Feminists threaten anti-feminist music band and their families

[LJ_Reloaded]

Yup, you work pretty hard on that façade. It doesn't fool me, or anyone else.

Racist trolls try to do the same thing under multiple alts. You are their equal.

It's not a facade, and you are just making up lies to justify your anti-male bullshit.

You're just like the racist trolls.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Are the centuries of suppression rape and abuse women endured at the hands of men which led to feminism hot air?

Just asking.

Nope, but acts of terrorism are still not justified, especially against innocent people.

Or do you believe no man is innocent?

 

[lovecraft68]

Nope, but acts of terrorism are still not justified, especially against innocent people.

Or do you believe no man is innocent?

I believe words are cheap is what I believe, threats aren't deeds and you're only harping on this over the countless other threats that you could find on any given day all over the net because its suits your agenda.

 

[Sheana_V]

So the (supposed) actions of extremists invalidates everything? You're point here makes no sense. The fact that there exist women who identify as feminists harassing people says nothing about feminists because you can't generalize from the subset to the set. Likewise Men aren't all rapists.

 

[RoryN]

So the (supposed) actions of extremists invalidates everything?

Yup, it has to. Otherwise, the thread starter doesn't have a preferred excuse for why women leave him.

 

[renard_ruse]

Here's the part LT linked to but - of course - didn't post in this thread, which sparked the response. From the lead singer:



I bolded the part which is the key wish of anti-feminist whiners; they want their superpowers back. If that happened, they wouldn't be so butthurt about all the women who've spurned them.

You're one sick fuck Rory.

Considering that post-modern femanism was invented by ugly women who were bitter over rejection by men (except of course for the prominent lesbian contingent among them), it kind of makes this little meme you've constructed pretty funny.

Of course these days most femanists seem to be angry young men, or at least many of the most vocal and strident of them. Including, most likely you. They actually are such pussies they think taking a strident feminist view is going get them laid. How did that work out for Alan Alda in the 70s?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I believe words are cheap is what I believe, threats aren't deeds and you're only harping on this over the countless other threats that you could find on any given day all over the net because its suits your agenda.

Threats against feminists make headline news. Terrorist acts and threats by feminists get buried by the media. No one seems to asks why this is the case.

Yup, it has to. Otherwise, the thread starter doesn't have a preferred excuse for why women leave him.

Let's see, the long list of things you make up about me:
1) Claiming that women leave me
2) Saying I can't get laid
3) Accusing me of being short
4) Saying I've got a small penis
5) Accusing me of running some kind of facade

You have nothing to back up any of this with, and when called out, you don't even try. You are as big an ignorant pig headed troll as you accuse me of being.

So the (supposed) actions of extremists invalidates everything? You're point here makes no sense. The fact that there exist women who identify as feminists harassing people says nothing about feminists because you can't generalize from the subset to the set. Likewise Men aren't all rapists.

Ah, you just said "not all men" - you do realize that there is a big controversy over saying "not all men" in that this is called unhelpful and disruptive to the mainstream feminist narrative.

The issue here is that feminist violence never gets talked about. But every time some buncha punks like Return of Kings belts out a pile of misogynist garbage, the entire Men's Rights movement is blamed for it - even though Return of Kings specifically hate men's rights!

It's funny that you say you can't generalize feminists, but what do you say about generalizing the manosphere?

But hey, I'm not trying to attack you here - you actually were the first person on this thread to offer some reasonable discussion. That puts you above everyone else. You're looking to be exactly the kind of feminist that we need more of when it comes to feminists who speak up.

 

[Sheana_V]

You're one sick fuck Rory.

Considering that post-modern femanism was invented by ugly women who were bitter over rejection by men (except of course for the prominent lesbian contingent among them), it kind of makes this little meme you've constructed pretty funny.

Of course these days most femanists seem to be angry young men, or at least many of the most vocal and strident of them. Including, most likely you. They actually are such pussies they think taking a strident feminist view is going get them laid. How did that work out for Alan Alda in the 70s?

