Feminism in decline

[Chessmistress]

We'll never let that happen, you know?
Men defining masculinity on their own terms would likely result in an asocial and unhealthy way of life for men, and it would also be very dangerous for women and for the entire society.

Wow... Again you seem to think that all men are inherently terrible by virtue of being men.

No, check the link.
It's the toxic masculinity taught to them: the link is very telling - every man react in a different way. Most aren't violent at all, but they still hide their emotions and have problems due the role enforced to them.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Wrong.
Check my answer.
I got the meaning of your post, and I wrote: Patriarchy (Daesh) is killing both some masters (males) and some slaves (women).
You cannot complain the fact that sometimes the losses of women are perceived even a little worse than the losses of males within western medias, you shouldn't complain it just because that's, again, a fault of the patriarchal system, and still, women have it worse on the whole.

Do you think that Ostro's goal is to preserve the patriarchal system?

It is part of the patriarchal system that women are to be protected from violence, and he is pointing out how the media engages in that. He is helping tear down the Patriarchy.

[Chessmistress]

Wrong.
Check my answer.
I got the meaning of your post, and I wrote: Patriarchy (Daesh) is killing both some masters (males) and some slaves (women).
You cannot complain the fact that sometimes the losses of women are perceived even a little worse than the losses of males within western medias, you shouldn't complain it just because that's, again, a fault of the patriarchal system, and still, women have it worse on the whole.

Do you think that Ostro's goal is to preserve the patriarchal system?

It is part of the patriarchal system that women are to be protected from violence, and he is pointing out how the media engages in that. He is helping tear down the Patriarchy.

Are you really suggesting that women shouldn't be protected from violence?
I think women should be protected even more!

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

No, check the link.
It's the toxic masculinity taught to them: the link is very telling - every man react in a different way. Most aren't violent at all, but they still hide their emotions and have problems due the role enforced to them.

I understand all that, but what you implied was that if men were allowed to redefine masculinity without traditional coercion, they would inevitably fuck it up. Why is this the case?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Are you really suggesting that women shouldn't be protected from violence?
I think women should be protected even more!

I'm suggesting that all people should be protected from violence equally.

Do you think women are worth more than men?

[Chessmistress]

No, check the link.
It's the toxic masculinity taught to them: the link is very telling - every man react in a different way. Most aren't violent at all, but they still hide their emotions and have problems due the role enforced to them.

I understand all that, but what you implied was that if men were allowed to redefine masculinity without traditional coercion, they would inevitably fuck it up. Why is this the case?

Because males would redefine masculinity at their exclusive advantage, hurting women, for sure. Maybe even more than in traditional system.
That's why Feminism MUST be used to redefine masculinity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_studies

men's studies was formed largely in response to, and as a critique of, an emerging men's rights movement, and as such, has been taught in academic settings only since the 1970s. In many universities, men's studies is a correlation to women's studies or part of a larger gender studies program, and as such its faculty tends to be sympathetic to, or engaged in, advocacy of feminist politics. The concept of plural masculinities was proposed by R.W. Connell in her influential book Masculinities (1995); thus the academic field is today often known as men and masculinities.[1]
In contrast to the discipline of masculine psychology, men's studies programs and courses often include contemporary discussions of men's rights, feminist theory, queer theory, matriarchy, patriarchy, and more generally, what proponents describe as the social, historical, and cultural constructions of men. They often discuss the issues surrounding male privilege, seen as evolving into more subtle forms rather than disappearing in the modern era.

[Benian Republic]

Chessmistress is really starting to sound sexist...

[Chessmistress]

Are you really suggesting that women shouldn't be protected from violence?
I think women should be protected even more!

I'm suggesting that all people should be protected from violence equally.

Do you think women are worth more than men?

Wrong.
It's not about an imaginary "worth".
Women must be protected more, because we are more subjected to gender-based violence, much more: check again Convention of Istanbul, also CEDAW.
Women have been historically discriminated and keeped down by widespread gender-based violence perpetrated by males.

[New Edom]

I understand all that, but what you implied was that if men were allowed to redefine masculinity without traditional coercion, they would inevitably fuck it up. Why is this the case?

