u/Angryasfk

Did you make that up yourself, or did you get AI to do it for you?

The term “manosphere” is just a blanket term, far more so than “feminist” (there’s no equivalent of “gender studies” departments to form a sort of “official line”). Yes, it gets applied to various scammers, including various Tate wannabes - even Louis Theroux had to admit that it is applied to people very different to the charlatan grifters he had on his show - but it goes to very different characters too. Including many who’d argue that feminism is adopted by the powers that be precisely to keep the population at loggerheads with each other for their own benefit. And this includes getting women into the workforce to depress wages and now they’ve belatedly discovered that the birthrate is depressed! That’s partially why they’re plugging immigration and raving about racism. But you just watch the switch happen. Right now they’re blaming men for lack of fertility (not house prices of course). As soon as feminism doesn’t benefit them…

Women are not doing that well - evidence perhaps that feminism and female happiness are not synonymous????!

But there’s no doubt that boys are faring far worse in education than girls are. And I wonder why you’re trying to deny this? Why are you?

The term “manosphere” is applied to far more than Tate and his clones though.

Then isn’t it a requirement on someone like you who claims to “know it all” and flashes your academic position as proof of this to be more aware that such a generalised label as “the manosphere” actually has been applied to a very heterogeneous group of actors and positions? As I see it, the “badness” is less that the likes of Tate have an audience than that the audience has been created in the first place!

That discrimination against men in employment is not likely to be “temporary” until” things “get balanced”! Things are more unbalanced in education today than they were in 1972 when the US decided it was discrimination and countermeasures needed to be introduced. But what’s the “gender fixing” that’s happening now? Oh that’s right, pushing more women into engineering and science, and conveniently excluding biosciences and medical science from “STEM” because they’re already majority female. Women are already selectively recruited from engineering anyway and have been for decades. But it’s an imperative that there be more female engineers; but that over 80% of clinical psychologists are female, well nothing to see here folks!

Given education is still pushing for more women even as women are now more than 60% of graduates, why should anyone believe that favouring women will magically stop when women reach the magic
50% of any trade or profession?

How long do you suppose this pretence can be carried on? And does offical policy have any responsibility at all for leaving the way open for bad actors to enter the field?

Perhaps Tate does this. I’ve no idea. He doesn’t interest me. But that’s quite a generalisation you just made. Would you be comfortable saying that feminists are all lesbians who hate men and ugly hags that resent men for not wanting them and are there to manipulate women into being just like them? Or that all DV advocates are just trying to get government money and lying to get more? There’s certainly loads of bad actors around. But DV is real enough.

Bits of it are. Bits of feminism advocate for the extermination of men (or close to it - reducing men to 10% of the population; keeping them in locked camps etc. it’s not “just a joke” for all of them). Would you want to claim all feminists call for all men to be killed or interned? I doubt it. The so-called “manosphere” is just a blanket term that covers grifters out to exploit people to those that are just spaces for venting.

You call this garbage you wrote “objective”?

That’s Tate. It’s not the totality. And it’s not why it’s actually attractive to young guys.

Well I find that highly ironic. You lot LOVE “lived experience” so here’s mine! In my last year of Primary school our regular teacher took long service leave roughly halfway through the year. We ended up with this woman (considerably younger than the former one) who once she was confirmed in the position made it quite clear she HATED us because we were male. Bear in mind we were 11 and 12 years old. She’d mark us down. She’d attack us for things far more minor than the ones she’d let girls get away with even when they did it right in front of her. And she had particular venom (and that’s the word for it) for one boy in particular. He wasn’t badly behaved. But he was the top runner of our year. She saw him as the “macho type” and targeted him relentlessly. He could do nothing right in her eyes. She was plain evil. Supposedly she was a DV victim and had two daughters. But she victimised children to avenge herself.

So I call BS on this self appointed “expert” of yours. This was years ago. And I’ve no doubt things are far worse now. Male primary school teachers were a minority even then. Now they’re an endangered species.

Some of it is. Other parts are simply a reaction to other, and far more dominant social movements that for various reasons seem to be beyond criticism.

Tate is a self promoter. But he wouldn’t have an audience if young guys didn’t feel constantly put down and, yes, discriminated against. Do feminists and the powers that be ever wonder at the message they’re giving to boys that may possibly make them want to listen to people like Tate? Of course not. Yet the same people are constantly saying that the terrorism of organisations like Hamas needs to be “examined” for the “root causes”. And similar for many criminals and their behaviour. But in this matter, it’s just “manosphere bad”. It wouldn’t possibly be that in this case they may have to admit something their ideology has done is to blame and needs changing would it????

