men involved with domestic violence

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

Domestic violence can happen to anyone.

To raise awareness for a particular kind of violence seems silly to me. Like raising money to cure breast cancer. Just raise money to cure cancer.

I thought you can't cure all cancers with the same treatment anymore than you can cure all the other diseases out there with one magic potion. Different cancers react to different stimulus. Appropriating funds to cure cancer in general would mean spreading those funds really thin over all the different types of cancer researches. It is more effective to simply focus on one area of research.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A patriarchy is a system in which men dominate over women.

Eh. That's a robust over-simplification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

There tends to be a propensity in these "gender" discussions to straw man "Patriarchy" as a shadowy cabal of elderly white men, gathered in a musty boardroom, twirling their monocles whilst plotting the downfall of women. It's just a systemic social attitude that celebrates, promotes, and rewards hypothetically "male" or testosterone driven virtues, such as aggression and competition. It's a mode of existence that can be seen as harmful to both genders...by denying women access to areas where power and cultural influence gathers, and by boxing men into a limiting, juvenile and potentially dangerous expression of "masculinity". Why is it okay for women to smack men around? "Patriarchy". Why are male rape victims derided or disbelieved? "Patriarchy". Why is the mother automatically assumed to be the effective child-rearer? "Patriarchy".

Instead of dismissing it as a "feminist buzzword" and thus, for some stupid reason, harmful to men or areas of male interest (presumably because they have tits and are out to get us), we could stop and consider how many of the same social dynamics women complain about are equally damaging to us. It's a HUMAN problem.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Trying to frame every single inequality under "patriarchy" is quite questionable.

But that's the beauty of the theory; you can blame anything and everything on it!

To many women getting custody of their kids? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy supports the sexist notion that women are better care givers then men.
To many men getting custody of their kids? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy wants men to have full dominance over their families.
Men can sit anywhere they like? Patriarchy, because in Patriarchy men dominate every space they exist in.
Men can't sit next to kids on airplanes? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy supports Rape Culture!
Men's problems not being taken seriously? Patriarchy, because in a Patriarchy you have to man up.
Women's problems not being take seriously? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy doesn't care about women.
Fluid dynamics a hard nut to crack? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy frames science in the eyes of men's rigidity.
Rockets look like dicks? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy wants everything to look like a dick.
Gender segregated sports? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy claims men are stronger than women.
Believe in Patriarchy? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy is obvious like that.
Don't believe in Patriarchy? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy is unseen like that.

Now for a real challenge... got a flat tire? Patriarchy... because Patriarchy called it a "jack", which is obviously sexist because it infers "males" in the repair of the problem, which is a hole in the tire and women are synonymous with holes, and women aren't taught how to change tires because Patriarchy doesn't want women to be self sufficient. It's also a trap that predators use to lure women out of their cars which supports Rape culture.

Bam! Nailed it! Come on; give me another!

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But that's the beauty of the theory; you can blame anything and everything on it!

To many women getting custody of their kids? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy supports the sexist notion that women are better care givers then men.
To many men getting custody of their kids? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy wants men to have full dominance over their families.
Men can sit anywhere they like? Patriarchy, because in Patriarchy men dominate every space they exist in.
Men can't sit next to kids on airplanes? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy supports Rape Culture!
Men's problems not being taken seriously? Patriarchy, because in a Patriarchy you have to man up.
Women's problems not being take seriously? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy doesn't care about women.
Fluid dynamics a hard nut to crack? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy frames science in the eyes of men's rigidity.
Rockets look like dicks? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy wants everything to look like a dick.
Gender segregated sports? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy claims men are stronger than women.
Believe in Patriarchy? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy is obvious like that.
Don't believe in Patriarchy? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy is unseen like that.

Now for a real challenge... got a flat tire? Patriarchy... because Patriarchy called it a "jack", which is obviously sexist because it infers "males" in the repair of the problem, which is a hole in the tire and women are synonymous with holes, and women aren't taught how to change tires because Patriarchy doesn't want women to be self sufficient. It's also a trap that predators use to lure women out of their cars which supports Rape culture.

Bam! Nailed it! Come on; give me another!

It's almost like culturally pervasive attitudes are culturally pervasive, and influence a lot of different areas.

