Why have incels gotten so much attention?

[Narz]

When I was on supervised release I had federal agents closely observing me. It would have been difficult for me to acquire a firearm or other practical weapon, and equally challenging to maintain possession of it without getting a rapid return ticket to prison. But I was still demonstrably capable of returning to my criminal lifestyle, because I was still six three and was actually in much more effective physical condition than I was in before I went to prison. In the world of violent crime lack of physical size is a devastating handicap that generally can only be overcome through weaponry, so, yeah, even felonious women are less dangerous as long as they are under supervision...which upon release they will be.

So you think it's fair to discriminate on you legally because of your size?

Reminds me of an anecdote of an Uber driver who picked me up from the Tampa airport when I was visiting my daughter down here before I moved who told me about how his ex claimed he abused her & the judge took one look at him (he was like 6'5" and very large framed... man I felt sorry for him having to drive, it's bad enough for me) and made up his mind (this is anecdote so obviously I can't vouch for veracity of this story)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If it's a question of body size/build/voice then surely we should expect to see the same disparity reflected in smaller-stature men?

I'm not sure that if you studied that you'd find that expectation unmet. I was definitely well advised to speak softly and slide down in my seat whenever I was in court.

So you think it's fair to discriminate on you legally because of your size?

Fair? Maybe not. Justified within the framework of "incarceration is intended, at least in part, to protect society"? Probably. Occurring every day? Definitely.

 

[MaryKB]

Many abusers don't believe they've done anything wrong. My ex boyfriend still doesn't believe he ever abused or raped me, and statistically you'll find the likelihood a man mistreated his wife or girlfriend to be astronomically higher than her making up stories about him. For myself I know it took me more than half a year to tell anyone what I went though; I'm finding it's getting easier, but it's still difficult for me and very embarrassing (and incredibly more so at first)

 

[Angst]

@Angst I feel a big problem is you so often see claims about "But what about the men?!" used to obfuscate women's issues and to control conversations and redirect back to being male-centric. In my mind "men's rights activism" is completely sexist at its core and is all about countering women's progress, because really as an entire group men don't have any rights at risk (unless you count things like the "right" to abuse and rape women, and have no consequences for mistreatment of women, and be entitled to dominate everything always), and especially no rights being oppressed by women. And really I feel that's what's really wrong, is they blame women for their problems, which is complete and utter nonsense, any problems they face as a group are from other men. And I fully support activism for black men, homosexual men, transgender men, and such, but again women aren't problems for those men, other men are.

Yea, that was kind of my point about when MRAs are misguided, and cruel. It's just that the aversion from self-identifying feminists towards abused men is a thing, too. The disinterest can and does translate into toxicity from feminists towards men that have had issues with their sex. I personally have an experience with "feminism" and my own sex/gender that I'm unsure whether to share or not (it's very personal and traumatic - I might lay it out later). I found your meme poignant and amusing, but I could also easily have taken it very roughly, rightfully so, and gotten emotional about it. That some people then coagulate into incel identities/MRAs/whatever is not very surprising to me, and should not be understated by default. You're not doing that I think, but your meme is.

EDIT: I want to be clear about this - I fundamentally agree with you, but have been met with some incredibly unjust toxic masculinity from some feminists, and some men react to that by blaming women instead of the patriachy.

 

[Narz]

sometime in the 1990s. I don't remember how my talk with him started, but I remember he was telling me about American history, and he said there'd never been either a black president nor a woman president. And I asked him which he thought they'd have first, and he told me he had absolutely no doubt I'd see a black man as president before a woman, and of course he was absolutely right. I really suggest you think deeply about what that means.

It means your dad had an opinion that turned out to be true.

because really as an entire group men don't have any rights at risk (unless you count things like the "right" to abuse and rape women, and have no consequences for mistreatment of women, and be entitled to dominate everything always), and especially no rights being oppressed by women.

And really I feel that's what's really wrong, is they blame women for their problems, which is complete and utter nonsense, any problems they face as a group are from other men.

So all problems in the world are caused exclusively by men?

And I fully support activism for black men, homosexual men, transgender men, and such, but again women aren't problems for those men, other men are.

How do you know who causes each individual's particular problems?

Also it's weird how various statuses gives you the "right" to grievence. Granted I'm sure growing up gay is no joke. My childhood wasn't great and I remember thinking "Well at least I'm not short or gay or I'd certainly have killed myself".

