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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    well, if you fail to kill yoursel you can't have really been trying, lets be honest
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    This thread /debate has gone a bit quiet and in a way I'm glad...i realised how depressing it was to write those things.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    Yep, everything that happens to men that's bad could be prevented if they'd just ****ing lose their entire personalities and identities and morph themselves into something they find uncomfortable. Needy, whiney "nice guys" get all the girls, right? Male suicide is obvs going up because the social identity they've had forever is suddenly toxic to them.

    In other news, if women just changed their behaviour maybe they wouldn't get raped. Stupid *****es it's entirely their fault. Or is this reasoning only applicable in positions you support?
    I thought you were a reasonable and intelligent guy, but that is quite the strawman right there.

    1. To suggest that without traditional institutionalised behaviours having such a hold in society, we'd have no personality or identity is laughable. What on Earth makes you think that? If anything, it gives one greater freedom of expression and identity, liberated from arbitrary expectations.

    2. It's quite a fallacy to suggest that without those institutionalised gender roles having a hold in society men would feel uncomfortable, for it is what society thinks of your behaviour that in turn affects what you think of your behaviour. Men aren't going to be uncomfortable about not being "manly" if that is not a manner in which they are expected to behave.

    3. Men not being expected to be "manly" is not equal to them all being "needy, whiney "nice guys"... it's just they're not expected to act either way. Again, that lends credence to a greater freedom of expression and identity.

    4. Male suicide hasn't suddenly gone up. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/6/1464.long "Rates in males were consistently higher than females throughout the 19th and 20th centuries [4:1 male-to-female ratio]" (times when gender roles had a much greater hold in society than they do now!)
    And what's interesting is that during the 60s, when counter-movements against traditional cultural constructs were very much alive and kicking, the ratio dropped to 1.5:1.
    In the long term, male suicide rates have actually been falling "The highest male rates (30.3 per 100 000) were recorded in 1905 and 1934 and have since been declining"

    5. I was blaming neither any individual, nor any demographic, for any socially institutionalised set of behaviours entrenched in our culture. They arise through a complex multitude of factors in which responsibility is inderminate, not through an organised conspiracy (which ironically, many radical feminists would try to have you believe). Likening my position to saying rape victims deserve it is pathetic and makes no sense...
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    I thought you were a reasonable and intelligent guy, but that is quite the strawman right there.

    1. To suggest that without traditional institutionalised behaviours having such a hold in society, we'd have no personality or identity is laughable. What on Earth makes you think that? If anything, it gives one greater freedom of expression and identity, liberated from arbitrary expectations.

    2. It's quite a fallacy to suggest that without those institutionalised gender roles having a hold in society men would feel uncomfortable, for it is what society thinks of your behaviour that in turn affects what you think of your behaviour. Men aren't going to be uncomfortable about not being "manly" if that is not a manner in which they are expected to behave.

    3. Men not being expected to be "manly" is not equal to them all being "needy, whiney "nice guys"... it's just they're not expected to act either way. Again, that lends credence to a greater freedom of expression and identity.

    4. Male suicide hasn't suddenly gone up. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/6/1464.long "Rates in males were consistently higher than females throughout the 19th and 20th centuries [4:1 male-to-female ratio]" (times when gender roles had a much greater hold in society than they do now!)
    And what's interesting is that during the 60s, when counter-movements against traditional cultural constructs were very much alive and kicking, the ratio dropped to 1.5:1.
    In the long term, male suicide rates have actually been falling "The highest male rates (30.3 per 100 000) were recorded in 1905 and 1934 and have since been declining"

    5. I was blaming neither any individual, nor any demographic, for any socially institutionalised set of behaviours entrenched in our culture. They arise through a complex multitude of factors in which responsibility is inderminate, not through an organised conspiracy (which ironically, many radical feminists would try to have you believe). Likening my position to saying rape victims deserve it is pathetic and makes no sense...
    You've obviously put a bit of time and thought into that reply but I find the points being argued quite uncomfortable in the sense that they just play up to the arguments of a typical feminist. I don't think mens issues on the whole have anything to do with being forced to be manly or live up to a masculine stereotype. I think rather it is that most men (like myself) are masculine by our nature but we find ourselves living in an increasingly feminised society where masculinity and masculine behaviours are disregarded and even mocked. I think it starts at a young age when boys are educated in the same way as girls by mostly female teachers and punished for being 'naughty' aka being boys. It continues into adulthood where there is a ridiculous perception that women are nicer, sweeter, the fairer sex etc and so the 'positive discrimination' starts. If a relatively pretty woman has genuine problems then there will be a queue of men just waiting to make her life better in addition to the support of her family and friends. A guy...well, chances are that he's gonna have to face things in a much more lonely manner. I have definitely noticed myself that a man has to be extremely careful these days about how he acts and what he says, particularly in the workplace, but a woman can get away with a whole lot more. It's wrong, plain and simple.

    A man is over 3 times as likely to commit suicide than a woman in this country today and whichever way you look at it, or however anyone tries to spin things, that completely goes against the feminist narrative that women have things tougher. To actually commit suicide, that says you really have lost all hope.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    I thought you were a reasonable and intelligent guy, but that is quite the strawman right there.

    1. To suggest that without traditional institutionalised behaviours having such a hold in society, we'd have no personality or identity is laughable. What on Earth makes you think that? If anything, it gives one greater freedom of expression and identity, liberated from arbitrary expectations.

    2. It's quite a fallacy to suggest that without those institutionalised gender roles having a hold in society men would feel uncomfortable, for it is what society thinks of your behaviour that in turn affects what you think of your behaviour. Men aren't going to be uncomfortable about not being "manly" if that is not a manner in which they are expected to behave.

    3. Men not being expected to be "manly" is not equal to them all being "needy, whiney "nice guys"... it's just they're not expected to act either way. Again, that lends credence to a greater freedom of expression and identity.

    4. Male suicide hasn't suddenly gone up. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/6/1464.long "Rates in males were consistently higher than females throughout the 19th and 20th centuries [4:1 male-to-female ratio]" (times when gender roles had a much greater hold in society than they do now!)
    And what's interesting is that during the 60s, when counter-movements against traditional cultural constructs were very much alive and kicking, the ratio dropped to 1.5:1.
    In the long term, male suicide rates have actually been falling "The highest male rates (30.3 per 100 000) were recorded in 1905 and 1934 and have since been declining"

    5. I was blaming neither any individual, nor any demographic, for any socially institutionalised set of behaviours entrenched in our culture. They arise through a complex multitude of factors in which responsibility is inderminate, not through an organised conspiracy (which ironically, many radical feminists would try to have you believe). Likening my position to saying rape victims deserve it is pathetic and makes no sense...
    The first two points are just assertions. They work if you presume that male behaviour in general is naturally no different to that of females, and that it's merely institutions which cause it. I can't reconcile that narrative with the existence of hormones.

    On the third point, lets just see who gets more girls. Steroetypical jocks/successful people/confident guys (ie traditional masculine values) or the alternatives. Who has more successful lives? SUre, that's an anecdotal point, but it's one everyone sure must acknowledge as being broadly speaking true.These behaviours generally and giving people a bad time from what I can see.

    Interesting figures there. I think that to claim that the higher rates in the past don't suggest that it was more entrenched gender identities that caused it. Men had to do much harder stuff back then. There's no evidence to suggest that the correlation of some personality traits being more prominent strictly causes these figures. Given suicide mostly happens in men in their middle age, why does their personalities not hurt them before that? Why is it when they have debt troubles, their wives leave them, they see their kids less, etc etc that they suddenly think "**** my gender roles" and pop themselves?

    Also something i found interesting


    Assume that the older suicide rates can be attributed to the problems related to that age which i just mentioned. Also assume your own assumption that the tradition gender identities are more rigid the further you go back.

    The suicide rates of the older men are going down, but the suicides of the younger men are going up. SO those men growing up in an era where they are being "liberated" from their masculinity are killer themselves more, but those who lived in more traditional era are killing themselves less. That doesn't support the narrative that suicide rates are being caused by men's masculinity.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jd_uk)
    You've obviously put a bit of time and thought into that reply but I find the points being argued quite uncomfortable in the sense that they just play up to the arguments of a typical feminist.

    I don't think mens issues on the whole have anything to do with being forced to be manly or live up to a masculine stereotype.

