Return Of Kings celebrate 'making The Force Awakens lose $4.2 mil'
- Thread starter WindKnight
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Pick Up Artist, and Men Going Their Own Way.LegendaryGamer0 said:
The former espouse a 'game' that they claim guarantees any man can sleep with any woman they want. Generally involves, at the lowest level, 'negging', and goes all the way up to sexual assault, harassment, mental abuse, coercion and rape.
The latter have sworn off women, but also decided they must at every opportunity remind everyone that women are the source of evil, and the world at large would be better place if they didn't have any rights.
Sounds less like Men Going Their Own Way and more like Men Having a Public Flouncy Snit.Windknight said:
Not entirely.LegendaryGamer0 said:
They tend to fetishise women from cultures who are stereotyped as being 'meek and submissive'.
Don't believe everything you are being told here. I am not an expert, but as far as I know, the MGTOW philosophy can be described as the belief that our western society is largely gynocentric, and that many of it's institutions, like marriage, perpetuate that gynocentrism at the expense of men, and should therefore be boycotted for the time being. Atleast until family law ec. is changed to be more fair towards men and fathers. Some MGTOW don't even care about that any more, they just want to live their lives without being bothered with traditonal views of what a man ought to be or do.LegendaryGamer0 said:
If that is so, you might ask, then why are they constantly trying to convince other men to join their ranks and preach about how evil women are? Firstly, we don't know how many silent MGTOW there are, because they don't engage in the discussion at all. The only MGTOW we are aware of are necessarily the outspoken ones. Secondly, I do think that telling other men that you don't have to obtain your worth as a man from female approval is a valuable lession to be taught to men, the young ones in particular.
Windknights hyperbolic horseshit about how MGTOW supposedly don't want women to have any rights in order to make the world a better place is just propaganda with little base in reality, trying to paint the MGTOW movement, and in extension, the somewhat related MRAs, in a bad light.
If you, or anyone, really want to know what MGTOW or the MRM is all about, check out their videos on youtube. If they are as bad as their deriders describe them, you will surely be able to see it for yourself. More likely though, you will be pleasantly surprised.
If by pleasantly surprised you mean laughing hysterically, followed with a growing pit of horror in ones stomach that there is a sizable ***** of people who buy into the terrible propaganda spouted by MRAs, MGTOW, Redpillers, and PUAs. The last positive experience I had with a "men's rights" group was with a group focused on general gender equality. That same group had to drop the "men's rights" identifier because the voices of the "MRM" are all pretty much the same as A Voice for Men, a place known to spout homophobia, transphobia, and often blatant racism.one squirrel said:
It also doesn't help that places like A Voice for Men, Return of Kings, the various MRM, MGTOW, PUA, and "redpill" social media outlets blast horrible toxic masculinity. Things like the mythical "alpha male", the general superiority of men over women, and spout things like "incel", or "involuntary celibacy". Especially in that last case, with groups of men talking like women owe it to them to have sex with them, because reasons. Then these sorts go off and call other guys who don't buy their message things like; "sad betas", "land whales", and "manginas" who "fake feminism to get sex". Yeah, that's not a toxic movement at all, that isn't on massive insecurity in gender identity and sexuality.
On a side note; recently there was a hashtag called "#MasculinitySoFragile" if I recall correctly. It was based on making fun of products marked towards men that were comically overly "masculine", as in not really masculine at all, just playing at the idea. Like a shower loofah that was designed to look like a hand grenade. How did "The Manosphere" respond to this hash tag? With overt hostility, taking it as some sort of personal insult and missing the entire point of the joke. Which just further backs up the idea that "The Manosphere" clings to personal insecurity.
Worse still is that the "MRM", or "MRHM" will go out of it's way to attempt to shut down programs and shelters designed to help men. While there a few isolated incidents of feminist groups doing the same thing, "MRAs" will do it to "prevent the pussification of western men". Then after going out of their way to shut down a resource that was supposed to help men, they point fingers blaming "evil feminists" for the fact there are so few resources for men. Then what is it they do help men? Continue to point fingers at "evil feminists", "gyoncenterism", and "the matriarchy that oppresses men". Yeah color me unimpressed with the entire "Manosphere", because I've yet to see a single instance of any of them doing anything productive to help men, instead going to absurd lengths to be counter productive.
