Talk about double standards..

[–]RidingChicken 171 points172 points173 points 5 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

Mostly we aren't allowed to wear whatever we want. Statistically men are far more likely to accept social norms and not fight against it, and I'm not sure why. Which is why you'll find girls on prom working really hard to find the prettiest dress but boys generally take a black suit. They don't wanna Stand out in most cases. Some people attribute this to the fear of being bullied. Though I'm totally not sure of the reasons.

But the idea that men's clothing can be still be restricted only goes to show one thing; these feminazis have started running out of ideas to blame men. They tried everything from wage gap to blaming dark alleys (debunked by male robberies happening too), to homicide(debunked by statistics), domestic violence (Amber Heard solved this), the more ridiculous ones like manspreading and manterruption which now no one is bothered about. They even tried AC temperature and fart rape(yeah this BS exists).

So now that all these are gone; well they decided to make men's lives hell. Sarah Everard case got them a chance to curfew men, now clothing, then jobs, then family structure and so on

I'm pretty sure that if this is the situation, by next century they'll be fighting for something like "Men should daily kiss women's unwashed buttholes because patriarchy" (OG credit of this statement goes to my super anti feminist female friend)

[–]IceFlake_YT 61 points62 points63 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]RidingChicken 36 points37 points38 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceFlake_YT 25 points26 points27 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RidingChicken 14 points15 points16 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceFlake_YT 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RidingChicken 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pn1159 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MancunianMuffin 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ampjk 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LT_PhantomKnight 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RunInRunOn 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LT_PhantomKnight 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link

There are studies proving that women enjoy the sight of men suffering. So I think part of female nature is sadism. They couldn't act out that sadism in the past but now they can and do.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/study-of-the-day-women-are-much-happier-when-men-feel-their-pain/254204/

A more detailed report is

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/03/women-happier

Quote:

"contrary to the researchers’ expectations, women who correctly understood that their partners were upset during the videotaped incident were much more likely to be satisfied with their relationship than if they correctly understood that their partner was happy."

This is where the researcher got surprised by her own results - that women are "more satisfied" when their partners were "upset" i.e. emotionally suffering than when their partner was "happy".

On the other hand, when it comes to men:

"Relationship satisfaction was directly related to men’s ability to read their female partner’s positive emotions correctly. "

Summary:

Men are satisfied in a relationship when their female partner has positive emotions, i.e. when the female partner is happy.

Women are satisfied in a relationship when they see their male partner in pain or as the researcher put it "distressed", and not satisfied when their male partner is happy,

In other words, men want to see a female partner happy, women want to see a male partner "distressed". That's what sadism is.

There is a lot of weasel wording in the way the researcher presents it to look as harmless in its depiction of women as possible. But "contrary to expectations" means she was surprised by her own result about how cruel and sadistic women are in relationships. Given the treatment of men these days it stands to reason the women like to see men suffer outside of relationships as well, otherwise they wouldn't be doing all the injustice, hatred and misandry that they are doing daily.

[–]LT_PhantomKnight 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RidingChicken 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To my knowledge the truth of the matter is that women generally like to see MEN suffer, not all "others". They are a collective with a very collectivist thinking, so what they consider an insult on one women is an insult on all, and then they close in and protect each other like a phalanx.

Men are individualists and don't do collectives. That's why the are so defeated by collectivist females. Men have to change their strategies and protect and support each other like brothers, ahead of any woman.

The other side is that men like to see others, especially women, not as much "proud" but happy. They instinctively want to make a woman happy and want to support and protect her, especially if they see a woman in distress. This is the reason why fake distress = put up fake crying a.k.a. "turning on the waterworks" works so well for them. They simply exploit and abuse men's innate generosity and helpfulness against them. Men tend to do this even when the woman is their worst enemy. They just close their eyes and convince themselves that it is really OK, she just needs help.

Summary: women like to see men suffer while collectively protect other women. Men like to see others happy, especially women, and rush in to help, even risking their lives. IMHO they do this because they are innately generous. Unlike women who are, IMHO, typically greedy and petty.

[–]Gamers_are_oppressed -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have been married for 20 years. But my wife is completely different, a unicorn. Really NAWALT - not all women are like that. Female MRAs are the other exception. But the vast majority (99.9999%) of women have that "female nature" that is now showing in all its ugliness. Based on knowing many average women and on reading zillions of studies, men's personal experiences, books on the topic. You may not agree with me, but to me that just means that naive or ignorant or both.

But I am not infallible, of course, I could be wrong. But it would take a lot to convince me otherwise. The misandry I see daily tells me a about the "female nature", together with the massive injustices men suffer under.

Be careful with meme-driven thinking. This "sound like an incel" thing is one. "Sounding" is subjective, cannot be objectively proven or disproven, reflects emotion-based thinking, everything feminists love. What they hate is objective, rational, logical and above all fact- and data-driven conversation where terms like "sound like" are strictly forbidden.

Just a thought.

[–]fgyoysgaxt -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prollywonteatyou 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

OK, so that was the wrong link. It hides and confuses the matter - intentionally, because it wants to give women a pass over something very troubling.

