Revisiting Interesting Incel Perspectives.

[Ostroeuropa]

Men have lower value then women. A poor women can sell her sexuality a poor average man cannot. I cannot “settle for” a lower middle class working women and get myself a stable living. The thing is as a man unless you are doing well you are scorned . Men have no value to their sexuality or their emotions . A women’s do.

Degrading yourself for the sexual gratification of others is not empowerment. Be thankful that men are not regarded as mere sexual objects; not envious.

Degrading yourself for the economic benefit of others is not empowerment. Be thankful that women are not regarded as mere economic objects; not envious.

[Techocracy101010]

Men have lower value then women. A poor women can sell her sexuality a poor average man cannot. I cannot “settle for” a lower middle class working women and get myself a stable living. The thing is as a man unless you are doing well you are scorned . Men have no value to their sexuality or their emotions . A women’s do.

Degrading yourself for the sexual gratification of others is not empowerment. Be thankful that men are not regarded as mere sexual objects; not envious.

my dude id rather have asset utility value then not. At least someone would want me. Being unattached with no value is infinitely worse . Id rather be getting unsolicited boob or vagina pics then not because my ego could use it. At least i could rest assured i was desired

[Primitive Communism]

my dude these arent valued professions truckers get treated like shit . Join me on the all male fire-line for 12-15 an hour all male low wages. Same for loggers etc also its partly sexually dimorphic try getting a majority of women to do what linemen etc do every day they will burn out fast or be unable to.

They are highly valued professions. The lack of proper compensation is due to capitalist exploitation, not because they are deemed worthless. Truckers, loggers, etc. are all very important to the functioning of modern states and I'm bewildered to hear that you don't believe so simply because the crooked capitalists they work for don't provide worthwhile conditions to work in or proper compensation for their effort.

Degrading yourself for the sexual gratification of others is not empowerment. Be thankful that men are not regarded as mere sexual objects; not envious.

Degrading yourself for the economic benefit of others is not empowerment. Be thankful that women are not regarded as mere economic objects; not envious.

If you have something to argue then use your own words, don't butcher mine.

Degrading yourself for the sexual gratification of others is not empowerment. Be thankful that men are not regarded as mere sexual objects; not envious.

my dude id rather have asset utility value then not. At least someone would want me. Being unattached with no value is infinitely worse . Id rather be getting unsolicited boob or vagina pics then not because my ego could use it. At least i could rest assured i was desired

You really don't understand what it is you're asking for. What you need is intimacy and affection; but what you're asking for is to be used up and thrown away without concern or regard. It isn't fulfilling, and it's certainly not healthy. Believe me I understand what it's like to be lonely and I'm telling you that this is not what you want.

[Techocracy101010]

my dude these arent valued professions truckers get treated like shit . Join me on the all male fire-line for 12-15 an hour all male low wages. Same for loggers etc also its partly sexually dimorphic try getting a majority of women to do what linemen etc do every day they will burn out fast or be unable to.

They are highly valued professions. The lack of proper compensation is due to capitalist exploitation, not because they are deemed worthless. Truckers, loggers, etc. are all very important to the functioning of modern states and I'm bewildered to hear that you don't believe so simply because the crooked capitalists they work for don't provide worthwhile conditions to work in or proper compensation for their effort.

Degrading yourself for the economic benefit of others is not empowerment. Be thankful that women are not regarded as mere economic objects; not envious.

If you have something to argue then use your own words, don't butcher mine.

my dude id rather have asset utility value then not. At least someone would want me. Being unattached with no value is infinitely worse . Id rather be getting unsolicited boob or vagina pics then not because my ego could use it. At least i could rest assured i was desired

You really don't understand what it is you're asking for. What you need is intimacy and affection; but what you're asking for is to be used up and thrown away without concern or regard. It isn't fulfilling, and it's certainly not healthy. Believe me I understand what it's like to be lonely and I'm telling you that this is not what you want.

my dude i can sling a 10 cube on icy roads i can fell a tree trust me when i say both are not valued . Shit lumberjacks are damn near disposable . Shit when i worked grounds keeping we all got sicked by the organophosphate pesticide we were made to use Chlorpyrifos fucking had colic flashing white blue migraine swarms etc shit smelled sweet af

[Stellar Colonies]

...

