Why are we hating all the men?

mzungu

silverharp wrote: »

back up though , you can argue it away but could still link you to main publications discussing why more men are avoiding marriage, one can posit that the perception of likely divorce and the other party holding all the legal cards plays into that. Surely its a good thing to raise this as a cultural discussion if a rebalance is needed instead of trying to brush it under the carpet?

I thought marriage/co-habitation figures were on the up?

mzungu

Bambi985 wrote: »

I wasn't talking about the more extreme/bonkers PUA red pill stuff. Most of us even in here will agree on that being batsh1t. I was talking in general about the weird anti-feminism slant in here, the disproportionate number of threads that turn into the same argument with the same voices that get 70 "thanks" for harping on about the "gender pay gap myth" and Louise O'Neill and how women have it better than men and feminism = misandry and blah blah blah. You'll see the re-reg phenomenon out in force in those threads too, these lads that pop up with a post count of 2 that sound scarily similar to one of your usual proponents of these arguments.

It's weird and unsettling and not representative of anything I've ever seen or heard offline.

Aye, the personal abuse on threads mentioned above is numptyism of the highest order. You have no arguments from me there.

Regarding the disproportionate number of threads, this would be related to how often it gets aired in the media. Like it or not, this stuff gets pushed out in most mainstream Irish news outlets, so the amount of threads in here correlates with that. Same with over in the politics forums and whistleblower threads or other scandals etc. More controversy means more threads.

In Irish media you will get things like the "pay gap" pushed. As I said a few pages ago, since this is not a like for like comparison (even the studies don't hide this) I do find it to be misleading. So I see no problem with pointing that out. Where is the harm in questioning accepted narratives? I see no issue in any of these things being discussed, as long as things don't descend into personal jibes and sweeping generalisations.

Lux23

Wibbs wrote: »

Colour me shocked by a "feminist" avoiding the point and any responsibility. More likely incapable of seeing it.

Why do you have to put the word feminist in inverted commas? You might well have a point but when you're deliberately antagonistic like that its very hard to read and digest your opinions.

cloudatlas

Wibbs wrote: »

Colour me shocked by a "feminist" avoiding the point and any responsibility. More likely incapable of seeing it.

1)I know fact/fiction may be a difficult geography for some to get their heads around, but it was an actual group of young men accused of this. Not "fictional", though the story was.

2) If you railed against this group of young men with zero evidence normal adults would see this as morally dubious.

3) if you did so through the national media while going full hysteric about questioning men in general about their "hidden agenda", while primal screaming, normal adults would feel a retraction was in order.

And yet you see no responsibility involved? Of course you don't. As I said the avoidance of personal responsibility mentality of the modern "feminist" never ceases to amaze me, nor their juvenile take on the world(when it suits them of course).

If actual individuals were being investigated privately by the University they probably did receive some kind of acknowledgement that they were exonerated, my understanding was that they were looking for evidence on social media, they found one comment by a guy saying he didn't want to be involved with what was going on but it was all hearsay, I wasn't privvy to the details. Don't think commentators should apologise though, loads of people believed the story. If you want to put me in some kind of a category you've created then good luck, I'm sure it'll make you feel better to neatly stick a label of 'hysteria' on me, just a way of dismissing any point made really and the purpose of the thread.

"2) If you railed against this group of young men with zero evidence normal adults would see this as morally dubious."

Nobody was charged, people make moral judgement all the time based on media reports and the morass of internet commentary. You are obviously very special if you are immune from doing this.

silverharp

mzungu wrote: »

I thought marriage/co-habitation figures were on the up?

probably needs its own thread , seems to be an institution that is not on the increase . not getting married in your early 20's is probably a good thing for some but if everyone leaves it too long you end up with a weird game of musical chairs. or if cohabiting is explaining a good part of the difference it still means a certain reluctance to commit

http://http://www.parliament.uk/ImageVaultFiles/id_11221/cf_578/olympic-housingandhomelife-marriages-chart1-standa.jpg

Will I Am Not

Lux23 wrote: »

Why do you have to put the word feminist in inverted commas?

The word has lost all meaning. There's nothing wrong with being what would traditionally be known as a feminist, it's a good thing.

This rubbish that's masquerading as feminism today is a different kettle of fish.

Lux23

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

The word has lost all meaning. There's nothing wrong with being what would traditionally be known as a feminist, it's a good thing.

This rubbish that's masquerading as feminism today is a different kettle of fish.

