What Is With All The Angry, Anti-Women Sentiment? (years, online, using)

[solytaire]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Hi solytaire,

Congratulations on deciphering the rhetorical gimmick. Indeed generalizations, as I have stated, are ubiquitous. Women as victims are referred to in the aggregate while responses are countered with anecdotes and phantom abuses of generalizations.

The sexes ruthlessly exploit the other in the sexual arms race. Women score easy points crushing the will of plebs only to be smashed by the colossus men of glamor. Humans are a hypocritical slimy adhesion, a cephalopod suckering up the wall.

exactly right gwynedd...and its one of the reasons that I so emphatically believe that men ARE very much to blame for their predicament....

Men have painted themselves into a corner...centuries of peacocking encouraged by women and ego stroking have placed men in a very delicate position, that women have been wise enough to dodge...or at least shake off.

Men have always gladly accepted generalizations made about them, as they have been taught that those generalizations were directly implicative of their own manhood..."Whats that you say? All men drink, love violence, watch sports and love waging war?...so be it, I will be a man then, for I will learn to enjoy those things as well"..."'real men dont do x,y,z?...sure thing, Ill make sure I dont do those things then"

usually whether positive or negative, males eagerly strived for this title of "man"...and males and society in general, considered it an assault on a man's ego/manhood if he didnt fit the generalizations that society made of men...an insult even...you can always hear some sap not too far away who still has wrapped his whole identity up in being the "prototypical male"...usually this doofus is swigging beer, grunting, yelling, acting like he's obsessed with sports, and acting a sex hound... well men live by those one dimensional generalizations and now they are dying by them...

When women labeled men the oppressor, they could only do so because males only sought the general label of "Man"...there was no distinction of which type of 'man' they could become...no definition allowed for inclusion of the "working man, feminist man, house husband, male rights advocate, pimp, homosexual etc." ...(notice: women have been able to very craftily wriggle out of being pinned down to any single standard definition of "real womanhood"...this is for convenience purposes of course...it allows them that conveniently spontaneous individuality we talked about earlier AND it allows them to dodge responsibility for their collective....if perceptions of women get too negative, and require that the entire gender collectively address whats inappropriate, they can always point the finger and reiterate the fact that women arent to be generalized and that they are all individuals....women as a gender were smart enough to wriggle out of social responsibility)...

you see though, we cant all do this...if men were allowed to become individuals, and dodge their social responsibility to set other men straight, then as the stronger sex, who will enforce law and protect women and children from other men?..men must be the overseers of welfare (see: govt. subsidized care of bastard children and battered women programs...men who defend the honor of women against other men etc.), and as a byproduct to that responsibility, the perceived oppressors of the weak.

the definition of a "real man" has always been very streamlined, however unrealistic...and unfortunately males have been indoctrinated to strive for this streamlined definition as the quickest route from a to b...or in other words the quickest route from palm to actual lady-sex...

and consequently, although it is always a boisterously bandied label for males, in all of its accompanied esteem, its linear definition also meant that being "real man" placed such deserving males in whichever singular category society's lilliputians wanted to label him..some days he will be gladly welcomed as the provider, and when things are bad, he will be considered the oppressor....as a "man" who has been shepherded into this box, you are really only defined by the labels that society places at the feet of manhood...society's definition of manhood never intended to allow for individualism...there are really only two social functions for indoctrinating males with the ideology that they must attain manhood, and stroking their egos once it has been obtained: so that they will feel obligated to be providers/protectors through sense of social responsibility, and so that they can bear the blame for oppressing others through their indulgence in power excesses ....and as a "man" in this age, in that men are certainly no longer needed to be providers, at least not by women individually, (they are certainly needed to be nameless, faceless providers for society as a collective through the marital/divorce courts, social security wealth redistribution, and through military service) the flavor of the day is oppressor.

[heavyweight]

Originally Posted by lilred0005

Lately it seems every other thread on here is filled with angry, often mysogynistic rants against women. These posts/threads reek of bitterness and discontentment. Why the need to blame an entire gender for the bad behavior or bad experiences with a few?

Ever received really poor customer service from a couple employees, and vowed you'll never do business with/eat at/shop at that place again? You're essentially blaming the entire employee population/corporation, for the mistakes of a few. People tend to overreact when they've had a bad experience. In a relationship, where emotions and hurt feelings are involved.... the extent of the overreaction is exponential.

Originally Posted by lilred0005

I've heard that women are notorious for "man-bashing"(which is inexcusable as well) but all I see on here as of late is the opposite with thread topics of exhorting men to "never get married", plus the usual "women are superficial gold-diggers". Geez, don't you think it's getting a little old?

