~ archived since 2018 ~

The phantom maleness

Melthengylf

September 19, 2019

3 upvotes

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

https://balioc.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/the-phantom-men-ness/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	The phantom maleness
Author	Melthengylf
Upvotes	3
Comments	129
Date	September 19, 2019 11:47 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/d6mfvj/the_phantom_maleness/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/the-phantom-maleness.1064497 https://theredarchive.com/post/1064497

Comments

[–]mtcapri 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I had plenty of disagreements in Menslib, plenty. And yes, I have plenty intent of taking some ideas and reject others.

Being completely sincere, my main issue was a conflict about that they don't believe inceldom is a real problem, that causes any anguish. When I believe it is a prototypical issue of male disposabilty.

But I had many disagreements. For example, I believe men and women do have biological differences, when they believe there are not. I believe finantial abortion is an issue that I'd be interested to talk about even if I don't believe I agree with it right now. I believe that false accusations are more than 2-10% and that it is a faulty statistics, although I don't believe a tight classification of harassment and non-harassment behaviours is possible, and there are complex situations. I believe men's problems can't be reduced to toxic masculinity, although I do believe in the existance of toxic masculinity. I believe Nice Guys are a product of a society where feminisms has become the norm, and although I agree with feminism, I believe Nice Guy behaviour is a toxic response to social changes. I believe Gillette commercial was a masive mistake, even if I understand the intention, I believe it was performed extremely poorly and was counter-productive. I find Menslib to be extremely guilt-tripping and judgemental to males and I dislike that.

Those are some of my disagreements. I am a manipulative male feminist guy, that is part of my illness that I'm trying to get rid of, and becaus of that, Menslib sub was being extremely toxic to my health. I tended to be extremely genuflex to Menslib mods and extremely manipulative and harassive at the same time. The way Menslib is moderated is extremely bd to my health and fed into my depression.

About chiefdoms, specifically, you'll see many many affirmations related to "patriarchy started 6000 or 5000 years ago", they'll talk about Gimbuta's model, or other things. What they are referring to are chiefdoms.

[–]bkrugby78 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, what makes me angry is that the community is excelent and the intention is very good and I actually believe in their goal to understand male issues through feminist lense. And there are some users whose value is made of gold. You know them, users like TakeitTotheCircleJerk or Tarcolt. But the level of censorship of discussions is just so bad! And the self-righteous tone, I can't stand the self-righteous tone of many mods.

I literally had to go away because it was bad to my mental health. I'm actually quite misogynistic and getting professional treatement for that, but being in that sub was triggering my mental health and I was becoming actually more misogynistic. And I do not want that.

I'm happy that they can express male vulnerabilities in a way that it isn't confrontative to women. I hope that we do not fall into a misogynistic MRA sub -I quite dislike mensrights subreddit-.

I mean, feminists make some mistakes, they are people, not gods, it is normal. I just need a place where I can think about my own and my gender's issues without limiting myself to female validation neither misogynistic rage porn, you know?

Just a normal place to discuss male issues in a genuinly honest way, you know?

[–]bkrugby78 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (114 children) | Copy Link

All of them have earned the respect of some substantial community of people. Most of them have sexual access to women, or at least could probably get sexual access to women if they wanted it. But these things are not tightly-defined behavioral restrictions; these things are basic universal markers of high-quality human life. If “being a man” means “doing anything that will allow you to win plaudits and sex,” then it is really not a very confining box at all.

Sounds like a PUA talking. He doesn't even question whether men should be ranked on their attractiveness to the opposite sex.

The simple fact of being a man doesn’t mean anything, socially speaking. It doesn’t lock you into specific expectations or place specific burdens on you.

Oh yes? Men are obligated to register for the draft. Not just strong, not just capable: all men. The soldier, the kung-fu monk, the money dude may seem so different except all of them share the same social expectation of becoming a women's protector. Kung-fu martial artist's abilities may be valued more compared to the regular soldier's, while the financial executive might avoid the army and the jail altogether by bribing the draft authorities, but at the end of the day, society makes them all stick to their toxic masculine gender role, by force, if necessary.

That is not to say that it ends with the martial obligation. Other people've outlined the injustices of child support enslavement, lack of parental rights for men, male genital mutilation, legal retirement ages, and many more.

[T]he whole thing may be arbitrary, and in many cases it may be harmful, but it is not going away. Not anytime in the foreseeable future. Basically no one even wants it to go away — too many people have too much invested in the system.

Uh-huh, male feminists are pro status quo for men.

You see how it goes? Some women feel uncomfortable: we must shake society until it amends, no matter the cost. All men are denied some basic human rights: nah, that is too entrenched, it is up to individual to work around.

The coalition with an interest in actually dismantling this social construct is…not large. [...] Unless something major changes, this group is always going to be small and struggling.

Basically male feminists telling us we can't win, therefore we might as well surrender and let them take over and strip us of further legal rights.

The thing is, when baby foreskins are included in skin cream formulas, men are no longer just slaves. They are livestock. Male genital mutilation therefore is an act of war on men.

And yes, unless men will start building their own class consciousness, the opportunities for fighting back will be sparse.

Here's the thing, I am betting on men's class consciousness.

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (113 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (98 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (97 children) | Copy Link

I see, well, I can't disagree with you. I just loved the concept of female markedness and male unmarkedness being related to the idea of male disposability. I really dislike the idea of toxic masculinity being about pressure of performing certain male archetype, because it is not what I perceive it to be like. I believe it is more like this article, pressure to show that you are worthy to live. I believe women, because they are marked, do feel a pressure to conform some ideal of motherhood, sexual object or whatever. I don't believe anyone cares about men enough to pressure them to have certain ideals.

> chivalry superior-virtue angel-of-the-home women-and-children-first

>I do think it worth pointing out that the narratives in our media are largely enthusiastic about female solidarity, while the message with male solidarity — going back at least to Shakespeare — is pretty much always “you need to toss it out when it comes time to support the right woman.”

I did not read the article the same you did, I believe. I mean, reinfprcing the role of women as victims and damisels in distress I believe it is exactly what the article is arguing against, isn't it?

[–]banmale 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (83 children) | Copy Link

I really dislike the idea of toxic masculinity being about pressure of performing certain male archetype

Most menslibbers probably approach masculinity even less charitably.

I believe women, because they are marked, do feel a pressure to conform some ideal of motherhood, sexual object or whatever.

Who cares, women've tossed their gender role at least three generations ago. Now it's just a backup plan to those who couldn't compete in the job market.

I mean, reinfprcing the role of women as victims and damisels in distress I believe it is exactly what the article is arguing against, isn't it?

