Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

[Galloism]

I think this is pretty much provably false.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109093/Lillian-Hartley-95-Allan-Marks-98-Worlds-oldest-newlyweds-married.html

Merely speaking to a couple without children would prove it false.

Not really. They could intend to have children and be unable (or change their mind later).

[Saint Jade IV]

All true, but can any of this be fixed with education, or are these people just sociopathic?

A change in the way men are socialized will fix it.

Not only advertising and the way women are portrayed in the media, but how they are seen in general by the culture, though the former have a big impact.

I've known closely so many strong, exciting, beautiful women, but not everyone sees them that way. Sometimes, they are seen as bitches, whores, sluts, cunts, as though they deserved the names.

It's why I was quite insulted when I realized Stephanie Meyer was dead serious in her portrayal of Bella as "the perfect example of a teenage girl": dependent, quivering, soft, pale, like a fucking puppy or something.

One of the biggest changes that I believe needs to be made is to stop this notion that women lead men on. That if she gives a handjob, she then has a responsibility to sleep with the guy. That dressing provocatively suggests she is out for sex. That if she says yes, then changes her mind, she's a cocktease. That women have some kind of responsibility to provide men with sex.

That change, I think, would be a positive step.

[Galloism]

A change in the way men are socialized will fix it.

Not only advertising and the way women are portrayed in the media, but how they are seen in general by the culture, though the former have a big impact.

I've known closely so many strong, exciting, beautiful women, but not everyone sees them that way. Sometimes, they are seen as bitches, whores, sluts, cunts, as though they deserved the names.

It's why I was quite insulted when I realized Stephanie Meyer was dead serious in her portrayal of Bella as "the perfect example of a teenage girl": dependent, quivering, soft, pale, like a fucking puppy or something.

One of the biggest changes that I believe needs to be made is to stop this notion that women lead men on. That if she gives a handjob, she then has a responsibility to sleep with the guy. That dressing provocatively suggests she is out for sex. That if she says yes, then changes her mind, she's a cocktease. That women have some kind of responsibility to provide men with sex.

That change, I think, would be a positive step.

Agreed.

Also, stop teaching women and men both, by society, that a woman is supposed to play "hard to get" and that "no really means yes".

[The Rich Port]

A change in the way men are socialized will fix it.

Not only advertising and the way women are portrayed in the media, but how they are seen in general by the culture, though the former have a big impact.

I've known closely so many strong, exciting, beautiful women, but not everyone sees them that way. Sometimes, they are seen as bitches, whores, sluts, cunts, as though they deserved the names.

It's why I was quite insulted when I realized Stephanie Meyer was dead serious in her portrayal of Bella as "the perfect example of a teenage girl": dependent, quivering, soft, pale, like a fucking puppy or something.

Oh lord, don't bring Twilight as anything but an example of horrible, horrible literature, and a massive misunderstanding of applied socio-economics.

It's the most recent and famous example I can think of.

Besides, that's exactly what I was doing. It is horrible, on quite many levels.

Though Meyer herself causes me some disgust. I wonder what drives a woman to be like that: like a 50's housewife, content to be seen as nothing but a baby factory and a "housekeeper", while the men go do the important things.

Even 50's housewives knew that they were just biding their time.

[AiliailiA]

So the slogan "no means no" seems to you to be targeted at victims?

To some respects yes.

Right, so you're seeing any anti-rape campaign as speaking to you as a potential victim, and overlooking the primary message being aimed at others as potential perpetrators. Presumably, you are so far from imagining yourself as a perpetrator that you don't consider how it sounds to them.

I think "no means no" was an excellent slogan, and I also think it is aimed primarily at rapists or potential rapists.

It implicitly tells victims that they need to act, by saying no.

Implicitly yes. Explicitly it says "no means no" and that isn't only aimed the one who says it, but at the one who hears it. The rapist or potential rapist.

And that if they don't, they are somehow to blame. Passed out women, for instance, can't say no. Does that mean they consent? According to some men, yes.

What I would really like to see are campaigns targeted at men that are along the lines of;

"If she hasn't said yes, it's probably a no." A woman should not have to be treated as though she is in a default state of consent, which is only revoked by a negation.

Well that's all fine. However, I don't at all "laugh at the idea" of anti-rape campaigns targeting the perpetrators of rape. It would be stupid not to, just as it would be stupid to try to address drink driving by targeting sober victims of it, or address harmful drug use by addressing those who don't use drugs.

[The Rich Port]

A change in the way men are socialized will fix it.

