NATION

PASSWORD

The NS Mens Rights Thread

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58536
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:58 am

On the subject of women making you play the guessing game for what they want.

You're sort of close to realizing what the problem is here, but you're ignoring that what you call a couple thing, is you being a babysitter. If she can't just admit she has no idea either, or can't just say what she wants to do, then you shouldn't have to enable her to do it. You're sat there thinking of dozens of choices, when she often already has one in mind and just can't be fucked to tell you for some ridiculous reason. In my opinion, she's abdicating responsibility in case the choice she makes turns out to be shit. She wants you to make the decisions so she doesn't have to be blamed for the consequences. That they get angry when you don't play along with them actively abdicating responsibilities and such to you should be a huge wake up call to the ones who seem to think gender roles are just something men do to women, and not something women constantly demand men do in various ways. (And visa versa.) The reason just rejecting their bullshit pretending not to make a decision and making one yourself pisses them off, is because you're treating them like the inferior they are pretending to be when it's convenient for them. But men don't have much other choice other than put up with bullshit. I think when women pull this shit, we should immediately take them at their word and just decide they are temporarily a toddler until they snap out of these fits of abdicating adulthood, or at least start a good faith effort to curb the behavior. You wouldn't ask a toddler where it wants to go, not all the time, and even when you did you'd basically just be telling it because you know it wants to go there. Sometimes you'd just pick, and they'll be happy about it, or they're just something you kind of ignore the tantrum of and put up with.
I think previous generations of men would have just picked because the womans opinion isn't very relevant and he's expected to just pick, and women expect him to just pick. But now it's a really noticable thing because it's the fusion of womens liberation and traditionalism to benefit women. She gets to make the decision, without the responsibility for it.
I don't think men should play along with that dynamic. It's not good for either of us.
We've been detoxified of a lot, but not all, of our sexist bullshit. Noones been doing that for women. There are still loads of behaviors like this one they engage in. Men talk about this shit in private, but it doesn't seem to dawn on them the implications of these behaviors, they just chalk it up to women being weird. It's awkward in my opinion, because few men are willing to acknowledge it, partially out of lack of awareness which is fair, we should work to change that, but also partially because they are scared of womens disapproval, or their ego is so invested in their approval they gun for it without thinking. That's fucking pathetic. We're better than that. They need to be told this shit. For everyones good.
For womens good because... jesus christ... grow up and crucially, STAY grown up. For one thing it'd allow you to take direct control over your life instead of backseat fucking driving. Men will not view you as responsible if you're often doing things which you lack responsibility for. It just won't happen. The dissonance is getting more and more obvious.
For men it's good because we'd finally have an actual equal who didn't lapse into sudden bouts of nonsense.
I bet some are going to be pissed I just said they are acting childish, when the entire point of some gender roles is the infantilization of women. I dunno.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Hyfling
Minister
 
Posts: 2478
Founded: May 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Hyfling » Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:34 am

The Alexanderians wrote:
New Grestin wrote:I see her more as the NSG equivalent of the town drunk. She wanders in, says something batshit crazy, then leaves to wreak further havoc.

...Now that I think of it, she's more like Mothra than anything.

She kind of reminds me of four sided triangle, if you were around for that.

I've heard legends of the infamous Four-Sided Triangle, but I don't really know what they did.

Would you mind enlightening me?

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58536
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:17 am

Later, when an anti mens rightser "ITS ALL TEH WIMMINZ OPPRESSSION" person turned up and said I was being condescending asshole by telling women how to fix their problem, and what a surprise, i'm an MRA!. (that's the whole response, basically. Just going through and declaring things anti-woman for various reasons. I'm posting these here because I think these are decent arguments for my stance.)

