The Student Room Group

Our men are alright, if anything it's the young women who need guidance

Anyone else sick of hearing how "our young men" need to be spoken to, to be changed and adjusted to suit the redundant concerns of neurotic authoritarian feminists?

If anything, I think it's young women who need help. They are bombarded with false statistics, scare stories, and moral hysteria all concerning just how evil men are. They are taught that male sexuality is so dirty and sordid that for a man simply to direct his eyes towards you, or to complement your appearance, it is something to be upset about.

They are taught that when a man looks at an erotic image of a women he is seeing her as a "piece of meat" or a "sex object", as if men are simply unable to focus on the sexuality of a woman whilst also understanding that she is a human being. As if when a man appreciates the physique of a woman, he automatically forgets that all women are people and thinks of them as simply hunks of carbon to offload semen into.

Statistics are invented or twisted in order to make men look like callous, devious, sex obsessed, misogynistic beasts. They are told lies about how society is against women in such a way that it is an almost impossible struggle for them to do well in a career. They are told the lie that even if they do manage to do well, they will be payed less than men. I'm sure that due to this, many women feel defeated before they even try to make a start.

All this creates a self-perpetuating circle of bull****:

Feminists create all this hysteria against men, and more women join them as they fall for it when they start becoming scared of men.

The feminists spend their time reading each other's blogs, watching each other's videos, and immersing themselves further and further into this echo chamber. They forget that there is a whole world of people who are neither feminists nor sexists.

As feminism is concerned with gender bias against women and male sexism towards women, the feminists never actually hear or talk about anything positive about men. The only times they hear or talk about men is when a man has been misogynistic, or men have been given unfair bias in their favour. This helps fuel their fear of men, and we're back to the start.

This is surely a worrying situation. As feminism seems to become increasingly in vogue, should we not be helping to make sure young women understand that all this hysteria generated by feminists is no more credible than any other hysteria aimed against an entire race or gender? Should we not be informing them about the fact that straight men are not all cold-hearted predators? Should we not be making sure they understand the fact that, for the vast majority of men, their sexuality is not ugly nor evil; that even when a man is pleasing himself over the image or thought of a woman, he is not so base as to consider her as nothing more than an implement, an object, a "piece of meat" to be used for sex, but is in fact perfectly able to understand that she is a human being who is deserving of the same level of empathy as himself or anyone else? Should we not be teaching them they don't need give up before they even started and turn to complaining about problems that don't exist on tumblr? Should we not be teaching them that actually, society isn't against them, and that they have just as much chance of doing well as men?

Scroll to see replies

"Feminism isn't working. We need more feminism."

We live in what is effectively a communist country. Every target of this nature is a quest for the genetically impossible, equality of outcome, and the interchangeability of man and woman, which is also why feminism isn't working. Not that those ideologically committed to a utopia will ever admit this. It didn't work anywhere else, either.

The difference between the reality and the propaganda required to enforce it is increasingly extraordinary but they continue to double down and amplify as if its all true and only "sexists" (ie all men) are holding us back from "progress".


"A program aimed at teaching women how to recognize dangerous situations and resist sexual coercion almost halved the risk of rape on three college campuses, a new study shows."

This is victim blaming, you should be ashamed of yourself. It is never the victims fault, they should be responsable for it. There shouldn't be a rape program for these women, it should be for the rapists.

Spoiler

It's true. Feminists also believe in "reverse sexism". In other words, since women are "oppressed", they can never have sexist tendencies towards men. Which is absolute bull. Of course, this makes young women feel entitled to do whatever the hell they want to men and get away with it. Classic examples found in everyday life: "you can never hit a girl/women, even if she hits you". Sounds like 'systematic sexism', don't you think?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by BruceJender
"A program aimed at teaching women how to recognize dangerous situations and resist sexual coercion almost halved the risk of rape on three college campuses, a new study shows."

This is victim blaming, you should be ashamed of yourself. It is never the victims fault, they should be responsable for it. There shouldn't be a rape program for these women, it should be for the rapists. We should also consider cutting their penises off.

Spoiler



You can't be a victim if you avoid it happening.
Reply 6
Time to delve into my stash of memes.
Reply 7
FB_IMG_1443864202463.jpg
Reply 8


That is interesting, I imagine that another good way to cut down the number of cases of harassment and assault would be if in surveys carried about feminists "he looked at me funny" or "he complemented my looks" didn't constitute as harassment and "I wanted it but I was drunk" didn't constitute as a rape.
Who are men? Who are women? Who are black men? Who are homosexual people? Who are disabled people? The perpetrators of this bull**** division are those who use such meaningless labels. Men are individuals, women are individuals, they aren't a collective group - the moment you refer to them as a collective, the moment you diverge from referring to them as individuals, is the moment you step into the confines of mythology. It's the very moment you erode their individualism.

