Men - is this a forbidden topic?

We aren't going to allow any more discussions regarding men's political rights here in America, because time and again, they just spiral into pure misogyny.

by Dorian G

...

Hearing a statement like that from someone in a position of authority sounds incredibly troubling to me. 😲

It really only leaves two possibilities; there isn't a third:

- Either the moderators handling these threads are completely incompetent—and I’ll include being "ideologically driven" to create chaos just so they have an excuse to stifle democratic debate and open dialogue.

- Or the men on this forum are some kind of supernatural monsters and virtual psychopaths—total savages who lack even the basic ability to self-regulate or hold a civilized conversation.

🤔

lonebadger6 said:In principle, you're spot on, but the issue is that this specific way of arguing frames feminism as the dominant ideology in American and global society, which eventually spirals into misogyny and turns into nothing more than a festival of pure hatred toward women...

Just as people would be called out if they claimed the U.S. Government was racist, xenophobic, or Nazi, suggesting we live in a feminist utopia where men are being persecuted is really just a slightly less loud form of trolling...

There are certain areas of life where women face disadvantages, and there are certainly, quite clearly, areas where men are left behind too. Why discussions about women's struggles thrive here while topics regarding men's setbacks never seem to gain traction—well, that’s a question the Forum.hr administration isn't interested in answering...

You've put together a very high-quality, well-argued post, so I highly doubt you need me to explain that there is no conspiracy against men on Forum.hr, though I'm sure even a superficial glance at a topic from "each side" would give you the answer...

I agree. When people criticize feminism, they often fall into this trap of framing it as this massive, all-consuming ideological force. It’s a bit of a stretch to claim it's the dominant ideology controlling everything, because that ignores the bigger picture. In reality, feminism is just one piece of a much larger puzzle of shifting social values and evolving ideas. To suggest it’s the singular idea dictating the direction of society is, frankly, a little ridiculous. It's simply one part of a much broader spectrum of societal change.

When it comes to misogyny, I view it primarily as an individual issue. To be honest, I find it a bit ridiculous to frame misogyny as a broad, systemic social problem, especially in this day and age.

This brings up the issue of misogyny—specifically, how we create socially acceptable discrimination. It’s fueled by a small group of people, yet it creates this illusion where their hatred starts to look like the consensus held by the majority.

The issue works exactly the same way on both ends. The fundamental flaw in the system is that it tends to flag only one side as potentially dangerous or difficult to manage, while an identical phenomenon is happening on the other end—yet the system completely ignores it or downplays the threat. A part of this systemic failure lies with the HRC; for the HRC to survive as a social institution, it feels compelled to mirror the patterns of the majority, or rather, the masses shaped by the overarching system that dictates their meaning. I can go into more detail about that on a different thread if one pops up later on the forum, as I don't want to pull focus from the actual problem here.

Just as much as people should be called out for claiming the American government is racist, xenophobic, or Nazi-aligned, it’s just as hollow—if not a bit more annoying—to suggest we live in some feminist utopia where men are being persecuted.

Sure. In principle, that’s how it works. But once again, we have to address the underlying ideological assumptions—specifically, the agenda being pushed by the people who actually exist on Forum.hr or work to "maintain" it (the moderators and the Forum.hr administration).

What we’re discussing here is a phenomenon that has been present in every human society since the dawn of civilization. There are actually very real, logical explanations for why this happens.

There are certain chapters in life where women are unfairly disadvantaged, and there are certainly other chapters where men are the ones being left behind. It's interesting to observe why discussions about the struggles facing women seem to thrive here on the forum, while topics centered on the disadvantages men face never quite seem to gain any traction. It’s an observation, really—not necessarily a question meant for the moderators.

I agree that, as human beings, we are systematically disadvantaged—regardless of gender—and face discrimination on various other grounds as well.

The part I can't get behind is that final point. To me, this falls squarely on the shoulders of the moderation team. When you look at any given issue, moderation essentially boils down to three distinct stances. First, you have the affirmation camp—those who back everything up. Second, there’s the negation camp, the ones constantly pushing back. Then, there is the third option: a truly neutral position. In my view, maintaining that third position is nearly impossible. It's incredibly difficult to stay objective when you're fighting against basic human nature—our tendency to let emotions take over, our reliance on ingrained behavioral patterns, ideological indoctrination, and constant propaganda. There is also this deep-seated desire to belong to the crowd, to align oneself with the system, one's upbringing, or what some call "education." Personally, I prefer to call it obedience training. It doesn't really matter if the majority opinion is actually grounded in truth or if it's just a masterfully crafted illusion; most people will still gravitate toward it.

You’ve put together an incredibly high-quality post here, and your arguments are exceptionally well-reasoned.

Thanks!

Honestly, I find myself doubting whether I even need to explain this to you: there is absolutely no conspiracy against men on Forum.hr. I’m certain that if you actually took the time to look deeper instead of just skimming one thread from "each side," you'd have your answer.

I absolutely agree that there isn’t some grand conspiracy against men happening here on Forum.hr. If we had threads that allowed us to openly question certain social phenomena without being shut down, these issues would be thoroughly debated and dissected under those specific topics.

Look, I feel forced to try and condense my train of thought here just to get the point across.

I truly believe that most of the time, neither the moderators nor the Forum.hr administration likely act out of malice—though I’ll leave room for the possibility that I've misjudged you all. Rather, your actions seem to be the result of socially conditioned principles, essentially serving as a "public service announcement" for the values our society expects us to uphold.

The manufactured "consensus" has played a massive role throughout history in fueling that illusion of societal progress—this idea that we are actually advancing on a moral, ethical, and humanitarian level. In reality, these consensuses are just tools used to keep those at the bottom of the social ladder in line. It’s a way to manage the masses. At the end of the day, an obedient person is a useful person.

It’s for the exact same reason I start making noise whenever any discussion on the Politics board begins droning on about "paid shills" posting on the forum. These people aren't propaganda mercenaries; they are victims of propaganda, regardless of which direction it's coming from. I also lose it when people start generalizing the views of women or men as monolithic groups. They aren't "programmed"; they are victims of programming—specifically, the false societal narratives that the general public either ignores entirely or simply doesn't know exists. Most people just pick up fragments of these ideas, much like how most people form an entire opinion just by reading a single headline on a news site. Look, these are repeatable phenomena and psychological methods, and honestly, information regarding them is more accessible today than ever before. It really comes down to how much we actually want to learn about them and how we choose to approach it. Ultimately, it's a question of our own "obedience."

So, let me wrap up this last section with a quick summary.

I believe that by taking a neutral stance, we can approach a discussion regarding the phenomena mentioned above from a position where both sides of the scale remain balanced, free from social biases and ideological illusions.

So, here’s the real question: how much can we actually expect to get out of Forum.hr?

Chloe Martinez7 said:off
this kind of bolded stuff passes on Politics.
it slips through

Joseph Bailey41 writes

Good grief, you guys have tools, warnings, bans, three hundred different ways to punish people. Just judge hate speech based on what it actually deserves.

The reality is that on many threads, the very first post that deviates—saying "off-topic," etc.— should immediately be "flagged" or penalized

but that implies one thing: there aren't enough moderators.
Because threads would need to be monitored 24/7/365.