Somehow is someone's momma beats them it's still caused by a man.

I mean I grant most problems in the world are caused by men, so are most solutions. As has been stated men are more likely to be at the far ends of the spectrum in terms of productivity & destructiveness.

 

[Narz]

Yea, that was kind of my point about when MRAs are misguided, and cruel. It's just that the aversion from self-identifying feminists towards abused men is a thing, too. The disinterest can and does translate into toxicity from feminists towards men that have had issues with their sex. I personally have an experience with "feminism" and my own sex/gender that I'm unsure whether to share or not (it's very personal and traumatic - I might lay it out later). I found your meme poignant and amusing, but I could also easily have taken it very roughly, rightfully so, and gotten emotional about it. That some people then coagulate into incel identities/MRAs/whatever is not very surprising to me, and should not be understated by default. You're not doing that I think, but your meme is.

People who coagulate into these myopic groups (from incels to radical feminism) lack empathy and perspectives beyond their own. By attempting to simplify the world they only narrow it.

Their attitude is "I have my issues therefore yours are BS". It's impossible to achieve anything without backlash with that attitude. Unfortunately our society seems to becoming more & more polarized in this way cuz people can (thanks to the web) overfeed from the trough of "Stuff I already believe" until they're so full they can't take anything else in.

 

[HoloDoc]

Clearly you're not educated.

Men get way more jail time for same crimes and get shafted in family court.

There are issues if anyone cares to learn about them but very few do.

But its men's job to be stoic. Complaining is not for us.

Men are socially shamed for whining unless they're in a class that's allowed to. May be partially a good thing tho.

I agree with a lot of your points, but you really couldn't be making them in a more aggressive way.

She said men dont have any probs and MRA are woman-haters

"Aspects or masculinity"? Wat? Parental alienation is an actual problem as is men being disportionally locked up.

For example, she never actually said this. And MRAs are women-haters, which is why the left-wing MRAs have effectively ceased to exist as an effective force. Not that we were particularly effective to begin with.

Literally never.

I hear it all the time. Most of my co-workers are women.

Nope, observation. Every "shafted man" that I've ever met walked into family court demanding custody after a divorce and faced:

Who has been managing the feeding of this child you want custody of? Well, she has.
Who does the child's laundry? Well, she does.
Who provides home treatment for the minor ailments and injuries that this child, like all children, has experienced? Well, she has.
Do you have a plan for how you intend to manage these things for this child? Frankly, do you have a plan for managing these things for yourself now that you have no wife? Well, I have a girlfriend and plan to foist it all off on her.

Then they are offended and resentful when the court doesn't see their case as compelling.

Then you haven't met a lot of men in this situation. I was in a situation similar to Narz's. Frankly, this post is bull****. There is literally an entire political party in Australia built around defending custody rights for men. I'm a member, and if they'd listen to me more often we might actually have some damn influence.

I would also point out, that in many cases when the women is doing all that stuff, it's because the man is working, putting food on the table so that the women and children don't starve. Men are then penalised for not spending as much time with the child as the mother, when they physically can't, as they're working 8-9 hours a day, plus travel. Obviously the stay-at-home parent is the one doing the majority of the mundane, hum-drum tasks like laundry and giving the kids cough medicine.

Well now you know someone that doesn't fit that narrative. I was primary caregiver for much of my daughters life while her mom was in bed being chornicly fatigued. She went 4 months once without seeing her or calling. Then she decided she wanted her back so kidnapped her and moved to Florida. When I tracked her down she filed a restraining order saying I'm a violent, scary man. I'm not going to go into all the details because its personal but needless to say I've never laid a finger on her. I did stupidly send a text threatening her boyfriend who had previously threatened to kill me and kill himself cause I was panicked cuz she was bringing him around my daughter. The custody stuff has been a nightmare and expensive and basically my ex has missed court multiple times, evaded being served, hit me with multiple fradulant restraining orders all with no consequence. I could've had my daughter removed from her when a Connecticut court ruled I had legal custody but didnt want to have my daughter removed forcibly from her mom however unfit I thought she was. But the Florida judge has been awful. Classic captain save-a-ho (but since hes male I guess its a "patriarchy" issue lol

My ex also kidnapped my daughters. Move from Sydney to Perth, so literally across the country. I was fortunate in that she threatened to kill me by text, and so her attempts to acuse me of violence failed. But the mere fact that the police refused to investigate when she held a knife to my throat because she has a vagina and I don't is pretty much par for the course.

