Society/Culture War on Boys

Feb 12, 2009
10,059
1,872
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats, Swan Districts
You can't do it.

We all know that.

To all reading, this post of Bushie's is level of disingenuous that feminists and their mangina allies resort to. Guilty until proven innocent is the game. Bushie, you can't evidence your claim, so you've resorted to shifting the burden. Nice try, but all to desperate and transparent.
 

slicedndiced

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2014
4,860
6,009
still sinking
AFL Club
Fremantle
To all reading, this post of Bushie's is level of disingenuous that feminists and their mangina allies resort to. Guilty until proven innocent is the game. Bushie, you can't evidence your claim, so you've resorted to shifting the burden. Nice try, but all to desperate and transparent.

Stop crying, it's unbecoming to such a big, strong man, such as yourself.

Again, show me some posts where you have added some balance to your ongoing diatribe of hate and bias.
 
Feb 12, 2009
10,059
1,872
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats, Swan Districts
Stop crying, it's unbecoming to such a big, strong man, such as yourself.

Again, show me some posts where you have added some balance to your ongoing diatribe of hate and bias.

If you're simply going to ask the same question again after I've already answered it, I'll again post the same answer for you:

To all reading, this post of Bushie's is level of disingenuous that feminists and their mangina allies resort to. Guilty until proven innocent is the game. Bushie, you can't evidence your claim, so you've resorted to shifting the burden. Nice try, but all to desperate and transparent.
 

slicedndiced

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2014
4,860
6,009
still sinking
AFL Club
Fremantle
If you're simply going to ask the same question again after I've already answered it, I'll again post the same answer for you:

To all reading, this post of Bushie's is level of disingenuous that feminists and their mangina allies resort to. Guilty until proven innocent is the game. Bushie, you can't evidence your claim, so you've resorted to shifting the burden. Nice try, but all to desperate and transparent.


As I stated previously...you can't do it.

You sir, are a loon.
 

Santana

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 28, 2008
9,767
7,668
........
That's the bizarre thing.

They are more interested in criticising a woman for not leaving an abusive relationship than criticising the abuser.

It's disturbing how much hatred they have.
It's already been said that pretty much all of the responsibility lines with the abusive male partner if this is the reason a single mother is in that position. We understand that leaving an abusive relationship for a woman can be difficult, but is there not some responsibility on the woman's part to do all she can not to at least get pregnant with a s**t partner, for he kids sake at least.

Maybe I've got it all wrong. Here I've been thinking for years that women were adults and were at least somewhat responsible for what they do in life. I know better now. Women are basically over grown children themselves and should be treated with kids gloves.

Okay, let's take out the big mean evil men for a second. Lets say that a woman goes for a night on the town and gets knocked up by a guy she first meets. She decides to keep the baby even though she's not in a relationship. Is this a single mother that can be criticized or do we still have to pat her on the back?

I think I said you're the only one who is bad.
Well maybe I am, but then again I've never brought an illegitimate child into this world, at least I've got that going for me.


The feminists are probably lesbians, closet gays or obese.

I think it's pretty clear that with a lot of these male feminists they were raised by single mothers themselves. It's why they put women on a pedestal. They live for female approval, which is why they never criticize women ever. It's also why they're self hating men... daddy issues.
 
Last edited:
You never did get around to clarifying whether you think women enjoy rape or invite it through their behaviour.
Tess is fair and balanced on this topic:

Some enjoy it, some invite it through their behaviour.
 
Sep 21, 2004
46,417
52,570
AFL Club
GWS
Tess is fair and balanced on this topic:

Some enjoy it, some invite it through their behaviour.
Nah he has wilted and doesnt have the courage to discuss what he thinks.

Perhaps Paul has said he should stop saying what he really thinks, because people would realise how far gone he is. Kind of like how he had to warn conference goers to stop saying what they really think because it would publicly embarrass them.

For that reason, ANYONE sitting around trash-talking women, men, making violent statements, even jokingly, will be brought to the attention of security who will issue ONE warning (or less). After that, they will be directed by security to leave. There are no exceptions.

Please, for all here who are attending, keep this in mind with everything you do and say. Even at after-hours social events, if you hear anyone saying anything that can be used against us, or that makes our gathering toxic, pull them aside politely and say, “Hey, you are hurting us with this. If you want to hang with this group you have to stop it.”
 
Sep 21, 2004
46,417
52,570
AFL Club
GWS
but is there not some responsibility on the woman's part to do all she can not to at least get pregnant with a s**t partner, for he kids sake at least.
For the kids sake? You couldnt give a * about kids. They are just background for you to further alienate single mothers.


Okay, let's take out the big mean evil men for a second. Lets say that a woman goes for a night on the town and gets knocked up by a guy she first meets. She decides to keep the baby even though she's not in a relationship. Is this a single mother that can be criticized or do we still have to pat her on the back?
Why do you have to do anything? You can **** shame all you want, it makes you look creepy.

Well maybe I am, but then again I've never brought an illegitimate child into this world, at least I've got that going for me.
Illegitimate? Do you run the lamington drive at the local RSL? Anyone one calling a kid illegitimate would probably get one right in the jaw from the parent.

At least that 'care for the kids' facade you put up is gone.


I think it's pretty clear that with a lot of these male feminists they were raised by single mothers themselves. It's why they put women on a pedestal. They live for female approval, which is why they never criticize women ever. It's also why they're self hating men... daddy issues.

Nah, the self-hating men are the ones who go around wanting to shame single mothers, whinge about their lack of status and have very dangerous views on rape.
 
Jul 19, 2005
14,271
10,466
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
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.

Interesting post. A meta analysis of these threads would be facinating to read.

But I assure most of us are well aware of the debating 'tactics' of Chief, Sid and co.

Chief never gets into detailed posts because he is a terrible debator. The easy way to deal with him is simply go in depth into a topic and he will run faster then Cale Morton. With a parting shot of course.

Sid is an interesting one. Some of his posts reveal they he has at least some knowledge of modern gender studies talking points, perhaps he did a undergrad course on it. He very much likes to attack and keep things personal. He is very reluctant to state his own views for fear of criticism When pressed he becomes vague and evasive.

I do think sometimes we get too bogged down in small details. Its very much the difference between modern and post modern discource.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_postmodernism

Seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc? These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames.

Could someone actually make a list of what information Sid, Chief, etc have actually added to this thread or the other one? A list of actual arguments, sources, etc? I suspect it would be struggle. Between these two threads we have probably somewhere in the realm of 80+ pages. Managing to keep these threads going that long without actually putting up an argument is quite a feat.

They are deliberately vague because if they actually stated their views and why they believed them they would be shredded.

But your are correct only one 'side' is actually arguing in good faith.
 
Sep 21, 2004
46,417
52,570
AFL Club
GWS
Could someone actually make a list of what information Sid, Chief, etc have actually added to this thread or the other one? A list of actual arguments, sources, etc? I suspect it would be struggle. Between these two threads we have probably somewhere in the realm of 80+ pages. Managing to keep these threads going that long without actually putting up an argument is quite a feat.

They are deliberately vague because if they actually stated their views and why they believed them they would be shredded.

But your are correct only one 'side' is actually arguing in good faith.

This thread started off with the rediculous proposition there is a war on boys. It only took a few posts to highlight how wrong the proposition was. The OP had something about recess being gone and no competition in schools. I think it took me 2 sentences to show how wrong it was. My argument was that schools are run by corporatist, economically rational forces who have neither the time nor inclination to pursue a radically feminist agenda. Go back and read it.

There was a rant about single mothers from one of you boys. A few of us put that down.

As Ive said repeatedly, most of your arguments come from places of bigotry and hatred. How do I disprove Im a 'mangina'? How do I refute some moron using the phrase 'utensil carousel'? What do I say to the legion of your type that were trying to find reasons to shame single mothers? Are people implying that some women have rape fantasies therefore some women want rape worthy of engaging with? No.

And get your logic consistent; radical feminist or no argument. One or the other.
 

Santana

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 28, 2008
9,767
7,668
........
For the kids sake? You couldnt give a **** about kids. They are just background for you to further alienate single mothers.

No actually it’s the likes of you and some single mothers who are the ones who couldn't give a s**t about the children. Who cases about some kid when some women can empowered, right?

Alienate single mothers? Oh boo woo to a few hurt feelings. No one is trying to alienate anyone. There are some single mothers who are fine but there are also some who ****ed up and deserve to be called out.

Every child deserves the best possible chance to be brought up by both their mother and father. Sometimes this is not the case because the father ****ed up, sometimes it’s the mother who ****ed up, sometimes it's both. It isn't like you people wouldn’t have a problem calling out the father is he was the main reason for the child being brought up by one parent, so with equality and all that, we’re also going to call out the mother too. Oh no wait! We can’t because feelings > how children are raised.

Why do you have to do anything? You can **** shame all you want, it makes you look creepy.

**** shaming? The word **** wasn’t even used there. Yet another straw man and an attempt to move the attention from the actual question. Modern day feminism 101 this stuff is.

Come on Kidd, tell us the situations when a single mother is allowed to be criticized or do we have to put them all under the same umbrella and just applaud every time we see one and pat her on the back for being such a hero? I take it this also applies to single fathers… oh wait, of course it doesn't, they’re men after all.

Illegitimate? Do you run the lamington drive at the local RSL? Anyone one calling a kid illegitimate would probably get one right in the jaw from the parent.

At least that 'care for the kids' facade you put up is gone.

I agree it’s an ugly name and not fair on the kid, but then again not having the chance to be brought up by both parents isn't really fair on the kid either is it?

Nah, the self-hating men are the ones who go around wanting to shame single mothers, whinge about their lack of status and have very dangerous views on rape.

No actually we’re not the ones who blame all of the world’s evils on those wicked men and try to absolve any type of responsibility for women because even when they do bad stuff it’s actually because those damn men made them do it. Right?

Reading some of these threads you could almost be mistaken into thinking women aren't the equals to men, that they can’t take criticism or any responsibility, that maybe I was misled into thinking they were adults. But then I remind myself I’m just talking to parasite feminists whose twisted view of the genders and the world is slowly becoming a thing of the past. Honestly modern day feminism can’t die off quickly enough.
 
Back