I'll try and say this as clearly as possible so I won't have to repeat it, because I suspect you're an AMRat, and there's little point in debating with a presuppositionalist.
Sexism is not a womens problem. It is a problem that effects everybody, and everybody has a part to play in it. Women have made it clear they dislike sexism. Men seem to agree. Assuming this means that women are able to instantly know all the ways they engage in sexism, is stupid. Assuming that women will be able to see the entirety of sexism from solely one genders perspective, is stupid. Your ideology, is stupid. It has no basis in reality. It's just another incarnation of traditionalism. Denial of womens ability to effect change, and men jumping to their defence from anything they can construe as against women or their honor, on top of suppressed empathy and acknowledgement of victimized males. The only thing keeping you people going is appeals to gendered sentiment. I don't think you've got long frankly, even a lot the feminists are moving to a duality view of sexism. Saying stupid shit like "Womens problems" is going to go out of vogue, and then what'll you say to make what I said seem bad and immoral? (Your types argument always boils down to this crap, as i'll explain later for your benefit.)
"Women, I know of a problem you sometimes cause which negatively effects us all, perhaps you did not consider it since you lack an outside perspective on your actions"
Oh dear. I'm clearly a fucking monster. I acknowledged it's not a womens problem and i'm not just bossing them around. I've caused women to have to do something instead of a man do it for them. i'm fucking awful, i'll go flog myself. I consider it empowering women to point out that it's not up to just men whether they get liberated. Your line forces them to have to nag and beg and appeal. Mine points out they have a number of ways they can directly effect change on this issue. Not only that, but points out to men why they should be doing this too, because of the downsides to them and the need for their own liberation.
Once again, you're pissing yourself at the concept of perhaps being condescending to women, instead of worrying whether it's true.
So what if it's condescending. Is it true that women acting this way perpetuate gender roles and they should stop? Yeh. Seems pretty clear to me.
It's got fuck all to do with women being emotional.
I'm sure they would realize i'm an asshole, but the crucial part is "You don't need to take note of what he says." you'd use your male gender to assure them this isn't the dynamic they have with men, but it is.
Because of people like you, we've got a gender equality movement where women say what they mean, and say how they view the situation, and men don't. That's a fucking broken movement. You should cut that shit out.
If we're going to discuss sexism, sometimes women are going to be insulted. Sometimes people are going to be sexist when discussing sexism. Because it's a process of detoxification and coming to an understanding of the ways the genders behaviors are flawed, not what you seem to have interpreted it as, which is resolutely refusing to say anything of fucking substance about mens experience of sexism (You know, the thing you actually have value for. Not just parroting what women say. You may as well not be there at all. That's actually better, as i'm pointing out.) and going off on people who do and accusing them of being sexist against women. Your kind is a goddamned cancer on the equality movement. You do realize it's because of people like you that men don't join in with feminism right? You're basically serving as a barrier to entry for men by rejecting their perspective entirely as sexist. The only men in the feminist movement are yes men, or men who havn't actually bothered to consider sexism from their own perspective as opposed to just starting from the one feminism provides and working from there, or men who somehow manage to tolerate the yes men like you trying to limit their expression and get them denounced by women so you can be the centre of their universe for a second and defend them from evil.
But sure buddy, you didn't say anything sexist against women. I mean, you didn't say anything at all, but you didn't say anything sexist against women, and that's what really matters, right? Have a cookie. Wasn't he brave folks, a real champ of call out culture. I'm sure the ladies will give you a big round of applause. That took real guts that did, taking a stand like that. (Yes. I'm ridiculing you. I'm serious about people like you needing to stop. I'm willing to apply social pressure to do it, and I think others should too. We should take that feeling of accomplishment you feel when you do this stuff away from you, because it isn't earned. Try fucking harder.)
Ofcourse, when all that sexism still against men inevitably results in disadvantages for women too, you'll be right there to insist you give a shit about their problems, wont you.
Do you see how I pointed out how your behavior leads to women being in a worse situation? That's how you properly call someone out. You don't just assert shit about the persons attitude or how the other side feel about it. You don't just up and declare them bad people and thus you don't have to listen to them. That's entirely useless. I suspect your particular wave of AMRat goons latched on to this strategy because they lack the skill to properly argue and think namecalling is the same thing, because all of you do it. You see? I enjoy insulting people too, but it's not the entire point of my post. It's just me being an asshole. So i'm an asshole with an argument. What does that make you? By the way, that was me being condescending for that post. Now ask yourself if you think I was really being condescending to women.


