Betsy DeVos to meet with MRAs

[Galloism]

So, in other words, toxic masculinity is a way of blaming the problems faced by men on other men? Would you call the slut shaming of women by other women toxic femininity?

Also you do realise that by claiming that those who engage in toxic masculinity do so because their own masculinity is fragile you are doing the exact same thing that those who engage in toxic masculinity do? Specifically you are calling those who don't conform to your views less manly than those who do.

Not other men, other people and the society in which the issues arise.

Toxic masculinity is not just something people do. Rape is not toxic masculinity, but the prevalence of it is. The fragility of masculinity however is just an irritating way to ignore the issues men face. People killing themselves or killing others is not fragility, it's a problem.

This is your periodic reminder that, among adults, women raping men isn't some severe minority of events. It probably makes up 40% of rapes (or so) in the adult population.

[Costa Fierro]

Because you have no reason to be afraid of people you don't know.

How ridiculous.

[Ostroeuropa]

Blaming the culture that enforces this stuff on men*
You seem to completely, either by choice or by just not reading properly, misunderstood my comment entirely. Society enforces these roles, not individual people.
Toxic masculinity is not masculinity, just as toxic femininity is not femininity. Come on, it's not hard to see what this comment means.

Atleast in Finland, about half of emergency calls to homes are domestic violence issues, and a large portion of murder is husbands stabbing their wife while both were drunk and arguing. I blame our alcohol and family culture for this, not men, or women.

Ignoring whole sections of arguments never gets old either.

I challenge you to find me a feminist political or activist organization that uses "toxic feminity" in a sentence.

And, incidentally, women killing their husbands may not be the severe minority we think it is. Women by and large get the benefit of every possible doubt in the legal system as suspects, so it's likely most women who murder their husbands just don't get charged.

Battered person syndrome may also explain some number of men who kill their wives, in conjunction with the legal system ignoring evidence of abuse/refusal to admit what happened to them because of stereotypes and shame.

Steven Pinker has claimed (with some evidence.) that the introduction of womens shelters reduced the number of dead husbands more than it reduced the number of dead wives.

[Kvatchdom]

Being told to man up after facing trauma is indeed, the causation of a culture that enforces toxic masculinity and toxic femininity. None of these problems were caused by feminists, but by pre-set ideals that men are strong and cold and women are weak and warm, thus the judicial system often sides with either depending on the issue and the culture they live in.

Luckily, there are countries that don't have juries/judges deciding the sentences but pre-set laws to decide who gets what for which crimes, though these countries often have too low jail times to even feel like a punishment to a rapist of either sex.

Even in countries where the laws are de jure equal, they are not enforced equally.

In the US, our domestic violence laws are de jure equal, but if a man calls police to beg and plead for help from his abusive wife (after overcoming all social pressure not to), he's more likely to be arrested than his abuser.

This is not true in the reverse.

And you're wrong, incidentally. The denial of men as victims of domestic violence IS caused by feminists. We never took it seriously (in fact, in middle England, a man beaten by his wife was punished by being forced to ride an animal facing backward while being pelted with fruit by the crowd), but we never had the wholesale denial until feminism stuck its nose in and decided that women only commit violence in self defense (where "he made me mad" is self-defense), Erin Pizzley was marginalized, maligned, and attacked (even being forced to flee the country), and the Duluth Model was pushed that defined domestic violence as patriarchal oppression.

In countries like the US where the judge can make decisions based on their opinions, yes. Though controlling cops won't be as easy on that part.

How have feminists caused a societal belief that men are strong and violent and women are warm and weak? That's the opposite of the message it's about, and not a single country except maybe Canada even has a self-described feminist in charge of policy. I have yet to see a feminist that doesn't believe men suffer from these issues aswell. Aside from Chestmistress or whoever.

Because you have no reason to be afraid of people you don't know.

Coming from someone who claims to be a feminist, this just might be the most ironic shit ever.

How come?

Blaming the culture that enforces this stuff on men*
You seem to completely, either by choice or by just not reading properly, misunderstood my comment entirely. Society enforces these roles, not individual people.
Toxic masculinity is not masculinity, just as toxic femininity is not femininity. Come on, it's not hard to see what this comment means.

Atleast in Finland, about half of emergency calls to homes are domestic violence issues, and a large portion of murder is husbands stabbing their wife while both were drunk and arguing. I blame our alcohol and family culture for this, not men, or women.

Ignoring whole sections of arguments never gets old either.

I challenge you to find me a feminist political or activist organization that uses "toxic feminity" in a sentence.

And, incidentally, women killing their husbands may not be the severe minority we think it is. Women by and large get the benefit of every possible doubt in the legal system as suspects, so it's likely most women who murder their husbands just don't get charged.

It's not a widely used word I have to admit, but it's existence is well known. It's the same as toxic masculinity, it puts women into a certain box that hurts them.

Eh, not here atleast, and I doubt in America either. The doubts about women being able to commit violence is, once again, not feminism. Feminists didn't invert gender roles.

This is your periodic reminder that, among adults, women raping men isn't some severe minority of events. It probably makes up 40% of rapes (or so) in the adult population.

I know, and that's a problem. Too often these rapists specifically are let off easy due to society not seeing the rape of men or young boys as a necessarily bad or even sometimes a possible thing. My old music teacher who was sentenced for raping 4 13-year old boys almost got off via probation but due to heavy media attention and pushback it was increased to the standard 4-6 years.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

It's not irrational, it's not childish and it's not cringy. And it's not "feeling like a victim", because we're not victims.

