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

[Ifreann]

Mens issues and organizations are routinely suppressed. If men are less comfortable it's because of a concerted effort by feminists to keep it unacceptable to suggest mens issues exist and are the result of sexism.
Further, studies have shown that men are comfortable talking about their feelings and issues, with other men, not women. That's a result of the culture of feminism and the attitudes it has inculcated among the populace, entrenching misandry.

(Study; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... rn-social/ )

This response of yours is merely the typical feminist rationalization to avoid confronting structural problems that keep this dynamic in place, it also sources the problem in mens attitudes and mentalities and not in institutions, which is odd and inconsistent for them.

It is not because of lingering gender roles, but concerted effort by feminist lobbyists. Increasing the ability of men to speak out about problems and gain support is what the MRM does, and it is opposed, vilified, and demonized by feminists in institutions. That's why men are less willing and able.

There is no concerted effort by anyone to suppress mens issues. If men's issues were suppressed by feminism then why wasn't pre-1960 or 1918 a glory age for discussing male issues. In more conservative societies where feminism is rejected then male issues are addressed even less than now. The problem isn't with men, but with a society that still enforces male gender rolls. The reason men are uncomfortable talking to women isn't because of feminism, but because of social expectations that men shouldn't discuss their issues. That's what you should be attacking. It seems mad to me that you think pushing back women's issues will somehow help men.

The society you want existed, and still exists in many parts of the globe, and the result you think will happen simply doesn't. In fact the opposite is true. Tell me about how male issues have benefited in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, where your thesis is put into place.

Saudi Arabia is run by feminists.

[Irona]

There is no concerted effort by anyone to suppress mens issues. If men's issues were suppressed by feminism then why wasn't pre-1960 or 1918 a glory age for discussing male issues. In more conservative societies where feminism is rejected then male issues are addressed even less than now. The problem isn't with men, but with a society that still enforces male gender rolls. The reason men are uncomfortable talking to women isn't because of feminism, but because of social expectations that men shouldn't discuss their issues. That's what you should be attacking. It seems mad to me that you think pushing back women's issues will somehow help men.

The society you want existed, and still exists in many parts of the globe, and the result you think will happen simply doesn't. In fact the opposite is true. Tell me about how male issues have benefited in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, where your thesis is put into place.

Saudi Arabia is run by feminists.

They even let them drive now

[Ostroeuropa]

Mens issues and organizations are routinely suppressed. If men are less comfortable it's because of a concerted effort by feminists to keep it unacceptable to suggest mens issues exist and are the result of sexism.
Further, studies have shown that men are comfortable talking about their feelings and issues, with other men, not women. That's a result of the culture of feminism and the attitudes it has inculcated among the populace, entrenching misandry.

(Study; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... rn-social/ )

This response of yours is merely the typical feminist rationalization to avoid confronting structural problems that keep this dynamic in place, it also sources the problem in mens attitudes and mentalities and not in institutions, which is odd and inconsistent for them.

It is not because of lingering gender roles, but concerted effort by feminist lobbyists. Increasing the ability of men to speak out about problems and gain support is what the MRM does, and it is opposed, vilified, and demonized by feminists in institutions. That's why men are less willing and able.

There is no concerted effort by anyone to suppress mens issues. If men's issues were suppressed by feminism then why wasn't pre-1960 or 1918 a glory age for discussing male issues. In more conservative societies where feminism is rejected then male issues are addressed even less than now. The problem isn't with men, but with a society that still enforces male gender rolls. The reason men are uncomfortable talking to women isn't because of feminism, but because of social expectations that men shouldn't discuss their issues. That's what you should be attacking. It seems mad to me that you think pushing back women's issues will somehow help men.

The society you want existed, and still exists in many parts of the globe, and the result you think will happen simply doesn't. In fact the opposite is true.

1. Go over to the feminist thread and ask for examples, you'll get plenty. Here's one example. http://menaregood.com/wordpress/straus- ... -research/

2. Because Feminists were flat out wrong in their diagnosis and pre 1960 and 1918 wasn't merely misogynistic, but also misandrist, and this prevented work on mens issues, same as a parliament mostly consisting of men still avoids their discussion. The same repression feminists use was present then also, but from traditionalists.