¿You mean this: /s

There are some women who, for whatever reason, can’t live up to the baseline expectations of femininity within their culture. Old women and very-conventionally-unattractive women provide the most obvious examples, but there are also sexually-active women in societies that place a premium on female chastity, and minority women in sufficiently-racist societies, and so on. The way we treat these women is monstrous. They are seen as failures, rejects, in a way that cannot be escaped no matter what they do. At best they become un-persons, ignored by almost everyone who can get away with ignoring them, their unsatisfactory female-ness always threatening to overshadow any contributions they might make. The possibilities get a lot worse from there.

Just a thought, I've never seen him arguing that being sent to war or having your genitals mutilated and told to live up with it is a monstrous treatment, which it is.

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (82 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (81 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (80 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (79 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (78 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let me decide for myself if I am in fact confusing (BTW I am speaking of justice, not happiness). I think the video did its job: your reply shows that you are useless as a men's advocate. The video was a test, and you failed at it miserably. Your frame of reference is hopelessly skewed.

You fixate on women too much and neglect men. All my attempts to get you on the right track were for naught.

Besides, the video does address the female social dominance aspect, only not in a way that is easily digestible by brains infested with feminist propaganda.

Child soldiers are also extremely common in traditional PKCMP systems.

You're educated enough to know that (BTW the video mentions the press gangs), but too biased and short-sighted to connect the dots. The video expresses a belief that acceptance of violence in society is strongly linked to economic development. Muslim countries tend to be less wealthy overall, or did not prosper until just yesterday in historic scale. The fact is the modern world once was just as violent as Islamic societies of today, with women sticking to their gender roles, as that was the best deal they could have. Independence was prohibitively expensive: most men could not afford it, and neither could most women (but we fixate only on women's plight, just like with Islam and its child soldiers today: we neglect that boys are forced into servitude by custom and their society, that is, they have even less agency than women do). Hence, an anti-feminist in the 1st world has no reason to avoid applying the same concepts (like Briffault's Law, for example) to underdeveloped countries, given that all of those societies give way to the feminist ideology when women feel like abandoning their traditional gender roles, which is exactly what happened in the West some time ago.

Western societies used to protect father's rights as the father was expected to take on burdens of providing for his children. Women have used their social dominance to effectively strip fathers of parental rights, but doubled down on men's traditional obligation to provide. Under Islam, fathers are supporting their daughters well into their thirties. They have spaces that no man can enter, this social arrangement has existed for centuries. The West still "aspires" to the level of privileges Muslim women have. If I were to compare the Middle East with a time machine, I'd wonder whether the West as a reference point is actually the past or the future of gynocentrism.

To sum up, women are the same all over the world and at ever given point in time. There're superficial social differences that are mostly linked to economics. Countries of today in which women seek a provider husband and stick to a gender role that favors them, will be the ones like the West is now in a very short course, perhaps even worse for men. There's no reason to think that female social dominance doesn't exist in the Middle East, if you accept the concept in general.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

we neglect that boys are forced into servitude by custom and their society

Well, yes. I cannot disagree with that.

Ourfight is against those structures that are obsolete and were put there for a sake of economic necessity, which is the reason why the PKCMP is a Mode of Production.

Now, because feminism and us are both against that traditional system, that means we are on the same side, fighting against traditional obsolete roles that were only there for economic necessity.

While the issue of male dominance is true in my oppinion -by the way, did you notice that the commanders of war were always men and the ones commiting child abuse against boys were also men?- that doesn't mean male dominance made them happier, that doesn't mean they didn't have to dominate accprding to strict traditions and customs that weren't under their control (that is, they were judges, they interpreted the law, they did not create it), and that doesn't mean that the ultimate cause of those actions were the economic mode of production. Men were -as women were- puppets of the economic system.

There're superficial social differences that are mostly linked to economics.

They are not superficial, they are the cause of the system, and thus, what male advocates want to do and what feminists want to do is to fight against that very same system.

I completely believe you are wrong. If men's role as providers haven't been challenged, then alimony number of cases would not have collapsed. But because more and more women work, then alimony has less and less sense. It's not men against women, it is men and women against the very same system that was only there because economic conditions and it is now obsolete.

The system that caused boys child abuse.

The system that caused men dying at wars.

The system that caused men having to be forced to provide for their wives and adult daughters.

The system that causes men to die at jobs.

The system that forces men to have awful jobs but high wages in order to receive female companionship.

It's the system that we are fighting against.

The reason why I believe you are not understanding what I'm saying is because either:

-You believe I'm saying men were happier than women.

-You believe I'm saying that were responsible or even guilty of that system.

Why do you talk as if that system was in place because of women choice when we both agree that the ultimate cause is an economic one?

That is not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is that men were forced to have the political power and control over women in order to take decissions in favour of things they disliked.

It's not like you disagree with me. We already established that being a chief is not a matter of decissions that you make for your personal gain. You do the decissions out of military strategy and tactics, to win the war. Not for yourself. Many times you have to take decissions that are bad for you.

This is not a Qui Bono? Men did NOT benefited for the system

Male guardianship does show that, at least in Saudi Arabia, men have control over women. But I don't believe you understand what I understand for "control". You keep thinking in terms of "who benefited", and that shows you are not understanding me. Because I'm very clearing stating that men did not benefited from the old system, neither did women.

The idea I want to convey is that men were the draft horses, the executioners of the punishment. That is what control is about, NOT about happiness. the executioner does not kill the condemnated because he enjoys killing. The executioner kills them because if they didn't, they would loose their job. It is law, and sometimes tradition, that puts them in that role, that doesn't mean the law is their to make them (the excecutioner) happy.

If you keep mixing "having control" with "benefiting" then you are not understanding what I'm saying.

I really really hope you understood what I'm saying. I'm really trying to express it in the most clear way. I'm putting a lot of effort in it, but maybe I'm bad at expressing it? I don't know.

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Pandering to women was never economically justified.

Male elites run society to the advantage of women over men, they are enabling female social dominance while punishing men who grow too uppity.

Our fight is against male apathy and, for the lack of a better term, male mother need. But I am not excusing women just because men enable their bad conduct too much. Tyrants of the past were usually enabled by the populace, it doesn't mean that tyrants themselves don't bear any responsibility.

Beyond that, this might be a wrong community for you to post in. If your primary fight is against unjust economic systems, you can take your pick out there. Libertarians, anarchists, minarchists, communists, socialists, welfare statists, subsistence farmers, I am sure anything will be more proper for you than attempts to hijack the advocacy for men.

Advocacy for men is valid whether we talk of liberal or totalitarian state, rich or poor society, corrupt or just government. Its aims include exposing female agency and seeking that women don't get any undue privileges over men. Men's advocates might tolerate feminists as long as they are useful, but no feminist talking point must go unchallenged.

