The NS Mens Rights Thread

[Fartsniffage]

....You really need to hold a job in sales at some point. Or even just spend some time collecting for a charity for more than just a random evening. The reality is that men are just generally better at it, more likely to close a sale/donation. Now we can start to ascribe societal reasons to that but it's true. And the reason it's true is not due to the people they speak to, it's due to the sellers themselves.

I'll admit, the gals I know round here aren't exactly normal.
What you're saying seems possible because of the pressure to be assertive and such.

It's not a question of seeming true. It just is. Men generally sell better. And one of the biggest tricks to selling is not over talking. Let the customer make up their mind after you've planted the seed of need.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'll admit, the gals I know round here aren't exactly normal.
What you're saying seems possible because of the pressure to be assertive and such.

It's not a question of seeming true. It just is. Men generally sell better. And one of the biggest tricks to selling is not over talking. Let the customer make up their mind after you've planted the seed of need.

See, I think we may be experiencing cultural dissonance here.
In wales, it seems that women are routinely the "face" of a business.
(bar maids, people working on checkouts, whatever involves interacting with a customer.)

However, I haven't really paid attention to instances where the price isn't fixed and there is negotiation involved. Tonight was kind of that, and the mixed beat everyone by a large margin.

It wasn't a case of them talking to more people. It's more that people gave more to them.

The mens groups probably had an equalish number of donaters, they just gave more to the mixed group. As I said, not scientific or rigorous. Just interested.
(Womens groups got bogged down in people donating and then trying to talk to them.)

[Alyakia]

tbh i am legit surprised that the women didn't more by virtue of people wanting to fuck them

[Fartsniffage]

It's not a question of seeming true. It just is. Men generally sell better. And one of the biggest tricks to selling is not over talking. Let the customer make up their mind after you've planted the seed of need.

See, I think we may be experiencing cultural dissonance here.
In wales, it seems that women are routinely the "face" of a business.
(bar maids, people working on checkouts, whatever involves interacting with a customer.)

However, I haven't really paid attention to instances where the price isn't fixed and there is negotiation involved. Tonight was kind of that, and the mixed beat everyone by a large margin.

It wasn't a case of them talking to more people. It's more that people gave more to them.

The mens groups probably had an equalish number of donaters, they just gave more to the mixed group. As I said, not scientific or rigorous. Just interested.
(Womens groups got bogged down in people donating and then trying to talk to them.)

I'm coming at it from a point of view of having been a salesman. Both in person and on the phone.

[Fartsniffage]

tbh i am legit surprised that the women didn't more by virtue of people wanting to fuck them

Doesn't work that way.

[Ostroeuropa]

tbh i am legit surprised that the women didn't more by virtue of people wanting to fuck them

Exactly what I expected.
But the fact people wanted to fuck em (I assume) led to them being bogged down in talking to people and being unable to just collect and move on since people would donate, and then talk to them and try to get to know em an stuff.

[Fartsniffage]

tbh i am legit surprised that the women didn't more by virtue of people wanting to fuck them

Exactly what I expected.
But the fact people wanted to fuck em (I assume) led to them being bogged down in talking to people and being unable to just collect and move on since people would donate, and then talk to them and try to get to know em an stuff.

If we assume that women more frequently have people want to fuck them, then why aren't we assuming that said women aren't more talented at giving the people a polite brush off?

[Forsher]

*snip*

I don't want to tell you how to do things, but if you're not going to read my posts then you might not want to invest so much time in your response. I, for one, am done reiterating myself to someone who clearly has no interest in having an actual conversation.

...

I repeat, I know what your points are, you have not tried to engage with mine. Not the other way around. Goodbye.

Exactly what I expected.
But the fact people wanted to fuck em (I assume) led to them being bogged down in talking to people and being unable to just collect and move on since people would donate, and then talk to them and try to get to know em an stuff.

If we assume that women more frequently have people want to fuck them, then why aren't we assuming that said women aren't more talented at giving the people a polite brush off?

Car salesmen are stereotypically amoral. Maybe sales forces in general have loose morals? (bad?) joke if it's unclear.

[The volk]

To be honest, I believe that male rights is a serious issue. Most people don't think about do women hurt men. They do. Feminists make men out to be monsters and such, but who thinks about the men without rights? I think that anyone with violates someone's rights is awful, male or female.

[Tahar Joblis]

It's not a question of seeming true. It just is. Men generally sell better. And one of the biggest tricks to selling is not over talking. Let the customer make up their mind after you've planted the seed of need.

