Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

[slomo]

I saw that and it looked like some young immature male that hasn't grown up trying to get laid. What a shock.

It certainly looked like that. Good thing there aren't a lot of those types, and certainly they never grow up to be old immature males trying to get laid. Hopefully not the wealthy kind who take their perceived rejection too far and go one some sort of spree like that douchebag in California. Most likely just the typical whiny post-adolescent, entitled bullshit some sub-set of wishful alpha-males go through. But who knows, it could also be a Masonic Plot in the works...

Probably a lot of adolescent boys are like that, and all but a very negligible minority of them grow up to be ordinary men with families, wives, and children (that may or may not be a good thing in your book). One of my best friends is a middle-aged straight guy who (self-admittedly) was pretty douchey as a young man (though probably smarter than your example), but he and his wife have been married for a very very long time, and I see evidence every day that they both love each other very much, and don't take each other for granted at all.

[Elvis]

My main point is that women are being a threat to themselves by attacking another gender. This shit ain't complicated.

[backtoiam]

I have found myself agreeing with much of what Slomo said, sometimes to my chagrin, and the above statement is one I can agree with relatively speaking. There is a strand of what may be considered feminism that is so vociferously anti-male it provokes a strong opposite reaction.

Bingo. This narrative is pushed into the public atmosphere from above and does not typically not originate from the entire female race or even most females at all because most females do not hate men. Actually most feminists don't hate men in my opinion.

But people that fall for it and pump the narrative take the destructive bait and it does the opposite of what we all need which is a peaceful atmosphere for men and women to have a civilized dialogue to work the problems out.

This is not an accident and this bait is thrown into the pool on a regular basis. The joke will no longer be on any of us if we stop believing that the majority of men and women abuse each other because that it is not true but you can bet the chaos machine wants us to believe that it is.

All my relationships have not been golden and I have had some women kick my butt in some nasty ways but I would be an absolute moron to think of it as "women". That would screw my life up forever with a bunch of ignorance.

"yes but there may still be some inequality"......yes there is but it gets worse when people are "against" each other. The most clever thing about this scheme is that the people that intentionally foster this on purpose will abuse you to no end simply for pointing this out and being shamed shuts most people down.

Stand up. The weakness in the bullshit system is that they run in circles with accusations with sketchy validity. If you are honest about what you say and how you feel you will be hard to defeat. If you are a nice person and they don't like your opinion so what.

[Elvis]

There was an article comment shared on the gender thread I wasn't able to locate as quickly as I demanded, but the gist was a young male complaining in txt speech about how he 'couldn't get laid cause womens just wanted him to listen to their problems and he thought he was in but then he was friendzoned....' pure juvenile BS one sees on the Interwebs until you realize the proportion of the population who actually agrees. I have met them. I have shared beers with them and although I recognize them as blithering self-absorbed idiots, they are far from rare.

Since it's come up here, I'll repost that comment from a Karen Straughan video:

youtube.com/watch?v=a9XDb0nxSO4

Ian Lockyear 6 days ago

its fckn hard.. its like u aska girl out u buy her a drink u think ur doing good... then she turns down dinner then talks to you about her problem and yur like fuck fuck fuck fuck do i listen to her problems? u do cos your a nice guy then your friend zoned and 3 months of effort goes down the toilet...... but you cant just go up to a women and say lets not beet around the bush your hot i want to fuck you are you doing anything tonight... 1% chance of working maybie not even 1% so like... im just fckn confused lol

It's just so...touchingly frank and grotesquely pathetic. I can't help it, but reading it makes me laugh. I can't say I feel sympathy for him, his frustration isn't really what Straughan was talking about (is it?) and it's no surprise his "nice guy" efforts "go down the toilet." It's not feminism that's keeping this guy from getting laid, ffs.

[mentalgongfu2]

For the sake of balance, also said:

On the other hand, there is no shortage of MRA bullshit that is so anti-female it provokes an equally strong reaction from the other side, and arguably more justified in that instance since it is nowhere near as new or novel and has in fact been in existence since before there was such a thing as MRA.

[backtoiam]

You bet there is and that is no accident either. The chaos machine always creates two versions in opposites and does everything it can to make them fight. The MRA thing is as corrupted as the other. The corrupted version of MRA is every bit as nasty as the corrupted versions of feminism.

[Sounder]

iamwhomiam wrote...

Frankly, I find your support for slomo's position of women being an actual threat to men offensive. And therefore, also rude to our women members.

backtoiam wrote...

That is not what I said. My main point is that women are being a threat to themselves by attacking another gender. This shit ain't complicated.

Men and women are going to have a hard time getting along if we continue making both our own gender and the other into caricatures.