Yeh, i'm an asshole in this post. I don't care. Everything I said is true. These people deserve to be treated poorly when they pull this shit. It's self-serving, short sighted, and obnoxious. I've done it too, but i've tried to pull it back when people point out what i'm doing. Losing sight of the bigger picture is bad mkay.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:19 am, edited 5 times in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
The Alexanderians
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12581
Founded: Oct 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Alexanderians » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:57 am

Hyfling wrote:
The Alexanderians wrote:She kind of reminds me of four sided triangle, if you were around for that.

I've heard legends of the infamous Four-Sided Triangle, but I don't really know what they did.

Would you mind enlightening me?

You know that stereotype that all feminists are man hating, whiny, tumblrinas? This is one of the few cases where it's actually completely true.
Four-Sided Triangle was a walking rad-fem stereotype. It was suspected that it was just a troll but some people believe the crap they peddled was their actual beliefs. They claimed to be a woman but again some suspected them of being a self-hating man. Some of the things they said ranged from all men are internalized rapists to "bisexual men are just gay men that feel the need to continue dominating woman, and bisexual women are conditioned by the patriarchy to continue being subservient to men. They used the infamous bowl of M&Ms argument. They were a joke, Chess is tame by compare.
Last edited by The Alexanderians on Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Galloism wrote:Or we can go with feminism doesn't exist. We all imagined it. Collectively.
You can't fight the friction
Women belong in the kitchen
Men belong in the kitchen
Everyone belongs in the kitchen
Kitchen has food
I have brought dishonor to my gaming clan
Achesia wrote:Threads like this is why I need to stop coming to NSG....

Marethian Lupanar of Teladre wrote:A bright and cheerful mountain village of chapel-goers~

The Archregimancy wrote:
Hagia Sophia is best church.

Major-Tom wrote:Why am I full of apathy?

I'm just here to be the peanut gallery
уσυ нανєи'т gσт тнє fυℓℓ єffє¢т

User avatar
Haktiva
Senator
 
Posts: 4762
Founded: Sep 18, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Haktiva » Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:18 pm

My current favorite content produce is Turd Flinging Monkey when it comes to MGTOW material. is newest video concerning the NAWALT argument is worth a watch IMO
Last edited by Haktiva on Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All around disagreeable person.

"Personal freedom is a double edged sword though. On the one end, it grants more power to the individual. However, the vast majority of individuals are fuckin idiots, and if certain restraints are not metered down by more responsible members of society, the society quickly degrades into a hedonistic and psychotic cluster fuck."

User avatar
Hyfling
Minister
 
Posts: 2478
Founded: May 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Hyfling » Fri Aug 28, 2015 8:56 pm

The Alexanderians wrote:
Hyfling wrote:I've heard legends of the infamous Four-Sided Triangle, but I don't really know what they did.

Would you mind enlightening me?

You know that stereotype that all feminists are man hating, whiny, tumblrinas? This is one of the few cases where it's actually completely true.
Four-Sided Triangle was a walking rad-fem stereotype. It was suspected that it was just a troll but some people believe the crap they peddled was their actual beliefs. They claimed to be a woman but again some suspected them of being a self-hating man. Some of the things they said ranged from all men are internalized rapists to "bisexual men are just gay men that feel the need to continue dominating woman, and bisexual women are conditioned by the patriarchy to continue being subservient to men. They used the infamous bowl of M&Ms argument. They were a joke, Chess is tame by compare.

Wow.

