Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alright, so there is this one thing that happened at this one school and got into the news. How many people do you think contributed to this poor decision? Figure it was a global feminist committee? Or just one principal or at most a small admin team?
And it appears that they were thoroughly taken to task for it by the students, parents, and community.
So we are not to judge men by ....how many? Examples of bad behavior that women have experienced? Some number that is greater than one?
But it is completely fair that a given incident be held up as the universally accepted redefining of terms and to disregard the voices of everyone who really just wants us all to be decent to one another.
Those involved in this had every right to feel a way about it and get it addressed. Blowing it up to shift entire public opinion this way and that...that is outrage peddling.
I could start sharing links to stories about men's choices to abuse, assault, molest and murder women as justification to how women feel about men, but we would truly be here all day if I started that and I don't have time for it. If you don't want blanket judgments based on the worst actors out there, then be mindful you don't do that to other people.
And I would strongly suspect that a lot of students in that school knew damn well what toxic masculinity and patriarchy actually mean, and still strongly disapproved of the choice to do this thing that the school did. Not the first time someone took a perfectly decent concept and did something stupid with it.
Directly maybe 5, however why did thoes 5 choose that path? Where does the pressure to make desicions like that come from? In the Austalian school system the answer to that question is almost always - the state government.
Again you can judge individual men as you please, and righly call out individual behaviours as much as you like, and 99% of the male population will be 100% behind you.
However you cannot judge men as a group. As men we are told all this all the time, we cant publically say women are needy, bitchey or overly emotional etc, - that is sexist, dose that mean that absoltuly no women on earth have any of those attributes?
Not saying that abuse is the same as been needy or bitchy, however if men cannot assign certain negative sterotypes to women as a group, why should the reverse not also be the case?
The reason we got talking about the whole issue of the manosphere, is because of the perception that its nothing more than mysogonistic hate.
I actually just went and had a look some of Sydneys very first vidoes, and this line sums it up to me perfectly at 11.55 she says. "There is no way in the world you can bring mens issues to the table without the media going friken crazy", - and until that changes the manosphere is going to exist.
Yep i agree whatever and Fit and Fresh can be really repetative, and you get sick of it real quick. Franky i think Fit and fresh is terrible. Whatever is a bit better because the host (Brian?) comes of as a really calm and collected and rather sincear type guy, who listens quite closely to the girls. He also points out some very relevant things like (Shock of all horrors) men literally did have to fight for the right vote! which is the sort of thing we seem to be forgetting. Its very true it dose not help you in anyway, - however its not mysogonistic hate either.
Overall however I will stand by my beliefe that feminst terms like Toxic Mascuallity and patriacy theory and they way they are pushed through media and political circles are also driving the sexes apart. Its really just a no win situation for everyone.
We can discuss who's to blame all we like, but if you want my opinion its not who but what, and that what is social media.
It's not just Sonic who thinks the manosphere has a problem with misogynistic hate. I agree with Sonic. I too recognize that there is a problem with misogyny in the manosphere.
In a democracy if you ever want to change the system to make things better for men, you are going to need some buy in on those changes from at least some women. The question I have for you is where are you going to find those women?
Sydney Watson was much more sympathetic to men than most women. As you pointed out, she was actively organizing events for men and taking a very sympathetic take on men's issues. Even after she was sexually assaulted and was in an abusive relationship, she just blamed the individuals involved and not men in general. If I had been through that, I probably would not be so charitable toward men.
But when the misogyny in the manosphere is so bad, that even she is upset about it, where else are you going to find women who will lend a sympathetic ear? I don't think Sydney is by any means a blue haired antifa chick. I would argue she's about as far away from that as I imagine a woman could be and even she's frustrated with the manosphere. Maybe her's is a viewpoint worth listening to so you can start building allies instead of just burning them.
I do disagree with Sydney's claim that there's no way that you can bring men's issues to the table without the media going crazy or that this somehow demands the formation of a manosphere. Instead I think the misogyny in the manosphere, is a distraction that gets in the way of the media taking men"s issues seriously because they will just talk about the misogyny.
But when men's issues are discussed with out the distraction of misogyny the media takes them seriously. Here's Richard Reeves views being taken seriously with out drama.
Because Richard Reeves does want his views to be taken seriously and not to be dismissed as mere misogyny, while he reached out to a lot of different podcasts to promote his book, the one place he didn't promote his book was the manosphere. He appeared on Chris Williamson's youtube channel and on the Art of Charm podcast to reach out to men, but he skipped the entire manosphere and I will say he's right to do so. But the fact, that he felt compelled to avoid the manosphere is another reason that I think the manosphere is actively doing harm and actively undermining causes it purports to support.