Or—when the mods show up, say, in the morning or whenever they find a neglected thread, they'd have to wipe all the inappropriate content, hand out points, warnings, and so on.
Then, after a week of total dictatorship, 🙂 maybe people would finally start thinking before they type.
Then the mods relax a bit, and someone inevitably decides to restart the whole cycle of strict rule enforcement.

So, either we'll learn some civility, or we'll just find a different forum where we can argue and troll to our heart's content.

Forum.hr has already become a dictatorship. Decisions from the top aren't born out of any actual consensus among the community, nor is there even an attempt to build a concept of mass agreement. Instead, they use autocratic methods to force us into accepting their "rules" and laws. They don't even bother hiding behind a fake democratic facade; it’s clearly just a tactic driven by the fear of being rejected or the inability to satisfy everyone's whims.

I think it actually works in my favor that both the moderators and the Forum.hr administration have openly stated that this isn't some democratic institution. It’s private property. By saying that, they’ve made it crystal clear: the political reality of this digital space is shaped by the views held at the top.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have an issue with that kind of dictatorship, provided it doesn't interfere with my personal or professional interests—which, on a forum like this, is essentially impossible.

That’s why I’ve always advised the guys debating topics like feminism or men's rights. My advice was always the same: your goal should be to nudge the moderators toward a compromise. You also have to be willing to meet them halfway. You can't just stubbornly insist your view is the universal truth on a private platform where the leadership nurtures social or ideological assumptions that differ from your own.

Again, please don't misunderstand me; I don't have anything against those guys, nor do I have anything against the moderation team. However, I occasionally find myself compelled to speak up when I feel people are misinterpreting certain issues or providing flat-out wrong answers. Of course, there's always the chance that I might be the one in the wrong.😬

Political correctness is going to kill free thought and free speech. What’s being shoved down our throats today under the guise of fighting misogyny is crossing all lines of good taste, and in a way, it’s just driving a wedge between men and women. For some people, any sexual interaction is automatically labeled as rape or misogyny. Luckily, our moderators don't fall into that category, though they occasionally have a pretty bizarre sense of what counts as misogyny. Statements can simply be lies or truths. I actually love it when my opponent lies. A few solid arguments and the debate is over. Seeing them persist in useless attempts just makes me smile more.
The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth that we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's where terms like misogyny and misandry come in—they act as tools for people in dominant social positions to silence their opponents.
On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't considered politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.
We can't just label everything we don't want to hear as misogyny. And look, I don't always use the prettiest language. When a user says most inventions came from the male side, that isn't misogyny; it's a fact. On the flip side, is claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes misandry? Because Department of Justice statistics show an interval closer to 90 minutes. Is it misandry or a lie to say there were 75 rapes last year, while estimating that only one in 15 cases was reported because of false accusations against men? Is it misandry or a lie to claim a Pay-gap exists by grouping everyone from CEOs to students into the same bucket?
We can't allow sweeping generalizations on one hand, but we also can't hide the truth on the other. Why shouldn't we be able to speak? Because I see this behavior as a direct insult to me as a woman—an insult to my ability to defend myself and stand as an equal. Sorry, moderators, but what you're doing is patriarchy in its worst form. Tomorrow, women will hold 40% of political offices, and eventually, educated women will shift the ratio of men to women in leadership roles. Will you still try to protect us like we're fragile little children, even when we're wrong, lying, or causing harm? Are you implying that because we're women, we're always the weaker, more delicate ones, and any criticism is misogyny? Are you trying to tell us we're less intelligent or capable?
Don't do us any favors. We are more than capable of defending ourselves against lies and accepting uncomfortable truths. Let men say what's bothering them. Let them vent. If we don't, we might miss vital issues that we'll regret later. Even if they're being offensive, I want to understand the root of those negative feelings so I can try to help fix whatever is eating at people. Okay, this isn't a psychology sub-forum, but here in politics, conflicting views are respected. That is the whole point of a forum—different opinions and the debates they spark. I've learned a lot from banned users. I had no idea how powerful the media is and how easily "untouchable truths" are forced upon us. If you dig beneath some of these narratives, you find very ugly, dirty lies.

I get the impression that with these topics, the moderator's main job isn't managing verbal sparring, but rather making sure they don't miss any "politically incorrect" statements—even when they aren't entirely sure what those look like themselves. You never know when someone might jump down your throat for it, so it's easier to just nip the thread in the bud. It ensures a peaceful night's sleep for the moderators, but it's terrible for gender relations and actually understanding the complex power dynamics in today's world.

I stand by every single word written by briskotter13 and Thomas Morgan67—they are proverbially pleasant and genuinely helpful conversationalists on just about any topic regarding the rights and injustices facing men.

We all know who the troublemakers are. Two of them have already been permabanned (felixx and Pillar of Society), Goldman Sachs rarely shows up anymore and avoids these specific topics, and ZgSash has his own particular way of talking (though I don't think many women have ever complained about him, *que non*?)—plus he’s usually more constructive than destructive in a debate. Then there's BadPig, who loves to poke fun, but very rarely crosses the line. That leaves only Prangija77, who simply refuses to compromise. So, where does that leave us?

I also find it frankly ridiculous that posts get deleted without any explanation provided within the thread as to why or how they were removed. What kind of pedagogical or preventative purpose is that actually serving?

briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

briskotter13 said:Political correctness is going to kill free thought and free speech. What’s being shoved down our throats today under the guise of fighting misogyny is crossing all lines of good taste, and in a way, it’s just driving a wedge between men and women. For some people, any sexual interaction is automatically labeled as rape or misogyny. Luckily, our moderators don't fall into that category, though they occasionally have a pretty bizarre sense of what counts as misogyny. Statements can simply be lies or truths. I actually love it when my opponent lies. A few solid arguments and the debate is over. Seeing them persist in useless attempts just makes me smile more.
The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth that we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's where terms like misogyny and misandry come in—they act as tools for people in dominant social positions to silence their opponents.
On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't considered politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.
We can't just label everything we don't want to hear as misogyny. And look, I don't always use the prettiest language. When a user says most inventions came from the male side, that isn't misogyny; it's a fact. On the flip side, is claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes misandry? Because Department of Justice statistics show an interval closer to 90 minutes. Is it misandry or a lie to say there were 75 rapes last year, while estimating that only one in 15 cases was reported because of false accusations against men? Is it misandry or a lie to claim a Pay-gap exists by grouping everyone from CEOs to students into the same bucket?
We can't allow sweeping generalizations on one hand, but we also can't hide the truth on the other. Why shouldn't we be able to speak? Because I see this behavior as a direct insult to me as a woman—an insult to my ability to defend myself and stand as an equal. Sorry, moderators, but what you're doing is patriarchy in its worst form. Tomorrow, women will hold 40% of political offices, and eventually, educated women will shift the ratio of men to women in leadership roles. Will you still try to protect us like we're fragile little children, even when we're wrong, lying, or causing harm? Are you implying that because we're women, we're always the weaker, more delicate ones, and any criticism is misogyny? Are you trying to tell us we're less intelligent or capable?
Don't do us any favors. We are more than capable of defending ourselves against lies and accepting uncomfortable truths. Let men say what's bothering them. Let them vent. If we don't, we might miss vital issues that we'll regret later. Even if they're being offensive, I want to understand the root of those negative feelings so I can try to help fix whatever is eating at people. Okay, this isn't a psychology sub-forum, but here in politics, conflicting views are respected. That is the whole point of a forum—different opinions and the debates they spark. I've learned a lot from banned users. I had no idea how powerful the media is and how easily "untouchable truths" are forced upon us. If you dig beneath some of these narratives, you find very ugly, dirty lies.

