DaveDodo007 wrote:

Evolving wrote:
This is not a Guardian article, but a Daily Mash article (from October last year) about a Guardian columnist. Why did you recommend that Boyle should read this?

It's a perfect example of almost all feminist Guardian articles

Really?

Quite frankly, men need to pull their fingers out and find some new ways of oppressing women so that I can write about it.

“They ooze with testosterone-like grease”
(of a bowl of crisps)

“Otherwise I’m going to have to keep turning out articles about Theresa May being a role model until I get fired and have to go back to writing about lonely widows who marry Death Row inmates for Take A Break magazine.”

DaveDodo007 wrote:

Evolving wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote:Boko Haram slaughter a group of schoolboysand let the girls go free hardly a peep out of the media. Again they attack another school, set fire to it with the boys inside (the girls are let free again.) Any boys climbing out the windows to avoid being burnt alive have their throats cut. Again hardly a peep out of the media.

I did indeed see nothing about this. Is there a link that I can look at?

Here's one.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-did-kidnapping-girls-but-not-burning-boys-alive-wake-media-up-to-boko-haram/

Here’s another link on the same story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... 0M20140226
Truly horrific.

Dear Dave,

How is pointing out the sexism in others a defense for the sexism in some of your own comments?

Sendraks wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote: selective service in some countries

Yeah, I think you'd best stay away from suggestions that men are worse off in other countries compared to women, unless you want the recent news from Iraq rammed down your gullet.

I was wondering what you were talking about so I looked it up. Seriously, you believe this bullshit. I read the story and smelt propaganda right away and low and behold. Still the propagandist have the right idea, claim your opponents are going to harm girls and women and you get the whole world riled up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28466434

scott1328 wrote:Dear Dave,

How is pointing out the sexism in others a defense for the sexism in some of your own comments?

What sexism?

Evolving wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote:

Evolving wrote:
This is not a Guardian article, but a Daily Mash article (from October last year) about a Guardian columnist. Why did you recommend that Boyle should read this?

It's a perfect example of almost all feminist Guardian articles

Really?

Quite frankly, men need to pull their fingers out and find some new ways of oppressing women so that I can write about it.

“They ooze with testosterone-like grease”
(of a bowl of crisps)

“Otherwise I’m going to have to keep turning out articles about Theresa May being a role model until I get fired and have to go back to writing about lonely widows who marry Death Row inmates for Take A Break magazine.”

It's satire.

scott1328 wrote:Dear Dave,

How is pointing out the sexism in others a defense for the sexism in some of your own comments?

It's called invalidation, Scott.

DaveDodo007 wrote:

Boyle wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote:It was in the feedback forum on Tim but I'll rather this thread didn't continue in the manner that got it locked. Though I will defend myself.

Oh. Yeah, I didn't even look at that so much. Makes sense that I'd be outta the loop on that, then.

DaveDodo007 wrote:I have found that the best way to deal with feminists is to let them speak, it gives them enough rope. Even the lefty liberal UK Guardian readers are getting fed up with them. Just go to the comment sections of any Guardian's feminists writers. Don't read the article as they are all the same, just read the comments but you have to be quite quick as the moderators have itchy fingers.

No, no, I'm fine without reading the comment sections of any major news site. Might as well go to /pol/ or /r/worldnews for all the edification I'd get.

Still the 'lolwuts' coming from the general public as they hear patriarchy, privilege and rape culture for the first time is a joy to behold. They don't do niceties either when telling the people spouting such rubbish, what they think of them.

I suppose? I have an issue with the 'lolwuts' in some cases, but as I don't read the Guardian regularly I don't really know what sort of things they get up to there. I read the Thomas the Tank Engine article, and while I can sympathize with the "Pink is for girls" idea being an idiotic cultural trope, I don't know that it requires an article trying to shoe-horn racism into the fact that diesel engines put out black smoke, and steam ones put out white smoke. But hey, I'm not a columnist, and I'd hate to be one, especially if it required me to focus on perceived negatives all the time.

