Bill Maher blames gaming, beards and bad attire for "incels"

[Aggicificicerous]

In case it's not obvious yet, the recurring theme is to contrast' voters actions with their words.

This isn't even an issue at the ballot box. You're not doing anything of the sort.

Not made up, but pieced together from the words and actions of separate people, and taking an average thereof.

Not how statistics work. An 'average' taken from conversations you've remembered and interpreted is indicative only of your biases.

The side saying that whether or not he used a condom, whether his sex with her was under the belief that she wouldn't keep the resulting baby even if the condom broke, whether or not she got pregnant off him on purpose to try to trap him with a baby, etc... are all completely irrelevant to how much of the child support should be paid by him and how much by the government, how much leniency or a grace period should be granted if he can't afford it yet, etc...

The circumstances of how she became pregnant aren't relevant to the needs of the child.

Because Canada would look very different if they believed differently than they do.

That's just axiomatic.

NSG, when making Ostroeuropa out to be not getting any with his wife, when making anyone expressing negative stereotypes about cheerleaders out to be an incel, when making anyone claiming girls 'prefer a macho man over some guy who's just like her female friends' out to be not as cool as other guys and therefore doing nothing but jerking off to anime and crying, and that's just counting the stuff they said about others here, before you get into the stuff said about myself:
"Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence!"

NSG now:
"You do need statistics. You need evidence."

Nonsense. NSG is not a hivemind. It's a collection of individuals with differing views and approaches to discussion. Your misguided rant is not only absurd, it's irrelevant to this conversation. If you have a problem with how someone responded to Ostroeuropa, take it up with them.

Where "reasoning" ends and "evidence" begins is a subjective matter, but where one side of this debate has been wrong about everything they presumed about myself, and now is hypocritical on top of that, yeah, I think I can extrapolate the pattern to this issue.

But if that's not enough, how about you answer this; so long as "dead-broke dads" are a thing, why should we trust that the system has adequate safeguards in place that any teenage father is safe from becoming one?

An article from 2002? And it's paywalled? Look, if we're just talking about dads who are broke, why not non-parents who are broke? Especially in 2021, when homelessness is on the rise? We've got serious problems with how our economy is structured. That doesn't mean child support is the problem.

It's more than "conjecture" to extrapolate one side's disproportionate pattern of hypocrisy, smears, and outright falsehoods about the people about whom they speculate.

Not that I think anyone on this site was ever sincere about caring about evidence in the first place, in light of all of the above.

There is no 'side'. There are different people with similar opinions, and you need to understand that they don't get together to gameplan. You seem to think that a 'plurality of voters' has colluded to screw people over child support, then lied about it, and I'm calling bullshit. Has any major federal political party even made child support an issue? Your claims seem so far divorced from reality that I'm having trouble conceptualizing them, and that's why I want evidence. Something to show me that this conspiracy exists outside your mind.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

This isn't even an issue at the ballot box. You're not doing anything of the sort.

It comes up from time to time on the CBC. It's obviously only one of many things people think about, but it's still there.

Not how statistics work. An 'average' taken from conversations you've remembered and interpreted is indicative only of your biases.

Perhaps. But professional statisticians are answerable to the public, who have biases of their own, so it's not like I'm the only one who's biased here.

The circumstances of how she became pregnant aren't relevant to the needs of the child.

Nor is whether the money comes from the individual father or from the government.

Nonsense. NSG is not a hivemind. It's a collection of individuals with differing views and approaches to discussion. Your misguided rant is not only absurd, it's irrelevant to this conversation. If you have a problem with how someone responded to Ostroeuropa, take it up with them.

NSers, by not distancing themselves from such lines of reasoning or calling them out as invalid, have effectively endorsed such reasoning. The more people who could've refuted something and didn't, the less meaningfully distinct it becomes from saying it themselves.

Or does it strike you as a coincidence that in threads seen by hundreds of people, none of them thought to distance themselves from such talk? If they truly valued evidence, wouldn't they have called out a lack of evidence then and there?

An article from 2002? And it's paywalled? Look, if we're just talking about dads who are broke, why not non-parents who are broke?