A more detailed report is

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/03/women-happier

Quote:

"contrary to the researchers’ expectations, women who correctly understood that their partners were upset during the videotaped incident were much more likely to be satisfied with their relationship than if they correctly understood that their partner was happy."

This is where the researcher got surprised by her own results: that women are "more satisfied" when their partners were "upset" i.e. emotionally suffering than when their partner was "happy".

On the other hand, when it comes to men:

"Relationship satisfaction was directly related to men’s ability to read their female partner’s positive emotions correctly. "

Summary:

Men are satisfied in a relationship when their female partner has positive emotions, i.e. when the female partner is happy.

Women are satisfied in a relationship when they see their male partner in pain or as the researcher put it "distressed", and not satisfied when their male partner is happy,

In other words, men want to see a female partner happy, women want to see a male partner "distressed". That's what sadism is.

There is a lot of weasel wording in the way the researcher presents it to look as harmless in its depiction of women as possible. But "contrary to expectations" means she was surprised by her own result about how cruel and sadistic women are in relationships. Given the treatment of men these days it stands to reason the women like to see men suffer outside of relationships as well, otherwise they wouldn't be doing all the injustice, hatred and misandry that they are doing daily.

[–]Prollywonteatyou 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Quote:

"contrary to the researchers’ expectations, women who correctly understood that their partners were upset during the videotaped incident were much more likely to be satisfied with their relationship than if they correctly understood that their partner was happy."

So from what I read RIGHT HERE is that they were happy their partners were upset DURING the videotaped incident, as in they were happy that THEIR emotions were UNDERSTOOD. C'mon this makes you sound like feminists make us out to be, backwards and twisted. This article points two things out: "The findings also show that the more men and women try to be empathetic to their partner’s feelings, the happier they are. The authors suggest that this research should encourage couples to better appreciate and communicate one another’s efforts to be empathetic." Meaning that the more they try to understand and value their partners emotions, the happier the relationship because of it.

And the second:

"It could be that for women, seeing that their male partner is upset reflects some degree of the man’s investment and emotional engagement in the relationship, even during difficult times. This is consistent with what is known about the dissatisfaction women often experience when their male partner becomes emotionally withdrawn and disengaged in response to conflict,” said the study’s lead author, Shiri Cohen, PhD, of Harvard Medical School.

Meaning that they were happy that their partner WAS SHOWING EMOTION rather than shutting down. THEY WERE HAPPY THAT THEIR PARTNER WAS DISPLAYING THAT THEY WERE UPSET AND NOT BEING "STOIC."

Seriously dude it's seriously saying that women were happier when the men were emoting. You know, the thing we are trying to normalize as MRA's. This article as far as I'm concerned shows that society is atleast making some progress, however small it is. Can you explain your thinking more clearly instead of just copy/pasting? Please, if you are deadset in this stance foer the article, explain to me why you think the way you do.

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I am afraid that you take in too much of the word salad this researcher smothers her findings in to deflect from the actual findings of her research because they reflect too grimly on women. So here:

"Ït could be that for women ... (blah blah blah)"

OK, so anything the begins with "It could be ...." is pure speculation, interpretation and groundless guesswork, not any actual finding. The only actual finding is what I wrote:

Men are satisfied in a relationship when their female partner has positive emotions, i.e. when the female partner is happy.

Women are satisfied in a relationship when they see their male partner in pain or as the researcher put it "distressed", and not satisfied when their male partner is happy,

That's it, that's what was found in this research and this is what are actual facts and data. The rest of the world salad is just "interpretation" and speculation. For the purpose of whitewashing, that is.

An honest researcher should stick to the facts and present them. Don't try to obfuscate, deflect from and make speculative excuses for what you actually found.

"they were happy their partners were upset DURING the videotaped incident, as in they were happy that THEIR emotions were UNDERSTOOD."

Understood my ass. Why is inflicting pain on another human being is necessary for "understanding"?

Yes, women were happy to see their partners "'were distressed" which is a weasel word for "were in pain" or "suffered". We agree that that's what happened. Period. The rest of it is explaining away and excuse making.

Yeah, any torturer in history could claim that "they just want to be understood" by their victims. Like the torturer in 1984 tells Winston

"You know, Winston Smith, I just want to be understood that I really, really want you to declare that you love Big Brother more than anything else ..." and then bring on the torture. Just wants to be understood, you see.

Or, any torture investigator who wants to extract information from their hapless victim could tell the victim that

"You know I just want to be understood in that I really, really want that piece of information out of you ... you know I want to be understood." Then the pain begins. That's what sadism is, in case you are wondering.

So until and unless you can answer the question: Why is inflicting suffering on another human being is necessary to be "understood"?, any attempt to dress this up as "understanding seeking" is BS.

Women "were happy that their partner WAS SHOWING EMOTION ..."

Showing emotion. My ass. Yes, "showing emotion" sounds a lot less sinister than "suffering" which is the plain English translation of "being distressed".

You really drank that white-washing, trivializing Kool-Aid to the full, didn't you.