If the other articles, serious ones, about privilege and rape culture are that shitty I'd say it's a terrible disservice those columnists do for feminism. I do know Ally Fogg writes for the Guardian, and he's usually damn good, so clearly all of them can't be.

DaveDodo007 wrote:It's satire.

Exactly.

So how is it

DaveDodo007 wrote:a perfect example of almost all feminist Guardian articles

and why did you recommend that Boyle should read it “as the example feminist Guardian article and you have read them all”?

Really, I’m trying to understand your point, but I’m not succeeding.

Ally Fogg is a Free Thought Bully!!!

It's true! He posts on the same site as all those mean ol'e femenazis! http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/

He must therefore be a crypto-feminist SJW self-hating white male tool.

DaveDodo007 wrote:I see some accusations of sexism has been leveled at me in the feedback part of the forum. As is I'm not aware of sexism in some posters and in the media and government polices. Lets see now a group of women on daytime TV laughing out loud about a man having his penis cut of and put down the disposal unit because he ask for a divorce.

Citation needed.

Boko Haram slaughter a group of schoolboysand let the girls go free hardly a peep out of the media. Again they attack another school, set fire to it with the boys inside (the girls are let free again.) Any boys climbing out the windows to avoid being burnt alive have their throats cut. Again hardly a peep out of the media. A group of girls are kidnapped and the news is flashed around the world, with Western governments lining up to send help.

Citation needed.

Genital mutilation against girls banned, against boys it is paid for by the health care institutions.

Comparing circumcision to cliterectomies has to be the stupidest argument I have ever seen on these forums.

Congrats, I guess.

Girls falling behind in school the whole government puts pro girl policies in place, boys are now falling behind, meh. Young men's due process rights being remove from college/universities and this is being pushed by governments. Suicide rates, homeless rates, access to your own children, selective service in some countries, incarceration rates and length of sentience. Just some of the blatant sexism ignored by the media and promoted by the government.

Oh wait, you don't care about that sexism against that gender. Isn't that sexist, why yes It is. Still if you are going to have standards they might as well be double, eh.

Edit: I do think the whole labeling people sexist (you will get no argument from me in Tim's case) when discussion of men's rights vs women's rights are taking place is not productive. To me it just comes across as a way of shutting down the discussion. I made this thread to discus MGTOW - philosophy/lifestyle I will discus this and them as a group not all of which will reflect my own views.

Yadda yadda yadda

Apparently 4000 years of sexism against women wasn't enough.

DaveDodo007 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:If you'd check the thread(s) on circumcision for boys, you'd know most, if not all, people on this site are against non-medical circumcision for infants.

and if you check 914 posts on this thread you will see he is not in the 'all' camp.

Guess again. I said that circumcision doesn't result in loss of feeling for everyone.

I did not say I was in favor of infant circumcision. Do not misrepresent my arguments again.

Dave dear, men in general do have it rough (though women in the same social, political, economic circumstances, etc, will probably have it even rougher). All men don't have it perfect or even good. I know very, very well. But it is because of classism, racism, homophobia, etc. And only men going to war, that is unfair. And it is sexist to women, that only men (and in except two countries heterosexual men and before only white men) are strong enough, brave enough, worthy enough, good enough to fight for their country.

DaveDodo007 wrote:

Evolving wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote:
Just use this as the example feminist Guardian article and you have read them all

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/columnist-running-out-of-feminist-perspectives-2013100179957.

This is not a Guardian article, but a Daily Mash article (from October last year) about a Guardian columnist. Why did you recommend that Boyle should read this?

It's a perfect example of almost all feminist Guardian articles though feel free to check out Jessica Velenti, Barbara Ellen or Hayley Freeman. Or this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/thomas-the-tank-engine-children-parents

I don't see any comments. If they are angry it is understandable though. I hate when people are angry about things that should make you angry and people just say they are "bitter" "angry black man", etc.

DaveDodo007 wrote:

Sendraks wrote:
At present the scales of equality, globally and in the western world, fall squarely in favour of men. That doesn't men that there are issues to address for men, but they in no way offset the significant disadvantages that women still face.