You keep thinking in terms of "who benefited", and that shows you are not understanding me.

Sure, your quoting me out of context does have that effect. I encourage an interested reader to consider my points in whole, instead of relying on dishonest feminist interpretation of what I was saying. Male child soldiers have less agency than women, but no feminist will discuss that, as evidenced above.

Besides, women do benefit from their social dominance, and people with privileges are more socially dominant, so the terms are interchangeable.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Male elites run society to the advantage of women over men, they are enabling female social dominance while punishing men who grow too uppity.

Yes and no, male elites run society fundamentally to sustain the economic system.

Our fight is against male apathy and, for the lack of a better term, male mother need.

Ok, I agree. Male mother need is a great component of the system.

Its aims include exposing female agency and seeking that women don't get any undue privileges over men.

I agree about female agency. But I'm mainly interested in a system were everyone is better.

In my system of ethics, everyone is better off, or worse off. I'm interested in changing the system for us to be all better off. That includes men.

Male child soldiers have less agency than women, but no feminist will discuss that, as evidenced above.

Yes, I agree. But it was other men who controlled them.

Besides, women do benefit from their social dominance, and people with privileges are more socially dominant, so the terms are interchangeable.

Here is were we disagree.

Mainly we disagree because in my perspective, everyone (men and women) were worse off.

Anyway, I do not believe that men benefited from the old system. My definition of social dominance is different.

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

male elites run society fundamentally to sustain the economic system.

Most likely it isn't their primary motive. Elites don't particularly strike me as rational when it comes to economics, or to war. Female elites are usually even worse.

Male mother need is a great component of the system.

Male mother need isn't some component. It's a natural drive that men have to overcome to learn to focus on the plight of men and disregard women.

In my system of ethics, everyone is better off, or worse off.

Experience and history contradicts that.

But it was other men who controlled them.

Women, and female relatives, are sending them to war in the first place. Sergeant in charge of a platoon is no more voluntary than privates. It is just a naturally arising system of subordination, because women won't fill the role themselves.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Most likely it isn't their primary motive. Elites don't particularly strike me as rational when it comes to economics, or to war. Female elites are usually even worse.

Not at a conscious level. I'm sure you know about the structure/superstructure marxist distinction.

Male mother need isn't some component. It's a natural drive that men have to overcome to learn to focus on the plight of men and disregard women.

Men need to stop searching for female validation. That I agree with. And start caring about men, that I agree with.

Experience and history contradicts that.

That's not true, the video you gave me said that traditional societies were overall more violent because economic conditions. Well, I agree (partly) with that video.

Women, and female relatives, are sending them to war in the first place. Sergeant in charge of a platoon is no more voluntary than privates. It is just a naturally arising system of subordination, because women won't fill the role themselves.

Almost all wars were started by men. Alejandro Magno, Hernán Cortés, Saddam Hussein, you name it.

[–]ProMaleWatch2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ProMaleWatch1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ProMaleWatch1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ProMaleWatch2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Using your logic, economics put queens in charge of starting wars too. The title of a queen or a king was usually hereditary, economics are not to blame for genealogy.

Yes!!!!!! Economics are to blame for genealogy!!!!!!

That is what patrilineality vs matrilineality is all about. Patrilineal societies are those where political roles and propierty goes from fathers to sons. That is the son of a king will be the next king even if he has an older daughter.

In the specific case of english kindoms, daughters were able to inherit only when there were no sons of the kings, but only daughters. The specific lines of succession varies from society to society. But these genealogical lines of succession greatly structures society.

This is laughable. Everyone can be said to play his part this way. Some people's words carry more weight, and they as a result should carry more responsibility.

I agree from a moral perspective. But I am describing a system. Yes, the system adscribes some people to have their words having more weight than others. That is part of the system.

[–]ProMaleWatch2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is, to me, the main problem of mensrights ideology. When I investigated about mensrights, it is known that some of the main words used were:

accusation, arrest, charge, criminal, convict,custody, divorce, evidence, guilty, harassment, illegal, innocent, jail, justice, lawsuit, lawyer, legal, murder, offender,sentence, trial

Because mensrights people think in judiciary terms.

Look, american society is ill with punitivism. They all think in terms of justice and punishment.

Thus US has an abnormal number of people in jails -mainly men, let me remind you-. All that focus in justice is hurting men more than it is hurting women.

As I stand for men I cannot stand for justice. "Justice" is the value that makes black men rot in jail.

Come on, I wished you understood that there is another more happy word beyond the courts systems.

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Great!!!

Anyway, the society does not care about the plight of men,

Good thing that we agree on this.

All this groveling about being better men does not accomplish any positive change.

Good thing that we agree with this. And it is one of the reasons I don't like Menslib.

but it's a disingenious leap of logic to claim that justice is obsolete because of one country that dishes out an egregious amount of criminal punishments.

No, it is obsolete everywhere in the world. But mensrights subreddit is obsessed with it because most of the users are american.

So far no one has come with a system that fulfills the role of justice and is self-sustainable.

Restorative justice is deeply studied.

Look, I'd love you to show some material of the values I support, of NVC, but I'm not sure you have time to take a look.

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, it is obsolete everywhere in the world.

lolololol

Straight from the horse's mouth, tsk tsk tsk....

Look, I get you, we've already established that you believe in injustice for men, no need to put yourself down any further. You are too much of a coward (that is me being flattering, you most likely have an anti-male agenda) to stand for e.g. male victims of rape when those are ordered to pay child support to the rapist, or to stand for fathers who are jailed because they can't pay for the kids they've no right to see.

That is not surprising at all, I've noticed that you ignored my message where I offered you to become useful by throwing fake blood over cutter celebrities and doctors. Silence is violence when it comes to male genital mutilation, perhaps the greatest injustice that male infants face. To be cut and then denied voice. I hold you accountable for enabling the baby knife rape. By staying silent, you admit that your hands are bloodied.

But mensrights subreddit is mainly occupied with it because most of the users are american.

Yeah, because men lack human rights and suffer injustices only in America /s

Restorative justice is obsessively studied.

"Restorative justice" still has the word "justice" in the title, so I guess even flawed academic studies are not that devoid of reason to declare the concept "obsolete".

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I get you, we've already established that you believe in injustice for men

I did not say that I was in favour of injustice. You are hearing what you want to hear.

That is not surprising at all, I've noticed that you ignored my message where I offered you to become useful by throwing fake blood over cutter celebrities and doctors.

I have.... no intention to throw blood towards my father. But you are right that as a jewish man, I should push for an end of circumsition amongst my ethnicity. I already decided that I'm not going to do that to my sons, even though I'm happy my parents did it to me.