I just don't see any good being done by the manosphere. I regularly see it self sabotaging men's dating lives here. The more guys get sucked in and nurse their grievances, the less happy they are and the worse their relationships are.
It's not just Sonic who thinks the manosphere has a problem with misogynistic hate. I agree with Sonic. I too recognize that there is a problem with misogyny in the manosphere.
In a democracy if you ever want to change the system to make things better for men, you are going to need some buy in on those changes from at least some women. The question I have for you is where are you going to find those women?
Sydney Watson was much more sympathetic to men than most women. As you pointed out, she was actively organizing events for men and taking a very sympathetic take on men's issues. Even after she was sexually assaulted and was in an abusive relationship, she just blamed the individuals involved and not men in general. If I had been through that, I probably would not be so charitable toward men.
But when the misogyny in the manosphere is so bad, that even she is upset about it, where else are you going to find women who will lend a sympathetic ear? I don't think Sydney is by any means a blue haired antifa chick. I would argue she's about as far away from that as I imagine a woman could be and even she's frustrated with the manosphere. Maybe her's is a viewpoint worth listening to so you can start building allies instead of just burning them.
I do disagree with Sydney's claim that there's no way that you can bring men's issues to the table without the media going crazy or that this somehow demands the formation of a manosphere. Instead I think the misogyny in the manosphere, is a distraction that gets in the way of the media taking men"s issues seriously because they will just talk about the misogyny.
But when men's issues are discussed with out the distraction of misogyny the media takes them seriously. Here's Richard Reeves views being taken seriously with out drama.
Because Richard Reeves does want his views to be taken seriously and not to be dismissed as mere misogyny, while he reached out to a lot of different podcasts to promote his book, the one place he didn't promote his book was the manosphere. He appeared on Chris Williamson's youtube channel and on the Art of Charm podcast to reach out to men, but he skipped the entire manosphere and I will say he's right to do so. But the fact, that he felt compelled to avoid the manosphere is another reason that I think the manosphere is actively doing harm and actively undermining causes it purports to support.
I just don't see any good being done by the manosphere. I regularly see it self sabotaging men's dating lives here. The more guys get sucked in and nurse their grievances, the less happy they are and the worse their relationships are.
I listen to this this morning, I found it very interesting, and its certainly not the first Trigonometry video I have ever listened to (Just one more of the toxic man hate forums I take interest in).
At 27.50 he asked the question if Andrew Tate (A Misogynistic Pig) was a symptom to the problem coming from a society that suppresses masculinity. and she agreed totally. - Maybe you should think about that for a second?
The next segment goes on to talk about the treatment of that other " Misogynistic Pig" Jordan Peterson. He ended up with a whole heap of problems with drinking and drugs etc, and that would certainly come about from the stress of putting your hand up and saying - hey men have problems to. How many death threats etc do you think that man might have had to endure before breaking? - Maybe you should think about that as well?
I do disagree with Sydney's claim that there's no way that you can bring men's issues to the table without the media going crazy or that this somehow demands the formation of a manosphere. Instead I think the misogyny in the manosphere, is a distraction that gets in the way of the media taking men"s issues seriously because they will just talk about the misogyny.
But when men's issues are discussed with out the distraction of misogyny the media takes them seriously. Here's Richard Reeves views being taken seriously with out drama.
Because Richard Reeves does want his views to be taken seriously and not to be dismissed as mere misogyny, while he reached out to a lot of different podcasts to promote his book, the one place he didn't promote his book was the manosphere. He appeared on Chris Williamson's youtube channel and on the Art of Charm podcast to reach out to men, but he skipped the entire manosphere and I will say he's right to do so. But the fact, that he felt compelled to avoid the manosphere is another reason that I think the manosphere is actively doing harm and actively undermining causes it purports to support.
I just don't see any good being done by the manosphere. I regularly see it self sabotaging men's dating lives here. The more guys get sucked in and nurse their grievances, the less happy they are and the worse their relationships are.
Its also very obvious to me you and I have very different ideas about the Manosphere is as well, Chris Williamson and Richard Reeves are part of the Manosphere, as far as i am concerned, as is anyone who actually promotes a positive mindset in men, or points out that men have problems,
Last edited by danielsa1775; 11-17-2023 at 10:12 PM..