3. A society still enforcing male gender roles is the problem, yes, and probably the most prominent contributor to suppressing efforts to fix this or deforming those efforts is the feminist movement.

4. Right. And part of the social norms enforcing the expectation that men can't discuss their issues is feminism and the large, institutionalized, and vocal subset of it that is hostile to men claiming to be victims of sexism or poorly treated in comparison to women. That means men can't easily discuss issues with women that revolve around those topics, because feminism has convinced women talking about that means the man is a sexist for going against their dogma and they should react with hostility. Alternatively, the woman is a traditionalist and simply dislikes men going against their gender role. The feminist version is merely a rationalization for the prejudice, a form of Inverted Sexism using egalitarian rhetoric. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism ) and hasn't been addressed because feminists were simply flat out wrong in their diagnosis of sexism, allowing misandry to permeate their discourse merely re-crafted into a feminist form of it. The same disgust and impulse to attack men who complain about their role exists in both feminism and traditionalism, merely expressed in different forms, with the feminist convincing themselves that if they resolve womens issues, mens will get magically resolved also, because of that fundamental misdiagnosis of all sexism being misogyny. This, despite it never having worked in the past, and in fact causing more problems for men.

5. I am attacking it. "Free to discuss their issues" means "Free to discuss them the way they experience them honestly, not kowtowing to fits of hysterical hostility when they phrase it a way feminists don't like.", in part because the latter has stalled progress for decades.

6. "The society I want", no. You're just someone who thinks sexism is a flat line with Misogyny on one end and Equality on the other. Like Left-Right. I'm someone who sees it in more dimensions. Like libertarian-left, libertarian-right, etc. The problem is that feminists have taken over our instiutions and get angry when you say "This authoritarianism fucking sucks. Let's go up a few squares" and they reply "ALL POLITICS IS ECONOMICS! You're a capitalist pig!"
Feminism is not merely moving along a line, it is, in institutional terms and in the way men experience it, a suppression of all discussion that doesn't revolve around moving along that base misunderstanding.
I'm pretty sure i'm accurately characterizing you since you apparently cannot conceive of anything other than that flat line, and basically just called me a capitalist pig by bringing up Saudi Arabia. Why not abandon feminism for a worldview that isn't so simplistic? Your paranoia is unfounded. Merely because we dislike authoritarianism does not mean we're capitalist. Merely because I oppose feminism does not mean I am a traditionalist. There's other options.


To bring this back to the UK, Jess Phillips is a prominent example of the kind of attitude men face when they try to discuss their issues. Her reaction to international mens day and incredulity, hostility, and mockery of mens issues, is a society level scale (Since she is an MP) of a reaction men have to put up with, directly due to feminist ideology.

[Val Halla]

To me, the how the Daily Mail report on stories is normally more of an issue than the stiry itself.

[Ostroeuropa]

To me, the how the Daily Mail report on stories is normally more of an issue than the stiry itself.

True of the media in general tbh. One of the biggest issues in our era is the media and its behavior.

[Val Halla]

To me, the how the Daily Mail report on stories is normally more of an issue than the stiry itself.

True of the media in general tbh. One of the biggest issues in our era is the media and its behavior.

I understand that because less people buy newspapers nowadays they have to be more... clickbatey. But it still doesn't make the ridiculous nature of it acceptable, and it certainly doesn't excuse poor reporting.

[Ostroeuropa]

True of the media in general tbh. One of the biggest issues in our era is the media and its behavior.

I understand that because less people buy newspapers nowadays they have to be more... clickbatey. But it still doesn't make the ridiculous nature of it acceptable, and it certainly doesn't excuse poor reporting.

I disagree that they strictly have to, to be honest. it seems to me to be the same problem AAA gaming is experiencing.
These institutions are simply too large and unnecessary, stemming from an earlier time, and their overhead shows it. It's why they're resorting to such bullshit to stay afloat in competition with independent developers and journalists/programs who operate using different platforms of distribution. The model of news distribution isn't fit for the modern era, and this weird shit is the result.