It's cool though. You seem to have it figured out.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Trying to frame every single inequality under "patriarchy" is quite questionable.

But that's the beauty of the theory; you can blame anything and everything on it!

To many women getting custody of their kids? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy supports the sexist notion that women are better care givers then men.
To many men getting custody of their kids? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy wants men to have full dominance over their families.
Men can sit anywhere they like? Patriarchy, because in Patriarchy men dominate every space they exist in.
Men can't sit next to kids on airplanes? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy supports Rape Culture!
Men's problems not being taken seriously? Patriarchy, because in a Patriarchy you have to man up.
Women's problems not being take seriously? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy doesn't care about women.
Fluid dynamics a hard nut to crack? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy frames science in the eyes of men's rigidity.
Rockets look like dicks? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy wants everything to look like a dick.
Gender segregated sports? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy claims men are stronger than women.
Believe in Patriarchy? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy is obvious like that.
Don't believe in Patriarchy? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy is unseen like that.

Now for a real challenge... got a flat tire? Patriarchy... because Patriarchy called it a "jack", which is obviously sexist because it infers "males" in the repair of the problem, which is a hole in the tire and women are synonymous with holes, and women aren't taught how to change tires because Patriarchy doesn't want women to be self sufficient. It's also a trap that predators use to lure women out of their cars which supports Rape culture.

Bam! Nailed it! Come on; give me another!

Hahaha this is awesome. It's almost like Creationism

 

[generals3]

A patriarchy is a system in which men dominate over women.

Eh. That's a robust over-simplification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

There tends to be a propensity in these "gender" discussions to straw man "Patriarchy" as a shadowy cabal of elderly white men, gathered in a musty boardroom, twirling their monocles whilst plotting the downfall of women.

No. The only strawman of the patriarchy is the one that defines it in an absurdly vague manner which renders the term a rather pointless one which is just used to blame everything. A real patriarchy is a system in which men are in power. A lion pack is a patriarchy for instance. Just like a wolf pack is a matriarchy. But having certain stereotypes regarding genders is not, per se, a patriarchy.

It's just a systemic social attitude that celebrates, promotes, and rewards hypothetically "male" or testosterone driven virtues, such as aggression and competition.

That's one of the butchered definitions. And even that one is quite dubious. By that definition the Free Market ideology is patriarchal (considering it promotes competition). And aggression is hardly promoted nowadays.

It's a mode of existence that can be seen as harmful to both genders...by denying women access to areas where power and cultural influence gathers, and by boxing men into a limiting, juvenile and potentially dangerous expression of "masculinity". Why is it okay for women to smack men around? "Patriarchy". Why are male rape victims derided or disbelieved? "Patriarchy". Why is the mother automatically assumed to be the effective child-rearer? "Patriarchy".

Why is it okay for women to smack men around? Quite simply: because we're expected to suck it up. That has nothing to do with the patriarchy. And also because women are expected to be physically weaker, which is more linked to biology and how the human brain works than any sociological concept. Why are male rape victims derided? Because men are expected to be sex-driven. Which has no relation whatsoever to a patriarchy being in place or not. The last one is actually more complex. But a reason could be that women are the only ones being capable to breast feed children. So from a biological POV women clearly were meant to stay with the child early on, so this habit which persisted through millennia could very well be a remnant of an important biological fact. But I guess mother nature is patriarchal.

Instead of dismissing it as a "feminist buzzword" and thus, for some stupid reason, harmful to men or areas of male interest (presumably because they have tits and are out to get us), we could stop and consider how many of the same social dynamics women complain about are equally damaging to us. It's a HUMAN problem.

It's a human problem being addressed in a totally wrong manner which won't solve the issue at all. You can't cure a disease by using medication against the wrong illness. (unless by sheer luck)

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

It's almost like culturally pervasive attitudes are culturally pervasive, and influence a lot of different areas.

It's cool though. You seem to have it figured out.

I know right? It's like I could walk into different cultures and potentially different time periods and have different cultural attitudes and standards which apply in varying levels of adherence with the local populace on an individual level. It's like the world is this vast organism with many intricate and complex parts interacting with each other on billions of individual contexts on an hourly basis.

It's how these next sentences can be seen as grossly offensive, cheerfully endearing, or downright confusing depending on the culture you exist in...

