Categories
beta males evil women men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny sexy robot ladies Uncategorized

>More Dating Advice from the Boobz

>

Discussions of dating on The Spearhead? Pure comedy gold. So here are some more highlights from the Internet dating thread I talked about in my last post.

Let’s start with a comment so delightfully loopy I went ahead and screencapped it, for no good reason. Nergal suggested that women over 40 weren’t worth dating. Another commenter challenged him on this, which resulted in this response:

Now, granted, I’ve never actually seen deflated balloons half-filled with cottage cheese, but I, er, have  seen recent photos of Jennifer Aniston topless. And I’m guessing there isn’t really much resemblance. Anyone else thinking of that line in 40 Year-Old Virgin in which Andy compares a woman’s breast to a bag of sand? Seriously, if you’re going to throw Jennifer Aniston out of your bed, do it because of The Bounty Hunter. Or Love Happens. Or The Break-up. Or Marley And Me. Or All About Steve. (Oh, wait, that was Sandra Bullock.)

Meanwhile, The Man On The Street attacked evil women for deceiving men by wearing makeup:

Women’s supposed integrity, empathy, and virtue has been proven time and time again to be a farce. A mask. Just as the phony paint (made of foreskin and feotus’) that many women use to fool silly beta types into believing the false front of beauty.

Herbal Essence — not to be confused with the shampoo of the same name — lamented that “online dating is a female candyland of power trips, validation-seeking, and ego boosts,” and related how he totally put down some dumb broad he met online. I would bet good money that whatever happened between Herbal and his alleged date did not actually go down this way:

I once had a 2 month-long relationship with a girl. She flaked once without explanation (the third date) and I told her very politely but firmly not to do it again. She did it again three weeks later, and I sent her a text that said “You’re dumped.” Two hours later, I had a hysterically crying girl on my doorstep, begging for my forgiveness. I told her “In the age of cell phones there is simply no excuse to disrespect my time like that. Go home.” and shut the door in her face.

Big Daddy from Cincinnati, the author of the post that started the discussion, added a few more thoughts. including this bit of advice:

For the purpose of finding pump-and-dumps, don’t mention anything that sounds like conservative political views in your profile. The ones most likely to let you lick it and stick it will think you are an asshole if you espouse these views, no matter how logical you are in presenting them. Getting nookie is an emotional, not logical, process. Deal with it.

Yeah. I’m sort of thinking that a guy who uses the phrases “pump and dump” and “lick it and stick it” will set off asshole warning alarms in most women even if he doesn’t start blabbing on and on about how much he loves Glenn Beck. Interesting, though, how women wearing makeup is an evil act of deception, but a dude trying to conceal his retrograde political leanings is a-ok.

Firepower wins the award for brevity with this little gem of misogyny:

Playing hollowed-out courtship rituals with single-mom manatees stoked with anti-depressants (mainly SSRIs) is no great calling for a man.

But WGMOW wins some points for managing to compare women on dating sites to two different animals at once:

[M]ost of the women on the “serious” dating sites tend to look like elephants and/or have the intellect of a howler money. But they’ve been schooled by the dating industry to believe that they are beautiful on the inside, and that you, as a man, are shallow if you can’t sense their inner beauty. However, don’t expect one of these monsters to look for your inner handsomeness, only your wallet. Despite the fact that they claim to be strong and independent, they are just looking for a man who can “Support them in the style I’m entitled to.”

Keyster suggested that any man who decides to go ahead and date one of these SSRI-taking elephant-manatee-monkey women should make sure to illegally record their sexual encounters so he won’t be accused of breaking any laws:

[I]f you insist on persuing pooh-tang for fun, ALWAYS have a recording device rolling. Preferrably a video camera. You don’t want your life ruined by a bitter revenge seeking shrew. Remember all they have to do is dial three numbers 9, 1 and 1, and you’re screwed for life. Protect yourself!

I’ll end this little compilation with the always-quotable Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c), who attacks women for … not wanting to have sex with robots. Seriously.

You women endlessly moan on about how terrible us men are. Yet how much are you spending on creating your ideal robotic men? NOT ONE CENT. Why? Because you don’t want the man, you want what the man provides. Today measured in money. No-one is going to pay a robotic man to work so he won’t bring you what you so clearly want. MONEY.

On the other hand? How much money are MEN spending on robotic women? LOTS. And why are they doing so? Because they percieve that there is a MASSIVE market for robotic women. Why? Because they will be EASILY preferable to the VAST MAJORITY of real women. For a start they will have an OFF BUTTON.

