Cosmo gives ball crushing as advice to get even with a cheating boyfriend.

[jabby]

In the end, nothing will change. People like this lead very very sad lives and continue to lead their very very sad lives after it happens.

At the end of the day, who is wasting more time? The people enjoying the discussion or the people trying to prevent them from having it?

Everyone's done what they can to make it clear how stupid and unwanted this jerkoff contest is between them.

Pretty ironic considering we are on a website dedicated to jerking off. I guess your jerking off is more productive than ours?

Anyway, it seems people are simultaneously not interested in our discussion and can't stop themselves from reading it, so I guess its best saved for another time or place. Thus I will try and resist the temptation to bring up any more points/rebuttals. If anyone is interested the following is some good information for the male feminist:

Gender Issues - Focusing on Men


Here are a list of resources for male feminists, including reading recommendations for men by men, and sites that address the problems faced by men in American society.


http://www.achilleseffect.com/ Achilles Effect is a great resource if you want to learn more about gendered messages that are specifically targeting boys and what is happening because of them. It also includes great analysis of the problems young men face growing up exposed to gendered media and some things that can be done to counter it.

http://malefeminists.com/ Covers a variety of topics, including men active in the feminist movement, current events that men are supporting and the necessity of exploring both the roles of men and the roles they are expected to play in order to foster the freedom for both genders to express themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...d&v=3exzMPT4nGI

Tough Guise: A Crisis in Masculinity explores men's roles in society, race, violence, and what has occured to foster the current culture of masculinity that traps men into particular roles and stereotypes. This is part 1 of a 7 part series.

The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy by Allan Johnson. This book is a good introduction to feminism for both men and women, but it is especially useful for men. The author carefully examines feminist issues from the perspective of a man and provides insight into what can be done to combat patriarchy, misogyny and entrenched gender roles.

The Masculine Self by Christopher Kilmartin. Although this book does not solely focus on feminism, it serves the critical role of examining men's issues and the concept of masculinity in modern culture. The author breaks down what it means to be a man in Western society, and how this matches up with scientific research and goals of equality.

[Richter]

I saw my name!

Wait... you think people are READING what you two post?! LMFAO

[jabby]

I saw my name!

Wait... you think people are READING what you two post?! LMFAO

And yet you just couldn't stay out of the thread... In fact, I think you have about as many posts as I do. Except at least one person was listening to me.

Anyway, I think I'd rather be the loser carrying on a discussion than the loser who has nothing better to do than try and stop a discussion he doesn't like from taking place. Despite the fact that he is free to ignore it any time he wishes, but he just can't because they're talking about things he doesn't find interesting! Such an imposition.

[Richter]

Uh huh. Has nothing to do with the fact that every time one of your tools update, the thread jumps up to the top and pushes everything else down. You got that I started this thread before you mouth breathers decided to start making tender love to each other, right? That's another reason I'd prefer you knuckle draggers to wake up and realize you aren't wanted here. I was hoping the Spider-man shit (and the cool wikipedia thing someone else started) would clue you nancy boys in that you're being ridiculous.

The more you flame me though, you warthog faced buffoon, is the more I draw you off topic and into the absurd, which dies out much quicker than blind arrogance.

[stman]

[kdunstfan]

My only thing is I wish they would take it to private. They're obviously free to discuss whatever they want but this shit on the board is uncalled for.

[jabby]

Uh huh. Has nothing to do with the fact that every time one of your tools update, the thread jumps up to the top and pushes everything else down. You got that I started this thread before you mouth breathers decided to start making tender love to each other, right? That's another reason I'd prefer you knuckle draggers to wake up and realize you aren't wanted here. I was hoping the Spider-man shit (and the cool wikipedia thing someone else started) would clue you nancy boys in that you're being ridiculous.

The more you flame me though, you warthog faced buffoon, is the more I draw you off topic and into the absurd, which dies out much quicker than blind arrogance.

So do you have a repetitive strain injury that prevents you scrolling past this thread or are you just insanely optimistic that we had started posting about the cosmo article after 5 pages of other discussion?

The funny part is you don't seem to realise that your posts bump up the thread as quickly as mine. I guess if this really was about killing the thread rather than being an arrogant dickhead on the internet you won't be replying to me again. After all that would be the quickest way to let things die out. Unless you are worried about such petty things as having the last word in an internet argument?