I don't need to do any research on the subject.

...

In that case, I guess I'm finished here.

[Katganistan]

I don't agree that class-based discrimination is innate. I also don't really agree that policing a man's actions because he's a man is innate.

I actually also don't agree that preferences on "certain beauty standards" is innate, given the history and how "what is beauty" has changed dramatically over the centuries.

once again the contradiction is if we should let folks be folks and its innate why support feminism as feminism is disrupting normative innate behaviors and preferences

I support feminism because I like having my own credit, owning my own property, being able to have a job outside the home, and being able to choose my own partner, not be forced into it by a male relative. Fighting for our bodily autonomy back should be a next step.

I don't know any "feminists" who are of the "men are pigs who can't do anything right" ilk. Maybe you are mistaking a small but loud minority for the entire group?

[Galloism]

Actually no - black men tend to be hypermasculinized compared to white men, which is one of the primary sources of discrimination. It's also worth note black women tend to be more masculinized, which is a one of the sources of their oppression.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ased_Harms

You really need to do some research on this subject.

I don't need to do any research on the subject. You're just reaffirming my point: demographics that don't conform to the standards set by patriarchal society are treated with scorn. I already discussed this with the treatment of un-masculine men by patriarchal society. It is not *masculinity* specifically that is celebrated; it is the masculinity *of men* that is held as the standard to abide by.

Black men are not "hypermasculinized" (this isn't even a thing); they are regarded in the same manner that whites often regarded people they deem "barbaric" and "savage". Not "hypermasculine", but "uncivilized". This goes back to their enslavement in which they were certainly not treated as more masculine than their white masters, but rather more animal-like. This continues to this day. It is racism; not sexism.

/sigh

It's both, and this is why you seem to not understand intersectionality. From the study you did not read:

The above studies demonstrated that perceivers held a strong association between “Blackness” and masculinity. Study 1 demonstrated that this Black/male association affected the basic and higher-order person perception processes when targeting faces. First, the Black/masculinity association affected the basic process of gender-based categorization. When participants “guessed” the gender of target faces, they were more often wrong about the gender of Black women than about any other race/gender intersection. That is, participants guessed that Black women were actually men a higher percentage of the time than they miscategorized any other group by gender. Second, the Black/masculinity association affected higher-order person perception processes. Specifically, participants rated Black men and women as more masculine than White men and women.

However, while both Black men and women were seen as more masculine than their White counterparts, this perception affected each group differently. Black men were seen as more attractive than White men, while Black women were rated as less attractive than White women. This attractiveness difference between Black and White women was, in turn, mediated by ratings of masculinity (while no such mediational pathway was established for men) (Fig. 5). Study 2 replicated these findings in a different modality: perceptions of people moving. In addition, the design of Study 2 allowed us to test the relationships between race, ratings of masculinity, ratings of attractiveness, and participants’ ability to categorize accurately the race and gender of moving targets. These correlational analyses revealed that racial stereotypicality was strongly related to masculinity for Black “walkers,” but not for White “walkers". That is, the more stereotypically Black a targets’ movements were perceived to be, the higher the masculinity ratings for that target.

