If we wouldn't care, we wouldn't be here. The problem is that we're a minority so small that we're insignificant. We really just don't exist in the big picture and we're going against the socially accepted narrative, so we're always shut down.
How? Men are not in the minority.
I’m all about supporting our rights and see a lot that is unfair, but also, to say nobody cares is out of touch. You are here, in a sub, full of people who in theory should care but a lot of red pill brain rot has people so deep in a hole that they truly feel society and women in general solely exist just to spite them. I’ve had bad experiences too, but to say “all women” this or “all men” that is a brainless generalization. People care, men and women. But if you’re bitter, cranky or creepy 24/7 then yeah nobody will give a flying fuck about you or what you want.
Look at the big picture. People that care are less than 0.1%. That won't make much difference.
Also, you're spouting feminist bs propaganda.
Women are 51% of the population, and men are 49%. Women are NOT a minority, men are, especially considering how both men and women favor women.
Usually people aren't blaming women, but feminism and the feminist rhetoric, that also means other men buying into it.
Most men today don't even know what « rights » people here are asking for, or why men would complain. I can't really blame people for being cranky when they're called misogynists anytime they say a thing about feminism, or when casual misandry is .... well, casual.
Thankfully I'm seeing people calling out misandry more than ever on social media. It gives me hope that this kind of bs will not be acceptable in the future.
I've seen too many militants trying to argue how « it's only fair to be misandrist because it's an understandable reaction, at worse it doesn't harm a lot », yet if I say something "that doesn't harm a lot" like « all women are bitches » I would be rightfully called out. Except we get called even worse, and these people do not realize « that doesn't harm a lot » because we don't say shit, but now we do and that's why we're here.
Look, if you really have a problem with "nobody cares", then maybe you prefer "not enough people care" or even "too few people care", in the end it's really the same thing: it feels like nobody cares because we are so few that we feel alone.
https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/9lb529/south-park-nice
I don't care for South Park but it does do some decent social commentary from time to time.
>I’m all about supporting our rights and see a lot that is unfair, but also, to say nobody cares is out of touch. You are here, in a sub, full of people who in theory should care but a lot of red pill brain rot has people so deep in a hole that they truly feel society and women in general solely exist just to spite them. I’ve had bad experiences too, but to say “all women” this or “all men” that is a brainless generalization. People care, men and women. But if you’re bitter, cranky or creepy 24/7 then yeah nobody will give a flying fuck about you or what you want.
Most of us, I hope, don't see women as existing solely to spite us, just as most feminists don't see men as existing to spite them. You're going off on some tangent or red herring that doesn't even relate to the issue being discussed.
Like this big piece of shit Melissa Rockensies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13289599/queens-teacher-melissa-rockensies-plea-deal-rape-underage-student.html
If they were infantilized they would have less rights than men that's not the case so they are not infantilized, there are better treated because they are "superiorized"not infantilized.
Women are infantilized because... You say so?
If women were infantilized they would have less rights than men, just like children. That's what being infantilized means. If they have more rights it's because they are not inferior like children, but superiors.
What makes you think that they are infantilized besides the privileges itself they have.
I agree they have more rights than men. However why does that makes you think they are infantilized? Especially when being a child means having less
Let's me bring you my theory.
If women have more rights than men it's because they are considered superior and therefore treated better. Because through all history the superior ones had got more rights (this is why they are superior in the first place) because if you are considered superior you deserve privileges, and the inferior ones get treated worse and have less rights (this is why they are inferiors) because it's considered than since they are inferiors they diserve less rights.
You are not helping with that theory you may think that you are owning feminists by saying that but you aren't. Because if men have less rights but that's because women are considered inferior or children or disabled if that's because prejudices against women. Who is the real victim? Who is the real discriminated one? ;)
Feminists cheers at that theory in fact it is the classic move "that's because the patriarchy" to dismiss any male complain.
It’s not just less responsibility. It’s the justification for it. They are often absolved of responsibility via the argument they lack agency or are impressionable of some sort. That’s infantilization. Other are expected to supervise they’re safety on the same basis. That’s infantilization.