Thanks for that tidbit of NSG history.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58536
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:46 am

It's an unavoidable consequence of the child support policy that you are forcing raped men to pay for the product of them being raped, unless you take all of them at their word. (And even then, some may not admit it.). The possibility of barriers between accusations and convictions is also true "Do you have a financial incentive to make this accusation?" is a damning question to hear in a court room. This is one of the reasons I think child support is not a good policy. It necessarily victimizes raped men. Either by increasing the rates of false accusations and causing people to be even more skeptical. Or by providing men a financial incentive to claim they were raped and thus prevent convictions. Or by forcing them to pay money each week/month for the privilege of having been raped, and to be reminded of that rape every time they see their paycheck. I think the lack of concern for this issue among child support advocates is expressive of lack of empathy for men and their assumptions about fatherhood, frankly. Some of those who are concerned with it seem more obsessed with squaring the circle and somehow keeping child support viable than recognizing that no matter what you do, it will always be the case that child support is an anti-rape victim policy.

But ok then let's put in an exemption for raped men. What now? Well, all those problems I pointed out still come up, and you're still victimizing raped men. And not only raped men, but men who's partners sabotage birth control or use their sperm without their consent. That is also a form of violation against someone.
I think that the forcing raped men to pay child support thing is either an oversight in writing the laws, (Perhaps brought about through misandry and believing men cannot be raped, though, to be fair, they also had this problem with custody, so it could be just a mistake.) or a callous and unsympathetic view that the man should just get over it and attend to his responsibilities. Responsibilities are often thrust upon men with no say or decision in the matter that was entirely outside their control and they are expected to just get on with it. The draft, for instance.
I think the fact that this consequence is unavoidable makes trying to put in exemptions for it largely a farce. That's also why I believe the "Abortion in case of rape" thing is a farce too. Once this problem is confronted and acknowledged, I think child support will likely fall apart as a system, or the courts will go with the response:
"Well, you know, if you can prove you were raped then sure, but otherwise, just get over it and attend to your responsibilities."
Which, you know. Doesn't actually fix the problem. It just allows the policy to save face.

This is before you even address the other arguments against the policy, and already, it is faced with an insurmountable problem.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
New Grestin
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9500
Founded: Dec 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby New Grestin » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:53 am

The Alexanderians wrote:
Hyfling wrote:I've heard legends of the infamous Four-Sided Triangle, but I don't really know what they did.

Would you mind enlightening me?

You know that stereotype that all feminists are man hating, whiny, tumblrinas? This is one of the few cases where it's actually completely true.
Four-Sided Triangle was a walking rad-fem stereotype. It was suspected that it was just a troll but some people believe the crap they peddled was their actual beliefs. They claimed to be a woman but again some suspected them of being a self-hating man. Some of the things they said ranged from all men are internalized rapists to "bisexual men are just gay men that feel the need to continue dominating woman, and bisexual women are conditioned by the patriarchy to continue being subservient to men. They used the infamous bowl of M&Ms argument. They were a joke, Chess is tame by compare.

How intriguing.

I'd still argue that Chess goes well over the line on a distressingly regular basis, but that? That's just insane.
Let’s not dwell on our corpse strewn past. Let’s celebrate our corpse strewn future!
Head Bartender for The Pub | The Para-Verse | Writing Advice from a Pretentious Jerk | I write stuff | Arbitrary Political Numbers
Kentucky Fried Land wrote:I should have known Grestin was Christopher Walken the whole time.
ThePub wrote:New Grestin: "I will always choose the aborable lesbians over an entire town."
Imperial Idaho wrote:And with 1-2 sentences Grestin has declared war on the national pride of Canada.
- Best Worldbuilding - 2016 (Community Choice)
- Best Horror/Thriller RP for THE ZONE - 2016 (Community Choice)

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:55 am

New Grestin wrote:
The Alexanderians wrote:You know that stereotype that all feminists are man hating, whiny, tumblrinas? This is one of the few cases where it's actually completely true.
Four-Sided Triangle was a walking rad-fem stereotype. It was suspected that it was just a troll but some people believe the crap they peddled was their actual beliefs. They claimed to be a woman but again some suspected them of being a self-hating man. Some of the things they said ranged from all men are internalized rapists to "bisexual men are just gay men that feel the need to continue dominating woman, and bisexual women are conditioned by the patriarchy to continue being subservient to men. They used the infamous bowl of M&Ms argument. They were a joke, Chess is tame by compare.