These findings support the three hypotheses that organized this research. Perceivers associated “Blackness” with “maleness,” and rated Black men and women as more masculine than their White counterparts. This association led to targets who were perceived as more stereotypically Black to be perceived as more masculine. Perceivers rated Black women as less attractive in proportion to their perceived masculinity. Finally, perceivers had more difficulty categorizing Black women as women. Taken together, this research provides strong evidence for a Black/male association that can have an impact on fundamental person perception processes. Racial stereotypicality and masculinity were strongly associated, suggesting a high degree of conceptual overlap between the two categories. Mediational analyses indicated that racial differences in ratings of attractiveness were mediated by differential ratings of Black and White women’s masculinity. In addition, that Black women were mis-categorized by gender indicates that the most basic elements of perceiving people can be shaped by this race/gender intersection. In fact, the most basic processes associated with person perception (i.e. categorization) may deserve re-examination in light of the finding that perception of one “basic” category (i.e. race) may obscure the perception of another (i.e. gender). Given the extensive literature on person perception, this novel possibility is deserving of continued attention.

It says, very specifically, that black men are seen as *more masculine* than white men, and black women are also seen as *more masculine* than white women (and this actually drove some misgendering). You overlay this with other studies showing there's a 10% sentencing bonus for being black and a 60% sentencing bonus for being male, and you can see why black men bear the absolute worst brunt of discrimination. They are seen as more masculine, which aligns with discrimination, and they are also black, which aligns with discrimination.

The statistics tell the story:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821204116

Figure 5 is especially telling.

The statistics say that women are regarded as weaker and less-threatening, not that men are stronger and more-threatening. You are reading them wrong - perhaps deliberately.

Exactly. And black men are seen as more masculine - ergo more threatening - than white men due to racial factors. The basis there is a discrimination based on sex, exacerbated by a intersectional racial discrimination.

Yes, women lost a right that men have never ever possessed. This was bad, because we should be moving to more rights and should have raised men up to the rights of women, not downgrading women to the rights of men.

I wasn't aware that human males had evolved to grow wombs and vaginas.

Women had a right to bodily autonomy at least to a certain extent. This is something men have never had.

And no, masculine men are absolutely oppressed as well in different ways - hence why the hypermasculinzation of minorities (especially black minorities) is a significant factor in their oppression, and more masculine males are discriminated against in greater degree in the education system for failing to behave like stereotypical girls (interestingly, boys who *do* behave like stereotypical girls are rewarded within the education system - more than girls are). You really need to study intersectionality more and look at the statistics and trendlines surrounding men.

So no, not just men who fail to embrace masculine ideals are discriminated against. All men. Every man. Everywhere.

They are not "hypermasculinized" they are barbarianized; treated as violent savages incapable of reason. I haven't the first clue as to what you're even referring to in regards to education and "stereotypical girls", so perhaps you should enlighten me instead of this condescending lecture on how I need to do more research?

That's called hyper-masculinization, when you apply to someone hypermasculinity.

Here's a discussion on teacher biases and how they are cumulative - and against boys for being boys and how it cripples their future achievement.

I am looking for the one about boys who act like boys and boys who act more like girls. Give me a moment - having trouble locating it.

EDIT: Found it in the wayback machine. College took it down.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130615165 ... rdiffs.pdf

6. Conclusion
This paper extends the analysis of early-emerging gender differences in academic achievement to examine both (objective) test scores and (subjective) teacher assessments and connect the two. Using data from the 1998-99 ECLS-K cohort, we first show that the grades awarded by teachers are not aligned with test scores, with the disparities in grading exceeding those in testing outcomes and uniformly favoring girls. Boys in all racial categories (white, black and Hispanic) across all subject areas (reading, math and science) are not represented in grade distributions where their test scores would predict. We then trace the misalignment of grades and test scores to differences between boys and girls in their non-cognitive development.
Boys who perform equally as well as girls on subject-area tests are graded less favorably by theirvteachers, but this less favorable treatment essentially vanishes when non-cognitive skills are taken into account. For some specifications there is evidence of a grade ―bonus for boys with test scores and behavior like their girl counterparts. Our paper shines a light on the teacher‘s role in assessing academic achievement. If, as the data suggest, young girls display a more developed ―attitude toward learning‖ and teachers (consciously or subconsciously) reward these attitudes by giving girls higher marks than warranted by their test scores, the seeds of a gender gap in educational attainment may be sown at an early age, because teachers‘ grades strongly influence grade-level placement, high-school graduation and college admission prospects. Consequently, our results may spur further educational innovation at the early grade-levels, such as developing ways to improve boys‘ noncognitive skills, creating alternative methods of instruction to communicate more effectively to boys who have different non-cognitive skill sets, and experimenting with single-gender instruction.

