• 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?"

luchog said:
Or rather, it means that it's not necessary for every man to pipe up every time to assert their niceness and lack of entitlement attitudes. A fact that all reasonably intelligent, rational entities involved in this discourse understand. If you're not the one being targeted by the claim, then it's not necessary to defend against it. And if the claim is explicitly "all men", then the claimant is clearly irrational enough that defending against it won't do any good anyway. Getting stridently defensive does not speak well to one's assertion that one is not part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you shouldn't expect people who aren't in your particular clique to implicitly understand that when you use the general word 'men', you really mean 'some men'.

Adding the word 'some' before the word 'men' isn't so difficult or time consuming. But I suppose it takes away from that self-righteous feeling you get when you say it, as well as afterwards when you get to arrogantly assert that you must be more rational or intellignent than people who don't accept your particular phrasing.

Personally, I tend to go with more precise wording so that there can be no misunderstanding.
 
luchog said:
They're not? Really? I guess that is why I listed them as separate qualities then, using the "and" conjunction to indicate that I was talking about both of them as separate qualities.
Click to expand...

But you didn't actually talk about them as separate qualities. You only really talked about what's bad about entitlement, leaving the impression that masculinity was part and parcel of that. I accept clarification on that point, but I don't think I was exactly out of line in hilighting the difference, especially as I don't think masculinity is a problem.

Now, do you have any response to my comments about masculinity?
 
luchog said:
Or rather, it means that it's not necessary for every man to pipe up every time to assert their niceness and lack of entitlement attitudes. A fact that all reasonably intelligent, rational entities involved in this discourse understand.
Click to expand...

Not everyone involved in this discourse is reasonably intelligent or rational. That's been pretty well established. So statements which are superfluous in the absence of irrational and stupid participants may still have utility in the discourse that's actually taking place.

If you're not the one being targeted by the claim, then it's not necessary to defend against it.
Click to expand...

Men as a class often are the target of claims.

And if the claim is explicitly "all men", then the claimant is clearly irrational enough that defending against it won't do any good anyway.
Click to expand...

Implicit claims of "all men" should allow an individual defense as well. And yes, someone crazy enough to explicitly claim "all men" may not be persuadable, so why bother, but that shouldn't deprive someone of the right to try either.

Getting stridently defensive does not speak well to one's assertion that one is not part of the problem.
Click to expand...

This is drifting back into Kafkatrapping.
 
So Trump's "And some of them, I assume, are good people" qualifier was valid then and made it a fair statement?
 
JoeMorgue said:
So it's vitally important that men speak up about the misdoings of other men (lest they be part of the problem) without ever bringing up that they themselves don't do the misdoings (lest they be part of the problem.)

So "Hey everybody just want you to know I do NOT support men doing the bad things, but I have no statement as to whether or not I personally do the bad things."
Click to expand...

I'll agree to a limited version - it actually is important for men to speak up if they hear a (often male) friend saying something explicitly misogynist, because that person is signaling that they are concerned about their (our) opinions, and showing that they do not care nearly so much about the opinions of women. I know I've had online discussions where I've denounced some vile abuser like Chris Brown, only to have some guy say "Now come on, we've all hit a woman because she got on our nerves before, right?" Certainly, we should speak up in cases like that (and I'm not saying you haven't or wouldn't).

And as far as "But I'm not like that!"...why do you need to say that to begin with? Again, there's a time to let people vent their frustration, and as long as they aren't actually harming anyone, then no need to step in and presume offense. There are more than enough guys doing this every time, that you don't really need to anyway.

I won't cosign "men need to not run for office" as a serious message, but if a woman and a man are both running, and the woman wins, she almost certainly did a much better job campaigning than he did - I've heard far too many people say outright that women shouldn't lead, even today, not to know that there's still an uphill battle there.
 
luchog said:
They may not stalk or harass women, but they still have that mindset, "I'm a nice guys, so I deserve...", "I can't get a date, so I'm proof that women only want to date bad guys"
Click to expand...
This bit right here is one of my favorite little aspects of misandrist wackadoodlery: treating these two entirely, widely different quotes as having one and the same meaning, so it's just fine & dandy to pretend someone said/meant the former when he actually said the latter. "Don't let the lack of the word deserve or entitled or owed or anything like that in what they actually say fool you; it's what they really mean even if they don't say it!"
 
Last edited:
Mumbles said:
I'll agree to a limited version - it actually is important for men to speak up if they hear a (often male) friend saying something explicitly misogynist, because that person is signaling that they are concerned about their (our) opinions, and showing that they do not care nearly so much about the opinions of women.
Click to expand...

It is important for in-group members to speak up against the dehumanization and unwarranted disparagement of out-group members, in general.

(This includes feminists, IMO.)
 
d4m10n said:
It is important for in-group members to speak up against the dehumanization and unwarranted disparagement of out-group members, in general.

(This includes feminists, IMO.)
Click to expand...

Indeed. And in cases where feminists are outright laughing about, or excusing, men being abused by women, I've often seen serious pushback from other feminists.

(It's true of other groups - I've pull younger black guys aside for similar crap - but that's a bit off-topic)
 
Delvo said:
This bit right here is one of my favorite little aspects of misandrist wackadoodlery: treating these two entirely, widely different quotes as having one and the same meaning, so it's just fine & dandy to pretend someone said/meant the former when he actually said the latter. "Don't let the lack of the word deserve or entitled or owed or anything like that in what they actually say fool you; it's what they really mean even if they don't say it!"
Click to expand...