    I think rather it is that most men (like myself) are masculine by our nature but we find ourselves living in an increasingly feminised society where masculinity and masculine behaviours are disregarded and even mocked.

    I think it starts at a young age when boys are educated in the same way as girls by mostly female teachers and punished for being 'naughty' aka being boys. It continues into adulthood where there is a ridiculous perception that women are nicer, sweeter, the fairer sex etc and so the 'positive discrimination' starts.

    If a relatively pretty woman has genuine problems then there will be a queue of men just waiting to make her life better in addition to the support of her family and friends.

    A guy...well, chances are that he's gonna have to face things in a much more lonely manner. I have definitely noticed myself that a man has to be extremely careful these days about how he acts and what he says, particularly in the workplace, but a woman can get away with a whole lot more. It's wrong, plain and simple.

    A man is over 3 times as likely to commit suicide than a woman in this country today and whichever way you look at it, or however anyone tries to spin things, that completely goes against the feminist narrative that women have things tougher. To actually commit suicide, that says you really have lost all hope.
    You don't like my arguments because they sound like something a feminist would say? Can you elaborate on that or is that just a bad ad hom?

    1. It is a demonstratable fact that men are generally judged negatively for bearing feminine traits and women for having masculine traits (not so much now as 60 or so years ago, say, but people have questioned traditional ideas of gender since then) Homophobia ties in nicely to this as a tangible example. A lot of issues in OP can be effectively explained in terms of men feeling uncomfortable departing from male gender roles such as ones that emphasize greater levels of strength, independence, and risk-taking behavior.

    2. How do you know how much of you is naturally ingrained and how much is socially ingrained? Traditionally we'd have said that gender roles were natural, end of, but this idea was born in eras where nature was placed in a vastly higher place than nurture, where even social classes were justified with naturalistic explanations. Obviously, we've progressed much further in psychology and sociology, and have realised the plasticity of our mental selves, and the influential power of experience. Nature vs. nurture is still an ongoing debate of course, and any explanation that places all explanatory power in just one or the other is way too simplistic.
    Even if it was all nature, just because men have a natural tendency to be a certain way, it doesn't follow that they should always be expected to be that way and be judged negatively if not

    3. Yes, it can be construed that society is becoming increasingly feminised (though I'd argue that traditional gender roles as a whole are loosening their grip rather than just those of masculinity), but the current worldview is always a hangover from a previous time. A large part of beliefs of gender ingrained in society remain from the past, so you can't say a change in one part of society means all society represents that. For example, we still basically worship masculine traits in our leaders.

    5. You've admitted that traditional gender roles result in "positive discrimination", which fits in to everything I'm saying.

    4. That women have is tougher is not a part of all feminist narrative, just that historically they've had less power and been more oppressed than men. Oppression isn't a synonym for suffering.

    Sorry I didn't reply to every point you made, but I have an exam tomorrow and am very tired lol
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    The suicide rates of the older men are going down, but the suicides of the younger men are going up. SO those men growing up in an era where they are being "liberated" from their masculinity are killer themselves more, but those who lived in more traditional era are killing themselves less. That doesn't support the narrative that suicide rates are being caused by men's masculinity.
    Yep. Anyone who suggests that modern feminism also helps men and that taking pressure off men to be masculine helps them is talking absolute bullsh*t frankly. It is a gross oversimplification and completely misses the point.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    You don't like my arguments because they sound like something a feminist would say? Can you elaborate on that or is that just a bad ad hom?

    1. It is a demonstratable fact that men are generally judged negatively for bearing feminine traits and women for having masculine traits (not so much now as 60 or so years ago, say, but people have questioned traditional ideas of gender since then) Homophobia ties in nicely to this as a tangible example. A lot of issues in OP can be effectively explained in terms of men feeling uncomfortable departing from male gender roles such as ones that emphasize greater levels of strength, independence, and risk-taking behavior.

    2. How do you know how much of you is naturally ingrained and how much is socially ingrained? Traditionally we'd have said that gender roles were natural, end of, but this idea was born in eras where nature was placed in a vastly higher place than nurture, where even social classes were justified with naturalistic explanations. Obviously, we've progressed much further in psychology and sociology, and have realised the plasticity of our mental selves, and the influential power of experience. Nature vs. nurture is still an ongoing debate of course, and any explanation that places all explanatory power in just one or the other is way too simplistic.
    Even if it was all nature, just because men have a natural tendency to be a certain way, it doesn't follow that they should always be expected to be that way and be judged negatively if not

    3. Yes, it can be construed that society is becoming increasingly feminised (though I'd argue that traditional gender roles as a whole are loosening their grip rather than just those of masculinity), but the current worldview is always a hangover from a previous time. A large part of beliefs of gender ingrained in society remain from the past, so you can't say a change in one part of society means all society represents that. For example, we still basically worship masculine traits in our leaders.

    5. You've admitted that traditional gender roles result in "positive discrimination", which fits in to everything I'm saying.

    4. That women have is tougher is not a part of all feminist narrative, just that historically they've had less power and been more oppressed than men. Oppression isn't a synonym for suffering.

    Sorry I didn't reply to every point you made, but I have an exam tomorrow and am very tired lol
    I'll try and just be brief and to the point.

    I think you're barking up completely the wrong tree. The subjects which you are talking about are often raised by feminists; the 'gender roles don't help men either because it puts pressure on them to be a certain way etc etc. I as a man am a certain way not simply because of what i was nurtured to be but because of the fact at any time of the day I have around 8 times as much testosterone as women. It actually irritates me to hear these overcomplicated debates about nature v's nurture, boys toys versus girls toys etc because it's just needless overcomplication and when talking about serious issues like male suicide it is just so irrelevant. The only relevancy is that men should also be encouraged to talk about their issues and seek help and know that it is ok to do so. BUT, that is only a very small part of the jigsaw. I strongly believe that young men, even middle age men suffer today directly at the hands of a feminised society. As someone who is probably quite a few years older than you I've seen it myself far too many times. I've even felt it myself.

    I'm not going to logically go through all your points as I also don't have too much time right now but point 5 is wrong. Women have always had natural advantages, as have men...the 'positive discrimination' they now have as a result of feminism just takes things further. Point 4.. well just watch some youtube videos of feminists speaking, or just read the news (as I pointed out, the BBC sexism section only discusses sexism against women). I genuinely feel perplexed listening to feminists speak because they often speak like they have it harder ('there is still a long way to go', but it is just an absolute lie.

    If i had a son and a daughter in today's world, the son is, on balance, more likely to face a tougher time, I have no question about that.

    Edit: good luck with your exam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "It's time that feminists were put in their place" - do you have no awareness as to the history of feminism whatsoever? Fighting for the rights of women that men have had since the beginning of time? Feminists want to be equal to that of men. Not better. That's what many don't understand - feminism is about equality of the sexes - not the superiority of one over the other, and right now the likes of you who suggest that all women want female dominance are the type of people who oppress women to begin with. Stop confusing hate-filled women who despise men as feminists, they're not. Oh and, I've only ever heard a man say 'man up', by the way.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Men need to stand up against their oppressors in an organised manner. At the moment we are very divided. Men need to unite their voice and fight for equality to women not just here but across the globe.

    It won't be easy as feminists have waged a successful global war against mens rights groups. For example in this country boys/men have tried to start mens rights/equality advocacy groups in universities numerous times which have been shut down/prevented from materialising by feminists in seats of power in universities. Two recent examples being Manchester and Oxford... I might start a thread about this soon.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IAmNero)
    In modern society. Now I know people will get up in arms but hear me out.


    1. Men are most likely to suffer from violent crime.

    2. Men are most likely to become homeless.

    3. Only 8% of domestic violence services are designed specifically for men

    4. There are a grand total of 0 male only gyms officially registered.

    5. The education system is linear not modular, a system that favours women

    6. Men are now at a 2:1 disadvantage when looking for work in STEM fields.

    7. More than 50% of degrees in 2013 were gained by women

    8. In most divorce cases men are made to pay ridiculous sums.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Oh how I love partisanship. Just as I tell feminists to shut up, the same logic applies here. Men are not 'oppressed'. Do they have certain societal disadvantages, as does every group dependent on its basic disposition? Yes. Does that mean men as a group are oppressed? No.