How intriguing.

I'd still argue that Chess goes well over the line on a distressingly regular basis, but that? That's just insane.


Maybe they're one and the same?
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
New Grestin
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9500
Founded: Dec 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby New Grestin » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:58 am

Gauthier wrote:
New Grestin wrote:How intriguing.

I'd still argue that Chess goes well over the line on a distressingly regular basis, but that? That's just insane.


Maybe they're one and the same?

Well, her recent statements lead me to believe that her hatred of men was a bit more...subdued until recently, but she strikes we as someone with a tiny nugget of logic, screaming to be released. The person previously described seems like a batshit crazy lunatic.

I really only dislike her because she makes the other feminists on this site look like idiots, at least most of the time. Especially with that "Breast Implants are Patriarchy" nonsense thread she put up a while back.
Last edited by New Grestin on Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Let’s not dwell on our corpse strewn past. Let’s celebrate our corpse strewn future!
Head Bartender for The Pub | The Para-Verse | Writing Advice from a Pretentious Jerk | I write stuff | Arbitrary Political Numbers
Kentucky Fried Land wrote:I should have known Grestin was Christopher Walken the whole time.
ThePub wrote:New Grestin: "I will always choose the aborable lesbians over an entire town."
Imperial Idaho wrote:And with 1-2 sentences Grestin has declared war on the national pride of Canada.
- Best Worldbuilding - 2016 (Community Choice)
- Best Horror/Thriller RP for THE ZONE - 2016 (Community Choice)

User avatar
Camicon
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14377
Founded: Aug 26, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Camicon » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:03 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:It's an unavoidable consequence of the child support policy that you are forcing raped men to pay for the product of them being raped, unless you take all of them at their word. (And even then, some may not admit it.). The possibility of barriers between accusations and convictions is also true "Do you have a financial incentive to make this accusation?" is a damning question to hear in a court room. This is one of the reasons I think child support is not a good policy. It necessarily victimizes raped men. Either by increasing the rates of false accusations and causing people to be even more skeptical. Or by providing men a financial incentive to claim they were raped and thus prevent convictions. Or by forcing them to pay money each week/month for the privilege of having been raped, and to be reminded of that rape every time they see their paycheck. I think the lack of concern for this issue among child support advocates is expressive of lack of empathy for men and their assumptions about fatherhood, frankly. Some of those who are concerned with it seem more obsessed with squaring the circle and somehow keeping child support viable than recognizing that no matter what you do, it will always be the case that child support is an anti-rape victim policy.

But ok then let's put in an exemption for raped men. What now? Well, all those problems I pointed out still come up, and you're still victimizing raped men. And not only raped men, but men who's partners sabotage birth control or use their sperm without their consent. That is also a form of violation against someone.
I think that the forcing raped men to pay child support thing is either an oversight in writing the laws, (Perhaps brought about through misandry and believing men cannot be raped, though, to be fair, they also had this problem with custody, so it could be just a mistake.) or a callous and unsympathetic view that the man should just get over it and attend to his responsibilities. Responsibilities are often thrust upon men with no say or decision in the matter that was entirely outside their control and they are expected to just get on with it. The draft, for instance.
I think the fact that this consequence is unavoidable makes trying to put in exemptions for it largely a farce. That's also why I believe the "Abortion in case of rape" thing is a farce too. Once this problem is confronted and acknowledged, I think child support will likely fall apart as a system, or the courts will go with the response:
"Well, you know, if you can prove you were raped then sure, but otherwise, just get over it and attend to your responsibilities."
Which, you know. Doesn't actually fix the problem. It just allows the policy to save face.

This is before you even address the other arguments against the policy, and already, it is faced with an insurmountable problem.

If men have the right to a paper abortion then all those points you raised become moot. For all of it's problems, child support does play an important role in ensuring that children who are being raised primarily by a single parent, who don't have a viable income for whatever reason, have a better quality of life; scrapping it entirely is unnecessary.
Hey/They
Active since May, 2009
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the arts
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
The Trews, Under The Sun
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter

Why (Male) Rape Is Hilarious [because it has to be]

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:05 am

New Grestin wrote:
Gauthier wrote:
Maybe they're one and the same?

