#Gamergate, the war on nerds, and the corruption of the left and the free press

[CitizenKain]

Pretty weak rebuttal, there... I at least come forward with some data and links and purposely avoid the pure-emotion & dogma argument.

Hahahahahaha. Oh god, the irony here is amazing.

 

[Chiropteran]

Hahahahahaha. Oh god, the irony here is amazing.

Look at this disgusting man-pig bringing up ironing just because it's a feminism thread. Women don't exist to do your chores.

 

[Spungo]

Sorry, where is the 99% of feminists are hate-filled radical monsters data? Because right now, yes, I have a problem with your line of reasoning.

Um, the plethora of laws I just posted about? Extremely anti-male laws didn't come into existence because 99% of feminists are reasonable people and only 1% passionately hate men. Most of them hate men. Treating men as faceless objects is the mainstream feminist view. The growing popularity of this hatred is very concerning.

For example, look for any article where a man or woman suggests men get reproductive rights equal to that of a woman. As a woman, I have the choice of having a baby or not having a baby. Men should have the same financial choice. If they don't want a child, they should be able to financially opt out by signing a piece of paper saying "I do not want this child. It is not my legal responsibility. Carrying this baby to term is against my own wishes." Almost every comment on every article will say this stance is wrong. Suggesting men get equal rights is considered misogyny.
The mainstream view is that men should have absolutely no control over their own lives. Men only exist to serve women. A man wants to keep a baby but the woman doesn't? She can abort it without his consent, which I agree with. My body, my rules. What if the woman wants to keep the baby but the man does not? He's fucked. He can't opt out. He has absolutely no rights. The government and its feminist policies see a man as nothing more than a source of money.

But here's a question... what action?

Change of public opinion. Slavery ended because people decided to stop being evil. As it turns out, black people are humans too, and they should be treated like humans. I think we need to start treating men like humans. Men are people too. They have emotions, they have desires, they feel pain, and they don't like being caged. The poor treatment of men, especially black men, is caused by dehumanization. What do you see on every sitcom made in the past 30 years? Men are idiots, men are horrible parents, men are pedophiles, men don't care about relationships, etc. It's all negative. Once a target group is dehumanized, it becomes morally acceptable to mistreat them. The target group could be blacks, it could be Jews, it could Japanese, or it could be men in general. I was always baffled by the TV portrayal of men because none of the men in my life are like that. My dad cared a lot about his family. He worked hard so we could have nice things. He chose a job with lots of vacation time so we could spend more time together as a family. He was there for every hockey and soccer game. He was always there to help. If that was the media portrayal of men, it would be very difficult to justify any of the feminist laws we have. Instead of portraying quotas as a benefit for women, what if it were depicted as sexual discrimination against men? Where are the TV shows or movies showing a man getting fired and his family losing their house due to sexism? The media conveniently forgets that side of the story because men are not considered people. They are "assets" or "workers" but never people.

 

[Ns1]

Men should have the same financial choice. If they don't want a child, they should be able to financially opt out by signing a piece of paper saying "I do not want this child. It is not my legal responsibility.

 

[jackstar7]

Um, the plethora of laws I just posted about? Extremely anti-male laws didn't come into existence because 99% of feminists are reasonable people and only 1% passionately hate men. Most of them hate men. Treating men as faceless objects is the mainstream feminist view. The growing popularity of this hatred is very concerning.

For example, look for any article where a man or woman suggests men get reproductive rights equal to that of a woman. As a woman, I have the choice of having a baby or not having a baby. Men should have the same financial choice. If they don't want a child, they should be able to financially opt out by signing a piece of paper saying "I do not want this child. It is not my legal responsibility. Carrying this baby to term is against my own wishes." Almost every comment on every article will say this stance is wrong. Suggesting men get equal rights is considered misogyny.
The mainstream view is that men should have absolutely no control over their own lives. Men only exist to serve women. A man wants to keep a baby but the woman doesn't? She can abort it without his consent, which I agree with. My body, my rules. What if the woman wants to keep the baby but the man does not? He's fucked. He can't opt out. He has absolutely no rights. The government and its feminist policies see a man as nothing more than a source of money.

Change of public opinion. Slavery ended because people decided to stop being evil. As it turns out, black people are humans too, and they should be treated like humans. I think we need to start treating men like humans. Men are people too. They have emotions, they have desires, they feel pain, and they don't like being caged. The poor treatment of men, especially black men, is caused by dehumanization. What do you see on every sitcom made in the past 30 years? Men are idiots, men are horrible parents, men are pedophiles, men don't care about relationships, etc. It's all negative. Once a target group is dehumanized, it becomes morally acceptable to mistreat them. The target group could be blacks, it could be Jews, it could Japanese, or it could be men in general. I was always baffled by the TV portrayal of men because none of the men in my life are like that. My dad cared a lot about his family. He worked hard so we could have nice things. He chose a job with lots of vacation time so we could spend more time together as a family. He was there for every hockey and soccer game. He was always there to help. If that was the media portrayal of men, it would be very difficult to justify any of the feminist laws we have. Instead of portraying quotas as a benefit for women, what if it were depicted as sexual discrimination against men? Where are the TV shows or movies showing a man getting fired and his family losing their house due to sexism? The media conveniently forgets that side of the story because men are not considered people. They are "assets" or "workers" but never people.

I think part of the problem here is that you see this movement as an attack on your family. Of course you're going to react with hostility towards a force working against your family. BUT that de-contextualizes a lot of the issues here to the complete reverse of reality.

We all pay for the sins of the least among us. Bad apples ruin the bunch. The pieces of shit out there provoke extreme reactions. If you want to persuade people, you might look for compromise, rather than antagonism. You have to reconcile that these extreme reactions from feminists are not unprovoked. Or do you dismiss it all as the work of opportunists? That would be remarkably cynical.

If the action is to change opinions... I'm strongly encouraging you to pick less extreme comparisons, regardless of how valid you are convinced that they are. It's unproductive. I'm telling you as someone whose mind has not been swayed, those comparisons come across as hyperbolic and incendiary, not informative.