Look, I know that you are going to see this lukewarm to get this as the ultimate proof that I'm against male rights. But changing jewery to be against circumsition is not as easy as it may seem. I have talked against it being the sole person in the room full of relatives who was against circumsition amongst jews. I am fighting, I'm alone in that fight.

male victims of rape when those are ordered to pay child support to the rapist, or to stand for fathers who are jailed because they can't pay for the kids they've no right to see.

No!!! Who says that I am in favour of it. Of course I'm willing to stand against it.

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I did not say that I was in favour of injustice.

Accepting and rationalizing injustice does not require one to be in favor of it. Meanwhile it was you attacking the concept of justice altogether, in spite of justice being applied way beyond deciding the amount of criminal punishment.

But changing jewery to be against circumsition is not as easy as it may seem.

Christians cut as well, for all the wrong reasons like a woman might like it better. Before it was banned, female genital mutilation was justified on religious/ethnical reasons too.

You've to accept that the only way forward is to prevent people doing bad things against their beliefs. We can't appeal to cutters because men get no sympathy. We'll have to bully cutters to become decent human beings, and for that we'll need to part with the delusion that "acknowledging men's pain" would get babies and children their human rights and stop rationalizing circumcision as a religious practice.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Great!!!!! I've read your answers and I believe I understand you for the first time!!! Thank yoi for taking so much time for answer.

So let me understand if I understand these things right:

You are against the roles of men as protectors and providors.

While in tradcon societies men may have power, they are tied to protecting and providing women.

what makes women more privileged in these societies is that they are protected and cared, and provided for.

Women use feminism to tie men into protector and providor roles, and thus they are not genuinly fighting against traditional roles.

equal punishment and equal burdens serves a tactical purpose of making people realize that men indeed have a burden, in order to win the political fight against mens as protector-providors.

Did I understood you correctly?

[–]banmale2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

what makes women more privileged in these societies is that they are protected and cared, and provided for.

There's a case to be made that women gatekeep social circles of any importance. Women in tech scandals are about females demanding a seat at the table in a community of yesterday social cast outs. Once the rejects gained some status, somewhat bypassing the female vetting process, they could no longer be left alone. Women seem too keen on "civilizing" men, it usually boils down to men losing their rights and social standing. Once they gain a foothold, women seek to expand their social power the way they do with workplace sexual harassment anti-male hysteria. Even girls in kindergarten and younger take the idea of a pro-male, male oriented space, in which female interests come second, with belligerence and resentment. They also tend to be hostile to boys. When at a certain age boys become distant and competitive, it could easily be attributed to them mimicking female habits in order to be seen as accepted.

Women use feminism to tie men into protector and providor roles, and thus they are not genuinly fighting against traditional roles.

Women want a better deal for themselves in a modernizing society, that is why they are against traditionalism. Women don't object to men being confined to their toxic male gender role, quite the opposite, they are pro toxic masculinity as long as it's in the interests of women. Any gains that feminism provides to men are purely accidental and insignificant.

equal punishment and equal burdens serves a tactical purpose of making people realize that men indeed have a burden, in order to win the political fight against mens as protector-providors.

People are well aware of men's burdens. Saying that people don't realize is akin to making a claim that in a slave holder's society, people were unaware of slavery. Also I'm not against protecting and providing per se, rather I'm against men being "marked" (to borrow your term) in a negative way and being expected to follow their gender role.

More radical proposals include making men unable to pander to women (via taxation and legislation, or perhaps bullying and social pressure), but I'm in doubt of the merits of that idea outweighing the costs to civil rights and liberty.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women in tech scandals are about females demanding a seat at the table in a community of yesterday social cast outs.

Social cast outs but that gain a lot of money. It's the money they are after in very explicit terms.

Once they gain a foothold, women seek to expand their social power the way they do with workplace sexual harassment anti-male hysteria.

They do not want to be sexually harassed. That is true. Does this imply expanding their social power? Yes, they intend to gain power in order to be listened and not be sexually harassed. Metoo literally means "I too was on the receiving end of sexual harassment/abuse. This harmed me, my pain was not heard at that time, I don't want that to happen to any woman again, and I believe that if I'm heard now, then less women will be harmed in this way." That can't be an issue on itself, and I don't believe you are against that. I believe the hysteria you perceive it is more about the punitivism that instills fear amongst men. I believe men being scared of either making mistakes or being falsely accused is a genuine fear because the consecquences are usually punishments, and that you are referring to those fears.

Once the rejects gained some status, somewhat bypassing the female vetting process, they could no longer be left alone.

I'm sure that you would agree that it is not that women want for men to have less status, but that they want themselves to gain more status in order to gain more money. And money has mostly the objective of freedom and independence (from men). Being sexually harassed make them gain less money -because they have to quit jobs to escape the harassers-, and that is the main issue.

Women want a better deal for themselves in a modernizing society, that is why they are against traditionalism.

Yes! We agree. I agree that women and/or feminists do not want to end traditionalism FOR men.

Any gains that feminism provides to men are purely accidental and insignificant.

I believe they are accidental, but I don't believe they are insignificant.

Let's put an example. You mentioned as the two biggest issues about men, the slavery of being into the role of providor, and the role of protector.

Now, the role of providor has collapsed, specifically because of women entering the workforce. Since most women earn enough to sustain themselves, men can choose very easily a woman who doesn't earn much less than themselves. Even if there are some few men who will greatly outearn their SAHM partners, most men can choose not to do it. That means that alimony and divorce rape is rarer and rarer with the passage of time. But it was not to make us a favour that women entered the labour force and started to manage their own weight, it was for themselves.

While I believe the role of providor is indeed collapsing, I believe the role of protector is not. I believe feminism failed to break the role of men as protectors (whiteknighting), I believe this stems from the idea of male hyperagency and female hypoagency. And, this is important: I believe that despite feminism keeping male roles as protectors/dangerous, they are wrong in doing that, and it harms women. I would like to delve deeply on it if you are interested on my take in it.

Then again, we need to fight against our harms for ourselves, not for women. This will accidentally help women, because I believe the system we are fighting is one and the same (the pkcmp).

People are well aware of men's burdens.

I completely disagree. I believe that because of the empathy gap, most men and women are completely unaware that men are vulnerable and that men suffer pain. When I talk to my friends and colleagues about, let's say, male homelessness, male work accidents, they are surprised, as if they have never thought it that way.

Also I'm not against protecting and providing per se, rather I'm against men being "marked" (to borrow your term) in a negative way and being expected to follow their gender role.

Yes, I understand you are against the social pressure for men to protect and provide, not against individual men choosing to protect or provide, did I understood correctly?

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just like I thought, you've missed the mark on all the important points. I wonder if you're trolling me now. Your reading comprehension is pitiful, unless you do that to me on purpose. Your writing is ambiguous to the point of offensiveness as well:

Thank yoi for taking so much time for answer.

