Return Of Kings celebrate 'making The Force Awakens lose $4.2 mil'

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

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.

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.

I find the emotional aspects vexing, but for different reasons, because there is basically a demand to bury one's emotions, especially if you happen to be male. Not only is it unhealthy, but people dismiss it as childishness, which is doubly insulting because the people who do that also tend to agree that women are more emotional. That means people tend to infintalize women a lot, you see this crop up even in general conversation a lot too. Women are often referred to as girls, adult women, and this is supposed to be endearing, on the other hand it's a grievous insult to refer to a man as a boy.

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

Well you hit the nail square on the head in the first respect, it is chauvinism, which is actually a by product of toxic masculine expression. Toxic masculinity can be partially narrowed down to an antisocial expression of masculinity. The other part is(and I'm gonna catch bunch of crap for saying this) how males are expected to act in a patriarchal society, where they have the majority of social power and end up competing heavily over it. The big thing about the concept is that toxic masculinity isn't what you'd really want to call actual masculinity, it's more a caricature woven from negative stereotypes of masculinity.

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 get where you're coming from there. The problem is that gender balance is a hugely inter-sectional issue, that's something a lot of feminists forget too. The major difference between hyper masculinity and toxic masculinity is as far as I've been able to tell actually not all that complicated. Hyper masculinity is more about being the epitome of masculinity, essentially the rough and tumble super man's man, which it self can be positive. Toxic masculinity on the other hand is more about pigeonholing people in to predefined and very limited gendered boxes, the end result is using negative stereotyping to do it. The other part is enforcing those negative stereotypes to keep people in the narrowly defined gender box they're deemed to be in. That's one reason I believe transphobia is so rampant and homophobia spawns from transphobia, because it's definitely breaking gender rules to be attracted to a member of the same sex.

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've always been a proponent of it being both nature and nurture, but a lot of what you'd call our modern concept of gender is far different from what you'd find 20,000-30,000 or more years ago. We've altered the concept of gender a lot in just the past century in the western world, so it's not a stretch to say it's a constantly evolving concept. Hell in the 1950's and 60's things actually took a back slide as women left the work force to pursue family life, which goes against the trends up to that point and modern first world trends.

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.

I would be very surprised if anyone mainstream believed this, I hope we could find some comfort in that.

Quite a few mainstream people believe it still to this day, most with any political ambition will keep their mouths shut about it, but it's not an uncommon assumption. Even today in the first world, there are quite a few people who believe that femininity and being feminine at the least is a sign of weakness. Especially if it's a man expressing femininity.

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.

Well here's the thing, children don't generally out grow it, they just start doing it differently as they get older and social interaction between the sexes become more necessary. That's both for reasons of forming social bonds and for biological imperatives like reproduction. But as a case study, look at how trans folk, drag performers, and male cross dressers tend to be treated. In the case of cross dressers who are men it's generally put to social shaming and bullying levels of "teasing". For drag performers they can at least leave the drag on their chosen stage and some of their peers might give them crap, but not as much. For trans folk, well considering that I know none who weren't at least made homeless for coming out, many of whom were also beaten, and quite a few had to go back in the closet and stomach beatings to keep a roof over their heads. Many more have much worse stories they've shared, like being raped and having people attempt to murder them for being trans. That should tell you about how stringent the enforcement of gender roles is, because not only are we subject to that kind of treatment, it's also legal to discriminate against us in employment and housing, even in places like Australia, Canada, the US and Europe. That's basically all of the first world as far as I know, where it's legal to discriminate against trans folk in necessary services, many places this includes discrimination in hospitals and by medical professionals and it's basically legal. That's some pretty stringent gender rule enforcement right there, because defying the rules of gender can literally lead to homelessness and death just by discriminatory behavior.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

For a topic everyone seems to disagree with the author's statement, it sure has sparked discussion.

You're forgetting the website you're on, and the general community you are in. Anything with even the slightest whiff of "gender politics" around it is virtually guaranteed at least a three page thread. You could spray paint the word "Feminism" on a dead toad and post it here and you'd provoke vigorous debate. It has nothing to do with the "author's statement", in this case Return of Kings showing themselves to be functionally incapable of math and humility.

 

[one squirrel]

***snip***
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.***snip***

Do you actually have a source for that or did you make it up?

