Almost all young women in the UK have been sexually harassed [MOD WARNING 1st POST]

Sakana

nullzero wrote: »

This all seems a bit rich coming from somebody who started a thread about how he sent his brothers girlfriend a sexually explicit Facebook message as you explained "she has the same first name and similar surname to a woman I was sexting regularly".

I think you might be trying to project your own deviancy onto all men. Maybe start by cleaning your own house first eh?

How does someone having a similar first name to someone you're sexting make one deviant? You're really grasping.

Again, friend, I know not all men have it in them to attack women, but some do and we can't tell which ones they are. If there was a way to ensure no man ever attacks a woman again, I'd be for it. How is that in any way controversial?

Sakana

nullzero wrote: »

No because you cannot change millions of years of evolution through medicine without there being serious side effects.

Any cursory research would have revealed this to you.

Pharmaceuticals do it all the time.

nullzero

Sakana wrote: »

How does someone having a similar first name to someone you're sexting make one deviant? You're really grasping.

Again, friend, I know not all men have it in them to attack women, but some do and we can't tell which ones they are. If there was a way to ensure no man ever attacks a woman again, I'd be for it. How is that in any way controversial?

You're suggesting all men should be medicated and monitored by the state on the off chance they might potentially commit a crime that statistically won't ever be committed by the majority of men.

I think it is telling that you don't see sexting somebody as unusual in yet you feel men are too sexually aggressive. Why are you happy to express your sexuality but want to inhibit everyone else's?

Your ideas are bizarre Orwellian nonsense that have more in common with the notions that govern the actions of dictatorships than any Democratic society, and you by extension are coming across as a peculiar hypocritical, ahem, individual.

nullzero

Sakana wrote: »

Pharmaceuticals do it all the time.

In the treatment of illness, not rewiring the human being to change one aspect of its makeup.

More nonsense.

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

We need to go full on Demolition Man, get rid of physical sexual intercourse altogether

It is mad but that seems to be the trajectory we are on.

It feels we are a lot closer to that point than when demolition man was released.

TanookiMario

Sakana wrote: »

If there was a way to ensure no man ever attacks a woman again, I'd be for it. How is that in any way controversial?

It's controversial because there would be an associated societal cost and blatant violation of human rights to get the job done.

A pharmaceutical company developing a 100% cure for cancer is not controversial.
Charging 10 million euro per treatment certainly would be.

It's a wild thought experiment, even if it is just a rehash of A Clockwork Orange, but anyone can see the problems from a mile away.

Sakana

Sakana wrote: »

Yeah, fewer wars and less violence generally. Sounds horrendous.

First off, you'd have to prove that testosterone causes wars. It's been linked to male aggression, but what about female aggression? Where does that come from, considering the range of testosterone that the female body produces is rather small... and they're fully capable of being aggressive. The same being with violence actually.

Aggression and being prone to violence are personality traits, either inborn, or gained through education (the military for example). You could take someone with low levels of testosterone and condition them to be aggressive. Competitive.

The fact is that this isn't about testosterone. This is about how society, and life experiences shape people. Nobody wants to deal with the wide range of factors that contribute to that, so it's easier to blame something else... and not achieve anything meaningful.

Sakana

Sakana wrote: »

Men are more aggressive and violent than women. There is no debate about that. If there was a medical treatment to make them less so, I'd be all for it. Wouldn't you?

Some men are more aggressive than other men. Some women are more aggressive than other women. Some women would be more aggressive than the men who aren't aggressive at all. How does that fit into your logic? Hell, how does the mental capacity to control our emotions fit into your logic.

Ahh yes, there's no debate on that. Convenient.

No. I definitely wouldn't be for such a treatment for men. As I asked earlier, which you failed to address, what about the physical and psychological side-effects of such treatments? Virtually every medicine that is prescribed has side-effects and depending on the individual can cause serious problems for them. It's the same way for many women who can't take the birth control pill because it causes serious problems for them.

Have you even considered the negatives for what you're suggesting?

