#MeToo Becomes #LeaveMeAlone

[Ostroeuropa]

It's difficult to get people to care about a conversation that is fairly explicit about not caring about them either with its periodic "what about the menz" memes and so on, in between its gaslighting attempts to lie about that. I note you ignored the point about heart attacks.



Like I said, when you beat a dog no matter what it does, it stops engaging.

You're super selectively quoting, as well as misrepresenting a statistic, from what is actually a pretty good study on making the issue of gender equality a healthy space to discuss in the workplace.. written by two women by the way..

If you can cite the heart attacks stuff I'd be happy to read.

How so? What about this is misrepresenting the stat?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 105453.htm

Updated study, more recent, confirms.

Worries about accusations of sexual assault or inappropriate touching were cited twice as many times by men as by women, while more women mentioned fear of causing injury.

It's interesting that the women were more concerned about hurting women than they were concerned about hurting men, don't you think?

[US-SSR]

Research courtesy of Reddit. Tell you what, work with as many women as I have worked with for as long as I have worked with them and then you can tell me how much credit I ought to be giving them. Permission to revise and extend my remarks: "not being a dick" is a minimal condition, what is required is to treat them with equal respect.



I am contemplating it. I'm seeing paradise on earth myself.

There's a link in the first line that goes directly to the research.
The issue is that women strongly tend toward viewing being treated equally to men as lack of respect for them.

The third statement was pretty revealing of your unwillingness to actually engage with the concepts outlined there, you've merely bleated that feminism = good and anti-feminism = bad.

What we see from the studies above is that there is a dynamic of psychological and social abuse to terrorize men into accepting a role where the acceptable use of their agency is determined by women being abusive to them when they do something the women don't like and rationalizing an excuse for that behavior based on the feminist framework, and since no two women want the same things, in the end all you get is men being scared into inaction and disengaging, much like they are here.

The women aren't prepared to have a conversation in honest terms, and are hostile to acknowledging their own chauvinism and bias. Consequently they routinely demand men place themselves in a subjugated position and equate not doing so with misogyny.

That's all feminism is. The organized expresssion and articulation of womens prejudices, conflated with equality.

I don't bleat. I state.

FEMINISM = GOOD AND ANTI-FEMINISM = BAD.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't bleat. I state.

FEMINISM = GOOD AND ANTI-FEMINISM = BAD.

Okay, so why don't you engage with the study and its implications?

[Bombadil]

You're super selectively quoting, as well as misrepresenting a statistic, from what is actually a pretty good study on making the issue of gender equality a healthy space to discuss in the workplace.. written by two women by the way..

If you can cite the heart attacks stuff I'd be happy to read.

How so? What about this is misrepresenting the stat?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 105453.htm

Updated study, more recent, confirms.

The misrepresented stat was claiming 74% of men cited fear as to why they didn't raise men's equality when in fact the question was about equality overall in the workplace. It was actually framed under 'what opposing forces can undermine men's support for gender initiatives?'

As for the heart attacks.. alas one cannot see if this is a growing trend or one that has much reduced over time - I don't see it supporting any idea - not that you claimed this - that, say, #metoo or feminism has contributed to a rise over time. Can we honestly say that perhaps 50 years ago men were not even more reluctant to give CPR to a female?

[Dark Socialism]

If women were put where they're supposed to be, at home raising their 19 offspring this whole "sexual harassment" thing wouldn't be a problem

[Milozoldyck]

Call it the Pence Effect, after U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he avoids dining alone with any woman other than his wife.

I really hope this isn't actually what's happening.

Appropriately communicating with women and being a respectful human being isn't rocket science.

[Ostroeuropa]

How so? What about this is misrepresenting the stat?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 105453.htm

Updated study, more recent, confirms.

The misrepresented stat was claiming 74% of men cited fear as to why they didn't raise men's equality when in fact the question was about equality overall in the workplace. It was actually framed under 'what opposing forces can undermine men's support for gender initiatives?'