Because males would redefine masculinity at their exclusive advantage, hurting women, for sure. Maybe even more than in traditional system.
That's why Feminism MUST be used to redefine masculinity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_studies

men's studies was formed largely in response to, and as a critique of, an emerging men's rights movement, and as such, has been taught in academic settings only since the 1970s. In many universities, men's studies is a correlation to women's studies or part of a larger gender studies program, and as such its faculty tends to be sympathetic to, or engaged in, advocacy of feminist politics. The concept of plural masculinities was proposed by R.W. Connell in her influential book Masculinities (1995); thus the academic field is today often known as men and masculinities.[1]
In contrast to the discipline of masculine psychology, men's studies programs and courses often include contemporary discussions of men's rights, feminist theory, queer theory, matriarchy, patriarchy, and more generally, what proponents describe as the social, historical, and cultural constructions of men. They often discuss the issues surrounding male privilege, seen as evolving into more subtle forms rather than disappearing in the modern era.

I thought you weren't interested in men's issues. Indeed, I've heard that from more than one radical feminist. If that's the case, then how can feminists work on a redefinition of masculinity? Would this be perhaps after the following have occurred?

1. Majority of women in national and provincial/state legislatures in nearly all Western nations.
2. At least 1/2 female heads of government in above.
3. At least 2/3 female cabinet ministers in above
4. At least 2/3 female film directors and television directors
5. At least 2/3 female graduates from post secondary institutions
6. At least 2/3 female CEOs and Chairpersons of Boards of major corporations
7. At least 50% of all active duty military personnel and senior officers female
8. Pornography banned everywhere.
9. Prostitution banned everywhere.
10. Free birth control, female hygiene products, gynecology everywhere.
11. Swedish model for sexual assault/harassment cases

Well I could go on, but when all that gets done, is that when you mean feminists would work on defining masculinity, or would men simply be defined out of existence?

[Ostroeuropa]

No, check the link.
It's the toxic masculinity taught to them: the link is very telling - every man react in a different way. Most aren't violent at all, but they still hide their emotions and have problems due the role enforced to them.

I understand all that, but what you implied was that if men were allowed to redefine masculinity without traditional coercion, they would inevitably fuck it up. Why is this the case?

The MRM definition of masculinity is a bally good one frankly.

Paraphrased from their reddit.

Men care too much about what women think and allow women to dictate to them what being manly means.
Men who don't give a shit about womens opinion of them don't end up like this.
Manliness is intrinsic, it doesn't come from others approval of you. The problem with the men who engage in self-destructive or domineering behavior is that they've lost touch with their sense of manhood as a result of constant attacks in their lives making out that they are deviant or defective men, and so overcompensate for that by adhering to a stupid version of it. This, in some ways, means they are least like actual men. Which is pretty funny when you think about it.

What the study is actually researching here is that men like to feel validated based on the preconceptions of manhood. It isn't feeling manly. It's feeling validated. Once this distinction is pointed out to men, they are often freed from it. Noticing the difference between feeling manly and feeling validated allows you to realize that, naturally, women have no fucking clue what it means to be a man, so why should their opinion matter for anything? But ofcourse, some women just like to femsplain manliness.
Transmens manhood is intrinsic too, it's not something other peoples validation can give you. In fact transmens manhood is the best example of what i'm talking about, they are men, regardless of what other people think or say about it, and regardless of whether or not women validate their manhood.
Intrinsic: inherent, innate, inborn, inbred, congenital, natural, native, constitutional, built-in, ingrained, deep-rooted, inseparable, permanent, indelible, ineradicable, ineffaceable

(Notably, Dr Brown agrees with the usual MRM sentiment that the male gender role is constructed by women, not men.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... er/275322/

So "Men" (MRAs) left to their own devices to define masculinity, came up with

"It just sort of... Is. You are or you aren't. It's a feeling you have. Nobody else can take it from you if you don't let them." etc

Clearly, this is terribly destructive and terrible for women.
(I would actually slightly agree with chess mistress here. Once men stop being forced into masculine gender roles because they no longer care about womens opinion, womens situation will dramatically worsen without workhorses and personal bodyguards. But it will be fair.)

[Skrovishte]

Are you really suggesting that women shouldn't be protected from violence?
I think women should be protected even more!

I'm suggesting that all people should be protected from violence equally.

Do you think women are worth more than men?