Um, your idea of what a "post-modern" feminist is, or certainly your attempts to lump all 70's and beyond feminist into one category is at best misguided and at worst nauseating.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You're one sick fuck Rory.

Considering that post-modern femanism was invented by ugly women who were bitter over rejection by men (except of course for the prominent lesbian contingent among them), it kind of makes this little meme you've constructed pretty funny.

Of course these days most femanists seem to be angry young men, or at least many of the most vocal and strident of them. Including, most likely you. They actually are such pussies they think taking a strident feminist view is going get them laid. How did that work out for Alan Alda in the 70s?

This is the kind of anti-feminist I wish would STFU. You're just as big a sick fuck as RoryN and just as big a disgrace.

Feminism was not invented by ugly women. Plenty of good looking and heterosexual, married women back then and now were/are feminists. Please stop spouting this lie.

 

[anchoredinocean]

Oh my.

First Renard is the only ally LT gets in his thread, then a woman dares hand him his ass.

What next, a dog with a bag of peanuts in its mouth is going to chase him around the block?

 

[Sheana_V]

Ah, you just said "not all men" - you do realize that there is a big controversy over saying "not all men" in that this is called unhelpful and disruptive to the mainstream feminist narrative.

The issue here is that feminist violence never gets talked about. But every time some buncha punks like Return of Kings belts out a pile of misogynist garbage, the entire Men's Rights movement is blamed for it - even though Return of Kings specifically hate men's rights!

It's funny that you say you can't generalize feminists, but what do you say about generalizing the manosphere?

But hey, I'm not trying to attack you here - you actually were the first person on this thread to offer some reasonable discussion. That puts you above everyone else. You're looking to be exactly the kind of feminist that we need more of when it comes to feminists who speak up.

Yeah. "Not all men" is actually true. It's also largely unhelpful. The fact is that it's difficult to distinguish the potential threat of an individual man even after you know him. Conversely feminists aren't arguing that every man get arrested on suspicion of rape.

"feminist violence never gets talked about", because "feminist violence" is no more likely than violence in general. Being a feminist doesn't make one more likely to be violent, the attribution is post-hoc.

"the entire Men's Rights movement is blamed for it" Okay, so then we agree. I stopped making blanket statements about MRA's based on Return of the Kings a long time ago. Let's agree to both not use extremists as rhetorical punching bags.

"what do you say about generalizing the manosphere" - Wouldn't "The Good Men Project" be part of the Mansphere? I've encouraged many people in their direction.

Here's the thing. The life of a woman now is greatly improved from the life of our grandmothers. Our mothers and grandmothers need to be given some slack for not seeing all that's changed, because they reap few of the benefits.

Our mothers are the ones that wanted to end porn for example, and are the ones with very proscriptive defintions of feminist.

Third wave feminists are harder to pigeonhole and so are easy to make villains out of because of that. Since my brand of feminism is more Kathleen Hanna than Andrea Dworkin, you'll find many of the criticisms you and MRA's level against feminism makes you 20 years late to the party. Riot Grrrls were talking about the way that society is harmful to men long before people were talking about "Mens Rights".

Finally, it's worth noting that in spite of gains I still get sexually harassed on nearly a daily basis, and it certainly creates barriers to sexy times with men in other contexts.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Yeah. "Not all men" is actually true. It's also largely unhelpful. The fact is that it's difficult to distinguish the potential threat of an individual man even after you know him. Conversely feminists aren't arguing that every man get arrested on suspicion of rape.

Here's what's wrong with that...

Yeah. "Not all black people" is actually true. It's also largely unhelpful. The fact is that it's difficult to distinguish the potential threat of an individual black person even after you know him. Conversely we aren't arguing that every black person get arrested on suspicion of rape.

Certain groups argue this all the time. They also use statistics purportedly showing how blacks commit more crimes than whites and blacks attack whites more than vice-versa, blacks represent a huge portion of prisoners, etc etc etc ergo blacks in general are dangerous people yada yada. Speaking as a black man these arguments look way too similar. Muslims are getting the same things said about them, too.

