NationStates

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:11 am**

HMS Barham wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:Let us briefly contend that there is a pro-women bias in discussion of social issues

Begging the question. Modern culture is virulently anti-woman in that most women want a stable marriage and children, something that feminism denies them. Ostroeuropa is anti-woman because he is a radical feminist.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:47 pm**

Ostroeuropa wrote: creeping authoritarianism on the left wing

There is no creeping. We are explicitly authoritarian — it's only that most of us don't realise it yet.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:50 pm**

Questers wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote: creeping authoritarianism on the left wing
There is no creeping. We are explicitly authoritarian — it's only that most of us don't realise it yet.

I'm just sitting here as a market socialist who distrusts the government to have much power and wants most things to be legal then I guess.

Minarcho-socialism!

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:51 pm**

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Questers wrote: There is no creeping. We are explicitly authoritarian — it's only that most of us don't realise it yet.

I'm just sitting here as a market socialist who distrusts the government to have much power and wants most things to be legal then I guess.

Minarcho-socialism!

Yes you have been completely annexed by ideology. You just don't realise it. Shame!

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:53 pm**

Questers wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
I'm just sitting here as a market socialist who distrusts the government to have much power and wants most things to be legal then I guess.

Minarcho-socialism!
Yes you have been completely annexed by ideology. You just don't realise it. Shame!

Don't get me wrong, i'm down for some authoritarian leftism if nothing else is on offer, as a transitional period, in order to guard the republic and ensure a safe and secure society. But we need to find someone who will give up the power. Know anyone?

Me either.
Except, well, me.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:50 pm**

38,000 less male students applied to uni than women this year.

The rate has increased to women being 1/3rd more likely to enter at 18.

Half of women in the UK enter university by 19, with 37% of men doing so, and the latter number is dropping while the former is rising.

https://www.ucas.com/file/140396/downlo ... n=ekh0PW6p

Our society is failing boys and men and the situation is worsening.
We need to radically change course on gender politics to prevent this trend worsening.

Let's just go over the basic shit here.

1. The leading cause of death for young men is suicide.
2. Their educational attainment is dropping, and has been dropping for years, signalling a worsening environment for them in society and how we raise them.
3. They earn less than women of the same age for the same job.
4. There is practically no redress for domestic violence and rape, both things that disproportionately hit the young. (Notably, males are 20% more likely than women to develop PTSD following rape, in my view, due to lack of social support and resources.)
5. They are the overwhelming majority of homeless people
6. They are disproportionately arrested, tried, sentenced, and imprisoned, there is bias at every stage of the justice process.
7. The media constantly demonizes them and makes out women are oppressed by them (Notably, the media is an institution, and it's stances often erase mens issues. An institution being misandrist is indistinguishable from the media, and so its constant exposure given to womens issues must be viewed in that context, and you should ask yourselves if it's disproportionate and in fact, detrimental.)
8. Young white males are the most maligned demographic in the country, seen as the worst. (Yougov study.)
9. They are constantly told their problems don't matter compared to others (See 1.)
10. There is no mass movement in meatspace to deal with them and give them an outlet to feel like life might get better for them.

For point 9, i'd say a significant contributing factor to male suicide is undoubtedly feminism and its rhetoric and ideological assertions over male issues.
In recent years, a minority of feminists in the media and institutions have backpeddled slightly to recognizing those problems rather than denying them and saying they don't matter, but you can't revive the dead. More than that, they still seek to appropriate those issues and make them all about women and their problems. Consider that kind of behavior from a therapeutic perspective and compare to someone who just didn't fucking listen to a suicidal person.

Point 2 is also likely this, as feminist dogma further warps education and culture, as well as the problems with demonizing natural male behaviors like physical contact and roughhousing during development years, and turns parents into sub-par guardians by filling their heads with propaganda about how males work. The shift has been from a less to a more feminist society, If someone can explain why this coincides with a drop for males and males only in education by other means, go ahead.

If you're still not an MRA in spite of all these things, I don't know what to say anymore. Well, I do. I just can't.
Kay, I will. You're scared of the social repercussions. So you already know i'm right about them, and know how men are pressured and controlled. Because let's face it, it's not other men whose opinion you're worried about, now is it.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:25 pm**

Ostroeuropa wrote:38,000 less male students applied to uni this year than last year.
https://www.ucas.com/file/140396/download?token=ekh0PW6p

Page 26: "In 2017, application rates for men and women both increased to their highest
recorded values, with 44.0 per cent of women, and 32.5 per cent of men applying
through UCAS. "

So how are you making the claim that 38,000 fewer male students applied to university this year than last, if 2017 saw a record high for proportion of males applying and presumably, the male population of the UK hasn't decreased between 2016 and 2017?