No, but they are more likely to be violated and oppressed.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm suggesting that all people should be protected from violence equally.

Do you think women are worth more than men?

No, but they are more likely to be violated and oppressed.

How are you defining oppression?
How are you defining violation?

[Skrovishte]

I understand all that, but what you implied was that if men were allowed to redefine masculinity without traditional coercion, they would inevitably fuck it up. Why is this the case?

The MRM definition of masculinity is a bally good one frankly.

Paraphrased from their reddit.

Men care too much about what women think and allow women to dictate to them what being manly means.
Men who don't give a shit about womens opinion of them don't end up like this.
Manliness is intrinsic, it doesn't come from others approval of you. The problem with the men who engage in self-destructive or domineering behavior is that they've lost touch with their sense of manhood as a result of constant attacks in their lives making out that they are deviant or defective men, and so overcompensate for that by adhering to a stupid version of it. This, in some ways, means they are least like actual men. Which is pretty funny when you think about it.

What the study is actually researching here is that men like to feel validated based on the preconceptions of manhood. It isn't feeling manly. It's feeling validated. Once this distinction is pointed out to men, they are often freed from it. Noticing the difference between feeling manly and feeling validated allows you to realize that, naturally, women have no fucking clue what it means to be a man, so why should their opinion matter for anything? But ofcourse, some women just like to femsplain manliness.
Transmens manhood is intrinsic too, it's not something other peoples validation can give you. In fact transmens manhood is the best example of what i'm talking about, they are men, regardless of what other people think or say about it, and regardless of whether or not women validate their manhood.
Intrinsic: inherent, innate, inborn, inbred, congenital, natural, native, constitutional, built-in, ingrained, deep-rooted, inseparable, permanent, indelible, ineradicable, ineffaceable

(Notably, Dr Brown agrees with the usual MRM sentiment that the male gender role is constructed by women, not men.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... er/275322/

Because women historically had enough power to dictate gender roles. Suuure.

Gender roles were not consciously dictated by men or women. They were creations of patriarchy, which is a construct of class society. And yes, patriarchy can hurt men also.

[Ostroeuropa]

The MRM definition of masculinity is a bally good one frankly.

Paraphrased from their reddit.


(Notably, Dr Brown agrees with the usual MRM sentiment that the male gender role is constructed by women, not men.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... er/275322/

Because women historically had enough power to dictate gender roles. Suuure.

Gender roles were not consciously dictated by men or women. They were creations of patriarchy, which is a construct of class society. And yes, patriarchy can hurt men also.

Yes, i'd say women held power historically that is not recognized because history tends to record institutional and overt power, but relatively little social power.
I'm not saying they are consciously dictated. I'm saying that womens behavior crafts the male gender role, and visa versa.
You've basically just up and decided to issue a statement of faith in response to an article about an empirical study.

Stop being such an ideologue. You aren't dealing with reality, only your perception of it, and your perception is warped by your ideology. You are utilizing a gynocentric view of the situation to deal with an androcentric problem, that means you are being a type of sexist.

You're also massively ignoring a number of societies where women held religious offices for quite some time until Monotheistic Abrahamic religions came along. So ... yes. women held quite a bit of power.

Pagan societies had gender roles too, and in them women often held either religious or secular office. So your feminist vision of history is clearly utter bullshit based on feelz, selective knowledge of history, and ideological zealotry.

Further, gender roles seem to be present in egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies with no class system. So your understanding of the situation is kind of suspect.
(Men typically hunt, women typically gather. One of the major implications of this is that we can credit the invention of Agriculture to an unknown woman, and probably warfare to a man. I suppose we'll see which of those inventions kills the planet first. )

I'd say there is no direct creating cause of gender roles. I'd say they are just natural memetic occurances resulting from biological inclinations. There is no evidence for these statements of faith all you gender ideologues keep coming up with really.
That doesn't mean however that it's a problem that can't be overcome.

Because humans are very adaptable, very social creatures. We're capable of overcoming our biological inclinations if born into the right circumstances and culture.

All this patriarchy bullshit is just original sin nonsense from the Religion of Wimminz Victimhood. Nobody should take it seriously.

[Chessmistress]

I'm suggesting that all people should be protected from violence equally.

Do you think women are worth more than men?

No, but they are more likely to be violated and oppressed.

