|
Prankster misandry has no effect on those already comfortable with traditional masculinity, you don't see them complaining about ironic misandry. The ones who talk about it are outcasts, misfits, and men who were abused.
wiregrind fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Mar 5, 2016 |
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
wiregrind posted:Prankster misandry has no effect on those already comfortable with traditional masculinity. You don't see jocks or athletes complaining about ironic misandry. The ones who talk about it are outcasts, misfits, and men who were abused. Seems like an indictment of traditional masculinity no? Jocks AND athletes (not sure how that's different) don't really make sense as a category past about age 25 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
menino posted:Jocks AND athletes (not sure how that's different) don't really make sense as a category past about age 25 anyway. wiregrind fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:Prankster misandry has no effect on those already comfortable with traditional masculinity. You don't see jocks or athletes complaining about ironic misandry. The ones who talk about it are outcasts, misfits, and men who were abused. 'comfortable with traditional masculinity' is a fuckin joke because if people were comfortable with it they wouldn't get uncomfortable around "the gays," or try to explain how how to change a tire to a woman who is currently changing a tire, or constantly try to reaffirm their power and masculinity to strangers they are comforted by the status quo but that doesn't mean they are actually comfortable with the status quo
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
or maybe thats just the only way i can imagine people get into dumb chest beating matches idk my college athletic experience was basically dudes that reaffirm they are Not Gay but find a way to talk about their dilznick and reassure you the woman over there is totally hot and they would bang em'
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Masculinity is basically a trap anyway, like most of the institutions in this country that have a winner take all structure. If you do win, if you do very well at it--in the major revenue generation sports for example, you are able to reap a huge amount of rewards for it but then end up in constant physical pain for the last 30-40 years of your life. Otherwise, you're basically screwed. You can reject the label and that works all well and good but you have to ensure that you are dealing with people who are similarly attuned to the idea that gender roles are a scam--otherwise you end up like OP (and myself, I got beat by a gf for a while)-- getting shouted down for pointing out that there are lots of situations in gender relations that don't conform and potentially getting ostracized in the short term. And god forbid you're a black or Latino guy in this country. Totally hosed. Everybody thinks you're a threat from the day you're about 11 or 12.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
The real tragedy is limiting self-expression. If you're a woman, you're a human being, you like sex and you want to have it. But you can't express it that, you've got to set up an elaborate charade where you're not the actor, because otherwise you're a slut. "Why won't he talk to me", you have no control because you can't communicate like a person should. If you're a man, you've got a sensitive side, you don't want to be the bad guy. Well too bad, now you've got to pretend to be something you're not, because that's what's expected of you. The people genuinely happy with that situation, who can't think of a better way it could be done, can't be more than 10% at any one time, even if some people obviously fit a lot more than others. Apologizes, you did say you had a new partner, so I should have caught that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Ironic misandry is just comedy and not serious. The proper thing to do is to trivialize and gaslight the experiences of abused men in a non-aggresive way. Wait... Is that ironic comedy too?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
IMO, trivializing the experience of men who actually suffered abuse is a pretty hosed up and weird thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:Prankster misandry has no effect on those already comfortable with traditional masculinity, you don't see them complaining about ironic misandry. The ones who talk about it are outcasts, misfits, and men who were abused. I wasn't sure how to interpret this at first, because comments that sound *like* it can be used to further shame the men who are vulnerable, essentially claiming “only losers have a problem with it” - but after reading again I doubt that your intention was anything of the sort, in which case you do highlight a good point that the guys who represent the “traditional masculinity” that is considered a bad thing are a very different population to the guys who are affected by ironic misandry. rudatron posted:Apologizes, you did say you had a new partner, so I should have caught that. No problem, I knew what you meant (although my partner and I have been together for nearly 8 years now, so it's not exactly new).
