Rape girls and murder their male protectors: today in unhinged masculism

[Toni]

But this is a thread about 'unhinged masculinism.' In other words: bad things that men do to people.

I disagree that that is what "Masculinism" is. That is far too broad. Nor would I say that masculinism is exclusive to men, just as feminism isn't exclusive to women.

It seems much easier for most of the posters on this board to post about how bad women are to men than it is to talk about how bad men are to other men (and women and children). Why would that be, do you think?

It seems very easy for you to read such things in. Why is that?

Well, just scanning thread titles sure does help identify posts about how bad women are to men. You know: lying cheating whores who get raped and who trick men into believing that they are the father of their children so that they can collect $83/week in child support and how unfair it is that women soccer players are getting paid as well as men soccer players and so on.

Why is it that so often when an MRA speaks about an issue that targets him unfairly due to his gender, its read as an attack on women?

Please note at what point I started responding to posts in this thread. Hint: it was after an attack on a 17 year old rape victim whose uncle was murdered while defending her as toxic femininity. Maybe ask the beave why he felt the need to make such a post?

And in your own case, why is it that when faced with a man criticizing you, you so often spin it as a man attacking a woman rather than a person criticizing another person? And also, an attack on "Feminists" is quite often NOT an attack on women as odd as that may sound to "Feminists".

I suppose I assume that posters abide by the rules of the forum and do not engage in personal attacks. Are you telling me that is not so? Good information to have.

I am aware that anti-feminists are all in favor of women who know their place and keep quiet about matters too important for their little brains.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have repeatedly taken a disparate impact as proof of discrimination.

Those diseases are racist.

Racism is indeed a disease but it isn't one caused by viruses or unicellular parasites. Dengue fever and malaria are infectious to anyone exposed who does not have some level of resistance, usually by prophylaxis treatments. Racism is caused by an overblown sense of entitlement coupled with extreme insecurity and often worsened by ignorance and/or greed.

You have repeatedly conflated your views with reality without any understanding or recognition of data. White people are as susceptible to dengue fever and malaria as brown or black people.

White people are not as susceptible to being attacked by police during traffic stops as are black and brown people. Yes, that is a sickness, but the sickness is society's, not the victims of police brutality.

Which is totally not a rebuttal.

You have said disparate impact proves racism. Either those diseases are racist or disparate impact doesn't prove racism. Pick only one.

 

[laughing dog]

You have repeatedly taken a disparate impact as proof of discrimination.

Those diseases are racist.

Racism is indeed a disease but it isn't one caused by viruses or unicellular parasites. Dengue fever and malaria are infectious to anyone exposed who does not have some level of resistance, usually by prophylaxis treatments. Racism is caused by an overblown sense of entitlement coupled with extreme insecurity and often worsened by ignorance and/or greed.

You have repeatedly conflated your views with reality without any understanding or recognition of data. White people are as susceptible to dengue fever and malaria as brown or black people.

White people are not as susceptible to being attacked by police during traffic stops as are black and brown people. Yes, that is a sickness, but the sickness is society's, not the victims of police brutality.

Which is totally not a rebuttal.

You have said disparate impact proves racism. Either those diseases are racist or disparate impact doesn't prove racism. Pick only one.

No one is required to rebut an unsubstantiated claim of fact. You have not established the premise of your argument - that Toni believes disparate impact proves racism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How is it prejudice, or even identity politics, to say that the biggest danger for men is other men?

I’ll give you a clue: it isn’t.

It is. If you don't want to be prejudiced about it, don't generalize to men.... and maybe say violent people or violent men. I don't see you going on about "them muslims" or backing Trump's "muslim ban". Why? Because muslims are not a problem. Violent radical muslims are. And that's an ideology. This is a gender.

You trying to say it is is just you deploying your totally unconvincing racism/prejudice schtick, yet again, when it suits you, in other words when it triggers you because it’s about men.