 

[contagonist]

https://twitter.com/ReturnOfKings/status/681520510937636864

So after they 'exposed' The Force Awakens as 'SJW propaganda', they believe they have cost the Force Awakens $4.2 million in lost ticket sales.

Great victory dudes, I'm sure Disney will really miss that $4.2 million from the billion dollars + they've already made.

(changed title as ROK is technically not an MRA site)

oh boy

Star Wars: The Force Awakens will shatter every box office record slightly slower

good job

 

[Jeivar]

Can someone... explain these people to me? A movie has a woman as a main character and a black fellow as the main secondary character... and this is somehow... bad. Somehow. How does this come at the expense of men, and so needs to be boycotted? Have these cretins just reached such a persecution mentality that any appearance of people other than straight, white men in media (mostly owned by straight, white men) is yet more proof of the campaign to... (???)

No matter which way I turn these kinds of things I can't make any sense of them. But then I guess I have basic reason and decency.

 

[Vault101]

I'm sure the Disney execs are crying puddles of tears into the black marble tables in the boardrooms

PUDDLES I SAY

[spoiler/][/spoiler]

Totaly respectable and not misogynistic. Totally a movement you can respe- (burst out laughing)

*hgggnnnn* oh man I think I just got gayer

 

[Thaluikhain]

Can someone... explain these people to me? A movie has a woman as a main character and a black fellow as the main secondary character... and this is somehow... bad. Somehow. How does this come at the expense of men, and so needs to be boycotted? Have these cretins just reached such a persecution mentality that any appearance of people other than straight, white men in media (mostly owned by straight, white men) is yet more proof of the campaign to... (???)

More or less, yeah. They've grown up seeing it as normal and thus right that TV and movies are only ever about people like them, other characters showing up are strange and alien. People also tend to greatly overestimate the amount when they are used to near zero as well.

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.

Very little difference. When Sarkeesian used the phrase, she meant those elements of masculinity (as viewed/determined by society) which are toxic. So that's cultural expectations to do with some idea of maleness that's hurting people.

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.

I would be very surprised if anyone mainstream believed this, I hope we could find some comfort in that.

Unfortunately, it's still very much a thing. It's much quieter than it used to be, but that's not to say it's been fully dealt with. You still hear phrases like "man up" or "girly"/"like a girl".

 

[Groxnax]

Return Of Kings?

Never heard of it but it sounds like another group of jerks that should be smote off the face of the Earth.

*sigh* oh great, just what we don't need, another group of morons spewing out stupid crap.

 

[cleric of the order]

I find the emotional aspects vexing, but for different reasons, because there is basically a demand to bury one's emotions, especially if you happen to be male.

We live in fundamentally different worlds, which in retrospect isn't all that surprising give my place on the spectrum

Well you hit the nail square on the head in the first respect, it is chauvinism, which is actually a by product of toxic masculine expression. Toxic masculinity can be partially narrowed down to an antisocial expression of masculinity. The other part is(and I'm gonna catch bunch of crap for saying this) how males are expected to act in a patriarchal society, where they have the majority of social power and end up competing heavily over it. The big thing about the concept is that toxic masculinity isn't what you'd really want to call actual masculinity, it's more a caricature woven from negative stereotypes of masculinity.

okay that remedy my lack of understanding.
well hypothetically, I've been in wrapped in tanglecord testing this idea and why i will not say it is sound enough to aside my fear of heights jumping to it from the presumptions the came before it does not seem much of a leap.

I get where you're coming from there. The problem is that gender balance is a hugely inter-sectional issue, that's something a lot of feminists forget too. The major difference between hyper masculinity and toxic masculinity is as far as I've been able to tell actually not all that complicated. Hyper masculinity is more about being the epitome of masculinity, essentially the rough and tumble super man's man, which it self can be positive. Toxic masculinity on the other hand is more about pigeonholing people in to predefined and very limited gendered boxes,

I want to buy the concept of hyper masculinity a beer now for some odd reason and ask him to help me tile my roof.
that would necessitate that toxic is equal to hyper only until their regards to the feminine is there.
now the repression of one's own anima in such a way makes me raise my admittedly unscientific Jungian eyebrow.

the end result is using negative stereotyping to do it. The other part is enforcing those negative stereotypes to keep people in the narrowly defined gender box they're deemed to be in.