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
How do abused men even enter the equation here? I'm just unable to grasp it. If you don't conform to the narrative and don't benefit from the structures being railed against then you sure as hell aren't the target, because actual genuinely sad tears are delicious only to psychopaths. What else is there? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWrlbRdJsSE
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Cakebaker posted:How do abused men even enter the equation here? I'm just unable to grasp it. If you don't conform to the narrative and don't benefit from the structures being railed against then you sure as hell aren't the target, because actual genuinely sad tears are delicious only to psychopaths. What else is there? #KillAllMen doesn't leave much room for nuance. If your ironic edginess requires a parenthetical that explains you're not actually talking about the entire group but rather a specific subset of the group then maybe you're the problem, not the person misinterpreting what you're saying. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Cakebaker posted:How do abused men even enter the equation here? I'm just unable to grasp it. If you don't conform to the narrative and don't benefit from the structures being railed against then you sure as hell aren't the target, because actual genuinely sad tears are delicious only to psychopaths. What else is there? i was in a relationship with a very manipulative person who used victimization as their main leverage for manipulation. even worse for me was she was a huge feminist so im already starting off uphill a big problem i had after that was trying to discuss that relationship with other people. despite abusive behaviors being universal, most people only look for them in men. i guess because that's the Narrative for half assed social progressivism? a story that goes counter to that narrative is denied - the woman was gaslighting you? no you were gaslighting her first, she was doing it in response. she was crying at minute things to manipulate you? you just think she's being hysterical you sexist prick. etc. it doesn't matter if you don't conform to the narrative nor beneft from those structures, because it is assumed that you do by a lot of people nigga crab pollock fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
its because its easier to explain the little details than the big picture. many people do not realize that the little details are not the big picture you can sum up the entirety of social progressivism as "don't be an rear end in a top hat to people different from you" but hey that's too broad, so we have to narrow it down further into easier to distribute memetic packages. hastags or whatever are one aspect of a broader issue that many people are attempting to draw attention to, but you end up with petty arguments on twitter about WELL IF BLACK LIVES MATTER WHAT ABOUT BLUE LIVES because the were never thinking about the broader issue that hashtag was supposed to represent i guess you could boil feminism down to 'the patriarchy is poo poo' but it seems most rhetoric boils down to 'men are poo poo.' yeah if you are capable of looking past a surface-level discussion you would see that the 'men are poo poo' misandry is mostly ironic and sometimes its a pretty scathing deconstruction of patriarchal behavior. but to most people it just exists as it does on the surface, a bunch of bitter squabbling about men, and that is what people argue about and parrot nigga crab pollock fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
nigga crab pollock posted:i was in a relationship with a very manipulative person who used victimization as their main leverage for manipulation. even worse for me was she was a huge feminist so im already starting off uphill Men aren't alone in being able to both buy into and exploit patriarchal structures and attitudes, of course women can do that too. My point was, what connects an experience like that to feminists trolling back at dumb sexist regressive men? What binds the abused man to the plight of the abusing man, just because women can also abuse? None it it makes any sense to me. Also what do you mean by "she was a huge feminist so im already starting off uphill"? I get that she used her politics to somehow justify what she did. But would feminism in itself imply "uphill"? the trump tutelage posted:#KillAllMen doesn't leave much room for nuance. If your ironic edginess requires a parenthetical that explains you're not actually talking about the entire group but rather a specific subset of the group then maybe you're the problem, not the person misinterpreting what you're saying. Cakebaker fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Does anyone have any proof that men are chastized for showing emotion or being vulnerable? It seems to be a common belief but i've never seen it. Men don't get criticized for crying or showing emotional vulnerability; women do! It's women who have to control their emotions at all times, but men can just express whatever and there's always a good excuse for it. If a woman cries, people think "oh typical women, they can't control themselves", but if a man cries people are like "Oh that poor man, he's very brave for showing his vulnerability". Women have to keep a lid on their emotions all the time, and consequently they're actually better at controlling their emotions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Does anyone have any proof that men are chastized for showing emotion or being vulnerable? It seems to be a common belief but i've never seen it. Men don't get criticized for crying or showing emotional vulnerability; women do! It's women who have to control their emotions at all times, but men can just express whatever and there's always a good excuse for it. If a woman cries, people think "oh typical women, they can't control themselves", but if a man cries people are like "Oh that poor man, he's very brave for showing his vulnerability". Women have to keep a lid on their emotions all the time, and consequently they're actually better at controlling their emotions. In this very thread, even, people were being extremely dismissive of a guy who was abused by a woman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Does anyone have any proof that men are chastized for showing emotion or being vulnerable? When you hear the phrase "Man up" what do you think of?