Page 26 closes with the following paragraph, emphasis mine added.

As with application rates, women are over a third (36 per cent) more likely to enter a
HE provider through UCAS than men, with the percentage point difference in entry
rate widening, to 9.9 percentage points in 2017. This difference in 18 year old entry
rates between men and women equates to 37,780 fewer 18 year old men entering
higher education this year than would be the case if men had the same entry rate as
women.

This is only UCAS data, and UCAS is not the only entry route to higher education; this figure only applies to 18 year olds, not all applicants; and I don't fully understand what they mean here, but it seems to suggest that the difference between men and women of age 18 applying is 37,780.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:30 pm**

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:38,000 less male students applied to uni this year than last year.
https://www.ucas.com/file/140396/download?token=ekh0PW6p

Page 26: "In 2017, application rates for men and women both increased to their highest
recorded values, with 44.0 per cent of women, and 32.5 per cent of men applying
through UCAS. "

So how are you making the claim that 38,000 fewer male students applied to university this year than last, if 2017 saw a record high for proportion of males applying and presumably, the male population of the UK hasn't decreased between 2016 and 2017?

Page 26 closes with the following paragraph, emphasis mine added.
As with application rates, women are over a third (36 per cent) more likely to enter a
HE provider through UCAS than men, with the percentage point difference in entry
rate widening, to 9.9 percentage points in 2017. This difference in 18 year old entry
rates between men and women equates to 37,780 fewer 18 year old men entering
higher education this year than would be the case if men had the same entry rate as
women.

This is only UCAS data, and UCAS is not the only entry route to higher education; this figure only applies to 18 year olds, not all applicants; and I don't fully understand what they mean here, but it seems to suggest that the difference between men and women of age 18 applying is 37,780.

Fair enough, I trusted a source a bit too much. I'll ammend the post, the rest stands though.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:41 pm**

Tananat wrote:Might also qualify as the most inaccurate post in history.

In other news, I'm pleasantly surprised that the tone taken by the Daily Mail is one of a disappointed school teacher rather than the rage and implied calls to violence over the Brexit rebellion one might've expected by that rag.

Last night, somebody literally posted a claim that there are no poor people in America. I think we're good.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:41 pm**

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:Page 26: "In 2017, application rates for men and women both increased to their highest
recorded values, with 44.0 per cent of women, and 32.5 per cent of men applying
through UCAS. "

So how are you making the claim that 38,000 fewer male students applied to university this year than last, if 2017 saw a record high for proportion of males applying and presumably, the male population of the UK hasn't decreased between 2016 and 2017?

Page 26 closes with the following paragraph, emphasis mine added.
As with application rates, women are over a third (36 per cent) more likely to enter a
HE provider through UCAS than men, with the percentage point difference in entry
rate widening, to 9.9 percentage points in 2017. This difference in 18 year old entry
rates between men and women equates to 37,780 fewer 18 year old men entering
higher education this year than would be the case if men had the same entry rate as
women.

This is only UCAS data, and UCAS is not the only entry route to higher education; this figure only applies to 18 year olds, not all applicants; and I don't fully understand what they mean here, but it seems to suggest that the difference between men and women of age 18 applying is 37,780.

Fair enough, I trusted a source a bit too much. I'll ammend the post, the rest stands though.

Who was the source?

I'm not judging, I am seriously asking.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:47 pm**

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Fair enough, I trusted a source a bit too much. I'll ammend the post, the rest stands though.

Who was the source?

I'm not judging, I am seriously asking.

...
So, I.R, how you doing today?

The mens rights reddit, with 3 upvotes.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:53 pm**

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:Who was the source?

I'm not judging, I am seriously asking.

...
So, I.R, how you doing today?

The mens rights reddit, with 3 upvotes.

Okay, I might judge a little.
The wording of the document doesn't help. I had to re-read that one page over and over to try and work out what it was meant to say.

I'm not going to allege an attempt by the poster to deceive - they probably misread the document too. Or were passing it on from someone else who either misread it or did attempt to deceive, and misread it and thus posted it on Reddit.

This is the modern stumbling block of "Skepticism®" on the internet, a big ol' dollop of confirmation bias, meaning that people don't read what they reblog, or don't read it well enough.

I'm trying to read a legit legal document on the nuclear industry circa 2007. My brain is melting and it still doesn't help me decrypt upper-marketing lingo.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:15 pm**

HMS Barham wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:Let us briefly contend that there is a pro-women bias in discussion of social issues

Begging the question. Modern culture is virulently anti-woman in that most women want a stable marriage and children, something that feminism denies them. Ostroeuropa is anti-woman because he is a radical feminist.

