This is excellent and scholarly material. It's superb

The usual suspects aren't smart/thoughtful enough to read/ponder this.

Do you believe any of the lies on the list?

1. Would you respond the same way to a list of lies told by racists?

2. Do you agree with any of the lies in the OP's list?

1. Your false comparison between "men's" issues and racism is shocking and quite disturbing. Disgusting even.

2. I don't agree that all of those items are lies.

absolutely nothing to discuss. I hope you get help.

If you subscribe to those bigoted notions, then you're a hypocrite.

Either way thanks for kicking a very important OP, and for illustrating the need.

The person she's arguing with sounds like a right winger.

MRAs aren't people seeking to address issues unique to men. They're an anti-feminist, anti-woman bunch.

the thread and simply derail?

Seems like you're trying to be bullies.

This sort of thread gets posted over and over and over.

What if I posted a thread that said... 8 lies that women say about men.

I'd be run out of DU on a rail.

You're not very good at this actually.

And you know what? You DO NOT get to put words in my mouth. How dare you?

Try a middle school language arts instructor.

The OP is about MRAs, not men.

Might want to step back and actually give this OP some thought.

and one of them struck a nerve with me, I wouldn't threadjack with a bunch of bellyaching posts. I'd ask some questions, then I'd do some introspection.

I sure as fuck wouldn't be acting like you are in this thread.

You all need to check your tempers at the door.

A true classic. And so meaningful.

Buh bye.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_troll

I just knew that discussion was not possible and this sort of thread has been rehashed over and over.

So what's the point of the thread?

If you want to engage in the substance of the argument go do that. Find something in it you disagree with, go read about it from credible sources and find out if you're just wrong. If you're pretty sure you're not wrong after you've read some, come back and tell us what you found. That's how arguments work among educated adults.

Right now you're just going "nuh uh!" and "you're mean" which are arguments that would cause a child to roll their eyes.

The response was visceral and verbally assaulting.

I could find any evidence I want and I could show it to you, you wouldn't believe it or want to believe it from the behavior shown.

Look, I'm not against feminists. As a father of two girls (13 and 11), I'm trying to raise smart, independent-thinking young ladies. But sometimes things aren't always black and white, "you're with me or you're against me" (remember that?). If everything isn't up for a discussion, then nothing is.

Obviously, nothing is up for discussion. Good night. Be safe. I have to get up early for work.

do these types of men not realize that they also have a tone and that is what women reply back to in an equally deserving tone.

Right from the get go ... the hostility in this poster is palpable.

for everyone else on this thread.

You need to chill out, and get a grip. Maybe do a little self reflection.

Odd.

Poster that said what you declared

Is the guilt getting to you or something?

You will of course allow us the precise and relevant connection between disusing an issue more times than is comfortable for you (of which you are not compelled by anyone other than yourself to be a part of) and those discussing it being "bullies," yes?

and they feel anger/disappointment as to why people don't see the world the way they see it. So, they press on trying to use shame tactics which tend to fail and often backfire.

Favorite group: Men's Group, 4 posts in the last 90 days (7% of total posts)

Are you trying to imply that people that subscribe to them are anti-women or a Men Right's anti-woman person?

I'm also in the Football group. I must be a violent person too, just hellbent on tackling random strangers, right?

And he does like jumping in, cannon ball style.

Thanks.

this poster. I will wait and hope to be proved wrong but, I highly doubt it.

discussion takes a back seat to those prime directives.

Rather than immediately accusing the poster of posting in bad faith?

Bryant

for when the usual "counterarguments" are made.

Thanks!

Nice demonstration of op in thread.

I wonder if there's a bat signal or something they use to send out one of the honor guards with. It's like we have our own Night's watch.

And the call is still going out.

but not excluded ( if anyone can hate men that is).
-
or put another way, if one hates men, can one also be a feminist?

