Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Misandry and the denigration of men is quite pervasive in western media these days, and for the moment seems to be institutionally accepted. Men are waking up to this, but I don't see how this can be pinpointed as the cause for any drop in marriage rates as opposed to other factors in our rapidly changing society, especially as men are often quite culpable when it comes to anti-male attitudes and inequalities.

 dogma wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I have not experienced a war on men. I make 10-20% more than my mammary gland enhanced counterparts.

But 10-20% less than those with enhanced mammary glands.

... I like you. You can stay.

The draft thing's an interesting point, especially with more and more females serving in positions outside the FOB or other relatively "safe" environments. With all female contact teams, the Marine Corps Lioness program, female officers joining the Submarine community, female pilots including attack helos, a lot of traditionally male military roles are having females fill them and succeed in them... depending on who you ask any way. YMMV on some of the former there.

That said I can see no good or legal reason that prevents women from having to register for selective service alongside their male counterparts. Not that any one in the US military /wants/ a draft... talk to a 'Nam vet or a fella from the 80s about the post draft military, crap was a bloody nightmare.

On a side note how do you all define equality? For me I define it as "Having equal responsibility, equal standing and equal legal protection in the eyes of the State and society." the latter of the two being the more difficult to achieve...

Ok, In all seriousness, No i do not think there is a literal war on men.
Men do tend to get the shaft on some things. For example, Child Care and Alimony(Can someone explain me how someone is entitled to the earnings of someone they have just left?)
Also Kramer Vs. Kramer comes in, where the court decides the wife(who left the kid and husband) gets custody because they think by default women are better suited.
I think this is a reaction to the more equal opportunity that is out there, those that grew up thinking they will be better off because they are men are now finding themselves disarmed of that advantage.

 AustonT wrote:

Whole bedroom, racks on the walls racks in the middle. Labeled organized by type and color. She told me she had lost count but there were literally hundreds. It was quite the sight.

Damn. It would have been more the conscious organization that threw me.

Image relevant:

See, this is actually another example of the war on men.

A woman has a well organzied collection of women's shoes, and it's "a girl thing."

When people see my well organized collection of women's shoes, they call the police.

 Phototoxin wrote:
What many feminists do not realise is that they are not men. They cannot have the same expectations as men do because they are not men.

There is truth in this, and the various waves of feminism are evidence, but I suspect there is more gender bias here than rational consideration of sexual distinction.

 Polonius wrote:
When people see my well organized collection of women's shoes, they call the police.

I'll take that case.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Phototoxin wrote:
What many feminists do not realise is that they are not men.

LOL by all means go ahead and let them know right away.

 Polonius wrote:
See, this is actually another example of the war on men.

A woman has a well organzied collection of women's shoes, and it's "a girl thing."

When people see my well organized collection of women's shoes, they call the police.

Well to be fair, they are all blood stained...

Shoes are creepy if you keep the previous owners feet in them.

 Manchu wrote:

- not going to college
- working at low-paying jobs
- taking up hobbies to avoid paying into a system that uses state and federal programs to transfer men’s taxes to women.

To me, this is the quintessential loser. For crying out loud, he's only interested in his hobbies as a way to hypothetically hurt the women that he didn't meet in college, aren't impressed with his low-paying job, and will never marry.

Is it me, or is this judgement upon an entire generation of men is completely counter-factual? I know for a fact that men still make up most of the high paying jobs, now, higher education I'm not sure, but most of the teacher in my fac are men. And are we really equating hobbies with mysoginy? Hobbies are based around center of interest, from birth man and women are educated toward different interests. I doubt there's ever been a time in history when man didn't have hobbies that seemed stupid to women.

And under-achievers have always existed, ever since there's been a a concept of social success. How can she tell that there's more loser today than a generation ago?

Wonder how many here would take up this arguement with their female sig others to post their opinion heres

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder how many here would take up this arguement with their female sig others to post their opinion heres

I call 'em out all the time.

Interesting conversations I'll tell ya...

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder how many here would take up this arguement with their female sig others to post their opinion heres

My SO sees what I post here all the time, it's why the couch is so well used.

As do I. My wife finds Da Frazz funny as all git go.

I don't think there's a war against men, unless you count the relatively few extreme feminists who are actually anti-men as a big enough group to wage that war (I don't).

I'm curious about the custody issue though. It seems that statistically, mothers are more likely to get custody of the children, but is that because the mothers are more likely to get the children just because they are the mother, or because fathers are less likely to pursue custody for whatever reason, like not actually being that interested in having their kids that much, or that maybe they just assumed the mother would get custody so they didn't push for it?

I've certainly known a lot of divorced dads who barely ever get to see their kids, but all of the divorced dads I know who are competent parents who actually wanted to see their kids were pretty easily able to get close to 50% custody or generous visitation rights. For example, my brother and his ex-wife are both perfectly capable parents, and when they were getting divorced the judge basically said that there was no reason to give him less than 50% custody if that's what he wanted.

So I guess what I'm wondering is, is part of the reason men are less likely to get custody of their children because men are less likely to actually want custody to begin with?

Also, from what I've seen (anecdotally) most of the guys who make a big stink (and start blogs and "pro-men" websites) about how unfairly they were treated by the family court are transparently enormous donkey-caves, so if the court didntt see fit to give them 50% custody, it doesn't exactly look like a shocking injustice.

Not that some men aren't genuinely mistreated in custody disputes, but the idea of a war on men is mostly whining from guys who wish it was the 50s and are deluding themselves into believing that if it was, they'd be Jon Hamm on Mad Men.

Misandry and the denigration of men is quite pervasive in western media these days, and for the moment seems to be institutionally accepted.

I don't think that's true at all. Men are certainly the butt of a lot of jokes in TV and film, but that's mostly because writers of general-audience fare probably find that it's safer to poke fun at people who have more power in society, which men still do. It's like how words like "honkey", or "cracker" aren't as hurtful or hateful as the equivalent words aimed at minorities. White guys still are the folks in power, and words have less ability to denigrate and hurt us.

The only real issues I have within this sphere are as follows - a man and a woman get together and bone. This leads to a pregnancy - the woman wants to keep the child and the man does not - the man is financially obligated to support the child, if the woman so desires it. If the woman wants to terminate and the man wants the child, then the child is done for. There is no good or easy solution to this sort of situation that doesn't abrogate the rights of one party. Hopefully in the not too distant future we can create an artificial womb or something, but until then, it is a sticky wicket.

My second major issue is that I am of the opinion that the shift in education over the last few decades has directly hurt dudes in favor of helping chicks - the whole kindness, positivity, gentle encouragement nonsense doesn't work with teenage boys. You have to beat civility into the heads of those little monsters to make them into productive members of society. I am about at the point where I think classes ought to be segregated by gender, because we all just learn in different ways. Boys need discipline to turn us into bridge building continent subduing badasses. Kind words and telling us that failing is just as good as passing just makes us not give a gak, because we take that sentiment at face value.

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder how many here would take up this arguement with their female sig others to post their opinion heres

I asked my wife about this and after half an hour of dodging plates and pans, I came to the conclusion there is no war on men.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder how many here would take up this arguement with their female sig others to post their opinion heres

I asked my wife about this and after half an hour of dodging plates and pans, I came to the conclusion there is no war on men.

Did you negotiate some kind of cease fire?

I'll never forget the advice my dad gave me when I told him I was getting married - "Marriage is great. Everyone should trying it 3 or 4 times."

 Bromsy wrote:
The only real issues I have within this sphere are as follows - a man and a woman get together and bone. This leads to a pregnancy - the woman wants to keep the child and the man does not - the man is financially obligated to support the child, if the woman so desires it. If the woman wants to terminate and the man wants the child, then the child is done for. There is no good or easy solution to this sort of situation that doesn't abrogate the rights of one party. Hopefully in the not too distant future we can create an artificial womb or something, but until then, it is a sticky wicket.

My second major issue is that I am of the opinion that the shift in education over the last few decades has directly hurt dudes in favor of helping chicks - the whole kindness, positivity, gentle encouragement nonsense doesn't work with teenage boys. You have to beat civility into the heads of those little monsters to make them into productive members of society. I am about at the point where I think classes ought to be segregated by gender, because we all just learn in different ways. Boys need discipline to turn us into bridge building continent subduing badasses. Kind words and telling us that failing is just as good as passing just makes us not give a gak, because we take that sentiment at face value.

Exalted and quoted for truth. I'm all for equality but the genders are still pretty different in how we do business. Gender segregation in classes doesn't sound like a bad thing either, you'd probably get both sexes to focus a little better if they weren't dealing with the usual hormone rush in the teenage years telling them to ignore the math's lecture and peek down Becky's blouse all class instead.

 Bromsy wrote:
The only real issues I have within this sphere are as follows - a man and a woman get together and bone. This leads to a pregnancy - the woman wants to keep the child and the man does not - the man is financially obligated to support the child, if the woman so desires it. If the woman wants to terminate and the man wants the child, then the child is done for. There is no good or easy solution to this sort of situation that doesn't abrogate the rights of one party. Hopefully in the not too distant future we can create an artificial womb or something, but until then, it is a sticky wicket.

My second major issue is that I am of the opinion that the shift in education over the last few decades has directly hurt dudes in favor of helping chicks - the whole kindness, positivity, gentle encouragement nonsense doesn't work with teenage boys.
Maybe the whole gentleness thing was a way to HELP women in school. TBH i think. you are wrong. I know many of men who are kind and succesful in school.

Why shouldnt we encourage that failure is okay? It teaches you to persevere. I just failed my drivers test for the 4th time, not even making it out of the parking lot, sure i talked about not doing it again, but i didnt mean it, im going to keep taking the test till i get it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
The only real issues I have within this sphere are as follows - a man and a woman get together and bone. This leads to a pregnancy - the woman wants to keep the child and the man does not - the man is financially obligated to support the child, if the woman so desires it. If the woman wants to terminate and the man wants the child, then the child is done for. There is no good or easy solution to this sort of situation that doesn't abrogate the rights of one party. Hopefully in the not too distant future we can create an artificial womb or something, but until then, it is a sticky wicket.

My second major issue is that I am of the opinion that the shift in education over the last few decades has directly hurt dudes in favor of helping chicks - the whole kindness, positivity, gentle encouragement nonsense doesn't work with teenage boys.
Maybe the whole gentleness thing was a way to HELP women in school. TBH i think. you are wrong. I know many of men who are kind and succesful in school.

Why shouldnt we encourage that failure is okay? It teaches you to persevere. I just failed my drivers test for the 4th time, not even making it out of the parking lot, sure i talked about not doing it again, but i didnt mean it, im going to keep taking the test till i get it.

Failing is not the problem...

QUITTING is...

Failing implies that you're trying and if you fail, you do whatever to overcome.

For inspiration... "Come Back for More":

 hotsauceman1 wrote:


Why shouldnt we encourage that failure is okay? It teaches you to persevere. I just failed my drivers test for the 4th time, not even making it out of the parking lot, sure i talked about not doing it again, but i didnt mean it, im going to keep taking the test till i get it.

1.you have provided the perfect example of why we shouldn't encourage that failure is OK.
2. Do yourself a solid and move to a city with an excellent or at least acceptable public transportation system and buy a bus pass.
Partial kidding aside accepting failure without encouraging actual failure is perserverance which Im pretty sure is considered a virtue.

W. C. Fields wrote:
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it.

 AustonT wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:


Why shouldnt we encourage that failure is okay? It teaches you to persevere. I just failed my drivers test for the 4th time, not even making it out of the parking lot, sure i talked about not doing it again, but i didnt mean it, im going to keep taking the test till i get it.

1.you have provided the perfect example of why we shouldn't encourage that failure is OK.
2. Do yourself a solid and move to a city with an excellent or at least acceptable public transportation system and buy a bus pass.
Partial kidding aside accepting failure without encouraging actual failure is perserverance which Im pretty sure is considered a virtue.

Failure is Ok aslong as we dont let our failure Control us. When i star teaching im not just going to fail a student and give him an F. Ill fail him, pull him aside when i can to tell him why he failed and how to better yourself.
We dont get anywhere without failure.

 Hordini wrote:
I don't think there's a war against men, unless you count the relatively few extreme feminists who are actually anti-men as a big enough group to wage that war (I don't).

Though I do think that there exists a disproportionately large group of men that believe such a war exists, for various (mostly unflattering) reasons. This is mostly based on gender expectations. I wrestled with a guy in high school that was terrified of wrestling a girl, because she was definitively better than him at that league and weight (23-4 v. 12-11). And he never lived down the fact that he lost despite being a man.

The stigma was from his fellow men, not from the women. And I'll admit I stupidly participated, but the problem is with our gender not their's.

 Hordini wrote:

I'm curious about the custody issue though. It seems that statistically, mothers are more likely to get custody of the children, but is that because the mothers are more likely to get the children just because they are the mother, or because fathers are less likely to pursue custody for whatever reason, like not actually being that interested in having their kids that much, or that maybe they just assumed the mother would get custody so they didn't push for it?

That is an interesting question that I've not looked into, I may do so.

 Hordini wrote:

So I guess what I'm wondering is, is part of the reason men are less likely to get custody of their children because men are less likely to actually want custody to begin with?

I think its certainly part of the question, but there are further issues to consider:

1: How is receiving custody rights consider? To men that never claim custody rights get counted into the total of men who get custody rights?

2: Obviously, do mothers receive favoritism? My guess is that they do, but I would wonder if there exists a 'why' dimension.

Women tend to win custody of children because of the traditional (patriarchal) view that women are the carers.

That situation has been changing since the sexual revolution, and it is becoming easier for men to get custody.