[HMS Barham]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_ ... y_shooting

you said "quickly outgun and overpower criminals entirely" not "outgun and overpower criminals once every so often"

The point being that this heroic act was taken in defiance of the pro-crime authorities of New York and the USA.

[HMS Barham]

Mens issues and organizations are routinely suppressed. If men are less comfortable it's because of a concerted effort by feminists to keep it unacceptable to suggest mens issues exist and are the result of sexism.
Further, studies have shown that men are comfortable talking about their feelings and issues, with other men, not women. That's a result of the culture of feminism and the attitudes it has inculcated among the populace, entrenching misandry.

(Study; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... rn-social/ )

This response of yours is merely the typical feminist rationalization to avoid confronting structural problems that keep this dynamic in place, it also sources the problem in mens attitudes and mentalities and not in institutions, which is odd and inconsistent for them.

It is not because of lingering gender roles, but concerted effort by feminist lobbyists. Increasing the ability of men to speak out about problems and gain support is what the MRM does, and it is opposed, vilified, and demonized by feminists in institutions. That's why men are less willing and able.

There is no concerted effort by anyone to suppress mens issues. If men's issues were suppressed by feminism then why wasn't pre-1960 or 1918 a glory age for discussing male issues.

Because "men's issues", in his sense, are all "issues" concerning how men can sort of cope in a feminist society. In 1918 men did not have "men's issues".

Tell me about how male issues have benefited in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, where your thesis is put into place.

The main problem with him is that he does not want to restore an enforceably monogamous family structure (I won't comment whether Saudi really is one), he wants to return feminism to the free sex golden age of approximately 1990 and freeze it there forever. The problem being that that is an unstable equilibrium, so the goal is impossible. You can go forward, to soft harems, 35 year old virgins, and eventual population extinction - the Japanese fixed point - or back to enforceable monogamy, but you cannot wallow in 1990.

[Ostroeuropa]

There is no concerted effort by anyone to suppress mens issues. If men's issues were suppressed by feminism then why wasn't pre-1960 or 1918 a glory age for discussing male issues.

Because "men's issues", in his sense, are all "issues" concerning how men can sort of cope in a feminist society. In 1918 men did not have "men's issues".

Tell me about how male issues have benefited in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, where your thesis is put into place.

The main problem with him is that he does not want to restore an enforceably monogamous family structure (I won't comment whether Saudi really is one), he wants to return feminism to the free sex golden age of approximately 1990 and freeze it there forever. The problem being that that is an unstable equilibrium, so the goal is impossible. You can go forward, to soft harems, 35 year old virgins, and eventual population extinction - the Japanese fixed point - or back to enforceable monogamy, but you cannot wallow in 1990.

You don't understand my arguments, values, or goals. You too apparently view sexism as a straight line rather than a grid, but want to move us in the opposite direction to feminists. That explains why you think i'm a feminist and they think i'm a traditionalist.

I'm up here, not over there.

https://fee.org/media/9818/20131203_fulmer1a.png

Like this.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Ah i remember when he called you a feminist a bit back, gave me a solid chuckle.

[Ifreann]

Ah i remember when he called you a feminist a bit back, gave me a solid chuckle.

Fun times were had by all.

[Irona]

1. Go over to the feminist thread and ask for examples, you'll get plenty. Here's one example. http://menaregood.com/wordpress/straus- ... -research/

The link to the study is broken, and I don't trust a website that wears it's biases so openly to have an objective summary of the study. I accept that domestic violence against men is a major problem, but your insane if you think feminism is it's cause. The problem is society trying to enforce gender rolls that men are strong and women are weak that prevents major action.

2. Because Feminists were flat out wrong in their diagnosis and pre 1960 and 1918 wasn't merely misogynistic, but also misandrist, and this prevented work on mens issues, same as a parliament mostly consisting of men still avoids their discussion. The same repression feminists use was present then also, but from traditionalists.

