# How to ensure you are always "forever alone."



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

Using females to address women can be dehumanizing as it also refers to animals of the same sex.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

kudi said:


> ..oh my... Your choice of whether or not to refer to adult females as women or females is not going to significantly affect wither or not you can find a partner..period. It just isn't that important. Talk about beating a dead horse..


Wow, that's still going on?

That was one of the most trivial, most questionable points in the list.


----------



## Pacce (Feb 7, 2012)

Complains that women date man that are only interested in sex, however him (the forever alone) only acts as someone nice to have sex with her...


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

So three pages in and still nobody has said anything about what's wrong with men's rights?


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

LaLiLuLeLo said:


> So three pages in and still nobody has said anything about what's wrong with men's rights?


Is there something wrong with men's rights?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> Is there something wrong with men's rights?


I guess we'll have to wait until he posts again to find out!


----------



## traceur (Jan 19, 2012)

LaLiLuLeLo said:


> So three pages in and still nobody has said anything about what's wrong with men's rights?


well, noughing is wrong with men rights, except... aren't we already getting those? it just seems to me we're doing pretty well, so other then maybe some slippery slope fallacies about feminism, what exactly would men rights activitsts be fighting for? and can it involve free icecream?


----------



## traceur (Jan 19, 2012)

that's being said, women anti feminists, not "i don't want rights" or "i'm nothing without my men" anti-feminists but rather women smart enough to understand that within economical, legal and sociological frameworks, past actions of women right movements are now indirectly screwing over other women, are sexy. i.e. an overdose of legal defenses raised the cost of legal insurnace the more women a company hires which is cutting from women wages, increasing frequencies of false rape charges bringing police forces to go be an increasingly negative statistic about the chance that a rape charge is true and making less arrests - including cases where they are true, etc... basically women who gain their claim for intelligence from what they can demonstrate and not their affiliations. that's hot.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

LaLiLuLeLo said:


> So three pages in and still nobody has said anything about what's wrong with men's rights?


@MyName, you also might be interested in this.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with men's rights. Every human being has rights -- my boyfriend, my father, my brothers, and my male friends are all men and I care about their rights, health, and safety as much as I do any of the women I know. But that isn't the context that is meant; the last point is speaking to the men's rights movement.

The problem with "men's rights" in the context of the most vocal sects of the MRA movement is that they are largely anti-woman and proponents of this view will argue that _women_* are responsible for the ways in which men suffer from gender-related issues; since women have never in documented history had the degree of social, political, and economic power that men have, it's rather problematic to make this argument. Furthermore, it neglects to address the ways in which certain kinds of masculine behaviour are perpetuated and encouraged most often in a homosocial setting (between male friends, father-son, coach-athlete, male colleagues/classmates, etc.).

Although the men's rights movement is often presented as the corollary to feminism, for the most part they are disanalagous. Feminism does not posit individual men (or men as a class) as the source of women's oppression nor does it deny that men can suffer from sexism. Feminism argues that the social institutions that arise from a patriarchal context perpetuate a system that privileges men and oppresses women. This is actually a gross oversimplificiation since different groups of men and women are privileged and oppressed in different ways under, what bell hooks would argue, is actually "late capitalist, imperialist, white supremacist heteropatriarchy." As a middle-class, able-bodied, cis-gendered white woman who at least appears to be a practicing heterosexual, I am a great deal more privileged than different groups of men (or women) who may not middle-class, able-bodied, white, cis-gendered or heterosexual. This also does not mean that the group of men who happen to be middle-class, able-bodied, white, cis-gendered and heterosexual do not still suffer from discrimination on the basis of their gender since there are often serious (and violent) consequences for not performing masculinity 'correctly'; it only means that within this political economy, their interests tend to be promoted above those of others. Even this discussion of power and privilege as unilateral and inflexible is incredibly oversimplistic, but I'm discussing them in this way for brevity.

On the other hand, the overwhelmingly majority of MRAs argue the opposite: that men as a class are oppressed by women (especially feminists, who they see as being a great deal more numerous and powerful than they actually are); many will also refuse to acknowledge that women suffer from sexism. On a theoretical basis, the men's rights movement (insofar as we are discussing this kind of nonsense) is a complete and utter farce. Its explanatory power is basically nil and that is because its framework doesn't actually hold up in the real world; for the most part, it isn't a valid movement, it's a reactionary one. If you're interested in reading articulate accounts and discussions of men's rights, I would suggest a college-level class on men and masculinity or checking out any number of masculinities scholars; personally, I'd recommend either Hugo Schwyzer or Michael Messner.

This isn't to say that some of the less inflammatory and anti-woman/anti-feminist issues brought up by the men's rights movement** are not explicitly gendered issues that ought to be addressed; it's to make the point that women do not oppress men as a class (even if some women can and do discriminate against them and some women can and do perpetuate the patriarchal system which hurts men) and that the very system that is responsible for oppressing women on the basis of their gender hurts men who fail to live up to hegemonic views of masculinity*** while it privileges them in other ways: namely by their membership to the dominant social group.

*especially feminists, who they seem to believe compose a much more significant percentage of the population than they really do -- most women actually adamantly deny that they are feminists since the stereotype goes that if you are, you must be: a man-hater; a lesbian; against having children; hairy and disgusting.

**such as issues pertaining to adoption, child custody, paternity leave, the silence and shaming around men who have suffered from domestic abuse or rape, as well as a host of other issues pertaining to the construction and negotiation of masculine identity.

***the most obvious examples here would be queer men, poor men, men of colour, and disabled men, but it also applies to men who are non-aggressive, feminine, sensitive, non-dominant, etc. or do not live up to a patriarchal ideal in whatever way.


----------



## JoetheBull (Apr 29, 2010)

Being myself seems to be the reason I will be alone forever. That and not having or really understanding ambitions. finding activities outside the house are kind of extremely boring. And I haven't been really attracted to anyone as of recently(except physically but kind of need more then that to want to date the person). Basically despite being annoyed with having to go threw life single the entire time and lack the experience and knowledge that seems so easy for others to obtain. I guess I should just get used to it. need sleep -.-


----------



## bromide (Nov 28, 2011)

Very eloquently explained, @knittigan. As usual <3. I'd add that I think one of the problems is that feminism is such a misunderstood term for the theories and ideas it embodies. A lot of people don't recognize the fact that it pertains so much to breaking down patriarchal gender roles which oppress both ways. They think "well if feminism = women's rights, why aren't there men's rights as well?" not understanding that they're inclusive because gender roles themselves are a product of a certain type of socialization and it's that ideology which feminists question. The result is that a lot of people who are men's rights activists generally have no clue what feminism is and tend to see feminists and sometimes women in general as spectres of oppression. I've actually never seen an MRA group that doesn't come off like this:


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Cheveyo said:


> As for using the word female, what else would you use?
> Not all girls are women and not all women are girls.
> "Females" covers the whole gender.


Exactly.... that whole point about using "female" is _very_ context dependent. Probably just talking about people who use "females" in a really casual way, and in a way synonymous to saying "b-tches"



LaLiLuLeLo said:


> So three pages in and still nobody has said anything about what's wrong with men's rights?


Nothing wrong with men's rights. I would be _very_ interested in actually being into _true_ male equality, sadly "men's rights activist" has a negative association tainted by men who use it to defend male _dominance_ or _superiority_, not equality.... or simply to justify doing the stuff in the list in the OP, or worse.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Men's rights as specifically male norm constructed rights (in the Hohfeldian sense) are functioning pretty much without hiccough? I suppose one could assert the homosexuality or intersectionality arguments, but I would rely on the fact that the very principles of autonomy are based in judicial liberalism as laid by Kant and Mill, which are constructed around a "rational being" who is very much so of a particular race and gender. There is limited getting around that fact, and it is provable in the continued non-binding status of international treaties such as UNIFEM, which ironically had to be passed after the (equally non-binding) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

Whilst I will acknowledge that there is a pro-female bias in traditional family law matters, this is not true 100%, just as the notion that men are not getting their 'due share of equality' has certain very important critiques to raise, but just isn't necessarily 100% true as borne out in practice....


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)




----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Promethea said:


> I saw this on tumblr and it made me lul:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are simpler ways. Never even had tried single item on the list. This is actually lot of work.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Females females females


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Oh boy. I needed to see this. Good shit.


----------



## sockratees (Apr 7, 2015)

Promethea said:


> I saw this on tumblr and it made me lul:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


fuck that shit, half of this stuff is true, and the other half women deserve it. 

*kicks the princess pedestal*


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Miss you Prom...


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

This is the most unoriginal thing I've seen all week.


----------

