Aggro

[rutters]

Calm down and have another go. That one didn't really make sense.

you wrote it.


But I regret getting involved today. My view of you is simple. You are Dark with some very dangerous traits.

...and I think you're a creepy, vacuous sycophant so you're probably best leaving it there.

[Ayton Mews]

Crikey @Ayton Mews its actually scary to read.

It's not good...

[rutters]

Crikey @Ayton Mews its actually scary to read.

Someone REALLY doesn't like her privileges challenged 

[spottygiraffe (Moderator)]

1. "Wonder why women don't establish their own football association to independently fund the women's game?"

This comment is dismissive of the challenges women face in sports, particularly the historical and systemic barriers that have limited their access to funding, resources, and opportunities. The implication here is that women are dependent on men and should just "go do it themselves," ignoring the deeply entrenched inequalities that have made it difficult for women to achieve parity in sports.

2. "Wonder why men pay for their own gynocentric indoctrination?"

The term "gynocentric" suggests an excessive focus on women at the expense of men, which implies that any effort to address gender inequality is inherently biased against men. This rhetoric diminishes legitimate concerns about gender disparities and frames efforts to empower women as a form of indoctrination, which is dismissive of women's rights and equality.

3. "Then you must be very upset that there's only a daily Woman's Hour advocating for women and that every BBC political show is fronted by a Feminist."

This post uses sarcasm to belittle the idea of media representation for women and feminists. It implies that any focus on women's issues is excessive and unfair to men, ignoring the fact that women have historically been underrepresented in media and politics. The comment diminishes the importance of giving women a platform to discuss issues that affect them.

4. "For those of you who are keen on women's sports, the BBC are currently going a bundle on Women's Netball...but strangely not Men's."

This statement trivialises women's sports by pointing out the lack of coverage for men's netball, which is a much less established sport. It implies that coverage of women's sports is unnecessary or unfair, disregarding the fact that women's sports have been historically marginalised and are only recently gaining the attention they deserve.

5. "Rachel Reeves thinks she's being bullied because she's a woman."

This dismisses the real experiences of women in politics who face gender-based harassment and discrimination. It trivialises the idea that gender can be a factor in bullying, reducing a serious issue to a sarcastic quip.

6. "I find it offensive that when Wayne Couzens killed one woman he was evil, his court case was covered wall-to-wall... When Letby kills 7 babies and tries to kill 10 more, she must have 'issues'."

This comparison is problematic because it misrepresents the way gender and crime are discussed in the media. The reference to "toxic masculinity" in the Couzens case reflects a broader societal issue where male violence against women is often systemic. In contrast, the Letby case is more about individual pathology. The comment falsely equates different situations to suggest that men are unfairly vilified, while women are given leniency, reinforcing a narrative that diminishes the specific impact of gender-based violence.

7. "aka 'The Gender Justice Gap' Can anyone seriously tell me a man who assaulted Police four times, sexually harassed and racial abused wouldn't serve jail time?"

This comment suggests that women are unfairly treated more leniently by the justice system, contributing to a narrative that women have undue privilege. It ignores the broader context of gender bias in the justice system, where women often face significant disadvantages, particularly in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault.

8. "Makes you wonder why so many men see the advantages of identifying as women. Just look what female privilege did to Birmingham Council."

This post perpetuates the myth of "female privilege," suggesting that women, or those who identify as women, do so to exploit supposed advantages. This dismisses the real struggles of transgender individuals and undermines the reality of gender inequality by falsely implying that women have it easier than men.

9. "Feminism can be very expensive."

This statement is dismissive of the feminist movement, suggesting that efforts to achieve gender equality are a burden or cost rather than a necessary pursuit of justice and fairness. It reduces feminism to a negative impact on society rather than recognising it as a movement that seeks to address systemic inequalities.

10. "Tired of hearing women (and their male co-conspirators) saying we shouldn't compare them to the men's game...then comparing themselves to the men's game."

This comment accuses women of hypocrisy and portrays their efforts to achieve recognition in sports as illegitimate. The use of "co-conspirators" implies a nefarious agenda, and the overall tone suggests that women are whining or being unreasonable in their demands for equality in sports, again disregarding the historical context of gender inequality in athletics.

