• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Toxic masculinity isn't real


Whomever controls the life boats controls the people who gets on them, and if they hold those social views then men on the ship are screwed.

This plays out over and over, even in today's world.

The very social revolution that would take care of this, a revolution or men, is being denied... so people aren't even questioning their trigger-finger response to say "women and children first". They don't even know where it comes from, they just say it because it's "right"; just like how people make fun of the men's rights movement because their trigger-finger response is that men have it good, men are strong and capable, and men have all the power, so what's there to complain about?

Same shit happened during the early feminist movement in the 60's. Women get taken care of, they don't have to work, they can stay home and luxuriate, have things bought for them, have all the necessities of life paid for by the man. Why would any woman want something different?

The gender revolution has not come to men yet. It's not even seen as necessary in the mainstream... and in activist circles, like feminism, it's even seen as some kind of evil counter-culture.
 
I'll ask again. What are some disasters where women were rescued first? If you don't care to provide any evidence fine, I'll just assume you're talking out of your ass.

But I don't recall women being rescued first on 9/11. In fact I don't see when this policy would even be practical. Except on boats which as we've established is only a custom, not law.
 
I am not saying "all men are like anything" or that "all women are like anything" to the same extent as Morpher 101 who wrote:

"-The masculine seeks out the feminine then endeavors to keep it safe.
-The feminine draws in the masculine then endeavors to keep it strong."

this is the sin qua non of gender stereotyping. With no impoliteness intended to Morpher, I am fairly sure that this ideological pas de deux HAS A FUCKING LOT TO ANSWER FOR.

men exist to protect women?

females exist to keep men strong?


The second idea, incidentally, underpins female infantilism and lack of autonomous selfhood. We don't count on our own. We are "healthy" if our mission is to, uh "draw men and keep them strong" ......?

What about being strong on our own?

Men existing to primarily "protect" women is similarly stupid. Why? WHO are men protecting women from, supposedly?

Other men.

Doesn't the "male protects his female" thesis entail a view of masculinity as very toxic indeed?

So toxic, in fact, that if a woman doesn't have a man, she's at the mercy of Men in general.

THINK ABOUT IT!
The fact the feet do the best treading & hands do the best needle and threading is not toxic. It means walking gets done in comfy shoes.

Why not mutual appreciation instead of bitterness?
 
What are some disasters where women were rescued first?
From the story I linked earlier:
Historically, far more men survived shipwrecks than women, and more women survived than children, [Roger Marsters, curator of marine history at the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic in Halifax] said in an interview.

"Titanic's officers and crew actually enforced women and children first."

Just over 700 people would be rescued from lifeboats or makeshift rafts after the so-called unsinkable ship went down after striking an iceberg April 15, 1912, about 600 kilometres off Newfoundland's southeast tip.

More than 1,500 people died. They included almost 80 per cent of male crew whose discipline has been immortalized in plays and movies about the great ship's sinking.

Overall, the survival rate on Titanic for men was around 20 per cent, compared to about 74 per cent for women and 52 per cent for children.

The cry "women and children first" is initially traced to the wreck of HM Troopship Birkenhead off South Africa after it struck a reef and sank on Feb. 26, 1852. On board were more than 600 military personnel, including members of the Queen's (Second) Royal Regiment of Foot.

The captain ordered that 25 women and 29 children be launched in a cutter, one of the few lifeboats available. Accounts of that night describe how troops who mustered on listing decks as the vessel began to tilt, her stern rising, obeyed orders not to move until those passengers were safely away.
A study in 2012 by Swedish economists at Uppsala University ... analyzed 18 maritime disasters from 1852 to 2011 involving more than 15,000 passengers and crew from 30 countries. It found that women had a survival advantage over men in just two of those incidents -- Titanic and the Birkenhead.

In 11 other shipwrecks, women were at a disadvantage. In five more, there was no clear distinction.
 
I'll ask again. What are some disasters where women were rescued first? If you don't care to provide any evidence fine, I'll just assume you're talking out of your ass.

But I don't recall women being rescued first on 9/11. In fact I don't see when this policy would even be practical. Except on boats which as we've established is only a custom, not law.

You and the above poster just typed it into Google and read the first 10 hits about "myths". I have family who work in maritime oceanic operations, both public and private. Custom or not, it's what happens. I have a cousin who was present for a major oil rig fire that luckily got back under control. During the evacuation, women went first. This was in the past 5 years, in Canada. The men who were rescued all filed complaints with the company and a lawsuit was briefly considered, but didn't happen.