To quote Big Boi:

With precision I pick or
Make my selection on who I choose to be wit' girl
Don't touch my protection, I know you want it to slip
But slippin' is somethin' I don't do, tippin' for life
That's like makin' it rain every month on schedule
Let me tell you, get your parasol umbrella
Cause it's gonna get wetter
Better prepare ya for the C support
She supposed to spend it on that baby but we see she don't
"Ask-ask Paul McCartney, the lawyers couldn't stop it"
"Slaughter-slaughterin' of them pockets"
"Had to tie her to a rocket"
Send her in to outer space, I know he wish he could
Cause he payin' 20K a day, that bitch is eating good
Like an infant on a double D titty, just getting plump
Cause you miscalculated the next to the-the last pump
"Dump-dump in the gut, raw from the giddy up"
"Better choose that right one or pick-pick the kiddies up"

 

[Spungo]

I think part of the problem here is that you see this movement as an attack on your family. Of course you're going to react with hostility towards a force working against your family. BUT that de-contextualizes a lot of the issues here to the complete reverse of reality.

Of course it's an attack on my family. Most of my family is men. They've been the victims of this feminist garbage. This isn't some hypothetical concern. We're talking about tens of thousands of dollars stolen, physical abuse endured, psychological abuse endured, and having no legal way of fighting back. This is exactly the kind of crap blacks had to deal with in the past. White guy assaulted you? No recourse. Police won't take file a report, lawyers won't talk to you, the media doesn't care, and you'll be arrested if you fight back. As long as you're seen as a sub-human creature, nobody cares if you are abused.

If you want to persuade people, you might look for compromise, rather than antagonism.

How can there be any compromise with feminists? We should treat all men like criminals only some of the time? Should we negotiate with the KKK and only hate black people some of the time? I refuse to accept those terms. To me, sexism is always immoral. Period. No exceptions. I don't care what your personal sob story is and I don't care how many times your father raped you; stealing money from my relative just because he's a man is wrong. If men have wronged you, get those men thrown in jail. Don't attack innocent people. How are feminists any different than the people who go out and lynch a random black person because an unidentified black guy raped someone? Some men are scumbags; therefore, all men should be treated like pedophiles and wife beaters? Some black men rob stores, so all black men should be stopped and frisked by police? Do you see how this way of thinking leads to a very dark place? The banker who conned me was Jewish; therefore, we should kill all Jews. We're at war with Japan, so we should put all Japanese Americans in camps. A member of group X wronged me; therefore, we need to victimize every member of group X.

You have to reconcile that these extreme reactions from feminists are not unprovoked.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Any time a woman or group of women attack a man, the very first thing people ask is "what did he do to provoke this?" A woman cheats on a man, people ask "what did he do to drive her away?" People never think women could possibly do anything wrong. That is what sexism looks like. What you just said is the crap my brother had to deal with when he was being abused. His abusive girlfriend was being crazy, so a man must have provoked it somehow. My brother must have hits her or something. There's no possible way a woman could have borderline personality disorder and go on a psychotic rampage without being provoked. The crazy feminist society we live in thinks men can't possibly be victims, and that's why so many of the men in my extended family have been victimized without any way to defend against it. Feminists textbooks literally define discrimination as a combination of prejudice and power, and then they will say groups X, Y , and Z can't possibly discriminate because they don't have power. Blacks can't be racist because they don't have political power; Reginald Denny being attacked for being white is clearly not racism. Women can't be sexist because we don't have power, despite being the voting majority in every democratic country as well as the majority of college students and college graduates.

Why can't we go back to the old definition of discrimination? The one that doesn't mention political power or voting blocks or whatever?
Discrimination:
The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

That kind of "he was asking for it" reasoning is a lot more common than I would like. I remember a story where a white guy was viciously attacked by a group of black men in the ghetto. Police response? It's not a racially motivated hate crime. That white guy must have provoked them somehow. There's no way black people would ever show any racist behavior, apparently.
A woman gets raped? She was clearly asking for it. Men would never just rape some woman out of the blue.
In the past, this even extended to birth defects. Born with a severe birth defect? You must have angered God to deserve that. There's no way God would randomly hand out birth defects.

Or do you dismiss it all as the work of opportunists? That would be remarkably cynical.

So it's possible for white men to create a brutally unfair system that enslaved black people (America), and it's possible for black men to create a brutally unfair system that enslaved other black people (Liberia), but there's absolutely no way an intelligent group of angry white women could create a system that is brutally unfair to men? I can see why first and second wave feminism were important. Just convincing men that we're capable of doing anything is a never ending struggle.

If the action is to change opinions... I'm strongly encouraging you to pick less extreme comparisons, regardless of how valid you are convinced that they are. It's unproductive. I'm telling you as someone whose mind has not been swayed, those comparisons come across as hyperbolic and incendiary, not informative.

Fair enough. I'm not interested in convincing all men that something is awry. It's not like the fight against feminism requires voting or violence. It just requires information. Do I insist that my brother turn gay or something? Of course not. He can date all the women (or men?) he wants. I just want him and people like him to be aware of how the system works. Allowing a woman to move in turned out to be an absolutely terrible idea. It's not because women are terrible. I know I'm not a bad person, but because the government is terrible. If you're a man being abused, nobody can save you. The laws are actively against you if you're a man. Instead of changing laws, learn to work with the existing laws. Don't allow women to move in with you. Don't get married. Don't cosign loans. Don't ever share bank accounts, not even when you're married. Simply put, protest by refusing to participate.

 

[werepossum]

Spungo, once again you've made some very good points. I'll make three counterpoints. First, the male inability to forswear a child is not so much radical feminism as recognition of the natural asymmetry in human reproduction. A man can walk away from a baby; financial support is literally the only thing he absolutely has to contribute. A woman has to either terminate the pregnancy or bear the child. I guarantee you that if babies came out through peckers we'd be a lot more discerning about where we put them.

Second, your war isn't with feminists, it's with that subset who are feminists by avocation and their willing enablers. Most people who identify as feminists would no doubt agree that forcing a man to financially support a child who isn't his is just insane.