    1 - They're most likely to be the aggressors too. Men are more biologically inclined to be violent so obviously they commit and receive most of the violence.

    2 - I need more than just a fact, I need evidence to support the supposition that this is in some way due to oppression rather than just a statistical fact in so far as it happens due to personal choice and other factors not reliant on 'oppression'.

    3 - That is more a societal issue, biologically women are the gender humans look to protect more and I do feel shelters should not be gender based and that men should have greater access to support but I wouldn't say this in and of itself constitutes oppression. Certainly men are a minority of victims and whilst I don't believe that ratio to be 8:260 or whatever the number of womens shelters is (I cba to look it up but I know its significantly higher), the number is less relevant than the quality of care they provide. The mens shelters are insufficient for purpose, no doubt. But is that specifically because of women? Do women ensure that men are kept down by reducing their access to shelters? That sounds as illogical as patriarchy theory. More likely the issue simply hasn't had enough exposure to encourage the right number of shelters for men (again not that shelters should be gendered anyway)

    4 - So go set one up. Who cares? I can go to my gym whenever I feel so inclined, I couldn't care less if the women want to work out there or at a 'womens only gym'. Provided it's not at the detriment of men, ie converting unisex gyms or removing unisex gyms then it really doesn't matter.

    5 - The education system also disadvantages the working class in its structure and its metric of 'intelligence' due to the differences in peer group encouraged methodologies of thought ie poorer people don't have the time to sit around being existential, they have to learn to instantaneously separate bullsh!t from important information because that is what the lifestyle demands (generally speaking) so when they go to uni/a level adapting to the pretentious engage with nonsense ideas, quote a load of random people, theorise on everything, structure it one specific way methodology of learning they struggle (both statistically and anecdotally, I certainly don't fit the method of thought on my degree and adapting has been a struggle with numerous essays feedback being 'you clearly understand the issues but I don't like your structure, or word use or 'critical analysis' (as in it doesn't fit my subjective view in many cases). But we have to have a measure. The conversion to 'benefit girls' may well be true (certainly in the past 10yrs their rate of success academically has skyrocketed to overtake boys) but again is this 'oppression'. It's unfair but so is my class based example. Do I think that means the middle/upper class is oppressing me? No. Similarly is the education system oppressing boys? No. It's just unfortunate the latest incarnation of the system isn't balanced and hopefully this will be noticed and addressed - some advocacy in this area would be nice but again, not 'anti-oppression' advocacy but common sense advocacy ie the system is unbalanced, rebalance it please.

    6 - Agreed. I dislike quotas or favouritism of any kind but women are still a huge minority in stem so until it starts pushing men to the bottom of the pile I'm not too worried. It just clearly demonstrates most women don't want to STEM as even with such criteria they are still a minority. Again I don't see how this is symptomatic of oppression. It's not done to push men out, it's done to get girls in. Big fundamental difference. I still don't agree with it, but the intent is not oppressive.

    7 - So? It's just a stat (see 2)

    8 - Yes, it's an archaic law from when men used to assume control of the estate and absolutely needs fixing. It's historical role was to give women rights over (a) their own property forfeited in marriage, and (b) To allow women to continue to live a reasonable quality of life as they had no working lives, hence alimony being to 'keep the person living in the manner to which they are accustomed'. It was historically logical. Currently not so much, the law could certainly do with an update in this area but again given context I wouldn't say its 'oppressive' (then again I think divorcing for 'sexual dissatisfaction' or 'because they're too nice' or 'because life was boring' is wrong and ludicrous (all actual cases) and if you cite such reasons you should be interred under the mental health act for being a narcissistic madman, so what do I know).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IAmNero)
    In modern society. Now I know people will get up in arms but hear me out.


    1. Men are most likely to suffer from violent crime.

    2. Men are most likely to become homeless.

    3. Only 8% of domestic violence services are designed specifically for men

    4. There are a grand total of 0 male only gyms officially registered.

    5. The education system is linear not modular, a system that favours women

    6. Men are now at a 2:1 disadvantage when looking for work in STEM fields.

    7. More than 50% of degrees in 2013 were gained by women

    8. In most divorce cases men are made to pay ridiculous sums.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes and men are made to pay child support even if they are tricked and are given zero choice while it's said that's it's only good for women to be pro choice.

    And the definitions of rape are constantly expanded to punish men e.g. Drunk sex, failing to withdraw in time between husband and wife (yes it's a real case unbelievable but real).


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    just like how germany tries to overcompensate for its nazi past in regards to accepting too many refugees from other parts of the world, the western world as a civilisation has overcompensated for the history of misogyny by now giving women unambiguous legal privileging over men. I'll never understand how giving women more legal rights under the law makes them "equal". if they were equal to men, surely they should be treated as such and not as if they need treatments to cure a personal gender defect or some ****?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Men need to stand up against their oppressors in an organised manner. At the moment we are very divided. Men need to unite their voice and fight for equality to women not just here but across the globe.

    It won't be easy as feminists have waged a successful global war against mens rights groups. For example in this country boys/men have tried to start mens rights/equality advocacy groups in universities numerous times which have been shut down/prevented from materialising by feminists in seats of power in universities. Two recent examples being Manchester and Oxford... I might start a thread about this soon.
    It's already started. Trump is president of USA now lol.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Objectivism2017)
    Yes and men are made to pay child support even if they are tricked and are given zero choice while it's said that's it's only good for women to be pro choice.

    And the definitions of rape are constantly expanded to punish men e.g. Drunk sex, failing to withdraw in time between husband and wife (yes it's a real case unbelievable but real).


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What case are you referring to at the end?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This comment is very very long but all this writing does not do this issue justice. Many people, including yourself, are ignorant to this issue of sexism against men that is prevalent in our society so this comment is not just for you (Gonvile). I encourage guys who are interested in gender issues and discrimination against men in this feminised country to, please, read this comment….

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Oh how I love partisanship. Just as I tell feminists to shut up, the same logic applies here. Men are not 'oppressed'. Do they have certain societal disadvantages, as does every group dependent on its basic disposition? Yes. Does that mean men as a group are oppressed? No.
    You live in ignorance of our reality. That is the only reason why you believe that men are not oppressed and this isn’t your fault. I don’t blame you for not knowing. You live in a feminised country. You’ve been blinded and desensitised to the sexism against men.

    As a man (and I am assuming that you are really a man as you claim) you are at a disadvantage in every aspect of life and on every level thanks to sexism. Choose any area in life on this planet and I will show you how you are actively discriminated against in it. Let me just give you a few quick examples….

    You can suffer rape at the hands of a woman in this country and the woman would not be charged with rape simply because she is a woman. She will also receive a lighter sentence thanks to her gender because of direct orders from the government to judges to be more lenient to women than men. The sexist rape laws and the orders to the judges are the direct effect of decades of sexist feminist activism in this country.

    In this part of the world boys and men are raised to view sexual abuse by women as a compliment. A women grooming, raping or molesting a young boy (or even a man) is considered ‘hot’ in this society whilst rape by a man of a girl is considered a heinous crime. This culture is reflected in our sexist rape laws.

    Companies in the UK are adopting sexist hiring policies. They call it ‘positive discrimination’. Despite this being illegal under the sex discrimination act, companies are getting away with it because our feminised government is choosing to look the other way. For example Lloyds recently announced that they will be favouring female applicants over male applicants for managerial roles in their company. They are the first company to publicly announce that they are employing discrimination towards men in their hiring policies.

    A woman can report you for domestic violence in this country and have you evicted from your own house and separated from your children for a month without ANY EVIDENCE and before your case is even presented to court or investigated by the police….all the police need from her is to make a claim that she was abused…that is enough to have you kicked out of your house and separated from your children….this law came into affect in 2014.

    In the media men are often portrayed as the pun of the joke, idiots, buffoons, clowns around women and men are portrayed as being dependent on women for their existence. Take a show like the Simpsons as an example. Every male character in that cartoon is portrayed as an idiot who is dependent on and lucky to have that women in his life. This is in complete contrast to the women in that show who are presented as strong, intelligent, independent characters, unlucky to have that burden of a man in their life. This sexist portrayal of men is spread across the media and it greatly impacts boys who grow up watching these shows.