I get the impression that with these topics, the moderator's main job isn't managing verbal sparring, but rather making sure they don't miss any "politically incorrect" statements—even when they aren't entirely sure what those look like themselves. You never know when someone might jump down your throat for it, so it's easier to just nip the thread in the bud. It ensures a peaceful night's sleep for the moderators, but it's terrible for gender relations and actually understanding the complex power dynamics in today's world.

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

Forgive me for barging into this thread, but I’m finding a few things a bit unclear—could someone please shed some light on this?

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

So, if someone happens to stumble upon some claim online asserting that... The old debate resurfaces: are men, on average, more intelligent than women? It’s one of those topics that people love to throw around just to see the sparks fly. "I'm just relaying the findings from the study—no sweeping generalizations included"—really? Is that not just textbook misogyny?
Hmm.

Don't worry—I’m not about to start parroting the nonsense being peddled by those bottom-tier journalists. You know the type—reporters who couldn't be bothered to actually dig into the research they're citing, let alone verify if their methodology holds water, check the sample size, or see if their conclusions are even remotely grounded in reality.

So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. Look, she can talk about that, or she can talk about anything else for all I care—but she shouldn't lead with it in the opening post followed by three more posts that basically scream, "Nancy Tirelli said X, which is horrific, and honestly, being a man in this country is the worst thing you can be right now." It’s always the same cycle: if a man says something like that, everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, but instead, we get this narrative where men are the ones under threat, women can do whatever they want, and at this rate, women will soon have a legal permit to beat us up. I'm exaggerating a bit here—you get my point—but it becomes almost impossible to tell whether the actual issue is what Tirelli said, or the fact that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a miniskirt." (Again, hyperbole, but you see where I'm coming from.)

You’re caricaturing my position quite a bit—lots of non sequiturs and strawman arguments coming from your side. How exactly are you jumping to that conclusion? You're acting as if me suggesting a situation would cause a much bigger uproar if a man had said the same thing implies that I actually believe women are worth less, or that I hate them, or that I support sexual assault. That's a massive leap.
Whether I agree with that claim or not is actually beside the point—your logical progression just doesn't hold water.

Stay out of it, we're just on a forum 🙂

We’re speaking in generalities here, obviously, though everything really depends on the specific context. If "felixx" just drops a link to some bizarre study, then sure, it’s trolling and misogyny, especially since he’s posted about 875 things like that so far. But if it isn't that kind of case, there’s no point in punishing someone just because they assumed a link was accurate when it wasn't. Though, usually, it isn't even that hard to tell if someone is being malicious or if they simply... don't know. Just a quick note regarding the specific example—differences in IQ between men and women in the general population do exist. And superficial studies will typically show men are more intelligent because they're being measured within a certain "similar" population. The actual truth is that men are more "spread out." To put it very simply: if you imagine 100 men and 100 women, the men will have 10 "geniuses" and 10 "idiots," while everyone else hovers around the average, whereas the women will have 5 "geniuses" and 5 "idiots."

Besides, that's a trivial study with trivial data. There's no doubt plenty of women have incredibly high IQs. So what’s actually the point of that link in a discussion about gender? That "we" are smarter than "them"? No. It’s a completely trivial fact that says nothing about the capability of a gender, let alone an individual. And there’s a good chance anyone bringing it up in a gender debate is doing it maliciously (and probably isn't one of the smarter ones either)...

On your second point, you're right, I caricatured things quite a bit and went overboard. But the content itself points toward that. What was the point of mentioning Varga and Cacic? I'm not saying it was malicious, but that's where this type of discussion leads. Tirello said something sexist. Period. To me personally (and I don't think I'm alone in this, not by a long shot), mentioning how "men immediately jump in when a man speaks..." makes it sound like the bigger issue is that they jumped in, rather than the fact that they aren't jumping in now. It's pandering to low impulses right in the introduction. Then the topic stops being "this politician said something sexist" and turns into "men are under attack, everyone is treating us unfairly." To me, it feels very similar—and the relationship isn't all that different—to when "hardline nationalists" start whining that certain minority groups have more rights than they do in America.

(I'm not trying to say women are oppressed, nor am I suggesting any minority group is oppressed, not in the slightest. But for a variety of reasons, it's incredibly tasteless to claim women are privileged in American society /they might be in terms of parenting, but that's mostly true everywhere in the world and was true even back when they didn't have the right to vote and were expected to stay in the kitchen and wash the dishes/.)

It’s also impossible to ignore the fact that this is an old statement. This didn't happen yesterday, causing a sudden scandal; this was an interview from February.

Finally, if we want to get into the weeds—those three statements (Cacic, Varga, Tirello) aren't even comparable. Tirello's comment was more stupid than it was sexist. That study was recently all over various media outlets, mostly just trivial stuff. What I find saddest about the whole thing is seeing someone so, hm, "simple" holding relatively high political offices. Not that it's anything new for us. It sounds like a comment from a teenager on Facebook. But it is based on actual research. Varga and Cacic made overtly sexist remarks. Especially Cacic. Varga came off as a bit foolish—a sexist remark, sure, but essentially benign. Cacic had a very serious sexist outburst; behind a seemingly simple sentence lies deep-seated sexism.

lonebadger6 said:Stay out of it, we're just on a forum 🙂

We’re speaking in generalities here, obviously, though everything really depends on the specific context. If "felixx" just drops a link to some bizarre study, then sure, it’s trolling and misogyny, especially since he’s posted about 875 things like that so far. But if it isn't that kind of case, there’s no point in punishing someone just because they assumed a link was accurate when it wasn't. Though, usually, it isn't even that hard to tell if someone is being malicious or if they simply... don't know. Just a quick note regarding the specific example—differences in IQ between men and women in the general population do exist. And superficial studies will typically show men are more intelligent because they're being measured within a certain "similar" population. The actual truth is that men are more "spread out." To put it very simply: if you imagine 100 men and 100 women, the men will have 10 "geniuses" and 10 "idiots," while everyone else hovers around the average, whereas the women will have 5 "geniuses" and 5 "idiots."

Besides, that's a trivial study with trivial data. There's no doubt plenty of women have incredibly high IQs. So what’s actually the point of that link in a discussion about gender? That "we" are smarter than "them"? No. It’s a completely trivial fact that says nothing about the capability of a gender, let alone an individual. And there’s a good chance anyone bringing it up in a gender debate is doing it maliciously (and probably isn't one of the smarter ones either)...

On your second point, you're right, I caricatured things quite a bit and went overboard. But the content itself points toward that. What was the point of mentioning Varga and Cacic? I'm not saying it was malicious, but that's where this type of discussion leads. Tirello said something sexist. Period. To me personally (and I don't think I'm alone in this, not by a long shot), mentioning how "men immediately jump in when a man speaks..." makes it sound like the bigger issue is that they jumped in, rather than the fact that they aren't jumping in now. It's pandering to low impulses right in the introduction. Then the topic stops being "this politician said something sexist" and turns into "men are under attack, everyone is treating us unfairly." To me, it feels very similar—and the relationship isn't all that different—to when "hardline nationalists" start whining that certain minority groups have more rights than they do in America.

