Return of Kings, men's opinions

Brian?

Poorly thought out nonsense with a healthy dollop of misogyny.

bronte

From "no woman can-escape mother natures devastating reality check"

Want to know the beauty part of a woman's expiration date? These older women are great for young, up and coming guys to bang. If you don't have a lot of money to date, or you don't have a great ride, or apartment, guess what? An older chick will come over to your crappy place and give it to you.

These old broads like young meat like we do. They love to have sex, and they don't need to go out clubbing and drinking at bars because no guys look at them. They will just come on over. So boys, until you are loaded with cash, or get better banging club trash, these women will be a great way to relieve yourself.

Fucking hell.
"Men" like this should have to wear a sign.

FouxDaFaFa

I do think this guy believes some of the stuff he's spouting but what he likes the most is the attention. I've come across him once or twice before when some of the bigger online publications wrote about him. He does a review of all the media attention he's gotten every now and again, literally listing the articles written about him. He really gets off on it.

He puts up candid photos of fat women and makes fun of them. He's a real classy dude.

As for Jezebel, I don't think it should be put in the same class as this nonsense. I skim it every now and again and yeah, some of the stories are a little over-the-top but looking at the homepage right now, the majority of stories wouldn't be out of place somewhere like Buzzfeed, which doesn't get the piss taken out of it nearly as much.

Wibbs

Reading through the site, by god there's some level of mad goin on alright. Thinking about the blokes on there and tying in with the recent PUA thread, I formed a half baked theory on them and why they might think along these lines.

Guys getting into PUA are more likely to be or feel somewhat socially excluded. They have real trouble interacting with women. Now if they do end up with someone, maybe this personality is more likely to select for... well, bitches? Out of all the women on the planet they hone in on them. Some mutually unhealthy relationship vibe. Then it ends as things do. Then these guys, who would also tend to be the analytical types try to work out the mechanisms of why. This leads them to "systems" like PUA and the company and support of other men like them. And because IMH/mad theory these guys tend to preselect for bitches they all have a similar story to tell and this looks like a pattern that can be applied to all women. Throw in men from nasty divorces and to this mindset the world indeed is filled with neurotic bitches. Demonstrably so for this demographic of men.

Did some digging and found the Roosh chap has his own site/blog. On it I found a piece he wrote which again IMH may back up the above mad theory. Entitled You did this to me. Where he explains why he was set on this path. I have observed that the first romantic relationship a guy has and the dynamic within it sets the scene for the following more often than not. Reading it it does sound very likely he went for and preselected a few right wagons in his pre PUA days. He now extrapolates this to all women. Basically I went out with a bitch and she was a woman, therefore it follows that all women must be bitches and with this worldview I'll find plenty of examples of this because of selection bias.

Well not quite. He and others in the ROK camp reserve the greatest ire for American women(modern American woman, their grandmothers were all saints in the "good old days"). They're the absolute worst in the world. Fat feminist beasts by their account. However as is usually the case the grass is greener elsewhere*. These chaps write up guides on how to score with non US women in south America, Eastern Europe and the like. This Roosh dude seems to make a handy few quid from such travel guides.

This plugs into my mad theory too. Because they had bad experiences with American women(tm) they blanket all of them with the same character, but "exotic" women don't suffer the same stereotyping in their worldview, so they're more likely to be open to and preselect non bitches in Moscow or wherever(even though there are wagons as well as sound women everywhere). Even then because they hold a fear of a woman getting too close as they've been badly hurt before, even if they meet a very sound woman in Brazil they'll never commit because of this fear. Check out the Roosh chaps writings on his site about a woman named "Anna" he met in Ukraine(IIRC). Long story cut short; she's gorgeous, funny, clever and kind and really likes him and he likes her. He leaves her to continue on the road he's decided to travel. You can tell he's conflicted but no matter, he's no longer the geeky hurt kid, he's now Roosh, a man loved and supported by other men like him.

ASIDE I have noted over the years that if men get burned in love and suffer a broken heart, they are less likely to bounce back from it than the women I've known. I've seen women come out of the harshest relationships still holding a glimmer of hope for "true love" and all that and I've seen men have a failed relationship that wasn't too bad close up for life. Odd.

They also hate many men. Mirror images of them before they had their "revelation". The so called "beta males". The fear of going back to that is scary to them. Understandably as that's when they got badly hurt.

So I can see where these guys come from to some degree. Yes their stuff has a ring of truth to it, if we're talking about the thundering wagons "who did them wrong", but they make the adolescent error of assuming this goes for all women and from that anger and fear comes much of the content of their site.







*you see this here in AH from time to time. Irish women are fat etc and the streets of Gdansk are paved with supermodels. Though if you ask a Polish lad about "his" women, you can bet you'll hear a string of complaints. As every culture moans about politicians and the weather, tis universal.

Wibbs

biko wrote: »

Only an American can name a site something daft like that.

Out of all the stupid stuff on the website, this may be the worst:
"Women are sluts if they sleep around, but men are not.
This fact is due to the biological differences between men and women."

Well... pre contraception, pre DNA testing and in patriarchal societies there was some truth to that. There existed a fear of female sexuality, because of inheritance issues, both biological and fiscal. A woman always knows she's the mother of her children, the father doesn't(or didn't). So for men in that kind of culture it made sense to select for "chaste" women over "sluts". In such societies women's power was often about access to their fertility, so it would make sense for them to also label sexual women as "sluts" too as they were giving up their "power" too easily. It seems that even with contraception and DNA testing and the like that fear is still there among some men.

