Messages

31

Main / Tony Blair the man hater to toughen rape laws

Oct 16, 2006, 12:57 PM

Hello Neoteny

I don't get it. Labour MPs don't have sons? or they think that their progeny can't get busted under this legislation? or it's OK w/ them?

Hello LB

I dont understand why the liberal majority within the Labor Party (as opposed to the marxist/feminist minority) arent outraged by these kinds of heavy-handed, police state measures that flood out every year from their party?

One day MRAs round here will finally wake up to the fact that government serves ITSELF.

Not YOU!

http://www.angryharry.com/brgoverningelite.htm

It does not matter which government is in power; Republican, Democrats etc

Governments serve THEMSELVES.

32

Main / North Korea and their wimpy bomb-testing

Oct 14, 2006, 08:14 PM

Am I mistaken, or is SBR58 complaining about the fact that most members round here are on the right of the political spectrum?

And is Gonzokid trying to point out to him that it is lefties and 'liberals' who have supported the feminists through thick and thin?

If so, then the solution is simple. Let us stop thinking about, and allying ourselves to, any of the traditional mainstream politicial parties and 'divisions'.

None of them will do anything for us.

We are in a new game, and we need to forget about traditional politics.

SBR58 - There are many members round here who, like myself, are not very right wing or Christians. And we put up with each other quite well most of the time.

As for Galt actually starting a thread about N Korea on what is supposed to be a men's site, I simply point out that Galt is a lonnnnnng time activist round here, and that he is probably just tossing something into the forum for his online chums to think about.

33

Main / Question for Men's Rights Activist

Oct 14, 2006, 07:50 PM

You should prepare a convincing leaflet to hand out to those who might doubt you.

And DON'T waste your leaflet words quoting statistics.

Also, include in your leaflet some relevant website addresses.

34

Main / Collection of cheerleading accidents

Oct 08, 2006, 12:00 PM

Hello Ranting Man

I agree with you concerning freedom of speech. Indeed, I wrote a piece about my concerns about this over the Glenn Sacks campaign. After all, if we are always squawking about 'abuse' then no-one dares to speak!

Worse still, it will be the voice of 'men' that will be clobbered the most if freedom of speech is stifled because people are being 'offended' all the time.

And, don't we know it!

But there is a difference between the Boys Are Smelly T-Shirts and poking fun at the serious mutilation of others.

Let me put it this way.

I would be more than happy to see Girls Are Smelly T-shirts being sold. I see nothing wrong with men and women poking fun at each other. And it aggravates me that, currently, this goes only one way in the mainstream - at least, here in the UK.

But I would **not** be happy about poking fun at seriously injured women - because I know what such humour does to people's minds and where such humour would lead.

Indeed, **one** of the reasons that people (e.g. in officialdom) care so little about men, is precisely because men are viewed as worthless and undeserving - and this view is strongly maintained and encouraged by nasty humour about them. And the public ACCEPTANCE of such humour ENDORSES and SPREADS this view about men RIGHT THROUGHOUT THE LAND.

Even young girls quickly learn that men can NOT ONLY be treated and portrayed like sh#t, but that, somehow, they are also DESERVING of such treatment, thanks to the public ACCEPTANCE of Bobbit jokes and such like.

The public acceptance of those jokes makes a statement about how the public FEELS about men.

Indeed, you might as well forget the jokes themselves and say, "We hate men. We hate them so much that you can seriously mutilate them, and all we will do is LAUGH."

Imagine, for example, growing up in a place where the lynching of blacks in the past was considered humorous. Imagine that in today's mainstream, comedies and comedians continued to make references to those lynchings and the general public continued to laugh at them. Imagine that we all laughed at jokes about black men's balls being cut off or at their serious mutilation.

Do you not think that this would affect hugely how blacks were actually treated by everyone? Do you not hink that such jokes would have huge ramifications for society?

When a comedian makes a Bobbit joke, he might as well say, "I hate men. Hurting them is funny." And when the audience laughs, they are saying, "Yes, we agree."