We all have issues, but they are probably quite different than that projected upon them by other fractured personalities.

To me these issues are presented in an intentionally divisive manner, and are backed up by MSM, govt. initiatives and university boards, indicating in MHO that the 'concern' has nothing to do with the environment or the dignity of women but rather with splitting the communities of potential activists into well intentioned followers versus those that desire for greater substance to be applied to these ideal forms.

Institutional structures will always try to empty forms of their substance because then it becomes easier for the governors to shape the mentality of the 'peons'. What they see as their 'job'.

Yet if we are to develop a more healthy society if would seem plainly true that we as individuals are the ones properly placed to insist that substance be given to the forms, and to do that we must have a system that helps people to think for themselves rather than the Common Core and other conformity inducing artifacts of the Prussian model.

We know what does these things and it is not the slomo's of the world.

[backtoiam]

You are correct because that big old brain slomo has can run circles around most us on any given day probably. Some pretty serious mental horse power right there. Slomo is also brutally honest because he is a very nice person. This thread was a good example of what happens when intentional agitation occurs when mainstream institutional destructive narrative enters the picture. The sad thing is that due to the fact that most of us were raised in the "informational age" that we have been fed a line of bullshit and we hurt each other because we don't know any better due to our programming. We have been taught to be offended by words instead of how we actually treat one another and it causes a lot of grief. If people understood how sophisticated and intentional the system truly is that seeks to connect mental constructs to simple words meant to be destructive it would blow their mind.

[American Dream]

do you really believe I hate women? Honestly? You might want to read what I've written, in this thread and maybe the thread I started (ignoring the bitch-slapping session Jack and I engaged in, which was borderline disrespectful on both sides). To help you out, I'll remind you that I've repeated the name Karen Straughan several times, a woman who articulates a position a notch or two more anti-feminist than my own. Guruilla embedded a video with a good example of her work. She jokes about how she doesn't quite look the part of an anti-feminist woman (the stereotype of which I imagine would be a quiverfull woman wearing an apron) with her "short hair and sensible shoes". I don't know that she mentions it in that particular video, but she has children and a boyfriend. In other words, an ordinary sort of person I might have in my circle of friends, and probably you as well. But more to the point: she recounts what she views as the history of feminism, and how and why she believes it is both anti-woman and anti-man. She does rightfully point out that there are multiple feminisms, and she is attacking specific ones; and so I'll admit that I need to be more careful with a word that has the potential to be triggering, as Jack points out, and specify that my position concerns specific feminisms, not all of them. I'm not asking you to agree with her, or to agree with me for that matter, but I am asking you to see both her and me as non-psychopathic individuals who have rational reasons for believing as we do. I personally feel that way about Christian fundamentalists, for example. I disagree strongly with some of their views, however I still believe that all but a few of them are regular people just trying to make sense of the world with the experiences they have had.

As we allow or even support racism, sexism and other such evil nonsense, then RI veers closer to domination by a culture of "Good Old Boys", whether or not every last member is straight, a dude, or what have you. The meta-message is to exclude marginalized groups and forward-thinking, liberatory opinions- and to help turn R.I. into a place that truly does support Oppression.

This is one very good reason that Jeff has always guided the board away from such hateful, stupid shit.

[backtoiam]

See. Ad is afraid this deal calmed down and got resolved. He threw us some bait. We love each other again AD and we decided not to fight ok. We need a spear gun.

[Luther Blissett]

Slomo, every time you mention campus rape policies favoring women I can't be sure if I'm reading it correctly. This is definitely one of my niches and as someone intimately familiar with the process, I can say with confidence that universities employ their full weight in order to cover up rapes and sexual assaults on campus. This is done in order to maintain public relations and ensure that tuition dollars keep flowing and that their campus does not appear unsafe. Especially now with universities across the country being aware of the bubbling nature and tenuous reality in the coming years, some universities are on treacherous ground. I work at one with a large East and Southeast Asian population and our statistics for unreported rapes are believed to be egregiously high - not like they aren't high elsewhere.

I mentioned it elsewhere but my university even eliminated the "survivor advocate" office (the one with whom I was working) altogether when the director tried to blow the whistle about a rape coverup. And this rape in question was perpetrated by a young man against his fraternity brother. That survivor has no justice and I can't really think of many who do. Universities, even when moving forward with charges, will do terribly cowardly things like expel the perpetrator after graduation or warn the survivor not to press charges and make their lives living hells until they themselves drop out of school.

See the book "Missoula" or the documentary "The Hunting Ground" for sources.