Not only advertising and the way women are portrayed in the media, but how they are seen in general by the culture, though the former have a big impact.

I've known closely so many strong, exciting, beautiful women, but not everyone sees them that way. Sometimes, they are seen as bitches, whores, sluts, cunts, as though they deserved the names.

It's why I was quite insulted when I realized Stephanie Meyer was dead serious in her portrayal of Bella as "the perfect example of a teenage girl": dependent, quivering, soft, pale, like a fucking puppy or something.

One of the biggest changes that I believe needs to be made is to stop this notion that women lead men on. That if she gives a handjob, she then has a responsibility to sleep with the guy. That dressing provocatively suggests she is out for sex. That if she says yes, then changes her mind, she's a cocktease. That women have some kind of responsibility to provide men with sex.

That change, I think, would be a positive step.

Ironically, that insults men as much as women.

It's like we're hormone-crazed, and we can have mood swings because of them, like we go crazy a the suggestion of sex (sound familiar?).

Well... That may be sometimes true, but come on.

Give SOME of us a little credit, feminazis.

[The UK in Exile]

There's some interesting stories coming out of Canada with feminists objecting to posters which state "Men's rights are human rights". They've been ripping the posters down despite those posting them having permission to put them up.

How the hell can anyone disagree that men should have rights??(Image) Anyway, here's the video:

it's well worth watching and pretty entertaining stuff if you like to see idiots acting really dumb, skip to 2 mins 10 for the fun!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jz63_lGuSE

They've finally identified the "star" of the video who was organising the vandalism. Rather worryingly she a teacher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy0gryjLIsU
Here's a news report on the issue:

Posters in support of men's rights ripped down in Vancouver

There is backlash from both sexes after posters supporting men's rights were ripped down in Vancouver's Commercial Drive neighbourhood.

Some of the posters read "Stop violence against women, but not men, because men don't matter -- despite being more often the victims of violence." Many of the posters have been either taken down or defaced.

News1130 hit the streets to find out what you think about the controversial message. Men and women we spoke with say they should be left up because we don't hear enough about men's rights. They also believe Vancouver is an open-minded city.

"I can understand that there can be violence against men as well. I don't agree that they're being ripped down," says one man.

"I think these posters should definitely be good to go. I mean, anyone who's against violence against either men or women, I'm all behind that," adds a Vancouver woman.

Others say if you don't agree with the movement, then don't look at the posters -- but no one should have the right to vandalize.

"You don't hear a lot about [men's rights] and that's the surprising part. It is very surprising that they're being ripped down. Definitely, they should go back up. You see signs up for everything around here and to select which ones we put up and which ones we don't, it's a little bit ridiculous," explains another man.

In a written statement to News1130, the founder of the local men's rights blog MasculisM.ca, which is behind the movement, says he got involved because of his experiences on the Downtown Eastside.

I think the only solution to such censorship is for people to put up even more posters. What do other people think?

would people say they were more offended by the author of the poster comparing the mistreatment african-americans Jews and LGBT types to the current treatment of men or the cringeworthy tautology in the slogan "mens rights are human rights"?

How the hell can anyone disagree that men should have rights?

good question! of course since no-one is, its a question in need of a answerer.

I have a question, if mens rights are human rights, why campaign for mens rights? why not campaign for human rights?

[Saint Jade IV]

One of the biggest changes that I believe needs to be made is to stop this notion that women lead men on. That if she gives a handjob, she then has a responsibility to sleep with the guy. That dressing provocatively suggests she is out for sex. That if she says yes, then changes her mind, she's a cocktease. That women have some kind of responsibility to provide men with sex.

That change, I think, would be a positive step.

Agreed.

Also, stop teaching women and men both, by society, that a woman is supposed to play "hard to get" and that "no really means yes".

Those are also excellent points. I think the way that society treats sex and relationships really causes much of the frustration and aggression that we see. The notion that sex is something that girls cannot have, except in committed relationships and that they "lose" by giving it up without a boyfriend, and that boys somehow "lose" if they end up in a committed relationship. That sex is a prize to be won from a female by strategies, tactics, and at the extreme ends, violence and coercion. I believe that this extreme end is a logical end point for this societal construction of sex as putting the woman and the man in contest with each other.

Why can't we see sex as something that two willing people engage in when it's appropriate for the two (or more) of them, and that it should not be to gain something from the other. Be it money, a relationship, or kudos from the guys.

[Merriwhether]

Wait... It takes two hands to applaud and one to twirl your mustache... How many hands do you have?