Serious question: do you feel that more men have hurt or in some way threatened you emotionally or physically than have helped you?

"feminist violence never gets talked about", because "feminist violence" is no more likely than violence in general. Being a feminist doesn't make one more likely to be violent, the attribution is post-hoc.

"the entire Men's Rights movement is blamed for it" Okay, so then we agree. I stopped making blanket statements about MRA's based on Return of the Kings a long time ago. Let's agree to both not use extremists as rhetorical punching bags.

I agree to punching the crap out of extremists while pointing out that not all feminists are like that.

"what do you say about generalizing the manosphere" - Wouldn't "The Good Men Project" be part of the Mansphere? I've encouraged many people in their direction.

The Good Men Project is kind of unreliable about that. Women who have written good things about men have been banned from there for doing just that. One example was Suzanne Venker who wrote about the importance of fathers. Her article was pulled and she was banned. The GMP also downplays paternity fraud, saying that victims of paternity fraud should be happy about their situation because at least they got to experience fatherhood: http://goodmenproject.com/noserious...ternity-fraud-paternity-fraud-and-parenthood/

I am not really sure what website to encourage people to. A Voice For Men ranks as one of the very last places I'd send someone - its founder is a #$%@ing deadbeat dad (Paul Elam) who says shit like "acquit all men accused of rape" (my Tumblr blog lists a legion of offenses by Paul Elam and his ilk). I tend toward the Honey Badgers, a men's rights group led (at least in part) by women. They haven't turned out to be a bunch of nutters, yet.

Here's the thing. The life of a woman now is greatly improved from the life of our grandmothers. Our mothers and grandmothers need to be given some slack for not seeing all that's changed, because they reap few of the benefits.

Define 'slack'?

Our mothers are the ones that wanted to end porn for example, and are the ones with very proscriptive defintions of feminist.

They wouldn't want Lit to be here. Oddly enough they worked with Far Right anti-porn extremists in some cases. Talk about sleeping with the enemy.

Third wave feminists are harder to pigeonhole and so are easy to make villains out of because of that. Since my brand of feminism is more Kathleen Hanna than Andrea Dworkin, you'll find many of the criticisms you and MRA's level against feminism makes you 20 years late to the party. Riot Grrrls were talking about the way that society is harmful to men long before people were talking about "Mens Rights".

If you look at the media, though, it seems that the gender discussion is duopolized by two groups - traditional "get back in the kitchen" conservative pissbabies, and the very worst of the feminist crowd. I've said this before - they're like two heads sharing the same bigoted heart, they just hate the opposite things.

Sensible feminists, as I've written on my blog, are getting zero mainstream attention.

And you bring up an important point though you didn't touch on it - MRAs don't lash out at Conservatives. This has been a big gripe of mine. The manosphere needs to take a horsewhip to the Right wing and their traditionalist values. Traditionalism is, in my opinion, caused by male disposability. It seeks to correct this by oppressing women: two wrongs trying to make a right. Logic and reasoning shows that this double-wrong cannot become a positive; and history shows it even more dramatically.

There are some good feminists out there. Can't say that about Traditionalists.

Finally, it's worth noting that in spite of gains I still get sexually harassed on nearly a daily basis, and it certainly creates barriers to sexy times with men in other contexts.

We have laws against sexual harassment in many cases. Unfortunately deviants will be deviants. Fortunately, statistics show that crime is down, such as rape and murder. What else can be done? I have one son and 3 daughters and they've all been taught to keep their hands to themselves.

One thing, though, if sexual harassment by men has affected your willingness to get with other men, why is it that a man's bad experience with a woman cannot affect how he relates to other women?

 

[Sheana_V]

Here's what's wrong with that...

Actually, that's wrong. The beliefs about violence in black men isn't based on personal experience, it's based on media narrative. If there were individuals where fear of black men was based on personal experience it would be understandable if still problematic.