And what makes you an authority on what is acceptable feminism?

Will I Am Not

Lux23 wrote: »

And what makes you an authority on what is acceptable feminism?

Nothing. My opinion. Or am I not allowed have an opinion on it because of the ol' penis thing?
If someone wants to use quotations around the word feminism because they think it's not an accurate description well that's their business too.

Outlaw Pete

Here's the perfect illustration of how third wave feminists manipulate society today:


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/695695593302315009

....privileged white marginalized young male sees his chance at some female approval and so replies with the following....


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/695643260044341248

Hey presto, a woman has noticed he exists!

And all he had to do for this doggie biscuit was roll over and denigrate his own shameful gender..... I despair.

OldNotWIse

drugstore cowboy

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Here's the perfect illustration of how third wave feminists manipulate society today:


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/695695593302315009

....privileged white marginalized young male sees his chance at some female approval and so replies with the following....


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/695643260044341248

Hey presto, a woman has noticed he exists!

And all he had to do for this doggie biscuit was roll over and denigrate his own shameful gender..... I despair.

Horrible thing for Louise to say imo

Rubberchikken

didn't know we were 'hating all the men'. i'm guessing it's the same few wimmen who should know better but obviously don't.
haven't a clue who this louise o neill is and not going to bother finding out as i think i wouldn't be impressed.

Wibbs

Lux23 wrote: »

Why do you have to put the word feminist in inverted commas? You might well have a point but when you're deliberately antagonistic like that its very hard to read and digest your opinions.

I put it in inverted commas because I consider modern Feminism to be a busted flush, it started out well, but has become ever more mired in ever circling ridiculousness and IMH too often promotes the idea that women are child like creatures incapable of agency.

And what makes you an authority on what is acceptable feminism?

I'm a thinking adult member of the human race perhaps? Or should we all just blindly follow received dogma?

cloudatlas wrote: »

IDon't think commentators should apologise though, loads of people believed the story.

So? Lots of people bought into the Loch Ness monster, it doesn't mean it's not a nonsense. If nonsense is promoted against a group, then it behoves people to acknowledge this. That you fail to see this as a problem, says much. But again, not surprised.

If you want to put me in some kind of a category you've created then good luck, I'm sure it'll make you feel better to neatly stick a label of 'hysteria' on me, just a way of dismissing any point made really and the purpose of the thread.

Sorry, I failed to divine too many points so far.

Nobody was charged, people make moral judgement all the time based on media reports and the morass of internet commentary. You are obviously very special if you are immune from doing this.

You --- Country Mile --- Point.

eyerer

pangbang wrote: »

Conflict breeds distraction
Conflict grabs attention
Conflict provides something to "do"
Conflict divides and conquers
Conflict steals critical thought

conflict, basically = Money, and fooooking lots of it.

Men versus women? Money
Europeans versus Americans? Money
Black versus white? Money
Religion A versus Religion B versus atheism ? Money
National versus international? Money

And if it isn't money the powers-that-be get, it will be power. And power......

= MONEY

Why do you think all these issues are getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger?????????????? You don't make money from unity and solidarity, ye foooooking eejits :P

That's how my dad explains it. I kinda hope it's right, because otherwise it would mean there are sick people in charge of Western countries and media outlets. Though greed is sick too I can understand that moreso than the powers that be not valuing my own rights or equality. They clearly promote division and in their minds equality doesn't mean equal. George Orwell had it right, some are more equal than others.

Ulysses Gaze

Outlaw Pete

drugstore cowboy wrote: »

Horrible thing for Louise to say imo

Well, with regards to the double standards, of which that's undoubtedly one, when it comes to objectification, LON most certainly doesn't have the monopoly on that.

Lost count how many times we have heard the complaints that female politicians and female sports starts are objectified needlessly when we should be paying attention to what they have to offer us in a professional capacity. Seen it labelled as an example of misogyny so many times.... but yet seems perfectly okay for women to objectify male politicians and even reduce Olympic athletes down to the size of the bulge with little or no sense of irony.


https://twitter.com/cosmopolitan/status/761762687940370432?lang=en

https://twitter.com/marieclaire/status/835226358619983872

Chose tweets from these two publications as both have whinged about objectification when it has been gone the other way. I have absolutely no doubt that if publications aimed at males had articles about which female Olympians had the best camel toes or which female politicians had the best tits, there'd be at outcry from these '3rd wave feminist' hypocrites.