Because they're not as widely reviled as fathers who fail to make child support payments? Sure, they're looked down on by popular opinion, but in more of a "look at these pathetic low-income losers" sense than an "OMG these horrible MONSTERS how DARE they not give even more of the money they don't have to their kids" sense.

Anyway, it isn't behind a paywall on my end.

There is no 'side'. There are different people with similar opinions, and you need to understand that they don't get together to gameplan.

It doesn't have to involve deliberate collusion to indicate a shared blind spot, a shared set of biases, a shared set of ways in which one is dishonest and a shared tendency to smear those drawing attention to this as if they know reason isn't on their side.

Has any major federal political party even made child support an issue?

They haven't, because not much attention has been drawn to it, because anyone who does draw attention to it is smeared as an incel and a basement dweller and an undesirable loser, and most people would rather just shut up to appease this mob of people doing so than confront them about it at the expense of their social lives.

[Bear Stearns]

its hip to be square

[Sundiata]

its hip to be square

Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?

[Bear Stearns]

its hip to be square

Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?

okay their album sports is actually pretty good, movies aside. it's on my playlist of songs to listen to while i work

[Sundiata]

Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?

okay their album sports is actually pretty good, movies aside. it's on my playlist of songs to listen to while i work

I agree, it's a great album for the gym.

[Aggicificicerous]

It comes up from time to time on the CBC. It's obviously only one of many things people think about, but it's still there.

But not on the ballot box. An issue that comes up from time to time on the CBC is not equivalent to 36 million people being hypocrites.

Go on. Show me how all those voters are hypocrites. Show me where a 'plurality of voters' contradicted themselves, and tell me who they should have voted for instead.

Perhaps. But professional statisticians are answerable to the public, who have biases of their own, so it's not like I'm the only one who's biased here.

What are you talking about? How is that in any way a response to what I said? Everyone is biased, but not everyone is making the sort of absurd claims you are. In fact, almost nobody is, least of all statisticians. If I were to shoot someone then say 'everyone does bad things, so it's not like I'm the only one who's bad here', my prison sentence would not be reduced.

Nor is whether the money comes from the individual father or from the government.

That's true. It could also be an easy racket for a couple having a kid to just say the father has absconded so the government covers child support, which I'm not entirely opposed to.

NSers, by not distancing themselves from such lines of reasoning or calling them out as invalid, have effectively endorsed such reasoning. The more people who could've refuted something and didn't, the less meaningfully distinct it becomes from saying it themselves.

Or does it strike you as a coincidence that in threads seen by hundreds of people, none of them thought to distance themselves from such talk? If they truly valued evidence, wouldn't they have called out a lack of evidence then and there?

That's not how it works. If someone else makes a statement I don't like, I usually ignore it. I have no imperative to distance myself from the statements of other people unless their statements are seen as reflecting my own views. Why don't you go through every thread you've posted in and distance yourself from each person who's made a line of reasoning you disagree with?

Because they're not as widely reviled as fathers who fail to make child support payments? Sure, they're looked down on by popular opinion, but in more of a "look at these pathetic low-income losers" sense than an "OMG these horrible MONSTERS how DARE they not give even more of the money they don't have to their kids" sense.

Anyway, it isn't behind a paywall on my end.

Poor people are pretty reviled in society, though perhaps not as consciously. Look at the hoops we make people jump through to get government aid. Look at how we treat the homeless. Child support payments are based on income. It's accepted that people can generally pay them, and they generally can. There are exceptions where they can't. Do you have evidence that people who are unable to pay child support due to circumstances beyond their control are widely reviled? Or is it just another thing you made up?

It doesn't have to involve deliberate collusion to indicate a shared blind spot, a shared set of biases, a shared set of ways in which one is dishonest and a shared tendency to smear those drawing attention to this as if they know reason isn't on their side.

You haven't even shown me what the pattern of "hypocrisy, smears, and outright falsehoods" is. I suspect it exists primarily in your mind.