Well, her recent statements lead me to believe that her hatred of men was a bit more...subdued until recently, but she strikes we as someone with a tiny nugget of logic, screaming to be released. The person previously described seems like a batshit crazy lunatic.

I really only dislike her because she makes the other feminists on this site look like idiots, at least most of the time. Especially with that "Breast Implants are Patriarchy" nonsense thread she put up a while back.


I still believe it's nothing more than an MRA sock puppet made for the primary purpose of discrediting feminism.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Camicon
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14377
Founded: Aug 26, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Camicon » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:08 am

Gauthier wrote:
New Grestin wrote:Well, her recent statements lead me to believe that her hatred of men was a bit more...subdued until recently, but she strikes we as someone with a tiny nugget of logic, screaming to be released. The person previously described seems like a batshit crazy lunatic.

I really only dislike her because she makes the other feminists on this site look like idiots, at least most of the time. Especially with that "Breast Implants are Patriarchy" nonsense thread she put up a while back.


I still believe it's nothing more than an MRA sock puppet made for the primary purpose of discrediting feminism.

We have extremists of every sort on this site; we're bound to get some rad-fems. I've seen nothing to suggest that Chess is anything less than honest about her positions.
Hey/They
Active since May, 2009
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the arts
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
The Trews, Under The Sun
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter

Why (Male) Rape Is Hilarious [because it has to be]

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58536
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:09 am

Gauthier wrote:
New Grestin wrote:Well, her recent statements lead me to believe that her hatred of men was a bit more...subdued until recently, but she strikes we as someone with a tiny nugget of logic, screaming to be released. The person previously described seems like a batshit crazy lunatic.

I really only dislike her because she makes the other feminists on this site look like idiots, at least most of the time. Especially with that "Breast Implants are Patriarchy" nonsense thread she put up a while back.


I still believe it's nothing more than an MRA sock puppet made for the primary purpose of discrediting feminism.


You've seen me argue with moderate feminists. You've seen others do it.
I think it's clear none of us think we need Chessmistress to be able to discredit feminism.
You forget, we think we're winning those arguments.

So this right here? This is just you being paranoid. It's also you not believing that someone can be a feminist and a sexist against men to such an extent.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58536
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:10 am

Camicon wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:It's an unavoidable consequence of the child support policy that you are forcing raped men to pay for the product of them being raped, unless you take all of them at their word. (And even then, some may not admit it.). The possibility of barriers between accusations and convictions is also true "Do you have a financial incentive to make this accusation?" is a damning question to hear in a court room. This is one of the reasons I think child support is not a good policy. It necessarily victimizes raped men. Either by increasing the rates of false accusations and causing people to be even more skeptical. Or by providing men a financial incentive to claim they were raped and thus prevent convictions. Or by forcing them to pay money each week/month for the privilege of having been raped, and to be reminded of that rape every time they see their paycheck. I think the lack of concern for this issue among child support advocates is expressive of lack of empathy for men and their assumptions about fatherhood, frankly. Some of those who are concerned with it seem more obsessed with squaring the circle and somehow keeping child support viable than recognizing that no matter what you do, it will always be the case that child support is an anti-rape victim policy.

But ok then let's put in an exemption for raped men. What now? Well, all those problems I pointed out still come up, and you're still victimizing raped men. And not only raped men, but men who's partners sabotage birth control or use their sperm without their consent. That is also a form of violation against someone.
I think that the forcing raped men to pay child support thing is either an oversight in writing the laws, (Perhaps brought about through misandry and believing men cannot be raped, though, to be fair, they also had this problem with custody, so it could be just a mistake.) or a callous and unsympathetic view that the man should just get over it and attend to his responsibilities. Responsibilities are often thrust upon men with no say or decision in the matter that was entirely outside their control and they are expected to just get on with it. The draft, for instance.
I think the fact that this consequence is unavoidable makes trying to put in exemptions for it largely a farce. That's also why I believe the "Abortion in case of rape" thing is a farce too. Once this problem is confronted and acknowledged, I think child support will likely fall apart as a system, or the courts will go with the response:
"Well, you know, if you can prove you were raped then sure, but otherwise, just get over it and attend to your responsibilities."
Which, you know. Doesn't actually fix the problem. It just allows the policy to save face.