As for the heart attacks.. alas one cannot see if this is a growing trend or one that has much reduced over time - I don't see it supporting any idea - not that you claimed this - that, say, #metoo or feminism has contributed to a rise over time. Can we honestly say that perhaps 50 years ago men were not even more reluctant to give CPR to a female?

That's a fair criticism of my framing. It's more accurate to say men fear engaging in the conversation because of the abusive dynamic feminism has fostered, and this has implications for men's issues being considered fairly and men's perspectives balancing out womens in the movement, and so translates into fear of feminist misandry being the reason mens equality isn't supported. Your stuff about "men engaging more" in the conversation ignores that this conversation is already tainted beyond repair so long as it conducted in a feminist environment. You can't psychologically and socially terrorize people into silence and then wonder why they aren't participating. It's like if you abused your spouse for decades whenever they did something you disliked and then tried to fix your relationship without outside interference. If feminists are prepared to have their bullshit policed by non-feminists that's basically admitting there's no point to feminism anyway.

The feminist framework is an inherently abusive and gynocentric one that marginalizes men and their opinions, so none of this is surprising. This same fear of feminist unreasonability and hostility is why the men OP discusses are disengaging. That dynamic is rooted in the feminist framework, which is itself merely an articulation of female chauvinism. For men to engage as equals in the conversation and not be subjected to this problem, women have to be willing to take on board their criticism. The treatment of (And indeed, entire existence of) the MRM demonstrates that almost none are willing to do so. Because there is routine conflation of female chauvinism with equality, men are subjected to an impossible standard and routinely subjected to abuse since women will use feminism (Merely the articulation of female prejudice) to rationalize excuses for how mutually contradictory behaviors are secretly hostile to women and berate men over it. So the men don't bother. Woman A wants A, and man does B, so she uses the feminist framework to come up with an excuse for why B is hostile to women and calls him a sexist and blah blah blah. Women B wants B, and man does A, and faces the same treatment.

It's only by recognizing that feminism and the dynamic it proposes is inherently abusive and needs to be jettisoned that progress can be made here

You think "fear of being accused of sexual assault" among men is the same today as it was 50 years ago?

[Bienenhalde]

If women were put where they're supposed to be, at home raising their 19 offspring this whole "sexual harassment" thing wouldn't be a problem

Wrong!
The real problem is men being immoral degenerate perverts.

[Teachian]

If women were put where they're supposed to be, at home raising their 19 offspring this whole "sexual harassment" thing wouldn't be a problem

Everything went downhill once we embraced silly things like “can’t abuse peasants” and “women are people too”.

[Bombadil]

The misrepresented stat was claiming 74% of men cited fear as to why they didn't raise men's equality when in fact the question was about equality overall in the workplace. It was actually framed under 'what opposing forces can undermine men's support for gender initiatives?'

As for the heart attacks.. alas one cannot see if this is a growing trend or one that has much reduced over time - I don't see it supporting any idea - not that you claimed this - that, say, #metoo or feminism has contributed to a rise over time. Can we honestly say that perhaps 50 years ago men were not even more reluctant to give CPR to a female?

That's a fair criticism of my framing. It's more accurate to say men fear engaging in the conversation because of the abusive dynamic feminism has fostered, and this has implications for men's issues being considered fairly and men's perspectives balancing out womens in the movement, and so translates into fear of feminist misandry being the reason mens equality isn't supported. Your stuff about "men engaging more" in the conversation ignores that this conversation is already tainted beyond repair so long as it conducted in a feminist environment. You can't psychologically and socially terrorize people into silence and then wonder why they aren't participating.

So in the study, just to be representative.. there were three fears cited.