And why are women seen as less threatening than men?

Boobs.

Cool. Problem is that a large number of anecdotes more closely resembles data than a single anecdote does, and since there is precious little actual data that's gonna throw a wrench in the "men get shafted in family court" issue...as does pretending that the actual issue is "men get shafted." The actual issue is that family court, in a very real sense, requires judges to rule in a vacuum of information. You walk in, your ex walks in, you give wildly disparate descriptions of the situation, and generally with no additional information or investigation a judge makes a ruling...and the docket usually calls for him amking that ruling after about thirty seconds of "deliberation." Calling that "men get shafted" based on your anecdote does nothing to push for any effective solution.

It's been a while since I looked at this, and my data is Australian, but magistrates rule in favour of women in custody and property issues roughly 80% of the time. Realistically, since men and women comprise 50% of the caregivers each, the results should be closer to 50-50. And when you correct for socio-economic status and people with extensive criminal records which skew the data, it's actually closer to 95% of cases. 95% of fathers can't be the worst parent.

Which genes, specifically?

Tight ones.

Lower potential for aggression, intelligence is more distributed towards the medium which leads to fewer cases of extreme violence that involve women, smaller bodies, rounder, less imposing forms, softer voices...

I initially read this as "lower potential or intelligence," and choked on my toast.

Incels get much attention? Where, what? Did I miss something?

Technically, not getting "attention" is what turns them into incels.

You been doing yoga Tim cuz that's quite a stretchhhhhhhhhhhhh?

The idea that because women are physically meeker they are less dangerous is... well something I believed most of my life and man did I pay for it. #maletears

I have a scar on my neck that proves it. Good thing she really was physically weaker, or I'd be dead.

Women are just as capable of violence, sociopathy, general mental illness, crime, etc., as men are. They are less likely to be punished for it or suspected of it, which is one of the things that needs to change.

Mary isn't wrong about men oppressing other men though. Women are, simply put, not powerful enough to be oppressive in most cases. Which is not to say they don't have some power over the narrative that men are less fit as parents, for example. The statistic that 1 in 3 women will be raped is a legendary example of a statistic that was simply made up by a feminist group for political purposes. Maybe it's right. Maybe it's wrong. I strongly suspect it comes down to exactly what you define as rape, and depending on that definition it may be even higher. But the point is that it was an entirely fabricated statistic, and yet we still have it floating around in legitimate reports, including being quoted as a fact by academics, to this day. But essentially rich white men oppress everyone, and it is their idea of poor men being bad fathers that leads to the discrimination against men in the legal system.

So I guess I'm saying we should kill the rich and redistribute everything they own to the poor. Including their tasty, tasty flesh.

 

[caketastydelish]

@caketastydelish if you're really interested in hearing about women's perspectives, my first suggestion is to always be open minded and listen and not try to dictate conversation, or ask loaded questions. If you'd really be interested in talking about my views and experiences, please feel free to start a conversation with me, I have a feeling a talk like that might be far more productive privately.

I feel though as a basic thing, you're sort of missing there's still a vast power imbalance, because of historical male control over women that's still nowhere near to equal today. Men still afford higher respect to men of color than to white women.

I'll always remember a conversation I had with my father when I was younger, sometime in the 1990s. I don't remember how my talk with him started, but I remember he was telling me about American history, and he said there'd never been either a black president nor a woman president. And I asked him which he thought they'd have first, and he told me he had absolutely no doubt I'd see a black man as president before a woman, and of course he was absolutely right. I really suggest you think deeply about what that means.

I have a coworker on my team, he's been on my team for about a year and a half now, and he's from Africa. He speaks perfect English, but his accent is very thick, and while I get along very well with him and his family, I'd be lying if I said he wasn't mostly useless as a colleague. He's kind to me privately, but well honestly I do almost everything for him, and he always is contacting me for every question he has on how to do things, and I usually need to end up making programs and reports for him, and fixing things, and proverbially I have to hold his hand to walk him through basic tasks even now. And he's supposed to back me up on my reports when I'm taking a vacation, but he often calls me when I'm off work for things he should be able to figure out for himself. Well anyways, between him and myself, who do you think other managers are giving credit to and offering advancement opportunities to?

I'm sorry for how your girlfriend treated you, and I can imagine how hurtful that must've felt and also humiliating, and I agree it's problematic for anyone to have to go through something like that. I do believe you're still not really understanding power imbalances between men and women.