See, I think we may be experiencing cultural dissonance here.
In wales, it seems that women are routinely the "face" of a business.
(bar maids, people working on checkouts, whatever involves interacting with a customer.)

However, I haven't really paid attention to instances where the price isn't fixed and there is negotiation involved. Tonight was kind of that, and the mixed beat everyone by a large margin.

It wasn't a case of them talking to more people. It's more that people gave more to them.

The mens groups probably had an equalish number of donaters, they just gave more to the mixed group. As I said, not scientific or rigorous. Just interested.
(Womens groups got bogged down in people donating and then trying to talk to them.)

In the US, this is also true. Women are routinely the face of retail operations and service operations.

People who sell cars are mostly male. Real estate agents are more often female (though not be an overwhelming margin). I would be very hesitant to generalize about some generic "sales" skill - different sales areas seem to involve different gender ratios, sharply.

[Ostroeuropa]

Jess on andrew marr was irritating.

Marr brought up that if he had talked about women rugby players appearances like had just been done over the men rugby players, he would be pilloried for it.

"Blah blah not backed by hundreds and hundreds of years of oppression."

I would have responded "But it is backed by decades and decades of feminists using that exact excuse to perpetuate a double standard which suppresses only one genders expression of their sexuality. Sort of sounds like oppression to me."

Instead he chickened out and just changed the subject, but it seemed clear he thought that was bollocks.

It also reveals the underlying ridiculousness of the feminist agenda.

"You repressed womens expression of their sexuality. In order to achieve equality, won't just let women express it. We have to suppress men doing it too, because reasons."

I don't even think Jess is malicious.
She's just stupid. You could tell from her answers to a bunch of questions. Even the ones on non-feminist issues. I was disappointed. I was hoping she'd be a poster child for feminist intellectuals and how they preach sexism.
She's also an SJW, because she claimed UKIP was a far-right party. Farage asked if she thought lots of former labour voters were secretly far-right and she didn't have an awnser for that.
(I suspect because she doesn't fucking think about the implications of her view on reality. Seems to be a consistent theme in her fuck ups.)
It's because these types of people think anyone who disagrees with them is right wing. They do the same thing to the MRM, and act like being right wing is in itself evidence of evil. It's well documented phenomena, and just reveals their total ignorance of the fractured history of the left wing. I suspect that were it not for her stupid comments on mens issues we wouldn't have ever heard of her. Flash in the pan.

I kind of hope J4M+B runs in her constituency to prove a point. She shouldn't be in parliament.
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

See, I think we may be experiencing cultural dissonance here.
In wales, it seems that women are routinely the "face" of a business.
(bar maids, people working on checkouts, whatever involves interacting with a customer.)

However, I haven't really paid attention to instances where the price isn't fixed and there is negotiation involved. Tonight was kind of that, and the mixed beat everyone by a large margin.

It wasn't a case of them talking to more people. It's more that people gave more to them.

The mens groups probably had an equalish number of donaters, they just gave more to the mixed group. As I said, not scientific or rigorous. Just interested.
(Womens groups got bogged down in people donating and then trying to talk to them.)

In the US, this is also true. Women are routinely the face of retail operations and service operations.

People who sell cars are mostly male. Real estate agents are more often female (though not be an overwhelming margin). I would be very hesitant to generalize about some generic "sales" skill - different sales areas seem to involve different gender ratios, sharply.

I certainly wouldn't call it sales skill.
Sales utility perhaps.

[Tahar Joblis]

Police overwhelmingly shoot men, rather than women. This gap is, in fact, more dramatic than the police shooting gap between blacks and whites; blacks are merely 2-3 times as likely to get shot by those figures, while men are over ten times as likely to get shot as women.

You want to talk about being gunned down in the streets by the government? It's a man problem much more than it's a black problem. How about slavery?

Do you know what the most common forms of modern-day forced labor are in the modern developed world? In the US?

Illegal: "Forced migrant laborer." That's mostly men (and mostly men from Latin America.)
Legal: Prison labor. That's mostly men (and disproportionately black men, but more disproportionately male than disproportionately black.)

These problems are racial and ethnic problems... but they are also men's problems.

Imagine that our baseline is for a white middle-class women and that they have a 10% chance of being in prison. Say, if we make them lower class that goes up to 15% and down to 5% if they're wealthy. Also, say, that blacks get a 10% increase and all other ethnicities 5%.