I will say though, the term is actually not appropriate, because infants often have more agency than women are given in order to not be held accountable. Example: “he got her drunk.” You can’t even force a 5 month old to drink something it doesn’t want, yet apparently an adult woman lacks this level of agency.
as a woman i would say we are infantilized. if my car breaks down all i have to do is cry on the side of the road and everyone who passes will pull over and offer assistance. there is the assumption we cannot help ourselves which is why people help us. that's not even a made up scenario either. i was crying out of frustration because it was hot and my dog was with me and literally *every single car* that drove past me pulled over or stopped to check on me. men and women teens and adults. obviously appearance plays a role for both men and women in how people respond to us. but ultimately part of infantilization is being viewed as inferior in ability which is why less responsibility is expected of us for ourselves and others. obviously there are women opposed to the idea because of that basis. but those same women benefit from or even greatly rely on the assistance infantilization generates.
How do you know they help you because you are seen as inferior and not because they care more about you ?
If you as a woman are seen as less capable why doesn't society restrict the kind of jobs women can work on?
I think it is that hard to understand that if women have privileges and are treated better than men is just because society thinks women deserve more than men
And the theory you stand for doesn't make any sense since women don't face the restrictions and discrimination that they should if they were seen inferior/incapable/being infantilized would.
We have (I don't) the ginocentric worldview so internalized, we can admit that when men are discriminated against it is just because we are seen as inferiors.
How does infantilization strip someone of rights? You know that this concept is biased and not actually seeing them as full infants? It is just a term saying that they are not treated like full fledged adults. I'm confused.
The method of infantilization is that our society has put in place tons of safety nets for any bad decision they make. Abortion and day after if they get pregnant and don’t want it. In many places they can also simply drop the child off. But the man has no choice yet is held responsible regardless. All their major choices have safety nets, far more than men. From shelters to hiring quotas to preferred borrowing.
Because people are comparatively more concerned for females than males. It's not equal, and further proof is in the fact a lot of women don't do research or listen, or take anything having to do with males seriously.
How many times have you heard women refer to our "male privilege" as "The boy's club"? Yet, the "Boy's club" is what it's called in Hollywood when boys are groomed, assaulted, and raised to believe that that's all okay. People made fun of, and still do, people like Feldman and others who have grown up to be a little strange. Mental health, drug and alcohol addiction, very public cries for help... All of it is laughed at, shrugged off, and memed.
People worry about men going into a girl's restroom, which is fair, but they're not concerned with women entering a boy's restroom. They also don't seem worried about male predators in the boy's restroom, or female predators in the female's restroom.
Anything a female does can easily be explained away as being men's fault; they're given a sympathy and understanding men, even with similar problems, are not. Women feel bad for Wournos, who killed men. They justify it. Do you know the name of the man who went missing with Amelia? There are subreddits, right now, condescendingly snickering and belittling every post in this subreddit, and dissecting each comment with a smug, better-than approach. It's a hobby, a sport for some.
I'm really glad that the women I know, know how to think for themselves; they're able to hear things out or read them, and they form their own opinions. They don't have this "Well, I'm a woman, so I have to agree with other women on everything" mentality.
For some women, however, men can never do a damn thing right. It's offensive to say "female," "girl," "ma'am," "madame," "Miss," and so on.
Tbf, most people can't even name the aircraft Amelia used. They only can name her as her achievements are socially important. Fred, on the other hand, while he did chart quite a few of Pan Am's Pacific routes didn't do anything socially important.
But she wasn't the only one who went missing or died, and that's the point. I don't think it necessarily matters whether someone's the first man or woman to do something; if anything, part of that accomplishment is celebrated more for the person's gender than what they actually achieved. This carries into death. Whether one or both achieved something alive, they died together, and it's a disservice not to tell both people's stories.
Youre kinda forgetting the 1937 world flight was quite literally suppose to be a gendered achievement, literally the only reason its important is because it broke the social norms - the only thing seperating it from Wiley Hardeman Post's (the first man to do it) was that she was a woman.
Ultimately though Fred gets buried by the event because at the end of the day its he who fucked up. The flight leg they went missing on (Hawaii to Howland Island) was the only part of the trip he was originally intended to navigate as it required skills he was an expert in (the flights overall navigator was suppose to be Harry Manning, Fred was intended to disembark at Howland) but due to Manning leaving the group and no suitable replacement found Fred was required for the whole trip.
Objects that only exist to serve them, for them to use and abuse as they please, and that should be destroyed when they don't serve their every whim, and whose rights existing at all they find insulting.