(I'm not trying to say women are oppressed, nor am I suggesting any minority group is oppressed, not in the slightest. But for a variety of reasons, it's incredibly tasteless to claim women are privileged in American society /they might be in terms of parenting, but that's mostly true everywhere in the world and was true even back when they didn't have the right to vote and were expected to stay in the kitchen and wash the dishes/.)

It’s also impossible to ignore the fact that this is an old statement. This didn't happen yesterday, causing a sudden scandal; this was an interview from February.

Finally, if we want to get into the weeds—those three statements (Cacic, Varga, Tirello) aren't even comparable. Tirello's comment was more stupid than it was sexist. That study was recently all over various media outlets, mostly just trivial stuff. What I find saddest about the whole thing is seeing someone so, hm, "simple" holding relatively high political offices. Not that it's anything new for us. It sounds like a comment from a teenager on Facebook. But it is based on actual research. Varga and Cacic made overtly sexist remarks. Especially Cacic. Varga came off as a bit foolish—a sexist remark, sure, but essentially benign. Cacic had a very serious sexist outburst; behind a seemingly simple sentence lies deep-seated sexism.

Well, it looks like we’re dumping all this extra work on you moderators—mostly because half of this thread will probably end up being moved over to Politics anyway, which is where it belongs. I'm currently too deep in the thick of this discussion to step away, so if I end up getting flagged for dragging things out, I'll just take the hit—man to man, or woman to woman. 😁

We’re speaking in generalities here, of course—everything depends on the specific context. If "felixx" just drops a link to some bizarre study, then we're looking at trolling and misogyny, especially considering he's already dumped 875 posts of that exact flavor. But if that isn't the case, there’s really no point in punishing someone based on the assumption they *had* to know the link was inaccurate. Though, let's be honest, it usually isn't that hard to tell whether someone is being malicious or if they simply... don't know. Just to touch briefly on the specific example at hand—differences between male and female intelligence within the general population do exist. Superficial studies will typically show men as being more intelligent because they tend to be measured against a certain "similar" population. The actual truth is that men are more "scattered." To put it very simply: if you imagine 100 men and 100 women, you’ll find 10 geniuses and 10 idiots among the men, while the rest hover around the average; whereas with the women, you’d likely see 5 geniuses and 5 idiots, with everyone else clustering tightly around the mean.

I'm already well aware of this; we’ve hashed this out extensively in previous threads—going back and forth for ages—and my final takeaway ended up being almost identical to yours.

Besides, this is just some trivial research yielding a trivial data point. There’s no doubt that plenty of women possess an incredibly high IQ—that's a given. So, what exactly is the point of dropping a link like that into a debate about gender? Is the implication "we" are smarter than "them"? No. It’s a completely superficial statistic that tells you absolutely nothing about the capabilities of a gender, let alone the capability of any single individual. Honestly, there's a pretty good chance that anyone bringing this up in a discussion about gender is doing it with bad intentions—which, frankly, suggests they probably aren't one of the smarter ones in the room anyway.

Exactly—it’s a trivial point. A difference in cognitive ability (in this case, IQ) tells you absolutely nothing about who is more "capable" on an individual level. Even less so can you take statistical laws and map them onto a single person—unless, of course, that law applies to a sample size of either 0% or 100%. Any undergrad sitting through an advanced math lecture would tell you that those figures are little more than theoretical constructs.

You’re right on that second point—I definitely went overboard and caricatured things a bit too much. But honestly, the content itself practically invites that kind of reaction. What was even the point of bringing up Varga and Cacic? I'm not saying there was any actual malice intended, but that's exactly the direction this type of debate spirals toward. The fact remains: Tirello said something sexist. Period. Personally—and I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way—the whole comment about how "as soon as a man speaks, they all start jumping up and showing up..." makes it sound like the bigger issue isn't what she actually said, but rather the fact that men were reacting to it in the first place. It’s pandering to low instincts right from the introduction. Suddenly, the topic shifts from "this politician just said something sexist" to "men are being victimized and everyone is treating us unfairly." To me, it feels remarkably similar—and the underlying dynamic isn't all that different—to when certain ultra-nationalists start whining that Mexicans have more rights than Americans in the States.

I can't say I entirely agree with you there. If someone claims that women get a "free pass" on sexist remarks more easily than men, it doesn't necessarily follow that the person making the claim thinks the reaction should be identical for both.
Personally, I firmly believe that Cacic and Varga ought to be cautioned about their choice of words; regardless of whether their intentions are malicious sexism, a poorly timed joke, or just a clumsy slip of the tongue, certain phrases simply have no business being part of political discourse. Of course, I’m against people feeling offended by every little thing—like regionalism (which sounds much more sophisticated than calling it what it actually is)—but we should still strive for decorum and progress.
Furthermore—as a man myself, I feel somewhat obligated to call out sexist remarks made by other men. I don't want someone who represents the American people, and by extension, me, making those kinds of statements (speaking metaphorically, of course—they are speaking on my behalf).
That said, it’s hard to ignore the discrepancy between how the public reacts to their comments versus how they react to Nancy Tirello's. Just because I notice that difference doesn't mean I'm concluding that "male" sexism shouldn't be called out, nor does it mean I consider myself "oppressed" or "marginalized." But it does make me wonder: why is there such a gap?

Naturally, I don't feel threatened. In fact, I think my life is going quite well; I live significantly better than 99.9999% of the people on this planet. However, that doesn't stop me from taking an interest in certain issues, even if my motivations are more academic or salon-style rather than purely practical.

(I'm not suggesting that women are oppressed, nor am I saying that Mexicans are oppressed—not in the slightest. But for a variety of reasons, it's incredibly tacky to claim that women are privileged in American society. They might be in terms of parenting roles, but that's largely true everywhere in the world and was true even back when they didn't have the right to vote and were expected to stay in the kitchen.)

Well, yes, that is precisely the point: every demographic group has its own set of problems. We share many of them, but some are specifically—or perhaps more accurately, uniquely or frequently—tied to a particular group.
Identifying and addressing these specific issues doesn't somehow diminish the existence of problems faced by other groups, nor does it negate the need to solve them.

In the end, if we really want to get into the weeds—those three statements (Cacic, Varga, Tirello) aren't even comparable. Tirello's comment was more idiotic than truly sexist. That study was recently all over various media outlets, mostly in a trivial way. To me, the saddest part of the whole thing is seeing someone so, shall we say, "simple" holding relatively high political office. Not that it's anything new, mind you. It sounds like something a teenager would post on Facebook. But it's based on actual research. Varga and Cacic, however, made overtly sexist remarks. Especially Cacic. Varga came off as a bit foolish—it was a sexist remark, sure, but essentially benign. Cacic, on the other hand, had a very serious sexist outburst; behind a seemingly simple sentence lies deep-seated sexism.

I assume you're referring to this statement from Cacic: "Secretary Holy, don't bother your little head with economic matters; there are others to handle that."?

I don't know; to me, that looks more like a personal attack on Holy than outright misogyny. The only part that's condescending is the "little head" bit. By the way—I don't particularly care for Cacic as a person, and even if I did, I wouldn't condone that kind of rhetoric, but Holy really doesn't have the slightest clue about economics.😁I'm not trying to make excuses for Radimir—this is just my own two cents.