Now, I did read the article, it has some good solid points, but it does suffer from someone who does have a "feminist" agenda. i.e. They want "equal rights" for both sexes, without considering what is "Equal" given the differences between the sexes. These differences are not only physical, but mental for the physical difference do lead to a different mental outlook. If you can easily lift a 50 pound stone, that stone is not a major problem for you. If you can NOT lift that stone, then it stays in your way and you have to work around it. Thus the man who can remove the stone, can ignore the stone, while the woman who can not remove the stone have to deal with the stone being in their way. I have seen many feminists not wanting to address these difference for it upsets their dream of perfect equality between the sexes. I have also seen many feminists who accept these differences and seek to work with them. The key is accepting them AND addressing them. That is hard to do for it MAY mean getting a man to remove the "Stone" and accepting the fact that a man had to do that when a woman could no but also addressing the ability of women and men to work around the stone without removing it (Something a man may not think of, for he can move it but woman have to for they can not).

Please note I used the 50 pound stone as an example, I have known women who can move a 50 pound stone. I have known women who can work as a team to move such a stone. I am using the concept of a stone a man could move and a woman could not to show that the differences in physical nature of men and women can lead to a difference in outlook and thus a difference in what is "Equal".

Now to the points in the article"


1. "Feminists hate men, and are out to turn the world against them." 94% of all people enter into some sort of pair bond relationship i.e. man and woman. The remaining 6 percent include about 3 percentage points suffer some sort of mental impairment (mostly minor) that prevents them from mating. About 1 % of females and 3% of males are homosexuals. Thus the vast majority of women like men enter into some sort of pair bond with a man, and thus can not hate men. The claim that feminist hate men has to be more projection then anything else. My experience is women like men and want men to like them.

2. "Feminists are hypocrites, because chivalry is a female privilege." Most "chivalry" is also referred to as "dating"... i.e. a man tries to impress women that it would be good for her to date him. Now, most attempts are failures, but that does not mean we stop. Women like to know the men who are around her are willing to work with her and that is what most "chivalry" amount to, men showing they are willing to work or interact around and with a woman. Women do the same for men, but it is more in what most people call "supporting" roles, i.e. women will clean up the house of the men in their lives, cook meals etc to show they also are willing to work with men. It is a two way street, with each sex trying to show the other they can make the life of the other sex better.

3. "The courts are biased against men and in favor of women in custody disputes." First a disclaimer, I have been doing family law for almost 25 years. I have NOT seen any preference for either sex. The Courts are bias in favor of whoever has the child at the time the case gets in front of the Court. Given that women carry a fetus for nine months, give birth and have mammary glands, they tend to end up with the child. Thus women are in a superior position to men when it comes to custody at birth, for they have the body parts (mammary glands) that babies are most interested in AND their are always present at the time of birth. After the child is weened, that tendency continues. The Child know who their father is in most cases, but given a choice they prefer their mother if they have to make a choice. This preference survives in most children even in their teens years, through by then other factors may over come it.

Please note if a Mother is unfit, any court will remove the child from such a Mother, but that is rarely the case. Furthermore if the Father ends up with the child at the time of the breakup, the courts will tend to preserve his custody, for the same reason courts tend to support women, the courts want the child to have consistency in their lives and any change of custody has to be clearly in the child's best interest. Thus when both parents are viewed as equal (and that is most cases) the courts will maintain whatever was the custody before the ligation. In most cases that is with mother, but in cases where Father has the child that is also preserved in most such cases. Thus I have NOT seen a preference for women over men, but I have seen a preference to perserve who ever has custody, in most cases that is the mother, but it can also be the father.

4. "Male circumcision is just as bad as female genital mutilation"!!!! Who came up with that observation??? Male foreskin was meant to protect the penis before man invented something called "Clothes". Once Clothes were invented male foreskin had no real use and thus can be cut with no long term damage. Female circumcision is not cutting off skin, but actually muscle and that is always harmful.