Third, while I agree that radical feminists should not be allowed to go unopposed, how we oppose them is at least as important. If we rage and foam to the point that a disinterested observer sees them as the rational side, we've done more harm than good for our side. (I'm not saying you do this; I'm fine with your examples, although like Blackjack I pretty much discount all examples to Nazis. I'm just saying that a lot of the #Gamergate opposition has been incredibly vitriolic and most people, not having the sensibilities and rhino hide required to debate politics on the Internet, see them as insane.)

And personally I've been married twice and shared finances both times without problems. If my wife leaves me and takes our collective money, the money is the absolute least I have lost. Who steals my purse, steals trash. In today's world, we need to modify "It's okay to fuck the crazy, but never move in with the crazy" to "just stay away from the crazy". If a woman screws you over after a year, that's on you; your brother did not do his due diligence.

 

[Spungo]

Spungo, once again you've made some very good points. I'll make three counterpoints. First, the male inability to forswear a child is not so much radical feminism as recognition of the natural asymmetry in human reproduction.

Killing unborn babies is not natural, but the law allows that. We can argue all day about whether or not a fetus is a human, but in the end, it turns into a human. People are allowed to kill that thing, but men are not allowed to refuse payment? How does that make sense? Maybe the logic is that refused payment would lead to more killing. "I can't trap my boyfriend by lying about being on birth control then extracting money from him for the next 18 years? Damn. I better abort this thing." That might sound absurd, but a lot of women really think that way. You would too if you worked a minimum wage job and had a nice body that men wanted. It's not just Michael Jordan being targeted by lower class women. Even a regular guy with a really nice job could be a target. Do you make 60k per year? 70k? More? If so, I could probably get some significant money out of you. Women are just people. If you put that incentive out there, people are going to abuse it. Would I want to have a baby with a celebrity just to extract money? I would like to say no, but my opinion could change if the numbers were big enough. Would you sleep with Jennifer Aniston if you were rewarded with a monthly pay check for the next 18 years? The catch is that you will be a single father, but you still get to date, sleep with, and marry other women, and the baby will probably be exceptionally beautiful when it grows up. Are you down with this arrangement? Maybe you don't want this, but there are thousands of men behind you who would jump at the chance.

A man can walk away from a baby

Not really. You're legally bound to that child. If you disappear, you will be found, and you will be thrown in jail. This isn't 1930. We have computers. We can find you anywhere in the country. Maybe I should say they. They can find you anywhere in the country.

As a first class citizen, I'm not subject to any of your pitiful laws
How you can legally abandon your child, but only if you're the mother.
btw I'm not saying we should take that right away from women. Those safe haven laws exist so babies don't end up in dumpsters. The lesson here is that mothers are allowed to financially abandon their children. Fathers are not.

financial support is literally the only thing he absolutely has to contribute. A woman has to either terminate the pregnancy or bear the child. I guarantee you that if babies came out through peckers we'd be a lot more discerning about where we put them.

If the threat of having to pay a 100k over the next 18 years doesn't make you think twice, I'm guessing pregnancy won't change your mind. Lower class women are a perfect example of this. Why on earth would a poor woman want 5 kids? The same reason a poor man would want 5 kids. There is no reason. They never thought about it. As Homer famously said, "Kids just happen." Think of it this way: how the hell do people contract HIV? This is literally a life or death choice, and people still get it wrong. Use a condom? Nevar! Buy a big bag of diabetic needles from the store for $2 or whatever? Screw it, let's just share needles! Honest to god, I've heard a guy say he liked anal sex because he didn't need to use condoms. Death is acceptable, but pregnancy is the end of the world. What the hell? People are idiots.

Second, your war isn't with feminists, it's with that subset who are feminists by avocation and their willing enablers. Most people who identify as feminists would no doubt agree that forcing a man to financially support a child who isn't his is just insane.

Those reasonable feminists might be the majority, but where are they? Why are they not fighting against the insane feminists? Where are the protests? Where are the feminists who fight against the feminists trying to shut down conversations about male victims of domestic violence?

It's people who call themselves feminists who try to shout down issues affecting men, and it's self proclaimed feminists who shout down all attempts to make things equal. I'm not in a position to say whether or not they are true Scotsmen. They say they are, so I just need to believe them. If I'm going to call Bruce Jenner a woman because she identifies as a woman, it seems a bit inconsistent to start selecting which people are allowed to identify as feminists.

Third, while I agree that radical feminists should not be allowed to go unopposed, how we oppose them is at least as important. If we rage and foam to the point that a disinterested observer sees them as the rational side, we've done more harm than good for our side.

A part of me doesn't want to "win" the argument. One thing that I absolutely love doing is giving real advice and being completely right, but phrasing things in such a way that people choose not to listen. Then I get to laugh at people when they choose failure. For example, instead of saying it's unwise to share bank accounts with anyone, say something like "He/she is only suggesting joint access because they plan to rob you. Nobody gives access to another person with the intention of losing." Am I right? Absolutely. Nobody suggests reducing the amount of power they have in any situation. It's so obviously a set up. People don't listen, they get taken to the cleaners, I laugh, they cry. I know a lot more women who have been cleaned out than men. Men seem to be aware that women can be predatory when it comes to money. For whatever reason, women get caught flat footed when this happens. It's like you're expecting manipulation from the right hand (sex), and you get smacked with the left hand (money).

#Gamergate opposition has been incredibly vitriolic and most people, not having the sensibilities and rhino hide required to debate politics on the Internet, see them as insane.)

The feminists definitely outsmarted the gamers on this one. Assuming feminists are stupid is probably the worst mistake anyone can make. Never underestimate your enemy. Anita Sarkeesian might be a terrible person, but she's very smart. Any time she needed attention, she would poke the wasp nest, collect the craziest messages, and post those crazy messages. The feminists know they can't win this argument with merit or logic or morals, so they derail every conversation. Instead of talking about ethics in journalism and whether or not it's acceptable to give reviews and commentary of games written by your personal friends without giving full disclosure, feminists turn the conversation into the equivalent of "Why do you hate America?" Then they keep repeating that. "All I heard was that you hate America (or hate women). Why do you hate America so much?"
Suddenly gamers are trying to explain how they don't hate women, which is the exact opposite of how you should respond to such accusations. See: Nixon's famous "I'm not a crook." You say you're not a crook? That probably means you're a crook, and you hate America. Only a guy who hates women would need to explain how he doesn't hate women.