The individual is no longer an individual, he or she is a category; he or she becomes a category specifically for the purposes of manufacturing someone else's nefarious self-serving interests (politicians, corporations, MSM, higher education, charity sector, whatever). The politicians get votes, the corporations get access to a massive pool of cheap labour and positive public relations, the MSM sells clicks and the higher education sector gets research funding (much like the charity sector).

To amass social capital, or wealth, one group needs to be pitted against another group. The narrative is irrelevant, as long as it's convincing. It can mythological, it can be faith based, it can be prejudicial - it doesn't matter. It just has to exist.

What's worse, within the state of pathological labelling you become the very personification of the very prejudice they claim to be opposed to. They'll tell you that you are more than your ethnicity, ethnicity is arbitrary; yet ethnicity is the only prism through which they view you. The same goes for gender, sexuality and every other feature of your 'identity' (again, a mythology) they simultaneously deem to be arbitrary yet all encompassing.

The last thing society needs is the perpetuation of own-group biases. It's what they want. We're easier to organise, categorise, label, pathologise and appeal to that way. It's easier to pit us off against each other. Yet, when you look at it rationally, none of it exists. None of it. It's a great big abyss of prejudice, accentuated narratives, falsehoods and own-group biases. It's all fiction.

Identity is now the national religion. Who suffers? The individual.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 10
Original post by TheCitizenAct
Who are men? Who are women? Who are black men? Who are homosexual people? Who are disabled people? The perpetrators of this bull**** division are those who use such meaningless labels. Men are individuals, women are individuals, they aren't a collective group - the moment you refer to them as a collective, the moment you diverge from referring to them as individuals, is the moment you step into the confines of mythology. It's the very moment you erode their individualism.

The individual is no longer an individual, he or she is a category; he or she becomes a category specifically for the purposes of manufacturing someone else's nefarious self-serving interests (politicians, corporations, MSM, higher education, charity sector, whatever). The politicians get votes, the corporations get access to a massive pool of cheap labour and positive public relations, the MSM sells clicks and the higher education sector gets research funding (much like the charity sector).

To amass social capital, or wealth, one group needs to be pitted against another group. The narrative is irrelevant, as long as it's convincing. It can mythological, it can be faith based, it can be prejudicial - it doesn't matter. It just has to exist.

What's worse, within the state of pathological labelling you become the very personification of the very prejudice they claim to be opposed to. They'll tell you that you are more than your ethnicity, ethnicity is arbitrary; yet ethnicity is the only prism through which they view you. The same goes for gender, sexuality and every other feature of your 'identity' (again, a mythology) they simultaneously deem to be arbitrary yet all encompassing.

The last thing society needs is the perpetuation of own-group biases. It's what they want. We're easier to organise, categorise, label, pathologise and appeal to that way. It's easier to pit us off against each other. Yet, when you look at it rationally, none of it exists. None of it. It's a great big abyss of prejudice, accentuated narratives, falsehoods and own-group biases. It's all fiction.

Identity is now the national religion. Who suffers? The individual.


I agree. Very well put argument. If I had any more reps to give, I would. Without trying to label you, I'd be interested to know which ideologies your political sympathies lie?
Original post by KingBradly
I agree. Very well put argument. If I had any more reps to give, I would. Without trying to label you, I'd be interested to know which ideologies your political sympathies lie?


A question I don't really have an answer to. If I had to categorise my views within the confines of a set of principles, or an ideology, I'd say I veer towards libertarianism (then again, you could probably also drop in a pinch of misanthropy and a belief we'll all inevitably succumb to nihilism - not to put to sour a note on it!). A label is probably easier to create by focusing on what I oppose rather than what I favour.

I believe much of what we define ourselves by is external to us and near every label foisted upon is fictitious. Even take something as granular as 'personality'; it doesn't exist beyond what other people perceive our personality to be. We aren't 'anything' other than a collection of experiences, moods and chemical reactions. You could say that this collectively amounts to your 'personality', however there's no consistency in the presentation of these symptoms; they don't follow a logical order, you can't stop experiencing, and no two moods are ever the same.

Human beings aren't consistent enough to live up to a label and when one is apportioned to them by those with an incessant desire to categorise everything and everyone around them (see socialists/progressives), it's restrictive and more often than not becomes all consuming.

