D
Deleted member 100026
@JaySaysYes
Perhaps I am aware that chastitymansion users cannot contain their interest in my writings or flair for the dramatic very long. I can sustain long periods of silence, especially since I'm getting tonnes of attention on fetlife at the moment. You want to play the long game? I can play the long game. It's like in Malcolm in the Middle when Lois and Hal have a competition to see who can hold a heated frying pan handle for the longest but Lois' frying pan isn't even being heated. It's easy for me.
Perhaps I am aware that chastitymansion users cannot contain their interest in my writings or flair for the dramatic very long. I can sustain long periods of silence, especially since I'm getting tonnes of attention on fetlife at the moment. You want to play the long game? I can play the long game. It's like in Malcolm in the Middle when Lois and Hal have a competition to see who can hold a heated frying pan handle for the longest but Lois' frying pan isn't even being heated. It's easy for me.
D
Deleted member 100026
@JaySaysYes
Ain't mad, no. Cool as a cucumber, bro. I know the brigade will return before long, pitchforks and fires and all.
Ain't mad, no. Cool as a cucumber, bro. I know the brigade will return before long, pitchforks and fires and all.
Well, as long as you can defend yourself with half a dozen 100 word paragraphs of ChatGPT pseudo-nonsense you'll be fine.
I have faith in you, cucumber bro.
I have faith in you, cucumber bro.
D
Deleted member 100026
D
Deleted member 100026
Masculinism on Bumps in the Road, Sexual Abstinence, Stoicism and Feminist Hypocrisy
So, I failed - fucked up. I get frustrated with the no-fap culture movement because it advocates this supposed "power" or "energy transformation" from spending long periods of time without sexual release - but you have to do it in a specific way. Because I spent some time mildly edging the first time I went a month without release it doesn't count. But every time I have attempted no-fap self-improvement philosophy it just leads to the culmination of stress build up with the absence of sexual release. I fail to see how the build up of cortisol in my body is a psychologically or physically healthy thing to do. I'm trying to see - I'm trying to persist with no-fap this time with no edging as well as no release but whatever the benefits are, they are extremely difficult to identify.
I assessed some of the issues with traditionalist culture in the way it operates against masculinist collective self-interest in earlier posts:
As we can see in my post regarding the need for universal definitions regarding identity group movements in gender politics, it received heavy brigading and feminist derailing tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the perfectly valid masculinist counter-narrative. We can further attain from my response to a more reasonable user regarding the subject of ethnicity and gender struggles in the interests of political/economic/social equality, feminists are totally hypocritical when it comes to distinguishing between racism and sexist misandry in their analogies:
So if feminism is a widespread cultural narrative and our media as a result is unable to identify causes of men's issues like violent assault and professional death toll independent of alleged "androcentric concerns", instead considering the impact of war, poverty, drugs, minerals, oils, gerrymandering (in the case of Afro-American males), ghettoisation and more where does this leave room for improvement in gender struggles as a whole for Western society?
So, I failed - fucked up. I get frustrated with the no-fap culture movement because it advocates this supposed "power" or "energy transformation" from spending long periods of time without sexual release - but you have to do it in a specific way. Because I spent some time mildly edging the first time I went a month without release it doesn't count. But every time I have attempted no-fap self-improvement philosophy it just leads to the culmination of stress build up with the absence of sexual release. I fail to see how the build up of cortisol in my body is a psychologically or physically healthy thing to do. I'm trying to see - I'm trying to persist with no-fap this time with no edging as well as no release but whatever the benefits are, they are extremely difficult to identify.
I assessed some of the issues with traditionalist culture in the way it operates against masculinist collective self-interest in earlier posts:
As we can see in my post regarding the need for universal definitions regarding identity group movements in gender politics, it received heavy brigading and feminist derailing tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the perfectly valid masculinist counter-narrative. We can further attain from my response to a more reasonable user regarding the subject of ethnicity and gender struggles in the interests of political/economic/social equality, feminists are totally hypocritical when it comes to distinguishing between racism and sexist misandry in their analogies:
So if feminism is a widespread cultural narrative and our media as a result is unable to identify causes of men's issues like violent assault and professional death toll independent of alleged "androcentric concerns", instead considering the impact of war, poverty, drugs, minerals, oils, gerrymandering (in the case of Afro-American males), ghettoisation and more where does this leave room for improvement in gender struggles as a whole for Western society?
D
Deleted member 100026
Masculinism on Feminist Narratives - Do They Exist? Yes They Exist!
So, yesterday I had a relapse which means this is Day #1 again of sexual abstinence. I've got to say without someone to guide you, where there is chemistry (attraction) as well as rapport/compatibility, it's a lot harder to get through the process. In the past I have only made it two weeks by myself. So perhaps I should only be going for the one month rather than two months, since when I did one month, my endeavours were supported by another.
Anyway, today we're going to talk about the existence of feminist narratives. In earlier threads I have noted,
And so I came to a very valid conclusion:
In any case, a woman on the thread that has been heavily brigaded by feminist trolls (674 comments as I type this - and this is *without* all of the comments of her's that have since vanished!), challenged my assertion that some sort of negative or anti-masculinist dialogue can be attributed to the feminist narrative. And I proved this was the case but afraid of having her ideas challenged, she did not respond but instead, simply blocked me! So here we have the relative snippets because what I wrote was such a high quality of information, I would certainly prefer not to let it become redundant!
Remember before we read this though, to reiterate the above:
First, let's look at some examples of what are considered to constitute trolling in feminist circles:
Case 1
quote]There were some male commenters who expressed their disagreement with Doyle in a reasonable, respectful way, and some female commenters accused them of mansplaining. Let’s say Doyle had said something along the lines of when men say A, they all mean B, and that causes women to feel C. In my mind, if a man counters that with no, some men say A without meaning B, I don’t think that’s mansplaining. Mansplaining would sound like telling women what women think, along the lines of no, when men say A, women don’t feel C, they actually feel D.
I wonder how productive it is to brush off male opinions as mansplaining. It’s one thing if the individual is clearly misogynistic and not interested in changing their mind; in that case, it’s just calling a spade a spade. But at some point, addressing misogyny and patriarchy requires getting a critical mass of males to change their attitudes and behaviours. I’m not sure that brushing off people’s reasoned ideas as mansplaining is going to help achieve that. It’s one thing to invalidate nonsense, because the misogynistic nonsense-spewers aren’t going to be won over. But to brush off as mansplaining the opinion of a man who’s put some thought into the point he’s making seems like shooting a potential ally in the foot. The people who are willing to engage in discussions are where progress can be made.[/quote]
https://mentalhealthathome.org/2022/04/26/feminism-misogynistic-trolling/
I think this user makes some valid points in the above and the article as a whole so not a lot more seems to be need to be said:
She seems to be an exception to the norm in feminist culture, where there is a lot of talk about how any form of ideological dissection "derails the feminist narrative". You probably want to know how this is relevant to my theories on power of hypocrisy and "marrying" that to tactics that at a surface level seem to appear "inflammatory" or to somehow represent/advocate the inflammatory.
The point is to expose a weakness, a flaw in the narrative that masculinism essentially deconstructs through reversal. I've demonstrated how the categories in intersectionality can be linguistically reversed simply by disputing the historical context as relevant to the broader section of a "ruling" or "oppressor category" and demonstrating serious concerns sub-sections of that group may face, thereby expressing how putting people in groups in this way doesn't actually make a great deal of linguistic sense in terms of the parameters Crenshaw originally established. I mean, it was probably others who helped develop the theory of intersectionality along those lines but I digress.
The fact is when dealing with this language, how are you supposed to reveal the flaws without creating some level of antagonism? By demonstrating the absurdity of the "Good Man" narrative, for example and how it can simply and easily be reversed through what comes across quite clearly as sexism with words like "masculinist ally", "toxic femininity" and ""internalised misandry, we see very clearly where the faults exist in these linguistic categories feminism has created. Establishing a counter-narrative that uses the same instruments at our disposal means the effectiveness of those tools in language/culture can no longer be horded by feminists.
https://www.chastitymansion.com/forums/index.php?threads/writing-uploads.49552/#post-584942
https://fetlife.com/users/14874721/posts/9070353
**Case 2**
Basically, these all come across as excuses to avoid intellectual scrutiny by twisting the intentions of the debater, thereby not having to engage in a way that would defend your ideas. If politicians were allowed to get away with this by journalists, they wouldn't have to defend any rhetorical premise which would put the world in a very dangerous place, subject to the whims of those in charge. Social media really isn't that different since people listen to and are influenced by what goes on.
You may be inclined to defend the above opinions or conversely, may be inclined to identify that this is not characteristic of every feminist. To the latter, I will indicate that it may not be a universal rule, however it is going to be culturally symptomatic of the linguistic categories in an ideology which etymologically represents the unilateral significance of one group (the feminine), whether the stated intention is achieving equality, reversing the contempt/marginalisation for said group or outright supremacy. I'm simply looking at cause and effect here: language states one thing, culture responds and groups itself according to the psychology of that language.
https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/01/trolling-translation/
**Case 3**
I find the above particularly insidious because presumably, not just the inflammatory but also rational debate expressed by women against feminism is going to be written off not just as internalised misogyny but low self-esteem, history of psychological abuse, poor education. So if we have an intelligent young woman who expresses masculinist or non-feminist identifying egalitarian talking points, must we consider her self-hating, historically abused, poorly educated? Isn't this level of antagonism to counter-feminist narratives in itself a form of misogyny, where any woman that doesn't get behind the band wagon is herself, a misogynist?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/26/women-misogynist-trolls-feminist-internet
In ideological contexts or in some sort of argument, "derailing" happens where a person is trying to make a point but they are "diverted" from expounding on their intended conversation course by having some other argument introduced that is irrelevant to the context of the discussion in hand.
Masculinists can be derailed by both feminist and traditionalist detractors (the latter are the type that want to send the young, aspiring masculinist to wars or else performing demeaning, low paid, dangerous blue collar labour and commit through "ethical monogamy" to women with significantly higher partner counts). This can be achieved through limiting discourse, baseless accusations and more. Furthermore, we have some general detractors that could use arguments pertaining to feminist or traditionalist ideology or may not fit so easily into any particular camp.
So whenever we talk about serious men's issues like death through violent assault or wars, we know that these are caused by history, politics, drugs trade, minerals trade (blood diamonds), oil, war, poverty, gang culture, drugs, human trafficking and more. But when feminists approach these concerns, they want to derail our narrative with the baseless accusation that these events are all caused by toxic masculinity, in the same way that when the young American black masculinist is disenfranchised by politics, his community ghettoised and gerrymandered, the people turn to crime there, his traditionalist detractors tell him it is all because of his racial identity. Feminists are no different from those that they call racists then, in so far as they are perfectly happy to use misandrist language under the guise of "intersectionality".
When the temptation to use logic, common sense, facts or good faith arguments arise, we have to remember emotions and rhetoric are what appeal to people. Populists have known this for many years. What we often think of as "logical", it's typically a more complicated situation anyway. For example, when I liken sexual and romantic isolation in men to a woman's denied career aspirations a feminist says that it is a "false equivalence" if a woman is denied a promotion because she is dealing with her actual livelihood.
They have a way of making the crushed aspirations and dreams of the man that wants to find intimacy, and the resulting existential pit of despair so trivial when they say this - "after all, the woman could be starving". Except, when I am talking about a smart, qualified woman who is denied that promotion from a low level position, she already has her basic needs covered. In fact she could be a lot healthier, a lot happier than the sexually and romantically isolated man. So we notice here that what's "logically" considered a "false equivalence" actually has great, undeniable rhetoric significance - something that can't be captured trying to iron out the trivialities through pure rationalism alone.
https://www.chastitymansion.com/forums/index.php?threads/writing-uploads.49552/#post-584670
---
Now, let's look at the specific way feminists seek to sweep legitimate masculinist concerns under the carpet:
Feminists on "devil's advocacy":
The first article is actually not technically what I'm referring to as I was talking about the presence of "devil's advocacy" within feminist circles where as the author talks about an actual detractor of feminism. Nonetheless, he made perfectly rational points which the author tries to obfuscate, rationalise or deny:
He in fact did not go far enough. Using minor everyday incidents as an excuse to weaponise consent on a widespread level with political/legal significance is not just "sensitivity": it is an all out assault.