Therein lies the mechanistic explanation but what I have been been mulling over is the ultimate causation of such an effect psychologically.

That's one reason I believe transphobia is so rampant and homophobia spawns from transphobia, because it's definitely breaking gender rules to be attracted to a member of the same sex.

I will have to disagreeing unless you wish to indicate this is an unconscious acknowledgement of dislike for the trans community, which is a whole new load of shit.
Now, why i disagree is, i got family from rural parts of the world and they don't comprehend the former but target the latter. Simply they become aware of a transperson they would go, and spew homophobia because they understand the transperson as a homosexual deviant. not the other way around, probably followed up with assertions of mental illness if true to define it outside of that.
More importantly, you see the folks in Isis, now it's well known they cast homosexuals off roofs and stone them to death for being that but they target them as homosexuals not as trans folk intellectually speaking

Quite a few mainstream people believe it still to this day, most with any political ambition will keep their mouths shut about it, but it's not an uncommon assumption. Even today in the first world, there are quite a few people who believe that femininity and being feminine at the least is a sign of weakness. Especially if it's a man expressing femininity.

Now it still means that there is enough pull by people who are not and that those people that are are by not confident enough to display it only. which is good.

-the trans case study-

I don't really have any words for this

 

[Prepper247]

If it makes them feel good...geez the kind of people out there nowadays.

 

[Lightknight]

Also can someone explain to me what the balls PUA or MGTOW means?

Pick Up Artist, and Men Going Their Own Way.

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.

Regarding the MGTOW, seems like your definition is (may be) way out there in bias land. The general point of MGTOW from what I've seen is that they believe marriage laws vastly benefit women despite the fact that we are now in a society where women can and do earn their own way in the world. So the idea is that unless marriage laws are made fair in light of this reflection that they don't want any part of marriage.

What an outlandish characteristic. Though, I'm not a member or adherent of that group so perhaps you'd be so kind as to enlighten me if I'm incorrect?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Regarding the MGTOW, seems like your definition is (may be) way out there in bias land.

Everyone has a bias.

In fact, MGTOW or whatever they're called would be the single MOST biased party in terms of describing their own characteristics, as they have a higher stake than anyone in promoting their own reputation.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I want to buy the concept of hyper masculinity a beer now for some odd reason and ask him to help me tile my roof.
that would necessitate that toxic is equal to hyper only until their regards to the feminine is there.
now the repression of one's own anima in such a way makes me raise my admittedly unscientific Jungian eyebrow.

The in lies the rub, toxic gender expression requires not only gendering everything, but keeping expression of gender to a narrow set of check boxes based on sex. This is a societal mechanic and it's enforced by peer pressure. No guy wants to be called "gay", or "pussy" for expressing the wrong gendered traits.

Therein lies the mechanistic explanation but what I have been been mulling over is the ultimate causation of such an effect psychologically.

Again the mechanism that enforces such things is peer pressure, it's also used to reinforce social privilege, in this case male social privilege. That makes women different and often the lesser, I mean there is a lot of way's it's expressed and the easiest way to identify this privilege is how women tend to be treated when alone. A single woman without escort gets tons of casual sexual harassment thrown at her, because a woman without a man is seen as an uncontrolled woman, thus a target for sexual advances. That's an expression of male privilege that makes public spaces essentially men's spaces, spaces that women are allowed to pass through, but at the cost of enduring cat calls.

I will have to disagreeing unless you wish to indicate this is an unconscious acknowledgement of dislike for the trans community, which is a whole new load of shit.
Now, why i disagree is, i got family from rural parts of the world and they don't comprehend the former but target the latter. Simply they become aware of a transperson they would go, and spew homophobia because they understand the transperson as a homosexual deviant. not the other way around, probably followed up with assertions of mental illness if true to define it outside of that.
More importantly, you see the folks in Isis, now it's well known they cast homosexuals off roofs and stone them to death for being that but they target them as homosexuals not as trans folk intellectually speaking

It is in part an unconscious expression of disdain, fear, and loathing for trans folk, mostly it's rooted in ignorance, but it's also heavily rooted in gender biases. This is why trans women tend to get far more harassment, where as most people are unaware that trans men even exist. As such all trans folk constantly have our identities questioned when people know we're trans, this is just a small point, but it's a big one because the bias is that we're seen as "pretending" to be something we're not.