Exactly.
And that is being recognised in Europe
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Tr ... ml/210.htm

Recognising that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men, which have led to domination over, and discrimination against, women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women;

Recognising the structural nature of violence against women as gender-based violence, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men;

Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender-based violence than men;

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately

AND

Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, but they are more likely to be violated and oppressed.

Exactly.
And that is being recognised in Europe
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Tr ... ml/210.htm

Recognising that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men, which have led to domination over, and discrimination against, women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women;

Recognising the structural nature of violence against women as gender-based violence, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men;

Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender-based violence than men;

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately

AND

Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention.

Repeatedly posting about how feminists forced governments to sign a treaty that discriminates against and oppresses male victims of domestic violence doesn't exactly help with the whole PR problem feminism has. The duluth model is extremely sexist.
Even it's creator admits it's complete bollocks.

The problem is that it's convenient for the feminist narrative, so it gets pushed anyway. The irony being that it does precisely jack shit to end violence against women, and in fact makes it more likely since it doesn't address womens violence and how unilateral abuse is the least common.
The most common is bi-directional violence.
And the most common bi-directional violence is instigated by women.

So until you focus on the real problem and the complex situation of domestic abuse, you wont fix it.
This is another example of feminists not actually giving a fuck about women, and more about hurting men. (Or, if you're feeling generous, more about preserving their worldview and ideology in spite of all evidence to the contrary.)

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

No, but they are more likely to be violated and oppressed.

And men are more likely to be the victims of violence.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, but they are more likely to be violated and oppressed.

And men are more likely to be the victims of violence.

And be arrested. And convicted. And jailed. For longer.

And suffer state sanctioned violence. Or socially sanctioned violence.
Or lack petition for redress when it comes to rape and domestic violence.
And on and on.

Their definition of oppression is extremely suspect frankly.

[Chessmistress]

Repeatedly posting about how feminists forced governments to sign a treaty that discriminates against and oppresses male victims of domestic violence doesn't exactly help with the whole PR problem feminism has. The duluth model is extremely sexist.

Duluth Model is the truth: that's why is recognised in Europe.
But it's not enough: that's why is even expanded in Convention of Istanbul.
Both me and Skrovishte, we are from Europe: things are beginning to being different here.

[Chessmistress]

No, but they are more likely to be violated and oppressed.

And men are more likely to be the victims of violence.

Violence overwhelmingly perpetrated by males.

And be arrested. And convicted. And jailed. For longer.

And suffer state sanctioned violence. Or socially sanctioned violence.
Or lack petition for redress when it comes to rape and domestic violence.
And on and on.

Their definition of oppression is extremely suspect frankly.

Males oppressed by other males - that's the patriarchy.
And your oppression is still inferior, far inferior, to the oppression suffered by women.

[Ostroeuropa]

Repeatedly posting about how feminists forced governments to sign a treaty that discriminates against and oppresses male victims of domestic violence doesn't exactly help with the whole PR problem feminism has. The duluth model is extremely sexist.

Duluth Model is the truth: that's why is recognised in Europe.
But it's not enough: that's why is even expanded in Convention of Istanbul.
Both me and Skrovishte, we are from Europe: things are beginning to being different here.

I'm also from Europe.

"By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."

Ellen Pence, creator of the Duluth Model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model#Criticism

Basically you're just bullshitting.
Now would be a good time for all you feminists who supposedly care about mens problems to denounce the duluth model, the istanbul convention, and chessmistress.

I think this is the result of feminists trying to pin ALL problems women suffer on TEH PATRIARCHIEZ.
The problem comes in when they did this to domestic violence and rape, and then we found out that hey, men suffer domestic violence and rape in equalish numbers.

This immediately does 1 of 2 things.

1. Means they aren't caused by the patriarchy, despite being feminisms BIGGEST cash cows and ways of conning women into joining them, leaving them with only other issues.
2. Means the patriarchy is bollocks to begin with.

And so feminists desperately, dogmatically, and even violently resist collecting statistics on male victims. They must perpetuate the male erasure in order to make it seem like women are more victimized than men on this issue, or it will mean these issues aren't caused by patriarchy, and their cash cow will be slaughtered. Women should probably feel some sense of shame or dishonor at the notion that their freedom is being purchased with the lives and bodies of men.