Then "A woman’s value is mainly determined by her fertility and beauty"

Again in patriarchal societies this was/is the case. In societies where women didn't work, had no vote, had no real power outside the household their cultural value was mostly determined by fertility and culturally set ideas of beauty. Thank god for the modern world.

RDM_83 again

Pushtrak wrote: »

I don't read Jezebel. Is it really fair to say they're the female equivalent of this?

Ok looked a bit more at the Kings site and I will have to retract my statement, Jezebel is pretty poor but it doesn't seem to be quiet the level of idiocy or winding up that Return of the Kings is. At least Jezebel has articles that have enough of a point and coherence to manage to annoy me unlike.

Pushtrak wrote: »

No, the counterpoint to the perception of MRA is that feminists are perceived/presumed to be man hating lesbians. There are certainly examples of that. I've encountered such people offline and (more typically) online. I wouldn't have time for such people. Nor would I have time for a MRA of similar cloth.

I know there is both in both groups, but my point was that its pretty socially unacceptable to presume someone is a Feminist because they hate men (and rightly so), but it is acceptable to consider that some one involved in MRA is bitter about woman

Pushtrak wrote: »

It should be noted the frequency and form of critique from MRAs and feminists on the other gender are very different. I find MRAs to sink to non substantive insults more often, whereas feminists talk about privilege that men have in society.

Hmmm but a reinterpretation of that statement is that feminists also view men as a homogeneous grouping in a negative light, for example in discussions the term patriarchy gets thrown around a lot, but this illustrates the focus on men being the problem since they are viewing the fact that it is only men holding power whereas a more egalitarian or socialist viewpoint would hold that the problem is the concentration of power into an exclusive grouping which the vast majority of both men and woman are excluded from.
Anyway the idea of patriarchy in the 21st century western world is a bit like a socialist referencing textile mills in relation to industrial relations in the 1st world.

Pushtrak wrote: »

They have a 'surely we are right if a woman agrees with us' but then they don't have the reflexive thought to say, hm, maybe feminists have something too to say men agree. No, men are white knighting. As soon as I see someone say that, I know they're a damn fool.

I agree with your main point, however there is a disjunct in that if a man accuses someone of white knighting they are considered to be sexist where as it is acceptable for a woman to say that some guys that express an interest in these things are doing it for an ulterior motive.

Its pretty stupid if you accuse everybody you disagree with of white knighting but I don't get how its more acceptable for a member of the opposite sex to make these criticisms where a person of the same sex can't, if anything considering the concepts of privilege etc it should be the other way around.

Wibbs

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Hmmm but a reinterpretation of that statement is that feminists also view men as a homogeneous grouping in a negative light, for example in discussions the term patriarchy gets thrown around a lot, but this illustrates the focus on men being the problem since they are viewing the fact that it is only men holding power whereas a more egalitarian or socialist viewpoint would hold that the problem is the concentration of power into an exclusive grouping which the vast majority of both men and woman are excluded from.
Anyway the idea of patriarchy in the 21st century western world is a bit like a socialist referencing textile mills in relation to industrial relations in the 1st world.

QFT.

Pushtrak

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I know there is both in both groups, but my point was that its pretty socially unacceptable to presume someone is a Feminist because they hate men (and rightly so), but it is acceptable to consider that some one involved in MRA is bitter about woman

See, I don't think this is the case at all. Firstly, I don't think MRA are as well known generally speaking. They're well known in certain corners of the net, for sure, but the average person on the street isn't going to know who/what they are. For this reason, there isn't a 'socially accepted' method for dealing with them but people who don't know who they are to ask who they are.

Feminists are far more well known, and they are more often seen negatively, whether just disliked or despised. People see a certain type of radical feminism and think that is what feminism [is]. It isn''t, though, so it seems very much socially acceptable to say feminism is characterised by a vocal minority. And they are known by pretty much anyone. They're in the cultural consciousness.

Do you really think if you were to go around asking people randomly if they knew of MRAs and feminists that a similar number of people would be aware of both? I certainly don't think the numbers of people who'd be aware would be in any way close, tbh.

If I hear someone self identify as MRA or feminist, I want to get to the discussion that is beyond the label. What are their main areas of concern. What is it they are not happy with. That is where the discussion is, obviously, not the label.

Hmmm but a reinterpretation of that statement is that feminists also view men as a homogeneous grouping in a negative light, for example in discussions the term patriarchy gets thrown around a lot

I just mentioned that when hearing feminist or MRA, that isn't really the discussion. That is the starting point. You have to get to the actual topic/issue to get anywhere.

I would say patriarchy is another one that you need to get in depth with to actually get anywhere. Patriarchy is understood differently by different feminists. Generally, though it isn't a slight on any given man. It isn't an accusation or something against someone for being men. It seems the reason a lot of guys get defensive is because they think it's some type of attack on them personally. It isn't.

Anyway the idea of patriarchy in the 21st century western world is a bit like a socialist referencing textile mills in relation to industrial relations in the 1st world.

My issue with patriarchy is there are so many different feminist understandings of it. What is patriarchy to some feminists is not so to others. I find it the case that if one group of feminists were to get everything their way, then the others would see it as the patriarchy. That's what I see as ridiculous. Feminism shouldn't be about telling women what they can or can not do which is something some feminists can be guilty of. There's a lot in feminism worthy of criticism, but it shouldn't be written off entirely. Nor should certain aspects of MRA concerns. As a for instance, the rights of fathers to get custody to children.

I agree with your main point, however there is a disjunct in that if a man accuses someone of white knighting they are considered to be sexist where as it is acceptable for a woman to say that some guys that express an interest in these things are doing it for an ulterior motive.