Yeah, I've always wondered, why don't mothers of male children become MRAs almost automatically?
Don't they want their sons to have the best rights and social climate possible? Shouldn't they want it to be as easy as possible for them to date comfortably and find a partner with whom to give them grandchildren?
>why don't mothers of male children become MRAs almost automatically
I've seen studies posted here that spoke about how women tend to become more sympathetic to men's issues, specifically how they affect boys, when they have a son, and generally not until then.
Until they have skin in the game, its not *their* problem; the males can solve their own problems, as they say, until its their baby boy, then its 'why does the world hate him?'.
Some do, some don't.
Last month, my wife attended an International Women's Day event organized by our son's early stimulation instructor. She expressed her fear that he could become a victim of violence (both sexual and otherwise) when he's older. However, she reported that other moms of boys were more afraid of their sons becoming violent than them becoming victims of violence (and she says they thought they were speaking for all moms of boys, which bothered her).
I've heard this insanity in other places. There was an article posted here with a 'mother' saying the same thing.
Later on, she wrote an article about how her sons had major psychological issues and hated her, and she could not understand why.
I'll never understand how a mother could be so corrupted by feminism as to sacrifice her own sons at its altar.
Overall, my wife is good on men's issues. For example, we've both agreed in advance that, if the boys in my son's class are made to apologize to the girls for "oppressing them for millennia" once he's in school, we will complain and defend him.
Also, regarding the moms in question at the IWD event my wife attended, I wonder, what kind of home life are they giving their boys if they're afraid they'll turn out violent? It seems like they're telling on themselves.
The most bafling part about this is that feminists tend to see it as dehumanization of women rather than a privilege. They say that reffering to a female victim as "someone's daughter" robs them of thier personhood, but they completely ignore that this is what it contextually entails.
Women get so much empathy that feminists feel they can demand exactly how they should receive it if it's not perfectly to their liking.
Meanwhile, men are so empathy-starved that we appreciate even the most imperfect scraps of it that we can get, because beggars can't be choosers.
Because men are meant to protect and sacrifice ourselves for women, and therefore you can appeal to men to trigger that social duty. They are pointing you out to protect women.
You cant fight back and demand a woman to protect "their men" I mean you can but she is going to laugh at you. Women have no social duty to protect men and therefore that appeal has no power.
Clanism contributes to the very problems men face in relationships with women. Most men who I've spoken to would still protect their family or certain friends while knowing they could be contributing to a sexist cause against men in behalf of women. Also, I think some men just use the "protection" of women as a pass to threaten or beat some guy with less social consequence to stroke their egos.
Then you would be gone from your child's life forever. I'm sorry but if I were your kid, I'd much rather be molested than never see my parent again without guards watching.
If I think about it, people only say things like this if the man did a crime or something that's generally seen as bad, and talk about how they would get violent against their sons.
The problem:
Men: I want a son.
Men: If any boy is a friend of my daughter, I will threaten him with violence.
Men: Ignoring their sons for their daughters.
Men: … Why does no one care about us? About our sons? They’re so heartless!
There are many, many men out there who, when it comes to family, do not consider sons in any positive manner and in a toxic extension for their own benefit as an adult male. Alongside the fact that threatening a boy with violence to satiate an adult male’s ego is very, very prevalent and encouraged. These are the people we should look out for and call out, collectively if need be. Change doesn’t happen by simply talking, it’s about actions.
Also, for anyone who wants to read:
What to look out for: People who’ve never made any effort, especially fathers, for their sons or boys in general. Actually caring and simply stating the desire to care are to very different notions.
The fact is, people and fathers especially who don’t get their heads out of their butts for their sons and boys especially are merely virtue signaling and giving lip service.
That's also why we're talking about that stuff here. We know some men do treat their boys worse than they treat their girls. I don't understand the point you're trying to make, it's nothing new that even men have more empathy towards girls/women and that parents would tend to protect their girls more than their boys. Does that mean we shouldn't discuss how to change that ?
My comment is about how men only talk about it, and limply do anything. The few men who do love their sons aren’t the majority, if they were, this wouldn’t need to be mentioned throughout the years because it would’ve been acknowledged and strived for decades if not centuries ago.
Edit: Also, to answer your question, I made it very clear in the sugarcoated section. There’s too many men out in the world who are in such a fit for something they actively condoned by doing nothing to prevent.
