• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Why can't we hate men?"

d4m10n said:
It demonstrates the size of the voting bloc in question. Rather few demographic groups have ever managed to get a special interest amendment even that far along.
Click to expand...

The ERA has zero provisions for quotas. Support for the ERA is not the same thing as support for quotas. So no, it doesn't demonstrate the size of the voting bloc which might be interested in quotas.
 
Fudbucker said:
It is a good thing that de jure discrimination was ended.

But are you claiming de facto discrimination doesn't exist? Do you think the attitudes behind those practices we forbade haven't lingered on? Because if discrimination still does exist, and a lot of people still operate in a racist/sexist mindset, we have a serious problem.
Click to expand...
Read the original article again.
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.​
If these principles were applied, discrimination would still exist, and so we would still have the problem. That is my point.
 
Last edited:
sadhatter said:
When else do you feel people have something to atone for due to actions that were not theirs?

I'm going to bet no incidences will include groups you keenly support.
Click to expand...

You are asking me to defend a position I don't hold. I don't think "people have something to atone for due to actions that were not theirs". I think that is pretty clear from my earlier posts in this thread.
 
Ziggurat said:
The ERA has zero provisions for quotas. Support for the ERA is not the same thing as support for quotas. So no, it doesn't demonstrate the size of the voting bloc which might be interested in quotas.
Click to expand...
I'm just going to have to disagree here. Seems quite likely to me that those interested in equal rights are also interested in equal representation.
 
d4m10n said:
It demonstrates the size of the voting bloc in question. Rather few demographic groups have ever managed to get a special interest amendment even that far along.
Click to expand...
I don't think of the ERA as a special interest, but in any case it failed.

Fifty plus percent of the population isn't a special interest.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm just going to have to disagree here. Seems quite likely to me that those interested in equal rights are also interested in equal representation.
Click to expand...
I'm not. I think women should have more representation, but not by implementing a quota system.

Such an idea is remarkably undemocratic.
 
pharphis said:
What is toxic masculinity and what is healthy masculinity?
Click to expand...

Per Wikipedia:

The concept of toxic masculinity is used in psychology and gender studies to refer to certain norms of masculine behavior in North America and Europe 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 to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Scholars argue that the socialization of boys often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" with regard to bullying and aggression.
Click to expand...

In psychology, toxic masculinity refers to traditional cultural masculine norms in American and European society that can be harmful to men, women, and society overall; this concept of toxic masculinity is not intended to demonize men or male attributes, but rather to emphasize the harmful effects of conformity to certain traditional masculine ideal behaviors such as dominance, self-reliance, and competition.[3][4] Toxic masculinity is thus defined by adherence to traditional male gender roles that restrict the kinds of emotions allowable for boys and men to express, including social expectations that men seek to be dominant (the "alpha male") and limit their emotional range primarily to expressions of anger.[5] Some traditionally prescribed masculine behaviors can produce such harmful effects as violence (including sexual assault and domestic violence), "sexual excess" (promiscuity), excessively risky and/or socially irresponsible behaviors including substance abuse, and dysfunction in relationships.[1][6]
Click to expand...

Other traits associated with masculinity, such as devotion to work, pride in excelling at sports, and providing for one's family are generally not considered toxic. Granted, those traits can also, in this day and age, apply to feminity as well, but due to physical and hormonal differences between men and women, the outcomes of those traits will in all probably turn out to be different according to the gender of the person exhibiting the trait, so one can still say they are "masculine" traits without diminishing the applications to the female sex as well.
 
My idea of democracy is that anyone who wants to govern me should be allowed to make their case for my vote. And I should be allowed to vote for whomever I want, to govern me. That's democracy.

My idea of democracy is not to be governed by someone whose demographics overlap with mine in some arbitrary way, whether I voted for them or not. Nor is it to prohibit people from government because they do not match some arbitrary demographic model.

Set up free and fair elections, and establish freedom of the press, and you'll have democracy. Take those things away, and you won't have democracy no matter how fine-tuned the gender balance in your government representatives.
 
theprestige said:
My idea of democracy is that anyone who wants to govern me should be allowed to make their case for my vote. And I should be allowed to vote for whomever I want, to govern me. That's democracy.