I wouldn't consider a person a sexist for using white knight. Just give such people enough rope to hang themselves with and they'll say something most people will readily accept is sexist. It isn't sexist itself, but you'll often find people who say that are sexist.

Use that rationale for women, too. Don't see that as sexist unto itself, but just let them talk and see if you'll hear them coming from a man hating perspective. The men who hate women and the women who hate men are very eager to let it be known or find it very hard to keep hidden, so again, it's a case of giving them enough rope to hang themselves and show themselves for what they are.

RDM_83 again

Pushtrak wrote: »

See, I don't think this is the case at all. Firstly, I don't think MRA are as well known generally speaking. They're well known in certain corners of the net, for sure, but the average person on the street isn't going to know who/what they are. For this reason, there isn't a 'socially accepted' method for dealing with them but people who don't know who they are to ask who they are.

True, for the attitudes to MRA I am mostly going of what I read online, but witness how a group like Fathers for Justice are portrayed in the media compared to radical Feminist actions. Personally I actually think its to do with a rather sexist viewpoint that woman are inherently less dangerous and threatening than men.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Feminists are far more well known, and they are more often seen negatively, whether just disliked or despised. People see a certain type of radical feminism and think that is what feminism [is]. It isn''t, though, so it seems very much socially acceptable to say feminism is characterised by a vocal minority. And they are known by pretty much anyone. They're in the cultural consciousness.

People do dislike Feminism or at least what they consider Feminism to be, but I don't feel that there is generally the criticism is disliking the opposite gender so much as being overly sensitive, hypocritical, too supportive of the Nanny state rather than what I have seen of the online criticism of MRA where its about them disliking woman in general.

I think the fact is that the world has moved on and too people many the idea of present day Feminist Activism is an irrelevance. A good example of this is that those criticisms I listed above were some of the ones I remember from a conversation I had with a woman I was working with, the work in this case involving mattocking out a hole in the rain while wearing hard hats, exactly the sort of activity that would be considered traditionally unsuitable for a woman but she saw the issues that they were advocating for as either irrelevant or able to be campaigned for under a "different banner" (she was pro-choice)

Pushtrak wrote: »

There's a lot in feminism worthy of criticism, but it shouldn't be written off entirely. Nor should certain aspects of MRA concerns. As a for instance, the rights of fathers to get custody to children

I agree with your opinions on more discussion is always needed rather than making blanket assumptions about somebodies views of a one word description, but as you say the definitions of each term are now so nebulous that a discussion is difficult until you have teased out the meaning off every word which can be an exhausting process.

Pushtrak

RDM_83 again wrote: »

True, for the attitudes to MRA I am mostly going of what I read online

Trying to gauge the temperature of online discussions isn't something especially worthwhile. Worthwhile stuff does exist, but there's a whole lot of discussion that, in tone isn't really indicative of anything outside the context of where the discussion happens. For example, YouTube isn't indicative really of wider society.

but witness how a group like Fathers for Justice are portrayed in the media compared to radical Feminist actions.

Links?

People do dislike Feminism or at least what they consider Feminism to be, but I don't feel that there is generally the criticism is disliking the opposite gender so much as being overly sensitive, hypocritical, too supportive of the Nanny state rather than what I have seen of the online criticism of MRA where its about them disliking woman in general.

A person is overly sensitive when they care about something the accuser doesn't. It isn't really an informative label or descriptor.

I've seen hypocrisy levelled as an accusation. An example being, 'feminists want equal rights, but don't hit me because I'm a girl'. I wouldn't advocate going out hitting anyone so was never too swayed by that one. Any better ones you can think of?

Supportive of the nanny state? You'll need to expand on that one.

A good example of this is that those criticisms I listed above were some of the ones I remember from a conversation I had with a woman I was working with, the work in this case involving mattocking out a hole in the rain while wearing hard hats, exactly the sort of activity that would be considered traditionally unsuitable for a woman but she saw the issues that they were advocating for as either irrelevant or able to be campaigned for under a "different banner" (she was pro-choice)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying here. "Those criticisms I listed above..." "overly sensitive, hypocritical, supportive of nanny state".

I can't plug in those criticisms into that paragraph and understand what it is you are trying to say. Could you rephrase it?

What issues were irrelevant?

I agree with your opinions on more discussion is always needed rather than making blanket assumptions about somebodies views of a one word description, but as you say the definitions of each term are now so nebulous that a discussion is difficult until you have teased out the meaning off every word which can be an exhausting process.

It can, but the fact we engage in it shows we have an interest in doing so. If we didn't why bother?

bnt

I went to that site and clicked on the "Game" category. Suffice to say that that site's content strays far, far away from "men's rights" as I understand it, in to bog standard PUA & mysogyny.

Morph the Cat

smcgiff wrote: »

Looks like a piss take to me.

It's not - and there's a another site similar to it for generic lads, called Joe.ie

FunLover18

Reminds me of the Tony Hancock episode where he sets up the Male Suffregettes

GalwayGuy2

QFT.

Oh, ye old folk and your lingo. What does that mean?

Wibbs

bnt wrote: »

I went to that site and clicked on the "Game" category. Suffice to say that that site's content strays far, far away from "men's rights" as I understand it, in to bog standard PUA & mysogyny.

IMH B the PUA stuff is a symptom for the want of a better word for a wider philosophy. Their misogyny - and that's what it surely is - is aimed at a particular type of woman. The type that "did them wrong/broke their hearts". And I'll be honest here I know that broad type and I could well see how they might come to those kind of conclusions. If that's all their experience led them to believe.