Something tells me that when the sexy robot ladies arrive at last, there will be men on the internet complaining about what a bunch of bitches they are.

 —

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

143 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kratch
10 years ago

>Elizabeth: “Kratch-that was then, this is now.” Irrelevant. During the beginnings of the feminist movement, there was a lot of angry women that said a lot of awful things. If it wasn’t for this angry, the movement wouldn’t have grown so quickly, as the drive wouldn’t have been there. Now men are starting to get angry, and despite feminist efforts to suggest otherwise, there are ample good reasons for it. But now you have people like David picking out the angriest amongst them for display, pretending that, because feminist anger doesn’t fester in the same way (ANYMORE), that it is somehow unacceptable and feminists are above that kind of thing (they weren’t, even if that was then this is now). Your argument suggests that you can only be angry if feminists are angry, or back in the 70’s, not anymore. That’s ludicrous”Also, most of the law I have seen regarding domestic violence is that whoever is the most dangerous is carted off to jail. “VAWA… Violence Against WOMEN Act.Perhaps this video will enlighten you. http://www

r perhaps an example of the policy that dictates police action, that assumes the abuser is the man and acts accordingly. http://www.endingviolence.org/files/uploads/vawir_policy_2004.pdfElizabeth: “That young woman who slapped her boyfriend in the face was wrong-but the reaction of punching her face with a fist shows he is not only wrong but of greater danger then she is. Perhaps to you this is not the case and the slap is exactly equal to a punch. “Not sure what situation you’re talking about, but I’m referring to this one, where the man ended up DEAD, and his murderer got away with it. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/case+fuels+debate+over+domestic+violence/4051267/story.html”Men are also encouraged to speak up when they are being harmed by a female-they are given the right to ask for protective orders, to seek legal redress when she hits him, and to be upfront with the judge regarding it. There are shelters where he can seek refuge. “Shelters? Care to name a few? There are homeless shelters, there are not abuse refuges. As for men being encouraged to speak out about it… ROFL.”Also, the reason that women get those resources is because women banded together and they worked their butts off for it.” So… because women worked for it, they should get it exclusively? So, all the things men have worked hard to build, we should get to keep that exclusively for men? Is that really the argument you’re trying to make? The funding is there, the law states the funding should be distributed to both sexes, there is no one in parliament who is speaking for men to ensure that happens, and that’s what I was told I was wrong about.”Men could do the same thing-no one is stopping them.”Actually yes, many feminists ARE stopping them. Just look at the opposition I’ve gotten simply for mentioning it. Errin Pizzey has received bomb threats and threats to her children and grandchildren for speaking out on behalf of male victims. Google her.

Kratch
10 years ago

>Elizabeth: I brought up DV as an example of men's voice not being represented in government. I think your last sentence…"Men could do the same thing-no one is stopping them" acknowledges that men don't have these things (even if the claim no-one is stopping them is naive). If men had the voice in government darksidecat says they did, we'd have it and wouldn't need to push.It amazes me how easily people get off point in this place. I wasn't talking about domestic abuse, I was talking about men not having a voice in government, and you completely ignored that part in order to debate the example…

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>The point is that men have a voice. They just need to use it. So if they do not have those things they want, then they are not using their voices.83.4% of the members of the US Congress are males. They have those men they can contact.78.4% of the state wide elected officials are male in the US. They have those men they can contact.76.7% of the state legislators are male. They have those men they can contact.To claim that men have no voice is ludicrous on the surface of it and goes downhill from there.Men have the perfect right to contact any of those elected officials in the United States and have their voice heard. They have the right-as written by other men-to petition their government for redress of their wrongs. They have the right (as long as it follows state or federal law) to run for office themselves if dissatisfied with the response. That they fail to do so is not because of some sinister plot by women or feminists. Quit blaming women or feminists for standing up for their rights when your own sex refuses to stand up for theirs.

Socratic Method Man
10 years ago

>man, what's with how stupid gynophobes are?Kratch – I love how people like you blame women for providing an example of how all men are violent abusers, but when a woman gets raped it's her fault because she should have known it was going to happen, and men can't help themselves because of evolution or whatever excuse you come up with to excuse how dreadful you are.I'm raising my sons not to rape and abuse women kind of the same way we raise our kids to share and not hit. It's worth mentioning, because every other source they're going to see and hear is going to tell them what a good idea it is, and how they can't be held responsible for the provocations of whores.Good luck with your terrible opinions, I hope they don't get anyone else killed or hurt.