Fear of loss of status - that status and privileged viewing it as a zero sum game
Fear of making mistakes - as you note
Fear of other men's disapproval

What are men who are identified with “women's issues" or men who are, publicly or privately, seen as supporting....equality and women's challenges to men's power— what are some of the words you've heard to describe those men? It's always—their manhood is undermined. They're not real men. They're a wimp. They're ...whipped. Their heterosexuality is questioned. These are all really powerful policing mechanisms that keep men silent...If it was begun to be understood that men who are supportive of women's efforts for equality are strong men—by definition [that] it actually takes more strength as a man—that changes the conversation.
—U.S. Man
—Man, Unidentified Nationality
The other thing that is major that keeps us from wandering into this topic is our fear of breaking
rank, our fear of what's going to happen if I stand up and support this and start challenging my white man[hood]. Well, first of all, some white men are afraid of being seen as gay. If you're a white male you must be gay because you're so actively adamant about diversity. That's one—and certainly any man that has homophobia would be worried about that. And also just worried about losing their own status and rank of belonging by stepping up and starting to challenge their colleagues on this topic.
—U.S. Man

I'm sure you'll argue that it's women who drive this idea that a man who isn't strong isn't desirable - I'm not too bothered by arguing back and forth on that - I accept it's a point.

You think "fear of being accused of sexual assault" among men is the same today as it was 50 years ago?

Certainly not, but I don't think that's a bad thing either - I'm just not sure the whole CPR issue is a result of feminism. We just don't have historic comparisons.

EDIT: I see you've heavily added to your original post

[Bombadil]

If women were put where they're supposed to be, at home raising their 19 offspring this whole "sexual harassment" thing wouldn't be a problem

Everything went downhill once we embraced silly things like “can’t abuse peasants” and “women are people too”.

Look at Saudi Arabia, give women the right to drive and suddenly men are being chopped up in embassies all over the place.. where will it stop..!

[Cedoria]

"Really, the whole of the #MeToo movement is an utter nuisance. Not only is it affecting the careers of young men falsely accused by the feminists, but it also makes it hard to figure out whether real victims of sexual assault are telling the truth, or are they just pawns used by left-wing media. No one will ever know..." - George Kirk, right-leaning political activist and leader of the Youth Conservative Fellowship (YCF) a conservative activist group for college students.

Is it meant to be a shocking revelation that some right-wing dipshits don't like social movements which challenge conventional institutional and social norms? You act like this is some clinching point or something.

[Dark Socialism]

If women were put where they're supposed to be, at home raising their 19 offspring this whole "sexual harassment" thing wouldn't be a problem

Wrong!
The real problem is men being immoral degenerate perverts.

Men could just be immoral degenerate perverts to one of their wives that they rightfully won in a duel against the girl's father

[Cedoria]

Call it the Pence Effect, after U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he avoids dining alone with any woman other than his wife.

I really hope this isn't actually what's happening.

Appropriately communicating with women and being a respectful human being isn't rocket science.

For some it apparently is. Worse actually, the science behind rocket propulsion is very simple. This shouldn't be more complicated, but apparently it is.

[Ostroeuropa]

Fear of loss of status - that status and privileged viewing it as a zero sum game
Fear of making mistakes - as you note
Fear of other men's disapproval

It's worth noting the men are discussing what they think men think and why they don't participate in the conversation (I.E, why they don't participate in the feminists ranting about men.).

Both 1 and 3 are things feminists insist about men routinely and assert is the case, and so the men are exposed to this idea and part of the conversation and its explanation for why men don't participate.

But crucially, men aren't participating, and aren't forming their own group (outside of the MRM, to discuss things.

YET.

They come up with 2 entirely on their own, in isolation, in separate cases, over and over, despite this not being something feminists acknowledge about themselves, and it not being a routine part of "The conversation.".

I'd say that makes it a far more convincing data point. It would be better to ask the men specifically why THEY don't engage, rather than ask why they think other men don't.

Put people in a situation where a news network tells them 24/7 that people are angry because of immigrants and corruption. Poll people and ask "Why are people angry?" and they say;

"Immigrants, corruption, and biased journalists.".

I'd say that's pretty revealing. Would you?

