Male problems only ever come up as a counter-argument

[Secondhand Revenant]

Men don't talk about their problems because it's socially unacceptable to do so. So men's problems are only brought up as a counter-argument because that's the only time it's acceptable to do so - to show that we too have problems, but choose not to talk about them but rather deal with them in silence, the unspoken subtext being that women should do the same. Right or wrong, that's very debatable, but the point is, men do have problems but for the most part, we don't talk about them because what the hell does whining and complaining accomplish? We want solutions, not hand-wringing.

Somehow I doubt anyone but the people bringing it up at that time finds it more acceptable to do that. It's also not a solution, it's the epitome of whining...

 

[UberPubert]

That something can happen does not mean it's the case for a particular occurance. That's beyond basic.

It is something that does happen, often, and adequately explains the root of many so-called social issues. This is easily observed in the lack of compelling evidence to the contrary, and this evidence is typically supplanted by endless anecdotes filtered through confirmation bias and hyperbole.

I'm waiting to see the bit where it is limited only 'raising a stink'. Any grievance, regardless of logic, can be called a complaint.

A complaint is nothing more than the expression of a grievance, a grievance being a real or imagined slight against the complainer, and neither of which hold any value on their own like an argument or evidence would.

Anyone can make a complaint about any grievance they have, but they hold no inherent value.

Also it's funny to see you say logic when you're using the faulty logic that because something is not defined as X it cannot also include X in some occasions. It never says that a complaint is mutually exclusive to all else.

The definitions are fairly clear, but I'll specify: "an expression of discontent, regret, pain, censure, resentment, or grief; lament; faultfinding", and the second "a cause of discontent, pain, grief, lamentation, etc" These are all forms of emotion, or emotional responses, and the complaint is an expression of these. You can't simply say, "well, it might also include arguments, proof and values" because none of the terms that the word 'complaint' expresses are at all synonymous with those. To argue that the word complaint might also express 'sadness' is probable because it is quite close to 'grief' and 'lamentation', because it is still just a negative emotion, others are not.

An 'observation' with no value.

The conversation surrounding social ills is almost completely made up of observations with no value.

Lovely. Now if that had any bearing on whether on the other causes it might actually mean something.

It has a great deal to do with other causes. But, for some reason, calls for evidence only ever seem to appear when men's issues are being considered. Take the very same example I've used here: The idea that Nice Guys might be victims of society is considered almost comically farcical, - and I'm not entirely sold on the idea - but am I supposed to take sweat-shaming, man-spreading, fat-shaming, sexist air conditioning, slut-shaming, thin privilege and all the others seriously? Where's the hard evidence for those?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

That something can happen does not mean it's the case for a particular occurance. That's beyond basic.

It is something that does happen, often, and adequately explains the root of many so-called social issues. This is easily observed in the lack of compelling evidence to the contrary, and this evidence is typically supplanted by endless anecdotes filtered through confirmation bias and hyperbole.

Claiming it adequately explains them does not in fact mean it does. I don't care what you believe I care for reasons to believe it. I'm not sure why you think the former has any worth.

I'm waiting to see the bit where it is limited only 'raising a stink'. Any grievance, regardless of logic, can be called a complaint.

A complaint is nothing more than the expression of a grievance, a grievance being a real or imagined slight against the complainer, and neither of which hold any value on their own like an argument or evidence would.

Expressing a grievance can include evidence. Note the word can. You said they held no value and you did not qualify the statement.

Anyone can make a complaint about any grievance they have, but they hold no inherent value.

I like the switch to inherent. It doesn't fool me though. It is not what you said at first and is substantially different.

Also it's funny to see you say logic when you're using the faulty logic that because something is not defined as X it cannot also include X in some occasions. It never says that a complaint is mutually exclusive to all else.

The definitions are fairly clear, but I'll specify: "an expression of discontent, regret, pain, censure, resentment, or grief; lament; faultfinding", and the second "a cause of discontent, pain, grief, lamentation, etc" These are all forms of emotion, or emotional responses, and the complaint is an expression of these. You can't simply say, "well, it might also include arguments, proof and values" because none of the terms that the word 'complaint' expresses are at all synonymous with those. To argue that the word complaint might also express 'sadness' is probable because it is quite close to 'grief' and 'lamentation', because it is still just a negative emotion, others are not.