Socratic Method Man
10 years ago

>Won't someone please, PLEASE think of the men?*wrings hands*

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>*puts on a cape and yells* "I WILL!!!"

nicko81m
10 years ago

>DarkSideCat"nick, it is not true that sub or slave necessarily applies outside of the bedroom either. I think you are confusing 24/7 with subbing. Someone can both sub inside the bedroom and be equal outside of it. Victoria is right, they refer to preferrence for specific types of sex acts/scenes."Wrong, a sub simply submits to anything (except his limits) 24/7 regardless if its sexual or not. This includes any activity out of the bedroom such as being told to do domestic chores etc. Or even when the sub is not in the dom/dommes presence and in his/her own house.A bottom is someone who simply only plays in the bedroom solely for sexual acts. When both people go outside the bedroom, the power play stops."Accusations of misogyny get thrown out far more often because it is far more common. First, because it is far more common in western culture, period"What a load of fucking crap!For just one single example how common misandry is; it’s common for a woman to judge a man as a potential user, rapist, or paedophile until proven otherwise all because he has a penis.In the BDSM scene alone, if a man just simply shows lots of interest in his sexual fantasies, he is considered as a fake that just wants to use women in the name of BDSM. Yet females can express all they want about what sexual fantasies they crave in BDSM and never get shoot down by the community."But also because we live in a culture with expectations that men be the dominant or active sexual partner and that women be passive and submissive"Another load of total baloney. Especially when women everywhere simply express to men one way or the other if men don't act like this or that or treat women like this or that, these men will never get laid.If that's not domineering behaviour, what is?Sandy"Nick, as others have pointed out wanting a female lead relationship doesn't mean you believe in female supremacy"I never ever said that. But as usual, feminists like to twist things around. Please indicate where I exactly said that female supremacy and female led relationships are the same thing?My point is when I raised this topic, I expressed that many self proclaimed female supremacists in the BDSM scene also claim to be feminists. And these types seem to be the most interested in the feminism scene compared to others.

nicko81m
10 years ago

>"Won't someone please, PLEASE think of the men?"That's the typical sexist feminist attitude towards men's issues.It's mostly some sarcastic comment such as the one I quoted above or "what about teh menz"Wow, I thought feminism was supposed to be against sexism and discrimination

Kratch
10 years ago

>Elizabeth, you are mistaking an individual voice to contact a politician with a voice that is a representative for the interests of the chosen target. Just because men are in office doesn't mean those men are representing the interests of men, they are representing the interests of everybody, and more often then not, women. it is as simple as this. There is a representative specifically for women in government. Gender equality dictates that there should likewise be one for men, and there isn't. it doesn't matter how the rest of government is made up, as they are supported to be representing the best interests of the people, all people, and that includes women as much, if not moreso then men. So if that is good enough for men, it should likewise be good enough for women and no gender representatives should exist. I consistently hear the claim that feminism is about gender equality, but when equality is asked for, that request is rejected. And people wonder why men are beginning to hate feminism, and realize it isn't about equality, but women/feminists getting their turn.

Lydia
10 years ago

>@ Kratch: You from Germany? Yeah, that attack from the manhaters on Ms Köhlerschröder was evil, wasn't it. I mean seriously, blaming that young lady who certainly first needs to find her place in the government for having done absolutely nothing for FAMILIES so far? How could they do that? Hello? She's a WOMAN! Some patience please. Poor lady, and she just said that lesbians shouldn't feel uncomfortable about straight sex and that women shouldn't complain about getting paid less than men, because women all get paid like cleaners, even though they work as engineers in reality.Seriously, I don't get what the "fight" for men's rights is supposed to do with this post. So men being "critical of women" are allowed to spread their misogyny because they failed to create a male equivalent to feminism? Men's rights are one thing, stupid insults another. I'm telling ya, going on like this, you'll never reach your goal because no one will take you seriously. See, that's exactly what has been mentioned so many times on this blog. You just sit there and troll feminist sites. And if someone tells you to actually do something about your complains, you find a thousand excuses not to do this and blame FEMInism for not focusing on men. Elizabeth just said this above: Just think, what the feminists have done to achieve all this. What have you done so far?And what is this supposed to do with this post's topic anyway? It's about misogynist comments from the Spearhead. Not a single mention of men's issues and the likes. David just points out that these so-called MRAs often DO hate women. There's no doubt about that, but no justification either.

Kratch
10 years ago

>Elizabeth: "Men have the perfect right to contact any of those elected officials in the United States and have their voice heard. They have the right-as written by other men-to petition their government for redress of their wrongs. They have the right (as long as it follows state or federal law) to run for office themselves if dissatisfied with the response. "Women likewise have these same rights. They likewise have the rights to contact those officials and have their voice heard. To petition fore redress of their wrongs. To run for office if they are dissatisfied. So why then is there still a government official specifically there to represent their issues? Why is it unreasonable to ask for the same, equal, representation for men?