Tony EH

Sakana wrote: »

A more feasible solution is for everyone to be tracked at all times. I wouldn't object to that either.

I'm finding it very difficult to take anything you've said in the last couple of pages even remotely seriously.

Sakana

Sakana wrote: »

Pharmaceuticals do it all the time.

Pharmaceuticals are businesses with the morality of a mass murderer. They don't care who gets addicted or suffers long-term problems due to the use of their drugs. The US has gone to hell due to what Pharmaceuticals have done to their population.. and regulation has done little to curb what they have done.

And you'd give them the whole male gender to play with? With men, being unable to refuse?

Absolutely barmy.

Mike Murdock

Sakana wrote: »

Pharmaceuticals do it all the time.

With a number of the mass shootings in the US, a significant number of perpetrators were prescribed psychotropic drugs.

Medication is not the answer

Sakana

nullzero wrote: »

You're suggesting all men should be medicated and monitored by the state on the off chance they might potentially commit a crime that statistically won't ever be committed by the majority of men.

I think it is telling that you don't see sexting somebody as unusual in yet you feel men are too sexually aggressive. Why are you happy to express your sexuality but want to inhibit everyone else's?

Your ideas are bizarre Orwellian nonsense that have more in common with the notions that govern the actions of dictatorships than any Democratic society, and you by extension are coming across as a peculiar hypocritical, ahem, individual.

Reciprocal sexting is perfectly normal. How is it in any way aggressive?

I'm not tied to the idea of a pill that would reduce sexual attacks, but if it did exist and there were no adverse effects, I think that would be something worth considering, no?

nullzero

Sakana wrote: »

Reciprocal sexting is perfectly normal. How is it in any way aggressive?

I'm not tied to the idea of a pill that would reduce sexual attacks, but if it did exist and there were no adverse effects, I think that would be something worth considering, no?

Normal for you.

I never said it was aggressive, I just see it as something that shows you have as much of a preoccupation with sex as anyone else.

With that in mind, would you be happy to take medication to reduce your testosterone levels, even with all the attendant health issues that come with it just to keep in line with the ridiculous argument you're putting forward?

Sakana

TanookiMario wrote: »

Regarding the bolded I would once again remind you about the concept of consent.

The problem with giving someone a medical treatment potentially against their will is that it's a violation.

I see the argument you are making but it's flawed from any decent moral point of view.

I think if people were allowed to volunteer for such a treatment then that shouldn't really be an issue as long as it's safe etc.

I'd be a bit concerned if we were doing something like measuring levels in high school kids and then forcing a treatment on them "for the greater good". You are essentially punishing them for pre-crime.

You are saying that it's ANY individual who is flagged as having high testosterone or dangerous sex drive, yes? So not necessarily just men and boys but also people who may not identify as such?

Surely it would need to be voluntary?

I don't think it would work if it was voluntary, though.

If the treatment only reduced high levels of aggression and its attendant bad behaviours, I can't see how it would be a bad thing. People are prescribed antipsychotics and antidepressants all the time. I don't see why an aggressive sex drive shouldn't be any different, really.

It's all academic anyway!

Would you sign up for the tracking device?

Sakana

nullzero wrote: »

Normal for you.

I never said it was aggressive, I just see it as something that shows you have as much of a preoccupation with sex as anyone else.

With that in mind, would you be happy to take medication to reduce your testosterone levels, even with all the attendant health issues that come with it just to keep in line with the ridiculous argument you're putting forward?

If there were serious health risks or negative effects? No way. Otherwise, yeah.

nullzero

Sakana wrote: »

I don't think it would work if it was voluntary, though.

If the treatment only reduced high levels of aggression and its attendant bad behaviours, I can't see how it would be a bad thing. People are prescribed antipsychotics and antidepressants all the time. I don't see why an aggressive sex drive shouldn't be any different, really.

It's all academic anyway!

Would you sign up for the tracking device?

Sign up for a tracking device?

You have jumped the shark completely.

There is no "treatment" that does what you're outlining, everything you're saying is ridiculous.