It is all those things. It's simply people who prefer being single, nothing more. They just decided to come up with an edgy name for it.

Bullshit. They came up with a name to call attention to the reasons why they're single, because if they just say they're single, people will assume it's merely because they're shy or whatever. (I've long been skeptical of that talking point; I think we all have better reasons to fear relationships than that, but such propaganda has managed to convince too many of us we're the only ones who do.)

The more attention is called to their reasons, the more likely they are to be addressed. The more likely they are to be addressed, the sooner we can get into relationships.

[Kvatchdom]

It is all those things. It's simply people who prefer being single, nothing more. They just decided to come up with an edgy name for it.

Bullshit. They came up with a name to call attention to the reasons why they're single, because if they just say they're single, people will assume it's merely because they're shy or whatever. (I've long been skeptical of that talking point; I think we all have better reasons to fear relationships than that, but such propaganda has managed to convince too many of us we're the only ones who do.)

The more attention is called to their reasons, the more likely they are to be addressed. The more likely they are to be addressed, the sooner we can get into relationships.

And what reason is that?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Bullshit. They came up with a name to call attention to the reasons why they're single, because if they just say they're single, people will assume it's merely because they're shy or whatever. (I've long been skeptical of that talking point; I think we all have better reasons to fear relationships than that, but such propaganda has managed to convince too many of us we're the only ones who do.)

The more attention is called to their reasons, the more likely they are to be addressed. The more likely they are to be addressed, the sooner we can get into relationships.

And what reason is that?

What reason is what?

[Kvatchdom]

And what reason is that?

What reason is what?

Why do they need attention on the reason they're single, and what is that reason?

[Imperializt Russia]

A couple choice responses.

"Rejecting women" (in this context, celibacy) and "being a homosexual male" are not the same thing. And indeed, many high society types who have retained a modicum of fame either were gay or rumoured to be such. The enforcement of anti-homosexuality in the UK has been extremely classist, right up to and indeed beyond its partial and eventual total decriminalisation.
If you reject women because of your perceived treatment by women, and/or how you worry women might "treat" you in future, you are a bad person with irrational concerns.

Eh, I'm not sure it's an irrational concern. Overblown perhaps, but not per se irrational.

If it is overblown, then it is ascribed greater severity or frequency than is true, and is therefore irrational.

Women, like men, also sabotage birth control to "trap" their partners into this abusive relationship - except women have the social freedom to leave, while men are socially shamed and told to "man up".

1) "trapping" is hilariously rare. Rejecting women in fear of it is irrational. A woman engaging in this act is also being irrational, pretty plainly.
You are skewing the dynamic of "freedom to leave". It is not leaving the relationship and the partner, but leaving the child which is stigmatised. The woman has the "freedom" to leave the man, and take the child. The man also ostensibly has the freedom to leave the woman and take the child.
A woman leaving a child is also heavily stigmatised. These responses are all rooted in assumed gender roles, which 3rd wave feminism opposes, as part of what it consider societal sexism.

And if any of this abuse or rape results in a child, holy shit are you fucked. The state will require you to support your abusive rapist partner for 18 years. If you don't stay and endure the beatings, you're alternatively awful for leaving your abuser or leaving your child in the hands of your abuser. Oh, and if you try to get your child away from your abuser, you probably are viewed as being the abuser. Therefore, your chances of success are slim and you'll be vilified in any case.

Overblown? Perhaps. Irrational?

Yes, it is still irrational.

Much like political lesbianism, which has similar motivations (except without the state sponsored reinforcement of abuse).

In case you're not familiar with political lesbians, they are straight women who "become gay" because they want to reject men.

You seem to assume that I think political lesbianism is fine and dandy. Due to the power dynamic, I think it's "not as bad" as MGTOWs with their literally misogynist baggage, but political lesbianism is also irrational and is as close as any elements of feminism come to "misandry". Political lesbianism has never been looked upon particularly favourably by the more inclusive regions of feminism since as you alluded to, it's pretty dismissive of the LGBT end of the stick by framing lesbianism as literally a choice.
This is of course distinguished against women who do discover lesbianism or bisexuality after swearing off men who are later claimed to be "political lesbians".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but MGTOWs usually still identify as straight, and probably still engage in casual sex with women.

---

"Rejecting women" (in this context, celibacy) and "being a homosexual male" are not the same thing. And indeed, many high society types who have retained a modicum of fame either were gay or rumoured to be such. The enforcement of anti-homosexuality in the UK has been extremely classist, right up to and indeed beyond its partial and eventual total decriminalisation.
If you reject women because of your perceived treatment by women, and/or how you worry women might "treat" you in future, you are a bad person with irrational concerns.

That's not what you said. You contrasted it with "owning" being single, while still remaining vague about exactly how that contrasts with MGTOW.

No more backpedalling. Answer the question.

I did. That you choose to disregard my answer because... whatever isn't my problem.

---

The whole point of toxic masculinity is that it is men policing the actions of other men for being insufficiently manly. Anyone who uses the terms beta, alpha, cuck, fag (or any other homophobic slur), questioning manliness (pacifism, career choice, assertiveness) or the perceived "no friendship possible" male-female dynamic are engaging in activities that we call "toxic masculinity". And fragile masculinity as a part of that - their masculinity is so facile and fragile that they perceive the need to lash out "toxically" to enforce it.

Toxic masculinity is about enforcing "manliness" because, through a feminist perspective, men are obviously privileged over women in most aspects of society, and this is an effort to batter men into line with the social script placing men at the top in positions of power.

That's all it is.