And personally I've been married twice and shared finances both times without problems. If my wife leaves me and takes our collective money, the money is the absolute least I have lost.

If your life savings and retirement fund are the least of your assets, I'm wondering what you have stored in your basement.

Who steals my purse, steals trash. In today's world, we need to modify "It's okay to fuck the crazy, but never move in with the crazy" to "just stay away from the crazy". If a woman screws you over after a year, that's on you; your brother did not do his due diligence.

People can hide stuff remarkably well. I've lost a few friends and relatives to suicide; it feels like everyone has. Nobody saw it coming. Everyone is smiling and having fun, and suddenly someone is dead. You really have no way of knowing how much pain someone is feeling. They might be nice and happy around you, but they cry hysterically when you are not around. Some of your coworkers, male or female, might be victims of domestic abuse, and you wouldn't even realize it. They come in with a smile, they act friendly, they work hard. Little do you know that their home life is in chaos, they are being abused or going through a terrible divorce, or they're stressed because their husband or wife is dying from cancer.

My concern is that my brother didn't marry this borderline personality woman but he still had trouble getting rid of her. All it takes is a phone call and the words "he hit me" to completely destroy your world. You can't just throw her out and you can't just break up with her. She has the entire government behind her. She is the boss, and there is nothing you can do to stop her. Getting rid of her is a very difficult task.

Try skimming through this if you have time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder
I'm very certain you'll immediately recognize the symptoms. Either you've dated someone like that, or you know someone like that, or you know someone who dated someone like that. It's the personality disorder shown in the movie Fatal Attraction. It's such a severe mental illness that most psychiatrists don't even bother trying to fix it.

 

[werepossum]

Killing unborn babies is not natural, but the law allows that. We can argue all day about whether or not a fetus is a human, but in the end, it turns into a human. People are allowed to kill that thing, but men are not allowed to refuse payment? How does that make sense? Maybe the logic is that refused payment would lead to more killing. "I can't trap my boyfriend by lying about being on birth control then extracting money from him for the next 18 years? Damn. I better abort this thing." That might sound absurd, but a lot of women really think that way. You would too if you worked a minimum wage job and had a nice body that men wanted. It's not just Michael Jordan being targeted by lower class women. Even a regular guy with a really nice job could be a target. Do you make 60k per year? 70k? More? If so, I could probably get some significant money out of you. Women are just people. If you put that incentive out there, people are going to abuse it. Would I want to have a baby with a celebrity just to extract money? I would like to say no, but my opinion could change if the numbers were big enough. Would you sleep with Jennifer Aniston if you were rewarded with a monthly pay check for the next 18 years? The catch is that you will be a single father, but you still get to date, sleep with, and marry other women, and the baby will probably be exceptionally beautiful when it grows up. Are you down with this arrangement? Maybe you don't want this, but there are thousands of men behind you who would jump at the chance.



Not really. You're legally bound to that child. If you disappear, you will be found, and you will be thrown in jail. This isn't 1930. We have computers. We can find you anywhere in the country. Maybe I should say they. They can find you anywhere in the country.

As a first class citizen, I'm not subject to any of your pitiful laws
How you can legally abandon your child, but only if you're the mother.
btw I'm not saying we should take that right away from women. Those safe haven laws exist so babies don't end up in dumpsters. The lesson here is that mothers are allowed to financially abandon their children. Fathers are not.



If the threat of having to pay a 100k over the next 18 years doesn't make you think twice, I'm guessing pregnancy won't change your mind. Lower class women are a perfect example of this. Why on earth would a poor woman want 5 kids? The same reason a poor man would want 5 kids. There is no reason. They never thought about it. As Homer famously said, "Kids just happen." Think of it this way: how the hell do people contract HIV? This is literally a life or death choice, and people still get it wrong. Use a condom? Nevar! Buy a big bag of diabetic needles from the store for $2 or whatever? Screw it, let's just share needles! Honest to god, I've heard a guy say he liked anal sex because he didn't need to use condoms. Death is acceptable, but pregnancy is the end of the world. What the hell? People are idiots.



Those reasonable feminists might be the majority, but where are they? Why are they not fighting against the insane feminists? Where are the protests? Where are the feminists who fight against the feminists trying to shut down conversations about male victims of domestic violence?

It's people who call themselves feminists who try to shout down issues affecting men, and it's self proclaimed feminists who shout down all attempts to make things equal. I'm not in a position to say whether or not they are true Scotsmen. They say they are, so I just need to believe them. If I'm going to call Bruce Jenner a woman because she identifies as a woman, it seems a bit inconsistent to start selecting which people are allowed to identify as feminists.




A part of me doesn't want to "win" the argument. One thing that I absolutely love doing is giving real advice and being completely right, but phrasing things in such a way that people choose not to listen. Then I get to laugh at people when they choose failure. For example, instead of saying it's unwise to share bank accounts with anyone, say something like "He/she is only suggesting joint access because they plan to rob you. Nobody gives access to another person with the intention of losing." Am I right? Absolutely. Nobody suggests reducing the amount of power they have in any situation. It's so obviously a set up. People don't listen, they get taken to the cleaners, I laugh, they cry. I know a lot more women who have been cleaned out than men. Men seem to be aware that women can be predatory when it comes to money. For whatever reason, women get caught flat footed when this happens. It's like you're expecting manipulation from the right hand (sex), and you get smacked with the left hand (money).