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>You know ALL of those laws you hate? Do you think that those just came about because one day, some men woke up and said "I am so going to pass a law that gives Title IX funding to women sports in colleges.""I am going to write and pass a law that gives women the advantage in divorces because well gosh darn it, those little ladies deserve it!"No, it is because women decided to get together and work to get what they wanted done. So in those places where the law seems to be ever so unfair to your gender? It had nothing to do with men suddenly deciding that being office means kowtowing to women-it means that they listened to the people talking to them. And again, nothing stops men from doing the same thing.

nicko81m
10 years ago

>“And again, nothing stops men from doing the same thing. “Political correctness stops men from even opening their mouths about male issues as we get accused for being misogynist, weak, whiners, someone who can’t get laid, or just because females had it worse in the past, men are not entitled to complain about female advantage in the present. If such strict political correct forms of poison didn't exists, there would be far more men trying to do something about it. In fact, these issues against men wouldn’t exists as we speak if such obstacles were not blocking that freedom

Kratch
10 years ago

>"Yeah, that attack from the manhaters on Ms Köhlerschröder was evil, wasn't it."it was opposition to someone looking into the interests of boys."for having done absolutely nothing for FAMILIES so far"She acknowledges boys are falling behind in school. She established a department for boys and men. Are boys and men not part of a family? Are women the only indicator of what a family is, and thus, anything that isn't specifically tailored towards women isn't family related?"What have you done so far?"I've contacted several government officials, asking questions, looking for answers. And have been systematically ignored."And what is this supposed to do with this post's topic anyway?"Ask DarkSideCat, who choose to take a single comment out of a rather long post of mine, and turn it into a new discussion. Your tone seems to be directing the blame at me though. typical. just for clarification, I wasn't even claiming Boys and men needed voice in government (I do believe it), but instead was stating that Schroeder recognized that need.

Kratch
10 years ago

>Elizabeth. Those laws were passed by the men as well as the women in office. why the need for the special women minister? The fact you don't see my point, that you're not even trying, is really annoying. this isn't (just) about men getting specific complaints addressed, it is about equal representation in government. Having ministers who are gender neutral, but happen to have a penis, is not a representative for men, they are representatives for the people. The minister for the status of women (In Canada, whatever in the US) is not a gender neutral representative, she is specifically representing the interests of women. IE, Government has an official that is specifically representing women's interests. Otherwise, all other representatives are gender neutral, regardless of their personal gender. In fact, if they do something that is in men's best interest, they will be accused of discrimination and misogyny and booted out of office. have you not seen the opposition to the presumption of shared parenting (unless deemed not in the best interests of the child) in custody agreements. Government officials are reluctant to even touch the issue, because it isn't desirable to the feminists who claim to represent women and equality (how is shared parenting not equal?), and they fear for their career's. Harvard's dean got sacked for nothing more then noting an observation that men seemed to do better in the sciences and maths.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Nick-for women to get the rights that men took, and still to a great extent take, for granted…they had to organize, march, petition, be threatened, spit upon, go on hunger strikes, be forcibly fed, die in custody, interrupt congressional hearings and spend decades pushing as hard as they can to get the same rights as men and/or equal at best treatment from the law and society. They were mocked, laughed at, told to go back to the kitchen, treated with disdain, yelled at, had things thrown at them, tossed into mental institutions…And the latter? That was just in the past thirty years to get things like DV shelters opened up. The right to have a bank account in their name. The right to have a job that they do not get fired from for getting pregnant. The chance for their daughters to play sports like they were not allowed to. Men refuse to organize and do anything for themselves because of what? Someone might laugh at them? It is not PC? Since when are men so fragile that the very idea that a woman or another man might mock or yell at them makes it impossible for them to do anything? Please, spare me the histrionics over that idea that men cannot organize for male rights.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Larry Summers was not sacked for that reason-he did resign six months later and was given a very generous package upon his resignation.He was censured for being a boob though.Government officials who are too wimpy are being so because no one is bugging them about it. I know government officials-you ask them to do something and raise enough heat-they WILL act. So get off your duff and go demand that something happen.