So, using these hypothetical numbers, the chance of a randomly selected lower class black woman being in prison is 25%.

Now, there's also a male effect which is 10% as well. This means that for a lower class black male the chance that he's in prison is 10 (baseline) + 10 (male) + 10 (black) + 5 (lower class) = 35% (again, to reiterate, numbers are all examples), compared to 25% for his female equivalent.

That's one way of looking at it. But what if there's an interaction? What if being male means that the effect of being black changes? Could it be that this is the case? Maybe there's only a 5% main effect for men as a class. Imagine this effect is, coincidentally, 5. Thus:

10 (baseline) + 5 (male) + [ 10 (black) + 5 (male) ] + 5 (lower class) = 35% again.

However, in these two situations we've got a quite different interpretation.

Point is: you can't just look at the numbers... especially these made up ones.

I've looked at lots of numbers.

One of the interesting facts about the matter is that black females are sentenced less harshly than white males. The gender difference, when examined, is typically larger than the race difference.

Yes, if you look for interaction effects, you will find them. In fact, if you look hard enough, you can explain away the entire male-female sentencing gap in terms of a large collection of interaction effects - a "girlfriend effect," a "mother effect," et cetera. There's a long list of specific factors that are used to excuse women from responsibility (but not men). There is no "father effect." There is no "boyfriend effect." The logical explanation is very simple: The difference is an effect of gender; it is simply mediated by the opportunity to find material excuses through which to express the bias.

[Ostroeuropa]

No. What's your problem with it?

"Getting upset over someone getting rape threats is just like Fox News getting butthurt!"

You're not really helping the fact that most see MRAs in general and you in particular as being less concern about men's rights and more concerned about taking women down a notch, no matter the damage done. I mean, trivializing rape threats? Really?

Who said i'm triviliazing them?
I'm comparing them to the death threats issued toward the police by the BLM movement and how fox news got super butthurt over it and used it to declare the movement a hate mob.
Same thing as is being done here with the rape threats.
Except here, there's no evidence of threats as gallo pointed out. Disturbingly detailed harm wishing, yes. But not threats.
And there's no evidence they issued from MRAs as opposed to Anti-Feminists in general.

I already said they shouldn't happen. So you're misrepresenting my position. Although here, YOU are trivializing death threats by saying the situations aren't comparable.

Exactly what I expected.
But the fact people wanted to fuck em (I assume) led to them being bogged down in talking to people and being unable to just collect and move on since people would donate, and then talk to them and try to get to know em an stuff.

If we assume that women more frequently have people want to fuck them, then why aren't we assuming that said women aren't more talented at giving the people a polite brush off?

Even that would take time.

By the way, over 200 raised for mental health. Last year was 600, year before was 600. I knew that the event happening ON Halloween as opposed to previous years when it was merely CLOSE to Halloween would cripple our intake ;(.
Still.


You should all consider doing some independent charity raising work. It's usually fairly simple to get authorization from an organization for an event, and you can do it in a fun way.

We do a zombie pub crawl every year and ask people for brains moneys for the bucket. Anyone can do this stuff. I tend to focus on mental health, dogs, drugs and the homeless, but any charity work is good.

Zombies need healthy brains. Plz donate.

Bare in mind though if any of you do something similar, you do need to get permission from the venues to visit and collect. (Though this is usually fairly simple.)

[Ostroeuropa]

https://hequal.wordpress.com/2015/11/01 ... d-threats/

By the way.

Some fun comments:

One of the ways in which you can tell something is propaganda or not is whether it runs to predefined script.
Everything about this incident with Phillips is predictable - from the moment I saw the video of her snorting with derision in that committee, I knew it was a matter of hours before she’d be complaining about online abuse and safe spaces and this is why we need Feminism etc.
And as surely as night follows day, the next move would be that - although she acknowledges you can never identify these people on Twitter - she just knows they are all from the MRM.
Very soon, she’ll be getting invited to panels to speak about harassment alongside other high profile women who have experienced the same.

Do you think these people will ever learn to stop being hateful sexist bigots? Or is there too much money to be made in bigotry?

It is extremely predictable, more and more I think as well that all these convenient harassment 'victims' are being used as poster childs to try and censor the internet. My reasoning being is that almost every time now when these propagandists are out there on the attack they always get ousted by a simple comments page.
So of course, they're going to want to silence any criticism of their beliefs, they're going to go after communications that they have no control over.