You can even see the type of woman writ large in PUA and often MRA philosophy. You could damn near build a "Thundering Bitch"(tm) from their system. THink about the the type who would fall for PUA stuff, "negs" and "Being a bit of a Dick((tm) Wibbs PUA school) and "peacocking" and "shít tests" and all that wilder stuff beyond saying hello to a woman. It's a blueprint for a below normal IQ bitch/wagon/gobshíte. A lot of these guys think *EDIT for clarity* don't realise that when women reply that they wouldn't fall for that guff, they may actually be telling the truth as they're normal non self absorbed human beings who happen to have hair and eyes and lips and tits and bums and legs... oh god legs... I need to lay down...

*intermission*...

The problem is they assign that minority type to all women. Well with caveats. Certain foreign/exotic women are given more of the benefit of the doubt.

Again IMH I reckon one could head off at the pass the more nasty end of PUA/MRA scene early on if you could gather up the type of man prone to preselecting for bitches at 17 and warn them of the signs and how to avoid same like the plague and if they get friendzoned with one then make with the beatings.

I read that site and think; hmmm let's flip it around and imagine a site set up by women, (mostly young) women who have gone through a series of woman beating, controlling nasty bastard men, even preselecting them*. Who then assume - quite naturally, if in error - that all men are woman beating, controlling nasty bastards. Add in a few older more experienced women who didn't learn to avoid such bastards and I reckon you'd have a very similar site indeed, but from the other side. I've seen that kinda vibe in the more scary haired and eyed "feminist" blogs, where you are left wondering "jayzuz, dial it back Luv**. Who pissed in your cornflakes to make you so angry?".







*I'd say we all know an example of that woman. One bastard is unfortunate, three in a row is a pattern and it ain't the men. Oh the men and I use the term broadly are bastards who would be best served in a darkened room and other men breaking out the hurls... but if you find yourself always with bastards that's more on you. Not your fault as such, given childhood shíte is likely influencing you, but at some point you have to see this and get help to break the cycle, because mad thought that this is, most men aren't bastards. They may be temporary gobshítes at times(so are you so quit the sniggering at the back ) but they're not bastards.


** added the Luv to get the real radical Jezebelers twitching. Yep I'm a prick. Shoot me

Wibbs

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Oh, ye old folk and your lingo. What does that mean?

Bloody kids these days *Grandpa Simpson voice* QFT = Quoted For Truth.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Bloody kids these days *Grandpa Simpson voice* QFT = Quoted For Truth.

I always thought it meant Quite F**king True!

I didn't know what LMGTFY meant, so I googled it.

OT, I had a quick look at that site and needed a shower. Ugly thoughts and ugly words all over the place.

Czarcasm

Wibbs wrote: »

Bloody kids these days *Grandpa Simpson voice* QFT = Quoted For Truth.

Candie wrote: »

I always thought it meant Quite F**king True!

I didn't know what LMGTFY meant, so I googled it.

OT, I had a quick look at that site and needed a shower. Ugly thoughts and ugly words all over the place.

Given Wibbs was quoting a reference to textile mills and the industrial revolution I was thinking "Quaker Factory Textiles"

GalwayGuy2

I've seen that kinda vibe in the more scary haired and eyed "feminist" blogs, where you are left wondering "jayzuz, dial it back Luv**. Who pissed in your cornflakes to make you so angry?".

Jesus Wibbs, that post was a bit of a rant.

I just quoted this because I recently came to the same revelation. I honestly wish I could see those sexist people as, you know, inhuman misandrists. But, I honestly can't. You just really, really feel bad for some of the writers on Jezebel, Guardian, Etc.

It's kind of like that article about the bus driver comments a while back? If you go down to the part about the train, and the short skirt, you can see classic signs of anxiety issues.

These websites are pretty sad for everybody to be honest. Having fear of men/women generates fear for men/women and this leads to hatred for men/women.

Wibbs

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Jesus Wibbs, that post was a bit of a rant.

Eh for me GG that's more like a haiku. Boards.ie pay me by the letter, so blame them

I agree with you. Anger comes from somewhere, regardless of gender. Sometimes the anger is justified, but when it's consistent it's usually more internal and personal than external and universal. The problem is this interweb thingy all too often makes the former look like the latter.

hatrickpatrick

Haven't read anything about this specific movement yet, but roadway speaking I do support the idea of fighting the increasing marginalization of masculinity, particularly in young people.

Seeing ads about abusive teen relationships directed solely at young boys and seeing so many boys being drugged and medicated for being boys and having lots of energy is pretty soul crushing.

RDM_83 again

Pushtrak wrote: »

Supportive of the nanny state? You'll need to expand on that one.

Ah I meant stuff like restrictions on advertising e.g the ban photoshopping of images idea as a frivolous idea to on the more serious end the idea of gender quotas.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I've seen hypocrisy levelled as an accusation. An example being, 'feminists want equal rights, but don't hit me because I'm a girl'. I wouldn't advocate going out hitting anyone so was never too swayed by that one. Any better ones you can think of?

I think its a fairly valid criticism when violence against men has a level of tacit acceptability in the media and wider society.
e.g A slap in the face for causing offense acceptable F to M, completely unacceptable M to F.



In terms of the view built up from online reading each site is a different subset of posters and none is representative of wider society as a whole but each does represent a subsection (of the computer literate) population.

Trying to find a link to how Fathers for Rights are viewed has proved rather unsuccessful considering I just keep finding things about them committing actual criminal offenses!
But I think a good illustration of my point about how the fringe of MRA is viewed as dangerous in a way that the worst sections of radical Feminism is not is the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center (which is a fairly well respected rights organization) describes some of them as hot beds of dangerous hatred.
Even in their justification/reply to the controversy this decision shows their hypocrisy with allowing someone with some pretty obnoxious beliefs to dismiss concerns

Cathy Brennan owns the domain RadFem Hub. “I don’t hate men,” she told me. “I have a father, I have a brother, I have a son. The war that Paul Elam is waging is in his head. I worry about women and children and the increasing violence in our society.” When I asked her what she thought of Solanas’ “Scum Manifesto,” she laughed. “I view it as A Modest Proposal-type work of literature, a satire. It’s brilliant, but it’s not my personal bible.

LINK
This manifesto is by a repeated attempted murderer, the person being interviewed has been accused of inciting hatred towards transgender people. But these issues are apparently harmless and not worth official censure or condemnation.

Pushtrak wrote: »

A person is overly sensitive when they care about something the accuser doesn't. It isn't really an informative label or descriptor.

Not really, while it can be used to dismiss someones valid opinion and we can't assume the impacts of seemingly trivial actions on people, over sensitivity is sometimes a valid criticism. For example Mary Whitehouse is a good example of oversensitivity (the stuff about violence e.g campaigning against Dr Who not the homophobic stuff).

Pushtrak wrote: »

Supportive of the nanny state? You'll need to expand on that one.

Ah I meant stuff like restrictions on advertising e.g the ban photoshopping of images idea as a frivolous idea to on the more serious end the idea of gender quotas.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I've seen hypocrisy levelled as an accusation. An example being, 'feminists want equal rights, but don't hit me because I'm a girl'. I wouldn't advocate going out hitting anyone so was never too swayed by that one. Any better ones you can think of?

I think its a fairly valid criticism when violence against men has a level of tacit acceptability in the media and wider society.
e.g A slap in the face for causing offense acceptable F to M, completely unacceptable M to F.

Sorry my point wasn't clearer but it boils down to the fact that in retrospect the conversation was interesting aside from simply being a good ramble on because here was a smart woman complaining about feminism while at the same time doing a job that probably would have been considered "mans" work a few decades ago and still definitely wouldn't be a job conductive to being a "girly" girl (no offense meant but I can't think of a better way of describing what quiet physical work in mud etc while wearing PPE is).

Pushtrak

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ah I meant stuff like restrictions on advertising e.g the ban photoshopping of images idea as a frivolous idea to on the more serious end the idea of gender quotas.

First I'm hearing of that, and the example I found is one I'd very much support.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-moves-toward-banning-use-of-photoshop-in-cosmetics-ads-2011-12

Without that, it'd be tantamount to false advertising.

Not really, while it can be used to dismiss someones valid opinion and we can't assume the impacts of seemingly trivial actions on people, over sensitivity is sometimes a valid criticism. For example Mary Whitehouse is a good example of oversensitivity (the stuff about violence e.g campaigning against Dr Who not the homophobic stuff).

She is a case in point against social conservatism/religious beliefs, no?

Sorry my point wasn't clearer but it boils down to the fact that in retrospect the conversation was interesting aside from simply being a good ramble on because here was a smart woman complaining about feminism while at the same time doing a job that probably would have been considered "mans" work a few decades ago and still definitely wouldn't be a job conductive to being a "girly" girl (no offense meant but I can't think of a better way of describing what quiet physical work in mud etc while wearing PPE is).

That brings to mind an article I was reading somewhere about the gender wage gap. It was a research paper written by feminists. They mentioned that in interviews, women who were unemployed were generally saying the gender wage gap is the fault of men.

They interviewed someone they described somewhat nebulously as 'high skilled professional' or something as I recall. Her thoughts were that women generally went in to part time work more frequently and went for different types of jobs. It seems all the evidence paints this way. I stopped reading as the writers of the piece immediately discarded that. I'll not be able to link to it unfortunately. First, I don't have the link, and second, it was on JStor which I have access to for uni.

phill106

Was going to join but wife won't let me

Cantona's Collars

phill106 wrote: »

Was going to join but wife won't let me

Off with her head!!!

Sleepy

TBH, I think it's a natural backlash against feminism. That's not to say I agree with everything they espouse but I can understand where they're coming from. They're the male equivalent of the extremists among feminists. The only difference is that the nutjobs on the other side have far more feminists to claim to speak on behalf of that appear quite happy to leave them rant rather than deriding them as the misandrists that they are.

This kind of group are exactly what happens when you try to create equality by advancing the case of one side of a demographic split. In the US you can see the same sort of reaction against "affirmative action" policies etc. brought in to appease the "African American" caucus: the increase in support for white supremacist groups.

If we want equality, it's quite simple to attain: remove all references to gender, race, sexuality, religion from our laws and society will eventually catch up to that legal framework.

anncoates

If a name could high five another guy, flick his arse in the shower with a wet towel knot and go WOOOAAAHH, Return of Kings would surely be it.

Wibbs

Naw AC they're way too homophobic for that.

Femme_Fatale

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, I think it's a natural backlash against feminism.

Yes, it's understandable that there was going to be a backlash against militant, fanatical feminism.

That's not to say I agree with everything they espouse but I can understand where they're coming from.

Noice. They go on about how much women are the enemy and you "can understand where they're coming from"?

They're the male equivalent of the extremists among feminists. The only difference is that the nutjobs on the other side have far more feminists to claim to speak on behalf of that

Oh they'll grow, no doubt.

happy to leave them rant rather than deriding them as the misandrists that they are.

Kinda like your take on these lads.