So, in other words, toxic masculinity is a way of blaming the problems faced by men on other men? Would you call the slut shaming of women by other women toxic femininity?

No. It's certainly toxic behaviour, but since when did people under 40 take women being chaste as a vital element of femininity?

Also you do realise that by claiming that those who engage in toxic masculinity do so because their own masculinity is fragile you are doing the exact same thing that those who engage in toxic masculinity do? Specifically you are calling those who don't conform to your views less manly than those who do.

No, that's not what is meant by fragility. In case you haven't worked it out, I don't really care for "manliness". Whilst on any gender/sexuality spectrum I'd lean pretty heavily towards the "unambiguously male" end of either, I'm hardly an inadvertent MGTOW poster boy (though I am a 24yo male socially awkward virgin who spends all their time on the internet lambasting their personal failures, so who knows).

The idea of "fragile masculinity" is that men who have so much invested in their interpretation of masculinity are ironically unable to handle points of view, even when not relevant to them, that contrast with their interpretations, and viscerally defend their interpretation by attacking contrary views. This is exhibited by homophobic reactions to inclusive advertising, attacks on genderflipping (cosplay, 13th Doctor) and anything perceived to be a threat.
I could you could argue the line that "fragile masculinity" is about not actually being very masculine since it contradicts the masculine attributes of fearlessness and strength of conviction, but like I said - I don't have any investment in the rating of manliness, so I don't make that argument.

---

If you reject women because of your perceived treatment by women, and/or how you worry women might "treat" you in future, you are a bad person with irrational concerns.

Absolutely not.

First, some men have been, are being, and will be treated like shit by women in their lives. That doesn't mean they're bad people, and claiming that those men are bad people is nothing more and nothing less than victim-blaming.

Not when most of them aren't victims.

and many women also worry about being treated like shit by men.

Maybe this is because there is a long history in civilisation of women being systemically treated like shit by men. As literal property. Until astoundingly recently, even in the west.

That you ignore this in making that point is either astounding ignorance, which I wouldn't expect from you, or deliberately obfuscating the power dynamic in furthering your views.

Third, some men, especially men with a low sex drive, see relatively little benefit from having a close relationship with even a woman who doesn't treat them like shit, being perfectly content to pursue hobbies, career, etc, which means that the risk-reward equation (some chance of a woman who turns out to be okay, some chance of a woman who treats you like shit and actively tries to ruin your life) shifts pretty dramatically. Especially when you consider how much work the typical man has to do to start a relationship. For a typical single adult man who isn't in school and has hobbies, friends, a career to try to advance, etc, just trying to get into a relationship in the first place carries a significant opportunity cost with no guarantee of success.

The only difference between women not choosing to pursue men and men not choosing to pursue women is that women who don't choose to pursue men still have opportunities, thanks to a social norm putting the onus on men to do the work of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships.

Choosing to not pursue women and rejecting women are not the same thing, pretty plainly.

Very bluntly, feminists have done a lot to help the acceptance of women going their own way and prioritizing their career, friends, hobbies, etc. It's high time we de-stigmatized men who don't pursue relationships with women.

Gee. It's almost as though women have spent millennia waiting for the freedom to do those things.

[Galloism]

A couple choice responses.

Eh, I'm not sure it's an irrational concern. Overblown perhaps, but not per se irrational.

If it is overblown, then it is ascribed greater severity or frequency than is true, and is therefore irrational.

TIL that every single person on earth is irrational, because every single person has at least one overblown fear.

Women, like men, also sabotage birth control to "trap" their partners into this abusive relationship - except women have the social freedom to leave, while men are socially shamed and told to "man up".

1) "trapping" is hilariously rare.

Source on frequency? I'm serious - I've never seen a study on frequency of such. I'm not even sure how you'd conduct one.

Rejecting women in fear of it is irrational. A woman engaging in this act is also being irrational, pretty plainly.
You are skewing the dynamic of "freedom to leave". It is not leaving the relationship and the partner, but leaving the child which is stigmatised. The woman has the "freedom" to leave the man, and take the child. The man also ostensibly has the freedom to leave the woman and take the child.

Not generally. That's generally viewed by the courts as kidnapping or parental interference (depending on state and circumstance). If she leaves and takes the child, she's a free woman and able to do so. If he leaves and takes the child, he's a kidnapper/abuser and will face the music.

This is reality.

A woman leaving a child is also heavily stigmatised. These responses are all rooted in assumed gender roles, which 3rd wave feminism opposes, as part of what it consider societal sexism.

Oh bullshit. 3rd wave feminism, like 2nd wave feminism before it and 1st wave feminism before that have never been concerned with "fixing" the male gender role.

And if any of this abuse or rape results in a child, holy shit are you fucked. The state will require you to support your abusive rapist partner for 18 years. If you don't stay and endure the beatings, you're alternatively awful for leaving your abuser or leaving your child in the hands of your abuser. Oh, and if you try to get your child away from your abuser, you probably are viewed as being the abuser. Therefore, your chances of success are slim and you'll be vilified in any case.

Overblown? Perhaps. Irrational?

Yes, it is still irrational.

All people are irrational.

Much like political lesbianism, which has similar motivations (except without the state sponsored reinforcement of abuse).

In case you're not familiar with political lesbians, they are straight women who "become gay" because they want to reject men.

You seem to assume that I think political lesbianism is fine and dandy. Due to the power dynamic, I think it's "not as bad" as MGTOWs with their literally misogynist baggage, but political lesbianism is also irrational and is as close as any elements of feminism come to "misandry".