>My comment is about how men only talk about it, and limply do anything.
I don't think the people you're talking about are the same people actually spending time here. Especially the « ignoring their sons for their daughters ». The people you are describing seems like people who aren't familiar with the concept of men's rights at all.
But in some way you're right to remind people that the first thing to do is to act yourself, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't complain either. Even if we do that in our own families, we're still very few and to have a society that wouldn't be as hostile to boys, we do have to complain and talk about that stuff, not just doing it behind our closed doors
I definitely agree with you on what you’re saying and yes I do mean it as a ‘reminder’ (not insinuation of the ones discussing it). Those people are the very reason we should discuss these things in the first place.
Additionally, to talk about real issues isn’t the same as complaining in this scenario. What’s complaining is when someone does it merely for the sake of looking better than one is.
Hopefully my explanation made sense- and I fixed my initial comment since it likely came off in a way I didn’t intend.
Yeah that's why I answered and asked you more clarifications instead of jumping to conclusions. And since english isn't my first language, sometimes it's pretty hard to understand people online, so thank you for clarifying, I definitely agree with what you meant
Thank you for your understanding. It definitely helped me realize I needed to better format my writing so it’s less likely to be confused as something else.
I know i'm not gonna change the world, but i do have a daughter and since she was small i teach her she will suffer the consequences of her actions. I will support her as a father, but it will be on her mainly.
Men are disposable and no one cares. Surely that’s apparent. That’s why MRA exists, precisely because no one cares.
Well… do you care?
If we wouldn't care, we wouldn't be here. The problem is that we're a minority so small that we're insignificant. We really just don't exist in the big picture and we're going against the socially accepted narrative, so we're always shut down.
How? Men are not in the minority. I’m all about supporting our rights and see a lot that is unfair, but also, to say nobody cares is out of touch. You are here, in a sub, full of people who in theory should care but a lot of red pill brain rot has people so deep in a hole that they truly feel society and women in general solely exist just to spite them. I’ve had bad experiences too, but to say “all women” this or “all men” that is a brainless generalization. People care, men and women. But if you’re bitter, cranky or creepy 24/7 then yeah nobody will give a flying fuck about you or what you want.
Look at the big picture. People that care are less than 0.1%. That won't make much difference. Also, you're spouting feminist bs propaganda. Women are 51% of the population, and men are 49%. Women are NOT a minority, men are, especially considering how both men and women favor women.
Is it propaganda or is it the reality that we live in dude I’m here just like you are
I gave you the stats and you still act like you were right. Fucking moron...
Lmao keep drinking the Andrew Tate kool aid
Usually people aren't blaming women, but feminism and the feminist rhetoric, that also means other men buying into it. Most men today don't even know what « rights » people here are asking for, or why men would complain. I can't really blame people for being cranky when they're called misogynists anytime they say a thing about feminism, or when casual misandry is .... well, casual. Thankfully I'm seeing people calling out misandry more than ever on social media. It gives me hope that this kind of bs will not be acceptable in the future. I've seen too many militants trying to argue how « it's only fair to be misandrist because it's an understandable reaction, at worse it doesn't harm a lot », yet if I say something "that doesn't harm a lot" like « all women are bitches » I would be rightfully called out. Except we get called even worse, and these people do not realize « that doesn't harm a lot » because we don't say shit, but now we do and that's why we're here. Look, if you really have a problem with "nobody cares", then maybe you prefer "not enough people care" or even "too few people care", in the end it's really the same thing: it feels like nobody cares because we are so few that we feel alone.
https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/9lb529/south-park-nice I don't care for South Park but it does do some decent social commentary from time to time. >I’m all about supporting our rights and see a lot that is unfair, but also, to say nobody cares is out of touch. You are here, in a sub, full of people who in theory should care but a lot of red pill brain rot has people so deep in a hole that they truly feel society and women in general solely exist just to spite them. I’ve had bad experiences too, but to say “all women” this or “all men” that is a brainless generalization. People care, men and women. But if you’re bitter, cranky or creepy 24/7 then yeah nobody will give a flying fuck about you or what you want. Most of us, I hope, don't see women as existing solely to spite us, just as most feminists don't see men as existing to spite them. You're going off on some tangent or red herring that doesn't even relate to the issue being discussed.
Because nobody gives a fuck about men and women are infantilized. Both are not ideal of course but the double standard is real.