If they were actually fighting for men's rights rather than using these grievances as a stick to beat all women (not just feminists, women) you'd have a point. It's quite baffling that you'd read some of the stuff on that forum about "sluts" and the like, and say you "can understand where they're coming from". I see you're still saying crazy feminists = all feminists too, even though that's the very same as saying crazies like these guys = all men's rights activists.

Wibbs

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Noice. They go on about how much women are the enemy and you "can understand where they're coming from"?

Add me to that list, however with this caveat; as I reckoned before these guys have a slanted worldview with a huge confirmation bias that selects for a particular kind, a subset of woman and that particular subest is a) more likely to fall for PUA/Alpha guff and b) more likely to be the thundering wagons these guys describe. After a while all the women these guys interact with tend to be this type. The normal woman out there will shy off the PUA stuff so they'll label her a feminist, so never get to interact beyond trying to the legover(tm) in a club.

The antifeminist backlash bits? Well I have some sympathy there and it's not just "radical/militant" feminist stuff either, it's more everyday background noise than that. Even givens for many. Examples?

The gender paygap. There isn't one in the west. Not when you compare like with like and hours worked.

Domestic abuse. Nearly half of all domestic abuse that is reported the woman is the attacker. How many mens support and shelters have we heard about?

Rape culture. Usually built on the bedrock of the one in four women will be raped at college stat. Turns out it's a nonsense, a fudge, where the "researcher" applied her beliefs to a half baked sample size.

Going on suicide stats men are far more affected by divorce than women. Three times more likely to take thier own lives going through one(women's suicide stats stay stable).

Women are shortchanged in the medical field. Nonsense. Compare the money just aimed at breast cancer compared to all male speciifc cancers (testicular, prostate etc).

Women are shortchanged in education. Funny how more women than men are graduates and that number increases year on year.

Men's fatherhood rights? Good luck anyone defending that one.

The list is long enough. Now luckily in Ireland we're a lot more chilled about much of this stuff, but it's way worse in the US where these yahoos are based. While their anger and daftness is well risible in spots I can defo see how an American male might have more than little bit of WTF. Look at the US schools were youngfellas of 6 and 8 have been suspended for "sexual harrassment" because they kissed a girl on the cheek. Or the amount of male kids on meds for dodgy behaviour. Like I say you can see where some of this comes from and how some men, particularly in the US are overreacting against it.

Sleepy

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yes, it's understandable that there was going to be a backlash against militant, fanatical feminism.

Nope, all feminism. The moderates give the fanatics their platform and, no doubt, their funding. Feminism will never achieve equality simply because it's not striving for it.

Noice. They go on about how much women are the enemy and you "can understand where they're coming from"?

TBH, I barely glanced at the link. One look was enough to get the idea: it's an MRA version of Jezebel. I'm not going to browse either site for long lest my visit to the site is confused with support for their bile. Wibbs made the point more eloquently than me but my take on it would be that understanding the position someone makes an irrational argument from doesn't mean I agree with or support them. For example: I can understand why those with poor education feel aggrieved that "fordiners" are "taking their jobs" but whilst I understand him/her, I still believe that it's their own fault if they failed to get a sufficient education (or simply behave in a civil enough fashion) to make them employable.

Oh they'll grow, no doubt.

How do you mean? You believe the male rights movement will grow? Just the nut-job extremists? Or both?

As long as feminism is given such influence in our society, I expect they will. If we could get the moderates on both sides to form an egalitarian movement, however, I can only see the nutjobs on both sides finding themselves without much of an audience.

If they were actually fighting for men's rights rather than using these grievances as a stick to beat all women (not just feminists, women) you'd have a point. It's quite baffling that you'd read some of the stuff on that forum about "sluts" and the like, and say you "can understand where they're coming from". I see you're still saying crazy feminists = all feminists too, even though that's the very same as saying crazies like these guys = all men's rights activists.

MRA extremists will refer to women as sluts in the same way that Feminist extremists will refer to all men as rapists.

If I wasn't clear enough in my OP: these guys are morons. What you have to ask yourself though is the following: would they exist if those of us who wanted equality sought it together instead of dividing along (predominantly) gender lines?

Burky126

It could be worse.The site could of been called 'Return of Jedi...'

Pushtrak

Sleepy wrote: »

Nope, all feminism. The moderates give the fanatics their platform and, no doubt, their funding. Feminism will never achieve equality simply because it's not striving for it.

That doesn't seem quite in line with reality. Feminism on the whole is largely taken as a certain type of radical feminist. The moderates can't give a platform to fanatics as they aren't even recognised as a group. If a group is seen to be a radicalised movement, there can be no moderate providing a platform element at play.

TBH, I barely glanced at the link. One look was enough to get the idea: it's an MRA version of Jezebel.

The consensus seems to be that it is significantly worse than that, actually.

BraziliaNZ

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Haha! looks like you'll have to ban me then for being a 6'1, 14 stone whiskey drinking gay who lifts and can weld and all that.

I'd love to see you try to out masculinise me in fairness, OP

Well he could easily show you up as a fairy by having sex with a real woman

seenitall

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Well he could easily show you up as a fairy by having sex with a real woman

LOL, I bet you wouldn't be so quick to say that to his face.

Sounds like that website would be just your kind of thing.

Holy crap that's a terrible website. Is it definitely not satirical? I've read Jezebel a couple of times and it has its fair share of loonies but I've never seen anything as bad as some of the crap on ROK there.

6. A woman’s value is mainly determined by her fertility and beauty. A man’s value is mainly determined by his resources, intellect, and character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

strobe

Serious stench of "poor me, the pretty girls never want to be my girlfriend... ****ing bitches" off that whole site.