Kratch
10 years ago

>"Nick-for women to get the rights that men took, and still to a great extent take, for granted…they had to organize, march, petition, be threatened, spit upon, go on hunger strikes, be forcibly fed, die in custody, interrupt congressional hearings and spend decades pushing as hard as they can to get the same rights as men and/or equal at best treatment from the law and society. "So feminism never stood for equality like claimed. It stood for women getting what they want and men can go to hell. All those men who stood along feminism, calling and demanding equality, their efforts were only for women, not for themselves?thanks for finally acknowledging that.

Lydia
10 years ago

>@ Kratch: "I've contacted several government officials, asking questions, looking for answers. And have been systematically ignored."That's exactly how you guys are NOT supposed to do it. How many women have created self-help groups for victims of rape and domestic violence on their own? How many women have taken action for their cause with NO official help from the government and other institutions? If you wanna do something for male victims, please, do me a favour (seriously!) and go ahead. Inviting some guys over to you and offering a place to exchange negative experiences costs almost nothing and is arranged very easily.As for boys falling behind in school, how do you wanna know it hasn't always been like that? Maybe it's just more obvious, now that most schools are mixed?!? But kindergardeners and elementary school teachers have mostly been female in your praised Fifties too, haven't they? As well as the fact that boys are mostly raised by their mothers (women) anyway, as their dear fathers are out to work all day long.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Kratch-what part of "the SAME rights…and/or at best EQUAL treatment" do you not understand? Same/equal means that it is exactly what men have. Not men get more. Not women get more. THE SAME.

nicko81m
10 years ago

>"Nick-for women to get the rights that men took, and still to a great extent take, for granted…they had to organize, march, petition, be threatened, spit upon, go on hunger strikes, be forcibly fed, die in custody, interrupt congressional hearings and spend decades pushing as hard as they can to get the same rights as men and/or equal at best treatment from the law and society.""They were mocked, laughed at, told to go back to the kitchen, treated with disdain, yelled at, had things thrown at them, tossed into mental institutions…And the latter? That was just in the past thirty years to get things like DV shelters opened up. The right to have a bank account in their name. The right to have a job that they do not get fired from for getting pregnant. The chance for their daughters to play sports like they were not allowed to." Please provide proof to all this harsh treatment of this

missyb9479
10 years ago

>"For just one single example how common misandry is; it’s common for a woman to judge a man as a potential user, rapist, or paedophile until proven otherwise all because he has a penis."Not because he has a penis. Because you can't be un-raped after it happens. If I meet a guy on the internet I won't give him my phone number or address before we meet. I give him my google voice number which forwards to my phone but can't be traced to my address. I go and meet him in a public place instead of him coming to my house or me going to his. Is this because I assume he's a rapist? No, but because I have to protect myself. Rape is real. It does happen. And once it happens you can't go back and undo it. BTW, this is one of the things women talk about when they talk about male privilege. You don't understand the real physical fear that comes from something as simple as walking alone at night in the dark or going on a first date with someone. You can't understand it because it isn't something you have to live with. Just like I, as a straight woman, can't ever understand what it is like to be a lesbian and have to be afraid of expressing public affection with my partner out of concern that someone will be offended or might harm me in some way. I'd also say that the way that I treat strangers is just sort of common sense. If my little brother was going to have a first date with a woman he met online I'd also suggest he not give her his real phone number or let her know where he lives. She could be unstable or dangerous. It's a fact of the modern world that we have to treat all strangers with suspicion until they earn our trust. Women aren't being wary of you because you have a penis but because you are a stranger. Stop assuming everything is about your gender. It isn't. I also can't comment about the school posters because it's an issue I don't know anything about. I also don't know anything about German politics so I also can't comment on that issue.

Kratch
10 years ago

>Lydia. MRA's are exactly what you are calling for, groups of men gathering together to organize a movement. It has it's angry quacks, just like the feminists did. Those angry quacks get more of a voice then most of the feminist quacks due in large part to the internet. of course, we're all labeled as misogynists for doing so. Even the most influential activists, such as Fathers & Families, has been called misogynists and have serious feminist opposition.As to boys falling behind. That's an ignorant argument your making.Elizabeth: "what part of "the SAME rights…and/or at best EQUAL treatment" do you not understand? " I'm asking you that very same question. Along with "How is having a representative solely for the interests of women, but not having a male equivalent (look up the origin of that word) "equal treatment"?"Women have a minister for women. having the SAME/EQUAL would indicate there would be a minister for men as well. What's your excuse for the inequity here?