The feminists definitely outsmarted the gamers on this one. Assuming feminists are stupid is probably the worst mistake anyone can make. Never underestimate your enemy. Anita Sarkeesian might be a terrible person, but she's very smart. Any time she needed attention, she would poke the wasp nest, collect the craziest messages, and post those crazy messages. The feminists know they can't win this argument with merit or logic or morals, so they derail every conversation. Instead of talking about ethics in journalism and whether or not it's acceptable to give reviews and commentary of games written by your personal friends without giving full disclosure, feminists turn the conversation into the equivalent of "Why do you hate America?" Then they keep repeating that. "All I heard was that you hate America (or hate women). Why do you hate America so much?"
Suddenly gamers are trying to explain how they don't hate women, which is the exact opposite of how you should respond to such accusations. See: Nixon's famous "I'm not a crook." You say you're not a crook? That probably means you're a crook, and you hate America. Only a guy who hates women would need to explain how he doesn't hate women.


If your life savings and retirement fund are the least of your assets, I'm wondering what you have stored in your basement.


People can hide stuff remarkably well. I've lost a few friends and relatives to suicide; it feels like everyone has. Nobody saw it coming. Everyone is smiling and having fun, and suddenly someone is dead. You really have no way of knowing how much pain someone is feeling. They might be nice and happy around you, but they cry hysterically when you are not around. Some of your coworkers, male or female, might be victims of domestic abuse, and you wouldn't even realize it. They come in with a smile, they act friendly, they work hard. Little do you know that their home life is in chaos, they are being abused or going through a terrible divorce, or they're stressed because their husband or wife is dying from cancer.

My concern is that my brother didn't marry this borderline personality woman but he still had trouble getting rid of her. All it takes is a phone call and the words "he hit me" to completely destroy your world. You can't just throw her out and you can't just break up with her. She has the entire government behind her. She is the boss, and there is nothing you can do to stop her. Getting rid of her is a very difficult task.

Try skimming through this if you have time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder
I'm very certain you'll immediately recognize the symptoms. Either you've dated someone like that, or you know someone like that, or you know someone who dated someone like that. It's the personality disorder shown in the movie Fatal Attraction. It's such a severe mental illness that most psychiatrists don't even bother trying to fix it.

I really don't disagree with any of that. My wife wants to get that monthly check in writing before I get permission to do Anniston though, that and a list of whatever perversions she has in mind. (My wife has some suggestions, although they aren't legal in most of the South.) I actually know some guys who have been fucked over royally by the system. One came home one day to find that his wife of ten months had changed the locks on his house - HIS house, which far predated her and to which she had contributed not a penny. And one who came home one day to find that his wife had taken their kids, filed a police report accusing him of abusing her and the kids, and left. None of that was true, and it took months before he found her, months before he could see his kids and more months before he could see them without police supervision. (She eventually admitted that her preacher had cooked up this plan and not a word of it was true.) Both those guys were BIG and could have broken them in half. Other hand, I knew a girl who at eighteen was given a ride home by a friend of a friend. He took her to the woods, raped her, beat her up, cut her to pieces, and left her for dead. That is not something that worries men.

Oh, and there's nothing in my basement more valuable than fish tanks. I meant only that if my wife left me, that loss would dwarf the little we have that she could take.

 

[Spungo]

I knew a girl who at eighteen was given a ride home by a friend of a friend. He took her to the woods, raped her, beat her up, cut her to pieces, and left her for dead. That is not something that worries men.

This quote really demonstrates the issue I have with feminists. Why are you assuming men are safer than women? You didn't come up with that on your own. Someone, or a specific group that shall remain nameless, deliberately put that idea in your head, and it's completely wrong. Men are about 4x more likely to be murdered than women. Yes you should be worried about being killed. Yes you should worry about walking alone at night. Yes you should be worried about random acts of violence. Being a man doesn't make you safer. The mere fact that you didn't know this, and you underestimate how much danger you are in, puts you at risk, and that's exactly what feminists want. They don't want men to know how dangerous it is to be a man. They don't want men to be safer. They don't want to reduce violence against men. To feminists, you are not a human being. Some of the crazier ones literally hope you die. (let's just kill a few billion men).

Feminists spend a lot of time sticking to the script that all victims are women and all criminals are men. In reality, the stats say men are the primary victims of violence. I can understand feminists trying to draw attention to violence against women because that's the whole point of forming an advocacy group - raise awareness of a real problem. What I find reprehensible is that nobody is allowed to talk about male victims of violence. There is no public support for male victims. There is no discussion of how to reduce male on male violence, female on male violence, or even female on female violence. Domestic abuse in lesbian relationships is astonishingly high, but that issue gets swept under the rug as well because it goes against the propaganda. If women hit women, it can't be talked about. If women hit men, it can't be talked about. If men hit men, it can't be talked about. Men hitting women is the only thing we're allowed to talk about. Anyone who disagrees is a misogynist or a "rape apologist" (the words used in a popular youtube clip of feminists protesting).

Feminists are basically the same as the black-white race baiters. What story does the media try to push? All white people are racist and there's an epidemic of white cops killing black people. What do the stats say? Most black victims, mostly men, were killed by other black men. If all of the attention is focused on this minor problem of white on black violence, it means the larger issue of black on black violence is deliberately swept under the rug, almost as if someone is trying to prevent that from being fixed. You already get swept under the rug just for being a man, but you get double swept if you're a black man. It's almost like someone wants there to be an epidemic of black on black violence just so there is someone to blame and extract money from.....
On a totally unrelated topic, Jesse Jackson's net worth is about 10 million dollars. It sure pays well to manufacture problems then solve those fake problems. I wonder if he sells cloud insurance.

 

[jackstar7]

This quote really demonstrates the issue I have with feminists. Why are you assuming men are safer than women? You didn't come up with that on your own. Someone, or a specific group that shall remain nameless, deliberately put that idea in your head, and it's completely wrong. Men are about 4x more likely to be murdered than women. Yes you should be worried about being killed. Yes you should worry about walking alone at night. Yes you should be worried about random acts of violence. Being a man doesn't make you safer. The mere fact that you didn't know this, and you underestimate how much danger you are in, puts you at risk, and that's exactly what feminists want. They don't want men to know how dangerous it is to be a man. They don't want men to be safer. They don't want to reduce violence against men. To feminists, you are not a human being. Some of the crazier ones literally hope you die. (let's just kill a few billion men).