Certain groups argue this all the time.
They also use statistics purportedly showing how blacks commit more crimes than whites and blacks attack whites more than vice-versa, blacks represent a huge portion of prisoners, etc etc etc ergo blacks in general are dangerous people yada yada. Speaking as a black man these arguments look way too similar. Muslims are getting the same things said about them, too.

Go back to the original point. Women are not led by the media or raised to believe men are dangerous. Largely we are taught that men are not dangerous, then discover that men are in fact dangerous from personal experience.

Black men and Muslims are more dangerous in very few peoples personal experiences. If a person actually did have that personal experience, then their fear would be understandable even if it were statistically misguided.

More to the point. "Not All Men" is generally brought up to deflect serious conversations about sexual harassment, not to actually further a conversation about how we can help address issues about identification or getting the "good ones" to help. Similarly "All Lives Matter" isn't ever to try to help all lives, but instead to silence those that rightly think it's important to remind us that "All Lives Matter"

Serious question: do you feel that more men have hurt or in some way threatened you emotionally or physically than have helped you?

Of course men provide more value than danger in my life as a whole. Never was there a proclamation from me that there was anything inherently wrong with men.
Experience has taught me that being in certain situations with men is considerably more dangerous than being in those situations with men. It has also taught me that strange men have issues with entitlement that my male friends don't seem to have.

The Good Men Project is kind of unreliable about that. Women who have written good things about men have been banned from there for doing just that. One example was Suzanne Venker who wrote about the importance of fathers. Her article was pulled and she was banned. The GMP also downplays paternity fraud, saying that victims of paternity fraud should be happy about their situation because at least they got to experience fatherhood: http://goodmenproject.com/noserious...ternity-fraud-paternity-fraud-and-parenthood/

Hmmm... okay. I can't comment on those issues. It clearly has a bunch of articles that are focused on healthy masculinity in a modern society that is done in such a way as to not blame women for all the problems. That seems to be actually helpful to men.

I am not really sure what website to encourage people to. A Voice For Men ranks as one of the very last places I'd send someone - its founder is a #$%@ing deadbeat dad (Paul Elam) who says shit like "acquit all men accused of rape" (my Tumblr blog lists a legion of offenses by Paul Elam and his ilk). I tend toward the Honey Badgers, a men's rights group led (at least in part) by women. They haven't turned out to be a bunch of nutters, yet.

I'm not familiar with Honey Badgers. The recognition of my own ignorance on MRA's, and the self reflection of that hypocrisy w/r to feminism, is why I stopped generalizing about MRA's.

Define 'slack'?

I have to forgive women in the 70's who wanted to ban porn since the vast majority of commercial porn at the time was rape porn. I can also understand why it might be hard for someone to have a more even handed perspective on domestic violence when marital rape was legal for the first half of their marriage.

They wouldn't want Lit to be here. Oddly enough they worked with Far Right anti-porn extremists in some cases. Talk about sleeping with the enemy.

Indeed. But Riot Grrrls referred to themselves as "Fuck Me Feminists". You might say they don't get along super well with Second Wave feminists.

If you look at the media, though, it seems that the gender discussion is duopolized by two groups - traditional "get back in the kitchen" conservative pissbabies, and the very worst of the feminist crowd. I've said this before - they're like two heads sharing the same bigoted heart, they just hate the opposite things.

Sensible feminists, as I've written on my blog, are getting zero mainstream attention.

And you bring up an important point though you didn't touch on it - MRAs don't lash out at Conservatives. This has been a big gripe of mine. The manosphere needs to take a horsewhip to the Right wing and their traditionalist values. Traditionalism is, in my opinion, caused by male disposability. It seeks to correct this by oppressing women: two wrongs trying to make a right. Logic and reasoning shows that this double-wrong cannot become a positive; and history shows it even more dramatically.

There are some good feminists out there. Can't say that about Traditionalists.