They haven't, because not much attention has been drawn to it, because anyone who does draw attention to it is smeared as an incel and a basement dweller and an undesirable loser, and most people would rather just shut up to appease this mob of people doing so than confront them about it at the expense of their social lives.

Show me. Show me people who raise the issue of child support and are branded incels in response. Go on. Heck, I've admitted there are problems with child support in this thread. Has anyone accused me of being an incel, or a basement dweller in response? Has anyone called you an incel yet?

We're just going in circles. You make an absurd claim, I ask for substantiation, and instead of providing it you make an even more absurd claim. It's little wonder nobody else is responding to you. If all you're going to do is make absurd claims, I'm done.

[Page]

"Should we address the real issues that men face? No. We should associate ourselves with antisocial losers who are upset women like men who occasionally get a shower."

-MRAs

I always have said anyone serious about men's rights would be a leftist.

[New Tryphalia]

"Should we address the real issues that men face? No. We should associate ourselves with antisocial losers who are upset women like men who occasionally get a shower."

-MRAs

I always have said anyone serious about men's rights would be a leftist.

Well, economic populism is in men’s interest, but cultural progressivism often isn’t. It doesn’t benefit men for women to have the chivalry in addition to the equality, thus making them more equal than men and reducing men to second class citizens with the worst of both worlds. Feminists want equal rights, but not equal obligations.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

But not on the ballot box. An issue that comes up from time to time on the CBC is not equivalent to 36 million people being hypocrites.

They know what's happening to prisoners, and chose to let it happen instead of doing something about it. Either they don't care, even knowing it could happen to themselves if falsely convicted, or more likely, they prioritize deterrence over rehabilitation and humane treatment combined.

Go on. Show me how all those voters are hypocrites. Show me where a 'plurality of voters' contradicted themselves, and tell me who they should have voted for instead.

Well, the NDP I don't agree with on everything, but their policies favouring the working class would at least give people less reason to resort to stealing, and more room to make prisons more humane without opening the floodgates to more crime.

Actually voting for them; instead of pretending one would like they did in BC; could go a long way.

That's true. It could also be an easy racket for a couple having a kid to just say the father has absconded so the government covers child support, which I'm not entirely opposed to.

And even if one wasn't, that's what "scrutinizing such claims case-by-case" is for. As opposed to now, where people are content to just assume for no reason that the father falsely promised commitment to her before he left, with a bias in plain sight against the possibility that she even changed her mind about keeping the baby after telling him she wouldn't, much less against the possibility that she tried to trap him with one on purpose.

. . .

"Should we address the real issues that men face? No. We should associate ourselves with antisocial losers who are upset women like men who occasionally get a shower."

-MRAs

I always have said anyone serious about men's rights would be a leftist.

Define "leftism." If by "leftist" you mean "values tradition less than most," then yeah.

If by "leftist" you mean "will toe the line blindly to whatever others who identify as leftist happen to say on gender issues," then no.

One side of the political spectrum cannot be reasonably presumed to have all the answers, any more than they can be reasonably presumed credible when they conflate opinions like mine with inceldom and inceldom with refusal to shower.

[Apotheosis Pandemonium]

This Really sums up Bill Mahar

The Narative and nothing but https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/t ... 1547590501



I don't think there's anything else to be said

[Aggicificicerous]

They know what's happening to prisoners, and chose to let it happen instead of doing something about it. Either they don't care, even knowing it could happen to themselves if falsely convicted, or more likely, they prioritize deterrence over rehabilitation and humane treatment combined.

I don't know how many of them know what's happening to prisoners. It's not a common topic, and there are plenty of prisoners who go through the system without being horribly abused as well. Even if they did, that doesn't make them all hypocrites. We as a society love hurting criminals. You would have to establish first that people want rehabilitation, that they see the prison system as being abusive, that they see the prison system as existing for deterrence and punishment over rehabilitation, that they feel they have a party at the ballot box that wants to change this, that said party also represents their views to a reasonable extent or that they prioritize prison reform to such an extent that it compensates for their other views not being represented, and that they chose not to vote for that party. Voters who fall into that category would be dishonest or hypocrites. The voters you're calling on who somehow have a choice to fix everything but choose not to are imaginary.