[Bombadil]

Fear of loss of status - that status and privileged viewing it as a zero sum game
Fear of making mistakes - as you note
Fear of other men's disapproval

It's worth noting the men are discussing what they think men think and why they don't participate in the conversation (I.E, why they don't participate in the feminists ranting about men.).

Both 1 and 3 are things feminists insist about men routinely and assert is the case, and so the men are exposed to this idea and part of the conversation and its explanation for why men don't participate.

But crucially, men aren't participating, and aren't forming their own group (outside of the MRM, to discuss things.

YET.

They come up with 2 entirely on their own, in isolation, in separate cases, over and over, despite this not being something feminists acknowledge about themselves, and it not being a routine part of "The conversation.".

I'd say that makes it a far more convincing data point. It would be better to ask the men specifically why THEY don't engage, rather than ask why they think other men don't.

Put people in a situation where a news network tells them 24/7 that people are angry because of immigrants and corruption. Poll people and ask "Why are people angry?" and they say;

"Immigrants, corruption, and biased journalists.".

I'd say that's pretty revealing. Would you?

I mean.. in reply..

The Rockefeller Foundation worked with Global Strategy Group to conduct a national poll of 1,010 adults ages 18 and older at the end of May.

The survey found that 33 percent of Americans believe women aren’t interested in leadership roles. Forty-two percent said women lack the confidence to go for top positions, and 46 percent said there aren’t enough qualified women out there.

https://assets.rockefellerfoundation.or ... atters.pdf

[Ostroeuropa]

It's worth noting the men are discussing what they think men think and why they don't participate in the conversation (I.E, why they don't participate in the feminists ranting about men.).

Both 1 and 3 are things feminists insist about men routinely and assert is the case, and so the men are exposed to this idea and part of the conversation and its explanation for why men don't participate.

But crucially, men aren't participating, and aren't forming their own group (outside of the MRM, to discuss things.

YET.

They come up with 2 entirely on their own, in isolation, in separate cases, over and over, despite this not being something feminists acknowledge about themselves, and it not being a routine part of "The conversation.".

I'd say that makes it a far more convincing data point. It would be better to ask the men specifically why THEY don't engage, rather than ask why they think other men don't.

Put people in a situation where a news network tells them 24/7 that people are angry because of immigrants and corruption. Poll people and ask "Why are people angry?" and they say;

"Immigrants, corruption, and biased journalists.".

I'd say that's pretty revealing. Would you?

I mean.. in reply..

The Rockefeller Foundation worked with Global Strategy Group to conduct a national poll of 1,010 adults ages 18 and older at the end of May.

The survey found that 33 percent of Americans believe women aren’t interested in leadership roles. Forty-two percent said women lack the confidence to go for top positions, and 46 percent said there aren’t enough qualified women out there.

https://assets.rockefellerfoundation.or ... atters.pdf

I don't see how this is relevant and don't quite understand what you're getting at, but okay i'll give it a shot;

This study mostly just shows that people have internalized feminist assertions about the dynamic and can recite them on command, and yet the problem still persists. It doesn't actually deal with anything I pointed out.

The specific stats you quoted in contradiction to that might actually be more relevant and true than the other ones. It stands to reason that if women aren't subjected to the same expectations and demands men are to obtain leadership positions, then they'll be less interested in them. We already know that women are punished less than men are for taking things like flex-time and parental leave, and there's the "Paradox of equality" problem, where focusing on empowering women more tends to lead to outcomes feminists don't want to see:

https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equali ... 6-Feb2018/

Women can live lives of privilege without being rich or obtaining leadership roles. Men can't.
It may in fact be the case that women aren't interested in leadership roles as much as men are in the same way as a person on dry land isn't as interested in a lifeboat. Leadership is hard and emotionally and physically exhausting (Just look at the before-after pictures of leaders of countries for example.).
This also impacts qualification.