Well it seems we agree on more than it would have seemed at the start. Of course resonable feminists don't get attention. No one reasonable ever gets attention. Attention is given always to the most extreme points of view because it pisses people of and thus sells the media. What plays in Peoria is what sells.
Nothing could be more reasonable than a revenue neutral carbon tax, since it shifts a tax from deadweight loss to (arguably) negative deadweight loss or (worst case scenario) equal deadweight loss.
It is literally never going to happen because being reasonable doesn't sell.

What I can tell you is that if you actually read the things that feminists have written in books and zines, and the things they've said. You find the vast majority of them are entirely reasonable.

We have laws against sexual harassment in many cases. Unfortunately deviants will be deviants. Fortunately, statistics show that crime is down, such as rape and murder. What else can be done? I have one son and 3 daughters and they've all been taught to keep their hands to themselves.

Catcalling isn't really considered sexual harassment. If it were relatively isolated I'm not sure I could make a good case for it being harassment. But repeated over and over again it wears down quickly.
There is also issues with 'unsafe' situations, which is another problem.

Also, what would you do if a guy twice your side pulled one of your earbuds out while you were listening to music because he wanted to "chat" with you?

One thing, though, if sexual harassment by men has affected your willingness to get with other men, why is it that a man's bad experience with a woman cannot affect how he relates to other women?

Oh, it for sure can. I have one very good friend that pretty much agrees with me on all the feminist push-button issues but still has some pretty twisted MRA views. I also have known him long enough to know that he's suffered tremendous pain at the hands of women, and am certain that's twisted his world view.

I tend to look for descriptions before I get normative about issues. Which is another way of saying I try to replace empathy with being a judgemental douche. I am absolutely certain a large amount of the people who are joining MRA's and MGTOW are people who have been genuinely hurt by individual women and who are now taking it out on women as a class. Others are genuinely suffering from having their social role removed due in part so social changes like feminism, but also in part from technological changes - and we as a society haven't properly addressed how to handle that transition. Finally there are some for whom they are experiencing pain from the entitlement to things they never actually had rights to.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Actually, that's wrong. The beliefs about violence in black men isn't based on personal experience, it's based on media narrative. If there were individuals where fear of black men was based on personal experience it would be understandable if still problematic.

But isn't personal another way of saying anecdotal?

Go back to the original point. Women are not led by the media or raised to believe men are dangerous. Largely we are taught that men are not dangerous, then discover that men are in fact dangerous from personal experience.

Black men and Muslims are more dangerous in very few peoples personal experiences. If a person actually did have that personal experience, then their fear would be understandable even if it were statistically misguided.

Odd, I was raised to believe men were dangerous to women. In fact I was raised the opposite of how you were raised - women are harmless, except when threatened. Personal experience taught me that everyone is dangerous. However, personal experience also says that if a white person or a woman attacks me, they're likely to get away with it, and if you hit back in self-defense, well it's on now. Personal experience also says that a black woman ain't always so privileged: as a boy growing up I've seen dudes get away with slapping a black woman around where that wouldn't be the case with a white woman.

And of course remote examples that aren't in your face can't be discounted as having an effect on your worldview, either. Hearing the rapper EZ-E brag about "she said something that I couldn't believe / so I grabbed the stupid so-and-so by her nappy assed weave" and there was no backlash, has a lasting negative effect on a lot of men, not to mention women. I developed a hatred for gangster rap based on that. And of course I stopped watching television entirely after seeing a woman get away with burning a man's car for cheating on her or slapping a guy with impunity for saying something she didn't like (and he didn't call her a slur either), for the 100,000,000th time.

But all that is "privilege matrix soup" to me - I like to simplify shit. If you harass or assault someone or damage their property, there must be equal and appropriately harsh consequences.