As for those other two comments, I'll give you that; they feel more clumsy and moronic than outright sexist. That said, everything is open to interpretation, and frankly, it feels a bit ungrateful to try and play judge and jury on the exact "level of sexism" in their remarks. They were stupid, unnecessary, and unwelcome. Period.

To avoid drifting completely off-topic, I have to say that I find myself agreeing with a rather problematic claim made by Dorian—specifically, the idea that "topics regarding men's rights won't be tolerated on this forum."

@Dorian, you provided a very detailed and reasoned explanation as to why this is the current moderation policy, but I simply cannot get behind those arguments. You shouldn't be able to silence or censor a potentially vital sociological, political, or even legal discussion just because the discourse surrounding it becomes inappropriate. Especially since you admitted yourself that it’s "always the same 5 or 6 people causing trouble." By saying that, you aren't just undermining those of us who would love to engage in this debate—and believe me, there are more than just a few of us interested in discussing this in a civilized, reasoned manner—you are also undermining the moderators and admins. You're essentially implying that the methods and mechanisms you've established (yourselves along with Anderlon, of course) aren't enough to maintain order—meaning you can't actually do your "job" (and I use quotes there because, frankly, I have no idea which of you are actually getting paid for this 🙂). But let's be real: you can.

In fact, whether you intended to or not, that statement places a taboo on a specific subject and kills the very concept of this forum being a space for the free exchange of ideas. Moreover, it dangerously implies that the political, ideological, and other stances of the Forum.hr administration heavily influence not just the direction of discussions, but the existence of the platform itself. Is that really the kind of reputation Forum.hr needs?

I'm not trying to strip your comment out of context, nor am I interpreting it as anything other than what I believe it to be (a slip of the tongue); I just want to point out that there are many users here who—as you've already seen in this thread—feel strongly about this. Besides, since lonebadger6 and I have already touched upon Tirelli, Varga, and Cacic—how is this statement, taken entirely on its own, any less sexist? That's a question many users might reasonably ask.

Of course, as Thomas Morgan67 pointed out, the Forum.hr administration has every right to implement whatever rules they see fit, provided they comply with American law. It's up to us to either accept them or take our business elsewhere. However, no one can stop us from expressing our disagreement with those rules, whether it's here on this forum or on any other medium.

I think the much better approach is the one you actually suggested: extremely rigid moderation of any such potential topics, using warnings liberally and being absolutely unapologetic about bans—even permanent ones if necessary. I'm confident that the wheat will be separated from the chaff very quickly.

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

You can't possibly draw that conclusion from what follows.

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

I don't see much beauty in arguing with people who already agree with me. I'm also not sure how a debunked lie actually ruins a debate. That only happens with lies we don't have the facts to counter. At that point, you really have to ask yourself if it was even a lie to begin with.

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

Vague terms that lack clear definitions usually exist just to serve a specific purpose. Sure, misogyny and misandry are real things, but people rarely agree on how to identify them. This means someone gets slapped with one of those labels and is left standing there completely bewildered by the accusation. I have to admit, I’ve been there myself—back when I was discussing gender quotas, someone immediately tried to diagnose me with "rationalization squirrel."

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

That’s the thing—since there isn't one clear definition, everyone just makes up their own. Where you see misogyny, I don't see it at all. And I'm sure it works the other way around, too. My point was that any viewpoint which discourages men from speaking openly about their struggles feels like patriarchy to me. In fact, it could be seen as misogyny because it treats me like someone who needs to be shielded from reality. People are all different, and there are just as many definitions for these terms as there are people.

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

I see it differently. Nowadays, the term "patriarchy" is defined exclusively as a negative concept. Yet, within that system, men have built many things that women benefited from, some created specifically for women's well-being. Perhaps a user repeats these points simply as a defense against the aggressive stereotype that patriarchy is solely a system designed to oppress women for the benefit of men. Repeating it countless times might just be a reaction to being attacked by that exact logic, not just here, but in much more serious arenas.
We are back to the subjective perception of misogyny again.

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

Now you're really moving the goalposts. It doesn't matter how many times someone says something if it's true. However, if it's a falsehood, even one instance in the public eye is too many. It needs to be corrected regardless of context, otherwise, we fall into the trap where repeated lies become perceived truths. Some falsehoods are repeated so often that what are we supposed to do? Punish the person who keeps pointing out the problem?

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

That last sentence highlights the awkward problem I mentioned earlier: there is nothing left to explain because everything is already "known."
Let's look at what is "known." If statistics from last year showed that 350 women were assaulted and recorded, am I asking if those numbers are large or small? Philosophically and humanly, even one victim is too many. Statistically, however, it represents fractions of a percent. That sounds small. Regardless, it shouldn't be enough to make "man" and "violence" synonymous. So, multiply that number by 90, and you get the reality: a woman was assaulted every 15 minutes. I don't have a specific reason for using 90, but it doesn't require a detailed explanation.
If some eccentric guy hits those same numbers but only casts women in the lead roles, everyone immediately screams misogyny.

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

So what’s the connection? That’s like saying a debate on immigration turned into chaos just because the conservatives showed up—or the liberals, it doesn't matter. People are going to argue using whatever logic they think holds water. If you can't find a solid counterargument for any reason, that isn't his fault; it's yours.

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

Dorian replied to your question. This topic is pretty provocative, and honestly, that’s the only reason it can exist at all—otherwise, it wouldn't even be a conversation. Personally, I’m all for keeping it on the table.

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

Women-focused NGO sites are constantly churning out articles like this, often getting their funding indirectly through government institutions. I’m not saying there’s necessarily a problem with that, but we have to remember that Forum.hr is a private platform with its own set of rules. Let's not be hypocrites and go looking for flaws in someone else's backyard when our own house is far from perfect.

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

The real issue often lies in how "insulting" is defined rather than what was actually said. But I've already made my point. Personal insults don't get under my skin. 🙂

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

I'll give it a read.

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

Impressions depend on the context. Forum.hr ended up in annual reports from government agencies, and not in a good way, which isn't great for the owner. Around that time, moderators appeared who are much better at spotting politically incorrect statements. But I'll take your word for it. If it doesn't matter to me, then fine—if it gives you satisfaction, that's your business.

briskotter13 said:You can't possibly draw that conclusion from what follows.

I don't see much beauty in arguing with people who already agree with me. I'm also not sure how a debunked lie actually ruins a debate. That only happens with lies we don't have the facts to counter. At that point, you really have to ask yourself if it was even a lie to begin with.

Vague terms that lack clear definitions usually exist just to serve a specific purpose. Sure, misogyny and misandry are real things, but people rarely agree on how to identify them. This means someone gets slapped with one of those labels and is left standing there completely bewildered by the accusation. I have to admit, I’ve been there myself—back when I was discussing gender quotas, someone immediately tried to diagnose me with "rationalization squirrel."

That’s the thing—since there isn't one clear definition, everyone just makes up their own. Where you see misogyny, I don't see it at all. And I'm sure it works the other way around, too. My point was that any viewpoint which discourages men from speaking openly about their struggles feels like patriarchy to me. In fact, it could be seen as misogyny because it treats me like someone who needs to be shielded from reality. People are all different, and there are just as many definitions for these terms as there are people.

