Topic: Heterosexual males are under attack (Read 496 times)

They have the agency but don't have the voice.  SJWs are people who use their privilege to amplify the voice of the unheard and thats what gillete is doing. Even though the notion that men should not tolerate a culture of rape, bullying, and harassment is overwhelmingly popular, we are here debating this because the voice on behalf of toxic masculinity happens to the be loudest, most privileged voice in society.  Gillette isn't even going out on a limb here.  They are taking a stance that most people agree with so they can sell more razors. 



We aren't facing a population problem and won't be for the forseeable future. Hypothetically, babies could be created with out sperm.  Its a long way out but not as far out as a society where humans aren't making enough the old way.

I can't understand the bold part.  Are you saying that having less children= less tax paying men in future generations, thus a demographic problem from too few tax payers and too many dependents?  This is starting to happen in Japan and could be easily solved if they gave up their racist ways and allowed mass immigration to replace this "missing" generation of tax-paying me. 

Women should be free to pursue what they want to pursue.  That is women's rights.  Having to "Settle" for someone they don't want is the opposite of freedom, even if its the best decision statistically.  This is basically the argument for and against arranged marriages. 

The bold is a real example of what patriarchal society does to women who resist their role as servants to men.  The notion that women have a "market value" is misogynistic  in itself but you are going a step further suggesting that men value women much lower than they value themselves.  Men thinking they are assinging women a lower, correct value IS toxic masculinity.  You may just be too deep to see the water.

Of course resisting the sexist norms of patriarchal society is going to make them miserable.  Anytime a society functions a certain way, and individuals resist that machine, they are going to suffer.  This is literally why we celebrate civil rights heroes as "brave".   

In the days of slavery, of course slaves who just "decided" they were humans and tried to free themselves ended up miserable compared to the house slaves who fully complied. 

Of course the whites who treated blacks as equals were miserable compared to the slave owners who ran big plantations. 

Of course slave rebellions hurt everyone.

Funny, it seems like nearly every instance of these objections come from the mouths of SJWs. It is almost as if you think they don't even have enough agency of their own, they need you and your Marxist SJW filth to speak for them to be heard. You are so burried in your bullshit you don't see your "logic" is nothing but a constant contradiction of itself.



Oh its obvious is it? Well you declare it so, so it must be! "research" that's FUCKING HILARIOUS don't even start pretending your horse shit is science again, remember how badly you got spanked last time you tried that? Critical Theory is not science. Now knowing your argument is weak, you resort to guilt by association bringing up incels, as if this has anything to do with what I said other than being a convenient red herring for you to avoid the criticisms I raised. Essentially your argument is "NO U!"



Society requires reproduction to function. This is a fact. Generally at least one act of intercourse is required for reproduction. Now if women don't want to reproduce, fine, good for them. However now that all the working age men that WOULD HAVE paid all the taxes for all their precious government sugar daddy entitlement programs simply don't exist because they chose not to reproduce, they don't then get to blame men for this and hold them at gun point to fund these programs. This has nothing to do with being owed sex, and this angle is nothing but a pathetic red herring for you as well as guilt by association. You are a bigot and all of this is just a lame attempt to distract from the fact that you functionally admitted to this.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe some times society is more important than individual desires? Men know this innately as the disposable work mules of society. The point is there is a cost to this myopic behavior, and women SEVERELY overvalue their sexual marketplace value to the point that they dwindle away their most valuable years trading in who they can get in a vain attempt to find "Mr. Perfect". Then instead of finding Mr. Perfect, they themselves get traded in and they end up dissatisfied lonely middle age women with no family, while the ones they traded in are making their wives happy raising a family that serves as a support structure for her as well.

You act like my objections can be nothing more than a demand for sex from some kind of pathetic sexless basement dweller because it serves you and your emotional manipulation tactics. Of course this falls apart upon the slightest application of logic, because the fact is this is making women miserable too, but they have been fooled into thinking this empowers them. It doesn't. It hurts us all.

What you display is outright racism and bigotry.

Where it comes from is not exactly "listening to activists from oppressed groups..." but more just listening to other SJW, which results in nothing more than a big circle jerk.

What you don't understand is that others, such as I, hear the non-oppressed voices from the minorities, from the women, from the trans.

Look, I don't think it is so surprising that a huge corporation will chant whatever it deems is fashionable and trendy to chant. They are not thinking about changing the world for the better, they are only thinking in terms of "How this will affect public perception of our brand".  And they are doing it because this way of thinking usually works.  Sadly.

What's more interesting is the concept of "toxic masculinity" itself.  Or, rather, I don't understand why people who identify as masculine feel threatened by it. Every last idea, every last concept in our world, if taken to its extreme, is 100% madness. So is masculinity.  And it, like most things, is a spectrum. And people don't like spectrums, as they are hard to navigate. So we prefer to think with discrete ideas. And we always feel like others' discrete ideas are not in sync with ours, because it is quite hard to establish that.  The only thing is left is open and honest dialogue and to trust people to come up with the same conclusions as ours.

The bold is a misrepresentation of what is going on.  Versed SJW's do not diagnose solutions to oppression, but listen to activists from oppressed group's and then use their voice of privilege as a megaphone for the voices of the oppressed.  You are correct in calling the  "we know better" attitude bigoted but you are incorrect in accusing me of doing that.  My feminism comes from women, my positions on trans, comes from the trans movement itself, and so on.  I'm not deciding what minority groups need.  


Your claim that marxists are the real bigots is quite a claim considering it goes against all conventional wisdom and history.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/misogyny-white-supremacy-links-alt-right-antidefamation-league-report-incel-a8463611.html
What exactly are the costs of being treated as autonomous humans?   Could it be that the costs and responsibilities are having sex with and children by men who aren't in the so called "20%" they desire? O.  Should women not be free to have sex with whomever they are attracted to? (like men have always done)  So women owe you sex? not just sex but they owe you a family.
The 20% tecshare speaks about are not the "manliest men".  They aren't the toxic masculinity group.  Those are the incels who are frustrated women won't give them the slave they are entitled to.  

From the article:

Well, i suppose that our society just have come to another kind of humiliation. Nothing new is happening right now: one group of people united by some feature are suppressing another group of people. Like 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago and so on. Human nature need to be changed on genetic level otherwise we will repeat the same mistakes until total extinction.

I was joking, and you point out the harsh reality. Those thoughtless fools that parrot these concepts, the Useful Idiots, are used by truly evil people and organizations, with no thought of the future consequences.

Hence it's a good idea to point it out every now and then.

Already happening. See The Pareto Principle. Monogamy and the family now effectively destroyed, 80% of the woman now chase after the top 20% of men. This is confirmed by dating site scrapes as well as numerous other studies of nature. This of course leave the other 80% of men without the primary motivations men have to build societies, like a family. This is why there is an epidemic of men happy earning just enough to survive and play some video games, and a bunch of women demanding government be their sugar daddy and make those men provide for them by force via taxation. In summary women want all of the benefits with none of the costs or responsibilities.

After a fair percentage of the male population is intimidated and pussified by this kind of bombardment, do all the women of the country get divided up by the remaining small group of manly men?

Yes, it is quite clear there are a lot of things you don't understand. The bigotry is you not only assigning blame for this so called disadvantage, but you pushing the notion that without your help, or the help of people who share your ideology, they don't have the agency to take care of themselves. Frankly you are quite bigoted against pretty much all involved for different reasons.

Marxism is by its nature a quite racist ideology, except it likes to pretend it is the savior of these groups while it simply uses them for cover against criticism while directing the majority of energy towards its own Marxist goals. Social justice warriors are some of the most racist people on the planet, and they justify the victimization of others by declaring victim hood status in the name of others, and claiming they are just righting a wrong. Remind you of anyone? There was another group who went around using their "victim status" supposedly perpetrated by another group as justification for violence against them... there are more than a few similarities...

I am not trying to be snarky but I honestly do not see where I contradicted myself and you haven't pointed out a single instance where I did.  I also have no idea how anything I said could be seen as racist or bigoted.  I'm not sure how you make a connection between identifying a group that has been disadvantaged as bigotry.  Do you need facts to show how these groups are disadvantaged?  Who are you guys even saying I a am bigot against? White men or minorities?

I don't doubt you believe I am a bigot but I would really like some insight to how you arrived at labeling me, a social justice warrior, as a bigot.  That is the very thing I am devoted to working against. 

Nearly every breath you take contradicts the last. You listing off your assumptions to me does not make it any more true. You are a bigot, and you are simply using these groups as cover for criticism of YOUR OWN narcissistic behavior. I don't give a fuck about your comfort. In fact I hope I make you very uncomfortable, because your need for comfort is what lead you to believe and propagate all of these racist lies.

Your ideology requires you victimize those whom you designate to be powerful in order to supposedly give equality to those you deem victims. Then there you stand in the middle like some kind of emotional loan shark ready to collect your narcissistic supply from the spoils of your plundering before you pass on the scraps to your token victim classes. You and your ideology are dangerous, vile and racist. You go ahead and desperately try to polish that turd some more though like I know you will...

Racist.

Where exactly did my statements contradict? 

Its not low expectations to acknowledge who has the power in society and who doesn't.  I didn't make it that way.  I'm just diagnosing reality.  These groups aren't naturally weak but their current position in society is weak because of historical oppression by white men.  Don't shoot the messenger.

Acknowledging a victim class is not "designating" a group of people as victims as you seem to be insinuating as if we are the ones choosing for them to be victims.  I'd feel a lot more comfortable with your statement if it used the word "identify" in place of "designate". 

Maybe this thread would have been a better place for this... https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49281008

 

I submit you are in fact a racist, sexist, and a supremacist. Your bigotry is one of low expectations, robbing these so called "victim" classes of having any agency on their own, with every act they make being a result of the supremacy of the white male from your perspective. This is absolutely 100% in line with Marxism and Critical Theory right out of The Frankfurt School regardless of how many cutesy jokes you make in a pathetic attempt at denial of this fact.




Well isn't that convenient you just get to narrate how it works from start to finish, just off the top of your head, with no factual support. I guess it must be fact right? I mean why else would you say it?

You just got done talking about how you can't blame victim classes now in the same breath you are denying you are making this claim... wait for it... by using your own conclusions in circular logic to support your own premise!

"Women are not part of a designated victim class because they are actually victims!"

I mean... FFS, even if you were right your own fucking statement would still be self contradictory, but this is the usual quality debate you bring to the table.

That was a cool little story there Captain Postmodern. I am not really sure how your retarded hypothetical constitutes anything even approaching reality or anything constituting "culture", but it was a great visual aid and I am sure quite effective at eliciting an emotional response, which I find many people of your ideology believe to be an acceptable substitute for logic. It is not an acceptable substitute, but you get a gold star for showing up.


 

You sure are talking a lot about "oppressed groups", "minorities", and "victim blaming" seeing as you say there is no Marxism involved. Oh right, I know more about the ideologies you advocate for than you do as a supporter. Nothing to worry about there right? Nothing bad ever came from well intentioned ignorance did it?

Here is what the ad says.  It literally says they believe in men to do well which is the opposite of what many heard from the ad.  

"We believe in men
To say the right thing
To act the right way
Some already are
In ways big
and small
but some is not enough
because the boys watching today will be the men of tomorrow"

I don't see how anyone can get mad about that quote.  It reminds me of the time starbucks used red cups and people said christianity was under attack.

It is not ok to blame victims.    You are talking about criticizing oppressed groups for behavior that is a result of their oppression.  In this line of thought it is only ok to blame the group in power, the group that created the oppressive systems in the first place.  

The ad had a black man saying "boys will be boys" so your claim is partially false.  The ad does not distinguish race or sexual orientation as the source of the problem.  

Although the ad is race neutral, its important to note that these trends of toxic masculinity took off well before women, blacks, or LGBTQ were even recognized as people.  These tends of toxic masculinity actively oppressed said groups.  Said groups take part in the culture now but that is exactly how it works. This is part of internalized oppression and more specifically hierarchal oppression.  

Yes toxic masculinity usually starts off with men treating other men poorly and the other men pass on the oppression.   Its not a "designated victim class" when women actually are victims. Imagine the sequence

Boss slaps man
man goes home and slaps wife
wife goes on to slap kid
kid goes on to slap weaker kid. 

Everyone ends up believing
A. Violence is how you communicate expectations
B. Violence is how you express disappointment in the people you love

Although everyone plays a role, those in the upper hierarchal positions hold the burden of responsibility for how the culture is formed.  This is why checking privilege is so important.  The ad is calling on males to use their male privilege to fight against toxic masculinity, even if it is only a small percentage of males who are misbehaving. 

TIL marxism is all about selling more razors.

 

Oh, I see. The fact that society treats men as disposable 2nd class citizens is all because of toxic masculinity! Oh it all makes so much sense now! It's all because no one taught them they could cry.. aw so simple.

Seriously though, I know crustaceans with more functional brain cells than you. The ad is 100% Marxism, straight out of critical theory. Of course you don't know a God damned thing about the origins of the ideologies you advocate for, so you wouldn't know this. In summary, designate a victim class, designate a perpetrator, victimize perpetrator in the name of equality, create more victims, repeat. Really, I am not sure this ad could get ANY MORE Marxist without the USSR anthem playing while transparent overlays of statues of Lenin are displayed on top of it.

That's exactly my point.  The ad assumes that men don't behave as you suggest they should, but that has been far from my experience.  It suggests that showing any masculinity is akin to being a misogynist or a bully.  What if the tables were turned?  What if there was an ad suggesting that displaying genuine feminine attributes was akin to being a slut?  How would you react to such an ad?  In a fully garnished dish of irony the ad portrays white men as villains and black men as the chivalrous heroes, yet the reality of popular culture demonstrates far more misogyny exists in rap music produced by black men.  Why are they not held accountable for their messages?

I know living in reality is not your strong suit, so I don't expect you to answer these questions with any coherency.

The truth is the ad panders to a millennial sense of propriety that exist only in a fantasy world.  It attempts to pander to a group of pantywaists by ridiculing the only group it's fashionable to ridicule.   It's okay to villainies men, and more specifically white, heterosexual men, but any other gender, race, or sexual orientation is off limits to scrutiny.