5. Men have always been drafted, for in most cases Armies need people with upper body strength which men tend to have more of then women. Furthermore woman of the age to be drafted are also of the age to give birth, thus in many ways drafting of men has little affect in producing the next generation (men can go to war AND get their wives pregnant), while the drafting of women would affect production of the next generation. In many ways male military service is only possible for their wives are the one having their child and taking care of that child for the first 5-12 years of the child's life. You can make the claim that men NOT being drafted, is freeing men from their duty to society, while women still have to do their duty by giving birth and taking care of their children. Thus the dropping of the draft can be seen as making the sexes less equal (I am avoiding the issue of Veterans Preference, for since WWII, Veterans Preference is the #1 reason men get hired by Governmental units more then women is anything other then various "pink ghettos" that exist in Government service. Such Veteran preference, often for men who did not see combat kept a lot of women out of a lot of Government jobs. It is an example of why something like the draft and Veterans Preference should be debated every 10 years or so, given how socity changes do to such preferences and the willingness for the Military to enlist women).

6. Men objectified? Yes, men are made fun of, but people always make fun of their superiors. Superiors join in such jokes for such jokes do NOT really affect their position in society. Famous observation of Strong Leaders, they rarely need any of the trappings of power, for their have REAL power, thus do not need the trappings. It is when such leaders are LOSING powers that you see the Trappings increase. Louis XIV and his successors all ran large entertainment and parties for their hold on power was weak. Napoleon did not have to wear Emperor Clothing, for his power was real. Stalin, was NEVER President of the Soviet Union, his position was Chairmen of the Communist Party. Gorbachev became Chairmen and then had himself named President of the Soviet Union for his hold on power was weak. Gorbachev needed to be seen as powerful and thus grabbed all the trappings of powers he could get. Stalin did not have to have such trapping, for he was all powerful. The same with women and men. Men do not need to show they are more powerful then women, for as a general rule we are. Strong men also do not fear strong women and other strong men. On the other hand, people who see themselves as weak, want to preserve all of the images of strength and tend to avoid people of real strength (And by Strength I do not mean just muscle power, I mean internal strength). Thus men are rarely objectified for strong men do not care if they are or are not, and weak men avoid being objectified out of fear, not of women but their own weakness.

7. False rape charges are endemic?? On whose planet is that the case? Most men want woman to have as much fun as they do when they have sex. Men enjoy when a woman is screaming in pleasure. Rape is an attack on women. Worse, most men do not ejaculate in rape, all the rapist wants to do is to penetrate a woman. That does not mean the woman can not get pregnant (men leak so penetration is enough in some cases), but I bring it up for most rape has little to do with a man seeking sexual satisfaction. Rape is an attack on a woman to attack her nothing more. I bring this up for most men know the difference between rape and seduction and they want the later for it is more fun for them. I always joke, a rapist does NOT want an all male jury, for men will not buy his argument that the victim caused the rape. Worse, if any of the men has dated a woman who have been raped. Such women still want to have sex with a man, but just can not release themselves to be able to do so. Such a date is frustrating, she wants to be sexy AND she fears sex. This is not being left at the door as your date says good night, such dates are common. It is how she acts during the date that is frustrating. The man does not want to rape her, for he wants good sex, thus the date is frustrating. Men quickly see why she is acting like she is and they grow to hate rape more then women. Thus men tend to vote to convict men of rape and give them more severe punishment then women. I bring this up for there is to much rape in the world today, and false accusations comes no where near the actual level of rape and thus a false charge in its face.

8. "Feminists want to turn everything into rape". Yes and no. Yes in the sense I have seen Feminists treating the the desire of women to have sex as the main reason women give up equal rights. Notice such feminists are NOT taking about rape itself, but that woman often give up equal rights to keep peace with their sexual partner.