I listen to this this morning, I found it very interesting, and its certainly not the first Trigonometry video I have ever listened to (Just one more of the toxic man hate forums I take interest in).
At 27.50 he asked the question if Andrew Tate (A Misogynistic Pig) was a symptom to the problem coming from a society that suppresses masculinity. and she agreed totally. - Maybe you should think about that for a second?
The next segment goes on to talk about the treatment of that other " Misogynistic Pig" Jordan Peterson. He ended up with a whole heap of problems with drinking and drugs etc, and that would certainly come about from the stress of putting your hand up and saying - hey men have problems to. How many death threats etc do you think that man might have had to endure before breaking? - Maybe you should think about that as well?
I want to appologise for that, it seems that his health problems came from a physical dependence on the perscription drug clonazepam. It will still take a very strong person to put up with all the negative backlash he got however.
I listen to this this morning, I found it very interesting, and its certainly not the first Trigonometry video I have ever listened to (Just one more of the toxic man hate forums I take interest in).
At 27.50 he asked the question if Andrew Tate (A Misogynistic Pig) was a symptom to the problem coming from a society that suppresses masculinity. and she agreed totally. - Maybe you should think about that for a second?
The next segment goes on to talk about the treatment of that other " Misogynistic Pig" Jordan Peterson. He ended up with a whole heap of problems with drinking and drugs etc, and that would certainly come about from the stress of putting your hand up and saying - hey men have problems to. How many death threats etc do you think that man might have had to endure before breaking? - Maybe you should think about that as well?
Andrew Tate is not a "symptom" he is a man. A human being with agency and autonomy who has chosen to do and say bad things.
I have only a vague awareness of what Jordan Peterson is truly about. Sure I've heard the name and seen bits of his speaking here and there but my opinion is just that I don't find him interesting, likely disagree with a lot of his beliefs...but I don't CARE...he has a right to speak his mind. No one should be issuing death threats. Death threats are unacceptable from anyone, to anyone.
I have already stated that I don't label myself "feminist." I have spoken to many friends who do embrace that label. They say that my views are largely feminist views. Still I reject the label. The problem with a label like that is, anyone I'm speaking to, if I start by throwing that out there, will then take whatever opinion they have about what it means (which I have no control over) and project it onto me. We begin from a place of potential misunderstanding. It is better to just talk about what I think about various things. Besides, given me being me, I will never use one word when several paragraphs will suffice.
Beyond that, as I have said, I am more humanist...I have genuine sympathy for different people who have different struggles. Some people of any gender are mostly good, mostly bad, mostly in between. Some men behave horribly. It isn't rare. Some women also behave horribly. It also isn't rare. Lots of people struggle to get a healthy relationship. That isn't rare. But many people are also good. And sometimes, two good people try to pair up and manage to be not-so-good for one another. Being a human is complicated.
For similar reasons to why I do not associate myself with "the f-word (feminism)"... I think that a man who chooses to associate himself with the online manosphere is taking a very real chance that others who have knowledge of some parts of it, are going to start off with a negative opinion of you. Which you then have to waste time trying to dispel before you can even talk about the specific views you have. The manosphere is not just people who feel that men have problems and deserve compassion. Not remotely. It ropes in the old PUA guys, Roosh V and his now-defunct "Return of Kings" website, a whole heap of angry incels including those who have actually killed people, basically individuals who have taken men's struggles and men's pain and made a WHOLE CONSPIRACY THEORY about it online.
And frankly...most conspiracy nuts will not find a lot of understanding among more rational people who still reside in the real world, interacting with real humans in sane and healthy ways.
And most of the men that I have met in person who are having a hard time in life, created the hard time that they are living in. They had plenty of opportunities to make their lives great, and they threw them aside. No woman can fix that for any man. Maybe it's because of the "helicopter parent" generation spoiling them as children, so now they expect a Mommy figure to swoop in and fix their every problem and provide and cater to them for life, I don't know. Hell, maybe it's because of the rise in medicating kids (boys, mainly) for ADHD and ASD beyond a point where that was necessary, trying to force them to be compliant and easy for teachers in an environment that was unnatural (one lacking adequate physical activity.) I can't imagine it was better in the old days when they just beat kids into compliance, but there's a lot that has changed in the last couple of generations.