    You are disadvantaged in education. There are countless women’s educational institutes in this country the combined membership of which is a quarter of a million women. These institutes play a role in providing women with educational opportunities and are directly funded by the British tax payer. Their membership is strictly restricted to women. Men are not allowed to join or benefit from these institutes. There are zero male institutes in this country advocating educational opportunities for boys and men. ZERO. This despite the fact that men are outnumbered and underperforming in education. All governmental reports concerning gender gaps are written based on the guidance of feminist organisations. These reports wind up dismissing issues affecting men and accentuating issues affecting women and this pushes men back even further. To add insult to injury men and boys have tried numerous times and continue trying to start boys and mens rights advocacy groups in education in an effort to address issues affecting men in this area of life. Each time their attempts are blocked by institutionalised feminist groups. Two recent examples being the university of Staffordshire, which had its male rights advocacy group blocked by a ‘woman’s network’ who called the idea of a men’s rights advocacy group ‘dangerous’. Another example is the university of Durham who’s student union blocked its male rights advocacy society, which was set up by a male student to raise awareness about male suicide after his friend killed himself, because it was ‘too controversial’…..

    Every university in this country has a woman’s rights representative in the student’s union. A role which is strictly reserved for female students. Not one university has a male role equivalent despite men being outnumbered in higher education by 2 to 1 and in some universities by a ratio of 4:1. Boys who have tried to create male rights advocacy roles in their student union have faced endless battles, mocking and abuse from feminists within the union which wind up successfully blocking their attempts of forming this role in universities in the UK. Only one university so far has beaten feminists in the union and managed to establish a role to represent men. That is keele University. The student union in this university initially rejected the idea of a men’s representative as being ‘not necessary’ and fought hard to abolish it but lost that fight to the share number of students who stood in support of the idea….

    As a man you are not allowed to pursue certain areas of work within professions such as radiography and medicine. In radiography you are not allowed to pursue careers in mammography for example. There are no such restrictions on women in any field. A woman can work in any department in radiography and be involved in scanning male sex organs without any restrictions. The same applies to medicine. Men’s roles and career paths are restricted but women are not…

    These are just a few examples…My friend, the only reason why you think that men are not oppressed is because you are stubborn and ignorant to what is going on in the world around you and this is largely through no fault of your own. You are bombarded morning day and night through the education system, through the media and through politics of how women are oppressed and men are not. Feminism is highly institutionalised in this country and this ideology believes that women are discriminated against whilst men are not. It does its best to portray this in our education system and our media. It does its best to hide male oppression in this country, so a large majority of men grow up unaware of the discrimination affecting them.

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    1 - (Men) They're most likely to be the aggressors too. Men are more biologically inclined to be violent
    Similar things used to be said about 'blacks' to justify the racism against them by the police services and similar things were said about 'jews' to justify their victimisation and genocide by the nazis....

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    (Men) commit and receive most of the violence.
    We live in a world that teaches men to provide for women and empower them at their expense. We live in a world that sends men off to war to solve world problems and die by the truck loads whilst women sit at home, carry on with their lives, live on and reap the benefits!! We live in a world that expects men to provide for it and shames them when they don't!!!! A world that rushes to the aid of women but criticises men when they fall on hard times!! of course in such a sexist female privileged world men are going to commit more crimes and violence.....Such a world puts men in a position to commit more crimes and violence.....and what makes this world even more disgusting is that despite this sexist culture that pushes men into such acts often for the betterment of women, feminists blame men for the violence and crimes……..and people like you parrot them without thought.

    Additionally, we live in a world that refuses to hold women accountable for their crimes and violence and bullying and sexual abuse. A world that views female rape of underage boys as being ‘HOT’…of course in a world like this statistics are going to show that men commit more violence and crime......

    Also, notice the hypocrisy in your way of thinking, which feminists share. Men have been responsible for the vast majority of discoveries and advances in history and yet nobody says men are more intelligent than women… Instead people try to explain it away by saying that women are oppressed….but in the case of violence, sexist society preaches that men commit more crimes therefore men are more violent than women. Nobody says well, wait a second, maybe they commit more crimes because they are disadvantaged/oppressed? think about the double standards and sexism in this way of thinking.

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    2 - I need evidence to support the supposition that this is in some way due to oppression rather than just a statistical fact in so far as it happens due to personal choice and other factors not reliant on 'oppression'.
    You ask for causation. You ask for proof that the issue of there being more homeless men than women is caused by sexism. You obviously have the intellectual capacity to be logical. There is still hope for you.

    The Proof:

    As I mentioned above, in prevailing culture men are seen as being of less worth than women. This is clear in crises where women's lives are put before those of men. It is clear in the contrasting way in which we react to violence and harm affecting both genders. If I show you a video of a woman being punched in the face and i show a video of man being punched in the face I am willing to bet you my life that you will be offended more by the punch to the woman than you would the man. You are programmed to think this way by this matriarchal society that we live in.. You are taught from a young age that violence against women is wrong. You are not taught the same level of respect towards men. If you are a man you are taught to be chivalrous and protective towards women even to your own detriment.....and when you don't put a woman's life before yours society shames you and calls you a coward…. women are not taught to respect men in this same way… in fact such an idea would be considered sexist. such is the state of the female privileged, sexist matriarchal culture that we live in. In such a culture when you pass a homeless man you feel disgust towards him....replace that same man with a woman and you feel an urgent need to help her overcome her troubles. In a culture like this homeless men wind up filling the streets without a care whilst you'd struggle to find a singe homeless women....

    This issue is exacerbated by reports made by charities and pressure groups in this country which focus on issues affecting women more than those affecting men, even to the extent of distorting statistics to show men as being less disadvantaged than women when the opposite is true, in the effort of gaining more help for women than men. These charities and pressure groups make policy recommendations to the government which in turn affect the way the government deals with the homeless issue. Read this following article by Glen Poole into a report by Homeless Link a charity that receives funding by the government to tackle issues of the homeless…Their report into the state of the homeless had concluded that a greater number of homeless women were addicts and a greater number of homeless women suffered from mental health problems than men and therefore women needed more help….Glen, a telegraph journalist and men’s rights advocate, did a little calculating into their numbers himself and found the opposite to be true…and he spoke to them about it…read the article for an insight into the corruption and sexism that is going on in this country behind your back:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/think...pacts-men.html

    As a result of this deception and this culture of favouring women over men people like you wind up believing that homeless women are at a greater risk than homeless men…when the opposite is true…..homeless men for example make up 80% of psychological health problems and most of the addicts within the homeless community....

    You need to think outside the box that this feminist society has put you in.….Men are physically more capable of protecting themselves true, but men are at a greater risk for their health and safety thanks to the burdens put on them by society thanks to this physical advantage. As a result of these cultural burdens men are more prone to psychological illnesses than women and men are four times more likely to commit suicide than women. ….Men as a result of these burdens are at greater risk of becoming homeless. Men as a result of these burdens put upon them by society are at a greater risk of resorting to drugs …..if you look at life this way you realise that because men are physically stronger they are in actual fact at a greater disadvantage and greater risk to their life than women…and this disadvantage is made worse by a society run by feminists who portray men as being in a state of advantage and focus on the betterment of women….

    You need to think outside the box my friend. You are intelligent. I am sure you are able to see the light in this issue. by the way, I have just touched the surface of this issue of the homeless here.

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    3 - That is more a societal issue, biologically women are the gender humans look to protect more and I do feel shelters should not be gender based and that men should have greater access to support but I wouldn't say this in and of itself constitutes oppression. Certainly men are a minority of victims and whilst I don't believe that ratio to be 8:260 or whatever the number of womens shelters is (I cba to look it up but I know its significantly higher), the number is less relevant than the quality of care they provide. The mens shelters are insufficient for purpose, no doubt. But is that specifically because of women? Do women ensure that men are kept down by reducing their access to shelters? That sounds as illogical as patriarchy theory. More likely the issue simply hasn't had enough exposure to encourage the right number of shelters for men (again not that shelters should be gendered anyway)
    You ask questions that speak volumes about your conclusion that men are not oppressed. You ask questions that tell me that you reached this conclusion based on a lack of knowledge and ignorance, which again I don’t blame on you. You live in a society were men and women are kept in the dark.

    You ask, do women insure that men are kept down by reducing their access to shelters? YES!!!!! they do and this is not isolated but systematic and its been happening for nearly 50 years now but nobody knows about it because it is not publicised.