So, basically, boys who behaved like most boys were marked down. Boys who behaved like most girls were marked up (even compared with girls).

Much like with the justice system and black men, masculinity is a target for discrimination. Acting more like girls is rewarded - even for boys.

[Stellar Colonies]

Degrading yourself for the sexual gratification of others is not empowerment. Be thankful that men are not regarded as mere sexual objects; not envious.

my dude id rather have asset utility value then not. At least someone would want me. Being unattached with no value is infinitely worse . Id rather be getting unsolicited boob or vagina pics then not because my ego could use it. At least i could rest assured i was desired

I've received such unsolicited images...there's nothing good about it.

It just tells me that at least one creep out there has access to my contact info.

[Juansonia]

Have you heard of conscription?

In places where there is conscription for men only women who believe in military also want to be a part of it on equal stage as men and not as nurses. But, when we talk about general conscription I am against that for both men and women.

granted

However conscription is more discrimination against women since they are mostly excluded from it and it picks up only men because of toxic masculinity and patriarchy that as someone said above makes men who don't fall in the norms of it victims too.

"Women are victims because they aren't allowed to throw themselves into a woodchipper. Please ignore the fact that men are forced into the woodchipper."

[Katganistan]

no were expected to produce and survive. Being masculine doe not stop us from being 93 percent of work place fatalities and deaths. men solely make up most combat and war deaths even as civilians. Being a man means you are poorer die younger and less socially connected https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
by all objective metrics men aint doing so hot

Not to mention the draft. I still giggle at the uproar back when congress began moving to require women to sign up for the draft as well.

If they will not abolish the draft, which we do not need as we have the largest volunteer military in the world, then absolutely women should be made to sign up for selective service.

The reasoning behind not doing it is rooted in the outdated patriarchal idea that women are necessary for bearing children and replacing old or deceased population, especially in and after wartime. With fewer women feeling pressured to marry young and have kids young or even at all, they should be eligible to sign up for selective service.

[The Sherpa Empire]

They are highly valued professions. The lack of proper compensation is due to capitalist exploitation, not because they are deemed worthless. Truckers, loggers, etc. are all very important to the functioning of modern states and I'm bewildered to hear that you don't believe so simply because the crooked capitalists they work for don't provide worthwhile conditions to work in or proper compensation for their effort.



If you have something to argue then use your own words, don't butcher mine.



You really don't understand what it is you're asking for. What you need is intimacy and affection; but what you're asking for is to be used up and thrown away without concern or regard. It isn't fulfilling, and it's certainly not healthy. Believe me I understand what it's like to be lonely and I'm telling you that this is not what you want.

my dude i can sling a 10 cube on icy roads i can fell a tree trust me when i say both are not valued . Shit lumberjacks are damn near disposable . Shit when i worked grounds keeping we all got sicked by the organophosphate pesticide we were made to use Chlorpyrifos fucking had colic flashing white blue migraine swarms etc shit smelled sweet af

You know, just because you see a job listing does not mean you need to apply for that job and push yourself this hard.