I see it differently. Nowadays, the term "patriarchy" is defined exclusively as a negative concept. Yet, within that system, men have built many things that women benefited from, some created specifically for women's well-being. Perhaps a user repeats these points simply as a defense against the aggressive stereotype that patriarchy is solely a system designed to oppress women for the benefit of men. Repeating it countless times might just be a reaction to being attacked by that exact logic, not just here, but in much more serious arenas.
We are back to the subjective perception of misogyny again.

Now you're really moving the goalposts. It doesn't matter how many times someone says something if it's true. However, if it's a falsehood, even one instance in the public eye is too many. It needs to be corrected regardless of context, otherwise, we fall into the trap where repeated lies become perceived truths. Some falsehoods are repeated so often that what are we supposed to do? Punish the person who keeps pointing out the problem?

That last sentence highlights the awkward problem I mentioned earlier: there is nothing left to explain because everything is already "known."
Let's look at what is "known." If statistics from last year showed that 350 women were assaulted and recorded, am I asking if those numbers are large or small? Philosophically and humanly, even one victim is too many. Statistically, however, it represents fractions of a percent. That sounds small. Regardless, it shouldn't be enough to make "man" and "violence" synonymous. So, multiply that number by 90, and you get the reality: a woman was assaulted every 15 minutes. I don't have a specific reason for using 90, but it doesn't require a detailed explanation.
If some eccentric guy hits those same numbers but only casts women in the lead roles, everyone immediately screams misogyny.

So what’s the connection? That’s like saying a debate on immigration turned into chaos just because the conservatives showed up—or the liberals, it doesn't matter. People are going to argue using whatever logic they think holds water. If you can't find a solid counterargument for any reason, that isn't his fault; it's yours.

Dorian replied to your question. This topic is pretty provocative, and honestly, that’s the only reason it can exist at all—otherwise, it wouldn't even be a conversation. Personally, I’m all for keeping it on the table.

Women-focused NGO sites are constantly churning out articles like this, often getting their funding indirectly through government institutions. I’m not saying there’s necessarily a problem with that, but we have to remember that Forum.hr is a private platform with its own set of rules. Let's not be hypocrites and go looking for flaws in someone else's backyard when our own house is far from perfect.

The real issue often lies in how "insulting" is defined rather than what was actually said. But I've already made my point. Personal insults don't get under my skin. 🙂

I'll give it a read.

Impressions depend on the context. Forum.hr ended up in annual reports from government agencies, and not in a good way, which isn't great for the owner. Around that time, moderators appeared who are much better at spotting politically incorrect statements. But I'll take your word for it. If it doesn't matter to me, then fine—if it gives you satisfaction, that's your business.

😁 Look, just because I disagree with something here and there, or felt the need to chime in on a certain point, doesn't mean I actually think the post is stupid...

I don't see much point in arguing with people who already agree with me... I just don't get how a debunked lie can completely derail a conversation, unless it's one of those lies where we don't even have a counterargument ready, and then you really have to wonder if it was even a lie to begin with...

That part was specifically referring to that final, desperate line about "wasting everyone's time with futile efforts." Look, it’s one thing when someone spreads misinformation because they genuinely believe it’s true... even if they're doing it on purpose, we can't exactly read minds. But once you've presented them with the actual facts and they just ignore the correction to keep peddling the same lie... well, that’s how you kill a conversation. Take the whole debate over immigration, for instance; nobody was penalized the first time someone dropped a link claiming "refugees are rejecting aid because the Red Cross logo is on the boxes." Not the first person, not even the first five. But after it was debunked several times, the moderators stepped in with warnings to stop spreading it, then started deleting posts, and once people kept doubling down anyway... that's when the real penalties kicked in...

That also means someone accused of being a misogynist or a misandrist will often find themselves staring at a wall in total confusion once they've been slapped with that label...

Just because someone’s acting shocked doesn't mean there's actually anything worth being surprised about... 🙂 Some immigrants actually wonder why people are xenophobic toward them, when all they ever say is that everyone is an ISIS member, and we’ll just have to wait a few years until they start clcetting us because apparently "they" are born with knives in their hands...

Now you’re really starting to play the relativism card...

I shortened the quote since it actually covers two whole paragraphs. Numbers are always tricky, and people can pull all sorts of data points that end up being totally wrong... but that wasn't even my point. I was talking about those claims that domestic violence against women doesn't exist or that the rates of women being violent toward men are exactly the same. I still don't think this needs further explanation—and I'm certainly not going to dive into it here, since we're discussing moderation and the general policy of Forum.hr, not the specifics of violence against women or men...

And what does that have to do with anything...

It matters. I’ve already explained why more than a few times... The Forum.hr administration just doesn't want a thread where there isn't an actual debate, only people venting their intolerance toward women—or honestly, anyone, for that matter. You see a ton of hostility in the immigration threads too, but you also find plenty of actually decent posts...

Dorian already answered this one... the topic is provocative, which is pretty much the only reason it exists at all, and honestly, I'm all for keeping it alive.

Me too. I'd say Dorian just phrased things a bit clumsily, though I suspect the Forum.hr administration isn't actually saying "this can't be a topic," they're more like "we won't allow topics this blunt"...

Insults don't bother me 🙂

Again, that's fine. They don't bother me either, but I actually appreciate that Forum.hr is trying to be a place where that kind of stuff is banned, since the internet is already drowning in sites that exist solely for that purpose... anyone looking to vent their frustrations by attacking others has plenty of other options out there...

The rest was way too off-topic anyway, so there's no point in us debating the subject here—not that you went off-topic, I'm just as responsible for it, we just have to eventually stop 😁)

Zachary Turner6 - same here, we're totally off-topic now, damn it. I read 😉

Regarding the off-topic section, I viewed this thread as a space where we can offer suggestions to the Attorney General, who seems unsure about how to handle this herself. But she needs to figure it out, because I’m increasingly seeing men push back against female privileges. Sure, some are just nostalgic for the "good old days," but we shouldn't dismiss legitimate, reasoned arguments just because of that.

Men pointing out gender discrimination today find themselves in a tough spot. Honestly, I think they feel exactly how feminists felt a century ago—treated like oddities or weaklings, mocked and ridiculed. There isn't really an organized movement for men's rights, so forums like this are often their only outlet to speak up. They do it however they can, often bluntly or without much tact, but that shouldn't stop the conversation from happening.

To make matters worse, they have to fight through endless stereotypes, especially the one regarding the sheer scale of violence against women. It feels like our society has created a climate where discussing any male issues is considered distasteful until the issue of violence against women is fully resolved. That’s the "trump card" used to shut down any man trying to point out what bothers him. Consequently, they are forced to address that specific issue before they can even touch any other topic related to men. And frankly, if you look strictly at official statistics, that issue is being blown way out of proportion. I have to admit, I was surprised by the scale; we aren't talking about slightly inflated numbers here, but massive, astronomical discrepancies. Maybe that's not an exaggeration, but wanting to know how those numbers are calculated shouldn't be treated as a problem.

I wondered how this gets away with it, but reading this forum makes it clear. It’s not just that unverified figures are released into the public square; it’s that any attempt at criticism is immediately branded as misogyny. Why? Because apparently, "everyone knows" it's true. These widely accepted falsehoods and "creative truths" form the bedrock of every debate on gender relations. In reality, it’s impossible to touch on the vulnerability of men without first addressing the foundation: the creation of a negative public perception of men (violence, Pay-gap, patriarchy). I believe this is exactly why the moderation team hesitates to open threads about men—they worry about things spiraling out of control. If the scope is the problem, maybe it’s better not to open the thread at all. For instance, how can we discuss quotas resulting from feminist lobbying without mentioning the root causes of those quotas? To me, that looks like just another major evil fueled by political cronyism and nepotism.