[Conserative Morality]

Males oppressed by other males - that's the patriarchy.

Wow. What kind of backwards, reactionary, sexist victim blaming is this?

And your oppression is still inferior, far inferior, to the oppression suffered by women.

You sound like a MRA talking about women's rights in the West.

[Luziyca]

I think the reason is the bad reputation it has gotten from those who seem to advocate female supremacy over males and being more "anti-men."

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Violence overwhelmingly perpetrated by males.

Because traditional society tells us that we must be violent, or we will be the victims of violence.

It is a part of our proscribed gender role that we are supposed to be the ones that violence happens to, because we are supposed to step up as protectors and defenders.

Males oppressed by other males - that's the patriarchy.

By males and females, unless you think that there are no women who also desire to keep things as they are currently.

And again, we are also fighting against the patriarchy. That is the whole point.

And your oppression is still inferior, far inferior, to the oppression suffered by women.

Maybe, in some places, you're correct.

And women's oppression is far inferior to that suffered by blacks in America.

What is your point?

[Ostroeuropa]

Violence overwhelmingly perpetrated by males.

Because traditional society tells us that we must be violent, or we will be the victims of violence.

It is a part of our proscribed gender role that we are supposed to be the ones that violence happens to, because we are supposed to step up as protectors and defenders.

Males oppressed by other males - that's the patriarchy.

By males and females, unless you think that there are no women who also desire to keep things as they are currently.

And again, we are also fighting against the patriarchy. That is the whole point.

And your oppression is still inferior, far inferior, to the oppression suffered by women.

Maybe, in some places, you're correct.

And women's oppression is far inferior to that suffered by blacks in America.

What is your point?

By gaining the victimhood title, women can refuse to do anything to better mens situation. It means they have to put zero effort in except nagging men to change.
Even though their behavior and actions are part of the source of the problem.
I think it's just rationalization so they don't have to change their own behavior or admit they've ever done anything wrong.
Plus I think there may be some kind of collective worry that if they admit it was all bollocks and the sexes oppress eachother, that women will look like morons.

Laziness and fear of women being branded in the history books as the gender that was self-centered enough to think all sexism revolved around them.

The problem with both of these things is that so long as these behaviors of women aren't changed, the system will not change. Feminists will just get louder and louder, angrier and angrier, and more and more authoritarian about it because they refuse to address the real problem.

The problem with the second part, is that the longer it goes on, the stupider women will look. As it is they managed to be the gender that started the discussion on sexual equality, and it's really only very recently that the whole "We're both oppressed, we're both oppressing eachother" thing started gaining valid arguments, evidence, and wider support.
So unless you think Newton was a moron because he wasn't Einstein, you shouldn't feel this way.
But like i said. the longer it goes on, the larger the risk becomes.
A society which refused to move on from Newtonian physics out of fear of seeming stupid would seem really fucking stupid later on, wouldn't they.

I also think it's an expression of womens entitlement and gender roles again.

Women expect men to fix the problem for them, and feel entitled to just demand it be done. Expecting a woman to have agency and take part in solving her own problem seems alien to these types of feminist.

They engage in this gendered behavior specifically because they refuse to look inward and change it. It's a bunch of sexists complaining about sexism against them, ignoring that their sexism is a vital part of the systemic sexism in society.

That explains the women doing it.
The men? I think they're just trying to impress women.

Compare the feminist model to the MRA one, which explicitly gives MRAs agency over this.
Men just simply have to ignore women and their bullshit, form solidarity with their fellow man and be more nurturing to them etc, and sexism will be over soon enough.

Note, if women ignored men and their bullshit, and started acting with more agency, this would also largely be the case. Provide a system shock to one half and it'll collapse the other one, because the sexism of both sexes is inculcated and instilled by the other.

Dependent on the manospheric philsophy, that is.

MRAs tend to think the problem is soluble by men.
MGTOWs think that men ignoring womens bullshit and being more nurturing will collapse society, since now noone is doing the hard jobs and deadly shit, and that ONLY WOMEN can fix this situation by being more active and using their agency, and such, so society must be collapsed because fuck slavery.

(Notably both agree on what men should do in the case of gender roles. That is, stop giving a single fuck about women and their opinion of men or their manliness. They just disagree on the outcome.