[Techocracy101010]

my dude i can sling a 10 cube on icy roads i can fell a tree trust me when i say both are not valued . Shit lumberjacks are damn near disposable . Shit when i worked grounds keeping we all got sicked by the organophosphate pesticide we were made to use Chlorpyrifos fucking had colic flashing white blue migraine swarms etc shit smelled sweet af

You know, just because you see a job listing does not mean you need to apply for that job and push yourself this hard.

need money no money no healthcare nothing. I made 20 k last year as i returned to school i gotta pay for car insurance health etc and have cash set aside to pay for anything not covered . Work till death lol. This year ill likely clear 15k im using a food distribution center to offset costs its hard to earn money only working fire season and a part time at college that pays 12.75 but is what it is

[Primitive Communism]

my dude i can sling a 10 cube on icy roads i can fell a tree trust me when i say both are not valued . Shit lumberjacks are damn near disposable . Shit when i worked grounds keeping we all got sicked by the organophosphate pesticide we were made to use Chlorpyrifos fucking had colic flashing white blue migraine swarms etc shit smelled sweet af

No, the professions are valued; it is the *people* that are not. This is because of capitalism, not misandry, which is what I'm trying to explain to you: the profession itself is vital, but capitalists are not inclined to 'waste' money keeping workers safe or rewarding workers for their efforts. They will deliberately put their workers at risk for the sake of greater profits - not because they're men, not because the jobs aren't valued, but because they are driven by greed.

It says, very specifically, that black men are seen as *more masculine* than white men, and black women are also seen as *more masculine* than white women (and this actually drove some misgendering). You overlay this with other studies showing there's a 10% sentencing bonus for being black and a 60% sentencing bonus for being male, and you can see why black men bear the absolute worst brunt of discrimination. They are seen as more masculine, which aligns with discrimination, and they are also black, which aligns with discrimination.

I am now convinced you are deliberately reading these things incorrectly.

The harsher treatments for men - not just black men, but men in general - do not stem from a hatred of men but from the belief that women are weaker and less threatening. I just explained this and you deliberately ignored it. You can shove studies and statistics in my face as much as you like; they don't tell the story you think they do, nor do they tell the story the authors think they do.

Exactly. And black men are seen as more masculine - ergo more threatening - than white men due to racial factors. The basis there is a discrimination based on sex, exacerbated by a intersectional racial discrimination.

No, they aren't. They are seen as subhuman savages; not "more masculine". Masculinity has nothing to do with it.

Women had a right to bodily autonomy at least to a certain extent. This is something men have never had.

What bodily autonomy do men need? What organs do men possess that can be used against them as a woman's womb can? There are none. You are asking for rights you can't physically possess.

That's called hyper-masculinization, when you apply to someone hypermasculinity.

There is no such thing. What that page describes is simply masculinity in it's purest form, and black men are not regarded as "hyper-masculine". They are explicitly regarded as being less than human. The traits applied to them may be masculine but these are utterly secondary; they are disdained primarily for being black, not for being male. The black part overrides the male part entirely on purpose. Black men are not considered "real men" because they are regarded as animals, and their behavior is linked to that of animals - not humans. You're pointing at explicit racism and trying to insist it's sexism.

Boys who behaved like most girls were marked up (even compared with girls).

What? Did you even read your own source?

Boys who perform equally as well as girls on subject-area tests are graded less favorably by theirvteachers

[Stellar Colonies]

alright nvm

...

What bodily autonomy do men need? What organs do men possess that can be used against them as a woman's womb can? There are none. You are asking for rights you can't physically possess.

...

...well I can think of a few examples.

[Galloism]

my dude i can sling a 10 cube on icy roads i can fell a tree trust me when i say both are not valued . Shit lumberjacks are damn near disposable . Shit when i worked grounds keeping we all got sicked by the organophosphate pesticide we were made to use Chlorpyrifos fucking had colic flashing white blue migraine swarms etc shit smelled sweet af

No, the professions are valued; it is the *people* that are not. This is because of capitalism, not misandry, which is what I'm trying to explain to you: the profession itself is vital, but capitalists are not inclined to 'waste' money keeping workers safe or rewarding workers for their efforts. They will deliberately put their workers at risk for the sake of greater profits - not because they're men, not because the jobs aren't valued, but because they are driven by greed.

I actually disagree with this. We have a real bad problem in society where "most needed" and "most valued" are largely misaligned (a few align like doctor, but a few misalign severely like stocker trader or trucker). Trucking isn't valued as a profession despite its sheer necessity, while stock trader is valued even though their value is mostly theoretical.