When you tell a person he or she is 'depressed' they cease to be an individual and rather become a 'depressed individual' which, even if there is an imbalance in dopamine, places obstacles in their path (they become their label and their conceptions of that label). Then again, I have less of a problem with analysis at the 'unit' (individual) level than I do with analysis at the level of 'the group'.

From extensive observation there's only one label which can ever be apportioned to individuals with any type of validity: 'self-interested.' What's more, I don't believe self-interest is a bad thing.

It's not a particular easy thought process to live with. But it's real (which is why most people hate it).
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 12
Original post by TheCitizenAct
A question I don't really have an answer to. If I had to categorise my views within the confines of a set of principles, or an ideology, I'd say I veer towards libertarianism (then again, you could probably also drop in a pinch of misanthropy and a belief we'll all inevitably succumb to nihilism - not to put to sour a note on it!). A label is probably easier to create by focusing on what I oppose rather than what I favour.

I believe much of what we define ourselves by is external to us and near every label foisted upon is fictitious. Even take something as granular as 'personality'; it doesn't exist beyond what other people perceive our personality to be. We aren't 'anything' other than a collection of experiences, moods and chemical reactions. You could say that this collectively amounts to your 'personality', however there's no consistency in the presentation of these symptoms; they don't follow a logical order, you can't stop experiencing, and no two moods are ever the same.

Human beings aren't consistent enough to live up to a label and when one is apportioned to them by those with an incessant desire to categorise everything and everyone around them (see socialists/progressives), it's restrictive and more often than not becomes all consuming.

When you tell a person he or she is 'depressed' they cease to be an individual and rather become a 'depressed individual' which, even if there is an imbalance in dopamine, places obstacles in their path (they become their label and their conceptions of that label). Then again, I have less of a problem with analysis at the 'unit' (individual) level than I do with analysis at the level of 'the group'.

From extensive observation there's only one label which can ever be apportioned to individuals with any type of validity: 'self-interested.' What's more, I don't believe self-interest is a bad thing.

It's not a particular easy thought process to live with. But it's real (which is why most people hate it).



We seem to share a very similar outlook on life. As you say, your ideas are quite nihilistic. As are mine, although I prefer to consider my nihilistic view on life to be closer to a zen view of life. Zen and nihilism are actually fundamentally almost exactly the same, except zen takes the view of nihilism -the idea that life is meaningless, that there is no such thing as the self or the personality etc- and considers it as something to be embraced rather than feared. I often consider Zen to be "positive nihilism" or "glass half-full nihilism". A conclusion one comes to when one understands zen is that seeing as one can always blame absolutely anything one does on everything else that's ever happened, one has to take responsibility for themselves, because everyone can blame the rest of the world for their own foibles, rendering the blaming to be of no significance or importance. You can push responsibility back, back, back to the very spark at the start of the universe, but in the end it is just YOU, at this very moment, who is really responsible.

I agree that self-interest is a good thing. Ironically, the unity of nature works best when creatures are selfish. When you see thousands of birds flying into the air to escape a predator, not one of them is doing it to save another, they are simply thinking of their own self-preservation. But together they seem unified.

My political views are hard to nail down. Like yourself, I veer toward libertarianism, but at the same time fiscally I believe that there should be some control over the markets in order to maintain a balance of power. I feel like some companies should be public so that the private sector doesn't become too powerful. I support the NHS, I support gun control. So really my libertarianism is more like simple anti-authoritarianism. I feel like both the left and right are authoritarian these days, perhaps the left even more so.

I really feel there's needs to be a new anti-authoritarian movement in the UK, which puts the left back in it's place and reminds it that it is not the arbiter of what can and can't be said or done.
Original post by KingBradly
Anyone else sick of hearing how "our young men" need to be spoken to, to be changed and adjusted to suit the redundant concerns of neurotic authoritarian feminists?

If anything, I think it's young women who need help. They are bombarded with false statistics, scare stories, and moral hysteria all concerning just how evil men are. They are taught that male sexuality is so dirty and sordid that for a man simply to direct his eyes towards you, or to complement your appearance, it is something to be upset about.

They are taught that when a man looks at an erotic image of a women he is seeing her as a "piece of meat" or a "sex object", as if men are simply unable to focus on the sexuality of a woman whilst also understanding that she is a human being. As if when a man appreciates the physique of a woman, he automatically forgets that all women are people and thinks of them as simply hunks of carbon to offload semen into.

Statistics are invented or twisted in order to make men look like callous, devious, sex obsessed, misogynistic beasts. They are told lies about how society is against women in such a way that it is an almost impossible struggle for them to do well in a career. They are told the lie that even if they do manage to do well, they will be payed less than men. I'm sure that due to this, many women feel defeated before they even try to make a start.