So if I drive a 10-inch steel needle through your leg, then you are ... er .. showing emotion ... Come on, how much more ridiculous can this trivialization get?

Of course, for feminists like this researcher men's suffering always has to be trivialized and minimized, and women's supposed innocent, angelic reputation always has to be preserved. But for you, too?

"it's seriously saying that women were happier when the men were emoting"

Emoting. Come on, even the researcher used the word "distressed" not EMOTING.

Then your real gem:

"This article as far as I'm concerned shows that society is at least making some progress, however small it is."

Huh? Excuse me? How is clearly demonstrating that while men's relationship satisfaction relies on seeing their women happy, women's satisfaction requires to see their men suffering actually "progress"? Toward what? Even more permission for women to act out their cruel nature on men who only want to make them happy?

With this one you completely lost me. What exactly is the progress you are talking about in this grim tale?

Now, don't try to convince me that word salads like "The findings also show that the more men and women try to be empathetic to their partner’s feelings, the happier they are ..." have any right to be even in there, if that's what you mean by "progress". This statement has nothing to do with the actual finding. The happier they are ... "when men see their women happy and when women see their men in pain" THAT, and only that was factually found. Empathy, communication - what do these things have to do with anything? There was nothing about "communication" in there, only turning up the dial seeing men in pain.

And "empathy" ... causing suffering to another human being is actually the exact opposite of empathy. I am really not sure how you got to this misreading of what transpired other than fully eating up and digesting the trivializing, misleading and whitewashing weasel word salads that were so carefully garnished around the actual grim findings.

You tell me.

[–]Prollywonteatyou 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So your idea of a news article about a social experiment is to include nothing but bald data and let whatever smooth brain read it, make whatever conclusion they want based on their own biases (like what you seem to be doing) rather than letting the researcher give the data and an answer to the question that is the most important question in science AND life, which is why. This is some mega incel energy my dude. You compare them TALKING about an incident and being distressed about it (which is to say emotionally distressed which is not pain, it's discomfort) to being tortured. You also seem to blindly forget that it stated that they looked specifically for couples with a history of DV so of course the data is skewed there. At worst this is an experiment to understand DV better, at best its an experiment to better understand social constructs amoungst couples. Like I said you seem to be incredibly biased and not to mention condescending with nothing to support it but your own fabrications. Please leave this sub if you can't leave your bias at the door, people here want to fight FOR men rights, not AGAINST women as a whole. I have no further desire to talk to someone like you.

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Prollywonteatyou1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kashh444 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]fgyoysgaxt 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

OK, that wasn't a quote. It was an interpretation by you. So let me actually quote:

"women who correctly understood that their partners were upset during the videotaped incident were much more likely to be satisfied with their relationship than if they correctly understood that their partner was happy.

I think this is as clear as it gets. No, this is not about "correctly determining" things, this is about women's satisfaction. OK?

One more time, slowly so that even you can understand it, emphasizing only the essence of it:

(When understanding that their male partners were suffering) women "were much more likely to be satisfied ... than if they ... understood that their partner was happy.

Man suffering = woman satisfied.

Man happy = woman dissatisfied

Oh, and

satisfied = likes it

dissatisfied = doesn't like it.

Clear enough?

[–]fgyoysgaxt 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

OK, so

Correctly understanding the their male partners were upset means that, indeed, their male partners were upset, and that's when women became satisfied.

What they were satisfied about is that they realized their their understanding is correct, the male partner is, indeed, suffering, hurray! In sharp contrast to, say, becoming concerned about the suffering male partner and wanting to console and help him,

Correctly understanding that their male partners were happy means that, indeed, their male partners were happy, and that's when women became dissatisfied.

What they were dissatisfied about it that they realized that their understanding is correct, the male partner is, indeed, happy, damn, that's completely unacceptable to me! As opposed to, say, becoming cheerful, happy and satisfied and wanting to celebrate the happiness of the male partner.

Keep in mind that all this was about turning up or down a dial, watching a video clip.

So the words to be bolded are "satisfied" and "dissatisfied" as in

(When understanding that their male partners were suffering) women "were much more likely to be satisfied ... than if they ... understood that their partner was happy.

Man suffering = woman satisfied.

Man happy = woman dissatisfied

Oh, and

satisfied = likes it

dissatisfied = doesn't like it.

The whole text is intentionally muddled and intentionally confusing to allow all kind of misunderstandings and to prevent clear, full understanding. The word-salad, ambiguous wording is intended to obfuscate and hide the truth not to clarify it. The proof for this lies in the expression "contrary to expectations", i.e. the researcher got surprised by the ugly underbelly of female nature (she herself being a female and a feminist) which was the last thing she intended to find. But it came out, so the only thing left is to word the whole thing as confusingly and ambiguously as possible, so that she can say that "I published the results" but making sure that the publication hides, obfuscates, confuses and whitewashes as much as possible. You may not see through it but that would be just sad.

[–]fgyoysgaxt 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth01 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

OK. So you are positing the result as saying that "women are satisfied when they realize that they can correctly read their partner's mind when he is upset."

So their satisfaction stems from their ability to correctly establish when their partner is suffering.

Say you.