It says, very specifically, that black men are seen as *more masculine* than white men, and black women are also seen as *more masculine* than white women (and this actually drove some misgendering). You overlay this with other studies showing there's a 10% sentencing bonus for being black and a 60% sentencing bonus for being male, and you can see why black men bear the absolute worst brunt of discrimination. They are seen as more masculine, which aligns with discrimination, and they are also black, which aligns with discrimination.

I am now convinced you are deliberately reading these things incorrectly.

The harsher treatments for men - not just black men, but men in general - do not stem from a hatred of men but from the belief that women are weaker and less threatening. I just explained this and you deliberately ignored it. You can shove studies and statistics in my face as much as you like; they don't tell the story you think they do, nor do they tell the story the authors think they do.

You claimed this. But in fact, even if this is the basis, it's literally the same thing - black men are seen as *more threatening* than white men, and that is the source of their oppression. Black women are seen as *more threatening* than white women. Black women are seen as *less threatening* than white men. White women are seen as least threatening overall.

This means that being black means you are seen as *more threatening*. This is explicit racial discrimination based on inborn characteristics of being black. Men are seen as *more threatening*. This is explicit seist discrimination based on the inborn characteristic of being a man.

Exactly. And black men are seen as more masculine - ergo more threatening - than white men due to racial factors. The basis there is a discrimination based on sex, exacerbated by a intersectional racial discrimination.

No, they aren't. They are seen as subhuman savages; not "more masculine". Masculinity has nothing to do with it.

From the study which I have now both linked and quoted to you:

both Black men and women were seen as more masculine than their White counterparts

I hope actually pulling the exact phrase where it explicitly points out blackness and masculinity are related will get you to stop ignoring the results. The long paragraph was apparently too much to read through.

Women had a right to bodily autonomy at least to a certain extent. This is something men have never had.

What bodily autonomy do men need? What organs do men possess that can be used against them as a woman's womb can? There are none. You are asking for rights you can't physically possess.

Their penises, more than anything. Do you know boys routinely suffer genital mutilation shortly after birth, something that's banned to do to girls, even with less invasive and harmful forms of it?

Do you know that most men who are raped are raped by women according to the CDC (if one uses a nonsexist definition of rape including being forced to penetrate), and according to the FBI, they almost never see justice?

Did you know that when they are raped, if a child results, not only do they as a practice get no say regarding that child, the courts will actually let the child stay with the rapist and then force the rape victim to support the rapist?

And did you know this is true even if the rape victim is a *child*?

That's called hyper-masculinization, when you apply to someone hypermasculinity.

There is no such thing. What that page describes is simply masculinity in it's purest form, and black men are not regarded as "hyper-masculine". They are explicitly regarded as being less than human. The traits applied to them may be masculine but these are utterly secondary; they are disdained primarily for being black, not for being male. The black part overrides the male part entirely on purpose. Black men are not considered "real men" because they are regarded as animals, and their behavior is linked to that of animals - not humans. You're pointing at explicit racism and trying to insist it's sexism.

Again, the study I linked to showed that they are viewed as hyper-masculine.

Boys who behaved like most girls were marked up (even compared with girls).

What? Did you even read your own source?

Yes.

Again, posting a full paragraph was apparently too much, so here's the specific sentence:

Boys who perform equally as well as girls on subject-area tests are graded less favorably by their teachers, but this less favorable treatment essentially vanishes when non-cognitive skills are taken into account. For some specifications there is evidence of a grade ―bonus for boys with test scores and behavior like their girl counterparts.

[Stellar Colonies]

...

Their penises, more than anything. Do you know boys routinely suffer genital mutilation shortly after birth, something that's banned to do to girls, even with less invasive and harmful forms of it?

Do you know that most men who are raped are raped by women according to the CDC (if one uses a nonsexist definition of rape including being forced to penetrate), and according to the FBI, they almost never see justice?