My idea of democracy is not to be governed by someone whose demographics overlap with mine in some arbitrary way, whether I voted for them or not. Nor is it to prohibit people from government because they do not match some arbitrary demographic model.

Set up free and fair elections, and establish freedom of the press, and you'll have democracy. Take those things away, and you won't have democracy no matter how fine-tuned the gender balance in your government representatives.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree with this. I don't see a need for there to be an equal number of each gender in the Senate or the House; my concern is not the equipment my representative has, but rather the issues and beliefs they will fight for on my behalf. Their gender has little to do with it; as issixn said, there are any number of women who would not vote the way I would prefer on multiple issues, and any number of men who would not vote the way I would prefer on multiple issues, but also any number of both genders that would vote the way I prefer on the issues I consider important. If the person running for office matches my gender but doesn't match any of my beliefs in regards to the multitude of social issues in this country, then I'm going to vote for the person who does, regardless of their gender.
 
phiwum said:
Yes, that's so, but not an argument for quotas in Congress.
Click to expand...

I wasn't making an argument for quotas, just pointing out that Americans are OK with undemocratic methods of governing and always have been. A quota system might be undemocratic, but so what?
 
Sabrina said:
Per Wikipedia:





Other traits associated with masculinity, such as devotion to work, pride in excelling at sports, and providing for one's family are generally not considered toxic. Granted, those traits can also, in this day and age, apply to feminity as well, but due to physical and hormonal differences between men and women, the outcomes of those traits will in all probably turn out to be different according to the gender of the person exhibiting the trait, so one can still say they are "masculine" traits without diminishing the applications to the female sex as well.
Click to expand...


I think I'm fine with the idea of toxic masculinity (and toxic femininity) as labels applying to the extremes of each characteristic. I do think the "cause" of toxic masculinity is grossly misdiagnosed by gender activists, as well as the solution. That said, I think it's not a very useful label and especially since only the "toxic masculinity" label is ever (EVER) used by gender activists, it shows a misandric bias I think.
I also think that even in the cited wiki page they attribute some things to toxic masculinity that don't make any sense: domestic violence.

If men and women are pretty much equally represented as both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, labeling such a thing an example of "toxic masculinity" seems to only make sense of half the picture, or more likely an ideological stance that almost all gender activists hold (female = victim, male = perpetrator), including the author of the article in the OP.
 
pharphis said:
I think I'm fine with the idea of toxic masculinity (and toxic femininity) as labels applying to the extremes of each characteristic. I do think the "cause" of toxic masculinity is grossly misdiagnosed by gender activists, as well as the solution. That said, I think it's not a very useful label and especially since only the "toxic masculinity" label is ever (EVER) used by gender activists, it shows a misandric bias I think.
I also think that even in the cited wiki page they attribute some things to toxic masculinity that don't make any sense: domestic violence.

If men and women are pretty much equally represented as both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, labeling such a thing an example of "toxic masculinity" seems to only make sense of half the picture, or more likely an ideological stance that almost all gender activists hold (female = victim, male = perpetrator), including the author of the article in the OP.
Click to expand...

I highlighted the problem. Domestic violence is not limited to men as the perpetrators, that is true, but women are much more likely to be victims of domestic violence than men. So therefore, they cannot be equally represented as both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. There's a lot of good facts here, but ultimately women are more at risk of being abused by their partner than men are, and if you go into the degrees of violence perpetrated against a partner, women are nearly twice as likely to be victims of severe domestic abuse than men are (1 in 4 women compared to 1 in 7 men). Women are also much more likely to be stalked, another form of domestic violence.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your stance (i.e. that not all women are victims and not all men are perpetrators), but they are not equal. And I hold just as little respect for women who abuse their partners (sexually or otherwise) as I do men. I also disagree with the author in the OP, as I've said multiple times; I do NOT think that all men are to blame for the inequality between how men and women are treated, nor do I think men should just step aside and let women lead unchecked. I believe there needs to be a balance between the genders, and we have been slowly moving in that direction pretty much since the '60s. We're not there yet, but absent the vitriol being spewed by the author in the OP or the attitudes of male groups like the "incel" movement, we are moving in the right direction. It's just going to take time, and that I think is at least partially the problem the author in the OP has; that it isn't happening instantly. However, she fails to take into account that social change takes time; generations in some cases, to really take effect, and her frustration with that time is quite possibly (at least partially) to blame for her vitriol. I don't agree with her stance, but I can at least partially understand where she may be coming from, if I'm reading her at all correctly (and there's every possibility I'm not.)
 
