Empowerment is great, for either gender, but clearly they have some work to do with their packaging and tone.
There are some common sense reforms that could and should be made, and the OP's website flirts with them. One such example is the way divorce proceedings favor females at a statistically significant rate over men, regardless of wrongdoing (or lack thereof). But those types of points are almost universally buried beneath layers of trivial details and obvious jadedness that taints the point.
There's an amusing article the site links to equating the MGTOW thing and "Game" (i.e. picking up women). The analogy is actually wonderful, because Game is something that, at its best, is a way of empowering men to be who they want and become the type of person that is attractive to women. But at its worst, it's an excuse to hold onto thinly veiled bigotry toward women and learn how to manipulate them. In the MGTOW case, at best it's an imperfect but still potentially useful empowerment tool. At worst, it's an excuse to bash women and create a societal martyr complex where none exists. Seriously, men are definitely the beneficiaries of more things than women (statistically), even though on an individual level inequality can exist for anyone.
So, as usual with internet-based causes, it takes some decent ideas and goes too far with them. As with radical feminism, most are ideas that can be packaged as common sense in uncontroversial ways, but are presented as warring ideologies in some inexplicable gender war. The fault is in the tone, and the underlying bias that causes it, not necessarily the message itself.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Radfem is pretty hilarious too. Although the examples I've seen, like MGTOW, aren't just issues of tone, but of complete inability to see reality.
I tried to be generous, because there are nuggets of gold to unearth in even the hardest soil. But yes, I'm in general agreement with this.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Radfem is pretty hilarious too. Although the examples I've seen, like MGTOW, aren't just issues of tone, but of complete inability to see reality.
I think purposely ignoring backed statistics, as you do, maybe because they're hurtful, because they're too revealing, is the more faithful version of the complete inability to see reality..
A man going his own way isn't opting out of women, but out of the system. And if a man rightfully choses to not to marry, rightfully choses not have any children, and rightfully choses not watch television and live as free as he will and isn't hurting anyone, then why the vitriol? Why the shaming language? Mgtow are not asking anything of anyone. So what's the problem?
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I think purposely ignoring backed statistics, as you do, maybe because they're hurtful, because they're too revealing, is the more faithful version of the complete inability to see reality..
While I recognize the imbalance with how courts handle divorce (specifically, women getting the children more often than men, and so on), that's pretty much the extent of it. Men overwhelmingly benefit in the real world, and Team Circle-Jerk isn't really showcasing anything but their own butt-hurt over being asked to be responsible in life due to their own sexual appetites.
Nobody is forcing men into marriages or having children, so this is all moot. This would like me starting a group against the oppression of other people not agreeing with me, even though I continue to expose myself to viewpoints that don't agree with me.
A man going his own way isn't opting out of women, but out of the system. And if a man rightfully choses to not to marry, rightfully choses not have any children, and rightfully choses not watch television and live as free as he will and isn't hurting anyone, then why the vitriol? Why the shaming language? Mgtow are not asking anything of anyone. So what's the problem?
I don't think you actually read my previous posts well. IF a man chooses to exercise protection and minimize risk, that's a good thing. However, the risk is always apparent unless he gets sterilized. So if you want to "opt out", get snipped. Safest way to do that. Condoms break. Shit happens. You can't delude yourself into saying "OMG I'M THE VICTIM HERE" when you engage in risky behavior knowingly.
As for marriage, whatever. This is all optional, so whining about it is stupid. Just do your thing. The whole "I need a support group to combat this" is really lame.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
While I recognize the imbalance with how courts handle divorce (specifically, women getting the children more often than men, and so on), that's pretty much the extent of it. Men overwhelmingly benefit in the real world, and Team Circle-Jerk isn't really showcasing anything but their own butt-hurt over being asked to be responsible in life due to their own sexual appetites.Nobody is forcing men into marriages or having children, so this is all moot. This would like me starting a group against the oppression of other people not agreeing with me, even though I continue to expose myself to viewpoints that don't agree with me.
I don't think you actually read my previous posts well. IF a man chooses to exercise protection and minimize risk, that's a good thing. However, the risk is always apparent unless he gets sterilized. So if you want to "opt out", get snipped. Safest way to do that. Condoms break. Shit happens. You can't delude yourself into saying "OMG I'M THE VICTIM HERE" when you engage in risky behavior knowingly.
As for marriage, whatever. This is all optional, so whining about it is stupid. Just do your thing. The whole "I need a support group to combat this" is really lame.
Gotta love how you ended it with shaming tactics as a feminist would. You knew that was coming, lol. It can never end without at least one personal attacks thrown in..
First off the extent of it does not end with biased divorce courts and child custody cases, it begins there..
For example the double standards and the hypocrisy that comes along with beneficial one sided portrayals, demonstrations and teachings in medium, academia and employment is very apparent.
And given that, it seems men are not suppose to not call any of it out out, pick it apart, ask honest or hard or any questions at all or be seen as a absolute misogynist and a sadistic rapist whom harbors extreme hatred towards women. It's the perfect crime.