I would love to see a dedicated thread on men opened here, followed by a formal invitation to federal equality institutions and various NGOs to join the discussion. I truly want to hear them explain the data points that we are supposedly expected to take on faith without questioning. I envision a debate where forum members aren't allowed to post a new reply until they have answered the opposing side's questions and provided mathematical or statistical evidence for their claims. Just as there are male trolls, women can be just as bad, throwing out empty platitudes instead of actually engaging with sensible questions.

briskotter13 said:Regarding the off-topic section, I viewed this thread as a space where we can offer suggestions to the Attorney General, who seems unsure about how to handle this herself. But she needs to figure it out, because I’m increasingly seeing men push back against female privileges. Sure, some are just nostalgic for the "good old days," but we shouldn't dismiss legitimate, reasoned arguments just because of that.

Men pointing out gender discrimination today find themselves in a tough spot. Honestly, I think they feel exactly how feminists felt a century ago—treated like oddities or weaklings, mocked and ridiculed. There isn't really an organized movement for men's rights, so forums like this are often their only outlet to speak up. They do it however they can, often bluntly or without much tact, but that shouldn't stop the conversation from happening.

To make matters worse, they have to fight through endless stereotypes, especially the one regarding the sheer scale of violence against women. It feels like our society has created a climate where discussing any male issues is considered distasteful until the issue of violence against women is fully resolved. That’s the "trump card" used to shut down any man trying to point out what bothers him. Consequently, they are forced to address that specific issue before they can even touch any other topic related to men. And frankly, if you look strictly at official statistics, that issue is being blown way out of proportion. I have to admit, I was surprised by the scale; we aren't talking about slightly inflated numbers here, but massive, astronomical discrepancies. Maybe that's not an exaggeration, but wanting to know how those numbers are calculated shouldn't be treated as a problem.

I wondered how this gets away with it, but reading this forum makes it clear. It’s not just that unverified figures are released into the public square; it’s that any attempt at criticism is immediately branded as misogyny. Why? Because apparently, "everyone knows" it's true. These widely accepted falsehoods and "creative truths" form the bedrock of every debate on gender relations. In reality, it’s impossible to touch on the vulnerability of men without first addressing the foundation: the creation of a negative public perception of men (violence, Pay-gap, patriarchy). I believe this is exactly why the moderation team hesitates to open threads about men—they worry about things spiraling out of control. If the scope is the problem, maybe it’s better not to open the thread at all. For instance, how can we discuss quotas resulting from feminist lobbying without mentioning the root causes of those quotas? To me, that looks like just another major evil fueled by political cronyism and nepotism.

I would love to see a dedicated thread on men opened here, followed by a formal invitation to federal equality institutions and various NGOs to join the discussion. I truly want to hear them explain the data points that we are supposedly expected to take on faith without questioning. I envision a debate where forum members aren't allowed to post a new reply until they have answered the opposing side's questions and provided mathematical or statistical evidence for their claims. Just as there are male trolls, women can be just as bad, throwing out empty platitudes instead of actually engaging with sensible questions.

I think it's pretty obvious who the "nostalgics" are in these discussions.

Men pointing out gender discrimination today find themselves in a very awkward spot. I suspect they feel much like feminists did a century ago—viewed as oddities, weaklings, or just targets for ridicule. There is almost no organized movement for men's rights, so forums like this are often their only outlet to speak up. And they do it however they can—usually bluntly and without much tact—but that shouldn't be an excuse to shut down the conversation entirely.

I’d love for you to share your thoughts on those who are "blunt and tactless" (and I think you know exactly which user I’m referring to 😉)—has he ever made you wonder if he hates women, or have you, as a woman participating in the debate, ever felt uncomfortable because of him?

On top of everything else, they have to navigate a minefield of stereotypes, the most problematic being the narrative surrounding the prevalence of violence against women. A social climate has been engineered where discussing any male-centric issues is seen as distasteful unless the issue of violence against women is resolved first. It’s become the go-to "argument" used to stall any attempt by men to point out what bothers them. Consequently, they are forced to address that specific issue before they can even touch any other topic regarding men. And honestly, that issue is massively overstated if you look strictly at official statistics. I have to admit, even I was surprised by the scale of it; we aren't just talking about minor statistical padding here, but figures that are gargantuan in scope. Now, maybe that isn't an exaggeration, but it shouldn't be an issue to ask how those numbers are actually derived.

I want to ask lonebadger6 (and the rest of the moderators): if someone claims "a woman is beaten every 15 minutes in America," and they are met dozens of times with Department of Justice statistics regarding domestic violence cases—which are, at the very least, dozens of times lower (even counting reported cases, not just convictions)—and that person keeps doubling down on those claims, will that be treated as trolling in future threads? Specifically, the scenario where a person "isn't intentionally lying, but continues to state the same thing after it has been repeatedly and logically refuted"? Those are quotes from lonebadger6 earlier in this discussion.
If we start punishing people for "speculating on victim counts" (which, frankly, we should—because even if it were only 100 women a year falling victim to domestic violence in the US, that would still be a massive crisis requiring a serious response), then IMO, we should also be punishing those who intentionally weaponize false numbers. Doing so doesn't just demonize men; it insults the actual victims of domestic violence.

The whole Pay-gap issue has been dissected from statistical and methodological angles more times than I can count; if someone looks at the raw data—which shows that women globally earn less than men (an undeniable fact)—and somehow manages to conclude that "women are paid less FOR THE SAME WORK" (a purely arbitrary leap in logic), then I honestly don't think it's an insult to tell them their take has zero connection to statistics, logic, economics, or even basic common sense.
Personally, I’ve spent several massive essays explaining why that specific interpretation is logically flawed and economically baseless (if not outright impossible). And, of course, it isn't just me—it’s not even just other users here (including women like briskotter13, ChienSaintHubber, and many others), but also very serious economists and mathematical experts.

Are there "women's issues" regarding employment and the economy? Of course there are. We’ve debated some of them: hiring trends for young women, how pregnant employees are treated, getting young mothers back into the workforce, social discrimination against women in certain sectors... these are all legitimate problems. Trying to solve them doesn't help one bit when people constantly peddle falsehoods and illogical claims.

And will such claims be dismissed as mere trolling if they lack any actual argument beyond "that's just how it is," "I heard it somewhere," "I read it online," "you just don't get it and you hate women," or my personal favorite, "my neighbor's husband's sister once told me..."?

I was wondering how this even gets passed through, but reading this forum makes it clearer. It's not just that unproven numbers are released into the public sphere, but any attempt at criticism is immediately labeled as misogyny. Because apparently, that’s just "something we all know." These widely accepted untruths and "creative facts" form the foundation of every discussion regarding gender relations. In reality, it feels impossible to touch upon any topic regarding men's vulnerabilities without starting from the premise of creating a negative public attitude toward men (violence, the pay gap, the patriarchy). I believe this is one of the main reasons why the moderators hesitate to open threads about men—they worry about it spiraling out of control. If the issue is the breadth of the topic, maybe it's better not to open the thread at all. For instance, how can we discuss quotas—which were reached through lobbying by feminist groups—without mentioning the reasons those quotas exist? To me, quotas are just another major evil that feeds into political favoritism and nepotism.