Just some comments, but I have to return to the tone of the article and its desire for complete equality between the sexes. I do not thinks such equality is possible, but that does not mean we should stop trying. At the same time, we must also be realistic of what is possible, which I suspect the author is unable of doing. More an observation of the tone of the article then its substance but something writers should avoid if they want they article to be read by a larger audience then just the people who agree with her.

grandmother to another, I agree with your final paragraph...

and the problem of reality butting its head into the fantasies of complete equality.

It's hard for me to sit back and not take note of the hypocrisy of women who want complete equality if they only want it some of the time.

I refer specifically to one issue as an example, and it would be interesting to see what feminists wanting complete equality would make of it.

I raised my son to respect girls...and then women.

When he was just a boy, he ended up being bullied unmercifully by a girl. Had she been a boy, they likely would have had a scuffle in the dirt and then been friends. But, being a girl, he couldn't fight with her. And she took advantage of it.

Too many women take advantage of that fact. I see it all the time. They slap a man, and he's not supposed to slap her back. OH NO!!! Violence against women!!!!

So, say a woman is in a bar and takes offense to something she thinks a man says to her and punches him in the face. If she's a guy doing that, the guy being punched is going to punch back probably.

In the interests of complete equality, then, do the feminists here think she ought to be treated like a man and punched back?

Or is this one of those, "We want complete equality between the sexes except for..." situations?



PS...I also agree that some of those points are not lies

for some kind of reply to my hypothetical situation first.

But if you insist on knowing, I think these are not lies:


#2. That feminists are hypocrites (which actually has a lot to do with my question about how far they want to go with regards to complete equality).

3. That there is a court bias with regards to child custody. Although I do have to admit it's not as bad as it used to be.

6. About male depiction in the media. Well, maybe not in magazines and such, but let's just say that lots of people get a huge charge out of seeing the stupid, bumbling man in movies and TV shows.

8. That feminists want to turn everything into rape. Seems like they do, actually. A man can't even look at a woman in an elevator without her thinking he's about to rape her. Guy standing at a bus stop admiring a nice looking woman? RAPE!! A guy in the supermarket winks at a woman in the cereal aisle? RAPE!!

Oh, and if men aren't trying to rape them, then they're inflicting "benevolent sexism" on them by (GASP!!!) holding open a door for them.


It gets a bit tiresome after a while to have men apologizing to me for imagined insults and offenses when I'm not insulted or offended at all, just because at some point they were screeched at by some feminist with an axe to grind.

And while feminists are entitled to their feelings and opinions, they are NOT entitled to speak for all women, and they're NOT entitled to act like we don't know what the hell we're talking about, and to be told that those of us who don't have the same rules are part of the problem.

So I'm just going to say thanks for your response.

Last edited Thu Jun 12, 2014, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

and my Mother had one rule "Boys do NOT hit Girls". It was rough when they were BIGGER then me, but became of little consequence once I became larger. Guys taking abuse from Girls is no big thing, it is like dealing with anyone, you have to take the good with the bad.

Now, you did mention one big differences between the sexes, fighting. Most male fighting is positioning fighting, neither participate whats to hurt the other, but they also want to show the point where they will not be pushed (and how far to push another boy). Thus boys fight, and then get back to working together. Girls are a different issue, most girl fights are to the death. they WANT to do harm to each other. Afterward the tension that caused the fight continues (unlike boys fighting where such tensions tend to disappear). Worse, boys fight under understood rules NOT to harm each other, girls do NOT fight under those rules. Thus girls get into less fights, but they tend to be more serious then boys fights.

I also joke about the man I saw running from his wife. I asked him why was he running? He could take down his wife at any time. He turned to me and said three things can happen when a man gets into a fight with a woman:

1. The Woman beats, him, and his friends laugh at him for not being able to beat a woman.
2. The man wins, and he gets the reputation as a Wife Beater i.e. can not fight men, but willing to beat up on women.
3. Be called a coward for running away.

His choice was simple, given the above three bad choices, being called a coward was the best of three bad options. Thus he ran away till she calmed down. This reflects women's tendency NOT to do positioning fighting, which is the norm among preteen males (by high school most males have worked past that tendency thus you see if mostly in Grade School and Middle School).