I also was in an interracial relationship with my long term boyfriend, he was of Indian ethnicity (but he was born and raised in Canada), and things got really bad between he and I. Both men and women are conditioned from an early age how women have certain expectations in relationships of a subservient role, and it took me a long time to break out of that mindset (many women haven't and still think that's natural order, that's why you see so many women still siding with misogynists), and for years I basically lived as his slave. I had a very difficult time getting myself out of my situation, and my perspective on life really changed a lot as a result. Of course you'll see outlier examples of things being different, but overwhelmingly women are treated as inferior by men still.

@Angst I feel a big problem is you so often see claims about "But what about the men?!" used to obfuscate women's issues and to control conversations and redirect back to being male-centric. In my mind "men's rights activism" is completely sexist at its core and is all about countering women's progress, because really as an entire group men don't have any rights at risk (unless you count things like the "right" to abuse and rape women, and have no consequences for mistreatment of women, and be entitled to dominate everything always), and especially no rights being oppressed by women. And really I feel that's what's really wrong, is they blame women for their problems, which is complete and utter nonsense, any problems they face as a group are from other men. And I fully support activism for black men, homosexual men, transgender men, and such, but again women aren't problems for those men, other men are.

I sent you a PM.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So you're saying when people deal with injustice they should keep it to themselves?

I mean mostly I do but in this thread I couldn't resist.

No. I'm saying that you should apply your story in a way that calls for getting the actual problem addressed, rather than in a way that gets you rightfully dismissed. A huge part of doing that is acknowledging the actual problem. That problem is not a "pro women" bias in the court, even IF such a bias demonstrably exists. The problem is that the court is put in a position where they really have no basis upon which to rule other than whatever biases they have. By focusing on the "pro women" bias you are attempting to fight for an outcome that can only be described as "become more pro men," which is no more fair than the current situation.

 

[HoloDoc]

If it's a question of body size/build/voice then surely we should expect to see the same disparity reflected in smaller-stature men?

We do. I don't know if anyone has studied it, but there are occasionally news stories about men who receive lighter sentences - or none at all - if they are small in stature. I recall outrage a few years ago because a rapist received a light sentence because he was about 150 cm tall.

I'll always remember a conversation I had with my father when I was younger, sometime in the 1990s. I don't remember how my talk with him started, but I remember he was telling me about American history, and he said there'd never been either a black president nor a woman president. And I asked him which he thought they'd have first, and he told me he had absolutely no doubt I'd see a black man as president before a woman, and of course he was absolutely right. I really suggest you think deeply about what that means[/USER]

That even black men aren't as lazy and unmotivated as women?

I sent you a PM.

Another case of a man sliding into the only woman in the conversation's DMs...

 

[caketastydelish]

She herself said she would prefer it that way.

 

[HoloDoc]

She herself said she would prefer it that way.

Humour is apparently not your strong point.

 

[MaryKB]

Mary isn't wrong about men oppressing other men though. Women are, simply put, not powerful enough to be oppressive in most cases. Which is not to say they don't have some power over the narrative that men are less fit as parents, for example. The statistic that 1 in 3 women will be raped is a legendary example of a statistic that was simply made up by a feminist group for political purposes. Maybe it's right. Maybe it's wrong. I strongly suspect it comes down to exactly what you define as rape, and depending on that definition it may be even higher. But the point is that it was an entirely fabricated statistic, and yet we still have it floating around in legitimate reports, including being quoted as a fact by academics, to this day. But essentially rich white men oppress everyone, and it is their idea of poor men being bad fathers that leads to the discrimination against men in the legal system.

If anything I'm pretty sure that number is very low and under reported, because many cases of rape and sexual assault are not recognized or even reported. And people often think of rape as being where someone grabs you on the street, but that's not really at all how it is. Usually you're raped by someone you know very well and are even in a relationship with, when you're pressured or forced into sexual acts you don't wish to do, and coercion is used to create false consent. So you even think you're agreeing to it and not realizing what's happening, but it's still a horrible problem. My own experiences will never be included in any statistic because I didn't realize what he'd done to me until months after I broke up with him, and it'd probably be pointless for me to do anything at this point, you know what I mean? But many other women don't even realize, and are still living in situations like I was and will never know, there are huge social stigmas and obstacles around this sort of thing, not to mention just general embarrassment and humiliation you feel.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Then you haven't met a lot of men in this situation. I was in a situation similar to Narz's. Frankly, this post is bull****. There is literally an entire political party in Australia built around defending custody rights for men. I'm a member, and if they'd listen to me more often we might actually have some damn influence.