I ... wait, what?

So many points to ask about. I'll go with "How does feminism deny women a stable marriage and children?"

Ostroeuropa wrote:1. The leading cause of death for young men is suicide.

While this true, it's worth noting that women actually experience more suicidal ideation and behaviours than men do, and are more likely to attempt suicide than men are. It's just that women are really shit at killing themselves.

EDIT: Although there is the obvious question of differing stigma levels.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:46 pm**

Questers wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote: creeping authoritarianism on the left wing
There is no creeping. We are explicitly authoritarian — it's only that most of us don't realise it yet.

this sounds dangerously close to the "everyone is a statist!" rhetoric that anarchists and "libertarians" use. there's a big difference between "no, you cannot murder" and "no, you cannot smoke this plant ever, even if you move to other side of the world i've decided you're not allowed". which is what i assume you were trying to get at.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:44 pm**

Ostroeuropa wrote:If you're still not an MRA in spite of all these things, I don't know what to say anymore. Well, I do. I just can't.

MRAs are radical feminists, so very little of what they propose has any real value. The trends you describe represent young women marrying the government rather than young men. Fix this and everything else fixes itself. Don't fix this, and you are only rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:07 pm**

HMS Barham wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:If you're still not an MRA in spite of all these things, I don't know what to say anymore. Well, I do. I just can't.

MRAs are radical feminists, so very little of what they propose has any real value. The trends you describe represent young women marrying the government rather than young men. Fix this and everything else fixes itself. Don't fix this, and you are only rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Hi there, Black Pigeon Speaks.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:13 pm**

Ban men

Called Hugh

Ban Hugh men

Ban humans

I solved the issue where's my noble prize

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:04 am**

Eastfield Lodge wrote:
HMS Barham wrote:Begging the question. Modern culture is virulently anti-woman in that most women want a stable marriage and children, something that feminism denies them. Ostroeuropa is anti-woman because he is a radical feminist.

I ... wait, what?

So many points to ask about. I'll go with "How does feminism deny women a stable marriage and children?"
Ostroeuropa wrote:1. The leading cause of death for young men is suicide.

While this true, it's worth noting that women actually experience more suicidal ideation and behaviours than men do, and are more likely to attempt suicide than men are. It's just that women are really shit at killing themselves.

EDIT: Although there is the obvious question of differing stigma levels.

Women report experiencing more suicidal ideation, and report being more likely to commit suicide. Big difference.
A major reason to be suspicious of this rebuttal is that there isn't a noticeable change in the suicide gap between countries with access to guns and countries without. It remains the case in the US as well as the UK. (Though leading cause may not be the case in the US, i'm sure.)

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:08 am**

Val Halla wrote:Ban men

Called Hugh

Ban Hugh men

Ban humans

I solved the issue where's my noble prize

Lost in the post. When we went post-man it killed off the postmen.

One of the funniest things I've seen is some stereotypical social justice types on my facebook complaining about people being banned for saying men are trash while also supporting social media giants being made to greatly tighten their rules on hate speech. Erm.

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:09 am**

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Val Halla wrote:Ban men

Called Hugh

Ban Hugh men

Ban humans

I solved the issue where's my noble prize

Lost in the post. When we went post-man it killed off the postmen.

Dont kill the postman

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:42 am**

If you think our politics are adversarial, just look at the wives of our top cyclists going at it again.

Can't they bond over their mutual love for injection-enthusiasm and package-receiving?

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:06 am**

Dumb Ideologies wrote:If you think our politics are adversarial, just look at the wives of our top cyclists going at it again.

Can't they bond over their mutual love for injection-enthusiasm and package-receiving?

Now, now. these guys are nothing in the slightest like politicians. They actually get things done :lol:

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:10 am**

Crysuko wrote:
Dumb Ideologies wrote:If you think our politics are adversarial, just look at the wives of our top cyclists going at it again.

Can't they bond over their mutual love for injection-enthusiasm and package-receiving?

Now, now. these guys are nothing in the slightest like politicians. They actually get things done

There's bound to be footage somewhere of a cyclist slowly falling over sideways while riding.
Just slap STRONG AND STABLE on the end and you're golden.

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:26 am**

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Crysuko wrote:Now, now. these guys are nothing in the slightest like politicians. They actually get things done

There's bound to be footage somewhere of a cyclist slowly falling over sideways while riding.
Just slap STRONG AND STABLE on the end and you're golden.

If it someone from here, even better: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobus_(cycling)

Posted: **Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:07 am**

Souseiseki wrote: which is what i assume you were trying to get at.

Wrong assumption!

NationStates

UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]