This difference between the sexes exist, to a limited extent, to adulthood. Men, being the larger in size and muscle, when in a "fight" with a woman (not abuse, that is a different subject) tend to keep it verbal even if a woman does minor physical acts to him. This goes back to his childhood where beating up someone weaker was NOT looked on with favor by his friends. Women also follows this trend for they rarely believe they will prevail in a physical fight with a male.

Side note: Abuse is different then the "fights" I mention above. Every relationship has "fights" that is where two people disagree. Abuse is when the point is not the disagreement but to put someone down, either verbally or physically. On the surface people confuse fights with abuse, but once you look into the situation you see the difference. In a "Fight" the parties never try to harm one another, in abuse to harm the other is the point. I have seen 5 foot women get in "Fights" with 6 foot men, but the fight NEVER becomes abuse for such abuse is not the intention of either party (Given the size differences these tend to remain verbal fights). On the other hand I have seen abuse done by weaker people on stronger people (through it is mostly men on women) so to put the other person in "her or his place". I have seen that done not only physically but also verbally (and sometime exclusively verbally). I must make myself clear that when I am using the term "Fight" I do not mean "abuse".

be addressed, the same if a boy does it.

i did not teach my boys to allow a girl to beat them up. this is an issue we absolutely addressed while they were young. i taled to teachers, administration, the girl herself.

boys do not always get back together when fighting with boys. a stupid saying we tell ourselves.

there are girls that get back together after a fight. another stupid we tell ourselves.

it just is not very hard.

In most cases, if the fight is a positioning fight, the boys will get back together almost all the time. On the other hand if the fight is something else, then they will not. Most boys fight are positioning fights NOT anything more. Thus the fighting boys will get back together. On the other hand if the fight is NOT a positioning fight then you have other problems that must be addressed.

i disagree. somewhere along the way we started telling this story, along with the many stories we tell ourselves to create walls to hem in, rules to follow so we can identify by gender. bullshit.

and your rock shit was off too.

but. i liked the effort you put forth, thought, and time spent. a lot of good in your post, too.

The analogy of the big heavy rock only makes sense if it is about cooperation between individuals. Not sexes.

Chivalry is not dating. It is also not cooperation.

Your point about some feminists wanting to turn everything into rape, because women give up equality to get sex, makes no sense to me. How is that anything to do with rape?



As for me, I dont want "equality" (as you put it) with men, in this fucked up, hierarchical, capitalist system.

I want freedom from the patriarchy - not equality within it.

that should just become a motto. i want it on a tshirt.

This one --> "Yes in the sense I have seen Feminists treating the the desire of women to have sex as the main reason women give up equal rights. Notice such feminists are NOT taking about rape itself, but that woman often give up equal rights to keep peace with their sexual partner." I'm not really familiar with this argument (and it strikes me as bizarre), and would like to get a better understanding of what was stated, and in what context.

Thank you,

Bryant

Well stated.

1. "Feminists hate men

This has nothing to do with pair bonding because it's about how a ideologue engaged in a ideology sees people. By your pair bonding logic we would not have to worry about either sex 'hating' each other but feminist often insist a great many problems are caused by 'misogyny'. Your position contradicts feminists own perspective on gender relations. In fact if you go into a feminists focused thread and listen to feminist you'll hear endless list of fears and complaints about men whom they presume think or act the way they do because they don't like women. If people take up the mindset that some people hate or fears them it's likely they will resent if not hate people. This is common sense. Feminist do engage in a great deal of male resentment, fear, if not hate at the very least rhetorically.

2. "Feminists are hypocrites, because chivalry is a female privilege."