Feminists spend a lot of time sticking to the script that all victims are women and all criminals are men. In reality, the stats say men are the primary victims of violence. I can understand feminists trying to draw attention to violence against women because that's the whole point of forming an advocacy group - raise awareness of a real problem. What I find reprehensible is that nobody is allowed to talk about male victims of violence. There is no public support for male victims. There is no discussion of how to reduce male on male violence, female on male violence, or even female on female violence. Domestic abuse in lesbian relationships is astonishingly high, but that issue gets swept under the rug as well because it goes against the propaganda. If women hit women, it can't be talked about. If women hit men, it can't be talked about. If men hit men, it can't be talked about. Men hitting women is the only thing we're allowed to talk about. Anyone who disagrees is a misogynist or a "rape apologist" (the words used in a popular youtube clip of feminists protesting).

Feminists are basically the same as the black-white race baiters. What story does the media try to push? All white people are racist and there's an epidemic of white cops killing black people. What do the stats say? Most black victims, mostly men, were killed by other black men. If all of the attention is focused on this minor problem of white on black violence, it means the larger issue of black on black violence is deliberately swept under the rug, almost as if someone is trying to prevent that from being fixed. You already get swept under the rug just for being a man, but you get double swept if you're a black man. It's almost like someone wants there to be an epidemic of black on black violence just so there is someone to blame and extract money from.....
On a totally unrelated topic, Jesse Jackson's net worth is about 10 million dollars. It sure pays well to manufacture problems then solve those fake problems. I wonder if he sells cloud insurance.

You mention things like 4x more likely and don't link to stats to back up that claim, but you link to more anti-fringe shit.

It would not be hard to point to all the nutjobs that threaten violence and rape to women, but I thought we were talking about the larger trends, not individual idiots.

This rhetorical style that you keep coming back to is counter-productive. It prompts me to want to argue with you rather than try and learn from you.

 

[Aikouka]

Other hand, I knew a girl who at eighteen was given a ride home by a friend of a friend. He took her to the woods, raped her, beat her up, cut her to pieces, and left her for dead. That is not something that worries men.

There's always going to be that physical disparity between the sexes, and unfortunately, some men decide to take that to their advantage. :\ That's most likely what gives men a sense of complacency even though women are perfectly capable of causing harm to men. Hm... I wonder if there's also a statistical difference in aggression between the sexes -- sort of like how you'd say that women tend to be more emotional/nurturing.

A man wants to keep a baby but the woman doesn't? She can abort it without his consent, which I agree with. My body, my rules. What if the woman wants to keep the baby but the man does not? He's fucked. He can't opt out. He has absolutely no rights.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You specifically say that it's okay for a woman to abort the child, because, and I quote, "My body, my rules." You just created the argument to go against your reasoning for males having a choice! If it's her body and her rules, why should we have a say?

 

[nixium]

There's always going to be that physical disparity between the sexes, and unfortunately, some men decide to take that to their advantage. :\ That's most likely what gives men a sense of complacency even though women are perfectly capable of causing harm to men. Hm... I wonder if there's also a statistical difference in aggression between the sexes -- sort of like how you'd say that women tend to be more emotional/nurturing.



Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You specifically say that it's okay for a woman to abort the child, because, and I quote, "My body, my rules." You just created the argument to go against your reasoning for males having a choice! If it's her body and her rules, why should we have a say?

I think the disparity is that her choice to do what she wants with her body forces another to be financially responsible for that choice, with no say in the choice. Generally, your rights end where mine begin, that sort of thing. This is a clear asymmetry, which we have accepted for two reasons- (a) for the well being of the child, and (b) machismo/shame the guy - he's not considered "a real man" if he abandons his child, even if he didn't want one.

So currently this is not a big problem because there's a higher percentage of married people than single parents. Maybe 50-60 years from now, when single parents are more common, I think we'll see "paper abortions" absolving men of the financial responsibility for children they don't want.

I think the bigger problem is if the woman wants to abort the child but the guy doesn't. Also, if she wants to abandon the child, even if he doesn't. IIRC, not all states is it required to get consent from the father if the mother wants to abandon the child at a safe haven or something.

 

[Spungo]

You mention things like 4x more likely and don't link to stats to back up that claim, but you link to more anti-fringe shit.

That's like asking for stats to prove the sky is blue. You could just look up instead of waiting for me to send you a picture.

"murder rate by gender" first google result:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635092
white space and labels added by me to make it easier to read

To study the potential differences that distinguish homicides involving women as victims or offenders from those involving men, we analyzed Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports data on homicides that occurred in the United States between 1976 and 1987.

Conditions:

- Only cases that involved victims aged 15 years or older were included.
- Persons killed during law enforcement activity and cases in which the victim's gender was not recorded were excluded.

Findings:

- A total of 215,273 homicides were studied,
77% of which involved male victims and 23% female victims.

- Although the overall risk of homicide for women was substantially lower than that of men (rate ratio [RR] = 0.27),
[women's] risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23).

- In contrast to men, the killing of a woman by a stranger was rare (RR = 0.18). More than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using guns, knives, or any other means.

- Although women comprise more than half the U.S. population, they committed only 14.7% of the homicides noted during the study interval.

- In contrast to men, who killed non-intimate acquaintances, strangers, or victims of undetermined relationship in 80% of cases, women killed their spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member in 60% of cases.

- When men killed with a gun, they most commonly shot a stranger or a non-family acquaintance.

The bolded one is important. Getting killed by a random person is actually very rare. This is also true for child abduction and child murder. It's almost always done by someone the victim knows.

It's not much better across the pond. In the UK, 68% of murder victims are male.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/20/ukcrime-criminal-justice

Same story in Canada. 74% of murder victims are male.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/2010024/part-partie1-eng.htm

This rhetorical style that you keep coming back to is counter-productive. It prompts me to want to argue with you rather than try and learn from you.