Well, the NDP I don't agree with on everything, but their policies favouring the working class would at least give people less reason to resort to stealing, and more room to make prisons more humane without opening the floodgates to more crime.

Lots of people disagree with the NDP on so many issues that agreeing with them on one issue isn't going to sway their vote. Also our system promotes strategic voting, which elevates the two strongest parties at the expense of all the others.

Actually voting for them; instead of pretending one would like they did in BC; could go a long way.

Here's again where I get an insight into your mind, and it's baffling. Polls indicated the NDP were going to win, but on election day, more people voted Liberal. The obvious question is what the polls did wrong, what they missed, or what changed in a short time. Your response to this is to somehow assume people lied to pollsters, but to what end? What do they gain by lying? Ignoring the fact that each party has its supporters and swing voters are a relatively small group, even if we accept that some people lied to pollsters, that's a few hundred, maybe a few thousand people. blaming all the voters for dishonesty is so absurdly unrealistic a response I don't know how you write this stuff with a straight face.

What's more absurd is that the NDP won the next couple elections and is currently running BC. Where's that prison reform? Oh right. It's not happening.

And even if one wasn't, that's what "scrutinizing such claims case-by-case" is for. As opposed to now, where people are content to just assume for no reason that the father falsely promised commitment to her before he left, with a bias in plain sight against the possibility that she even changed her mind about keeping the baby after telling him she wouldn't, much less against the possibility that she tried to trap him with one on purpose.

These things are already evaluated case by case. Where are all these people assuming that the father promised commitment but the mother lied? Damn, why am I even responding to this? I know you've got nothing beyond your vague assertions. How tedious.

[Page]

I always have said anyone serious about men's rights would be a leftist.

Well, economic populism is in men’s interest, but cultural progressivism often isn’t. It doesn’t benefit men for women to have the chivalry in addition to the equality, thus making them more equal than men and reducing men to second class citizens with the worst of both worlds. Feminists want equal rights, but not equal obligations.

I have lots of ideas about progressive reforms that would be to the benefit of all. For example, child support should be a public common fund rather than father-to-mother or mother-to-father payments. In other words, if Jeff Bezos knocks up a woman, it's insane that she should get tens of millions of dollars a year ostensibly to care for the child. Bezos should still have to pay tens of millions but the vast majority of that money would go to caring for children of poor single parents. That would greatly reduce the child support burden for regular people.

And there are progressive ideals that are good for boys and men that just haven't caught steam yet, like "hey lets stop doing torturous genital mutilation to unconsenting baby boys."

And ending mass incarceration which predominantly affects men. And defunding the police, the vast majority of innocent victims gunned down by whom are men.

[New haven america]

I always have said anyone serious about men's rights would be a leftist.

Well, economic populism is in men’s interest, but cultural progressivism often isn’t. It doesn’t benefit men for women to have the chivalry in addition to the equality, thus making them more equal than men and reducing men to second class citizens with the worst of both worlds. Feminists want equal rights, but not equal obligations.

Well no, that's not true as I've been over like 3 times now in another thread.

The issue is that Anglo-based society in general just kinda stopped and gave up the work toward actual equality ~1/2way through the process, which lead patriarchal gender norms and feminist beliefs to intermingle and create a dating (And general) culture that is most harmful to men.

Like dating for example. Before it used to be that women held power over the start of a relationship, but once the ring was on her finger, she was lowered to the status of a 3rd class citizen (Keep in mind, unlike some people... I'm not ok with that), so it kind of evened out. However, today, men in general in places like America have to be truly exceptional specimens of male beauty and charisma to even keep a woman's passing interest, and when the relationship actually happens, she has little to no responsibility of tending to it because she can hop online and find 20+ guys in a minute to get with, leaving all that work to the guy. (The is a mixture of the patriarchal gender role that women should be passive and men should be active, mixed with the feminist idea that women deserve the best of the best and more power in relationships, creating a toxic mixture that does nothing but harms men in the long run)

But here's the thing, that doesn't happen in places like Northern or Central Europe (Like the Nordic countries, Germany/Austria, etc...), places that have actually fully jumped on board the equal treatment train. Actually, women tend to do a lot of the initiating or hook up requests over there, and it's seen as weird to be a virgin past the age of 21 because chances are if you didn't initiate with anyone, someone should've initiated with you. Also, men get equal parental leave as women, chance to get custody in divorce, access to welfare, etc...