All this creates a self-perpetuating circle of bull****:

Feminists create all this hysteria against men, and more women join them as they fall for it when they start becoming scared of men.

The feminists spend their time reading each other's blogs, watching each other's videos, and immersing themselves further and further into this echo chamber. They forget that there is a whole world of people who are neither feminists nor sexists.

As feminism is concerned with gender bias against women and male sexism towards women, the feminists never actually hear or talk about anything positive about men. The only times they hear or talk about men is when a man has been misogynistic, or men have been given unfair bias in their favour. This helps fuel their fear of men, and we're back to the start.

This is surely a worrying situation. As feminism seems to become increasingly in vogue, should we not be helping to make sure young women understand that all this hysteria generated by feminists is no more credible than any other hysteria aimed against an entire race or gender? Should we not be informing them about the fact that straight men are not all cold-hearted predators? Should we not be making sure they understand the fact that, for the vast majority of men, their sexuality is not ugly nor evil; that even when a man is pleasing himself over the image or thought of a woman, he is not so base as to consider her as nothing more than an implement, an object, a "piece of meat" to be used for sex, but is in fact perfectly able to understand that she is a human being who is deserving of the same level of empathy as himself or anyone else? Should we not be teaching them they don't need give up before they even started and turn to complaining about problems that don't exist on tumblr? Should we not be teaching them that actually, society isn't against them, and that they have just as much chance of doing well as men?


Actually sexists, misogynists and rape apologists have created those myths. Feminists fight against them.

how you've got this so far backwards, I have no idea. you have to be trolling.
Hmm yes. Speaking as a woman, it's completely my fault that I feel unsafe when guys crowd around me making lewd suggestions. It's completely my fault I'm harassed in the street by men in vans. It's completely my fault I find rape jokes disgusting, that I feel humiliated if strangers comment on my appearance. It's completely my fault I'm too scared to get even slightly tipsy at parties in case somebody takes advantage of me and I get blamed for it. It's my fault I feel sickened by Page 3, or at the (often female) journalists who pen disgusting articles about celebrities' bodies or their fashion sense, even when said woman is say, a politician or something where her job performance has nothing to do with her physical appearance.

I feel nervous around some men not because of feminism, but because of my own experiences of life. My experiences are something which is an invisible problem to those who don't have to suffer it. In fact, my father was shocked when I told him some of the disrespectful ways I've been treated by complete strangers, but to my female friends it's just something we have to learn to put up with.

I think OP should look at the Everyday Sexism Project by Laura Bates. In it she clearly states that sexism is something that affects both men and women, and that she wants equality for both genders.
Original post by AnnieGakusei
It's my fault I feel sickened by Page 3.


Yes, that is most certainly your fault.
Original post by AnnieGakusei

I think OP should look at the Everyday Sexism Project by Laura Bates. In it she clearly states that sexism is something that affects both men and women, and that she wants equality for both genders.


The opening paragraph on the Everyday Sexism Project.

The Everyday Sexism Project exists to catalogue instances of sexism experienced by women on a day to day basis. They might be serious or minor, outrageously offensive or so niggling and normalised that you don’t even feel able to protest. Say as much or as little as you like, use your real name or a pseudonym it’s up to you. By sharing your story you’re showing the world that sexism does exist, it is faced by women everyday and it is a valid problem to discuss.


No mention of men in there.
Original post by DiddyDec
Yes, that is most certainly your fault.


Troll confirmed. :tongue: Funnily enough, I like to be treated as a human being, not as some decorative object.
Original post by AnnieGakusei
Troll confirmed. :tongue: Funnily enough, I like to be treated as a human being, not as some decorative object.


The women who pose on Page 3 do it by choice, in fact they enjoy doing it. Do you want to stop people doing what they enjoy when it isn't harming anyone?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/page-3-isnt-demeaning-to-the-models-and-i-should-know-i-was-one-9993169.html
Original post by DiddyDec
The opening paragraph on the Everyday Sexism Project.



No mention of men in there.


Oh dear, it would seem that you haven't actually read the Everyday Sexism Project. Well, I happen to have the book in front of me right now, conveniently bookmarked on the page I wanted. There is a whole section devoted to men.

This is not a men vs women issue. It's about people vs prejudice.
So let's talk about the men. Can men experience sexism? I think they can...

And many [people who threaten me] have clearly never read anything I've written about gender and the importance of including men in the movement...

I'd like to type out more but the book isn't staying open and I'm not sure how much attention or merit you will even give this, so I don't suppose it's worth my while. Nonetheless, I still suggest you try and find the book. It's a fascinating read. :smile:

Quick Reply

Latest