Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is Male dominance still present in society? Patriarchy Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    None of this matters. My original point was videos like this are the reason nobody takes MRAs seriously. It is possible to try and raise awareness about men's issues without it coming off as spiteful, degrading and offensive but MRAs fail at this all the time.
    What do you suggest? What works?
    When the Govt will not do anything, there is no help people will do something about it. E.g. Fathers 4 Justice publicise, people look at the facts/arguments then make a decision; r more aware & some will conciosly do something about it. Many boys/men r running out of options - fight or suicide.
    1 thing that does not is being soft about it. Men's issues are only in the limelight after taking such a stance. Almost like saying no publicity is bad, except maybe for that red-headed feminist at uni of Toronto.

    The fact u r engaging with me, is because u r annoyed/being helpful. You'd maybe not have done otherwise. Einstein said (on ipad, difficult to get pic) The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
    So it works better than other options. You may hear, read, see antics of F4 Justice, but less will have heard of FnF.org.uk who talk within Govt - e.g. Of why I disagree with u, my main point.

    I don't learn so much from TSR, but I contribute as (my personal duty) people here r smart (critical thinking), less bigoted or less to lose than when older.
    I am much tougher speaking IRL (different audience) & when u have seen that "look" in the eyes of many men who r not seeing their child & Realising taking any action can make it worse - then u understand they need a voice that speaks Loudly to them, for them. I may not start a charity, but I inform here, understand how to help men's wellbeing & give to homeless in the street; as well as Wateraid
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rad_student)
    What do you suggest? What works?
    When the Govt will not do anything, there is no help people will do something about it. E.g. Fathers 4 Justice publicise, people look at the facts/arguments then make a decision; r more aware & some will conciosly do something about it. Many boys/men r running out of options - fight or suicide.
    1 thing that does not is being soft about it. Men's issues are only in the limelight after taking such a stance. Almost like saying no publicity is bad, except maybe for that red-headed feminist at uni of Toronto.

    The fact u r engaging with me, is because u r annoyed/being helpful. You'd maybe not have done otherwise. Einstein said (on ipad, difficult to get pic) The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
    So it works better than other options. You may hear, read, see antics of F4 Justice, but less will have heard of FnF.org.uk who talk within Govt - e.g. Of why I disagree with u, my main point.

    I don't learn so much from TSR, but I contribute as (my personal duty) people here r smart (critical thinking), less bigoted or less to lose than when older.
    I am much tougher speaking IRL (different audience) & when u have seen that "look" in the eyes of many men who r not seeing their child & Realising taking any action can make it worse - then u understand they need a voice that speaks Loudly to them, for them. I may not start a charity, but I inform here, understand how to help men's wellbeing & give to homeless in the street; as well as Wateraid
    If you can take the time to write that long a reply, you should bother to spell correctly. Nothing worse than "txt tlk" in what is otherwise a somewhat intellectual post.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    If you can take the time to write that long a reply, you should bother to spell correctly. Nothing worse than "txt tlk" in what is otherwise a somewhat intellectual post.
    As mentioned I was on an ipad - now I am on a PC where I occassionally spell check. But will still use use sms speech to quicken the message output, saves me time. The message is not badly unclear with it. I leave all that for my essays as that all reduces my marks.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rad_student)
    As mentioned I was on an ipad - now I am on a PC where I occassionally spell check. But will still use use sms speech to quicken the message output, saves me time. The message is not badly unclear with it. I leave all that for my essays as that all reduces my marks.
    Fair nuff, just a pet peeve!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heidihi7894)
    A very small number of men completely dominated. At the start of the 19th century less than 3% of men could vote in the UK, and they were not exactly free and fair votes. Most of the male population in this country only gained the right to vote shortly before, or at the same time, as women.
    Well... not quite. About 60% of the male population could vote in the lead up to the Representation of the People Act 1919. At that time, the franchise pretty much extended to anyone who was a householder, rather than just landowners.

    I would agree that you have to take class into account.... the Duchess ruled the stable boy, but was subject to her husband. The stable boys wife was subject to everyone etc
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    And actually I could but it's an American report(government)..... Trust me it happens much more often than you seem to believe.
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    x
    Please stop referencing that CDC report until you understand what it says and what it means. Thanks.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    Please stop referencing that CDC report until you understand what it says and what it means. Thanks.
    Oh my God this. As soon as he brought it out again I just thought... :indiff:.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    Oh my God this. As soon as he brought it out again I just thought... :indiff:.
    So you would be fine with a guy penetrating you whilst you're unconscious, drugged or too drunk to speak? Because the CDC definition of rape and forced envelopment isn't too serious, I guess the way you see it as you didn't say no it isn't rape then.... Also is sexually assaulting a heavily disabled person is okay, they can't say no so it isn't rape either?

    Whilst we're at it, why not just go back to the biblical definition of rape. If you didn't scream loudly enough or was married it isn't rape.