This is before you even address the other arguments against the policy, and already, it is faced with an insurmountable problem.

If men have the right to a paper abortion then all those points you raised become moot. For all of it's problems, child support does play an important role in ensuring that children who are being raised primarily by a single parent, who don't have a viable income for whatever reason, have a better quality of life; scrapping it entirely is unnecessary.


I should point out, this post was meant in support of paper abortion as an option. I wasn't very clear on that, you're right.
I do support child support in cases where the parents are willing.

"The child support policy" I talked about was meant to be understood, as the policy of enforcing child support on parents, even against their will.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
United States of White America
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 486
Founded: Nov 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United States of White America » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:14 am

Haktiva wrote:My current favorite content produce is Turd Flinging Monkey when it comes to MGTOW material. is newest video concerning the NAWALT argument is worth a watch IMO


Both men and women are stupid.
Christianity is good. Atheism is not. Deal with it.

User avatar
New Grestin
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9500
Founded: Dec 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby New Grestin » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:41 am

United States of White America wrote:
Haktiva wrote:My current favorite content produce is Turd Flinging Monkey when it comes to MGTOW material. is newest video concerning the NAWALT argument is worth a watch IMO


Both men and women are stupid.

Shitposting II: Shitpost Harder.

Seriously, this is a thread about the Men's Rights Movement, not Misanthropy. Get over yourself.
Let’s not dwell on our corpse strewn past. Let’s celebrate our corpse strewn future!
Head Bartender for The Pub | The Para-Verse | Writing Advice from a Pretentious Jerk | I write stuff | Arbitrary Political Numbers
Kentucky Fried Land wrote:I should have known Grestin was Christopher Walken the whole time.
ThePub wrote:New Grestin: "I will always choose the aborable lesbians over an entire town."
Imperial Idaho wrote:And with 1-2 sentences Grestin has declared war on the national pride of Canada.
- Best Worldbuilding - 2016 (Community Choice)
- Best Horror/Thriller RP for THE ZONE - 2016 (Community Choice)

User avatar
Irona
Minister
 
Posts: 2399
Founded: Dec 27, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Irona » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:52 am

What does everybody think is the most pressing issue that can be addressed by the MR movement?

User avatar
Tahar Joblis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9290
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Tahar Joblis » Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:18 am

Irona wrote:What does everybody think is the most pressing issue that can be addressed by the MR movement?

Failure to recognize and take seriously male victims and female perpetrators.

User avatar
Irona
Minister
 
Posts: 2399
Founded: Dec 27, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Irona » Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:29 am

Tahar Joblis wrote:
Irona wrote:What does everybody think is the most pressing issue that can be addressed by the MR movement?

Failure to recognize and take seriously male victims and female perpetrators.

Victims and perpetrators of what? Do you think it affects all crimes?

User avatar
Alyakia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18422
Founded: Jul 12, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alyakia » Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:30 am

Irona wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote:Failure to recognize and take seriously male victims and female perpetrators.

Victims and perpetrators of what? Do you think it affects all crimes?


yes
pro: good
anti: bad

The UK and EU are Better Together

"Margaret Thatcher showed the world that women are not too soft or the weaker sex, and can be as heartless, horrible, and amoral as any male politician."

User avatar
Hirota
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7528
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:32 am

Tahar Joblis wrote:
Irona wrote:What does everybody think is the most pressing issue that can be addressed by the MR movement?

Failure to recognize and take seriously male victims and female perpetrators.
I'd say the criminal justice system in general, which includes the failure of the legal system and police to take seriously male victims, but also include disparity in criminal sentencing and presumption of guilt under the Duluth model
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
Tahar Joblis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9290
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Tahar Joblis » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:10 pm

Irona wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote:Failure to recognize and take seriously male victims and female perpetrators.