No, smart ass. The same applies to women. Have you noticed how we criticize radical feminism, and not "women". Women are not a problem. How about them black people? Do you have something to negative say about them as a whole or by proxy? Doubt it. That would be too easily recognized as prejudice. But I've heard some people go on about how the biggest threat to black people... is black people. I'm not buying into such prejudice, be it race or gender based.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well, just scanning thread titles sure does help identify posts about how bad women are to men. You know: lying cheating whores who get raped and who trick men into believing that they are the father of their children so that they can collect $83/week in child support and how unfair it is that women soccer players are getting paid as well as men soccer players and so on.

Neither of those are about women, unless you judge women as a whole by such behaviour. I've yet to see anybody declare that "women" are in any way a problem. If they do, then they are being sexist and I conbemn it just as much as I condemn it against men. Threads about rapists are not about "men". They are about rapists, etc. Generalizing everything to a gender, or a race, is how prejudice happens.

Why is it that so often when an MRA speaks about an issue that targets him unfairly due to his gender, its read as an attack on women?

Please note at what point I started responding to posts in this thread. Hint: it was after an attack on a 17 year old rape victim whose uncle was murdered while defending her as toxic femininity.

No it wasn't, and you've already been corrected on it. It was saying its not masculinity and saying it could just as well be called femininity.... its neither.

Maybe ask the beave why he felt the need to make such a post?

I understood his post as he meant to convey it. You didn't. You still apparently don't.

And in your own case, why is it that when faced with a man criticizing you, you so often spin it as a man attacking a woman rather than a person criticizing another person? And also, an attack on "Feminists" is quite often NOT an attack on women as odd as that may sound to "Feminists".

I suppose I assume that posters abide by the rules of the forum and do not engage in personal attacks. Are you telling me that is not so? Good information to have.

Indeed. You tend to call people misogynist when they disagree with you or correct something you write, if they are a man, because they are addressing a woman. Its a pattern I have noticed.

I am aware that anti-feminists are all in favor of women who know their place and keep quiet about matters too important for their little brains.

You project that on most of them. And you didn't respond to the fact that many "anti-feminists" are NOT in any way against women or about telling women how they must live their lives.

 

[Toni]

You have repeatedly taken a disparate impact as proof of discrimination.

Those diseases are racist.

Racism is indeed a disease but it isn't one caused by viruses or unicellular parasites. Dengue fever and malaria are infectious to anyone exposed who does not have some level of resistance, usually by prophylaxis treatments. Racism is caused by an overblown sense of entitlement coupled with extreme insecurity and often worsened by ignorance and/or greed.

You have repeatedly conflated your views with reality without any understanding or recognition of data. White people are as susceptible to dengue fever and malaria as brown or black people.

White people are not as susceptible to being attacked by police during traffic stops as are black and brown people. Yes, that is a sickness, but the sickness is society's, not the victims of police brutality.

Which is totally not a rebuttal.

You have said disparate impact proves racism. Either those diseases are racist or disparate impact doesn't prove racism. Pick only one.

I’m pretty sure I’ve never said that. I recognize that as a spin you try to give but those are not my words or my beliefs.

 

[Toni]

Neither of those are about women, unless you judge women as a whole by such behaviour. I've yet to see anybody declare that "women" are in any way a problem. If they do, then they are being sexist and I conbemn it just as much as I condemn it against men. Threads about rapists are not about "men". They are about rapists, etc. Generalizing everything to a gender, or a race, is how prejudice happens.

Please note at what point I started responding to posts in this thread. Hint: it was after an attack on a 17 year old rape victim whose uncle was murdered while defending her as toxic femininity.

No it wasn't, and you've already been corrected on it. It was saying its not masculinity and saying it could just as well be called femininity.... its neither.

Maybe ask the beave why he felt the need to make such a post?

I understood his post as he meant to convey it. You didn't. You still apparently don't.