Given in relationships women (generally) have more power than men, are you saying it's "not as bad" for the people with more power to swear off the other sex and go their own way?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but MGTOWs usually still identify as straight, and probably still engage in casual sex with women.

That depends on the MGTOW, as I understand.

Toxic masculinity is about enforcing "manliness" because, through a feminist perspective, men are obviously privileged over women in most aspects of society, and this is an effort to batter men into line with the social script placing men at the top in positions of power.

Incidentally, this is one of the main problems with feminism. Thanks for speaking the truth about the pure and utter delusion of feminist ideology when it comes to power dynamics between men and women.

Maybe this is because there is a long history in civilisation of women being systemically treated like shit by men.

It's like you don't even know what the world is like. There is a growing history of men literally dying for women while women claim they're the true victims when their spouses die for them. There is a long history of men being literally disposed of to preserve and protect their society's women.

deliberately obfuscating the power dynamic in furthering your views.

Physician, heal thyself. The power dynamic is NOT so simple as you described. Women held, and still hold, great power. You can see this very easily if you just open your eyes to the realities of rape and domestic violence - where women are about as violent as men, but almost never punished when they abuse the shit out of their man. Instead, society ignores it.

And feminism does worse than ignore it - it deliberately obfuscates that violence and calls it "reactive violence" and redefines rape so that women don't commit rape by definition so they can continually hold that power of the gendered violence discourse and no dissent or alternate views can be tolerated. This event with DeVos is a prime example. Feminist groups WERE invited. They WERE allowed to speak. They WERE NOT shut out. What was the horrible thing? Someone else was allowed to speak.

This is normal.

Gee. It's almost as though women have spent millennia waiting for the freedom to do those things.

And men are still waiting for the freedom to do these things after millennia. Stiiiiiill waiting.

[Imperializt Russia]

Women were still legally viewed as property one century ago.

How the absolute fuck can you throw away thousands and thousands of years of this in the fucking west when it becomes inconvenient to you?
I was going to do a point-by-point response just out of courtesy, but I got to the bottom and saw this and now, fuck. No, there's no point in fucking continuing here.

[Kvatchdom]

Feminists aren't in power anywhere, how can they hold power over any discourse?

[Kvatchdom]

Show me a feminist who isn't an American white liberal who thinks women cannot rape or commit violence, cause I have never seen one.

[Galloism]

Even in countries where the laws are de jure equal, they are not enforced equally.

In the US, our domestic violence laws are de jure equal, but if a man calls police to beg and plead for help from his abusive wife (after overcoming all social pressure not to), he's more likely to be arrested than his abuser.

This is not true in the reverse.

And you're wrong, incidentally. The denial of men as victims of domestic violence IS caused by feminists. We never took it seriously (in fact, in middle England, a man beaten by his wife was punished by being forced to ride an animal facing backward while being pelted with fruit by the crowd), but we never had the wholesale denial until feminism stuck its nose in and decided that women only commit violence in self defense (where "he made me mad" is self-defense), Erin Pizzley was marginalized, maligned, and attacked (even being forced to flee the country), and the Duluth Model was pushed that defined domestic violence as patriarchal oppression.

In countries like the US where the judge can make decisions based on their opinions, yes.

What countries are judges unable to make decisions that involve their opinions?

Though controlling cops won't be as easy on that part.

No, it isn't, and as a former cop myself, we were taught the Duluth model of domestic violence by feminist organizations, that DV is patriarchal terrorism and that men were always the perpetrators and women always the victim. Some of my most severe regrets stem from not seeing through that utter bullshit earlier.

Feminism, as a movement, protects domestic abusers that happen to be female.

How have feminists caused a societal belief that men are strong and violent and women are warm and weak? That's the opposite of the message it's about, and not a single country except maybe Canada even has a self-described feminist in charge of policy. I have yet to see a feminist that doesn't believe men suffer from these issues aswell. Aside from Chestmistress or whoever.

A commentary on the Duluth model - the feminist model of domestic violence.

In essence, the program attempts to halt men's violent behavior by focusing on the supposed reason they batter: to maintain individual and societal patriarchal dominance. The Duluth Model does not, however, address other possible reasons for violence, including substance abuse problems, psychological problems, violent backgrounds, or unhealthy relationship dynamics. Other common risk factors for violence, such as "stress on the perpetrator, impulse control problems, trait anger, communication skill deficits, couples' negative interaction, or personality disturbance," are systematically excluded as excuses.18 Any violence perpetrated by a woman is dismissed as either non-existent, self-defensive, or insignificant.

http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/view ... ontext=mlr

This is the feminist model of domestic violence. Look at that last sentence.

Coming from someone who claims to be a feminist, this just might be the most ironic shit ever.

How come?

Men should have a curfew so women can walk safely at night. It's not satire - it's feminist current.

I challenge you to find me a feminist political or activist organization that uses "toxic feminity" in a sentence.

And, incidentally, women killing their husbands may not be the severe minority we think it is. Women by and large get the benefit of every possible doubt in the legal system as suspects, so it's likely most women who murder their husbands just don't get charged.

It's not a widely used word I have to admit,

No, it isn't. It's almost NEVER used. Not in any context or place that the public would hear it. Ever. While toxic masculinity is trumpeted in the public square.

Why do you think that is?

but it's existence is well known. It's the same as toxic masculinity, it puts women into a certain box that hurts them.

If that was the case, it would be trumpeted just as loudly as toxic masculinity it is. It isn't, and there's a reason.

Eh, not here atleast, and I doubt in America either. The doubts about women being able to commit violence is, once again, not feminism. Feminists didn't invert gender roles.