After this, her remaining rant is really just about how the talk show was for tattooed women to share their experiences, not detractors - which is fair enough. But she goes on to do all of this heavy jargon speech about "white cis men" that just comes across as misandrist:
If you’re a feminist who spends any amount of time on the Internet, you know exactly what I’m talking about: You post that article about the wage gap on Facebook, and all of a sudden, all of these cis, white, straight dudes come out of the woodwork to remind you that the statistics are faulty, that women take more time off of work, that women just don’t like STEM fields – all under the guise of “playing devil’s advocate” – as if you’ve never heard these arguments before.
By the way, plenty of women opt for healthcare and education, so introducing this argument is completely valid in a discussion about wage gap regardless how many times you've heard it. Ad nauseum does not mean demonstrably false.
https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/playing-devils-advocate/
So basically, this individual is afraid of the impact rational debate can have on undermining what she sees as unquestionably true but in fact may not be as 100% empirically valid as she sees. The idea of debate against feminist thought undermines her notion of reality to the extent that she can only label it as misogynistic as a kneejerk reaction because who knows what might happen when you let someone come along and rock the boat. Whereas masculinism considers debate as a positive measure for strengthening ideology by exposing the weakness, feminists seem to believe pointing out the hole in the sinking ship is what made it appear there in the first place.
This is hiding behind intersectionality by way of "men are historic oppressors so it's not the same* theory in the same way your allies on this thread said it was ok to dismiss male assault victims as "cause and effect by patriarchy" and that it was different to black on black violence because of the history of white people as oppressor. So at no point does the hypocrisy smell like bullshit, your allies just go on hiding behind your narratives and your linguistic structures.
https://ashamedmagazine.co.uk/opeds/why-do-cis-men-love-to-play-devils-advocatenbsp
So ... maybe this one is the exception to the rule?
Or ... maybe not.
https://feministing.com/2014/05/30/an-open-letter-to-privileged-people-who-play-devils-advocate/
Feminists on "internalised misogyny":
Women who have different ideas about societal expectations and gender norms from anything that consists "rocking the patriarchal boat" are "internalised misogynists". Ok, right got it ... fascists.
https://info.umkc.edu/womenc/2018/1...ny-what-does-it-look-like-how-do-you-stop-it/
Maybe such women aren't the "special snowflakes" here just because they reject the ideological dogma and what you think are "counter-norms" on society, which really just typically mean "reject patriarchy, follow xyz dogma instead on how you dress (not too sexy because that's degrading, not too concealed because that's restrictive of feminine expression), how you speak, how you think, how you talk".
https://feminisminindia.com/2020/08/31/6-things-internalised-misogyny-ruined-for-women/
So, assumptions are made about the kinds of lifestyles these "self-hating women" choose for themselves and how that means they "self-objectify" or "passively accept" roles that don't fit into the feminist conception of "forward-thinking" and thereby "acceptable". So really, this is all just a ruse to control how non-feminist women think to make sure everyone gets behind the girl power wagon. Got it.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1474&context=honors
So, yesterday I had a relapse which means this is Day #1 again of sexual abstinence. I've got to say without someone to guide you, where there is chemistry (attraction) as well as rapport/compatibility, it's a lot harder to get through the process. In the past I have only made it two weeks by myself. So perhaps I should only be going for the one month rather than two months, since when I did one month, my endeavours were supported by another.
Anyway, today we're going to talk about the existence of feminist narratives. In earlier threads I have noted,
And so I came to a very valid conclusion:
In any case, a woman on the thread that has been heavily brigaded by feminist trolls (674 comments as I type this - and this is *without* all of the comments of her's that have since vanished!), challenged my assertion that some sort of negative or anti-masculinist dialogue can be attributed to the feminist narrative. And I proved this was the case but afraid of having her ideas challenged, she did not respond but instead, simply blocked me! So here we have the relative snippets because what I wrote was such a high quality of information, I would certainly prefer not to let it become redundant!
Remember before we read this though, to reiterate the above:
First, let's look at some examples of what are considered to constitute trolling in feminist circles:
Case 1
quote]There were some male commenters who expressed their disagreement with Doyle in a reasonable, respectful way, and some female commenters accused them of mansplaining. Let’s say Doyle had said something along the lines of when men say A, they all mean B, and that causes women to feel C. In my mind, if a man counters that with no, some men say A without meaning B, I don’t think that’s mansplaining. Mansplaining would sound like telling women what women think, along the lines of no, when men say A, women don’t feel C, they actually feel D.
I wonder how productive it is to brush off male opinions as mansplaining. It’s one thing if the individual is clearly misogynistic and not interested in changing their mind; in that case, it’s just calling a spade a spade. But at some point, addressing misogyny and patriarchy requires getting a critical mass of males to change their attitudes and behaviours. I’m not sure that brushing off people’s reasoned ideas as mansplaining is going to help achieve that. It’s one thing to invalidate nonsense, because the misogynistic nonsense-spewers aren’t going to be won over. But to brush off as mansplaining the opinion of a man who’s put some thought into the point he’s making seems like shooting a potential ally in the foot. The people who are willing to engage in discussions are where progress can be made.[/quote]
https://mentalhealthathome.org/2022/04/26/feminism-misogynistic-trolling/
I think this user makes some valid points in the above and the article as a whole so not a lot more seems to be need to be said:
She seems to be an exception to the norm in feminist culture, where there is a lot of talk about how any form of ideological dissection "derails the feminist narrative". You probably want to know how this is relevant to my theories on power of hypocrisy and "marrying" that to tactics that at a surface level seem to appear "inflammatory" or to somehow represent/advocate the inflammatory.
The point is to expose a weakness, a flaw in the narrative that masculinism essentially deconstructs through reversal. I've demonstrated how the categories in intersectionality can be linguistically reversed simply by disputing the historical context as relevant to the broader section of a "ruling" or "oppressor category" and demonstrating serious concerns sub-sections of that group may face, thereby expressing how putting people in groups in this way doesn't actually make a great deal of linguistic sense in terms of the parameters Crenshaw originally established. I mean, it was probably others who helped develop the theory of intersectionality along those lines but I digress.
The fact is when dealing with this language, how are you supposed to reveal the flaws without creating some level of antagonism? By demonstrating the absurdity of the "Good Man" narrative, for example and how it can simply and easily be reversed through what comes across quite clearly as sexism with words like "masculinist ally", "toxic femininity" and ""internalised misandry, we see very clearly where the faults exist in these linguistic categories feminism has created. Establishing a counter-narrative that uses the same instruments at our disposal means the effectiveness of those tools in language/culture can no longer be horded by feminists.
https://www.chastitymansion.com/forums/index.php?threads/writing-uploads.49552/#post-584942
https://fetlife.com/users/14874721/posts/9070353
**Case 2**
Basically, these all come across as excuses to avoid intellectual scrutiny by twisting the intentions of the debater, thereby not having to engage in a way that would defend your ideas. If politicians were allowed to get away with this by journalists, they wouldn't have to defend any rhetorical premise which would put the world in a very dangerous place, subject to the whims of those in charge. Social media really isn't that different since people listen to and are influenced by what goes on.
You may be inclined to defend the above opinions or conversely, may be inclined to identify that this is not characteristic of every feminist. To the latter, I will indicate that it may not be a universal rule, however it is going to be culturally symptomatic of the linguistic categories in an ideology which etymologically represents the unilateral significance of one group (the feminine), whether the stated intention is achieving equality, reversing the contempt/marginalisation for said group or outright supremacy. I'm simply looking at cause and effect here: language states one thing, culture responds and groups itself according to the psychology of that language.
https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/01/trolling-translation/
**Case 3**
I find the above particularly insidious because presumably, not just the inflammatory but also rational debate expressed by women against feminism is going to be written off not just as internalised misogyny but low self-esteem, history of psychological abuse, poor education. So if we have an intelligent young woman who expresses masculinist or non-feminist identifying egalitarian talking points, must we consider her self-hating, historically abused, poorly educated? Isn't this level of antagonism to counter-feminist narratives in itself a form of misogyny, where any woman that doesn't get behind the band wagon is herself, a misogynist?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/26/women-misogynist-trolls-feminist-internet
In ideological contexts or in some sort of argument, "derailing" happens where a person is trying to make a point but they are "diverted" from expounding on their intended conversation course by having some other argument introduced that is irrelevant to the context of the discussion in hand.
Masculinists can be derailed by both feminist and traditionalist detractors (the latter are the type that want to send the young, aspiring masculinist to wars or else performing demeaning, low paid, dangerous blue collar labour and commit through "ethical monogamy" to women with significantly higher partner counts). This can be achieved through limiting discourse, baseless accusations and more. Furthermore, we have some general detractors that could use arguments pertaining to feminist or traditionalist ideology or may not fit so easily into any particular camp.
So whenever we talk about serious men's issues like death through violent assault or wars, we know that these are caused by history, politics, drugs trade, minerals trade (blood diamonds), oil, war, poverty, gang culture, drugs, human trafficking and more. But when feminists approach these concerns, they want to derail our narrative with the baseless accusation that these events are all caused by toxic masculinity, in the same way that when the young American black masculinist is disenfranchised by politics, his community ghettoised and gerrymandered, the people turn to crime there, his traditionalist detractors tell him it is all because of his racial identity. Feminists are no different from those that they call racists then, in so far as they are perfectly happy to use misandrist language under the guise of "intersectionality".
When the temptation to use logic, common sense, facts or good faith arguments arise, we have to remember emotions and rhetoric are what appeal to people. Populists have known this for many years. What we often think of as "logical", it's typically a more complicated situation anyway. For example, when I liken sexual and romantic isolation in men to a woman's denied career aspirations a feminist says that it is a "false equivalence" if a woman is denied a promotion because she is dealing with her actual livelihood.
They have a way of making the crushed aspirations and dreams of the man that wants to find intimacy, and the resulting existential pit of despair so trivial when they say this - "after all, the woman could be starving". Except, when I am talking about a smart, qualified woman who is denied that promotion from a low level position, she already has her basic needs covered. In fact she could be a lot healthier, a lot happier than the sexually and romantically isolated man. So we notice here that what's "logically" considered a "false equivalence" actually has great, undeniable rhetoric significance - something that can't be captured trying to iron out the trivialities through pure rationalism alone.
https://www.chastitymansion.com/forums/index.php?threads/writing-uploads.49552/#post-584670
---
Now, let's look at the specific way feminists seek to sweep legitimate masculinist concerns under the carpet:
Feminists on "devil's advocacy":
The first article is actually not technically what I'm referring to as I was talking about the presence of "devil's advocacy" within feminist circles where as the author talks about an actual detractor of feminism. Nonetheless, he made perfectly rational points which the author tries to obfuscate, rationalise or deny:
He in fact did not go far enough. Using minor everyday incidents as an excuse to weaponise consent on a widespread level with political/legal significance is not just "sensitivity": it is an all out assault.
After this, her remaining rant is really just about how the talk show was for tattooed women to share their experiences, not detractors - which is fair enough. But she goes on to do all of this heavy jargon speech about "white cis men" that just comes across as misandrist:
If you’re a feminist who spends any amount of time on the Internet, you know exactly what I’m talking about: You post that article about the wage gap on Facebook, and all of a sudden, all of these cis, white, straight dudes come out of the woodwork to remind you that the statistics are faulty, that women take more time off of work, that women just don’t like STEM fields – all under the guise of “playing devil’s advocate” – as if you’ve never heard these arguments before.