And in your own case, why is it that when faced with a man criticizing you, you so often spin it as a man attacking a woman rather than a person criticizing another person? And also, an attack on "Feminists" is quite often NOT an attack on women as odd as that may sound to "Feminists".

I suppose I assume that posters abide by the rules of the forum and do not engage in personal attacks. Are you telling me that is not so? Good information to have.

Indeed. You tend to call people misogynist when they disagree with you or correct something you write, if they are a man, because they are addressing a woman. Its a pattern I have noticed.

I am aware that anti-feminists are all in favor of women who know their place and keep quiet about matters too important for their little brains.

You project that on most of them. And you didn't respond to the fact that many "anti-feminists" are NOT in any way against women or about telling women how they must live their lives.

I think we’re operating in different universes. Let me know if you make it back from the upside down.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think we’re operating in different universes. Let me know if you make it back from the upside down.

It's the same universe. You're just not trying to see beyond your own shadow.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is totally not a rebuttal.

You have said disparate impact proves racism. Either those diseases are racist or disparate impact doesn't prove racism. Pick only one.

No one is required to rebut an unsubstantiated claim of fact. You have not established the premise of your argument - that Toni believes disparate impact proves racism.

If it's something that has a disparate impact on blacks she sure thinks it is.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think we’re operating in different universes. Let me know if you make it back from the upside down.

It's the same universe. You're just not trying to see beyond your own shadow.

No, she's right. Many threads and driveby posts in threads are anti-women. That you claim not to have ever seen any is beyond surreal.

 

[Toni]

Which is totally not a rebuttal.

You have said disparate impact proves racism. Either those diseases are racist or disparate impact doesn't prove racism. Pick only one.

No one is required to rebut an unsubstantiated claim of fact. You have not established the premise of your argument - that Toni believes disparate impact proves racism.

If it's something that has a disparate impact on blacks she sure thinks it is.

1. This thread is supposed to be about unhinged masculism, according to the thread title, not about how much you dislike me personally.

2. You are certainly no expert on what I think. Your cause would be much better served if you focused on what you think and for purposes of posting on this forum, actually backed up your opinions with data and links.

 

[laughing dog]

Which is totally not a rebuttal.

You have said disparate impact proves racism. Either those diseases are racist or disparate impact doesn't prove racism. Pick only one.

No one is required to rebut an unsubstantiated claim of fact. You have not established the premise of your argument - that Toni believes disparate impact proves racism.

If it's something that has a disparate impact on blacks she sure thinks it is.

You are not a mind reader. Repeating your belief is not substantiating a claim of fact - it is the MO if a YECer.
By now, you ought to know the procedure. Produce a quote with a link. Without that, there really is no reason to accept your claim of fact. Especially since it has been disputed by Toni.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think we’re operating in different universes. Let me know if you make it back from the upside down.

It's the same universe. You're just not trying to see beyond your own shadow.

No, she's right. Many threads and driveby posts in threads are anti-women. That you claim not to have ever seen any is beyond surreal.

To see, discuss, analyse or critique certain phenomena and patterns would be discrimination. When it suits.

Certain things are problematical and worth discussing (over and over and over) and others aren't.

Certain posts or suggestions or assertions, and not others, can be seen in a sympathetic light, or not critisized, or the posters white-knighted.

Surely you can see how this all works by now. The approach has been thoroughly consistent over time.

 

[Toni]

So apparently there are posters who aren't satisfied with how many women they've driven from participating in the Politics fora. They need it to be an all boys all the time club.

 

[RVonse]

So apparently there are posters who aren't satisfied with how many women they've driven from participating in the Politics fora. They need it to be an all boys all the time club.

Hang in there Toni. I for one look forward to read your views which are certainly different than mine. But I feel that is a good thing and how we all move forward. You can not ever gain insight from the people who completely agree with you all the time.