The first one points out that these damselings always deflect from sexism against men being said.
We shouldn't give them any credence at all. We should discuss online harassment, but when individuals talk about it we should tell them not to change the subject from us criticizing their sexism.

[Royal Hindustan]

False rape accusations are not as uncommon as you think. Also, it's not that there are false rape accusation that we are angry at, it's that there is no consequence to them, and the law acts as guilty until proven innocent. And even when proven innocent, people say "just because they couldn't prove he didn't do it, doesn't mean he's innocent". Is this fair? Is this moral? No, and if you think it is, then congratulations, you are a reason for full scale MGTOW.

[Ostroeuropa]

False rape accusations are not as uncommon as you think. Also, it's not that there are false rape accusation that we are angry at, it's that there is no consequence to them, and the law acts as guilty until proven innocent. And even when proven innocent, people say "just because they couldn't prove he didn't do it, doesn't mean he's innocent". Is this fair? Is this moral? No, and if you think it is, then congratulations, you are a reason for full scale MGTOW.

Thoughts on this?
viewtopic.php?p=26256573#p26256573

[Royal Hindustan]

False rape accusations are not as uncommon as you think. Also, it's not that there are false rape accusation that we are angry at, it's that there is no consequence to them, and the law acts as guilty until proven innocent. And even when proven innocent, people say "just because they couldn't prove he didn't do it, doesn't mean he's innocent". Is this fair? Is this moral? No, and if you think it is, then congratulations, you are a reason for full scale MGTOW.

Thoughts on this?
viewtopic.php?p=26256573#p26256573

While I agree it's internalized misandry, it also has an aspect of societal conformity. Men know that if they oppose feminism, it will be akin to social suicide. Most men in the MRA do not care, or have stopped caring after a certain period of time. If we want to truly end such things, we need to combat shaming of men, and degradation of their self esteem. We need to root out the societal attacks which enforce conformity, and we will end the internalized misandry.

[Chessmistress]

False rape accusations are not as uncommon as you think. Also, it's not that there are false rape accusation that we are angry at, it's that there is no consequence to them, and the law acts as guilty until proven innocent. And even when proven innocent, people say "just because they couldn't prove he didn't do it, doesn't mean he's innocent". Is this fair? Is this moral? No, and if you think it is, then congratulations, you are a reason for full scale MGTOW.

I already explained why such "full scale" MGTOW wouldn't work unless it would be more than at least 20% men under 30, and that even percentages like 18% and even 20% total men (not just only under 30) would be totally unnoticed.
You should be already aware that you can NOT really hope it'll reach something like 25% men under 30.

In other words, homosexuality and bisexuality are far higher among women: at least 10 points higher than males.

Combining the first and the second factor, we have, within a population of 206 people:
15% women homosexual/bisexual out of 100= 15 / 85 need males
5% males homosexual/bisexual out of 106= 5 / 101 need women

Sooo, even if 15% of 101 males would go MGTOW, there will still be an heterosexual male for each heterosexual woman.

Before being even noticed, MGTOW need to reach at least 20% males.

Then there's a problem of QUALITY
Most MGTOW are divorced males.
Sorry, without offense, but a divorced male, already aged, usually with an economical situation that is not so good, is not so interesting as a 25 yo guy who have just earn his degree and have a lot of chances for the future.
So, for being somewhat relevant, MGTOW would need to reach at least 20% under 30.

Regarding Jess Phillips: I agree with her, men have issues too, but these issues are fewer and matter far less than women's issues, that's why she was basically right when laughing at it.

[Italios]

False rape accusations are not as uncommon as you think. Also, it's not that there are false rape accusation that we are angry at, it's that there is no consequence to them, and the law acts as guilty until proven innocent. And even when proven innocent, people say "just because they couldn't prove he didn't do it, doesn't mean he's innocent". Is this fair? Is this moral? No, and if you think it is, then congratulations, you are a reason for full scale MGTOW.

I already explained why such "full scale" MGTOW wouldn't work unless it's less than at least 20% men under 30, and that even percentages like 18% and even 20% total men (not just only under 30) would be totally unnoticed.
You should be already aware that you can NOT really hope it'll reach something like 25% men under 30.

In other words, homosexuality and bisexuality are far higher among women: at least 10 points higher than males.

Combining the first and the second factor, we have, within a population of 206 people:
15% women homosexual/bisexual out of 100= 15 / 85 need males
5% males homosexual/bisexual out of 106= 5 / 101 need women

Sooo, even if 15% of 101 males would go MGTOW, there will still be an heterosexual male for each heterosexual woman.