I'll give you all the citations for everything I said but first, this is the third time you have made this claim and this time I want evidence. Don't give me that 'it's so obvious' bullshit or I'll use that for my claims. Evidence please.

Do you also want evidence that LGBT's have less advantage than heterosexual and cis people? Or that poor people have less advantage than rich people? Or people of color have less advantage than white people? Not only is it obvious, but there are so many fucking studies, this is like asking for evidence for gravity. It's on Google, go fucking look! Please, please, before you post again read some studies and read about the concept of privilege. The fact that you don't know this is very troubling. Why are you posting while so ignorant? I'll look up some for you, if I have time. Do you just want ones about women being disadvantaged or do you also want studies showing how people of color are disadvantaged and other groups too?

Dave, I was sexist (and racist and homophobic, etc.) once. Well, I kinda still am, but I'm trying to get over it. I get it. I was taught to be this way and when people pointed out that I was being sexist (and racist and homophobic) I really was shocked, in denial and angry. In took me lots of years to admit it. I became an atheist at about 12 years old and I thought I had it all figured out, I even thought I was liberal. But I decided to examine all my thoughts and ideas just in case I was wrong, I didn't think I was though. Boy was I. Religion isn't the only bullshit idea society gives us.

I do remember a TV show where I think it was like Sharon Osborne and a few other people on a day time TV show laughing about that guy who allegedly (he was never charged for any of it, though both defense and prosecution admitted to it) raped, abused his wife and cheated on her and she was mentally ill and she chopped his penis off. He lived, by the by .

Robert_S wrote:Ally Fogg is a Free Thought Bully!!!

It's true! He posts on the same site as all those mean ol'e femenazis! http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/

He must therefore be a crypto-feminist SJW self-hating white male tool.

And he talks about patriarchy! It's right in the title fer cryin' out loud!

Case fuckin' closed.

Who is Ally Fogg?

Imagination Theory wrote:Who is Ally Fogg?

From his FTB profile:

Ally Fogg is a UK-based freelance writer and journalist, whose day job includes a weekly column on Comment is Free at http://www.guardian.co.uk and miscellaneous scribbles elsewhere, mostly on issues of UK politics and social justice. This blog is dedicated to exploring gender issues from a male perspective, unshackled from any dogmatic ideology. Ally is often accused of being a feminist lapdog and an anti-feminist quisling; a misogynist and a misandrist; a mangina and a closet MRA, and concludes that the only thing found in pigeonholes is pigeon shit. He can be contacted most easily through http://www.allyfogg.co.uk or @allyfogg on Twitter.

Imagination Theory wrote:Dave dear, men in general do have it rough (though women in the same social, political, economic circumstances, etc, will probably have it even rougher).

Not necessarily. The justice system for example. In the US, for example, it has been shown that being male has an effect on outcomes similar to being black. That is black women and white men seem to be held to the same standards, the most "privileged" group are white women and black men the least.

Imagination Theory wrote:All men don't have it perfect or even good. I know very, very well. But it is because of classism, racism, homophobia, etc.

Many of the disadvantages women face can similarly be exacerbated by those factors.

Imagination Theory wrote:And only men going to war, that is unfair. And it is sexist to women, that only men (and in except two countries heterosexual men and before only white men) are strong enough, brave enough, worthy enough, good enough to fight for their country.

First of all, the claim is not that "only men are going to war" is unfair. It is that only men being socially and legally compelled to go to war is unfair.

It's also quite interesting that you know the "reasoning" being used to compel men to fight, kill and die, yet you don't see through it. "Strong", "brave", "good". Yes, these are the terms military service is couched in. Yet you fail to see how that implies a man who doesn't want to serve is a weak, cowardly piece of shit. The carrot and the stick as it were. You rightly point out that women are prevented from earning the carrot, while ignoring that they are not being threatened with the stick either.

You seem quite willing - and rightly so - to look below the surface of society's value of "protecting" women from the danger inherent in certain activities to the sexist assumptions beneath it. You seem less willing to look beneath the social and legal requirements for men to engage in those same activities to the sexist assumptions beneath them.