Say I:

Wrong. It is a possible reading of the text which is intentionally confusing by allowing that reading. But this interpretation overlooks the other part. Why are "women dissatisfied when they realize that they can correctly read their partner's mind when he is happy, too"?

If this was really about the ability to correctly read a partner's mind then women should be satisfied in both cases: when they correctly read their partner's mind when he is upset, and also when they correctly read their partner's mind when he is happy as well. If the result were about correct mind-reading.

The thing is that correctly reading the partner's mind in his happy state as well should only add to the satisfaction. But no, when they find out ( = correctly understand) that he is happy then they go mad about it. How come?

Your "satisfied about the correctness of mind-reading" interpretation also doesn't explain the title of the article either:

"Women Happier in Relationships When Men Feel Their Pain" is not about precise mind-reading. If that was the case the title should say something like

"Women Happier in Relationships When They Understand Their Partner's Moods" Or "Mental states" instead of moods.

If this is intended then why does the title talk about "feeling the pain"? No, this is specifically about women being satisfied when they know that the man is in pain. And dissatisfied when the man is happy (this might be even more perverted the the previous one). They make a pair, they come together, like I said.

This is what this is really about:

A woman is annoyed about something, and she attributes this annoyed feeling to the man (whether fairly or unfairly is besides the point. She just decides that it is the man's fault that she feels pissed). When that happens she wants the man to be punished and to be in pain. She is satisfied when she establishes the the punishment was effective and he, indeed, is suffering, as intended by her.

And that explains the other scenario: when she intends the man to be punished and to suffer but he dares to be happy, thereby demonstrating that the punishment didn't work, is not effective, and he is not suffering, then the woman gets deeply dissatisfied.

"Being annoyed" is what the article's title refers to as "men feeling their (the women's) pain". Pain = being annoyed by something (that may not have anything to do with the man).

But then, of course, this is just word-twisting. "Being annoyed by something" does not at all mean automatically "being annoyed by something the man did". A typical scenario is a woman stepping on a scale and finding herself 5 pounds heavier than she wants to be. Pissed off, but incapable of blaming herself for anything - this is very, very typical of feminists but also women in general with a very low number of exceptions - she decides that this is somehow the man's fault. Like "he is not preventing me from eating too much" or "he doesn't care about my weight, and therefore about my well-being because he allows me to eat desserts" or "he doesn't encourage me to go to the gym more often because he doesn't care" etc. etc. etc. We have to keep in mind that women are very, very capable of blaming men for anything. But never themselves. When pissed off, and blaming the man for something that isn't necessarily his fault, and he may not have done anything bad at all, she wants "revenge", regardless. The man must be punished and the man must suffer. Then I will be satisfied. Unlike in the case he dares not to suffer and to be happy. Then I will be very dissatisfied.

There is no way around it. The title says "feeling (their) pain" is very clear. It is about "man feeling pain" not about "good communication". They want the man to feel pain, and it pisses them off when he doesn't and is just happy. In other words, women are vengeful and they couldn't care less whether any of it is fair or not. When they are pissed the man must suffer because that makes them feel better. Refusing to suffer makes them mad.

This is in sharp contrast to men's behavior: they don't care who did what and whose fault it might be, they just want their women to be happy. If their woman is not happy, they are not happy, either and want to change that by trying to help the woman. What a contrast. This contrast is exactly that the researcher got so surprised by and is trying to hide by word gymnastics and ambiguous wording that allow different interpretations. As long as people can interpret her words differently than what the true finding is, a lot of people won't find out what the truth is.

So it is muddled and confusing, and intentionally so. But if you restrict you attention solely on what happened and what transpired, and ignore her equivocations and "interpretations" of the result ("it could be ...") and her suggestive wording that intends to confuse the reader to read something else out of the paper than the raw naked truth in its full ugliness, then you can see through what kind of word gymnastics is going on and see the true finding.

This is about control, revenge, punishment, causing pain and being mad when the intended pain doesn't materialize.

It is as dark - even perverted - as it gets, whether we, or the researcher, like it or not.

[–]fgyoysgaxt1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth01 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fgyoysgaxt1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth01 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

OK, so I have read the original research paper. All of it. Here is what transpired to me.

The real issue here is that of semantics: knowing what is meant by certain words and phrases.

Since I am not a psychology major I had to look up the following terms

Positive emotion:

An emotional reaction designed to express a positive affect, such as happiness

(APA dictionary: https://dictionary.apa.org/positive-emotion)

Negative emotion:

Negative emotions can be described as any feeling which causes you to be miserable and sad.

(https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/negative-emotions)

I selected the sources based on what seemed to me as the clearest definition.

Based on this, the following relations are correct for our current discussion:

Positive emotion = happiness

Negative emotion = suffering

Hence

Having a positive emotion = being happy

Having a negative emotion = suffering.

Hence

Accurately reading a partner's positive emotions = knowing that the partner is happy

Accurately reading a partner's negative emotions = knowing that a partner is suffering.

Why? Because accurately reading that the partner's mind is X means two (2) things:

(1) I think that the partner's mind is X

(2) The partner's mind is, indeed, actually X.