There may be some hypothetical person out there who doesn't mean the former when he says the latter, but I've yet to hear one. It also presupposes that the person whinging about not getting attention from women he thinks he deserves one of the "good" or "nice" guys, which is rarely ever the case. At best, they're passive-aggressive whiners who insist on treating women as sex vending machines rather than people.
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
There may be some hypothetical person out there who doesn't mean the former when he says the latter, but I've yet to hear one. It also presupposes that the person whinging about not getting attention from women he thinks he deserves one of the "good" or "nice" guys, which is rarely ever the case. At best, they're passive-aggressive whiners who insist on treating women as sex vending machines rather than people.
Click to expand...

You know what these passive-aggressive whining men are not? Masculine.
 
This is probably too much of a divergence as well as a controversial thing to say, but:

I think the "nice guy" and/or "incel" type is mostly just people who are lonely and feel isolated. This kind of thing is self-perpetuating, as well. Isolation is disastrous for mental health.

There are some among those groups who hate women or express their anger/sadness but ultimately I don't think it's fair to peg the problem as strictly being their personality. Some people lose out and there's not much they can do about it (extremely ugly, severe disabilities, abusive upbringing). It's certainly not just sex but also intimacy that people crave.
 
luchog said:
At best, they're passive-aggressive whiners who insist on treating women as sex vending machines rather than people.
Click to expand...

An example would be helpful here.

Other than Eliot Roger, who seems like something of an extreme case.
 
pharphis said:
This is probably too much of a divergence as well as a controversial thing to say, but:

I think the "nice guy" and/or "incel" type is mostly just people who are lonely and feel isolated. This kind of thing is self-perpetuating, as well. Isolation is disastrous for mental health.

There are some among those groups who hate women or express their anger/sadness but ultimately I don't think it's fair to peg the problem as strictly being their personality. Some people lose out and there's not much they can do about it (extremely ugly, severe disabilities, abusive upbringing). It's certainly not just sex but also intimacy that people crave.
Click to expand...

I concur. There are people who have difficulty finding intimacy, both physical and emotional. Belittling, mocking, and telling them that they're unlovable doesn't make anything better. It builds resentment, and some lash out because of it.
 
luchog said:
Or rather, it means that it's not necessary for every man to pipe up every time to assert their niceness and lack of entitlement attitudes.
Click to expand...


Every time someone starts with "all men..." and goes on to describe something that some men do, it's vital that other men stand up and point out that the statement is flat out wrong.

Every time.
 
3point14 said:
Every time someone starts with "all men..." and goes on to describe something that some men do, it's vital that other men stand up and point out that the statement is flat out wrong.

Every time.
Click to expand...
That's what all men say

Joke!
 
X: You're so {friendly/smart/fun/interesting/whatever}, it would be really easy for you to find a girlfriend, because that kind of personality is what we really want.
Y: No, reality just doesn't work like that.
Z: See, he just said we owe him sex for good behavior!​

...or better yet, although the added lines don't always happen in every iteration of this...

X: You're so {friendly/smart/fun/interesting/whatever}, it would be really easy for you to find a girlfriend, because that kind of personality is what we really want.
Y: No, reality just doesn't work like that.
X: But you deserve it!
Y: What does deserving have to do with cause & effect?
Z: See, he just said we owe him sex for good behavior!​

Can anybody think of another subject on which anyone would even pretend to buy this type of "logic"? Let me try a few...

X: You're such a good employee, you're bound to end up as the manager.
Y: No, reality just doesn't work like that.
Z: See, he just said the company owes him the manager's job!​

No, I've never seen or heard that one...

X: You're such a good employee, you're bound to get rich.
Y: No, reality just doesn't work like that.
Z: See, he just said the company owes him lots of extra money above & beyond his pay rate!​

Hmm, not that one either...

X: You're so good at teaching/training, you're bound to end up hosting a huge hit educational TV show.
Y: No, reality just doesn't work like that.
Z: See, he just said the TV networks owe him a starring role on a major TV show!​

Still nothing; it's really not looking like this "he said that an asserted cause & effect doesn't work, so that means he thinks someone owes it to him" thing is something people actually think...

X: You're such a good driver, the insurance company will stop charging you anything at all.
Y: No, reality just doesn't work like that.
Z: See, he just said his insurance company owes him free coverage!​

More of the same nothingness again! Wow, it's almost as if we're being told to accept a claim of a particular step in logic (that not believing something will happen for you means you must think someone's obligated to do it for you) that even the claimants themselves know they don't buy, since they never accuse anybody of it in any other context!
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Those also sound like extreme cases, but (fwiw) I'm just fine w/ hating on men like those. Sometimes anger really is the appropriate reaction.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that IS a list of what were termed the "creepiest" (i.e. the extreme end of the spectrum) examples of the incel movement, but given that the examples all came from threads with multiple approving commenters on Reddit and other forums, I think, it becomes pretty clear that the majority of the incel movement are overwhelmingly of the opinion that women owe them sex simply for existing. How extreme they tend to go in real life with that opinion differs from case to case though; it's likely that quite a few of these "incels", to adopt their terminology for themselves, would never stoop quite as low as the examples given on the list, even if they are able to post their (relatively) anonymous agreement with the opinions advanced by the more extreme members online. That being said, that there are ANY groups out there who so disparage the opposite sex simply for existing (and I'm talking about both the incels and the militant misandrists who've been cited in this thread) boggles my mind. But then I wasn't raised to believe any gender was better than another, so, YMMV I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom