MRA's will never satisfy their lust for identifying mysandry

figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
bhamv3 said:
"Assume men are not good with children" appears to be a rather odd way of phrasing what the other guys are describing.
Click to expand...
Damn straight. Even if Charlie wasn't calling "bullshit" on what I assumed he was, he's still belittling the entire point. He's taking an issue where men are presumed to be a active threat to children, and changing it to "not good with". He's framing the issue to make it seem like it's a minor annoyance. Then he compared a negative stereotype that portrays men as a danger, to an unwanted stereotype that generally has positive connotations (even if that stereotype causes problems). If the reverse had happened, and a female issue were being downplayed like this, you know damn well that whoever posted that would be called out for marginalizing the issue.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Ravenpoe said:
Reading comprehension. :cool:
Click to expand...
Really? Read my previous post for why Charlie's words undermine what he claims to be saying.

"Feminists/SJWs are totally completely for tearing down gender roles on both sides."

Already disproven by posts in this thread. Charlie wants to act like feminism has zero problems, when there are people who claim "feminism" but still want to advance women at the expense of men.

"I got shit for liking Dawson's Creek when I was a teenager."

This is not on par with men being treated as probable pedophiles whenever they're around children. By bringing this up without any further context, it trivializes the issue and reinforces the understanding that this line:

"That stuff about men and kids is bullshit."

...means that Charlie thinks we're making a bigger deal out of this than it really is. Which is his usual response to anyone saying that men have social problems that need to be addressed. It's not unreasonable, given Charlie's posting history, to assume that he's making a statement about how small men's problems are, and that they don't need any special redress beyond focusing on women's issues. Which brings us to...

"Women also don't like being assumed to be caretakers/loving kids all the time, either"

By golly, there's Charlie bringing in women's issues again. This point isn't relevant to the discussion, but Charlie brought it up anyway. It all flows together. Marginalize the issue men face, claim it's already being addressed, and that it's really part of an issue women are facing to begin with. Edit: It's called derailing, which is a one of the terms most commonly used by the current wave of feminism. Take the focus off of the issue that's causing a problem, and redirect it towards your own agenda.
 
Last edited:
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Zero Esc said:

Huh, I wonder who gave that rating ...



Well golly, what a turn of the screw.

Wonder if I'll get a present too.
Click to expand...
See, now this is passive aggressive. The "needs a lock" rating is for when a post/thread has content that needs moderator review, and personal attacks fall under that category. By publicly shaming anyone who speaks out, you undermine the purpose of the rating, and make it difficult for anyone to object to harassment, or other disruptive behavior. That's what passive-agressive behavior is, making it difficult for anyone to proceed with business as usual. Giving someone a negative rating in no way prevents them from continuing to post. Making open statements with screenshots and dragging the thread off-topic, that makes it very difficult to have any sort of meaningful conversation.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

figmentPez said:
See, now this is passive aggressive. The "needs a lock" rating is for when a post/thread has content that needs moderator review, and personal attacks fall under that category. By publicly shaming anyone who speaks out, you undermine the purpose of the rating, and make it difficult for anyone to object to harassment, or other disruptive behavior. That's what passive-agressive behavior is, making it difficult for anyone to proceed with business as usual. Giving someone a negative rating in no way prevents them from continuing to post. Making open statements with screenshots and dragging the thread off-topic, that makes it very difficult to have any sort of meaningful conversation.
Click to expand...
Throwing a needs a lock onto a joke is passive aggressive. Yes, the rating is for when a post/thread has content that needs moderator review, but do you legitimately believe that Bowie thinks you're a misogynist? As in seriously, you honestly think that and took that as a personal attack? Because otherwise you're just wasting a mod's time in assessing his post because you felt slighted at his saying it at all.

My post doesn't prevent you from continuing to post either. You get silly with your ratings sometimes, it's been brought to your attention in the past. If you can take a moment to click that button and it doesn't ruin your train of thought, I don't see how my posts throw you off either.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Zero Esc said:
Yes, the rating is for when a post/thread has content that needs moderator review, but do you legitimately believe that Bowie thinks you're a misogynist?
Click to expand...
I gave it that rating for "Have a disagree, assface".

Zero Esc said:
I don't see how my posts throw you off either.
Click to expand...
They throw off the entire discussion because you're encouraging people to fucking whine about ratings, and to use the logical fallacy of ad hominem attacks instead of actual arguments.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

So, apparently posting a picture from Don Quihote is worth a mod review.

The fact that Pez is attacking someone who's trying to agree with him is the very definition of jousting at windmills.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

figmentPez said:
I gave it that rating for "Have a disagree, assface".
Click to expand...
You mean this, after quoting Ravenpoe?

Bowielee said:
Have a disagree, assface :p
Click to expand...
Ravenpoe made a joke at you, Bowielee was silly at him. This was obvious, and made more obvious by the emoticons. Or do you legitimately believe Bowielee believes that Ravenpoe has an ass for a face? Still a waste of a mod's time.

They throw off the entire discussion because you're encouraging people to fucking whine about ratings, and to use the logical fallacy of ad hominem attacks instead of actual arguments.
Click to expand...
I was about to say "then why not rate Ravenpoe's reading comprehension post or Don Quixote post?", but I see since I last look you've done half the work. And what about my posts? And what about your own posts responding to mine?
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
I also initially interpreted Charlie's "men/children bullshit" assertion as a statement of disbelief/dismissal, because it was in keeping with his usual narrative.
Click to expand...
Charlie has actually been pretty consistent about the "patriarchy" hurting men as well as women.
 
Mathias

Mathias

I.... I like my gender role as the bread winner for my family, and my wife likes to take care of our children. Am... Am I going to hell?[DOUBLEPOST=1414872380,1414872265][/DOUBLEPOST]
Chad Sexington said:
Every once in a while I wonder that Charlie couldn't post "Acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m/s," without people disagreeing with him.
Click to expand...

But he wouldn't post that without mentioning that gravity is a construct of the patriarchy that's kept women out of science for 200 years.[DOUBLEPOST=1414872448][/DOUBLEPOST]I found Chuck a girlfriend:
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

I'm the main breadwinner in my family, and I'm male, and I don't feel guilty about it at all. If anything, Kati feels guilty that she doesn't contribute to the bottom line of the family. "Are you kidding?" I respond. "If you went and joined the 'workforce,' do you know how much we would have to pay someone to do everything you do as competently as you do it? We couldn't afford that even with two incomes!"

--Patrick
 
Mathias

Mathias



Such class[DOUBLEPOST=1414873154,1414872611][/DOUBLEPOST]
PatrThom said:
I'm the main breadwinner in my family, and I'm male, and I don't feel guilty about it at all. If anything, Kati feels guilty that she doesn't contribute to the bottom line of the family. "Are you kidding?" I respond. "If you went and joined the 'workforce,' do you know how much we would have to pay someone to do everything you do as competently as you do it? We couldn't afford that even with two incomes!"

--Patrick
Click to expand...
We're lucky that my in-laws live 20 minutes away, so my wife does work part-time (mostly for extra things). Call me sexist or whatever, I don't look down on other men who's wives earn more or anything, but as a personal viewpoint, I would feel less of a man (myself) if I didn't provide for my family. I'm like that with a lot of hot button subjects. Abortion for instance. I'm very my pro-life personally, but as far as other people go, I'm pro-choice for society. Overall, I think a liberal stance on personal issues allows for a better fit across different lifestyle choices. So, yeah, I agree with both feminists and men's rights folks in terms of keeping individual choices open, and essentially allowing anyone to be what they want to be. Where I get stuck is feminists calling me a sexist pig because I personally feel a real man should step up and be a man - like provide for and protect his family.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Mathias said:
I.... I like my gender role as the bread winner for my family, and my wife likes to take care of our children. Am... Am I going to hell?
Click to expand...
Let's be honest here, you're probably going to hell. But not for that.

True feminists (ie those who wish to see gender equality for everyone) would say that's perfectly fine. There's nothing at all wrong with that. What's wrong would be if those gender roles were forced upon all people regardless of what they wanted.

The problem, of course, is that feminist is a term that has been co-opted by many different fringe groups, some more militant and extreme than others.
 
LittleSin

LittleSin

Can I just mention that, while it is true that in divorce women are more likely to get custody, studies show that it's because the mother is more likely to ask for it. In cases where the father asks for custody and is persistent in wanting it custody will be awarded to him over the mother about 70% of the time. What does happen is that the family will deem the mother a more natural care taker so the father will not push for custody.

There is a gender bias happening but not in the way that has been stated.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

I would bet that a lot of those custody fights only come because the mom is incredibly unfit or else the dad wouldn't fight for custody.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

Mathias said:


Such class[DOUBLEPOST=1414873154,1414872611][/DOUBLEPOST]

We're lucky that my in-laws live 20 minutes away, so my wife does work part-time (mostly for extra things). Call me sexist or whatever, I don't look down on other men who's wives earn more or anything, but as a personal viewpoint, I would feel less of a man (myself) if I didn't provide for my family. I'm like that with a lot of hot button subjects. Abortion for instance. I'm very my pro-life personally, but as far as other people go, I'm pro-choice for society. Overall, I think a liberal stance on personal issues allows for a better fit across different lifestyle choices. So, yeah, I agree with both feminists and men's rights folks in terms of keeping individual choices open, and essentially allowing anyone to be what they want to be. Where I get stuck is feminists calling me a sexist pig because I personally feel a real man should step up and be a man - like provide for and protect his family.
Click to expand...
This would only become sexist if you told your wife that there is no way that you could accept her working, even if its what she wants to do. One would also think that if you loved your partner that you would want them to do what makes them happy, whether it's being a homemaker or getting a job. Your personal urge to provide for your family doesn't contradict what she wants to do in any way.
 
tegid

tegid

Oh wow:
"hopefully one day us as men can have equality and treated the same"
:facepalm:
I think I saw the ad a while ago. It is fantastic, and those criticisms are moronic.

I don't like many of the responses either, though.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

tegid said:
Oh wow:
"hopefully one day us as men can have equality and treated the same"
:facepalm:
I think I saw the ad a while ago. It is fantastic, and those criticisms are moronic.

I don't like many of the responses either, though.
Click to expand...
I'd love for all the majority group activists to get their wish when they ask that everyone be treated equally in that they get to spend at least one day experiencing life as part of a minority. They'd change their tune awfully fast.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Seriously. If you haven't been able to achieve success as a middle class straight white man, you really think your odds would be better as a poor black gay woman? That's honestly the takeaway I get from some of these people, that women, blacks, poor, etc have it so much easier. It's just...insanely stupid.

Although that level of stupidity would go a long way to explaining how they failed to achieve as a priveleged majority.
 
Celt Z

Celt Z

Necronic said:
Ugh. MRA reaction to he #LikeAGirl campaign is both predictable and embarrassing.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/super-bowl-likeaboy-trends-as-769015

MRA's are an embarrassment. Period.
Click to expand...
I'm confused why there are men up-in-arms about not being represented in a commercial for tampons and sanitary napkins. Isn't, like 99% of the Super Bowl and it's accompanying advertising aimed at men and male accomplishments? Do they really want to have periods too? That's an interesting choice for equality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top