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Brene Brown cites in her book "Daring Greatly" actually that women often are characterized as being the most contemptuous of make vulnerability. But she didn't offer any data.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Cakebaker posted:My point was, what connects an experience like that to feminists trolling back at dumb sexist regressive men? What binds the abused man to the plight of the abusing man, just because women can also abuse? None it it makes any sense to me. What abused man? Calling men who complain dumb sexist regressives is a very easy way to dismiss the abused man by presenting him as an abuser instead. Any accounts that do not conform to the narrative can be dismissed as weak whiny losers failing at being men, and since they're whiny their problems are not real, meaning they can be ignored. Once that mentality is in place, men who don't benefit from the existing social structures are viewed as objects of scorn rather than sympathy. And any accounts of abusive women can be dismissed, because if he's whining over nothing and describes a conflict with a woman, she must have been fighting back against his oppression. Ergo, he must be the real abuser. Non-conformance to the narrative becomes a punishable offence. The men who don't benefit from the existing social structures become seen as unworthy for not having those benefits. The only reason I don't think it's the ideal way to promote toxic ideas of masculinity (wouldn't you seek power and display it constantly if the absence of power made you a target and presumed to be an abuser as well?) is because the prejudice is sufficiently blatant to not be confused for a healthy mentality, so guys can look at this and know this person is not their friend. At least, that's why I see it that way. Other abused men may have their own reasons. Blue Star posted:Does anyone have any proof that men are chastized for showing emotion or being vulnerable? It seems to be a common belief but i've never seen it. Men don't get criticized for crying or showing emotional vulnerability; women do! It's women who have to control their emotions at all times, but men can just express whatever and there's always a good excuse for it. If a woman cries, people think "oh typical women, they can't control themselves", but if a man cries people are like "Oh that poor man, he's very brave for showing his vulnerability". Women have to keep a lid on their emotions all the time, and consequently they're actually better at controlling their emotions. What would you accept as proof? That's not an attack, it's food for thought, and also I want to check whether you would be wanting me to dig up an impartial study with sufficiently reliable methodology from the appropriate source and so on, or whether my experiences would count. I ask this in part because I'm finding sharing what happened to me somewhat theraputic, but I don't generally enjoy online arguments where I have to prove everything - digging up research papers is less fun under those circumstances. Another factor is I suspect we might look at the exact same event and interpret it two very different ways. In my experience “oh typical woman, they can't control themselves” was usually used in the context of why I should have appeased her better so she didn't hit me. It was as though the expected standard of behaviour was so much lower for women that I was unreasonable for not anticipating her every wish so that I didn't get woken up by her screaming at me from an inch away from my face, or so I wouldn't get household objects thrown at me. The general pattern is that it felt like I had to be emotionally stable for both parties, comforting and reassuring her, essentially soaking up her outbursts and being the understanding one, without any expectation of receiving any of the same support. When I had the misfortune of sharing a Prince's Trust course with my ex, the coordinator quite happily watched while my ex hit me and taunted me and called me names every day repeatedly throughout the day, but was quick to try chastising me if I so much as raised my arms to stop her blows. When I attempted to seek proper channels and formal complaints procedures, he kept trying to discourage me with “Be a man, laugh it off.” menino posted:Brene Brown cites in her book "Daring Greatly" actually that women often are characterized as being the most contemptuous of make vulnerability. But she didn't offer any data. There's some interesting commentary (for people who haven't read the book) here - http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/messages-of-shame-are-organized-around-gender/275322/ - if anyone is interested.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Cakebaker posted:My point was, what connects an experience like that to feminists trolling back at dumb sexist regressive men? What binds the abused man to the plight of the abusing man, just because women can also abuse? None it it makes any sense to me. For the purposes of this discussion in this thread a specific distinction has been made - but most of the time that distinction does not exist Also, because a lot of poo poo that happened was hilariously twisted textbook feminist issues. Usually making out my actions to be Problematic Patriarchal Perturbations (you're trying to Bodyshame me by not sleeping with me on my period in a hotel room) when I was just trying to assert my boundaries. That's a tough cookie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Re: emotion in men, the only acceptable emotion for men to display is 'anger'. In fact, toddlers are socialized this way from a very young age, and this happens even from couples that say they treat both genders equally. Of course, if women express anger, they're likely to be seen as bitchy/emotional, which is it's own level of bullshit. But the only way to get emotional and remain 'a man' is rage, the more destructive the more manly. You essentially have to lose half of your humanity. Also re:gaslighting, you've got to be careful about assuming 'gas-lighting' is happening, because human memory is unreliable. It is often self-serving and will miss crucial details, and this can happen involuntarily. Railtus posted:There's some interesting commentary (for people who haven't read the book) here - http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/messages-of-shame-are-organized-around-gender/275322/ - if anyone is interested. quote:"Most women pledge allegiance to this idea that women can explore their emotions, break down, fall apart—and it's healthy," Brown said. "But guys are not allowed to fall apart." Ironically, she explained, men are often pressured to open up and talk about their feelings, and they are criticized for being emotionally walled-off; but if they get too real, they are met with revulsion. She recalled the first time she realized that she had been complicit in the shaming: "Holy poo poo!" she said. "I am the patriarchy!" edit: And like the fact that she was surprised by this demonstrates my earlier point, that 'patriarchy' is a dumb label, because the image it conjures is one of an external other dictating events - if only you could find them, overthrow them, then the world would be better! But it turns out, it was inside you all along, cue violins. rudatron fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Does anyone have any proof that men are chastized for showing emotion or being vulnerable? It seems to be a common belief but i've never seen it. Men don't get criticized for crying or showing emotional vulnerability; women do! It's women who have to control their emotions at all times, but men can just express whatever and there's always a good excuse for it. If a woman cries, people think "oh typical women, they can't control themselves", but if a man cries people are like "Oh that poor man, he's very brave for showing his vulnerability". Women have to keep a lid on their emotions all the time, and consequently they're actually better at controlling their emotions. typically, men are chastized by other men for being womanly, which is obviously women's fault (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Both men and women chastize men who act womanly, and for exactly the same reasons - because they're ideologically motivated to. The women aren't being pressured into doing it anymore than the men are. It is absolutely atypical for it to be just men. Like can you admit that? Are even willing to entertain it, or is that a bridge too far?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also re:gaslighting, you've got to be careful about assuming 'gas-lighting' is happening, because human memory is unreliable. It is often self-serving and will miss crucial details, and this can happen involuntarily. im taking about straight up purposeful manipulation of one person's perception with elaborate lies, passive aggressive button pressing, strange responses to normal behavior that make you question if what you did was normal or not, and dismissing the other party's concerns off the bat while demanding all their concerns be met. not just petty squabbling over minutae both parties remembered differently - straight up abusive behavior. i just gave all of that poo poo the benefit of the doubt - which in this case was not a healthy thing to do - until i ran across some chat logs that made me re-evaluate what happened. 'you've got to be careful to assume its happening' is a very dangerous mindset.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
And the unfortunate reality is that the term itself has become abused. Google search it and pull through a few articles, and you'll see exactly what I said being referred to as 'gaslighting'. Oh this man is self-depreciating, clearly that's gaslighting. It's kind of entered this state as a catch-all for when you & your partner see things differently. The normal give-and-take of relationships gets equivocated to the patterns of domestic abuse, and it's kind of depressing. What may result from a lack of communication is assumed to be part of some insidious plot. Now I can't really say anything about your experience, knowing nothing about it, but my intention wasn't to say 'well just assume abuse isn't happening', but that the same behavior can have multiple explanations, and so if you want to examine whether or not your parnter may have an abusive personality, it's important to take in a lot of different data points. Certainly, getting other people's perspectives is super important, as you did in your case. Like here's an example: depressive people are terrible to be around, but it's not their fault. Otoh, abusers can act in the same way, when it's convenient, to get what they want. The correct response in either case is different. A depressive will respond well to positive reinforcement, an abuser will just be emboldened by that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:typically, men are chastized by other men for being womanly, which is obviously women's fault I don't think so. I don't think anyone chastises men for showing emotions, not even other men. If a guy gets upset, people typically give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has a good reason. Women aren't given that luxury; if a woman gets pissed or upset, people just think she's hysterical or a bitch. Even when men just break down and cry, people think they're brave for doing it in front of them. It's like, people just assume that men are the stoic ones, so when men show emotion it's considered really brave and "strong". But in my experience it's men who show emotion all the time anyway and can't control themselves, while women always have to be more measured and reserved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
nigga crab pollock posted:im taking about straight up purposeful manipulation of one person's perception with elaborate lies, passive aggressive button pressing, strange responses to normal behavior that make you question if what you did was normal or not, and dismissing the other party's concerns off the bat while demanding all their concerns be met. not just petty squabbling over minutae both parties remembered differently - straight up abusive behavior. Jesus man. This really sucks and I'm sorry. I was in a very similar situation and literally the only thing that empowered me to get out of it was having my relationship described as abusive by people who cared about me. Having never been in a comparable situation I assumed the behavior I was grappling with must be rational and in good faith and welp, I must just be awful!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I don't think so. I don't think anyone chastises men for showing emotions, not even other men. If a guy gets upset, people typically give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has a good reason. Women aren't given that luxury; if a woman gets pissed or upset, people just think she's hysterical or a bitch. Even when men just break down and cry, people think they're brave for doing it in front of them. 'what are you, pussy' 'cmon dude don't be a bitch' not quite related but a favorite 'i cant drive a jetta ill get made fun of for driving a girl car!" it depends on the environment you are in though. the acceptance of men showing emotion is a response to the traditional male ideal of a stoic emotionless killing machine, it's a relatively new idea tbh. in an environment that isn't male dominated you can get away with it but try doing any of that in a garage or in a gym. no, really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:#KillAllMen doesn't leave much room for nuance. If your ironic edginess requires a parenthetical that explains you're not actually talking about the entire group but rather a specific subset of the group then maybe you're the problem, not the person misinterpreting what you're saying. How dare you misinterpret vague ironic insults written en masse and broadly spread through online text... Such lack of understanding of irony in text only proves that you're even worse than the people that we were originally complaining about! You confirm that you're part of them! (This post may, or may not, be partially or completely ironic. Also if it ends up being a problem, it might turn out to be just a silly unimportant joke) wiregrind fucked around with this message at 11:06 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
I was once accused of being a pedophile by a dude because I'm a guy who enjoys working with kids. Thats my man story, thanks for listening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Quote isn't edit
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
nigga crab pollock posted:im taking about straight up purposeful manipulation of one person's perception with elaborate lies, passive aggressive button pressing, strange responses to normal behavior that make you question if what you did was normal or not, and dismissing the other party's concerns off the bat while demanding all their concerns be met. not just petty squabbling over minutae both parties remembered differently - straight up abusive behavior. I believe you. For what it's worth I remember how every expression of concern or distress or nearly any feeling at all could be twisted into an accusation – pressuring you or me to apologise and thus avoiding any examination of their behaviour. It is a convenient way for them to go on the attack to force you constantly on the defensive. I would never wish it on anyone and I'm sorry you went through that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
nigga crab pollock posted:'what are you, pussy' 'cmon dude don't be a bitch' i drive a jetta and the last time I broke down crying was at the gym 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
aint nothin wrong with jettas except maybe VW engineering but they are simply just not aggressively styled cars. to be MANLY you gotta drive a car with aggressive angry headlights and sharp fins and spikes and angles on it, or a REALLY BIG truck, otherwise it is a car for women. why do you think so many idiots dress up their shitbox 90s imports as street racers? because a 90s imports are the most benign car in existance and they must MUST make it agressive with a fartbox and a body kit otherwise it threatens their masculinity or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
i no joke was having a discussion with some rando buying brake lights at autozone and i said something along the lines of 'yeah s-10s are pretty decent, i'd consider buying a small truck or something. they seem pretty fun' and the dude just looked at me like i had cast some black magick spell to unleash an army of malevolent spirits upon the land. in the land of Trucks, you gotta go big or go home. none of that import or small truck poo poo. musta been some euro-pee-in or fag or somethin
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
I literally enjoy looking at my car, from different angles or under different lighting. I enjoy how it handles, the way it shifts with precision, and how swift it accelerates. I like that it has tons of room, thanks to being a station wagon, and cheap to drive since it's a diesel. I don't give a gently caress what the car says about me, I drive the car for its "carness". And I assume many men feel the same way. It just sucks that this gets reduced to "drives a 3 series BMW, because he needs a manly man car" or whatever. I couldn't drive a "non-manly" car with the same attributes, because those don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
I don't think the point was so much about what you personally like, and for what reasons, but the social expectations (not necessarily placed by you) on car ownership (or any property) as that relates to gender, which links into how others treat you.Blue Star posted:I don't think so. I don't think anyone chastises men for showing emotions, not even other men. If a guy gets upset, people typically give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has a good reason. Women aren't given that luxury; if a woman gets pissed or upset, people just think she's hysterical or a bitch. Even when men just break down and cry, people think they're brave for doing it in front of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I don't think so. I don't think anyone chastises men for showing emotions, not even other men. If a guy gets upset, people typically give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has a good reason. Women aren't given that luxury; if a woman gets pissed or upset, people just think she's hysterical or a bitch. Even when men just break down and cry, people think they're brave for doing it in front of them. I think this kind of attitude is what some of the posters are complaining about this this thread. It's this compulsion to construct the narrative where women are always the biggest victims of society in like every aspect and that men experience no hardship whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:I don't think so. I don't think anyone chastises men for showing emotions, not even other men. go post in AI about how you like to drive around picking up women in your Miata and see what they have to say about that
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:02
|
|