And this horrible message about men, this attitude towards them, and this feeling about them, then SPREADS throughout the land.

And, as a consequence, there are HUGE ramifications for men in real life.

The levels of production and acceptance of Bobbit jokes and such like, are not only a measure of how hated are men, they are also **generators** of such hatred.

35

Main / Collection of cheerleading accidents

Oct 07, 2006, 04:49 PM

Yes, Somebody Else, all your points are valid, but laughing at the cutting off of men's testicles or at their serious injuries is not in the same league as what you are referring to.

Furthermore, the TARGET of those jokes has a rather large bearing on the whole issue.

And so, for example, even if it was the case (which it is not) that laughing at men's testicles being cut off was, somehow, not 'learned', but 'natural', it would still CLEARLY be the case that the successful TARGETS of such jokes materialised from learning.

36

Main / Collection of cheerleading accidents

Oct 07, 2006, 12:02 PM

Hello Ranting Man

That statement would have made andrea dworkin proud. You're taking something that I think is human nature and suggesting people subvert it with social traiiner (read. coercion)

1. I do not recall MAINSTREAM humor being so cruel in my youth - particularly towards men. Furthermore, the balance between derogatory jokes about men and women was much more even. There has been a huge change in this respect.

Just ask any comedian of the 80s and onwards what they suddenly had to watch out for when making jokes.

2. What is the point in any of our activism if not to "change society"? Is every activist like Andrea Dworkin because of this? And why choose such an obnoxious figure to compare me to when there are so many others to choose from?

Once again, you seem to be going out of your way to undermine what people say round here.

3. The word 'train' does not mean coercion. Besides which, I only used that term in order to be consistent with the earlier posts.

. You get more men stand-ups, more men comedy actors, more men slapsticks and when I think of my mates those that were men were funnier than the women.

Male comedians will tell you that it is WOMEN in the audience who decide what is funny. If the comedian cannot make the women laugh, no-one laughs. The men in the audience seem to look around and check with the women to see whether or not they are permitted to laugh.

Indeed if western male comedians do make jokes about women, you will almost invariably find that they surround such jokes with ones that denigrate men or themselves to a much greater degree - to soften the blow.

In a nutshell: Women decide what is funny in the mainstream.

I also think that there are many reasons why men are found to be more funny than women - but I don't have the time to air my views on this matter.

Women in polls always state that a sense of humour is important in a mate. There was a scientific survey a while back [no source, sorry] that stated that to a male a sense of humour in a woman her laughing at his jokes, and to a female a sense of hunour is the man being funny and making her laugh. So yet again.. the men are the providers of comedy and women accept it.

WRONG!

Women do not just 'accept' the humour of men.

It is WOMEN - certainly at the moment - who decide what is acceptable in the mainstream.

Furthermore, **men** often profit from beating down on other men. We all know this. And male comedians who, for example, make Bobbit jokes to get laughs, are no different from politicians who beat down on men to get votes.

Male comedians who undermine men are supported by women just like politicians who undermine men are supported by women.

Question 2. Are people more likely to laugh at a man in pain than a woman? I would say yes. Why? Yet again, human nature ....

I don't disagree with that.

However, you have changed the goalposts. My point was that the notion that it is a "fundamental characteristic" to laugh at, or to mock, people who are in **serious** pain is false. And I stand by this view.

Finally, as far as I am concerned, the most important aspect of all this is as outlined in my earlier post up above - at 7.58.

The public's acceptance of mainstream humour which is concerned with the serious suffering of men is ***hugely*** influential. It massively AFFECTS nearly everything that MRAs are concerned about.

And, certainly these days, women would simply not tolerate any mainstream jokes about their vagines being hacked about. There would be a public outcry - questions in parliament - against any mainstream programmes that aired such humour.

37

Main / Collection of cheerleading accidents

Oct 07, 2006, 12:58 AM

And, finally, ...