To be clear, I have no issue with women objectifying guys, couldn't care less... but it's the nauseating hypocrisy that when it happens to women they will act all put upon and whinge it being an example of misogyny and will invariably imply also that it's a sign that any man doing so must have no respect for women.... when it's they very damn behavior they themselves are comfortable with when it;s their own gender engaging in. Not only comfortable with, but will high five one another over (virtually, or otherwise) and act as if they're doing something rebellious, like some kind of resistance movement, when in actual fact nobody would give a fcuk about them objectifying men if they just stfu harrumphing men for doing the same.

Equality and all that.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

Sure men are the innovators and mostly create the new tech trends, sports etc. something like 90% of the content creators on Youtube are male just as over populated journo courses made up of women are trying to get that last unpaid internship on a crappy 2nd rate tv station or dying out newspaper. But I dont see that innovation transferring to the political sphere

You'll never see innovation in politics, simply because people for the most part, are generally conservative, they like things just the way they are. Scratch beneath the surface of even the most liberal, and you won't be long finding out they're really a conservative chestnut underneath.

A good example of this phenomenon would be Hillary Clinton's classic snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. She has always been a conservative republican dressed in liberal democrats clothing, and she was a shoo-in for the presidency, until she rolled that godawful Lena Dunham out on stage and people thought "Ohhhh fcuk no!", and decided there was no other alternative but to vote for Donald Trump, as a means of putting that particular ideology back in it's box! :pac:

silverharp wrote: »

that is mostly just men unwinding, the online discussion is new and allows for a sharing of ideas not possible in the past

The medium is new, but the ideas are the same as they always were. The online discussion only allows for men of letters to disseminate their ideas faster. There isn't really an historical equivalent of women of letters... curiously enough

silverharp wrote: »

back up though , you can argue it away but could still link you to main publications discussing why more men are avoiding marriage, one can posit that the perception of likely divorce and the other party holding all the legal cards plays into that. Surely its a good thing to raise this as a cultural discussion if a rebalance is needed instead of trying to brush it under the carpet?

Oh absolutely it's a good thing to raise a discussion as to why you feel more men are avoiding marriage, but that in itself is begging the question as to whether men are actually avoiding marriage, or are more couples simply choosing alternatives to the institution of marriage itself. Given that historically it's women were the losers in marriage, from any perspective you can think of - legal, cultural or social, I'm not surprised that a rebalancing of the relationship dynamics is putting some men's noses out of joint with regards to marriage.

Whether women actually do hold all the legal cards or not would also be on the table for discussion, because it appears to me at least that there are the same minority of women who are now independently gaining assets that they would rather keep to themselves than the thoughts of losing said assets in the event of a divorce.

If I were to be honest with you though, I would suggest that the MGTOW types are more than welcome to keep going their own way. They appear to have very little interest in contributing to society, and appear to be only interested in why society isn't giving them what they feel they are due.

cloudatlas

Wibbs wrote: »

I put it in inverted commas because I consider modern Feminism to be a busted flush, it started out well, but has become ever more mired in ever circling ridiculousness and IMH too often promotes the idea that women are child like creatures incapable of agency.

I'm a thinking adult member of the human race perhaps? Or should we all just blindly follow received dogma?

So? Lots of people bought into the Loch Ness monster, it doesn't mean it's not a nonsense. If nonsense is promoted against a group, then it behoves people to acknowledge this. That you fail to see this as a problem, says much. But again, not surprised. Sorry, I failed to divine too many points so far.

You --- Country Mile --- Point.

They did acknowledge it, it was largely reported that no evidence was found hence why the investigation came to a hault, loch ness monster reference you're stretching now.

They aren't listening to you Wibbs they think Revenge porn should be a criminal offence- http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/upskirting-cyberstalking-and-revenge-porn-to-be-criminal-offences-1.3082855

Those crazy feminists at it again.

retro:electro

cloudatlas wrote: »

They did acknowledge it, it was largely reported that no evidence was found hence why the investigation came to a hault, loch ness monster reference you're stretching now.

They aren't listening to you Wibbs they think Revenge porn should be a criminal offence- http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/upskirting-cyberstalking-and-revenge-porn-to-be-criminal-offences-1.3082855

Those crazy feminists at it again.