Kratch
10 years ago

>Missy. unfortunately, the school posters are an example of what we're talking about when being accused of being rapists. A women being cautious is prudent, even advisable, and most men (unfortunately, I can't speak for all here) don't hold that against women (in fact, many men will come to the aid of a woman. I have, twice.), except in ridiculous cases (IE, If I say hello to a girl in a club while at the bar getting myself a drink, and she treats me like a rapist, it will annoy me). But posters implying I might be a rapist, or implying men are all potential rapists or abusers. or the worst, posters that just say "men rape" (more subtle, but same message). That pisses me off. it would be like having public service announcements advising men that "women are looking to get themselves pregnant to bilk you of child support for the next 18-26 years". This doesn't say all women are doing this, just that there are women that are doing this… but I suspect the insinuation would piss you off just as much.

Kratch
10 years ago

>I'm curious how men like David, who have been fighting right alongside feminists for equality, feel about being told "if you have problems, deal with them yourself. feminists had to fight for the equality women have, men can do their own fighting. and all the fighting you've been doing for equality was really just for women."David?

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Kratch-there will be women beside you but we will not DO your work for you.

Kratch
10 years ago

>Elizabeth: "Kratch-there will be women beside you but we will not DO your work for you."First off, you're have actually been opposing me. You are an example of why it is so difficult to get things done. Feminists didn't have an organized opposition, they simply had people resistant to change.Second off, MRA's already have women beside us. I notice you didn't say feminists will stand beside us. I suspect you know why, even if you're not willing to admit it, even to yourself.Third. men have already done a lot of work for equality by supporting the supposed feminist goal of equality. The fact you are claiming I'm calling on women to do the work to resolve our issues, when our issues are a matter of inequality that were supposedly the goal of the feminists so many men backed… you don't see a problem here? You don't see how this is an example of feminists getting what they want and then tossing the tools like David who supported them to the roadside ditch.It is exactly as I have said above, you and lydia both are acknowledging that feminism was never about true equality, but rather, just about getting women all the benefits men have and not making things equal. feminism was a lie, and it duped men like David into helping out, with the promise of equality.you still haven't answered my question… how is having a minister for women, but not a male equivalent, the same/equal?

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Is there a problem with women receiving equal treatment in your country? Then that is why it is equal to have a women's ministry to try to actually have equality.If men already have preferential treatment, there is no need to have an agency to enforce it.Kind of like how in the US it is silly to have a White History Month-most school books are written about white people. One side already gets preferential treatment.If there is no preferential treatment of men, then I support your desire to have a men's agency or the removal of a woman's agency. Otherwise, there is a legitimate cause to have one.

Kratch
10 years ago

>"Why is it so hard for men to make the effort?"opposition such as yourself, and a failure of feminists like yourself to acknowledge the work and support men have already put into establishing equality (not realizing it was only equality for women).

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Kratch, political activism is hard. No one gives you anything. You have to work for it yourself. That's how it always works. Whites didn't just wake up one day and say, hey, let's give civil rights to blacks! No, it took a lot of hard work by mostly African-American activists, against incredible opposition, much of it from police and politicians, to accomplish anything. Male politicians didn't just wake up and say, hey, let's give money to DV shelters! Feminists and other activists had to build the shelters up themselves; most shelters still get their overwhelming majority of their budget not from govt. funds but from private donations — which is one of the many reasons "father's rights" activist Glenn Sacks was such a douchebag when he advised his fans to call donors to a DV shelter whose ads he didn't like. There are plenty of feminists doing DV work who would be happy to help men build their own shelters. That is, if the men in question don't: attack the funding sources of female shelters (like Glenn Sacks did); make jokes about and in some cases actually encourage DV against women (like Paul Elam and his fans); or generally spend the majority of their time bashing women and/or feminists and complaining about how unfair it is that feminists don't do their organizing for them.

Kratch
10 years ago

>"Is there a problem with women receiving equal treatment in your country? Then that is why it is equal to have a women's ministry to try to actually have equality."That explains the existence of the womens minister, it doesn't explain the absence of them male equivalent."If men already have preferential treatment, there is no need to have an agency to enforce it."But we were establishing equality, the need for a male equivalent was to maintain the developing equality."Kind of like how in the US it is silly to have a White History Month-most school books are written about white people. One side already gets preferential treatment."Thank you for reminding me. Black people have had it far worst, and still do, then women… why no minister for black affairs?"If there is no preferential treatment of men, then I support your desire to have a men's agency or the removal of a woman's agency. Otherwise, there is a legitimate cause to have one."So it's all or nothing with you? You can't have men currently getting preferential treatment in some area's (debatable, but whatever, I'll roll with it), and women getting preferential treatment in others? and thus, a need for both positions? Why must there be NO preferential treatment of men in order for there to be equality in government?