Chivalry is a privilege and it's hypocrisy to ignore it. To some extent this is ignored because we become some complacent with our gender biases that favor women. Expecting men to defend women is something we take for granted as a society and feminist do the same. If women's gender role conferred no privilege it would make very little sense in a world where men were competing for the favor of women as you stated. Of course women competed for men but not by defending them from physical threats or providing them with material resources for survival. The patriarchy was setup to have men perform these roles and as such giving women these 'privileges' was expected of them. We still see these patterns in the dialog on the sexes. The focus stays on providing for and protecting women because that's what men were expected to do.

3. "The courts are biased against men and in favor of women in custody disputes."

You're way off target because you assume this standards " The Courts are bias in favor of whoever has the child at the time the case gets in front of the Court. " is not the bias they are talking about. The rest is irrelevant because you made the case for bias especially if the man didn't have the children because he was WORKING TO SUPPORT THEM! Since MRA's push for 'Shared Custody' as a default that would mitigate such inequality they'd see this current system as biased if a custody fight is required to gain equal access to your children.

4. "Male circumcision is just as bad as female genital mutilation"!!!!

There are 4000 nerve endings in that foreskin. It was not made obsolete by clothes. I have one of these penis things and clothes hurt as they rub against the exposed head. Your observations were far to dismissive on a issue that comes down to bodily autonomy. Chopping off body parts is mutilation. We're not talking about stuff that grows back.

"5. Men have always been drafted, for in most cases Armies need people with upper body strength which men tend to have more of then women."

We always had segregated schools said the segregationist. Appeals to tradition aren't real arguments. It's a privilege to not get drafted as they stated.

"6. Men objectified? Yes, men are made fun of, but people always make fun of their superiors"

Sexist and stupid. Men aren't women's superiors and men and women relate person to person not group to group. We are talking about individuals operating in a equality framework with equal populations and considerable influence and power on both sides. Men fear women's judgment and women's men's. Being seen as a fool to the other would bother both.

"7. False rape charges are endemic??

This line here "Rape is an attack on women. " No it's an attack on a person. Anything put in the sexist frame work that marginalizes victims is invalid and so goes much of your commentary on rape.
"I bring this up for there is to much rape in the world today, and false accusations comes no where near the actual level of rape and thus a false charge in its face. "

The point of bringing up false accusations only relates to what's reported and what proportion of that is false. I don't believe their is a epidemic of false accusations but they do exist. If we assume none exist then guilt is presumed and justice goes out the window. We must remained unbiased as possible.

"8. "Feminists want to turn everything into rape". Yes and no."

Since the point is hyperbole I can't address this literally. To say they expand the definition of rape beyond most peoples accepted range the answer would be yes and it runs the risk of trivializing rape. If we call rape a whole range of offenses that border on thought crimes like rape by misrepresenting one's feelings for a person or threatening to leave them to gain sex we make a person who was truly forced to have sex appear far less significant.

Another real danger is someone using the lower unapproved threshold could end up making false rape accusations on that basis.


"Notice such feminists are NOT taking about rape itself, but that woman often give up equal rights to keep peace with their sexual partner."

That makes no sense to me. People make concessions for peace with their partners, not just women. Compromise is something we do in relationships. Giving up freedom or 'rights' voluntarily is that individuals business but it's also their right to leave the relationship at anytime.

Am I chivalrous if I defend my husband or is that only for men?

is either breathtakingly ignorant or obnoxiously trolling. Fortunately I have never encountered anyone (online or IRL) who made this ludicrous claim.

I've always been fascinated when one guy jumps into a thread like this and doubles down through the whole thread. There is absolutely no reflection with guys like that.

No stepping back and saying---shit I'm the only douchebag in this thread.

Oh well---I guess some really don't care if they look like an idiot.

lets start with this one which is so obvious:

The courts are biased against men and in favor of women in custody disputes.

http://www.attorneys.com/child-custody/why-do-women-win-most-custody-battles/

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/3145.htm

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data/

The first starts out with similar info as the OP link:

It's gone just swell so far. One can always hope.

from the scary feminists?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025052769



Update: Misogyny Fest '14 has been canceled.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10025085565

I might've missed the good news.