Intellectually speaking you're pointing at the symptom instead of the cause. Most people know homosexual people exist, they also know a lot of the tropes associated with homosexuality, like drag for example. That's what causes homophobia to be used against trans folk, because they're not aware basically what being trans means, but they are aware what being gay means, so they take the information they have and use it to persecute. This is the linkage between transphobia and homophobia. From the purely intellectual point of view the targeting of homosexuals is based on gendering. This is why you can have transphobia without homophobia, but not the opposite, it's also why trans folk get targeted under the assumption of homosexuality. Homophobia in this way can't exist without a deeper transphobic sentiment, because falling in love with and sleeping with members of the same sex is the ultimate expression of breaking gender rules. All the examples you used are predicated on the idea of strict gender roles and rules that go with that. More people understand homosexuality on some level than they understand transgenderism on any level, so they default to hating trans people using homophobia. Still that homophobia requires a certain and extreme discomfort with idea of breaking of gender rules.

The reason transphobia can be separate from homophobia is because there are people who are gay and lesbian who are transphobic, but obviously not homophobic. The opposite though is that homophobia can't be separate from transphobia, because homophobia works on the reasoning that homosexuals are breaking the biggest gender rule: Having romantic relationships and sexual contact with members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex.

 

[Bat Vader]

Also can someone explain to me what the balls PUA or MGTOW means?

Pick Up Artist, and Men Going Their Own Way.

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.

I got into a fight with a PUA once. It was pretty funny.

 

[Bobic]

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?

Well, to ignore the general gender politics debate surrounding the topic (which is often a wise thing to ignore on the internet), the guy's method is woefully unscientific, and treating his number with any kind of respect for truth is just wrong.

It's already been pointed out, but for people that don't feel like searching through 6 pages for the post, the guy asked on twitter something along the lines of

"Has our article about the Force Awakens affected your decision to see the film?"

To which 550ish people responded, with 55% saying yes (rough numbers, as I can't be bothered to give the guy another hit and double check).

Now, already, this is a problem, as 'affected your decision' doesn't definitively mean they changed from a 'was definitely going to see it' to a 'definitely not going to see it' i.e. a lost ticket sale. Many of them might have ignored the film anyway, or said yes and seen it, etc.

However, that's not the real problem with the guy's method. The guy takes that important percentage of 55% and applies it to 'Return of Kings' entire readership.

Basically, the 4.2 million = 55% (0.55) multiplied by the total number of people that visited Return of Kings in a month (900,000) multiplied by ticket price (whatever that number was).

This is ludicrous, the idea that the twitter poll is an absolute representative of their entire readership is just incorrect. The most glaring fault being that they are a site that thrives on controversy, so the percentage of their 'viewership' that agrees with their interpretations is probably massively offset by the people that see this nonsense trending (like, say, everyone in this thread that went to the current article) and go on to check and have a good venting session. But even ignoring that, 550 polled (with a vague question) compared to 900,000 viewers is just too small a sample to claim perfect representation and '$4.2 million lost by disney'.

That said ChaoGuy, I like the fact that you think statement's should be debated on their own, separate from the author. It's a good attitude to have, like the anti-godwin. Hitler's Germany was one of the earlier nations to institute a public smoking ban, the idea isn't automatically bad just because it was had by a genocidal dictator, and the merits should be debated outside of ad hominems.

And to completely discuss the idea, outside of faulty maths, I bet there was some percentage of people that didn't see the film due to black and female costars, and their potential on screen romance. Fun Hollywood fact: A white woman was initially cast as the love interest in 'Hitch'. However, once Will Smith was cast as the male lead, the woman was replaced with the ethnic Eva Mendes, so as to not drive audiences into racist frenzy. So studios aren't above such pandering. But, Disney didn't, and while they may have lost some of the racist audience, I guarantee they approached the decision cynically, and figured the extra money gained from the 'urban' demographic (as studio execs like to call it, to avoid seeming racist) would more than make up for it. And the same decision probably went into the misogynist v. female audience with concerns to Rey.