Try to imagine what would happen if, perchance, it came to pass that MAINSTREAM comedy writers and the GENERAL PUBLIC - both men **and women** - found jokes, cartoons and comedies depicting rape to be humourous, and they also successfully made fun out of kicking women in the genitals, whacking them round the face, and cutting out their vaginal lips; and so on.

Well, I'll tell you what would happen. The whole abuse industry would collapse, together with most of the draconian laws and much of the man-hatred that goes along with them.

And, for example, women complaining about rape or domestic violence would simply be ridiculed. They would also be ridiculed if they protested about the humour itself.

There would be a truly monumental change in society.

That's how powerful this kind of 'nasty' humour is.

And, right now, it is nearly always directed at men - and has been for decades.

The effect of such humour is absolutely enormous; and it aggravates me deeply that many people round here do not seem to understand this.

In a nutshell: While society continues to laugh with genuine laughter at the notion of men being seriously hurt, THERE IS NO HOPE of changing things.

As such, we NEED to 'train' society to see things differently.

38

Main / Collection of cheerleading accidents

Oct 06, 2006, 11:37 PM

Hello Ranting Man

So we’ve gone from pain as comedy to laughing at “serious injuries”. No discussion can take place under a quagmire of uncertain foundations. What’s the actual point? Pain in comedy right?

No. Not just 'pain in comedy' - as in 'portrayed' in comedy - but laughing at pain in **real life**.

When you entered the the thread the conversation was about laughing at people who are suffering in some way in real life - not in comedies.

Those cheerleaders were not acting.

. You asked that my assertion that “it's a fundamental human characteristic that's true of all ages and times” be backed up. This dumbfounded me slightly, it’s like asking me to back up that the sky is blue or that water is wet. It seems to me to be such a self-obvious observation that no explanation is necessary but if you really want one then I believe that somebody else put it quite aptly.

Well, if you were talking about comedies - with actors - then you shifted the ground without saying so - as far as I can tell.

“default hostility” refers to your reaction to people who disagree with you.

No, that is not true - I hope. I think that it depends on how they choose to disagree with me. In your case you stepped into the conversation with the following post; which I quote in its entirety

Wrong harry, it's a fundamental human characteristic that's true of all ages and times. If I was trained then who trained me? The matriarchy?

Firstly, you simply assert that I am wrong (which I am not) regarding 'training' being heavily involved in what we find humourous - something that I thought would be extremely obvious to most people. You then make a grand sweeping assertion without justification - as if, somehow, your assertion alone should convince everybody of its truth, and you are being flippant - sneering.

Furthermore, I am really very outraged by people who laugh at the serious misfortune of others and, worse, who encourage others to do the same. And I WILL be hostile towards them! After all, why should I worry about hurting their feelings when they seem not to care about the feelings of others?

***THAT**** is why I was hostile.

With regard to the notion that humour is 'trained', there is so much evidence for this that I wouldn't even know where to start.

The simplest example that I can think of at the moment is 'jokes about the Queen'. 50 years ago people in the UK would have been outraged about even the mildest of humour about her. They would not have found them funny. Now, almost anything goes.

Similarly, jokes about handicapped people seem to be becoming more acceptable.

And, of course, jokes about Mohammed still do not go down too well in certain places.

All these differences **must*** be to do with 'training'.

I also think that the more you care about people, the less likely you are to laugh at their serious misfortunes. I think most people know this.

And, as a consequence of this knowledge, an increase in the kind of humour that we are talking about is likely to lead to less caring all round, quite simply, because it carries the following implicit statements.

...

I laugh at his serious misfortune.

I only laugh at the serious misfortune of others if I don't care about them.

Ergo, I don't care about him.

And, hence, why should you care about him?

...

And, usually, 'him' is a man, of course!

If you have read my piece What A Piece Of Sh#t Is Man, you will discover that I believe that the widespread acceptability of Bobbit jokes ON ITS OWN tells us all we need to know about the **real** feelings and attitudes towards men in today's western society. In my view, virtually no other evidence is needed to demonstrate the depths of hatred towards men felt by so many people.