This means knowing that the partner's mind is X.

Inaccurately reading that the partner's mind is X means two (2) things:

(1) I think that the partner's mind is X

(2) the partner's mind is not X (but something else, say Y).

This means not knowing what the partner's mind is and therefore being wrong about the partner's mind.

Having laid down these foundations, we can proceed to translating the paper's psychological jargon-laden text to plain English.

Here are the two (for out discussion) most important quotes from the original paper ("Eye of the Beholder: The Individual and Dyadic Contributions of Empathic Accuracy and Perceived Empathic Effort to Relationship Satisfaction"):

First quote:

"Moreover, the model shown in Figure 3 suggests that women are more satisfied with their relationships when they accurately read their partners’ negative emotions ..."

Plain English translation:

Figure 3 shows that women are satisfied with their relationships when they know that their partner is suffering.

Note in particular that the original sentence in the paper by no means relates that a woman is satisfied because she finds that she is accurate about the partner's state of mind that happens to be suffering but that a woman is satisfied because she knows (accurately reads) that the partner is having a negative emotion i.e. is suffering.

Second quote:

"Women who more accurately read their partners’ negative emotions were the most satisfied in their relationships."

Plain English translation:

Women who knew (= accurately read) that their partners were suffering were the most satisfied in their relationships.

The point I am trying to convey to you is that despite you saying that "IMO it is clear" that the paper is about "being satisfied with your relationship correlating to being able to correctly interpret negative emotions on your partner " it is not clear at all and your interpretation of "women are satisfied about their precision and accuracy in reading their partner's (negative or positive, or whatever) emotions" is actually wrong.

To put it in the simplest possible terms, the women weren't satisfied by thinking that "Gee, I am so accurate" but by knowing that "Gee, the guy is suffering like a dog".

I am telling you this for the third or fourth time but you just keep dismissing it without actually reading the paper in detail and analyzing what it actually says. The essence is this semantics:

reads accurately = knows

negative emotion = suffering

Period. There is no way around it, no matter how badly you would like it to be otherwise.

If you still don't believe it, the way the APA (American Psychological Association) renders it is

"However, contrary to the researchers’ expectations, women who correctly understood that their partners were upset during the videotaped incident were much more likely to be satisfied with their relationship than if they correctly understood that their partner was happy."

For a layman's clarity, they changed the paper's jargon-phrase

accurately reads

to the more plain-English

correctly understands.

So their semantics is

accurately reads = correctly understands

So our full semantics is

accurately reads = correctly understands = knows

has negative emotions = is upset = suffers

where in each equation the first term is the original paper's term, the second term is the APA interpretation's term and the third is the plan English term.

So even the APA interpretation has nothing about women being satisfied about their "accuracy" but about their knowing (= correct understanding = accurate reading) of the partner's suffering (having negative emotions), and the APA is correct about that.

Now, I know that all my efforts are more likely a waste given that you have such confidence in your reading of the paper ("IMO it is clear"). What I've been trying to do is loosen up this confidence because I very much know that you are wrong in your reading. But chances are you will stick to your reading (to which you have every right) and will probably refuse to carefully re-read the APA report and the original paper. Which is fine.

Best of luck to you otherwise.

[–]fgyoysgaxt1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

OK, I actually listed a lower quality source by mistake. I added the better source above as

A more detailed report is

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/03/women-happier

Quote:

"contrary to the researchers’ expectations, women who correctly understood that their partners were upset during the videotaped incident were much more likely to be satisfied with their relationship than if they correctly understood that their partner was happy."

This is where the researcher got surprised by her own results - that women are "more satisfied" when their partners were "upset" i.e. emotionally suffering than when their partner was "happy".

On the other hand, when it comes to men:

"Relationship satisfaction was directly related to men’s ability to read their female partner’s positive emotions correctly. "

Summary:

Men are satisfied in a relationship when their female partner has positive emotions, i.e. when the female partner is happy.

Women are satisfied in a relationship when they see their male partner in pain or as the researcher put it "distressed", and not satisfied when their male partner is happy,

In other words, men want to see a female partner happy, women want to see a male partner "distressed". That's what sadism is.

There is a lot of weasel wording in the way the researcher presents it to look as harmless in its depiction of women as possible. But "contrary to expectations" means she was surprised by her own result about how cruel and sadistic women are in relationships. Given the treatment of men these days it stands to reason the women like to see men suffer outside of relationships as well, otherwise they wouldn't be doing all the injustice, hatred and misandry that they are doing daily.

[–]fgyoysgaxt 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deadass-Boi 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RidingChicken 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SeerUD 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

From a strictly egalitarian view, a lot of the things you listed in your second paragraph are still problems (dark alleys, homicide, domestic violence, and some missing ones like rape, harassment, etc.). They're problems for women and men. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely plenty of vocal women who would like people to believe no problems exist for me, but I don't think that doesn't give women at large the right to worry about these kinds of problems too.