[Sockmess]

The funny part is you don't seem to realise that your posts bump up the thread as quickly as mine. I guess if this really was about killing the thread rather than being an arrogant dickhead on the internet you won't be replying to me again. After all that would be the quickest way to let things die out. Unless you are worried about such petty things as having the last word in an internet argument?

How you do all the internet wins? Quoted FTW and the truth. They can easily ignore one thread.

[Richter]

You are right and have changed my mind. There is no longer a point to attempting to convince me. Have a nice day.

[bbbb]

Regarding the draft, the chances of there ever being one in the USA are incredibly small. Regardless feminists have been campaigning to fight on the military front lines for a long time, with only recent success. Surely the fact that women are campaigning for the same right to fight as men takes away from the whole 'men have to fight for the country' idea? Seems like a lot of women would love the same rights. If that came with the formality of registering for selective service then fine. Again, its a system that was set up decades ago when the idea of women in the military was unthinkable. Now women want to be in the military and they face enormous resistance. You can't claim that not having to fight is a 'female privilege' when plenty of men are actively trying to keep them from doing so.

Is it compulsory for women to fight in a war as it is for men, regardless of how small (or large) the chances of pulled up might be? That is my point, not the right to *volunteer* to fight (this has been met with derision from both sexes and applause from both sexes). Women are NOT compelled to fight - men are. Feminists do NOT promote equality in this area. If I'm wrong, feel welcome to correct me.

Can you provide some examples of MRA's campaigning for women's issues? Should be easy if they are for total equality.

Just like where I've asked you to show me various things you've/feminists have claimed and declined to, such as feminists supporting men's issues. Instead, you've excused them by telling us that it's ok for feminists to focus on women and ignore men but it's wrong when MRA's focus on men - because apparently, that's "making it all about them".
I do love hypocrites.
For one, most MRA's recognise the issues faced by Erin Pizzey when she received death threats from feminist groups after revealing the fact that some 65% of women in the 'safe house' were abusers themselves (either of the man or of the children). Her dog was also killed as a 'message'. She ended up needing a police escort and had to leave England due to the continued hate campaigned against her, simply for revealing what we know today; that women are as bad as men. The only difference is, she asked that men be afforded similar support as women were. That, apparently, upset feminists a lot.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rig...-star-chamber/
We also recognise that women do not get equality in criminal sentencing, which feminists seem strangely quiet about (aside those who promote closing women's prisons and opening more men's prisons because that's some weird-ass kind of equality). We also acknowledge the longevity-gap caused by various factors, of which ignorance towards men's health (sexual, mental and physical) while focusing on women's health as if it's the only important one, must play a part. Further, we also address child abuse which - with the exception to sexual abuse - is primarily performed by women, not men. This is yet another demonstration by feminists that they do not seek to protect people from abuse; their actions show us that they only want to protect some women and some children from abuse committed by men but NOT to protect the majority victims of abuse (women in lesbian relationships and children in single-mother house-holds).

All human beings have the right to be upset if intimidating people keep bothering them.

You seem to be suggesting that a man asking if he can buy a woman a drink is an experience they dread & fear. It makes me wonder why they go out at all if it's that bad... I don't think you actually know and instead of asking 'women' you've asked 'feminists' who have answered 'for women' (ie projection).

You are blaming the victim for failing to prevent their attack.

Not at all. I'm pointing out that there is use for common sense. If I leave my keys in the ignition and a window open, I can't claim the insurance because I didn't take any precautions. Men who impregnate a woman cannot skip C$A (assuming he's not kept around) just because he didn't take precautions. He can assume she was telling the truth all he wants - but his decision not to wrap it up resulted in him being a financial slave for the next 18+ years.
The slutwalk, on the other hand, teaches women to act like ... well, sluts.

...Apart from a few select areas women face a lot more discrimination and sexism in society. And even in areas where men are disadvantaged (like child custody and prison sentences) it's usually outdated ideas about 'chivalry' and gender roles that is the cause. And its usually men disadvantaging other men.

