Politics On gender politics

I feel about the position of men much as Chris Rock does about the position of rich white people.
It's not matter of there being black people who have made it now.
Sure, Oprah Winfrey is one of the richest women in the world but until her great great grandkids, can pull off buying elections like the Koch brothers, that's not really money.
Women have only been able to vote for a 100 years and there was a good amount of that time when they were marginalized.
It wasn't until the minorities started voting in force that the women's vote became an issue.
The issue of controlling the money is another non starter.
You're talking about buying groceries, school supplies for the kids, , clothes, and paying the electric bill.
Sure, single women pay for toys but when it comes down to buying the house or the car the main decision makers according to polls is the man.

 

And the importance of the fact that women make 80% (or whatever) of buying decisions depends mightily on what they're buying and why they're buying it. If the woman of the house is responsible for all of the decisions about what sorts of food to buy and what sorts of cleaning products to buy, that might suggest that she's acting more like a maid with a checkbook than like anything else. It could still be a matter of delegation, in which case, it isn't necessarily evidence of empowerment. Obviously, the 'maid with a checkbook' characterization is probably wrong in a lot of situations, but I imagine there are a lot of families where the woman makes those types of decisions because the man doesn't care.

I bet if we look strictly at really wealthy households, then I'm sure "the help" handles the bulk of the purchasing for the household. But it would be a mistake to claim that the help has any real economic power within the household.

 

What are the thoughts on this document?

http://wordpress.clarku.edu/dhines/files/2012/01/Douglas-Hines-2011-helpseeking-experiences-of-male-victims.pdf

Reddit has experienced a lot of high-activity discussions regarding gender issues lately.

 

It doesn't seem entirely shocking. If you accept the notion that the status quo has gender roles that it wants us all to fit in to and that these gender roles assume that men are stronger and more aggressive than women, then that paper makes perfect sense.

 

Or, if you believe in facts and evidence, there's the fact that for decades feminists have been pushing the narrative that domestic violence is something men do to women to the point of referring to the mere mention of male victims as "hijacking" or "derailing", and even lobbied for the very laws that force police to arrest male victims purely for being male. It's not like, yknow, there isn't a long history of this in feminism.

I've been busy with schoolwork so I don't have the time or the energy for a full sized reply to the last few major posts, it's coming sometime I've had some decent sleep.

 

Pretty sure the MRM is going to lose any battle of generalizations this week, so perhaps we should avoid those.

 

Is this supposed to contradict what I wrote? Because it doesn't.

I could see being upset about hijacking because hijacking is pretty common. But I think that you being upset about hijacking might be hijacking. Not sure. Don't know the details yet.

Hijacking is when someone is talking about something important to them, like perhaps a woman is saying something like "I don't like walking down the street because random dudes think that my mere existences gives them license to tell me how much they want to fuck me." and some dude chimes in with "BUT NOT ALL MEN DO THAT AND PLUS MEN SAY MEAN THINGS TO OTHER MEN TOOO!" <<<<< Is hijacking <<<<<< Is derailing. When someone is sharing their feelings, and you make it about you, that's hijacking. When someone is talking about how they feel victimized by merely existing, and you try to claim that you're a victim too because of something unrelated, that's hijacking.

And you should really stop with the 'facts and evidence' thing. As someone who clearly doesn't believe in any facts until you've soaked them in confirmation bias, it's not really a high horse you should try to ride.

 

You mean because of the mentally insane shooter who was already in therapy, already had a history of mental illness, had already had the police called by his own parents, and was crazy enough to spend his entire life savings on lottery tickets because he believed he "deserved" to win?

The guy that was a member of a bodybuilding website (where they said he was mentally unstable), and an anti-PUA website literally named "PUAhate" where they also thought he was crazy? That guy? The one that not only had literally no connection to the MRM whatsoever, or even the PUAs that the MRM is ideologically opposed to as well, and based his entire distorted worldview on the traditional gender roles which the MRM is 100% diametrically opposed to?