    Feminism usurped the shelter movement back in the 70s. Since then, men and boys have been driven out of shelters and men’s shelters have been driven to closure and their founders to suicide by institutionalised feminism. None of this is talked about in the feminised media. None of this is taught in our schools and there is little mention of it in our books thanks to suppression by feminist organisation pressure on publishers….

    Take the story of Erin Pizzey as an example. Erin set up the first shelter for victims of domestic violence in the world back in the 70s. She started the shelter movement. She also founded the now very famous organisation 'Woman’s Aid'. Interesting side note; she was a victim of domestic violence as a child at the hands of her mother. Her first shelter operated an open door policy. She helped women, children and men and she funded the formation of shelters across the globe through donations to her charity. Contrary to feminist beliefs she did not believe that violence was a male characteristic but a human trait that was caused by both genders and caused suffering for both genders. She allowed men to staff her shelters. She also allowed men and boys into her shelters. As a result of this she started receiving bomb threats from feminists. They picketed here lectures, suppressed the publication of her books and threatened her life to the point where she was forced into exile outside of Britain for 15 years.….during that time her shelters and her charity were completely taken over…men and boys over the age of 9-12 were no longer allowed to seek help from from her shelters and men were also banned from working there and this carries on to this day. Her books were suppressed by feminist organisation pressure on publishers such that she could not publish them and the 'women’s aid' website has no mention of her anywhere. Its still very hard to get hold of her books especially ‘prone to violence’ a book which tells the story/history of the domestic violence shelter movement. A book which shows you those crimes of feminism pertaining to the issue of domestic violence in this country and around the world not only against men but against anyone who opposed or questioned feminism.



    Women’s organisations are actively involved in suppressing men’s rights advocacy groups or any group that brings up issues covering the welfare of men around the globe and in every area of life from domestic violence to education and this has contributed to putting men at a greater disadvantage in society and resulted in a greater level of ignorance amongst the populous for the suffering of men.

    Let me tell you a quick story about a domestic violence shelter that was set up for men in Canada (the only shelter for men in Canada. A country where men account for 50% of domestic violence calls to the police). A guy called Earl Silverman, a men’s rights activist and victim of domestic violence at the hands of an abusive wife (who was never held to account for his abuse), set up a charity and shelter for abused men in his own home. A shelter and a charity he was forced to finance himself through his own pocket. For 15 years prior to that he had campaigned for the Canadian government to help fund his charity. He was refused that request and ridiculed by institutionalised feminism which preaches that “Men are not discriminated against” and “are not in need of representation”. In 2013 after spending the entirety of his savings on running the charity and after being driven to financial ruin and loosing his house, thanks to a culture of ignorance towards men’s issues and feminist suppression, a culture not very much unlike your dismissive way of thinking, he committed suicide …………..

    Following his death a feminist lowlife journalist wrote a now infamous article titled …’feminism didn’t kill Earl Silverman’ in which she blamed his death on demons in his life……such is the criminality of feminism.

    These issues are just the tip of the iceberg that is male oppression….my friend, you live in ignorance which empowers this oppression.

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    4 - So go set one up. Who cares? I can go to my gym whenever I feel so inclined, I couldn't care less if the women want to work out there or at a 'womens only gym'. Provided it's not at the detriment of men, ie converting unisex gyms or removing unisex gyms then it really doesn't matter.
    Set one up how when you have feminists and the government actively preventing you from doing that by threat of the law?

    The boy scouts were forced to include girls into their organisation in response to feminist activism and under the threat of the sex discrimination act. After they were successful in this endeavour, feminists went on and started a girls scout organisation called the girl guides which boys are forbidden from joining by that same law that forces the boys scouts to allow girls into its group……………………… ……………….

    Feminists organisations and the government have been putting huge pressure on men’s clubs in this country to accept women. Slowly men’s clubs have been pressurised into allowing women to join e.g. the Marlyborne Cricket Club which in 1998 started accepting women after 211 years of being male only and The Royal & Ancient Golf Club at St Andrews which started accepting female members after 260 years of being a male only club and the list goes on and on…..feminists/women are having men’s clubs and spaces pressurised into accepting women or threatened to be closed down because according to these feminists/women, allowing such things to exist would be sexist and discriminatory…. They do this whilst campaigning for men to be banned from gyms, banning boys and men from their girl scouts and domestic violence shelters and women’s institutes…..this culture of double standards is the definition of sexism and you find this culture of double standards everywhere…even in career progression where, for example, men are not allowed to pursue careers involving diagnoses of female sex organs because that is considered a sexual violation of women but women have no such restrictions placed on them towards men….

    Double standards do not matter to you because you do not see their implications….The problem is that you are ignorant to the problems caused by these double standards in our society, which are extremely detrimental to men in every aspect of life, from simple things like gyms to more serious issues like education, legislation and careers....and things are only getting worse thanks to the determination of feminism and dismissive people like you.

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    5 - The education system also disadvantages the working class in its structure and its metric of 'intelligence' due to the differences in peer group encouraged methodologies of thought ie poorer people don't have the time to sit around being existential, they have to learn to instantaneously separate bullsh!t from important information because that is what the lifestyle demands (generally speaking) so when they go to uni/a level adapting to the pretentious engage with nonsense ideas, quote a load of random people, theorise on everything, structure it one specific way methodology of learning they struggle (both statistically and anecdotally, I certainly don't fit the method of thought on my degree and adapting has been a struggle with numerous essays feedback being 'you clearly understand the issues but I don't like your structure, or word use or 'critical analysis' (as in it doesn't fit my subjective view in many cases). But we have to have a measure. The conversion to 'benefit girls' may well be true (certainly in the past 10yrs their rate of success academically has skyrocketed to overtake boys) but again is this 'oppression'. It's unfair but so is my class based example. Do I think that means the middle/upper class is oppressing me? No. Similarly is the education system oppressing boys? No. It's just unfortunate the latest incarnation of the system isn't balanced and hopefully this will be noticed and addressed - some advocacy in this area would be nice but again, not 'anti-oppression' advocacy but common sense advocacy ie the system is unbalanced, rebalance it please.
    You are so ignorant to what is going on in this country in education. As I explained before, the government pumps billions into educational opportunities for women and there is nothing for men. Men have tried to help other men and boys but as I mentioned before they have been blocked and suppressed by institutionalised feminism. There are roles in higher education that are specifically devoted to benefiting women in education and no male role equivalent. Student unions which play an important role in advocating education have a woman’s representative but no male role equivalent. there are hundreds of women only postgraduate scholarships but no male only equivalent this despite the fact that men are outnumbered and outperformed in higher education in this country.…and these are just a few examples of how men and boys are oppressed in education…..

    Please for the love of god, do some research, ask questions…and don’t try to justify this state that we are in when you clearly are ignorant to everything that is happening around you!!!!!!

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    6 - Agreed. I dislike quotas or favouritism of any kind but women are still a huge minority in stem so until it starts pushing men to the bottom of the pile I'm not too worried. It just clearly demonstrates most women don't want to STEM as even with such criteria they are still a minority. Again I don't see how this is symptomatic of oppression. It's not done to push men out, it's done to get girls in. Big fundamental difference. I still don't agree with it, but the intent is not oppressive.
    The government pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into advocating higher education opportunities for women particularly in STEM fields whilst not providing that privilege to men and boys despite their clear disadvantage in higher education and you think that this is not pushing men out? When the government funds universities to allow women easier access into STEM fields giving them an advantage over you by virtue of nothing but their gender, causing them to have a better chance at gaining a place than you, that is not pushing men out according to you? When a woman has easier access to a seat at university, a seat that you are competing with her on you do not view this as men being pushed out? You are not worried about this favouritism towards women over men who are disadvantaged in higher education? You as a male have to work harder to get into higher education than a woman thanks to this culture of favouritism…this state of unfairness does not bother you?

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    7 - So? It's just a stat (see 2)
    Its a stat that speaks volumes when you put it together with all the references that I made above.

    Please read this comment slowly and think about what i have written. Think about it for a long time. Don’t reply in anger. You are ignorant to what is happening to men in this world my friend. That is why you think we are not oppressed….one of the biggest problems us equal rights activists have in the fight for equality for men is ignorant men like you who do their best to stand in the way of our cause ….but our voice is only getting louder and louder and the more you people hate and abuse us the more determined we become.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Many people, including yourself, are ignorant to this issue of sexism against men that is prevalent in our society so this comment is not just for you (Gonvile).
    What is actually wrong with you? Unless you're trying to be facetious on purpose you have some serious problems.