No, it's feminism. See the link above about the Duluth model, the feminist model of domestic violence.

This is your periodic reminder that, among adults, women raping men isn't some severe minority of events. It probably makes up 40% of rapes (or so) in the adult population.

I know, and that's a problem. Too often these rapists specifically are let off easy due to society not seeing the rape of men or young boys as a necessarily bad or even sometimes a possible thing. My old music teacher who was sentenced for raping 4 13-year old boys almost got off via probation but due to heavy media attention and pushback it was increased to the standard 4-6 years.

1-1.5 years per rape victim is standard where you live? Jeez, that's light.

Feminists aren't in power anywhere, how can they hold power over any discourse?

Because they hold soft power in most of the west (in middle east and far east, not so much). That's why their stranglehold over the gender discourse continually protects rapists and domestic abusers.

Show me a feminist who isn't an American white liberal who thinks women cannot rape or commit violence, cause I have never seen one.

Most feminists everywhere think men make up the vast vast majority of rapists and domestic abusers. This isn't because they think it's impossible, but because those controlling the gender dialogue have manipulated the statistics to their ends.

[Kvatchdom]

The anger some people treat feminism with is quite funny to me considering it's not really a political force anywhere in the world. Even in Sweden the F! party is one of the smallest. There are many more important things to get angry about.

[Costa Fierro]

What reason is what?

Why do they need attention on the reason they're single, and what is that reason?

Well for one thing, it's not that they need attention for the reason that they're single, but rather awareness to grow numbers. More men going their own way means less viable dating partners, less men perpetrating society's materialistic value regarding men and less men having their lives ruined through state sponsored theft in divorces and other blatant legal discrimination.

And the primary reason MGTOW's are single, or at the very least engaging in one night stands with women (and some MGTOW's pretty much date and even engage in short term relationships, although these are rare) is that relationships do not have enough benefits to them that outweigh the risks involved. Most people don't realize that there are huge risks in a relationship, and that because we live in a society that views men as disposable, cheap and generally with a lack of care and regard for men's emotions and mental health, when said relationships begin to run into trouble, become abusive or end, men do not have any support networks. Remember, you are putting yourself in a physically, emotionally and mentally vulnerable position with someone with whom you have very little knowledge of in terms of personality or other issues. People are capable of hiding dark secrets that they wouldn't reveal in relationships until they reached a point where they can and do, especially when it comes to violence. Men and women do this frequently.

To put it this way, how do you know that your girlfriend (or for the sake of inclusiveness on NSG, boyfriend) doesn't have a history of domestic violence or abusive behaviour? How do you know if they are going to remain loyal or cheat? Not trap you into a relationship through pregnancy? How do you know if they have a history of mental health issues? There's a lot more other concerns as well, but you get the general idea. All of that weighs in the mind for most MGTOW's in relationships, and with the current state of dating and rampant hypergamy in the West, it's pretty much a waste of time for any rational thinking man to invest in a relationship, let alone marriage. Marriage for men is essentially a guaranteed loss of at least three quarters of his personal finances and properties, plus enforced alimony and child support payments as well as responsibility for any debts the woman has. MGTOW's call it "divorce rape" and whilst I won't refer to it as such here, I do agree with the sentiment that the chance of divorce occurring and what happens to men who experience it is simply non-negotiable for any MGTOW. I would not be surprised if many of them would rather die than get married. I sure would.

Feminists aren't in power anywhere, how can they hold power over any discourse?

They influence discourse by dominating the gender relations narrative, simply through sheer force of numbers in media and online, as well as shaming of their enemies, or even those that do not subscribe to the narrative.

[Kvatchdom]

In countries like the US where the judge can make decisions based on their opinions, yes.

What countries are judges unable to make decisions that involve their opinions?

Though controlling cops won't be as easy on that part.

No, it isn't, and as a former cop myself, we were taught the Duluth model of domestic violence by feminist organizations, that DV is patriarchal terrorism and that men were always the perpetrators and women always the victim. Some of my most severe regrets stem from not seeing through that utter bullshit earlier.

Feminism, as a movement, protects domestic abusers that happen to be female.

How have feminists caused a societal belief that men are strong and violent and women are warm and weak? That's the opposite of the message it's about, and not a single country except maybe Canada even has a self-described feminist in charge of policy. I have yet to see a feminist that doesn't believe men suffer from these issues aswell. Aside from Chestmistress or whoever.

A commentary on the Duluth model - the feminist model of domestic violence.

In essence, the program attempts to halt men's violent behavior by focusing on the supposed reason they batter: to maintain individual and societal patriarchal dominance. The Duluth Model does not, however, address other possible reasons for violence, including substance abuse problems, psychological problems, violent backgrounds, or unhealthy relationship dynamics. Other common risk factors for violence, such as "stress on the perpetrator, impulse control problems, trait anger, communication skill deficits, couples' negative interaction, or personality disturbance," are systematically excluded as excuses.18 Any violence perpetrated by a woman is dismissed as either non-existent, self-defensive, or insignificant.

http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/view ... ontext=mlr

This is the feminist model of domestic violence. Look at that last sentence.

How come?

Men should have a curfew so women can walk safely at night. It's not satire - it's feminist current.

It's not a widely used word I have to admit,

No, it isn't. It's almost NEVER used. Not in any context or place that the public would hear it. Ever. While toxic masculinity is trumpeted in the public square.

Why do you think that is?

but it's existence is well known. It's the same as toxic masculinity, it puts women into a certain box that hurts them.

If that was the case, it would be trumpeted just as loudly as toxic masculinity it is. It isn't, and there's a reason.