Next time you feel sarcastic, mark your sarcasm with an "/s" at the end of the sentence. Like this:

Thank you for taking so much time to answer /s

I have a life, which you apparently don't. How do I tell? Because you spam messages at me without any thought put to it all day.

Does this imply expanding their social power? Yes, they intend to gain power in order to be listened and not be sexually harassed.

Sexual harassment is a code for perceived female insufficience of social power and privilege. A concept so vague and nebulous as sexual harassment ought not to be taken seriously by a pro-male person. But it is, because it is all about power and control of men, and society is deeply anti-male.

Now, the role of providor has collapsed, specifically because of women entering the workforce.

No it's not. What has collapsed is appreciation of men as providers. Migtards (even feminist ones like you) are mixing cause and effect. Men strive to be providers, but when no woman will have them, they start posturing as if they've never intended to provide for a girl.

Even if there are some few men who will greatly outearn their SAHM partners, most men can choose not to do it.

You're in denial of reality about human female nature. Most women'd rather choose to stay single, if their potential mates aren't particularly remarkable (financially or otherwise).

That means that alimony and divorce rape is rarer and rarer with the passage of time.

It doesn't matter if it becomes rare of attrition. Alimony and marriage must go in the dustbin of history by law.

And, this is important: I believe that despite feminism keeping male roles as protectors/dangerous, they are wrong in doing that, and it harms women. I would like to delve deeply on it if you are interested on my take in it.

I do not care about women, so unless you talk to me in a pro-male frame of reference, you might as well not bother at all.

I believe the system we are fighting is one and the same (the pkcmp).

More anti-male scapegoating from you.

most men and women are completely unaware that men are vulnerable and that men suffer pain

"I bathe in male tears"

Extreme, but it is on point. When it comes to male vulnerabilities, society goes for the jugular. Wonder why men conceal their pain? It is because of bullies and feminist scabs like you, but at least bullies sometimes are honest of their intentions and their knowledge of men's sore spots.

not against individual men choosing to protect or provide

I find systemic protector-provider mentality distasteful, but am not sure whether I know of the right approach to tackle it. I encourage random altruistic acts from both men and women.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I don't. I think the messages I send to you. On due right I'm very into moving out from my parents house, which is taking me around 3 days a week for the last 2 months, so I'm not working as much. Right now I'm towards buying a present for my father's birthday and for my mother's for mother day.

Sexual harassment is a code for perceived female insufficience of social power and privilege.

Ok, not. If you don't believe women are harmed by sexual harassment, just ask your female friends about their everyday experience.

You don't seem to be aware what sexual harassment does for women. For example, the girl I'm currently kind of dating was studying chemical engeneering at first. She was sexually harassed by a teacher (who also harassed other students), because of that, she left that career (she's currently studying accounting, thankfully).

Most women'd rather choose to stay single, if their potential mates aren't particularly remarkable (financially or otherwise).

Almost all women marry. Objectively. By definition, most men are not remarkable.

If most men are not remarkable, why women continue to marry despite now being able to survive single?

Men strive to be providers, but when no woman will have them, they start posturing as if they've never intended to provide for a girl.

But I do not WANT for men to be required to be providors to receive love. And you also don't want.

Aren't you fighting against that too? Don't you want for men to stop doing that? I mean this:

I find systemic protector-provider mentality distasteful

"I bathe in male tears"

Extreme, but it is on point. When it comes to male vulnerabilities, society goes for the jugular. Wonder why men conceal their pain? It is because of bullies and feminist scabs like you, but at least bullies sometimes are honest of their intentions and their knowledge of men's sore spots.

Ok, I'll give you that. I have fought a lot against women going to the jugular against male vulnerabilities, because of the hipocrisy.

The phrase that I hate the most? "Male fragility".

So. This is the issue: while I believe men no longer serve the role of providors (as you seem to agree), they still serve the role of stoic protectors.

Feminists shaming male vulnerability ("male tears"/"male fragility") is intended to create whiteknights that sacrifice themselves to protect "fragile" women. Although they are wrong to do that, they do it anyways.

I do not support that. And if I gave you the impression that I support those ideas, I want to correct that.

So, let me be clear:

I believe providor roles are obsolete. Men cannot be providors of women and do not longer have the possibility to be desired and worthy as money-makers.

I believe protector roles are still on point. Feminists as well as tradcon continue to shaming men into obedience and into self-harm and sacrifice in order to make them more obedient and docile.

I'm against that.

Do you want me to say that women are pressuring men into becoming sacrificial self-harming people full of shame and completely shameful of their vulnerabilities?

Because I do agree with that.

Am I understanding you?

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok, not. If you don't believe women are harmed by sexual harassment, just ask your female friends about their everyday experience.

I don't validate anti-male rhetoric neither from men, nor from women.

kind of dating

My worst predictions come true. You lack in money and physical prowess department, so you expect to get dates by validating female concerns. You're just as much of a scab as a married man or a thug white knight in the streets.

Almost all women marry. Objectively.

No. Your perception doesn't count as objectivity. Even if women marry (that's a big if), they are very likely to divorce soon.

If most men are not remarkable, why women continue to marry despite now being able to survive single?

Most men are in the reserves, waiting when a woman will need their provision. If a woman fails to launch, she'll dig for "traditional" options.

But I do not WANT for men to be required to be providors to receive love.

Wtf this has to do with love? Men are providing not because they expect to get love, they do it to get acceptance in society. Gay men, who are obviously independent of female affection, still are expected to take on provider roles.

while I believe men no longer serve the role of providors (as you seem to agree),

You are wrong.

Men are still providing, though mostly on a collective level now and without any expectations of reciprocity. Men pay the most taxes into the welfare system that discriminates against men.

Feminists shaming male vulnerability

They know of male vulnerability, otherwise they wouldn't target it so relentlessly. Slave masters knew that if slaves aren't whipped to destroy their will to fight, they might rebel. Society is deeply aware of men's position, it just does not want to afford men protection.

And if I gave you the impression that I support those ideas, I want to correct that.

Like I said, your motives leave a lot to be desired. Once you're done with your pet issues, you'll resume scabbing other men as a male feminist.

I believe providor roles are obsolete. Men cannot be providors of women

You're wrong on all counts.

and do not longer have the possibility to be desired and worthy as money-makers.

Women were accepting men because they were dependent on their provision. They've never thought of them as worthy or desired for the most part. Besides, men can bribe women into relationshits right now, if they happen to be wealthy enough.

I believe protector roles are still on point.

Did you ever thought of expanding your English vocabulary? Your choice of words gives vibes of support for the status quo.