So no, the problem I went over doesn't exist because we've become more equal, it's because we haven't embraced equality enough.

[Dakini]

I always have said anyone serious about men's rights would be a leftist.

Well, economic populism is in men’s interest, but cultural progressivism often isn’t.

Yes. Let's pretend that all men are white, straight, able-bodied, neurotypical, cisgender...

Let's also pretend that expecting to bear full responsibility for family finances, being considered weak or "unmanly" for displaying emotions other than anger, avoiding seeking help for physical or mental illness, eschewing intimate friendships and physical contact with everyone other than one's romantic partner and other things are good and healthy for men.

It doesn’t benefit men for women to have the chivalry in addition to the equality,

Chivalry is mostly rules of medieval combat. Also, unless someone is on crutches in a wheelchair or has their hands full, they don't need you to open doors for them (if someone does need help with a door, anyone should be willing to help them regardless of gender).

Feminists want equal rights, but not equal obligations.

That's just a load of horseshit.

I feel like a lot of you people are in here listening to tradwives and other anti-feminist women talk about how they want to sit at home and then acting like this is what feminists want.

[Haganham]

Chivalry is mostly rules of medieval combat.

Chivalry was as much about courtesy and piety as it was about honorable warfare. Basically it was an attempt by the church to get the warrior caste to stop being an embarrassment to Christendom.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I don't know how many of them know what's happening to prisoners.

The phrase "don't drop the soap" come to mind? Sure, Canadian prisons aren't quite as notorious as American prisons for that sort of thing (that we know of) but all the societal factors in dehumanization of prisoners are otherwise similar, so no one gets to feign incredulity at the thought that whatever's happening to Canadian prisoners is comparably bad. If one needed confirmation one only needed look up such stories.

You would have to establish first that people want rehabilitation, that they see the prison system as being abusive, that they see the prison system as existing for deterrence and punishment over rehabilitation, that they feel they have a party at the ballot box that wants to change this, that said party also represents their views to a reasonable extent or that they prioritize prison reform to such an extent that it compensates for their other views not being represented, and that they chose not to vote for that party.

I don't claim to know the precise extent to which they want rehabilitation, but in light of the above, it is likely less than how much they want deterrence, probably to a greater extent than they let on.

Lots of people disagree with the NDP on so many issues that agreeing with them on one issue isn't going to sway their vote. Also our system promotes strategic voting, which elevates the two strongest parties at the expense of all the others.

Right, but helping prisoners in particular is a package deal with helping the poor, because when you admit that poverty fuels crime, you can't then say that letting prisoners get slammed head-first against the wall is the only way to fight crime. Why else did you think the federal Liberals were a middle ground between the NDP and Tories on policies helping the poor and on treating prisoners more humanely alike?

Here's again where I get an insight into your mind, and it's baffling. Polls indicated the NDP were going to win, but on election day, more people voted Liberal. The obvious question is what the polls did wrong, what they missed, or what changed in a short time. Your response to this is to somehow assume people lied to pollsters, but to what end? What do they gain by lying?

Perhaps the best answer would be to ask the question "what did Americans gain by lying in 2016"?

Unless you think polling didn't work there because polling got something else wrong, then funny how you always avoid the one factor all polling has in common, huh?

Not knowing why they'd lie doesn't constitute proof they were telling the truth.

What's more absurd is that the NDP won the next couple elections and is currently running BC. Where's that prison reform? Oh right. It's not happening.