EmmetSpiceland

nullzero wrote: »

Are you suggesting testosterone levels should be reduced for all men?

I would, certainly, hope not. Maybe we could identify “problem groups”?

I mean, I’m a cis male who might be considered a bit of a “jock”. Well built, strong jaw. Played rugby and most of the other big sports. Putting that testosterone to good use, you know.

I think, if we were going to go down this “route”, we should be aiming at the anger Internet types, the ones who spend all day complaining about women, “the WOKE” (all caps), the Late Late Show and prominent female celebrities/politicians.

These incels are prime “targets” for far-right radicalisation. They are filled with self-loathing and an impotent rage that easily gets directed at immigrants or successful women, anyone they perceive to be doing better than them. It’s just a shame they, themselves, couldn’t find a partner. Someone to help them chill out and not be so scared all the time. Even a hobby that’s not playing computer games, just something that gets them active within society.

Again, if we were to go down this “route”, we’d need to be careful, and smart, about it. No sense throwing the baby out with the bath water. Some of us know how to behave and are respectful.

nullzero

Sakana wrote: »

If there were serious health risks or negative effects? No way. Otherwise, yeah.

There's no such "treatment".

Everything you're saying is patently daft.

Involuntary medication of all men along with forced tracking by the government.

What could possibly go wrong?

Sakana

nullzero wrote: »

Sign up for a tracking device?

You have jumped the shark completely.

There is no "treatment" that does what you're outlining, everything you're saying is ridiculous.

Theoretical things are often ridiculous until they aren't. Personally, I'd take the tracker over the curfew.

Ten of Swords

Sakana let's move on from the testosterone reduction now please, you're soapboxing at this stage

nullzero

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I would, certainly, hope not. Maybe we could identify “problem groups”?

I mean, I’m a cis male who might be considered a bit of a “jock”. Well built, strong jaw. Played rugby and most of the other big sports. Putting that testosterone to good use, you know.

I think, if we were going to go down this “route”, we should be aiming at the anger Internet types, the ones who spend all day complaining about women, “the WOKE” (all caps), the Late Late Show and prominent female celebrities/politicians.

These incels are prime “targets” for far-right radicalisation. They are filled with self-loathing and an impotent rage that easily gets directed at immigrants or successful women, anyone they perceive to be doing better than them. It’s just a shame they, themselves, couldn’t find a partner. Someone to help them chill out and not be so scared all the time. Even a hobby that’s not playing computer games, just something that gets them active within society.

Again, if we were to go down this “route”, we’d need to be careful, and smart, about it. No sense throwing the baby out with the bath water. Some of us know how to behave and are respectful.

Ah, so you're suggesting a type of pseudo-eugenics type system to weed out "undesirables", but it's OK because we're only targeting people you don't like.

We heard all that before and it did end so well.

nullzero

Sakana wrote: »

Theoretical things are often ridiculous until they aren't. Personally, I'd take the tracker over the curfew.

Except what you're proposing has no basis in reality whatsoever.

EDIT. Just saw mod warning to quoted user. Feel free to delete if necessary.

Tony EH

Sakana wrote: »

Theoretical things are often ridiculous until they aren't. Personally, I'd take the tracker over the curfew.

A theory is something that's backed up with information and relative facts.

What you're doing is talking bollocks, which is a very different thing.

It's ok to shoot the breeze with nonsensical "what ifs", but the things you're suggesting, and I would say they are in jest, are absolute baloney.

A mandatory decree for men to essentially be reduced to eunuchs and for everyone to be tracked at all times transcends all manner of legal, ethical and moral avenues and would be absolutely against any human rights that we value in a just society.

Condemning the many for the actions of the few has been an anathema to any kind of philosophical reasoning for millennia.