Women are in a position of relative freedom to men in terms of control over their career, and they opt for better work-life balance, like anyone except workaholics would do given a free choice. The feminist conception of this dynamic being unfair to women is predicated on a number of anti-human assumptions that measure a lives success in purely monetary terms, and buys in to a capitalist framework of maximal exploitation. The notion that women being more free and more healthy is a disadvantage to them and evidence of oppression is farcical, and can only be advanced through a framework that starts with its conclusion and then rationalizes excuses for why it's conclusion is right while ignoring counter evidence.

Women have more choice than men, and choose not to go for leadership roles and full time employment and so on. That makes the observation that they "aren't interested" a pretty valid one.

What's the relevance here again? What's your point?

[Byzconia]

The OP's language was very clearly on the side of "this is all women's fault."

...which it is. If you create an environment where you can frame men of any sort of harassment without evidence and tell people to believe your claims, then you are responsible for whatever backlash that results.

"Frame men." And there it is. You literally can't even talk about this without showing that you automatically assume that all of those women are lying.

Please, tell me, what exactly do these women have to gain from false accusations? Getting famous? How many of Bill Cosby's accusers can you name without Google? For that matter, they get threatened, harassed, insulted. Yeah, sure seems like they have a lot to gain. Not to mention the sheer scope of it all. Did the International Feminist Conspiracy^TM send out a memo to hundreds of different women to start accusing various men?

Men avoiding women in the workplace is a direct result of #MeToo, and that is on women.

You know who's not afraid of being accused of rape? Men who aren't rapists. I've worked with several women, been alone with several women. Never once been accused of raping anyone, nor would such an accusation get very far.

Like I've already said, false accusations do happen, but at the rate you're suggesting? Absurd.

All you care about is sticking it to men. Giving a shit about women means recognising that #MeToo is dangerous.

A) I am a man.

B) Horseshit. The only people opposed to #MeToo are misogynists who're pissed off that it's not 1950 anymore women are finally standing up for themselves. The only dangerous ones here are the men who won't keep it in their fucking pants.

[Byzconia]

You don't have to be a dick or deviant to be accused of sexual misconduct. You're as bad as the Yahoo commenter who assume every young black men who is in the news for being killed had connections to gang violence or drugs.

No, you don't, but the likelihood of that happening is very small. Ya'll are acting as if there's a cabal of women trying to bring about a feminist dystopia.

They legitimately believe that's what's going on.

[Byzconia]

Was away for a day and came back to see this thread blown up. Caught up on what I could, but couldn't read all of it. From what I saw, most of the arguments for why #MeToo sucks are apparently coming from self-professed "socially awkward" guys who struggle with talking to women. Color me surprised.

[Bombadil]

I mean.. in reply..

The Rockefeller Foundation worked with Global Strategy Group to conduct a national poll of 1,010 adults ages 18 and older at the end of May.

The survey found that 33 percent of Americans believe women aren’t interested in leadership roles. Forty-two percent said women lack the confidence to go for top positions, and 46 percent said there aren’t enough qualified women out there.

https://assets.rockefellerfoundation.or ... atters.pdf

I don't see how this is relevant and don't quite understand what you're getting at, but okay i'll give it a shot;

This study mostly just shows that people have internalized feminist assertions about the dynamic and can recite them on command, and yet the problem still persists. It doesn't actually deal with anything I pointed out.

The specific stats you quoted in contradiction to that might actually be more relevant and true than the other ones. It stands to reason that if women aren't subjected to the same expectations and demands men are to obtain leadership positions, then they'll be less interested in them. We already know that women are punished less than men are for taking things like flex-time and parental leave, and there's the "Paradox of equality" problem, where focusing on empowering women more tends to lead to outcomes feminists don't want to see:

https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equali ... 6-Feb2018/

Women can live lives of privilege without being rich or obtaining leadership roles. Men can't.
It may in fact be the case that women aren't interested in leadership roles as much as men are in the same way as a person on dry land isn't as interested in a lifeboat. Leadership is hard and emotionally and physically exhausting (Just look at the before-after pictures of leaders of countries for example.).
This also impacts qualification.