If an alien from outer space landed on this planet and saw that Bobbit jokes made people laugh and that they were also acceptable to the majority of Earth's inhabitants, he would know immediately that 'men' were hated. (Well, maybe I exaggerate, but I think you know what I mean.)

But the presence of such jokes does not only reflect society, it also AFFECTS society.

And while 'men' continue to allow themselves to be portrayed, demonised and laughed at through such jokes and humour, there is no hope!

Most people have clearly been **trained** not to find humorous the notion of women being raped; no matter how mild the experience. But they have been **trained** to laugh at Bobbit jokes.

This difference clearly REFLECTS society's different attitudes towards men and women. But it also AFFECTS society's attitudes towards them. In other words, Bobbit jokes are 'bad for men'. The more such jokes there are, the worse it gets.

Indeed, I think that I would go as far as to say that stopping the public acceptance of such humour would go a very long way indeed to helping men regain their proper dignity and status.

Finally, you can see this 'training' process going on quite easily when watching your own young children growing up. They look to you to see what is funny and what is not.

39

Main / Collection of cheerleading accidents

Oct 06, 2006, 07:25 PM

Hello Sir Jessy

In the US, or indeed NA, no such fragilities are taken into consideration. I guess no one has sued yet.

Well, that really saddens me. Combating such things is obviously going to be a much bigger task than I thought.

What next, eh? - laughing at people who've got cancer?

In my dreams, the world will one day be run by people - mostly men - with brains and hearts. (I don't mean wimps, kill-joys, or sanctimonious do-gooders.) And I imagine a huge cyberbrain of memes consistent with the views of such people dominating the future.

I think that this can be achieved. In fact, I am quite confident that this can be achieved if no catastrophes befall us in the meantime.

And, in that world, I do not think that we will be laughing at people who've got cancer or serious burns - so I remain optimistic!

40

Main / Collection of cheerleading accidents

Oct 06, 2006, 07:13 PM

Hello Ranting Man

angryharry. Do you realise that you're exactly like a feminist?

I mean exactly. The same lack of humour, the same irrationality, the same emotional investment, the same default hostility.

Just with the polarities reversed, from men to women.

Do you realise this? I’m dead serious.

Well, in some respects I am, indeed, like 'a feminist', but in very many ways I am not.

With regard to a lack of humour, I do not think that failing to find serious injuries funny is a sign of a lack of humour. If you find such things funny then, well, what can I say?

With regard to me being 'irrational', it seems to me that you are very quick to make assertions and accusations without feeling the need to justify them. What are you? A God?

Indeed, up above, I asked you to provide me with evidence for your statement that laughing at people in pain was a "fundamental human characteristic that's true of all ages and times".

You have completely failed to provide me with any such evidence. Not a single piece.

Indeed, in my view, you seem not to have bothered being 'rational' at all. You seem mostly to have made assertions.

You have accused me of being irrational. So, show me your evidence.

With regard to "the same emotional investment, the same default hostility," the former is true, but the latter is not. I do not hate women, but I do intend to wake them up and wind them up by continually sticking cognitive pins into them.

I am not going to 'plead' with women, or anyone else, to stop demonising men. I'm going after them.

That's how I do my activism.

41

Main / Collection of cheerleading accidents

Oct 06, 2006, 06:24 PM

Hi Galt

I think, for some reason, a lot of people seem to find injuries or near injuries funny. These programs on network television where they show short clips of supposedly funny things almost invariably involve people falling or getting knocked over or the like, and they seem to get fair ratings by showing that stuff.

As far as I am aware, here, in the UK, they usually preface such clips with an assurance that "no-one was seriously hurt".

And I reckon that without such an assurance, people would complain about such programs. Well, I hope they would!

I can summarise my own feelings on this matter very easily.

I have no intention of living in a world wherein people are encouraged to find the serious misfortunes of others funny. And I aim to try to stop such encouragement taking place whenever I stumble upon it.

And I do not think that I am over-reacting when it comes to that photo of that man with the burns.

