Quote from Unregistered

1. I think nasty anti-female posts hurt men.

Yes, some of them do, just as nasty anti-male posts hurt some women. Some anti-female posts help both men and women.

Quote from Unregistered

It gives the misandrists ammunition, when they claim all men's rights people are all about hating women.

It might seem a minor matter but the fact that you can find about 2% of the posts on this site to be anti-female does not support anyone's claim that "all men's rights people are all about hating women". You can actually find a fair number of posts on this site that are anti-male, too. A website I use on Ford cars has about 20% of anti-Ford posts but I still wouldn't say the site shows that all Ford users are all about hating Ford cars.

Quote from Unregistered

People DO have the idea of extreme feminists, but feminism as been able to portray ALL men's rights people as extreme, and full of hate.

Feminism has been able to portray ANYTHING as negatively sexist, anti-woman, anti-feminist, hateful, etc. Feminists even pretend that men going to war hurts women the most, or that women having longer lives is because men oppress them.

Quote from Unregistered

So, they don't have to listen to anything we say. Of course, it doesn't help that we all support feminist propaganda with our tax dollars, in the guise of women's studies at most state universities and schools.

And those tax dollars are the only reason they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

Quote from Unregistered

2. What does drive me to misogyny is that women are so powerful. They're pretty much able to get away with whatever anti-male activity they choose, because we've all been well-indoctrinated to the notion that women are goddesses, and men, shady, at best.

I don't think you have stated goods enough reasons to hate women. Yes, society does give women too much power and privilege over men but most women merely make use of what's available to them, just as most men would. Instead of hating half the world's population, work against the acceptance of societal conditions and laws that prevent men being all that they could be.

Quote from Unregistered

Oh, yes, and that sexism is ONLY something men to do women. So, we don't start out on a level playing field, and most of us are out, shouting into the gale, for all the good it does.

I don't think this applies to women in general: it is a trait of feminism. You will find men and women who are feminists holding these views. You will find men and women who are anti-feminists and speak out against them.

In recent years, misandry has begun to rear its haggish head in a new and unexpected place: among the evangelical, family-values, promise-keeper crowd. Witness the prominence and the fawning cults of personality around such vacuous Mrs. Perfect figures as Sarah Palin. Their portrayal of the place of women, and the changing message within the evangelical community, is that a woman's place is to shore up the failures of men from having been too worldly, too distracted, too licentious to keep their minds on being good husbands and providers.

It is among church people and right-wingers that you will find the most obedient and submissive men, and the most shamelessly domineering women. The fictitious role of head-of-household they claim to support for men, historically a mythic figurehead role in that setting at best, is more symbolic and less effectual than ever. "Wait till your father gets home" means a woman's unilateral decision-making is guaranteed to receive an endorsement from a powerless monarch in the person of a man permitted only her account of events, or he will certainly receive any number of punishments the woman has available to render.

When my new age, wiccan, feminist-liberal ex-wife abducted my son she retreated immediately into the arms of the evangelicals in her new home town, adding "sin" to the long list of easy accusations she could make against me with total assurance of support from people who knew nothing about me.

As feminism is essentially a moralistic bombast to begin with, that it fits neatly into the evangelical mindset should be no surprise at all. Even pornstars and women who have had abortions make perfect conversion icons for the promotion of their version of "redemption", and with all the single moms running around looking for both a pity party and a new husband who won't challenge their preferred status of autocratic ruler of the home and owner of the children, church is the perfect place to go for both. Churches are full of young single men blinded by codes of submission and fear of too much interaction with the larger world, perfect candidates for "reformed" and "reborn" moms to tame and subjugate using no more than a few bible verses and the promise of sex only after a wedding.

It should also be no surprise that evangelical churches and organizations thrive most in settings where men spend the least time in the home or with their children, such as military towns and farm communities. A way of life that bends men to order and discipline and unquestioned authority, while keeping them absent from the day-to-day life of children and home, fits perfectly with a model of feminine dominance that has only to go through the motions of respect for a man's place.

I believe that the only way for a man to regain influence with his children in his home is to spend more time in it. Let the women go chase the dollars, as they spend most of them anyway. Even if it means washing more dishes and scrubbing more toilets and changing more diapers, men cannot allow unilateral female decision-making to strip us of our dignity over anachronistic and homophobic notions such as "women's work" that we are too proud to take part in. I haven't let or asked a woman to do my laundry in twenty years, I have my own room, I changed as many diapers as she did when the need arose, I eat one meal a day and usually prepare it myself, and I know where my socks are. The whole myth of lazy and useless men requiring women to be liberated is something we can answer by never allowing it to be true to begin with.

Quote from dinohip51

...

I believe that the only way for a man to regain influence with his children in his home is to spend more time in it. Let the women go chase the dollars, as they spend most of them anyway. Even if it means washing more dishes and scrubbing more toilets and changing more diapers, men cannot allow unilateral female decision-making to strip us of our dignity over anachronistic and homophobic notions such as "women's work" that we are too proud to take part in. I haven't let or asked a woman to do my laundry in twenty years, I have my own room, I changed as many diapers as she did when the need arose, I eat one meal a day and usually prepare it myself, and I know where my socks are. The whole myth of lazy and useless men requiring women to be liberated is something we can answer by never allowing it to be true to begin with.

haha! If this is the answer then I seriously would question what issue it is supposed to be addressing, because I have seen more men end up cucked on this approach than any other!

Not familiar with the term "cucked up", but if you'd care to elaborate on your argument I'd certainly continue the discussion. For context, I don't mean to suggest that my way of doing things is "the" answer, but rather suggest that expanding our vocabulary of available roles beyond the stereotypes and machismo that I feel confine men into a very narrow space might benefit men looking for their own answers, one man at a time.

The whole reason I resist "movement"-oriented thinking is that it calls to mind some sort of a march, such as was described in the film "Reds", with some sort of "unified theory and program", and this runs counter to everything I think is in men's best interest. Some of us are Oscars and some are Felixes, and I think most men have a little of both. I stand against any sort of prejudice that would have any one man or all men hesitate to make their own decisions because of a stereotype or popular perception that makes them feel anathemized. Why do men shave? Cut their hair? Wear cologne? Dress smartly? Look in mirrors? Avoid hugging each other? Resist domestic roles and intimate contact with children? Ride motorcycles? Play violent sports and video games? Go to war? Avoid close friendships with women not involving sex?

Any one of these questions might cause a man to examine the motives for his actions, and from that list (which could be much longer) I wager most men would provide at least a few responses that have some relationship with popular, and often feminist-approved, definitions of manhood. My whole point is, a man is whatever the fuck a man bloody well decides to be. If that includes being a homemaker and caregiver (for which some men are quite gifted and willing), who is being harmed if that is his decision?

(Just after posting this I looked at the heading of this thread and remembered we are discussing meanings of misandry, and it occurred to me that quite a bit of what we feel we have to live up to or live down, as hard as it is to define manhood in a feminist-dominated era, may well still come from other men. What is misandry, indeed?)

My attention span has been badly affected by watching too many "jackass" utubes and too much one-handed cranking over bestial porn in the last few days but since I triggered this "warning" I feel duty bound to attempt to explain.. So, on with my "concentration cap" and I'll a temp tit..

Quote from dinohip51

Not familiar with the term "cucked up", but if you'd care to elaborate on your argument I'd certainly continue the discussion. For context, I don't mean to suggest that my way of doing things is "the" answer, but rather suggest that expanding our vocabulary of available roles beyond the stereotypes and machismo that I feel confine men into a very narrow space might benefit men looking for their own answers, one man at a time.

First point, the concept of the "cuckhold" is an interesting one that I have investigated in my time as a student of the strange and bizarre. And more to the point, I have known many men who indeed seem to live in this way..

Nothing about human "sexuality" and what the feminists and others who want to try and seperate sex and relationships might call "gender relations" is ever easy to generalise about, but it seems essential to do so in order to bring some understandings to the area in question from which we can make assumptions and suggestions..

There are many "sub-cultures" in human society and a bloke I used to know was fascinated by sub-cultures wherever he encountered them.

Rules that "cut across" the norms and values, but work for these little groups..

This bloke also seemed to have some strange "cuckold fetish".. And indeed you can see this sort of "lifestyle" on the wankernet, and its a strange one for sure..

At its evolutionarian psychocologicarial core, is the fear of many men that the children they THINK are theirs, are in fact the products of other mens seed..

The "voluntary" cuckhold deals with this fear by reducing his "machismo" to the lowest level, by becoming a "sissy boy" and not only accepting his "owners" sexual rights to roam, but serving her in the manner of a "submissive slave" and even doing some "humiliating" deeds that I shall not detail here, but suffice it to say, you will never look at grandma's cream pie in the same way again..



I guess the cuckhold has accepted his fate and has decided to make a virtue of necessity in some ways.. In his mind, he can have a woman of far greater "arm trophy value" by accepting that he cant control her, than he would have if he was to plump for a "standard haddock" that other men would not be so impressed with..

But, before folk leap up and say "no way is that a manly thing"..

Is not the image of "the pimp" not some manifestation of this?

What value is sex anyway? Seems, to many men, a lot! And they will pay good money..

But, many "cuckholds" are not cucks out of choice.. And the dna test can be a shock and trauma to them..

The realities of "role reversal" type relationshiTs often show that women who are spending considerable amounts of time away from the "family home" seem much more likely to be getting plonked by stray cox now and then.. And can come home with something on board that is not of the family line, genetically speaking..

(I have seen this many times, and it dumbfounds me that the blokes who fall victim to it seem to often not even appreciate HOW it was always so obviously on the cards, and then, that the fact that the child IS NOT THEIRS means that they need to seriously consider what they do next..)

I know that seems like a long answer, but believe me, that is just the tip of it.. This sort of thing touches on something which is far bigger and far more important than many of the seemingly major areas of what the MRM and FRM are all about..

Indeed, realisations of what "gender dynamics" (better described as "sexual competition" perhaps) is truly about are needed before groups such as Farters 4 Just Wind and Piss can start to make demands that actually MEAN anything worthwhile for most men..

Regards the second point.. the "roles and stereotypes" of men, yes, agreed, every man knows this is what they have to do, and indeed DO..

But just because something is a "role" or a "stereotype" doesn't mean it is wrong..

Everyone is different, and in that regard, we are all the same!

The whole reason I resist "movement"-oriented thinking is that it calls to mind some sort of a march, such as was described in the film "Reds", with some sort of "unified theory and program", and this runs counter to everything I think is in men's best interest. Some of us are Oscars and some are Felixes, and I think most men have a little of both. I stand against any sort of prejudice that would have any one man or all men hesitate to make their own decisions because of a stereotype or popular perception that makes them feel anathemized.

I don't known the film, but the point you are making is a choice of your own, and indeed that is one that can still be freely made in this much over-controlled world run by authoritarian entities that have the ability to destroy many with their monopoly on legal violence..

But just how much freedom do men (or women of course) truly have to make their own choices?

Far less than one would think..

Chose the "wrong option" and you could end up in a very sticky place and wish you had comformed to the uniform rules..

There is safety in numbers.. And the folks who "run the show" would rather folks did not form groups.. And if they do form groups, the "show runners" will try their damndest to make sure that THEY shape the group! And if you want to see a good example of how they have succeeded in that task for decades, with almost perfect ease.. Simply look at the so called "fathers movement", almost perfectly feminised and compliant with precisely what the state is wanting them to ask for! Even the wider "mens movement" is shockingly naive as to just how scarily close they often are to the feminists they like to pretend they are opposed to..

Why do men shave? Cut their hair? Wear cologne? Dress smartly? Look in mirrors?

To look better? To create the impression they want to create...

Avoid hugging each other?

Do they? Why would a man feel the need to hug another man anyway? And when they do, they often do! Or maybe I have got the wrong idea from watching so many men do this..

Resist domestic roles

Depends what you call domestic roles..

It doesn't make sense for a man who has great abilities to be washing the dishes when he could be building a playhouse for the kids in the yard..

Men do domestic roles when it is needed, such as when the good lady cannot haul a 50 kilo wheely bin over the junk in the yard and through the gate..

Basically, in the interests of efficiency, there are often "mans jobs" and "womens jobs"..

Usually, its obvious which sex gravitates to which easiest..

When folk need to start arguing about who does what, well.. That sort of thing should have been "ironed out" before they got together in domestic "bliss"..

and intimate contact with children?

Some men like playing with kids, usually when they have the time! It is indeed one of a mans greatest indulgences! But there is a fear of children in many men, for good reasons.. I mean, lets just imagine you are taking a walk in the park with your new puppy.. You are holding a pack of "werthers originals" and a tube of smarties.. You have your gardening gloves on, and because you have bad eyesight, you have to wear thick spectacles.. The belt of your trousers has broken, so you are holding your strides up with the same hand that is grasping the sticky dog lead.. And the puppy looks a bit jumpy..

This may not be how you see yourself in the mirror, but that is what you are made to feel like as a man in a hostile misandric world where every womans fear is regarded as a reality, every man is a rapist, a peadophile a beast..

Ride motorcycles? Play violent sports and video games? Go to war?

Thrills? Glory? Something to do and get respected for?

Avoid close friendships with women not involving sex?

People tend to avoid things they have no use of, or things that are more trouble than they are worth, not what they seem, dissaproved of, etc.

Any one of these questions might cause a man to examine the motives for his actions, and from that list (which could be much longer) I wager most men would provide at least a few responses that have some relationship with popular, and often feminist-approved, definitions of manhood. My whole point is, a man is whatever the fuck a man bloody well decides to be. If that includes being a homemaker and caregiver (for which some men are quite gifted and willing), who is being harmed if that is his decision?

Indeed. Maybe no one is being harmed. They shouldnt be, we would assume? The question I would ask is, is he willing to accept the consequences of such choices and how is this in some way different to a "feminist approved" way of life? Indeed, it IS very feminist approved!!

(Just after posting this I looked at the heading of this thread and remembered we are discussing meanings of misandry, and it occurred to me that quite a bit of what we feel we have to live up to or live down, as hard as it is to define manhood in a feminist-dominated era, may well still come from other men. What is misandry, indeed?)

I think "feminism" is largely a red herring.. Manhood does not really need to be defined.. A few folks will tell you what it is or isn't, but at the end of the day, there is a manly way of doing things, and a womanly way.. And folks know instintively what the difference is!

If they don't.. Then maybe it ain't that relevant to the point in question!

For example..

If one is to say "He sorted that little problem with the fight in the bar in a very manly way".. You get the idea?

But.. "He picked the post up from behind the door in a very manly way".. ??

Misandry is what most folks would think when they hear the following:-

"He fed his baby daughter in a very manly way"..

I.e. Not to the required standard!

Breast is best!

Granny's cream pie? You're sick bud.. Sick.

Truth be told, I am very much a great lover of meringues.. Queen of puddings is my favourite!

The English Kitchen: Queen of Puddings

I love it so much, I ever made it myself once!!

(And considering that my cooking skills are on a par with a rabbits and I only ever make cheese on toast normally it was a great result too!)..

That was, the last time I attempted cookery, (12 years ago!).. My wife was so impresed by it that she realised she would soon be out of a position and banned from my own kitchen..

I really should have just thrown her out there and then, making my own nosh was easier than tolerating her control freakery!

For felixblue:

There is a lot of sense in what you say about the risks of going one's own way, as well as the illusions that one even can. Point well taken.

I get the idea you are from the UK, and so there are a lot of things about each other's everyday realities we may not comprehend, and this puts a great challenge into any discussion of norms and roles. But I only wish to make a very small point, rather than get bogged down in an endless debate over long lists of rights and wrongs and how men should choose between them.

You are absolutely right in that most men will choose a mainstream set of values that reflects their known environment, and not try too hard to resist the bulk of them. I think the same is true in the US, and I have felt as much at odds with other men my whole life as with women over this. Much of what passes as "manly" behavior here always seemed to me mostly geared toward creating a desired impression in women, and this has held little value for me. Also, perhaps primarily, the fear of being regarded as gay by women or by other men seems to motivate the most ridiculous behavior, and again I wonder who is really in charge of one's own life when so much effort is expended on expelling a single wrongful conclusion about one's sexual orientation.

In school I got called "queer bait" before I ever knew what "queer" even meant, but once I found out the anatomic facts of buggery and understood this as the objective of anyone wanting me to participate in it with them, I had no problem with resisting where it was important, which was in quietly assuring any man making such advances toward me that he would regret being without certain parts of his body should he try such on me. Beyond that, I still don't see why men go to such great lengths to prove their heterosexuality to anyone else, especially if it involves having destructive relations with women just to prove that the female is their preferred partner in sexuality.

So why did anyone, including gays, ever form this impression of me? Probably because I always made it clear I didn't give a rat's ass what other guys or anyone else thought of me, or what I had to say. Or because I could have a conversation with a girl without staring at her breasts and using every word to disguise my real wishes with her. Or because I didn't let myself get bullied into fights I knew I couldn't win when I saw no point in the activity to begin with. Or, especially, because having a friendship with a gay man didn't bother me, as long as he followed the ground rules, and many couldn't so I stopped pursuing it. But some of the dearest male friends I ever had were gay, and no one was going to deprive me of it over their sexual insecurity and not mine.

The point you make about the father's rights people is spot on, if I may borrow an anglicism. Their message comes down to one word: comply.

I resist being regarded as part of a larger men's movement for precisely the same reason. Once movements become large and active enough to have an effective voice in the political arena, the deal-making begins. And as Roger Daltrey said, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

As for "Reds", the film has had a huge impact on my life for decades because it is a true story of an American journalist, John Reed, who switched from reporting to activism following the Bolshevik takeover in Russia during WW1, and threw away his life at age thirty on a movement he started out believing in and watched as it turned into what a colleague described to him as " a militaristic police state where nothing works". The story shows in agonizing and perceptive detail what it is people are really after in joining movements, and how once movements take power in their own right their adherents have to choose between being agents of the new regime or its bitterest enemies. Whatever the cause, my observation of movements has born this out as true all along.

Anyway, the small point I promised to make and have wondered from, is about liberty and what it really is. You are right that our choices truly are limited. In discussing misandry and what it is (the topic) I only want to say men can be each other's worst enemies and not even need feminism to make manhood a living hell for us if we allow homophobia and other stifling cultural norms to determine our values.

Certainly there is a price to be paid for swimming upstream.

Some of us just can't seem to conform for whatever reason, and people like that have as much value and right to seek justice as anyone else.

And PS: Happy Father's Day to all, whatever that means...

Well, I wrote a long reply to that, but, have just abandoned it because, well, you have made your point very clear and there is not much I can add to it. Good stuff DH!

fb: You are holding a pack of "werthers originals"

lol

Quote from nivek

lol

Urban Dictionary: 'paedo'

Check out entry 2..

I spose I shouldn't laugh really ......... but I almost cracked a rib at "paedo pellets"

Aww you poor wittle boys.. always whining about something. As a woman who has been raped, assaulted, and emotionally abused, I am just sooo sorry for the awful injustices that you poor poor men have to face everyday of your oh so hard lives. I understand you are so so vulnerable to being raped by women, murdered, sexually harrassed, jeered at on the street, sold into sexual slavery, kidnapped and prostituted, earning less money that women do, mentally and physically abused, stalked, drugged and raped while enjoying a drink at a bar, shall I go on? As we all know, we live in a matriarchy, right? Yes yes I know I am being quite sarcastic but think about what I just said. Thank you and have a wonderful, guilt-free, emotionless evening.

Quote from Unregistered

Aww you poor wittle boys.. always whining about something. As a woman who has been raped, assaulted, and emotionally abused, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

It's people like you who give this site meaning.

You have failed to address a single point in the OP of this thread. You have instead mocked men's issues, as most feminists do, and instead misused this thread to draw attention to your own victim-mentality, alleging to be a victim of various wrong-doings... no doubt each one by an evul menzfolk, right?

Thank you for kindly demonstrating why this site needs to continue.