Yes I can say it might. You made a blanket statement concerning them. The case where it may be put in such a form is relevant.

An 'observation' with no value.

The conversation surrounding social ills is almost completely made up of observations with no value.

I'm not sure why you think anyone would value your opinion so highly when it is accompanied with nothing. Because again that is all you are expressibg. Oh pubert *thinks* something is the case. Should anyone care?

Lovely. Now if that had any bearing on whether on the other causes it might actually mean something.

It has a great deal to do with other causes. But, for some reason, calls for evidence only ever seem to appear when men's issues are being considered. Take the very same example I've used here: The idea that Nice Guys might be victims of society is considered almost comically farcical, but am I supposed to take sweat-shaming, man-spreading, fat-shaming, sexist air conditioning, slut-shaming, thin privilege and all the others seriously? Where's the hard evidence for those?

Why the fuck should I be expected to provide hard evidence for them? Because you want to rail at them but only want to whine at third parties? Sorry but that doesn't give me an obligation to argue for things I haven't argued before.

If you want to argue those then find someone arguing them and their arguments. I understand you might feel like the center of the universe but I'm not going to treat you that way. The lack of someone here to argue them doesn't day a thing about the worth of them just because you're here to *complain* loudly about them.

 

[Something Amyss]

There are plenty of people who are and have been closeted, but there are many who never have been able to pull that off.

Do you honestly think most people care when they call someone a ******?

The same really applies to virgins. Both are go-to insults on the internet.

 

[Lightspeaker]

There are plenty of people who are and have been closeted, but there are many who never have been able to pull that off.

Do you honestly think most people care when they call someone a ******?

The same really applies to virgins. Both are go-to insults on the internet.

I have to agree with Something Amyss here. The fact that both are heavily used on the internet as an attempt to insult someone very clearly shows there is a huge stigma against each.

It doesn't specifically matter if the person being targeted is or isn't. The fact that its used as an insult demonstrates that its 'casually' thought of as a bad thing.

 

[Animyr]

It conveys the idea of a person who does not believe that women deserve equal rights. That is often times not the case in MRM

But it also often is, yes? I don?t see why you wouldn?t have added the ?often? qualifier if you didn?t agree with me on that.

Again, you?re basically just saying that feminism must be opposed, and it is reasonable to do so because it genuinely and unjustly threatens men. I fail to see how my first assessment was wrong.

the intent of the organization is to focus on men's rights rather than to focus on women's philosophies

Except the MRM believes that the greatest danger to men is feminism-regardless of what they think about equality. Hence OPs observation that men?s rights are never brought up on their own. Feminism typically underlies it, and this conversation is no different.

Granted, ideological bigotry is certainly a far cry racial bigotry

Indeed. Black people can?t help but be identified with other black people. Ideological labels, however, are accepted voluntarily and can be dropped at any time.

The fact of the matter is that the MRA label you voluntarily embrace is also embraced or supported by many people who oppose equality or are unambiguously misogynistic. You try to distance yourself from them, but you share a common cause in your opposition to modern feminism. If you have similar beliefs, the same opponents and identify with the same name and the same movement, all voluntarily, don?t be so surprised that you?re sometimes seen as being interchangeable at first glance.

It's possible

It happens all the time. When second wave feminism hit, its opponents said they should have stopped with first wave, which was ?real feminism? and which they supported. When third wave came, people said it should have stopped with second wave, which was ?real feminism? and which they supported. Chances are, you disagree with at least one of those groups.

It isn't bigotry to question it.

That depends on what the reasoning for questioning it is.

Whether or not it is fact is entirely irrelevant.

It?s deeply relevant.

Consider a basic question?is a given part or institution of society (take your pick) sexist? If it isn?t, then feminist activists trying to help or boost women in that area are making it unequal, and those opposing them are defending equality. But if it is, then feminist activists trying to help women are indeed making things equal, and their opponents are defending inequality when they think they?re defending equality.

So when you say that you only oppose feminists who pursue female superiority, well, that doesn?t exactly clarify whether or not you actually support equality. Especially since I?ve no idea of what your actual positions are--through your comments about the differences between the sexes aren't encouraging.

difficulty distinguishing between the two.

Care to distinguish yourself then? Any groups or online communities you identify with? Any aligned MRA groups you disagree with?

Citing that we've begun to see more vocal fringe groups pursuing anti-equality goals isn't stereotyping or strawmanning.

Except when I do it, apparently.

And since you still don?t seem to have noticed, I never said you opposed equality ( I don?t know enough about you to make that judgement).

 

[UberPubert]

Claiming it adequately explains them does not in fact mean it does. I don't care what you believe I care for reasons to believe it. I'm not sure why you think the former has any worth.

The link I've already provided adequately explains how people tend to shift blame of personal problems onto other parties, this was my response to you wondering why it is people can't separate personal problems from societal trends. I've merely extrapolated that the fundamentals of human psychology mean these two separate issues are in fact one and the same. Your continued denial of this is meaningless without a sufficient counterexample.

Expressing a grievance can include evidence.

This is the exact same thing as complaint. A grievance does not include anything synonymous with arguments or evidence, it is simply a feeling of being wronged. One might say they feel wronged because of reasons that can be backed up with arguments and evidence, but it is not the grievance itself.

I like the switch to inherent. It doesn't fool me though. It is not what you said at first and is substantially different.

And what, exactly, is the alternative you're proposing? Associative value? Does it really need to be spelled out that terms and words can assume greater meaning when paired with others? To say that the arguments following a complaint cause the complaint to hold value is true of nearly any expression, insults can even hold value if I make a compelling argument as to why I made it, but neither a complaint nor an insult necessitate an argument.

Perhaps I wasn't being pedantic enough for you.

Yes I can say it might.

You can also be wrong. To say terms mean more than what they're defined to mean is fine, but it means we're no longer discussing the word, we're discussing your interpretation of the phrase.

I'm not sure why you think anyone would value your opinion so highly when it is accompanied with nothing. Because again that is all you are expressibg. Oh pubert *thinks* something is the case. Should anyone care?

That does beg the question why you quoted me in the first place, or why you're on a discussion forum to begin with. If you don't care what I think, why ask me questions? Why are we still having this conversation?

Why the fuck should I be expected to provide hard evidence for them? Because you want to rail at them but only want to whine at third parties? Sorry but that doesn't give me an obligation to argue for things I haven't argued before.

Because you were the one that wanted to argue that social causes are not explained by human rationalization. If the psychology doesn't apply, then please explain why you think that is. If it does, please clarify your statement.

If you want to argue those then find someone arguing them and their arguments. I understand you might feel like the center of the universe but I'm not going to treat you that way. The lack of someone here to argue them doesn't day a thing about the worth of them just because you're here to *complain* loudly about them.

To reiterate: You began this discussion by quoting me, on a comment I made directed at another poster. If you don't care what I think, if you don't want to argue against my position, then why did you engage me in the first place?

 

[Animyr]

On your evidence of female dominance;

STEM faculty hiring's prefer female candidates 2:1 when credentials are the same:

A cursory web search shows that that study has been widely contested by a number of scientists. Firstly the survey didn?t simulate real hiring processes at all, and secondly it was obviously testing for gender bias, leaving open the obvious possibility that the participant?s answers were guided by the desire to not seem sexist. Some critics have pointed to shady details, such as participants being paid and the study being published in the journal owned by the study writers.

Anyways, the study itself was strictly theoretical. The data the paper relies on goes on to detail how in the real world women are still behind on several fronts, and their position much less secure. Men, for instance, seem more likely to apply for positions they?re not qualified for.

Here are some articles summarizing the criticism;
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/11/new_york_times_op_ed_says_academic_science_isn_t_sexist_that_s_not_what.html

http://claireggriffin.com/blog-1/2015/4/15/women-preferentially-hired-in-stem-but-does-that-solve-the-problem

Single women up until the age of 30 make 8% more than their male peers in 147 of 150 major US cities
More and more studies are beginning to find that the gender gap isn't consistent across demographics
Women do seem to pursue lower paying jobs that have a greater social benefit and do tend to prefer taking time off to care for kids of their own free will.

I?m no expert on such issues, and I?m not prepared for an intensive debate, but even quick research shows it the issue nearly as clear-cut as you claim.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-77-cent-exaggeration/

http://www.aauw.org/files/2015/09/The-Simple-Truth-Fall-2015.pdf

While the wage gap (and the role of employer discrimination in it) has indeed been exaggerated, after we factor in the issues of job choice and child care, it still clearly and consistently exists in almost every profession. There is additionally the matter that women?s choices are not entirely free as you claim. As you yourself admit, the gains women have made have mainly been afforded to young unmarried, childless women (which even the articles you link attribute to their own talent, not a pro-female bias among recruiters as you allege). Still more studies indicate that women with families have lower job prospects and receive lower pay, and that it only gets worse as they age?while men with families hardly suffer any professional inconvenience. Thus, women don?t simply choose to raise children?there?s ample evidence that they are indeed pressured to leave the workforce, while their husbands are encouraged to stay.

Thanks to the traditionalist streak that still runs in our culture, men also remain much more likely to have a housewife willing to sacrifice her ambitions for his career than the reverse?stay at home fathers remain a clear minority.

Then, of course, there?s the influence of general culture. Even the study you cite was forced to conclude (despite themselves; they were biased against this conclusion, not for it) that

The results of our myriad analyses reveal that early sex differences in spatial and mathematical reasoning need not stem from biological bases, that the gap between average female and male math ability is narrowing (suggesting strong environmental influences), and that sex differences in math ability at the right tail show variation over time and across nationalities, ethnicities, and other factors, indicating that the ratio of males to females at the right tail can and does change.

So frankly, the differences you encourage us to ?acknowledge? seem to be in large part cultural constructs that only lately seem to be loosening. Remember, it used to be widely accepted by all that women were clearly too weak-minded to even vote responsibly, and that (as you say) it would be folly to pretend that the genders were the same. Evo-psych is a risky thing. I wouldn?t rely on it if I were you.

Now certainty things are improving. In some industries and some locations, matters have become equal. But you?d have to be blind to think that it all happened without external pressure.

So does there appear to be a clear gender bias in teaching and social work? Yeah, there does.

Women?s predominance childcare (and child custody) is a holdover from the old patriarchal separate spheres philosophy that feminism arose to fight. It?s also a prime example of men bringing their problems upon themselves--and if women further it, it?s because they still buy into the old ways.

And since separate spheres?a defining feature of our culture?s gender relations-- was a ?separate but equal? philosophy, again, your assurances that you support equality don?t entirely settle things, especially when you start emphasizing the ?fundamental differences? between men and women. There?s more than one type of ?equality?. Not all of them are egalitarian.

 

[Mouri Kogoro]

Thanks to the traditionalist streak that still runs in our culture, men also remain much more likely to have a housewife willing to sacrifice her ambitions for his career than the reverse?stay at home fathers remain a clear minority.

That's quite an assumption there. I'm sure I could find supporting studies with a couple seconds of Googling, but from my experience women are more likely to want to stay home with the kids. Sometimes they demand it. In fact nothing makes some of the happier than staying home to raise their little brats. There is a possibility that this desire wasn't learned from the patriarchy. It could be something they are born with, a 'motherly instinct' if you will. Rarely do you see the same thing from fathers.

 

[Eddie the head]

Because, as was proven in this thread within thirty minutes of the original post, nobody cares in the slightest about problems and solutions in any social justice issue online, they just want to butt heads with the eternal opposition and win arguments.

Not really. I remember see just the opposite on this sight a few times in fact. Someone made a thread about a guy having to deal with false rape claims, and every other comment was about how actual rape is more common. Someone talked about how there's no battered men's shelters every replay to that guy was about how battered women's shelters are more important.

My guess is that you're looking for that, and you know what they say? Life is like a box of chocolates you're only going to remember the taste of coconut.

Which goes with my point quite nicely. Also, for all the presumably male individuals who do complain on this site about male problems, its very rare for an actual male problem help thread to appear and when it does, it lasts for maybe two, three pages at best. Of course, that could be because everyone goes into those threads simply to say "NU UH! MY SIDE HAS IT WORSE!".

I was reading a book once that went though this one experiment that coined the term "illusion of asymmetric insight." Witch I think is a very good term for what exactly is going on here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_asymmetric_insight

That will give you a quick overview of what I'm talking about. Basically when two groups interact they assume they know the other side better then the other side knows themselves. People don't just see the "other side" as being inferior, they need it go be inferior. Whatever people will be people, the only thing I can do is try not to get involved.

 

[Joccaren]

-
First world problems are, sadly, just as serious as third world problems to the people experiencing them. Its called the hedonic treadmill, and that kid in Africa starving to death is probably about as happy as the kid who doesn't really fit in at school, despite the vastly better lifestyle the latter kid has. -

That seems like a series of assumptions and generalizations (designed to ease the guilty conscience) that borders on delusion. I'm just going to assume that your description of a happy starving child is based in ignorance, and not psychopathic disregard for human suffering.

Look up the Hedonic treadmill, it is an actual psychological phenomenon. See those people with lost legs? Without the hedonic treadmill they should be hyper-depressed and liable to off themselves at any minute [Obviously this is put very bluntly with a bit of hyperbole, so I apologise if it offends anyone] - imagine if you suddenly lost your legs, it'd be shattering. However, the loss of their legs becomes a normal state for them, and they end up as happy, healthy members of society after a while from whatever caused them to lose their legs - despite never regaining the functionality they had with their legs.

The same holds true comparing first world people to starving kids in Africa. No, the starving kid in Africa isn't happy. Christ, whoever said that? But neither is the kid that doesn't fit in at school and is ostracised by most people they know. Which is more unhappy?
Some would say the African child, 'cause they have nothing and are dying so they should be literally the most unhappy person in the world. This isn't the case. Again, hedonic treadmill. That kid in Africa has only ever known the life s/he has. It is the normal state for them, and where their 'neutral' happiness rests. Sure, they're not happy, but they're unlikely to be crying themselves to sleep every night after bottling up their emotions, only to take an overdose of pills in a weeks time to end their suffering.
The kid being ostracised, however, may have been really popular in Primary school and had lots of friends, only to move to High School and be completely alone. This person's neutral happiness state was a lot higher than their current happiness state, and thus there is actually potential for them to be more unhappy than the starving kid in Africa. There is a reason things like this are life changing events for some people. Unhappiness and happiness isn't absolute. The kid in Africa isn't 100% less happy in their life than a kid in the USA. Its relative to what we know.

This isn't to say that the plight of starving children isn't important - it is - but it does mean that you can't just say 'first world problems', like it means that your problems are irrelevant. They're not, and to the person experiencing them they are just as serious - potentially more so - as that kid starving in Africa. The lack of compassion people experiencing 'first world problems' at times get because they aren't starving children in Africa is, honestly, pathetic.
Sometimes its deserved. A teenage girl who didn't get the newest iPhone so she throws a fit certainly deserves that extra unhappiness. If she didn't have to deal with that unhappiness now, her unrealistic expectations and high neutral happiness state would utterly ruin her when she finally has to deal with the real world.
Someone has trouble making friends, or is stuck in a dead end job/marriage/relationship they hate? Is a serious problem that does deserve due consideration.

To try and pass of the importance of first world problems as 'delusional' shows a sever lack of empathy TBH, and as you yourself describe - a psychopathic disregard for human suffering. ALL people suffer, not just the children in Africa. To try and downplay the suffering of some people because other people don't have as many privileges as them, is asinine. In the context of this thread: Sure, women's rights is an issue, but children are starving to death in Africa, I think that's more important.
Its an asinine argument. We shouldn't simply ignore the poor treatment of women - and men - and their suffering because the circumstances of someone else out there are worse.
To simply state we should only worry about global issues, not local or personal ones, like the poster I quoted was implying, is an asinine bit of advice that, if followed, would lead to the collapse of the world.

Perhaps, rather than trying to berate others for actually caring about people that don't happen to be on the poorest continent on Earth, you could try actually caring about the problems of everyone - you know, a little bit of human compassion. African children aren't the only ones that deserve it, much as you like to make it sound like they are.

He's not presenting a theory, he's presenting salve for guilt in the form of disorganized opinion. Stretching that out for a paragraph or two didn't change that in your hands either.

Guilt for what?
Again, look up the Hedonic Treadmill - it is actually a theory in Psychology. Your insistent need to push some sort of blame for vague general 'guilt' onto me is a bit strange, to be honest. I seem to be utterly missing the context for it, considering the only statements that I've made have been that world-scale problems aren't the only important ones.
Honestly, a little less arrogance, and a little more research might do you well.

 

[Something Amyss]

Basically when two groups interact they assume they know the other side better then the other side knows themselves. People don't just see the "other side" as being inferior, they need it go be inferior. Whatever people will be people, the only thing I can do is try not to get involved.

Except the "two groups" here are largely men and other men arguing about male problems. Hell, a lot of the threads involving women's issues featuring men talking over the women folk. Who is it here who doesn't know the "male" side? The light smattering of women who have contributed?

 

[Animyr]

That's quite an assumption there.

In fact nothing makes some of the happier than staying home to raise their little brats.It could be something they are born with, a 'motherly instinct' if you will.

Speak for yourself.

I also notice that you added like six qualifiers in there. You could, maybe, sometimes, usually, possibly be right about some women occasionally.

Also, I like how you imply that men inherently don't care about raising children.

 

[Mouri Kogoro]

I also notice that you added like six qualifiers in there. You could, maybe, sometimes, usually, possibly be right about some women occasionally.

Also, I like how you imply that men inherently don't care about raising children.

Of course there are qualifiers. Nothing it going to apply 100% across the board. But the fact is a significant number of women will prefer to stay home if finances permit. If a goal of feminism is gender parity in this regard it will never happen as long as there is free will and free choice. At the same time if someone stays home with the kids they probably won't be able advance as far in their career as if they didn't. One only has so many hours in one's life. It's a choice they make. You will never convince women not to have kids and not to stay home to raise them (or take more flexible employment) and therefore there will always be an absolute wage gap. Women make different life choices than men not because of patriarchy but because of biology, and they tend to be happier with those choices.

The important thing is to not put any unnecessary obstacles towards success no matter what choice they make. That has largely been achieved in the 1st world western countries.

 

[1981]

[...] Right or wrong, that's very debatable, but the point is, men do have problems but for the most part, we don't talk about them because what the hell does whining and complaining accomplish? We want solutions, not hand-wringing.

The only argument I can come up with is that it cleanses the gene pool of those who are unable to deal with their problems on their own. But it's a bit nihilistic for my taste. And if you don't consider darwinism from a purely primitive survival aspect, it means we also lose people who would've been able to contribute to society.

Another consequence of not talking about (i.e. refusing to face and deal with) problems is that you become oblivious to the problems others are facing. You either think that they're comparable to your own or that you're alone with your problems.

A 40 year old virgin maybe, but then how would anyone know unless we're told? It all comes back to someone advertising their sexual history and then complaining about the reception it gets.

If I'm putting you on the spot, I apologize. I just have a compulsive need to figure people out by observing them. Until now I haven't had the slightest idea where you were coming from. So if a gay person can pass as straight, the public opinion about gays does not concern them? That's taking the idea that an individual is separate from their environment to the extreme.

 

[DonTsetsi]

The same reason that the lack of shelters for homeless or battered men is brought up by people who have never done anything about it, like opening a shelter. The kind of people who complain online or on a college campus on any side of this debate, aren't the people who actually solve problems at that time.

Slacktivism ladies and gentlemen, it's that simple.

The one woman who tried to open shelter for battered men, who incidently also was the one who opened the first shelters for women in the us of a had her dog killed by feminists and had her family and herselfe terrorized by them so much that she had to leave her home behind and move to another location

http://imgur.com/gallery/PDcXuvy

And people wonder why no one talks about mens problems or why no one speaks up for men... because each time someone who simply wants to discuss mens problems comes along hes shut down by radical feminists and activists. Go ahead and even try to have an honest debate about men issues in the modern world in a public place.

Or have you forgotten that you cant be sexist against men?

So one person has tried this, once, and got a bad response. And no one has ever tried before or since? I guess if one person's story is the scope of your "civil rights" movement then the 60's could have boiled down to, "Woman refuses to sit in back of bus, is arrested. Everyone else freaks out and falls back into line."

Not really. There are continuing attempts to talk about male issues by different organisations. CAFE is very active in Canada, for example. They also get a lot of protests and pulled fire alarms. Here's a link to one famous case of an MRA meeting being stopped via fire alarm:
https://youtu.be/GO_X4DkwA_Q

 

[Kathinka]

The same reason that the lack of shelters for homeless or battered men is brought up by people who have never done anything about it, like opening a shelter. The kind of people who complain online or on a college campus on any side of this debate, aren't the people who actually solve problems at that time.

Slacktivism ladies and gentlemen, it's that simple.

The one woman who tried to open shelter for battered men, who incidently also was the one who opened the first shelters for women in the us of a had her dog killed by feminists and had her family and herselfe terrorized by them so much that she had to leave her home behind and move to another location

http://imgur.com/gallery/PDcXuvy

And people wonder why no one talks about mens problems or why no one speaks up for men... because each time someone who simply wants to discuss mens problems comes along hes shut down by radical feminists and activists. Go ahead and even try to have an honest debate about men issues in the modern world in a public place.

Or have you forgotten that you cant be sexist against men?

So one person has tried this, once, and got a bad response. And no one has ever tried before or since? I guess if one person's story is the scope of your "civil rights" movement then the 60's could have boiled down to, "Woman refuses to sit in back of bus, is arrested. Everyone else freaks out and falls back into line."

Not really. There are continuing attempts to talk about male issues by different organisations. CAFE is very active in Canada, for example. They also get a lot of protests and pulled fire alarms. Here's a link to one famous case of an MRA meeting being stopped via fire alarm:
https://youtu.be/GO_X4DkwA_Q

Also, wasn't there this guy in Canada who tried this, was denied funding due to pressure of feminist groups, did it anyway with his private funds, and was then driven to suicide by said groups? His name escapes me right now..Silver- something?

 

[Aesir23]

*snip*

I have to say, I've never heard of "Virgin Shaming" before this either. It sounds like bullshit too, because in my experience the only people who care about and talk about virgins and virginity, are virgins.

I would just like to say that I have heard of Virgin Shaming but it's something I've really only seen in high school and perpetrated (mostly) by other boys or by people who still haven't grown out of that high school mentality. Basically the idea that if you haven't lost your virginity by X time then you're not a "real man". It's sort of like slut shaming with women but in the opposite direction.

 

[llubtoille]

Reminds me a bit of that gaming voice actor dispute, where the hellish working conditions of game devs and QA are used as a reason to not improve the working conditions of others.
I don't think there's a simple answer, it's a (seemingly worldwide) cultural thing and that's always been a tough one to change.

 

[Trizzo]

snip

An old women grabbed your hands? The horror. Where is the context? You're at work? Did she want your attention as in "excuse me, i need your help shop assistant". Was she confused? Was she just old? Was it sexual? If the last call the police. What stopped you from doing so if you thought it was?

You can't talk to friends/peers without worrying about your masculinity? Get new friends. Wouldn't a measure of masculinity (or sexuality/self) be in not giving a fuck about who you are and what you do? Besides who is this the fault of exactly? You said you "want to avoid talking about feminism" so does this mean it's the fault of 'men' or are you implying it's the 'feminists' but you just don't want to talk about that.

Again ask yourself, who exactly corralled me into acting masculine/against myself? Was it actually just me?

Your problems aren't unique either.

"Men have to deal with a lot of problems. Violent deaths, possibly being ostracized by our peers if we don't fit into a stupid overly masculine stereotype, a massive stigma against acting feminine lest we be accused of having the gay"

"Women have to deal with a lot of problems. Violent deaths, being ostracized by our peers if we don't fit into a stupid overly feminine stereotypes, a massive stigma against acting masculine lest we be accused of having the dyke"

You are the other side of the coin and you just can't see it.