Not shocked they have a section of the site dedicated to 'game'.

Wallowing in that level of self petty and bitterness can't be good, mental health wise.

You'd almost petty them if they didn't all come across as so consistantly unlikable.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Holy crap that's a terrible website. Is it definitely not satirical? I've read Jezebel a couple of times and it has its fair share of loonies but I've never seen anything as bad as some of the crap on ROK there.

Well H as I said if you went back a couple of centuries(if even that) or look to more patriarchal cultures today then that opinion would hold quite a bit of weight.

Where women had little political power(if any), men were seen as the the "providers" and women as the "babymakers"(elder women beyond such were valued as wise). Even in pre farming cultures where the gender roles were well delineated, if more a shared burden, female fecundity was highly valued. About the earliest portable art our ancestors created were fertility statues(or most likely to be). Hell look in things like the bible and talk of "barren women" and god laying on the hands, dirty deity. Of course no one suggested the bloke could be the one shooting blanks... Look at Mary FFS. The mother of God. Ultimate oneupmanship among her mates on a coffee morning that one. Look at Henry the Eighth. Kept going through women to find one that would pop out a male heir for him. He helped something as monumental as the reformation along with this need. It was a big deal.

These guys are out of date and making the rookie mistake of thinking cultural and technological changes don't affect nature. They assume it's all one way. They're probably into Paleo diets for the same simplistic reasoning. Bless.

Few examples? Reliable contraception means planned parenting is possible in ways our ancestors wouldn't have fathomed. It means women can be freed from their wombs and have sexual enjoyment and safety more like mens. Don't forget a century ago in the west a scary number of women died in childbirth. Go back to the middle ages and it was a bloodbath. Because of the massive drop in childhood mortality(1 in 4 Victorian kids didn't see their teens), women and indeed men can choose to have fewer kids and have them later when they're more established. DNA testing means women(and men) playing away can be more easily spotted. Egg freezing and artificial insemination has shifted the landscape even more. Never mind that women now have more political and social agency than ever before. Some might argue in some areas more than men. Big changes.

Yes many of these are ahead of the cultures curve, but not that far ahead and we will catch up. The human mind and culture is very plastic in nature. We went from hunter gatherers living in small mobile bands to living cheek by jowl in cities within remarkably few generations.

Wibbs

strobe wrote: »

Serious stench of "poor me, the pretty girls never want to be my girlfriend... ****ing bitches" off that whole site.

Yes though with at least some of them judging by a brief sniff at the forum attached, it's more a case of "poor me, the pretty bitches never wanted to be my girlfriend, now I get the pretty bitches because of "game" and keeping them at arms length*, therefore women are all bitches". The problem is(among many) is they've just exchanged getting nowhere with bitches to getting somewhere with them. The target hasn't changed, but they think the target equals women as an entire gender.






* Much of this "game" guff can be condensed down to "treat em mean, keep em keen". Again that works(even on men). It actually does, but only with... well, morons, or actually fragile people.

Femme_Fatale

Sleepy wrote: »

Nope, all feminism. The moderates give the fanatics their platform and, no doubt, their funding.

Using that logic, the same thing applies to moderate men's rights activists (which I don't agree it does, because I am able to separate the loons from the normal people).

How do you mean? You believe the male rights movement will grow? Just the nut-job extremists? Or both?

Both.

MRA extremists will refer to women as sluts in the same way that Feminist extremists will refer to all men as rapists.

I know they will, what's your point?

If I wasn't clear enough in my OP: these guys are morons. What you have to ask yourself though is the following: would they exist if those of us who wanted equality sought it together instead of dividing along (predominantly) gender lines?

I already acknowledged that this is a backlash against militant feminism (by people who also hate moderate feminists - and women full stop) but misogyny has always existed.

Links234

RDM_83 again wrote: »

But I think a good illustration of my point about how the fringe of MRA is viewed as dangerous in a way that the worst sections of radical Feminism is not is the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center (which is a fairly well respected rights organization) describes some of them as hot beds of dangerous hatred.
Even in their justification/reply to the controversy this decision shows their hypocrisy with allowing someone with some pretty obnoxious beliefs to dismiss concerns


LINK
This manifesto is by a repeated attempted murderer, the person being interviewed has been accused of inciting hatred towards transgender people. But these issues are apparently harmless and not worth official censure or condemnation.

I've resisted commenting on this thread for a while now, but... to say that the abovementioned has been accused of inciting hatred towards transgender people is putting it mildly, like saying the Westboro Baptist is accused of inciting hatred towards gay people.

First of, I would consider myself a feminist, so cards are firmly on the table right off. but on the whole, the feminist movement has been historically oppressive towards transgender people, and it's not just the fringe either, the outright hatred of trans people has been mainstream up until quite recently. The negative and sometimes devastating effects of second-wave feminism on the trans community can still be felt today, I'll give you one example of what I'm talking about, and that's healthcare in the US.

Back in the early 80's, prominent feminist Janice Raymond authored a report to the Regan administration that effectively cut all state funding for trans-related healthcare, and a knock-on effect from that being that all private insurers took their cue from that decision and would not cover any trans-related healthcare. And I don't just mean that they wouldn't cover medically nessecary hormone treatment, or surgical treatments, they flat out wouldn't cover anything if you're trans. The damage is only being undone today, after over 30 years, the NDC is ruling that there was not sufficient evidence in the first place, and the decision was unjustified. And I'd like to point out, this was not just some fringe lunatics, this was mainstream feminism at the time.