I've also read first hand reports of men on ships that were sinking that were denied access to lifeboats while women and children were given preferential treatment. The Costa Concordia comes to mind. I've also heard similar stories about some airplane crashes, especially on water. For some reason when disasters happen on water, this "custom" gets triggered in people. This isn't just in developing countries with traditional cultures, it still happens very much in the west.

I don't really care if you think I'm talking "out of my ass" or not. Such a comment debases you and shows what caliber of a poster you are. Also, the fact that you quibble over this one point to the exclusion of all my other points about the plight of men shows very clearly your agenda. Why don't you discuss something useful rather than your penchant for hypercritical perfectionism?
 
Foreigner said:
Men do the most dangerous jobs.
Way more men are maimed or killed on the job than women every year, by far.
Men are more likely to die by violence.
Men are more likely to end up in prison, and get harsher sentences for the same crimes that women commit.
The vast majority of suicides are men.
Boys/men are falling behind in education. Only 30% of undergrads in the USA per year now are male graduates.
Men account for the overwhelming majority of the homeless.
Men are more disposable than women -- "women and children first" is still a policy all over the world in emergency situations.
In terms of partner violence, men are equally as likely to suffer psychological harm from female partners. Men also suffer physical violence.
There are thousands of shelters for people fleeing domestic abuse in the United States, only ONE (yes, one) accepts men.
Men are more likely to lose custody of children in the courts based on gender bias alone (i.e. both parents have jobs/careers, income, etc.).
Men are more likely to be banned from ever seeing their children again, or have greatly reduced access to their children.
Men are far more likely to have to pay spousal support and alimony to women than the other way around.
Men are more likely to be given power they aren't ready for because they are men, leading to self-destruction; the opposite of women who are given no power, leading to self-destruction.

Foreigner said:
you quibble over this one point to the exclusion of all my other points about the plight of men

I'd be very interested to see a list like the one @Foreigner compiled, detailing the disadvantages women have in modern society. I imagine it would be considerably shorter.

Care to have a go anyone?
@JessFR? @S.J.B.? @MrsGamp?
 
I was curious if you could prove it because it was my understanding that it wasn't true. That's why I asked.

That's also why I keep bringing it back to disasters in general rather than maritime, because you were speaking generally, you didn't say women and children are saved first as informal convention on ships. If you had I wouldn't have asked.

You said that it was policy in disasters generally. You've provided no evidence that that is so. You've actually provided no evidence of anything. Your comment about maritime law appears to be wrong as well.

You attack me as a poor quality poster, but the fact is you made an assertion that appears to be wrong. In itself that's not a big deal, we all make mistakes. But you are continuing to defend it in spite of that.

If that's your attitude I think it says a lot about how much anything else you say can be relied upon to be accurate.
 
I'll ask again. What are some disasters where women were rescued first? If you don't care to provide any evidence fine, I'll just assume you're talking out of your ass.

But I don't recall women being rescued first on 9/11. In fact I don't see when this policy would even be practical. Except on boats which as we've established is only a custom, not law.
pretty much women and children were rescued first on the titanic and other boat sinkings. I thought it was pretty much general policy under these types of conditions women and children are the first to be recused and to leave the men behind as the thinking was that men needed to be noble and were stronger to survive. In the world wars women and children were evacuated while men were left to fight.
 
Come on, @JessFR. You know damn well there are many disaster situations that women would get preferential treatment. 9/11 is a ridiculous example. That was total chaos. They saved whoever they found. There was no choice.

No I don't actually, that's why I'm asking.

What are some disasters where women got preference?
 
Not sure if this was on your list, @Foreigner.

There is no country in the world with longer compulsory military service for women.

JessFR said:
No I don't actually, that's why I'm asking.

What are some disasters where women got preference?

You're being intentionally obtuse and latching on to one thing on a long list in order to take attention away from the fact that the male list is longer than the female list.

Prove me wrong.
Provide a female list.
Let's compare them.
 
No.

I was curious about this aspect because I wondered if it might be true. Apparently it's not. I wasn't interested in arguing it beyond that.

And I've given examples of how women are disadvantaged before. Making less money, being less wealthy, being underrepresented politically. Not to mention that the whole world is designed for men, everythings made for a man's height, a man's hand size etc etc.

I'm not interested in discussing the original point further though, not right now anyhow. I was just browsing the thread, I saw foreigners comment and thought "that sounds really dubious... I doubt there's policies that women rescued first in floods or fires or whatever".

So I asked. I some bs about maritime law that by all accounts is false. An argument about maritime culture, which might well be true I don't actually know which is why I haven't argued it.

And zero evidence about any other kind of disaster.

I apologize if I mislead anyone into thinking I was making an argument about the list as a whole, I wasn't trying too. I was curious about that one part and wanted to see what foreigner was thinking. I got my answer.
 
The pay gap is a myth.

Annnnd I don't agree. All the data I've seen says that women make less than men by about 20%. I know there's been arguments made here about choice of profession and the like, but I don't care. It doesn't change that if you're born without a penis, you probably won't make as much. And that doesn't seem right to me.

If you look at the list of billionaires I mentioned the other day, men outnumber women 10 fold.
 
Honestly in NZ i feel like males are way more disadvantaged than females here. It starts during schooling then into the work place. Pretty much 90% + of teachers are females and for those kids who do not have a male role model at home will miss out on a mentor at school. Of course this is totally different in countries who are not as lucky to be like the developed western world.
 
JessFR said:
Annnnd I don't agree. All the data I've seen says that women make less than men by about 20%. I know there's been arguments made here about choice of profession and the like, but I don't care.

Of course you don't care.

It doesn't change that if you're born without a penis, you probably won't make as much. And that doesn't seem right to me.

Again, equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

A lot of women chose to have children and (as you mentioned) women make different career choices. The world can't be designed around making sure that people who make different choices end up with the same paycheck. That doesn't make any sense.

You might as well argue if you're born with artistic inclinations, it is unfair that you probably won't make as much as those who are naturally gifted in mathematics.

You are basically arguing for communism.

If you look at the list of billionaires I mentioned the other day, men outnumber women 10 fold.

If you look at the number of billionaires in every country on a per capita basis, you could argue that it's unfair that there are more in Hong Kong than the United States.

Comparing the percentage of billionaires in the world across various demographics has no bearing on whether or not there is significant prejudice at play.

Is it racist against white people that being born in Hong Kong makes you more likely to be a billionaire than if you're born in the United States or Australia or New Zealand?
 
I was curious if you could prove it because it was my understanding that it wasn't true. That's why I asked.

That's also why I keep bringing it back to disasters in general rather than maritime, because you were speaking generally, you didn't say women and children are saved first as informal convention on ships. If you had I wouldn't have asked.

You said that it was policy in disasters generally. You've provided no evidence that that is so. You've actually provided no evidence of anything. Your comment about maritime law appears to be wrong as well.

You attack me as a poor quality poster, but the fact is you made an assertion that appears to be wrong. In itself that's not a big deal, we all make mistakes. But you are continuing to defend it in spite of that.

If that's your attitude I think it says a lot about how much anything else you say can be relied upon to be accurate.
Its sad that you are driven to be so disingenuous. You don't need to be that way.
 
Ok, let's have more facts and less feelings.

Men do the most dangerous jobs.
Way more men are maimed or killed on the job than women every year, by far.
Men are more likely to die by violence.
Men are more likely to end up in prison, and get harsher sentences for the same crimes that women commit.
The vast majority of suicides are men.
Boys/men are falling behind in education. Only 30% of undergrads in the USA per year now are male graduates.
Men account for the overwhelming majority of the homeless.
Men are more disposable than women -- "women and children first" is still a policy all over the world in emergency situations.
In terms of partner violence, men are equally as likely to suffer psychological harm from female partners. Men also suffer physical violence.
There are thousands of shelters for people fleeing domestic abuse in the United States, only ONE (yes, one) accepts men.
Men are more likely to lose custody of children in the courts based on gender bias alone (i.e. both parents have jobs/careers, income, etc.).
Men are more likely to be banned from ever seeing their children again, or have greatly reduced access to their children.
Men are far more likely to have to pay spousal support and alimony to women than the other way around.
Men are more likely to be given power they aren't ready for because they are men, leading to self-destruction; the opposite of women who are given no power, leading to self-destruction.

Every time men's rights groups bring these things up, they are viciously attacked by feminists for trying to tear down women. Yet, you don't see feminists arguing for more female coal miners, or more female fire fighters, or more female Alaskan crab fisherman, or more female power line workers. No, leave that shit to men, who are the sacrificial lambs. Women will never line up to die the way men are expected to, even if the laws give them equal access.

We can't talk about these problems without being called privileged, told to shut up because we have all the power, or "because patriarchy". It's like if you say anything about the hardship of men, it's directly seen as trying to claw back the rights of women; when really, it's trying to prop up one to prop up the other. Feminists say this all the time -- we are creating better conditions for everyone by helping one sex. Yet when men talk about their plight, they are attacked.

So yes, less emotion, more facts. Men have some serious disadvantages in society, just in different ways.
I look forward to addressing this at greater length ...but as side note - yes there's more men in prison than women ... for all manner of crimes ... but there's one crime for which they rarely do time: spousal assault.

I was lucky to survive my ex's final beating/choking bonanza. He'd locked me in our flat. After he'd choked me twice and seemed to be coming at me for a third go, I picked up a rubber mallet and told
him to back off or I'd hit him. He kept coming at me so I hit him twice in the head. He was bleeding a lot and I begged him to let me call an ambulance. Instead he made a noose and said he was going to hang himself (nice move asshole, since my Mum hanged herself in 2013). But he kept rubbing his blood all over my face and suddenly I realised I
had to get out at any cost ... next thing I was trying to escape by climbing down from balcony of
my 4th floor apartment. Of course it couldn't be done. I fell fifty feet and would've been killed, except a small tree broke my fall. The fall did destroy my left knee, however.
The cops told me if I'd died he would've been charged with murder.
Since I did not die he only got charged with common assault (for choking me) and was sentenced to ten month supervision order (reporting once a week to cops).

this despite previous convictions for assault ...

in meantime he told everyone how he chivalrously didn't have
me charged with assault for hitting him with rubber mallet ... because he'd been choking me Oh and I'd broken his nose.

In fact he had 2 minor lacerations on his scalp and it was so obvious that I'd acted in self defense that one cop told me he was proud of me for hitting him.

And yet I still WOULDNT HAVE HIM CHARGED.
Cops had to charge him because I wouldnt.
And I didn't want him charged because I wanted to protect him from a gaol sentence ...
Since all this happened I had some group therapy.
Must say it was mostly bullshit since we were not allowed to explicitly talk about getting assaulted for fear of "triggering" happening. I think most of us had enough experience with scary situations to handle a little "triggering".
We were also made to do kindergarten-level stuff like fill in worksheets and colour in pictures.
The women's shelter was even worse!
Y'know why men don't need DV shelters! Cos they're able to physically remove their wives from the family home and lock the door. I met women who'd been locked out, along with kids, in their pjs or even just their underpants, without so much as a bus fare.rule..
Man thereby retains house and car.
The women I met in shelters - often encumbered with little kids - have to go from shelter to shitty little flat or community housing (sharing with strangers.)
One woman was sledged because she was meant to take her very young kids to share a house with 3 totally strange homeless men.
She was being "sexist".
 
Last edited:
As a side note it sounds like he had some issues.
And that you also had some issues.

And your issues got together and spawned cute little baby issues.

Then, one day, the baby issues had grown up into strong, young relationship issues independent of mum or dad. An occasion memorialized by some strangulations, a rubber mallet to the face, suicide threats and a brief devolution halted by a failure to successfully integrate back to the rainforrest canopy.
 
Annnnd I don't agree. All the data I've seen says that women make less than men by about 20%. I know there's been arguments made here about choice of profession and the like, but I don't care. It doesn't change that if you're born without a penis, you probably won't make as much. And that doesn't seem right to me.

If you look at the list of billionaires I mentioned the other day, men outnumber women 10 fold.

The pay gap is because:
1) Men do the most dangerous jobs, which require more pay.
2) Men do the most ungratifying jobs (like garbage men, construction, or front line military work), jobs that women won't do. Yes there are exceptions, but on the whole women don't want to do these jobs.

If you include these cohorts in the statistical aggregate, then yes, men make more than women. It's a lie though to say that this statistic is therefore applicable to all jobs.

If you take all the jobs that have approximately the same number of men as women in them, the pay is basically the same. In other words, if we eliminate jobs that are male dominated (by choice) from the statistical analysis, women and men earn the same. This reveals an uncomfortable truth, that even with equal opportunity, women by and large won't do those jobs.

Billionaires and the 1%... who cares. They are not most of the population.
 
Top