Women are in a position of relative freedom to men in terms of control over their career, and they opt for better work-life balance, like anyone except workaholics would do given a free choice. The feminist conception of this dynamic being unfair to women is predicated on a number of anti-human assumptions that measure a lives success in purely monetary terms, and buys in to a capitalist framework of maximal exploitation. The notion that women being more free and more healthy is a disadvantage to them and evidence of oppression is farcical, and can only be advanced through a framework that starts with its conclusion and then rationalizes excuses for why it's conclusion is right while ignoring counter evidence.

Women have more choice than men, and choose not to go for leadership roles and full time employment and so on. That makes the observation that they "aren't interested" a pretty valid one.

What's the relevance here again? What's your point?

The relevance is that you're asserting issues are purely framed through a feminist narrative, I don't see how it helps the feminist narrative to believe women are less interested in leadership roles.. much as I don't see the narrative that men seem to avoid conversations around equality as also instilled into them by the feminist agenda.

In fact from what I read it seems you are the one guilty of distorting everything into some mythical feminist agenda. It's not to dismiss all your points, a good portion are valid in noting that the issue of inequality has detrimental effects on both sides and yet it's mostly presented from the female perspective of oppression, violence and abuse. I believe a portion of feminists are as little interested in hearing counter arguments, or accepting evidence against their narrative much as a portion of men seem hell bent on blaming women for everything.

There are stark statistical disparities that mean women are generally less well represented across government, business and society - you can ask children to draw 'leader', 'journalist', 'sportsperson', 'politician', 'boss', 'film star' and in the main they will draw men.

Women haven't driven this narrative, and it's not to say men have entirely but I think they've certainly controlled the mediums of the narrative. So I don't see how one can lay the blame for these internalised perceptions solely at the door of feminists. I think you have to accept that men have traditionally, and with current effect, controlled the medium and the message.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Was away for a day and came back to see this thread blown up. Caught up on what I could, but couldn't read all of it. From what I saw, most of the arguments for why #MeToo sucks are apparently coming from self-professed "socially awkward" guys who struggle with talking to women. Color me surprised.

Sure, if you wanna be a bigot and bunch up the societal assholes (the self-declared "nice guys") with those who have genuine disadvantages when it comes to social interactions (and I don't just mean autism, I mean people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, multiple personality disorder, people with pronounced lisps and stutters, etc)...

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't see how this is relevant and don't quite understand what you're getting at, but okay i'll give it a shot;

This study mostly just shows that people have internalized feminist assertions about the dynamic and can recite them on command, and yet the problem still persists. It doesn't actually deal with anything I pointed out.

The specific stats you quoted in contradiction to that might actually be more relevant and true than the other ones. It stands to reason that if women aren't subjected to the same expectations and demands men are to obtain leadership positions, then they'll be less interested in them. We already know that women are punished less than men are for taking things like flex-time and parental leave, and there's the "Paradox of equality" problem, where focusing on empowering women more tends to lead to outcomes feminists don't want to see:

https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equali ... 6-Feb2018/

Women can live lives of privilege without being rich or obtaining leadership roles. Men can't.
It may in fact be the case that women aren't interested in leadership roles as much as men are in the same way as a person on dry land isn't as interested in a lifeboat. Leadership is hard and emotionally and physically exhausting (Just look at the before-after pictures of leaders of countries for example.).
This also impacts qualification.

Women are in a position of relative freedom to men in terms of control over their career, and they opt for better work-life balance, like anyone except workaholics would do given a free choice. The feminist conception of this dynamic being unfair to women is predicated on a number of anti-human assumptions that measure a lives success in purely monetary terms, and buys in to a capitalist framework of maximal exploitation. The notion that women being more free and more healthy is a disadvantage to them and evidence of oppression is farcical, and can only be advanced through a framework that starts with its conclusion and then rationalizes excuses for why it's conclusion is right while ignoring counter evidence.