My stepdaughter is actually doing her senior year thesis on college rape culture and so we've had long discussions about it. She asked me if it really is an epidemic, and if so, why now. I told her that I didn't believe rape was happening on campus now any more than it ever had in the past, proportional to the relative student population. I also am highly doubtful that public safety and college counseling offices ever handled it better than they are now. But one thing is for certain and that is our current hypercompetitive, all-growth-to-the-top, late capitalist environment is causing institutions of higher education to act like sharks and to maintain the most cutthroat public relations possible.

[slomo]

Slomo, every time you mention campus rape policies favoring women I can't be sure if I'm reading it correctly. This is definitely one of my niches and as someone intimately familiar with the process, I can say with confidence that universities employ their full weight in order to cover up rapes and sexual assaults on campus. This is done in order to maintain public relations and ensure that tuition dollars keep flowing and that their campus does not appear unsafe. Especially now with universities across the country being aware of the bubbling nature and tenuous reality in the coming years, some universities are on treacherous ground. I work at one with a large East and Southeast Asian population and our statistics for unreported rapes are believed to be egregiously high - not like they aren't high elsewhere.

I mentioned it elsewhere but my university even eliminated the "survivor advocate" office (the one with whom I was working) altogether when the director tried to blow the whistle about a rape coverup. And this rape in question was perpetrated by a young man against his fraternity brother. That survivor has no justice and I can't really think of many who do. Universities, even when moving forward with charges, will do terribly cowardly things like expel the perpetrator after graduation or warn the survivor not to press charges and make their lives living hells until they themselves drop out of school.

See the book "Missoula" or the documentary "The Hunting Ground" for sources.

My stepdaughter is actually doing her senior year thesis on college rape culture and so we've had long discussions about it. She asked me if it really is an epidemic, and if so, why now. I told her that I didn't believe rape was happening on campus now any more than it ever had in the past, proportional to the relative student population. I also am highly doubtful that public safety and college counseling offices ever handled it better than they are now. But one thing is for certain and that is our current hypercompetitive, all-growth-to-the-top, late capitalist environment is causing institutions of higher education to act like sharks and to maintain the most cutthroat public relations possible.

Luther, the extent to which sexual assault or rape occurs on campus is widely controversial, and the figures vary widely. Part of the problem is how these terms are defined (i.e. there is some language drift). Also, in particular the veracity of the material presented in The Hunting Ground has been questioned, although from your viewpoint you may question the institutional source (on the other hand, if the critics were less noteworthy than Harvard law professors, some might criticize their credibility). Again, I must state: I think sexual assault and rape are very bad things. I may be mistaken on the willingness of institutions to address the problem, but if I am incorrect, it is not because I hate women, it is because I am incorrect about the institutional processes. FWIW, I am in support of universities referring all sexual assault and rape cases to the criminal justice system, where they can be handled in legally appropriate ways. I am not in favor of universities adjudicating the cases themselves, because I doubt they have the expertise to handle the cases, and their biases could go either way (ranging from hyper-vigilance to coverup).

[slomo]

You all realize that the "sausage-fest" meme comes directly from the culture of "Good Old Boys", in reference to gatherings where there are insufficient targets, erm, opportunities, for pickups? Someone's Freudian slip is showing.

[JackRiddler]

.

Backscratching posts by neo-RI MRA crew do not constitute "peace" to the questions that have occupied most of this thread.

AD calling out your reach-arounds with a silly graphic (in a fashion typical of a place called the Internet) is not a new phase of "war" disrupting the harmony of a settled matter, merely a more or less justified volley.

The silence of the women who don't want to hang out with us here, or of the men who used to be here and tired of hanging out with YOU, is not a sign of popular approval, or that you are "winning."

Now, this:

I have found myself agreeing with much of what Slomo said, sometimes to my chagrin, and the above statement is one I can agree with relatively speaking. There is a strand of what may be considered feminism that is so vociferously anti-male it provokes a strong opposite reaction.

Bingo.

Emphasis mine, weasel words in red.

(TL;DR on following response, or "abstract" as the university types call it: Bolded quoted matter above is awesomely stupid bullshit justifying misogyny to the point of violence. Testicle-searching MRA crew will be unable to empirically back fantasy case that such "strand" of anti-male feminism exists, or even if they can construct signs of it, that it is the reason for what we may however rightly call their grievances or their Reaction with a capital R.)

So:

I am of the male sex and do not consider myself threatened by "anti-male" feminism, nor do I perceive the fantasy world of the MRAs. Poor me. I've had my personal run-ins with difficult vuh, vuh-Vagina Americans. I have even perceived injustices by individual members of this majority group against me or other Penis Americans. And yet I have never this to be due to feminist ideology, or the women's movement, or the relative changes of recent decades in the status and power of women! Even in a few exceptional cases where such ideology was opportunistically deployed!