Quite. He’s the strawman they’d otherwise have had to invent. What’s lumped in as “the manosphere” was around long before Tate had much of a following and he’s really just a part of it! Will the OP admit significant sections of feminism, especially the social media feminist groups, are “problematic” too? I doubt very much he will without so many ifs, buts and other caveats to make it meaningless. Even if he were personally willing to see issues with feminism, or at least parts of it, he works at Monash.

Is she currently on suicide watch?

Does anyone actually know what outcome she actually wants in all of this? Permanent institutionalisation? Being free to end herself (which is apparently what she wanted at the time)? Being discharged to rebuild her life in the best way she can? She’s a paraplegic after all, and is known for all as the woman who killed her children (apart from the “I am Lindsay” brigade and I shudder to think what they really want).

As you say, she is not claiming she didn’t kill her children. She claims she was out of her mind when she did so.

And? At least some of these certainly have psychological disorders. Including the exhusband of the feminist pinup for DV advocacy, Rosie Batty.

And then there’s the Bondi Junction murderer, Chauchi. He was a known and diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. He was unsupervised, untreated and unmediated! Whilst Lindsay Clancy had not been diagnosed with psychosis prior to the killings, Cauchi definitely had. And yet…. Feminists and their media allies, the same type of people rock solidly backing Lindsay, insisted it was “femicide” (as most of his victims were female) and it was even cited to demand DV legislation! One thing that was never mentioned was the State’s failure to deal with severe mental illness - the fact a man in such a condition was given a prescription and otherwise essentially left to his own devices even through there was plenty of evidence he wasn’t dealing with the situation.

I don’t see Cauchi as “a victim”, and certainly not “innocent”. I do, however, see the authorities as culpable in what happened. Which is no doubt part of the reason why they were so eager to endorse the feminist narrative in this case as it stops questions being asked as to how they fail.

Guantanamo? Now you’re really losing it. That’s an American base. A British court cannot send people there.

You can’t remove birthright citizenship. But you certainly can for migrants. And this is frequently done around the world. There’s a threshold of course. But this man’s crimes would clearly exceed such a threshold in most countries. If you want people to accept mass immigration a small part of the deal would be that any who commit such extreme crimes will have violated their terms of immigration and will not be allowed to stay once sentence is served.

This is not a particularly right wing view. Much less a “far right” one. I don’t get why it’s even an issue. As I’ve point out elsewhere, some years back our State Attorney General released convicted rapists from prison and immediately order their deportation (which was Federal Law) even though they’d been living here since infancy (one arrived with his family when he was 6 months old). The only controversy was that he’d released them early from prison (they hadn’t served their full sentences). The man was the head of the Labor Party’s left faction in the State Party.

The subject of this thread wasn’t convicted of jaywalking, or late payment of fines, or of avoiding his television licence. Not even of driving without insurance. Would you have allowed him to move to the UK and grant him citizenship if you’d known in advance what he was going to do? Of course you wouldn’t.

You could limit it to felonies. Or to a certain cumulative level of gaol time! That’s the rule in Australia. A few years ago I was on a course. One of the women there was from New Zealand and she mentioned she was on notice - if she had another 5 days in prison, she’d be deported back to New Zealand. Apparently she had a past as a druggy, and was the first sentenced under a law which specifically criminalised extracting speed from pseudoephedrine. So she was essentially on notice.

Obviously a sentence like that of this scumbag would be more than enough for deportation.

Apparently you don’t, since citizenship is a legal concept set up by (drumroll) THE STATE. And the State confers certain rights and obligations on those who hold citizenship as opposed to those that don’t.

It was consensual (she was a “professional”) and she was above the age of consent according to her own claim. What he did in that instance was actually legal. And there’s a big difference between a girl who’s less that 6 months shy of 18 and one who’s 12.

In any event, there’s enough locally born human garbage without importing more.

The State gave that POS citizenship. He didn’t get it by birthright. He was living in Pakistan and moved to the UK one day. Do you think that Sudanese scumbag who tried to murder that man in Belfast should be allowed to stay after that crime?

The scum concerned is an immigrant. He is literally from elsewhere. Committing such a heinous crime is violation of whatever oath he gave when he took out his citizenship. And who gave him that “citizenship”? Oh that’s right, the Government!

So there are “Citizens and citizens” and you approve then?

Not at all like the BBC or The Guardian, right?

Well deportation anyway.

And? In my state, our Labor Left (literally, he was the head of the “broad left faction” of the State ALP) AG deported rapists who’d migrated from Britain as infants! However he let them out of prison early as well.