Meh, I’m here to say that #MenToo!!11 is as useful as #NotAllMen.
Especially if the discussion centres around PUA or MRA cesspools.
My anecdotal support is that I’m a man and as one I never, ever feel defensive in discussions about violence against women. Why the hell would I?
And if I did…
And that these men are robbed by other men is just a tool of the gynocracy!
Well, my initial sympathy is gone. Attempting to lessen the seriousness of violence against women because “men too!” Even know the numbers are vastly different, that’s a shitty thing to do.
Grow up, this indulgent whinefest fromPUAs/MRAs makes you look / sound terribly repulsive.
I finally found that quote; it’s from the Washington Post author, not from the actual study, so I’d take the author’s terminology (or misuse thereof) with a sea of salt.
I agree that the author of the Post article is confusing “Neanderthals” with “ancient humans,” and (like most news reporters) should avoid adding this kind of flavourful commentary to scientific articles. I also think that I mistook what you were trying to say. Your point seems to be that a certain percentage of our DNA was inherited from Neanderthals; mine is that our species are almost genetically identical in the first place (and would need to be in order to interbreed).
Just the ones who’ve taken the blue pill.
Or is it the red pill?
There’s no such thing as “reverse” sexism. Behaving or expressing one’s self in a manner that’s hostile, defamatory, discriminatory or offensive by means of sex or gender-identification are all forms of sexism - period. It’s not that its a “guys” only thing, it’s that sexism cannot be adequately addressed if its couched in language that errs on the side of male-defined or male-dependent classifications.
Awesome! Thank you so much for guiding me back into the path…
I kind of feel like you’re saying she went for a “low-status” male, here.
The condescending sarcasm isn’t convincing anyone that you’re right or that your opinion should be respected.
Keep on with that projected self-loathing, it’s been working so well so far…
Or you could treat women like human beings and not try act as if their interests, needs and behaviors are that alien to yours? Maybe?
Your lack of empathy doesn’t make your cause any worthier.
Which is why I, being a Humanzee, am so reclusive.
Remember that my initial reaction – which so many subsequent posts by others have been exploring – was to the notion that internet dating difficulties were about “outdated photos” and fraud (which technically outdated photos are an example of). Those are the concerns of men who go online for dates. Is it possible that a small percentage of men are physically harmed as a result of accepting a date online? Sure, of course. But that risk is always present to women, not a remote possibility.
Louis C.K. explains it nicely:
Sorry, couldn’t resist…too easy.
My bad.
Yeah, I wasn’t arguing about sharing a common ancestor (and DNA), just that Neanderthals were a separate evolutionary branch, so blaming them is unreasonable unless we can prove the behaviour came from interbreeding. I could have been clearer in what I was trying to say. Clearly they mean’t “ancient humans”.
I know it was an embellishment by the Washington Post author, but I think if you’re going to speak about evolution you should at least have a basic knowledge of what you’re talking about. I’m not a biologist either.
It’s not really that relevant to the article if you assume they mean “ancient humans”, but I found it jarring enough for a one line comment 
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