So in your mind, we can ignore black on black crime... stats confirm that most victims of assaults are black males and most perpetrators are black males - using your logic we can just ignore the victims and blame it on themselves.
And for the record, the drawing had nothing to do with r4p3 or DV... that's projection again on your part. Thus, only your second point has any relationship to why you condone ignoring sexism & discrimination against men, which is also wrong.
Tell me, how is it a man's fault that women have numerous options upon conception whilst men have none?

You are asking 'why don't they focus on improving things for men as well?'

Not quite, I'm asking why they claim to seek equality when by your own words they do not - they seek limited equality so long as it's of benefit to women whilst ignoring men's issues, which you've done a piss poor job of marginalizing and excusing with typical feminist tactics of blaming men whilst pretending you don't keep blaming men.
You've already stated that it's acceptable for feminists to bawl & scream in male victims' faces when they try to talk about their issues. You claimed these victims of abuse were "trying to make it all about them", yet you simultaneously justify feminists continually marginalizing men's issues and in doing so making it all about them (women/feminists). If you could, just for a few moments, step out of your circular logic, you'd see the bigotry.

Saying a majority of feminists should focus on men's issues (because of course, some do) is like saying the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People should hold a bake sale for white people.

No. It is more like saying "If you're going to tell me you want equality - then go for full, real, legitimate equality instead of cherry picking the good bits and leaving the bad bits, like criminal sentencing & highlighting child abuse statistics"

This benefits domestic violence victims. Are women the main victims of domestic violence? Yes, but that doesn't stop the law being equally applied to male victims.

No, they're not. Every year the stats reflect the same story - that DV is roughly 50/50. You also ignore that women initiate 70% of violence... Ever wonder why? Perhaps it's partly because feminists keep telling them they can get away with abusing a man, and the implementation of the law typically supports that notion (i.e. it's rare a woman actually is held accountable - but it's ok, you already have justified why it's ok for women to abuse men and not be responsible for their actions).

I see you're also justifying the feministing (not a hardcore site at all, she (Jessica Valenti) is a very, very respected & iconic feminist) reference to sexually assaulting men. I wonder, if we had a men's rights web site using similar play on words, would you jump to justify it or would you use it as 'proof' that MRA's all bad?


To boil it down, you are saying men are responsible for this and that injustice, but providing no evidence that they actually are. You see inequality where none exists and you demand that groups composed mainly of men who are sick of being treated as second class citizens spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to improve the lives of women. Presumably while you yourself do nothing about these issues you care so deeply about.


Anyway, apologies for lengthy delays.. have been away.

Oh, and while you pretend I do nothing about it - I'm very active in the community, inc. writing to my local MP (who has confirmed that the law is not applied equally to protect men as it does women) and I'm heavily involved in the background of a very active site on this topic.

[Richter]

You're too late. We declared him the victor. You lost by forfeit.

[jabby]

Dude, we're arguing around in circles. I simply don't agree that to be for equality women have to fight for men's issues. I don't think its wrong for them to focus, just like I don't think its wrong for men to campaign about men's issues if they want to. You on the other hand seem to think its wrong for feminists to focus on getting better treatment for women but not wrong for MRAs to focus on getting better treatment for men. We have reached an impasse since neither of us will budge on that point.

You are TOTALLY wrong on your domestic violence stats though. Try reading something.

In previous research involving the North East of England the vast majority of domestic violence perpetrators recorded by the police were found to be men (92%) and their victims mainly female (91%).

[bbbb]

I don't think its wrong for them to focus, just like I don't think its wrong for men to campaign about men's issues if they want to.

So why did you previously justify feminists disrupting a forum for male victims of abuse and big red (the loud mouthed one) screeching at the boys' conference, claiming it was ok for them to do so as the men were making it 'all about them'?

Anyway, I'm happy to move on - just pointing out the lies & hypocrisy of the feminist movement.



ETA: Using feminist sources to prove feminist claims is a bit underhanded and will sprout somewhat predictable results. No wonder it claims such disproportionate stats when it comes from such a selective source: "Violence Against Women Research Group"

By: marianne.hester@bristol.ac.uk who just happens to be... http://www.bristol.ac.uk/sps/people/...ter/index.html ... a feminist! Ta-daaaaaa

Yet again, circular logic @ play.. Tsk tsk.

[jabby]

So why did you previously justify feminists disrupting a forum for male victims of abuse and big red (the loud mouthed one) screeching at the boys' conference, claiming it was ok for them to do so as the men were making it 'all about them'?