More to the point. "Not All Men" is generally brought up to deflect serious conversations about sexual harassment, not to actually further a conversation about how we can help address issues about identification or getting the "good ones" to help. Similarly "All Lives Matter" isn't ever to try to help all lives, but instead to silence those that rightly think it's important to remind us that "All Lives Matter"

Hmmph. I have a reputation for saying that this country is becoming as dangerous with the police as it is without them. I've also warned white people that the police will be coming for them, too, and lo and behold there's a lot of Christopher Roupe and Kelly Thomas cases popping up out there. I tend toward "all lives matter" - though not to derail Black Lives Matter, but because we need all racial groups to see their stake in this. That's not the same as the people who want to derail stuff, of course: I'm also wary of the assholes who try to shut up black people who protest the racially lopsided nature of police killings. They are racially lopsided, but I'm not going to ignore it when whites, Latinos, etc. are also killed. I'm a solidarity kind of person.

Of course men provide more value than danger in my life as a whole. Never was there a proclamation from me that there was anything inherently wrong with men.
Experience has taught me that being in certain situations with men is considerably more dangerous than being in those situations with men. It has also taught me that strange men have issues with entitlement that my male friends don't seem to have.

I see this entitlement problem as being a two edged sword. Some people (in this case men) are just born as incorrigible deviants, you can't do much except exile or lock them up for good: their entitlement has no cause, and definitely no cure. Others are inspired by the culture of male obligation - he's got to make the first move or else he's a loser, he's got to be the protector, and so on. The burden of courtship appears in many cases to be all on him. How many times have you heard that shy men or men who can't make the first move are timid losers who need to man-up? (Disclaimer: not saying ALL women are like that.) Some men feel that if they gotta work that hard then they're owed something. Solid case in point, if he has to ask her out first and then pay for the date then he feels he deserves a return on that investment. Shit like this doesn't help matters. Entitlement comes in many forms, of course, this is just one example. None of its forms are justified, and nothing I say should be taken as saying they are.

I don't feel a woman owes a man anything. On the other hand I don't think men owe women anything, either. We aren't meat shields, we're not walking wallets, and in those situations where perceived entitlement stems from perceived obligations, my response is not "I did this and that, so she owes me", my response is "I'm not obligated to do this or that, and I'll wait until I meet someone who doesn't expect that of me."

Hmmm... okay. I can't comment on those issues. It clearly has a bunch of articles that are focused on healthy masculinity in a modern society that is done in such a way as to not blame women for all the problems. That seems to be actually helpful to men.

As far as I've ever read, GMP never says "some types of women are in fact problematic, stay away from them." Healthy adulthood - masculinity being a subset - involves both working on yourself and identifying and avoiding toxic people.

I'm not familiar with Honey Badgers. The recognition of my own ignorance on MRA's, and the self reflection of that hypocrisy w/r to feminism, is why I stopped generalizing about MRA's.

I have to forgive women in the 70's who wanted to ban porn since the vast majority of commercial porn at the time was rape porn. I can also understand why it might be hard for someone to have a more even handed perspective on domestic violence when marital rape was legal for the first half of their marriage.

We could use their help against porn entities like Facial Abuse, which has a reputation for intimidating women into continuing hyper-abusive scenes. You know what else is a serious porn-related problem that feminists (and I wish MRAs, too) should dig into? This bullshit about how female porn stars face hateful comments to their face, and relatively severe workplace hiring discrimination due to being shamed. If you're a female porn star, you can't be a teacher or a nurse. (But a Catholic priest and a Republican can. Hmmph.)

Indeed. But Riot Grrrls referred to themselves as "Fuck Me Feminists". You might say they don't get along super well with Second Wave feminists.

I am aware of their views on porn. Just one thing, you said that Riot Grrrls were talking how society is harmful to men... do you have anything for me to read about that?

Well it seems we agree on more than it would have seemed at the start. Of course resonable feminists don't get attention. No one reasonable ever gets attention. Attention is given always to the most extreme points of view because it pisses people of and thus sells the media. What plays in Peoria is what sells.