On the curfew point, if you're talking about the one "proposed" by a female UK MP, she was trying to make a point about how women are told "don't go out after dark, otherwise what do you expect" and how suggesting the same for men "men shouldn't go out after dark, they make women unsafe", is also ridiculous, not a solution, and not helpful; showing how ridiculous both statements are. The media has played it off like she was being serious about it to spur outrage, but it wasn't meant like that.

Otherwise I completely agree on clothing. I don't wear things that would make me stand out. I try to wear what's generally in fashion, but nothing too outrageous. I don't know what I'd do with comments or looks I'd get, I'm self conscious enough as it is without actively trying to make that worse.

[–]RidingChicken 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

definitely plenty of vocal women who would like people to believe no problems exist for me,

These are exactly the women I'm talking about(actually even the men who support them. So I used the term feminists). They believe men do not face any issues at such places and these are strictly male on female violence instances. And that women are sole victims and men are sole perpetrators and this is a form of inequality in the society and so men bad.

They're problems for women and men.

This is why I put simple debunking examples within parantheses(they're not even the most daunting examples. Just the most simple ones)

media has played it off like she was being serious about it to spur outrage,

And it did. There are hundreds of women out there recommending a male curfew. Just open twitter or Tumblr. And your jaw might drop. The impact is more important than the intent. And the impact is huge. At least huge enough to keep the idea floating around for the next few weeks.

I'm self conscious enough as it is without actively trying to make that worse.

Every man has different reasons to why they choose clothing that they do. But the point stands valid that most men don't fight clothing norms as some sort of oppresive tyranny and just carry on with their lives. We're very socially conscious about ourselves and keep these concerns at bay.

[–]SeerUD 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is why I put simple debunking examples within parantheses(they're not even the most daunting examples. Just the most simple ones)

Right, I think I understand why you put debunking now, as in, debunking that these things only happen to women. Is that right?

And it did. There are hundreds of women out there recommending a male curfew. Just open twitter or Tumblr. And your jaw might drop. The impact is more important than the intent. And the impact is huge. At least huge enough to keep the idea floating around for the next few weeks.

Yeah, that's true. In which case though, I think we should be blaming the media and how they've presented it. That's not to say I think women are blameless here. That MP could've been clearer in her point, and other women shouldn't latch on to it and actually think a curfew should be put in place. I mean, the reality is it wouldn't happen (at least not any time soon), it'd bring the world to a stop. But I'm sure they could try...

[–]RidingChicken 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Interesting_Strike85 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]HeWhoIsBearded 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Interesting_Strike85 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RidingChicken 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Interesting_Strike85 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FromAutumn2Ashes 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RidingChicken 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FromAutumn2Ashes 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VIRUS_WWW 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RidingChicken 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]VIRUS_WWW 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMightyFork7879 21 points22 points23 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Muzzled_Walnut 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMightyFork7879 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Muzzled_Walnut 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 51 points52 points53 points 5 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]python1982 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I have been paying close attention to both sides for about 20 years. IMO the problem is that men are flat out just not listened to or ignored. I look at the MRA side, it's a lot of reexplaining the same things because what is said keeps falling on deaf ears. On the feminism side I have not seen the arguments change, yet to "promote" women as they claim and continue to just blame.

It's just a stale mate and I believe the pressure is on women to listen to men. Because it's without a doubt an anti male movement more than anything. And the easiest way to see that, look how much men are a topic, but not the very similar number of women who vote against them. Feminists never, ever speak of the women fighting against them, and they are actually doing it actively. And the thing is, the passion to hate men is much stronger than doing good for women.

Take just the abortion debate for example, pretty much a red/blue issue for the most part with the normal exceptions. They would rather blame "old white men" for stopping abortion that talk with the millions on millions of women who are pro life. Think about that, they need just a sliver of conservative women and they can completely tip the political system. They could have all the power they desire if they actually tried to talk with the literal half of women out there who disagree with them, but they would much rather blame and shame men. Been like that for decades, it's super sad honestly. It stifles everything gender related when you are waiting on a group to take some action on their own behalf so you can meet at the table.

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

"waiting on a group to take some action on their own behalf so you can meet at the table. "

Very wrong. Men have been trying are are trying but feminists shoot them down instantly as "misogynists" and "sexist" and "hate speech" speakers.

The Southern Powerty Law Center categorized the entire MRA as a "hate group". You know, that ridiculous old crap, "misogyny".

I can provide you with endless examples of men trying a start men's issue groups on a campus, in a municipality or anywhere and it gets banned instantly.

No, the root cause of no progress is not that men aren't trying and "good women" or "conservative women" or "good feminists" can do nothing but sit there "waiting for them". That's just an excuse. The truth is that the active, aggressive and brutal feminist hate-campaign against men includes the complete censorship and banning of anything men dare to do for themselves.

For any women, conservative or otherwise, who care one bit about preventing gender fascism in this society it is the highest imperative to get very loud, very noisy, very combative and very aggressive fighting against feminism and for men's rights.

Anything less and you are just an enabler and accomplice to the crime of feminist gender fascism.