Surely you want to help me overcome that. Therefore, if you believe the above quoted matter up to the "Bingo," it is incumbent on you to:

CITE. Show examples. (As if.)

No, sorry, I said examples of this "strand."

Here is a guide to what are self-evidently not examples:

Not examples of MRAs whining about the mean bitches who don't like them and attribute it to their own MRA understanding of something they call feminism, or of other general conspiracies of females working with patsy males.

Not examples of flat-earther fantasies (and sorry, we have learned that on neo-RI, MRA fantasies are promoted in part by actual flat-earthers!) about how all social change in the last forty years is the product of well-placed Rockefellers disrupting the previously harmonious natural order of the sexes, so as to sap the gender unity that might otherwise foil their plans for a lizard-led genocide in the name of climate science.

No, not even examples of "data" that is lifted out of context and deployed disingenuously so as to argue that if certain assorted Bad Things happen more often to men, then this is because of feminism, or the women's movements, or disproves the existence of sexism, or bitches (because: NUMBERS! QED!).

CITE.

That would mean (1) showing the existence of actual man-hating "feminism," (2) among actual women's movements or groups of influence, who (3) hate with such virulence and smack men with such social force that it justifiably provokes your misogynist prattle about Mom, and perhaps even the occasional real-world violence against evil ex-wives and Planned Parenthood. (Sorry, sorry, I meant to say: justifiably provokes your "strong opposite reaction").

Caveats, however. Tough.

(Are we not men?! We're supposed to use methodologies here.)

Thus:

- No one who published in the 1970s, is now dead, and has had zero-to-marginal impact. (i.e., no Dworkin/Daly, whether fairly read or misrepresented - I've actually read them, amazing innit?)

- No blog posts or the like, unless you can show it's a) an actual school of "feminist"/women's movement; and b) typical, widespread, influential, powerful; and/or (c) really putting the poor Penis Americans in a wringer that they wouldn't find themselves in if not for it!

- No examples of individual stupid/ill people or sociopaths who resort to "feminist" sophistry to justify something stupid/ill or sociopathic that they did, as if such people could not have been stupid/ill or sociopathic and found other sophistries to justify it in the past. (Maybe you can find an example where such get massive support from the feminist-brainwashed as a result of invoking said sophistry; that might qualify!)

- No examples of how, well, the establishment monster who used to have an exclusively male form nowadays sometimes, a teeny-few some times, comes in a female form! And she might call herself feminist! And she might call herself that even as she advocates the financial plunders and imperialist bombing campaigns (or, if you're of the flat-earth variety, the brrrrr vaccinations and New World Order) that have been continuous for centuries and just yesterday were falsely sold as being for democracy or security or human rights (or public health). Sorry!

No Clinton pandering for votes (unless you're going to attribute Cruz and Trump to maleness or masculinism or MRA, which by the way is easy). No Thatcher, Rice or Albright. No Lagarde doing what the IMF does--especially if you can't name at least three former directors of the IMF.

Certainly not, as a minimum, if you will then not also agree that if Bush said he bombed something for democracy, this serves to prove the evils of democracy.

Show this "movement." Where are your man-hating "feminists" who are big and bad and threatening you, and thus justify your counter-hatred and the widespread male counter-violence as a defensive response?

Where is their manifesto -- the one that they actually read, and that motivates them to their man-hating actions? (So sorry, Valerie Solanas also doesn't count. Though, if turnabout is fair play, some of you deserve her a lot more than poor Andy Warhol.) Not some old continuing barbarism with a new feminist label. Where is these supposed man-haters' impact that is actually their impact, their innovation?

.

[slomo]

You ask a lot, for someone who has not bothered to read or comment on the citations in the other thread. Also:

Though, if turnabout is fair play, some of you deserve her a lot more than poor Andy Warhol.

is pretty hostile. (The point of the Solanas wiki entry was not that she was representative of all feminists, but that it's easy to misrepresent a position based on extremists who happen to advocate it.) I could produce many individual citations of male-bashing, but if they are not outright ignored, they will be reduced by you to one of the following categories: (1) non-credible source; (2) too institutional a source; (3) not comprehensive (i.e. no stats); or (4) not "true" feminism. So: not playing your game of hide-and-seek. If you can ignore my requests for specific and credibly sourced rebuttals to statistics or interpretations thereof, then I certainly don't owe you any of my time.

I don't care if the neo-Jacobins don't agree with me, and my words are sufficient evidence of my character, whether or not you choose to misrepresent it. At the end of the day, you have to live with yourself, and I have to live with myself. And my life is actually pretty good.