So, you could say that offending the ROK crowd did result in some lost money for Disney, but the inclusive nature of the film broadened the audience so that they more than made up for it.

 

[Lightknight]

It's...part of it. Marriage laws do play a large part, which in all honestly still do favor women because, even to this day, women are still seen as the weaker sex and require more 'help' than men. which is wrong, and why marriage laws and custody things need to be changed.

But even a cursory glance at their site (url isnt working, but its www.mgtow.com) reveals something akin to a more hostile victimization they have going on.

Marriage laws don't favor women because they were seen as the weaker sex for the last thousand or so years, it's because women want to control men and everything they do!

alimony doesnt exist because up until recently women got shafted on pay, alimony exists to take advantage of good hard working men!

etc etc

Thank you for looking it up. I didn't feel comfortable looking at that site from work. I will point out that we see all special interest groups using extreme victimization rhetoric like this. Heck, some feminist groups have gone so far as to attempt to redefine sexism as something that can only be committed against women by both ignoring institutional power women now hold and sexism against men perpetrated by other men. This robs male victims of sexism of their victim-hood and trivializes the impact it may have had on their lives which may have been significant.

It's an old debate tactic that is ridiculous when used in the real world. If you can make a topic out to be as bad as Hitler or equivalent to baby killing then you can win the debate. It's one of the main reasons Godwin's law is breached so frequently in debates. I don't know if you've ever seen debates or been in a debate club but things can go ridiculous fast and still end up in winning territory for it. These same people then go out into the real world and think such tactics convince regular sane people who view arguments on their own merits rather than what kind of analogies you (royal you) can squeeze out of them.

I think their valid point is that even when pay is equal, women still seem to far much better in divorce settlements. Why is that the case?

And, forgive me for an out of context quote, but this was too good to pass up, "After all, it?s still legal in this country for a 'woman to allow herself to get pregnant without a man?s consent." (this was on their FAQ, followed by a page long rant discussing how MGTOW still do enjoy sex without marriage, they just knock women up and then leave them.)

Actually, this is a bit of inequality that I think should be at least acknowledged. While a woman can choose to terminate a pregnancy and has an equal choice in contraceptive choices (if not more), a man has absolutely no say either way on pregnancy termination or continuation and yet can be held responsible for the decision made by someone else for 18 years as though he had committed a crime.

While I understand that the alternatives are all things that harm the child, this still should be seen as a wildly disproportionate distribution of power over reproductive rights in relation to the ramifications of choice.

One could argue, as distasteful as it sounds, that a man should have a right to be notified of a pregnancy in a timely fashion and to have the ability to "legally abort" his parental role in the pregnancy within the same time period that the mother could legally abort the fetus. I would assume such a situation would involve the man stating intent to not support by legal form and putting up the money for the procedure that the woman could then use as she wishes. I would also advocate that the man should also be liable for half of abortion fees should both he and the woman desire an abortion rather than the cost fall to only the female.

But again, this isn't a conversation we want to have as a society. We think of the children before we think of the man and our society's largely conservative/puritanical side loves to see people held responsible in negative ways for having sex outside of marriage or without the goal of reproduction. I personally hold the view that a fetus is both a living biological organism (metabolizes, grows, organic, etc) and fully genetically human (ergo human life's earliest form albeit catatonic) so I'd prefer all members be held responsible for their reproductive choices regarding the sanctity of human life rather than wanton destruction of it. But at least I can see and admit inequality where it lies.

That's not to say the group isn't bigoted. Just to say that this one particular area has merit as a point of inequality. Same as custody hearing outcome trends and such.

Regarding the MGTOW, seems like your definition is (may be) way out there in bias land.

Everyone has a bias.

In fact, MGTOW or whatever they're called would be the single MOST biased party in terms of describing their own characteristics, as they have a higher stake than anyone in promoting their own reputation.

When you (royal you) are defining a group by their beliefs, you should use the group's own definition. Otherwise you are stereotyping and misleading others. Every attempt should be made to do this in honest discourse. Even if you adamantly disagree with any group you should define them how they want to be defined and then supply your own anecdotal experiences that conflict with their public definition. A main reason for this is that many members could have joined the group in name due to the statement of beliefs they present without harboring the stereotypical feelings that women are somehow evil and collectively bargaining to keep men down in some areas. Such is the nature of any large group that states one thing but has members who believe other things.