    (Original post by CookieButter)


    You live in ignorance of our reality. That is the only reason why you believe that men are not oppressed and this isn’t your fault. I don’t blame you for not knowing. You live in a feminised country. You’ve been blinded and desensitised to the sexism against men.
    See above. Stop treating people like idiots and they might actually want to hear your opinion

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    As a man (and I am assuming that you are really a man as you claim) you are at a disadvantage in every aspect of life and on every level thanks to sexism. Choose any area in life on this planet and I will show you how you are actively discriminated against in it. Let me just give you a few quick examples….
    Bit paranoid.

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    You can suffer rape at the hands of a woman in this country and the woman would not be charged with rape simply because she is a woman. She will also receive a lighter sentence thanks to her gender because of direct orders from the government to judges to be more lenient to women than men. The sexist rape laws and the orders to the judges are the direct effect of decades of sexist feminist activism in this country.

    In this part of the world boys and men are raised to view sexual abuse by women as a compliment. A women grooming, raping or molesting a young boy (or even a man) is considered ‘hot’ in this society whilst rape by a man of a girl is considered a heinous crime. This culture is reflected in our sexist rape laws.

    Companies in the UK are adopting sexist hiring policies. They call it ‘positive discrimination’. Despite this being illegal under the sex discrimination act, companies are getting away with it because our feminised government is choosing to look the other way. For example Lloyds recently announced that they will be favouring female applicants over male applicants for managerial roles in their company. They are the first company to publicly announce that they are employing discrimination towards men in their hiring policies.

    A woman can report you for domestic violence in this country and have you evicted from your own house and separated from your children for a month without ANY EVIDENCE and before your case is even presented to court or investigated by the police….all the police need from her is to make a claim that she was abused…that is enough to have you kicked out of your house and separated from your children….this law came into affect in 2014.
    Totally agree with these points for the most part. I don't see how they demonstrate outright oppression though, they demonstrate how politics and society operate together imperfectly due to the socially charged nature of many important issues.

    Viewing the groping of 'young men' as hot is (a) personally subjective, and (b) not true.
    It's more likely a man will be congratulated for sexual activity but this is just the feminist 'slut shaming' in reverse. Again biological differences, brain structure and impetus based on gender. Female paedos are still convicted and put on the register so clearly it being 'hot' isn't everyone's view or else they'd never make it on there. This is a simplification of a complex issue surrounding law and sex in the western world, boiling it down to poor men/poor women is why the laws are so all over the place as is.

    It came into effect to protect vulnerable victims. It's imperfect, but also functions the same way for males who claim domestic violence (unless I read it wrong, feel free to give me the reference for the statute if I have) because a lot of deaths were occurring where police couldn't act owing to the fact 'mere coercion' was insufficient. Led to quite a few incidents of serious violence and murder. Also if the claim is wrongly made there are restitution's under the law for (a) libel/slander, (b) Tortious claims if loss is incurred or harm suffered, (c) False/Malicious prosecution laws to punish those who lie to the police for personal reasons. None of this demonstrates 'oppression', it demonstrates a reaction to a social issue which was ill coped with previously and so the pendulum has now moved slightly too far in the opposite direction. Oppression isn't just having something occur to you in relation to complex social issues, in the 1950's the law failed to protect the rights of 'all tresspassers without a right' which sounded fine at the time until dog walkers, joggers and schoolkids started getting hurt. Kids were getting hit by trains with no legal redress because they were 'not legally licensed' and therefore could bring no claim as 'tresspassers'. Were these groups oppressed as they couldn't recover tortious damage? Or was it an unfortunate side effect? In the 1980's the policy changed which meant burglars were entitled to damages for occupiers liability (basically gross negligence in hazard identification), does this mean burglars are privileged? Or was it, again, the product of infinitely complex social legislation being imperfect? To demonstrate oppression you need more than just well something can happen sometimes

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    In the media men are often portrayed as the pun of the joke, idiots, buffoons, clowns around women and men are portrayed as being dependent on women for their existence. Take a show like the Simpsons as an example. Every male character in that cartoon is portrayed as an idiot who is dependent on and lucky to have that women in his life. This is in complete contrast to the women in that show who are presented as strong, intelligent, independent characters, unlucky to have that burden of a man in their life. This sexist portrayal of men is spread across the media and it greatly impacts boys who grow up watching these shows.
    This is a dumb argument based on cherry picking and even assuming the premise to be true how does it 'impact' boys and men? They see a stupid man and think 'I must be stupid?' Psychologically speaking that's complete rubbish, humans intuitively know the difference between real and fake and partition it as such thus the hundreds of studies showing violent films and video games don't increase the risk of real life violence ie they can identify when the representations are inaccurate even as children, and even if it wasn't and they took men to be less competent than women as their presumption how does that affect them personally? They will still try their hardest, get the best grades they can etc etc provided their parents are in any way competent and succeed or fail based on that. Even if they take that presumption in to hiring ie they think women will be better they still won't disregard meritocracy. It's the same reason the argument 'white people will pick white people' is stupid.

    They won't say OMG he'll make us an extra £50,000 a year? On a starting salary? Hire him NOW!...Oh actually hold on...I've just noticed he's ticked the 'black' ethnic box...er never mind, hire the worse one. Similarly they won't do this in relation to men or women which is why stats are both men do more hours, have a wider bell curve of intelligence, and hold the majority of corporate high positions. Meritocracy wins out when money is all that matters. (minimum wage or low paid jobs not so much but another discussion for another time). This is further evidenced by the fact the simpsons started in 1989 so clearly businesses haven't agreed to this men are bumbling idiots trope.

    Back to the cherry picking, I can name loads of stupid, ineffectual, moronic and annoying female characters.

    Ricks wife from the walking dead
    Vanessa from Van Helsing
    99% of them in every soap ever
    Donna Noble in Dr Who
    Adelind Shade from Grimm (among others who come and go v. quickly)
    Michael's wife from GTA
    Miss Macfarlane from RDR
    Ginny Weasley in Harry Potter

    That's just top of my head, there are literally hundreds.


    (Original post by CookieButter)

    You are disadvantaged in education. There are countless women’s educational institutes in this country the combined membership of which is a quarter of a million women. These institutes play a role in providing women with educational opportunities and are directly funded by the British tax payer. Their membership is strictly restricted to women. Men are not allowed to join or benefit from these institutes. There are zero male institutes in this country advocating educational opportunities for boys and men. ZERO. This despite the fact that men are outnumbered and underperforming in education. All governmental reports concerning gender gaps are written based on the guidance of feminist organisations. These reports wind up dismissing issues affecting men and accentuating issues affecting women and this pushes men back even further. To add insult to injury men and boys have tried numerous times and continue trying to start boys and mens rights advocacy groups in education in an effort to address issues affecting men in this area of life. Each time their attempts are blocked by institutionalised feminist groups. Two recent examples being the university of Staffordshire, which had its male rights advocacy group blocked by a ‘woman’s network’ who called the idea of a men’s rights advocacy group ‘dangerous’. Another example is the university of Durham who’s student union blocked its male rights advocacy society, which was set up by a male student to raise awareness about male suicide after his friend killed himself, because it was ‘too controversial’…..
    Agree. Not oppression though, this is just feminism showing its true face. This is all because womens institutes, feminist thinktanks which are basically QUANGOs at this point etc etc makes a load of money and they don't want their narrative ruined because then they can't benefit from it. Obviously it's at uni, they're a breeding ground for bad ideas and then because these people get degrees their voices are considered more important so obviously the government will institute bad policies based on the say so of these nutters - it's why I'm determined to complete mine, to have a proper voice in conversations. I'd still categorise that as social issues being implemented wrongly. Equality for all is a relatively new concept, the boundaries are still being struggled with, and of course being exploited by some.