This must be rhetorical.

Originally Posted by lilred0005

I have personally had some very negative and hurtful experiences with men, but I would NEVER blame the male gender for my problems or hold any group or even any individual responsible for the foul acts of a few men. Has anyone else noticed the preponderance of these negative anti-women threads? What do you think?

I think...
- Many people come to the relationship forum to vent. The angriest, most frustrated people will often be the most vocal and active segment of any population.
- If most men on this forum used the derisive language posted here to communicate with their wives, sisters, female friends/co-workers or within earshot of their daughters: they'd be unemployed, the subject of at least one restraining order, and answer to child protective services.
- It's better folks vent online (hopefully under anonymity), than alienate everyone in their "real" lives.
- If men truly have strong negative/hateful feelings toward women, that becomes apparent to the women these guys (attempt) to date/befriend, resulting in another bad experience to complain about.

Be the change you wanna see in the world, boys n girls.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by solytaire

I was just thinking about it...Thats one thing that I have to give feminists and most women credit for...they know how to game the system, and they know how to manipulate the rhetoric so that rules and social expectations ONLY APPLY to them when they want them to...

Ahh, if only that were true. It's not the case, tho. If you read the posts in these last 4-5 pages you will find statements about social expectations and generalizations of behavior of both men and women with many of the male members rallying in support. I'm not noting a subtlety here. It's plain as day. What this shows is the power of bias.

Take this thread for example..whats happening is you have a ton of men (myself included) bítching about women....well women do the exact same thing in every aspect of media...The difference is that women tell men that they have only themselves to blame and to "get over it", "quit whining" and so forth..."all women arent like that blah blah blah", they'll say.

And what's fitting, to go along with my statement of above, is that you have to lay your sights outside of this thread, a conversation between actual men and women, to make your case. It doesn't really matter what the women here have to say or think. As I have learned in many of these conversations, it also doesn't matter if the information put forth is true or not. What matters is that your pov continues to bind you completely. It's a quagmire and in the context of this conversation it's nonsensical to place blame.

Now on the surface this seems to be a very logical retort...BUT, when you watch how women (especially feminists) talk about men, they hardly EVER acknowledge individuality...Everything is "We 'Women' this, and 'women'' that...even though that lady over there is a working woman, we can still wire work her into a appearing to be a victim for the sake of the sisterhood"...They almost ALWAYS include every woman on the face of the earth when trying to play their victimhood card....they hardly ever make individual stipulations while making demands when its purpose is to reinforce their bellyaching.. at least not that Ive heard..and the few times that they try, they end up being made to look foolish by the women who dont buy into their victimhood

This is an interesting point and I will have to sit with it awhile to digest, but, again, I cannot ignore assertions of roles that have been posted in this thread, targeting groups (men/women), put forth by some of the guys participating in this thread. The problem is that it's difficult to respond to statements targeting the entire gender without discussing the entire gender. Frankly, I'm surprised you do not include your male comrads in the charge.

OTOH, I will admit to viewing the male experience in a more individualistic way. I'm not sure if that's because I'm simply not male or if it's due to social conditioning.

lol..but the moment a man addresses women in the aggregate, he must shut up and "stop generalizing"..."thats not me...those are only the women you've met because you are just a shallow loser who attracts those type of women"...

I think this is an appropriate response regardless of the subject when bigotry surfaces. The same message is fitting for the women on this board that intend to paint all men with their brush simply due to their poor choices. As I've noted in the past, I only have one friend that married an arse. She knows not to generalize her experiences because she knows my marriage, my man, my other friends dh's.

all of a sudden every third woman is the exception to his rule and all women are suddenly individuals...no one wants to be associated with the negative generalization and so they teeter under the singular umbrella of individuality..

And why should I? Why should I have to take the responsibility of your choices and the people you choose to associate with? I ask these questions and they're never answered. I'm always interested in the potential application in my day-to-day. So, lets hear it.

but as long as they (the feminists) can all reach their hands in the women's collective discount bin by accepting that we are all victims of the male oppressor, then its all for one and one for all!..for now at least...lol...and they'll bellyache to the death on behalf of every other woman on earth (or so it would seem to the casual observer)......but the moment that negativity starts to enter the picture frame, the tactic is to just write everything off to isolated incidents, and reiterate how individual every woman must be regarded as being...but just a moment ago we were fighting the good fight on behalf of all women....what gives Gabby? just a funny bit of irony, flip flopping and hypocrisy that I couldnt resist pointing out.