Your "idea", if it can be called that, falls flat on its face the moment it's out of the traps. It doesn't even survive a second thought.

meeeeh

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Sakana let's move on from the testosterone reduction now please, you're soapboxing at this stage

I think you'd be probably hard pressed to find 5 non idiotic posts in this thread today. I'm pretty sure most women gave up on this thread and men are arguing about testosterone treatments. You might want to change the title because this has nothing to do with with experiences of harassment.

hatrickpatrick

I am honestly starting to wonder if we're moving towards a world in which we will have to have "designated sex-positive zones" or something like this - they may be apps (Tinder, Bumble, etc) physical locations (Nightclubs, Pubs, etc) and the like, wherein it's considered socially acceptable to openly admit that we are sexual creatures who may be interested in initiating a sexual encounter with another human. The definition of sexual harassment which gave rise to the statistic quoted in the OP certainly suggests something like this, as it essentially demands that sex itself be an elephant in the room in most everyday settings, and the kind of extremist discourse we've seen this week about interacting with others publicly carries the same air of "it's no longer ok to even check to see if someone might be interested".

If you couple that with the rise of dating apps and so on, I can see a horrifically dystopian future in which this becomes the only way to initiate any kind of advance with a stranger, or even, if you take the most extreme definitions of sexual harassment like those cited in the report, a friend or colleague. In a world in which we have to pretend that we never think about people we interact with as potential mates, unless we designate certain spaces as spaces in which people are allowed to openly express a sexual interest in others, that's where we're headed - matchmaking and courting restricted solely and entirely to social media apps on phones. No more in-person flirting, no more stolen glances or moments of fireworks when two people who fancy eachother happen to steal a glance at the same moment and catch eachother, no more butterflies in your stomach when the person you like reciprocates something you've said or your body language.

Furthermore, literally no discussion of one's sex life even in groups of friends, without using utterly sanitised language to describe it which strips it of any passion or emotion.

Personally this sounds like my definition of hell, but then again I've always scored at the most extreme ends of the extrovert scale on every personality test I've ever taken, and I know I'm repeating myself here, but I've long held that a lot of the discussion around what constitutes "harassment" in a sexual context boils down to a disconnect between how introverts like to interact with the world versus how extroverts like to interact with it. At the moment, the former are entirely dominating the conversation and want to essentially put sexual extroverts (sextroverts) into boxes whenever they're out in public in any way. Sexual introverts (Sintroverts?) seem to long for a world in which, due to the impossible paradox of being required to know in advance whether a come-on is going to be reciprocated or rebuffed, they would simply never happen at all. A world in which we assume that every single person we meet is asexual or prudish. A world in which we never acknowledge sexual interest between eachother for fear of being accused of being disrespectful.

There's a whole pile of observation I could add to this analysis in all honesty. One thing which always comes to mind is how utterly, ludicrously unfair the standards currently are when it comes to sexual interactions - put simply, women still by and large expect men to make the first move (I have personally overheard groups of women leaving bars bemoaning how nobody ever chases anymore, and how playing hard to get now tends to result in lads backing off, much to their apparent disappointment) while at the same time, this impossible standard of "you have to know in advance if she's into you before you check to see whether she's into you, or you're going to get branded a creep or worse" is something which tends to, paradoxically, stunt the sexual expression of decent men who honestly want to be good people, leaving only the genuine gobsh!tes brave enough to initiate anything because they're the ones who don't care one way or another if they get labelled a creep or perv. This obviously leads to a self-perpetuating cycle, and is actually one of the main reasons that so many schoolboys from the 1990s onwards fell into the "women only want bastards" rabbit hole - because the only lads who were brave enough to be sexually forward also tended to be the kind of lads who didn't care about being sound, given that this generation was raised on the "open sexual advances make you a gobsh!te" crap.