I don't claim to have kept up with BC politics since (truth be told, that particular election stood out to me because it came hot on the heels of seeing men disbelieved en masse about not minding if a woman's plump and women disbelieved en masse about being just as horny as their husbands, yet only the latter disbelief was attributed to individuals expressing it being sexually undesirable; that was an early clue that this "should we believe respondents" question was riddled with hypocrisy, and as such, why I reacted in 2013 with "that's what you get for trusting polls") and whether or not the NDP is as progressive as they claim.

But before I even know where to look, I first have to point out that these things take time. If making prisons more humane before you've lifted enough people out of poverty really DID end up leading to more crime, the NDP would never live it down. If lifting enough people out of poverty before making prisons more humane also ends up leading to more crime... then the NDP can say they reasonably expected imitating Nordic policies to have Nordic results.

These things are already evaluated case by case.

What makes you say so?

[Haganham]

why are we talking about Canadian politics in the incel thread? is Canada too cold for hanky panky?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

why are we talking about Canadian politics in the incel thread? is Canada too cold for hanky panky?

I see thread branching as an opportunity to discuss multiple things in the same thread. Especially if those multiple things aren't necessarily each worth their own thread. (Canadian politics thread notwithstanding, I don't figure people would see BC 2013 as the stand-out example of respondents lying when there's a more consequential example in our neighbours to the south.)

Besides, through the "when to doubt respondents" theme, I got partly back on topic toward the end of that post.

[New haven america]

Well, economic populism is in men’s interest, but cultural progressivism often isn’t.

Yes. Let's pretend that all men are white, straight, able-bodied, neurotypical, cisgender...

Let's also pretend that expecting to bear full responsibility for family finances, being considered weak or "unmanly" for displaying emotions other than anger, avoiding seeking help for physical or mental illness, eschewing intimate friendships and physical contact with everyone other than one's romantic partner and other things are good and healthy for men.

It doesn’t benefit men for women to have the chivalry in addition to the equality,

Chivalry is mostly rules of medieval combat. Also, unless someone is on crutches in a wheelchair or has their hands full, they don't need you to open doors for them (if someone does need help with a door, anyone should be willing to help them regardless of gender).

Feminists want equal rights, but not equal obligations.

That's just a load of horseshit.

I feel like a lot of you people are in here listening to tradwives and other anti-feminist women talk about how they want to sit at home and then acting like this is what feminists want.

I mean, tbh, the amount of women I've seen who claim to be progressive but then who do a complete 180 and also spout those ideas as AOK (Well, replace Anger with Happiness) is way too high for comfort.

Usually calling them out on it will get you famous responses like "Men are the initiators so they should pay!" or "I'm not his mom/therapist, it's not my job to help him when he's sad!" or "I can't be his rock, he needs to be mine!" as if those are ok.

Again, patriarchal gender roles and 1/2 baked feminism have become quite peculiar bed fellows over the past 30 or so years.

[Aggicificicerous]

The phrase "don't drop the soap" come to mind? Sure, Canadian prisons aren't quite as notorious as American prisons for that sort of thing (that we know of) but all the societal factors in dehumanization of prisoners are otherwise similar, so no one gets to feign incredulity at the thought that whatever's happening to Canadian prisoners is comparably bad. If one needed confirmation one only needed look up such stories.

I don't claim to know the precise extent to which they want rehabilitation, but in light of the above, it is likely less than how much they want deterrence, probably to a greater extent than they let on.

What are you talking about? The person above asking why this is about Canadian politics was right. What's going on? What's your point in all this? Nothing you say is real; it's just some vague impression you picked up. "Don't drop the soap" is an expression, so prisons are awful and voters are hypocrites for not voting for what? The prison reform party? I see you've carefully avoided responding to where I explained what it would take to show that voters are hypocrites. I wonder why?

Right, but helping prisoners in particular is a package deal with helping the poor, because when you admit that poverty fuels crime, you can't then say that letting prisoners get slammed head-first against the wall is the only way to fight crime. Why else did you think the federal Liberals were a middle ground between the NDP and Tories on policies helping the poor and on treating prisoners more humanely alike?

I haven't commented about how prisoners should be treated, and I've already explained why the voting system is limited.

Perhaps the best answer would be to ask the question "what did Americans gain by lying in 2016"?