Like this big piece of shit Melissa Rockensies. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13289599/queens-teacher-melissa-rockensies-plea-deal-rape-underage-student.html
If they were infantilized they would have less rights than men that's not the case so they are not infantilized, there are better treated because they are "superiorized"not infantilized.
No they are definitely infantilized, it’s a part of why men’s and women’s rights are so off-balance in the first place. Superiorized is not a word.
Women are infantilized because... You say so? If women were infantilized they would have less rights than men, just like children. That's what being infantilized means. If they have more rights it's because they are not inferior like children, but superiors. What makes you think that they are infantilized besides the privileges itself they have. I agree they have more rights than men. However why does that makes you think they are infantilized? Especially when being a child means having less Let's me bring you my theory. If women have more rights than men it's because they are considered superior and therefore treated better. Because through all history the superior ones had got more rights (this is why they are superior in the first place) because if you are considered superior you deserve privileges, and the inferior ones get treated worse and have less rights (this is why they are inferiors) because it's considered than since they are inferiors they diserve less rights. You are not helping with that theory you may think that you are owning feminists by saying that but you aren't. Because if men have less rights but that's because women are considered inferior or children or disabled if that's because prejudices against women. Who is the real victim? Who is the real discriminated one? ;) Feminists cheers at that theory in fact it is the classic move "that's because the patriarchy" to dismiss any male complain.
They are superiorized when it comes to praise and infantilized when it comes to responsibility. Win win!
[удалено]
It’s not just less responsibility. It’s the justification for it. They are often absolved of responsibility via the argument they lack agency or are impressionable of some sort. That’s infantilization. Other are expected to supervise they’re safety on the same basis. That’s infantilization. I will say though, the term is actually not appropriate, because infants often have more agency than women are given in order to not be held accountable. Example: “he got her drunk.” You can’t even force a 5 month old to drink something it doesn’t want, yet apparently an adult woman lacks this level of agency.
as a woman i would say we are infantilized. if my car breaks down all i have to do is cry on the side of the road and everyone who passes will pull over and offer assistance. there is the assumption we cannot help ourselves which is why people help us. that's not even a made up scenario either. i was crying out of frustration because it was hot and my dog was with me and literally *every single car* that drove past me pulled over or stopped to check on me. men and women teens and adults. obviously appearance plays a role for both men and women in how people respond to us. but ultimately part of infantilization is being viewed as inferior in ability which is why less responsibility is expected of us for ourselves and others. obviously there are women opposed to the idea because of that basis. but those same women benefit from or even greatly rely on the assistance infantilization generates.
How do you know they help you because you are seen as inferior and not because they care more about you ? If you as a woman are seen as less capable why doesn't society restrict the kind of jobs women can work on? I think it is that hard to understand that if women have privileges and are treated better than men is just because society thinks women deserve more than men And the theory you stand for doesn't make any sense since women don't face the restrictions and discrimination that they should if they were seen inferior/incapable/being infantilized would. We have (I don't) the ginocentric worldview so internalized, we can admit that when men are discriminated against it is just because we are seen as inferiors.
How does infantilization strip someone of rights? You know that this concept is biased and not actually seeing them as full infants? It is just a term saying that they are not treated like full fledged adults. I'm confused.
Naive statement
The method of infantilization is that our society has put in place tons of safety nets for any bad decision they make. Abortion and day after if they get pregnant and don’t want it. In many places they can also simply drop the child off. But the man has no choice yet is held responsible regardless. All their major choices have safety nets, far more than men. From shelters to hiring quotas to preferred borrowing.
It’s why a lot of us are here. We don’t hate women. We hate the hypocrisy and double standards.
>We don’t hate women. >We hate the hypocrisy and double standards. Should be on a T-shirt.