On top of this, there is still a gigantic cultural movement centred around "The Rules", which essentially instil this idea in young women, teenagers in particular, that you have to feign disinterest in a lad if you want to get him hooked, that lads want to chase, and that if you reciprocate too easily or quickly, he will lose interest. This extremely archaic but stubbornly persistent cultural trope obviously crashes head first into what is now being drilled into lads, namely "if she seems disinterested, back the f*ck off and hope you haven't already offended her by being sexually forward". Now, the first part of that last sentence - "if she seems disinterested, back the f*ck off" is something I happen to fully agree with, but it can only work if girls are brought up with a similar cultural paradigm of "if you like him, don't play mind games with him or blow hot and cold, he's been conditioned to immediately disengage if you do this and you'll both end up rejected and sad about it". As for the latter part of that sentence, that shouldn't be a thing at all - a first verbal (or textual) come-on simply shouldn't be regarded as "harassment" in any way unless it's something which occurs after a previous attempt and subsequent rebuff. Otherwise, initiating any kind of sexual advance becomes entirely impossible.

We need to deal with all of this or we'll end up in the hellish "designated sexual attraction zones" paradigm I mentioned previously. Maybe this will never become official legal policy or anything like that, but tbh it's already happening - plenty of lads I know will never dare to approach someone on a dancefloor or in a pub anymore and stick entirely to Tinder and Bumble, because at least on those apps, if someone matches with you it means that the "is she already interested or will she be offended" question is pre-empted.

It is frankly ridiculous that we as a society have allowed this conversation to fester for so long, resulting ultimately in statistics like those given in the OP, without actually having a widespread conversation of "where do we want to draw this line, and how can we do so in a way which facilitates humans still being able to find other humans to get with?"

Sakana

meeeeh wrote: »

I think you'd be probably hard pressed to find 5 non idiotic posts in this thread today. I'm pretty sure most women gave up on this thread and men are arguing about testosterone treatments. You might want to change the title because this has nothing to do with with experiences of harassment.

What would you say to the curfew that Hannah Bardell suggested?

Quantum Erasure

Sakana wrote: »

Theoretical things are often ridiculous until they aren't. Personally, I'd take the tracker over the curfew.

Hard to know who's genuinely "woke" and who may be engaging in a bit of "reductio ad absurdum"

meeeeh

Sakana wrote: »

What would you say to the curfew that Hannah Bardell suggested?

That anyone with more than three brain cells understands the point she was making.

Sakana

meeeeh wrote: »

That anyone with more than three brain cells understands the point she was making.

“I don’t want anyone to have to stay inside because of the actions of a few — let’s not forget much of the violence against women occurs inside and at home — but we may well be at the stage where we need to discuss all the options, even the ones that sound a bit wacky.”

Mad_maxx

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I would, certainly, hope not. Maybe we could identify “problem groups”?

I mean, I’m a cis male who might be considered a bit of a “jock”. Well built, strong jaw. Played rugby and most of the other big sports. Putting that testosterone to good use, you know.

I think, if we were going to go down this “route”, we should be aiming at the anger Internet types, the ones who spend all day complaining about women, “the WOKE” (all caps), the Late Late Show and prominent female celebrities/politicians.

These incels are prime “targets” for far-right radicalisation. They are filled with self-loathing and an impotent rage that easily gets directed at immigrants or successful women, anyone they perceive to be doing better than them. It’s just a shame they, themselves, couldn’t find a partner. Someone to help them chill out and not be so scared all the time. Even a hobby that’s not playing computer games, just something that gets them active within society.

Again, if we were to go down this “route”, we’d need to be careful, and smart, about it. No sense throwing the baby out with the bath water. Some of us know how to behave and are respectful.

nobody who either self identifies as a " jock " or is viewed as such by others would ever refer to themselves as a " Cis " male

Galwayguy35

meeeeh wrote: »

That anyone with more than three brain cells understands the point she was making.

She wanted a curfew for men in places where women were killed, she must have left her own brain cells at home when she thought that was a good idea.

meeeeh

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

She wanted a curfew for men in places where women were killed, she must have left her own brain cells at home when she thought that was a good idea.

I think there is a point somewhere there flying over your head...

cee_jay

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

She wanted a curfew for men in places where women were killed, she must have left her own brain cells at home when she thought that was a good idea.