The underlying theme in these posts is a dismissal of women's struggles and achievements, coupled with a belief that efforts to address gender inequality are either unnecessary or unfair to men. The posts often belittle or mock women's efforts to achieve equality, whether in sports, media, or politics, and suggest that women are either undeserving of attention or that they are being unfairly favored. This rhetoric is harmful because it perpetuates stereotypes, minimises legitimate issues women face, and fosters an environment where misogynistic views can flourish.

[spottygiraffe (Moderator)]

Crikey @Ayton Mews its actually scary to read.

Someone REALLY doesn't like her privileges challenged 

I was referring to all your other posts little mate

[rutters]

Either his mummy didn't hug him enough as a kid, or his mrs left him for a guardian reading lefty doyle

Childish

[Hound]

[rutters]

Crikey @Ayton Mews its actually scary to read.

Someone REALLY doesn't like her privileges challenged 

I was referring to all your other posts little mate

I was referring to yours, princess

[Ayton Mews]

[Hound]

[Ayton Mews]

[Ayton Mews]

[spottygiraffe (Moderator)]

[Ayton Mews]

Either his mummy didn't hug him enough as a kid, or his mrs left him for a guardian reading lefty doyle

Childish

 

[spottygiraffe (Moderator)]

Jokes aside @rutters and genuinely asking, what is your ideal outcome here?

What is it you're trying to achieve by posting about me every single day?

If there's something we can do to help end this I would love to know.

I've also posted a thread of great resources for men who are struggling, just in case this tirade is due to something bigger than just me.

[rutters]

1. "Wonder why women don't establish their own football association to independently fund the women's game?"

This comment is dismissive of the challenges women face in sports, particularly the historical and systemic barriers that have limited their access to funding, resources, and opportunities. The implication here is that women are dependent on men and should just "go do it themselves," ignoring the deeply entrenched inequalities that have made it difficult for women to achieve parity in sports.

1a It's requiring women to do what men did.

2. "Wonder why men pay for their own gynocentric indoctrination?"

The term "gynocentric" suggests an excessive focus on women at the expense of men, which implies that any effort to address gender inequality is inherently biased against men. This rhetoric diminishes legitimate concerns about gender disparities and frames efforts to empower women as a form of indoctrination, which is dismissive of women's rights and equality.
2a It advocates for equal representation for men.

3. "Then you must be very upset that there's only a daily Woman's Hour advocating for women and that every BBC political show is fronted by a Feminist."

This post uses sarcasm to belittle the idea of media representation for women and feminists. It implies that any focus on women's issues is excessive and unfair to men, ignoring the fact that women have historically been underrepresented in media and politics. The comment diminishes the importance of giving women a platform to discuss issues that affect them.
3a it advocates for equal representation.

4. "For those of you who are keen on women's sports, the BBC are currently going a bundle on Women's Netball...but strangely not Men's."

This statement trivialises women's sports by pointing out the lack of coverage for men's netball, which is a much less established sport. It implies that coverage of women's sports is unnecessary or unfair, disregarding the fact that women's sports have been historically marginalised and are only recently gaining the attention they deserve.
4a Women's football was  a less established sport

5. "Rachel Reeves thinks she's being bullied because she's a woman."

This dismisses the real experiences of women in politics who face gender-based harassment and discrimination. It trivialises the idea that gender can be a factor in bullying, reducing a serious issue to a sarcastic quip.
5a Trivialising abuse of men.

6. "I find it offensive that when Wayne Couzens killed one woman he was evil, his court case was covered wall-to-wall... When Letby kills 7 babies and tries to kill 10 more, she must have 'issues'."

This comparison is problematic because it misrepresents the way gender and crime are discussed in the media. The reference to "toxic masculinity" in the Couzens case reflects a broader societal issue where male violence against women is often systemic. In contrast, the Letby case is more about individual pathology. The comment falsely equates different situations to suggest that men are unfairly vilified, while women are given leniency, reinforcing a narrative that diminishes the specific impact of gender-based violence.
6a Female violence against men is trivialised, more and increasingly systematic.