By the way, plenty of women opt for healthcare and education, so introducing this argument is completely valid in a discussion about wage gap regardless how many times you've heard it. Ad nauseum does not mean demonstrably false.
https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/playing-devils-advocate/
So basically, this individual is afraid of the impact rational debate can have on undermining what she sees as unquestionably true but in fact may not be as 100% empirically valid as she sees. The idea of debate against feminist thought undermines her notion of reality to the extent that she can only label it as misogynistic as a kneejerk reaction because who knows what might happen when you let someone come along and rock the boat. Whereas masculinism considers debate as a positive measure for strengthening ideology by exposing the weakness, feminists seem to believe pointing out the hole in the sinking ship is what made it appear there in the first place.
This is hiding behind intersectionality by way of "men are historic oppressors so it's not the same* theory in the same way your allies on this thread said it was ok to dismiss male assault victims as "cause and effect by patriarchy" and that it was different to black on black violence because of the history of white people as oppressor. So at no point does the hypocrisy smell like bullshit, your allies just go on hiding behind your narratives and your linguistic structures.
https://ashamedmagazine.co.uk/opeds/why-do-cis-men-love-to-play-devils-advocatenbsp
So ... maybe this one is the exception to the rule?
Or ... maybe not.
https://feministing.com/2014/05/30/an-open-letter-to-privileged-people-who-play-devils-advocate/
Feminists on "internalised misogyny":
Women who have different ideas about societal expectations and gender norms from anything that consists "rocking the patriarchal boat" are "internalised misogynists". Ok, right got it ... fascists.
https://info.umkc.edu/womenc/2018/1...ny-what-does-it-look-like-how-do-you-stop-it/
Maybe such women aren't the "special snowflakes" here just because they reject the ideological dogma and what you think are "counter-norms" on society, which really just typically mean "reject patriarchy, follow xyz dogma instead on how you dress (not too sexy because that's degrading, not too concealed because that's restrictive of feminine expression), how you speak, how you think, how you talk".
https://feminisminindia.com/2020/08/31/6-things-internalised-misogyny-ruined-for-women/
So, assumptions are made about the kinds of lifestyles these "self-hating women" choose for themselves and how that means they "self-objectify" or "passively accept" roles that don't fit into the feminist conception of "forward-thinking" and thereby "acceptable". So really, this is all just a ruse to control how non-feminist women think to make sure everyone gets behind the girl power wagon. Got it.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1474&context=honors
D
Deleted member 100026
Masculinism on Severe Men's Rights Issues and Why They Negate the Feminist Narrative
Day #2 of no-fap. So, that other thread has really gotten crazy - 900 comments or so! Maybe I can get a successful thread diversion this time? Fingers crossed. Somebody just commented on a post just to say she was going to block me without having read the whole thing! Cultural hypersensitivity, much? Hypersensitivity.
Anyway, I said on an earlier thread that I was going to try and cover empiricism at some point. And I think it's about time we gave this a shot. Ok, so serious men's issues as we know cover actual death & injury due to:
- profession
- violent assault
- mental health
Here's the confirmation:
Number of occupational injury deaths in the U.S. from 2003 to 2020, by gender
by Erin Duffin
___________________________________________________
A cross-national study on gender differences in suicide intent
Freeman, A., Mergl, R., Kohls, E. et al. A cross-national study on gender differences in suicide intent. BMC Psychiatry 17, 234 (2017).
___________________________________________________
Somebody on ChastityMansion just recently challenged my assertion that I should identify as a feminist if a care about equality - this is how the exchange went:
And my response:
What you have not counted for in your definitions is:
- intersectional theory
- identity politics
- activism (+ history of activism)
- the cause & effect chain: etymology -> language -> culture (of activism)
Dictionaries are not useful for political entries, that's why meriam & webster for example define masculinism as "male superiority" but if you look for the term on oxford reference, you get a broad category of movements, histories and ideas. If a feminist represents the feminine identity through etymology, language, culture and activism, then the needs of that political identity have to come first because the linguistic categories have a way of imposing constraints on the nature of the way people behave (through collective activism).
Masculinism is a counter-narrative that acknowledges the higher injurious & death toll experienced overall by the masculine identity through profession, violent assault and mental health. It does not seek to marginalise those collective experiences as patriarchal causality because it knows there are economic, religious and racial divides (among others) that further impact these issues. Egalitarianism may be the end bargaining strategy but it's naive to negotiate from that position because masculinists are faced with a cultural narrative that supports the feminist agenda and marginalises men's issues (through trivialisation and explaining away), so they have to get the collective interests of men heard first.
I think it is fair if I don't want to identify as a feminist - nobody should accuse me of being a misogynist, authoritarian or attempting to subjugated an entire identity group because of the expressions I do or don't use to define myself as. That's my business.
Anyway:
for those who question whether intersectional theory prevents men's issues being adequately addressed:
White men are considered under the "historical oppressor" category, so not considered valid candidates for analysis under intersectional theory in spite of:
increased prevalence of violent assault
increased professional death and injury toll
mental health crisis and increased suicide rate
Demarginalising the Intersection of Race and Sex
Let's not forget, guys:
The young Afro-American masculinist faces: ghettoisation, gang culture, drug culture, knife crime, gun crime, possibility of incarceration for commercial gain, gerrymandering, poverty. Does he not face serious men's issues? Was my analogy really "off-topic" as per the thread. You asked me why it was sexist to identify men's issues as toxic masculinity and I showed you how it was both sexist and racist. Was this off-topic? Really?
And let's add some further context to this:
___________________________________________________
Outside the Skin”: The Persistence of Black–White Disparities in U.S. Early-Life Mortality
Also, see:
___________________________________________________
External factors, including homicide, drive death rate disparity in US black-white young adults
> Homicide deaths accounted for the largest disparity among young adults, and were 20 times as high for black males and six times as high for black females when compared to their white counterparts. Homicide was the main cause of death for young black men and reduced the overall life expectancy for all black males by more than half a year.
___________________________________________________
And of course there is a larger (sociopolitical) context to this:
___________________________________________________
*Black Lives and Policing: The Larger Context of Ghettoisation; Segregation and Crime: The Relationship between Black Centralisation and Urban Black Homicide; Segregation and Crime: The Effect of Black Social Isolation on the Rates of Black Urban Violence
___________________________________________________
Why is this relevant? Because it demonstrates that there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary of the widespread feminist narrative and cultural indoctrination:
While I find the blacksmith analogy relevant, I do have to disagree with your comparison of women's and black people's issues. While women certainly face issues like sexual assault, lack of representation at the top echelons of society and the gender pay gap (although most of it seems to be due to career choice rather than gender) I can't believe that they are relatively disadvantaged to men who are literally dying because of the professional death toll (construction/fishing/haulage/rigging/military/fire service/etc.), violent assault and suicide (due to the mental health crisis). So ironing out the bigger problems in the blade doesn't seem to be a unilateral concern between men and women.
With black people though, most of their issues are from gerrymandering it seems as this is what leads to ghettoisation, poverty, drugs trade, arms trade and increased prevalence of arms and gang warfare in those American neighbourhoods where US politicians are stealing their political representation so that they can steal their funding. I think it is fair to make a comparison between ethnic minorities and white people in privilege and while I accept privilege as a white person, I cannot accept privilege as a man.
My issues as a man are not comparable to what women face because they are apples and oranges in this society. But if we are to compare I would argue that we are roughly equal. With the way we discuss these subjects, it is often correctly acknowledged by the left that undermining black issues such as the increased level of violent assault black people face by blaming them on "increased aggression in the black people" is racist, or at least racially divisive because it conceals the way political oppression in America is subjugating and further exacerbating black people's issues there.
But the feminists still prevail in blaming men's issues on toxic masculinity - even though many of the issues facing men as a whole (violent assault, professional death toll) can still be attributed to many of the problems that black people face in urban communities as a result of poverty. I can't see that it is fair or reasonable to draw a distinction where one form of analysis is racist but the other one for some reason is not misandrist, because of some obscure identity categorisation of "men" universally pertaining to some sort of abstract "oppressor" group.
And this is why I can't get behind feminism as an ideology because I do not truly believe representation of the feminine identity - purportedly with the alleged goal of promoting equality - is in the interests of my group. I can get behind ELM (ethnic minority lives matter), I can get behind advocacy for neurodivergence in society, I can get behind working class representation but as a whole, I fail to see how women are a marginalised group in society except perhaps on an international level (but then even in a lot of these fundamentalist or third world countries men are being drafted, so it seems like a poor assessment of gender politics globally too).
As I recently told a very fun and entertaining misandrist on fetlife:
But many of the issues black men face are not distinct from what men in general - e.g. working class white men - face. So you are at the very least, ignoring economics in this discussion.
No. But they may - as previously mentioned - be subjugated in aspects apart from gender (like economics or neurotypicality). So why does the non-existence of gender subjugation matter here? Men are still dying, regardless of convoluted theories on intersectional theory.
Why would I make this case? It's not my stance. I do not believe in female supremacy any more than I believe that women are marginalised.
Day #2 of no-fap. So, that other thread has really gotten crazy - 900 comments or so! Maybe I can get a successful thread diversion this time? Fingers crossed. Somebody just commented on a post just to say she was going to block me without having read the whole thing! Cultural hypersensitivity, much? Hypersensitivity.
Anyway, I said on an earlier thread that I was going to try and cover empiricism at some point. And I think it's about time we gave this a shot. Ok, so serious men's issues as we know cover actual death & injury due to:
- profession
- violent assault
- mental health
Here's the confirmation:
Number of occupational injury deaths in the U.S. from 2003 to 2020, by gender
by Erin Duffin
___________________________________________________
A cross-national study on gender differences in suicide intent
Freeman, A., Mergl, R., Kohls, E. et al. A cross-national study on gender differences in suicide intent. BMC Psychiatry 17, 234 (2017).
___________________________________________________
Somebody on ChastityMansion just recently challenged my assertion that I should identify as a feminist if a care about equality - this is how the exchange went:
And my response:
What you have not counted for in your definitions is:
- intersectional theory
- identity politics
- activism (+ history of activism)
- the cause & effect chain: etymology -> language -> culture (of activism)
Dictionaries are not useful for political entries, that's why meriam & webster for example define masculinism as "male superiority" but if you look for the term on oxford reference, you get a broad category of movements, histories and ideas. If a feminist represents the feminine identity through etymology, language, culture and activism, then the needs of that political identity have to come first because the linguistic categories have a way of imposing constraints on the nature of the way people behave (through collective activism).
Masculinism is a counter-narrative that acknowledges the higher injurious & death toll experienced overall by the masculine identity through profession, violent assault and mental health. It does not seek to marginalise those collective experiences as patriarchal causality because it knows there are economic, religious and racial divides (among others) that further impact these issues. Egalitarianism may be the end bargaining strategy but it's naive to negotiate from that position because masculinists are faced with a cultural narrative that supports the feminist agenda and marginalises men's issues (through trivialisation and explaining away), so they have to get the collective interests of men heard first.
I think it is fair if I don't want to identify as a feminist - nobody should accuse me of being a misogynist, authoritarian or attempting to subjugated an entire identity group because of the expressions I do or don't use to define myself as. That's my business.
Anyway:
for those who question whether intersectional theory prevents men's issues being adequately addressed:
White men are considered under the "historical oppressor" category, so not considered valid candidates for analysis under intersectional theory in spite of:
increased prevalence of violent assault
increased professional death and injury toll
mental health crisis and increased suicide rate
Demarginalising the Intersection of Race and Sex
Let's not forget, guys:
The young Afro-American masculinist faces: ghettoisation, gang culture, drug culture, knife crime, gun crime, possibility of incarceration for commercial gain, gerrymandering, poverty. Does he not face serious men's issues? Was my analogy really "off-topic" as per the thread. You asked me why it was sexist to identify men's issues as toxic masculinity and I showed you how it was both sexist and racist. Was this off-topic? Really?