No, she didn't think it was a good idea. The point was women were told to stay at home to avoid being assaulted. There is no spotlight on suggestion that women should have to reduce their movements to stay safe.
So she was making a point by saying keep men at home so women don't have to. The context is everything.

buried

Whatever we do anyways, lets not inquire or ask the judiciary why they deem it fit to let the vast majority of habitual offenders of sexual attacks to be let continuously out on bail or else get prison sentences that are akin to not paying your tv licence or robbing a bag of sweets from a shop.

Stateofyou

Well ladies and gents, I believe the conversation has naturally arrived at the point where we discuss toxic masculinity. :pac:

(In all seriousness)

Before anyone spits out their tea, it doesn't mean men are toxic or bad. Here's a bit of a definition:

Wikipedia: The concept of toxic masculinity is used in academic and media discussions of masculinity to refer to certain cultural norms that are associated with harm to society and to men themselves. Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered "toxic" due in part to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. The socialization of boys in patriarchal societies often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" with regard to bullying and aggression.

An article:
https://www.aurorand.org.uk/news/top-10-toxic-masculinity-behaviours

nullzero

Stateofyou wrote: »

Well ladies and gents, I believe the conversation has naturally arrived at the point where we discuss toxic masculinity. :pac:

(In all seriousness)

Before anyone spits out their tea, it doesn't mean men are toxic or bad. Here's a bit of a definition:

Wikipedia: The concept of toxic masculinity is used in academic and media discussions of masculinity to refer to certain cultural norms that are associated with harm to society and to men themselves. Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered "toxic" due in part to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. The socialization of boys in patriarchal societies often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" with regard to bullying and aggression.

An article:
https://www.aurorand.org.uk/news/top-10-toxic-masculinity-behaviours

Except everyone has agreed the things outlined as toxic are abhorrent. We moved beyond that tired nonsensical notion of toxic masculinity a long time ago. We had in fact moved on to a eugenics based system where neutering of undesirable types of men and government controlled tracking of all males would be imposed to rapturous applause.

Men. Boo, hiss.

Galwayguy35

meeeeh wrote: »

I think there is a point somewhere there flying over your head...

cee_jay wrote: »

No, she didn't think it was a good idea. The point was women were told to stay at home to avoid being assaulted. There is no spotlight on suggestion that women should have to reduce their movements to stay safe.
So she was making a point by saying keep men at home so women don't have to. The context is everything.

She wanted a curfew for men, you can turn it around however you like but thats what she was saying.

Quantum Baloney

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

She wanted a curfew for men, you can turn it around however you like but thats what she was saying.

What time do you usually stay out till?

cee_jay

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

She wanted a curfew for men, you can turn it around however you like but thats what she was saying.

She did say that. Nobody denies that. However, the context was in response to women being told to stay at home so they wouldn't be attacked. And you can turn it around however you like but women should not have to self impose a curfew in order to stay safe.
But feel free to miss the context on purpose just because it doesn't suit your narrative.

hatrickpatrick

meeeeh wrote: »

That anyone with more than three brain cells understands the point she was making.

It still was unbelievably asinine, though. Language which targets men as a collective just causes vast swathes of otherwise good men who fundamentally despise monsters like the man who killed Sarah Everard and want to see something done, to switch off and disengage from the debate. The use of "man/men/male" as pejorative slurs is one of the most idiotic trends of the 2010s, and is one of the things which fuels reactionary right wing politics particularly among teenaged and young adult men.

It's so, so, so frustrating to talk about it as well. We're not allowed to point out how unbelievably damaging it is for boys to grow up in a world in which male pronouns of any kind are routinely and automatically associated with negativity in the mainstream media. Again, I could go down a rabbit hole here, but there are just so many societal things which fuel resentment and insecurity among boys which often persists well into adulthood and, in the worst cases, gives rise to a nihilism which results in anything from PUA-style sleaziness to alt-right beliefs.