I still think, though, that the rise of the internet has been the biggest thing, and I very strongly believe that there is a political component to this. Namely that some nations seek to destabilize other nations by seeding, boosting, promoting and amplifying every possible conflict among their populations. Whether that is left/right, traditional/progressive, various religions, race, or the gender wars...anything that can be used to stoke conflict and division is useful to someone.
So.
You can absolutely care about the problems that people have, without flinging yourself down internet conspiracy rabbit holes or joining online grievance clubs. And if you care about the society you live in, you may want to consider it. Or...you can continue to have a wallow in internet outrage-porn if you like, certainly it's your own business. But no amount of Youtube videos or "see, here is a female who agrees with me, so you should, too!" is going to persuade people to join you if we're not already into it.
Andrew Tate is not a "symptom" he is a man. A human being with agency and autonomy who has chosen to do and say bad things.
I have only a vague awareness of what Jordan Peterson is truly about. Sure I've heard the name and seen bits of his speaking here and there but my opinion is just that I don't find him interesting, likely disagree with a lot of his beliefs...but I don't CARE...he has a right to speak his mind. No one should be issuing death threats. Death threats are unacceptable from anyone, to anyone.
I have already stated that I don't label myself "feminist." I have spoken to many friends who do embrace that label. They say that my views are largely feminist views. Still I reject the label. The problem with a label like that is, anyone I'm speaking to, if I start by throwing that out there, will then take whatever opinion they have about what it means (which I have no control over) and project it onto me. We begin from a place of potential misunderstanding. It is better to just talk about what I think about various things. Besides, given me being me, I will never use one word when several paragraphs will suffice.
Beyond that, as I have said, I am more humanist...I have genuine sympathy for different people who have different struggles. Some people of any gender are mostly good, mostly bad, mostly in between. Some men behave horribly. It isn't rare. Some women also behave horribly. It also isn't rare. Lots of people struggle to get a healthy relationship. That isn't rare. But many people are also good. And sometimes, two good people try to pair up and manage to be not-so-good for one another. Being a human is complicated.
For similar reasons to why I do not associate myself with "the f-word (feminism)"... I think that a man who chooses to associate himself with the online manosphere is taking a very real chance that others who have knowledge of some parts of it, are going to start off with a negative opinion of you. Which you then have to waste time trying to dispel before you can even talk about the specific views you have. The manosphere is not just people who feel that men have problems and deserve compassion. Not remotely. It ropes in the old PUA guys, Roosh V and his now-defunct "Return of Kings" website, a whole heap of angry incels including those who have actually killed people, basically individuals who have taken men's struggles and men's pain and made a WHOLE CONSPIRACY THEORY about it online.
And frankly...most conspiracy nuts will not find a lot of understanding among more rational people who still reside in the real world, interacting with real humans in sane and healthy ways.
And most of the men that I have met in person who are having a hard time in life, created the hard time that they are living in. They had plenty of opportunities to make their lives great, and they threw them aside. No woman can fix that for any man. Maybe it's because of the "helicopter parent" generation spoiling them as children, so now they expect a Mommy figure to swoop in and fix their every problem and provide and cater to them for life, I don't know. Hell, maybe it's because of the rise in medicating kids (boys, mainly) for ADHD and ASD beyond a point where that was necessary, trying to force them to be compliant and easy for teachers in an environment that was unnatural (one lacking adequate physical activity.) I can't imagine it was better in the old days when they just beat kids into compliance, but there's a lot that has changed in the last couple of generations.
I still think, though, that the rise of the internet has been the biggest thing, and I very strongly believe that there is a political component to this. Namely that some nations seek to destabilize other nations by seeding, boosting, promoting and amplifying every possible conflict among their populations. Whether that is left/right, traditional/progressive, various religions, race, or the gender wars...anything that can be used to stoke conflict and division is useful to someone.
So.
You can absolutely care about the problems that people have, without flinging yourself down internet conspiracy rabbit holes or joining online grievance clubs. And if you care about the society you live in, you may want to consider it. Or...you can continue to have a wallow in internet outrage-porn if you like, certainly it's your own business. But no amount of Youtube videos or "see, here is a female who agrees with me, so you should, too!" is going to persuade people to join you if we're not already into it.
At the end of the day when men feel supressed they act, its always been that way. Just about every major revolution before the rise of feminism was started by men who feel supressed, - all they need is a rallying figure.
Historically you need to think the French or American Revolutions for example, even here in Australia during our colonial rule a bunch of really upset victorian gold miners worried about oppressive taxes, rallied behind a guy called Peter Lalor, they had a gun fight with the British Soldiers about 30 of these Gold Miners died - 3 years later in 1857 the country had its first democratically elected parliament in the colony of Victoria. - Of which Peter Lalor was a leading member.