Unless you think polling didn't work there because polling got something else wrong, then funny how you always avoid the one factor all polling has in common, huh?

Not knowing why they'd lie doesn't constitute proof they were telling the truth.

Every time you respond, the leaps of logic get more baffling. What are you talking about?

I don't claim to have kept up with BC politics since (truth be told, that particular election stood out to me because it came hot on the heels of seeing men disbelieved en masse about not minding if a woman's plump and women disbelieved en masse about being just as horny as their husbands, yet only the latter disbelief was attributed to individuals expressing it being sexually undesirable; that was an early clue that this "should we believe respondents" question was riddled with hypocrisy, and as such, why I reacted in 2013 with "that's what you get for trusting polls") and whether or not the NDP is as progressive as they claim.

But before I even know where to look, I first have to point out that these things take time. If making prisons more humane before you've lifted enough people out of poverty really DID end up leading to more crime, the NDP would never live it down. If lifting enough people out of poverty before making prisons more humane also ends up leading to more crime... then the NDP can say they reasonably expected imitating Nordic policies to have Nordic results.

I have no idea what your point in all this is.

What makes you say so?

What makes me say that court cases are evaluated on a case-by-case basis? That's what judges do, isn't it? I don't know anymore. Maybe judges don't do anything.

[Dakini]

Yes. Let's pretend that all men are white, straight, able-bodied, neurotypical, cisgender...

Let's also pretend that expecting to bear full responsibility for family finances, being considered weak or "unmanly" for displaying emotions other than anger, avoiding seeking help for physical or mental illness, eschewing intimate friendships and physical contact with everyone other than one's romantic partner and other things are good and healthy for men.


Chivalry is mostly rules of medieval combat. Also, unless someone is on crutches in a wheelchair or has their hands full, they don't need you to open doors for them (if someone does need help with a door, anyone should be willing to help them regardless of gender).


That's just a load of horseshit.

I feel like a lot of you people are in here listening to tradwives and other anti-feminist women talk about how they want to sit at home and then acting like this is what feminists want.

I mean, tbh, the amount of women I've seen who claim to be progressive but then who do a complete 180 and also spout those ideas as AOK (Well, replace Anger with Happiness) is way too high for comfort.

Usually calling them out on it will get you famous responses like "Men are the initiators so they should pay!" or "I'm not his mom/therapist, it's not my job to help him when he's sad!" or "I can't be his rock, he needs to be mine!" as if those are ok.

Again, patriarchal gender roles and 1/2 baked feminism have become quite peculiar bed fellows over the past 30 or so years.

Then you're listening to women who aren't especially progressive? Listen to better people.

[New haven america]

I mean, tbh, the amount of women I've seen who claim to be progressive but then who do a complete 180 and also spout those ideas as AOK (Well, replace Anger with Happiness) is way too high for comfort.

Usually calling them out on it will get you famous responses like "Men are the initiators so they should pay!" or "I'm not his mom/therapist, it's not my job to help him when he's sad!" or "I can't be his rock, he needs to be mine!" as if those are ok.

Again, patriarchal gender roles and 1/2 baked feminism have become quite peculiar bed fellows over the past 30 or so years.

Then you're listening to women who aren't especially progressive? Listen to better people.

Sure they are.

They just like the benefits of patriarchal ideals that allows them to be the chooser in relationships and 1/2 finished feminist advancement that allows them to shirk their share of responsibility in maintaining their partnerships.

[Dakini]

Then you're listening to women who aren't especially progressive? Listen to better people.

Sure they are.

They just like the benefits of patriarchal ideals that allows them to be the chooser in relationships and 1/2 finished feminist advancement that allows them to shirk their share of responsibility in maintaining their partnerships.

They're clearly not especially progressive if they're over a decade behind the times.

[New haven america]

Sure they are.

They just like the benefits of patriarchal ideals that allows them to be the chooser in relationships and 1/2 finished feminist advancement that allows them to shirk their share of responsibility in maintaining their partnerships.

They're clearly not especially progressive if they're over a decade behind the times.

Well then try to convince those types on that and see how far that gets you.