposed to think of Arthur as a role model: lonely, creatively impotent white men who are drawn to hateful ideologies because of the angry communities that foment around them.



That is a disgusting comment and the mention of impotent is so belitting that it is shocking.



3) Does anybody know that Elliot Rogers was a self hating asain rather than a white incel? :P

there is something uncomfortable about it being acceptable to pathologize a section of your citizens, there would seem to be less hate for Hispanic or African American gangs.

H3llR4iser

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Some lovely catty comments in that peice. It's a shame we don't have a name for female incels, besides feminest

Well, the whole "incel" thing was actually started by a woman - and it makes sense in a way, because historically there's always been more pressure on women to "not be single", so to speak. Despite it being deep into the 21st century, it IS still considered undesirable and/or a big problem for a woman to be single, especially as the age creeps past 30.

That said, the "incel" thing started purely as a venue for people feeling lonely to chat, exchange experiences and generally be less alone. It's only in more recent times that is has assumed to overly-negative connotation it has, and if you ask me it takes two to tango.

What I see is that while the whole "community" has fallen into a black hole of self-pity, hatred, bigotry and racism (the "black dudes get all the p~ssy" line some of these groups take is just one of the cringeworthy aspects), there is an equal influence from the mainstream media constantly bashing and belittling men who might be in a spot of bother, with the risk of pushing them into more extreme ideas.

The constant, unrelenting push of the stereotype of the single, lonely, inept, possibly virgin, fat, short, living-at-home "young white males" as the source of all evil and the cause of all issues in society has been a prevalent theme, especially in English-speaking media, over the last few years. It's a stupid approach that will only generate more and more "incel" movements.

Now sure, there are plenty of basket-cases who bring their doom upon themselves, no doubt about it; If you're unemployed, not studying, living with your mom, sitting in front of the TV the whole day and on a steady diet of Doritos and Mountain Dew, well, your "incel" status is nobody's fault other than your own.

However, the "stereotype" I mentioned above has a foundation in reality and it does include plenty of people (mostly men, but there are women in it as well) who find themselves in there through no fault of their own - physical disadvantages, crippling social anxiety or plain simple "socially undesirable" character traits are just a few of the issues that might crop up in someone's life and make social interaction and relationship multiple times harder than it is for the majority of people.

Classic example, a young guy that's short and tubby these days has pretty much zero chances of a satisfactory sexual life, through no fault of his own. He might realistically consider himself an "incel" in the original meaning of the term, be meaning well and generally be a decent guy, just to be told constantly that he has "no right" to physical or emotional intimacy, to see his particular predicament made the butt of many jokes AND being considered pretty much the root of all evil. That's the definition of being kicked while down, and it doesn't do people any good in the long term.

(The same general concept is valid for a woman in the same situation, although there ARE differences in terms of support and wider perception).

Padraig Mor

However, the "stereotype" I mentioned above has a foundation in reality and it does include plenty of people (mostly men, but there are women in it as well) who find themselves in there through no fault of their own - physical disadvantages, crippling social anxiety or plain simple "socially undesirable" character traits are just a few of the issues that might crop up in someone's life and make social interaction and relationship multiple times harder than it is for the majority of people.

Good point. It seems to me that the whole "incel = bad / freak" movement is, in part at least, a 21st century, PC - approved form of plain old schoolyard bullying.

H3llR4iser wrote:

The constant, unrelenting push of the stereotype of the single, lonely, inept, possibly virgin, fat, short, living-at-home "young white males" as the source of all evil and the cause of all issues in society has been a prevalent theme, especially in English-speaking media, over the last few years. It's a stupid approach that will only generate more and more "incel" movements.

It's bizarre really - not many people are likely to have less influence or power in the world than those who are "single, lonely, inept, possibly virgin, fat, short, living-at-home".

silverharp

Padraig Mor wrote: »

It's bizarre really - not many people are likely to have less influence or power in the world than those who are "single, lonely, inept, possibly virgin, fat, short, living-at-home".

the funny thing is that the most criticism tends to come from the closest possible group, male feminist types who don't rate on any chart of exceptional male characteristics except they probably grew up reasonably privileged so not their own abilities.

Silentcorner

silverharp wrote: »

there is something uncomfortable about it being acceptable to pathologize a section of your citizens, there would seem to be less hate for Hispanic or African American gangs.

I have never witnessed social commentary like what we are witnessing today across media, terms like "mysogyny" "toxic masculinity" and other terms of the radical feminist are everywhere these days and have been normalised, of course they mean nothing to those who aren't drinking the kool aid, I genuinely feel sorry for the sons of people who are buying into this nonsense.

H3llR4iser

Silentcorner wrote: »

I have never witnessed social commentary like what we are witnessing today across media, terms like "mysogyny" "toxic masculinity" and other terms of the radical feminist are everywhere these days and have been normalised, of course they mean nothing to those who aren't drinking the kool aid, I genuinely feel sorry for the sons of people who are buying into this nonsense.

As I said before, what I've witnessed is that many of the hard stance "men are entitled scum", especially women, perform a high-g 180 degree turn that'd put an aerobatics pilot to shame the moment their first boy is born.

Granted, it's not ALL of them, some keep on their idiotic line - a few months ago I've heard, for the first time "live" to my face, a woman saying "If I ever have a boy I'll be quite upset". She'll probably change her mind as well, but for now it IS troublesome.

Reviews and Books Galore

H3llR4iser wrote: »

As I said before, what I've witnessed is that many of the hard stance "men are entitled scum", especially women, perform a high-g 180 degree turn that'd put an aerobatics pilot to shame the moment their first boy is born.

Granted, it's not ALL of them, some keep on their idiotic line - a few months ago I've heard, for the first time "live" to my face, a woman saying "If I ever have a boy I'll be quite upset". She'll probably change her mind as well, but for now it IS troublesome.

I wonder is she trying to sound cool as toxic femininity is quite 'cool' now? Kinda like a guy who says 'aint no woman tgonna boss me around' kinda of mentality.



But, yeah, I find most women have a reversal in their thirties/after having a child. And, the ones that don't are quite looked down upon imo. It's actually a funny facet of life that the hardcore feminists or toxic women are actually looked down upon by most women. In a lot of cultures men are seen as lacking emotional intelligience, so a woman emotionally abusing a guy is kind of seen as low character in the same way a guy physically intimidating a woman is seen.



Just a funny info dump :P

iptba

Silentcorner wrote: »

I have never witnessed social commentary like what we are witnessing today across media, terms like "mysogyny" "toxic masculinity" and other terms of the radical feminist are everywhere these days and have been normalised, of course they mean nothing to those who aren't drinking the kool aid, I genuinely feel sorry for the sons of people who are buying into this nonsense.

https://twitter.com/obianuju/status/1160921802283147265?s=11

Reviews and Books Galore

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/book-kavanaugh-accusers-attack-motivated-by-defending-roe-v-wade


Nothing to see here. False accusations aren't real and there is never any ulteriour motive to a false accusation of rape, creepiness or mysoginy.