Before being even noticed, MGTOW need to reach at least 20% males.

Then there's a problem of QUALITY
Most MGTOW are divorced males.
Sorry, without offense, but a divorced male, already aged, usually with an economical situation that is not so good, is not so interesting as a 25 yo guy who have just earn his degree and have a lot of chances for the future.
So, for being somewhat relevant, MGTOW would need to reach at least 20% under 30.

Regarding Jess Phillips: I agree with her, men have issues too, but these issues are fewer and matter far less than women's issues, that's why she was basically right when laughing at it.

So male rape is less important than female rape? How. It is essentially the same thing. Genders shouldn't change that. Otherwise it's discrimination.

[Chessmistress]

I already explained why such "full scale" MGTOW wouldn't work unless it's less than at least 20% men under 30, and that even percentages like 18% and even 20% total men (not just only under 30) would be totally unnoticed.
You should be already aware that you can NOT really hope it'll reach something like 25% men under 30.



Regarding Jess Phillips: I agree with her, men have issues too, but these issues are fewer and matter far less than women's issues, that's why she was basically right when laughing at it.

So male rape is less important than female rape? How. It is essentially the same thing. Genders shouldn't change that. Otherwise it's discrimination.

Jess Phillips was afraid about rape threats against her sons, rape threats by some users within MRA's forums, and that's the very opposite of "male rape isn't important".

I know this is The NS Men's Rights Thread, but right now, here, people are attacking Jess Phillips, a Feminist, so I think it's right for me being here and defending a fellow woman and Feminist.

[Italios]

So male rape is less important than female rape? How. It is essentially the same thing. Genders shouldn't change that. Otherwise it's discrimination.

Jess Phillips was afraid about rape threats against her sons, rape threats by some users within MRA's forums, and that's the very opposite of "male rape isn't important".

I said less important, and I'm asking you, not Jess Phillips. Unless you are just spitting up all her words in here for her, I'm not asking her to explain it. I'm asking you.

Plus, being "afraid" is not the same as taking action against it.

[Chessmistress]

Jess Phillips was afraid about rape threats against her sons, rape threats by some users within MRA's forums, and that's the very opposite of "male rape isn't important".

I said less important, and I'm asking you, not Jess Phillips. Unless you are just spitting up all her words in here for her, I'm not asking her to explain it. I'm asking you.

Plus, being "afraid" is not the same as taking action against it.

A single rape of a man isn't less important than a single rape of a woman. Rape is rape, regardless the involved genders.
On the other hand, on the whole, male rape is a less important issue, I think, just only because far fewer men are raped, when compared to raped women.
Note: for Galloism - Jess Phillips is a UK MP. So USA's stats are unworthy about the issue of male rape in UK:

[Italios]

I said less important, and I'm asking you, not Jess Phillips. Unless you are just spitting up all her words in here for her, I'm not asking her to explain it. I'm asking you.

Plus, being "afraid" is not the same as taking action against it.

A single rape of a man isn't less important than a single rape of a woman. Rape is rape, regardless the involved genders.
On the other hand, on the whole, male rape is a less important issue, I think, just only because far fewer men are raped, when compared to raped women.
Note: for Galloism - Jess Phillips is a UK MP. So USA's stats are unworthy about the issue of male rape in UK:

So if A blows up a bomb and kills 6, and B blows up a bomb killing 14, just because 12 more lives were lost, if makes B more important. But the circumstances are virtually the same, but the investigation for A is smaller anyway.

[Agerland]

On the other hand, on the whole, male rape is a less important issue, I think, just only because far fewer men are raped, when compared to raped women.

I highly doubt the difference is as big as you say. Besides, why are we even separating the rape issue into genders? It's one problem, and it's a large one for both.

[Fartsniffage]

I said less important, and I'm asking you, not Jess Phillips. Unless you are just spitting up all her words in here for her, I'm not asking her to explain it. I'm asking you.

Plus, being "afraid" is not the same as taking action against it.

A single rape of a man isn't less important than a single rape of a woman. Rape is rape, regardless the involved genders.
On the other hand, on the whole, male rape is a less important issue, I think, just only because far fewer men are raped, when compared to raped women.
Note: for Galloism - Jess Phillips is a UK MP. So USA's stats are unworthy about the issue of male rape in UK:

The ratio in the UK is about 1:7 males to female. Of course, that's using a definition of rape that doesn't include men who are forced to penetrate so your mileage may vary.