I would also point out, that in many cases when the women is doing all that stuff, it's because the man is working, putting food on the table so that the women and children don't starve. Men are then penalised for not spending as much time with the child as the mother, when they physically can't, as they're working 8-9 hours a day, plus travel. Obviously the stay-at-home parent is the one doing the majority of the mundane, hum-drum tasks like laundry and giving the kids cough medicine.

<---->

It's been a while since I looked at this, and my data is Australian, but magistrates rule in favour of women in custody and property issues roughly 80% of the time. Realistically, since men and women comprise 50% of the caregivers each, the results should be closer to 50-50. And when you correct for socio-economic status and people with extensive criminal records which skew the data, it's actually closer to 95% of cases. 95% of fathers can't be the worst parent.

Depends on how you define "a lot." I, like a judge in a family court, have you and Narz telling me that I have met two, at least in an on-line sense. Even if I take you entirely at your word, which in the absence of even hearing the other side I am certainly willing to do, that is still a couple of anecdotes to balance against...I dunno...dozens at least. And many of those anecdotes came from men that I did actually know, who I did absolutely know had absolutely no case to present for themselves as a valid custody option, who were just as openly resentful about the outcome as you and Narz even though their resentment was not justified.

So, again, approaching the problem from a "change the bias of the court to a bias that would work for me rather than against me" is a useless cause. The bias that would have awarded your kids and Narz' daughter properly would have given a whole raft of kids to fathers that I would tell to their faces would be horrible choices. So, if we have to have rulings based on bias then I believe more good outcomes are available from the bias we have rather than the bias you want.

Which brings us back to the real problem. Family court needs to have access to the resources to ensure actual investigation that allows them to make ruling based on information rather than biases. Fight for that.

 

[Narz]

And MRAs are women-haters, which is why the left-wing MRAs have effectively ceased to exist as an effective force. Not that we were particularly effective to begin with.

They're "going their own way", not the same as hate. I mean I can empathize with them but I'm too attracted to women (sexually & emotionally) to ever be able to pull it off. I also think "going one's own way" is a euphemism for "running away" which IMO is most unmanly. Letting a few bad women (or men) turn me off to an entire half the population is letting one's trauma win.

Then you haven't met a lot of men in this situation. I was in a situation similar to Narz's. Frankly, this post is bull****. There is literally an entire political party in Australia built around defending custody rights for men. I'm a member, and if they'd listen to me more often we might actually have some damn influence.

I would also point out, that in many cases when the women is doing all that stuff, it's because the man is working, putting food on the table so that the women and children don't starve. Men are then penalised for not spending as much time with the child as the mother, when they physically can't, as they're working 8-9 hours a day, plus travel. Obviously the stay-at-home parent is the one doing the majority of the mundane, hum-drum tasks like laundry and giving the kids cough medicine.


My ex also kidnapped my daughters. Move from Sydney to Perth, so literally across the country. I was fortunate in that she threatened to kill me by text, and so her attempts to acuse me of violence failed. But the mere fact that the police refused to investigate when she held a knife to my throat because she has a vagina and I don't is pretty much par for the course.

Damn dude, my condolences. If you ever make it to the states let me buy you a drink and we'll share war stories.

It's been a while since I looked at this, and my data is Australian, but magistrates rule in favour of women in custody and property issues roughly 80% of the time. Realistically, since men and women comprise 50% of the caregivers each, the results should be closer to 50-50. And when you correct for socio-economic status and people with extensive criminal records which skew the data, it's actually closer to 95% of cases. 95% of fathers can't be the worst parent.

And people who think this is only a men's issue are wrong. Fatherhood affects all children and thus all humans. Having a two parent household improves human life is pretty much every area ever measured. I've never heard of someone describe having an absentee parent without some negative emotion. Which is why I knew I had to uproot my life and move. I didn't want to be one of those guilty dads overcompensating their kid in adulthood.

I have a scar on my neck that proves it. Good thing she really was physically weaker, or I'd be dead.

Women are just as capable of violence, sociopathy, general mental illness, crime, etc., as men are. They are less likely to be punished for it or suspected of it, which is one of the things that needs to change.

