Society/Culture War on Boys

[Scallop Industry Thug]

This scum thinks they are presenting some underground truth.

It's covered on tabloid media every night. In fact, Im not totally discounting the possibility that all these accounts belong to Tracey Grimshaw and Martin King.

 

[Chief]

This thread has some talk as to why single mothers leave the father of their children. Hence "There's some talk involving scenarios with violent dads and so forth in this thread".

It's been suggested ITT that there's no reason to criticize and/or shame single mothers. I raised a point or two in which cases single mothers should be criticized.

Women having many babies purely for the benefits - how many of them are out there?

 

[tesseract]

Women having many babies purely for the benefits - how many of them are out there?

Are stats even kept on such a figure? No. So such a question is disingenuous. It's been pointed out that single mums shouldn't be criticized. I gave a reason as to why they possibly could.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

It's been pointed out that single mums shouldn't be criticized.

It's been pointed out that single mothers should be criticised solely on account of single mothers.

Look at these single mothers. Swimming in it.

Tesseract, you are scum.



Income test—single parents
Your income must be no more than $184.60, plus $24.60 for each additional child, per fortnight to get the maximum payment. Income over this amount reduces your payment by 40 cents in the dollar


Payment rates for Parenting Payment
The amount of Parenting Payment you get depends on your family situation. The rates are updated on 20 March and 20 September each year.

Family situationMaximum fortnightly payment
Single $713.20 (includes the Pension Supplement)
Couple$460.90
Couple, separated due to illness, respite care, or prison$552.40

 

[tesseract]

Im not totally discounting the possibility that all these accounts belong to Tracey Grimshaw and Martin King.

Is not Tracy Grimshaw a lesbian feminist? Her views are no doubt similar to yours, given your mangina status.

 

[tesseract]

It's been pointed out that single mothers should be criticised solely on account of single mothers.

Look at these single mothers. Swimming in it.

Tesseract, you are scum.



Income test—single parents
Your income must be no more than $184.60, plus $24.60 for each additional child, per fortnight to get the maximum payment. Income over this amount reduces your payment by 40 cents in the dollar


Payment rates for Parenting Payment
The amount of Parenting Payment you get depends on your family situation. The rates are updated on 20 March and 20 September each year.

Family situationMaximum fortnightly payment
Single $713.20 (includes the Pension Supplement)
Couple$460.90
Couple, separated due to illness, respite care, or prison$552.40

My pointing out "It's been pointed out that single mums shouldn't be criticized" has nothing to do with the figures you've posted. Your post has nothing to do with mine. Typical fail from you.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Is not Tracy Grimshaw a lesbian feminist? Her views are no doubt similar to yours, given your mangina status.

Grimshaw is a host of a tabloid, rubbish program that appeals to the most hateful instincts of the typical bogan moron. Which is you.

 

[Chief]

Are stats even kept on such a figure? No. So such a question is disingenuous. It's been pointed out that single mums shouldn't be criticized. I gave a reason as to why they possibly could.

Another reason single mums could be criticised is genocide. I don't know how many, if any, are up to that sort of mischief but they possibly could be criticised for it.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

My pointing out "It's been pointed out that single mums shouldn't be criticized" has nothing to do with the figures you've posted. Your post has nothing to do with mine. Typical fail from you.

You little boys really are gutless. As soon as you get shown for the idiots you are, you run behind some parsing or equivocation.

I wonder why you fascists don't come out of the woodwork more?

Oh, that's right.

 

[tesseract]

Grimshaw is a host of a tabloid, rubbish program that appeals to the most hateful instincts of the typical bogan moron. Which is you.

Yet Grimshaw is a feminist, and you're a feminists' underling/worker drone due to your mangina status. You do all the work spewing hatred while the feminists sit back, watch and keep their hands relatively clean. (I hope you at least get a pat on the head for your efforts.) This thread and others related to feminism are thoroughly populated with the vile hatred you spew. It's interesting projection given you don't seem to understand the irony involved in your post.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Yet Grimshaw is a feminist, and you're a feminists' underling/worker drone due to your mangina status.

If you've got any evidence that Grimshaw is a feminist, I'd love to see it. It certainly doesnt come through in her tabloid, victim bashing show whose views you encapsulate.

I see yoiu've backed away from your claims about single mothers.

 

[tesseract]

If you've got any evidence that Grimshaw is a feminist, I'd love to see it. It certainly doesnt come through in her tabloid, victim bashing show whose views you encapsulate.

I see yoiu've backed away from your claims about single mothers.

Have I not previously told you that when you go and back up your claims, then I'll do so for you?

The MSM being friendly to MHRM views? That's new. I give you points for being original, but you show yourself to be deluded when you put the two entities together in such a way.

What claim regarding single mothers are you specifically referring to?

 

[Slippery Pete]

I haven't read any of this Paul Elam character's stuff, so can't comment on any of the content.

I've read bits and pieces of this thread and the other one though in the last couple of days and here's how I assess our MRA v Feminist showdown.

MRAs - 0
Feminists - 0

The feminists did take a dive in the 'box' (heh) in the 92nd minute but the referee was wise to it.

Here's some other highly interesting facts I've observed:

-The feminists tend to be craftier debaters than the MRAs. (Maybe all those liberal arts degrees have a use afterall?)

-The MRAs tend to get bogged down in overly logical thought processes and end up submitting to the feminists' passive-aggressive frame. The feminists then prefer to sit back and watch as the MRAs hang themselves with one poorly worded "micro-aggression" in a page-long manifesto of scientific analysis. (Check your male privilege at the door bro!)

-The MRAs are probably on the autist spectrum.

-The feminists are probably lesbians, closet gays or obese.

-The feminists have a blatant strategy (they aint foolin' anyone): Ignore all good points made in opposition and mercilessly mock all bad points and insults (it's actually not such a bad tactic, not unlike the 92nd minute dive in the 'box.' - heh, am i the only one who finds that funny??) Feminists have been successfully propagandizing arguing in their corner of the internet echo-chamber for years. Hardcore male feminists are a relatively new breed but they do it just as well (must be all that estrogen). Insults and slogans to these people are like water off a duck's back.

-The MRAs strategy is to call out every bullshit point the feminists make, which might seem sound on the surface, but it's a recipe for disaster. They - being relatively new to the world of internet debating and trading insults based on ideologies - don't understand that arguing on the internet is like wearing a dress. Even if it fits, you still look stupid. Also, the MRAs are more likely to want to try and find something to agree on. Classic case of male projection - "If we can agree on this one point maybe we'll sort this out." Nope. Feminists crave confrontation. The MRA ends up in a maze of circular logic. The feminist then pounces.

-Name calling makes MRAs uncomfortable.

-The feminists love love love name-calling and being called names. The feminist will revel in being called a "feminazi" or a "boner-killer," a bit like mediterranean immigrants who embraced racial slurs and turned them on their heads into powerful social memes and self-describers.

-The feminists cite AVFM as dangerous extremists not worthy of time, and then in the same breath quote Daily Life writers. For the purposing of refereeing, I'm going to wager that AVFM and Daily Life are two sides of the same coin.

-The MRAs ask way too many questions.

-The feminists reword their questions as statements and then stick in the shiv. Once it's in there, they'll twist it too.

-Both groups should meet up and sort out the dispute with a massive orgy.

-The end.

 

[rickyp]

Does someone know the name of that law where it's difficult to tell if someone is being satirical or legitimate without knowing their original intent? Because I'm having a hard time working out if some of the above postings are satire.

 

[tesseract]

Here's some other highly interesting facts I've observed:

"Facts"? Perhaps personal observations.

-The feminists tend to be craftier debaters than the MRAs. (Maybe all those liberal arts degrees have a use afterall?)

It's questionable as to whether what feminists do here can even be labeled as debate. Perhaps loosely. They're good at throwing mud though.

-The MRAs tend to get bogged down in overly logical thought processes

This is because the MHRAs are talking to other logical male readers, not so much for the sake of convincing their feminist opponents, who we know aren't going to change.

-The feminists have a blatant strategy (they aint foolin' anyone): Ignore all good points made in opposition and mercilessly mock all bad points and insults

This, in part, evidences that feminists aren't interested in good faith debate.

-Name calling makes MRAs uncomfortable.

Although I'm not technically an MHRA, I sympathize with their POV. I've been called every name under the sun and I'm still here. I'm hardly uncomfortable with it.

-The feminists love love love name-calling and being called names. The feminist will revel in being called a "feminazi" or a "boner-killer," a bit like mediterranean immigrants who embraced racial slurs and turned them on their heads into powerful social memes and self-describers.

This is because feminists have very little to say that's of actual merit. Hence their having to force hostilities and manufacture strife between the genders in order to remain somewhat relevant. Given that feminists have only this one tactic, peace and good will is not in their interest.

-The MRAs ask way too many questions.

Why is that a bad thing when attempting to bring the truth to light?

-The feminists reword their questions as statements and then stick in the shiv. Once it's in there, they'll twist it too.

Such just goes to show that feminists aren't even attempting to debate in good faith and/or solve issues. They're just a hate movement.

-Both groups should meet up and sort out the dispute with a massive orgy.

That likely comes off as rapey to feminists.[/QUOTE]

 

[slicedndiced]

There's some talk involving scenarios with violent dads and so forth in this thread, but there's also Baby Mummas/Centrelink mums who churn out kids as part of a strategy in not having to work for a living who're also worthy of criticism. So, too, are the women who use getting sole/majority custody of the kids in a divorce/relationship break down as a means of getting him to prop up her lifestyle and/or her not having to work. Given the lack of oversight in child support in ensuring that funds are spent solely on the child, CS is more or less alimony in disguise. Alimony is one of the last forms of legalized slavery in the world, for a man doesn't get any benefits that otherwise would be had in the relationship but is still legally forced into paying much of his former missus' and children's way.

A man paying his fair share for kid(s) is well and good, but I believe how much a man should pay should be weighted by how much he gets to see his kids, as well as only paying his fair share for the kid(s) needs, not wants, when the kids are with her. Take the cash and prizes incentive away from women to frivolously divorce/dissolve the relationship with him in this day and age of no fault divorce and we'd soon see women changing their easy come, easy go strategy to relationships and see more kids getting more well rounded, thus better, upbringings by having both parents around to provide the benefit of both masculine and feminine characteristics and perspectives. There needs to be strict oversight for CS, for no moneys whatsoever should be allowed to be used by the former missus' own wants and needs with the funds he provides; but such won't happen in this backwards, politically correct, gynocentric society we currently live in that panders to women's every whim, whether rational or not.

Blah, blah, blah.

All dem evil single mothers.

Of course, a small minority do as you claim, yet they are more than balanced by the small minority of fathers who deliberately pay no child support at all.

The vast majority of parents, whether they be separated/divorced or still in a relationship, put their children first and at some great personal cost.

Yet, as usual, you only focus on a very few shitty women to push your hate barrow, whilst ignoring the big picture.

 

[tesseract]

Blah, blah, blah.

All dem evil single mothers.

Of course, a small minority do as you claim, yet they are more than balanced by the small minority of fathers who deliberately pay no child support at all.

The vast majority of parents, whether they be separated/divorced or still in a relationship, put their children first and at some great personal cost.

Yet, as usual, you only focus on a very few shitty women to push your hate barrow, whilst ignoring the big picture.

I notice you use terms such as "small number" and "few", yet don't back up such a claim. Not that you can when it comes to these single mums, for there's no statistics regarding Centrelink mums/Baby Mummas in the context I've previously used.
Don't just claim it, point out where I've shown hate to single mothers?

 

[slicedndiced]

I notice you use terms such as "small number" and "few", yet don't back up such a claim. Not that you can when it comes to these single mums, for there's no statistics regarding Centrelink mums/Baby Mummas in the context I've previously used.
Don't just claim it, point out where I've shown hate to single mothers?

If you were balanced, you would acknowledge that there are also fathers who never pay CS. However you and balance...

Why do I need to back this up??

Get outside, meet a few people, observe, get your head out of hate-filled websites.

You may learn a thing or two about reality.

 

[tesseract]

If you were balanced, you would acknowledge that there are also fathers who never pay CS. However you and balance...

Why do I need to back this up??

Get outside, meet a few people, observe, get your head out of hate-filled websites.

You may learn a thing or two about reality.

Who says that I don't acknowledge that some fathers don't pay child support? No, it's not like you at all, Bushie, to draw conclusions without evidence.

Your view is easily dismissed if you make claims you can't back up. That's just one reason I can foresee.

Who're you to say I don't "Get outside, meet a few people, observe"? Oops! And I just said that it's unlike you, Bushie, to draw conclusions without evidence.

 

[slicedndiced]

Who say that I don't acknowledge that some fathers don't pay child support?

I do.

 

[tesseract]

I do.

In true Bushie fashion it is said without a shred of evidence.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

If you were balanced, you would acknowledge that there are also fathers who never pay CS. However you and balance...

Why do I need to back this up??

Get outside, meet a few people, observe, get your head out of hate-filled websites.

You may learn a thing or two about reality.

Here is its debating style.

Make a rubbish, broad unverifiable claim then demand your retort to said claim is backed up by evidence.

They don't live in the real world. Their 'online activism' is their world.

 

[slicedndiced]

In true Bushie fashion it is said without a shred of evidence.

A 500+ post thread, where you are the main cheer leader of women hate, would say otherwise.

Please show me one of your posts where you have drawn some reasoned balance in regards to men's actions whilst denigrating womens.

 

[tesseract]

A 500+ post thread, where you are the main cheer leader of women hate, would say otherwise.

Please show me one of your posts where you have drawn some reasoned balance in regards to men's actions whilst denigrating womens.

You've made the claim that I "hate women", so back it up.

All my posts are here for all to read. You, too, are free to review them.

 

[slicedndiced]

You've made the claim that I "hate women", so back it up.

All my posts are here for all to read. You, too, are free to review them.

You can't do it.

We all know that.