 

[JamesStone]

I've checked out their site.


Are we 100% sure this isn't some kind of advanced satire? You know, like that "Tumblr raids 4chan" thingy we had in 2014 where it was actually /pol/ baiting Tumblr into a raid? Because, and disregarding Poe's law, these guys seem too ridiculous to actually be real.


Look at one of their articles: "How to stop your girlfriend from cheating on you": You don't, women naturally cheat and you have to make them not cheat by making them jealous.

Their advice is, edit free: "Flirt with other girls in front of her", "Never say "I'm sorry"... EVER" and "Be unabashadly selfish". This doesn't seem like the type of thing ANYONE would say without laughing a bit. It just reeks parody all over.

 

[Gengisgame]

I want to buy the concept of hyper masculinity a beer now for some odd reason and ask him to help me tile my roof.
that would necessitate that toxic is equal to hyper only until their regards to the feminine is there.
now the repression of one's own anima in such a way makes me raise my admittedly unscientific Jungian eyebrow.

The in lies the rub, toxic gender expression requires not only gendering everything, but keeping expression of gender to a narrow set of check boxes based on sex. This is a societal mechanic and it's enforced by peer pressure. No guy wants to be called "gay", or "pussy" for expressing the wrong gendered traits.

Therein lies the mechanistic explanation but what I have been been mulling over is the ultimate causation of such an effect psychologically.

Again the mechanism that enforces such things is peer pressure, it's also used to reinforce social privilege, in this case male social privilege. That makes women different and often the lesser, I mean there is a lot of way's it's expressed and the easiest way to identify this privilege is how women tend to be treated when alone. A single woman without escort gets tons of casual sexual harassment thrown at her, because a woman without a man is seen as an uncontrolled woman, thus a target for sexual advances. That's an expression of male privilege that makes public spaces essentially men's spaces, spaces that women are allowed to pass through, but at the cost of enduring cat calls.

I will have to disagreeing unless you wish to indicate this is an unconscious acknowledgement of dislike for the trans community, which is a whole new load of shit.
Now, why i disagree is, i got family from rural parts of the world and they don't comprehend the former but target the latter. Simply they become aware of a transperson they would go, and spew homophobia because they understand the transperson as a homosexual deviant. not the other way around, probably followed up with assertions of mental illness if true to define it outside of that.
More importantly, you see the folks in Isis, now it's well known they cast homosexuals off roofs and stone them to death for being that but they target them as homosexuals not as trans folk intellectually speaking

It is in part an unconscious expression of disdain, fear, and loathing for trans folk, mostly it's rooted in ignorance, but it's also heavily rooted in gender biases. This is why trans women tend to get far more harassment, where as most people are unaware that trans men even exist. As such all trans folk constantly have our identities questioned when people know we're trans, this is just a small point, but it's a big one because the bias is that we're seen as "pretending" to be something we're not.

Intellectually speaking you're pointing at the symptom instead of the cause. Most people know homosexual people exist, they also know a lot of the tropes associated with homosexuality, like drag for example. That's what causes homophobia to be used against trans folk, because they're not aware basically what being trans means, but they are aware what being gay means, so they take the information they have and use it to persecute. This is the linkage between transphobia and homophobia. From the purely intellectual point of view the targeting of homosexuals is based on gendering. This is why you can have transphobia without homophobia, but not the opposite, it's also why trans folk get targeted under the assumption of homosexuality. Homophobia in this way can't exist without a deeper transphobic sentiment, because falling in love with and sleeping with members of the same sex is the ultimate expression of breaking gender rules. All the examples you used are predicated on the idea of strict gender roles and rules that go with that. More people understand homosexuality on some level than they understand transgenderism on any level, so they default to hating trans people using homophobia. Still that homophobia requires a certain and extreme discomfort with idea of breaking of gender rules.

The reason transphobia can be separate from homophobia is because there are people who are gay and lesbian who are transphobic, but obviously not homophobic. The opposite though is that homophobia can't be separate from transphobia, because homophobia works on the reasoning that homosexuals are breaking the biggest gender rule: Having romantic relationships and sexual contact with members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex.

Being serious here but you are the same as them but coming from the other direction.