    I'm pretty glad you didn't go into politics or policing, by the logic you hold if the guy didn't bleed it isn't assault, by the way you should tell the hospital you're going to be working in to invest into formaldehyde, because you sound like a genius.... All in all you sound just like a male version of rape apologist.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    Please stop referencing that CDC report until you understand what it says and what it means. Thanks.
    Well, obviously you're illiterate as I explained the difference between the US and uk definitions.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    This exact same statement could be made about feminists.
    No, in some ways he's right, instead of insulting women, we should try to politely explain issues men face, we should actually be a bit more sympathetic to the problems they face, it'll probably do a better job.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    No, in some ways he's right, instead of insulting women, we should try to politely explain issues men face, we should actually be a bit more sympathetic to the problems they face, it'll probably do a better job.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I've already been sympathetic enough to look into their "problems". There are negligible to non-existent, tbh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    I've already been sympathetic enough to look into their "problems". There are negligible to non-existent, tbh.
    Well I'm not going to lie they do have problems in society, what subject do you do can I ask?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Well I'm not going to lie they do have problems in society, what subject do you do can I ask?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    English Language.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    English Language.
    Are you any good at creating persuasive advertising, and persuasive websites? I'm asking because I want to start a cancer charity. You can guess what type of cancer... I need some help in getting the ball running, so it would be ideal to have a few people to help do this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Fair nuff, just a pet peeve!
    Erm excuse me, Fair enough***. Please spell correctly! Guess it is a pet peeve of mine

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Well, obviously you're illiterate as I explained the difference between the US and uk definitions.
    A better comparison of the UK and US figures is here... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=138

    Re-read your correspondence with nookyn2... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=148 where she corrects your erroneous understanding of the definitions

    You'll see that she and I were puzzled why you stated that you disagreed with the CDC definitions but continued to rely on their figures... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=165

    The correspondence went on... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=175

    Finally, your limited maths skills were exposed, which should make anyone question each and every figure you post... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=229 (don't look - it's embarrassing)

    As I said, please don't reference the CDC report until you understand what it means. Thanks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    A better comparison of the UK and US figures is here... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=138

    Re-read your correspondence with nookyn2... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=148 where she corrects your erroneous understanding of the definitions

    You'll see that she and I were puzzled why you stated that you disagreed with the CDC definitions but continued to rely on their figures... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=165

    The correspondence went on... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=175

    Finally, your limited maths skills were exposed, which should make anyone question each and every figure you post... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=229 (don't look - it's embarrassing)

    As I said, please don't reference the CDC report until you understand what it means. Thanks.
    I explained in the post, you absolute Muppet. So you think it's not rape if the girl is unconscious? Let's get this straight you'd be happy with a random girl having sex with you whilst you're asleep(for all you know it could be unprotected sex and she could be infected with aids)? This is what USA says

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80520I20120106

    "That includes any victim who cannot consent due to alcohol or drug use, who is under the age of consent, or who is mentally or physically incapable of consent." So cannot consent because of alcohol or drugs? Too drunk/ high to speak, you'd have to be so drunk to achieve that state that you're almost passing out. Under the age of consent is statutory rape. Mentally of physically incapable to consent, severely disabled.

    so the CDC is obviously more nieve and going to arrest someone who is tipsy for a blowjob, if he didn't want it it's rape, face it! Also because he's able to consent if he said no it's sexual assault, get that into that tiny head of yours, she'd have to use force to stop him. You have to be too drunk to resist to be able to be too drunk to be able to consent.

    Why you're okay with men getting raped and not women I don't know. You're a sociopath.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Are you any good at creating persuasive advertising, and persuasive websites? I'm asking because I want to start a cancer charity. You can guess what type of cancer... I need some help in getting the ball running, so it would be ideal to have a few people to help do this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Never done anything like that but I will give it a shot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    Never done anything like that but I will give it a shot.
    Cool, well firstly I need help with the naming of the charity, and helping with making sure it catches people.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    I explained in the post, you absolute Muppet. So you think it's not rape if the girl is unconscious? Let's get this straight you'd be happy with a random girl having sex with you whilst you're asleep(for all you know it could be unprotected sex and she could be infected with aids)? This is what USA says

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80520I20120106

    "That includes any victim who cannot consent due to alcohol or drug use, who is under the age of consent, or who is mentally or physically incapable of consent." So cannot consent because of alcohol or drugs? Too drunk/ high to speak, you'd have to be so drunk to achieve that state that you're almost passing out. Under the age of consent is statutory rape. Mentally of physically incapable to consent, severely disabled.

    so the CDC is obviously more nieve and going to arrest someone who is tipsy for a blowjob, if he didn't want it it's rape, face it! Also because he's able to consent if he said no it's sexual assault, get that into that tiny head of yours, she'd have to use force to stop him. You have to be too drunk to resist to be able to be too drunk to be able to consent.

    Why you're okay with men getting raped and not women I don't know. You're a sociopath.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    All in all this, pastarfarian ( although I'm an atheist I'm not a complete nobhead about it) if you want to pretend that sexual assaults against men are cool because all men want is sex, go for it at least i don't sound like a misandric fool.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.