I wonder whether or not that **** loves her pussy.
Would you mind sticking this fag in your fanny?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I know right? It's like I could walk into different cultures and potentially different time periods and have different cultural attitudes and standards which apply in varying levels of adherence with the local populace on an individual level. It's like the world is this vast organism with many intricate and complex parts interacting with each other on billions of individual contexts on an hourly basis.

It's how these next sentences can be seen as grossly offensive, cheerfully endearing, or downright confusing depending on the culture you exist in...

I wonder whether or not that **** loves her pussy.
Would you mind sticking this fag in your fanny?

I'm curious about the nature of your behavior in this thread. Identifying that "Patriarchy" is nebulous language or that social sciences are soft sciences is not a shocking revelation to anyone, so I don't get where this "drop the mic" attitude comes from. Should we just not discuss diverse social and cultural phenomena unless they present in a measurable fashion?

It's a human problem being addressed in a most despicable way which ends up harming men. Why would i support this? Why would i team up with activism which is carried out in a way which considers men acceptable collateral damage? Either these activists don't give a shit about men or are ludicrously incompetent. In either case if I want to help men they would be the last one to team up with.

Ho ho holy cow. Okay, I uh...misjudged your stance on this issue. We don't...really...have any common grounds for discussion. We should probably just wave from a distance and carry on our separate ways. My apologies.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Trying to frame every single inequality under "patriarchy" is quite questionable.

But that's the beauty of the theory; you can blame anything and everything on it!

To many women getting custody of their kids? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy supports the sexist notion that women are better care givers then men.
To many men getting custody of their kids? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy wants men to have full dominance over their families.
Men can sit anywhere they like? Patriarchy, because in Patriarchy men dominate every space they exist in.
Men can't sit next to kids on airplanes? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy supports Rape Culture!
Men's problems not being taken seriously? Patriarchy, because in a Patriarchy you have to man up.
Women's problems not being take seriously? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy doesn't care about women.
Fluid dynamics a hard nut to crack? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy frames science in the eyes of men's rigidity.
Rockets look like dicks? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy wants everything to look like a dick.
Gender segregated sports? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy claims men are stronger than women.
Believe in Patriarchy? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy is obvious like that.
Don't believe in Patriarchy? Patriarchy, because Patriarchy is unseen like that.

Now for a real challenge... got a flat tire? Patriarchy... because Patriarchy called it a "jack", which is obviously sexist because it infers "males" in the repair of the problem, which is a hole in the tire and women are synonymous with holes, and women aren't taught how to change tires because Patriarchy doesn't want women to be self sufficient. It's also a trap that predators use to lure women out of their cars which supports Rape culture.

Bam! Nailed it! Come on; give me another!

I do not think you realize how much Patriarchy has actually shaped your culture and society. I come from a Matriarchy (where men take the woman's name, are the primary property holders and women are primarily the ones in charge of business and the economy), and I had quite a rude awakening when it came to understanding western society due to this. Although you are intentionally being facetious, differences in Patriarchy vs Matriarchy are intertwined into every aspect of society and relationships.

In western patriarchy, for example, the women are expected to stay home with the children and the men to work and provide for their families. In my matriarchal culture however, child care was a part of work and women primarily took care of young children AND were the primary ones responsible for trade and the economy. However, when the children grew past nursing stage, although western society seems to find this strange, Two spirit transgendered male to females are who takes care of the children while the mothers worked. Two spirits were considered to be exceptional teachers and caregivers and are who traditionally educated and raised the tribes children often considered to be superior care givers than either just males or females. Two spirits were never shamed or abused in our culture, instead they were considered "gifted" and treated as celebrities.

Men could sit wherever they like, so could women there was never "men go here women go here" nonsense at all in our matriarchy, that is just seems as really weird. Who came up with the idea that people should and should not " sit" somewhere?! It seems so absurd. Sports were not segregated, everyone competes against everyone and no one was excluded. In my tribes culture, there were no " women sports" or "men sports" there were activities and anyone male or female that wishes to do so participates. That separation is indeed a patriarchal idea. Of course there were things that women primarily do and men primarily do, but no one ever would tell a man or woman they could not do something, instead it was always encouraged for you to follow your dreams regardless of your sex. The views of sex are also quite strange in Patriarchy where sex is something that is " hidden" where in Our tribe sometimes it was performed on stage in front of the entire tribe in ceremony and considered a natural and beautiful part of life rather than hiding and shaming people for it.