I think the guys who say "fcuk you" to that are the mgtow. Sure you have your extremists and that's whom you're referring to, but they are few and far between. The vast majority of mgtow and it's ideals are non-violent.
Also I don't think it's fair to equate flipping the bird, saying "thank you, but fcuk you" to the new norm and walking away peacefully, to a being whiner or complainer. I agree with you. A support group is not needed for this lifestyle, or for any other lifestyle for that matter. That's where group think and our innate herd mentality kick in, which is not always a good thing because situations like for example a hive mind or a cult can form and that always a bad thing.
Also why is it that feminist support groups are seen as strong, empowering and to be taken very seriously, in their own yet male ones are to be shamed, seen as complainers, seen as a joke and not to be taken serious and fought with bloodlust if momentum starts gathering?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you raise some good points about issues that men face in patriarchal society. But your focus to blame feminists and women for these hardships is just so ridiculous.
Although I do have a slight issue with radical feminism's futile fracas, I don't blame them, much less mainstream feminism, the issue is new norm and the powers that be that feed it unfairly and to the detriment of others ..
I don't think that most of the issues men face are "new", though. They are, imo, rather the result of old fashioned expectations of gender hurting men. And while women have years of feminism to look at to find explanations what's actually wrong and tools to fight it, men don't have any similar movement. Like I said before, the only thing men can look at is really feminist thought, which addresses at least sometimes why men are hurt by society, and perhaps also ways how to help them.
Overwhelmingly, the writers of shows that portray men negatively (Like Family Guy for example, although it has had many episode demonstrating misogynistic tendencies as well, and not in a "part of the joke" manner) are men, Fist. The majority of writers in general are, you guessed it, men. So by and large, the people portraying men badly are... Men, whoa. I personally think it is due to many men having the instinct/honest opinion that women simply are morally more righteous than men. I admittedly have no data to back that data up, nor do I know if any study has ever been conducted on the matter, but this is the tendency I've noticed. Men can over-idealize women, though ironically when they do so they often end up being sexist towards those very women as well. This is not to say that the idea that men are stupid slobs who are morally bankrupt compared to women is not hurtful, but there are two sides of that coin my son.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Overwhelmingly, the writers of shows that portray men negatively (Like Family Guy for example, although it has had many episode demonstrating misogynistic tendencies as well, and not in a "part of the joke" manner) are men, Fist. The majority of writers in general are, you guessed it, men. So by and large, the people portraying men badly are... Men, whoa. I personally think it is due to many men having the instinct/honest opinion that women simply are morally more righteous than men. I admittedly have no data to back that data up, nor do I know if any study has ever been conducted on the matter, but this is the tendency I've noticed. Men can over-idealize women, though ironically when they do so they often end up being sexist towards those very women as well. This is not to say that the idea that men are stupid slobs who are morally bankrupt compared to women is not hurtful, but there are two sides of that coin my son.
I endorse this post fully.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Overwhelmingly, the writers of shows that portray men negatively (Like Family Guy for example, although it has had many episode demonstrating misogynistic tendencies as well, and not in a "part of the joke" manner) are men, Fist. The majority of writers in general are, you guessed it, men. So by and large, the people portraying men badly are... Men, whoa. I personally think it is due to many men having the instinct/honest opinion that women simply are morally more righteous than men. I admittedly have no data to back that data up, nor do I know if any study has ever been conducted on the matter, but this is the tendency I've noticed. Men can over-idealize women, though ironically when they do so they often end up being sexist towards those very women as well. This is not to say that the idea that men are stupid slobs who are morally bankrupt compared to women is not hurtful, but there are two sides of that coin my son.
Let us understand that tv shows are a business first. A tv show's prime duty is to sell advertisement space to the highest bidder based on said show ratings numbers, the higher the viewership the more money they can command.
Now, women make up the majority of tv viewers, which is why most commercials cater to them, why, because women are also the biggest household spenders in the u.s. Family guy writers have a duty to do, in this case write, material that best suits the shows needs and investments, and that ultimately means catering to women. Family guy may seem guy-centric but if you look deeper, it absolutely isn't. A lot know that it's Lois's world in that show, lol.
Back about a month ago I read a study on female comedians and her audiences and it read that women are not the majority of writers in sitcoms because most men just don't find most women that funny. Ironically men are the ones hired only to end up making men look like clueless dunces in these tv shows and commercials.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Let us understand that tv shows are a business first. A tv show's prime duty is to sell advertisement space to the highest bidder based on said show ratings numbers, the higher the viewership the more money they can command.
K.
Now, women make up the majority of tv viewers, which is why most commercials cater to them, why, because women are also the biggest household spenders in the u.s. Family guy writers have a duty to do, in this case write, material that best suits the shows needs and investments, and that ultimately means catering to women. Family guy may seem guy-centric but if you look deeper, it absolutely isn't. A lot know that it's Lois's world in that show, lol.
Apparently more men watch Family Guy than women.
Lois' world?
Back about a month ago I read a study on female comedians and her audiences and it read that women are not the majority of writers in sitcoms because most men just don't find most women that funny. Ironically men are the ones hired only to end up making men look like clueless dunces in these tv shows and commercials.
I'm really not seeing your point here, to be honest.