Plenty of men too. A lot of the ideas considered "traditionalist" are actually feminist because so-called traditionalist actually believe the feminist myth about "patriarchy". Human society was never run by men for their own benefit, but that is what most believe.
Maybe I just don't think "I look the other way if you get raped, even though it's not actually a legal part of your punishment" is generally a good way to go about criminals, male or female.
Do you think criminal men deserve to be raped in prison?
I suspect many feminists would say yes to this question.
Were you aware that the term "rape culture" was originally used to describe how the tolerance of rape of men in prisons? This was in the 1970s. The term has since been co-opted by feminist to use against all men by describing men as all tolerating rape in some way. Feminists do not care one single bit about the rape of men in prison (or outside of prison), they only care about rape of women in prison, and even then they only care about the rape of women in prison by men, as this issue only exploded once trans-women were involved, even though most female rape victims in prison are victims of other females.
The point I'm making is this - if feminists want help from men in reducing rape in female prisons, they need to come to the table and acknowledge that rape of men, in prison and otherwise, and the perpetration of rape by women, are issues that also need addressing.
I will say therapy was handy for learning about cognitive behavioral therapy, but funny how my depression eased up once I...
CBT helps separate the things you can change from the things you can't. It's a mindfulness/stoic technique, something many men have mastered throughout history without calling it CBT.
Women would benefit from CBT too, but they aren't that good at it (or it doesn't interest them). They tend to be far to attached to their emotions. I skimmed the article but it was mind-boggling how the author did not identify a key reason "liberal women" why were so caught up in these "anti-CBT behaviours" - those behaviours are all classically feminine:
- Catastrophizing: very useful for playing damsel in distress to get men and others to do things for you
- Focusing on emotions: with regard to women, no explanation needed
- Enjoy being playing the victim: playing damsel in distress gets men to do stuff for you
I've said it before and will say it again, a major problem in Western society is everyone is becoming hyper-feminine and adopting these behaviours, which are useful for manipulating other people to gain some benefit, but will ultimately collapse the society if everyone is doing it (because not enough people are actually doing any work, they are all expecting someone else to fix things for them).
I'm calling bullshit on this story. It has all the earmarks of advertising PR to sell GPT-4 (the original link has a click here to pay $20/month to subscript to GPT-4). If not completely false, it is very likely embellished in some way.
And then those boys will be punished for mocking trans people or similar. There are no loopholes because there are no consistent rules. There is only power and the ability to use it to enforce their will.
It's a propaganda technique and it works. That's why they do it. You underestimate those employing this technique by downplaying it as a mental defect. It's not. It's an effective strategy in this day and age.
Nah, I think you weren't aware the prevalence of adults needing to wear diapers for medical reasons, and when called out on it, are too embarassed to admit you over-reacted so are doubling down.
Here is the prevalence of incontinence in Australia:
Urinary incontinence affects up to 10% of Australian men and up to 38% of Australian women.
Faecal incontinence affects 6% of Australian men and 10% of Australian women.
At one stage disabled toilets didn't exist. Would you have complained when they installed the first disabled toilet?
Seriously, what's the harm catering for incontinent adults? I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
I think you might be underestimating the number of adults who suffer from incontinence and need to wear diapers.
Unfortunately, I don't see Western countries going down the path of East Asian countries with respect to feminism. To put it bluntly, men in Western countries are far more cucked than those in East Asian countries.
For example, although there are both East Asian "traditionalists" and Western "traditionalists", they differ on how they perceive women. While both "traditionalists" have some stereotypes about women in common, for example, they might perceive to be less physically violent, and better at providing care for others (including children), East Asian "traditionalists" also perceive women as being incompetent (i.e. almost useless) in male-dominated areas, while many Western "traditionalists" perceive women as being "equal" to men in these areas, or at least only slightly inferior.