Eh. Revenge porn should be a criminal offence- who is arguing against that? You know what else should be an offence, lying about being raped and ruining a person's reputation. And lying about a whole section of students in a college and outing them as taking part in revenge porn practices, when there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

cloudatlas

anna080 wrote: »

Eh. Revenge porn should be a criminal offence- who is arguing against that? You know what else should be an offence, lying about being raped and ruining a person's reputation. And lying about a whole section of students in a college and outing them as taking part in revenge porn practices.

Wibbs said it in the UCD Ag Science banter thread about the incident and I quote-

"Revenge porn", two words I never imagined I'd live long enough to read. WTF is wrong with such morons?' -Wibbs

retro:electro

cloudatlas wrote: »

Wibbs said it in the UCD Ag Science banter thread about the incident and I quote-

"Revenge porn", two words I never imagined I'd live long enough to read. WTF is wrong with such morons?' -Wibbs

Ya. I think you've taken him up totally wrong there.

cloudatlas

anna080 wrote: »

And lying about a whole section of students in a college and outing them as taking part in revenge porn practices, when there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

Did I say it was a good idea for someone to lie to authorities and the police? No I don't agree with that.

cloudatlas

anna080 wrote: »

Ya. I think you've taken him up totally wrong there.

Care to explain. Judging alleged perpetrators by any chance.

One eyed Jack

cloudatlas wrote: »

They aren't listening to you Wibbs they think Revenge porn should be a criminal offence- http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/upskirting-cyberstalking-and-revenge-porn-to-be-criminal-offences-1.3082855

Those crazy feminists at it again.

Lest you lose the run of yourself avoiding responsibility where it should be taken, and taking credit where it's not due, the new proposed legislation was not introduced by feminists at all. It was proposed following recommendations by the Law Reform Commission.

If 'crazy feminists at it again' really are your thing, well, there's a couple of 'em lost their shít when this happened -

Miss USA 2017 winner Kara McCullough slammed for comments on 'man-hating' feminism

Newly-crowned Miss USA 2017, Kara McCullough, has already lost some fans over her controversial anti-feminist stance and comments regarding healthcare.

Shortly before claiming the prestigious title, McCollough, 25, gave detailed and honest answers when asked for her opinion on healthcare and employment. The beauty queen, who hails from the District Of Columbia, said she believes medical care is a "privilege" and not a right, adding that the individual should be in employment to be entitled to the service.

Fuelling the backlash, McCullough also shunned the feminism movement, declaring: "I don't want to call myself a feminist. Women, we are just as equal as men, especially in the workplace."

Many on social media reacted with outrage at McCullough's statements, including one who commented on Twitter: "DC just disqualified herself with that answer #MissUSA," while another weighed in: "#MissUSA Miss DC just lost me with that answer....Affordable healthcare is a privilege? Girl bye."

Defending McCullough against the swarm of criticism, one supporter countered: "People are mad in the #MissUSA hashtag because the winner Kára McCullough is a scientist who describes feminism as man hate. Slay, queen," while another tweeted: "Kara McCullough just triggered every feminist on earth and I couldn't be happier. Let's be honest...it's man hate."

McCullough earned a chemistry degree from South Carolina State University and is employed at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Evidently passionate about education, McCullough leads a community outreach program, science exploration for kids (SE4K), which encourages children to study maths and science through interactive methods.

Remember that leadership I mentioned earlier? That's how it's done.

cloudatlas

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Lest you lose the run of yourself avoiding responsibility where it should be taken, and taking credit where it's not due, the new proposed legislation was not introduced by feminists at all. It was proposed following recommendations by the Law Reform Commission.

If 'crazy feminists at it again' really are your thing, well, there's a couple of 'em lost their shít when this happened -

Miss USA 2017 winner Kara McCullough slammed for comments on 'man-hating' feminism





Remember that leadership I mentioned earlier? That's how it's done.

I was joking :P

Wibbs

anna080 wrote: »

Ya. I think you've taken him up totally wrong there.

Well there's a shock...

cloudatlas wrote: »

Care to explain. Judging alleged perpetrators by any chance.