Lydia
10 years ago

>@Kratch: Men fought with women for women, women will fight with men for men. Unless, of course, you continue to blame feminism for men's discrimination and refuse to accept that most of your discrimination has been created by men themselves. Why, for example, is it so hard for you to abolish the stereotype of the male perpetrator? Who has been reinvoking that other stereotype of the superior male strength and power?!? People won't acknowledge these weaknesses ever if you continue to claim that men are "naturally" stronger than women!Also, why are there never articles about male discrimination in men's magazines? Why don't you ask the Playboy to write about male victims of sexual abuse? (And no, I don't mention the Playboy to mock you, I do so because it's a popular men's magazine and known for its brilliant articles.)The first time I've heard about mothers abusing their sons was in a TV magazine named Mona Lisa. As the title suggests, it was actually about women's issues. What do Spike and DMAX and Maxim TV report about all the time?

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>There should be no preferential treatment of either sex. But if there is a problem for women in having equal treatment, it appears that it is being addressed by having this agency.This is not like dividing up cookies "one for Joseph and one for Mary." This is about addressing a lack of equal treatment.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Lydia-I know! Naked chicks.

Kratch
10 years ago

>David. Male private DV shelters have been attempted. They get strong opposition from feminist movements.here is an example of a handful in the UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1346600/Male-victims-domestic-violence-My-wife-knifed-back.htmlhere's a relevant quote"But the refuge faced a great deal of opposition when it opened, and still attracts criticism because it doesn’t run police checks on residents to see if they were, actually, the perpetrators of the violence."imagine if a men's movement demanded women checking into abuse shelters be run through a police check? there would be an outrage.The Easton Alliance for the Prevention of Family Violence appears to have gone under when it couldn't get further funding from the Ontario Women's Directorate, yet there are currently over 20 shelters in Toronto alone. men like yourself fought for equality right alongside feminism… We shouldn't be getting the opposition that we are from feminism for trying to get our share of that equality.Just imagine the outrage that would occur if an actual minister for the status of men was established (if you can't, look at the opposition and personal attacks Kristina Schröder's has gotten, and all she did was establish a department for men under her women's ministry.I'm curious if you're going to answer my question on how it feels to be told "you fought for equality alongside feminists, but that equality was only for women, if you want equality for men, you can start over on your own". it is a betrayal (at the very least, by Elizabeth, if you're unwilling to accept it as a common feminist view), and it seems to me you are making excuses rather then acknowledging it.regardless, I'm done for tonight. be back tomorrow.

John Dias
10 years ago

>@Lydia:"Why, for example, is it so hard for you to abolish the stereotype of the male perpetrator? Who has been reinvoking that other stereotype of the superior male strength and power?!? People won't acknowledge these weaknesses ever if you continue to claim that men are "naturally" stronger than women!"Biological reality is no stereotype; men are physically stronger than women. To acknowledge this reality is perfectly healthy and beneficial to both men and women, because it recognizes that men have something unique to offer both to themselves and their loved ones. It is feminist ideologues who portray male uniqueness as a gender construct — a cultural myth — and anyone who fails to join them in their emasculation of men they accuse of promoting anti-male stereotypes! Now that's some demented thinking right there; promote a myth (men are identical to women), then suppress dissent by promoting a second myth (non-feminists are responsible for the first feminist-inspired myth). It's lunacy, it's ideological, it's dogmatic. It's feminist!

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Kratch: the article doesn't mention FEMINIST opposition to the shelter, simply "opposition." It may be that local residents didn't want it in their neighborhood. DV shelters for women often face this sort of opposition. Also, despite this opposition, the shelter survived. This is an example of successful organization. To write about it in the past tense "male shelters have been attempted," as if it's pointless to continue trying, is defeatist and absurd.

John Dias
10 years ago

>Re: shelters that admit male victims:A men's advocate named Pete Jensen once told me that he tried to open a shelter for male victims. Immediately local feminist ideologues who were supportive of the status quo (i.e. no shelters for men) began demonstrating against it, saying that it would be a haven for batterers. They must have thought that homelessness and disempowerment of ALL male victims was somehow the only surefire way to ensure that batterers wouldn't offend in the future. And any genuinely non-violent male victims who might have benefited? Out in the cold.Not long after these demonstrations, Jensen's attempts at forming a shelter for male victims were met with bureaucratic stonewalling and he was denied a permit because of the efforts of a local county supervisor, who — like the demonstrators — also happened to be a feminist. It's not easy to advocate for men, especially when a shelter is intended to be built specifically for male victims.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>So basically there were some demonstrations against a shelter and some stonewalling?Is that any reason to give up? No. You keep working on it. That is why politics is hard. Keep pushing the issue.