Also for the "silent MGTOW", well considering that I know lots of guys who are happy in the single life and don't identify as "MGTOWs", instead saying they're just bachelors, or single dudes... Um... I'm not sure I buy the existence of "silent MGTOW", because it seems that the entire fiber of the "MGTOW" identity is to sit around complaining about how awful women are. That is how awful women that they don't want any relationship with are, which really sounds like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Edit: Although when it comes to the "silent MGTOW", proving their existence is proving a negative, because they're not vocal about being "MGTOW". So any discussion there wouldn't really amount to anything more than empty speculation. So the only "MGTOW" set I can actually see is the one that less "goes their own way" and more sits stubbornly in place complaining about women.
Why does that even need to be a thing?KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
It seems a bit stupid and mean, if one can recognize that these people are insecure why would anyone go out and mock them, aside from trolls trying to work up a shitstorm.
Though I will admit a hand grenade loofah is pretty funny
Also because I've heard that phrase a couple of times but never had it clarified what in the blazes is toxic masculinity?
Its basically when traditional aspects of masculinity are encouraged in a harmful manner.cleric of the order said:
Say, the idea that a man must be the best always or he is pathetic causes a friendly competition to get mean spirited, with someone willing to seriously hurt someone else to make sure he wins.
Or that a man who cries or expresses emotions is weak, and he should bottle up his emotions and not deal with them properly.
Or that a Woman is better than a man in something makes the man emasculated or pathetic because men are always supposed to be better.
Its something that hurts both and men and women. There's nothing wrong with being masculine or a 'real man'. But when people are encouraged to engage in attitudes and behaviors that are harmful to themselves or others to be 'a real man', that's when it gets toxic.
Well they didn't go out of their way to piss off the "Manosphere", they did the whole hashtag because they thought that it's funny such products exist. Things like a "Man Calendar", like why the hell do we have to gender every last little thing. The "Manosphere" jumped on it with ferocity, not getting the joke that it's silly that such things even exist in the first place, because apparently guys are afraid to buy gender neutral stuff anymore.cleric of the order said:
Actually that last bit plays into an explanation as to what toxic masculinity is. Basically the concept revolves around toxic behaviors and attitudes that are specifically masculine in nature. One example is that anything even remotely feminine is absolutely the most awful thing and men should never partake of such things, which is why guys can't wear hosiery, skirts, dresses, and cosmetics. Another prime example is when a guy shows emotions that aren't anger, frustration, or rage, then you call him a pussy, something this comic sums up pretty well.(Edit)Changed the link so people can read the blurb at the bottom under the comic and transcript. [http://www.robot-hugs.com/emotions/] More examples include calling a male friend or acquaintance "gay", or similar when they say something nice to a friend, or when they're in an emotional state. Basically things like that and more that qualify as exclusion from a person being able to express themselves authentically, by using negative masculine stereotyping. It also plays both ways, as the comic I linked illustrates quite handily. Basically toxic masculinity is reinforcement of negative masculine stereotypes, what a lot of people don't get is that this is often used to emotionally stunt boys and men. At the same time it's also used to limit how women and girls can express themselves, usually by the guise of what's acceptably "feminine", if a woman or girl crosses the line, she gets shut up with nasty negative language.
Reminds me of the white supremacists who were less than pleased with the character of Finn.
I'm sure Disney will lose sleep over the thought of losing hundreds of dollars.
I'm sure Disney will lose sleep over the thought of losing hundreds of dollars.
What's going on here?
*looks into it a little*
"Men's Rights"
OH
*leaves thread*
[sub][sub]Ignorance can sometimes be bliss.[/sub][/sub]
*looks into it a little*
"Men's Rights"
OH
*leaves thread*
[sub][sub]Ignorance can sometimes be bliss.[/sub][/sub]
Windknight said:
that does clear something things up, at least in my neck of the woods it seems folks that fall under that spectrum are closer to the spike area in mtg (that guy/powergamer/tournynut in other Tabletop Gamess).KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
and I suppose my brother would actually be an example of this i suppose, as he is volatile and stands around with a chip on his shoulder.
