Well I was planning to oppress women, but the bloke out of Rizzle Kicks say it's bad

[Peter]

Well quite. It doesn't help my view of his witterings that he recently appeared on Celebrity Bear Grylls Island (or whatever it's called) and revealed himself to be a lazy, selfish, entitled, spoilt little prick in urgent need of a solid right-hander.

I think the phrase 'solid right hander' might mean something else these days.

Anyone who utters the phrase toxic masculinity is a complete and utter ****.

[Ash]

Anyone who utters the phrase toxic masculinity is a complete and utter ****.

Not long before the dialectic kicks into action and the antithesis of "toxic feminism" starts to circulate.

In fact, shall we start it? Shall we meme it up?

[Burney]

Not long before the dialectic kicks into action and the antithesis of "toxic feminism" starts to circulate.

In fact, shall we start it? Shall we meme it up?

It already exists. They're called 'TERFs' (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists).

Basically, they're actual women who rather resent blokes in frocks rocking up and telling them what being a woman is all about.
Much, I imagine, as black people would react to a white bloke covered in boot polish explaining the black experience to them.

[Burney]

I think the phrase 'solid right hander' might mean something else these days.

Anyone who utters the phrase toxic masculinity is a complete and utter ****.

Apart from anything else, it contains a redundancy because what the users of the phrase actually mean is that masculinity in its commonly and historically understood sense is - by its very nature - toxic.

It's almost up there with 'mansplaining' in my shítlist of bullshít quasi-feminist terms.

IF YOU'RE WRONG AND I POINT IT OUT, LOVE, THAT'S NOT 'MANSPLAINING', IT'S 'EXPLAINING'! AND IT USUALLY HAS TO BE DONE BECAUSE YOU'RE A BIT THICK. ACCUSING ME OF 'MANSPLAINING' DOESN'T MAKE YOU ANY LESS WRONG OR ANY LESS THICK!

[Peter]

Apart from anything else, it contains a redundancy because what the users of the phrase actually mean is that masculinity in its commonly and historically understood sense is - by its very nature - toxic.

It's almost up there with 'mansplaining' in my shítlist of bullshít quasi-feminist terms.

IF YOU'RE WRONG AND I POINT IT OUT, LOVE, THAT'S NOT 'MANSPLAINING', IT'S 'EXPLAINING'! AND IT USUALLY HAS TO BE DONE BECAUSE YOU'RE A BIT THICK. ACCUSING ME OF 'MANSPLAINING' DOESN'T MAKE YOU ANY LESS WRONG OR ANY LESS THICK!

That article is total and utter *******s from start to finish. Rambling nonsense. "Most men feel more comfortable killing themselves than acknowledging pain".....where the **** does he get that from? Total and utter ****!

The problem with this sort of **** is that it addresses masculinity from the feminist perspective, where women are oppressed and men are their oppressors. It therefore seeks to adjust masculinity as retribution- not in a constructive sense that realigns traditional gender roles but as a punishment, a reparation for years of oppression. Thus masculinity is realigned to suit feminism, men must be reconstructed in a way that suits women.

Well that is ****ing horse**** and, given the assumption that we are the evil agents of oppression, why would we agree to it?

The cancer at the heart of the last 30 years of feminism has been the narrative that men made the destruction of entrenched gender roles necessary. It ignores the fact that men are just as trapped in their entrenched roles and at no point has feminism acknowledged or tackled this. The inevitable consequence is a society of imbalance, as only one side of the balance is addressed.

If we are toxic it is because feminism poisoned us.

[Burney]

That article is total and utter *******s from start to finish. Rambling nonsense. "Most men feel more comfortable killing themselves than acknowledging pain".....where the **** does he get that from? Total and utter ****!

The problem with this sort of **** is that it addresses masculinity from the feminist perspective, where women are oppressed and men are their oppressors. It therefore seeks to adjust masculinity as retribution- not in a constructive sense that realigns traditional gender roles but as a punishment, a reparation for years of oppression. Thus masculinity is realigned to suit feminism, men must be reconstructed in a way that suits women.

Well that is ****ing horse**** and, given the assumption that we are the evil agents of oppression, why would we agree to it?

The cancer at the heart of the last 30 years of feminism has been the narrative that men made the destruction of entrenched gender roles necessary. It ignores the fact that men are just as trapped in their entrenched roles and at no point has feminism acknowledged or tackled this. The inevitable consequence is a society of imbalance, as only one side of the balance is addressed.

If we are toxic it is because feminism poisoned us.

Essentially, though, this is the nature of identity politics, isn't it? It must define the 'enemy' as evil in order to sustain itself. Thus, inevitably, the straight, white, anglophone male is absolutely at the bottom of the inverse pyramid that is identity politics and must abase himself and apologise abjectly for his very existence before even being allowed to speak.

Fùck 'em. I like being a straight, white anglophone male. They're all cünts.

[Peter]

Essentially, though, this is the nature of identity politics, isn't it? It must define the 'enemy' as evil in order to sustain itself. Thus, inevitably, the straight, white, anglophone male is absolutely at the bottom of the inverse pyramid that is identity politics and must abase himself and apologise abjectly for his very existence before even being allowed to speak.

Fùck 'em. I like being a straight, white anglophone male. They're all cünts.

Yes. Unfortunately, or perhaps through design, they raised a generation of women who are utterly self-centred and are unable to accept any form of accountability for their actions, preferring to play the victim.

It isn't a brilliant idea to raise people to believe that everything is someone else's fault.

The most irritating thing is that as a straight male you have to actually live with them. The gays dont know how lucky they are.

[IUFG]

It isn't a brilliant idea to raise people to believe that everything is someone else's fault.

it genius tbf.

I shall now live my life by that rule.

I get confused reading the Guardian - which I only ever do from links posted on here.
They appear to espouse the defence of the muslamics and the feminism stuff; when quite clearly the two are polar opposites.

So, it is ok to repress women if your a muslim bloke. Is that right?

[Burney]

it genius tbf.

I shall now live my life by that rule.

I get confused reading the Guardian - which I only ever do from links posted on here.
They appear to espouse the defence of the muslamics and the feminism stuff; when quite clearly the two are polar opposites.

So, it is ok to repress women if your a muslim bloke. Is that right?

Basically, yes. They'd prefer it if you did it on the down-low and got your missus to pretend she likes walking round looking like a funereal postbox, but basically they're happy for you to carry on oppressing.

[Burney]

Yes. Unfortunately, or perhaps through design, they raised a generation of women who are utterly self-centred and are unable to accept any form of accountability for their actions, preferring to play the victim.

It isn't a brilliant idea to raise people to believe that everything is someone else's fault.

The most irritating thing is that as a straight male you have to actually live with them. The gays dont know how lucky they are.

I wouldn't mind being blamed for everything if I'd actually got to do a good amount of oppressing, tbh. But I'm not aware that I ever have. I've never been allowed to own slaves, run India, sell opium and guns to half the world, shoot Aborigines or red injuns or treat women like chattel.

Basically, we're paying for all the good stuff our forefathers got to do. Not fair imo.