42

Main / Collection of cheerleading accidents

Oct 06, 2006, 05:11 PM

Hello Somebody

Yes, in slapstick they make funny faces and have a soundtrack that emphasises the make-believe nature, but not all representations of pain in acting is slapstick, yet much is placed there for humorous purpose. Another example - the stupid one-liners in the action-hero movies, after Arnold gets done killing some guy in twenty different ways, he tosses in the line meant to get a laugh.

Laughing at other's misfortune is a common human reaction or it wouldn't be there in comedy. Acting imitates reality. You may not laugh, but it is a common theme.

Well, I don't disagree with that point of view, but they are, nevertheless, ACTING. And the audience is well aware that the actors are not really being hurt, and, also, that they are looking for laughs - "at their own expense" - sometimes.

Also much of it is so far from the reality of most people's experiences that such humour doesn't necessarily encourage too much violence in others. Arnie S dropping bombs and blowing people up in his fantasy world is humorous much of the time - but it does not really affect our lives - though, I suppose, it might affect slightly the attitudes of young soldiers who do encounter war situations.

They are just fantasies. And obviously so, to most people.

However, and for example, comedies wherein men are kicked in the balls are a bit closer to home when it comes to the reality of everyday experience - well, for some people. And, as such, I do not appreciate that kind of humour - especially since it likely affects how people are likely to view men who are kicked in the balls in real life; i.e. they are more likely to laugh at such things - which I do not find acceptable.

However, in the examples mentioned near the beginning of the thread, we were not actually talking about actors. And Mr Bad, Daymar and TMOTS were merely pointing us to some further examples of humour being aroused and encouraged in connection with the misfortunes of others **in real life**.

Of course, where those misfortunes in real life are trivial, then I think that we *can* laugh at them. And often it is a good idea to make people laugh at their own more trivial misfortunes, because it helps to lighten their load.

But, surely, when it comes to the *serious* injuries or misfortunes of others **in real life**, there is something deeply amiss when people find them funny, and when they also encourage others to find them funny?

And with regard to the cheerleader clips above, my own view is that they were 'on the edge'. If I knew that one of those girls had been seriously hurt, then I would not have found them funny. If, on the other hand, I knew that *none* of them had been seriously hurt, then I would have found them mildly amusing.

With regard to the man with the shocking injuries to his behind, I am thoroughly disgusted by the knowledge that some people find the photo humorous, and I am rather angry that some people actually try to encourage others to laugh at his misfortune.

43

Main / Collection of cheerleading accidents

Oct 06, 2006, 12:01 PM

Hello Somebody Else

Wake up and look around. Ancient times - Greek plays and the tragic comedy, Shakespeare used the tragic comedy model, vaudeville, slap-stick, keystone cops, the Three Stooges, Marx Brothers, Abbott and Costello, on and on and on. Why did this develop? Because people reacted by laughing. They didn't train humans to laugh at this stuff.

I think you will find that they are **********ACTING*********** in those plays and comedies.

Duh!

And when it comes to slapstick humour, I think you will find that they are purposely putting on funny faces and what have you.

The audience knows that what is happening is make-believe.

44

Main / Collection of cheerleading accidents

Oct 06, 2006, 03:39 AM

Wrong harry, it's a fundamental human characteristic that's true of all ages and times. If I was trained then who trained me? The matriarchy?

When you make bald assertions like that, you should at least attempt to try to justify them, in my view.

There is no evidence to suggest that laughing at people in pain is a "fundamental human characteristic that's true of all ages and times", that I am aware of.

NONE.

However, if you are aware of such evidence, perhaps you could tell us what it is.

Furthermore, your reply to Daymar suggesting that he could not possibly know "what most people on the planet think" is completely vacuous given what he said.

He doesn't need to know what "most" people on the planet think to KNOW that people have different beliefs and feelings.

Duh!

45

Main / Violence Against Men - What a Joke!

Oct 05, 2006, 08:48 PM

Classic clip.. Funny as hell

But I presume that you wouldn't find it so funny if the genders were reversed!