Did you know that when they are raped, if a child results, not only do they as a practice get no say regarding that child, the courts will actually let the child stay with the rapist and then force the rape victim to support the rapist?

And did you know this is true even if the rape victim is a *child*?

...

Exhibit A

[Juansonia]

alright nvm

...
What bodily autonomy do men need? What organs do men possess that can be used against them as a woman's womb can? There are none. You are asking for rights you can't physically possess.
...

...well I can think of a few examples.
The first being one which you've purportedly expressed concern about.

"Not getting shot in a war" is an aspect of bodily autonomy as well, and it arguably has more direct impact on QoL than infant genital mutilation.

[Stellar Colonies]

alright nvm...well I can think of a few examples.
The first being one which you've purportedly expressed concern about.

Not to mention that "not getting shot in a war" is an aspect of bodily autonomy as well.

Minor case of mistaken identity in that quote, but I digress.

[Techocracy101010]

Now on sexual objectification another reason as a man i would nit mind being objectified is that it pays. I already sell my body and soul in labor if i could get a few extra bucks jerking off on a cam from women that would be great. However male camers do not make money same for strippers like very few dudes have folks pay to see them. The extra bucks would be nice

[Saiwana]

The reasoning behind not doing it is rooted in the outdated patriarchal idea that women are necessary for bearing children and replacing old or deceased population, especially in and after wartime.

None of that calculus or logic has changed up to the present day, when people really think about it. That is still going to be the outcome in the event that most of the fighting men were to die. If people don't have an alternative that can fully cover that "what if" -then it isn't obsolete and is perfectly rational.

Besides which, what does a typical military want women for, if the men that're available are preferred for almost all roles within warfare? The only major combat roles women have outperformed men on that comes to mind, are snipers and pilots. Although there may be more. Usually the men can make it through harsher training and have enough physical advantages as to make that more possible.

[Tuscaria]

TLDR thread: Men trying to present themselves as victims (again)

I'll slim this down so your twitter brain can understand. ]
Men can be victims too.
You are a self centered egotistic man-hating feminist.
While I know that Men have historically been on top, life for men has been getting harder.
We are still forced to comform under society and still getting nothing for it. Meanwhile, women are being told to push back and be better than men, be stronger than men.
ANd We still are underappreciated.
As a Man You are either a simp or an incel. no between.
Offended? ok but thats just the truth





FIN

[Primitive Communism]

alright nvm

...

What bodily autonomy do men need? What organs do men possess that can be used against them as a woman's womb can? There are none. You are asking for rights you can't physically possess.

...

...well I can think of a few examples.

The first being one which you've purportedly expressed concern about.

Their penises, more than anything. Do you know boys routinely suffer genital mutilation shortly after birth, something that's banned to do to girls, even with less invasive and harmful forms of it?

While I agree that circumcision should not be legal the fact girls are exempt from genital mutilation by law is not because of preference but because the practice has a greater degree of permanent health risks, or even death, when compared to circumcision. It also doesn't have any health benefits whatsoever, which is not true for circumcision. At any rate this is more an issue of children's rights than anything.

I actually disagree with this. We have a real bad problem in society where "most needed" and "most valued" are largely misaligned (a few align like doctor, but a few misalign severely like stocker trader or trucker). Trucking isn't valued as a profession despite its sheer necessity, while stock trader is valued even though their value is mostly theoretical.

You, also, are not understanding. The position itself is valuable - it would not exist otherwise - but the people in that position are not. That is why they are treated as if they are not valuable, and because they are not treated as if they are valuable the profession itself is *perceived* as being non-valuable. This is why labor unions and striking are important: to force capitalists, and thus society at large, to realize just how valuable these positions actually are by demonstrating what happens when no one is working those positions.

