Is this the dark age in masculinity?

Yes. It's called duck hunting.

Oh you mean like when you are sitting in a new blind duck hunting.

Well there's only one way to find out for sure and you might end up with a few dead dogs. Are you sure you want to risk it all?

 

So NOW you NEED a SHOTGUN instead of a .22?

Hilarious!

In order to successfully hunt your PREY must be UNAWARE of YOUR presence.

My dogs will hear you BEFORE you even step onto the property so no, they WON'T be "sitting ducks", they will be ready and waiting for you to try poking YOUR nose inside a dark house.

Did I mention that they act as a DETERRENCE to would be felons, including those with guns?

The gun obsessed NEVER bother to deal with REALITY, just their Hollywood fantasies. For instance "leaky Dick" Cheney shot one of his buddies in the face at point blank range with a shotgun and he survived.

 

Cheney shot a lawyer in the face, what's wrong with that?

And your dogs won't see me either. If you really want to know when someone is coming you should get a cat. My neighbor's cat gets spooked before the dogs start barking every time.

Reality huh? I think you watched Cujo one time too many.

 

Owls fly almost SILENTLY at night, my dogs can still detect them because it is really quiet at night out here.

You are NOT an owl, my dogs will HEAR your footsteps LONG before you reach my property.

 

Condescension. Let's play along...

Willful blindness.

Whataboutism.

Ignorance.

Victim blaming.

Great post!

 

Reality suggests that we must conform to the Universe and not the other way around. In the same light, should we divert money from medical research that affects diabetics so we can fund the same that affects but a few unfortunate people?

And...if you study history, you will find that mankind does move forward...albeit not as quickly as we like at times.

 

My new interest is finding an online income. I guess I will be less focused on horrible and offensive Social Media posts!

 

White male masculinity has been under attack at least since 1971 when I graduated from college. Back then, there were racial quotas. Then along came gender quotas. That lasted for the rest of my corporate company career. I was waiting for the sexual orientation quotas to kick in. They didn’t while I was working, but I image they are in the works now.

In addition the quotas, we now have pressure on young children to declare their sexual identity before they know what sexuality is. That is wrong, but objecting to grooming makes you a reactionary and a bad person. It the latest phase of identity politics.

 

That had actually not been my intent, with that comment; so if I were to "play along," with your game, I would here reply:
Misperception.

Again, in this case, comparing the prevalence of anti-female attitudes, with anti-male ones, would be called: Relativity.

As no one I have seen, including yourself, has cited any evidence of "a lack of help for men abused by women," you have now gone 0 for 3. Since it is up to the person making the argument, to support his points-- not up to all responders to independently research everyone's unsupported claims-- I guess we'll label this one:
Dearth of basis, for your claim.

Saying that men are less likely to use any available services, is not "blaming" them, for anything. The actual demand for a service, is not unrelated to the availability of that service. So we'll round out your four perfect misses, with something called: Pragmatism.



P.S.-- Kind of funny, that you are not any good, at your own game.

 

Bullshit. You were talking down to him and you know it. And he had been cordial, not inviting such disrespect.

And whataboutism. There is no reason why we can't be concerned about both. You instead try to distract/downplay from the one by waving the other.
Yes, anti-female attitudes are frequent and unacceptable, as are anti-male attitudes. And violence against women is indeed much more reported, likely more frequent, and more deadly on the average than violence against males. That does not mean we shouldn't care about everyone.

Nor is all toxic behaviour violent. When women engage in toxic behaviour it is less often violent and more often manipulative, exploitative, and psychological. WIth men, it is more often violent. All of the above is toxic.

Here is a good in depth government published review paper from my country (Canada):

https://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/res/cor/ipv-ipv/index.html#_keyfacts

Specific to your querry:

And more generally:

It goes much more in depth in each category if you care to read up on it.

Actualy, it is. Very few services are available to male victims, and male victims are discouraged rather than encouraged from using them. Male victims are also far less likely to report their abuse, likely because they doubt they will be believed, likely because 64% of those who do report it are treated by police as the abuser (see the research linked to above). Faulting the victims for their lack of being helped is very much victim blaming.

 

Disrespect-- you mean like your telling me that I am lying, with no evidence of such? I guess you are just omniscient? Or perhaps you hadn't found my reply to you, sufficiently cordial?