Well if you stalk my posts further you'll note that a) I was referring to the notion of "revenge porn" in general and the morons who would perpetrate it and b) on the basis of the first reports would brand such people as "morons" c) when it turned out to be nonsense I acknowledged that. None of this I did in a national newspaper. Now being an adult if I had publicly lambasted the faculty and by inference other men in general as a fair few "feminist" pundits did(a certain Ms O'Neill went full emotionals on the matter), I would retract that opinion in the same public manner. Then again I'm not a contestant in the victim olympics as so many of these public pundits are. Nor do I base my worldview, career and clickbait on perpetuating this utter drivel.

mzungu

silverharp wrote: »

probably needs its own thread , seems to be an institution that is not on the increase . not getting married in your early 20's is probably a good thing for some but if everyone leaves it too long you end up with a weird game of musical chairs. or if cohabiting is explaining a good part of the difference it still means a certain reluctance to commit

http://http://www.parliament.uk/ImageVaultFiles/id_11221/cf_578/olympic-housingandhomelife-marriages-chart1-standa.jpg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh absolutely it's a good thing to raise a discussion as to why you feel more men are avoiding marriage, but that in itself is begging the question as to whether men are actually avoiding marriage, or are more couples simply choosing alternatives to the institution of marriage itself. Given that historically it's women were the losers in marriage, from any perspective you can think of - legal, cultural or social, I'm not surprised that a rebalancing of the relationship dynamics is putting some men's noses out of joint with regards to marriage.

This would be my take on it. I think a lot of it is down to people having the freedom now to have whatever unions they wish. In times passed, getting married would have been the only game in town, but now there are loads of other options available.

I think the "men avoiding marriage" narrative makes for a sensational headline. A better headline would be "couples prefer cohabiting". I can't find the study now, but it was a recent one from the US that showed that between marriages, cohabitation and relationships, there are just as many men romantically attached as there ever was. IIRC the figures might have even showed that there are more in relationships now than before.

.........

B0jangles wrote: »

Yeah I saw that, it's really manky

like most ads depicting men and women these days

cloudatlas

Wibbs wrote: »

Well there's a shock...

Well if you stalk my posts further you'll note that a) I was referring to the notion of "revenge porn" in general and the morons who would perpetrate it and b) on the basis of the first reports would brand such people as "morons" c) when it turned out to be nonsense I acknowledged that. None of this I did in a national newspaper. Now being an adult if I had publicly lambasted the faculty and by inference other men in general as a fair few "feminist" pundits did(a certain Ms O'Neill went full emotionals on the matter), I would retract that opinion in the same public manner. Then again I'm not a contestant in the victim olympics as so many of these public pundits are. Nor do I base my worldview, career and clickbait on perpetuating this utter drivel.

Yes so you judged them morally. That's what you are condemning me and many other for doing, assuming that it was true, you've been saying that for several posts and now we see a turn around, but oh no it's different for others, and specifically different for you, you are a special case, yes gotcha.

Revenge porn is abhorrent and it is normal for people to react strongly against it wow we are actually getting somewhere.

.........

JayZeus wrote: »

This weekend I taught my wife how to change the oil filter and gap a new spark plug for the mower.

She showed me how to make bread dough in her 'new to her' Kenwood chef mixer.

Great. Why not. Well able for it.

I still cut the grass and she baked the bread.

Gender has SFA to do with any of it.

Now I might be accused of oversimplifying this, but the way I see it, let the raging mad nutcases scream and protest and label me as whatever they want.

Life will go on. I'll still burn the bread and my wife will still struggle to pull start an old lawnmower. Nothing will change there. There is no need for it to either.

I'm sorry but real life/world is not allowed.

retro:electro

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yes so you judged them morally. That's what you are condemning me and many other for doing, assuming that it was true, you've been saying that for several posts and now we see a turn around, but oh no it's different for others, and specifically different for you, you are a special case, yes gotcha.

Revenge porn is abhorrent and it is normal for people to react strongly against it wow we are actually getting somewhere.

You were proven wrong, and actually I think you should apologise to Wibbs for assuming otherwise. You saw something you thought was scandalous, put the blinkers on and didn't look at the bigger picture and acted totally irrationally. Those seem to be the characteristics of a feminist alright.

Zulu

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yes so you judged them morally. ...

Lol, you are so fu(king wrong it's funny.

This would be a good time for you to put down the shovel.

cloudatlas

anna080 wrote: »

You were proven wrong, and actually I think you should apologise to Wibbs for assuming otherwise. You saw something you thought was scandalous, put the blinkers on and didn't look at the bigger picture and acted totally irrationally. Those seem to be the characteristics of a feminist alright.

In his own words somebody who believed it was 'morally dubious' and should have waited for more evidence. He didn't. To err is human. No apology required.

.........

Samaris wrote: »

I may be completely wrong, but I seem to mostly see people rating journalism "good" when they agree with what's been said.