Phonencia is one of those Hindu deities with the extra arms.

Or Shiva (correct spelling?), with four arms.

But, yeah, this event does highlight a very important issue, that feminists really don't care, actually oppose rights for men. Femenazism is a good word. As a sophisticated male individual, I am disgraced at their efforts to oppress male rights in replacement of Female rights. I'm all for rights for women, but they're proceeding to take it too far.

[Saint Jade IV]

One of the biggest changes that I believe needs to be made is to stop this notion that women lead men on. That if she gives a handjob, she then has a responsibility to sleep with the guy. That dressing provocatively suggests she is out for sex. That if she says yes, then changes her mind, she's a cocktease. That women have some kind of responsibility to provide men with sex.

That change, I think, would be a positive step.

Ironically, that insults men as much as women.

It's like we're hormone-crazed, and we can have mood swings because of them, like we go crazy a the suggestion of sex (sound familiar?).

Well... That may be sometimes true, but come on.

Give SOME of us a little credit, feminazis.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me?

[The Rich Port]

Agreed.

Also, stop teaching women and men both, by society, that a woman is supposed to play "hard to get" and that "no really means yes".

Those are also excellent points. I think the way that society treats sex and relationships really causes much of the frustration and aggression that we see. The notion that sex is something that girls cannot have, except in committed relationships and that they "lose" by giving it up without a boyfriend, and that boys somehow "lose" if they end up in a committed relationship. That sex is a prize to be won from a female by strategies, tactics, and at the extreme ends, violence and coercion. I believe that this extreme end is a logical end point for this societal construction of sex as putting the woman and the man in contest with each other.

Why can't we see sex as something that two willing people engage in when it's appropriate for the two (or more) of them, and that it should not be to gain something from the other. Be it money, a relationship, or kudos from the guys.

Psychology tells us that sex is a need, a fulfillment of human desires and want.

It promotes good health, both physically and mentally. Sex is great!

It amazes me how the Western world (though mostly America) has devalued sex so. It was a goddamn religious experience in Christianity, fer Crissakes, as it is in many other religions.

What the hell happened that it became so... Dirty?

[The Rich Port]

Ironically, that insults men as much as women.

It's like we're hormone-crazed, and we can have mood swings because of them, like we go crazy a the suggestion of sex (sound familiar?).

Well... That may be sometimes true, but come on.

Give SOME of us a little credit, feminazis.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me?

Agreeing. What caused your confusion? My response was similar to yours.

[CVT Temp]

What the hell happened that it became so... Dirty?

A combination of Victorianism and the Puritans.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Ironically, that insults men as much as women.

It's like we're hormone-crazed, and we can have mood swings because of them, like we go crazy a the suggestion of sex (sound familiar?).

Well... That may be sometimes true, but come on.

Give SOME of us a little credit, feminazis.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me?

I think it was a little of both. Men aren't all mindless beasts driven to rape and grope everything with breasts. The idea that nobody is FORCED to give sex is a good idea to perpetuate, but doing so without over-generalizing 50% of the population is probably best.

[AiliailiA]

I have a question, if mens rights are human rights, why campaign for mens rights? why not campaign for human rights?

I think it's a good slogan, not cringeworthy at all.

Any other campaign could be similarly criticized: why should feminists campaign for equal wages or reproductive rights just because those issues particularly concern women ... surely there are more pressing matters of human rights?

Or why campaign for children's rights, since those are just human rights?

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Saint Jade IV]

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me?

Agreeing. What caused your confusion? My response was similar to yours.

My inability to interpret responses - driven by a lack of sleep. I've been on school camp. Looking after 30 nine year olds for a night. Just wanted to ensure that what I was reading as agreement wasn't argument.

[Ende]

lolfeminists

I find this amusing and pathetically sad at the same time.

[The Rich Port]

Agreeing. What caused your confusion? My response was similar to yours.

My inability to interpret responses - driven by a lack of sleep. I've been on school camp. Looking after 30 nine year olds for a night. Just wanted to ensure that what I was reading as agreement wasn't argument.

I know the feeling! Looked after little kids, big kids, for an entire month... Combating crippling allergies along the way.

I think Emerald Dawn expressed my words better.

I think "Feminazi" is an appropriate word for an extremist. I call the mannists "Andronazis".

[Saint Jade IV]

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me?

I think it was a little of both. Men aren't all mindless beasts driven to rape and grope everything with breasts. The idea that nobody is FORCED to give sex is a good idea to perpetuate, but doing so without over-generalizing 50% of the population is probably best.