In addition, all it takes in a Western country is for a women to say "some is being mean to me!" and most of the men come running "Oh no, milady, how can we defend your honour?" and feel they are doing a "good deed" by kowtowing to women. In contrast, men East Asian countries may still help the women, but if they do they will be shaking their heads, "How useless are women? Always needing help". In other words, Western traditionalists are more gynocentric than East Asian ones. (This is related to the previous point as well, as the reason Western men aren't willing to perceive women in the same way as East Asian men is because they are more gynocentric).
I suspect a lot of this differences is historical. The whole idea of "romantic love" and bastardised gynocentric version of chivalry is Western in origin. For example, Western courtship rituals involve men demonstrating their subservience to women (e.g getting down on a knee to propose to the women)
(Going on a particularly wild tangent, it's fun to speculate how these cultural differences might have evolved. It could have pure chance, of course, but I myself speculate that it might have something to do with white women having evolved to be more sexually appealing than women from other cultures, supercharging their ability to manipulate men. Speculative evidence for this would be how men of all cultures generally perceive white women to be the most attractive.)
Finally, note that I deliberately used "East Asian" here, as I feel I know enough about East Asians to comment. I don't know enough about, for example, Indian culture to comment, but my perception is that Indians may be as gynocentric as Westerners, if not more so (accepting the latter will work against my speculation in the preceding paragraph).
Mike Rowe was publishing software and had an identifiable brand presence before Bill Gates and Paul Allen picked a name for their company, and a court still stole his literal name and trademark from him
Mike Rowe was a high school student when that kicked off in the early 2000s. Microsoft was founded in the 1980s.
"Women making unwanted sexually-motivated advances towards men, or discussing their sexual conquests in public, would not face sanctions under the legislation."
Yep they don't think stop losses are a good risk management tool. No doubt they think using stop losses is a sign of men "panicking". Going further into the red? Oh well, can always get your chump boyfriend to steal customers funds to cover your losses.
Perhaps. But the only data point we have is that the OP paid for it at that price. And from that I'm presuming he wasn't the only one that paid for it at that price. It's like when I see canned drinks for $5 at a cafe. I won't pay that much for a can because I can buy the same thing in a grocery store for $1, but plenty of others do. Is the cafe overcharging or simply charging what people are willing to pay?
This is nitpicking, but if you are paying that woman the price she asked for, she isn't overcharging. That's the market price that you were willing to pay.
Apart from that, start using cash as much as you can. Most shops still take cash and you will actually get some human contact from interacting with the cashier. Top up your public transport card with cash and don't register it. If anyone asks, you can always tell them it helps with budgeting if you are concerned about being seen as a "conspiracy theorist".
You are right though, nothing was been averted. Instead, it's up to you and me to do something about it. Leaders can't do squat if enough people oppose them.
Obviously, not wrong by default, but not worth taking seriously
"I'm not going to take that claim seriously because even though there is clear evidence of it happening, my gynocentric bias prevents me acknowledging that these bad people who criticised milady MRAs and MGTOW people are right."
It's easy to verify those claims by reading reports of the relevant court cases. Just because you've never read similar reports before doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means you haven't looked (probably because you couldn't possibly look into what "MRA and MGTOW" people say because they make "all sorts of claims" and have a "professional victim complex" so anything they so must be wrong by default).
No man is going to marry if this sort of thing is possible.
Courts have been invalidating pre-nuptial agreements for years. It's not news. All it generally takes is for the agreement to be "unfair" to the woman. It's well-known in MRA and MGTOW circles.
Yes, I reported this and I don't give shift that you think I'm a "melodramatic fag" for getting your stupid teenage girl drama posts removed ("OMG! Look what this AI said about ImpY! It's, like, so real! Impy is such a LOSER!").
How is this not harassment? A user is literally creating a fictional story about another user here to denigrate the target, and has posted it in a top-level post outside the context of any current interaction between them.
Once again, women are followers, not leaders. They'll toe the party line, they'll eat up the orthodoxy and, yes, they'll do absolutely heinous stuff toward those ends, but that doesn't mean they're the leaders of the movements.
That's not true. Women have and have always had their own power structures, usually with matriarchs at the top of these power structures. Historically, these power structures may have been somewhat subservient to male power structures, but that is not strictly true either - the male and female power structures operated in different domains. The male power structures were concerned with government, trade, war and the like. The female power structures were concerned with domestic and household matters. To a large part, the two power structures operated in parallel with males staying out of female matters and vice versa.
In 1984, Orwell likely envisioned a "women's division" of the Party, one that was obviously subservient to the Party (but so would the general (men's) division have been as well). The women's division would have had its own female leaders, in the same way that women's divisions of other oppressive regimes were/are structured.
Even Orwell did not appear to have envisioned the current plight of our current society, where women have largely rejected male influence in any form because of the "patriarchy" and come up with all sorts of crockpot ideas, in the name of "feminism". I don't subscribe to the idea that believe feminism is some kind of conspiracy of the powerful to wreck havoc on society (I think it's simply a example of what happens when women are let loose to come up with their own ideas without any male influence), but even if one did, I think it's clear that this isn't strict control, but rather loose influence where the feminist movement is operating autonomously to demonise men and boys, break up families, promote abortion, and generally increase favouritism towards women in society. A lot of this can also be explained by women's emotional nature, in which their thinking is dominated by emotion instead of thinking through to the logical consequences of their actions, and women's in-group bias.
TLDR: So yes, some of women's ideas are simply toeing the preferred "party" line, but plenty of these ideas have origins from feminists (largely female) and female "thinkers".
Many Māori did not want to take the "safe and effective" gene therapy because they did not trust the government (among other reasons). The official narrative was that these poor souls had been deceived by the alt-right white supremacist conspiracy theorists i.e. were too stupid to make their own decisions. These Māori, of course, lost their jobs due to mandates and were treated as second class citizens just like everyone else.
The woke don't care about non-white people unless those people do what their told. The whole mātauranga Māori issue is a grift for the governments Māori allies to make money from "consultancy" fees and the like, in addition to its use for virtue signalling by the work crowd.
I suspect MGTOW sites don't give a fair indication of an average man who has truly decided to "go his own way". The men that actually come to terms with being MGTOW move on and leave that community to carry on doing whatever interests them by themselves. After all, the only thing they definitely have in common would be what they aren't doing (getting together with women), so that doesn't really work. The ones that you see there either can't let go or haven't reached that stage.
Your argument is so superficial that it is almost reductio ad adsurdum. Yes, violence is supreme for enforcing authority, but your argument itself is internally inconsistent and has no actual semblance to reality. No individual man has sufficient capability to enforce authority through violence by himself. It is only collections of men who have this power. Yet, collections of men do not act as a single unit through some kind of hive mind, but rather, the way the collective acts is ultimately dependent on interpersonal dynamics among the men involved, and others (external) who are capable of influencing their decisions.
Therein lies the flaw in your argument - men may be physically stronger than average compared to women, giving them a kind of "monopoly" on violence at an individual level, but do not have a monopoly on controlling these interpersonal dynamics and thus do not have a monopoly on violence at a group level, simply because the group is not a unit that acts individually. The "supreme authority" in human society is thus ability to enlist the participation of collectives of people to enforce authority. And this authority can be controlled and influenced by both men and women.
Regarding your arguments about men being "weak" and being able to stop this by being "strong", no individual man can make any difference by being strong by himself because he can always be taken down by a group of men who obviously have a much greater ability to be "strong" and inflict violence. Thus, men can only make a difference by operating collectively to be strong together for their own interests. This reduces your argument to the equivalent of Imp's - men need to recognise the problem is that they are being controlled by women mainly for women's own interest, and unite to ensure their own interest are respected too. His phrasing, however, addresses much more clearly what the actual problem is: men's failure to work collectively (especially contrasted with women's strong ability to do so), while your argument of "men need to be strong" is more akin tilting at windmills, as the obvious literal interpretation is that individual physical strength is the most necessary factor, when it is not.