Do you want me to say that women are pressuring men into becoming sacrificial self-harming people full of shame and completely shameful of their vulnerabilities?

You're wrong on the count of women making men shameful of vulnerability. Women do not gain from male shame or self-harm. Women just see men as an enemy, and they strike where the enemy is vulnerable.

Men most likely keep it quiet to avoid drawing more attacks towards themselves.

Like, until now, I'm convinced that there was a system, that you call traditional, that worked in a certain way, that caused harm to both men and women, and that despite causing harm to both men and women, many men and women do actions that sustain the traditional structure.

Woman pandering and male gender roles predate traditionalism. Dismantling traditionalism is insufficient. We must address human nature itself.

The "system" does not harm people. People do. Do not hide behind the shadow of some "system". It is a useless euphemism that exists solely to justify bad human attitudes. If people wanted to treat each other well, if they wanted for men to be happy and avoid suffering, traditionalism or feminism would not interfere.

Ok. What would be a pro-male frame?

You need so much to study before you can reliably assume a pro-male frame. I have to disagree with virtually anything you say, but my remarks always fall on deaf ears. You pose as having good intentions, but your choice of talking points nullifies any goodwill. You don't even want to fight radically against male genital mutilation, but expect me to buy into your nonsense about some system that harms both men and women (of course you don't know of any tactics except groveling to women). Why are you even here? You obviously place female interests on the forefront, while expecting men to walk in their shadow.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You lack in money and physical prowess department, so you expect to get dates by validating female concerns. You're just as much of a scab as a married man or a thug white knight in the streets.

Ok, this is false. And for the record, I'm quite rich. I'm probably in the top 1% in my country.

It is true that I was a whiteknight in my past, that was a serious mental illness. But just because I suffered that illness, that doesn't mean women do not get to suffer.

I'm speaking sincerely. Have you never asked your female friends or even your sisters or mothee about the sexual harassment they suffered? You can't genuinly believe that it is just a rhetorical tool.

They've never thought of them as worthy or desired for the most part. Besides, men can bribe women into relationshits right now, if they happen to be wealthy enough.

Great!!!! We agree then. Then you also believe that in tradcon societies, men-as-providors were just a form of prostitution.

Men are providing not because they expect to get love, they do it to get acceptance in society.

But we agree that this is a bad situation?

Your choice of words gives vibes of support for the status quo.

Hahah, I meant that protector roles are still alive.

We must address human nature itself.

What would be that human nature?

Women just see men as an enemy, and they strike where the enemy is vulnerable.

Is women's nature about hating men?

Men are still providing, though mostly on a collective level now and without any expectations of reciprocity. Men pay the most taxes into the welfare system that discriminates against men.

Ok, I believe this is your most important point. So, I know about taxes being mostly from men towards women. I might say, that is because there are more poor women (specially single mothers), then you'd disagree with me and tell me it is because of discrimination. I would want more about this.

Edit: I remembered something and I'm wrong. A big portion of why men are more taxed and that goes towards women, is because women outlive men by 5 years, while having a retirement age 5 years shorter. That means that women have 10 years extra to live without working. I'm quite against that. And I want to fight for women to have at the very least equal retirement to men, but I would prefer for women and men to have the same average ammount of years without working (I believe that is economically sounder that having men's retirement age shortened). The last time the age grew was in the early 90s, when women weren't completely working. UK has already equipared men and women age.

This is a direct consecquence of men as providors. So, yes, sexagenary women are in fact leeching from men. And it is an obsolete system stemming from traditional societies and I want that to be changed.

If that changed a huge portion of the tax discrepancy would be erased.

I believe you would support that?

you don't know of any tactics except groveling to women

I know a lot of tactics. I'm very into leftist militancy. And I know the steps. The first step is to talk with other men to awake them into discovering their pain. If there are enough then you need organization. Once there is organization you can use virtual trending topics, as well as march, strikes, etc.

But the first thing is always about the numbers.

As I told you, the only male activists in my country are male feminists that deny men have any issue or problem. And I believe there are religious men that march against abortion or something.

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok, it is complex. See, it is like this: I come from 3 generations of college graduated, that puts me into the top 5%, let's say. More precisely, 20% of people my age have a college degree (which would be equivalent to a master's degree in the US), however half of them are first generation students.

I come from the traditional families of jewish immigrants who earned a degree in the golden age of social upward mobility back in 1910s. Specifically, my great grandfather was the banker of the small rural town were jewish immigrants were arriving.

My grandfather had a PhD in geology -which was extremely rare back in that time- and married my grandmother, who came from a very poor family and never finished primary school, since she had to start working at 13 years old.

From the maternal side, they both came from those jewish familias, and my grandfather was also a college graduated, and marry my grandmother, who came from . My grandparents divorced. As long as I understand, my grandfather used his highly advanced math skills to be a finantial conman, and they were followed by the police for a few years, and that was the reason for divorce (my mother spent spent her childhood moving around escaping the police).

So, when my paternal grandparents had children, my grandfather pressured my father and my aunt to have college degrees. My aunt didn't want to, because she wanted to get fastly married to her childhood crush. But she accepted and had a short 1 year degree. My uncle lived as a commerce man, and he also went through clinical depression sometimes.

They had two female children. One of them went to become one of the most important investigators in education of science in my country, she is well-known internationally, and usually travels. Her husband is a well-known coordinator of long-distance teacher. They have two children, both of them young boys, and she made a book about how she taught science to her young boys.

My other cousin was more artistic, and she struggled getting a college degree. After going to Israel and coming back, she decided to be a make up artist and married -they didn't marry formally, though, because he didn't like formalisms- to a cineast. They have a little boy and a little girl.

So, my father, decided to become a shrink, speciallizing in psychoanalisis, as well as a computer scientist. My mother become a french high school teacher.

However, since the 70s, my country went into an economical and social collapse. In one of the initial crisis, my grandfather lost all his money, after selling his factory just before an hyperinflation. This highly traumatized my father, who became obsessed with having savings and terrified about his finantial future.

Thankfully, my family did not suffer through the huge hyperinflation of the 80s.

My father earned a lot of money in the 90s, since it was a steady time in my country, and him being one of the first computer scientists (he did systems for biochemical enterprises). He earned so much money that now he has quite a lot of appartments to rent. In fact, I'm not going to pay rent, since he's lending his appartm3nt to me.

I also have a sister, who is an industrial designer and is working at a studio.

Now, he's extremely controlling with the money, because of his trauma. So I try to not to ask him money. I'm a PhD student, so that meand I earn 400 dollars a months. So although I come from a rich family (my father considers himself to be "middle class", but I believe he is wrong), I try to use my own money, which is enough to have a lively life, but it is not a lot.