Absolutely not. A good article educates and informs, it lays out all the facts, and arguments, including the ones that the journalist might not like, and people make up their own mind. The journalism we are normally presented with now, takes only one or two facts at best, spins them, and then shoves the opinion and agenda permitted by the billionaire media corporation's owner down the readers throat. I go out of my way to read well written articles and facts that challenge my initial opinions and assumptions, and as a result I get a much better understanding of issues. I don't want to hear an echo chamber, but it's getting harder and harder to find reliable fully truthful journalism. Then again maybe I'm in a minority in that regard, and if I am, that would explain a lot.

cloudatlas

Zulu wrote: »

Lol, you are so fu(king wrong it's funny.

This would be a good time for you to put down the shovel.

I wasn't proven wrong, he did judge them based on the information that was given at the time that's something if you go back through the thread he is accusing feminists of doing, men were doing it too, but that's inconvenient on a thread like this.

Demforeigners

cloudatlas wrote: »

I wasn't proven wrong, he did judge them based on the information that was given at the time that's something if you go back through the thread he is accusing feminists of doing, men were doing it too, but that's inconvenient on a thread like this.

Your tears say more than real evidence ever could.

Feminism in its modern form is a discriminatory hate group. They are all United by their collective hatred for men and not for the betterment of women everywhere, but to create and sustain a matriarchal society. Thankfully it's confined to the Internet for now but who knows how long this will last as these influences are creeping in to our educational facilities and our national newspapers are giving a platform to highly toxic but influential hatebags.

The more ridicule the better I say before they do real and lasting damage to men everywhere.

I believe in real equality and I will always stand up for what is right for both genders. I am therefore an egalitarian and if you believe in real equality you will be too.

.........

B0jangles wrote: »

I'd just like to point out that yet again a thread which might actually have started out talking about issues facing men in the modern world has turned into a thread to talk about how terrible and ****ty feminism is; with a fun sideline on how women are crap at sport!

Serious question: Does the modern men's movement and those who support it have any idea or plans for how to improve the lot of unhappy men beyond getting feminists to shut up?

Do any of you have any original ideas for creating support networks for abused men, or for helping men struggling to cope with changed societal expectations of them, to throw out a couple of starting points?

Feminists saw and still see societies with a wide range of inequalities and fought to change them; as far as I can see men's rights activists see a changing world and want to make it all stop - a fundamental difference which I think has led to the conspicuous absence of ideas the movement has for positive actions which would actually help men.

Have you ever thought that human beings should be seeking equality be for all regardless of their sex ? Since when should women only look about "women's rights" and men look about "men's rights". How about the same rights for everyone ?

cloudatlas

Demforeigners wrote: »

Your tears say more than real evidence ever could.

Feminism in its modern form is a discriminatory hate group. They are all United by their collective hatred for men and not for the betterment of women everywhere, but to create and sustain a matriarchal society. Thankfully it's confined to the Internet for now but who knows how long this will last as these influences are creeping in to our educational facilities and our national newspapers are giving a platform to highly toxic but influential hatebags.

The more ridicule the better I say before they do real and lasting damage to men everywhere.

I believe in real equality and I will always stand up for what is right for both genders. I am therefore an egalitarian and if you believe in real equality you will be too.

Fairly sure womans groups have a longer history than that, confined to the internet? Groups lobbying for women's right to vote were formed in late-19th and early-20th centuries.

You forgot the bit about them trying to take over and gain supremacy.

What tears, real evidence? what are you going on about?

Demforeigners

cloudatlas wrote: »

Fairly sure womans groups have a longer history than that, confined to the internet? Groups lobbying for women's right to vote were formed in late-19th and early-20th centuries.

You forgot the bit about them trying to take over and gain supremacy.

What tears, real evidence? what are you going on about?

Hence MODERN feminist. Early feminists are heroes to me.

retro:electro

Demforeigners wrote: »

Hence MODERN feminist. Early feminists are heroes to me.

I'd rather be a Scientologist than a modern feminist. At least they keep to themselves

koumi

the hate is ironical

cloudatlas

Demforeigners wrote: »

Hence MODERN feminist. Early feminists are heroes to me.

Don't think you've read through the thread. You haven't responded to any points I've made directly just made a sweeping generalisation about how you don't like some feminists, carbon copy of the O.P post and adds nothing to a discussion.