Eh, not here atleast, and I doubt in America either. The doubts about women being able to commit violence is, once again, not feminism. Feminists didn't invert gender roles.

No, it's feminism. See the link above about the Duluth model, the feminist model of domestic violence.

I know, and that's a problem. Too often these rapists specifically are let off easy due to society not seeing the rape of men or young boys as a necessarily bad or even sometimes a possible thing. My old music teacher who was sentenced for raping 4 13-year old boys almost got off via probation but due to heavy media attention and pushback it was increased to the standard 4-6 years.

1-1.5 years per rape victim is standard where you live? Jeez, that's light.

Feminists aren't in power anywhere, how can they hold power over any discourse?

Because they hold soft power in most of the west (in middle east and far east, not so much). That's why their stranglehold over the gender discourse continually protects rapists and domestic abusers.

In Finland we have set laws for set crimes on their punishments.

Then get rid of the Duluth Model. Feminism isn't a monolith, this is certainly something most feminists I know would disagree on quite vehemently.

Ellen Pence's model on domestic violence, not the feminist model on domestic violence. Fits much better. Radical white feminists in America tend to be like this, all the while excluding the oppression of other groups.

Look at the last line on your article on the curfew. It's not serious.

Toxic masculinity sounds edgier. That's it. Toxic both simply mean cultural limitations or enforcements that hurt both sexes, this is a widely accepted idea.

Mostly because it hasn't been discussed as much because it hasn't lead to women making up 80% of suicides or most of the prison population.

Once again, some American liberal's definition of feminism is hardly universal.

What soft power?? In Finland it's the conservative jurists who tried to keep the rapist off jail, not an activist group. Men aren't being murdered by their drunk wives at random. An organization either has power, or works as a lobby group, and if you haven't noticed, the left has lost in pretty much all of the west since 2008. Feminists have not invented the age old idea that women are weak and men are strong. Feminists didn't come up with American laws written a hundred years ago.

Your judges being conservative assholes has nothing to do with feminism.

[Kvatchdom]

Why do they need attention on the reason they're single, and what is that reason?

Well for one thing, it's not that they need attention for the reason that they're single, but rather awareness to grow numbers. More men going their own way means less viable dating partners, less men perpetrating society's materialistic value regarding men and less men having their lives ruined through state sponsored theft in divorces and other blatant legal discrimination.

And the primary reason MGTOW's are single, or at the very least engaging in one night stands with women (and some MGTOW's pretty much date and even engage in short term relationships, although these are rare) is that relationships do not have enough benefits to them that outweigh the risks involved. Most people don't realize that there are huge risks in a relationship, and that because we live in a society that views men as disposable, cheap and generally with a lack of care and regard for men's emotions and mental health, when said relationships begin to run into trouble, become abusive or end, men do not have any support networks. Remember, you are putting yourself in a physically, emotionally and mentally vulnerable position with someone with whom you have very little knowledge of in terms of personality or other issues. People are capable of hiding dark secrets that they wouldn't reveal in relationships until they reached a point where they can and do, especially when it comes to violence. Men and women do this frequently.

To put it this way, how do you know that your girlfriend (or for the sake of inclusiveness on NSG, boyfriend) doesn't have a history of domestic violence or abusive behaviour? How do you know if they are going to remain loyal or cheat? Not trap you into a relationship through pregnancy? How do you know if they have a history of mental health issues? There's a lot more other concerns as well, but you get the general idea. All of that weighs in the mind for most MGTOW's in relationships, and with the current state of dating and rampant hypergamy in the West, it's pretty much a waste of time for any rational thinking man to invest in a relationship, let alone marriage. Marriage for men is essentially a guaranteed loss of at least three quarters of his personal finances and properties, plus enforced alimony and child support payments as well as responsibility for any debts the woman has. MGTOW's call it "divorce rape" and whilst I won't refer to it as such here, I do agree with the sentiment that the chance of divorce occurring and what happens to men who experience it is simply non-negotiable for any MGTOW. I would not be surprised if many of them would rather die than get married. I sure would.

Feminists aren't in power anywhere, how can they hold power over any discourse?

They influence discourse by dominating the gender relations narrative, simply through sheer force of numbers in media and online, as well as shaming of their enemies, or even those that do not subscribe to the narrative.

So it's some ploy to make men more likable? What? Once again, the reason divorces often lead to women being given more is due to gender roles, men are seen as more independent and capable to building their own lives, whereas many judges somehow thing women are okay just living off alimony their whole lives.

No, there really aren't that many risks in a relationship unless you swerve toward assholes, and most people are not assholes. Men aren't viewed as disposable nor cheap, though their mental and emotional health is ignored once again due to cultural pressures, boxes where men and women are both placed and where they must stay. When have you heard a song about fucking loads of mansluts, or when have you heard women bragging about fucking a dude and sneaking off? Men aren't viewed as disposable or cheap, no, but they are viewed as cold and naturally non-emotional which often leads to severe problems in them. Men need support networks, yes, that doesn't mean all your relationships are gonna lead to abuse. Both men and women suffer from not daring or being able to get help in these situations, both for different reasons, and ignoring either is what leads to problematic groups like MGTOW and radfems. You should always get to know the person you're with before getting intimate. It's quite easy to tell if a person has an extremely short fuse and violent tendencies.