7. "aka 'The Gender Justice Gap' Can anyone seriously tell me a man who assaulted Police four times, sexually harassed and racial abused wouldn't serve jail time?"

This comment suggests that women are unfairly treated more leniently by the justice system, contributing to a narrative that women have undue privilege. It ignores the broader context of gender bias in the justice system, where women often face significant disadvantages, particularly in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault.
7a Women are far more leniently treated by the CJS

8. "Makes you wonder why so many men see the advantages of identifying as women. Just look what female privilege did to Birmingham Council."

This post perpetuates the myth of "female privilege," suggesting that women, or those who identify as women, do so to exploit supposed advantages. This dismisses the real struggles of transgender individuals and undermines the reality of gender inequality by falsely implying that women have it easier than men.
8a Treat men & women equally and it's no longer an issue.

9. "Feminism can be very expensive."

This statement is dismissive of the feminist movement, suggesting that efforts to achieve gender equality are a burden or cost rather than a necessary pursuit of justice and fairness. It reduces feminism to a negative impact on society rather than recognising it as a movement that seeks to address systemic inequalities.
9a The people of Birmingham are still paying for female privilege.

10. "Tired of hearing women (and their male co-conspirators) saying we shouldn't compare them to the men's game...then comparing themselves to the men's game."

This comment accuses women of hypocrisy and portrays their efforts to achieve recognition in sports as illegitimate. The use of "co-conspirators" implies a nefarious agenda, and the overall tone suggests that women are whining or being unreasonable in their demands for equality in sports, again disregarding the historical context of gender inequality in athletics.
10a the real hypocrisy in in making comparisons when it's beneficial.

The underlying theme in these posts is a dismissal of women's struggles and achievements, coupled with a belief that efforts to address gender inequality are either unnecessary or unfair to men. The posts often belittle or mock women's efforts to achieve equality, whether in sports, media, or politics, and suggest that women are either undeserving of attention or that they are being unfairly favored. This rhetoric is harmful because it perpetuates stereotypes, minimises legitimate issues women face, and fosters an environment where misogynistic views can flourish.

Your replies illustrate your entitlement, supremacy, exceptionalism and a deep-seated hatred of men.

[rutters]

Jokes aside @rutters and genuinely asking, what is your ideal outcome here?

What is it you're trying to achieve by posting about me every single day?

If there's something we can do to help end this I would love to know.

I've also posted a thread of great resources for men who are struggling, just in case this tirade is due to something bigger than just me.

You made false accusations. You are abusive and dismissive. You prioritise yourself (narcissism). You make personal attacks on me and others and now you want to be a victim.

**The Perfect Feminist**

[Hound]

 

[spottygiraffe (Moderator)]

I appreciate that this is a sensitive topic, and I want to clarify my position to avoid misunderstandings. My intention is not to dismiss men's experiences or concerns but to address the tone and implications of the original posts you made. Here's how I'd like to respond to your points:

1. "It's requiring women to do what men did."

Men historically had societal and institutional support when establishing sports organisations, whereas women have faced systemic barriers, including discrimination and lack of resources. Suggesting that women should simply "do what men did" ignores these historical inequalities. The goal isn't to demand independence for its own sake but to recognise and dismantle the barriers that have prevented women from achieving parity in sports.

2. "It advocates for equal representation for men."

Advocating for men's representation is valid, but dismissing concerns about gender-based biases as "gynocentric indoctrination" can undermine the progress toward equality. If the goal is equal representation, it should involve acknowledging both men's and women's issues without framing efforts to address women's inequality as inherently anti-men.

3. "It advocates for equal representation."

Equal representation is crucial, but sarcastically criticising platforms like Woman's Hour or feminist representation ignores the historical lack of female voices in media and politics. These platforms exist to address that imbalance, not to silence men, but to ensure that women's perspectives are also heard and valued.

4. "Women's football was a less established sport."

Women's football, like many other women's sports, has historically been marginalised, which is why increased coverage is important now. Criticising this coverage as excessive fails to recognise the efforts to correct decades of underrepresentation and to promote women's sports to a wider audience.

5. "Trivializing abuse of men."