I don't know where I did that to be honest. I never suggested that men were mindless beasts driven to rape and grope. In fact, the societal mindset I'm arguing against is the one doing that.

The idea of women leading men on, suggests that women owe men sex. That they have a right to expect it, under certain conditions. And that if it is not given, the woman is in the wrong. She is bad, dirty, wrong. Such a mindset fosters entitlement. Entitlement leads some men to the belief that they can take "what is owed to them". Changing this mindset demonstrates respect to both men and women:

Women - that they have a right to control their bodies, and change their minds about things.

Men - that they can control their urges, and recognise women as having rights.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I think it was a little of both. Men aren't all mindless beasts driven to rape and grope everything with breasts. The idea that nobody is FORCED to give sex is a good idea to perpetuate, but doing so without over-generalizing 50% of the population is probably best.

I don't know where I did that to be honest. I never suggested that men were mindless beasts driven to rape and grope. In fact, the societal mindset I'm arguing against is the one doing that.

The idea of women leading men on, suggests that women owe men sex. That they have a right to expect it, under certain conditions. And that if it is not given, the woman is in the wrong. She is bad, dirty, wrong. Such a mindset fosters entitlement. Entitlement leads some men to the belief that they can take "what is owed to them". Changing this mindset demonstrates respect to both men and women:

Women - that they have a right to control their bodies, and change their minds about things.

Men - that they can control their urges, and recognise women as having rights.

The problem is, you aren't recognizing that women need to learn to control their urges as well. You lessen women by saying that they don't have the same primal urges men do.

[AiliailiA]

I think "Feminazi" is an appropriate word for an extremist. I call the mannists "Andronazis".

Those are both propagandistic and insulting terms. As though tearing down a poster or expressing an unpopular opinion is tantamount to murdering millions of people.

I wouldn't use either if I wanted to be taken seriously.

[Choronzon]

I don't know where I did that to be honest. I never suggested that men were mindless beasts driven to rape and grope. In fact, the societal mindset I'm arguing against is the one doing that.

The idea of women leading men on, suggests that women owe men sex. That they have a right to expect it, under certain conditions. And that if it is not given, the woman is in the wrong. She is bad, dirty, wrong. Such a mindset fosters entitlement. Entitlement leads some men to the belief that they can take "what is owed to them". Changing this mindset demonstrates respect to both men and women:

Women - that they have a right to control their bodies, and change their minds about things.

Men - that they can control their urges, and recognise women as having rights.

The problem is, you aren't recognizing that women need to learn to control their urges as well. You lessen women by saying that they don't have the same primal urges men do.

I think some urges are stronger in the average man, while others are stronger in the average women.

[The UK in Exile]

I have a question, if mens rights are human rights, why campaign for mens rights? why not campaign for human rights?

I think it's a good slogan, not cringeworthy at all.

Any other campaign could be similarly criticized: why should feminists campaign for equal wages or reproductive rights just because those issues particularly concern women ... surely there are more pressing matters of human rights?

Or why campaign for children's rights, since those are just human rights?

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

because they had much better slogans?

and dare I say it, a point?

[The Emerald Dawn]

The problem is, you aren't recognizing that women need to learn to control their urges as well. You lessen women by saying that they don't have the same primal urges men do.

I think some urges are stronger in the average man, while others are stronger in the average women.

It is possible. I've dealt with some...urgy women in my life.

[The Rich Port]

I don't know where I did that to be honest. I never suggested that men were mindless beasts driven to rape and grope. In fact, the societal mindset I'm arguing against is the one doing that.

The idea of women leading men on, suggests that women owe men sex. That they have a right to expect it, under certain conditions. And that if it is not given, the woman is in the wrong. She is bad, dirty, wrong. Such a mindset fosters entitlement. Entitlement leads some men to the belief that they can take "what is owed to them". Changing this mindset demonstrates respect to both men and women:

Women - that they have a right to control their bodies, and change their minds about things.

Men - that they can control their urges, and recognise women as having rights.

The problem is, you aren't recognizing that women need to learn to control their urges as well. You lessen women by saying that they don't have the same primal urges men do.

I wouldn't say "primal".

Sex is a psychological need; which is to say, it's not dysfunctional, but a part of normal human psychological operations.

Besides, it feels great, and it's good for you.

I would just keep it to people within our own age groups.

We already know the implications of having sex with children and the elderly, though I suppose it's not as bad if it's with the elderly.