Women have more choice than men, and choose not to go for leadership roles and full time employment and so on. That makes the observation that they "aren't interested" a pretty valid one.

What's the relevance here again? What's your point?

The relevance is that you're asserting issues are purely framed through a feminist narrative, I don't see how it helps the feminist narrative to believe women are less interested in leadership roles.. much as I don't see the narrative that men seem to avoid conversations around equality as also instilled into them by the feminist agenda.

In fact from what I read it seems you are the one guilty of distorting everything into some mythical feminist agenda. It's not to dismiss all your points, a good portion are valid in noting that the issue of inequality has detrimental effects on both sides and yet it's mostly presented from the female perspective of oppression, violence and abuse. I believe a portion of feminists are as little interested in hearing counter arguments, or accepting evidence against their narrative much as a portion of men seem hell bent on blaming women for everything.

There are stark statistical disparities that mean women are generally less well represented across government, business and society - you can ask children to draw 'leader', 'journalist', 'sportsperson', 'politician', 'boss', 'film star' and in the main they will draw men.

Women haven't driven this narrative, and it's not to say men have entirely but I think they've certainly controlled the mediums of the narrative. So I don't see how one can lay the blame for these internalised perceptions solely at the door of feminists. I think you have to accept that men have traditionally, and with current effect, controlled the medium and the message.

I say that despite feminist efforts to ensure everything is framed purely through a feminist lens, not everyone can ignore reality literally all the time when it keeps disproving it. The narrative that men avoid conversations about equality isn't instilled into them by the feminist agenda, it's by the reality of what feminism actually is, much like if an abuser kept beating you and telling you it was for your own good you would be perceptive to note that actually it's making your life worse. Men avoid the conversation because they've accurately noted feminism is not interested in their contribution and only wants them to parrot womens prejudices back to them and validate them. As you note, there is far less resistance to "men talking about male abusers" because this validates the primary chauvinistic impulse of feminism, to blame men for their own problems and reinforce the idea that if they just did exactly what women wanted them to do, everything would work out for everyone. The problem men have noted is that "No matter what we do, we're wrong and get abused for it.", this is because women want different things from men and frame not getting their way as the man being sexist after rationalizing an excuse for why that is the case, then abuse them over it while refusing to engage with criticism or input to the contrary by continually referring to the core feminist principles that ultimately boil down to a rejection of mens perspective and experiences in comparison to womens. That's all feminism is. It can and has been used to justify anything and everything, because it boils down to "I'm right because i've got a pussy and if you challenge that you're evil, and that's why me literally saying that when women murder their husbands its because patriarchy made them do it is absolutely fine, and that's how we're going to treat domestic violence from now on, so to stop women murdering their husbands you need to say and do everything we tell you to, starting with give me a promotion.".

We're not blaming women for everything. Your problem is that you're so unused to women being criticized and held accountable that it completely dominates your perception of what's going on. There's plenty of stuff the MRM does to criticize the behavior of men too, plus we're fine with apt criticism of men. Sometimes racists lock up a murderous thug, it happens. The issue we have is framing criticism of men and feminism as equality and suppressing alternatives or criticism and the monopoly on power feminism has over this issue and how they have proven they are not fit to wield it, and do not have mens best interests at heart.

It comes down to the Britain/Ireland dynamic. We're done with feminists constant mismanagement from apathy, contempt, and active malice, and how no interest in waiting for those delusional enough to think the situation can be salvaged to purge their shitty hate movement of active detriments to this process. You don't act in our interest no matter how much you pretend otherwise, and we want independence to govern ourselves. You are not entitled to it merely because you say so and constantly assert this is "The British Isles", you have fucked it up constantly. Mens issues are not the feminist movements purview anymore if we can help it. Those who disagree can fuck off to Northern ireland and march around in orange for all I care.

Men do not want this conversation with you, they do not want to associate with you. Stop trying to prevent them having their own.