The point wasn't to trivialise men's experiences but to highlight that dismissing Rachel Reeves' concerns about gender-based bullying ignores the very real issue of sexism in politics. We should take all forms of harassment seriously, whether they affect men or women, without downplaying the specific challenges that women face.

6. "Female violence against men is trivialized, more and increasingly systematic."

Violence, whether perpetrated by men or women, should never be trivialised. However, the comparison between Wayne Couzens and Lucy Letby was problematic because it misrepresented the context. Couzens' crime was linked to a broader issue of systemic male violence against women, while Letby's case was treated as an individual pathology, not representative of women as a group.

7. "Women are far more leniently treated by the CJS."

The justice system does have complexities and biases, but it's essential to consider the broader context. Women often face significant disadvantages in cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other crimes where they are victims. While disparities exist, they should be addressed without assuming women universally receive leniency.

8. "Treat men & women equally and it's no longer an issue."

True equality is the goal, but framing efforts to address women's struggles as "female privilege" or dismissing them as unnecessary suggests that the playing field is already level, which it is not. Recognising and addressing gender inequalities is not about giving women advantages but about creating a genuinely fair and equal society.

9. "The people of Birmingham are still paying for female privilege."

The reference to "female privilege" in this context oversimplifies complex issues. Feminism seeks to address systemic inequalities, not to create undue burdens on society. Criticisms should be based on specific policies or actions rather than attributing costs broadly to a movement aimed at achieving gender equality.

10. "The real hypocrisy is in making comparisons when it's beneficial."

Comparisons in sports are often made to highlight disparities in funding, recognition, and treatment. The criticism of women "whining" about comparisons ignores the fact that these comparisons are necessary to draw attention to the inequalities that still exist.

Regarding the accusations of "entitlement, supremacy, exceptionalism, and hatred of men":

My responses were meant to address specific issues related to gender inequality, not to suggest that men's experiences are irrelevant or less important. The pursuit of equality is not a zero-sum game; advocating for women's rights does not mean hating men or ignoring their struggles. True equality means recognising and addressing the challenges faced by both men and women without dismissing or undermining one group's concerns.

If there are legitimate concerns about men's issues, I believe they should be discussed seriously and constructively, but not at the expense of dismissing women's issues. Both can be addressed without resorting to divisive rhetoric.

[spottygiraffe (Moderator)]

Jokes aside @rutters and genuinely asking, what is your ideal outcome here?

What is it you're trying to achieve by posting about me every single day?

If there's something we can do to help end this I would love to know.

I've also posted a thread of great resources for men who are struggling, just in case this tirade is due to something bigger than just me.

You made false accusations. You are abusive and dismissive. You prioritise yourself (narcissism). You make personal attacks on me and others and now you want to be a victim.

**The Perfect Feminist**

That doesn't answer my question, what is the outcome you would like to see?

Ken has asked for this to stop and rightly so.

But if I can assist that in helping you achieve the outcome you're after, I'm more than happy to help.

[Ayton Mews]

a deep-seated hatred of men.

I've consulted my "psychology for dummies" handbook, and this is called projecting

[rutters]

I appreciate that this is a sensitive topic, and I want to clarify my position to avoid misunderstandings. My intention is not to dismiss men's experiences or concerns but to address the tone and implications of the original posts you made. Here's how I'd like to respond to your points:

1. "It's requiring women to do what men did."

Men historically had societal and institutional support when establishing sports organisations, whereas women have faced systemic barriers, including discrimination and lack of resources. Suggesting that women should simply "do what men did" ignores these historical inequalities. The goal isn't to demand independence for its own sake but to recognise and dismantle the barriers that have prevented women from achieving parity in sports.

You must have a very low opinion if women if you you think they need men to provide for you

2. "It advocates for equal representation for men."

Advocating for men's representation is valid, but dismissing concerns about gender-based biases as "gynocentric indoctrination" can undermine the progress toward equality. If the goal is equal representation, it should involve acknowledging both men's and women's issues without framing efforts to address women's inequality as inherently anti-men.
That can only be achieved via equal representation

3. "It advocates for equal representation."

Equal representation is crucial, but sarcastically criticising platforms like Woman's Hour or feminist representation ignores the historical lack of female voices in media and politics. These platforms exist to address that imbalance, not to silence men, but to ensure that women's perspectives are also heard and valued.

If there was equal output for men you'd be welcome to sarcastically criticise it and I promise I won't play victim.

4. "Women's football was a less established sport."

Women's football, like many other women's sports, has historically been marginalised, which is why increased coverage is important now. Criticising this coverage as excessive fails to recognise the efforts to correct decades of underrepresentation and to promote women's sports to a wider audience.
So if we boost women's football why not men's netball? They made the world cup without the privileges.

5. "Trivializing abuse of men."

The point wasn't to trivialise men's experiences but to highlight that dismissing Rachel Reeves' concerns about gender-based bullying ignores the very real issue of sexism in politics. We should take all forms of harassment seriously, whether they affect men or women, without downplaying the specific challenges that women face.
You either want people treated equally or you don't.

6. "Female violence against men is trivialized, more and increasingly systematic."

Violence, whether perpetrated by men or women, should never be trivialised. However, the comparison between Wayne Couzens and Lucy Letby was problematic because it misrepresented the context. Couzens' crime was linked to a broader issue of systemic male violence against women, while Letby's case was treated as an individual pathology, not representative of women as a group.
So why should men be treated as a group but not women? If it's down to frequency then women are far more likely to kill children and the elderly. #ToxicFemininity

7. "Women are far more leniently treated by the CJS."

The justice system does have complexities and biases, but it's essential to consider the broader context. Women often face significant disadvantages in cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other crimes where they are victims. While disparities exist, they should be addressed without assuming women universally receive leniency.
My claim is factual; yours is subjective

8. "Treat men & women equally and it's no longer an issue."

True equality is the goal, but framing efforts to address women's struggles as "female privilege" or dismissing them as unnecessary suggests that the playing field is already level, which it is not. Recognising and addressing gender inequalities is not about giving women advantages but about creating a genuinely fair and equal society.
If you only address women's struggles that increases the inequality and makes femalehood even more attractive
 
9. "The people of Birmingham are still paying for female privilege."

The reference to "female privilege" in this context oversimplifies complex issues. Feminism seeks to address systemic inequalities, not to create undue burdens on society. Criticisms should be based on specific policies or actions rather than attributing costs broadly to a movement aimed at achieving gender equality.
The privilege is in paying women the same as men doing jobs that women won't or can't do.

10. "The real hypocrisy is in making comparisons when it's beneficial."

Comparisons in sports are often made to highlight disparities in funding, recognition, and treatment. The criticism of women "whining" about comparisons ignores the fact that these comparisons are necessary to draw attention to the inequalities that still exist.

The hypocrisy is in highlighting only the disparities which benefit women ie salaries but not income produced.

Regarding the accusations of "entitlement, supremacy, exceptionalism, and hatred of men":

My responses were meant to address specific issues related to gender inequality, not to suggest that men's experiences are irrelevant or less important. The pursuit of equality is not a zero-sum game; advocating for women's rights does not mean hating men or ignoring their struggles. True equality means recognising and addressing the challenges faced by both men and women without dismissing or undermining one group's concerns.
Feminism has made it into a zero-sum game leading to no provision for male DV victims, biased policing, unequal laws, unequal parental rights, unequal health provision...the list is endless.

If there are legitimate concerns about men's issues, I believe they should be discussed seriously and constructively, but not at the expense of dismissing women's issues. Both can be addressed without resorting to divisive rhetoric.

If you can't take it, don't give it out. Stop trying to be a victim of 'misogyny'

This thread is too unwieldy now. Feel free to separate it into individual threads. You're a mod, you can do that.

[spottygiraffe (Moderator)]

Is that you waving a white flag? 🏳�

[Blott]

Is that you waving a white flag? 🏳�

that's a yes for me. I am glad I don't have daughters or granddaughters with lads like him about.

[spottygiraffe (Moderator)]

Is that you waving a white flag? 🏳�

that's a yes for me. I am glad I don't have daughters or granddaughters with lads like him about.

I know what you mean, when I found out I was having a daughter I was terrified thinking what her future might look like.