You claimed this. But in fact, even if this is the basis, it's literally the same thing - black men are seen as *more threatening* than white men, and that is the source of their oppression. Black women are seen as *more threatening* than white women. Black women are seen as *less threatening* than white men. White women are seen as least threatening overall.

This means that being black means you are seen as *more threatening*. This is explicit racial discrimination based on inborn characteristics of being black. Men are seen as *more threatening*. This is explicit seist discrimination based on the inborn characteristic of being a man.

They are seen as more threatening because they are black, not because they are men. The only intersectionality here is that the women are deemed less threatening than the men; which is because they're women, and society views women as being weaker than men. You're watching the river flow from the lake and into the sea and yet, for some reason, are trying to argue that the river is flowing from the sea into the lake.

I hope actually pulling the exact phrase where it explicitly points out blackness and masculinity are related will get you to stop ignoring the results. The long paragraph was apparently too much to read through.

I know what you're studies say. I don't have to even read them; they're wrong. They are looking at these phenomena wrong. They are demonstrating that women are treated as lesser than men, but are arguing the opposite - just as you are. This is the intrinsic male bias inherit in a misogynistic society: the experiences of men matter more than that of women. You're just proving me right without even realizing it.

Do you know that most men who are raped are raped by women according to the CDC (if one uses a nonsexist definition of rape including being forced to penetrate), and according to the FBI, they almost never see justice?

This is almost certainly not true given the sheer scale of prison rape, which I'm guessing was deliberately excluded from the list. It also likely excludes the molestation of young boys by men, and of course sense a man being raped by another man is a great mark of shame and effeminacy this is very likely not even covering even half of all reported rapes of men.

But since you're bringing sexual crimes I feel the need to point out that men - not women - constitute the overwhelming majority of sex criminals, and that women - not men - constitute the overwhelming majority of victims of sexual violence. But I'm sure you have an argument for why this isn't a naked example of a misogynistic and patriarchal culture.

Did you know that when they are raped, if a child results, not only do they as a practice get no say regarding that child, the courts will actually let the child stay with the rapist and then force the rape victim to support the rapist?

And did you know this is true even if the rape victim is a *child*?

I did know that, and it's the only accurate thing you've said so far.

[Primitive Communism]

Now on sexual objectification another reason as a man i would nit mind being objectified is that it pays. I already sell my body and soul in labor if i could get a few extra bucks jerking off on a cam from women that would be great. However male camers do not make money same for strippers like very few dudes have folks pay to see them. The extra bucks would be nice

You're talking about degrading yourself for money. Please stop and listen to what you're saying; this is not a privilege that women 'enjoy'. It is humiliating and dehumanizing.

[The Sherpa Empire]

Now on sexual objectification another reason as a man i would nit mind being objectified is that it pays. I already sell my body and soul in labor if i could get a few extra bucks jerking off on a cam from women that would be great. However male camers do not make money same for strippers like very few dudes have folks pay to see them. The extra bucks would be nice

Male strippers are a thing.

Not the most common job, but if it is something you really want to do, you could always try.

[Stellar Colonies]

alright nvm

...well I can think of a few examples.

The first being one which you've purportedly expressed concern about.

Their penises, more than anything. Do you know boys routinely suffer genital mutilation shortly after birth, something that's banned to do to girls, even with less invasive and harmful forms of it?

While I agree that circumcision should not be legal the fact girls are exempt from genital mutilation by law is not because of preference but because the practice has a greater degree of permanent health risks, or even death, when compared to circumcision. It also doesn't have any health benefits whatsoever, which is not true for circumcision. At any rate this is more an issue of children's rights than anything.

...

That would depend on what type of FGM you are referring too...some forms inflict more damage than male circumcision, some inflict less. Regardless, infant genital mutilation is all the same and it all deserves to be banned.

Those medical benefits are also disputed, and even if they exist they concern a minority of cases which can be solved with far less destructive intervention. A commonly cited condition, UTIs, are suffered by women far more often than men due to anatomical differences and we don't see much investigation being made into whether FGM can "treat" that.