Lydia
10 years ago

>@Kratch: The reason Ms Schröder got these personal attacks was because she literally said the first gen of feminism was made up of a bunch of manhating, sexually frustrated lesbians (the latter word meant as an insult). Of course, she worded it more nicely, but it was still her who started the attacks in the first place. It's ok if she creates a boys' "department" in her ministry, but she shouldn't necessarily further perpetuate these kinds of stereotypes about feminism.By the way: you know that *gender* equality for men would mean more men in "weak" women's jobs?! One thing I've always wondered is how alright MRAs are with members of the society like stay-at-home dads. Interestingly, these men can be described as feminist, but at the same time they actually stand up for themselves and men too and demand their share of equality by taking a traditionally female role. So they're basically liberating women and men at the same time! Feminism is alright with them. But Spearhead readers? This is one problem of the Men's Rights Movement: That when it comes to real gender equality, they live up to the double standards they accuse feminism of holding.@ Elizabeth: 😀 But seriously, I mean it. The Playboy would be a good magazine to host an article like this.

nicko81m
10 years ago

>Elizabeth It's obvious that all your links promote situations back in the EARLY 1900s era when not many people including the average MEN had no rights back then. If average men tried to promote rights back then, the same would have happened to them. Only the big boys had a say…just like even times like the 50s

John Dias
10 years ago

>@Elizabeth:Pushing the issue involves pointing out the reality of anti-male bigotry, in addition to subsequent efforts. But think of it from a male victim's point of view. His vulnerability is precisely the notion that he is invulnerable. His weakness is the perception of his own strength. Even right here in this thread, DarkSideCat illustrated this same mentality, saying that vulnerable men somehow have a network of friendly supporters merely because most elected officials are males.My argument is that it doesn't require the legal, political and cultural emasculation of males in order for us to accept that males have vulnerabilities and for us to stand up and help men in crisis situations. You don't pass yourself off as an advocate for abuse victims and then in the same breath cite male hegemony as the pretext for leaving a particular male victim (or set of victims) out in the cold. Part of soldiering on is acknowledging these realities.A women's strength is her facade of vulnerability; a man's greatest weakness is his facade of invulnerability.

Lydia
10 years ago

>@ John: Seriously, duh. I so knew some dude would show up and explain (mansplain) this to me. That's what I wanted to say: Even if it's true, if you keep mentioning this on you MRM sites, people will never take the issue of DV towards men seriously!"Oh yeah, we men are much stronger than those squishy wimminz, but *starts whimpering* hey, we're so threatened by those evil [insert disgusting slang word for the female genitals here]!!! Look what she's done to me: *lifts shirt to reveal tiny purple-coloured bruise* She's so evil!"Don't get me wrong, abuse of men IS serious and seriously horrible, but superior attitude + whining about every shit = bad combination.Don't blame me if more men are getting abused.

nicko81m
10 years ago

>John DiasYour truth gets pulled under the rug in a PC and feminist view. But *cough* we men have to fight for something that's nearly impossible to fight.As feminists are supposed to be about equality, they sure don't show it when it comes to equal concern and passion towards no matter what gender.All I see is women first, men second…if there is a second place. Probably no place at all. What does the equality movement (the gender police) do? NOTHING

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Since the issue of male domestic violence is a very serious one-a bit of protesting and complaining or the stonewalling should never have been enough to stop the creation of it.That male who was trying to do the laudable work of establishing a safe haven for a male victim could have gotten the feminists on his side-but did he actually call up the local NOW chapter and ask for help? Did he work with the churches in the areas? What did he do to establish the need for such a center for the local county board?Did he organize a petition drive and not just ask men but the women too? Did he get testimony from officers having to deal with the domestic violence calls?Did he contact the local and state political organizations to see what kind of resources did they have or were willing to commit?The women who were protesting-did he contact the leaders organizing those protests and talk to them about what evidence he had showing the need? Did he work with the local gay organizations?There is a lot that I do not know but I do know that it should not take one protest and one petty official to prevent something that needs to be done from being done.

nicko81m
10 years ago

>Men's problems in feminist language "what about teh menz" heh

nicko81m
10 years ago

>ElizabethDid most men had much say to a woman in the early 1900s to the big boys?

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Your comment makes no sense and your previous one basically ignores what women went through to get the rights that men barely had to fight for. (With the glaring exception nonwhite suffrage.)

Lydia
10 years ago

>@Nick: "Men's problems in feminist language "what about teh menz" heh"Guys like you is why the Men's Rights Movement gets nothing done.