erlando said:
You are asking me to defend a position I don't hold. I don't think "people have something to atone for due to actions that were not theirs". I think that is pretty clear from my earlier posts in this thread.
Click to expand...

I agree you don't like the word atonement, but that is what you are promoting.

You are asking me to modify my actions based upon the actions of other people that bear a similarity to me. Because they ********** up for so long you feel I have to take actions to remedy this. This is your position , plain and simple. If for thousands of years men didn't treat women like property you wouldn't feel I need to take these actions.

I'm sorry but I'm not an ambassador from planet male, I will take zero blame for the actions of anyone but myself or those I give orders to. And I will interact with people based on the content of their character , my actions in regards to voting, media, personal decisions will be motivated by my own qualitative research, not trying to play catch up for thousands of years oppression I have nothing to do with.

Asking me to modify my actions had to come with a pretty specific and logical reason. "Because it makes you a good person" isn't good enough, as "good person" changes drastically with time, person and culture. To go any further you need to explain why this would make me a good person and the answer has to be "due to thousands of years of male oppression" for your position to make sense. And I simply will not modify my actions based on the actions of idiots I oppose now and would have opposed then.
 
Sabrina said:
I highlighted the problem. Domestic violence is not limited to men as the perpetrators, that is true, but women are much more likely to be victims of domestic violence than men. So therefore, they cannot be equally represented as both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. There's a lot of good facts here, but ultimately women are more at risk of being abused by their partner than men are, and if you go into the degrees of violence perpetrated against a partner, women are nearly twice as likely to be victims of severe domestic abuse than men are (1 in 4 women compared to 1 in 7 men). Women are also much more likely to be stalked, another form of domestic violence.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your stance (i.e. that not all women are victims and not all men are perpetrators), but they are not equal. And I hold just as little respect for women who abuse their partners (sexually or otherwise) as I do men. I also disagree with the author in the OP, as I've said multiple times; I do NOT think that all men are to blame for the inequality between how men and women are treated, nor do I think men should just step aside and let women lead unchecked. I believe there needs to be a balance between the genders, and we have been slowly moving in that direction pretty much since the '60s. We're not there yet, but absent the vitriol being spewed by the author in the OP or the attitudes of male groups like the "incel" movement, we are moving in the right direction. It's just going to take time, and that I think is at least partially the problem the author in the OP has; that it isn't happening instantly. However, she fails to take into account that social change takes time; generations in some cases, to really take effect, and her frustration with that time is quite possibly (at least partially) to blame for her vitriol. I don't agree with her stance, but I can at least partially understand where she may be coming from, if I'm reading her at all correctly (and there's every possibility I'm not.)
Click to expand...

I believe the below is the paper that is commonly referenced for the "70% of non-reciprocal domestic violence is female perpetrated", and roughly half of all domestic violence is reciprocal (partners hurting each other).

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

This means that in fact women are the majority of abusers, and men the majority of victims. Now, women are more likely to be severely injured, but I think it's completely wrong to state it as a though women are much more likely to be victims than men.

Now of course we could cite a bunch of things at each other (I'm no expert, and you likely aren't either) but the point to me is that the experts to my knowledge (not the activists or politicians, though) have found gender symmetry in IPV for years. Despite that, there are virtually no domestic violence shelters for men, men are more likely to be arrested by their abusers if they call the police (Duluth Model), and it is almost exclusively framed as I said earlier as "male perpetrator, female victim". Additionally, reciprocal violence is usually framed as "women defending themselves" but this is a dodge that is not well-supported by evidence afaik. It is also mentioned in the paper I linked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom