#metoo

[Mel O'Drama]

Then, as she starts to leave, one of the girls tells him to "just let it go..." as if he's doing anything. He's not even badgering her.

Yes, there was a moment after this where the male presenter eloquently broke down how the unhelpful behaviour had been enabled by a female panelist:

What's funny is... she started crying and then you started reassuring her. Even though you disagree with her, you weren't prepared to step up... Because once the tears come out you're gonna placate her... It's white knighting.

He nailed it completely, but I also observed that the moment he finished saying it, another woman jumped in:

Guys fall for that a lot in arguments, like, girls crying. But they shouldn't fall for it.

It's not untrue, but the timing undermined his point about other women enabling this behaviour as much as men. I'd like for his words to have sat a little longer and received an acknowledgement that, yes, almost everyone - man or woman - is conditioned to instinctively indulge this kind of manipulation.

This video isn't directly-related, but kind of interesting

It certainly is, even if it is also very disheartening (particularly the latter part about the skewed and heavily biased data, which ties in with what's been discussed earlier in the thread).

Some of the stats given here are eye opening as well (though I wouldn't be surprised if some of those numbers are even higher).

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I'd like for his words to have sat a little longer and received an acknowledgement that, yes, almost everyone - man or woman - is conditioned to instinctively indulge this kind of manipulation.

It's been said that nature -- Mother Nature -- is at least a little bit misandrist. There is a cultural, and biological, impulse to try and route all sympathy and attention -- and, hence, resources -- towards women (presumably because they are the gender who births and, hopefully, nurtures the babies, which maintains the species).

Feminism seems to be about denying that dynamic, that privilege, in order to increase it and to sidestep any previous reciprocation. Women no longer want to be "traditional" women (and I don't blame them one bit) but men are still expected to be traditional men (supplying attention, utility, protection and resources as per usual). And although women have their own careers and money today, they're still not interested in marrying "down" (a guy with lesser income or stature) while men will marry down economically without hesitation and always have.

So it's about that. And governments and the corporations are complicit in that, because 54% of the electorate are women and 85% of the consumer dollars are spent by women (and they're not just buying groceries and diapers). That gives the "powerless" a whole lot of power -- if we'd just stop raping 5 out of 4 of them every 3 seconds.

The faux-victim thing is fundamental to it. And actual male-victims don't count at all (and would just take away from the attention directed towards her victim-posing). In fact, the feminist culture doesn't seem to be particularly interested in women who are actually victimized -- so Feminism is innately misogynistic.

To be semi-fair, a lot of women are not conscious of the overall dynamic any more than a lot of men are. The 'all-men-are-evil-at-their-core' and 'all-women-are-saintly-at-their-core' presumptions, ubiquitous in the media and culture, prevent any discussion about what's really going on.

But once you see it, you can never un-see it.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Provocative?

 

[Seaviewer]

Why is that women are discussed as a group when men are treated as individuals?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Why is that women are discussed as a group when men are treated as individuals?

Oh. Are they?

 

[Frank Underwood]

Why is that women are discussed as a group when men are treated as individuals?

Where are you getting that from? Men are demeaned and maligned as a group all the time, much of which has been discussed in this thread.

Look up "the male loneliness epidemic" or "the male loser epidemic" on YouTube, and you'll find plenty of people discussing men as a group.

The Dems even launched a program called "SAM" (speaking with American men) to figure out why they're losing ground with that particular demographic.

 

[Seaviewer]

I didn't mean to imply that it happened exclusively. But in my observation the question "what do women want?" is asked far more frequently than its male equivalent. In either case, it's a pointless exercise since no one answer is going to apply to everyone no matter hard the asker might search.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I didn't mean to imply that it happened exclusively. But in my observation the question "what do women want?" is asked far more frequently than its male equivalent. In either case, it's a pointless exercise since no one answer is going to apply to everyone no matter hard the asker might search.

That's why I'm not a fan of monolithic thinking. You'll always find people who fit certain stereotypes, but they obviously don't apply to everybody within a particular group.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I'm not sure how much of this I agree with, but it's interesting:

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Is this too harsh?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Lesbian mafias -- have you experienced them?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Be forewarned, these are a couple of conservatives (she's even a fan of Phyllis Schlafly, for goddess'sake) but her observations -- more than an hour video -- are interesting:

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Has feminism really always been about women sabotaging other women in the reproductive sweepstakes?

 

[Mel O'Drama]

This guy has some very direct observations to make on a feminism debate between a group of women ranging from feminist to anti-feminist (he mentions one of the participants is a friend of his). The debate itself is worth a look, but this guy's interjections - funny, cutting and balanced - take it to another level:

He also gives his views on an attempt to cancel a male physical trainer for occasionally pointing out women on social media who send unrealistic and potentially damaging messages by attempting to pass off cosmetic surgery as the result of hard work and exercise:

Love it or hate it, he is refreshingly outspoken on many topics. I thought today was the first I'd seen of him but now realise I previously watched his video on that 'Toxic Masculinity' Gillette campaign many years ago (helping clinch my P&G boycott).

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The anti-feminists (like Karen Straughan, Janice Fiamengo, even Pearl) are far more nuanced and intelligent in their observations than the feminists (who always speak in smug, tired ideological tropes).

I thought the below video was kind of funny -- until he ruins it by insisting that there's no genocide in the middle east:

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I don't know why my algorithm invited this, but for some reason my FB feed for the last couple of days has been tossing me stories about the death of simpering sociopathic Betty Broderick, 78, who slipped into her ex-husband's house and bedroom in 1989 and shot him to death (one of those "...and the gun went off!!" kind of things) and his new wife.

Only, the FB stories I'm seeing are all from a feministic sort of angle, where they claim Betty's the victim and the husband brought it on himself. (I guess the new wife must be a whore 'n' stuff, but nothing's more misogynistic than feminism). The daughter of Betty has always encouraged people not to believe her mother, but the fey son has had 37 years to listen to Betty's crap and has now embraced her homicidal spin on the story.

Apparently, Mark Wahlberg has bravely come out and defended her. But physical assault seems to be something with which he's comfortable, so that makes some sense.

There was a time the feminists pushed for women not to be arrested, nor certainly prosecuted, when she kills her husband, with the presumption that she must have been forced into it by an ogre of a husband. (They've yet to succeed, however).

She's fun, though. Sooooooo committed to her own gutter narcissism. Her interviews are just as fascinating to watch as they are revolting.

 

[Willie Oleson]

The '92 TV movie starring Meredith Baxter Birney (a name that sounds like an exclamation in Will & Grace) didn't show her as a victim.
Admittedly I didn't watch all of the second part because the husband played by sexy/bad Stephen Collins is not in it, for obvious reasons.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The '92 TV movie starring Meredith Baxter Birney (a name that sounds like an exclamation in Will & Grace) didn't show her as a victim.
Admittedly I didn't watch all of the second part because the husband played by sexy/bad Stephen Collins is not in it, for obvious reasons.

I recall MBB saying, when she did the sequel, that she had changed her mind, and now she (and the filmmakers) had come to believe that Broderick was not so innocent (as they tended to think when making the first one).

I watched neither the first MBB TV-movie nor the sequel, because I assumed they'd be too sympathetic and because the real-life story -- and Broderick herself -- were far too mesmerizing for a badly miscast film to compete with.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I didn't realise it was a sequel, I thought it was a single production, a film or mini-series shown in two parts.