Demforeigners

koumi wrote: »

the hate is ironical

Stupid ironic al with all his hatred! *shakes fist*

koumi

that's the joke

RabbleRouser2k

cloudatlas wrote: »

...so I feel they've discounted feminism as a result.

Just to say because it always is brought up, many posters may not like how Louise O'Neil puts herself across (these threads always start discussing her sex life as well, as if that has any bearing) but her book has encouraged many woman who have been sexually assaulted, raped to seek help so for me I feel that she has done a lot of good (i'll be asked how do I know this, she says she gets letters all the time from women saying her book caused them to contact the rape crisis centre, Louise has gotten advice from them and appeared on panel shows with representatives from that organisation etc., her book was a bestseller, it tackles an important topic).

Thank you for pointing me towards the National Women's Council Of Ireland Ltd, I've subscribed to them as I'm sure other posters on this thread have done the same.

Feminism discounts itsself by creating a problem whilst ignoring genuine ones.

When a rape occurs where the 'straight white man' is not at fault-they ignore it. As was the case where a young woman was so violently raped (in ireland) by a non-irish individual, where the injuries inflicted on her were so extreme, she will be unable to give birth naturally, even having problems with menopause in later years. It doesn't fit their narrative, so they say nothing.

On the other hand, when Ched Evans was found not guilty on retrial, they still demand he be referred to as guilty.

She mentions her sex life-it's not us that bring it up.

She claims she gets letters, just as she claims there was a sex ring in UCD-there is evidence for neither. I won't believe it unless I see it, and I don't believe it. I find her book just enforced the 'victim' narrative-puts people off of coming forward. Her 'documentary' was also a total bias fest-on her own part. As if we should automatically convict anyone accused of a crime.

Oh stay away from NWCI, they are TERF's or crazy. Mostly both.

Foxhound38 wrote: »

The problem is that many feminists are ...

I edited out your post because I didn't disagree with anything you said. Just wanted to say that without copying the original post.

cloudatlas wrote: »

Hmmm they found no evidence for the case in UCD but there have been other cases like the PWC case where a group of men in the office were sending around pictures of the female interns and rating them, you don't have to look far to find examples. I also remember men on here saying that the feminists who discussed the UCD case should apologise and I thought why should they have to apologise, they assumed it was true as did many members of the public, nobody was publicly defamed why should they apologise, if it had been true their reaction was the right reaction and a normal one that many other people had.

Because many of them CONTINUED to peddle the story, months after it was proven false-because the SU's pushed for 'consent' classes-when they were based on a lie.
That's why folks want an apology.

Wibbs

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yes so you judged them morally. That's what you are condemning me and many other for doing, assuming that it was true, you've been saying that for several posts and now we see a turn around, but oh no it's different for others, and specifically different for you, you are a special case, yes gotcha.

Again; You --- Country Mile --- Point. I suppose if the evidence doesn't fit the worldview, the worldview adjusts accordingly. Common among every stripe of extremist. It's one of the defining traits. The usual progression with extremist thinking is: State case - Twist evidence to suit - When challenged and having no decent rebuttal - insert irony bypass - change direction like a yachtsman in a typhoon - Claim oppression(added feels for bonus points) - kill debate.

Revenge porn is abhorrent and it is normal for people to react strongly against it wow we are actually getting somewhere.

Let's state the bleedin obvious in an attempt to claim some pyrrhic victory. In other news water is wet.

cloudatlas wrote: »

In his own words somebody who believed it was 'morally dubious' and should have waited for more evidence. He didn't. To err is human. No apology required.

So in your philosophy erring against people is OK and one has no responsibility to wronged people when the facts become clearer? Man, you really don't get this personal responsibility for actions thing at all. It's like a genuine blindspot, like trying to describe green to the colour blind.

OK let's try and tease this out....

1) I did NOT say I saw someone who believed it at first as "morally dubious". That's the point you're missing/avoiding.

2) I did say that when the evidence showed it was a falsehood, those who previously were baying(and primal screaming) for blood against the wronged, should have acknowledged this. An apology would be a stretch too far I suppose as the mantra goes women are always victims and never wrong.

You haven't responded to any points I've made directly just made a sweeping generalisation about how you don't like some feminists, carbon copy of the O.P post and adds nothing to a discussion.

You are actually joking here? I hope.

Good god, debating with a "feminist" mindset is akin to trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.