Disagree with me through your actions. Get married and have a stay at home wife. If I'm wrong, and the system is not completely stacked against men, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[jackstar7]

Disagree with me through your actions. Get married and have a stay at home wife. If I'm wrong, and the system is not completely stacked against men, you have nothing to worry about.

Firstly, you posted this, but didn't comment: "More than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using guns, knives, or any other means."

As for my personal situation... it could not be less relevant.

 

[nixium]

Disagree with me through your actions. Get married and have a stay at home wife. If I'm wrong, and the system is not completely stacked against men, you have nothing to worry about.

Agreed, this is possibly the worst thing a guy can do right now, because IMO the laws governing divorce, custody, etc are still in the 50s/60s when a majority of women stayed at home. So men face a giant financial penalty if this happens, even if it was the woman ending the marriage.

 

[Aikouka]

I think the disparity is that her choice to do what she wants with her body forces another to be financially responsible for that choice, with no say in the choice. Generally, your rights end where mine begin, that sort of thing. This is a clear asymmetry, which we have accepted for two reasons- (a) for the well being of the child, and (b) machismo/shame the guy - he's not considered "a real man" if he abandons his child, even if he didn't want one.

So currently this is not a big problem because there's a higher percentage of married people than single parents. Maybe 50-60 years from now, when single parents are more common, I think we'll see "paper abortions" absolving men of the financial responsibility for children they don't want.

I think the bigger problem is if the woman wants to abort the child but the guy doesn't. Also, if she wants to abandon the child, even if he doesn't. IIRC, not all states is it required to get consent from the father if the mother wants to abandon the child at a safe haven or something.

Abortion is kind of an odd subject. Looking at the US, we've got a group of people that want it outlawed. The opposition states that it's their body and their choice. That's essentially what we agree with, and what he also stated. The problem is that we're now stating, "Well, it's not really just your choice, but also his." What's even more amusing about that is the comment that I normally see about lawmakers and abortion is that it's "a man telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body." This is pretty much the same thing.

I do get where you and Spungo are coming from here, and what the complaint is ultimately about. There's just not much I can say about that aspect. The problem that we run into is that people just aren't responsible enough to have children in a proper situation. That's probably the whole reason why Christianity (and other religions) have rules about being chaste. If a guy walks out and has no obligations for a situation that he was most likely quite compliant in (i.e. he wanted to have sex too), someone will have to help, or the child will probably end up suffering. Although, that's kind of the point of a lot of our welfare programs. We provide assistance to the unfortunate because it helps avoid them getting to a point where they can't really pick up the pieces anymore.

I'm going to go a little off topic here, but I saw an amusing Facebook share the other day. This one was an obvious anti-welfare, conservative post where the original author tried to use a well-mannered, school-oriented girl and a crazy, party girl to compare a well-off, contributing member of society to someone on welfare (respectively). It started off with the studious girl debating with her father about wealth redistribution and such (of course, they referred to it as that rather than things like social programs). The father's grand rebuttal was, "You don't want to give 1 GPA to your crazy friend, that's like me not wanting to give my money to welfare!" I just kind of chuckled a bit, because these things love to try and paint the opposition as the worst. I mean, to analogize a crazy, party girl to someone who may work hard, but does so at a low-paying job seemed like a bit of a slap in the face to me. I was talking with a cashier at Kroger once, and hell... I felt terrible when she told me about having to go to a second job just to afford health care. My health care is flippin' free for my entire family (it's just me, but my family would be covered if I had one) at my job! D: The thing is... most people seem to have this "sucks to be you... should've made better choices" attitude, but I also realize that without these people to do the "menial jobs", how am I going to get anything at the grocery store (as an example)? These people that say, "fast food jobs are for high school students!", are sometimes the same people that go out during the day to get food. Hey bud... how is a high school student going to get you your goddamn cheeseburger -n- coke when they're in school?

 

[Blue_Max]

Agreed, this is possibly the worst thing a guy can do right now, because IMO the laws governing divorce, custody, etc are still in the 50s/60s when a majority of women stayed at home. So men face a giant financial penalty if this happens, even if it was the woman ending the marriage.

Of the marriages that do end, ~85% of them are initiated by the woman. #1 reason is "I'm just not happy enough." Those stats are disgusting.

But, since no-fault divorce was introduced, the laws favour her to get over half the stuff, the majority of the money, the home if there is one, few/none of the debts and primary custody of the kids meaning more free money in "child support". Possibly alimony as well.

So she gets a lump payment, a long-term paycheck, and the freedom to chase new men (suckers!)... pretty sweet deal for just saying "I'm not happy enough."

Don't move in. Don't get married. Feminists pushed for these laws, then wonder why men don't want to get married anymore. Gosh... I wonder why?? :hmm:



My biggest problem with feminism is the blatant lies it's based on.

If I said "I'm fighting for the right to vote!" you'd think I was mad since I already have the right to vote! To fight for that right is to say I don't have it.

The most basic, core component of feminism is fighting for equality. That implies they don't have it - that they have less.
All evidence shows they have MORE rights, MORE freedoms, MORE laws that benefit and protect them, MORE social programs, MORE politicians pandering to them, MORE marketers making shiny things for them to buy... women have a leg-up in pretty much every single aspect of our lives - yet they say they have less in order to get even more.

It seems what they're fighting for now is the right to zero hardships in life. Period. Not one negative. Just lots of money with short working hours in a squeaky-clean office, TOTAL safety, can do anything they please with zero consequences - and someone else to handle the nasty, icky stuff for them. That's evidenced by every feminist who takes to the stage and either demands or pleas for men to "give women more".

#giveyourmoneytowomen

 

[werepossum]

This quote really demonstrates the issue I have with feminists. Why are you assuming men are safer than women? You didn't come up with that on your own. Someone, or a specific group that shall remain nameless, deliberately put that idea in your head, and it's completely wrong. Men are about 4x more likely to be murdered than women. Yes you should be worried about being killed. Yes you should worry about walking alone at night. Yes you should be worried about random acts of violence. Being a man doesn't make you safer. The mere fact that you didn't know this, and you underestimate how much danger you are in, puts you at risk, and that's exactly what feminists want. They don't want men to know how dangerous it is to be a man. They don't want men to be safer. They don't want to reduce violence against men. To feminists, you are not a human being. Some of the crazier ones literally hope you die. (let's just kill a few billion men).