    (Original post by CookieButter)


    Every university in this country has a woman’s rights representative in the student’s union. A role which is strictly reserved for female students. Not one university has a male role equivalent despite men being outnumbered in higher education by 2 to 1 and in some universities by a ratio of 4:1. Boys who have tried to create male rights advocacy roles in their student union have faced endless battles, mocking and abuse from feminists within the union which wind up successfully blocking their attempts of forming this role in universities in the UK. Only one university so far has beaten feminists in the union and managed to establish a role to represent men. That is keele University. The student union in this university initially rejected the idea of a men’s representative as being ‘not necessary’ and fought hard to abolish it but lost that fight to the share number of students who stood in support of the idea….
    Same as above really. It's bs but is it oppression? It's ideologues trying to maintain their positions because they benefit from them. Also as to whether I have a gender advocate at my uni is so low on my priority list I'd never even considered the concept until you mentioned it, if oppression is not having a gender rep at a selective educational institute as opposed to say more traditional forms of whips, violence, threats and coercion then I can't pretend to be that concerned. As per it's feminists not the institution, you're more proving the point feminism is terrible - an argument I wholeheartedly agree with.


    (Original post by CookieButter)

    As a man you are not allowed to pursue certain areas of work within professions such as radiography and medicine. In radiography you are not allowed to pursue careers in mammography for example. There are no such restrictions on women in any field. A woman can work in any department in radiography and be involved in scanning male sex organs without any restrictions. The same applies to medicine. Men’s roles and career paths are restricted but women are not…
    http://allnurses.com/men-in-nursing/...hy-796262.html

    This suggests, according to an actual nurse, that it's because people prefer same sex examiners and the NHS advice website says any person is allowed to request a same sex doctor for any examination http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2415.aspx?CategoryID=68 and they'll do their best to adhere. So if women want women to examine them intimately (both men and women have a biological predisposition to prefer women in certain instances, usually of a private nature) then what would be the point of a male mammographer anyway? This seems like the market deciding to me, in the same way it's not inherently discrimination most CEO's are male. Why would you hire a male mammographer if they'll never earn you what you have to pay them? Similarly why would you hire a woman as CEO when a man has a stronger track record and will probably earn you more money (as on average the likelihood is the woman took time out for childbirth and further time off for child related stuff throughout her career)?

    It's not about 'keeping men down'. Also women can't be frontline troops - is that oppressing women? Because there's a job where it's been identified such a small proportion can achieve there isn't much point hiring them.

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    These are just a few examples…My friend, the only reason why you think that men are not oppressed is because you are stubborn and ignorant to what is going on in the world around you and this is largely through no fault of your own. You are bombarded morning day and night through the education system, through the media and through politics of how women are oppressed and men are not. Feminism is highly institutionalised in this country and this ideology believes that women are discriminated against whilst men are not. It does its best to portray this in our education system and our media. It does its best to hide male oppression in this country, so a large majority of men grow up unaware of the discrimination affecting them.



    Similar things used to be said about 'blacks' to justify the racism against them by the police services and similar things were said about 'jews' to justify their victimisation and genocide by the nazis....



    We live in a world that teaches men to provide for women and empower them at their expense. We live in a world that sends men off to war to solve world problems and die by the truck loads whilst women sit at home, carry on with their lives, live on and reap the benefits!! We live in a world that expects men to provide for it and shames them when they don't!!!! A world that rushes to the aid of women but criticises men when they fall on hard times!! of course in such a sexist female privileged world men are going to commit more crimes and violence.....Such a world puts men in a position to commit more crimes and violence.....and what makes this world even more disgusting is that despite this sexist culture that pushes men into such acts often for the betterment of women, feminists blame men for the violence and crimes……..and people like you parrot them without thought.
    Stop being a condescending d!ck. No wonder you're so certain if that's your attitude towards everyone.

    All assertions w/no evidence, also yeah they totally reap the benefits of having their soulmate blown up, losing his income, being depressed about his death and losing their house because they can't take any more hours because of kids and commitments (I've known someone this happened to, they ended up in hospital on suicide watch and their kids in care)

    I don't blame men for violence and crimes. I blame violent people and criminals. The gender really doesn't matter.

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    Additionally, we live in a world that refuses to hold women accountable for their crimes and violence and bullying and sexual abuse. A world that views female rape of underage boys as being ‘HOT’…of course in a world like this statistics are going to show that men commit more violence and crime......
    Already said this. Already addressed. No we don't. The law doesn't allow women to escape if they commit crimes otherwise they'd be no woman prisoners.

    This sort of excusing rubbish is why the BLM guy killed like six cops. It's stupid logic whoever uses it. Also it's probably more to do with biology and the IQ bell curve.

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    Also, notice the hypocrisy in your way of thinking, which feminists share. Men have been responsible for the vast majority of discoveries and advances in history and yet nobody says men are more intelligent than women… Instead people try to explain it away by saying that women are oppressed….but in the case of violence, sexist society preaches that men commit more crimes therefore men are more violent than women. Nobody says well, wait a second, maybe they commit more crimes because they are disadvantaged/oppressed? think about the double standards and sexism in this way of thinking.
    I don't say that so what is your point? I'm being hypocritical because someone else said something? Thats ridiculous.

    Men are more violent than women


    (Original post by CookieButter)


    You ask for causation. You ask for proof that the issue of there being more homeless men than women is caused by sexism. You obviously have the intellectual capacity to be logical. There is still hope for you.
    I'd get banned for abuse if you got my raw feedback to this rubbish. You are just an outright narcissistic headcase, 'there is still hope for you'..thank god for that as you're totally gone.

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    The Proof:

    As I mentioned above, in prevailing culture men are seen as being of less worth than women. This is clear in crises where women's lives are put before those of men. It is clear in the contrasting way in which we react to violence and harm affecting both genders. If I show you a video of a woman being punched in the face and i show a video of man being punched in the face I am willing to bet you my life that you will be offended more by the punch to the woman than you would the man. You are programmed to think this way by this matriarchal society that we live in.. You are taught from a young age that violence against women is wrong. You are not taught the same level of respect towards men. If you are a man you are taught to be chivalrous and protective towards women even to your own detriment.....and when you don't put a woman's life before yours society shames you and calls you a coward…. women are not taught to respect men in this same way… in fact such an idea would be considered sexist. such is the state of the female privileged, sexist matriarchal culture that we live in. In such a culture when you pass a homeless man you feel disgust towards him....replace that same man with a woman and you feel an urgent need to help her overcome her troubles. In a culture like this homeless men wind up filling the streets without a care whilst you'd struggle to find a singe homeless women....
    So your proof is something you said earlier, and an assumption about how I'd view a theoretical video (which is wrong by the way) and a bunch of drivel about homeless people and 'men expected to die for women' which I presume is just the war example again, and a lie? (I literally saw a homeless woman in my town today, and I saw a man.They both got the same level of sympathy because I'm not mentally deficient and the fact you think that's not everyone's starting point says more about you than anything else)

    Your burden of proof is terrible, this isn't beyond reasonable doubt, it's not even balance of probabilities...what scale are you using?

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    This issue is exacerbated by reports made by charities and pressure groups in this country which focus on issues affecting women more than those affecting men, even to the extent of distorting statistics to show men as being less disadvantaged than women when the opposite is true, in the effort of gaining more help for women than men. These charities and pressure groups make policy recommendations to the government which in turn affect the way the government deals with the homeless issue. Read this following article by Glen Poole into a report by Homeless Link a charity that receives funding by the government to tackle issues of the homeless…Their report into the state of the homeless had concluded that a greater number of homeless women were addicts and a greater number of homeless women suffered from mental health problems than men and therefore women needed more help….Glen, a telegraph journalist and men’s rights advocate, did a little calculating into their numbers himself and found the opposite to be true…and he spoke to them about it…read the article for an insight into the corruption and sexism that is going on in this country behind your back:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/think...pacts-men.html

    As a result of this deception and this culture of favouring women over men people like you wind up believing that homeless women are at a greater risk than homeless men…when the opposite is true…..homeless men for example make up 80% of psychological health problems and most of the addicts within the homeless community....
    People manipulate statistics to serve what they believe? I'm shocked (sarcasm). You've just demonstrated people manipulate data.

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    You need to think outside the box that this feminist society has put you in.….Men are physically more capable of protecting themselves true, but men are at a greater risk for their health and safety thanks to the burdens put on them by society thanks to this physical advantage. As a result of these cultural burdens men are more prone to psychological illnesses than women and men are four times more likely to commit suicide than women. ….Men as a result of these burdens are at greater risk of becoming homeless. Men as a result of these burdens put upon them by society are at a greater risk of resorting to drugs …..if you look at life this way you realise that because men are physically stronger they are in actual fact at a greater disadvantage and greater risk to their life than women…and this disadvantage is made worse by a society run by feminists who portray men as being in a state of advantage and focus on the betterment of women….