Besides, right now my country is in a high economic crisis. We have a 50% inflation and I believe hyperinflation can start any day of these. I do not want to spend in luxuries like having a high-end data plan. Some things are worth spending the money, like having a high quality mattress. I bought one extremely expensive, that costed $190, like 15 days of my wage. But that is important for my health, I have an herniated disc and don't want to have further health problems. Some luxuries, like having a high-end data plan that allowes me to watch videos I do not consider them worth it. I do have 4G since 6 months ago, which indeed did make me quit3 addicted to the cell phone. But I try to not use it for videos since it ends up quite fastly.

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

An argentinean college degree is a 6 or 7 years college degree that let's you start .

Also, I'm top of the hierarchy for my age. The average wage (that is adults who need to support a family!!!!!), is $260 monthly. I outearn most 50 year olds from my country.

I know english fluently!!!! That shows that I'm rich. English gives you great opportunities in life, it let's you travel to other countries. I went abroad, to Spain, Ecuador. I can pay air travel. I can even travel to the US if I want, I have enough money in the bank to do that and I even know english.

Originally, my plans were to start in a new department paying rent. I earn enough to pay rent. Not to have a luxurious life, or to have children -but I'm too young to have children, I'm 28-. But enough to have a confortable middle class livelihood even including rent (rent for a small middle class appartment is 200 dollars a month here, so pretty expensive; I could go to poor neighbourhoods and have a 100 dollar rent). In fact, my plan is to live in my own appartment by maybe march, this is a temporary agreement.

Usually, most adults earn 500 dollars amongst the two of them, while using a half of it for paying rent.

You know what it means to be poor? It means earning 180 dollars a month living in a place were at night you hear people shooting each other in a neighbourhood controlled by narcos. It means to not have water or electricity. It means not being sure if you are going to eat. It means to live in streets that are made of earth. It means to not having enough money to take a bus to downtown. It means working at a call center or being a mason or a cashier at a supermarket, or being a housemaid. I have friends who do that, they are indeed poor. I'm at the very least middle class.

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

An argentinean college degree is a 6 or 7 years college degree that let's you start .

The stuff that a high schooler is ought to know now was elder scholar's science back in antiquity. Wise men of the past would most likely be unemployable in the West, in spite of being the top of intellectual elite of their time and place.

I know english fluently!!!!

And it doesn't hurt to speak Español in the US too, so the point is moot. Besides, you don't strike me as a particularly fluent person, the clarity of your expressions leaves a lot to be desired, etc.

That shows that I'm rich.

Not at all.

English gives you great opportunities in life, it let's you travel to other countries.

On the income of $400/month?

I can even travel to the US if I want, I have enough money in the bank to do that and I even know english.

Your father's money?

Originally, my plans were to start in a new department paying rent. I earn enough to pay rent.

Better stay in your father's apartment. Pointless arrogance will get you nowhere. Distancing from relatives if you get along is overrated, it is mostly MGTOW who were given the boot later rationalize it as a strength.

The average wage (that is adults who need to support a family!!!!!), is $260 monthly. I outearn most 50 year olds from my country.

Plenty of poor in the West too. You may be right that the cost of living isn't the same, but then you make it confusing by using the dollar as a currency unit. You still aren't middle class.

In other words, I'm rich in relative terms in a country that is poor in absolute terms.

You live in a country that is economically precarious. Earning a relatively high wage does not make you rich.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The stuff that a high schooler is ought to know now was elder scholar's science back in antiquity.

It is equivalent to a Master level according to Bologna plan.

Besides, you don't strike me as a particularly fluent person, the clarity of your expressions leaves a lot to be desired, etc.

I studied english for 12 years.

On the income of $400/month?

Yep, I have already saved enough from my wage to have quite a few trips. I have had 2 trips (to Spain and Israel) out of scolarships. But I could pay like 4 holidays outside my country by plane through my own savings, not my father's money. Besides, my work gives you scolarships to travel to congresses and such.

Of course, I wouldn't have been able to save so much if I hadn't been the last three years gaining a lively wage while living at my parents. But the reality is I have enough savings.

Besides, my job gives you opportunities to go to work to the US or Europe as a postdoc student, since that kind of thing is quite international. It depends on the contacts.

Distancing from relatives if you get along is overrated

It is not distancing, it is part of a maturing process. If you have the economic opportunity, of course.

Earning a relatively high wage does not make you rich.

If my objective was to be a traditional wage earning and "buy" a wife through marrying down, that would be enough.

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I was reflexing about you saying that I have an "anti-male agenda". I want to be sincere: when I was young I deeply resented men. Why? My father was deeply aggressive to me, while my mother was always full of love and empathy. In my teenager years I was heavily bullied by my male classmates while my female classmates were tender and compassionate. I was a nerd, arrogant, and gullible, which made me a good target for bullying.

However, since my start of therapy and my waking up into a new system of ethics, I was awoken to the fact that only people in pain harm others. I started to realize the pain of men, including myself. And I was awoke to the pain of my father, as well as the great pain that was inside of the male classmates that were my bullies.

In this way, while when I was young I had mostly female friends, since a few years ago I started to gain lots of male friends and loosing some female friends. I was able to be vulnerable with male friendships and have them be vulnerable with me. Now I have around the same number of male and female friends.

So I took the decission that it is not women who need my compassion and empathy. It is men and myself who need it. Some people in my country believe that women need more of our empathy because they are oppressed or something. I believe they are wrong and whiteknighting. Women already have themselves to support each other, men do not. So now when I have the opportunity I try to focus my work in helping men, even when instinctually I may be more confortable with women because of my past, I believe the ones who need the most work and presence and empathy is men.

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

my female classmates were tender and compassionate

While girls didn't go out of their way to harm me, save two or three particularly nutty ones, I'd hesitate to call them "tender and compassionate" because of it. Most men and particularly boys are ignored by females, and I am fine with that, as long as they don't encroach on men's rights. I operate under a "live and let live" principle. In particular I stand for total dismantling of Misandrist Dating Advice Distraction, and I wouldn't hesitate to call out any female that promotes unrealistic views of female company and sexuality. Women have a movement that speaks for them already, I don't see any problem of us excluding women from our scope. It may tickle one's ego to think of his activism as beneficial to both sexes, but it takes precious time and disperses viewer's attention.

I want to be sincere: when I was young I deeply resented men.

I don't particularly like men myself, and because of it, I encourage everyone to become capable of self-defense, both in rhetorical and martial sense. Delusions about human nature are not to be tolerated. But if I want human rights for myself as a man, I'll advocate for all men to have them.

Motherly love (it's rather superficial) frequently leads to harmful consequences later in life.

I was a nerd, arrogant, and gullible, which made me a good target for bullying.