I don't actually think anyone should be prevented from speaking, I thought that was out of order. Although I think a lot of women's anger at MRAs is understandable since rather than simply fighting for mens issues a lot see themselves as 'anti-feminists' and actively oppose the feminist movement.

ETA: Using feminist sources to prove feminist claims is a bit underhanded and will sprout somewhat predictable results. No wonder it claims such disproportionate stats when it comes from such a selective source: "Violence Against Women Research Group"

By: marianne.hester@bristol.ac.uk who just happens to be... http://www.bristol.ac.uk/sps/people/...ter/index.html ... a feminist! Ta-daaaaaa

Yet again, circular logic @ play.. Tsk tsk.

Police crime statistics are a feminist source? Dude, it's a 6 year study in a peer-reviewed journal. You think they can get away with just pulling numbers out of their ass? You think the leader of the study is biased because she once worked on a paper with 'feminist' in the title? Her current research is 'Exploring the service and support needs of male, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered, black and other ethnic victims of domestic and sexual violence' for goodness sake. Where are your numbers to back up your claims?

[stman]

I don't actually think anyone should be prevented from speaking, I thought that was out of order. Although I think a lot of women's anger at MRAs is understandable since rather than simply fighting for mens issues a lot see themselves as 'anti-feminists' and actively oppose the feminist movement.



Police crime statistics are a feminist source? Dude, it's a 6 year study in a peer-reviewed journal. You think they can get away with just pulling numbers out of their ass? You think the leader of the study is biased because she once worked on a paper with 'feminist' in the title? Her current research is 'Exploring the service and support needs of male, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered, black and other ethnic victims of domestic and sexual violence' for goodness sake. Where are your numbers to back up your claims?

Nothing new there. Not the first time I've read of issues that affect men that women's groups are involved with doing something about, or researching. There's entire journals dedicated to the subject.

Reminds me, in Canada there was an antifeminist MRA who opened a shelter for male victims. As it turns out though, he refused to help gay men who came to him, in fact his words were that if he took in gay victims next step "How come you don't take calls from animals who are victims of domestic violence?"
It's tragic, he committed suicide after funding ran out and as much as I congratulate him as an individual for dedicating his life to at least helping -some- male victims (better than none), I have to say just a thought, maybe if he hadn't been a rabid antifeminist and come off homophobic, he might have gotten more funding than a bit of provincial coin. Even women's groups in Canada are having a hell of a time as the current Conservative government has pulled out a lot of their funding since being voted in, so it's hard to say. MRAs often use him as a proud example of some battle against feminism, when there is no evidence in that regard whatsoever that he was battling anything other than cultural stereotypes (and government funding issues). The same stereotypes that feminists want to challenge.

It's a shame really because MRAs are so lost in circular rhetoric they can't even see that many feminists are pissed off about the same problems and are working to solve them. If MRAs weren't so arrogantly antifeminist (and into r*** statistic denial) maybe they'd have some feminists attending their conferences instead of protesting outside. I mean here an MRA is talking to two of us who know about feminism, fuck I actually READ feminist theory and hang with feminists all the time, and he is telling us what all feminists do and say, based on fringe examples, cherry picking, and a whole lot of conspiracy type thinking. In denial and desperate to blame feminism for everything, including the problems men have made for other men.

All I can say is a male movement is a good idea, and it's a damn shame that it has become a confused, anti-intellectual mess that ends up protesting some of the very things that might be on its side if it wasn't so desperately anti-woman. It's sad because I know male victims and men who work in outreach and none of them have fuck all to do with MRAs. MRAs as a whole reinforce the cultural problems that lead to male victimization. And damn, his list of reasons women are privileged.. holy shit.. talk about patronizing women. Talk about fantasizing about what women really want. Talk about having no idea what women really deal with.

At least as a movement they seem to have reached maximum steam for now mostly because they fill a niche: they appeal to loosely educated types who have a slightly above average intelligence, enough to string together rhetoric and read Orwell and make youtube videos. But read a little too much of the so-called intellectual stuff, ask more difficult far-reaching questions and you graduate from MRA to feminist. On the other hand if reading and getting involved isn't your bag then MRA rhetoric will bore/irritate the piss out of you. It's almost like it's self-limiting somehow.