Again, please tell me how my reaching into the collective victim bin plays out in my day-to-day. Lets see if you can manage this without saying "well, not you, but other women", since that would be an implication of the exception.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

Nutz76 wrote:

Actually western women have been setting the example of how to persevere in order to gain their rights for the rest of the world. Do you realize that a hundred years ago women in America were still fighting for the right to vote? You're talking as though being a female victim in society is something fictional but history demonstrates that it's very real. If you lived in a society in which women could vote but men could not wouldn't you also feel the need to stand up for yourself and demand equal treatment? I know I would.

Nope. I don't vote now, and don't want to.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by Nutz76

Male bashing has been going on for so long that most people don't even bat an eye these days. 10 minutes of most broadcast TV such as the likes of Everybody Loves Raymond bears this out. Commercials, TV, print, Rom-Coms, you name it there's barely a peep about the negative portrayals in the mainstream media. What we do have is a culture that glorifies thugs, aggression, etc (see also: Jersey Shore). On the flip side of that very same coin most men who would be good role models are downplayed or crapped on by the women they share screen time with as though the women are superior is virtually every way. Name one popular "family" show that portrays a man and his masculinity in a positive way. Instead all we get are wussies, easily controlled, dufuses, idiots, and dolts. And people wonder why we've got the worlds largest prison population.

I honestly can't think of a positive masculine role model for young boys and teens today. Furthermore violence against males is often seen as a joke or punch line. For the few who do speak out they're met with shaming language such as "you're just a loser that can't get a woman", "be a man", etc. If the shoe was on the other foot feminists and women's rights groups would be flipping out, and rightfully so.

"Father Knows Best".

"My Three Sons"

"The Courtship of Eddie's Father"

[PassTheChocolate]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Frankly, I'm surprised you do not include your male comrads in the charge.

Are you really surprised?

Originally Posted by solytaire

They almost ALWAYS include every woman on the face of the earth when trying to play their victimhood card....they hardly ever make individual stipulations while making demands when its purpose is to reinforce their bellyaching.

Speaking of hypocrisy. LOL.

I'm having visions of all of you peeking in each other's windows every morning so you can all be sure to dress the same before you take that bus to the same school. Berry, berry funnay.

[LookinForMayberry]

Given the HIStory that reaches back to Adam and Eve, I don't see anything new about misogyny. Basically, I think people learn to hate what they think they cannot have. In the case of relationships, some people develop ideals that can never be attained, and then hate others that don't provide their warped sense of what should be.

We rarely learn from our own mistakes, let alone others, so the stories play over and over and over and over, ....

[SKP440]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

per OP

its called cause and effect. its called the awakening.and also karma.
42 million divorces since 1975 --70% filed by women.
once again the guy gets punched in the face and then she complains about his hemophilia.
when the awakening occurs the name calling begins and the female card gets played, help help damsel in distress. mysogynes mysogynes.
i love it ---if you give a greek name mysogyne or misandry (the game gets played both ways) to someone, that means they are mentally ill and there is nothing wrong with your behavior.
we have become a nation of name callers oblivious to our own bad behavior.

Well said

[JSizzle225]

I know I posted this way up there...but I want to re advertise my Man Island premise:

If you feel:
--Sick of having to pay your dates cel phone bill
--Sick of brushing your teeth
--Sick of women having the audacity to demand equal pay and rights

Then Man Island is right for you.
Here you will experience:
--We will be leaving to beautiful Vanuatu
--We will play naked football on the beach
--We will never again have to put on lotion
--We will dreadlock our pit hairs

How does this not sound wonderful? Of course I will be your leader. Your ruthless, brutal leader.

[solytaire]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Ahh, if only that were true. It's not the case, tho. If you read the posts in these last 4-5 pages you will find statements about social expectations and generalizations of behavior of both men and women with many of the male members rallying in support. I'm not noting a subtlety here. It's plain as day. What this shows is the power of bias.

That was actually my point: The men on this forum DO generalize...and subsequently the men here, and in the real world are harangued for their generalizations of women...usually it comes in the form of anti woman, woman hating, sexist labels...however, women generalize themselves when it is to their benefit.

This is an interesting point and I will have to sit with it awhile to digest, but, again, I cannot ignore assertions of roles that have been posted in this thread, targeting groups (men/women), put forth by some of the guys participating in this thread. The problem is that it's difficult to respond to statements targeting the entire gender without discussing the entire gender. Frankly, I'm surprised you do not include your male comrads in the charge.