RabbleRouser2k

Samaris wrote: »

Did anyone actually have their mind changed by an article? I may be completely wrong, but I seem to mostly see people rating journalism "good" when they agree with what's been said.

I've agreed with the folks who get the most criticism online-the Ian O'Doherty's, the Niamh Horan's, The KEvin Myer's, and so on. The rest...no, usually they are horrendously written. The amount of crap that gets printed--the Holly Carpenter article from a year or two, where it read like a 5 year old's essay on her summer holidays were rightfully mocked. But it's not the only time such crap has been written.

I could name a few opinion columnists-but it's the usual bunch, so no point really.

Deleted User wrote: »

Even at that, in a lot of ways to me it seems like there's an attempt to infantilise the men also. Came across an article about how it's because of "immature" men that women are having kids later in life. It goes on about men not being settled in their careers being "immature", which I don't quite understand, I would've thought not having a kid until firm structures to support a family were in place was a pretty mature, responsible attitude to have.
And of course it mentioned young women making 8% more than men but saw no issue with it. :pac:

More and more young women are also seeking to study more (PHD's, doctorates etc), as in I could argue that because they don't envision themselves getting married, or if they do, they don't envision marriage right now. Many are studying up until their late 20s, early 30s.

You do get quite a few doctors who do admonish women who thought they could have it all at 40-but that's just facts, it's not misogny. It's just cold, cruel biology. Fertility drops in women after 35/36, that men can go and have kids well into old age, and beyond is just biology-its rooted in evolution.

Personally, I never envisioned marriage for me-as a male. Nor did I envision kids or anything like that.

cloudatlas wrote: »

I don't remember them continuing to write articles about the UCD story after it was judged not to be true maybe you can link to the articles.

There was an article LoN wrote in December, I believe, about 7 months after the UCD president said 'we have found sweet FA evidence regarding this UCD fb page'. (Couple that with not a single woman coming forward to say their images were on the group. All that was found was a scantily clad image of some model that downloaded from the web. It was taken down, so no more image. But yeah, there was nothing there.)
Well, Lon talked about her pride in her tweet about UCD being shared and retweeted across social media.
This despite it could very well have ruined people's careers. But does she care?
Nope.

cloudatlas

Wibbs wrote: »

Again; You --- Country Mile --- Point. I suppose if the evidence doesn't fit the worldview, the worldview adjusts accordingly. Common among every stripe of extremist. It's one of the defining traits. The usual progression with extremist thinking is: State case - Twist evidence to suit - When challenged and having no decent rebuttal - insert irony bypass - change direction like a yachtsman in a typhoon - Claim oppression(added feels for bonus points) - kill debate.

Let's state the bleedin obvious in an attempt to claim some pyrrhic victory. In other news water is wet.

So in your philosophy erring against people is OK and one has no responsibility to wronged people when the facts become clearer? Man, you really don't get this personal responsibility for actions thing at all. It's like a genuine blindspot, like trying to describe green to the colour blind.

OK let's try and tease this out....

1) I did NOT say I saw someone who believed it at first as "morally dubious". That's the point you're missing/avoiding.

2) I did say that when the evidence showed it was a falsehood, those who previously were baying(and primal screaming) for blood against the wronged, should have acknowledged this. An apology would be a stretch too far I suppose as the mantra goes women are always victims and never wrong.

You are actually joking here? I hope.

Good god, debating with a "feminist" mindset is akin to trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.

yes adjust the meaning of your point now, no such nuance before but now there are exceptions to the rule when needed. It's okay for you to assume what everyone else did but not okay for the groups you dislike because they have a platform and could voice their distaste for it louder than you did. No legal recourse, the university probably investigated in terms of rules and sensitivity to the case and let the individuals who were not and were never named know that they were exonerated, case closed apart from if it is inconvenient to your world view. okay for you not okay for others. Again no one was defamed, or arrested because they didn't exist. If the police investigate a crime they don't apologise to the suspects after the case is closed your whole premise is absolute nonsense because it never happened, therefore there is absolutely nothing to apologise for.

cloudatlas

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

This despite it could very well have ruined people's careers. But does she care?
Nope.

There was no career to ruin because it didn't happen. Yes, no women came forward because.... it didn't happen.

Sounds like she was happy that people like Wibbs and co. who assumed that it did happen were supportive of the 'alleged' victims.

Will I Am Not

The amount of times I've started reading a thread and thought "but this only happens in America" only for those very types to show up and prove me wrong.