But what separates the applied concept of this within a person from mental duress and poor mental health. Because as explained to me it seems toxic masculinity is more of a social/cultural theorem and I'll admit conceptually I can't really seem to separate it from very traditional gender roles. It would in theory be the physical and intellectual product of cultural gender mores and could be rightfully pigeon holed under there. then again I'm not very lucid at the moment.
There is the issue of the emotional matter is an issue of interesting personal load for myself.
Now I can just be (and given my psychological background probably am) an outlier to this but I've found the opposite is true.
Not that I am supposed to be unemotional, rather I am not emotional enough or my displays of emotions are not inline with the society displays of emotion.
I can't cry.
Not even when i was a baby
I wouldn't cry over that fact, and frankly I think it's good riddance to infantile reflexes.
I often find people who push that angle misguided because of my own experiences and I worry that it might do some general harm to some folks that do have problem expressing emotions.
Though the majority would likely autistics, who as a group aren't really concerned with the impressions of NTs, myself included. "if you've met one you've MET ONE" not withstanding.
These seems to be the same with most of the male fellows I know, mind you in general they are largely aberrant, much less than i am but far more then your average frat house fellow.
I don't know how you could make that negative.LegendaryGamer0 said:
But it does seem the general idea
Also wouldn't that make it hyper masculinity (I'll admit I've heard this phrase only a couple of times and running on contextual intuition here, which is never a good understanding of the concept itself).
For a topic everyone seems to disagree with the author's statement, it sure has sparked discussion.
Anyway, MRA or not, if the statement is debated on it's own- seperate from the identity of the author, it may help show if it has any credence or not.
- If the author has an axe to grind, there is a chance he has lied, or he has lied and accidentally hit upon a truth.
- If the author is attempting to state what he believes to be a fact, he is either correct in that belief (sometimes despite the reasoning behind it being wrong), or incorrect as he does not have all information.
In other words, you can discuss the topic without the identity of the author, and get a much clearer picturer- as whatever the author's attitude it still boils down to: Is that statement true or false?
Anyway, MRA or not, if the statement is debated on it's own- seperate from the identity of the author, it may help show if it has any credence or not.
- If the author has an axe to grind, there is a chance he has lied, or he has lied and accidentally hit upon a truth.
- If the author is attempting to state what he believes to be a fact, he is either correct in that belief (sometimes despite the reasoning behind it being wrong), or incorrect as he does not have all information.
In other words, you can discuss the topic without the identity of the author, and get a much clearer picturer- as whatever the author's attitude it still boils down to: Is that statement true or false?
Well I think you missed the point, it's not just about being able to cry, though that can be a part of, but the overarching idea is that many emotional expressions are forbidden based on gender. That said, it's not just about emotions, toxic gender expression is also pushed on behavior, presentation, and attitudes that people are expected to hold. It's why men are encouraged heavily to be aggressive and competitive to the point of outright hostility. It's why women are allowed to wear men's clothing, but the opposite is forbidden. When it comes to expression of femininity in men, it's seen as making the man in question far less of a man, thus there must be something wrong with him. It limits a woman's ability to express most forms of masculinity, any assertive behavior is seen as that woman being "bossy" or "bitchy"; however, nonthreatening masculine behavior in women is seen as "cute" and "sexy". It also contributes to really unhealthy sexual attitudes that people hold, one of the worst is that it's pretty much socially ingrained into men that women exist for male sexual gratification. Like there are a lot of lesbian women who have a really unhealthy image of their sexuality, because when they first identified their feelings all they had to look to was one thing. Basically prepackaged images of lesbian sexuality designed for male consumption.cleric of the order said:
Another thing that toxic masculinity does, specifically in this case, is makes it okay to be dismissive to women in the professional setting. This is what leads to men thinking it's okay to interrupt their female coworkers in meetings at work, or dismissing a woman's technical prowess. It's also why some menial tasks like taking notes at meetings, or cleaning break rooms are expected of women in the work place, as in women are expected to do the free volunteer work. This also goes for emotional labor like how women are expected to plan and set up birthday parties, retirement parties, and get cards to pass around the office. That's free work that isn't even asked for by male coworkers, it's expected as if the men are entitled to reap the benefits of the emotional labor done by their female coworkers.
Here's the thing, people are tempted to put this down to "gender typical behavior" as if it's purely determined by genitals. That's a problem, there are plenty of cisgender men who are feminine, there are plenty of cisgender women who are masculine, because people aren't these binary things that fill a set of check boxes based on genitals. In the social and cultural contexts certain behaviors become a demand on a person, meaning that people begin to get ostracized, marginalized, and outright discriminated against for not fitting all those little check boxes. I'm not even talking about trans folk, but when a guy is feminine and gets labeled as gay, or a woman who is masculine gets labeled as a "dyke". People think it's innocent too, but it can lead to people being bullied, or even seriously hurt, or killed.
The thing is because males have been the dominate social force through out most of human history, they benefit most from conforming, but are at a huge disadvantage for not conforming. Women have more freedom, but often get shoved into fetishized stereotypes of how they express outside the typical ideal of "femininity". Toxic masculinity also enforces the idea that any femininity is weakness, that a man should be ashamed for showing it and that women are lesser people for being female. Toxic masculinity is in this way extremely fragile, where any remote association with femininity instantly destroys the masculinity, which leads to, men especially, responding with extreme hostility to any femininity. Anyways, I digress, the point is that toxic masculinity damages everyone and putting it down to "well it's just natural" is actually saying: "Well it doesn't effect me directly, that means it's not a problem." People lean on that excuse a lot to justify treating others and not doing anything to help make things better.
That is i my habit, people have pointed out I have a problem with that in general. It's probably a mixture of mind blindness and how my thought process works, which is why I asked for clarifying. I like to understand pinecone's reproductive system to understand the confir majority forest so to speak.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
On the other hand, the emotional things was just an issue i find vexing. I'll admit I been on a couple public rants on the nature of emotion and I am admittedly rather glad I don't take embarrassment from those sorts of things.
This is where I'm stumbling on to s certain extent.
Now I understand the end product is chauvinism because this is plainly chauvinism.
That means at the very least this is the progenitor of those actions.
one of the things I was fixated on was how does the concept of toxic masculinity differ from general cultural expectations because as far as my thought process works it seems to fit in between the act of chauvinism, and cultural gender roles in of in itself.
Or is it the other way round, rather that culture is the metaphorical music player and T.M.(tm) is the track
There is also the matter of how it it differs from hyper masculinity because, to be frank all of this language i see coming out of the intersectual-conflict theorists is some what impenetrable, much like their Marxist forbears but cropped a bit deeper as class warfare takes a symbolic form of race relations and gender relations. I like to get anchor points to use as a machette, and if you've ever lived in a densely forested place you'd like had, you'd be very much appreciative of that overgrown kukri
I'll definitely agree that genetic determinism is bunk but I'd count pure social constructionist theory to also be bunk. there has to be a limit on either side, nobody can be certain at this moment how far. I've always theorized if you take the social constructionist theory back enough you have to find the initial point culture spawned and I would believe, rationally that you'd find that those would be inline with survival needs and expanding outwards like a cancer (many of which i agree are several thousand years outdated).
I would be very surprised if anyone mainstream believed this, I hope we could find some comfort in that.
I don't know if I entirely agree.
Now within the confines of your logic certainly, but there is the matter of children.
The childhood scene I remember, has young kids being very stringent in the enforcement of the gender roles, though cooties, "boys don't do that", "girls don't do that" sort of stuff. Now the question remains that if accepting this t be true, is it a product of how young children think and work or of primary socializes (or whatever that was).
If it is the young children then it would explain why the grow out of it and if it isn't then there is no explanation of why they do, if they do.