Nothing could be more reasonable than a revenue neutral carbon tax, since it shifts a tax from deadweight loss to (arguably) negative deadweight loss or (worst case scenario) equal deadweight loss.
It is literally never going to happen because being reasonable doesn't sell.

Well another reason for that is the fossil fuel industry stands to lose big money on any carbon tax, revenue neutral or otherwise.

What I can tell you is that if you actually read the things that feminists have written in books and zines, and the things they've said. You find the vast majority of them are entirely reasonable.

I've collected a number of examples in the form of feminist websites that practically verge on darknet status, they're so hard to find. Is there nothing they can do to talk over the insane ones who have the megaphone and the political power?

Catcalling isn't really considered sexual harassment. If it were relatively isolated I'm not sure I could make a good case for it being harassment. But repeated over and over again it wears down quickly.
There is also issues with 'unsafe' situations, which is another problem.

Also, what would you do if a guy twice your side pulled one of your earbuds out while you were listening to music because he wanted to "chat" with you?

Two words: Krav Maga. I know it doesn't fit in with the "don't teach her how not to get assaulted" narrative but some deviants cannot be taught jack shit.

Oh, it for sure can. I have one very good friend that pretty much agrees with me on all the feminist push-button issues but still has some pretty twisted MRA views. I also have known him long enough to know that he's suffered tremendous pain at the hands of women, and am certain that's twisted his world view.

I tend to look for descriptions before I get normative about issues. Which is another way of saying I try to replace empathy with being a judgemental douche. I am absolutely certain a large amount of the people who are joining MRA's and MGTOW are people who have been genuinely hurt by individual women and who are now taking it out on women as a class.

They're also pissed off at the actual legal system. For instance women who commit a crime spend less time in jail than men who commit the same crime. Wrongs by individual women are only a part of it. Unfortunately blaming all women for this makes them blind to all the women who are fighting to put an end to this discrimination.

I'm a practical man - I see taking it out on women as a class as detrimental to gaining the allies we need to win this war.

Others are genuinely suffering from having their social role removed due in part so social changes like feminism, but also in part from technological changes - and we as a society haven't properly addressed how to handle that transition. Finally there are some for whom they are experiencing pain from the entitlement to things they never actually had rights to.

Those technological changes that are disempowering men will also disempower women. The automation that is killing, say, construction jobs, will also erode teaching and other soft-skill jobs that women traditionally dominate. Women need to start supporting men who are displaced because in due time they, too, will be displaced.

As for the entitled ones, well, what can we do, we already teach them not to be that way. Maybe we can legalize marijuana and reserve those jail cells for the assholes who pull women's earphones off their heads so they can "Say hi".

 

[richard_daily]

Fuck no, I don't have any desire to take the world "back" to any regressive bullshit. If the threats had never happened this thread would be about me laughing at their demise - as I always do with dudes like this.

You have no evidence that this actually happened, other than your desire for it to have happened.

 

[richard_daily]

Yeah. "Not all men" is actually true. It's also largely unhelpful. The fact is that it's difficult to distinguish the potential threat of an individual man even after you know him. Conversely feminists aren't arguing that every man get arrested on suspicion of rape.

"feminist violence never gets talked about", because "feminist violence" is no more likely than violence in general. Being a feminist doesn't make one more likely to be violent, the attribution is post-hoc.

"the entire Men's Rights movement is blamed for it" Okay, so then we agree. I stopped making blanket statements about MRA's based on Return of the Kings a long time ago. Let's agree to both not use extremists as rhetorical punching bags.

"what do you say about generalizing the manosphere" - Wouldn't "The Good Men Project" be part of the Mansphere? I've encouraged many people in their direction.

Here's the thing. The life of a woman now is greatly improved from the life of our grandmothers. Our mothers and grandmothers need to be given some slack for not seeing all that's changed, because they reap few of the benefits.

Our mothers are the ones that wanted to end porn for example, and are the ones with very proscriptive defintions of feminist.