That what you're referring to? Because if it is then you've basically said everything anyone ever needs to know about just how low you'll sink, just what kind of disgusting lies you'll tell, and how many corpses you're willing to profiteer off of all for the sake of painting your political opponents as being responsible for someone they not only were utterly unconnected to but who was 100% diametrically opposed to their entire ideology.

The only people trying to pass off that lie are the people already trying to pass off the lie that the MRM "hates women" as a cheap smear tactic.

What makes this truly pathetic as well as morally disgusting though is the hypocrisy of it. Feminists actually do have violent criminals in their midst but claim that they can't be judged or held responsible for that, and now here you (and they) are trying to paint a completely unrelated nutjob who's completely the opposite of an MRA as representative of the entire MRM. It's one thing to be a liar, it's another to be a hypocrite, and it's taking things to a whole new level to be a hypocrite because of a lie.

As I've already said: This from the people who literally refuse to even accept the existence of anything that contradicts them based solely on the fact it contradicts them? That's rich. Then again it's also not surprising given that literally the only thing you use to determine whether something is right or wrong is whether it agrees with you at the moment.

 

Get off your cross.

 

Says the guy defending the ideology that literally monopolizes the very idea of victimization so much that men get arrested when trying to get help for domestic violence, that literally rewrote the definition of rape so that men wouldn't be counted, and which attacks anyone that isn't a member as an evil woman-hating monster out to persecute them.

 

I think you're confused. I'm not defending anything like that. It is intellectually dishonest for you to make that claim. I don't think anyone in this thread has made any serious claims about MRM or MRAs as a group, despite the substantial evidence that there are MRAs who are total misogynists. Which is to say that no one here is tarring MRAs using the type of tortuous logic and sweeping generalities that you're using to dismiss feminism. Why do you think that is?

I've not once defended the notion that men couldn't be raped or that men couldn't be victims of female-perpetrated domestic violence. Why is it that your sole response to any and all of the ideas expressed in this thread have taken the form "BUT FEMINISTS SAID/DID/THINK THIS"? Nobody cares about the dull ass axe that you can't help but grind against feminism. It's a tired argument. You are the proverbial hammer to which all problems look like a nail.

And what's with the hyperbolic emotional posturing? I think you've told me at least three times in this thread that "I couldn't possibly sink lower"? Your bullshit emotional appeals aren't even internally consistent. How many times can a man not possibly sink lower, before he can sink ever lower? (The answer, my friend, is bullshit in the wind. The answer is bullshit in the wind.) How much of your argument depends on trying to shame the people who disagree with you? 60%?

 

Needs to be said again.

This speaks to the heart of what I was saying above. Shadow, if you want to win people over to your views, you are going to do a lot better if you take a moment and speak to commonalities rather than continuing to argue as you do.

This is not a Reddit subforum and the people in this thread are not attacking you.

 

Charlatan the last time this came up you were comparing me to the ku klux klan for daring to disagree with feminist dogma. Do you really think I expect to actually convince anyone here of anything? I mean really... Your default position is comparing me to a group of mass murdering white supremacists and you want to try and play the "nobody is attacking you" card?

 

Seriously. Get over it. It was a lazy rhetorical device. It was something, that you might remember, I retracted as it was not my intention to make that association and it had clearly upset you. And yet here you are still going on about it.

You wouldn't know an olive branch if it smacked you in the face.

This heaping of ashes on your head every time someone doesn't agree with you is really tiresome.

I will say it again: Perhaps if you spent a little more time reading what people are saying than telling them what they are saying you would find there is a lot of common ground. There isn't a post in this thread that is attacking you. If there is any hostility it is for the way you continue to talk past people whilst burying them in info dumps. This isn't Reddit, nor is it your University seminar on gender rights.

Understand your audience better and you might be able to reach them.