In context it may be best to look at Jordan Peterson who had major problems the second he came to prominence. He automatically became the "hero of the people, or the voice we have been looking for”, with all these far right men, Despite the fact there is nothing far right about Peterson at all, peterson was often cancelled not because of his views, but because of the fear he will create civil unrest. The Red Pill movie was banned in Australian Cinemnas for this same reason, - the content of the movie was fine, it was a worry that if actually released it migh cause civil unrest.
Its always the same Suppressed men + Rallying leader = big trouble for society, you can call it toxic muscularity if you like, however it’s not going anywhere.
The rest of your post i am very much in agreeance with, and now i think about it things are starting to change for the better at a micro level from my perspective. After 8 years of dropping my two kids of at the same daycare centre, - they Finally have their first male staff member, which makes me happy for sure. Our smallest starts school next year - so no more day care.
Last edited by danielsa1775; 11-19-2023 at 03:32 PM..
At the end of the day when men feel supressed they act, its always been that way. Just about every major revoluation before the rise of feminism was started by men who feel supressed, - all they need is a rallying figure.
Historically you need to think the French or American Revoulutions for example, even here in Australia during our colonial rule a bunch of really upset gold miners worried about oppressive taxes, rallied behind a guy called Peter Lalor, they had a gun fight with the British Soliders, where about 30 of these Gold Miners died - 3 years later in 1857 the country had its first democratically elected parliment in Victoria. - Of which Peter Lalor was a prominate member
Of course there are also many instances were men who feel supressed have revolted in horrible fashion and quickly cut down as they should, however its the same principle - Surpressed men + Rallying leader = big trouble for society, you can call it toxic mascuality if you like, however its not going anywhere.
The rest of your post i am very much in agreeance with, and now i think about it things are starting to change for the better at a micro level from my perspective. After 8 years of droping my two kids of at the same daycare centre, - they Finally have their first male staff member, which makes me happy for sure. Our smallest starts school next year - so no more day care.
A difficulty we can have in this conversation is what exactly we are talking about in terms of "suppression." I mean, especially when you plonk it down in a thread about "traditional vs. modern WOMEN" as partners...
You have the very reasonable things about not assuming the worst of men when it comes to interactions with children...insofar as employment in daycare, being out with their own kids in the world, or family court in divorce cases. Those are solid and valid concerns.
When it comes to the interpretations of "toxic masculinity" or "patriarchy"... I mean, the statements you make here sound like "if men do not get their way, they will lash out violently, it's always been that way and so the world needs to cater to them to avoid that. Toxic or not, it's how things are." I don't think that anyone needs to accept that. I don't believe that society is required to negotiate with terrorists.
But if you were to consider instead, how can we seek to define and promote the healthiest examples of masculinity, then we could be onto something. I would be able to agree that if a lot of young men are getting a whole lot of "do not be this way!" with no accompanying guidance on how they ARE supposed to act, that would be confusing and may come off as a personal attack rather than anything constructive. I have noticed that boys and men seem to need "heroes" and role models. I don't speak for my gender here, only for myself, but it isn't something I've ever needed or had. I also do not respect authority or "rally" behind anyone. So all of that...I don't much get it. But I think that perhaps if we were to try an exercise, any time you hear anyone refer to toxic masculinity or patriarchy and you begin to feel a way about it, ask them to please name a living example of healthy masculinity. Get that person off THEIR outrage train and ask them to consider and remember the good of men.
Might be an interesting strategy, no? And there have been enough prominent good men in the world I can't see most people struggling to do this.
I'm not sure if men who are angry at women would largely be able to do the same thing, but.../shrug...
Finally though...women standing up and participating fully in society, getting educated, having successful careers, making our own decisions and living our lives independently is not in any way, shape or form "suppression" of men. And while I doubt you were trying to say it was, a lot of men in the manosphere think that this is the problem. But I really do not believe that women should have to make ourselves small so that men can feel big. Given your marriage dynamic, I doubt if you feel that way either.
I don't know that we're entirely talking about modern couples who've gotten married in the last 20 years--the idea is more like Jackie Kennedy most likely knew that JFK was a horndog and had mistresses, but they had an arrangement to keep that private. Many higher profile or celebrity couples do the same.
They were also Catholic, so they couldn't divorce.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