I note you've not engaged with the point I made here about the dynamic surrounding leadership and womens freedom. It's hardly just a perception of women if its the reality of their choices being noted. As for "Mostly men" controlling it, ehhhh;

There are zero billionaires in the senate. Not a single one. Women are less oppressed than Billionaires by the silly and superficial metric feminists self-servingly use. The demography of the senate is not actually relevant compared to lobbying organizations and money behind them.

There are almost zero mens organizations or dollars put toward lobbying politicians in mens interests, and they have zero lobbies prepared to pressure the media to shill for them.

There's an entire economic sector dedicated to lobbying, and billions spent on lobbying them in the interest of capital, and women, and they both operate largely the same way, by lobbying for tax money to be handed to their organizations which is then spent on enriching their group and advancing its interests, as well as re-spent on lobbying for more tax money next year.

When feminists pretend their trickle down equality shite works and feminists look out for men too, look at what their organizations actually lobby for and the legislation they have demanded. Just like is often the case with the type of tax cuts being enacted overwhelmingly benefiting the rich, you'll find the opposite of the spin ends up being true. Look at how often their lobbies go to war with a politician for opposing womens interests, and how often they go to war for opposing mens.
​
Working class politicians vote in the interests of capital too, but they don't have a pro-rich bias, that is merely the result the system produces. So it goes for male politicians and feminism.

This dynamic also explains media bias in favor of feminism, and why the ideology continues to run rampant unopposed despite low public support, same as neoliberal capitalism.

Much like unrestrained corporatism, feminism enjoys the backing of our elites due to the lobbying disparity, and open opposition to it is not tolerated or given a fair hearing. This is how policies supported by like, 10% of the population get forced through on both counts and why the media is so uncritically pro these policies. Whereas neoliberalism simply dismisses alternatives as stupid and ill informed, feminism dismisses them as evil and demonizes them.

That is what institutionalized power actually looks like in our society and we all know it. Women have it, Men don't. Any sincere analysis of power would have come to this conclusion.

Women control the discussion on genders and how they are perceived in the modern day and have for quite some time, it's merely that the absurdity of some of the demands they make leave a sizable portion of the public unconvinced.

The problem you are having is feminist essentialism. You aren't willing to see a considerable portion of modern sexism as resulting from feminism and so assume that somehow its down to patriarchy. You begin the process by believing feminism = good, instead of asking "Is feminism good?" and then alalyzing its impact. So you dismiss evidence that its bad as due to patriarchy and so on, ultimately this is the same incarnation of female chauvinism that permeates all of this by now, the refusal to view womens agency negatively because feminism has gaslit our society into thinking that such a notion is definitively sexist.

No, it's entirely possible for women to have behaved selfish and bigoted for decades and to have made society worse for others on the basis of chauvinism. They're people. Until you admit such a thing is even possible and honestly mean it and try to see if there's evidence for it, there's no point, and ultimately peoples refusal to consider that possibility is itself pretty strong evidence of the chauvinism we're discussing.

[Hirota]

"Really, the whole of the #MeToo movement is an utter nuisance. Not only is it affecting the careers of young men falsely accused by the feminists, but it also makes it hard to figure out whether real victims of sexual assault are telling the truth, or are they just pawns used by left-wing media. No one will ever know..." - George Kirk, right-leaning political activist and leader of the Youth Conservative Fellowship (YCF) a conservative activist group for college students.

Is it meant to be a shocking revelation that some right-wing dipshits don't like social movements which challenge conventional institutional and social norms? You act like this is some clinching point or something.

Off-topic, but....
some left-wing "dipshits" obviously would never piss on a mass, largely working-class (aka proletariat) movement, defying the government and standing up for its interests right?

[Prunasia]

Everything went downhill once we embraced silly things like “can’t abuse peasants” and “women are people too”.

Look at Saudi Arabia, give women the right to drive and suddenly men are being chopped up in embassies all over the place.. Where will it stop..!

You do know that those two are completely unrelated incidents, yes?