Despite the idea that people think matriarchy is nonexistent, that is not the case at all for those who are unaware:
"The Hopis are organized into groups consisting of related clans. The society is matriarchal, with women owning the property and heading the families."
http://history.howstuffworks.com/native-american-history/hopi-indians.htm

EDIT: People in western society are the only ones who told me I could not do something because "I was a girl", that does not exist in Matriarchy at all. No one is told they cannot do something " because they are a girl" or " because they are a boy" except maybe a boy being told he cannot give birth because it is physically impossible for him to do so.

 

[deathbydeath]

I always love when I read through the comments and I see "Checkmate Feminist" like they just caught the movement with their pants down. Then they get torn a new one by people telling them what feminism actually is. Kinda makes me laugh every time.

Feminism "is" nothing. Everybody tends to have their own idea of what the movement is or trying to do to the point where the word is useless in all but the most general terms. As far as semantics go, feminism is the biggest clusterfuck since literally.

OP; Hooray for men's rights. This reminds me of a scene from The League tv show on FX, where Jenny defeats her husband Kevin in one of their games. She was talking so much trash to him that their daughter called the cops and told them her mother was beating her father (plus Kevin had gotten a black eye earlier in the show). When the police arrived, Jenny and Kevin thought they were strippers (a prank gone wrong from earlier in the episode) and Jenny was bragging about how much she had beaten her husband. As the police were taking her away Kevin realizes what's going on and chases after them, shouting "Wait, she didn't abuse me! I'm the man!". That scene always makes me laugh.

 

[wulf3n]

The first half of the video shows no such thing.

Did we watch the same video? The majority of those who confronted then man when he was abusing the girl were women! If that's not standing up to the patriarchy I don't know what is.

snip

I get what you're saying, but it still doesn't change the fact that right now feminism isn't doing much to help men if anything at all.

You're assuming that men defending women isn't part of the patriarchy. Women being lesser, and thus requiring men to defend them is a big part of the patriarchy.

I was talking about the women who were defending the woman.

Taking your point more generally, though, yes, it's a big problem. People tend to be a lot more interested in having their rights fought for, than others. It's not so much an issue of feminism being there to support women at the expense of men, but that it's often an issue of feminism being run by women who are white, straight middle class cis able-bodied and so on, at the expense of women who aren't.

I agree, which is also why I think it's ok for a group to only target specific issues, just as long as they don't say they're helping everyone when they're not.

Dismantling the patriarchy benefits everyone, no matter what their gender. Using, for example, racism while doing so, only benefits a given value of "everyone".

I don't doubt, I just don't believe that all the problems that are attributed to the patriarchy is a result of the patriarchy.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I don't doubt, I just don't believe that all the problems that are attributed to the patriarchy is a result of the patriarchy.

Well..."the patriarchy", such as it's often employed in this context, is just a loose blanket term thrown over a variety of diverse cultural/social phenomena, with the intention of tenuously linking them for the purposes of analysis and discussion. There isn't really any 1/0 yes/no method you can employ to determine if something is "caused by patriarchy" or "not caused by patriarchy". Patriarchy isn't a guy that hangs out at the corner of 1st and Main that we can go accost about all the shit he's been causing.

Patriarchy is like "Alternative Music". Is the term broad enough to occasionally find itself near the point of uselessness? Yeah. Does that mean we don't know what someone means when they bring it up? Nope. Does it therefore have some merit as a talking point in discussion? Sure, if everyone isn't too busy tripping over themselves to be the smartest guy in the room by tearing the curtain off it and demonstrating that it's not a measurable statistic. We can't point and say "society is 67% patriarchal today".

 

[generals3]

It's a human problem being addressed in a most despicable way which ends up harming men. Why would i support this? Why would i team up with activism which is carried out in a way which considers men acceptable collateral damage? Either these activists don't give a shit about men or are ludicrously incompetent. In either case if I want to help men they would be the last one to team up with.

Ho ho holy cow. Okay, I uh...misjudged your stance on this issue. We don't...really...have any common grounds for discussion. We should probably just wave from a distance and carry on our separate ways. My apologies.

Well i did express myself a tad too "passionately" at first (which is why i edited out, but too late apparently). "Despicable" might have been pushing it. But yeah we may have a hard time finding common grounds.

Although i do want to point out your latter analogy with "alternative music" is quite broken. The reason why is because "Alternative Music" has never meant anything precise. "Patriarchy" however has always been a very well defined word. And at first, during the early days of feminism, the fight against the patriarchy also made sense based on its actual meaning. After all society was very patriarchal. However instead of realizing that fight was done and address other issues as the separate issues they were they kept the term and just expanded the definition. Which is quite devious as it links all these issues with the ancient fight against male dominance. And this while they are clearly separate issues. After all if they weren't than here in Belgium none of those issues would exist anymore.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Well i did express myself a tad too "passionately" at first (which is why i edited out, but too late apparently). "Despicable" might have been pushing it. But yeah we may have a hard time finding common grounds.

Although i do want to point out your latter analogy with "alternative music" is quite broken. The reason why is because "Alternative Music" has never meant anything precise. "Patriarchy" however has always been a very well defined word. And at first, during the early days of feminism, the fight against the patriarchy also made sense based on its actual meaning. After all society was very patriarchal. However instead of realizing that fight was done and address other issues as the separate issues they were they kept the term and just expanded the definition. Which is quite devious as it links all these issues with the ancient fight against male dominance. And this while they are clearly separate issues. After all if they weren't than here in Belgium none of those issues would exist anymore.

Ah. So you did. My apologies for quoting your first draft.

You are correct that the definition of the word has blurred and expanded. I disagree entirely that the cause of this expansion was "deviousness", and I find the suggestion quite comedic on the face. It's suggestive of a level of hostility and paranoia that I think is worth reflecting on, for your own peace of mind if nothing else. And I genuinely mean that in the nicest way possible.

 

[generals3]

Ah. So you did. My apologies for quoting your first draft.

You are correct that the definition of the word has blurred and expanded. I disagree entirely that the cause of this expansion was "deviousness", and I find the suggestion quite comedic on the face. It's suggestive of a level of hostility and paranoia that I think is worth reflecting on, for your own peace of mind if nothing else. And I genuinely mean that in the nicest way possible.

You may think it's comedic but I don't. Since there are clear efforts which can be observed that are aimed at preventing the fight against men's issues among feminist movements I have no hard time believing that the "top brass" was devious enough to make conscious word choices as to misguide the masses and even their own followers. This type of tactic isn't rare and used by plenty of activist/political movements.

But in the end if it isn't deviousness than it is incompetence. Because the results are there. If it wasn't to ensure as little effort is spent on men's issues (as to maximize efforts on women's issues) than a lot of the actions made by feminists show a real lack of competence when it comes to tackling social issues. I mean surely you can agree with me that always presenting things in a one sided manner and always demanding for more help for one side does make it look like the other side is unaffected? Isn't that reinforcing those stereotypes you say are a consequence of the patriarchy? Wouldn't that make feminism a pawn of the patriarchy? Wouldn't me fighting the patriarchy than also de-facto mean i should fight feminism?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You may think it's comedic but I don't. Since there are clear efforts which can be observed that are aimed at preventing the fight against men's issues among feminist movements I have no hard time believing that the "top brass" was devious enough to make conscious word choices as to misguide the masses and even their own followers. This type of tactic isn't rare and used by plenty of activist/political movements.

But in the end if it isn't deviousness than it is incompetence. Because the results are there. If it wasn't to ensure as little effort is spent on men's issues (as to maximize efforts on women's issues) than a lot of the actions made by feminists show a real lack of competence when it comes to tackling social issues. I mean surely you can agree with me that always presenting things in a one sided manner and always demanding for more help for one side does make it look like the other side is unaffected? Isn't that reinforcing those stereotypes you say are a consequence of the patriarchy? Wouldn't that make feminism a pawn of the patriarchy? Wouldn't me fighting the patriarchy than also de-facto mean i should fight feminism?

The TOP BRASS? Your quote marks are insufficient shield against the silliness of that assertion. You are tilting at windmills, ser.

I do not agree with you that there are even SIDES here. Feminism =/= gender war. I most certainly do not agree that anyone "always" presents a particular message, either. Third wave feminism can't even get out of its own ass long enough to figure out what feminism is, let alone put forward a concentrated effort to "damage men".

You will always be able to find outspoken radicals who say or think hateful things. There will ALWAYS be fuel for a confirmation bias. All the self-identified feminists (male and female) that I know and interact with in my day to day life are perfectly sane, and care deeply and genuinely about both male and female issues. The only places where this dialogue tends to become polarized and shrill is on internet message boards or view-scumming blogs looking to leverage outrage into page hits.

 

[generals3]

The TOP BRASS? Your quote marks are insufficient shield against the silliness of that assertion. You are tilting at windmills, ser.

So you're going to pretend there are not feminist activists with more influence than others? That certain women's rights movements don't have spokesmen or leaders which make up the speeches/agendas of said organizations? Surely you aren't going to try to make me believe that all feminist activists are on the same level of influence/power?

I do not agree with you that there are even SIDES here. Feminism =/= gender war. I most certainly do not agree that anyone "always" presents a particular message, either. Third wave feminism can't even get out of its own ass long enough to figure out what feminism is, let alone put forward a concentrated effort to "damage men".

I beg to differ. The "war" is being fought right now. When people who are trying to help men get bullied i'd say something is wrong. When politicians are being influenced as not to pass more inclusive rape laws for men (because we sure wouldn't want the statistics not to be as skewed?) i'd say there is something wrong. When the alleged minister of "equality" was urging the police forces to give a special treatment to women victim of DV and this while they're already "advantaged" compare to male victims i'd say something is wrong. When all the Belgian women's right movements advocate for sexist voting (telling us we should consciously vote for women, i guess tits > program/competence) i'd say something is wrong.

You will always be able to find outspoken radicals who say or think hateful things. There will ALWAYS be fuel for a confirmation bias. All the self-identified feminists (male and female) that I know and interact with in my day to day life are perfectly sane, and care deeply and genuinely about both male and female issues. The only places where this dialogue tends to become polarized and shrill is on internet message boards or view-scumming blogs looking to leverage outrage into page hits.

This isn't about saying/doing hateful things. This is about doing things which ultimately screws men. It could be hate towards men, a total lack of care or incompetence. And in the case of followers a most definite misguided belief based on disinformation. And that's actually what annoys me the most. In the end a women's activist movement for women doesn't bother me that much. But when it has the guts to claim they're trying to help men while none of their actions support that.... Well than i feel less than pleased. It's like a communist claiming he has the best interest of the top 1% in mind.

And i have a little challenge. Can you name me actions undertaken by feminists to help men? And i mean concrete actions. No "they're fighting the patriarchy which harms men too" answer.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Stuff

Well, my friend, again we're back to not having much to discuss. I hear that you feel you inhabit a world wherein a desperate gender war is being waged and women are...through malevolence or stupidity...actively oppressing men. There is absolutely nothing in my life nor the environments I inhabit that support or reflect this, so we cannot discuss this from the standpoint of a shared reality. Without a common ground that basic, we're just going to be talking past one another.

 

[generals3]

Stuff

Well, my friend, again we're back to not having much to discuss. I hear that you feel you inhabit a world wherein a desperate gender war is being waged and women are...through malevolence or stupidity...actively oppressing men. There is absolutely nothing in my life nor the environments I inhabit that support or reflect this, so we cannot discuss this from the standpoint of a shared reality. Without a common ground that basic, we're just going to be talking past one another.

Well, than let's start with building that common ground. As i added in a edit: "Can you name me actions undertaken by feminists to help men? And i mean concrete actions. No "they're fighting the patriarchy which harms men too" answers."

 

[WeepingAngels]

Stuff

Well, my friend, again we're back to not having much to discuss. I hear that you feel you inhabit a world wherein a desperate gender war is being waged and women are...through malevolence or stupidity...actively oppressing men. There is absolutely nothing in my life nor the environments I inhabit that support or reflect this, so we cannot discuss this from the standpoint of a shared reality. Without a common ground that basic, we're just going to be talking past one another.

Well, than let's start with building that common ground. As i added in a edit: "Can you name me actions undertaken by feminists to help men? And i mean concrete actions. No "they're fighting the patriarchy which harms men too" answers."

I have been waiting for the answer to this question but I doubt it will be answered. A similar question "What rights do men have that women do not?" is also never answered when asked.