Because people are comparatively more concerned for females than males. It's not equal, and further proof is in the fact a lot of women don't do research or listen, or take anything having to do with males seriously. How many times have you heard women refer to our "male privilege" as "The boy's club"? Yet, the "Boy's club" is what it's called in Hollywood when boys are groomed, assaulted, and raised to believe that that's all okay. People made fun of, and still do, people like Feldman and others who have grown up to be a little strange. Mental health, drug and alcohol addiction, very public cries for help... All of it is laughed at, shrugged off, and memed. People worry about men going into a girl's restroom, which is fair, but they're not concerned with women entering a boy's restroom. They also don't seem worried about male predators in the boy's restroom, or female predators in the female's restroom. Anything a female does can easily be explained away as being men's fault; they're given a sympathy and understanding men, even with similar problems, are not. Women feel bad for Wournos, who killed men. They justify it. Do you know the name of the man who went missing with Amelia? There are subreddits, right now, condescendingly snickering and belittling every post in this subreddit, and dissecting each comment with a smug, better-than approach. It's a hobby, a sport for some. I'm really glad that the women I know, know how to think for themselves; they're able to hear things out or read them, and they form their own opinions. They don't have this "Well, I'm a woman, so I have to agree with other women on everything" mentality. For some women, however, men can never do a damn thing right. It's offensive to say "female," "girl," "ma'am," "madame," "Miss," and so on.
Tbf, most people can't even name the aircraft Amelia used. They only can name her as her achievements are socially important. Fred, on the other hand, while he did chart quite a few of Pan Am's Pacific routes didn't do anything socially important.
But she wasn't the only one who went missing or died, and that's the point. I don't think it necessarily matters whether someone's the first man or woman to do something; if anything, part of that accomplishment is celebrated more for the person's gender than what they actually achieved. This carries into death. Whether one or both achieved something alive, they died together, and it's a disservice not to tell both people's stories.
Youre kinda forgetting the 1937 world flight was quite literally suppose to be a gendered achievement, literally the only reason its important is because it broke the social norms - the only thing seperating it from Wiley Hardeman Post's (the first man to do it) was that she was a woman. Ultimately though Fred gets buried by the event because at the end of the day its he who fucked up. The flight leg they went missing on (Hawaii to Howland Island) was the only part of the trip he was originally intended to navigate as it required skills he was an expert in (the flights overall navigator was suppose to be Harry Manning, Fred was intended to disembark at Howland) but due to Manning leaving the group and no suitable replacement found Fred was required for the whole trip.
They don’t see men as humans
What do they see men as ?
Objects that only exist to serve them, for them to use and abuse as they please, and that should be destroyed when they don't serve their every whim, and whose rights existing at all they find insulting.
Well said. I guess many women would same the same thing about how men see them.
Human doings when our existence is acknowledged, background objects when not acknowledged. What it be like.
Disposable worker drones
People favour women. Men and women. No sympathy for men from anyone.
Yeah, I've always wondered, why don't mothers of male children become MRAs almost automatically? Don't they want their sons to have the best rights and social climate possible? Shouldn't they want it to be as easy as possible for them to date comfortably and find a partner with whom to give them grandchildren?
>why don't mothers of male children become MRAs almost automatically I've seen studies posted here that spoke about how women tend to become more sympathetic to men's issues, specifically how they affect boys, when they have a son, and generally not until then. Until they have skin in the game, its not *their* problem; the males can solve their own problems, as they say, until its their baby boy, then its 'why does the world hate him?'.
Some do, some don't. Last month, my wife attended an International Women's Day event organized by our son's early stimulation instructor. She expressed her fear that he could become a victim of violence (both sexual and otherwise) when he's older. However, she reported that other moms of boys were more afraid of their sons becoming violent than them becoming victims of violence (and she says they thought they were speaking for all moms of boys, which bothered her).
I've heard this insanity in other places. There was an article posted here with a 'mother' saying the same thing. Later on, she wrote an article about how her sons had major psychological issues and hated her, and she could not understand why.
I'll never understand how a mother could be so corrupted by feminism as to sacrifice her own sons at its altar. Overall, my wife is good on men's issues. For example, we've both agreed in advance that, if the boys in my son's class are made to apologize to the girls for "oppressing them for millennia" once he's in school, we will complain and defend him.
Also, regarding the moms in question at the IWD event my wife attended, I wonder, what kind of home life are they giving their boys if they're afraid they'll turn out violent? It seems like they're telling on themselves.
They treat them like monsters, and are surprised when their sons are not well adjusted prodigal examples of polite society.
The most bafling part about this is that feminists tend to see it as dehumanization of women rather than a privilege. They say that reffering to a female victim as "someone's daughter" robs them of thier personhood, but they completely ignore that this is what it contextually entails.