And let's add some further context to this:
___________________________________________________
Outside the Skin”: The Persistence of Black–White Disparities in U.S. Early-Life Mortality
Also, see:
___________________________________________________
External factors, including homicide, drive death rate disparity in US black-white young adults
> Homicide deaths accounted for the largest disparity among young adults, and were 20 times as high for black males and six times as high for black females when compared to their white counterparts. Homicide was the main cause of death for young black men and reduced the overall life expectancy for all black males by more than half a year.
___________________________________________________
And of course there is a larger (sociopolitical) context to this:
___________________________________________________
*Black Lives and Policing: The Larger Context of Ghettoisation; Segregation and Crime: The Relationship between Black Centralisation and Urban Black Homicide; Segregation and Crime: The Effect of Black Social Isolation on the Rates of Black Urban Violence
___________________________________________________
Why is this relevant? Because it demonstrates that there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary of the widespread feminist narrative and cultural indoctrination:
While I find the blacksmith analogy relevant, I do have to disagree with your comparison of women's and black people's issues. While women certainly face issues like sexual assault, lack of representation at the top echelons of society and the gender pay gap (although most of it seems to be due to career choice rather than gender) I can't believe that they are relatively disadvantaged to men who are literally dying because of the professional death toll (construction/fishing/haulage/rigging/military/fire service/etc.), violent assault and suicide (due to the mental health crisis). So ironing out the bigger problems in the blade doesn't seem to be a unilateral concern between men and women.
With black people though, most of their issues are from gerrymandering it seems as this is what leads to ghettoisation, poverty, drugs trade, arms trade and increased prevalence of arms and gang warfare in those American neighbourhoods where US politicians are stealing their political representation so that they can steal their funding. I think it is fair to make a comparison between ethnic minorities and white people in privilege and while I accept privilege as a white person, I cannot accept privilege as a man.
My issues as a man are not comparable to what women face because they are apples and oranges in this society. But if we are to compare I would argue that we are roughly equal. With the way we discuss these subjects, it is often correctly acknowledged by the left that undermining black issues such as the increased level of violent assault black people face by blaming them on "increased aggression in the black people" is racist, or at least racially divisive because it conceals the way political oppression in America is subjugating and further exacerbating black people's issues there.
But the feminists still prevail in blaming men's issues on toxic masculinity - even though many of the issues facing men as a whole (violent assault, professional death toll) can still be attributed to many of the problems that black people face in urban communities as a result of poverty. I can't see that it is fair or reasonable to draw a distinction where one form of analysis is racist but the other one for some reason is not misandrist, because of some obscure identity categorisation of "men" universally pertaining to some sort of abstract "oppressor" group.
And this is why I can't get behind feminism as an ideology because I do not truly believe representation of the feminine identity - purportedly with the alleged goal of promoting equality - is in the interests of my group. I can get behind ELM (ethnic minority lives matter), I can get behind advocacy for neurodivergence in society, I can get behind working class representation but as a whole, I fail to see how women are a marginalised group in society except perhaps on an international level (but then even in a lot of these fundamentalist or third world countries men are being drafted, so it seems like a poor assessment of gender politics globally too).
As I recently told a very fun and entertaining misandrist on fetlife:
But many of the issues black men face are not distinct from what men in general - e.g. working class white men - face. So you are at the very least, ignoring economics in this discussion.
No. But they may - as previously mentioned - be subjugated in aspects apart from gender (like economics or neurotypicality). So why does the non-existence of gender subjugation matter here? Men are still dying, regardless of convoluted theories on intersectional theory.
Why would I make this case? It's not my stance. I do not believe in female supremacy any more than I believe that women are marginalised.
D
Deleted member 100026
Masculinism on Academia: Bias & Intersectional Theory Marginalising Research into Men's Issues
So day #3, unfortunately I struggled yesterday evening again because of the nature of the site, it is difficult to avoid pornographic or even just erotic/soft porn images. I haven't been able to find settings for minimising the size of images which apparently helps but ideally I'd be able to hide images altogether, I think. What I'm worried about is if this is constitutes a form of psychological edging which means I should restart the days or if it's still productive to keep going. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of guys from the no-fap community on here - the group discussion seems to only have a handful of followers and very infrequent posts.
Today, is a continuation of yesterday's discussion of the male death & injury toll (by profession, violent assault and mental health). What we've undeniably ascertained is that severe issues for men do exist however, it's not clear if that's enough to dismantle intersectional theory because my detractors will argue that men's issues are still researched by academia and feminists are pushing for something to be done about those things (even if their priority is etymologically, culturally, linguistically and in practice, with women).
There is indeed research in academia, as a user identified, Michael Kimmel writes about issues in masculinity. A search for "Michael Kimmel positive masculinity" on google scholar identifies a number of articles in this respect:
Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and rampage school shootings
Rachel Kalish & Michael Kimmel, 2010
This is the top (freely accessible) result. The abstract notes:
We can immediately see a serious issue here with the so-called "positive masculinity" trend, or the philosophy of investigating male-related issues as being symptomatic in some way of "toxic masculinity". School shootings are not the prevalent form of gun-related deaths in America, in fact suicide by gun is more prevalent. But immediately we have a top engine result that identifies suicides from mass murderer as "violent enactments of masculinity" rather than investigating the more prevalent cases.
This would be fine but an act of "violence" is not universally inclusive to the male gender but ok, yes - men commit more violence than women. Testosterone, social media, whatever. But even accepting this explanation - "instrumental behaviour for males to underscore violent enactments of masculinity" - there is still a problem with this type of research. Why is there such a vast array of modern research conducted into women's gender-based issues and positive masculinity studies but relatively little, if anything, conducted into men's issues without an intersectional bias? Let's look at a few more studies:
The Moderating Effects of Support for Violence Beliefs on Masculine Norms, Aggression, and Homophobic Behavior During Adolescence
V. Paul Poteat, Michael S. Kimmel, Riki Wilchins, 2011
This is a study on how masculine presence in society encourages aggression and homophobia in male adolescents.
Seeing Privilege Where It Isn’t: Marginalized Masculinities and the Intersectionality of Privilege
Bethany M. Coston, Michael Kimmel, 2012
This is a study where male privilege and "problematisation of masculinity" is the focus in the "marginalisation by class, sexuality and disability" of "disabled men, gay men and working class men".
Now I agree with all of the above - yes there is a problem with aggression and homophobia in young men. Yes, school shooters are toxically aggressive. Yes, there are some norms that affect gay and disabled men in society. But the men's issues in society are not purely related to the masculine. With professional death toll for, no it is not just sexism that means men are predominantly dying - sure, women may be castigated for working in "traditionally male jobs" but that doesn't mean more men wouldn't opt for jobs than women for which they were more psychologically and physically prepared for (on the whole). This is biology and economics.
For deaths by violent assault rate - yes men are more physically and psychologically disposed towards violence. But what about poverty, ghettoisation, gerrymandering, drug warfare, gang culture? I explained in the previous thread about the violence black men face as a result of the way their communities are isolated and posted numerous citations demonstrating this. If men were castrated in these communities through their water supply as some sort of twisted social experiment, are we to assume that women - no longer having to compete with more psychologically aggressive males - would not take up arms and dominate gang culture or drug dealing in impoverished neighbourhoods? Would the violence really cease? Is this truly a male-only phenomena? Don't economics and race contribute to the effect that we see and observe?
How is it that any academic research I am likely to look for on male on male violence focuses on toxic masculinity then and doesn't explore economics or race? One of my feminist detractors shared a paper that argued for the reasons black women are more subjugated than black men and should therefore be represented unilateral in intersectional academic research and media discourse:
Diplomas vs Incarceration: Does Intersectionality Affect Black
Men and Women Differently?
C Burchett, 2017
Here, we can see the author correctly identifies the disenfranchisement of racial minorities. However, Chelsie Burchett makes an odd conclusion that even though (she believes) "Black women seem to fare better than Black men", having "the propensity to attend and graduate college at a higher rate than their male counterparts" ... she still believes they are "underrepresented in academia". Also, "Black men are so often behind bars, whereas Black women are thriving within society" so what could the reason be!? "The very same systematic oppression that begets societal and individual power hierarchies" so, because black men have historically belonged to the "oppressor category" they do not deserve higher representation in academia. It is shameful: not all men are caucasian, aristocratic, heterosexual and neurotypical. We do not live in the feudal relic anymore. This kind of analysis detracts from real lived issues of sub-categories to the oppressor category.
The challenges facing Black men – and the case for action
Richard V. Reeves, Sarah Nzau, and Ember Smith, 2020
This article takes a different tone. They simply, objectively note unique issues black men face compared to women. The point is not to undermine the issues black women face. The point is not to say they do not have their own unique issues or that black women are "better off" in some way. The point is simply to identify that black men deserve their own representation in academia. It is moral, it is empathetic and it is rational - not driven by discourse or ideology. Clear, empirical points without the "wish-wash" of verbose dogmatising intersectional pompose jargon:
This is the only piece of research I have come across that explores men's issues - in this case, black men's issues - without intersectional "positive masculinity" or "but what about women?" dogma. The authors really should congratulate themselves. Thanks all posters for contributing to the masculinist narrative - your assistance has been greatly appreciated.
So day #3, unfortunately I struggled yesterday evening again because of the nature of the site, it is difficult to avoid pornographic or even just erotic/soft porn images. I haven't been able to find settings for minimising the size of images which apparently helps but ideally I'd be able to hide images altogether, I think. What I'm worried about is if this is constitutes a form of psychological edging which means I should restart the days or if it's still productive to keep going. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of guys from the no-fap community on here - the group discussion seems to only have a handful of followers and very infrequent posts.
Today, is a continuation of yesterday's discussion of the male death & injury toll (by profession, violent assault and mental health). What we've undeniably ascertained is that severe issues for men do exist however, it's not clear if that's enough to dismantle intersectional theory because my detractors will argue that men's issues are still researched by academia and feminists are pushing for something to be done about those things (even if their priority is etymologically, culturally, linguistically and in practice, with women).
There is indeed research in academia, as a user identified, Michael Kimmel writes about issues in masculinity. A search for "Michael Kimmel positive masculinity" on google scholar identifies a number of articles in this respect:
Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and rampage school shootings
Rachel Kalish & Michael Kimmel, 2010
This is the top (freely accessible) result. The abstract notes:
We can immediately see a serious issue here with the so-called "positive masculinity" trend, or the philosophy of investigating male-related issues as being symptomatic in some way of "toxic masculinity". School shootings are not the prevalent form of gun-related deaths in America, in fact suicide by gun is more prevalent. But immediately we have a top engine result that identifies suicides from mass murderer as "violent enactments of masculinity" rather than investigating the more prevalent cases.
This would be fine but an act of "violence" is not universally inclusive to the male gender but ok, yes - men commit more violence than women. Testosterone, social media, whatever. But even accepting this explanation - "instrumental behaviour for males to underscore violent enactments of masculinity" - there is still a problem with this type of research. Why is there such a vast array of modern research conducted into women's gender-based issues and positive masculinity studies but relatively little, if anything, conducted into men's issues without an intersectional bias? Let's look at a few more studies:
The Moderating Effects of Support for Violence Beliefs on Masculine Norms, Aggression, and Homophobic Behavior During Adolescence
V. Paul Poteat, Michael S. Kimmel, Riki Wilchins, 2011
This is a study on how masculine presence in society encourages aggression and homophobia in male adolescents.
Seeing Privilege Where It Isn’t: Marginalized Masculinities and the Intersectionality of Privilege
Bethany M. Coston, Michael Kimmel, 2012
This is a study where male privilege and "problematisation of masculinity" is the focus in the "marginalisation by class, sexuality and disability" of "disabled men, gay men and working class men".
Now I agree with all of the above - yes there is a problem with aggression and homophobia in young men. Yes, school shooters are toxically aggressive. Yes, there are some norms that affect gay and disabled men in society. But the men's issues in society are not purely related to the masculine. With professional death toll for, no it is not just sexism that means men are predominantly dying - sure, women may be castigated for working in "traditionally male jobs" but that doesn't mean more men wouldn't opt for jobs than women for which they were more psychologically and physically prepared for (on the whole). This is biology and economics.
For deaths by violent assault rate - yes men are more physically and psychologically disposed towards violence. But what about poverty, ghettoisation, gerrymandering, drug warfare, gang culture? I explained in the previous thread about the violence black men face as a result of the way their communities are isolated and posted numerous citations demonstrating this. If men were castrated in these communities through their water supply as some sort of twisted social experiment, are we to assume that women - no longer having to compete with more psychologically aggressive males - would not take up arms and dominate gang culture or drug dealing in impoverished neighbourhoods? Would the violence really cease? Is this truly a male-only phenomena? Don't economics and race contribute to the effect that we see and observe?
How is it that any academic research I am likely to look for on male on male violence focuses on toxic masculinity then and doesn't explore economics or race? One of my feminist detractors shared a paper that argued for the reasons black women are more subjugated than black men and should therefore be represented unilateral in intersectional academic research and media discourse:
Diplomas vs Incarceration: Does Intersectionality Affect Black
Men and Women Differently?
C Burchett, 2017
Here, we can see the author correctly identifies the disenfranchisement of racial minorities. However, Chelsie Burchett makes an odd conclusion that even though (she believes) "Black women seem to fare better than Black men", having "the propensity to attend and graduate college at a higher rate than their male counterparts" ... she still believes they are "underrepresented in academia". Also, "Black men are so often behind bars, whereas Black women are thriving within society" so what could the reason be!? "The very same systematic oppression that begets societal and individual power hierarchies" so, because black men have historically belonged to the "oppressor category" they do not deserve higher representation in academia. It is shameful: not all men are caucasian, aristocratic, heterosexual and neurotypical. We do not live in the feudal relic anymore. This kind of analysis detracts from real lived issues of sub-categories to the oppressor category.
The challenges facing Black men – and the case for action
Richard V. Reeves, Sarah Nzau, and Ember Smith, 2020
This article takes a different tone. They simply, objectively note unique issues black men face compared to women. The point is not to undermine the issues black women face. The point is not to say they do not have their own unique issues or that black women are "better off" in some way. The point is simply to identify that black men deserve their own representation in academia. It is moral, it is empathetic and it is rational - not driven by discourse or ideology. Clear, empirical points without the "wish-wash" of verbose dogmatising intersectional pompose jargon:
This is the only piece of research I have come across that explores men's issues - in this case, black men's issues - without intersectional "positive masculinity" or "but what about women?" dogma. The authors really should congratulate themselves. Thanks all posters for contributing to the masculinist narrative - your assistance has been greatly appreciated.
D
Deleted member 100026
Masculinism on "Positive Masculinity" Shelf-Help
Back to day #0, this is embarassing - I blame the nature of fetlife. Anyway, it seems like my feminist detractor has given up after yesterday's display I completely immersed her in an in-depth review of her empirical studies and, nothing to say, she has gone home completely dismayed. But I will add a few more reviews regarding "positive masculinity" shelf-help. It is not bad enough that Michael Kimmel frames male suicide as "aggrieved entitlement" - a "violent enactment of masculinity", associates "masculine activities" with "violent behaviours", and argues about the "problematisation of masculinity". I'm joking, relax. But as I said in the last thread, I agree with certain aspects of his studies - however:
In a similar way then, I believe that feminist "shelf-help" literature is focussed on so-called "positive masculinity" theory and has a negative impact on men:
Masculinity in Crisis: Myths, Fantasies And Realities
Roger Horrocks, 1994
In just the second paragraph of this book, Horrocks goes as far as to state that, "the masculine gender is a precarious and dangerous achievement". In fact, Horrocks seems to believe, "many men are haunted by feelings of emptiness, impotence and rage". However, he does concede that as a psycho-therapist, when it comes to the myth of gender inequality, "I do not see men feeling less confused or less in pain than women." He also does concede that in feminist literature, "the view of men found in them has not been a flattering one". However, I do not believe that this justifies Horrocks' own sense of internalised misandry because he thinks that men who dismiss antagonistic feminist critiques just hope it will all "blow over". Rather than embracing and rejoicing masculinity, Horrocks dwells on how, "being male is not a comfortable or 'natural' position for some men".
Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man
Susan Faludi, 1999
In this book, Fauldi essentially ridicules the existence of severe men's issues which has been covered in a previous subject (the serious injury and death toll of men by profession, violent assault and mental health/suicide). Of the men's movement, she mockingly writes:
I think the line "In the meantime, the media's softer lifestyle outlets happily turned their attention to male-crisis-lite: the retreat to "gentlemen's" cigar clubs and lap-dancing emporiums, the boom in male cosmetic surgery and the abuse of steroids, the bonanza of miracle hair-growth drugs and the brisk sales of Viagra" says enough, but Faludi goes on to marginalise the disenfranchisement of the young black male in a pre-millenial American culture which gerrymanders and ghettoises predominantly minority ethnic communities, stealing political representation and community funding for policing, education and development:
If her condescending attitude was not already sickening, none of this important research was cited. This is the standard of "positive masculinity" endorsement in feminist circles, but let's go on.
The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment
Barbara Ehrenreich 1983
Ehrenreich gives a good account of the problems with traditional marriage and how it subjugates men as well as women. Indeed, I've written about the problems traditionalism presents to the masculinist counter-narrative in other places:
So as you can see I am sympathetic to Ehrenreich's initial account. But let's read on because some of the intellectual she endorses have very insidious things to say about men's role in marriage:
If this wasn't bad enough, Ehrenreich goes on to describe this subservient status a "course in self-improvement". It reminds me of some of my writings over on ChastityMansion about the insidious nature of "female supremacy" theory in so-called "lifestyle female domination":
Furthermore,
The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love
Bell Hooks, 2004
Hooks believes that for desiring male love, women are "mocked, pitied, shamed" and that they cannot "seduce, cajole, or entice men to share their emotions". But after the turn of the millenium, even Lyman Stone has to concede that male sexlessness has risen (Male Sexlessness is Rising But Not for the Reasons Incels Claim - Lyman Stone, 2018).
If it wasn't enough that billboards designed to shame men for their alleged "toxic masculinity" by generalising that they don't comfort their children, Ehrenreich goes on to say that actually this billboard is somehow enforcing "patriarchal culture":
She goes on to generalise men further, saying that women and homosexual men who "quest to find and know male love" are "rarely satisfied":
But what she has said is a lie. More men than ever have desperately struggled to find romantic attention from women. In an empirically resourced social media clip, the masculinist ally Aydin Paladin covers this subject:
Is Isolation Deadly? Incels and Psychology of Isolation.
Aydin Paladin, 2018
Relevant timestamps: 7m17s (how women men rate men's attractiveness compared to vice versa), 8m35s (proof that physical touch is required for psychological health of men and women as evidenced by the role of parental nurture), 11m45s (psychological effects of single parenthood that could effect potential future young masculinists), 13m25s (boost in trend of children being born to single parents - note that benefits for single parents aren't means-tested so in these instances potential future young masculinists may just be being raised as cash cows harming their social development), 18m17s (Paladin notes here that romantic and sexual contact is the most important of all social contact and cites: Heinrich & Gullone, 2006 [prolonged chronic isolation affects between 15 and 30% of the population]; Vandervoort, 2000 [people who report feeling isolated are more likely to be male]; Cacioppo et al, 2009 [men are more likely to experience loneliness]; Powers & Bultena, 1976 [men report that their spose and children are their primary source of social support]).
At this stage, I think enough of the video has been covered to effectively make the case without dispute however I will go on to list the resources (as compiled by Paladin):
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 817.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Cacioppo, S. (2014). Social relationships and health: The toxic effects of perceived social isolation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(2), 58-72.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 447-454.
Cacioppo, J. T., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2009). Alone in the crowd: The structure and spread of loneliness in a large social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 977.
Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Berntson, G. G., Ernst, J. M., Gibbs, A. C., Stickgold, R., & Hobson, J. A. (2002). Do lonely days invade the nights? Potential social modulation of
sleep efficiency. Psychological Science, 13(4), 384-387.
Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Crawford, L. E., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M. H., Kowalewski, R. B., ... & Berntson, G. G. (2002). Loneliness and health: Potential mechanisms.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(3), 407-417. Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Norman, G. J., & Berntson, G. G. (2011). Social isolation.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1231(1), 17-22.
Cacioppo, J. T., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Thisted, R. A. (2006). Loneliness as a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Psychology and Aging, 21(1), 140.
Cacioppo, J. T., Norris, C. J., Decety, J., Monteleone, G., & Nusbaum, H. (2009). In the eye of the beholder: individual differences in perceived social isolation predict regional brain activation to social stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(1), 83-92.
Cole, S. W. (2008). Social regulation of leukocyte homeostasis: the role of glucocorticoid
sensitivity. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 22(7), 1049-1055.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290-292.
Gow, A. J., Pattie, A., Whiteman, M. C., Whalley, L. J., & Deary, I. J. (2007). Social support and successful aging: Investigating the relationships between lifetime cognitive change and life satisfaction. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(3), 103.
Harlow, H. F., & Zimmermann, R. R. (1959). Affectional responses in the infant monkey.
Science, 130(3373), 421-432.
Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218-227.
Hawkley, L. C., Preacher, K. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness impairs daytime
functioning but not sleep duration. Health Psychology, 29(2), 124.
Hawkley, L. C., Preacher, K. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). Multilevel modeling of social
interactions and mood in lonely and socially connected individuals: The MacArthur
social Neuroscience Studies.
Heinrich, L. M., & Gullone, E. (2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature
review. Clinical psychology review, 26(6), 695-718.
Hofer MA. (2009) Developmental neuroscience. Handbook of Neuroscience for the Behavioral Sciences. 12–31.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 10(2), 227-237.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 10(2), 227-237.
McCubbin, J. A., Merritt, M. M., Sollers III, J. J., Evans, M. K., Zonderman, A. B., Lane, R. D., & Thayer, J. F. (2011). Cardiovascular emotional dampening: The relationship between blood pressure and recognition of emotion. Psychosomatic Medicine, 73(9), 743.
Miller, G. (2000). Sexual selection for indicators of intelligence. In Novartis Foundation
Symposium (pp. 260-270). Chichester; New York; John Wiley; 1999.
Pariante, C. M. (2017). Why are depressed patients inflamed? A reflection on 20 years of research on depression, glucocorticoid resistance and inflammation. European
Neuropsychopharmacology, 27(6), 554-559.
Powers, E. A., & Bultena, G. L. (1976). Sex differences in intimate friendships of old age.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(4), 739-747.
Vandervoort, D. (2000). Social isolation and gender. Current Psychology, 19(3), 229-236.
Back to day #0, this is embarassing - I blame the nature of fetlife. Anyway, it seems like my feminist detractor has given up after yesterday's display I completely immersed her in an in-depth review of her empirical studies and, nothing to say, she has gone home completely dismayed. But I will add a few more reviews regarding "positive masculinity" shelf-help. It is not bad enough that Michael Kimmel frames male suicide as "aggrieved entitlement" - a "violent enactment of masculinity", associates "masculine activities" with "violent behaviours", and argues about the "problematisation of masculinity". I'm joking, relax. But as I said in the last thread, I agree with certain aspects of his studies - however:
In a similar way then, I believe that feminist "shelf-help" literature is focussed on so-called "positive masculinity" theory and has a negative impact on men:
Masculinity in Crisis: Myths, Fantasies And Realities
Roger Horrocks, 1994
In just the second paragraph of this book, Horrocks goes as far as to state that, "the masculine gender is a precarious and dangerous achievement". In fact, Horrocks seems to believe, "many men are haunted by feelings of emptiness, impotence and rage". However, he does concede that as a psycho-therapist, when it comes to the myth of gender inequality, "I do not see men feeling less confused or less in pain than women." He also does concede that in feminist literature, "the view of men found in them has not been a flattering one". However, I do not believe that this justifies Horrocks' own sense of internalised misandry because he thinks that men who dismiss antagonistic feminist critiques just hope it will all "blow over". Rather than embracing and rejoicing masculinity, Horrocks dwells on how, "being male is not a comfortable or 'natural' position for some men".
Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man
Susan Faludi, 1999
In this book, Fauldi essentially ridicules the existence of severe men's issues which has been covered in a previous subject (the serious injury and death toll of men by profession, violent assault and mental health/suicide). Of the men's movement, she mockingly writes:
I think the line "In the meantime, the media's softer lifestyle outlets happily turned their attention to male-crisis-lite: the retreat to "gentlemen's" cigar clubs and lap-dancing emporiums, the boom in male cosmetic surgery and the abuse of steroids, the bonanza of miracle hair-growth drugs and the brisk sales of Viagra" says enough, but Faludi goes on to marginalise the disenfranchisement of the young black male in a pre-millenial American culture which gerrymanders and ghettoises predominantly minority ethnic communities, stealing political representation and community funding for policing, education and development:
If her condescending attitude was not already sickening, none of this important research was cited. This is the standard of "positive masculinity" endorsement in feminist circles, but let's go on.
The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment
Barbara Ehrenreich 1983
Ehrenreich gives a good account of the problems with traditional marriage and how it subjugates men as well as women. Indeed, I've written about the problems traditionalism presents to the masculinist counter-narrative in other places:
So as you can see I am sympathetic to Ehrenreich's initial account. But let's read on because some of the intellectual she endorses have very insidious things to say about men's role in marriage:
If this wasn't bad enough, Ehrenreich goes on to describe this subservient status a "course in self-improvement". It reminds me of some of my writings over on ChastityMansion about the insidious nature of "female supremacy" theory in so-called "lifestyle female domination":
Furthermore,
The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love
Bell Hooks, 2004
Hooks believes that for desiring male love, women are "mocked, pitied, shamed" and that they cannot "seduce, cajole, or entice men to share their emotions". But after the turn of the millenium, even Lyman Stone has to concede that male sexlessness has risen (Male Sexlessness is Rising But Not for the Reasons Incels Claim - Lyman Stone, 2018).
If it wasn't enough that billboards designed to shame men for their alleged "toxic masculinity" by generalising that they don't comfort their children, Ehrenreich goes on to say that actually this billboard is somehow enforcing "patriarchal culture":
She goes on to generalise men further, saying that women and homosexual men who "quest to find and know male love" are "rarely satisfied":
But what she has said is a lie. More men than ever have desperately struggled to find romantic attention from women. In an empirically resourced social media clip, the masculinist ally Aydin Paladin covers this subject:
Is Isolation Deadly? Incels and Psychology of Isolation.
Aydin Paladin, 2018
Relevant timestamps: 7m17s (how women men rate men's attractiveness compared to vice versa), 8m35s (proof that physical touch is required for psychological health of men and women as evidenced by the role of parental nurture), 11m45s (psychological effects of single parenthood that could effect potential future young masculinists), 13m25s (boost in trend of children being born to single parents - note that benefits for single parents aren't means-tested so in these instances potential future young masculinists may just be being raised as cash cows harming their social development), 18m17s (Paladin notes here that romantic and sexual contact is the most important of all social contact and cites: Heinrich & Gullone, 2006 [prolonged chronic isolation affects between 15 and 30% of the population]; Vandervoort, 2000 [people who report feeling isolated are more likely to be male]; Cacioppo et al, 2009 [men are more likely to experience loneliness]; Powers & Bultena, 1976 [men report that their spose and children are their primary source of social support]).
At this stage, I think enough of the video has been covered to effectively make the case without dispute however I will go on to list the resources (as compiled by Paladin):
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 817.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Cacioppo, S. (2014). Social relationships and health: The toxic effects of perceived social isolation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(2), 58-72.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 447-454.
Cacioppo, J. T., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2009). Alone in the crowd: The structure and spread of loneliness in a large social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 977.
Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Berntson, G. G., Ernst, J. M., Gibbs, A. C., Stickgold, R., & Hobson, J. A. (2002). Do lonely days invade the nights? Potential social modulation of
sleep efficiency. Psychological Science, 13(4), 384-387.
Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Crawford, L. E., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M. H., Kowalewski, R. B., ... & Berntson, G. G. (2002). Loneliness and health: Potential mechanisms.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(3), 407-417. Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Norman, G. J., & Berntson, G. G. (2011). Social isolation.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1231(1), 17-22.
Cacioppo, J. T., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Thisted, R. A. (2006). Loneliness as a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Psychology and Aging, 21(1), 140.
Cacioppo, J. T., Norris, C. J., Decety, J., Monteleone, G., & Nusbaum, H. (2009). In the eye of the beholder: individual differences in perceived social isolation predict regional brain activation to social stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(1), 83-92.
Cole, S. W. (2008). Social regulation of leukocyte homeostasis: the role of glucocorticoid
sensitivity. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 22(7), 1049-1055.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290-292.
Gow, A. J., Pattie, A., Whiteman, M. C., Whalley, L. J., & Deary, I. J. (2007). Social support and successful aging: Investigating the relationships between lifetime cognitive change and life satisfaction. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(3), 103.
Harlow, H. F., & Zimmermann, R. R. (1959). Affectional responses in the infant monkey.
Science, 130(3373), 421-432.
Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218-227.
Hawkley, L. C., Preacher, K. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness impairs daytime
functioning but not sleep duration. Health Psychology, 29(2), 124.
Hawkley, L. C., Preacher, K. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). Multilevel modeling of social
interactions and mood in lonely and socially connected individuals: The MacArthur
social Neuroscience Studies.
Heinrich, L. M., & Gullone, E. (2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature
review. Clinical psychology review, 26(6), 695-718.
Hofer MA. (2009) Developmental neuroscience. Handbook of Neuroscience for the Behavioral Sciences. 12–31.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 10(2), 227-237.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 10(2), 227-237.
McCubbin, J. A., Merritt, M. M., Sollers III, J. J., Evans, M. K., Zonderman, A. B., Lane, R. D., & Thayer, J. F. (2011). Cardiovascular emotional dampening: The relationship between blood pressure and recognition of emotion. Psychosomatic Medicine, 73(9), 743.
Miller, G. (2000). Sexual selection for indicators of intelligence. In Novartis Foundation
Symposium (pp. 260-270). Chichester; New York; John Wiley; 1999.
Pariante, C. M. (2017). Why are depressed patients inflamed? A reflection on 20 years of research on depression, glucocorticoid resistance and inflammation. European
Neuropsychopharmacology, 27(6), 554-559.
Powers, E. A., & Bultena, G. L. (1976). Sex differences in intimate friendships of old age.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(4), 739-747.
Vandervoort, D. (2000). Social isolation and gender. Current Psychology, 19(3), 229-236.
D
Deleted member 100026
Masculinism on Resolving Sexual/Romantic Isolation
Day #1 but I've given up on the idea that it's possible to surf this website without seeing naked women. Trying to do a basic entry today as my brain is fried and I'm drifting off to sleep and I already did a partially complicated entry on chess. A few people asked me about what the "masculinist solution" is to sexual and romantic isolation, so here it is:
Also we cannot argue that this is creating an oppressive network:
Day #1 but I've given up on the idea that it's possible to surf this website without seeing naked women. Trying to do a basic entry today as my brain is fried and I'm drifting off to sleep and I already did a partially complicated entry on chess. A few people asked me about what the "masculinist solution" is to sexual and romantic isolation, so here it is:
Also we cannot argue that this is creating an oppressive network:
D
Deleted member 100026
Masculinism on Feminist Bullshit and "You Can't Identify as This/You Can't Identify as That"
I have written extensively before on cultural hypsersensitivity and how it suppresses legitimate, rational counter-narratives in the norms. Today I'm going to express my own anger on how feminists use cultural hypersensitivity to target the very way people identify themselves. A few years back, I innocently referred to myself as "incel" to me it just meant a dude that can't get laid. But when I asked feminists on reddit what it was they have against these guys they all jumped down my throat:
So damn it, even when you try to do what they want, you use verbose mouthfuls like "sexually and romantically isolated" these fuckers don't care - they'll throw something else at you to take you down. "Oh but that's not feminism". It might not be what you think of as feminism but it is what feminism represents itself in practice, in the media, through our cultural institutions and in every day life.
And what about masculinism? Masculinism is an ideology of male supremacy. Even though oxford reference defines it as a broad spectrum of different ideologies, no that doesn't matter - dictionary is right, dictionary is always right. This is why we need a rational counter-narrative in the media folks. Because otherwise everyone just sees feminists as the golden angels from the Garden of Eve that can do no wrong and represent only the purest aspects of femininity men have written poems about for the centuries since they began referring to the sea as a "She".
But masculinists? Those are the fallen angels, the devils down below. Yesterday I began to contemplate referring to myself as "neomasculinist" to distinguish myself from a history of traditionalist ideologies contradictory to men's interests, responsible for sending them to war and to work on dangerous oil rigs - all issues that feminists seek to undermine as being explainable by "patriarchal causes" or some other dogmatically pretentious verbose jargon. I just googled the term though and you know what it says neomasculinism is - an extremist ideology of male supremacy, something that advocates rape through pick-up artistry.
And I am done with this insanity. Guys refer to yourself as what you want. Be a fucking incel, man. Be a masculinist. Own it with some balls - fuck these man-hating feminist bitches. They don't define you. You ain't gonna get laid by them just because you say you care about how toxic masculinity causes women's issues in society and you totally ain't one of those guys. I mean, what are you saying you spineless, castrated fucking eunuchs. Whose team are you going to swing for? Your's or their's.
Who's team do you think feminist women are swinging for? That's right: they're looking out for women's interest. They're recruiting "good men" and "feminist allies" to be moral proselytisers for their cause and vigilantes that go around challenging "toxic men" and getting their asses handed to them. Masculinism is the only rational counter-narrative. Masculinism is the only weapon we have to defeat the cultural insanity. Don't be naive and try to bargain with them as an egalitarian - they'll just call you a sexist and claim to be the marginalised sex anyway.
The only way to get equality at this stage is to reverse the swing of the pendulum, and at this moment - in all of our media, everyone is shouting loud about how women are some kind of persecuted victims. They are not. Male death toll is higher than everywhere before: men are literally dying. Shout it out loud and proud and own it with some fucking balls and dignity. Be a masculinist.
I have written extensively before on cultural hypsersensitivity and how it suppresses legitimate, rational counter-narratives in the norms. Today I'm going to express my own anger on how feminists use cultural hypersensitivity to target the very way people identify themselves. A few years back, I innocently referred to myself as "incel" to me it just meant a dude that can't get laid. But when I asked feminists on reddit what it was they have against these guys they all jumped down my throat:
- "you can't call yourself that, it's like calling yourself a nazi"
- ""People's Democratic Party of North Korea" isn't a democratic party don't you know?"
- "Incels represent misogyny, hate and violence"
- "Incel-ism is an ideology not a condition"
- "You can get laid just go get a hooker"
So damn it, even when you try to do what they want, you use verbose mouthfuls like "sexually and romantically isolated" these fuckers don't care - they'll throw something else at you to take you down. "Oh but that's not feminism". It might not be what you think of as feminism but it is what feminism represents itself in practice, in the media, through our cultural institutions and in every day life.
And what about masculinism? Masculinism is an ideology of male supremacy. Even though oxford reference defines it as a broad spectrum of different ideologies, no that doesn't matter - dictionary is right, dictionary is always right. This is why we need a rational counter-narrative in the media folks. Because otherwise everyone just sees feminists as the golden angels from the Garden of Eve that can do no wrong and represent only the purest aspects of femininity men have written poems about for the centuries since they began referring to the sea as a "She".
But masculinists? Those are the fallen angels, the devils down below. Yesterday I began to contemplate referring to myself as "neomasculinist" to distinguish myself from a history of traditionalist ideologies contradictory to men's interests, responsible for sending them to war and to work on dangerous oil rigs - all issues that feminists seek to undermine as being explainable by "patriarchal causes" or some other dogmatically pretentious verbose jargon. I just googled the term though and you know what it says neomasculinism is - an extremist ideology of male supremacy, something that advocates rape through pick-up artistry.
And I am done with this insanity. Guys refer to yourself as what you want. Be a fucking incel, man. Be a masculinist. Own it with some balls - fuck these man-hating feminist bitches. They don't define you. You ain't gonna get laid by them just because you say you care about how toxic masculinity causes women's issues in society and you totally ain't one of those guys. I mean, what are you saying you spineless, castrated fucking eunuchs. Whose team are you going to swing for? Your's or their's.
Who's team do you think feminist women are swinging for? That's right: they're looking out for women's interest. They're recruiting "good men" and "feminist allies" to be moral proselytisers for their cause and vigilantes that go around challenging "toxic men" and getting their asses handed to them. Masculinism is the only rational counter-narrative. Masculinism is the only weapon we have to defeat the cultural insanity. Don't be naive and try to bargain with them as an egalitarian - they'll just call you a sexist and claim to be the marginalised sex anyway.
The only way to get equality at this stage is to reverse the swing of the pendulum, and at this moment - in all of our media, everyone is shouting loud about how women are some kind of persecuted victims. They are not. Male death toll is higher than everywhere before: men are literally dying. Shout it out loud and proud and own it with some fucking balls and dignity. Be a masculinist.
To be honest I don't think politics belongs on this site, this is a chastity site not political. But that's just my opinion.
D
Deleted member 100026
That's like ... just your opinion bro.
I imagine all of my detractors here will be thrilled to hear my mind has gone completely blank about what to write for the next entry. Guess I'm all masculinist-ed out.
D
Deleted member 100026
Masculinism on the Uselessness of Serious Dialogue and Empirical Citation
I can't stop resetting the clocks and it's # day 1 again. I mentioned on ChastityMansion that I was all "masculinist-ed" out of ideas for journal entries but this morning I came up with one and then forgot it again but what I'm writing about is vaguely similar ... I think. Anyway, some feminist on fetlife didn't realise I was kidding when I said "I blame the nature of fetlife" because I can't stop fapping. Hilariously though, they were all over my feed again - as I wrote in a masculinist group, this is the rubbish they come out with:
The deranged lunacy doesn't end there though as one of the feminist idiots above decided to accuse me of "blocking" and then frequently "unblocking" as some weird strategy of covertly stalking her. She had no qualms casually accusing me of doing this but when one of the incoherent ranters on the thread called me a groomer, she could not recognise her own hypocrisy in saying that was apparently "one step too far".
Talking about general incoherence and feminist derailing tactics though, these idiot misandrists do it because they have no legitimate debate strategy that would contribute to a constructive discourse. One of the "feminist allies"/psychologically self-castrated eunuch types turned out to be a back-stabbing traitor as he claimed to be in support of men's rights and initially pretended to want a legitimate discourse just to go ahead and block me out of the blue because he claimed there was a "red flag" what that was I have no idea.
But these spineless bitches don't stop there - he insisted that he wanted to continue a "constructive dialogue" but the fact that I was not interested in engaging with his artificial platitudes or fake persona was not sufficient and demanded further explanation. Apparently then, this was enough to prove I am not willing to contribute to constructive dialogue on gender issues. At least the two feminist women on the thread that had me blocked did not claim to be "allies" and had the ovaries to own that fact but this dude wanted to know "more" about the misandry that is positive masculinity theory.
Anyway, that brings me to my point about the uselessness not just of serious dialogue but also empirical citation. My thread was overloaded with information about the severe nature of men's rights issues (the death toll by profession, violent assault and mental health/suicide) and all the "Professor" could do was come down on me for "referring to other people's sources is plagiarism", apparently (after previously demanding I refer to those apart from myself); I have to contextualise those selves but apparently doing this by using my own writings as footnotes is appeal to authority; oh, and everything has to be in Harvard citation format even though this is just a fucking kink website ... and if I do not follow the ever-changing goal posts she decides to impose the actual content of what I'm referring to does not have to be addressed!
What a waste of time. Masculinists, do not bother to engage in these fruitless endeavours with hateful misandrists. They have taken up the mainstream discourse and dominated the academic dialogue. Those interested in representing the men who don't make it into the Mar-a-Lago patriarchy club - because we do not all belong to the historic Caucasian aristocratic ruler "oppressor category" - have to create their own narrative independently of these moronic nutjobs. Go be your own man and make something special. Fuck academia and it's intersectional slant on men's subjects; and fuck these feminist bitches that think they talk for all women.
I can't stop resetting the clocks and it's # day 1 again. I mentioned on ChastityMansion that I was all "masculinist-ed" out of ideas for journal entries but this morning I came up with one and then forgot it again but what I'm writing about is vaguely similar ... I think. Anyway, some feminist on fetlife didn't realise I was kidding when I said "I blame the nature of fetlife" because I can't stop fapping. Hilariously though, they were all over my feed again - as I wrote in a masculinist group, this is the rubbish they come out with:
The deranged lunacy doesn't end there though as one of the feminist idiots above decided to accuse me of "blocking" and then frequently "unblocking" as some weird strategy of covertly stalking her. She had no qualms casually accusing me of doing this but when one of the incoherent ranters on the thread called me a groomer, she could not recognise her own hypocrisy in saying that was apparently "one step too far".
Talking about general incoherence and feminist derailing tactics though, these idiot misandrists do it because they have no legitimate debate strategy that would contribute to a constructive discourse. One of the "feminist allies"/psychologically self-castrated eunuch types turned out to be a back-stabbing traitor as he claimed to be in support of men's rights and initially pretended to want a legitimate discourse just to go ahead and block me out of the blue because he claimed there was a "red flag" what that was I have no idea.
But these spineless bitches don't stop there - he insisted that he wanted to continue a "constructive dialogue" but the fact that I was not interested in engaging with his artificial platitudes or fake persona was not sufficient and demanded further explanation. Apparently then, this was enough to prove I am not willing to contribute to constructive dialogue on gender issues. At least the two feminist women on the thread that had me blocked did not claim to be "allies" and had the ovaries to own that fact but this dude wanted to know "more" about the misandry that is positive masculinity theory.
Anyway, that brings me to my point about the uselessness not just of serious dialogue but also empirical citation. My thread was overloaded with information about the severe nature of men's rights issues (the death toll by profession, violent assault and mental health/suicide) and all the "Professor" could do was come down on me for "referring to other people's sources is plagiarism", apparently (after previously demanding I refer to those apart from myself); I have to contextualise those selves but apparently doing this by using my own writings as footnotes is appeal to authority; oh, and everything has to be in Harvard citation format even though this is just a fucking kink website ... and if I do not follow the ever-changing goal posts she decides to impose the actual content of what I'm referring to does not have to be addressed!
What a waste of time. Masculinists, do not bother to engage in these fruitless endeavours with hateful misandrists. They have taken up the mainstream discourse and dominated the academic dialogue. Those interested in representing the men who don't make it into the Mar-a-Lago patriarchy club - because we do not all belong to the historic Caucasian aristocratic ruler "oppressor category" - have to create their own narrative independently of these moronic nutjobs. Go be your own man and make something special. Fuck academia and it's intersectional slant on men's subjects; and fuck these feminist bitches that think they talk for all women.
D
Deleted member 100026
The quote you are referring to was:
fuck these feminist bitches that think they talk for all women.
Do you claim to talk for all women? Do you use words like internalised misandry to speak for women who do not identify as feminists? Do you try to marginalise serious men's issues, obfuscating their significance or explain them away as somehow being symptomatic of patriarchy?
D
Deleted member 100026
Masculinism on Feminist Academic Apologia
#Day 2 now and more of these feminist moral proselytising types are online causing unnecessary drama around my posts. Someone on ChastityMansion commented on a post of mine to say that she does not approve of the term feminist bitches and I had an actual follower comment - after total, dead silence to say that she was blocking me for the same reason. I mean why bother following me in the first place - did you actually look at the big bold font at the top of my profile that says ARE YOU A MASCULINIST ALLY? The 30+ listed entries under masculinism? The anguished scorn of feminist sneering condescension? Are you totally blind? It's as I said on teh interwebz,
The quote you are referring to was:
fuck these feminist bitches that think they talk for all women.
Do you claim to talk for all women? Do you use words like internalised misandry to speak for women who do not identify as feminists? Do you try to marginalise serious men's issues, obfuscating their significance or explain them away as somehow being symptomatic of patriarchy?
Silence. Because they cannot justify the vindictive nature of their movement, the unilateral representation of the feminine, the underrepresentation of men's issues - particular black men's issues - due to intersectional theory in academia, the way feminist narratives have taken up so much room in media discourse, the toxic nature of feminist rhetoric on social media, the dwindling and obfuscation of serious men's issues like death toll by profession, violent assault and mental health/suicide.
These apologists are like the religious moderate in DarkMatter's video where all they can see is "you called out extremist bigots in my movement, hey stop saying we're all the same" and proceeds to ignore the toxic elements that dominate discourse due to the very nature of the ideology itself. In one instance, it is belief in the divine, in the other instance it is belief in the divinity of the feminine. In the latter case, all the apologists can say is "stop calling feminists bitches". To reiterate the quotes of those condescending, hateful misandrists that seek to rubbish me online:
MEN ARE DYING BY THE HANDS OF OTHER MEN (mainly).
What's really funny is that incels post this kind of crap and then complain that women won't have sex with them.
But this is not the worst. The worst is the "academic apologia". The ones who say - "you cannot prove all feminists say these things", "you cannot prove this has a basis in academia", "you cannot prove there are insidious cultural narratives". The one who ridiculed me and claimed I would be unable to source my claims quickly dropped out of the discussion when I demonstrated how masculinists are generalised with red pill and incel ideologies in academia, making some inept and intellectually dishonest claims about proper formatting/citation reference style.
These are the resources she could not or would not address:
Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere
Valkenburgh et al, 2018
Below: Red Pill is an "expression of hegemonic masculinity". Theories of neoliberalism, may refer to conservative ideology which is also associated with patriarchal mindset by feminists but could simply be referring to economic liberalism, which in placing individual responsibility and accountability on individuals, Marxist and social democratic feminists can make the claim that men are not allowed to rely on support networks like mental health and redistribution through collective responsibility and accountability - "toxic masculinity". The author even says something to this effect in not only discussing "prescriptive emotional walls" but also arguing that Red Pill theory discusses women as "exchangeable commodities". Of course this is all attributed to "Manosphere" ideologies as a broad-sweeping statement about belief systems that represent the masculine identity, that is to say masculinists.
Misogynist Incels and Male Supremacism: Red Pill to Black Pill
Author/date not specified
Below, we have repeated stereotyping phrases such as "misogynist incel", pessimistic/bleak outlooks of the sexually and romantically isolated communities, pseudo science, and "toxic masculinity" through "lookism". So the allegation is that incels either do not self-improve or that when they do, it is "toxic".
Hegemonic masculinities in the ‘Manosphere’: A thematic analysis of beliefs about men and women on The Red Pill and Incel
Vallerga & Zurbriggen, 2022
In this one, the author argues that masculinist ideology celebrates "hegemonic masculinity" and "endorses suicide" among young men, not to mention fringe group radicalisation and sexual aggression:
Ironically, after another "academia apologist" cited songs that she felt reinforce "toxic masculinity", I identified how plenty of songs reinforcing toxic femininity are not in fact listed by google search algorithms. These include:
No Scrubs
TLC, 1999
Mr Personality
Gillette, 1994
Ironically, having mentioned these because she could not find ones herself to prove there is no bias, she went on to find articles by doctors, psychologists and those with credentials about "toxic feminity" proving my point:
Toxic Femininity, Explained — Plus, Tips to Overcome This Mindset
Written By Rebecca Strong, Edited By Crystal Raypole, Medically Reviewed By Jacquelyn Johnson, PsyD. 2022
Notice how in all of these studies "toxic femininity", just like "toxic masculinity", is always blamed on ...
men.
It is pathological misandry. But as I mentioned to the feminist "academia apologia", she did indeed give me inspiration for today's journal entry, so there is that.
Here we can see that serious toxic feminine traits that contribute to psychological, social, legal and financial control through mind manipulation strategies are disregarded in favour of totally trivial, mundane character "flaws" like "has to have a male partner". Anything to the contrary is misogynist masculinist thinking. But these feminist bitches are allowed to say whatever misandrist shit they like about men being violent domestic abusers, rapists and murderers - "toxic masculinity" and whatever other venomous dick-o-phobic bile they like to regurgitate. Those individuals that do that truly are either malicious vindictive bitches, or self-castrated eunuchs with no pride in being male.
#Day 2 now and more of these feminist moral proselytising types are online causing unnecessary drama around my posts. Someone on ChastityMansion commented on a post of mine to say that she does not approve of the term feminist bitches and I had an actual follower comment - after total, dead silence to say that she was blocking me for the same reason. I mean why bother following me in the first place - did you actually look at the big bold font at the top of my profile that says ARE YOU A MASCULINIST ALLY? The 30+ listed entries under masculinism? The anguished scorn of feminist sneering condescension? Are you totally blind? It's as I said on teh interwebz,
The quote you are referring to was:
fuck these feminist bitches that think they talk for all women.
Do you claim to talk for all women? Do you use words like internalised misandry to speak for women who do not identify as feminists? Do you try to marginalise serious men's issues, obfuscating their significance or explain them away as somehow being symptomatic of patriarchy?
Silence. Because they cannot justify the vindictive nature of their movement, the unilateral representation of the feminine, the underrepresentation of men's issues - particular black men's issues - due to intersectional theory in academia, the way feminist narratives have taken up so much room in media discourse, the toxic nature of feminist rhetoric on social media, the dwindling and obfuscation of serious men's issues like death toll by profession, violent assault and mental health/suicide.
These apologists are like the religious moderate in DarkMatter's video where all they can see is "you called out extremist bigots in my movement, hey stop saying we're all the same" and proceeds to ignore the toxic elements that dominate discourse due to the very nature of the ideology itself. In one instance, it is belief in the divine, in the other instance it is belief in the divinity of the feminine. In the latter case, all the apologists can say is "stop calling feminists bitches". To reiterate the quotes of those condescending, hateful misandrists that seek to rubbish me online:
MEN ARE DYING BY THE HANDS OF OTHER MEN (mainly).
What's really funny is that incels post this kind of crap and then complain that women won't have sex with them.
But this is not the worst. The worst is the "academic apologia". The ones who say - "you cannot prove all feminists say these things", "you cannot prove this has a basis in academia", "you cannot prove there are insidious cultural narratives". The one who ridiculed me and claimed I would be unable to source my claims quickly dropped out of the discussion when I demonstrated how masculinists are generalised with red pill and incel ideologies in academia, making some inept and intellectually dishonest claims about proper formatting/citation reference style.
These are the resources she could not or would not address:
Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere
Valkenburgh et al, 2018
Below: Red Pill is an "expression of hegemonic masculinity". Theories of neoliberalism, may refer to conservative ideology which is also associated with patriarchal mindset by feminists but could simply be referring to economic liberalism, which in placing individual responsibility and accountability on individuals, Marxist and social democratic feminists can make the claim that men are not allowed to rely on support networks like mental health and redistribution through collective responsibility and accountability - "toxic masculinity". The author even says something to this effect in not only discussing "prescriptive emotional walls" but also arguing that Red Pill theory discusses women as "exchangeable commodities". Of course this is all attributed to "Manosphere" ideologies as a broad-sweeping statement about belief systems that represent the masculine identity, that is to say masculinists.
Misogynist Incels and Male Supremacism: Red Pill to Black Pill
Author/date not specified
Below, we have repeated stereotyping phrases such as "misogynist incel", pessimistic/bleak outlooks of the sexually and romantically isolated communities, pseudo science, and "toxic masculinity" through "lookism". So the allegation is that incels either do not self-improve or that when they do, it is "toxic".
Hegemonic masculinities in the ‘Manosphere’: A thematic analysis of beliefs about men and women on The Red Pill and Incel
Vallerga & Zurbriggen, 2022
In this one, the author argues that masculinist ideology celebrates "hegemonic masculinity" and "endorses suicide" among young men, not to mention fringe group radicalisation and sexual aggression:
Ironically, after another "academia apologist" cited songs that she felt reinforce "toxic masculinity", I identified how plenty of songs reinforcing toxic femininity are not in fact listed by google search algorithms. These include:
No Scrubs
TLC, 1999
Mr Personality
Gillette, 1994
Ironically, having mentioned these because she could not find ones herself to prove there is no bias, she went on to find articles by doctors, psychologists and those with credentials about "toxic feminity" proving my point:
Toxic Femininity, Explained — Plus, Tips to Overcome This Mindset
Written By Rebecca Strong, Edited By Crystal Raypole, Medically Reviewed By Jacquelyn Johnson, PsyD. 2022
Notice how in all of these studies "toxic femininity", just like "toxic masculinity", is always blamed on ...
men.
It is pathological misandry. But as I mentioned to the feminist "academia apologia", she did indeed give me inspiration for today's journal entry, so there is that.
Here we can see that serious toxic feminine traits that contribute to psychological, social, legal and financial control through mind manipulation strategies are disregarded in favour of totally trivial, mundane character "flaws" like "has to have a male partner". Anything to the contrary is misogynist masculinist thinking. But these feminist bitches are allowed to say whatever misandrist shit they like about men being violent domestic abusers, rapists and murderers - "toxic masculinity" and whatever other venomous dick-o-phobic bile they like to regurgitate. Those individuals that do that truly are either malicious vindictive bitches, or self-castrated eunuchs with no pride in being male.
D
Deleted member 100026
Positive Masculinity Theory is Hurting Masculinist Representation in Academia
I'm not even bothering to count days for no-fap anymore. Until I either get back to Birmingham or stop using fetlife (or maybe both), I don't think I will be able to participate in a meaningful sense. Anyway, I have previously written on positive masculinity theory in a lot more depth with extensive citation, see here but feminist detractors on the site are not interested in engaging with the resources in a meaningful sense anyway so instead, I am going to rewrite this but without most of the jargon to make it more comprehensive for others.
Essentially, the problem with positive masculinist theory is as I told a non-feminist egalitarian on the site. Academics no longer wish to analyse working men's struggles from the lens of prevailing economic, social and racial causality. Instead they wish to attribute those issues to the very nature of masculinity itself. In America, the young black masculinist faces a higher likelihood of death by violent assault, there are more guns in his neighbourhood, more drugs, politicians have stripped his surroundings from political representation by gerrymandering, contributing to the ability of those politicians to strip away resources for policing, education and community infrastructure, instead putting those resources into suburban middle class neighbourhoods, to benefit white middle class mothers instead.
It is acknowledged by left wing feminists and academics that it is a prejudiced point of view to blame the fact of violence in these neighbourhoods on race, given the behaviours of the ruling elite to subjugate those minorities. However, to blame the issue on masculinity itself is considered legitimate because of the fact there are more men in politics. How short-sighted. In the west, we can see more men than ever dying in the Ukraine war because Americophilic interests in Balticconector have lead to the insidious impact oil lobbyists have had on the media in provoking exacerbations with Russia. The cultural alienation from the Ukrainian government felt by Russian separatists in Crimea and the eastern Oblasts of Ukraine, and the fact communist protestors were burned alive in a building is not reported by the media because the authoritarian Putin wants to build a pipeline in this region.
But because of these exacerbations for commercial interests (the reality of which is heavily suppressed by the western media) we have Afghanistan 2.0 and this time it is in the East of Europe. Many Russian men will be conscripted who did not support Putin. Many men defending the oblasts in East Ukraine who feel alienated by Zelenskyy will die in their alliances with the Russian army. Many men from Ukraine who identify as European and pro-democracy will die. Many men from Western Europe and America who have been duped by their own media narratives will die also. But the left-wing inspired media in the west can only see this as a war for democracy. And we see here the full impact that "culturally sensitive" ideologies like feminism have on men in contemporary society, and the tyrannical suppression of productive, masculinist counter-narrative.
I'm not even bothering to count days for no-fap anymore. Until I either get back to Birmingham or stop using fetlife (or maybe both), I don't think I will be able to participate in a meaningful sense. Anyway, I have previously written on positive masculinity theory in a lot more depth with extensive citation, see here but feminist detractors on the site are not interested in engaging with the resources in a meaningful sense anyway so instead, I am going to rewrite this but without most of the jargon to make it more comprehensive for others.
Essentially, the problem with positive masculinist theory is as I told a non-feminist egalitarian on the site. Academics no longer wish to analyse working men's struggles from the lens of prevailing economic, social and racial causality. Instead they wish to attribute those issues to the very nature of masculinity itself. In America, the young black masculinist faces a higher likelihood of death by violent assault, there are more guns in his neighbourhood, more drugs, politicians have stripped his surroundings from political representation by gerrymandering, contributing to the ability of those politicians to strip away resources for policing, education and community infrastructure, instead putting those resources into suburban middle class neighbourhoods, to benefit white middle class mothers instead.
It is acknowledged by left wing feminists and academics that it is a prejudiced point of view to blame the fact of violence in these neighbourhoods on race, given the behaviours of the ruling elite to subjugate those minorities. However, to blame the issue on masculinity itself is considered legitimate because of the fact there are more men in politics. How short-sighted. In the west, we can see more men than ever dying in the Ukraine war because Americophilic interests in Balticconector have lead to the insidious impact oil lobbyists have had on the media in provoking exacerbations with Russia. The cultural alienation from the Ukrainian government felt by Russian separatists in Crimea and the eastern Oblasts of Ukraine, and the fact communist protestors were burned alive in a building is not reported by the media because the authoritarian Putin wants to build a pipeline in this region.
But because of these exacerbations for commercial interests (the reality of which is heavily suppressed by the western media) we have Afghanistan 2.0 and this time it is in the East of Europe. Many Russian men will be conscripted who did not support Putin. Many men defending the oblasts in East Ukraine who feel alienated by Zelenskyy will die in their alliances with the Russian army. Many men from Ukraine who identify as European and pro-democracy will die. Many men from Western Europe and America who have been duped by their own media narratives will die also. But the left-wing inspired media in the west can only see this as a war for democracy. And we see here the full impact that "culturally sensitive" ideologies like feminism have on men in contemporary society, and the tyrannical suppression of productive, masculinist counter-narrative.
I am not on this website every day for immediate response. I don't want to argue with you. I'm just asking if you can please stop calling women bitches.
It's also hurtful that you call men you disagree with eunuchs.
D
Deleted member 100026
I do not call all women bitches, as clarified.
I also do not call all men eunuchs.
Those who hurt me, deserve names. But I still do not name call those individually.