In fact, one of the scariest things about this particular form of feminism is that they often align themselves with the right-wing when it suits them, not only did Raymond and other feminists at the time press the Regan administration into stripping trans people of health cover, the person you quote above is currently working with the same people behind Prop 8 in California. That's no joke, she is working with the very same right wing anti-LGBT hate groups that were behind Prop 8 like the National Organization for Marriage and the Pacific Justice Institute, and I'm not even exaggerating, they're considered hate groups by the SLPC. How ironic, right?

GalwayGuy2

Using that logic, the same thing applies to moderate men's rights activists (which I don't agree it does, because I am able to separate the loons from the normal people).

Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. There does seem to be a more collective mentality in feminism than men rights activism.

I already acknowledged that this is a backlash against militant feminism (by people who also hate moderate feminists - and women full stop) but misogyny has always existed.

And Misandry hasn't? Men who were into other men weren't seen as pedophiles?

Intersectionality is a theory to explain that, but I don't buy it. Some of the past, and present, arguments for homophobia are frighteningly close to the arguments that a woman's shaving genitalia will turn a man into a pedophile.

Femme_Fatale

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

And Misandry hasn't?

Not sure where I said it hasn't. But that poster was attributing this particular woman-hating movement to militant feminism; woman-hating was always around before any militant feminism. I reckon they'd hate women with or without feminism.

Men who were into other men weren't seen as pedophiles?

Is that misandry or homophobia?

Wibbs

Interesting history and background there Links. Was completely ignorant of any of that. Thank you for the lowdown. Christ trans folks seem to get it from both sides.

Wibbs

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

woman-hating was always around before any militant feminism. I reckon they'd hate women with or without feminism.

Probably. I think in this particular case, "feminism", particularly the more strident US college/interweb version* is one of the cofactors involved. Throw in the sense of previous adolescent exclusion they felt(and now apparently don't) and it's the perfect storm. Plus I'd add in a large dollop of "t'was better in the good old days" and a sideorder of "exciting exotic women from other lands we couldn't place on a map in high school" and the cake mix is complete. And that's how you mix metaphors. I thankyew *bows*





*and some of that stuff is seriously daft. Not always misandry either, just pure bloody daft.

Links234

Wibbs wrote: »

Interesting history and background there Links. Was completely ignorant of any of that. Thank you for the lowdown. Christ trans folks seem to get it from both sides.

I could write a hell of a lot more about the subject, but it's Christmas and I don't want to spend all night writing about something that'll just make me angry. I will say this though, trans folks get it from a lot of places you wouldn't expect, there's a lot of hate for us from gay people, would you believe?

GalwayGuy2

Is that misandry or homophobia?

Depending on the person, the theory, the culture, and society, it could easily be both.

A lot of homophobia was built around the fact that they were, you know men. Sure, some theories were the whole 'feminine lack of control' but there were plenty of plenty of people who would have believed that it was an indulgence that would lead to pedophilia. In the same way that a BDSM was theorized to lead to rape, or the current anime figurine could lead to pedophilia/necrophilia.There's also the complaint that when female on female rape is potrayed, it is often potrayed as being committed by a 'masculine woman'. Again, homophobia, misogony and misandry all tied together.

In my personal opinion, it may be closer to misandry than misogony.

But, it's very hard to separate whether anything is misandry, misogony, homophobia, etc. They usually coexist together. If you propagate misandry, then you propagate misogyny, eg: All men are potential rapists, so women should be protected against those men. (Such as Victorian England and the paranoia around lower class and 'Savages' attacking the aristocratic women.)

Wibbs

Links234 wrote: »

I could write a hell of a lot more about the subject, but it's Christmas and I don't want to spend all night writing about something that'll just make me angry.

Well L let me be among the first online to wish you and yours a Happy Xmas and we can get angry together in January.

Links234

Wibbs wrote: »

Well L let me be among the first online to wish you and yours a Happy Xmas and we can get angry together in January.

Did you just call me L?

Sleepy

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Using that logic, the same thing applies to moderate men's rights activists (which I don't agree it does, because I am able to separate the loons from the normal people).

Well, no. I'm, open to correction but I've yet to hear of a "male studies" college course or extremists from the movement being paid to teach them.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Not sure where I said it hasn't. But that poster was attributing this particular woman-hating movement to militant feminism; woman-hating was always around before any militant feminism. I reckon they'd hate women with or without feminism.

Whether for good or for ill, the feminist movement is largely responsible for the emasculation of men in our culture. It seems overly simplistic to me to dismiss these guys as just hating women. As Mandela is frequently quoted as saying "No one is born hating another person", hatred is a response and it's my conjecture that the impact on society of the feminist movement (both militant and otherwise) is the root cause of the hatred these emasculated, confused and deeply disturbed men seem to have for women.

Most of the achievements of the feminist movement to date would be things I'd agree with by the way: equality of pay, access to education, right to vote etc. It's the refusal to accept that these have been achieved and the continued demands for equality of outcome rather than equality of access that make me consider the movement to have become a negative influence on society. And it's not just the nutjobs: many mainstream feminists still rail against "the gender pay gap", "glass ceilings" etc. that simply don't exist any more once one delves beyond headline statistics.

The means used to achieve these positive steps towards equality has unfortunately been to always portray all men as "the bad guys". This unilateral approach to equality has lead to men being stripped of their old societal roles as breadwinner and provider while women gained the freedom to choose the role they wanted (caregiver / career focused / mix of both). Again, that women have this choice is no bad thing: everyone should have that choice.

Because "equality" has being sought by a movement that only looked to promote the interests of a single gender, little consideration was given to the role of men in our changed society or to address the inequalities they face.