By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Jaicee said:

Anyway, the basic ideology of this particular section of men's rights activists is that sex is a right owed to men by women, and therefore rejection is unacceptable; that we have no right to refuse. No right to an autonomous will of our own.

They need to grow up. They are owed absolutely nothing.

Jaicee said:

If I can divulge something more about myself, I've not been any too successful either romantically or sexually myself all in all. I understand loneliness. But I also recognize that my loneliness, at the end of the day, is mostly my own fault. I'm not a financially successful person, I don't look great, I'm not very outgoing, I don't communicate well, I have lots of unusual opinions and beliefs, interests that not too many other women share to a similar degree (like video games, for instance), and I'm sure that people could find many other faults too.

You are correct. It is mostly your own fault. (And I say that with a ton of respect.)

If you don't look great.. Then improve, get healthy, get fit, get some new clothes...

Confidence and Communication can improve thanks to the above as well.

Financially not successful? Doesn't matter.
Being financially responsible is probably a little more important... I have seen low income earners live a better lifestyle than a middle income earners... And that is thanks to not being burdened with debt and buying a ton of rubbish they didn't need.
With that in mind, you can change this position in due time anyway if you work hard.


Jaicee said:

 And yeah, I can also see that there are some external factors I can't control too, like the fact that I'm only interested in other women and find myself financially trapped in a community that's sufficiently repressive that almost no one is out (including me) and that really limits my options at the outset compared to your average straight guy.

Nope. This is also (respectfully) your own fault as well.

I am also part of the LGBTQI community... And I came out of the closet not knowing anyone else... During a time when society was significantly more  homophobic to the point where our conservative Government was rewriting laws to exclude the LGBTQI community and where being Homophobic/Gay Bashing was seen as okay.

You will find once you come out, people really will not give a shit... And those that do give a shit are not worth your time, stand your ground.
You will also find that other people who are in the closet will also seek you out and confide in you, support them.

Obviously I don't recommend anyone coming out of the closet if you live in a state that incarcerates people for Homosexuality.

o_O.Q said:

wow so everyone here thinks this is all social and has nothing to do with testosterone for example causing higher aggression and sexual drive in men?

i mean obviously there's a social component that includes the idea that you're a loser if you aren't sexually successful as a man, but i think its a mistake to simply reduce it down to that entirely

Obviously each individual circumstance will be different.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
VGPolyglot said:

Yes, but not all men are enemies, there are feminist men too that can really help advance the movement and it's important not to alienate men that are sympathetic to the movement. However, I do see a problem in making feminism a gender-neutral movement, as it ignores the fact that women are typically at a bigger disadvantage than men, so it's a balancing act that I don't exactly have the answer to.

Well of course there are feminist men. But my point was that the movement does not exist to service the interests of men.



Most mass shootings in the US have been carried out by lone single white males. Very evil, sick disturbed individuals with untreated psychiatric issues are disasters waiting to happen. Bullied or rejected are trigger flash points and they can make some individuals go off.



Jaicee said:

I guess what I'm really trying to ask here is: Why do guys so much more readily externalize the blame for rejection?

I'm a bit tired right now so forgive me if I misunderstand what you are asking but if I got it right are you saying that terrorists are doing their terrorist stuff because they are rejected by women?

I thought they indulged in terrorism cause they either have mental issues or religious issues and think they are doing the will of some imaginary God?

I am single, shy and chicks pretty much ignore me and I guess I'm not happy about it but I certainly don't plan to go murder people because of that.

Last edited by CrazyGamer2017 - on 29 May 2018

Being wealthy can make up for being unattractive as seen by countless unattractive rich men with attractive wives/girl friends. Having wealth is most important for a male, better clothes, make up and or facial surgery can be bought with money. Women are attracted to men with more wealth and power. Men must do whatever it takes to attain wealth and power. The world we live under is Capitalist and the attainment of wealth and power is everything.



Around the Network

As interesting as this post is how can you link sexless men to mass murder?

Does it happen anywhere other than America?

I will leave this joke in the thread, which I find my wife's female friends to have this issue:

A store that sells husbands has just opened where a woman may go to choose a husband from among many men. The store is composed of 6 floors, and the men increase in positive attributes as the shopper ascends the flights.

There is, however, a catch. As you open the door to any floor you may choose a man from that floor, but if you go up a floor, you cannot go back down except to exit the building.

So a woman goes to the shopping center to find a husband.

On the first floor the sign on the door reads:

Floor 1 - These men have jobs.

The woman reads the sign and says to herself, "Well, that's better than my last boyfriend, but I wonder what's further up?" So up she goes.

The second floor sign reads:

Floor 2 - These men have jobs and love kids.