You have yet to provide a proper example of how the whole of society is controlled by feminists to repress men. Regardless your right to say traditional society was misandrist, you just don't seem to follow that through to the modern day. It's the traditional elements in society that are still misogynistic and misanderist. Traditional gender rolls are still reinforced by conservatism. Feminism fights that tradition and by attacking them you only strengthen conservatives who want to enforce this traditional view of society that you admit harms men.

3. A society still enforcing male gender roles is the problem, yes, and probably the most prominent contributor to suppressing efforts to fix this or deforming those efforts is the feminist movement.

Again you fail to provide evidence of this mass conspiracy to suppress men by the feminist movement. Obviously there are extreme elements and 'men haters' in the feminist movement, but there are also definitely fascists in the conservative movement and communists in the left. They don't define the movement.

4. Right. And part of the social norms enforcing the expectation that men can't discuss their issues is feminism and the large, institutionalized, and vocal subset of it that is hostile to men claiming to be victims of sexism or poorly treated in comparison to women. That means men can't easily discuss issues with women that revolve around those topics, because feminism has convinced women talking about that means the man is a sexist for going against their dogma and they should react with hostility. Alternatively, the woman is a traditionalist and simply dislikes men going against their gender role. The feminist version is merely a rationalization for the prejudice, a form of Inverted Sexism using egalitarian rhetoric. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism ) and hasn't been addressed because feminists were simply flat out wrong in their diagnosis of sexism, allowing misandry to permeate their discourse merely re-crafted into a feminist form of it. The same disgust and impulse to attack men who complain about their role exists in both feminism and traditionalism, merely expressed in different forms, with the feminist convincing themselves that if they resolve womens issues, mens will get magically resolved also, because of that fundamental misdiagnosis of all sexism being misogyny. This, despite it never having worked in the past, and in fact causing more problems for men.

Again you accept that traditionalism is the problem, but then go off on an unsubstantiated tangent about how feminism is the real problem. Feminism attacks traditionalism and that also benefits men.

5. I am attacking it. "Free to discuss their issues" means "Free to discuss them the way they experience them honestly, not kowtowing to fits of hysterical hostility when they phrase it a way feminists don't like.", in part because the latter has stalled progress for decades.

Perhaps the reason some feminists are hostile to the Mens Rights Movement is because you think the way to gain progress for men is by dragging women down. All that does is strengthen the very traditionalism that you admit oppresses men.

6. "The society I want", no. You're just someone who thinks sexism is a flat line with Misogyny on one end and Equality on the other. Like Left-Right. I'm someone who sees it in more dimensions. Like libertarian-left, libertarian-right, etc. The problem is that feminists have taken over our instiutions and get angry when you say "This authoritarianism fucking sucks. Let's go up a few squares" and they reply "ALL POLITICS IS ECONOMICS! You're a capitalist pig!"
Feminism is not merely moving along a line, it is, in institutional terms and in the way men experience it, a suppression of all discussion that doesn't revolve around moving along that base misunderstanding.
I'm pretty sure i'm accurately characterizing you since you apparently cannot conceive of anything other than that flat line, and basically just called me a capitalist pig by bringing up Saudi Arabia. Why not abandon feminism for a worldview that isn't so simplistic? Your paranoia is unfounded. Merely because we dislike authoritarianism does not mean we're capitalist. Merely because I oppose feminism does not mean I am a traditionalist. There's other options.

I would prefer if you didn't try to insult or strawman me. I don't believe those things, nor does it make you intelligent to attack me for views I never said I had. It would be like me saying that your understanding of feminism and mens right's is so paradoxical that it makes as much sense as Strasserism. Your views that feminists somehow control society are unsubstantiated and borderline conspiracy theorist. You oppose womens rights without justification that makes sense to anyone other than yourself. You fail to recognise that by attacking feminism you only strengthen the traditionalist elements that you claim to oppose. By attacking feminism without justification you verify the position of actual misanderists. In all you are your own worst enemy. You strengthen both traditionalists and anti-male feminists.