I regret that I didnt make myself clear about my premise..My whole premise for my comment was that men DO generalize women, with the difference being that feminist also generalize women for their own purposes, yet when its time to hold other women to a certain standard, women splinter off into individuals the moment social responsibility enters the fray.. "oh thats her right...I have nothing to do with her decision..I cant tell her what to do..I cant live for anyone else etc."......again, but just a moment ago you (not literally you, but the figurative you) were just arguing on behalf of her plight, and her rights as a woman...and you (the figurative you) were using her generalized inclusion into the female gender as a platform to validate your own ideology.

And why should I? Why should I have to take the responsibility of your choices and the people you choose to associate with? I ask these questions and they're never answered. I'm always interested in the potential application in my day-to-day. So, lets hear it ....
day-to-day. Lets see if you can manage this without saying "well, not you, but other women", since that would be an implication of the exception.

Now now, you know I LOVE to make my "well not you" stipulations....If I dont intend to generalize, I dont. However, it is impossible to answer a question about society with an anecdotal answer which we know you are prodding me to give..lol

How you can implement social responsibility into your day to day will be a matter of you choosing to. For example, do you condone welfare for single parents who have had children out of wedlock (widows not withstanding)?...your answer will give me a read of how or whether you would plan to implement social responsibility.

But thank you for inquiring about this...I am always glad when someone takes the time to ask this question...the responsibility is to holding people to a social standard that will allow society to have a barometer to measure what is acceptable or
unacceptable.

For example, men know that for another man to abuse women and children is unacceptable...no matter how individual his choices may be...he can be as individual as he likes..but if men have conveyed to him that he will be harshly punished if ever caught abusing a woman or children, his individuality is virtually meaningless -- he either plays by the rules or receives bodily harm, and/or becomes ostracized.......male inmates institute this oversight better than anyone...sure, we can say that we ALL disagree with men abusing women and children..or that we ALL disagree with ANYBODY abusing another person ...and no doubt every woman will summon the power of the sisterhood to claim that "if a man did that to me, he'd be missing a ________.. or I'd do this and I'd do that..." But if that were truly the case, and if that was a comprehensive reality that society could live by, we wouldnt need battered women's shelters...obviously, there are more than too many women who cant or wont 'do this and do that'....

so the aspect of enforcement of that civil responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of men. Men police men. Could gangs of women rove the streets and find men who abuse women?...sure..but as a measure of efficiency, that method would not be practical nor sustainable in the long term.

somebody has to take initiative for ensuring that the "choices" of some, dont infringe in a harmful manner upon society at large (ie...the fate of society takes priority over the individual's welfare and rights)...and when one gender has sole custody of their particular power (for men it is physical power, for women it is sexual power...intellect is shared), it is up to other members of that gender to police that power from within..."Too many sexual partners?...that isnt a right that we condone, your social responsibility is _____"....."Abusive towards weaker individuals? that isnt a right that we as a gender will allow you to exercise...your social responsibility is ______".....

peer/societal pressure is a powerful thing, and feminism isnt peer pressure...in contrast it is the removal of any societal constraints to allow for each and every type of woman to be accepted by the movement, which is then twisted into a collective bargaining chip on behalf of "all women".

I do think this is one reason that men make better leaders than women (that generalization there wont win me any friends, eh?...)...and subsequently men will always be viewed as the oppressor....men seem better equipped to take responsibility for the outcomes of bad decisions of their own. Men will label other men a deadbeat dad or a woman beater or whatever else, in a heartbeat...I actually can say that I have NEVER heard a woman condemn another deadbeat mother (welfare mom) who made bad decisions, unless she has murdered her offspring.

The women that Ive encountered and seen dont and in many instances simply cant take initiative or assume responsibility for anything outside of their own welfare...'live and let live' they say -- 'doesnt pertain to me, so I have no position on it...That is, Until I can benefit from pulling her into the oppressed women's bracket and use her as another posterchild for women's victimhood...then of course, we become one in the same.'

Men, as the more physically powerful half, conversely, have always tended to be the ones who preempt things, and condemn other men for not living up to their social responsibility (this is dissipating as all incentive has been removed for men to live with integrity).... even if he isnt directly impacted by the actions of another man. The only time Ive read of a woman acting in the interest of someone completely without regard to her own personal gain is when that female officer acted bravely during the Ft. Hood massacre. Other than that, women dont confront one another for inappropriate behavior...they dont police their own...they turn the other cheek and say "welp, thats not my problem..thats her right"...this is what I meant when I said that feminism has allowed women to wriggle out of their social responsibility to hold one another accountable.