[–]feltentragus 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]higgs456 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd argue that the main issue in arguments for men dressing feminine or extravagantly is that women who have an underlying issue with penis envy or just envy masculinity in general will both wear masculine clothing and promote feminine clothing for men. So really this discussion is counterproductive for men mostly, because it gives feminists with those issues I mentioned a win-win and men a neutral-lose. They get to steal men's masculinity by adopting it for themselves and limiting it in men and feel their envy sated for a bit when someone like Lil Nas X or Harry Styles shows up. There are guys who like dressing feminine completely independently of these narratives, and that's great, but guys who are pulled into it because of feminism are kind of just giving feminist women who push it hardest (which are the ones that have those issues I mentioned) what they want with no personal upside. If you're an unmasculine man, more power to you and I stand up for you as much as anyone else, but if you submit to feminist emasculation I think you need to evaluate whether that's really helpful for you and your mental health. Because it certainly wasn't for me.

Edit: One thing that might relate to what you said though is how women don't like seeing shirtless pics of men on dating apps, or at least I've heard complaints against it a lot. If I ever end up single again (and I hope I don't jfc) I'm going to make sure I'm jacked again and put nothing but shirtless pics up lmao.

[–]ExtentionBobcat 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExtentionBobcat 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lostcymbrogi 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]googitygig 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]fgyoysgaxt 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]googitygig 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fgyoysgaxt 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]googitygig -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fgyoysgaxt 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Bro , shorts hail in comparision to mini-skirts.

The average length of shorts are about 11 inches meanwhile mini-skirts are on average 4 inches or even shorter.

Also the reason why men don't wear skirts is because a hetrosexual man wearing a skirt isn't going to get with women , furthermore men have actually worn skirts in the past however those skirts were much more straight than female skirts.

Furthermore , you're just victim-blaming , couldn't you say the same about wearing trousers in the 50's?

Like do you seriously think women accepted other women who wear trousers?

Like I don't know why but this idea that discrimination of men is null if men discriminate against each other however even in this context women make fun of men too.

The reason why men don't wear skirts is because its not socially acceptable unless like in Ireland , its a different type of skirt , in addition , most men are hetrosexual , meaning if they want to get with women they have to be masculine.

Like men are attractive to women because they're men , women are attractive to men because they're women however saying your prefer feminine women is somehow a hot-take in alot of circles?

I don't know man , you can prefer anyone you want however if you criticize someone's preferences meanwhile your preferences are the same then you are a hypocrite.

[–]converter-bot 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]googitygig -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Source for your average length of skirts and shorts? I'm skeptical of those measurements. Why are you focusing on length anyway. He asked was there an equivalent to mini skirts that men can wear and shorts are. You can buy shorter shorts like.

I'm not victim blaming Women didn't accept it initially but those women who chose to start wearing trousers didn't let the fear of not getting laid stop them.

I would never argue that discrimination against men is null and void. I'm sick of it myself. All im saying is that we can't just blame women for things like clothing choice when men are also complicit in upholding these societal standards.

I agree, people are allowed to have preferences, I never said otherwise. Maybe it's a hot take in some circles but in MOST circles people don't care who other people are attracted to. You're allowed to be attracted to "feminine" women and women are allowed to be attracted to "masculine" men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Tell that to the feminists dude , I agree most people respect other people's preferences however a large minority of people ( mainly feminist women ) are against men prefering skinnier women and furthermore this idea of wanting a feminine woman is challenged by some feminists.

I'm scapegoating , just check out the feminist subreddit , they make fun of men who want women who aren't hairy meanwhile are completely silent about the height preferences women have.

And in all honesty , I don't care , but I hate hypocrites.

Also I know they are shorter shorts however if you're shorts are 4 inches , you're wearing boxers , furthermore male clothing tends to be more modest than feminine clothing and thats all right , however I'm just highlighting that male clothing has never changed.

If a man wears a mini skirt or shorts as long as a miniskirt he's either gonna get jumped or dumped .

Source for shorts :

https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&rlz=1C1SQJL_enAE877AE877&sxsrf=ALeKk015WuxgfrkeC-WViEElU7st_dWRNg%3A1615971492385&ei=pMRRYMaMF7KU1fAP6rSt2AY&q=length+of+shorts&oq=length+of+shorts&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBwgAELADEEMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsANQAFgAYJLzAWgBcAJ4AIAB5AGIAeQBkgEDMi0xmAEAqgEHZ3dzLXdpesgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjG7pT2-rbvAhUyShUIHWpaC2sQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

TL ; DR , Shorts come in "5" , "7" , "9" and "11" however the most common is the "7" and "9".

Source for miniskirts :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniskirt#:~:text=A%20miniskirt%20(sometimes%20hyphenated%20as,a%20minidress%20or%20a%20miniskirt

TL;DR the average miniskirt is around "4" and can go lower.

[–]converter-bot 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]googitygig -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]converter-bot 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Paradoxes_Suck 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutisticCyborg 14 points15 points16 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MancunianMuffin 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theblackparade87C 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KuramaYojinbo 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingSeaMan509 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fakemuseum 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stray_Conscience 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aussietoads 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ReflectionOk8826 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HUZNAIN 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Starmind0 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YourFavouriteGuy 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]420BIG420SMOKE420 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]guitarteachernj -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Most women I know who find themselves wearing the same thing as another woman in the room get belittled by each other and other women.