Honestly, as much as it will be taken as hyperbole, for many, many young boys, the first time they hear either of the following tropes may well be the beginning of a lifelong battle against gender-based resentment and the feeling that society values him less because he happened to be born male:

1: "Ladies first!"
2: "Never hit a girl - even if she hits you"
3: "Sugar, spice, all things nice vs slugs, snails, puppy dogs' tails"

The first of these is often instilled in young boys by their older relatives who find it "cute" or "adorable" to see their young proteges behaving like "perfect gentlemen" or whatever. The second of these comes from an obviously good place - the context of adult men being physically stronger than adult women, usually by a very large margin. The third one honestly is just outdated sh!te which is still seen as just a bit of harmless fun.

The problem is, all of these things taken together, and without children having the slightest notion of the contextual backdrop which gives rise to them, often fuels in young boys a deep, deep feeling that the society thinks they aren't as good as their female counterparts, because they aren't female. Worse, many girls go through a phase in which they will gloatingly take advantage of these stereotypes when interacting with boys in their peer group, which further fuels resentment among said boys. In some cases, those double standards persist into adulthood, which gives rise to cases such as the case of a woman who stabbed a male bartender with a glass a number of years ago, and then told him that he couldn't retaliate because he was a man and she was a woman.

There are all kinds of horrific, long term impacts on psychological wellbeing which stem from being exposed to such horrifically sexist paradigms at a young age - and I'm aware that girls are exposed to sexist paradigms of a different nature, but I'd argue that these are well discussed and outed in the media at the moment, whereas the "grown ups like girls more than boys, and girls are allowed to pick on us but we still have to defer to them and treat them as if they're more important than us just because they're girls" thing is a uniquely male experience.

Fast forward to the age of comprehension and paying attention to things like the news, even just in the car on the way to school or when your parents would come in after some 5.30 Nickelodeon to flip the channel to the Six One news, and at some point a young boy is bound to come across reports of girls being so much better than boys at school, or of affirmative action in favour of women, or even just the phrase "violence against women" or the word "femicide", which again serve to reinforce this idea that "girls are special, boys aren't" which took root because of the aforementioned childhood experiences. The discourse that's routinely happening these days in which male nouns are automatic negatives, prominent feminists are coming out with academic crap like "it's ok to be as sexist as you like against men, up to and including saying #KillAllMen on the internet and not getting banned, because of systemic power dynamics which no teenager or kid will ever actually understand", and articles are written with headlines such as "Men need to do this" or "Men should be doing that", or "Men suck because X", or "Men could be better because Y", and it all just feeds into this horrific persecution complex.

I honestly don't think society has reckoned with any of this, at all. But I can tell you 100% that it causes issues - it's one of the reasons I flirted with the MRM as a young adult before realising how toxic a lot of it was. I know for an absolute fact that a gigantic majority of those who participate in those communities share that feeling of aggrievement which began with adults instilling sexist, "chivalrous" tropes in early childhood - and girls being happy to gloat about it in the playground.

Of course, a post like this can be written off as the deranged rambling of an outlier among gentlemen. Personally I don't believe it to be an outlier at all, I just reckon a lot of lads either never bother to talk about it or aren't as obsessed with politics and debates to be articulate enough in spelling it out without emotion taking over. And of course, even for those who are in a position to talk about it in a coherent manner, the current paradigm sh!ts all over men who speak up about any of this, and many people either don't want the hassle or the trolling which will result. Therefore, it takes a lad who is (a) committed, upset or bored enough to bother talking about it, (b) reasonably good with translating emotions into the written word, (c) able to keep his emotions in check so as to write about a topic this emotive without giving in to anger or frustration and thus derailing his argument with hostile language, (d) doesn't particularly care what strangers on the internet have to say.

On the last point, I certainly wouldn't post something like this under my real name on a social media account, I'd be absolutely terrified of losing friends over it. It just so happens that I've been using the internet since I was a preteen and am thus entirely immune and disconnected from insults levelled by strangers, and therefore being attacked or piled on by people on Boards or Reddit doesn't bother me. Obviously in the current age of the internet, it's a totally different ball game if someone fears that posting something like this will cause others to see him as either a dick or a loser, and thus risk being socially excluded as a result.

But I fundamentally believe, from the very bottom of my heart, that the sentiment I have expressed in this post is far from unusual. I would posit that it is a widespread cause of mental health issues among lads of my generation, to be honest.