Mary isn't wrong about men oppressing other men though. Women are, simply put, not powerful enough to be oppressive in most cases. Which is not to say they don't have some power over the narrative that men are less fit as parents, for example. The statistic that 1 in 3 women will be raped is a legendary example of a statistic that was simply made up by a feminist group for political purposes. Maybe it's right. Maybe it's wrong. I strongly suspect it comes down to exactly what you define as rape, and depending on that definition it may be even higher. But the point is that it was an entirely fabricated statistic, and yet we still have it floating around in legitimate reports, including being quoted as a fact by academics, to this day. But essentially rich white men oppress everyone, and it is their idea of poor men being bad fathers that leads to the discrimination against men in the legal system.

Well put.

The "patriarchy" is probably a brilliant invention of the Powers that Be to further divide the sheeple below them. If we all behaved as brothers and sisters there wouldn't be 1% of the world holding as much power as the bottom 4 billion.

 

[caketastydelish]

If anything I'm pretty sure that number is very low and under reported, because many cases of rape and sexual assault are not recognized or even reported. And people often think of rape as being where someone grabs you on the street, but that's not really at all how it is. Usually you're raped by someone you know very well and are even in a relationship with, when you're pressured or forced into sexual acts you don't wish to do, and coercion is used to create false consent. So you even think you're agreeing to it and not realizing what's happening, but it's still a horrible problem. My own experiences will never be included in any statistic because I didn't realize what he'd done to me until months after I broke up with him, and it'd probably be pointless for me to do anything at this point, you know what I mean? But many other women don't even realize, and are still living in situations like I was and will never know, there are huge social stigmas and obstacles around this sort of thing, not to mention just general embarrassment and humiliation you feel.

In fairness, that statistic is not limited to times she accused the guy and filed charges. It takes into account that usually she doesn't. Still, a huge problem nonetheless. We already have statistics that indicate the majority of sexual assault or abuse is done by an intimate partner, so what you're saying doesn't really contradict that statistics we already have.

this is a reference to what I'm talking about.

here is their other one

The "one in four girls will be sexually assaulted on a college campus" has been misinterpreted, though.

Ok so that statistics is true. BUT: if a guy gets behind a woman and gropes her that is considered sexual assault. Is that wrong and inexcusable? Definitely. But the implication that some feminists groups are giving off is that for literally every 'sexual assault' in that study what they meant to say is he takes her clothes off against her will and violently gets on top of her and penetrates her.

One of those situations will be more traumatic than the other. I'm not defending guys who do wrong things like spank a woman on the ass, but that's not the same as actual rape. You know what I mean?

 

[HoloDoc]

Depends on how you define "a lot." I, like a judge in a family court, have you and Narz telling me that I have met two, at least in an on-line sense. Even if I take you entirely at your word, which in the absence of even hearing the other side I am certainly willing to do, that is still a couple of anecdotes to balance against...I dunno...dozens at least. And many of those anecdotes came from men that I did actually know, who I did absolutely know had absolutely no case to present for themselves as a valid custody option, who were just as openly resentful about the outcome as you and Narz even though their resentment was not justified.

So, again, approaching the problem from a "change the bias of the court to a bias that would work for me rather than against me" is a useless cause. The bias that would have awarded your kids and Narz' daughter properly would have given a whole raft of kids to fathers that I would tell to their faces would be horrible choices. So, if we have to have rulings based on bias then I believe more good outcomes are available from the bias we have rather than the bias you want.

Which brings us back to the real problem. Family court needs to have access to the resources to ensure actual investigation that allows them to make ruling based on information rather than biases. Fight for that.

I am literally a member of a political party whose platform is about reforming the Family Court of Australia. They should run me for the NSW Legislative Council next year, but they won't, because I"m considerably younger than the leadership and they keep making dumb choices. *sigh*

Oh well, within a decade I'll have seized control of this party. Then, we march on Moscow with our Grand Army.

 

[brennan]

Hang on, I literally called for Katherine Murphy to be "taken out back and put down" for bias, repeatedly, in her own articles, and I was never banned. I suspect you made comments a wee bit more incendiary than you're letting on.

I was banned, quite simply, for pointing out that it is statistically safer to be a woman than a man, on one of those bonkers articles that claims women are suffering from genocide, Jessica Valenti most likely. I think the subject was South Africa. I just googled the relative murder rate for men to compare with that for women (it was about 20 times worse for men). That's it.

I can't believe that you frequent the Guardian and haven't noticed how censorious it has become. CIF has died a death - RonRafferty (and others) buggered off to the Independent in disgust.