Though the way you begin your reply, signifies that I am wasting my time, explaining anything to you-- if you had read the conversation, CCitizen had not been at all specific, though believed he was answering my requests for the particulars. So I earnestly explained to him, how to achieve the satisfactory result. And, as I had hoped, CCitizen obviously used my advice, and succeeded, in spades.

To not, then, congratulate his effort, and acknowledge his success-- to my mind, at any rate-- would have seemed cold, perhaps even rude. I believe @CCitizen took my congratulations as the praise, and in the celebratory tone in which, it was intended. If I am wrong, I would like him to tell me so-- not for you to tell me, both what I had been thinking, and also what he had been feeling.

I think, looking in from the outside, you failed to appreciate our true rapport.

 

This is such backwards logic, I honestly can't even comprehend it.

So, owning a gun to protect one's self is weak, and the alternative being unable to protect yourself and be subjected to assault, murder, or otherwise is "strong"?

Can you name one animal in nature that is strong that doesn't have the ability to protect themsleves?

 

What "medical research" is needed?

ALL of the MEDICATIONS were already in EXISTENCE. The medical PROCEDURES were already developed for Cosmetic Surgery and Breast Cancer. Only the vaginal reconstruction aspect has been REFINED but it was available back in the 1950's.

The ONLY research that is NEEDED is primarily in the Psychiatric area to ENABLE those traumatized by Xtofascist DISINFORMATION to lead NORMAL lives. Even there it is WELL KNOWN how much mental harm is caused by this DENIAL of the REALITY that transpeople exist.

All that is needed is a Federal Law establishing that it is ILLEGAL to DISCRIMINATE against Transpeople that is then ENFORCED nationwide.

I am a history nerd and I am well aware that history has a strong lean towards LIBERALISM. Ultimately we just need to rid ourselves of the Xtofascists and most things will improve IMMEDIATELY.

 

Finally you can appreciate the ILLOGICALITY of what you ORIGINALY posted about "strong men, weak men".

There are MANY "safe societies" worldwide where GUNS do NOT play any role as far as SAFETY is concerned.

The GOP/NRA gun culture has turned America into an UNSAFE society and it was done entirely by toxic WEAK men who NEEDED their "guns" to "protect" themselves against IMAGINARY "dangers" that NEVER existed.

Strong men build safe societies WITHOUT guns while WEAK men DESTROY safe societies WITH guns.

That is REALITY in the rest of the world.

 

It's the Dark Age of Masculinity due in large because of the emasculation of White male culture. We see the "playa" culture venerated and thugs being praised. Even music that plays that is predominately pushed onto the USA is rap music which glorifies whoremongers and thugs. It stems directly from the Social Marxists upturning society on its head to demonize anything that is good.

 

That contradicts the entirety of history. Safe societies are made by strong men who are armed. There was never a society that thrived from not wielding the sword or the gun. Where is this fantasy coming from?

 

In 2021, there have been 48,800 gun deaths in USA.

People who own guns are likely to commit suicide.

 

Men who are armed are much more likely to commit suicide. I oppose guns 100%.

 

That doesn't even refute the statement that I made. If you want to derail it I'll give you a response. Suicide wouldn't be a problem if masculinity wasn't in decline pushing men to off themselves via firearms. You're blaming a tool and not the reasons for suicide. Your take is dumb.

I could equally say that living in cities makes you more likely to be gay or trans. I 100% want a ban on cities.

 

Lol the Dalai Lama. Are you referring to the same person who has a contingent of armed guards and actively fought against the CCP before he left in exile during the annexation of Tibet? What a great choice to use. hahaha

 

Is Tibet a "safe society" NOW under the GUNS of the CCP than it was under the Dalai Lama?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human...ibet is,and forced abortion and sterilization.

Thanks for PROVING my POINT that guns are the PROBLEM, not the solution.

 

Tibet was never a safe society due to the rival Lamas in that location. Which they all used weapons against one another continually. Anyone who tried to secure power and create a "safe" society without weapons ended up in a graveyard. Can you point to any society today that isn't backed by weapons? Where are these safe havens that doesn't have someone with a weapon to enforce that level of safety?

Lol. Tibet was also repressed during the days before guns existed. Seems to be a continual problem. Blaming it on a tool is outright ridiculous and quite stupid. Should we start banning spoons like the UK to prevent spoon related fatalities?

 

Abject FAILURE to address the RELEVANT question noted.

 

I see you can bypass questions with idiotic quotes from men who are protected by bodyguards. So again I'll pose the question you side stepped with your silly quote from a literal who.

Answer this question and I'll answer yours.