Because my fiancé went through abusive relationships and we've been together for quite some time. I trust them, that's why I'm in a relationship, and I know them. Why would I be trapped in a relationship if I entered it willingly in the first place? They might, doesn't matter. It's a waste of your life to not seek happiness in a person you love. Marriage for men is only an issue in America thanks to the shitty divorce and marriage culture generally. People should stop treating it as a temporary or a financial thing, you need to commit to such a decision. "Divorce rape"? What the fuck? That's a horrible way to put anything.

[Costa Fierro]

If it is overblown, then it is ascribed greater severity or frequency than is true, and is therefore irrational.

How can you prove that it isn't true? MGTOW is about risk assessment and there's virtually no benefits to relationships or marriage that outweigh the very real and extremely likely risks that can and do occur.

1) "trapping" is hilariously rare. Rejecting women in fear of it is irrational. A woman engaging in this act is also being irrational, pretty plainly.

It's not irrational at all. And if it's so rare, then how is it that we had a thread on NSG not that long ago about (albeit rich) men getting vasectomies in order to avoid being trapped into relationships or forced child support payments?

You are skewing the dynamic of "freedom to leave". It is not leaving the relationship and the partner, but leaving the child which is stigmatised.

Men leaving women is stigmatized because it's automatically assumed to be the man's fault if he does.

These responses are all rooted in assumed gender roles, which 3rd wave feminism opposes, as part of what it consider societal sexism.

It's rooted in biological roles as humans and our capabilities of raising and nurturing children, which have since become entrenched in law as society developed.

Yes, it is still irrational.

How is it irrational? You've yet to actually say why it is so.

Due to the power dynamic

What power dynamic? You mean social and institutional power? Sure. But that dynamic is skewed in favour of women. It sure as fuck isn't in favour of men.

I think it's "not as bad" as MGTOWs with their literally misogynist baggage, but political lesbianism is also irrational and is as close as any elements of feminism come to "misandry".

So somehow men who reject relationships and women (and how society sees them which, funnily enough, doesn't get as much publicity) is worse than women who chose to reject men on literally the same premise. Because of what? That "power dynamic"? The fact that you seem to willingly ignore the fact that mainstream feminism is openly hostile to men is unsurprising though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but MGTOWs usually still identify as straight, and probably still engage in casual sex with women.

As far as I have seen, there aren't any LGBT MGTOW's and those that still do pursue women do so. Most MGTOW"s are celibate.

I'm hardly an inadvertent MGTOW poster boy (though I am a 24yo male socially awkward virgin who spends all their time on the internet lambasting their personal failures, so who knows).

MGTOW's don't spend their time on the internet lambasting their failures, they learn from their mistakes and continue living their lives as best they can.

Not when most of them aren't victims.

So men deserve the legal discrimination they face?

Maybe this is because there is a long history in civilisation of women being systemically treated like shit by men. As literal property. Until astoundingly recently, even in the west.

That you ignore this in making that point is either astounding ignorance, which I wouldn't expect from you, or deliberately obfuscating the power dynamic in furthering your views.

So you're saying it's OK for women to abuse their partners because "men did it too!"? Because that looks alarmingly like a justification to me.

Choosing to not pursue women and rejecting women are not the same thing, pretty plainly.

So then tell us why.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

What reason is what?

Why do they need attention on the reason they're single, and what is that reason?

The reasons vary from individual to individual.

But too often singlehood is dismissed as a product of mere shyness, instead of addressing the numerous financial and legal risks for men in the context of marriage these days.

[Costa Fierro]

So it's some ploy to make men more likable?

No. It's to keep as many men as possible safe from marriage and relationships.

No, there really aren't that many risks in a relationship unless you swerve toward assholes, and most people are not assholes.

So what are the benefits then?

Men aren't viewed as disposable nor cheap

Well that's quite clearly bullshit.

When have you heard a song about fucking loads of mansluts

The term is fuckboys.

or when have you heard women bragging about fucking a dude and sneaking off?

Ever heard of "The Walk of Shame"?

You should always get to know the person you're with before getting intimate. It's quite easy to tell if a person has an extremely short fuse and violent tendencies.

Bullshit. People have secrets. People hide those secrets. People also can put on facades that allow them to appear rational, well adjusted human beings.

Why would I be trapped in a relationship if I entered it willingly in the first place?

Because they can't leave.

Marriage for men is only an issue in America thanks to the shitty divorce and marriage culture generally.

Actually divorce is pretty shitty everywhere in the West.

[Galloism]

What countries are judges unable to make decisions that involve their opinions?



No, it isn't, and as a former cop myself, we were taught the Duluth model of domestic violence by feminist organizations, that DV is patriarchal terrorism and that men were always the perpetrators and women always the victim. Some of my most severe regrets stem from not seeing through that utter bullshit earlier.

Feminism, as a movement, protects domestic abusers that happen to be female.



A commentary on the Duluth model - the feminist model of domestic violence.



http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/view ... ontext=mlr

This is the feminist model of domestic violence. Look at that last sentence.



Men should have a curfew so women can walk safely at night. It's not satire - it's feminist current.



No, it isn't. It's almost NEVER used. Not in any context or place that the public would hear it. Ever. While toxic masculinity is trumpeted in the public square.

Why do you think that is?



If that was the case, it would be trumpeted just as loudly as toxic masculinity it is. It isn't, and there's a reason.



No, it's feminism. See the link above about the Duluth model, the feminist model of domestic violence.


1-1.5 years per rape victim is standard where you live? Jeez, that's light.



Because they hold soft power in most of the west (in middle east and far east, not so much). That's why their stranglehold over the gender discourse continually protects rapists and domestic abusers.

In Finland we have set laws for set crimes on their punishments.

So do we - but it's always a range so the judge can adjust based on circumstances. I'd be surprised if Finland wasn't similar.