The woman remarks to herself, "That's great, but I wonder what's further up?" And up she goes again.

The third floor sign reads:

Floor 3 - These men have jobs, love kids and are extremely good looking.

"Hmmm, better" she says. "But I wonder what's upstairs?"

The fourth floor sign reads:

Floor 4 - These men have jobs, love kids, are extremely good looking and help with the housework.

"Wow!" exclaims the woman, "very tempting. BUT, there must be more further up!" And again she heads up another flight.

The fifth floor sign reads:

Floor 5 - These men have jobs, love kids, are extremely good looking, help with the housework and have a strong romantic streak.

"Oh, mercy me! But just think... what must be awaiting me further on?" So up to the sixth floor she goes.

The sixth floor sign reads:

Floor 6 - You are visitor 6,875,953,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please.



 

 

Jaicee said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, unfortunately though there are men who just cannot be swayed by the advantages that it gives to women, so if it comes to it we may have to inform them of the advantages, especially if you're trying to speak to a primarily male demographic. In getting rid of the stereotypes for women it will hopefully lead to the elimination of stereotypes for men too, and those that are considered "weak" or "feminine" in today's standards will be much more comfortable. Also, with women being able to reach their full potential, we'll hopefully also get many more ideas, inventions and improvements that we wouldn't be able to get otherwise.

 

Nymeria said:

I am grateful for the victories feminist won and I will never apologize for seeing it as progress.  I dealt with deeply patriarchal structures growing up, the kind with 19th century mentalities on women.

I never excused the end behavior, ultimately if a guy calls me a cunt or threatens to rape me or gropes me I don't much care about his background, he should be held accountability for his words and actions.  

I have spent a lot of time in my life helping women and been part of groups that support them. I know very well the challenges we still face as a society.

My point is how we achieve the next step of progress.  We don't compromise an inch on what we want as women, but we can work with men.  We're not conquering them, we're asking for equal treatment and opportunity.  I've found you win a lot more people over to the cause framing it this way and I never want to be like the men I knew growing up who told me over and over how my sex was a deficiency that limited my potential.  We can do better, we are not like the patriarchs.

I've dialogued with enough men on the topic of women's lib enough times over the years to know this much: we are kidding ourselves if we believe that most men are ever going to be feminists. At the end of the day, relative to women, men are a privileged social group and privileged groups don't give up their privileges voluntarily or happily. That's why the women's movement has be a women-centered movement. There's no ill will toward men implied in saying that. I've just come to believe that it's naive to think otherwise.

We cannot compete with what the men's movement can promise men. They can offer men all of our money, all of our property, and of course our bodies. We, in contrast, can offer men social permission to cry and cross-dress and become nurses and join the cheerleading squad; you know, just the sort of freedoms you hear most man clamoring for all the time. You see my point here? We can't out-offer the men's movement. We can't compete on their terms, so we'd better not count on attempts to working out. We have to be our own movement, not just an appendage of their's.

This is a bit of pet peeve of mine; an issue I have with modern, "third wave" feminism. It's too compromising and men-centered and it's not working out. By most measures, we are tangibly losing ground as a class.

I volunteered with a group that dealt with domestic violence, largely abuse and rape cases.  For a long time it was all women, volunteers and members.  It was supportive, offering all the aid it could to those affected.  One day a man came in and it made nearly everyone very nervous.  He was the victim of long running abuse and after telling his story others became more accepting.  It didn't diminish for one second the work I put in aiding women, or that the group was overwhelmingly helping women.  The point was we were a safe place for suffering people and didn't define people by their sex.  We didn't become male centric for being sympathetic, it was just the right thing to do.

I am a women. I am bisexual. I am an agnostic atheist. I was raised in a patriarchal cult that taught me my sex made me lesser, my sexual desires made me deviant, and my doubts made me weak.  I have no doubt the the attitudes the exist in parts of society.  When I left and lost everything I wanted so badly to hate them for all the pain and anguish they had put me through.  How they distort things and manipulate people, it would be so easy to hate them, hate those awful old men and their antiquated teachings. I had to make a hard decision, and I chose despite all the evidence in my life to work that people can be better as a whole than they were.  Call it naive, but 20 years ago 67% of people didn't accept gay marriage and it was illegal. Today it is legal and that number has fallen to 32% opposing it.  It was fought for and discussed with, in part, straight people as gatekeepers to that right. It never became about heterosexuals simply because they were part of the discussion.

I will never compromise or shy away from my principles of supporting women.  We don't belong to anyone and deserve to have agency in life.  As stated before, if a man cannot handle that and wants to just yell at me, he is not someone I engage with.  When I know men who are trying, yes, I try to help them.  I'm not going to lower myself simply because my opposition has the capacity to be repugnant on issues.  



CrazyGamer2017 said:
 

I'm a bit tired right now so forgive me if I misunderstand what you are asking but if I got it right are you saying that terrorists are doing their terrorist stuff because they are rejected by women?

I thought they indulged in teorrorism cause they either have mental issues or religious issues and think they are doing the will of some imaginary God?

I am single, shy and chicks pretty much ignore me and I guess I'm not happy about it but I certainly don't plan to go murder people because of that.

I wasn't trying to be overly simplistic about the issue of terrorism, but rather was highlighting that there exists a movement calling themselves "incels" with a number of adherents now who have committed car attacks and school shootings over feeling lonely, and all those who have so far (that I'm aware of anyway) have been male. I was just trying to understand that phenomenon, not insinuate that anyone here would do anything like that. That's all!

If you read the first couple pages of this thread, I think we came to a pretty good understanding of the kind of cultural expectations that may underly this phenomenon already, actually. At this point, I'm basically responding to minor qualms with my broader worldview.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 29 May 2018

Aeolus451 said:
Incels aren't MRAs or political. They're essentially an online community of guys who can't have sex or get into relationships for a variety of reasons. I think most of them are normal virgins and the socially awkward. Just interacting with more women would fix those.

There is a segment of incels that are the opposite of the man hating feminist. Society shouldn't ostracize them or conflate regular virgins with them because it will only make them worse and turn them into some kind of movement.

My encounters with MRAs have given me the impression that they're generally incels. The focus has very little to do with actual rights of men, but on the sexual advantage of women and their bizarre perception of a crazy "feminazi regime." While the MRA movement claims to support "fathers rights" - I generally do not see any actual fathers seeking child custody among their ranks; they claim to support a group of people who wants nothing to do with them - and even then, this is typically a small topic of discussion that only pops up from time to time because of the perceived support of their "women dominate us" agenda. In addition, there are a lot of racial things included, they don't seem to include blacks among their class.

They don't seem to have many men in their ranks, mostly boys in their teens and younger twenties. Not even close to the age that they would have actually had the life experiences that would actually send them demanding rights - because, for the most part, life is not even close to as tough toward men as they seem to think it will be. Their frustration comes from not having sex rather than any actual injustice against them: that's why their focus is so much on women's roles in society and not the status of men's rights; in other words, the MRA is their more "rational" ideological vent for young men not having sex.

(Note: I put the quotes around "rational" because, while their arguments seem logical, the actual reality of the world does not align with the notion of injustice they claim to be fighting against.)



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Nymeria said:
 

I volunteered with a group that dealt with domestic violence, largely abuse and rape cases.  For a long time it was all women, volunteers and members.  It was supportive, offering all the aid it could to those affected.  One day a man came in and it made nearly everyone very nervous.  He was the victim of long running abuse and after telling his story others became more accepting.  It didn't diminish for one second the work I put in aiding women, or that the group was overwhelmingly helping women.  The point was we were a safe place for suffering people and didn't define people by their sex.  We didn't become male centric for being sympathetic, it was just the right thing to do.

I am a women. I am bisexual. I am an agnostic atheist. I was raised in a patriarchal cult that taught me my sex made me lesser, my sexual desires made me deviant, and my doubts made me weak.  I have no doubt the the attitudes the exist in parts of society.  When I left and lost everything I wanted so badly to hate them for all the pain and anguish they had put me through.  How they distort things and manipulate people, it would be so easy to hate them, hate those awful old men and their antiquated teachings. I had to make a hard decision, and I chose despite all the evidence in my life to work that people can be better as a whole than they were.  Call it naive, but 20 years ago 67% of people didn't accept gay marriage and it was illegal. Today it is legal and that number has fallen to 32% opposing it.  It was fought for and discussed with, in part, straight people as gatekeepers to that right. It never became about heterosexuals simply because they were part of the discussion.

I will never compromise or shy away from my principles of supporting women.  We don't belong to anyone and deserve to have agency in life.  As stated before, if a man cannot handle that and wants to just yell at me, he is not someone I engage with.  When I know men who are trying, yes, I try to help them.  I'm not going to lower myself simply because my opposition has the capacity to be repugnant on issues.  

I think maybe we're misunderstanding each other here. I don't dislike men as such or view them as inferior or as less deserving of the same array of rights and representation and gender expressions and all of that. I am but suggesting that it is okay if we as women have something that is our own, like our own movement. The distinction -- the autonomy -- of feminism from broader struggles around social justice need not be viewed as something that undermines the validity of other causes.