Don't worry so much about whether you can change the world by yourself. It is enough for me just to try to understand why the world does what it does.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So apparently there are posters who aren't satisfied with how many women they've driven from participating in the Politics fora. They need it to be an all boys all the time club.

Hang in there Toni. I for one look forward to read your views which are certainly different than mine. But I feel that is a good thing and how we all move forward. You can not ever gain insight from the people who completely agree with you all the time.

Don't worry so much about whether you can change the world by yourself. It is enough for me just to try to understand why the world does what it does.

^ This.

And as for the "driving women away" line, Toni, has it ever occurred to you that this forum is far from welcoming to anyone who doesn't hold your views or views similar to your views? How many of them do you think have been driven away? Or is that only relevant when it's gender related and female?

 

[Toni]

So apparently there are posters who aren't satisfied with how many women they've driven from participating in the Politics fora. They need it to be an all boys all the time club.

Hang in there Toni. I for one look forward to read your views which are certainly different than mine. But I feel that is a good thing and how we all move forward. You can not ever gain insight from the people who completely agree with you all the time.

Don't worry so much about whether you can change the world by yourself. It is enough for me just to try to understand why the world does what it does.

^ This.

And as for the "driving women away" line, Toni, has it ever occurred to you that this forum is far from welcoming to anyone who doesn't hold views or views similar to your views? How many of them do you think have been driven away? Or is that only relevant when it's gender related and female?

I’ve noticed a certain lack of diversity, yes.

 

[J842P]

Since you now agree and apparently never disagreed, I am willing to accept your concession. Also, it is interesting that your argument lacks a response to the majority of my post:

Patriarchies are brainwashing men into fighting each other to consolidate power, including forcing men to blow themselves up. Even without government force, men's biggest danger is other men. Yet you and others complain about Ghostbusters sequels. Ghostbusters!

This is exactly what I was talking about in the op. So, what has you running away? Is it that I brought up Ghostbusters or that dealing with men being the worst threat to men is just too much to discuss?

Yeah, let's discuss this. Please define what you mean by patriarchy, to start, because you seem to think that we must assume this as some sort of axiom.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Since you now agree and apparently never disagreed, I am willing to accept your concession. Also, it is interesting that your argument lacks a response to the majority of my post:

Patriarchies are brainwashing men into fighting each other to consolidate power, including forcing men to blow themselves up. Even without government force, men's biggest danger is other men. Yet you and others complain about Ghostbusters sequels. Ghostbusters!

This is exactly what I was talking about in the op. So, what has you running away? Is it that I brought up Ghostbusters or that dealing with men being the worst threat to men is just too much to discuss?

Yeah, let's discuss this. Please define what you mean by patriarchy, to start, because you seem to think that we must assume this as some sort of axiom.

That's a good question. I guess offhand without putting too much thought into it, I'd have to keep a definition fairly flexible and high level such as the following...

Patriarchy - a social system whereby males dominate subsystems of control.

I don't believe such term should be used as a way to exclude other -archies or -cracies necessarily. So for example some Middle Eastern countries might be classified as theocracies or oligarchies and patriarchies.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yeah, let's discuss this. Please define what you mean by patriarchy, to start, because you seem to think that we must assume this as some sort of axiom.

That's a good question. I guess offhand without putting too much thought into it, I'd have to keep a definition fairly flexible and high level such as the following...

Patriarchy - a social system whereby males dominate subsystems of control.

I don't believe such term should be used as a way to exclude other -archies or -cracies necessarily. So for example some Middle Eastern countries might be classified as theocracies or oligarchies and patriarchies.

If we use that definition then much of what has been discussed here is excluded. People seemed to be suggesting that patriarchy equals gender roles, regardless of what they are or how they are enforced by society. Your definition also has the problem of generalizing it to "males", so it may exclude a lot of power plays by men that are made to the expense of other men. Men being sent off to war, dong dangerous jobs, etc may be excluded from "patriarchy".