So let me repeat: WOMEN GET BELITTLED BY OTHER WOMEN. Cool. Whose fault is that? Certainly not men's fault, I would say, even though feminists always find a way to blame men for everything, including the consequences of their own bad behavior. So leave it to them to find a "reason" why this "belittling" is somehow men's fault, too.

"This "allowed" stuff is ridiculous."

Actually, no, it is absolutely serious. Let a man try and show up in a kilt at work - especially at a corporation with a dress code, or in a customer-facing role. Let me know what to corporation had to say. It is the case that men wearing skirts is simply NOT SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE, especially in the work world. Yes, women are given far more freedom about how they dress, including showing a lot of skin (being half-naked in public) and cross-dressing in the sense of wearing men's clothes. But NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Men are far more restricted on what they can wear if they want to be socially accepted.

These are facts and what matters is what's socially acceptable and what's not. Regardless of your personal views. A man's career depends on what happens at work, not on your personal opinions. Sad but true.

[–]guitarteachernj 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RunInRunOn 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Metrack14 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditTogetherStrong 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bunedturkey0003 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]KhalidB2021 -8 points-7 points-6 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sofjiihdd 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kbahraoui -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sofjiihdd 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]sunsetsurprise -30 points-29 points-28 points 5 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mieleur[S] 22 points23 points24 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]sunsetsurprise -28 points-27 points-26 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mieleur[S] 14 points15 points16 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stray_Conscience 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[+]sunsetsurprise -19 points-18 points-17 points 5 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stray_Conscience 13 points14 points15 points 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]sunsetsurprise -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]GiveMeAFunnyUsername 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]novhaku 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]trucker_rick1932 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]trucker_rick1932 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]novhaku1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How surprising. This being said, if they wanted to create misogyny, they wouldn't do it any other way. These people are the ones that are the biggest disservice to real victims down the line. Damn modern pseudo-"activists".

Also, it's related to both their famous "rape culture" and the "risk management = victim blaming" phenomenon.

How funny for them to say that justice itself somehow holds the length of her skirt against a victim when, if there's a "rape culture" (which is defined as a society that ignores, downplay and normalize rape; of course sentencing something is normalizing it.. don't bother), it is in fact towards men raped by women (not other men, these ones are more or less recognized). Nice role reversal here.

The kind of people saying this are just narcissistic that are so unable to understand what everyone else is going through that they immediatly think that anything that happens (or don't even happen, in the case of the skirt) is an attack towards either them or their "labels". Who cares about the fact that women-on-men rape are pretty much a joke and that the law is explicitly biased against men regarding this, which skews with the statistics, not believing ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that comes out of my mouth unconditionally means that there's a rape culture!!!

[–]trucker_rick19321 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]novhaku1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trucker_rick19321 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]novhaku2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sunsetsurprise -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok tell me super smart guy, what country am I from? Do you know what shit they do here? A guy put a fucking mixer in a girl's vagina and destroyed her colon, rectum and vagina. She barely survived. She cant have kids, she's crapping into a bag on her stomach. The guy paid lawyers and doctors to support his claim that he used "only 3 fingers" and didnt rape her. Even though you can see on CT half of her FUCKING COLON IS MISSING, ALONG WITH HER DAMN CERVIX. He got just 6 months for raping and debilitating her FOR LIFE. So tell me again, mr.super smart guy, what country am I from? Who exactly is the victim here? The one who may get laughed at, or the one that may be DEBILITATED FOR LIFE? If you guys truly cared about women, you'd never let this guy in question see the light of the day. You'd fight for her justice too! But no. You just want to be victims.

[–]Rashidal1 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stray_Conscience 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sunsetsurprise -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]trucker_rick1932 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stray_Conscience -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

We’ve already established that this was a joke and that’s not the argument at hand. But for the sake of debate let’s say that this IS what women have been facing for centuries. Isn’t the goal of feminism not equality? It really sounds like you’re making the feminist movement out to be some sort of vindication. “Raging incels”, “fragile”, just look at your terminology. Btw I can’t ignore a fact that you’re only bringing up right now. But in that light; what about the men in countries all over the world who get raped and can’t talk about it for fear of women like you calling them “fragile”. How about those who get ACCUSED of rape and get jailed for years without a proper/fair trial, (some even lynched in the streets by angry mobs.) Only to find out the woman was not truthful. (Which is a clear indication that women are fully aware of the biases in the justice system to a point it can be weaponized.) Only to get a slap on the wrist (if any) when/if the court finds their story to be untrue. We need feminism and that’s a fact, but we also need the men’s rights movement.

[–]MancunianMuffin 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sunsetsurprise -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MancunianMuffin 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VeteranOfDepression 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaThPhySicsStaRWars 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Talk about double standards..
Author	Mieleur
Upvotes	768
Comments	155
Date	March 16, 2021 4:39 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/m6d9ce/talk_about_double_standards/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/talk-about-double-standards.832093 https://theredarchive.com/post/832093

Comments