    You need to think outside the box my friend. You are intelligent. I am sure you are able to see the light in this issue. by the way, I have just touched the surface of this issue of the homeless here.
    A lot of men's behaviour is because they're biologically risk takers and also have a wider bell curve of IQ


    (Original post by CookieButter)


    You ask questions that speak volumes about your conclusion that men are not oppressed. You ask questions that tell me that you reached this conclusion based on a lack of knowledge and ignorance, which again I don’t blame on you. You live in a society were men and women are kept in the dark.

    You ask, do women insure that men are kept down by reducing their access to shelters? YES!!!!! they do and this is not isolated but systematic and its been happening for nearly 50 years now but nobody knows about it because it is not publicised.
    So if nobody knows about it how are women as a collective using it to oppress men as a collective then?

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    Feminism usurped the shelter movement back in the 70s. Since then, men and boys have been driven out of shelters and men’s shelters have been driven to closure and their founders to suicide by institutionalised feminism. None of this is talked about in the feminised media. None of this is taught in our schools and there is little mention of it in our books thanks to suppression by feminist organisation pressure on publishers….

    Take the story of Erin Pizzey as an example. Erin set up the first shelter for victims of domestic violence in the world back in the 70s. She started the shelter movement. She also founded the now very famous organisation 'Woman’s Aid'. Interesting side note; she was a victim of domestic violence as a child at the hands of her mother. Her first shelter operated an open door policy. She helped women, children and men and she funded the formation of shelters across the globe through donations to her charity. Contrary to feminist beliefs she did not believe that violence was a male characteristic but a human trait that was caused by both genders and caused suffering for both genders. She allowed men to staff her shelters. She also allowed men and boys into her shelters. As a result of this she started receiving bomb threats from feminists. They picketed here lectures, suppressed the publication of her books and threatened her life to the point where she was forced into exile outside of Britain for 15 years.….during that time her shelters and her charity were completely taken over…men and boys over the age of 9-12 were no longer allowed to seek help from from her shelters and men were also banned from working there and this carries on to this day. Her books were suppressed by feminist organisation pressure on publishers such that she could not publish them and the 'women’s aid' website has no mention of her anywhere. Its still very hard to get hold of her books especially ‘prone to violence’ a book which tells the story/history of the domestic violence shelter movement. A book which shows you those crimes of feminism pertaining to the issue of domestic violence in this country and around the world not only against men but against anyone who opposed or questioned feminism.



    Women’s organisations are actively involved in suppressing men’s rights advocacy groups or any group that brings up issues covering the welfare of men around the globe and in every area of life from domestic violence to education and this has contributed to putting men at a greater disadvantage in society and resulted in a greater level of ignorance amongst the populous for the suffering of men.
    So again feminism is awful and those who piggybacked it for personal gain want to keep that money? Obviously. How does this demonstrate all men are oppressed by all women because a few women are awful?

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    Let me tell you a quick story about a domestic violence shelter that was set up for men in Canada (the only shelter for men in Canada. A country where men account for 50% of domestic violence calls to the police). A guy called Earl Silverman, a men’s rights activist and victim of domestic violence at the hands of an abusive wife (who was never held to account for his abuse), set up a charity and shelter for abused men in his own home. A shelter and a charity he was forced to finance himself through his own pocket. For 15 years prior to that he had campaigned for the Canadian government to help fund his charity. He was refused that request and ridiculed by institutionalised feminism which preaches that “Men are not discriminated against” and “are not in need of representation”. In 2013 after spending the entirety of his savings on running the charity and after being driven to financial ruin and loosing his house, thanks to a culture of ignorance towards men’s issues and feminist suppression, a culture not very much unlike your dismissive way of thinking, he committed suicide …………..

    Following his death a feminist lowlife journalist wrote a now infamous article titled …’feminism didn’t kill Earl Silverman’ in which she blamed his death on demons in his life……such is the criminality of feminism.
    See above.

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    These issues are just the tip of the iceberg that is male oppression….my friend, you live in ignorance which empowers this oppression.



    Set one up how when you have feminists and the government actively preventing you from doing that by threat of the law?

    The boy scouts were forced to include girls into their organisation in response to feminist activism and under the threat of the sex discrimination act. After they were successful in this endeavour, feminists went on and started a girls scout organisation called the girl guides which boys are forbidden from joining by that same law that forces the boys scouts to allow girls into its group……………………… ……………….

    Feminists organisations and the government have been putting huge pressure on men’s clubs in this country to accept women. Slowly men’s clubs have been pressurised into allowing women to join e.g. the Marlyborne Cricket Club which in 1998 started accepting women after 211 years of being male only and The Royal & Ancient Golf Club at St Andrews which started accepting female members after 260 years of being a male only club and the list goes on and on…..feminists/women are having men’s clubs and spaces pressurised into accepting women or threatened to be closed down because according to these feminists/women, allowing such things to exist would be sexist and discriminatory…. They do this whilst campaigning for men to be banned from gyms, banning boys and men from their girl scouts and domestic violence shelters and women’s institutes…..this culture of double standards is the definition of sexism and you find this culture of double standards everywhere…even in career progression where, for example, men are not allowed to pursue careers involving diagnoses of female sex organs because that is considered a sexual violation of women but women have no such restrictions placed on them towards men….
    So take an all female org to court then. Do the same as they do if you want to see change. Say it's discrimination and you want in, I criticise feminism for this all the time because in terms of things like gyms its pathetic whining - you still have a gym you can go to any enjoy but for some reason you're really upset you couldn't theoretically go into a gym you don't want to go in anyway.

    Also again, just proof modern feminism is awful as if we needed more

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    Double standards do not matter to you because you do not see their implications
    Oh is that how double standards (that you haven't demonstrated) work? If you don't 'see their implications' (as a jumped up presumptuous airhead might phrase it) then they don't matter to you. What sort of logic is that

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    ….The problem is that you are ignorant to the problems caused by these double standards in our society, which are extremely detrimental to men in every aspect of life, from simple things like gyms to more serious issues like education, legislation and careers....and things are only getting worse thanks to the determination of feminism and dismissive people like you.
    I'm dismissive but you're the one calling me ignorant and brainwashed every two sentences? Ok then


    (Original post by CookieButter)

    You are so ignorant to what is going on in this country in education. As I explained before, the government pumps billions into educational opportunities for women and there is nothing for men. Men have tried to help other men and boys but as I mentioned before they have been blocked and suppressed by institutionalised feminism. There are roles in higher education that are specifically devoted to benefiting women in education and no male role equivalent. Student unions which play an important role in advocating education have a woman’s representative but no male role equivalent. there are hundreds of women only postgraduate scholarships but no male only equivalent this despite the fact that men are outnumbered and outperformed in higher education in this country.…and these are just a few examples of how men and boys are oppressed in education…..

    Please for the love of god, do some research, ask questions…and don’t try to justify this state that we are in when you clearly are ignorant to everything that is happening around you!!!!!!
    You've already said this.

    That last paragraph, no wonder you feel you're such a victim being so 'educated' and so much better than everyone else which you've proved by being wrong, cherry picking, manipulating anecdotes to make sweeping assertions, characterizing me multiple times (wrongly) and writing diatribes based on BS assertions due to this wrong stance, being facetious and having a 'proof section' which is nothing beyond a self satisfied ramble.

    (Original post by CookieButter)

    Education again (my summary)



    Its a stat that speaks volumes when you put it together with all the references that I made above.

    Please read this comment slowly and think about what i have written. Think about it for a long time. Don’t reply in anger. You are ignorant to what is happening to men in this world my friend. That is why you think we are not oppressed….one of the biggest problems us equal rights activists have in the fight for equality for men is ignorant men like you who do their best to stand in the way of our cause ….but our voice is only getting louder and louder and the more you people hate and abuse us the more determined we become.


    Hate and abuse = not agreeing and/or disliking facetious generally unpleasant people who call you ignorant constantly? More definitions of words you're struggling with.

    Also you're more ideological than feminists at this point, at least they say some people think otherwise and are just wrong You actually think (apparently) either people should agree with you or are 'ignorant'. Brilliant.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.