It is for that reason that "ironic" sexism is something I will always oppose 100%. I don't give a f*ck what someone is trying to convey or what the real meaning behind the words is - normalising sexist language against men in spaces in which misogyny would be considered totally unacceptable (the front page of a broadsheet newspaper, a parliamentary debate, a prime time talk show by a public broadcaster like RTE or the BBC, even the education system) does untold damage to boys and mens' sense psychological development and wellbeing.

Davina McColl was spot on the money with her tweet the other day, and the fact that it was universally panned and condemned is utterly, terrifyingly chilling in my opinion.

Galwayguy35

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

What time do you usually stay out till?

5.59 usually

You?

JJayoo

cee_jay wrote: »

She did say that. Nobody denies that. However, the context was in response to women being told to stay at home so they wouldn't be attacked. And you can turn it around however you like but women should not have to self impose a curfew in order to stay safe.
But feel free to miss the context on purpose just because it doesn't suit your narrative.

Women were told to stay at home because the suspect was still at large, exact same way people are told to stay indoors if there is an active shooter.

But feel free to miss the context on purpose just because it doesn't suit your narrative...

Galwayguy35

cee_jay wrote: »

She did say that. Nobody denies that. However, the context was in response to women being told to stay at home so they wouldn't be attacked. And you can turn it around however you like but women should not have to self impose a curfew in order to stay safe.
But feel free to miss the context on purpose just because it doesn't suit your narrative.

I know what she said, she thought she could get away with it but it backfired on her.

anewme

meeeeh wrote: »

I think you'd be probably hard pressed to find 5 non idiotic posts in this thread today. I'm pretty sure most women gave up on this thread and men are arguing about testosterone treatments. You might want to change the title because this has nothing to do with with experiences of harassment.

Thread has been derailed, which could well have been the purpose.

You are right.

I laughed to myself today, exactly what you have said there. Vast rambling walls of nonsense rambling text.

Leave them to it.

But theres no misogyny on Boards. It's all just free speech.

cee_jay

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I know what she said, she thought she could get away with it but it backfired on her.

I don't know what she was "getting away with". She was pointing out that by telling women to stay home, they were essentially taking a woman's freedoms away, but not taking any of men’s away.
It shouldn't be up to women to stay indoors, or to protect themselves and not walk alone. It should be up to men not to attack us.

Necro

Mod: This thread has gone so far off topic it's actually ridiculous. Can we please get back to discussing the survey as per the mod warning in the OP

Galwayguy35

cee_jay wrote: »

I don't know what she was "getting away with". She was pointing out that by telling women to stay home, they were essentially taking a woman's freedoms away, but not taking any of men’s away.
It shouldn't be up to women to stay indoors, or to protect themselves and not walk alone. It should be up to men not to attack us.

Do you think men who are rapists and murderers will decide not to do it just because an MP says so, the advice was given to stay indoors while a killer was at large an this politician knew that well but just twisted it to push her own agenda and hit out at the majority of men who have done nothing wrong.

two wheels good

Vestiapx wrote: »

I'm not shutting down discussion im asking for the victimisation of men through blame for the behaviour of other people who happen to share the same gender identity as them is nonsensical and will lead to resentment and mistrust.

You need to listen a bit more and try to understand the experience of women.


Here's a simple everyday tale I came across yday. Three middle aged, middle class dads" having a laugh" on public transport.

https://twitter.com/julie_cohen/status/1370013467500044289

99nsr125

Sakana wrote: »

Men are more aggressive and violent than women. There is no debate about that. If there was a medical treatment to make them less so, I'd be all for it. Wouldn't you?

That's been shown to be a defence against emotional, physiological and coercive control perpetrated by women.

We need to teach women to be less emotionally vengeful

two wheels good

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I'd love to know where the 97% stat came from though...

Missing the point. deliberately?
What figure would you be happy to accept? Lets say an error margin of 10% and 10% of women must be hysterical...
So 75% would that be okay?