Most likely you were arrogant with other boys, girls don't tolerate arrogance from males, they wouldn't be tender and compassionate to you. Serves you right, from what I see. Men will endure female antics, but they rightly are considerably less receptive to momma's boys' delusions of their status.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

While girls didn't go out of their way to harm me, save two or three particularly nutty ones, I'd hesitate to call them "tender and compassionate" because of it.

Women were tender and compassionate towards me. My best friend is still the one who I met when I was 16. She helped me a lot in my life.

I wouldn't hesitate to call out any female that promotes unrealistic views of female company and sexuality

Sounds reasonable, I agree that dating is indeed overstated.

Most likely you were arrogant with other boys, girls don't tolerate arrogance from males, they wouldn't be tender and compassionate to you.

I was arrogant in an academic sense. I was quite a good student, didn't help anyone to cheat, made lots of questions to the teacher, you know the style.

but they rightly are considerably less receptive to momma's boys' delusions of their status.

No, they came from richer families. I went to an elite high school. It was more an academic thing. I was very nerd, went to lots of international science competitions, etc.

Delusions about human nature are not to be tolerated.

What is your belief about human nature?

I don't particularly like men myself, and because of it, I encourage everyone to become capable of self-defense, both in rhetorical and martial sense.

I see, it does make sense.

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women were tender and compassionate towards me. My best friend is still the one who I met when I was 16. She helped me a lot in my life.

Good for you, but remember that this is a men's advocates space, and your personal experiences aren't representative.

I was arrogant in an academic sense. I was quite a good student, didn't help anyone to cheat, made lots of questions to the teacher, you know the style.

Smart kids do not get bullied. Weird awkward maladapted kids are. This is not an endorsement, this is an observation I did while running an anti-bullying advocacy group. You most likely aren't telling me the whole truth, if not outright lying.

No, they came from richer families. I went to an elite high school.

Pfft, that only proves my point.

It was more an academic thing. I was very nerd, went to lots of international science competitions, etc.

So what did you do? Maths, physics, computer science, language, literature?

What is your belief about human nature?

You should've glimpsed by now if you're as smart as you claim.

Look at yourself as an example of a male human nature product. You're passive. You're uncritical of anti-male views. You lack humility and self-reflection. Those traits describe billions of men.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Good for you, but remember that this is a men's advocates space, and your personal experiences aren't representative.

Completely agree.

Smart kids do not get bullied. Weird awkward maladapted kids are. This is not an endorsement, this is an observation I did while running an anti-bullying advocacy group. You most likely aren't telling me the whole truth, if not outright lying.

I was asperger-like. I lacked social skills. I asked one of the men who didn't bully me why the bullying? He told me that I was different, I seemed like in a bubble, like not in this world, not with my feet on the earth.

Maths, physics, computer science, language, literature?

Math, chemistry and physics.

You should've glimpsed by now if you're as smart as you claim.

Do you believe most people lack conscience, that people are mostly unaware and sheep?

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I know that is the hegemonic discourse: toxic masculinity pressuring men to become violent pr hardworking to be "real men" and such.

Don't have to be pressured. They're presumed violent (and sexually violent), regardless of demonstrated potential to be, we're not even talking about inclination to be.

That's why air travel companies decide to move adult men next to kids away and trade their place with a woman. They're presumed sexually violent from the outset.

I sincerely agree with the text that men's aggressiveness, pressure to do work, disconnection with feelings are more a consecqunece of unmarkedness, and thus, the need to pressure to be worthy.

Its not tied to unmarkedness at all. It's tied to not having inherent worth. The ability to give birth is what gives women inherent worth. And why trans women are treated like usurpers trying to fake their way into worth. It's not feminity, or availability or domesticity.

In other words, I believe the pressure for men is mainly through indifference and apathy, much more than harm or control. For example, men get pressure to work to be successful and not be instead "nobodies".

I agree, but its got nothing to do with markedness. It's the empathy gap, and contempt for men who fail to prove their worth.

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal011 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You weren't telling me that.

Sorry, I told it to Forgetthelonely.

Look, my country is extremely complex. I come from a country, Argentina, that is waaay to the left at economic issues compared to US or Europe, but whose gender relationships are like US in the 80s. That means that rockstars had sex with 13 year olds and that was encouraged, and having sex with drunk passed out girls was seen as totally normal.

Then, suddenly, 4 years ago, a female revolution started. My friend's sister deaths was one of the sparks that started the revolution.

So I did abuse women in my past, but I'm not alone, I'm quite sure 1 in 20 men abused someone in ways that would be unthinkable to first world standards.

So women came to us and said "ok, you fucked up. Now get together and discuss what is hurting you because whatever is hurting you is making you lash out onto us, and that is not cool because we want keep shut up when you rape unconscious women and things like that".

So many men got together and started to discuss things for the first time. And instead of saying "yes, this is hurting us", men -like Luciano Fabbri- went "no, we are totally fine, we have absolutely no problem, and feminists are completely wrong about saying that this system puts us in pain or something".

And now I'm here, fighting an ant war, convincing men that they are in fact in pain. To the level of menslibbers at the very least, if not beyond. And let me say this, women have been waaay more receptive to understanding men's issues that men themselves were. So I'm showing them, both men and women, look at the stats of homelessness, work fatalities, male suicides, what happens with the lumpenproletariat? And they get surprised. They would have never thought that there could be some problem with men. I dared to say "look, feminists are wrong about men" to feminists, and actually have them acknowledge this and having them thank me for showing them issues that they have not thought of. They tell me "yes, people like you is what we are in need right now, not people who parrot what we -women- tell about men, but men who think for themselves what is the pain that you are carrying."

The red pill label is a kook label and must be avoided by any serious men's rights advocate.

Hahah, yes. It was just a toung-in-cheek joke.

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Look, my country is extremely complex.

No, you're just trad cons. Trad cons are the main enablers of feminists.

gender relationships are like US in the 80s

Smearing men as rapists in the US? That is an insult to every man, and should make you ashamed of yourself.

That means that rockstars had sex with 13 year olds and that was encouraged, and having sex with drunk passed out girls was seen as totally normal.

Instruct those girls to throw fake blood over rockstars yelling "Silence is violence!" Kill two birds with one stone: end male genital mutilation and underage sex.

Then, suddenly, 4 years ago, a female revolution started.

Trad cons cave-in to the feminists without fight, unsurprising. It took a war to free the slaves, but women just walk in and take over.

but I'm not alone, I'm quite sure 1 in 20 men abused someone in ways that would be unthinkable to first world standards.

More anti-male rhetoric from you.

Serve your own penance if you must, don't drag other men. I am not in the least inclined to accept a scab.

To the level of menslibbers at the very least

We don't need more male feminist scabs.

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]is_done 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link