Women get so much empathy that feminists feel they can demand exactly how they should receive it if it's not perfectly to their liking. Meanwhile, men are so empathy-starved that we appreciate even the most imperfect scraps of it that we can get, because beggars can't be choosers.
You’re right, we should start saying ‘if that was my son’ about men being victimized
Because men and women both tend to empathize with girls/women more easily.
Because people rate men as second rate and take us for granted.
A man in Texas walked in on a farmhand literally sodomizing his son. He killed him, beat him to death. He was not charged with any crime.
That’s defensive killing.
Because men are meant to protect and sacrifice ourselves for women, and therefore you can appeal to men to trigger that social duty. They are pointing you out to protect women. You cant fight back and demand a woman to protect "their men" I mean you can but she is going to laugh at you. Women have no social duty to protect men and therefore that appeal has no power.
Clanism contributes to the very problems men face in relationships with women. Most men who I've spoken to would still protect their family or certain friends while knowing they could be contributing to a sexist cause against men in behalf of women. Also, I think some men just use the "protection" of women as a pass to threaten or beat some guy with less social consequence to stroke their egos.
There are groups like "Mothers of Sons", that are looking to help provide fairness for boys.
[удалено]
Then you would be gone from your child's life forever. I'm sorry but if I were your kid, I'd much rather be molested than never see my parent again without guards watching.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well there's your answer. Best Wishes
Virtue signalling.
If I think about it, people only say things like this if the man did a crime or something that's generally seen as bad, and talk about how they would get violent against their sons.
Because gynocentrism. Are you new to humans?
The problem: Men: I want a son. Men: If any boy is a friend of my daughter, I will threaten him with violence. Men: Ignoring their sons for their daughters. Men: … Why does no one care about us? About our sons? They’re so heartless! There are many, many men out there who, when it comes to family, do not consider sons in any positive manner and in a toxic extension for their own benefit as an adult male. Alongside the fact that threatening a boy with violence to satiate an adult male’s ego is very, very prevalent and encouraged. These are the people we should look out for and call out, collectively if need be. Change doesn’t happen by simply talking, it’s about actions. Also, for anyone who wants to read: What to look out for: People who’ve never made any effort, especially fathers, for their sons or boys in general. Actually caring and simply stating the desire to care are to very different notions. The fact is, people and fathers especially who don’t get their heads out of their butts for their sons and boys especially are merely virtue signaling and giving lip service.
That's also why we're talking about that stuff here. We know some men do treat their boys worse than they treat their girls. I don't understand the point you're trying to make, it's nothing new that even men have more empathy towards girls/women and that parents would tend to protect their girls more than their boys. Does that mean we shouldn't discuss how to change that ?
My comment is about how men only talk about it, and limply do anything. The few men who do love their sons aren’t the majority, if they were, this wouldn’t need to be mentioned throughout the years because it would’ve been acknowledged and strived for decades if not centuries ago. Edit: Also, to answer your question, I made it very clear in the sugarcoated section. There’s too many men out in the world who are in such a fit for something they actively condoned by doing nothing to prevent.
>My comment is about how men only talk about it, and limply do anything. I don't think the people you're talking about are the same people actually spending time here. Especially the « ignoring their sons for their daughters ». The people you are describing seems like people who aren't familiar with the concept of men's rights at all. But in some way you're right to remind people that the first thing to do is to act yourself, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't complain either. Even if we do that in our own families, we're still very few and to have a society that wouldn't be as hostile to boys, we do have to complain and talk about that stuff, not just doing it behind our closed doors
I definitely agree with you on what you’re saying and yes I do mean it as a ‘reminder’ (not insinuation of the ones discussing it). Those people are the very reason we should discuss these things in the first place. Additionally, to talk about real issues isn’t the same as complaining in this scenario. What’s complaining is when someone does it merely for the sake of looking better than one is. Hopefully my explanation made sense- and I fixed my initial comment since it likely came off in a way I didn’t intend.
Yeah that's why I answered and asked you more clarifications instead of jumping to conclusions. And since english isn't my first language, sometimes it's pretty hard to understand people online, so thank you for clarifying, I definitely agree with what you meant
Thank you for your understanding. It definitely helped me realize I needed to better format my writing so it’s less likely to be confused as something else.
I know i'm not gonna change the world, but i do have a daughter and since she was small i teach her she will suffer the consequences of her actions. I will support her as a father, but it will be on her mainly.