Then get rid of the Duluth Model. Feminism isn't a monolith, this is certainly something most feminists I know would disagree on quite vehemently.

I would love to, but feminism, as a movement, controls the dialogue surrounding DV in my country and is clinging to it like glue.

Ellen Pence's model on domestic violence, not the feminist model on domestic violence. Fits much better. Radical white feminists in America tend to be like this, all the while excluding the oppression of other groups.

Ellen Pence also promotes the false narrative that women are almost always violent only in self defense or in reaction to previous violence.

Look at the last line on your article on the curfew. It's not serious.

Questionable. Women live in constant fear at night, apparently. There might be men out after dark.

Toxic masculinity sounds edgier. That's it. Toxic both simply mean cultural limitations or enforcements that hurt both sexes, this is a widely accepted idea.

If it were widely accepted it would be widely stated, but you couldn't find one example.

Mostly because it hasn't been discussed as much because it hasn't lead to women making up 80% of suicides or most of the prison population.

Given women's issues are given much much more time than men's issues, I call bullshit.

What soft power?? In Finland it's the conservative jurists who tried to keep the rapist off jail, not an activist group. Men aren't being murdered by their drunk wives at random. An organization either has power, or works as a lobby group, and if you haven't noticed, the left has lost in pretty much all of the west since 2008. Feminists have not invented the age old idea that women are weak and men are strong. Feminists didn't come up with American laws written a hundred years ago.

Your judges being conservative assholes has nothing to do with feminism.

It has everything to do with feminism when feminism, as a movement, constantly works to reinforce the violent man/innocent woman gender dynamic.

[La Cosa Fedora]

Hope these are some MRAs who are not associated with the Russian government

[Kvatchdom]

So it's some ploy to make men more likable?

No. It's to keep as many men as possible safe from marriage and relationships.

No, there really aren't that many risks in a relationship unless you swerve toward assholes, and most people are not assholes.

So what are the benefits then?

Men aren't viewed as disposable nor cheap

Well that's quite clearly bullshit.

When have you heard a song about fucking loads of mansluts

The term is fuckboys.

or when have you heard women bragging about fucking a dude and sneaking off?

Ever heard of "The Walk of Shame"?

You should always get to know the person you're with before getting intimate. It's quite easy to tell if a person has an extremely short fuse and violent tendencies.

Bullshit. People have secrets. People hide those secrets. People also can put on facades that allow them to appear rational, well adjusted human beings.

Why would I be trapped in a relationship if I entered it willingly in the first place?

Because they can't leave.

Marriage for men is only an issue in America thanks to the shitty divorce and marriage culture generally.

Actually divorce is pretty shitty everywhere in the West.

"Safe".

Having someone who you love and who loves you, and building a life together on that.

Show me an example of men being viewed as cheap and disposable.

Yeah, and it happens quite a damn lot.

Yes, and most often the men the day after brag about it.

It's quite a small percentage of men and women who're abusive constantly in a relationship.

But why did you enter a relationship if you weren't planning to stay?

It is, but it's nowhere as prevalent as in the US.

[Kvatchdom]

In Finland we have set laws for set crimes on their punishments.

So do we - but it's always a range so the judge can adjust based on circumstances. I'd be surprised if Finland wasn't similar.

Then get rid of the Duluth Model. Feminism isn't a monolith, this is certainly something most feminists I know would disagree on quite vehemently.

I would love to, but feminism, as a movement, controls the dialogue surrounding DV in my country and is clinging to it like glue.

Ellen Pence's model on domestic violence, not the feminist model on domestic violence. Fits much better. Radical white feminists in America tend to be like this, all the while excluding the oppression of other groups.

Ellen Pence also promotes the false narrative that women are almost always violent only in self defense or in reaction to previous violence.

Look at the last line on your article on the curfew. It's not serious.

Questionable. Women live in constant fear at night, apparently. There might be men out after dark.

Toxic masculinity sounds edgier. That's it. Toxic both simply mean cultural limitations or enforcements that hurt both sexes, this is a widely accepted idea.

If it were widely accepted it would be widely stated, but you couldn't find one example.

Mostly because it hasn't been discussed as much because it hasn't lead to women making up 80% of suicides or most of the prison population.

Given women's issues are given much much more time than men's issues, I call bullshit.

What soft power?? In Finland it's the conservative jurists who tried to keep the rapist off jail, not an activist group. Men aren't being murdered by their drunk wives at random. An organization either has power, or works as a lobby group, and if you haven't noticed, the left has lost in pretty much all of the west since 2008. Feminists have not invented the age old idea that women are weak and men are strong. Feminists didn't come up with American laws written a hundred years ago.

Your judges being conservative assholes has nothing to do with feminism.

It has everything to do with feminism when feminism, as a movement, constantly works to reinforce the violent man/innocent woman gender dynamic.

Ranges from 1st to 5th degree and intentionality.

How does it control it? It's certainly not in power anywhere.

That's bullshit, that's like saying men do it as a reaction to women being "bitches" like some MRAs word it.

Some probably do in lower class areas. There's areas in Finland I'd get beat up too. It's not a fantasy.

I found wiki sites and a few discussions on reddit. The word isn't really used, but the concept is widely known. It's the same as toxic masculinity, but for women. Not that radical of an idea.

Trafficking, catcalling, stalking, rapist conviction rates, etc. These aren't really discussed that much in powerful areas, and neither are male suicides, prison rape, incarceration rates, alcoholism etc. Both genders still face extreme problems that need to all be addressed and discussed by powerful people.