Feminists spend a lot of time sticking to the script that all victims are women and all criminals are men. In reality, the stats say men are the primary victims of violence. I can understand feminists trying to draw attention to violence against women because that's the whole point of forming an advocacy group - raise awareness of a real problem. What I find reprehensible is that nobody is allowed to talk about male victims of violence. There is no public support for male victims. There is no discussion of how to reduce male on male violence, female on male violence, or even female on female violence. Domestic abuse in lesbian relationships is astonishingly high, but that issue gets swept under the rug as well because it goes against the propaganda. If women hit women, it can't be talked about. If women hit men, it can't be talked about. If men hit men, it can't be talked about. Men hitting women is the only thing we're allowed to talk about. Anyone who disagrees is a misogynist or a "rape apologist" (the words used in a popular youtube clip of feminists protesting).

Feminists are basically the same as the black-white race baiters. What story does the media try to push? All white people are racist and there's an epidemic of white cops killing black people. What do the stats say? Most black victims, mostly men, were killed by other black men. If all of the attention is focused on this minor problem of white on black violence, it means the larger issue of black on black violence is deliberately swept under the rug, almost as if someone is trying to prevent that from being fixed. You already get swept under the rug just for being a man, but you get double swept if you're a black man. It's almost like someone wants there to be an epidemic of black on black violence just so there is someone to blame and extract money from.....
On a totally unrelated topic, Jesse Jackson's net worth is about 10 million dollars. It sure pays well to manufacture problems then solve those fake problems. I wonder if he sells cloud insurance.

I meant specifically that men don't have to worry about their women beating them up (or killing them) - not just hitting them, but actual battery doing severe injury. Even with my one-time neighbors, he was much larger and presumably stronger. It's not that she was right to hit him. (Although everyone in the neighborhood agreed she was right to slap the shit out of a man when she comes home from work and finds that he's spent the whole day playing video games, not looking for a job or even washing the dishes.) It's that the level of threat is simply asymmetrical. Sure, men are at more risk from violence - but not from women.

To a large part, this dichotomy is a function of Western civilization. Most of us think it's a feature rather than a bug that we simultaneously give women equal rights and protect them. Is it fair? Course not. But if there's one thing I've learned is that life is never fair, and it's never fair for everybody. Mmm . . . Okay, two things I've learned. Is it fair that women are physically smaller and weaker? Is it fair that a man can simply walk away from a child whereas a woman needs surgical assistance to do so? Obviously we go too far sometimes in protecting women, but better too far than not far enough.

There's always going to be that physical disparity between the sexes, and unfortunately, some men decide to take that to their advantage. :\ That's most likely what gives men a sense of complacency even though women are perfectly capable of causing harm to men. Hm... I wonder if there's also a statistical difference in aggression between the sexes -- sort of like how you'd say that women tend to be more emotional/nurturing.

SNIP

This is true. There are women who kill, but their relative rarity makes us complacent.

I think the disparity is that her choice to do what she wants with her body forces another to be financially responsible for that choice, with no say in the choice. Generally, your rights end where mine begin, that sort of thing. This is a clear asymmetry, which we have accepted for two reasons- (a) for the well being of the child, and (b) machismo/shame the guy - he's not considered "a real man" if he abandons his child, even if he didn't want one.

So currently this is not a big problem because there's a higher percentage of married people than single parents. Maybe 50-60 years from now, when single parents are more common, I think we'll see "paper abortions" absolving men of the financial responsibility for children they don't want.

I think the bigger problem is if the woman wants to abort the child but the guy doesn't. Also, if she wants to abandon the child, even if he doesn't. IIRC, not all states is it required to get consent from the father if the mother wants to abandon the child at a safe haven or something.

I don't think it's quite that asymmetrical. Laws allowing women to abandon babies in safe havens are specifically to protect the babies, not empower the women. And women have the exact same financial geas to support their children as do men; they simply have the power to avoid this because they have the right to not nurture the child within their bodies, which biologically is neither a risk nor a possibility for a man. Women have more freedom to avoid having a child because the price of having a child is so much higher for women.

 

[Blue_Max]

It's that the level of threat is simply asymmetrical. Sure, men are at more risk from violence - but not from women.

You're wrong about that. (Spot-on about a lot of your other stuff though.)
Statistics are beginning to reflect what's been the true story for a long time - when it comes to domestic violence, women are dishing it out AT LEAST as much as the men are. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

I get to see this every damn day. Heh... lesbian relationships are the most violent ones out there! https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

As usual, the feminist-run sites being funded with public money falsely adjust the scales to paint the victim narrative and secure more for their organization.

The real world is so completely different from what feminists claim it to be, it's downright offensive in its falsehood.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I get to see this every damn day.

How do you see this everyday?

 

[MrPickins]

You're wrong about that. (Spot-on about a lot of your other stuff though.)
Statistics are beginning to reflect what's been the true story for a long time - when it comes to domestic violence, women are dishing it out AT LEAST as much as the men are. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

:thumbsup: This is a major issue that is under-reported for many reasons.

The real world is so completely different from what feminists claim it to be, it's downright offensive in its falsehood.

It's really only the rad-fems that deny these statistics. I've seem plenty of regular feminists speak out in defense of battered men.

 

[Blue_Max]

It's really only the rad-fems that deny these statistics. I've seem plenty of regular feminists speak out in defense of battered men.

I've only seen the ones (like every online huffpost-style "writer") who say "Yeah, it's bad that it happens... but it still happens to women much, much more." ...and that just isn't true.

 

[MrPickins]

I've only seen the ones (like every online huffpost-style "writer") who say "Yeah, it's bad that it happens... but it still happens to women much, much more." ...and that just isn't true.

Again, confirmation bias.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Comedy thread is comical