"Disagreeing with feminist ideas about society" is basically code for; "women are less important than men, and need to accept this and make me a sandwich."

It isn't code for anything. It's a perfectly straightforward statement about ideas. If you can't take people at their word, but have to read 'code' into it then you are engaging in bad faith.

I reject the idea that Patriarchy is the best description of history - or the 21st century UK - and that my society is, or contains, a 'rape culture'. That absolutely does not mean that I think women should 'get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich'. It makes me think that proposed feminist solutions to problems are going to be ineffective, because they misdiagnose the root cause of the problem.

E.g. Recruitment of girls and young women to STEM fields. There has been some interesting research into the difference between the way males and females choose priorities and set goals. But this (in my field) was then swept away because some feminists insist 'it's all about sexism'. This is counter-factual and counter-productive.

Isn't Milo Pedonopoulos already doing that, with his desire to rape little boys to prove his masculinity?

And we're straight into immature mudslinging. This is exactly what happens every time feminist thought is challenged. Toys straight out the pram.

Do you seriously imagine that the future of the left is the hands of a few marginal journalists and academics?

Have you read this thread since I said, essentially, 'I think feminists are wrong about some stuff'? This nonsense has become absolutely main stream. Did you see Jordan Peterson on Channel 4? Cathy Newman genuinely thought he was a crackpot fascist, she didn't have the faintest idea what he actually thought, or what his opinions are based upon. But she absolutely knew what he was supposed to be, because 'a few marginal journalists and academics' had primed her expectations, and did so to the extent that she was flabbergasted when he was reasonable and authoritative. And pointed out that she was being a hypocrite.

Literally never.

Funny, it describes most of my youth, the common trope regarding nerds in TV and film for some decades and I hear it at work on a regular basis.

 

[HoloDoc]

I was banned, quite simply, for pointing out that it is statistically safer to be a woman than a man, on one of those bonkers articles that claims women are suffering from genocide, Jessica Valenti most likely. I think the subject was South Africa. I just googled the relative murder rate for men to compare with that for women (it was about 20 times worse for men). That's it.

Valenti is awful. But I cut her a little slack, seeing as how she received a bunch of threats from MRAs who doxxed her and threatened to rape her 5-year old daughter. I cut Murphy no slack whatsoever for her hopeless bias towards Malcolm Turnbull, who could do no wrong, ever. I never got in any trouble for it. I really doubt this is what you were banned for, as I have openly called for the beheading of politicians and I was never banned.

I can't believe that you frequent the Guardian and haven't noticed how censorious it has become. CIF has died a death - RonRafferty (and others) buggered off to the Independent in disgust.

I don't believe you were banned from The Guardian for the reasons you state. Judging by your posts here, you were actually causing trouble by trolling people in feminist articles, and possibly Valenti herself.

It isn't code for anything. It's a perfectly straightforward statement about ideas. If you can't take people at their word, but have to read 'code' into it then you are engaging in bad faith.

I reject the idea that Patriarchy is the best description of history - or the 21st century UK - and that my society is, or contains, a 'rape culture'. That absolutely does not mean that I think women should 'get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich'. It makes me think that proposed feminist solutions to problems are going to be ineffective, because they misdiagnose the root cause of the problem.

And the majority of feminists don't believe any such thing. That's like claiming that someone who calls themselves a Marxist automatically thinks everything that the most radical Marxists believe. There is no doubt that the patriarchy exists. There is no doubt that rape culture exists; Jimmy Saville wasn't getting away with it because he was a criminal mastermind.

If you have to resort to strawmanning and stereotyping a huge multi-faceted social movement like that, you are engaging in bad faith.

And we're straight into immature mudslinging. This is exactly what happens every time feminist thought is challenged. Toys straight out the pram

That's the baby warning its mother that Uncle Milo has snuck into the room.

Seriously, you're defending a guy that openly stated he wanted to have sex with underage boys, on the grounds that he's not a feminist? Yeah, you're so edgy. I'm sure it was all Jessica Valenti's fault The Guardian banned you.

 

[MaryKB]

There is no doubt that the patriarchy exists. There is no doubt that rape culture exists; Jimmy Saville wasn't getting away with it because he was a criminal mastermind.

I immediately lose respect for any arguments from people claiming these things don't exist, like talk about being totally clueless, right? My feeling is some people just want to make such denials because they benefit from such a culture.