# Let’s Have an It’s Not-Even-Friday Open Thread

Had planned to put make a new place for you to play last night but got distracted by football and beer. So have a Saturday open thread instead.

It seems to have been several millennia since I last invited you to rant and ramble without frontiers. I’ve lost track of all the fascinating nuggets that have slipped past unremarked, but this week alone I have mostly been laughing like a drain, firstly at the hilarious bit of trolling published by the Independent yesterday and secondly at all the po-faced dudes being affronted and outraged about it all over the Internet. I’m reliably informed it was commissioned and posted by a departing staff editor on his last afternoon before leaving, which I think brings everything into sharp focus.

Now spill yer branez below folks, and remember, no cultural appropriation and jazz hands only please.

UPDATE: The Independent appears to have deleted the article above. At present there is not even a statement, it has simply vanished. Praise be to the Wayback Machine!

1. Thil says

the BBC 3 did a program called “beaten by my boyfriend” about partner abuse, the title annoyed me because it implies abuse is always male on female in relationships. when I mentioned this to someone else they told me that to them it was OK because such abuse is most likely to be male on female. to my mind that’s good enough, there’s a difference between saying something is less common and saying something never happens at at all. that title implies the later not the former.

I get annoyed when people say feminism is about fighting all gender or sexuality based oppression. if that’s the case the movement should have a different name. one that doesn’t imply that it is exclusively about women’s issues

on a slightly different note before I posted this I checked on Reddit to see if anyone was talking about the program, who felt the way I did. I found a few threads in the MRA sub-reddits about it. They however weren’t annoyed that the program implicitly denied that female on male abuse can happen, they were annoyed because they felt that it was implying that partner abuse exists at all.

2. Ally Fogg says

I don’t have a problem with programmes being made about female victims with a title like that – assuming it comes as part of a broad spectrum of media that includes programmes called “Beaten By My Girlfriend” as well. If that programme is not being made, nobody gains by wishing the issues away entirely. The energies we devote should be toward getting the latter programme made as well, not instead.

3. Holms says

“I get annoyed when people say feminism is about fighting all gender or sexuality based oppression. if that’s the case the movement should have a different name. one that doesn’t imply that it is exclusively about women’s issues”

Well, I for one would describe it slightly differently; rather than being about fighting against all gender based oppression, it fights the subset that disadvantages women and girls. Plenty of room in there for a group to work at the other subset, the male-disadvantaging stuff.

4. Thil says

““Oh but, it’s racist to ban someone on the basis of their skin colour, and sexist to ban them on their gender,” cry the assembly chorus of confused souls trying to turn the language of progress into a weapon to further entrench the establishment. It’s not. You’re at university, go and ask a humanities professor. Learn something”

got to love the way she doesn’t even try to refute the argument.

5. Thil says

“White men have had the last several millennia in charge”

several millennia ago the only civilizations (going by the old fashioned, slightly iffy, meaning of that word) on Earth were in the Near East, North Africa and Asia. no many white men about

6. Thil says

maybe it has something to do with my aspergers making me slightly ditched socially, but I never really recall being harshly judged by others for being a guy who cries or talks about his feelings

7. Thil says

I mentioned my annoyance about that program to my dad. he’s a Detective Sargent and he told me that in his experience female on male abuse really doesn’t exist. I wonder if it’s more the case that he doesn’t hear about it because most people, even the people effected, wouldn’t call the police on a violent girlfriend like they would a violent boyfriend?

8. Jacob Schmidt says

that title implies the later not the former.

I don’t think it does. “I was beaten by my girlfriend” doesn’t imply that all abusers are women; it just implies that all the cases addressed within are women on men abuse. The title just fails to reject the notion that all abusers are male, which really isn’t the same as supporting said notion.

So I finally caught up on the jazz hands thing. It seems like some fairly straight forward utilitarian ethics.

Some people are freaked out by loud noises (I have a friend who, in highschool, would be notified beforehand of fire drills, so that she could avoid them). Contrary to the apparently common counter argument, exposure therapy generally needs to be controlled; in situ isn’t the way to go. We don’t have any reason to choose clapping over jazz hands.

Since clapping causes some measure of harm, let’s go with an alternative (e.g. jazz hands).

Now, maybe the analysis wrong (there was a point about blind people not being able to participate in “jazz hands”), but “this person’s utilitarian ethics makes some mistakes” is quite a different objection from the common objection, which is closer to “LOL at applying basic utilitarian ethics to a certain type of common behaviour.”

9. Thil says

Jacob Schmidt

The difference is that that there’s no sexist cultural implying h idea that abuse is exclusively female on male. If someone sees a title like “beaten by my girlfriend” on BBC Iplayer they won’t assume that abuse that abuse is exclusively male on female because such a concept would be largely alien to out/their culture?

10. Thil says

Jacob Schmidt

sorry

should say “female on male ” in the second to final line

11. Marduk says

Read this and experienced some (doubtless immoral) amusement.

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/individualism-and-relational-deprivation

Its fascinating to see what high theory does to people’s critical faculties. In this missive, our host somehow talks herself into arguing that being a stepford housewife was a feminist nirvana brutally destroyed by patriarchy deliberately forcing women out into the cold, uncaring workplace in the 1970s.

It also shows what I’ve said before, the tools are mightier than our ability to control them. The author is a well-read acolyte of Mary Daly, but somehow its turned on her.

—–

Re: jazz hands. Seriously? Peformative nonsense, this is a meme in SJ spaces. Its so silly, they don’t even know why they are doing it, it has nothing to do with “triggering”, its a deaf culture thing. I think the main critique is around the feminist snowflake therapy culture and the Munchausen by proxy thing going on amongst younger practitioners. Its the polar opposite of your mother’s feminism. I just about remember when feminists would brandish the black panther salute, now they exchange exotic new mental illness names they’ve invented.

12. AnarchCassius says

@Ally
Thank you Ally. Between these people taking themselves too seriously and their opponents taking them too seriously it’s easy to forget how absurd the whole thing is in the big picture.

@Thil
“I get annoyed when people say feminism is about fighting all gender or sexuality based oppression. if that’s the case the movement should have a different name. one that doesn’t imply that it is exclusively about women’s issues”
Masculist, which has the advantages of having lingual symmetry, not implying a focus exclusively on “rights” and generally avoid the PR nightmares of the MRAs. On the other hand there are hardly any of them and if you add the extra “in” to the word you risk summoning Aoirthoir An Broc, Who is basically the inverted Witchwind and seems like a character rejected from a World of Darkness campaign.

As for the BBC program, I care what they say on the show more than the name. The title doesn’t bother me anymore than “18 and Pregnant”, not to say it doesn’t bother me at all.

As for the emotional suppression and touch isolation that was umm, touched upon in a few posts. I think Witchwind may have hit on something with the non-Western more than with the focus on gender. The West, not that long ago: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/07/29/bosom-buddies-a-photo-history-of-male-affection/ In the Arab world today men are known to hold hands with friends and generally show affection. Now there are certainly plenty of East Asian cultures that are reserved but Western countries and America in particular seem to be on the reserved end of the spectrum.

13. Ally Fogg says

Jacob, I think the Jazz Hands thing is a bit more complex than that. The origins of it are in Occupy where folks were having public meetings in the open with no amplification and people were using ‘whispers’ to repeat things from the front to the back of the crowd. This meant that if people burst into spontaneous applause it drowned out what was being said and made it very hard for the speaker to keep their flow.

The Jazz Hands thing (which is “applause” in BSL as it happens) was adopted as a way of the crowd showing appreciation in the middle of a speech without the whole thing disintegrating into chaos. It was never intended to shield people from the trauma of loud noise.

Now I will accept that it is possible that there are people somewhere who have intrusive forms of autism or other neuro- or psych-related conditions who are upset and made anxious by rounds of applause at a conference. I have never heard of such a thing, but I’m prepared to accept it is possible. However, knowing a wee bit about people on the spectrum, I would suggest it is far more likely that an autistic conference-goer would be stressed out by a radical break from the usual routine at conferences, in other words the absence of applause during a speech could seriously freak someone out. Is it likely? Probably not, but still more likely than applause triggering someone.

I think it is far more likely that this is a result of someone being overly ambitious with creating a “safe-space” and over-stretching themselves.

I would bet a lot of money this did not arise from someone saying “excuse me but I have a disability which means clapping and applause excludes me from participating in this conference” but instead came from someone saying “excuse me but there might be someone here with a disability which means clapping and applause might cause problems.”

14. 123454321 says

That Independent article left me speechless. The sad thing is that it’s nothing new. And despite it being labelled as a bit of trolling, due to some person with a bee in their bonnet, it’s not uncommon to hear of people in prominent positions preaching around subjects of the same ilk – seemingly only ever aimed at white men, by the way! The political correctness agenda never favours men, especially white men. Everyone seems to hate white men. What’s going on!

15. Carnation says

@ 123454321

“Everyone seems to hate white men. What’s going on!”

Let’s have a look back over the past week for an example of a white man being hated by everyone because he’s a white man…

Can’t think of one, but I can think of a moronic champion of “political correctness gone mad” thinking who was disgracefully sacked from his job, for merely physically attacking a subordinate (also a white man) and then only getting a million signatures on a petition demanding his reinstating.

Meanwhile, there’s a rare (and disgusting) example of a white man (outside of a prison/dole office) being blamed for being a victim of a crime and subjected to harassment.

123454321, it’s just too easy to take you down. I note that you’ve scurried off from our previous exchange.

Grow up.

16. abear says

It shouldn’t be so surprising that people got sucked in by that troll piece at the Independent.
As ridiculous as it was, it’s no sillier than a lot of the stuff that gets published at previously respectable papers like the Guardian.
I get the impression that many papers and internet news/opinion sites are recruiting their writers from psychiatric institutions.

17. says

@AnarchCassius

Is Aorthoir An Broc still around? I’d heard of him, but not heard him say or do anything in quite some time. Is he the guy who kept replacing “f” with “ph”?

18. AnarchCassius says

That’s the guy. Not sure if he is active.

The spelling is particularly funny when he says oph since he uses a weird bastardized chaos star and who have a reputation for using ov instead of. So when I see him write my first thought is.. “he spelled ov wrong!”

19. Marduk says

The author is Tom Mendelsohn. It wasn’t really a troll, in as far as he does basically believe what he is saying.
Think of it as a sort of left-wing equivalent of Top Gear.

Its just how a braying an Old Wykehamist celebrates the end of the term, by being ‘outrageous’.

He is, as they say, very much the “Full McIntosh”. Unfortunately what he hasn’t figured out yet is that being Laurie Penny (i.e., public school and on to Oxford, landing up in the media elite telling working class people off for being too privileged) isn’t really an equal opportunities kind of a gig. And even if it was, she’d shiv you before she’d share it with you so be careful Tom.

20. mildlymagnificent says

Thil

I mentioned my annoyance about that program to my dad. he’s a Detective Sargent and he told me that in his experience female on male abuse really doesn’t exist. I wonder if it’s more the case that he doesn’t hear about it because most people, even the people effected, wouldn’t call the police on a violent girlfriend like they would a violent boyfriend?

As a police officer, I’m not surprised that your dad wouldn’t have any experience of men suffering abuse because police tend to get involved either when victims are hospitalised because of serious injury or because they’re called to an incident – and then they call the ambulance.

The surveys and research showing an equivalence of violence perpetrated by men and women against opposite sex partners are usually based on the Conflict Tactics Scale which merely counts ‘quantity’ rather than ‘quality’ of physical interaction.

The National Institute of Justice cautions that the CTS may not be appropriate for IPV research “because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_tactics_scale . Even ignoring the motives and control/coercion issues everyone, including the proponents of this research method, agree that most serious violence – serious meaning resulting in injury or death – is perpetrated by men.

Police officers don’t see much of the less dangerous, no visible injury type of violence. Come to think of it, they’re more likely to see the no violence at all (yet) stalking by ex-partners of both women and men than they are the physical incidents that result in little or no injury to either party. They might see more of the “other side” of family violence if more places introduce measures like this one in Western Australia. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-08/wa-introduces-new-restraining-order-for-family-violence-victims/6289230
The press release talks about it as though it’s only women victims but the legislation will be worded in the standard gender-neutral language that’s used in any and all crime legislation. It might be to ensure that same sex relationships or weirdly complicated other family stuff is covered but, whatever the reason, men suffering abuse will be covered.

21. mildlymagnificent says

Australia won the ODI cricket trophy!!!

Happy dance! Balloons, sparkles, booze and other celebrations!

22. says

mildlymagnificent: It appears that the revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) does measure “quality” of physical interactions – according to the Wikipedia article you linked to:

Subscales measuring the degree of severity of “less severe” and “more severe” behaviors are included for all CTS scales, “based on the presumed greater harm resulting from acts in the severe subscale.”[18] The severity of behaviors can also be measured by analyzing the frequency of the acts and by whether an injury was reported by the respondent.

As for the new restraining order you mention – it is a problem that it’s only talked about in men victimizing women terms and I strongly suspect that although the law may be worded in gender neutral terms it in practice won’t be applied in a gender neutral manner. Australia as far as I have looked into it hasn’t got a very good track record on male DV victimization. One example is this NSW governmental page about DV helplines: http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docs_menu/parents_carers_and_families/domestic_and_family_violence/dv_line.html

They first list a helpline called the Domestic Violence Line.:

The Domestic Violence Line provides telephone counselling, information and referrals for women and same-sex partners who are experiencing or have experienced domestic violence.

So if you are a man experiencing DV from your female partner you’re not included. Well, the page does list a few more helplines at the bottom of the page. It starts off with a number of women’s helplines, like this:

Women’s Legal Services NSW – Domestic Violence Advocacy Service (DVAS) – 1800 810 784 or 02 8745 6999

It even includes one for pets being impacted by DV:

RSPCA Safe Pets Program – 02 9770 7555
The RSPCA Safe Beds for Pets program provides temporary housing for pets of people who are seeking refuge from domestic violence

But hey, it indeed does indeed list one helpline for male victims – sort of:

Mensline – a 24 hour service for men which has counsellors who are trained in dealing with male victims of domestic violence

Do you notice the difference between the entries for the women’s and pet’s services and the men’s helpline entries?

They didn’t see fit to include neither a link nor a phone number to Mensline – it is Mensline – 1300 789 978 by the way.

At the bottom of the page they have a “See support & counselling numbers for more services” link. That one doesn’t even list Mensline and not any other male services either.

23. Marduk says

MM

The criticism of the CTS R/ II is somewhat misleading. The idea its has been “discredited” is far from true. As Straus points out, complaining it doesn’t measure motivations is like saying a reading test does not measure reading ability if it doesn’t tell you what in a child’s biography causes them not to be able to read and doesn’t state what the consquences for the child will be over the next 20 years. Given that Bindel et al. maintain that women’s violence against men is always motivated by self defence against the patriarchy so I don’t think that kind of space is a place where measurement scales should stray.

CTS R/II does include context and the original CTS very quickly gained a severe category and there was also a severity weighted scale you could bolt-on as well. So the complaint it doesn’t distinguish is bunk. In CTS R/II items were added and the potential for overlap was removed. This is based on factor analysis of studies generated by critics so I don’t see how anyone can complain.

If you aren’t a stakeholder desperate to deny it completely, you’d actually notice that the verbal aggression/reasoning scales are the problem, not the measurement of violence.

Finally, most people do not agree with the claim you make, as apparently one can’t say enough, DV is as a phenomenon is commonly misunderstood completely in terms of its course and aetiology. The PASK as ever holds the answers being the single greatest scholarly effort in the history of the study of violence (and hence still completely ignored). The normative view is a bit like thinking rape always involved strangers in dark street wearing balaclavas etc, we moved on from that because it isn’t true but the current misunderunderstaning over violence is viewed as politically and ideologically useful so it stays.

24. Marduk says

Specifically, police officers overwhelmingly see mutual violence between drunks and drug addicts. And the protagonists are regulars well known to the police who in some cases have what amounts to a pre-arranged pick-up scheduled for Saturday 2am or whatever. They’ve both swung for each other than next morning everything is forgiven (and not remembered anyway) and they check out of custody super luvvy-duvvy until the next time.

I don’t think the response of the police to violence is always adequate or appropriate but having spoken to a fair few officers about this, I have understanding for why they get a bit jaded if not sympathy exactly. If you imagine 99% of the people you pick up for a crime are full of bullshit and nobody will ever press charges because they were active and enthusiastic participants anyway, its not entirely surprising they run the risk of fumbling the 1%.

25. Holms says

#15 1234
That Independent article left me speechless. The sad thing is that it’s nothing new. And despite it being labelled as a bit of trolling, due to some person with a bee in their bonnet, it’s not uncommon to hear of people in prominent positions preaching around subjects of the same ilk – seemingly only ever aimed at white men, by the way! The political correctness agenda never favours men, especially white men. Everyone seems to hate white men.

After having the article called out as obvious bullshit for outrage merchants, our intrepid 1234 chooses to treat it as a legitimate piece as an excuse to engage in his favourite meme: Feminists Are The Real Sexists. Notably, no examples are given.

26. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@Holms 3

Well, I for one would describe it slightly differently; rather than being about fighting against all gender based oppression, it fights the subset that disadvantages women and girls. Plenty of room in there for a group to work at the other subset, the male-disadvantaging stuff.

This has been my experience as well. I’ve found feminism very valuable in understanding the dynamics at play in society involving sex and gender. There has been a huge amount of work done that men and males can benefit from.

@AnarchCassius 13

Masculist, which has the advantages of having lingual symmetry, not implying a focus exclusively on “rights” and generally avoid the PR nightmares of the MRAs. On the other hand there are hardly any of them and if you add the extra “in” to the word you risk summoning Aoirthoir An Broc, Who is basically the inverted Witchwind and seems like a character rejected from a World of Darkness campaign.

So there are people trying to be a legitimate masculine version of feminism? A couple of years ago while moderating an imageboard we had flood of anti-feminism and I made a point that rather than trashing feminism we just needed a male version (though I put that extra “in” in). I had wondered if anyone ever did try to organize that. I guess it’s hard to notice them against the MRAs?

@Ally Fogg 14

Now I will accept that it is possible that there are people somewhere who have intrusive forms of autism or other neuro- or psych-related conditions who are upset and made anxious by rounds of applause at a conference. I have never heard of such a thing, but I’m prepared to accept it is possible. However, knowing a wee bit about people on the spectrum, I would suggest it is far more likely that an autistic conference-goer would be stressed out by a radical break from the usual routine at conferences, in other words the absence of applause during a speech could seriously freak someone out. Is it likely? Probably not, but still more likely than applause triggering someone.

I’ve done a fair bit of reading around these issues. Autism and my own tourette’s syndrome are associated with sensory hypersensitivity which can trigger cases of Misophonia (AKA selective sound sensitivity). I have seen it in myself but not to pathological levels.
Applause is not the problem as much as clapping because it’s the sharp rhythmic nature of the sound that triggers the sensations. In applause (or a room full of people laughing instead of one person) it blends into a constant noise.

27. AnarchCassius says

>So there are people trying to be a legitimate masculine version of feminism? A couple of years ago while moderating an imageboard we had flood of anti-feminism and I made a point that rather than trashing feminism we just needed a male version (though I put that extra “in” in). I had wondered if anyone ever did try to organize that. I guess it’s hard to notice them against the MRAs?

Pretty much. The men’s movement we know today mostly split from feminism in the 70s and then split into the feminist allied men’s liberation movement and the largely anti-feminist men’s human rights movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism
>Political scientist Georgia Duerst-Lahti also distinguishes between the two terms, with masculism being more associated with the early gender egalitarian days of men’s movement, while masculinism refers to patriarchy and its ideology.[9][10]

While exceptions abound this seems to be the most common usage of the terms today. Broadly Masculist could be argued to encompass ALL of the above and the terms are so similar that confusion is common, for example despite making that distinction clear the Wiki article then states “Many masculists suggest the abolition of co-educational schooling, believing that single-sex schools are preferred for the well-being of boys.[13]” but if you check that source you’ll see it’s in fact a reference to masculinists.

In practice if people make a distinction in the spellings you can assume they are going by Georgia Duerst-Lahti’s conception and most people actually identifying as either seem to conform to her definition. The heavily anti-MRA feminist sub-reddit links to the masculist sub for example. If someone is discussing the topic broadly however they might not be aware of or make such distinctions. This can be really confusing since masculists are typically sympathetic to feminism while masculinists are true male chauvinists and tend to consider MRAs too moderate.

I was expecting a men’s liberation site when I first searched An Broc’s group and then came to realize how important yet subtle the distinction is.

28. Jacob Schmidt says

Ally

I was unaware of the origins; that’s pretty interesting. As far as I know, that mimics what soldiers would do on the battle field, with the general up front yelling a rousing speech, an certain soldiers spread throughout the army who would repeat the words so that the speech would carry to the back.

But I don’t think you’ve added anything to what I’m saying. Most of the current kerfuffle is about clapping and whooping vis a vis access needs. The argument itself might be wrong; it might be overbroad, or over applied; it might be based on a false premise.

But most of the rebuttals aren’t substantive objections; no one says “a break in routine is probably more harmful than this new accommodation is helpful”; there’s no weighing of the scales. The arguments boil down to “this is silly because I said so.”

RE: the conflict tactics scale

It appears that the revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) does measure “quality” of physical interactions – according to the Wikipedia article you linked to:

Indeed it does, for instance:

Severe | Called my partner fat or ugly
Severe | Used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon) to make my partner have sex

29. TheTruth SpokenPlainly says

We all remember the wars women fought and died in to attain their rights, right? The names of those wars are so well known, are they not? Women didn’t ride on the shoulders of men for their rights, did they? Women didn’t expect men die for their rights, did they?

To be a woman is to be a coward. To be a woman is to expect the death of a male for women’s rights. To be a woman is to be a monster.

Feminists are here for good, right?

You cant have a good time without a woman ruining everything, right?

Is there a way to teach all men what follows? If not, then get back to me:

Here’s all you need to learn as a man. You don’t need to understand feminists. You don’t need to understand MRAs. You don’t need to understand anything but what I’m about to tell you. Here’s the truth that no one wants you to know. Ready? You’re not supposed to know that (except for gay people):

There is nothing more damaging to the vast majority of men than the patriarchy and white knight/chivalrous men. These men are extremely naive, ignorant and self-serving. Men in power will gladly throw the majority of men under the bus to gain favor with the gynocracy, to keep their jobs (get re-elected) and to maintain the status quo (see ‘1 in 5′ and ‘yes means yes’).

When it was asked for, the patriarchy gave women the right to vote, the right to higher education and the right to work. Unless they sign up for selective service, men still don’t have many of the rights women are granted by default. Initially, men had to enlist and fight in war to have the rights women were freely given – by the patriarchy.

I have never seen a movement so overflowing with hypocrisy, double standards and sexism than feminism. Take ‘yes means yes’ for example. To feminists, this is a good law. What’s more, the law is based entirely on bogus, debunked rape statistics. It’s no surprise that the patriarchy agrees with the ‘yes means yes’ law. The president of the United States, the patriarch of all patriarchs, personally endorsed and pushed ‘yes means yes’ into being.

Alimony, child support and default maternal custody are constructs of the patriarchy and constructs of a time when women could not support themselves financially. This is American patriarchy. Men made these rules, which have, through divorce, destroyed countless millions of men’s lives. Though feminists did milk it for all it was worth, the patriarchy made men the disposable gender, not feminists.

It was mandated by society that men be providers and protectors of their families, just like women were mandated by society to be homemakers and caregivers. It was mandated that men go to war and sacrifice their lives for women and children. Those men that refused were branded cowards, imprisoned and ostracized socially and financially. Men and women that didn’t play ball were demonized by both patriarchs and matriarchs. In the past, for a man to get a decent job, he had to be married with kids. To some degree, this social rule still exists today – enforced by both the patriarchy and the matriarchy.

The patriarchal structure was designed to benefit women and those men at the top – and to make the majority of men disposable. This is how we arrived at male-only selective service and the male only draft. Feminists distort the real truth when they paint all men as evil oppressors. Why do they still do it? Because it’s served them well for many, many decades. Now, as things are backfiring, you can smell the desperation. The patriarchy and gynocracy are seeing the err in their ways. Naive white knights and misandric feminists are getting their just due.

The single most misandric institution of our time is marriage. Men give all of their power over to their wives when they marry, which is why men should never marry. It is the patriarchy that gave women this power over men though marriage, not feminists. If you look deeply into the agendas of major women’s groups, you’ll find them fighting to hold onto this anti-male power.

What men really need to understand is that both the patriarchy and feminism are working against the vast majority of men; hence the debunked rape, wage and domestic violence statistics. That feminists and many of the most powerful male world leaders continue to run with the deeply flawed statistics tells you everything you need to know about their agenda. Why do they keep using the debunked wage, rape and DV stats? Men are now and have always been the disposable gender. This fact has never been more clear than today. The powerful, cowardly, white knights of the patriarchy will continue to throw men under the bus to appease the gynocracy. You can see this playing out right now before your eyes.

Our future is Sweden’s present. High out of wedlock births, low marriage rate, low indigenous birth rate, mass immigration, feminist movie censors, males made to pee sitting down, the redefinition of speech against feminism as hate speech, sky high taxes and misandric government leaders. Our future leaders will be split between feminists and their cowardly white knight lap dogs.

Expect to see more and more policies and laws that shift men’s assets over to women in the relatively near future. Of course, these policies won’t be called “Bachelor Taxes” outright. Instead, men’s wealth will be shifted under the guise of equality and fairness, with a clear bias against men and in favor of women. If you look carefully, many such laws and policies are now/have been in place for decades.

It seems to me that feminism is about forcing men, through misandric law, to give women whatever they want. Feminism is a narrative based on the idea that whatever was positively associated with men and traditional western society ought to be destroyed. Feminism is the idea that men are full-fledged villains who ought to be defeated, shamed and then either forgotten or hated. Feminism is the idea that whatever men accomplished they accomplished on the backs of women and that men should therefore be dispossessed and reviled.

At one point in time, feminism may have matched the dictionary definition so often quoted. Today, feminism represents the epitome of sexism, hypocrisy, misandry and double standards. The phrase “Destroy the Patriarchy” means “dispossess from men power and property and hand it over to women.” This is “equality of outcome”. This is socialism, which is what feminism is really all about. Just ignore the fact that, when you drive down the road, everything you see about you was always and is now built by men.

Women easily sacrifice their sons for America’s future. How do women do that? Is that action by women, sexist? No. It’s called selective service.

We can, as a result of male only selective service, have female only selective rape, right? Which is less selective? Which is less rapey/murderousy? How many millions of men have been sent to their deaths by the gynocracy and patriarchy?

Why not rape/rot? That’s what we do to men, right? Why should women have it any better? They shouldn’t. Vets are treated as rape/rot. Why shoudn’t women be treated the same?

Rape women. Call it sexists after the fact. That’s what women do to men.

30. TheTruth SpokenPlainly says

When we send a son off to war…its an expectation, right? He’ll get maimed, disfigured, raped and psychologically destroyed – but that’s only if he’s lucky.

When a woman gets raped – it’s as if the world ended. Men by the millions can have the same happen and it be an expectation of them.

Why do we treat the above two situations so differently. Why are men so disposable?

Why aren’t women more disposable – like men?

31. Holms says

^ You are a fucking idiot.

32. Holms says

Oh and I see you are spamming the same rant not only other on threads here at HetPat, but all over the net. So not only an idiot, but a spammy troll.

33. 123454321 says

“Let’s have a look back over the past week for an example of a white man being hated by everyone because he’s a white man…”

Carnation, you make me laugh, you really do. You know very well there are countless governed policies and actions owned and implemented by the government as well as many charities and organisations that regularly (and specifically) promote, help, guide, fund, protect, give special treatment to, raise awareness etc for lots of minority groups such as: the elderly, the young, disabled, ethnic minorities, females, gay, children…the list goes on… I don’t see any campaigns or funding to specifically address straight, white males. I could point you to hundreds of examples of the above, many for being just female. Could you point me to one, single Government-owned policy which specifically addresses issues faced by being a straight white male please? There is a minister for Women….where is the minister for Men? That would be equality, right?
Are you sure that being a straight, white male isn’t the last minority group that has been left on the shelf and forgotten about. Hmmm, I’m not surprised the suicide rate amongst this group is so high! They have literally nowhere to turn, and everywhere they do turn, they’re faced with intolerance, abuse, mocking, grow up, endless shaming tactics, attacks and general disrespect, all of which leave them with a sour taste and feeling lost and disenfranchised. But hey, guys (all you men out there) who have lost their home and family, can’t get access to their kids, been torn apart by the legal system and now financially ruined, go man-up and you’ll be fine! Now be on your way, nothing to fix here!

34. Holms says

1234, not being aided is not even remotely the same as what you claimed: “Everyone seems to hate white men.” Since you still have no examples of that, I guess we can write it off as apoplectic hyperbole.

35. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

WOW! TheTruth SpokenPlainly is one interestingly twisted piece of work. I can only hope that they are this way because of honest fear and lack of information about feminism.
Much of what they complain about they have no idea about the reality of, and things are fashioned in such black-and-white, twisted terms that a good assessment of reality is impossible. I’m going to give that one a special look tomorrow.

@123454321

I don’t see any campaigns or funding to specifically address straight, white males.

Because we are not a minority group. Until we stop being discriminatory as a group you should file this under “DUH! That’s the whole point!”. However there is nothing wrong with asking for government money of our own, even if it must be a lower priority, or money that is proportional based on how paying attention to minority issues works. (These things tend to fall proportionately out of society anyway, that is how the calculations involving minorities work because the choices of society as a whole creates minority treatment).

Are you sure that being a straight, white male isn’t the last minority group that has been left on the shelf and forgotten about.

(You seem to be missing your question mark, rhetorical fail.)
Absofuckinglutely. The dominant class is not a minority by definition. Tough shit.

White males have nowhere to turn, except other white people and white males especially. That is part of the benefit of being a white male. If we were to shift from attacking others for trying to assert what problems they have to actually advocating for our own problems we would be much better off.

They have somewhere to turn if they were to control the aggressive dominance bullshit society has infected them with. That also comes long with being part of the dominant class.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not assuming that you are not suffering in your own way. but I refuse to allow my suffering or yours to obfuscate from the purpose of paying attention to minorities.

36. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

In the second to last paragraph, in “They have somewhere to turn…”, “They” are my fellow white people.

37. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@AnarchCassius
Thank you for the information on masculism. I will check it out.

38. 123454321 says

“Because we are not a minority group.”

Oh, ok. How many straight white men are there in our world of 8 billion then?

“Until we stop being discriminatory”

You use the word “we”. When did I last discriminate against someone else because they didn’t fit my demographic? When did you last discriminate? Give me an example.

“even if it must be a lower priority”

Why should it be a lower priority?

“The dominant class is not a minority by definition.”

No, we’re not talking about class. We’re talking specifically about men. Do you know the difference?

“White males have nowhere to turn, except other white people and white males especially. That is part of the benefit of being a white male.”

So not being able to turn to anyone except for your own demographic is a benefit. Ok.

“In the second to last paragraph, in “They have somewhere to turn…”, “They” are my fellow white people.”

Oh, now I get it, for one second I thought….oh never mind, scoot along now. Bye.

39. Lucy says

TheTruthPlainlyMangled

“When it was asked for, the patriarchy gave women the right to vote, the right to higher education and the right to work. ”

You don’t give people rights dickwad, people have rights, other people withhold them.

The Patriarchy didn’t give women the right to vote, a higher education, to work, it withheld them and then didn’t.

40. Lucy says

“I have never seen a movement so overflowing with hypocrisy, double standards and sexism than feminism”

Yes, well that’s a symptom of your lack of observation.

41. Jacob Schmidt says

123454321, the word games are rather tedious and transparent. It’s not new that the majority/minority dichotomy is used in the context of social and political power; “we” is clearly used in conjunction with “as a group,” not as a referent to specific individuals; “class” is synonymous with “group” or “category,” and as such “men” and “white men” are certainly classes of people.

And while I will concede there are some problems associate with masculinity and men, at some point someone is gonna have to point out some actual problems white people face as white people.

42. Lucy says

TheTruthAccordingToTheInternet

“At one point in time, feminism may have matched the dictionary definition so often quoted. Today, feminism represents the epitome of sexism,”

Sexist men have always said that. Look up Victorian anti-feminist, it quotes you. Look up Medieval anti-feminist, same. Look up Ancient Egyptian anti-feminist, it’s a hat trick.

Feminists haven’t changed (except for the ludicrous callous sex positive sell outs) The pity is, nor have sexist men.

43. 123454321 says

Women and feminists continue to whine and shout because they are jealous and obviously absolutely hate their men looking at other women’s bodies (a stark but true generalisation). So, page 3 gets banned, Nuts gets closed down, and men and boys daren’t even look in the direction of any woman who shows more than an inch of flesh for fear of being called a pervy lech. Men, on the other hand, (and even underage boys in soaps and in music vids) continue to be objectified as women ogle and lech over buffed up, oiled male torsos on mainstream TV at all hours, regardless. Adverts are full of half-naked men for no apparent reason other than for the pleasure of women and gays. Modern, child rated films are full of naked male torsos and bums, and more and more graphic close-up views of male genitals are being splashed across our screens in regular films and on TV, despite women’s genitals still receiving the pixel/editing/merkin protection via the obligatory censorship supported and governed by the enforcement regulators. Magic Mike posters are spread across the sides of buses and women are actively encouraged to get a load of 50 shades and plenty of Poldark’s bare chest. Despite all the fury feminists show when describing the links between female objectification and the phycological and physical pressures placed on girls, I rarely hear anyone addressing the potential damage that male objectification could have on society. I’ve been predicting for a number of years that this will all come to a head and if you look around the internet, this very topic is rapidly heating up as the link between selfish, bigoted feminists and their open keenness to support the objectification of men is becoming visibly apparent. My crystal ball tells me that the next generation of boys (the one’s who are now approaching their teens) will quickly tire of this particular double standard and the shit will no doubt hit the proverbial fan.

There’s already been a couple of discussions about male objectification on Women’s hour and here’s another interesting one. I wonder how long, in reality, women, feminists (and I’m sure the gay community are thumbing along for the ride) can keep up this double standard without feeling like ridiculously childish little morons who are ironically reenacting what they spent considerable time whining about in the first place!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05nv240

44. Lucy says

TrulyLostIt

“Women easily sacrifice their sons for America’s future.”
Fathers?
Easily?
Daughters?

—-

” How do women do that?”
By not doing it?

—-
“Is that action by women, sexist? No. It’s called selective service.”
It’s not called that.

—-
“We can, as a result of male only selective service, have female only selective rape, right?”
Rape as a service?

—-
“Which is less selective? ”
The armed services?

“Which is less rapey/”
Not rape

—-
“Murderousy?”
Not being a trained, armed killer

—-
“How many millions of men have been sent to their deaths by the gynocracy and patriarchy?”
Not as many as unarmed, female civilians.

—-
“Why not rape/rot? ”
Why not wot?

“That’s what we do to men, right? ”
Thats what we have to put up with from men.

“Why should women have it any better? ”
Why should men make the rules?

“They shouldn’t. Vets are treated as rape/rot. ”
Veterans or animal doctors?

“Why shoudn’t women be treated the same?”
Why should men decide who’s treated how?

“Rape women. Call it sexists after the fact. That’s what women do to men.”
A) That sentence makes no sense.
B) That thought makes no sense.

Also incitement to rape is a criminal offence. Do you really want to jeapordise your release date like this?

45. Lucy says

123456milliondollarnob

“Women and feminists continue to whine and shout because they are jealous and obviously absolutely hate their men looking at other women’s bodies (a stark but true generalisation). So, page 3 gets banned, Nuts gets closed down, and men and boys daren’t even look in the direction of any woman who shows more than an inch of flesh for fear of being called a pervy lech.”

Did they whine (and shout – at the same time?) about their men looking at pictures of topless 16 year olds in their school uniforms which The Sun only stopped publishing in 2003 because they were jealous of their appearance or their affordable fashion options?

46. Lucy says

TrueDat

“When we send a son off to war…its an expectation, right? He’ll get maimed, disfigured, raped and psychologically destroyed – but that’s only if he’s lucky.”

Only if he’s lucky? Jesus, somebody is having a bad day!

—-
“When a woman gets raped – it’s as if the world ended. Men by the millions can have the same happen and it be an expectation of them.”

The world ended? Point me to the annual commemoration of female victims of war or rape. Where’s the Cenotaph and graveyard of gleaming white crosses for women that stops traffic and gets a eulogy and minute’s silence every year?

—-
“Why do we treat the above two situations so differently. ”

Because men have financial and political power, men dominate the communication channels so have spent centuries propagandising on behalf of the male, mythologising, whitewashing and romanticising male characteristics and contributions and ignoring, manipulating and demonising female ones.

—-
“Why are men so disposable?”

Because a proportion of men, around 30% with the right combination of violent genes and high testosterone keep fighting and killing each other and everything else in their paths, and women recognise the inevitability of it.

—–
“Why aren’t women more disposable – like men?”

8 million females are missing due to the the Indian holocaust to name but one example of female disposability.

47. 123454321 says

So young lads of a similar age aren’t stripped to the waste and oiled up for many of today’s media channels right here and now in 2015 – media which is clearly aiming its sights toward pleasuring the female audience with a plethora of material of this ilk, even aimed at young girls through magazines? Would you like a chance to go and check that out before you get back to me?

48. says

Our future is Sweden’s present.

It may not be perfect, but if I had to choose a “feminist dystopia” like Sweden to some assumedly more male-friendly state like, oh, I don’t know, Saudi Arabia or ISIS, the feminist dystopia wins any day of the week.

49. Lucy says

“So young lads of a similar age aren’t stripped to the waste and oiled up for many of today’s media channels right here and now in 2015 – media which is clearly aiming its sights toward pleasuring the female audience with a plethora of material of this ilk, even aimed at young girls through magazines? Would you like a chance to go and check that out before you get back to me?”

Have you ever looked at a women’s magazine? 70% of it is adverts for face creams, makeup, perfume, accessories, clothes using female models. 25% of it is articles softening you up for the 70%, 3% is empowerment articles, 2% quizzes. If a man features in it, it will be a byline for the senior editor, or the names of the media conglomerate board members an they aren’t oiled up for those nearly often enough.

50. Lucy says

123454321

101 hottest pics from Instagram advertised by woman in a bikini
Controversial skinny pill that’s taking the UK by stir, advertised by a headless woman in a bikini aimed at a female audience
Eye cream, advertised by a female eye
Avoid wearing glasses, advertised by a female eye
Personal injury claims, advertised by a pretty young female neck and a concerned looking male doctor
Quack diabetes treatment advised by a woman’s foot and a photoshopped carrot
Non-controversial bulk up diet pill, advertised by a headless man with a oiled up torso clearly aimed at a male audience

So according to this scientific study, men are objectified in advertising with the same frequency as carrots.

51. Lucy says

Thil

“I mentioned my annoyance about that program to my dad. he’s a Detective Sargent and he told me that in his experience female on male abuse really doesn’t exist.

I wonder if it’s more the case that he doesn’t hear about it because most people, even the people effected, wouldn’t call the police on a violent girlfriend like they would a violent boyfriend?”

I wonder if it’s more the case that MRAs have a blatant agenda.

52. Ally Fogg says

Lucy [51]

Right now I am getting a course in philosophy, an Intel chip, a woman’s fashion shop (which I can only attribute to Christmas shopping) and – ironically enough in the context – an advert for bodybuilding shakes with an oiled, glistening, muscley male torso.

FWIW I broadly agree with you and not 12345etc on this topic, but don’t take the ads on this page to represent anything.

53. 123454321 says

Lucy – I could give you far more than 20 examples of male objectification in advertising but I’m quite simply not going to link to those adverts. Go look it up on google for yourself.

Ally – When the damage becomes evident, you’ll start to change your mind and rest assured you’ll jump on the bandwagon. But I respect your current opinion. Quite how anyone can accept the blatant double standards is bordering on cringeworthy. I happened to be switching channels a few weeks ago and came across a programme called (I think) “the perfect penis”. Now you had to see this to believe it as it was as close to pornographic as you’ll ever get on mainstream TV. Bucket loads of male genitals and close up shots of a man fondling himself while applying some type of enlargement cream. Looked completely pornographic to me. Not as it offended me. What offends me is the sheer double standard of the situation whereby there in no way that women would be shown in the same way. It seems these days absolutely anything, no matter how course, degrading, undignified or disrespectful, can be thrown out on mainstream TV, providing of course that it relates to men. Whereas women are still protected by the same old, same old protective governance. I wonder how many young lads who watched that programme felt a bit inadequate or just thought, fuck this I’m off to watch internet porn where I do get to see the other side of the coin? Double standards are damaging, Ally, and they breed contempt and resentfulness. Nothing wrong with anything as long as it applies across the board! These double standards suck!

Lucy – show me one mainstream film with female genitals. You can’t, and that’s proof that females get some kind of special consideration, probably because they’d all whine about how sexist it was!

54. Ally Fogg says

I happened to be switching channels a few weeks ago and came across a programme called (I think) “the perfect penis”. Now you had to see this to believe it as it was as close to pornographic as you’ll ever get on mainstream TV. Bucket loads of male genitals and close up shots of a man fondling himself while applying some type of enlargement cream. Looked completely pornographic to me. Not as it offended me. What offends me is the sheer double standard of the situation whereby there in no way that women would be shown in the same way.

Nah, you are quite wrong.

I think I know the programme you are talking about. It is very much within the genre of “Embarrassing Bodies” type programming which are very popular at the moment. There are shitloads of documentaries and medical freakshows about women with wonky tits or flappy vaginas or whatever! All of it is pretty much the opposite of pornographic, in that it is about as arousing as a dead mouse.

More generally you are right to say there are double standards in terms of how media / culture display male and female bodies – they are not shown in the same ways (although I suspect the portrayals are getting closer together all the time). If you were to perform a kind of cultural studies / content analysis you would get loads and loads of differences. However the idea that men come off worse in any such analysis is nonsense.

The bottom line is that human bodies and human sexuality is commodified, commercialised and exploited left right and centre. The extent to which that happens to male bodies and male sexuality nowadays is vastly greater than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago, sure, but overall there’s still a lot of catching up to do.

My hunch is that you are falling for a huge cognitive bias where you are noticing and reacting to representations of male bodies and largely oblivious to the equivalent (or far greater) representations of women’s bodies, which are simply not registering with you because you have learned to take them absolutely for granted.

55. Ally Fogg says

Oh, and something else I was going to say, I heard the Women’s Hour slot yesterday, and thought it was quite revealing that the (broadly) pro-MRA man (Martin Daubney) was arguing that the increased sexual representation of male bodies was a harmless if not outright good thing. He made the interesting point that most young straight men are (as a general rule) quite supportive and even enjoying the way the male body can now be idealised, eroticised, objectified, and noting that the most enthusiastic displays of male bodies as objects of desire is coming from magazines like Men’s Health and even GQ, which are very much targeted at straight men.

Meanwhile the feminist woman (Tanya Gold) was making a similar argument to yours. (Basically that any human objectification is inherently harmful.)

So basically the men’s advocate was saying that we should eroticise men’s bodies the way we have always eroticised women’s bodies, and the feminist was arguing that we should hide away women’s bodies the way we used to hide away men’s bodies.

Personally I think it is all a bit more complicated than that, but it was an interesting exchange.

56. 123454321 says

Actually, I’d be happy with either no objectification or oodles of it. I’m not happy with men being ogled and leached at in an apparently acceptable fashion on daytime TV whilst hearing how bad it is do the same to women. That sucks! Women are obviously and very childishly trying to get their own back on a generation which is mostly dead. Smart and logical tactics. Not.

I also thought Martin Daubney made a very convincing point about the damage of needles and steroids. Do you agree that men and boys could be affected by body image issues and medical repercussions?Personally, I think he’s trying to use covert tactics. He knows he can’t say directly that he doesn’t agree with objectification, due in most part to the business he created. That would make him look like a fool. But he’s matured enough to see the aftermath in terms of payback on men and the potential harm it can do. So he pretends objectification is good but chucks in some fairly significant side worries to get people thinking. Basically he’s matured his thoughts but doesn’t know when the platform is right to speak out. He’s testing the water. I don’t think men are powerful enough to stop male objectification. I think women will get so board of realising how childish they look when they swoon over oiled up torsos at family viewing times that eventually they’ll start complaining themselves and request that the media gives it a rest. It’s just a testing fad and will come to an end just like everything else. You’ll see.

“I think I know the programme you are talking about.”

You specifically tuned into it didn’t you 🙂

57. Holms says

You specifically tuned into it didn’t you 🙂

“NO HOMO LOL!” Stay classy, numbers.

P.S. Lucy, you’re replying to a copy-paste spammer; I searched for some of the text from that screed and found loads of identical posts on forums all over the place. You may as well be talking to a wall.

58. Ally Fogg says

You specifically tuned into it didn’t you

Yes, actually.

In case you hadn’t noticed, I write a lot about men’s issues, masculinity, sexuality and other such things, so thought it might be worth a look.

It wasn’t, as I recall.

59. 123454321 says

“Stay classy, numbers.”

What, like the standard classy nature of the programme I was referring to above? Which I’m sure you would support, Holms!

“It wasn’t, as I recall.”

Seriously, Ally, what were you expecting? By now you must know that you can only expect no less than a barrage of excuses for a programme to splash men’s cocks and balls all over the screen with very little scripted content of any use alongside. This is not masculine TV; it’s feminised TV, because feminists won’t allow anything else! You don’t get it do you. Feminists have controlled the acceptable output, just like they control lots of other things that lead to discriminatory double standards. What does being able to count 500 cocks to every 1 bag on mainstream TV tell you? or does it tell you nothing?

60. Ally Fogg says

What does being able to count 500 cocks to every 1 bag on mainstream TV tell you? or does it tell you nothing?

It tells me you must have had your TV stuck on the hardcore Gay for Pay TV channel again, dude.

61. Holms says

What, like the standard classy nature of the programme I was referring to above? Which I’m sure you would support, Holms!

“Huuurrrrrrrrr Holms likes the peepee show lololol!”

What does being able to count 500 cocks to every 1 bag on mainstream TV tell you?

That you’ve progressed from mere exaggeration to outright lying.

62. Jacob Schmidt says

What does being able to count 500 cocks to every 1 bag on mainstream TV tell you?

The fact that the silliness is probably unintentional is the really telling part.

I don’t see a lot of dicks on TV at all, let alone mainstream TV. Dicks to seem to be semi-regularly the subject of body humour though; usually it’s some dude getting whacked in the junk for laughs. I wanna say it’s frequently as “karmic justice” too.

That has more to do with us thinking of pain as funny than any desire to objectify men. Men (myself included) are usually the ones guffawing along, too, so this really doesn’t point to any feminist conspiracy.

63. Lucy says

“Women are obviously and very childishly trying to get their own back on a generation which is mostly dead. Smart and logical tactics. Not.”

Funny how you think women are the ones making adverts. Or find oiled up torsos on slightly shorter than average men, arousing. I’m sure we’ve had this conversation before.

64. 123454321 says

“It tells me you must have had your TV stuck on the hardcore Gay for Pay TV channel again, dude.”

Nah, you’re so wrong with that one. I’d rather eat a bucket-full of crunchy toenails, than leave my TV tuned into that kind of shit.

By the way, I’ve been thinking, and I admit I was wrong. My 500:1 ratio of cocks to vags is way off target for mainstream TV and films. I can remember a programme a couple of decades ago called something like ” The Penis Unsheathed” and that alone had over 200 cocks in it (someone complained on ‘points of view’) and that was before the programme got repeated multiple times over the years on various channels. I seriously believe that if you were to count the ratio of male genitals to female genitals shown on TV over the last 2 or 3 decades the ratio would be literally thousands to one. Great for women and gays, I suppose. Hardly equality though, is it! Oh well, I guess at least they can’t show men with erections on mainstream TV. But wait. I wonder why that is? Is it because it would be offensive to men? Have I just stumbled on a form of censorship that is actually designed to protect men? Or maybe it’s because it’s perceived as being a threat to women? I must go away and ruminate on that one. Germaine Greer (feminist) actually campaigned for the right to show erections on mainstream TV. Bless her.

65. 123454321 says

“Men (myself included) are usually the ones guffawing along, too, so this really doesn’t point to any feminist conspiracy.”

Why then do feminists whine and shout until the house falls down about anything and everything that is even remotely associated with harming or mocking females whilst staying completely silent when it comes to males? And you really ought to stop guffawing at men and boys being kicked in the testicles. It’s incredibly dangerous, you know. Children (and men) have suffered severe damage as a result. Why is it so funny? I’ll tell you why. It’s because it is only bringing harm to men, and everyone knows that doesn’t matter, right? If the same applied to women, the feminists would be out in their hoards to complain, and you know it. So yeah, no conspiracy my arse. It’s all in the design.

66. 123454321 says

“Funny how you think women are the ones making adverts.”

It’s not who makes the adverts. It’s who lets them through. That part is defined by audience take-up and acceptability i.e. the decision making process which involves consideration of risk to the business you’re in. Will feminists cause me some shit over this, or won’t they. Will they, won’t they, will they, won’t they….yes they fucking will, best pull this one fellas and let the other shit go through instead, you know, the one that makes all white guys look like moronic knob-heads. Don’t worry, those men won’t complain, and women just luuurrrv it!

67. H.E. Pennypacker says

Feminists in evil plot to get male genitals onto daytime TV shocker. It sounds like if the Sunday Sport had a gender section to go with their stories about terrorists putting anthrax in Christmas crackers and Newcastle fans getting shagged to death by randy zebras.

68. Jacob Schmidt says

Why then do feminists whine and shout until the house falls down about anything and everything that is even remotely associated with harming or mocking females whilst staying completely silent when it comes to males?

At this point, it’s rather clear that the most parsimonious explanation for your observations is that your observations are not well modulated by reality.

It’s incredibly dangerous, you know.

So is having an anvil dropped on your head, or swallowing lit dynamite. Comedic violence and schedenfreude aren’t new, nor is laughing in empathy. I see no reason to get upset at this particular instance of laughing at human pain.

So yeah, no conspiracy my arse. It’s all in the design.

Ahahaha, dear lord. You couldn’t simply posit structural and cultural forces to explain you imaginary observations, no: it has to be an actual conspiracy, by design.

69. Lucy says

123etc

“Why then do feminists whine and shout until the house falls down about anything and everything that is even remotely associated with harming or mocking females whilst staying completely silent when it comes to males? A”

Because they’re busy dear boy.

70. Carnation says

@ 123454321

Do you feel like UKIP are, finally, giving voice to the unheard and unrepresented silent majority of the nation?

71. johngreg says

Jacob, try this on for size, and tell me how it fits:

Cunts seem to be semi-regularly the subject of body humour though; usually it’s some dudette getting whacked in the cunt for laughs. I wanna say it’s frequently as “karmic justice” too.

That has more to do with us thinking of pain as funny than any desire to objectify women. Women (myself included) are usually the ones guffawing along, too, so this really doesn’t point to any sexist conspiracy.

How’s that balance thing working for you these days?

72. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@ 123454321 39

“Because we are not a minority group.”
Oh, ok. How many straight white men are there in our world of 8 billion then?

A minority is defined by its relationship with the society at large. Your local culture is the most relevant. White people and white males don’t tend to be a minority, but where indicators show they have a greater problem there should be proportionate assistance.

“Until we stop being discriminatory”
You use the word “we”. When did I last discriminate against someone else because they didn’t fit my demographic? When did you last discriminate? Give me an example.

“We” is white people and many times white males here. This is a group behavior argument. Act like it.

“even if it must be a lower priority”
Why should it be a lower priority?

Because when looking at a comparison between two or more groups on a single indicator you rationally treat them differently depending on what they look like with respect to that indicator, and their relationships with one another and the indicator.

“The dominant class is not a minority by definition.”
No, we’re not talking about class. We’re talking specifically about men. Do you know the difference?

So you don’t think that men are a class? Interesting. So how do you go about categorizing people that need to have some sort of research done on them?

“White males have nowhere to turn, except other white people and white males especially. That is part of the benefit of being a white male.”
So not being able to turn to anyone except for your own demographic is a benefit. Ok.

I can admit to being hyperbolic there. It’s not as simple as only turning to one another, there is also the culture that we have created and continue to propagate.

White men have a lot more places to turn to than just other white men. The point being we are not a particularly vulnerable group on measures that matter to minority groups. We have more resources and the irrational prejudice and discrimination that harms minority groups benefits us.
Try not to confuse yourself with white men as a group.

“In the second to last paragraph, in “They have somewhere to turn…”, “They” are my fellow white people.”
Oh, now I get it, for one second I thought….oh never mind, scoot along now. Bye.

I refuse to scoot along. Now what?

73. Jacob Schmidt says

I’m not seeing anything inherently objectionable there, johngreg. Presumably, I am supposed to map “woman in pain” to “it’s funny because she’s a woman in pain” and conclude that the trend is sexist. And I do see that sometimes: people laughing at other people’s pain, not out of empathy or good natured humour, but out of a desire to see a class of people hurt and degraded. But without that second element, it’s just laughing at impromptu slapstick; lowbrow to be sure, but not really objectionable.

How’s that balance thing working for you these days?

I don’t know what you’re talking about.

74. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

Note: even if this was posted in lots of other places around the net I still find them worth responding to. For practice and preparation for some of it to possibly repeated in the future if nothing else.
@TheTruth SpokenPlainly 30

We all remember the wars women fought and died in to attain their rights, right? The names of those wars are so well known, are they not? Women didn’t ride on the shoulders of men for their rights, did they? Women didn’t expect men die for their rights, did they?
To be a woman is to be a coward. To be a woman is to expect the death of a male for women’s rights. To be a woman is to be a monster.

I agree that women and other female people did not fight in wars as much as men. That does not mean that this was their choice, or that women and female people wielded most of the power to make men fight for them. Male people have traditionally been in charge of the most important parts of society that actually have associated power.
There are women and female people right now fighting to be taken seriously in the marines and special forces for example. In fact everywhere that women and female people might be able to conflict with male people (like sports and video games) they are fighting for respect. I think that you are full of shit.

Feminists are here for good, right?

As a group of people following a political philosophy that pertains to the experiences, problems and social context of woman and female people, yes.

You cant have a good time without a woman ruining everything, right?

Not if it’s sexist joke hour at work or something similar. I would say that it’s not the woman or female people ruining anything, it’s the person telling the sexist joke or doing other shitty things for “fun”. This a specificity fail.

Is there a way to teach all men what follows? If not, then get back to me:
Here’s all you need to learn as a man. You don’t need to understand feminists. You don’t need to understand MRAs. You don’t need to understand anything but what I’m about to tell you. Here’s the truth that no one wants you to know. Ready? You’re not supposed to know that (except for gay people):

Why don’t I need to underst and feminists and MRAs? Why does that knowledge have to be ignored because of what follows? And why do gay people matter here? Are gay people somehow not masculine or feminine, both of which are relevant to this discussion?

There is nothing more damaging to the vast majority of men than the patriarchy and white knight/chivalrous men. These men are extremely naive, ignorant and self-serving. Men in power will gladly throw the majority of men under the bus to gain favor with the gynocracy, to keep their jobs (get re-elected) and to maintain the status quo (see ‘1 in 5′ and ‘yes means yes’).

Ah, “white knight”. Another useless term that tells you a persons feelings but cannot be judged without the example. “A person defending another who I do not want defended”. I’ve yet to see that word applied in a legitimate way. I don’t think that you mean to say that the patriarchy is damaging which is what your wording implies.
I’m just not going to accept that rape statistics and laws meant to improve them are throwing anyone under the bus except for rapists without some evidence. In fact the more that I see evidence-less, paranoid, historically and socially inaccurate screeds like this the more I see someone possibly terrified that they or someone they know will get in trouble for a rape.

When it was asked for, the patriarchy gave women the right to vote, the right to higher education and the right to work. Unless they sign up for selective service, men still don’t have many of the rights women are granted by default. Initially, men had to enlist and fight in war to have the rights women were freely given – by the patriarchy.

Gave women and female people (get used to me saying this) the right to vote? Like every other minority advance women and their allies had to fight for it and convince others, or cause so much trouble that keeping it from them was no longer worth it socially. Like what is happening in Indiana right now, so much trouble they are backtracking and it makes me smile. It’s why I like to make trouble too.
If you are saying that the benefits denied men who don’t sign up for the draft should be theirs without having to sign up I agree. And so do a hell of a lot of women, female people and feminists. In fact I see no reason to think that this situation is anything more than men forcing other men to go to war since the 65th congress that established the selective service once again looks like a congress that is so dominated by men that if there are any women in there it’s like finding a needle in a haystack. So who are the women this congress was obeying?

I have never seen a movement so overflowing with hypocrisy, double standards and sexism than feminism. Take ‘yes means yes’ for example. To feminists, this is a good law. What’s more, the law is based entirely on bogus, debunked rape statistics. It’s no surprise that the patriarchy agrees with the ‘yes means yes’ law. The president of the United States, the patriarch of all patriarchs, personally endorsed and pushed ‘yes means yes’ into being.

I’m not seeing any argument for hypocrisy or double standards here. For those to be present men and women must be equal on all indicators. I can certainly admit that work always needs to be done to ensure that statistics are accurate (for example rates of male rape may be close to parity with female rape, a phenomenon I suspect you want to blame on female people, women and feminists).
But I won’t pretend that we should not act on what we do know. For example it seems that most perpetrators of sex crimes including rape are male (pg 34. Those perpetrators will be spreading things around the net like this because it makes sense strategically. I’m not going to ignore that.

Alimony, child support and default maternal custody are constructs of the patriarchy and constructs of a time when women could not support themselves financially. This is American patriarchy. Men made these rules, which have, through divorce, destroyed countless millions of men’s lives. Though feminists did milk it for all it was worth, the patriarchy made men the disposable gender, not feminists.

As long as we have households where one person sacrifices a career to raise the children and maintain more of the household there will be alimony. It’s only because of historical reality that most people getting alimony are female. There will be men that need alimony as well, and those men will also be needing the child support in all likely hood.
As for “destroying men’s lives”, that is far too general. That statement can mean many things and I need to see examples of what that means. Some people will take any loss to their livelihoods as “destroyed” in strategic hyperbole (a thing we all use to varying extents), and I want to see what some genuine destruction looks like.

It was mandated by society that men be providers and protectors of their families, just like women were mandated by society to be homemakers and caregivers. It was mandated that men go to war and sacrifice their lives for women and children. Those men that refused were branded cowards, imprisoned and ostracized socially and financially. Men and women that didn’t play ball were demonized by both patriarchs and matriarchs. In the past, for a man to get a decent job, he had to be married with kids. To some degree, this social rule still exists today – enforced by both the patriarchy and the matriarchy.

Maintaining such a system is a bad thing in my opinion. But I’m not willing to just accept that male and female people have an equal role in this system, or that somehow the responsibility falls on feminists, feminism and female people the way that you do.

The patriarchal structure was designed to benefit women and those men at the top – and to make the majority of men disposable. This is how we arrived at male-only selective service and the male only draft. Feminists distort the real truth when they paint all men as evil oppressors. Why do they still do it? Because it’s served them well for many, many decades. Now, as things are backfiring, you can smell the desperation. The patriarchy and gynocracy are seeing the err in their ways. Naive white knights and misandric feminists are getting their just due.

I can agree with the first part. But those men at the top had far more power than you want to give credit for because under them were many men who wanted to be a person at the top and willingly supported the system. There was no analogous system for female people and woman to gain those roles.We aggressive men also tend to respond to authority and I will not ignore that.
As stated you provide no evidence that feminism can be defined as a thing that portrays all men as evil oppressors. The social analysis that exists because of feminism would probably show that most evil oppressors were and are men though. So don’t go pretending the men like me are going to be so simple minded as you.

75. Lucy says

Joh grey

“Try this on for size.

Cunts seem to be semi-regularly the subject of body humour though; usually it’s some dudette getting whacked in the cunt for laughs. I wanna say it’s frequently as “karmic justice” too.
That has more to do with us thinking of pain as funny than any desire to objectify women. Women (myself included) are usually the ones guffawing along, too, so this really doesn’t point to any sexist conspiracy.”

Well this is hardly a hypothetical scenario is it, you just described 88% of porn.

And worse than merely being amused by it, men get orgasmic over it. And are addicted to it.

The motive is certainly largely a desire for some imagined MRA if not karmic justice. It’s no coincidence that misogynistic porn and horror exploded in the 70s and again in the 90s. The justification is hypocritical arguments of free (hate) expression and freedom to exploit if you can get people to give some kind of ambiguous consent to exploitation.

If instead of that I had to live with a handful of female comediennes making cunt kicking jokes, I’d count myself so extraordinarily lucky that I’d shut the hell up.

76. Lucy says

“I agree that women and other female people did not fight in wars as much as men. That does not mean that this was their choice, or that women and female people wielded most of the power to make men fight for them. ”

Why on earth should women fight in wars?

It’s quite bad enough we have to put up with these egomaniacal masculine fuck fests. at regular intervals. In between riots and revolutions and brawls that make our town centres no go zones.

Women are pulling more than their warfare weight by having their homes and towns reduced to toxic rubble, being displaced, enslaved, raped en masse, murdered.

You want to give us guns and training to fight back? Are you sure?

77. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@123454321 66, 67

Why then do feminists whine and shout until the house falls down about anything and everything that is even remotely associated with harming or mocking females whilst staying completely silent when it comes to males?… It’s because it is only bringing harm to men, and everyone knows that doesn’t matter, right? If the same applied to women, the feminists would be out in their hoards to complain, and you know it. So yeah, no conspiracy my arse. It’s all in the design.

Will feminists cause me some shit over this, or won’t they. Will they, won’t they, will they, won’t they….yes they fucking will, best pull this one fellas and let the other shit go through instead, you know, the one that makes all white guys look like moronic knob-heads.

It’s amazing how much of what you are on a human level you reveal. Fortunately it’s stuff that you can change. Rather than focus on the portrayals of men that you do not like and do activism to change those, you are preoccupied with the decisions of other people primarily interested in different things than you are. These are the actions of a person attacking others for solving their own problems, a tantrum designed to make them care about you. As a man why would I want an ally like you? I have no reason to believe that you would not attack me for trying to draw attention to my issues of interest, even within issues that matter to men.
I see the same shit in articles talking about the problems of women all over the net, people desperate to replace attention to another person’s problems that choose to try to hide that attention or replace it with something else. The proper thing to do is write articles, send letters and do you own activism to point out your issue. You will even discover that there are feminists who would join you if you stop whining about what other people do with their activism.

Feminists have a particular focus when it comes to social activism. That’s how it works. The results of that focus are even very useful to men. It’s ok for a person to emphasize issues that are relevant to themselves and their own social goals because we don’t have unlimited time and resources. So feminists complain about the portrayals of women, and you have to assume that means they don’t care about men as in ” It’s because it is only bringing harm to men, and everyone knows that doesn’t matter, right?”. You can have a well deserved Fuck you for that.
Grow a fucking spine and do activism in a way that will encourage others to want to help you and find common aspects harming all of us instead of seeing as a social enemy. If you act like an enemy you will be treated like one.

78. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@Lucy 78
As long as there is a need for people trained to fight and even kill other people I see no reason deny qualified female people a place in those ranks. I would love it if such people were not needed at all, but I would not deny any qualified person a place while they are needed.

If you have a general political opposition to people trained to fight and kill that is a different argument, and I can understand you being opposed to that. I can also respect activism meant to draw attention to the suffering of people caused by war, and any ways that this suffering might be different to different genders.

But that is different from a general desire to see male and female people treated equally for what we do when we think fighting is necessary. I would not expect you to support something like that if you did not want to.

79. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

Just to farther clarify my #80, I want woman who want to be in the military and serve to be able to. It’s not about “should woman fight”, it’s about respecting the ones that want to.

80. Lucy says

“As long as there is a need for people trained to fight and even kill other people I see no reason deny qualified female people a place in those ranks.”

I can see two reasons.

The pragmatic reason is that women didn’t set up our political system, they were deliberately excluded from that process until recently. Unsurprisingly women aren’t represented in it either. We have 20% nominal representation though even that is an overestimate because it’s a masculine setup. So let’s be generous and say women should contribute 5% of what men do to the country’s upkeep (after reparations have been repaid to us for 1000 years of colonisation).

But on philosophical grounds, orchestrated tribal violence is a masculine trait, in practically every animal species including our own. Sex is THE significant factor in criminal and non-criminal violence, and hormone treatment is THE most effective treatment for reducing its propensity. Women and children have always born the brunt of that violence of course- more uncommemorated unarmed civilians than the celebrated armed soldiers die in wars. It’s not equality for women for women to get sucked into perpetuating that.

81. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@Lucy 82
I want to make sure I understand you correctly and address anything that you are primarily concerned about, so if I neglect something please let me know. But let me tell you where I am coming from here, so I you can help me out with some functional advice if you can..

I need to know what to do when I am faced with a situation involving woman and other female persons in the military in my daily life. My two best IRL friends and their wives were all in the army. My niece is even now reenlisting in the army. I have to be able to not only do the best I can to be a feminist ally in a general sense, I need to support those women as well. My niece especially is excited to be reenlisting, and no matter what else happens I need to be able support woman like her who are choosing to go into the military.

The pragmatic reason is that women didn’t set up our political system, they were deliberately excluded from that process until recently. Unsurprisingly women aren’t represented in it either. We have 20% nominal representation though even that is an overestimate because it’s a masculine setup. So let’s be generous and say women should contribute 5% of what men do to the country’s upkeep (after reparations have been repaid to us for 1000 years of colonisation).

As long as women are going into the military in a country (the US in my case), and want to go into the military I’m not sure how pragmatics is relevant, unless you are saying you want society to deny women a place in the military (I used the word deny)? That would seem to be a strange thing given goals of sex and gender equality so I’m not sure you would mean that. Can you expand if I am not getting you?

But on philosophical grounds, orchestrated tribal violence is a masculine trait, in practically every animal species including our own. Sex is THE significant factor in criminal and non-criminal violence, and hormone treatment is THE most effective treatment for reducing its propensity. Women and children have always born the brunt of that violence of course- more uncommemorated unarmed civilians than the celebrated armed soldiers die in wars. It’s not equality for women for women to get sucked into perpetuating that.

First why are you talking about hormone treatment? How are you thinking such treatment should be used other than for transmen, cis men and other that might need it for medical reasons.

Second, a question to better let you know a little more about where I am coming from. Do you think that women can be masculine, or is that a word that should be associated with female only? Because that is three aggressive female people who identify as woman that I want to support. No to mention female people with tourette’s syndrome who are also more masculine in nature.

I’m not denying that women and children bear a huge cost form war. I’m addressing women and female people who are going into the military now and the social support that they would need to be treated equally. Are you saying we should prevent women from enlisting, or that society should not support their equal treatment for as long as there is a military?

Despite what the significant factors are, I need to be able to support the women in my life.

82. Lucy says

“My niece especially is excited to be reenlisting, and no matter what else happens I need to be able support woman like her who are choosing to go into the military.”

Why do you need to support women like her? There’s a difference between supporting people’s *right* to make choices, and respecting their actual choices.

I think joining the armed forces is an unfeminist choice. They are a masculine invention, for a masculine purpose, they divert huge sums of money from most feminist causes and undermine feminist progress by bringing violent anarchy and the destruction of infrastructure to the places affected. Your neice will ultimately be responsible for hurting more women without weapons than men with them. I can’t see how any feminist would support this system. I get that it’s an exciting and challenging job for women as well as men, that the motives for fighting can be noble ones – ie. to prevent worse violence, and I believe that a feminised military internationally would work wonders for world peace and in the short term those are all good things. But all that could be achieved better in the political sphere in the long term.

—-
“First why are you talking about hormone treatment? How are you thinking such treatment should be used other than for transmen, cis men and other that might need it for medical reasons.”

Studies on US prisoners show that testosterone is higher in violent men and increases the likelihood of violence. 90% of modern are committed by males. Hormone treatment to reduce testosterone (chemical castration) reduces recidivism in violent sex offenders to below 5%, much more effective than any alternative non-biological treatments. It would presumably have the same effect on non-sexual violent offenders.

30% of men have the so-called Warrior Gene which produces an enzyme MAOA, 16% have the low seratonin gene. These both predispose people to violence, a predisposition that comes to fruition with the right environmental factors.

Violence is an inherent part of maleness, a proportion of men are born that way, much as Ally Fogg would claim otherwise. And our whole world has been shaped by that, and lives in its shadow.

Violence and the tyranny of men over women engulfs our planet. That’s not hyperbole, in no country do women have parity with men, in several men are running amok, as they do every decade and women are so terrified they have undertaken mass migrations, in most so-called peaceful nations, violence bubbles away under the surface; women live with perpetual anxiety over the threat of personal violence and have limited civil rights as a result.

The claims, favoured by Ally Fogg, that violence is decreasing and the world is getting more peaceful have been seriously challenged, if not debunked. Seems to me that we ought to face facts, changing the environment alone is not going to solve this problem.

83. Holms says

#65 1234
By the way, I’ve been thinking, and I admit I was wrong. … I seriously believe that if you were to count the ratio of male genitals to female genitals shown on TV over the last 2 or 3 decades the ratio would be literally thousands to one.

Utter bullshit. Apparently you haven’t noticed the shift towards tv series’ using naked women much more frequently than men to show off how ‘mature’ the show is, most likely due to a massive confirmation bias. That, or you are a liar.

___

#77 Lucy
Well this is hardly a hypothetical scenario is it, you just described 88% of porn.

So you think getting kicked in the groin describes 88% of porn??

___

#82 Lucy
“As long as there is a need for people trained to fight and even kill other people I see no reason deny qualified female people a place in those ranks.”
I can see two reasons. […]

And the fact that you are casually overriding the agency of those women that do wish to sign up doesn’t bother you?

84. johngreg says

Just a heads up for folks “debating” with Holms: Holms calls stated beliefs, interpretations, perceptions, opinions, and/or understandings, when they turn out to be either somewhat-to-altogether mistaken and/or proven wrong, lies. So tread carefully.

There are many proofs of this, but I think the one in comment #85 above eggs the pudding properly: 1234 … states that 1234 … “seriously believes”, i.e, interprets, perceives, thinks, understands such-and-such, and Holms just outright calls him a liar. For a belief, interpretation, perspective, opinion, and/or understanding of a phenomena.

Yay! Way-to-go Holmsy and your brand of freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism. Yay!

85. 123454321 says

“Utter bullshit. Apparently you haven’t noticed the shift towards tv series’ using naked women much more frequently than men to show off how ‘mature’ the show is, most likely due to a massive confirmation bias. That, or you are a liar.”

Show me one, single, recent, mainstream TV series (NOT factual medical related) with close-up graphic images of female genitals whacked in there as a justification to support part of the “plot”, or to appeal to the viewers. If you can, I might go as far as to with you a Happy Easter! If you can’t, you’d best give in and shut the fuck up.

86. 123454321 says

There must have been 1000 penises in Eurotrash series alone! No flaps though – all pixelated out.

87. avern says

@123454321

“Show me one, single, recent, mainstream TV series (NOT factual medical related) with close-up graphic images of female genitals whacked in there as a justification to support part of the ‘plot’, or to appeal to the viewers.”

They won’t because they can’t. Holms, Jacob Schmidt, and every single feminist who decides to spout off about this subject will do nothing but lie and deflect because they know deep down that there is a double standard concerning nudity and body exploitation and that works against men.

Notice how they’re completely incapable of making a counter argument or providing evidence for their claims? All they can do is say that you’re crazy and leave it at that. Feminists are pathetic liars and cowards, every one of them.

@Ally

“It tells me you must have had your TV stuck on the hardcore Gay for Pay TV channel again, dude.”

Wow, nice to know you’re a total homophobe, Ally.

88. Holms says

#88 1234
Show me one, single, recent, mainstream TV series (NOT factual medical related) with close-up graphic images of female genitals whacked in there as a justification to support part of the “plot”, or to appeal to the viewers. If you can, I might go as far as to with you a Happy Easter! If you can’t, you’d best give in and shut the fuck up.

Game of Thrones. Hurry, Easter is running out!

Dissembling in 3…2…1…

___

#89 avern
They won’t because they can’t.

Oops, you lose! I’m sure you’ll graciously take that back…

Wow, nice to know you’re a total homophobe, Ally.

Except that the comment wasn’t homophobic at all, as it does not disparage gay people, nor the watching of gay porn. As opposed to 1234’s replies at 57 and 60, which openly mock Ally and then myself in connection to the topic of gay porn.

Since you’re so concerned with fairness, I’m sure you must not have seen those, but maybe you’d now like to air your criticisms of 1234 in that regard…?

89. sheaf29 says

Are there female genitals in Game of thrones? I dont think so.

90. johngreg says

Another note to keep in mind: SJWs in general, and people like Holms, Brony, et al. in particular, constantly and consistently play language games wherein words, grammar, and the general intent and dennotative meaning of them, and of sentences in general, can and will be altered to fit their (the SJWs and Holms et al.) particular given argument of the day.

Generally speaking (there are variations), these folks are deeply, completely, and consistently mendacious, manipulative, utterly ethically (and rhetorically and ideologically) malleable, and are most certainly not to be trusted in public.

In SJW-land, and Holmsville et al., what’s good on Tuesday is sexist on Wednesday, evil on Thursday, racist on Friday, and wholly fine again on Saturday (cripes, just read PZ for a couple of weeks and you can witness all of the preceding with great clarity). Also, they tend to base most of their ideological, ethical, and moral grounds/points of view on who is saying what. Content is irrelevant; the speaker is all.

91. avern says

@Holms

“Oops, you lose! I’m sure you’ll graciously take that back…”

Nice try dipshit, but you’re still a lying coward. Game of Thrones shows bush from time to time, but never shows female genitals; it HAS however shown a main character’s penis. The feminist attempt to equate female breasts and pubic hair with male genitals shows how disingenuous and misandrous they are.

“Except that the comment wasn’t homophobic at all, as it does not disparage gay people, nor the watching of gay porn. As opposed to 1234’s replies at 57 and 60, which openly mock Ally and then myself in connection to the topic of gay porn.
Since you’re so concerned with fairness, I’m sure you must not have seen those, but maybe you’d now like to air your criticisms of 1234 in that regard…?”

WOW, you literally can’t stop lying. Do you honestly believe you can get away with just blatantly lying all the time? 123454321 was referring to a documentary about penises that was pornographic in its explicitness, NOT gay porn. He clearly stated he was against the constant exploitation of explicit male nudity to pander to feminist audiences. Since you don’t give a shit about men, their dignity, or fairness, it does seem likely that you would like to watch a show like that.

The only person who brought up gay porn specifically was Ally, and he used it to mock an opponent’s argument. That is classic homophobia. Feminists using homophobia against gay men to shut down discussion–how utterly typical.

92. johngreg says

Avern said:

The feminist attempt to equate female breasts and pubic hair with male genitals shows how disingenuous and misandrous they are.

Yes, indeed. Except when they don’t, as per We can show our breasts in public ’cause they ain’t sexy bits, they’s feedin’ units!.

Or Dr. Professor Hornbeck’s infamous (and hilariously idiotic) All gender and sexual so-called differences are entirely social constructs, and do not exist in the real world.

Etc, et-fucking-cetera.

93. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@Lucy 84

Why do you need to support women like her? There’s a difference between supporting people’s *right* to make choices, and respecting their actual choices.

I need to support women like her because she is entering a world that is still struggling to treat male and female people equally. Did you see what I wrote about how excited my niece was to be going back in to the military? This IS her actual choice.
You may think that it is an unfeminist choice for the women I know to join the military, but I am respecting and supporting that choice. While the military exists I don’t see how it is unfeminist to support her and work towards a military that is as supportive of all of its people.
Neither is war or military dismissible as masculine in the way that you are dismissing it. Female/feminine and male/masculine do not sort into two categories. There are female people with what can be considered masculine qualities and many of them go into the military. There are male people with what can be considered feminine qualities and they will not likely go into the military.
Your point about women and children and the effects of war is an important point, but both battles can be fought at the same time. I can support the military women in my life as you work on the problems associated with war. It would be nice if we did not need militaries and that is a world worth working towards. But we are not there yet.

Studies on US prisoners show that testosterone is higher in violent men and increases the likelihood of violence. 90% of modern are committed by males. Hormone treatment to reduce testosterone (chemical castration) reduces recidivism in violent sex offenders to below 5%, much more effective than any alternative non-biological treatments. It would presumably have the same effect on non-sexual violent offenders.

First of all testosterone does the same thing in women as it does in men here. As a hormone it roughly maps onto dominance behavior. Despite that puff of the stuff that makes a fetus a biological male it is also involved in the development of biological females. We still don’t know how much of the difference between male and female humans is nature or nurture with respect to aggression. Female people with more aggressive instincts tend to be forced to act differently by society and that process of forcing a person to be different from what their instincts want will have biological effects. This is why I mentioned female people with tourette’s syndrome. They are described as being more masculine in behavior and having more gender dysphoria.
Second of all I’m not talking about violent sex offenders or other violent criminals. I’m talking about aggressive women in my life that need social support. I do not see how your points do anything more than pretend that those women don’t exist by pointing to trends.

30% of men have the so-called Warrior Gene which produces an enzyme MAOA, 16% have the low seratonin gene. These both predispose people to violence, a predisposition that comes to fruition with the right environmental factors.

There will be women who also have this form of the gene. Those women will probably tend to go into the military more often.

Violence is an inherent part of maleness, a proportion of men are born that way, much as Ally Fogg would claim otherwise.

Violence is an inherent part of HUMANITY. I’m not dismissing the trends, I am talking about the female people I know who are on a different part of that bell curve. You cannot ignore their existence.
Relatedly, I am in fact a medical case study in violent and aggressive personalities as a person with tourette’s syndrome. I control my aggression. I choose when to be aggressive and when to monitor and suppress my aggression. Culture helped me with that. Yes violence and aggression are problems, but they are also perfectly normal parts of human expression that are not going anywhere. What they need is channeling and control by social structure.

Violence and the tyranny of men over women engulfs our planet.

I agree that violence and tyranny of male people over female people is a huge problem all over the world. This does not make the aggressive women in my life go away. They still need support. I still have to support them in their efforts to be treated equally. These are facts that you have to face. While they are important things, pointing at the things you have been pointing to have done nothing but hide the women in my life that I am talking about.

94. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@johngreg
You are certainly a pathetic one.
@86
Holmes states that being a liar was a possibility. Saying that a statement might be a lie is not the same as calling someone a liar. Selectively quoting and paraphrasing like that is deceptive, and you might be lying. Or you might really believe what you are saying which would be worse because that would mean that you have the quoting skills of a creationist.
@92

Another note to keep in mind: SJWs in general, and people like Holms, Brony, et al. in particular, constantly and consistently play language games wherein words, grammar, and the general intent and dennotative meaning of them, and of sentences in general, can and will be altered to fit their (the SJWs and Holms et al.) particular given argument of the day.

Care to cite an example?
Because you have once again ignored the reality that language is not a dead thing that remains unchanging. Language changes. Language evolved. One of the reasons that it changes is because we use it to fight sociopolitically.
That is not a game. Refusing to go along with certain language use is part of how sociopolitical conflict works.

You will not win this fight.

Generally speaking (there are variations), these folks are deeply, completely, and consistently mendacious, manipulative, utterly ethically (and rhetorically and ideologically) malleable, and are most certainly not to be trusted in public.

Here are some examples of what I mean.
The insistence by some that racial and gendered slurs in video games and the wider culture should not be seen as offensive and that the rest of us should just accept it.
The way that in the US we don’t tend to apply the word “terrorist” to white males of European ancestry who engage in otherwise identical acts.
The way that terrorism get applied to all sorts of silly things like boycotts.
The way that you portrayed Holm’s comment as calling someone a liar when they were in fact saying someone could be a liar. You are quite the extravagant hypocrite and projectionist.

In SJW-land, and Holmsville et al., what’s good on Tuesday is sexist on Wednesday, evil on Thursday, racist on Friday, and wholly fine again on Saturday (cripes, just read PZ for a couple of weeks and you can witness all of the preceding with great clarity). Also, they tend to base most of their ideological, ethical, and moral grounds/points of view on who is saying what. Content is irrelevant; the speaker is all.

If you check my comments on this site you will very rarely find me emphasizing any sort of person as an authority over what the person is talking about, their content. In fact when it comes to content I would say that I’m more prone to slicing it up into smaller parts for analysis than most people around here. You are quite willfully ignorant at the very least.

95. johngreg says

It is rather intersting to note that Breitbart, of all places, is making more sense these days than SJWs in general, and rhetorical robots like Holms, Brony, et al., in particular. How’s that squad of rhetorical assassins coming along, Brony? Jumped any ponies yet?

Breitbart discusses how the Hugo’s have finally been opened up to the general reading and writing public, and are no longer held hostage by the fanatical SJW lunatic fringe: _breitbart.com/london/2015/04/04/hugo-awards-nominations-swept-by-anti-sjw-anti-authoritarian-authors/

96. johngreg says

As this is the so-called Friday Open thingy, I shall continue my anti SJW screed.

There is a refreshing breath of fresh air blousing around the Internet these days as more and more places, not just the Pit, are exposing and focussing on the toxic sludge and dire threat to a vast range of social freedoms that is the SJW movment.

As I have noted elsewhere, it is important to distinguish between legitimate social activism, and the kind of Orwellian dictates and dogma evangelized by folks like Holms, Brony, and the myriad other Social Justice Warriors present on most FTB blogs, Skepchick.org, the two primary A+ forums/BBSes, and so on.

I remain somewhat mystified by Ally’s continued presence here at FTB. He is, for the most part, the only somewhat rational, honest, and non-SJW blogger on this network. I must admit that I am curious about his motives and/or rationale for remaining, especially as he is beginning to attract such vivid non-egalitarians as the aformentioned robots of rhetoric, et al.

It must be said that Ally’s blog is actually the only FTB blog to truthfully practice the moniker’s intent: free thought. And for that, I am, well, not exactly grateful, but I do enjoy reading here, even when Lucy descends.

I know you don’t much like my comments Ally, but I do enjoy your presence, and respect your tolerance, on an otherwise increasingly intolerant and moribund blogging network. The contrast is refreshing and informative.

97. Holms says

<#86 johngreg
There are many proofs of this, but I think the one in comment #85 above eggs the pudding properly: 1234 … states that 1234 … “seriously believes”, i.e, interprets, perceives, thinks, understands such-and-such, and Holms just outright calls him a liar. For a belief, interpretation, perspective, opinion, and/or understanding of a phenomena.
Read my post #85 again; this time, pay attention to the word ‘or’.

#93 avern
Nice try dipshit, but you’re still a lying coward. Game of Thrones shows bush from time to time, but never shows female genitals; it HAS however shown a main character’s penis.

It shows unobstructed views of male and female groins, with female in the lead by a wide margin. The fact that not much female genitalia is visible is entirely natural due to the shape of such; to get a good view would require either a shave or a pornographic zoom. Regardless, the trend of naked croth leans markedly to the female side.

The fact that you are using this idiocy to try to defend 1234’s already ridiculous assertions in aid of his martyr complex (1000+ to 1 ratio of full male nudity to female) is precisely what I predicted: dissembling. It is a testament to the assertion that you lot engage in bad faith argument with wild abandon.

123454321 was referring to a documentary about penises that was pornographic in its explicitness, NOT gay porn. He clearly stated he was against the constant exploitation of explicit male nudity to pander to feminist audiences. Since you don’t give a shit about men, their dignity, or fairness, it does seem likely that you would like to watch a show like that.
When I mentioned 1234 in connection with homophobia, you might have noticed that I referred to his “replies at 57 and 60” and mentioned that said replies “openly mock Ally and then myself”. So, let’s look at the specific bits I meant:

#57:
“You specifically tuned into it didn’t you :-)” Mocking Ally for watching a show about the penis.

#60:
“What, like the standard classy nature of the programme I was referring to above? Which I’m sure you would support, Holms!” Mocking me by implying that I would watch said show is basically the same as above.

Both of these are clear schoolyard games in which someone is mockingly implied to be gay, as that were a bad thing. Homophobia.

Naturally, you will dissemble some more rather than retract your assertion that I am a liar.

#97 johngreg
Breitbart discusses how the Hugo’s have finally been opened up to the general reading and writing public, and are no longer held hostage by the fanatical SJW lunatic fringe: …

Are you aware that the MRA-ish authors solicited voters for specific authors on the grounds of their personal politics, without those new voters necessarily reading any of the works being voted for? And therefore the complete opposite of Breitbart’s characterisation.

98. Stilljenganger says

@Brony 96
You wrote (to JohnGreg):

Because you have once again ignored the reality that language is not a dead thing that remains unchanging. Language changes. Language evolved. One of the reasons that it changes is because we use it to fight sociopolitically.
That is not a game. Refusing to go along with certain language use is part of how sociopolitical conflict works.

Language changes, yes.. And everybody have heir own loaded word that reflect their views and fit badly with competing views, yes. But debate is not a zero-sum game of who-dominates-whom. It is perfectly possibly to find words that leave space for all the competing opinions, and then debate with arguments instead of trying to impose definitions. Using language as a weapon means making it impossible to debate.

Specifically, between the two of us, I have argued for words that allowed both our opinions be expressed. It is not a case of my words being a strait-jacket that other people legitimate try to break out of. If anything it is other people insisting on definitions (e.g. that ‘woman’ is defined by gender identity only) that makes their o[pinion the only one that can be reasonably expressed. And that is a dishonest power move, no matter who are using it. I may not agree with JohnGregs wordings, but he does have a point about progressive people in general tendentially trying to win by linguistic bullying instead of arguments.

99. avern says

@holms

“It shows unobstructed views of male and female groins, with female in the lead by a wide margin. The fact that not much female genitalia is visible is entirely natural due to the shape of such; to get a good view would require either a shave or a pornographic zoom.”

So now you’re openly ADMITTING you’re a liar, since you have to very noticeably change the goal post from “genitals” to “groins”. You were asked specifically to provide an example where a mainstream show exposes a woman’s genitals for storyline purposes and, like a typical feminist, you failed and tried to cover up that failure with excuses.

Also, your argument that it’s oh so impossible to reasonably show a woman’s genitals is false. In “A Room with a View” there’s an extended skinny dipping sequence involving three men that had it involved women, it would have shown vulva. Same with the recent movie “Maps to the Stars.” An actor is shown sitting in a chair with his legs spread and, despite being rated-R, he starts masturbating. Again, if it were an actress in his role, her vulva would have been completely exposed.

You have absolutely no counterargument. Male nudity is vastly more exposed in the media. That’s an indisputable fact.

“It is a testament to the assertion that you lot engage in bad faith argument with wild abandon.”

Your face must be purple from trying to squeeze out this turd of a sentence. You straight up lost this argument, so give it up.

“Both of these are clear schoolyard games in which someone is mockingly implied to be gay, as that were a bad thing. Homophobia.”

Nope, you’re not going to weasel your way out of this. 123454321’s sarcastic use of the phrase “standard classy nature of the programme” proves that he was mocking Ally’s and your approval of vulgar trash. And he was right because you continue to defend vulgar trash.

Pay close attention. The ONLY person to explicitly accuse someone of watching something gay was Ally when he mocking accused 123454321 of watching gay porn. By your standard, Ally was engaging in explicit homophobia. But you won’t point that out because like all feminists you only pretend to have morals.

100. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@johngreg 97
You have always been a fascinating one johngreg. The sort of irrational mind running purely on political behavior that I love to watch and learn the patterns from. The way that you flee from substance and offer up personal smokescreens has always been informative. Almost every interaction with you has been a study in what pure primate politics looks like without the connection to the real world that such maneuvering needs to stay honest. It’s why I don’t tend to associate with most folks that claim to be about men’s rights. It’s all about winning and no consistency with reality.

You entered into this thread by making some very specific accusations and assertions, and are now avoiding your obligations by cowardly running from them:

You accused me and others of language games and have yet to give me your example or address the reality of how language works which we use to socially conflict and objectively changes over time.
You accused me and others of manipulation and other phantoms, and when I demonstrate how you manipulated the contents of Holm’s comment you backed away from defending your characterization.
This,

Apparently you haven’t noticed the shift towards tv series’ using naked women much more frequently than men to show off how ‘mature’ the show is, most likely due to a massive confirmation bias. That, or you are a liar.

…versus this,

… states that 1234 … “seriously believes”, i.e, interprets, perceives, thinks, understands such-and-such, and Holms just outright calls him a liar. For a belief, interpretation, perspective, opinion, and/or understanding of a phenomena.

Sorry but saying that there are options that include lying is simply not “outright calling him a liar”. Now who is playing games? I’m at least honest about why I use language the way that I do.

You then said that we can’t offer counter arguments or provide evidence for claims, while refusing to offer a counter argument or provide evidence for claims.

Such perfect use of hypocrisy that depends on group emotions to stay hidden in its simplest form. I’m glad you are full of optimism. That means that the world is likely very different than you believe it is.

101. WhineyM says

Wow Johnreg, what a fascinating article

_breitbart.com/london/2015/04/04/hugo-awards-nominations-swept-by-anti-sjw-anti-authoritarian-authors/

The sad and rabid puppies – love it! If the piece is true, it would seem to imply that, far from being completely separate groups who have nothing to do with each other, the SJW tribe and the establishment, ‘mainstream’ left often act in a symbiotic fashion, backing and reinforcing each others campaigns, and creating pressure on others to conform with their own views. (Certainly from my own experience, when it comes to feminism, this would appear to hold true nine times out of ten).

It’s significant, I think, because the liberal left here in the UK appears to be going through a phase of what might be called ‘extreme anti-establishment envy’ at the moment. People may hold views on the right or the left, but a common theme is that they deeply distrust those often referred to as the ‘metropolitan elite’, those who treat equality as a game for their own ends, who believe they don’t necessarily have to bother with the truth, because their superior knowledge and education eclipses that awkward necessity.

So. for example, you will see journalists from the Guardian indulging in mutually supportive shmooze-fests on Twitter with their editors (figures such as Helen Lewis and Katherine Viner), laughing at the ‘uneducated’, ‘uninformed’ MRA’s, all the while advertising their own intellectual and moral superiority. And yet all the while, there is an underlying cognitive dissonance at work. For if the establishment is what nobody wants to be right now, and – in Britain at any rate – the liberal-left has become the establishment (the BBC breaking its charter to deliver highly partisan and political messages, for instance, whilst controlling 80% of all news consumed), then how can the pretence be maintained that the liberal-left still represents a daring, anti-authoritarian force, which is continually pressing for progress and change? The answer, it would seem, is to express solidarity with SJWs groups and individuals most people have never heard of, and to highlight those rare occasions where SJWs and the mainstream left disagree.

What’s depressing above all, though, is when the liberal-left attempts to deny it has any
establishment power whatsoever. There was an utterly preposterous discussion along these lines a few weeks ago, when Owen Jones was on Newsnight, talking to Evan Davis.

Owen was basically trying to deny that there was such a thing as the liberal left establishment at all, and that the only true establishment forces were those generated by the nasty right-wing capitalists.

Well, I’m sorry, that for me is a hypocrisy too far: there is no benefit whatsoever in journalists telling us that day is night and white is black (though I expect I will get mobbed now by SJWs for using the expressions ‘white’ and ‘black’!)

People from the liberal- left, Jones went on to say, ‘are all marginal figures’.

Erm, excuse me, who is the current editor of Newsnight? He’s not, by any chance, the former deputy editor of the Guardian, whose track record for ‘right-on’ identity politics is very well known and established? I mean, gosh, what are the chances of that happening on the very programme Owen was speaking on while he was making such claims?

102. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@ Stilljenganger 100
This is not a game. Refusing to go along with certain language use is part of how sociopolitical conflict works.

Language changes, yes.. And everybody have heir own loaded word that reflect their views and fit badly with competing views, yes. But debate is not a zero-sum game of who-dominates-whom. It is perfectly possibly to find words that leave space for all the competing opinions, and then debate with arguments instead of trying to impose definitions. Using language as a weapon means making it impossible to debate.

Language has always been a weapon. History is laughing at you. It’s far better to admit what we are and understand it by being in control of it. We enjoy debates and liked people such as Hitchens for a reason.
This is not Fox News and it’s deceptive “fair and balanced”. Reality is biased by what IS. You know as well as I do that there are people that will argue and persuade based on things that are totally untrue while honestly believing it. Those people are noise suppressing a signal. Language should be a straight-jacket on people that want to use it to describe reality in false terms. Language associated with things that are not real tends to vanish from history and good riddance. The pressure you feel is not something I can afford to care about.
There is a mistake that the people who try to mock this community by putting the scare quotes around “freethought” always make. Freethought as a movement was not about every single view and position always getting an equal hearing until the end of time. It was about how someone comes to a position on truth. At some point some ideas are simply garbage that society needs to move on from. Those ideas have associated language.
There are only so many ways to get society to move on and each and every one is a social conflict. Letting a government decide is not a good idea because they have been too harsh. But a government requiring us to refrain from killing one another while we argue it out? That’s much better. The reality of it is a competition. The losing side always thinks it’s unfair it is as more and more people change how they use language. So they take that perception and let it influence their language. The current whining about imminent holocaust-like treatment from the religious right over the changing way we are looking at LGBTQ for example.

Specifically, between the two of us, I have argued for words that allowed both our opinions be expressed. It is not a case of my words being a strait-jacket that other people legitimate try to break out of. If anything it is other people insisting on definitions (e.g. that ‘woman’ is defined by gender identity only) that makes their o[pinion the only one that can be reasonably expressed. And that is a dishonest power move, no matter who are using it. I may not agree with JohnGregs wordings, but he does have a point about progressive people in general tendentially trying to win by linguistic bullying instead of arguments.

First, on dishonesty you can get a hardy Fuck You. My goal is to be effective at social conflict while being honest the entire time. I am always willing to say why I use language the way that I do. Provide an example of dishonesty.
Second, if your opinion is about reality is wrong I will not cooperate on word use when there are others watching us debate. My language will always be about you and the audience simultaneously. For example sex and gender objectively come in more than two categories. I want our language to reflect reality so I am not going to cooperate with you when it comes to maintaining language that does not.
We wrestle with words. At least be honest yourself about it if nothing else.

103. Jacob Schmidt says

Or Dr. Professor Hornbeck’s infamous (and hilariously idiotic) All gender and sexual so-called differences are entirely social constructs, and do not exist in the real world.

What is with the shit-stirring, johngreg? Hornbeck ain’t here, and his opinions on gender and sexuality aren’t relevant to what you were commenting on.

Honestly, its childish.

So now you’re openly ADMITTING you’re a liar, since you have to very noticeably change the goal post from “genitals” to “groins”. You were asked specifically to provide an example where a mainstream show exposes a woman’s genitals for storyline purposes and, like a typical feminist, you failed and tried to cover up that failure with excuses.

Oh please. Full frontal bush is no less nude than full frontal penis. Both shots show men and women in their natural, un-groomed state. They are equivalent, and arbitrarily demanding a certain type of grooming is blatantly disingenuous.

You have absolutely no counterargument. Male nudity is vastly more exposed in the media. That’s an indisputable fact.

This brings me to the concept of “fractal wrongness,” wherein each individual concept within a given theory or model is wrong.

Look some of the individual factors of 123454321’s model of what’s happening:

1: “I seriously believe that if you were to count the ratio of male genitals to female genitals shown on TV over the last 2 or 3 decades the ratio would be literally thousands to one.

2: “Why then do feminists whine and shout until the house falls down about anything and everything that is even remotely associated with harming or mocking females whilst staying completely silent when it comes to males?

3: “Have I just stumbled on a form of censorship that is actually designed to protect men?

4: “So yeah, no conspiracy my arse. It’s all in the design.

So the ratio is at least 2000:1, feminists are the cause of this, censorship is designed to protect the subject of censorship as opposed to the viewers, and this is an actual designed feminist conspiracy.

So far, the evidence for (1) is a show specifically about dicks, likely an outlier so great that it can be dismissed at such a confidence level usually reserved for statistical simulations, and a show with a massive amount of both male and female nudity, both showing full frontal nudity of men and women; the latter also depicts rape, including the rape of a 15 year old girl, contradicting the “harming women is censored by feminists” argument. (3) confuses the actual purpose of censorship: to protect the viewers. (4) is silly on its face: you don’t get to posit baseless conspiracy theories without being mocked.

So finally, we get to (5): “Male nudity is vastly more exposed in the media.

That doesn’t follow from any of the premises presented so far. Even accepting that male genitals are more common (loosely accepted by me); even accepting that the ratio is at least 2000:1 (reject with laughter by me); it doesn’t establish that there is more male nudity than female nudity. You don’t get to limit to 1 specific type of nudity and act as though the rest are irrelevant.

But even if you were to substantiate that there is more male nudity than female nudity, it still doesn’t mean anything, because nudity is not synonymous with objectification, which is the actual subject ostensibly under discussion. You haven’t establish, or even tried to establish, or even pretended to consider the purpose of male nudity.

104. 123454321 says

Well there I was, quite prepared to come back and wish Holms a Happy Easter, but what a shame, it aint gonna happen! Wanna know why? Cuz I was right and Holms was wrong. Well nah, that can’t be true, can it? Oh wait, yes it can because holms is your typical, average feminist bullshitter who twists and wriggles within every argument to try and justify the discriminotory double-standards against men and boys, which sweep across today’s society – disrespectful, uncouth, undignified, shameful, pointless genital nudity included!. Actually, it’s not pointless because it is yet another layer of the onion skin getting peeled away by feminists which is designed as an attack on your average man. The outcome of years of loud, whining, jealous women who have complained about female genitalia in the past and used threatening tactics against the mainstream media have got their own way and, as such, men are now prevented from seeing female genitals whilst women can lech and compare to their heart’s content! Well done women and feminists out there, great job! But I wonder how many young lads out there simply go and visit a porn site to readdress the balance! I bet you don’t like the idea of that now do you! By the way, holms, you might need a little more time, so how about I promise you a Happy Christmas to find some flaps in mainstream dramas etc. You’ll need until christmas 2020, probably!

105. StillGjenganger says

@Brony
OK, your theory is that you known the truth and therefore what you say goes. Nothing left to discuss, then, except with those that already agree with you. I cannot quite understand why you spend so much time on arguing, then, but I shall remember not to wrestle with you in the future.

106. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@StillGjenganger 107
See now this is why I’m obsessed with political language. Seeing what people do politically is fascinating. These are little attacks and counterattacks but we all pretend they are not.

OK, your theory is that you known the truth and therefore what you say goes.

I clearly described a process to determine truth in a general human context.

Freethought as a movement was not about every single view and position always getting an equal hearing until the end of time. It was about how someone comes to a position on truth. At some point some ideas are simply garbage that society needs to move on from.

It is simply true that lots of ideas will be wrong. Many of those ideas will have unique language.

I also described persuasion of others and/or the audience and being honest. It’s about me and everyone else.

Nothing left to discuss, then, except with those that already agree with you.

I’m still here discussing with you. I’m just being really blunt and honest with you. In fact I respond to people I disagree with far more often than I do those I agree with.

I cannot quite understand why you spend so much time on arguing, then, but I shall remember not to wrestle with you in the future.

Because I enjoy it. The same way a person that might like to fight professionally. Is that really so hard to understand?

107. johngreg says

Brony the bafflegab expert and purveyor of “bullshit baffles brains”, dribbles one out of the park.

108. avern says

@Jacob Schmidt

“Oh please. Full frontal bush is no less nude than full frontal penis. Both shots show men and women in their natural, un-groomed state. They are equivalent, and arbitrarily demanding a certain type of grooming is blatantly disingenuous.”

It’s finally happened: we’ve reached peak feminist stupidity. In the logic-free mental quagmire of feminist thought, penises are equivalent to hair. Maybe that’s why they don’t give a shit about male genital mutilation. For them, it’s about as significant as a haircut.

Also, since you moronically believe that penises are the same a female pubic hair, how do you feel about the fact that feminist critics constantly complain that there are so many tits on Game of Thrones when there are far more topless men on that show than women? I assume you believe that there should be more tits on GoT, since male and female nipples are the exactly equivalent.

“That doesn’t follow from any of the premises presented so far.”

A feminist lies again. Both 123454321 and I have pointed out numerous examples of shows/movies/documentaries that show explicit male nudity while refraining from the equivalent female nudity. While the feminist commenters have failed to provide a single counter-example.

“It doesn’t establish that there is more male nudity than female nudity. You don’t get to limit to 1 specific type of nudity and act as though the rest are irrelevant.”

You seriously want to go down this road? Your funeral. Once we start counting other types of nudity, the feminist argument becomes even that much weaker.

Let’s start with nipples. Female nipples: shown in rated-R movies, premium cable TV shows, and porn. Male nipples: SHOWN EVERY FUCKING PLACE YOU CAN IMAGINE.

“You haven’t establish[ed], or even tried to establish, or even pretended to consider the purpose of male nudity.”

Um, that’s because we’ve spent so much time trying to get you to acknowledge the obvious and indisputable fact that there’s way more male nudity than female. We can get to level two of this discussion once you get your head out of the sand. And trust me, I would LOVE to discuss the purpose of male nudity.

109. Ally Fogg says

I think there is an undeniable fact that by and large women’s genitalia tend to be internal, thus not really clearly visible when seen in full frontal nudity, while by and large men’s genitalia tend to be external and prominent, thus clearly seen in full frontal nudity, andt this is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans.

110. 123454321 says

No we’re not done, Ally.

1. Why in that case do people make a living out of making and selling merkins to the film/tv industry?
2. Why is there a policy enforcement denying the right to show female genitalia on mainstream TV/film unless specifically shown for medical reasons?
3. Why even in tribal documentaries is it totally obvious that any shots of female genitalia are strategically edited out while any shot of the male, no matter what, is left in.
4. Why do programmes like Eurotrash and Sexteria (can’t remember exactly what it was called), which are designed by name and late night time slot to be obviously adult, forced to pixelate or blur the images of labia even when seen from the front on a shaved woman?

111. avern says

@Ally

“I think there is an undeniable fact that by and large women’s genitalia tend to be internal, thus not really clearly visible when seen in full frontal nudity, while by and large men’s genitalia tend to be external and prominent, thus clearly seen in full frontal nudity, andt this is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans.”

Um, thanks for pointing out something that no one was arguing? But in case you needed a reminder, 123454321 and I have already provided you with numerous examples of shows and movies that 1.) clearly are trying to avoid situations, angles, and poses that would expose female genitals while making no efforts to avoid explicit shots of male genitals 2.) pixelate shots that happen to show female genitals while leaving shots of male genitals uncensored 3.) show male genitals, and only male, in a completely gratuitous and pornographic fashion.

The issue here isn’t differences in anatomy. The issue is a clear double standard in nudity that has remained unquestioned for too long.

What feminist don’t get simply because they hate men and don’t care about their dignity: if full frontal male nudity always exposes genitals and full frontal female nudity rarely does, then full frontal male and female nudity ARE NOT THE SAME. A man going bottomless is more exposed than a woman going bottomless and that should be accounted for. The MPAA originally had a common sense approach to this obvious fact and rated frontal male nudity as more explicit than frontal female nudity for the logical reason that it IS more explicit. But that has changed due to moronic feminist complaints.

112. H.E. Pennypacker says

I’m 99% certain I’ve seen this same genital argument but with the sides reversed: the feminists arguing that you see less much less female genitalia than male genitalia on TV and in films because female sexuality is seen as dangerous and is discouraged whilst the ant-feminists accuse them of being crazy because there’s plenty of bush to be seen on the small and big screen etc.

If we had hard evidence, if there were numerous interviews where directors and writers and producers stated that they intentionally showed female genitalia less often, we still wouldn’t know if this was evidence of either discrimination against men or women (and personally I’d be inclined to argue that trying to find which side it disadvantages the most is a bit of a fools errand at best).

113. Carnation says

@ 123454321

“1. Why in that case do people make a living out of making and selling merkins to the film/tv industry?”

Now I’m not saying this isn’t true, I’m just agog with curiosity – citations please?

114. Carnation says

@ Ally Fogh

“What feminist don’t get simply because they hate men and don’t care about their dignity” (123454321)

A breach of the First Directive?

115. Marduk says

The Hugos are quite interesting, we won’t get balanced coverage of course.

They had been hijacked by the SJW tendency, they have been hijacked by a different tendency this time round.
Awards are, in the final analysis, incredibly dumb things to care about given they are (whether its a Nobel or an Oscar) basically political competitions so this is hardly a shocker.

What is missing from the coverage is how much this has to do with John Scalzi, a SJW with the self control of a teenager who has basically gone around antagonising people for far too long and they are now hitting back at him where he lives. I actually agree with many of Scalzi’s views but I’m roaring with laugher at his distress I’m afraid, he has brought it upon himself.

116. 123454321 says

“Now I’m not saying this isn’t true, I’m just agog with curiosity – citations please?”

Come on, Carnation, I don’t need to give you citations to prove that merkins are made and supplied to the film industry in order to protect female genitalia in order to satisfy ratings and governance. You only need go to the cinema or watch TV to see the double standards in terms of censorship. Look at this the other way around. You go prove they’re not needed by pointing us to the evidence we asked for in the first place i.e. the full frontal of a female revealing her genitals WITHOUT a merkin on mainstream TV or film. I’ve asked you guys a number of times and you’re not coming up with the goods. I wonder why!

Avern has it right in his last paragraph of post 113. There has been significant pressure via female/feminist influence over the last few decades to scale back the amount of female nudity in broadcasting while openly not giving a shit about the dignity of men, and in actual fact it is quite common to see evidence of women actively encouraging the uncensored display of male genitalia, all of which has led to an aggressive, inversely proportional increase in full-frontal, graphic, male nudity.

All very fucking tit-for-tat and childish IMO, and also potentially very damaging to our young generation of boys, many of whom could be susceptible to the same body image issues that girls suffer. But people like Ally Fogg (despite having a very solid calibre with respect to social understanding) will refuse to recognise or acknowledge this phenomenon, or any causal link, until there is absolute, direct, empirical evidence of potential damage it could cause in the form of hard data – that’s right isn’t it, Ally! The rest of the bunch are worse than a heard of sheep and ought focus on helping to mould the right path to the future rather than blindly following others for lack of wisdom. Double standards stink, regardless of which gender they affect. This is yet another example of a double standard which clearly benefits the female variety because they don’t like their men-folk looking at other women but they’re quite content to smugly take on board as much cock on TV as can be thrown at them. You want proof? Then reverse the roles to show labia on regular TV whilst actively making every effort to censor the penis and see how far you get before women kick up a stink and start whining and complaining.

117. 123454321 says

Forgot to mention…a couple of months ago the programme ‘Lorraine’ at 9:05 AM decided to show men how to check their testicles by using a live, male model, apparently all for a good cause. Really, was that absolutely necessary? Have they ever shown female genitals on this programme for a similar good cause, like detecting thrush? Why show men how to check their balls when at that time of the day they’re all out at work and the audience is mostly female? Surely not an effective solution for licence-payers! Again, the only conclusion is that it’s yet another sad excuse to show male genitalia using the ‘medical’ label, which maintains and demonstrates the undignified approach in dealing with the male sex. There are now literally hundreds of examples of male genitals being shown on daytime TV while at the same time programmes clearly marketed using an adult, sexual theme contain a full censorship application solution to female genitals. In-your-face, right under your nose, double standard!

118. sheaf29 says

12345321,

I agree that there are more male genitalia tangling around… at least I have seen more. Like H.E. Pennypacker says it is unclear to me that medical portrayal of genitalia is wrong or harmful (even pornographic portrayal is not that bad imho). So while a disparity exists, t seems to be a rather benign one… not particularly worth the effort.

119. 136 says

Ally,

Your articles give me hope we may yet come to live in a better and more compassionate world.

Your comment section makes me pray for the day Skynet achieves consciousness and cures this suffering planet of its human cancer with cleansing atomic fire.

Best regards

120. Ally Fogg says

ROFL.

121. avern says

“Your comment section makes me pray for the day Skynet achieves consciousness and cures this suffering planet of its human cancer with cleansing atomic fire.”

Anti-feminists completely destroy feminists in debate and so feminists respond by retreating into the comfort of their psychotic, violent fantasies. And Ally supports that because he just got spanked in his own comments section.

ROFL. ROFL, indeed!

122. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

This obsession with the visibility of male vs female genitalia is one of the most overwrought things I have seen in a while. In regular daily life if everyone was nude penises are just going to be more visible than vaginas. So the fact that there is a higher penis to labia ratio is completely unsurprising.

Whenever I see anyone complaining about body portrayal in a serious manner they are giving contextual details that show why examples of common displays are a problem. I can absolutely believe that there are ways that male bodies are portrayed that are problems, but this one? What is the fear? How is the natural result of biology and body position causing a problem? And what should be done to fix whatever this problem is? Do they have a “spread eagle female body” quota? Or do they have the males tuck it back? Have you even thought this bullshit through?

This is why I tend to focus on the pathetic quality of debate, argument and activism out of individual people claiming to care about men and males. You are no help to anyone, and are a detriment to fixing anything. I’ve been reading up on what male rape victims face when it comes to real things that make it hard to get heard, get respect and get help. This dong appearance rate? This is trash.

Speaking of shitty quality.
@avern

Anti-feminists completely destroy feminists in debate and so feminists respond by retreating into the comfort of their psychotic, violent fantasies. And Ally supports that because he just got spanked in his own comments section.

I keep hearing that but no one around here actually explains why that is true. Rather I often see people like you who think that just your feelings about something are useful evidence. Your feelings are the least useful thing in figuring out what the reality you are referring to looks like.

123. avern says

Look, everyone! Brony, another idiotic feminist shitbag is attempting to salvage an argument that’s already been lost. This is yet another cynical feminist tactic: when they can’t win with facts or logic, they try exhaust the opposition by bringing up the same exact arguments that have already been refuted a thousand times.

“Do they have a ‘spread eagle female body’ quota? Or do they have the males tuck it back? Have you even thought this bullshit through?”

Have you ever thought anything through in your entire life, or is that deep-fried cauliflower you call a brain simply not up to the task?

I thought perhaps explaining things to you like a child would help, but a child’s only deficit is ignorance. Your inborn, graphene-strength stupidity probably requires constant repetition, so I’ll just reiterate:

The problem is not an exact balance of male and female genitalia. 123454321 and I have already provided the dimwitted feminist masses with numerous examples of shows and movies that 1.) clearly are trying to avoid situations, angles, and poses that would expose female genitals while making no efforts to avoid explicit shots of male genitals 2.) pixelate shots that happen to show female genitals while leaving shots of male genitals uncensored 3.) show male genitals, and only male, in a completely gratuitous and pornographic fashion.

The feminist here have failed to provide a single counterexample which proves that their pathetic failure to argue that it is female nudity that’s in overabundance is simply a dishonest attempt to maintain a misandrist status quo.

“I’ve been reading up on what male rape victims face when it comes to real things that make it hard to get heard, get respect and get help.”

Nope, sorry, not going to let you shower yourself with undeserved accolades. Feminists have been an utter embarrassment to humanity when it comes to the subject of male rape. The courage I have found to speak out against the erasure and mistreatment of male rape victims has come from MRA and other anti-feminist voices. They’re the ones that unburied and shined a light on numerous studies and statistics about the prevalence of male sex-trafficking, the rape and abuse of boys, and the whitewashing of prison rape. They’re the ones that gave me the argumentative framework to show that coercive vaginal envelopment is actual rape.

So impressed you managed to read an article or two! Want a parade?

“Speaking of shitty quality.”

As if you could make that assessment, when you do nothing but wallow in your own shit like a happy pig 🙂

124. 123454321 says

Sheaf29 “I agree that there are more male genitalia tangling around… at least I have seen more.”

Thanks for the truthful acknowledgement – something to be respected.

” Like H.E. Pennypacker says it is unclear to me that medical portrayal of genitalia is wrong or harmful”

It’s not, as long as the time and audience is considered appropriate. Five past nine in the fucking morning when someone is trying to stuff warm weetabix down a 4 year old’s neck while they watch “safe” daytime TV is NOT appropriate and potentially quite disturbing when confronted by a swinging sack of hairy bollocks! but it appears few people are prepared to see my point until, that is, Lorrainne chooses to show a nice big close up of a hairy pair of flaps for thousands of 4 year olds to view while they chew on their weetabix!!! It’s different then, isn’t it! Yes, funny how it’s always different the other way around!

” (even pornographic portrayal is not that bad imho).”

I agree, but that is targeted at a specific audience who HAS to go out of their way to view the material. it’s NOT the same as double-standards on regular, mainstream TV and film. I acknowledge there is an audience for regular porn and I don’t see there are double standards which are forced in any way.

“So while a disparity exists, t seems to be a rather benign one… not particularly worth the effort.”

I’m talking about the fundamental basics here: respect, dignity, protection, moral and ethical values, fair treatment etc. Why should boys be treated differently with respect to their genitals. A boy’s genitals is the ONLY private thing he has and even that is stripped away by society while the media pay no respect whatsoever to the basic values. This must have an underlying effect on the way boys and men think of themselves in comparison to the way women think of themselves. Many men have no respect for applying restricted viewing of themselves and their bodies, even their most private part these days as TV and films are telling them that it’s ok to flash your penis. They’s taught that exposure of male genitalia doesn’t matter and so how can you expect these boys and men to have any respect for others if they can’t respect their own dignity!!

Women know this, but they do the usual trick of keeping quiet. Most men can’t string together the applied logic of cause and effect in these matters because they’re so manly they consider the subject to be beneath them. But mark my words, in a few years time when boys are suffering severe side effects from injecting steroids and having penis enlargements due to excess male objectification, and when women realise how childish they have been in their tit-for-tat, tactical encouragement, the pressure will be on to address this ridiculous era that we’re living through right now.

125. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@avern
I’ll be happy to answer the other parts when you decide to stop being a coward and explain why Ally got spanked. Your feelings on the matter are grossly insufficient.

Because you did decide to ignore the entire part that specifically referred to you in #125. Sure there was a transition, but I’ve seen this sort of smoke screen before.

126. 123454321 says

Brony, can you do me a favour please. Explain to me why merkins are worn across the TV/film industry for full frontals which would otherwise clearly show some labia? And explain why female genitals are pixelated via time-consuming editing whilst male genitals are not? Bearing in mind that the same programme at the same time chooses to keep the male genitals in there without any editing, pixelation, reshooting etc. Please remember I’m talking about the SAME programme, whatever the time.

If you can’t answer with any honesty then do me another favour? Get your coat and get the fuck out of here with your bushy merkin firmly fixed between your legs.

127. 123454321 says

Ally is a logical, fair and considerate person who doesn’t know where to go with this one. It will take him some time to make up his mind, possibly years.

128. 123454321 says

If some of you guys want to see men’s cocks then why don’t you go view some porn! It really is very simple. Why bring it to the regular TV and film industry unless you’re trying to make some kind of point, or perhaps being bullied into a corner of obvious unfairness but with no way out? It really needs to stop; it’s just wrong for so many reasons. I thought feminists wanted equality. This just makes them look like cheap, trashy, spoilt, smug little children who only whine and moan to get what suits them. They’re not interested in equality. The agenda is obvious. Get out of here!

129. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite says

@123454321

1) merkins are worn across the TV/film industry for full frontals which would otherwise clearly show some labia?
2) female genitals are pixelated via time-consuming editing whilst male genitals are not?
3) the same programme at the same time chooses to keep the male genitals in there without any editing, pixelation, reshooting etc.

I’ll be happy to look at your three assertions when I see a source that describes them.
Until then the only thing in here that I have seen is your link to a general site with lots of programming. That is not something that anyone I have seen analyzing portrayals in media do. I will not do your homework for you you lazy piece of crap. Please give me some data on:
*Merkins in British television ( I am American so British or whatever your region of choice is)
*Pixelation of male versus female genitals.
*Pixelation and other modification of male versus female genitals in the same program.

Because all of that is legitimate areas of research and your feelings don’t matter much to me without the same sort of data that feminists actually use to look at society that should also be used to look at men’s issues.

130. avern says

@Brony

“Because you did decide to ignore the entire part that specifically referred to you in #125. Sure there was a transition, but I’ve seen this sort of smoke screen before.”

Oh, gawd. No one cares about you enough to create “smoke screens.” Your posts are clumpy word diarrhea, and it gets tiring sorting through the nonsense, so expect people to ignore a lot of what you write.

Ally got spanked cause he brought out the same tired argument, was refuted with facts, and then he disappeared.

“I’ll be happy to answer the other parts…”

I don’t give a shit what you answer. You have nothing to offer me, absolutely nothing. Every single argument you’ve put forth so far has been attempted, to utter failure, by all the other feminist regulars on this board. You are not unique. You are not a special snowflake. And by far more idiotic than Ally and the others. The only reason I responded to you is because this particular subject brings out the extra crazy in the feminist hive mind which is amusing to me.

131. Carnation says

This conversation encapsulates perfectly the MRM. That this is viewed as some kind of victory, complete with jubilant exhortations from avern/123454321, speaks volumes, about the calibre and ideological and practical limits of their devotees.

Simply hilarious. Every morning I tune in, on my way to work, to read the same vainglorious fools misusing analytical methods lifted wholesale from their supposed feminist allies and doing is with comic ineptitude.

Don’t change MRAs. Don’t you ever change.

132. Carnation says

*feminist enemies, not allies

133. 123454321 says

“Don’t change MRAs. Don’t you ever change.”

Carnation, cheers dude, you also amuse and entertain me, making my life just that little smidgen more gleeful when I realise you, too, can’t answer simple questions around double-standards for fear of shaming your own crowd of devotee bigots. Of course, you’re still free to answer the questions Avern and I put forward above….but we all know you won’t because you can’t without admitting to shameful, childish, feminist-driven double standards. I’m sure you’ll come out with some pitiful excuse like you can’t be bothered, or asking to be showed a citation, or maybe some form of evidence! Heard it all before…sigh, yawn, sigh…. Have a happy weekend.

134. 123454321 says

…”shown” a citation. Anyway, you’re not getting one. Go watch the tv.

135. Marduk says

Proposal for a new Private Eye column “Having It All”.

Each week ‘Laura’ or ‘Jessica’ review a counter-factual situation she claims is the case because people on Twitter agree with her despite, er, reality begging to differ. The new cutting-edge clickbait has now surpassed mere trolling and is now based around claiming something that flatly refutes your claim overwhelmingly supports it (this is what the oft-misused phrase ‘cognitive dissonance’ actually refers to incidentally)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/06/jackie-uva-rape-details-rolling-stone-report

Obvious ‘sitters’ would be things like Germany won WW2, up is down, black is white, the Qatar world cup makes perfect sense etc.

136. Jacob Schmidt says

I’m sure you’ll come out with some pitiful excuse like … asking to be showed … some form of evidence!

Damn those pesky feminists wanting evidence before they believe me!

*Shakes hand vigorously at the sky*

137. Carnation says

@ 123454321

Answering the questions you claim to have posited would require me teaching you very basic concepts, such as media analysis, objectification and sexualisation (and, even, pornification). This would require you having an open mind. Tragically, you’re an MRA and are simply incapable.

By their comic non-deeds ye shall know them.

You should propose yourself as a speaker for the MRA hoedown in Texas. I’m sure you’d go down a storm.

138. 123454321 says

Oh please don’t torture me, Carnation, I really need you to teach me those basic concepts and I promise to have an open mind, although perhaps not with as much open space as yours, and I literally beg you to answer my questions. It’s killing me not knowing the answer. Help me learn, I’m begging you, pleeeeeeze.

139. 123454321 says

“Damn those pesky feminists wanting evidence before they believe me!”

Evidence amounting to a link to a plethora of programmes showing graphic images of men’s cocks alongside pixelated/blurred images of women’s bits?

140. sheaf29 says

123454321,
J schmidt has the right of it, you did not present evidence, you claimed the existence of such programs and that analogous stuff does not happen to women as often. While this matches my experience, it is not externally verifiable by just reading your comment: the person would have to go out and watch a lot of tv until they get this experience. From their perspective you claimed there to be evidence and then did not present it and only gave vague hints how to obtain such evidence through an ardous process. Given that you are an anonymous commenter on the internet with a perceived hostile ideology, most of them will neither believe you nor go through hoops to verify it and they should not be required be as a matter of protocol.

141. avern says

“J schmidt has the right of it, you did not present evidence, you claimed the existence of such programs and that analogous stuff does not happen to women as often.”

Cut the disingenuous Devil’s Advocate act, sheaf29. There have been countless feminist articles demanding more male nudity on television since, according to them, there’s way more female nudity that needs a corresponding balance. And they make this claim without a single shred of evidence. Not only that, their twisted, logic-free brains keep making equivalences between breasts and penises in order to bolster their ridiculous claims.

And now MRAs are calling them out on their bullshit, and it’s driving them absolutely insane, which is glorious to witness and exposes their double standards. 123454321 and I have already provided numerous examples of explicit male genitals being exposed on a non-medical, mainstream show, and all we asked was for the feminists to provide one single counterexample. If their claims are true, then they should be overflowing with examples, but they have utterly failed at that task in the same way they fail at everything.

Let me ask you this, sheaf29. Do you think it needs to be proven that male nipples are shown more than female nipples in the mainstream media?

142. avern says

“This conversation encapsulates perfectly the MRM. That this is viewed as some kind of victory, complete with jubilant exhortations from avern/123454321, speaks volumes, about the calibre and ideological and practical limits of their devotees.”

Carney! I was wondering when you’d take a break from shitting in your own mouth like a human Ouroboros and try once again to participate in an adult conversation. It’s actually quite creepy how you have this desperate need to inflict your slime trail around every. single. thread. on this board. You’re kinda like the John Wayne Gacy of Freethought Blogs–you seem like a sad clown at first, but it’s only time before you snap and go into a psychosis-fueled rage.

I don’t mind though. You only serve to make feminists look insane, which is good for my side. So froth on you idiot, froth on!

143. Carnation says

@ Avern

Um, yes, no rage my friend. If you were familiar with my comments you’d realise the rare joy you chaps provide with minimal effort required from me.

“There have been countless feminist articles demanding more male nudity on television since, according to them, there’s way more female nudity that needs a corresponding balance”

Countless… cite five then?

144. mildlymagnificent says

Let me ask you this, sheaf29. Do you think it needs to be proven that male nipples are shown more than female nipples in the mainstream media?

Male nipples? Seeing as they’re shown on every film clip about swimming, diving, surfing, holiday or soft drink advertisements (and male tennis players changing shirts in the middle of matches) as well as about men standing around swigging a beer on a hot day, I have absolutely no idea what your problem is.

Men going bare-chested in all sorts of places – not just when filmed – is perfectly normal where I come from. Sometimes they’re wearing no shirt at all, other times they’re wearing a shirt completely unbuttoned and leaving the chest mostly or entirely bare. Gardening, house & car maintenance, relaxing at a BBQ, walking down the street, anywhere they feel like it, evidenced by those signs at pub doors “No shirt. No shoes. No service.” I presume they’re less common in colder climes, but they’re all over the place here.

145. Ally Fogg says

periodic reminder that while I tend to adopt an even lighter touch approach to moderation on Open Threads than I do on others, there are limits to how much aggressive personal abuse I will tolerate between guests.

A couple of posts on this thread have stretched my tolerance to the absolute limit.

I don’t think anyone involved in exchanges above particularly needs my protection, but I do have to bear in mind that other passing visitors might want to get involved and it is not exactly conducive to participation when some of you are coming across like abusive scum, to be frank.

146. sheaf29 says

avern,

Cut the disingenuous Devil’s Advocate act, sheaf29.

I neither advocated a position I do not hold nor was I disingenuous.

There have been countless feminist articles demanding more male nudity on television since, according to them, there’s way more female nudity that needs a corresponding balance. And they make this claim without a single shred of evidence. Not only that, their twisted, logic-free brains keep making equivalences between breasts and penises in order to bolster their ridiculous claims.

And now MRAs are calling them out on their bullshit, and it’s driving them absolutely insane, which is glorious to witness and exposes their double standards. 123454321 and I have already provided numerous examples of explicit male genitals being exposed on a non-medical, mainstream show, and all we asked was for the feminists to provide one single counterexample. If their claims are true, then they should be overflowing with examples, but they have utterly failed at that task in the same way they fail at everything.

So? How is this relevant.

Let me ask you this, sheaf29. Do you think it needs to be proven that male nipples are shown more than female nipples in the mainstream media?

No, unless talking to a martian, since male nipples in tv a very high base rate event while female ones are not, so it is very easy for casual watchers to see the difference and this fact will be accepted by most people and those who do not take it are probably playing dumb. On the other hand while there is a difference in exposure of genitals, both male and female genitals are relatively rarely shown in television and casual watchers might not be confronted with the issue or might even suspect that their availability heuristics might be cluttered up by variance or might even have the opposite impression due to variance.

147. avern says

@sheaf29

“So? How is this relevant.”

It’s relevant because this discussion is not just about the double standards operating in the media; it’s equally about the double standards necessary to construct the feminist argument. Increased male nudity in the media is a feminist goal, and their rationale is an imbalance that they’ve completely fabricated. Since they control the narrative on gender issues, they’re able to get away with claiming that female nudity is more prevalent without having ever, ever provided evidence for that claim. Their ridiculous demands for proof from the opposition has only exposed their hypocrisy. The MRAs have already provided orders of magnitude more proof for their claims then the feminists ever have.

“…both male and female genitals are relatively rarely shown in television and casual watchers might not be confronted with the issue or might even suspect that their availability heuristics might be cluttered up by variance or might even have the opposite impression due to variance.”

I’m LOVE the fact that you brought up the availability heuristic because it absolutely proves my point. Accepting the availability heuristic in concert with confirmation bias, since everyone is more likely to remember instances that fit their world view, it would be expected that feminists–if their claims were true–would be able to easily recall hundreds of examples of female genital nudity in a mainstream, non-medical shows, and yet not one of the half-dozen or so feminist commentators on this board have been able to even provide even ONE example. The MRAs on this board, however, have already provided numerous examples of male genital nudity on mainstream, non-medical shows. The only way you could use the availability heuristic to argue against the MRA position is if the feminists were claiming that they never see male genitals on television and no examples were forthcoming, which has not been the case. This conversation itself is evidence for the MRA position.

The fact that the feminists have not been able to come up with any examples to provide evidence for their argument proves that they know what the MRAs are saying is true: there is far more male nudity than female nudity on television. But since the entire feminist worldview relies on the unfounded, a priori belief that females are oppressed by male hierarchies and objectification is one of the tools used to establish that oppression, they have to create false equivalences in order to claim that female nudity is more prevalent than the male variety. Thus, exposing female breasts and pubic hair becomes equivalent to exposing male genitalia, which is of course absurd and misandrist.

“No, unless talking to a martian, since male nipples in tv a very high base rate event while female ones are not, so it is very easy for casual watchers to see the difference and this fact will be accepted by most people and those who do not take it are probably playing dumb.”

You bolster my argument yet again. You’ve accepted that individual observations can be acceptable as foundations for claims, and you’ve accepted that male nipples are practically everywhere in the media.

Let me introduce you to two quotes by Jacob Schmidt:

“It doesn’t establish that there is more male nudity than female nudity. You don’t get to limit to 1 specific type of nudity and act as though the rest are irrelevant.”

“Full frontal bush is no less nude than full frontal penis.”

Feminists are accepting that other nudity is relevant, and they also claim that exposing the same general area on a man or woman means that their nudity is absolutely equivalent. You said yourself that only a martian could believe that male nipples aren’t vastly more prevalent in the media.

That means the extreme prevalence of male nipples (and therefore male nudity since according to feminists they’re equivalent to female nipples) proves that male nudity is more prevalent than female nudity.

Feminists once again destroy their own arguments.

148. sheaf29 says

avern,

It’s relevant because this discussion is not just about the double standards operating in the media; it’s equally about the double standards necessary to construct the feminist argument. Increased male nudity in the media is a feminist goal, and their rationale is an imbalance that they’ve completely fabricated. Since they control the narrative on gender issues, they’re able to get away with claiming that female nudity is more prevalent without having ever, ever provided evidence for that claim. Their ridiculous demands for proof from the opposition has only exposed their hypocrisy. The MRAs have already provided orders of magnitude more proof for their claims then the feminists ever have.

How is this relevant again to the point that 123454321 did not provide evidence for male genitals being more frequent?

I’m LOVE the fact that you brought up the availability heuristic because it absolutely proves my point. Accepting the availability heuristic in concert with confirmation bias, since everyone is more likely to remember instances that fit their world view, it would be expected that feminists–if their claims were true–would be able to easily recall hundreds of examples of female genital nudity in a mainstream, non-medical shows, and yet not one of the half-dozen or so feminist commentators on this board have been able to even provide even ONE example.

Hundreds of examples? You know hundreds is a big number. Try to recall hundred examples of war. Or a hundred american politicians. You will notice this is hard.
But yes if you were a feminist strongly convinced that there are female genitals are frequently shown in main strea media you should be able to recall and give examples. If an external reader reads a text this would be weak evidence in favor of the MRA position being correct and people should reconsider.

However if you believe this to be overall low frequency (for both males and females) the evidence becomes statistically much weaker. This is because with low frequency examples things like variance in memory or the MRAs simply having better memory for such things or being organized on this specific point to respond begin to dominate the discussion, since any given person does not necessarily have exact information at hand. A rational agent would only shift his or her priors by a tiny amount and it would not be helpful for practical purposes.
An example: You will easily recall examples of males being killed in a disposable way in TV. MRAs assert that this happens all the time, so MRAs not being able to recall a specific instance would be pretty bad. Be assured I am certain that you can name dozens of examples from the top of your head and so can I. Now assume we consider the situation where you are in a discussion where someone asserts there is a problem with the frequency of women being killed after sex compared to men in the same position in movies. You cannot think of an example or counterexample on the spot, he gives 3 examples. But without having done a review of many movies, you cannot really give much confidence in this because you could be missing this. It is far harder to pick up trends in lower base rate events.

You bolster my argument yet again. You’ve accepted that individual observations can be acceptable as foundations for claims, and you’ve accepted that male nipples are practically everywhere in the media.

I said there are types of observations that can count as evidence certain types of conclusion. For example if I see a cow eating a sparrow (it happens), I can conclude that sometimes cows eat flesh. I cannot conclude that they eat more sparrows than mice and to actually convince someone that cows eat more sparrows I would need better types of evidence.

Let me introduce you to two quotes by Jacob Schmidt:

I dont need to hear the tales war and peace with Jacob Schmidt. He was right that there is no good evidence for male genitals being more prevalent than female ones, he is likely wrong about many other things if pas experience is any judge.

149. Jacob Schmidt says

He was right that there is no good evidence for male genitals being more prevalent than female ones…

Just to note: that is not the claim to which I objected and which I mocked. “More male genitals” is actually a claim I specifically accepted. “Literally thousands to one” was the claim I rejected(before that it was 500:1).

Feminists are accepting that other nudity is relevant, and they also claim that exposing the same general area on a man or woman means that their nudity is absolutely equivalent.

Don’t make things up. It bogs things down.

150. Marduk says

A real “stopped clock” moment here, its as Babs says:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/12/men-women-sex-objects

She is right. And look, what makes this discussion difficult is that there are Feminists and there are feminists. I prefer to call the latter SJWs because they are often mouthing slogans that they don’t really understand and make stupid arguments that actually have little or nothing to do with feminism (only for some reason nobody is allowed to say it).

SJWs who think nudity has anything especially to do with objectification need to the reading they routinely accuse others of not having done (protip: ask them exactly what you should read, they will refuse because they haven’t read any books either, just Tumblrs). It isn’t even really a feminist theory thing, its a fairly conventional art theory thing originally that they’ve borrowed, see “Ways of Seeing” by Robert Hughes and you’ll notice its fairly easy to tell the difference.

Another bad SJW argument is the “how would you like it if…” argument. There is no need to call them on this, it refutes the actual underlying feminist argument that Babs summarises above anyway. I believe the last person to make this in print, claiming that apparently men wouldn’t like it if testicles were in the media all the time saw more hairy balls in her Twitter feed than a Wimbledon groundskeeper. Turns out men don’t give a shit but we already knew that. Its a daft argument and all it shows its a lack of knowledge of feminism and a frightening lack of empathy (in the sense of imagining someone else’s feelings, not “feeling sorry for them” which is a different thing).

I’m really not bothered about male nudity, I have no reason to me and nobody can make me. That is the point surely. And yes, I would agree a certain amount of early brutalisation plays a part in this. I remember being body conscious, for about five minutes. Then the PE teacher walked in and screamed at us and marched us into the showers, that was the last time I had any particular feelings. For sure, it doesn’t actually seem right to me that our changing rooms and showers were completely open-plan while girls were (I found out afterwards) ushered into personal cubicles and individual showers. There is some sort of bad attitude to boys being shown there but on the other hand, fuck me if I’m not glad any neuroses I might have had were bullied out of me about ten seconds after they’d occurred to me and I’m not doomed to have a co-dependent relationship with Dove adverts to make me feel OK about my own reflection. Who are the real winners and losers there?

151. Marduk says

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/12/sexism-seventies-helen-mirren-michael-parkinson

Who wants to tell Yvonne “never knowingly fact checked” Roberts that the Pontiac advert she references in her article is a fairly obvious fake? The copy suggets Yvonne remembers the advert and is even able to comment on the cultural reaction to it!

Pity it was photoshopped into existence in 2009 and it wasn’t like he was trying to fool anyone with that font:

Much as it would amuse me to see General Motors sue GMG in the defamation settlement capital of the world (i.e., London) it would probably be best if she corrected her piece.

152. avern says

@sheaf29

“However if you believe this to be overall low frequency (for both males and females) the evidence becomes statistically much weaker. This is because with low frequency examples things like variance in memory or the MRAs simply having better memory for such things or being organized on this specific point to respond begin to dominate the discussion, since any given person does not necessarily have exact information at hand.”

This argument is completely nonsensical, especially since you’ve already accepted that male nipples are more prevalent in the media. You basically shot yourself in the foot. You have established no basis to assume that male nipples are more prevalent than male or female genitals, nor have you stated what frequency of iterations of nudity are sufficient to make a justified assumption. What is it? One instance of nudity per five episodes of television? You would need to state this frequency, or graph a confidence chart, but if you had that information to begin with, you would never have brought up availability heuristics in the first place. You also have not established that the same variables (cultural memory, preparedness, etc.) aren’t equally or more at play with the variance of male and female nipples.

In other words, you again do my work for me. You’ve established the framework for the feminist argument, shown its weaknesses, and further bolstered the MRAs ability to better prove their argument by using the feminist framework against them.

“But without having done a review of many movies, you cannot really give much confidence in this because you could be missing this. It is far harder to pick up trends in lower base rate events.”

My previous paragraph already destroys the basis for this type of argument, but even still it has additional problems. For one thing, this argument is not being conducted between a professional debater and an average Joe. It’s being conducted by feminists who have continuously made the argument that female nudity is more prevalent than female nudity and MRAs who are just beginning to make a stance on the issue. It’s also not between two people arguing from memory at the dinner table. It’s being argued by multiple people on the internet where everyone has access to google and IMDB. Every point you’re making further implies that feminist should be ready with evidence, but they’ve provided NOTHING.

“Hundreds of examples? You know hundreds is a big number. Try to recall hundred examples of war. Or a hundred american politicians. You will notice this is hard.”

In case you forgot, we are all arguing on the internet over the course of nearly weeks at this point. No one needs to “recall” anything. Just based purely on recall, I could think of about three dozen movies and TV shows that show male genitalia. 123454321 brought up a few I did not previously know about. That’s two people. There’s a half-dozen feminists on this board, so combined with a weeks worth of time to research “hundreds” of examples should be easy. They have not provided ONE.

“I dont need to hear the tales war and peace with Jacob Schmidt. He was right that there is no good evidence for male genitals being more prevalent than female ones, he is likely wrong about many other things if past experience is any judge.”

And I’m not interested in your clumsy evasions. By your own standards, you have yet to, in any way, establish that there is no good evidence for male genitals being more prevalent than female ones, nor have you been able to argue that the evidence already provided is not sufficient.

“How is this relevant again to the point that 123454321 did not provide evidence for male genitals being more frequent?”

How are you having such a difficult time understanding this? MRAs are defeating the feminist argument, using the feminists’ own argumentative framework against them.

153. avern says

@Jacob Schmidt

“Don’t make things up. It bogs things down.”

It’s in your quotes and re-iterated by other feminists on this board. I know it’s hard for feminists to take responsibility for what they say.

154. Jacob Schmidt says

Are you actually confused at the difference between general and specific?

IMDB has a list of shows with full frontal female nudity (because of course it does).

I now expect a list of several thousand tens of thousands of movie/TV scenes showing penises.

“Magic Mike” was brought up earlier and I meant to address it.

It was actually a good movie. The characters actually had interesting and compelling motivations. It doesn’t really fit as “objectification” unless by “objectification” you mean “presented as sexy.”

155. Jacob Schmidt says

“several thousand tens of thousands”

156. Carnation says

It’s a feminist goal to increase the instances of male nudity on broadcast media?

Good God, MRAs are remarkably well briefed on the machinations of their imaginary enemies.

It’s handy that the nonexistent briefings from their imaginary enemies describe goals that don’t exist but *do* support excruciatingly inane MRA theorising.

Bravo.

157. Ally Fogg says

Marduk

A real “stopped clock” moment here, its as Babs says:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/12/men-women-sex-objects
She is right. And look, what makes this discussion difficult is that there are Feminists and there are feminists. I prefer to call the latter SJWs because they are often mouthing slogans that they don’t really understand and make stupid arguments that actually have little or nothing to do with feminism (only for some reason nobody is allowed to say it).

Not quite, IMO.

I think she is right on one level, in that trying to draw direct comparisons between the male and female experience when it comes to performative sexuality and so-called objectification is absurd – our society and all of us in it have been cultured to understand and react to men’s and women’s bodies in very different ways. So when we stick a naked man on a billboard or screen, it is not the same as sticking a naked woman on a billboard or screen.

That said, she then makes the same mistake that Barbara Ellen always makes when she writes articles like this. Her logic is:

X harms women.
X is different for men and women.
Therefore X does not harm men.

Of course this is wrong. It is usually more accurate to say:

X harms women.
X is different for men and women.
Therefore X harms men in a different way to how X harms women.

Basically Ellen has a mental block where she simply cannot process the possibility that men can ever have problems as a consequence of their gender.

Now this particular topic is especially difficult because the word “objectification” is never really defined, and as I’ve argued before – even within feminist theory – it has at least 10 different definitions and people often elide them or slip from one definition to another without even knowing they are doing it.

Personally I think the exchange which set her off – Kit Harrington’s interview – is quite an interesting starting point for a discussion about the similarities and differences in how men and women react to being excessively sexualised by audiences, but that is an article that Ellen utterly fails to deliver.

158. Ally Fogg says

Oh, and fact-checking aside, i pretty much agree with Yvonne Roberts about the 1970s.

159. Marduk says

I agree that there could be a better article (he wrote, looking in the direction of the well-known writer of better articles in this area).

Kit Harrington has a legitimate complaint but its specific to him, his personal is not very political. The kind of thing it would lead me to consider is more to do with how late capitalism works, its more about type casting or whatever but there is a trajectory for some men and women out of it (e.g., Matthew McConnaghey would be the most recent pretty-boy reconsidered as proper actor person).

As regards objectification, that is a nice article. The Nausbaum stuff is fine, its just a close of reading Hughes. The Langton stuff is useful in as far as it shows a certain amount of drift. The point really is how those categories are used. We’re talking here about understanding an image, where the problems come in is where you start using them as a way to discuss anything other than an actual picture (e.g., the production of pictures, media in general, social attitudes etc.) Hughes talks about how those things have a relationship to images but that is all. So, for example, lack of agency is something you can apprehend in an image, we’re not talking about whether someone actually has it or not, Nell Gwyn was famous for having extreme amounts of agency but the Lely portrait of Nell as Venus is notably deficient in it.

Re: Yvonne
Its not a bad piece. But I agreed with Jonah Lehrer about the nature of inspiration and innovation as well!

160. Marduk says

Just to finish off the thought:

BUT Hughes at least does not pull his punches on the consequences of objectification for women and in my view explains the thing that men find very difficult to understand and feminists find very difficult to convincingly express. The seeing-yourself-as-being-seen thing and why women think pictures of other women are not just their business but something that they have visceral feelings about. They aren’t seeing what we’re seeing, they are seeing themselves being seen. Its very hard to grasp but explains the existence of women’s magazine photography, fashion etc.

There is no image of David Beckham naked, dressed or sharply and aspirationally dressed that evokes any feelings in me at all apart from memories of the 1998 World Cup. But that isn’t how women see pictures of other women.

That is why objectification is a powerful ferminist argument in as far as it explains something important about the world. Its all got a bit confused unfortunately.

161. Ally Fogg says

The seeing-yourself-as-being-seen thing and why women think pictures of other women are not just their business but something that they have visceral feelings about. They aren’t seeing what we’re seeing, they are seeing themselves being seen. Its very hard to grasp but explains the existence of women’s magazine photography, fashion etc.

I think this is a really interesting point, although I’d be tempted to throw in a “not all men / not all women” caveat.

(Not really a big deal, but isn’t Ways of Seeing by John Berger? Are you talking about a different book or right book, wrong title?)

162. Marduk says

My brain is on the frazzle, you’re right, it all one mass of fuzzy BBC2 test cards and tweed suits in my head.

There is a summary of Chapter 3 in the book version here:
http://booksite.elsevier.com/samplechapters/9780240516523/9780240516523.PDF

Its the sort of argument that is more convincing when he talks about art than society because you can (without wishing to state the obvious) see exactly what he means. Crucially he also shows some erotic nakedness and explains when and why it isn’t objectification which is the really clever part of it.

163. Marduk says

OK, so the thing to take from this is not what we already knew but the distinctions we didn’t.

E.g., objectification as regards Page 3.

– Page 3 images clearly objectify women. Part of this is an implied lack of agency.

What is wrong with Page 3 images is NOT
– Page 3 images teach men that women don’t have agency
The lack of agency is something that defines objectification, the ‘observer’ is already factored into the image’s composition.
It tells you nothing about the actual person and tells the observer nothing about themselves either.

but:
– Page 3 images teach women to think about about their bodies in terms of how they look to an idealised observer (usually a man).

Its very interesting to me that this is an art theory but when you look at the psychological studies done, it plays out, this is exactly what is found over and over again, however frustrating that is for some people.

164. Carnation says

@ Marduk and Ally

Re objectification, as an interesting cultural aside, Kurt Cobain wrote of his feelings of humiliation at being very slight (and a late developer in puberty) and how he was picked on by “Jocks” – jocks seem to be almost an archetypal patriarchal police force in high schools (anecdotally of course), enforcing unattainable masculine physical stereotypes and performance with who-knows-whst consequences.

Personally, I think extreme male steroid abuse isn’t dissimilar to anorexia in terms of dysfunction and desperation.

Feminism might have introduced the concept and discourse of objectification but isolating the female experience helps no-one. And fat acceptance is frankly stupid

165. Ally Fogg says

– Page 3 images teach women to think about about their bodies in terms of how they look to an idealised observer (usually a man).

I’d agree with that, but couldn’t you say the exact same thing about the Men’s Health / six-pack culture?

166. Marduk says

I see what you mean, but I think its lacking that visceral aspect and the deep internalisation of the hall-of-mirrors thing.
Maybe its different for other people but I just don’t think it goes as deep. Yes, being buffer or stronger would be good but only like being smarter or richer would be good or having a nicer car would be good, theres no deep psychology going on there.

If we were going to apply this to Kit Harrington, the issue is not how Kit Harrington feels but how we feel about images of Kit Harrington. Is anyone really that bothered? Do we seek out images of Kit Harrington and like imagining how he feels and then feel worse about ourselves? I just don’t think that kind of complicated identification/confusion thing is part of the male experience of life on the whole. Perhaps it is in the case of young men who are having problems?

167. Marduk says

Hah, right.

Everyone into the school staff room, Fogg – go and fetch the school Grundig TV on a trolley, I have located the relevant Betamax tape.

I particularly enjoy Berger’s “earnest listening” pose that features a lit fag on the go for extra powers of concentration in the focus group segment.

168. 123454321 says

“So when we stick a naked man on a billboard or screen, it is not the same as sticking a naked woman on a billboard or screen.”

Ally, you don’t speak bullshit very often but there’s always the odd occasion for everyone and you just used this week’s example right there. You only have to stop by an online article showing diet coke ads or stripping firman calendars, for example, and scroll down the comments sections to witness the huge numbers of “phwoarr” “get a bit of him” “he’s hot” “wish my hubby was like that” “would love to rub oil in to that torso” “your place or mine”…kind of comments. You’ve seriously got your head buried in the sand, mate, if you think women don’t get sexually aroused with sexual thoughts or affected in a sexual way by naked male torsos. today’s women are smugly enjoy the double standard, but it’s going to affect a lot of young lads as they grow up, I’m telling you.

Avern has some really interesting points. One thing I’ve noticed since the rise of male objectification is that although your average topless man at the swimming pool or on the beach still fits the norm, the guy walking through the middle of a town centre stripped to the waste (yeah, we’ve all seen them), while 2000 other men seem to be able to hold onto their shirt, is beginning to look like a complete knob-head. Same goes for joggers and cyclists, most of whom seem to be dressed fairly reasonably, but then there’s the guy who wants to invade everyones else’s territory with a “look at me and my big smooth chest everyone, look how ripped I am while I wash and polish my car” attitude, which I am claiming is starting to make him look like a complete fucking twat rather than anything else. I can only think of three valid reasons for not wearing your shirt in public places like that: vanity, low class, or you don’t give a shit about yourself or anyone else. Also, I don’t know which is worse, mr. muscly biceps man or fat, hairy wobbly belly man! Either way, put it away and stop making your self stand out like the king of knob heads!

169. avern says

@Jacob Schmidt

“Are you actually confused at the difference between general and specific?”

Your asking an irrelevant question rather than explaining how my statement wasn’t an accurate portrayal show that you in fact have no explanation. This is nothing but a cowardly evasion. Take responsibility for your statements.

“IMDB has a list of shows with full frontal female nudity (because of course it does). I now expect a list of several thousand tens of thousands of movie/TV scenes showing penises.”

Since 99.9% of full frontal female nudity does not show any genitalia, your expectation is utterly nonsensical like all feminist thought.

@Carny

“Good God, MRAs are remarkably well briefed on the machinations of their imaginary enemies.”

Your pathetic, empty sputtering only highlights the complete inability for feminists to contribute a single substantive thought. But in order for feminists to produce thoughts they would need to have brains first.

Feminist brains–the only thing truly imaginary in this whole debate.

170. avern says

@Marduk

“A real “stopped clock” moment here, its as Babs says:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/12/men-women-sex-objects

This article is proof that feminism is founded down to the atomic level on the hatred of men. This ghoul of a columnist is taking pride in her soulless ability to discount the pain expressed by actual humans because it upends her fact-free, bigoted worldview.

Feminism is a religion that rewards sociopathy.

171. Jacob Schmidt says

Your asking an irrelevant question rather than explaining how my statement wasn’t an accurate portrayal show that you in fact have no explanation.

Naw, just being concise in exam times.

Seriously: general vs. specific. Figure it out.

172. 123454321 says

From the article:

“Which is not to say that men aren’t objectified in other ways. For instance, financial or attainment objectification – throughout their lives, success…”

Which is the same bullshit line that feminists are now coming out with as a diversion tactic to covertly convince men that they aren’t sexually objectified at all, in the hope that men will continue to be exploited as shirtless, oiled up hunks for the titillation of women who are smugly riding the tit-for-tat, childish, selfish wave of revenge. Double standard supported by men’s inability to wake up and recognise the female desire for revenge as well as their tendency to exhibit severe emotional jealousy and to remove all pleasure from men by stopping them from looking at other women while trying to justify/ignore male objectification in the most conniving, pathetic way imaginable. How feminists can argue the case that a women on a billboard in a provocative, sexy pose is female objectification while Magic Mike is not is unbelievable beyond words. Yet the audience of the two scenarios act in the exact opposite way that feminists would have you believe. The men looking at the billboard just think, yeah, she’s nice, and say little else, whereas the audience in the cinema make their thoughts quite clear with their whoops, roars, screams and sighs of pleasure. Like I say, I have no problem with any of this except for the blatant double standards that people appear to want to put up with and the way that feminists only ever appear to fight for the things that support them getting the clean end of the stick. These double standards are extremely damaging, especially the ones which are sneaking under the radar as the causal link to the resulting damage is difficult to find.

173. Marduk says

I just don’t think feminists are particularly interested in naked men.
If they are, they go about procuring them in a very strange way.

Do you really believe this or is it just a rhetorical device?

I don’t think this but if you’re going to have a conspiracy theory, it would be more that they want to defend their ownership of a grievance and as aspect of victimhood (it is certainly true modern SJWism is too frequently about promoting weakness, victimhood and Vienna 1899 levels of neuroticism, much to the exasperation of significantly more hardcore legit feminists).

If you want to pursue this, just saying that pictures exist isn’t really an argument, it was never a good argument for feminists either as I argue above. I think QRG/Elly Tams would probably have some stuff for you, I don’t buy it myself, but there is some theory there.

174. 123454321 says

Wow, nice find, Ally, and how timely! Can’t wait to read it later and respond….

….perhaps, just as women are getting their own back with respect to orthodox objectification, we’ll see female genitalia making their way into the public space in order to straighten up the more graphic, personal, shocking type of objectification. Perhaps someone should start up a revolutionary business sculpting different types of labia (without hair) and make a million selling this innovative product which breaks new ground and has never been done before – NEVER. Well there’s a thought for you – at last, double standards eliminated as you and your kids are confronted by lots of female labia as you walk through your local garden centre or National Trust / English Heratige place of interest! Perhaps young lads will learn as much about the other gender’s genitals at an early age, just as girls do. I’m not sure whether too many mums would be happy though, what do you think? But I guess what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander and after all the years of men’s genitals being painstakingly sculptured to such high detail….who on Earth could ever complain?!! Wait, let me think who might complain and put to bed that little idea to get rich?

175. Jacob Schmidt says

Interestingly, there is a (feminist?) woman in the Guardian today bemoaning the lack of vaginas in art and culture

There was an interesting point about it being mostly an issue with greco-roman art (which may or may not be true). I don’t know nearly enough about historical art to take a guess.

176. 123454321 says

“Patriarchy has tried to erase imagery of the feminine since time immemorial. Destroy the image and you can control the narrative. ”

So there we have it, she blames the patriarchy, so I reckon it’s safe to assume she’s a feminist. It reminds me of FGM. Everyone is told it’s the fault of the patriarchy. The truth probably aligns more with the fact that women are the ones who encourage and support FGM in the main.

Sculpt some statues of the female form displaying their genitals in detail, stick them in a garden centre and whack a camera in there and let’s see the reactions and hear the comments. I’m confident that women wouldn’t take too kindly to this form of art and some would find it very offensive! The complaints would roll in. Patriarchy my foot!

177. Carnation says

I’ve naughtily watches the first 3 episodes of Game of Thrones season 5. Not the merest hint of a penis but lots of breasts and full frontal female nudity. Also lots of depictions of women as literal sex objects (MRAs won’t understand the significance of this).

Just sayin’

Oh, and it’s epic.

178. avern says

@Jacob Schmidt

“Naw, just being concise in exam times.”

Naw, you’re just avoiding explaining how your statements were misrepresented because you have no explanation. Every one of your arguments has been demolished, so now you’re resorting to evasions.

@Carny

“I’ve naughtily watches the first 3 episodes of Game of Thrones season 5.”

You should spend your time learning subject/verb agreement and proper tense, instead of watching so much television.

“Not the merest hint of a penis but lots of breasts and full frontal female nudity. Also lots of depictions of women as literal sex objects…”

Since breasts and bush are not equivalent to penises, your statement is nonsensical. Also, I just watched a trailer for season 5 and there were numerous men baring their nipples, so why are you even mentioning breasts?

179. Jacob Schmidt says

Naw, you’re just avoiding explaining how your statements were misrepresented because you have no explanation.

*sigh*
Where $x$ and $y$ are two sets; where $n$ and $i$ are not equal:

The statement |$x_i = y_i$| does not imply |$x_n = y_n$|. An equivalency of specific elements of two sets is not an equivalency of general set.

I should not have to explain this.

180. Carnation says

@ Avern

Or perhaps I should continue commenting via my smart phone and ignore your attempts at snark.

Your second point is pathetically stupid.

181. avern says

@Jacob Schmidt

L. O. L.

I’m still deciding whether or not you’re false equivalences/straw men are due to honest to goodness stupidity, or if you’re hoping to deceive others (and yourself?) into believing you have an argument.

First of all, my use of general was clearly not in the propositional sense of “relating to, or affecting all the things in a group,” but in the informal sense of “relating to the main or major parts of something rather than the details, not specific.” Male and female groins have structural differences, so it makes sense to regard them in terms of a general area.

Even if you reduced my representation of your argument as this: female groins and male groins are equal, therefore female anatomy and male anatomy are equal. You still fail to explain how that doesn’t accurately reflect your position. I didn’t conclude you believed this because I assume that equivalences of instances between sets means that the general sets are themselves equivalent. I concluded that because the only reason you gave for female and male groins being equivalent was that the same general area was being exposed.

My mistake. I should have assumed that feminists are always inconsistent and nonsensical.

182. avern says

@Carny

“Or perhaps I should continue commenting via my smart phone and ignore your attempts at snark.”

HAHAHA!!!

Yes, blame an electronic device for your idiocy. It can’t judge you for your deficiencies, which makes it a perfect companion for you.

“Your second point is pathetically stupid.”

Or, more likely, you’re too pathetically stupid to formulate a response. No, wait! I’m sure what really happened was that you had a perfect, eloquent, logically airtight rebuttal, but then your mean ole smart phone ate it right before you hit send! :'(

183. Jacob Schmidt says

First of all, my use of general was clearly not in the propositional sense of “relating to, or affecting all the things in a group,” but in the informal sense of “relating to the main or major parts of something rather than the details, not specific.”

I don’t really care what your use of the term was; I wasn’t commenting on it. I was commenting on your erroneous extrapolation of my position.

You still fail to explain how that doesn’t accurately reflect your position.

That’s true. I have not explained the principles behind my position; rather deliberately, in fact (explaining in detail is only worth the effort when you expect productivity)*. Notice, though, the actual nature of my request: don’t make things up. In absence of explanations, don’t invent convenient positions for you to attack while posturing and declaring your opponent’s argument “destroyed.”

It bogs things down.

*We’ve gone from discussing objectification and social factors governing it to inventing statistics on how often women are shaven in nude scenes: that’s the opposite of productivity.

I concluded that because the only reason you gave for female and male groins being equivalent was that the same general area was being exposed.

*shrug*

It’s still the same sort of failure in reasoning. You generalized a rule that functioned well for specific elements (e.g. hands, shoulders, groins) that doesn’t necessarily function for others (e.g. chest, legs). It’s still a specific/general failure. That the application of a rule is sufficient for characterizing certain elements in a set does not mean that the application of said rule is sufficient for characterizing all elements of a set. That I applied a rule for specific elements of two sets does not mean I believe that rule to be sufficient for all elements of that set.

Just a note on general discussion: if a contradiction only arises in a position when that position is applied naively, your opponent has probably already reconciled the naive contradiction. Unless you (general you) think there is almost necessarily a contradiction (i.e. you can’t imagine a reconciliation that isn’t completely outlandish),* pointing it out probably won’t go anywhere. And even if it does work out well in a specific discussion, if you’re entire argument rests on the contradiction, then you aren’t actually able to address the reconciled version; a version which some other opponent has probably thought of.

*Even then you should recognize that it might just be a failure on your part not to think of one.

184. Jacob Schmidt says

I have seen the light: the real threat to men in the modern age is transgender acceptance.

(CN for transphobia)

185. avern says

“That’s true. I have not explained the principles behind my position; rather deliberately, in fact (explaining in detail is only worth the effort when you expect productivity).”

Just what I expected: you have no explanation. You’re only digging yourself a deeper hole and exposing the fact that you made a claim–female and male groins are equivalent–without thinking things through and now you’re stuck with the consequences.

If you truly cared about productivity, you would have elaborated your argumentative framework immediately, opening up the possibility of discussion. Instead, you have now decided to recycle this evasive rhetoric ad nauseam deviating far from the original topic.

“You generalized a rule that functioned well for specific elements (e.g. hands, shoulders, groins) that doesn’t necessarily function for others (e.g. chest, legs). It’s still a specific/general failure.”

No it isn’t. Female pubic hair and male genitals are extremely anatomically dissimilar, far more dissimilar than female and male chests. Your previous claim discounted anatomy in favor of “area.” Since female and male chests are both anatomically more similar than female and male groins and they’re in the same area, it is completely rational to conclude that you believe them equivalent as well. With two exceptions: you’re not rational (very possible) or you made an ad hoc statement that you’re trying to cover up (my money’s on that choice).

“That I applied a rule for specific elements of two sets does not mean I believe that rule to be sufficient for all elements of that set.”

“It bogs things down.”

Your evasive rhetoric is what bogs things down.

“We’ve gone from discussing objectification and social factors governing it to inventing statistics on how often women are shaven in nude scenes: that’s the opposite of productivity.”

The feminists on this board are the sole cause of any lack of productivity. The MRAs have provided evidence for their claims and have made their argumentative frameworks clear. Take responsibility for your prevaricating.

“In absence of explanations, don’t invent convenient positions for you to attack while posturing and declaring your opponent’s argument ‘destroyed.’”

Honey, when one side (MRA) gives evidence and explanations and one side (feminist) gives neither, the side that gives neither has been destroyed.

“Just a note on general discussion…”

Here’s a note: don’t give notes on something you’re terrible at.

186. 123454321 says

Perhaps one of the resident feminists would like to explain why my local garden centre believes it is within the acceptable, social and family-friendly realm of decorum to procure, market, display and sell water features which, in essence, shows male statues (usually young boys!!!) hunched back, protruding their pelvis while holding their penis and urinating? Can’t recall ever seeing a similar example of a female squatting above a cascading waterfall, which is perfectly possible.

Anyone care to provide a reason why? Not as I would particularly like to see a female statue urinating as I think it would be just as vulgar and undignified as the examples of urinating boys that we have imposed upon us when we walk around our local garden centres!

187. Ally Fogg says

I’m hardly resident feminist, but I’ll give you an answer to that, 12345, and it probably addresses a lot of the other points you’ve been making on this thread.

Our society and culture is broadly comparatively comfortable with male bodily functions and even (up to a point) male genitalia – especially pre-pubescent boys or very unthreatening, dinky little chipolata penises.

At the same time, our society and culture is very uncomfortable with female bodily functions and female genitalia, considering them to be obscene, unspeakable things.

The obvious reason for this is that our society and culture has largely been shaped by men – including male artists, sculptors, patrons of the arts, religious founders and teachers, legislators, censors etc.

A little boy having a wee in a fountain is cute and funny. A little girl having a wee in a fountain is obscene. Why? Because men grow up quite accustomed to seeing male urination, whereas female urination must be screened from them, hidden away like a rude, disgusting thing.

This has been the case for hundreds, even thousands of years, we can see the same thing in ancient Roman and Greek artworks (and that ties in quite nicely to the point made by the art critic in the Guardian piece the other day, about the lack of female genitals on statues)

And on that point, exposed genitals, our culture has carefully and strictly screened us from visible, exposed female genitals because they are considered to be an immediate and direct invitation to sex. In that sense, they are probably more equivalent to an erect penis, while a flaccid penis operates at about the same level of obscenity as a pair of breasts (which I’d hazard you will see quite frequently in the statues section of your local garden centre.

If any of the statues have a proud stiffy on display, I will be surprised and impressed.

188. 123454321 says

Ally,

Ever been to Wiltshire?

189. Ally Fogg says

assuming you’re talking about the Cerne Abbas Giant, yes.

And the remarkable thing about that is how close to culturally unique it is. Most cultures have phalluses as fertility symbols, but Western Juideo-Christian culture has all but eliminated ours.

Indeed wasn’t it the case that the Wiltshire giant had his covered up / erased for about 200 years from the 18th to 20th centuries?

190. 123454321 says

Ok, here goes.

Our society and culture is broadly comparatively comfortable with male bodily functions and even (up to a point) male genitalia”

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Agree.

” – especially pre-pubescent boys or very unthreatening, dinky little chipolata penises.”

Whoahoh there, yes, unthreatening, but this is bordering on bloody peodophilia!! Still acceptable in 2015? Really?

“At the same time, our society and culture is very uncomfortable with female bodily functions and female genitalia, considering them to be obscene, unspeakable things.”

Agreed. This is what I’m saying.

“The obvious reason for this is that our society and culture has largely been shaped by men – including male artists, sculptors, patrons of the arts, religious founders and teachers, legislators, censors etc.”

NO. Our culture and family values – the way we impart respectability and social values between the sexes – is just as much the responsibility of women who have implanted different values in boys and girls during the significant time they spend with them during early childhood. There is plenty of evidence of this today. Keeping within the topic, I have seen plenty of Mothers allow their young Sons to urinate openly in public. The same mothers apply far more discretion with their young Daughters. I’ve even seen it with changing nappies and running around on the sand. Boys are treated differently by their MOTHERS. Besides, I think men are fundamentally more decent and considerate towards women than women are to men so the men whom you said have “shaped the world” were probably applying thoughtful respect, protection and censorship towards the feelings of their women-folk, whereas women appear to have no qualms with openly accepting anything even remotely vulgar, uncouth or disrespectful towards men. Modern feminism proves this time and time again with their attitude towards men, whether it be ignoring homeless men, male suicide, Father’s rights to see their children or showing cocks on TV. The list is endless but it’s a list which is becoming more and more recognisable as an assault on men and boys.

“A little boy having a wee in a fountain is cute and funny.”

Tell that to some unfortunate parents who have had their kids snapped by some pervert peodo at the beach! If you ask me, I think it’s pretty obscene and fucking pointless.

A little girl having a wee in a fountain is obscene.

Agree.

Why? Because men grow up quite accustomed to seeing male urination, whereas female urination must be screened from them, hidden away like a rude, disgusting thing.

Agree. But who encouraged and indoctrinated the hiding of female but not male genitals?

“…And on that point, exposed genitals, our culture has carefully and strictly screened us from visible, exposed female genitals because they are considered to be an immediate and direct invitation to sex.”

What, sex with a statue? Did men hundreds or thousands of years ago try to have sex with statues if they saw some labia on there? How odd. Are you sure the screening was to do with this, or could it be that the influence Mothers presented to their Sons as they grew up was the greater contributing factor? I know which one I’d bet on.

“In that sense, they are probably more equivalent to an erect penis, while a flaccid penis operates at about the same level of obscenity as a pair of breasts”

You’re talking about perception. I’m glad you used the word “probably”, as I’m talking about facts. The fact that breasts are not anywhere near on the same level as genitals, regardless of what state they’re in.

“If any of the statues have a proud stiffy on display, I will be surprised and impressed.”

Now there you have me stumped. Why would you be impressed? Would you have an impressed look on your face while you tried to explain that one to your 5 year old child?

191. Ally Fogg says

Our culture and family values – the way we impart respectability and social values between the sexes – is just as much the responsibility of women who have implanted different values in boys and girls during the significant time they spend with them during early childhood.

Oh of course, this is about GCSE-level sociology. Everyone participates in the perpetuation and protection of prevailing social norms, including women, and often including those who suffer most greatly from them. However the social and cultural norms evolve and take hold for reasons, and those reasons are inextricably tied up in economic and social power relations. Saying that hegemonic social structures evolve to protect certain interests is not the same as saying those with certain interests are the only people who protect them.

Whoahoh there, yes, unthreatening, but this is bordering on bloody peodophilia!! Still acceptable in 2015? Really?

Don’t be ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing sexual about naked children until someone comes along and imposes a sexual narrative on them. And of course, the reason why classical Greek statues have teeny wee peenies is precisely so they are desexualised, like children.

“A little boy having a wee in a fountain is cute and funny.”
Tell that to some unfortunate parents who have had their kids snapped by some pervert peodo at the beach! If you ask me, I think it’s pretty obscene and fucking pointless.

I think what you are saying here is really quite fucked up and unhealthy. We all have bodies, we’re all naked under our clothes. As a protective father, there is literally nothing I can do about the possibility of a ‘pervert paedo’ having nasty thoughts about my kids, with or without clothes, but I am not going to respond to that (relatively small) risk by instilling them with fear and loathing of their own bodies and those of other people. When my boys were toddlers they ran around naked on the beach and I’m glad they did.

“…And on that point, exposed genitals, our culture has carefully and strictly screened us from visible, exposed female genitals because they are considered to be an immediate and direct invitation to sex.”
What, sex with a statue? Did men hundreds or thousands of years ago try to have sex with statues if they saw some labia on there? How odd. Are you sure the screening was to do with this, or could it be that the influence Mothers presented to their Sons as they grew up was the greater contributing factor? I know which one I’d bet on.

Hang on, you’re the one freaking out about an inch or two of stone or bronze on a statue. How come they are sexual and obscene when they’re representations of little boy bits and suddenly entirely sexless when they are representations of little girls’ bits? And as I said above, mothers are every bit as (if not more) actively involved in the perpetuation of hegemonic social values as fathers.

You’re talking about perception. I’m glad you used the word “probably”, as I’m talking about facts. The fact that breasts are not anywhere near on the same level as genitals, regardless of what state they’re in.

“If any of the statues have a proud stiffy on display, I will be surprised and impressed.”
Now there you have me stumped. Why would you be impressed? Would you have an impressed look on your face while you tried to explain that one to your 5 year old child?

I’d be very impressed (though more surprised) if a 5-year-old of mine was interested enough to even notice. I could imagine the conversation.

“Daddy, why is that man’s willy pointing upwards?”
“Because sometimes boy’s willies do that when they get a bit older.”
“Will mine do that when I’m older?”
“Yes, it will.”
“Please can I have an ice cream?”
“Yeah, all right.”

Can’t see him being scarred for life, can you?

192. avern says

Now that Ally has admitted that male nudity of every kind is more prevalent than the female variety, not only in present times but throughout history (thus making moot all the arguments the other feminists were making, ha!), let’s, for the sake of equality, drastically increase the amount of female nudity in the public sphere.

No more censorship of female nipples anywhere. We should completely demystify them.
Far more depictions of vulvas, including public statuary.

That way we can a build a future where this scenario can occur:

“Mommy, why is that lady holding her fanny open and why is a stream of liquid coming out?”
“Because sometimes girls’ fannies do that when they get a bit older.”
“Will mine do that when I’m older?”
“If you’re lucky.”
“Please can I have a copy of ‘Our Bodies, Ourselves’?”
“Yeah, all right.”

193. Jacob Schmidt says

If you truly cared about productivity, you would have elaborated your argumentative framework immediately, opening up the possibility of discussion.

That possibility is with people who invent statistics, make wild generalizations, and assert conspiracy theories. That possibility simply isn’t plausible.

I think you’ve confused “insufficient” for “doesn’t apply.”

Would you have an impressed look on your face while you tried to explain that one to your 5 year old child?

Why do you think children are so easily shocked and scandalized by nudity? Have you met little children? Quite a few of them freaking love running around naked. They think nudity is funny, by and large.

Being ashamed of our bodies is mostly an adult thing, and is something children learn; something they’ll learn even faster with your “penises are shameful and undignified” rhetoric.

194. Stilljenganger says

@Avern, 123345431,
Sorry for butting in unprepared – but I found it too stressful to follow this in detail.

Can’t we get off this “That is the way it is for women, so it must be the same for men” gig? It sounds a little too much like “Mommy, my brother got a new jacket, so I need one too!”

Suppose we looked at this on its merits, without the everlasting comparison to the competition. That makes it:
– Do we think there is too much or too intimate male nudity at the moment? What damage does it do? How would we like things to be instead?
Do we think there is too much, female nudity, or too little, or too much fuss about it? Why? How would we like things to be instead?

I suspect it wold be rather easier to settle whether we really wanted to banish male nipples or weeing boys from public view, or to have spread pussies all over the place, if we could look at each point separately rather than through this maniacal focus on ultra-precie gender equality.

195. Ally Fogg says

No I didn’t. I said female genitals (representations thereof) are less prevalent, not female nudity.

I’d be pretty confident female nudity is more common than male nudity across culture and media, even excluding the porn industry but If anyone has any peer-reviewed research to contradict that, I’d be happy to change my mind. I honestly couldn’t give much of a shit either way.

And to be perfectly honest, I’d be far happier in a society where children were confronted with a statue of a little girl having a wee out of her anatomically correct genitals than in a society where my children are surrounded by statues of Generals standing proudly next to cannons or assorted dictatorial monarchs!

196. Stilljenganger says

@Ally 191
This goes for you too, Ally. You describe the current hierarchy of what is obscene pretty well.

And on that point, exposed genitals, our culture has carefully and strictly screened us from visible, exposed female genitals because they are considered to be an immediate and direct invitation to sex. In that sense, they are probably more equivalent to an erect penis, while a flaccid penis operates at about the same level of obscenity as a pair of breasts (which I’d hazard you will see quite frequently in the statues section of your local garden centre.

Which can be rationalised quite well without invoking male dominance. As you pointed out earlier, male genitals are much more exposed For a man, full frontal nudity will show the genitals, and weeing exposes it all. For a woman, you need spread legs and a much more invasive inspection.

Anyway, this is how things are. So, are you comfortable with keeping things that way? I am. If not, how would you want them changed?

197. 123454321 says

No. I’m broadcasting the double standards applied to boys because they’re boys, and girls because they’re girls. I don’t give a shit who does what, but these double standards based around obvious measures of protection and non-protection is covertly segregating and polarising the sexes in terms of respect and decency. And you can’t get more base level than that.

If Eurotrash is prepared/allowed to broadcast a programme with unpixelated images of penises, then why are they pixelating labia/vagina in shots that would normally reveal? Why can we show statues of boys urinating in an age when peodophilia is rife, let alone the double standard!

Cast your thoughts to the future and all of this lot will be straightened out, i’m sure. Some of you guys are forming opinions based on hundreds/thousands of years ago and refusing to imagine what the right path to the future looks like. These double standards WILL disappear.

198. Carnation says

@ Avern

Girl’s “fannies” do that from birth And it won’t much change when they are women. You’re as authoritative with biology as you are with social science.

199. 123454321 says

“There is absolutely nothing sexual about naked children until someone comes along and imposes a sexual narrative on them.”

What, like a peodo? By the way, I never said there was anything sexual about naked children, just that it seems odd to allow the explicit portrayal of boys pissing while applying what I believe is the correct protection to girls. Geez, don’t turn my words around like that, dude! Either way, I still maintain that any form of child nudity these days is justifiably frowned upon due to the known threat of peodophiles. It’s also not surprising that so many boys and men grow up exposing their genitals and pissing in public (uncouth, dirty, shameless, uncivilised morons) when they are surrounded by male genitalia in everyday life.

“Hang on, you’re the one freaking out about an inch or two of stone or bronze on a statue.”

Only because of the double standard. I’m not offended by the depiction of a penis; I’m offended by the double standard. I’m further annoyed by the fact that people have the audacity to blame the patriarchy for a double standard which actually gives respectful, dignified protection to the female sex.

“I think what you are saying here is really quite fucked up and unhealthy. We all have bodies, we’re all naked under our clothes.”

Hey, I agree. So you’ll support me in removing the pixilation of labia or procurement of merkins currently adopted across the TV and film industry, won’t you!

200. 123454321 says

“…or to have spread pussies all over the place…”

I think there’s a bit of a misconception going on here. Of all the women I have ever seen naked, there was no need for them to spread their legs to see at least part detail of their genitals, especially as many women in recent years tend to keep themselves Black & Deckered.

201. avern says

@Carny

“Girl’s ‘fannies’ do that from birth And it won’t much change when they are women. You’re as authoritative with biology as you are with social science.”

I was referring to female ejaculation, dumbass, but then you would know nothing about that, seeing as you confuse female pubic hair with penises.

202. avern says

@Ally

“I’d be pretty confident female nudity is more common than male nudity across culture and media, even excluding the porn industry, but If anyone has any peer-reviewed research to contradict that, I’d be happy to change my mind. I honestly couldn’t give much of a shit either way.”

You already admitted that male genitals are more common. The only analogous nudity left are nipples (which there are orders of magnitude more of the male variety on display) and buttocks (which are probably somewhat equal in frequency). You have absolutely no foundation left to believe that female nudity is more common.

Give it up.

203. avern says

@Jacob Schmidt

“I think you’ve confused “insufficient” for ‘doesn’t apply.'”

I didn’t confuse anything. You clearly made an ad hoc justification which is why you’re still attempting this evasive rhetoric. You have no explanation now and you didn’t have any when you made that poorly thought out statement. Every continued attempt to hide that only makes you look worse.

204. Carnation says

@ Avern

“I was referring to female ejaculation, dumbass, but then you would know nothing about that, seeing as you confuse female pubic hair with penises.”

Of course you were. LOL.

205. Carnation says

@ Ally Fogg

Did you catch Panorama the other night? About male suicide in the UK. Very interesting and pertinent. Some pretty groundbreaking activism in surprising places. Well worth a watch.

206. Carnation says

@ 123454321

Shame on you, and the despicable crank you linked to, for demeaning a sober documentary about a serious and tragic issue with idiotic gender “war” obsession.

207. 123454321 says

Carnation, calm down, I only posted a link. Care to explain your apparent irritability or obvious dislike of the “crank”?

208. avern says

Poor Carny, completely unaware of any sexual function that hasn’t been featured on an episode of Game of Thrones. Sad, really.

Anyway, after two weeks of inane arguments about nudity from the feminists, all of which have been utterly destroyed, let’s hope they’ve learned a lesson and won’t bog anymore threads down with their foolishness.

209. Carnation says

@ Avern

LOL. You’re an MRA.

210. avern says

Looks like Carny’s insanity tank has finally run empty. Pitiful thing’s just a husk swatting a keyboard at this point.

211. Carnation says

@ Avern

You’re projecting. Because you’re an MRA, with all the inherent inadequacies that brings, you’ll think having the last word us significant. I’m feeling charitable – enjoy 🙂

212. 123454321 says

The lack of general respect and common decency aimed towards men is astonishing, and everywhere. Recently, I’ve been tortured by having to sit through a few episodes of Judge Judy – I’ve seen it before but forgot how much it annoyed me. I could hardly believe the blatant sexism that exists in that programme. Talk about siding with the female sex and applying two sets of moral principles depending on whether the person in the dock has a pussy-pass or not. One thing I’ve noticed is that the judge doesn’t hold back with various snide comments about the way a male plaintiff or defendant presents themselves, whether that be in terms of the way they look or the way they dress. The comments she makes have no boundaries in terms of abuse. However, she makes no such unpleasant, personal remarks to females, even if they look like a drugged-up, heavily tattooed, pierced, dyed hair lunatic, she says nothing. She frequently generalised about how stupid men are and how untrusting and childish they are, and she delivers her personal attacks with shameless aplomb. She NEVER makes a big thing about females hitting women; she just rides right over the fact and changes the subject asap. When a man has so much as even held a women back she shames him and belittles him relentlessly! one episode I caught was where one guy (A) accused guy (B) at a party of punching him in a private dispute between guy A and guy B. Guy A was hurt, but not seriously. Girlfriend (C) of Guy A decided to take a knife (which she was carrying in her bag) and STAB guy B in the heart, which nearly killed him and saw him in hospital for weeks and off work for months. Guy B countersues against Girlfriend C for actual bodily harm and trying to kill him.

Judge Judy’s ruling – Guy A and Girlfriend C are compensated significantly for aggravation. Guy B is told that he started it and with regard to being stabbed by the girlfriend (and these are more or less Judge Judy’s words) “good for her, shit happens, get over it”.

Now had the sexes been reversed….which I have seen, and even in less extreme circumstances Judge Judy is never this callous, discriminatory or cruel towards the female sex.

…and we want to get more women like this into power!

What does this tell young people who watch such things and soak up the subliminal messages, thus forming two polarised perceptions of the way in which we should treat male and females?

Disgusting!

213. Carnation says

@ 123454321

Dude, are you trolling? Or just tripping?

Anyone who watched Judge Judy for anything other than stoned laughs should take more drugs.

Judge Judy is like a poor man’s Cops.

214. Holms says

@214
I think most have, like me, realised there is no point attempting dialogue with someone so belligerent and unreasonable as you. I haven’t seen this level of verbal effluent since the lest time I glanced at a Call of Duty forum.

215. 123454321 says

Carnation – Judge Judy is watched by millions of people. It’s a platform of power and influence. The disrespect and distain aimed at men through such platforms is a fucking disgrace. But not nearly as disgraceful as you resorting to the ‘he’s a troll’ statement in the hope that you will shut me up from speaking the truth. You know very well that reversing the sexes in the scenario I described on that ‘family’ show would not be treated in the same way, BECAUSE MEN ARE ALWAYS PISSED UPON from great heights when it comes to programmes like this. My whole point in this entire thread is that men are not granted the same rights in terms of respect and decency as women, even when they get STABBED by a woman. Full fucking stop.

216. 123454321 says

Holmes, what exactly did I say about that Judge Judy episode that you think was unreasonable? Or is is just that you don’t like me drawing attention to these double standards?

217. Carnation says

@ 123454321

“You know very well that reversing the sexes in the scenario I described on that ‘family’ show would not be treated in the same way, BECAUSE MEN ARE ALWAYS PISSED UPON from great heights when it comes to programmes like this. My whole point in this entire thread is that men are not granted the same rights in terms of respect and decency as women, even when they get STABBED by a woman. Full fucking stop.”

1/ Judge Judy is not a family show
2/ “programmes like this” – the TV equivilant of “shock jock”, brainless reality TV, you mean? And anyway…
3/ “MEN ARE ALWAYS PISSED UPON” – you’d need to come up with an in depth media analysis to make this claim. Your ineptness about nudity on TV demonstrates that this is beyond your capacity at present.
4/ “My whole point in this entire thread is that men are not granted the same rights in terms of respect and decency as women” – see above for reasons why this is not only incorrect, but what one author described as “hysterical hyperbole”

Yours is a siege mentality, paranoid and quick to be moved to angry defiance. Your paranoia and anger prevent you from dispassionately analysing facts, or even acknowledging the huge gulf where facts aren’t. You fill this gulf with confirmation bias, informed by a subculture of angry bloggers. It’s really, really sad.

218. 123454321 says

1 – It’s on at all times of the day and the audience ranges from young to old, male and female. It’s about a family court and it’s watched by all members of the family and you have nothing better to do than accuse me of calling it a family programme. Keep stooping, Carnation.

2 – Yes, your’e quite right, Carnation, VERY brainless programmes like this particular one which has claimed the highest viewing figures for daytime TV in order of over 10 million viewers through it’s many seasons (I think 19). Lucky old JJ being able to spread her bigoted and hateful views and attitude towards men across society with so little effort!

3 – Carnation accues me of ineptness using his usual inept style of asking for citations or in-depth analysis without bothering to offer his own rebuttal via critical analysis, citations or counter evidence. BORING!

4 – “see above for reasons why this is not only incorrect, but what one author described as “hysterical hyperbole” At least I’ve given you some examples of how men are treated differently in terms of decency and general respect. You’ve given fuck all as a rebuttal other than the usual mud-slinging crap that you always offer. Yawn….BORING! The only thing smart about you, Carnation, is your smartphone.

219. Carnation says

@ 123454321

“Lucky old JJ being able to spread her bigoted and hateful views and attitude towards men across society with so little effort!”

123454321, 2015

“”I’ve always thought in this country we do a terrible disservice to fathers.”

“Most state laws require that courts treat mothers and fathers equally when it comes to matters of child custody. When I presided as a judge in Manhattan family court, that was the law, and that’s how I treated each custody case. Families, especially children, suffer when this law is not followed. Unfortunately, I’ve seen this happen all too often.”

Judge Judy – http://www.whatwouldjudysay.com/episodes/who-gets-custody# (A video asking for stories from parents disputing family court outcomes)

And this from an article titled “IS JUDGE JUDY A FATHER’S ADVOCATE?” on the (USA) National Parents Organization website: https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/726-is-judge-judy-a-fath

” …mother Amica Coleman is berated for a planned move-away and grilled about her accusations against [the] father… The “judge” here is Judtih Sheindlin, a former New York family court judge who has presided over a top-rated reality-based court TV show for 11 years.”

” … the mom is seeking payment from the father for day care costs from a brief period when they shared custody. A big part of the show’s popularity is Judge Judy’s lecturing of plaintiffs or defendants as she loses patience with them, and she doesn’t fail to disappoint here. In response to mom’s plan to move the son from California to North Carolina, the Judge tells mom, “Your child has known his father since the time he was born. Don’t you think that’s rather selfish of you?” And, “Ms. Coleman, it’s always a bad thing when you take a child away from a parent. You chose Mr. Ballard to father your child, you lived with him for a long time, unfortunately you haven’t been able to work out the custody aspects in a way that respects the child’s long-term well-being.”

” … a litany of accusations from the mom are countered by the dad, or shot down by Judge Judy. The overwhelming message is that the father is fighting to stay involved in his son’s life while the mom erects every roadblock possible. Hence Judge Judy’s frustration. And, Judge Judy denies the mother’s financial claim at the end.”

” … in response to another recent show involving paternity fraud, Judge Judy’s website is running a poll asking, “Do you think paternity testing should be mandatory in cases involving child support?” The results so far: 80% in favor.”

There’s a resource called “Google”, you can use it to look for evidence to back your claims up. You should really try it.

You have made an absolute bollocks out of yourself here, mate.. This is Mike Buchanan levels of fail, 123454321. If you’re going to accuse someone of “oted and hateful views and attitude towards men across society”, them make sure you ideological brothers aren’t applauding her elsewhere on the ‘net.

220. Marduk says

This is nonsense. If Judge Judy (and Judy herself) have an agenda its generational not gender. Her audience are nearly all old people actually. There is an interesting interview with Larry King where she is banging the table saying young people need a taste of ‘pure retribution’, I think her views are pretty clear. From my limited viewing of the show, she seems to particularly enjoy telling young women off.

There is another video on youtube where she says she didn’t need feminism and hasn’t benefited from it and that you are defined by how hard you work and that is it.

Crikey, if this is how you treat your allies…

221. Carnation says

@ Marduk

If one is fixated on the notion that feminists/misandrists have infiltrated TV scheduling to broadcast anti-male content (let’s call it the MRA gaze) then one will interrogate media accordingly, with intensely stupid results.

The MRA gaze, like the RadFem gaze, is a tragedy for the individual afflicted. I would hate to be so devoid of rationale and joy.

222. Holms says

@222
I’m not sure why you are asking me that, as my post was directed at avern’s post #214. This can be ascertained by the fact that my post starts with “@214” above the content.

However, since you ask, I would point out that your post #218, in which you bring up Judge Judy, can quite easily be criticised and dismissed. Firstly, it is purely anecdotal and can thus be dismissed on that alone, especially since I know from my own viewings of the show that it is a mixed bag. She sneers at people of either gender, and I know this because I have seen it. (You seem to have forgotten that others have seen the show too.) Rather than pit anecdata against anecdata, have you got any sort of statistical analysis at all? I’m guessing not.

Even worse than the mere fact that your anecdote is an anecdote however, is that your account of that incident appears to be biased. You clearly note that the the guy that was stabbed was also the initiator of the violence, and Judy’s verdict of “Guy B is told that he started it” appears to support this. Since neither of us were at the incident to say any better, it seems that the claim of self defense was considered plausible.

But mainly, the anecdata thing.

223. avern says

@Holms

“I think most have, like me, realized there is no point attempting dialogue with someone so belligerent and unreasonable as you.”

Oh, please. You can’t even come up with a convincing lie. You gave up because you were exposed as having no explanation for your double standards.

@Carny

“You’re projecting. Because you’re an MRA, with all the inherent inadequacies that brings, you’ll think having the last word us significant. “

LOL! You always end up exposing yourself. Anyone with a slight familiarity with this board can see that you post endlessly on every single thread like a complete loser with no life. You’re the one who clings desperately to the prospect of having the last word, but unfortunately all your words, first or last, are so empty they have zero impact in the end.

224. Jacob Schmidt says

You gave up because you were exposed as having no explanation for your double standards.

Posturing until people stop bothering can sure feel like winning sometimes.

However, [Judge Judy] makes no such unpleasant, personal remarks to females, even if they look like a drugged-up, heavily tattooed, pierced, dyed hair lunatic, she says nothing.

That’s wrong on its face. Her whole schtick is being cantankerous to anybody she pleases, and she’s entirely capricious about to whom she is cantankerous.

Crikey, if this is how you treat your allies…

I don’t think there’s any reason to call 123454321 and Sheindlin allies. They might both hold contempt for feminism, but that’s still a long way from having actually aligned goals.

225. Carnation says

Has anyone read Peter Lloyd’a trainwreck of a Daily Mail article from y’day?

226. Holms says

#229
Oh, please. You can’t even come up with a convincing lie. You gave up because you were exposed as having no explanation for your double standards.

The fact that I returned at all suggests that ‘gave up’ is incorrect; say rather that I became busy for a bit. But I stand by my comment: you are an blowhard in the tradition of the CoD community.

Anyone with a slight familiarity with this board can see that you post endlessly on every single thread like a complete loser with no life.
Provably false: The fist thread I picked outside of this one had zero Carnation posts.

227. Whiney says

Funny I was just about to mention the Peter Lloyd piece. ‘Cause while the vast majority of factual assertions in it are undeniably true, on Twitter Ally seizes on one or two figures which are not so sound, and for that reason declares the entire thing “horseshit”! 🙂

Meanwhile, Polly pens an article in the G. which was rife with bogus and patently false statistics (which you imagine she must have been well aware of), yet strangely there is no declaration of that being manure of any kind from the liberal intelligentsia in the Twittersphere or beyond.
But you see, this is not necessarily a question of who has the best statistics (notwithstanding the fact that Peter Lloyd would probably correct his figures if Ally politely informed him how they were wrong, whilst Polly plainly would not.)
It is also, I reckon, a basic question of trust. And I don’t think the liberal-left quite realise how little men trust them at the moment to speak out for their interests.
Now for most writers on the left that’s naturally not a problem, since they take the traditional ‘you don’t like us and we don’t care’ approach to their writing, much like the supporters of Millwall football club.

You, though, Ally (*waves*) are in a really odd position in this respect, since you occupy a space broadly within this camp, and yet you do want, apparently, to win over the trust of men who feel themselves to be (on some level) disempowered and neglected by the powers-that-be.
But then at the same time, you have these really weird habits like quoting Laurie Penny approvingly in her policing of men’s everyday activities and behaviour, or giving the thumbs up to the Vagenda girls when they write an article describing male suicide as “the patriarchy backfiring on itself”.

Now, I gotta tell you, Ally, if you carry on in that sort of fashion, the only people you will speak for (or win the trust of), will be those on the far left of politics (in other words SJW’s and other members of the liberal elite). In other words, preaching to the converted.

I don’t say that to put you down, but more in the hope that you can move towards a style of politics and journalism which can win the confidence of ordinary men in this country (something when you’re not writing about gender politics you can almost invariably do).

Crucial in this, however, would be a concerted effort to criticise the SWJs and the liberal press just as strongly for the ways in which they harm equality, as you do the MRA’s when they get things wrong. As I’ve said before, since the liberal media enjoys an awful lot of real world power that MRA’s don’t have, this is an even more important task than coming down hard on those factions you instinctively don’t like and disapprove of. Until that happens, you’ll only ever enjoy the support of the self-titled ‘progressives’ in Twitter-land, and right now it’s going to take a lot of work to reverse that situation (if of course you really want to, that is).

228. Holms says

Crucial in this, however, would be a concerted effort to criticise the SWJs and the liberal press just as strongly for the ways in which they harm equality, as you do the MRA’s when they get things wrong.

Like the time he criticised Emma Watson’s speech for not implying that all abuse victims are female? Or the time he criticised multiple outlets for presenting the 373 sex trafficking victims as all female? Note that that one is even on the front page still. In fact I think you’ll find it to be a bit of a theme here – frequent criticism of the diminishment or omission of male victims from statistics.

229. Carnation says

Here’s some total bullshit from Lloyd’s article:

“…the triumph of feminism has made today’s men second class citizens”

“… If ever we do manage to do something well we’re told it’s because our achievements were handed to us on a plate — probably at the expense of women”

“… one of the four million UK men who have no access to their children, yet are forced to fund them” (absolute nonsense)

“… To cap it all, he’ll be progressively neglected by British healthcare” (men will be progressively neglected whilst women aren’t?)

“… for every £1 spent on men’s health, £8 was spent on women’s” (I’d want to see evidence, this looks like hysteria)

“but it’s men — yes, men — who pay a whopping 70 per cent of UK income tax. Yet we are thrown nothing but crumbs in return.” (sigh…)

There’s plenty more, but as with most MRA prose, it’s simply too time consuming to point out all of gibberish – and it loudly and crassly drowns out the bona fide issues. The whole article could appear on an MRA blog it’s so tragically bad. Hysterical hyperbole, scaremongering, evil feminists orchestrating everything, and a malevolent state out to get men. Ridiculous.

230. StillGjenganger says

@Carnation
Well, Peter LLoyd is trying for a comprehensive list of male grievances, and clearly they are not all going to be equally well founded, or relevant. He is biased, of course, but he sums up the case reasonably well, without hysteria. You just have to discount the hyperbole slightly. Anyway, I really think he got this one right:
If we want somebody to fight our corner, we are going to have to do it ourselves.
And fight it we must, before it’s too late. We don’t want to undo or compete with feminism — far from it. But we urgently need our own version of women’s lib to stop our sons being permanently deflated, downgraded and disenfranchised.
” I would not go on to describe men as the modern day suffragettes (as he unfortunately does), but it sure it time that some men started getting together their own list of needs and desires for society. Preferably one that neither assumes that the goals of feminism are automatically in the interest of men, nor (like the MRAs) is simply driven by feminism envy.

231. Carnation says

@ GJGanger

He doesn’t sum up the case reasonably well, the article drowns out the genuine grievances with its hysterical narratives (not to mention nonsense. And at the end, his claim that “we don’t want to undo or compete with feminism — far from it” should be considered with the knowledge that he is a contributor to the at least one blog that is nakedly anti-feminist, and that has no interest in activism towards addressing any of the grievances previously listed.

And I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that MRAs are “simply driven by feminism envy” – I think it’s a lot more base and sinister than that, in most cases.

232. Carnation says

@ Tamen

Isn’t this basically just the problem I discussed? A genuine grievance being drowned out in nonsense and paranoia?

Here in Glasgow, in some wards, male life expectancy is lower than in Baghdad. That is an obscenity.

A quick perusal of the links that you provided indicate that this is an exceptionally complex issue. A knee-jerk “let’s give equal money to men’s services and women’s services” (or allocate it based on income tax payments, as the more unhinged might want) is about as crude and stupid an approach as one can imagine. A holistic approach is needed, and is arguably in place, targeting alcohol consumption and smoking (higher among men) which are causing major loss of life. And, again arguably, the approach in place is working to a degree.

There should be a major drive to get men to go to the doctors, to use the NHS, to engage in preventative measures.

Isn’t it sad that you cited something more constructive and evidence based than the only MRA with a national newspaper presence?

233. StillGjenganger says

@Carnation 238
I am judging on what it said in the article. If you already have him pigeonholed and an antifeminist MRA and all-round bad guy you can judge him on that, of course. But then there is no point in reading the article, is there?

There are a lot of unpleasant feelings around in the MRM. But then, I am sure that a certain number of feminists are also motivated, deep down, by anger, resentment, and a desire to make your own group dominant. If only their actual proposals made sense, I cannot see that this would matter – on either side. These feelings are there to give you the energy to fight, not to substitute for thinking.

The point about ‘feminism envy’ is that a lot of debaters seem fixated on a direct comparison, like jealous siblings “What have they got that we have not, and how can we get it too?” What we need is to sit down and work out what men, as a group, want and need. Not how we can get what women have, whether it makes sense or not. And not how men can get what women think we should want.

234. Marduk says

I think I’d find the Guardian’s position on the Nigel Short story more compelling (ie, women and men are the same) if the list of “related” stories didn’t all begin with “Women are better than men at…”.

235. Carnation says

@ GJGanger

Your point isn’t valid. He pigeonholed *himself* by writing for an explicitly anti-feminist, and misogynistic, blog and regularly publishes thesis supporting quotes and interviews from an explicit anti-feminist, and misogynist, in his previous articles. This isn’t controversial. If someone regularly wrote on a BNP supporting blog, and wrote racist articles uncritically quoting Nick Griffin (or whatever wretch is in charge of that outfit now), then people would quite rightly be skeptical of that someone stating that they didn’t want to “compete with or undo equality successes”,wouldn’t they?

Like I said, it isn’t controversial.

“The point about ‘feminism envy’ is that a lot of debaters seem fixated on a direct comparison, like jealous siblings “What have they got that we have not, and how can we get it too?””

That’s because the standard of “debate” within the MRM is puerile, and at its heart there is no clear positive goal. It’s not “how do we help the men who we have identified need help”, it’s “this isn’t fair, society is wrong, we are right, everyone else is wrong, we are a social movement that is winning by blogging and commenting.” This is why the MRM is such a colossal failure.

236. Carnation says

Further to yesterday’s point, and as if trying to strengthen my case, Lloyd has linked to a “hangout” with him and Paul Elam.

The article itself is a mix of MRA gaze wishful thinking (men are on a marriage strike), typical deluded (and unsubstantiated) feminist blaming and the occasional interesting point.

The MRM is like a parody of itself.

237. Ally Fogg says

Sorry, have been neglecting this thread.

Whiney (233) my tweet wasn’t actually calling out incorrect stats in the Lloyd piece (although there are some)

My tweet was pointing out that in among the horseshit (more on that later) he used that utterly ludicrous Buchananism about men paying 70% of all income tax (Ever wondered why? Duh.)

As for the horseshit, Carnation nails it pretty well in (236) but for me he really reveals his true colours when he talks about how men going out to work to earn an income and women staying home to look after children is “how it should be.”

Basically the guy is just an unreconstructed chauvinist social conservative, and it is no surprise the Mail loves him.

238. StillGjenganger says

how men going out to work to earn an income and women staying home to look after children is “how it should be.”

Well, it should obviously be an individual choice, and it does not have to be prescriptive either. But given that it is women who bear and breastfeed the children, I find it unavoidable that the care of small children will remain something that women stereotypically are better at and have authority over. The choice for men than becomes either to have a complementary skill that we (stereotypically) are better at, that can serve as our expected contribution. Or to be in no way superior at work, inferior with the children, and in general a bit superfluous now that there are no mammoths to hunt.

I know which I would prefer, but then I am an unreconstructed chauvinist social conservative too.

239. H.E. Pennypacker says

@ Gjenanger 248

But even if we grant that bearing children and breastfeeding provide a biological basis for women to be, on average, likely to put more time into raising children than men, it doesn’t follow that “women raising children and men going to work to get the money” is the natural order of things. In fact it seems like a pretty giant leap to get from one to the other.

240. StillGjenganger says

@ H.E.P 249
I did not and would not say that it was the ‘natural order of things’. That kind of language never makes sense. I do think that it would tend to lead to gender roles that saw childrearing as a more ‘female’ activity, And since specialisation makes sense also within each couple, that would make it the more common choice (and expectation) that the man then concentrated on other things, like earning.

I’ll give you my logic, if you like:

– the division into men and women is the most fundamental way we classify people (including ourselves). With the differences in anatomy, reproductive biology, and the way most people’s sexual orientation favours one sex, I just cannot see the distinction between men and women becoming a minor issue, like the distinction between blondes and brunettes.
– That being so, men and women will be seen as different kinds of people with potentially different social roles. Children growing up will also notice which group they belong to, and ask what that means for who they should be.
– The roles may be socially set and very flexible, but given that women bear the children etc. child-rearing will almost unavoidably be seen as predominantly female. And once that is part of the social role, any differences will be amplified. As a ‘female’ activity girls will be gently guided towards it, and boys away from it. If more women stay home with the children, employers will tend to expect it, some jobs will become male dominated, and boys and girls both will be directed towards things that fit the role, thereby further strengthening the role.

These roles can change (they already have) and can be more or less rigid. But a social expectation of what is male or female can have a lot of effect on people’s choices, even if it is not particularly enforced, socially.

241. says

Carnation:

A knee-jerk “let’s give equal money to men’s services and women’s services” (or allocate it based on income tax payments, as the more unhinged might want) is about as crude and stupid an approach as one can imagine. A holistic approach is needed, and is arguably in place, targeting alcohol consumption and smoking (higher among men) which are causing major loss of life. And, again arguably, the approach in place is working to a degree.

Oh, God forbid that we spend just as much money on male health prevention as on female health prevention!

From one of the articles:

Dan Taylor, London Coordinator for the campaign against living miserably, (CALM), said: ‘Services that specifically address men and resonate with their lives and empower them to get help are urgently needed. Women’s services are important – but the balance needs to be equal, with support services that men can buy into getting their funding increased and matched to women’s services.

The nerve of the fooking knee-jerkers eh?

Holistic approach arguably already in place? Did you read the articles? £0 spent on male health and £3,400,000 spent on female health by the Primary Care Trusts in the borough (Brent) where one of the wards has the third largest life expectancy gap in London (Stonebridge: 10.6yrs) is the opposite of an hollistic approach – it’s an extremely unbalanced approach showing complete ignorance of male health issues and needs one wouldn’t think possible.

And, again arguably, the approach in place is working to a degree.

No, it’s not.

The three case studies listed in this article does not instill me with any belief that these are aiming for an holistic approach – much less approaching one.
The PCT in Haringey states that it is working to lengthen life expectancy, with campaigns including smoking cessation and NHS health checks. One of the diseases with the highest incidence rate in Haringey is prostate cancer which is three times more common in men of African or Afro-Caribbean origin. Haringey have an ethincally diverse population with large Black African and Black Caribbean populations. NHS figures show that the incidence of prostate cancer is increasing in the Haringey. Prostate cancer is a male specific disease. Haringey also one of the highest suicide rates among men. Yet they have only spent money one female services in the last 5 years. Meanwhile the life expectancy gap in some wards of Haringey seems to be widening, rather than shrinking.

The gap is widening, not shrinking – that doesn’t fit any definition of “it works” – not even if one add an “to an degree” at the end.

Carnation:

There should be a major drive to get men to go to the doctors, to use the NHS, to engage in preventative measures.

One problem mentioned in one of the articles is not only that there aren’t many initiatives directed towards men’s health and that men cannot get help after-hours and many of them don’t have the economy to take time off work to seek preventive care even if they wanted:

Alan White, Professor of men’s health at Leeds University and lead author of a recent EU report into men’s health, said a real lack of initiatives directed at the male population was a real problem. ‘At the moment there is a blindness to the fact that there are men wanting to use the services and they can’t.’

Because the services often aren’t there and even if they are they aren’t open after-hours. Having them available for men after hours and making men aware of the existence of such services when/if they exist does require increased funding – most likely to come from re-allocation of existing funding as money doesn’t grow on trees.

There’s an even bigger gap for spending on third sector men’s and women’s services by the councils.

And aside from this there is a wide gap in research for female specific health issues and male specific health – from the Men’s Health Forum site I linked above:

Men’s health has less than its ‘fair share’ of support. Of Medical Research Council funding of sex-specific research, just 27% goes to studies researching men.

And you know Carnation; anybody bringing the issue up is better than nobody bringing up the issue. It’s better than saying that the current approach works. That spending nothing on male health works. That changing nothing works. That this is too complex to do start doing something targetted specifically at men.

The Men’s Health Forum organization is perhaps worth a look and a quid for those with quids to spare: https://www.menshealthforum.org.uk/

242. Carnation says

@ Tamen

Calm down if you want to interact with me, or I’ll treat you as I treat all MRA halfwits.

And have some self respect, from what I gather you aren’t stupid, so don’t act stupid. As you well know, I didn’t say *not* to allocate equal resources to men and women, I said to do so on this basis alone was stupid. Which it is.

Male life expectancy is rising, not falling, so therefore holistic initiatives *are* working.

A quick Google search showed that men are outliving women in at least 100 areas in England & Wales (Public Health England for 2006 – 2010).

The ONS reported in 2013 that the gender gap in life expectany decreased from 6 years in 1980-82 to less than 4 years by 2012.

Not exactly brilliant news, but something, huh?

You are, I assume, comfortable with Nicholas Van Hoogstraten, Max Clifford, Nick Griffin and Katie Hopkins bringing your pet issues up? That’s what you implied.

243. says

Carnation:

I didn’t say *not* to allocate equal resources to men and women, I said to do so on this basis alone was stupid. Which it is.

Here is what you said:

A quick perusal of the links that you provided indicate that this is an exceptionally complex issue. A knee-jerk “let’s give equal money to men’s services and women’s services” (or allocate it based on income tax payments, as the more unhinged might want) is about as crude and stupid an approach as one can imagine

I see no “on this basis alone” in that statement and I don’t think it was unreasonable to draw the conclusion from this statement that you thought funding men and women’s health services equally was an about as crude and stupid approach as one can imagine. You need to improve your writing if you didn’t intend to convey that your initial thought was that equal funding wouldn’t help and that it would be crude and stupid to implement it.
Well, CALM (which was referenced in the articles I linked in my first comment) and Men’s Health Forum who I googled and linked to in my previous comment is calling for exactly that – a more equal funding for men’s health.

As for men living longer:

Was it these article you found?

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/460166/Life-expectancy-for-men-now-higher-than-for-women-in-100-areas

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/10654030/Women-wont-outlive-men-for-much-longer.html

So what’s an area? According to article in the Telegraph it’s a postcode:

Men now outlive women in 100 out of 6,800 postcodes around England

I haven’t bothered to go through all, but I checked the topmost one in the listing – Bewbus and Bradfield, Sussex.

The Telegraph article states:

Small statistical samples are notoriously unreliable, so it’s likely that the 13 year gap in Bewbush and Broadfield is a quirk. Or it could genuinely be a man-friendly community full of testicular drop-in centres and reconstructed role models who abandon alcohol and fighting in favour of hands-on parenting and hugging

Well, it wasn’t a quirk – seem like someone messed up – it was a mistake. Women live longer than men in Bewbush and Broadfield: http://www.crawleynews.co.uk/Men-Broadfield-Bewbush-granted-15-years-longer/story-20762644-detail/story.html

The next one on the list: Ladbroke Grove East. Apparently is the east part of a street in London. And if it’s correct as the Telegraph article states that the 100 areas where men outlive women are in fact the 100 top postcodes – and the postcode for Ladbroke Grove East with the highest number of people were W11 3PD with about 300 people. A dangerously low sample when looking at life expectancy. Or notoriously unreliable as The Telegraph put it.

You are, I assume, comfortable with Nicholas Van Hoogstraten, Max Clifford, Nick Griffin and Katie Hopkins bringing your pet issues up? That’s what you implied.

Well, if for instance Katie Hopkins and Nick Griffin spent more time talking about male health then they would have less time to be racist, eh? If Max Clifford came out of prison and actually spent time advocating for sexual violence victims then he would have less time to rape someone else. If Van Hoogstraten had spent time arguing for men’s health in the UK he would have had less time to cozy up to Mugabe. But alas, it doesn’t seem very likely that any of the people you listed would spend one minute talking about these issued.

Lloyd however did. And as much as I hope people in power continues to disagree with him on many of the things he talks about I do hope they agree with him that men’s health is underfunded compared to women’s health and that they do something about it.

But for you it’s clear that who people are and what labels they wear are much more important than the actual content of what they say. As evidenced by your silly threat of treating me as an MRA.

244. Jacob Schmidt says

I see no “on this basis alone” in that statement…

The function of a restatement is generally to use different, clearer phrasing.

245. Holms says

#242 StillG
I am judging on what it said in the article. If you already have him pigeonholed and an antifeminist MRA and all-round bad guy you can judge him on that, of course. But then there is no point in reading the article, is there?

If he is saying things of two different things in two different venues while addressing X subject, it prompts the question of which of those two reflect his honest position on X, and whether the other is different because it has been abandoned – people can change their minds, after all – or because the writer is being insincere. This happens frequently when speaking or writing on some political hot topic; the person will speak their minds freely at a venue filled with a like-minded audience, and much more reservedly when speaking or writing on a different platform with a different audience. If you are ignoring the rest of the body of writing by that person, you are essentially willingly buying into their insincerity.

See for example prior US presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, speaking to a crowd of millionaires about the ‘moocher class’ but then cleaning up his words to appear much friendlier to a more liberal audience. Hell, politics in general is rife with this shit.

What we need is to sit down and work out what men, as a group, want and need. Not how we can get what women have, whether it makes sense or not. And not how men can get what women think we should want.

That would be an excellent question to pose to the prominent thinkers (and I use that term reluctantly). What are they doing that is actually constructive for men in say divorce / child custody hearings, and when are the going to drop the blatant hostility towards women?

___

#250 StillG
I do think that it would tend to lead to gender roles that saw childrearing as a more ‘female’ activity, And since specialisation makes sense also within each couple, that would make it the more common choice (and expectation) that the man then concentrated on other things, like earning.

There is absolutely no reason for either parent to be the ‘specialist’ parent and the other to be something else; in fact, this seems to be one of the things that might be a legitimate gripe for the men’s rights people in that it directly fuels the idea that men are less adept at parenting and hence should have less custody, or more scrutiny as a babysitter etc. etc.

– That being so, men and women will be seen as different kinds of people with potentially different social roles. Children growing up will also notice which group they belong to, and ask what that means for who they should be.

I would have accepted this point if you had ended it with “Children growing up will also notice which group they belong to.” Full stop. Obviously, this then renders your next point moot: why guide, gently or otherwise, when genders don’t have to have predetermined roles?

246. Holms says

By the way StillG, did you catch my summary of what I believe to be our differences in a prior thread from a few weeks ago (which I note is still on the front page, Ally!).

247. StillGjengager says

@Holms

Yes, your summary of our differences look right to me (which I guess is why I did not feel called to comment on it at the end of a long debate. Believe it or not I try to keep my writing volume down).

For the rest:

Specialisation does make sense also here. One person who keeps track of which clothes are clean and go together, who remembers the calendar for afternoon clubs, and who both sets the standard and does the work of ironing (those from personal experience). Doing it together makes for a lot more coordination and negotiation. Another common one (not from personal experience) is one person who make career choices that ensures there is someone who can be available on child’s sick days, and another who goes for a less flexible, high-reward job. I gather that a lot of Scandinavian couples go for one person in the state sector with child-friendly employment policies and one in a higher paid private sector.
My point is that social roles are actively reproduced both by the young who seek to learn and adapt to them, and by the rest of society who guide just by their expectations – and who find it easier to deal with people who conform to known roles. Once roles are there they will be maintained, and maybe amplified, regardless whether they are arbitrary social constructs or rooted in biology.

248. says

Jacob Schmidt @254:

I see no “on this basis alone” in that statement…

The function of a restatement is generally to use different, clearer phrasing.

Oh, Carnation’s phrasing was clear enough:

Calm down if you want to interact with me, or I’ll treat you as I treat all MRA halfwits.

And have some self respect, from what I gather you aren’t stupid, so don’t act stupid. As you well know, I didn’t say *not* to allocate equal resources to men and women, I said to do so on this basis alone was stupid. Which it is.

“Don’t act stupid”, not “you misunderstood me/I didn’t make myself clear”. “I said”, not “I meant”. “I said”, not “let me rephrase/restate/clarify that”. “I said”, not “I am saying”.

Also; I am generally not prone to be charitable to presumably adults who use threats and name-calling as part of their rhetoric regardless of how silly, inconsequential and childish I find the threat or the attempt at insult.

Since you brought it up, let me ask you: Do you think it was unreasonable (even dishonestly so) that I interpreted Carnation’s comment @241 as them thinking that equalizing funding for male and female health care and prevention would be a knee-jerk, crude and stupid approach? IF you think

249. Carnation says

@ Tamen

Perhaps you’re correct – I will endeavour to tailor my writing to its intended audience. In this case, I presumed you have a level of analysis that you do not. I apologise and will from now on treat you like an MRA halfwit as “threatened.”

Tamen, you silly sod, I wrote:

“A knee-jerk “let’s give equal money to men’s services and women’s services” (or allocate it based on income tax payments, as the more unhinged might want) is about as crude and stupid an approach as one can imagine.”

You’ll notice, because you’re a clever boy, I described an approach that was as crude and stupid as one can imagine. Earlier in that quote you will notice, because you’re a prince amongst men in MRA thinking circles, that I described a kneejerk methodology of distributing money to services to men and women equally. Just to clear this up, for the intellectually challenged amongst us, the gendered approach to fiscal allocation was the basis I was criticising. For the really stupid, Tamen, what I was getting at, but didn’t explicitly say, was that money should be distributed by need.

Hope that clears it up, you inane, puerile buffoon.

250. Jacob Schmidt says

“Don’t act stupid”, not “you misunderstood me/I didn’t make myself clear”. “I said”, not “I meant”. “I said”, not “let me rephrase/restate/clarify that”. “I said”, not “I am saying”.

Indeed, all true.

Also; I am generally not prone to be charitable to presumably adults who use threats and name-calling as part of their rhetoric regardless of how silly, inconsequential and childish I find the threat or the attempt at insult.

I really don’t care about your opinion on Carnation’s (often lamentable) rhetoric.

Do you think it was unreasonable (even dishonestly so) that I interpreted Carnation’s comment @241 as them thinking that equalizing funding for male and female health care and prevention would be a knee-jerk, crude and stupid approach?

I can accept that you were honest at first, and while I think your interpretation was unreasonable, it was understandable.

Now, though, I think you are being silly. At no point does Carnation write that equalized funding would be a knee-jerk, crude, and stupid approach. Instead he writes:

A knee-jerk “let’s give equal money to men’s services and women’s services” (or allocate it based on income tax payments, as the more unhinged might want) is about as crude and stupid an approach as one can imagine.

He specifies that a knee-jerk approach is a crude and stupid one, i.e. a knee-jerk approach specifically; other types of approaches (e.g. assessing health care needs and demands, thereby concluding that both genders have approximately equal needs for specialized funding; praying to fairies; reading tea leaves) were not commented on.

251. 123454321 says

Carnation, I’ve not been around for a few days so not really had chance to respond to your post 225 about Judge Judy, which, in all honesty, I agreed with in the main. She is generally fair when it comes to Father’s rights, and where the law stands she doesn’t discriminate too much based on gender, agreed. However, you haven’t listened to a single freaking word I said in 218 because if you had at least half a brain cell you’d realise (and I suggest that you read the post again) I was talking explicitly about two areas whereby JJ persistently segregates the genders by nature of the way she deals with them. Can you even remember that I was talking in this thread about general respect, decency, decorum, feelings, emotions, politeness, behaviour, perceptions – basically all the things which you refuse to pin down or acknowledge as admissible evidence of unfair treatment between the sexes (unless, of course, they apply to negativity associated with women – yeah that’s right). Even citations based around such evidence, you cast aside as puerile nonsense unworthy of serious consideration!

The two areas where JJ consistently addresses people differently according to their gender is:

1. Personal attacks aimed at men for being men – I’ve heard lots of examples but can’t specifically cite any examples as I’m not prepared to sit through any more JJ. She often says how selfish MEN can be, or how lazy MEN are, or how stupid MEN can be, or how useless MEN are at a particular task, or how people should know not to trust MEN. I have NEVER, EVER heard her explicitly relay any negative connotations towards a woman for being a WOMAN. End of.

2. Violence – JJ quite rightly makes a BIG thing about MEN being violent towards WOMEN. She also makes a big thing about a woman being violent against another woman. Same goes for violence relating to man on man. However, I’ve noticed that she doesn’t make such a big issue when the perpetrator of violence is a WOMAN and the victim is a MAN. In actual fact it appears that she PURPOSEFULLY interrupts, changes the subject, or ignores/avoids any serious, extended discourse surrounding the details of the incident or the harm caused to the male victim. She quite often announces that it’s wrong for a man to put his hands on a woman but she NEVER makes similar announcements for the reverse scenario. End of.

Go watch some more episodes and you’ll see I’m not wrong! No doubt you’ll come back with some piteous excuse, which would make even the most caring and devoted animal lover kick a cute little puppy out of pure frustration!

252. says

Perhaps I haven’t made myself clear. I have no problem accepting Carnation’s clarification.

It’s a fact that I did interpret Carnation statement to be that he thought calling for equal funding would be a knee-jerk reaction – period. I have no problem with acknowledging that that was not what Carnation meant and that Schmidt thinks my original interpretation was unreasonable (on the last account I’m of course biased and we’ll just have to disagree). My reply to Carnation’s “clarification” was not intended as a refutation of their “clarification”, but a pointed criticism of the clarification’s form and the original statement – to quote myself:

I see no “on this basis alone” in that statement and I don’t think it was unreasonable to draw the conclusion from this statement that you thought funding men and women’s health services equally was an about as crude and stupid approach as one can imagine. You need to improve your writing if you didn’t intend to convey that your initial thought was that equal funding wouldn’t help and that it would be crude and stupid to implement it.

I also noted that a spokesman of CALM did call for more equal funding in one of the articles I linked to. So the context I provided did include that call which I did evaluate as more thorough than a knee-jerk reaction.

I do, however, note that Carnation’s clarification is that they thinks equal funding would be a stupid and crude approach on this basis alone. Carnation doesn’t specify what exactly “this basis” refers to, but I am going to assume until told otherwise that “this basis” refers to the contents of the articles I linked to although it’s perfectly possible Carnation just meant the life expectancy gap in isolation.

Nevertheless, CALM and Men’s Health Forum are calling for a more equal funding for men’s and women’s health. I, personally, am of the belief that these two organization have worked closely on the issue of men’s health and probably know what they’re talking about. I am curious as to what Carnation now think of the call for more equal funding, does they agree that there should be more equal funding or does they not agree? Their clarification doesn’t say and they are arguing that the current approach (the current state/approach is a skewed funding where men’s health receive funded significantly less funding than women’s health) so my impression is that Carnation still thinks more equal funding is a crude and stupid approach.

253. Carnation says

@ Tamen

I think the idea of allocating funds equally between men and women is crude and stupid. I think that those who think this should happen are essentially the same troglodytes who relish the thought of resources being removed from women and moved to men in areas such as domestic violence.

Gender should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how funds are allocated, it should be done solely on need.

In certain areas, there will be an extremely strong case for services to be funded, or indeed created, that are targeted solely at men, or at preventing health conditions suffered mainly by men. In other areas the opposite will be true. But of course, the vast bulk of NHS funding is for infrastructure and services open to men, women and children. What we are talking about is really the thin edge of the wedge.

I happen to know a little bit about NHS funding models, and what they get involved in, and what they don’t. And like all funding agencies, they look for SROI. Agencies, such as CALM, will have to go through a procedure to have it acknowledged that their services have a positive impact and positives outcomes, and that what they are doing meets the NHS criteria.

Just so we are chrystal clear, I can think of several areas where there is essentially an epidemic of suicide, most keenly affecting men. I would have no problem in saying that in terms of budgeting, effective, preventative services should take precedence over virtually all other funded service provision. And the same is true in other areas.

I think a comprehensive strategy is required for men’s health issues, possibly at ministerial level. This would be an uphill battle, as I previously stated, men’s health needs (physical and mental) are possibly the most complex. But also the most cost effective in preventative measures – as we know, most addicts (of alcohol & drugs) are men, and most prisoners are men, and most prisoners are addicts and/or mentally ill.

In all sincerity, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough – too many commentators on this blog are warriors in a non-existent gender war, and allocating funding based on gender seems rational – it isn’t, it’s grotesquely stupid and counter-effective.

Personally, and I’m open to correction, I think that there are some excellent services for men that could use more funding, but they’re not as numerous as services aimed at women. I disagree with the idea that men’s services are discriminated against simply because they’re tailored for men. I think anyone that believes that simply doesn’t understand how funding works.

In summary, funding should be allocated by need and I think men suffer from a lack of effective advocates in the relevant sphere. And many others, come to think of it.

And, as a footnote and a nod to what started this discussion, buffoons like Peter Lloyd make the problem worse. Anyone using the “income tax argument” should be dismissed as a crank immediately. It saves time.

254. 123454321 says

“….buffoons like Peter Lloyd…”

You mean that guy who just posted three articles and got thousands of comments and likes from supporters?

“…make the problem worse.”

for you maybe, dude!

255. Carnation says

@ 123454321

And how will Lloyd and his right-wing Daily Mail readers and supporters help vulnerable men? You do realise he writes for a newspaper that supports a political ideology that condemned literally hundreds of thousands of men to workless lives, and their dependents and descendants to economic depression?

256. 123454321 says

He’s speaking out and raising awareness. He’s showing men that they don’t have to feel silenced or embarrassed to talk about their issues. I don’t care which paper he writes for but the Daily Mail with its 12 million sales, coming in at number 2 in rank order just behind The Sun, isn’t exactly a bad start thanks.

257. Marduk says

I generally agree with you Carnation but there is a point here where you are holding men’s groups to account in a way women’s groups are not (so we revert back to the same argument). It is a fact that extreme radicals have captured several parts of the charity-public service sphere, by this I mean people happy to call themselves extreme radicals, not Fox news ‘radicals are people I don’t agree with’. They will and have fought like dogs to stop anyone taking their piece of the pie because we know full-well this is how they are funding their political activities (e.g., the hilariously/shamefully unqualified Julie Bindel practising social science) and we saw no end of bad faith demonstrated around this the last time contracts came up for renewal and over the equal provision legislation. Where even fractional parity (4%) was attempted, they had the rules changed so they could compete for funding that wasn’t supposed to be for them, the idea of clearer funding calls where some groups are disqualified is not as crazy as you make out.

All this did actually happen, they are still actually furious about it, we’ve talked about both their howling and their attempts to cover it up when it wasn’t politic, their tardiness and unwillingness to form the partnerships the law says they must, these are real things not figments of anyone’s imagination.

Like you, I would like everyone to be more civilised and constructive but there is a point where insisting on it from some people and ignoring it from others is its own form of bad faith argument. I’m not accusing you of this but I’m challenging you on it.

I’m also puzzled by what you are saying about funding above, it doesn’t really reflect the processes I’m aware of. You say advocacy like someone just needs to write a better website, you mean lobbying which is a very expensive activity and you have to remember the established wealthy players are specifically funded to lobby (a sickening New Labour era innovation that the Tories rumbled about ending and have done nothing about because, er, people lobbied them a lot). You lobby so that the need is recognised at all, has money allocated to it and set the rules that the competition runs under. Smart players dictate most of that, government officials are not masterminds and this stuff doesn’t come down to us tablets, people make it up and they are open to being influenced.

There isn’t a gender war but in the funding sphere there is absolutely a competition and it isn’t a very clean one either.

258. Carnation says

@ Marduk

Specifically to health, I know for example that the NHS funded some domestic violence initiatives and also some anti-violence initiatives, and some which were targeted at both (the accepted consensus being that domestic violence produces violent children (don’t read anything into these examples, they are just two that I know something about).

I know this because I was on the periphery of the VRU – Violence Reduction Unit. They (funded by the police) sought to have gang violence (in Glasgow, an almost exclusively male preserve) treated as a public health concern, and rightly so, in my opinion. So the NHS funded part of it, financially and in other ways.

Julie Bindel is a more complex character than generally perceived by critics within and without feminism, and I obviously don’t agree with huge swathes of what she says, but she isn’t a powerful figure when it comes to funding. At least, I haven’t seen any evidence that she is. It is true that Women’s Aid, among other feminist groups, lobbies and it is also true that lobbying is an expensive and costly business.

But every organisations starts somewhere and women are served by a movement, borne out of necessity, that diversified. It cannot be stressed enough that applying for funding, converting to charity status, obtaining delivery contracts and so on are extremely difficult, challenging and demoralising procedures. The reality is that we live in a country that has a nationalised health care provider funding non nationalised third party agencies to deliver service. For better and for worse. The reality is that women are better served in this sphere, not because of inherent prejudice against men, but because of a revolution that was unavoidable, and the apparatus is left behind.

Whilst typing the above, something has actually occurred to me. I would fully support a “Men’s health Czar” (excuse the tabloid-speak) whose remit was to fill the gap (and hopefully focus on mental health). If done properly, this would save the NHS, criminal justice service and DWP large sums of money, not to mention improve the quality of life for many.

Oh, and 123454321, I don’t think right-wing newspapers will lead the charge here…

Of course there is competition. Same as the charity sector – people’s livelihoods and agendas are at stake. But to single out women’s groups as being usually scheming or conniving is not accurate. The third sector is one of the dirtiest sectors going. I had my idealism knocked out of me quite early on, upon seeing a local authority funded organisation ripping off our ideas and literature! And by the way, it was a scheme we had aimed exclusively for men – and we got funding, not enough to thrive, but enough to help by now hundreds of men. Feminist didn’t hinder us, though I did once have a spirited conversation with the PA of a large public organisation who condemned us for focusing on men. But that’s another story, and one with (for me) a rather happy ending.

259. Holms says

#265 1234
You mean that guy who just posted three articles and got thousands of comments and likes from supporters?

Suddenly popularity is a useful metric in debate? BRB subscribing to Foodbabe and Deepak Chopra, they must be extremely correct.

Sarcasm aside, I would suggest you engage with the points raised in comment 236, which I think does indeed show Lloyd to be a buffoon on this subject.

260. says

Carnation:

I think the idea of allocating funds equally between men and women is crude and stupid. I think that those who think this should happen are essentially the same troglodytes who relish the thought of resources being removed from women and moved to men in areas such as domestic violence.

Can you explain how this is different from my initial and much maligned interpretation that you though equal funding of men’s and women’s health issues were a crude and stupid approach? Or is it that men’s health is an exception? Or do you think Dan Taylor of CALM is a troglodyte for saying the following?

Dan Taylor, London Coordinator for the campaign against living miserably, (CALM), said: ‘Services that specifically address men and resonate with their lives and empower them to get help are urgently needed. Women’s services are important – but the balance needs to be equal, with support services that men can buy into getting their funding increased and matched to women’s services.

You went on to say:

In summary, funding should be allocated by need and I think men suffer from a lack of effective advocates in the relevant sphere. And many others, come to think of it.

Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be enough money to fulfill the needs of all, so a better/more realistic way of putting it would be to allocate funding proportionally by need. Then there of course is the problem on how to measure needs.

Since you brought up DV I’ll set up a somewhat hypothetical case. I am going to assume that there is a fixed amount of state money spent on DV in the UK. I’ll use a metric for need which has the most discrepancy in victimization rate between men and women. In 2012/2013 76 women were killed by their partner or ex-partner while 15 men were killed by their partner or ex-partner. 5 times as many women as men. Several surveys indicate a much smaller gap between men and women reporting being a victim of DV. Does anyone know if men get 1/6 of the resources allocated to DV in the UK?

Let’s say that less than 1/6 of the resources allocated to DV went to men, would you then be for a re-allocating of resources from women to men until the 1/6 – 5/6 ratio was achieved?

I am asking because you first classified everyone who wants to remove resources from women and move them to men in areas such as domestic violence as troglodytes without any qualifiers I could see while you later said you supported funding allocated by need..

261. Carnation says

@ Tamen

Too sunny to debate with with you right now. I think you’re being disingenuous anyway.

I’m going to drink Tanquery & tonic in a beer garden and I may or may not reply later.

I bid you good day, sir.

262. Jacob Schmidt says

“….buffoons like Peter Lloyd…”
You mean that guy who just posted three articles and got thousands of comments and likes from supporters?

123454321, I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume that you can argue better than this.

I’m going to drink Tanquery & tonic in a beer garden and I may or may not reply later.
… drink Tanquery & tonic in a beer garden …
Tanquery & tonic

Why would you dilute something so delicious? A few drops of lime juice would be a far better companion.

263. Jacob Schmidt says

but the balance needs to be equal

This is a silly statement, and little is done to establish it. There’s no reason to think the balance would need to be equal. For reproductive services, for instance, women would probably need more funding. For genetic diseases, men would probably need more funding. There’s no reason to think the aggregate of needs are coincidentally equal in any given medical field, or within the entirety of medicine itself.

264. Carnation says

@ Tamen

I have made myself abundantly clear. Allocating money according to gender is crude and stupid, not to mention potentially dangerous and wasteful. Allocating money according to *need* and likely outcome is the best way to allocate resources.

I don’t know how I can articulate this any more simply than that.

“Let’s say that less than 1/6 of the resources allocated to DV went to men, would you then be for a re-allocating of resources from women to men until the 1/6 – 5/6 ratio was achieved?”

See previous comment. I’ll even reproduce it here for you: “Allocating money according to gender is crude and stupid, not to mention potentially dangerous and wasteful. Allocating money according to *need* and likely outcome is the best way to allocate resources.”

You seen to be impeded with a “gender war” mentality. Thankfully, people such as yourself live on the internet and aren’t in funding allocating positions.

@ Jacob Scmidt (from the other thread)

One of the best songs written by a drummer. Damn shame Richie left the band.

Another night out on the street
Stopping for my usual seat

Tanqueray and tonic’s my favorite drink
I don’t like anything colored pink
That just stinks…it’s not for me

It feels like somebody put something
Somebody put something in my drink
Somebody put something
Somebody put something

Blurred vision and dirty thoughts
Feel (out of place), very distraught
Feel something coming on

Kick the jukebox, slam the floor
Drink, drink, drink, drink some more
I can’t think
Hey! What’s in this drink?

It feels like somebody put something
Somebody put something in my drink
Somebody put something
Somebody put something in my drink
Somebody put something
Somebody put something in my drink
Somebody put something…in my drink…in my drink…in my drink…in my drink

So you think it’s funny
A college prank
Goin’ insane for something to drink
Feel a little dry

Oh, I couldn’t care what you think of me
Cause somebody put something in my drink
I can’t think
Hey! Give me a drink

It feels like somebody put something
Somebody put something in my drink

Somebody put something
Somebody put something in my drink

265. 123454321 says

Carnation, you make more sense when you’re pissed.

266. Marduk says

Carnation

I agree JB is a complicated figure. But she was still woefully unqualified to accept charitable funding for social science research and you have to ask yourself what the hell was going on and why a “service provider” would act like this.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/oct/03/research.women

267. Carnation says

Well, the election is almost upon us.

Mike Buchanan is losing his £500 tomorrow. Or will he..?

268. polishsalami says

Carnation #278:

As an Australian, The British voting system seems weird and inadequate (although ours is complex and imperfect). Having an election day on a weekday also seems strange, as we have ours on a Saturday. The more I analyse the British system, the happier I am that I live in Australia.

269. Marduk says

SJWism is totally a distinctive thing. It cannot be negotiated with, it cannot be appeased. Whedon has begged on his knees for their approval, they are now kicking him in the face because…because…nobody really knows but they are going to try to ruin him now.

Yep. There is a “Tea Party” equivalent of progressivism/liberalism. And they just chased Joss Whedon off Twitter. Good job, guys. Ugh.
— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) May 4, 2015