Third wave feminists are harder to pigeonhole and so are easy to make villains out of because of that. Since my brand of feminism is more Kathleen Hanna than Andrea Dworkin, you'll find many of the criticisms you and MRA's level against feminism makes you 20 years late to the party. Riot Grrrls were talking about the way that society is harmful to men long before people were talking about "Mens Rights".

Finally, it's worth noting that in spite of gains I still get sexually harassed on nearly a daily basis, and it certainly creates barriers to sexy times with men in other contexts.

While it's important to stand up to bigoted morons like LT, you will soon find out that your efforts are wasted on him, as he's pretty set in his woman-hating views. There are a few posters that have spent years arguing with him, and if you actually just enjoy arguing, you'll find years of pent-up resentment, anger, and frustration towards women in the poster formerly known as "Loving Tongue".

Just consider yourself warned.

 

[lovecraft68]

You're one sick fuck Rory.

Considering that post-modern femanism was invented by ugly women who were bitter over rejection by men

And this statement says it all. feminists were created because men didn't want them?

Well if we go by that logic raging misogynistic asshats like you are that way because no woman wants you, right?

As for men who take a feminist stance on some things like I do. I don't do it for sex, I've never lacked female company and it has nothing to do with agreeing with them, but everything to do with not treating them like they are less than.

But its back to all a dope like you can think of is in terms of ugly and sex and trying to get laid.

Come back when you have the mind of an adult rather than a fourteen year old.

 

[lovecraft68]

In one sense I have to tip[ the cap to LJ, he is dedicated and passionate. To me misguided, but the efforts there and that can't be said for most who claim to have a cause, but never act on it.

At the end of the day I think he'd be someone interesting to have a drink or two with.

 

[RoryN]

In one sense I have to tip[ the cap to LJ, he is dedicated and passionate. To me misguided, but the efforts there and that can't be said for most who claim to have a cause, but never act on it.

His cause is dishonest; he cares nothing about gender equality. He cares about protecting his own ego, and fits "causes" wherever he thinks they might help accomplish this.

Another supposed cause of LJ's was racism, but had no problem extending an olive branch to the forum's biggest racist troll (cade) for one reason and one reason only: that troll was going after members who hurt his feelings. He did it to troll his detractors, which was more important to him than his cause. No integrity whatsoever.

 

[lovecraft68]

His cause is dishonest; he cares nothing about gender equality. He cares about protecting his own ego, and fits "causes" wherever he thinks they might help accomplish this.

Another supposed cause of LJ's was racism, but had no problem extending an olive branch to the forum's biggest racist troll (cade) for one reason and one reason only: that troll was going after members who hurt his feelings. He did it to troll his detractors, which was more important to him than his cause. No integrity whatsoever.

I don't buy his cause-and the race one may have been before me-I'm just saying he is dedicated to it, or seems to be anyway.

Just an observation based more on people I've seen here who claim to feel strongly for or against something, but are afraid to pipe up in a 'fight'.

See it on author side all the time, people won't call out someone because they're afraid someone might vote a one on their story or leave an anonymous nasty comment.

I keep wondering what they are like in real life when real shit is on the line

 

[Sean Renaud]

Most people can live their entire lives without 'real shit' ever being on the line. Hell I went to Iraq and real shit was never on the line for me personally.

 

[lovecraft68]

Most people can live their entire lives without 'real shit' ever being on the line. Hell I went to Iraq and real shit was never on the line for me personally.

By real shit, I simply mean do they lower their head and keep their mouths shut in real life too, when opinions matter more than here?

I'll trade you some real life, I've had enough. I thought I was done with it years ago, then my wife got sick in 2014 and I realized I hadn't begun to see real life shit yet.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I can't punch or shout at my grandfather or father diabetes. It seems neither are concerned with me. (well past tense for my grandfather but still.)

As for opinions counting IRL I rarely come into those in real life. I don't have an abortion clinic around the corner or anything and I like my job enough that I'm nto gonna get in a shouting contest with my boss. It's not like I'm gonna change his mind or anything.