Victims and perpetrators of what? Do you think it affects all crimes?

It affects all crimes and also wrongdoing that is not criminal.

Gendered disproportionate treatment of perpetrators and victims - amounting to discounting male victims and excusing female perpetrators - happens for everything from genocidal mass murder all the way down to being rude to strangers on the internet.

User avatar
Haktiva
Senator
 
Posts: 4762
Founded: Sep 18, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Haktiva » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:55 pm

There's a thread going on at MGTOWHQ more or less pondering why women are the way they are today in the Western world. This is fairly common in the manopshere, but some of the replies here are particularly good in my opinion.

The main premise of this thread is how fathers influence daughters, or really men creating such intolerable women or their part in doing so. It makes sense since our gynocentric instincts makes us coddle girls and women, putting them on a pedestal. So can we really blame them for acting like spoiled princesses?

My favorite response in the thread to far reads as such:

You want to blame something or somebody... but really, there's nothing to blame. We're animals, that's all. Our purpose is to replicate -- to better compete with the rest of the animal kingdom. Women are the way they are for a reason. They chase Chad for a reason. Chad has good genes. Chad gives them tingles because Chad represents better biological competitiveness. They want good genes, that's all.

We want good genes as well. That's why we look for hourglass figures. We're wired to chase for youth. For beauty.

There is no fault in any of it. You really can't blame them for divorce shenanigans either. They're just doing what society deems as rational behavior for a woman. We value women and children over men because deep down, we're wired to place the continuation of the species over our own happiness. Well, most of us are wired that way.

MGTOW is essentially rising above one's genetic programming. You can never completely escape your programming, but you can have awareness. Enough awareness to make better decisions, at least. I'd wager that most of us aren't Chad. We may not be banging tons of women every night, but to be honest, I much prefer it that way. It's a rat race, racking up notches on the bedpost just for an empty ego boost.

MGTOW will never collapse society as some here seem to desire. Men will never stop chasing skirts in their teens and 20's. Sure, white American middle class males may slow down like the Japanese have, but we'll just get replaced by minorities who don't care about MGTOW concerns. Nature doesn't care. Nature WILL get its way, one way or the other. The only way out of that game is technology... and we're still a ways off yet!


I think one of the key points of the MRM, at least with MGTOW is to understand male and female nature. I would argue that feminists(you know the ones I mean) and traditionalists stand in the way of such things because it shatters the idea of utopia. There are many women who would lose great deal if men at large became aware of female nature, not seeing them as perfect princesses, and men would have a hard time of it as well since for some reason, women are a high priority. I have nothing against people pairing up, but they need to go into such things with their eyes wide open, guys especially.
All around disagreeable person.

"Personal freedom is a double edged sword though. On the one end, it grants more power to the individual. However, the vast majority of individuals are fuckin idiots, and if certain restraints are not metered down by more responsible members of society, the society quickly degrades into a hedonistic and psychotic cluster fuck."

User avatar
Chestaan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6977
Founded: Sep 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Chestaan » Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:00 pm

Irona wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote:Failure to recognize and take seriously male victims and female perpetrators.

Victims and perpetrators of what? Do you think it affects all crimes?


I think this link that Ostro posted up earlier is a good example of the problem.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/quee ... 1440885765

This link works, sentenced to 6.5 years in jail and eligible for parole after only 18 months!
Last edited by Chestaan on Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Council Communist
TG me if you want to chat, especially about economics, you can never have enough discussions on economics.Especially game theory :)
Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.62

Getting the Guillotine

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DutchFormosa, Free Stalliongrad, General TN, Google Feedfetcher (Ancient), Kreigsreich of Iron, Likhinia, Maximum Imperium Rex, Nivosea, Plan Neonie, Samicana, Sarolandia, Simonia, Tiami, Tungstan, Uiiop, Vladivoslokiyiiv

Advertisement

Remove ads