I've noticed this: articles written by women seem to have more influence on women, and articles written by men seem to have more influence on men.

Feminists seem to give more leeway (tend to listen more thoughtfully) to women who speak out against feminism than they do men who speak out against it.

women tend to see men who speak out on certian things as having either an ax to grind or ulertior motive

I dont think this is an issue specific to our situation. It's like if I say ''I am extremely intelligent'' it doesnt have as much clout as if someone else says it about me. That's because that is always what I would say, I would always say something positive about myself, few people truly believe they are of below average intelligence, though many are.

However, a third party has no obvious motivation for claiming that I am intelligent other than it being true. If a man says ''men are oppressed'' a possible alternative explanation for why he is saying that (other than it being true) is because he wants sympathy or wants life to be made easier for himself. A woman has nothing to gain, personally, by saying that men are oppressed so she is more likely to be taken seriously.

Quote from TheOldOligarch

I dont think this is an issue specific to our situation. It's like if I say ''I am extremely intelligent'' it doesnt have as much clout as if someone else says it about me. That's because that is always what I would say, I would always say something positive about myself, few people truly believe they are of below average intelligence, though many are.

However, a third party has no obvious motivation for claiming that I am intelligent other than it being true. If a man says ''men are oppressed'' a possible alternative explanation for why he is saying that (other than it being true) is because he wants sympathy or wants life to be made easier for himself. A woman has nothing to gain, personally, by saying that men are oppressed so she is more likely to be taken seriously.

Excellent points, OO

But I can think of one example where a woman might have a hidden agenda. It might not even be a conscious thing. Unconsciously, she may crave attention (male attention) and by speaking out against male oppression she may realize that this puts her in an unusual place... a place where she is separated from other women (in the minds of men) and to various degrees, exalted.

Then there's the woman who does truly empathize with men. She is able to put herself in his shoes and view the world from his eyes. She feels his pain as if it were her own and is motivated to help alleviate this pain by sharing that she understands it and desires to do something to help. She may actively take the next step and contribute to formulating solutions (aids the effort). Contributions can come in many forms...everything from being an active listener, to offering words of support and encouragement, to varying forms of political and social activism.

Also shaming tactics can´t be applied that easily if that comes from a woman.

"You´re not a real man." -> doesn´t work

"An oppressed group can't ask for rights,-Jack

We aren't a group. We are individuals shouting at differnet times on different things, often louder at each other than at our opressors. Disunty is no virtue, no matter how some try to act like the fox & the grapes, and repackage it in great wrapping paper with a nice bow on the top. If we move more as one we would not need to find voices that are more acceptable to the effete culture and elite.

We have women speak for us because we are kow-towing in part(not in full) to the system. We are lead by Softs and they want into the system more that others, and are more passive to the system. They want to keep waiting for the system to notice us, and some Softs will wait until our destruction before ever rethinking their ideas and practices. Only in our western culture does the music stop when a woman speaks. In other culture this is not the case. We need to get out more to see this.

Quote from Timocrat

We aren't a group. We are individuals shouting at differnet times on different things, often louder at each other than at our opressors. Disunty is no virtue, no matter how some try to act like the fox & the grapes, and repackage it in great wrapping paper with a nice bow on the top. If we move more as one we would not need to find voices that are more acceptable to the effete culture and elite.

We have women speak for us because we are kow-towing in part(not in full) to the system. We are lead by Softs and they want into the system more that others, and are more passive to the system. They want to keep waiting for the system to notice us, and some Softs will wait until our destruction before ever rethinking their ideas and practices. Only in our western culture does the music stop when a woman speaks. In other culture this is not the case. We need to get out more to see this.

Timocrat,

Please don't rip my head off for asking this, o.k.? I'm just curious as to how you would define what is "hard" and what is "soft"? I see you mention these concepts often, but I've never really understood what they mean. If you could help me understand, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

Quote from Feckless

Also shaming tactics can´t be applied that easily if that comes from a woman.

"You´re not a real man." -> doesn´t work

They just change it up a little bit.

"You're a man writing under a woman's name."
"You're only writing this to get attention from men."
"You must be a victim of Stockholm Syndrome."
"If it weren't for feminism, you wouldn't even be able to write what you do."

Shall I go on?

Quote from KellyMac

They just change it up a little bit.

"You're a man writing under a woman's name."
"You're only writing this to get attention from men."
"You must be a victim of Stockholm Syndrome."
"If it weren't for feminism, you wouldn't even be able to write what you do."

Shall I go on?

It's hilarious though when you get called feminist by one side and all those by the other, if you're emotionally detached..

I did a long post on this, but lost it!

In brief..

There are good female writers, such as Melanie Phillips for example, who are the "darlings" of the MRM and fathers rights groups..

However, do they REALLY write better than many less well known male writers?

No, they dont..

But, its like, when a CELEBRITY father or some other rich hot-shot pipes up with his pen, he will get a double page spread in the papers, not just the shit sheets, but the "serious" rags..

And do they write better than the average bloke fucked off by his ex?

No, they don't, in fact, they write a load of emotive shite on the whole..

But, we WORSHIP celebrity, and we bow down to any women who show some inkling of recognition for the problems faced by men..

Timocrat is perfectly correct, I was waiting for his predictable recognition of this phenonema, which in other threads he also recognises..

Its like the way that many MRA's in common with men generally, think women have the RIGHT to tell men "what makes a man"..

Hence, we listen to women..

And when they say the obvious.. We shout and clap our hands in glee..

Its good, but, it also pathetic, if you think of it..

NEVER FORGET..

WOMEN DO NOT COME FROM THE SAME PERSPECTIVE AS MEN..

SO, be wary, and look for the subtle little differences..

In the same way that rich celeb daddies who tout their "solutions" in tandem with their hearts-on-sleeves emotionalism don't come from the same angle as the less minted fathers (but no one seems to notice this as they are too busy going gaga with hero worship..), nor do women..

Its mens business..

Women writers can be supportive, and good..

But they are not "superior" just because they are women!!

The "softs" need women, because the "softs" are beggers to the state and they only get access to the table when they pander to feminism..

The "hards" dont take that approach..

They reject begging for "rights" from a "master" they dont regard as valid..

Quote from haahoo

However, do they REALLY write better than many less well known male writers?




Women writers can be supportive, and good..

But they are not "superior" just because they are women!!

I didn't mean to infer that they are, not that they are inherently worse either.


Now that I've thought about it some more, I do remember my professor from college english class talking about how depending on the subject and who the writer is/the experiences they have had a paper will need to be written differently, in order to establish credibility. Writing about the MRM is certainly not an exception to that.

I think OO summed it up best with this,

However, a third party has no obvious motivation for claiming that I am intelligent other than it being true. If a man says ''men are oppressed'' a possible alternative explanation for why he is saying that (other than it being true) is because he wants sympathy or wants life to be made easier for himself. A woman has nothing to gain, personally, by saying that men are oppressed so she is more likely to be taken seriously.

Of course, she may think that men are oppressed by the state, and perhaps other women.

In fact, she would much prefer to be the one doing the oppressing herself and on HER terms!!

Rob Fedders has touched on this sort of thing a few times..

Many "traditionally minded" women are keen to have men return to the old ways, because, thats how THEY want their menfolk to be!!

There are subtle differences in "take" from the womens perspective..

There are many different types of mra, some mra's are indistinguishable from feminists in so many ways, they work to making the mrm a sort of "feminism for men"..

These are often the types who will not neccesarily condone the ideas of some of the "good" womens writers who are approved of by the wider mrm audience..

What you say is correct jack, everyone has an "axe to grind"..

One has to look at the writer and see what that may be..

What do THEY want to see?

What is THEIR personal motivation?

Just because they may be speaking on behalf of someone else, is no reason to think that they themselves do not have something to gain from doing so..

Its like the "law firms for men"..

The law is antimale..

SO why do law firms for men crop up?

Because they seek to profit from the anti-male law, by selling false hopes..

As all lawyers do!!

As a new viewer, could somebody explain what all this is about? It seems to me a web site of strange and unhappy people. And why is it that when I take the time to post a reply I do not see it come up as soon as I send it? Is this a " speical " club?

Quote from alec

As a new viewer, could somebody explain what all this is about? It seems to me a web site of strange and unhappy people. And why is it that when I take the time to post a reply I do not see it come up as soon as I send it? Is this a " speical " club?

Define strange. As for "unhappy"... yes in a way. Many here are unhappy with the social system that presently places women above men in every way with exception to negativities...

It's called the Woman=good/Man=bad dichotomy.

As for your posts not appearing. To protect this site against spammers, one-hit-wonders and drive-by posters, new member posts are queued for moderation for a limited time. Once there is enough proof of their, shall we say, staying power, they are no longer moderated.

TMOTS