[Prekonate]

MRAs are attacked because they adopt feminist oppression logic (gender roles are socially constructed -> women men are injured by this construction) but don't conclude that their efforts should be spent tearing the social constraints away from women. The conclusion smacks of misogyny. If you believe gender roles are constructed, it would imply that social institutions, many of which still exist in some form, are responsible for: (1) women being property for 10,000 years, (2) men having higher rates of suicide, and conclude that we aren't talking enough about #2 . It's a conclusion so far out of proportion that many can't help but impute a malicious motive to people who draw it.

[Irona]

MRAs are attacked because they adopt feminist oppression logic (gender roles are socially constructed -> women men are injured by this construction) but don't conclude that their efforts should be spent tearing the social constraints away from women. The conclusion smacks of misogyny. If you believe gender roles are constructed, it would imply that social institutions, many of which still exist in some form, are responsible for: (1) women being property for 10,000 years, (2) men having higher rates of suicide, and conclude that we aren't talking enough about #2 . It's a conclusion so far out of proportion that many can't help but impute a malicious motive to people who draw it.

It's not a zero sum game like Ostro seems to think. Pushing back traditionalist social constructs on one front help the other.

[Ostroeuropa]

*snip*

I'll take it to the feminism thread.

Ah i remember when he called you a feminist a bit back, gave me a solid chuckle.

A bit back? You seen black mirror? Black museum?
It's in my sig.

[Souseiseki]

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/31/new-porn- ... s-7275023/

Porn giant Mindgeek – owner of popular online fleshpots Pornhub, RedTube, YouPorn and Brazzers – will now collect names, mobile phone number, addresses and dates and place of birth before users log in.

at least now we have a concrete idea of how silly this is going to be

[Souseiseki]

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/ ... oliticians

UK historic sex abuse inquiry will not rule on politicians. Public concern over a paedophile ring at Westminster has “diminished considerably” says senior lawyer

>when you spend so long in the UK seeing laws being made based around reactionary populism and the level of uninformed whining that you unironically come to believe that's just how the law works

[Ifreann]

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/31/new-porn-laws-will-mean-pornhub-asks-name-address-wnking-begins-7275023/

Porn giant Mindgeek – owner of popular online fleshpots Pornhub, RedTube, YouPorn and Brazzers – will now collect names, mobile phone number, addresses and dates and place of birth before users log in.

at least now we have a concrete idea of how silly this is going to be

Sign in as Nigel Farage
Watch loads of immigrant/EU porn
Inevitable leaks
Mad bantz

[Trumptonium]

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/31/new-porn-laws-will-mean-pornhub-asks-name-address-wnking-begins-7275023/

Porn giant Mindgeek – owner of popular online fleshpots Pornhub, RedTube, YouPorn and Brazzers – will now collect names, mobile phone number, addresses and dates and place of birth before users log in.

at least now we have a concrete idea of how silly this is going to be

just enter the name, address and phone number of your local tory mp

[Trumptonium]

tbh that is a really stupid law

the only results I can see from this new law is a new surge in one-time SIM cards, a surge in new emails, and over time more people arrested and charged with child porn as more people begin using Tor for their browsing habits and inevitably stumbling upon that

[Eastfield Lodge]

tbh that is a really stupid law

the only results I can see from this new law is a new surge in one-time SIM cards, a surge in new emails, and over time more people arrested and charged with child porn as more people begin using Tor for their browsing habits and inevitably stumbling upon that

They'd have to crack down on the free porn sites before those would be necessary.

[Trumptonium]

tbh that is a really stupid law

the only results I can see from this new law is a new surge in one-time SIM cards, a surge in new emails, and over time more people arrested and charged with child porn as more people begin using Tor for their browsing habits and inevitably stumbling upon that

They'd have to crack down on the free porn sites before those would be necessary.

that's pretty easy once they become hard to find through search engines, which is easily optimised

[Hurdergaryp]

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/uk-historic-sex-abuse-inquiry-will-not-rule-politicians

UK historic sex abuse inquiry will not rule on politicians. Public concern over a paedophile ring at Westminster has “diminished considerably” says senior lawyer

>when you spend so long in the UK seeing laws being made based around reactionary populism and the level of uninformed whining that you unironically come to believe that's just how the law works

That is exactly how the law works, for you do not live in an optimalized technocracy.

[Hydesland]

lol?