Exactly. It is incredibly difficult to talk about quotas without touching upon the OFFICIAL excuses that necessitated them in the first place.
In logic, you cannot attack a conclusion without attacking either the premises or the method used to derive those conclusions from them.

I would love for a thread about men to be opened, with a formal invitation sent to federal equality institutions and NGOs to participate in the debate. I would truly love to hear them explain the data that everyone is supposedly expected to "just know" without verification. And let it be a debate where users aren't allowed to post a new reply until they have answered the opposing side's questions and, above all, provided a mathematical and statistical explanation for what they are advocating. Just as there are male trolls, women haven't been lacking in throwing around various platitudes without the need to actually discuss or answer perfectly sensible questions.

Thanks, briskotter13. 🙂
It’s always a bit easier when a woman writes this stuff.

It's true that male trolls exist, and there are certainly misogynistic users on similar topics. As for me, and briskotter13 as well, we are simply interested in whether female and male trolls will be punished equally.
I genuinely enjoy debating topics with someone like north wind—we usually keep things incredibly civil, and honestly, we even enjoy to 😍—but when it comes to subjects like this, her arguments almost always devolve into condescension. It’s the usual "you have no clue," "do some reading," followed by endless facepalming, sipping coffee, and, quite frankly, insulting her interlocutors.
It seems whenever BadPig makes a joke in a much more harmless way or just wants to "grab a coffee," he gets hit with warnings EVERY SINGLE TIME without fail.
And when ZgSash loses his cool after a few posts like that—not at north wind specifically, but just in general—becoming rude or crude, he gets banned.

As for the guys—look, I’m not saying anyone should escape consequences if they deserve them. Quite the opposite! If they break the rules and undermine the discussion, they ought to be penalized. My only point is that it would be fair if the agitators and trolls on the "other side" were treated with the same level of scrutiny.

I remember back in the day, even Eugen C., who is a moderator now, had a style of discourse that nearly brushed against what you'd expect from a pillar of society, just positioned on the other side of the barricade. (Not a complaint about Eugen, mind you—he’s a dear 😉).

briskotter13 said:Regarding the off-topic section, I viewed this thread as a space where we can offer suggestions to the Attorney General, who seems unsure about how to handle this herself. But she needs to figure it out, because I’m increasingly seeing men push back against female privileges. Sure, some are just nostalgic for the "good old days," but we shouldn't dismiss legitimate, reasoned arguments just because of that.

Men pointing out gender discrimination today find themselves in a tough spot. Honestly, I think they feel exactly how feminists felt a century ago—treated like oddities or weaklings, mocked and ridiculed. There isn't really an organized movement for men's rights, so forums like this are often their only outlet to speak up. They do it however they can, often bluntly or without much tact, but that shouldn't stop the conversation from happening.

To make matters worse, they have to fight through endless stereotypes, especially the one regarding the sheer scale of violence against women. It feels like our society has created a climate where discussing any male issues is considered distasteful until the issue of violence against women is fully resolved. That’s the "trump card" used to shut down any man trying to point out what bothers him. Consequently, they are forced to address that specific issue before they can even touch any other topic related to men. And frankly, if you look strictly at official statistics, that issue is being blown way out of proportion. I have to admit, I was surprised by the scale; we aren't talking about slightly inflated numbers here, but massive, astronomical discrepancies. Maybe that's not an exaggeration, but wanting to know how those numbers are calculated shouldn't be treated as a problem.

I wondered how this gets away with it, but reading this forum makes it clear. It’s not just that unverified figures are released into the public square; it’s that any attempt at criticism is immediately branded as misogyny. Why? Because apparently, "everyone knows" it's true. These widely accepted falsehoods and "creative truths" form the bedrock of every debate on gender relations. In reality, it’s impossible to touch on the vulnerability of men without first addressing the foundation: the creation of a negative public perception of men (violence, Pay-gap, patriarchy). I believe this is exactly why the moderation team hesitates to open threads about men—they worry about things spiraling out of control. If the scope is the problem, maybe it’s better not to open the thread at all. For instance, how can we discuss quotas resulting from feminist lobbying without mentioning the root causes of those quotas? To me, that looks like just another major evil fueled by political cronyism and nepotism.

I would love to see a dedicated thread on men opened here, followed by a formal invitation to federal equality institutions and various NGOs to join the discussion. I truly want to hear them explain the data points that we are supposedly expected to take on faith without questioning. I envision a debate where forum members aren't allowed to post a new reply until they have answered the opposing side's questions and provided mathematical or statistical evidence for their claims. Just as there are male trolls, women can be just as bad, throwing out empty platitudes instead of actually engaging with sensible questions.

Even though this is slightly off-topic, I just wanted to weigh in for a second—you probably didn't mean to be so vague, because saying "men who point out gender discrimination" is such a broad generalization that it ends up sounding kind of ridiculous. It’s like Americans complaining about Americans being discriminated against in America... or Catholics. Discrimination is a heavy, serious issue, and you can't just throw the word around every time someone feels slighted by some minor inconvenience.

Now, when we're talking about individual cases—like when a single person deals with actual bias or violence, or when it hits a specific life stage, say, parenting—that's a different conversation entirely. Though even in those instances, the mockery likely comes more from other men, which is really just leftover baggage from patriarchal times. I suspect if a man speaks up about being physically abused by a woman, he'll face more ridicule from certain men than from women...

But it would be totally pointless, if not downright rude (and subject to being flagged under site rules), for anyone to claim that physical violence rates are identical, or that women are the primary aggressors. Using arguments like, "Well, 350 women were victims last year, so what do you have to say to that!" is useless unless you can provide one specific example of a man being victimized...

Zachary Turner6 said:I think it's pretty obvious who the "nostalgics" are in these discussions.

Men pointing out gender discrimination today find themselves in a very awkward spot. I suspect they feel much like feminists did a century ago—viewed as oddities, weaklings, or just targets for ridicule. There is almost no organized movement for men's rights, so forums like this are often their only outlet to speak up. And they do it however they can—usually bluntly and without much tact—but that shouldn't be an excuse to shut down the conversation entirely.

I’d love for you to share your thoughts on those who are "blunt and tactless" (and I think you know exactly which user I’m referring to 😉)—has he ever made you wonder if he hates women, or have you, as a woman participating in the debate, ever felt uncomfortable because of him?

On top of everything else, they have to navigate a minefield of stereotypes, the most problematic being the narrative surrounding the prevalence of violence against women. A social climate has been engineered where discussing any male-centric issues is seen as distasteful unless the issue of violence against women is resolved first. It’s become the go-to "argument" used to stall any attempt by men to point out what bothers them. Consequently, they are forced to address that specific issue before they can even touch any other topic regarding men. And honestly, that issue is massively overstated if you look strictly at official statistics. I have to admit, even I was surprised by the scale of it; we aren't just talking about minor statistical padding here, but figures that are gargantuan in scope. Now, maybe that isn't an exaggeration, but it shouldn't be an issue to ask how those numbers are actually derived.

I want to ask lonebadger6 (and the rest of the moderators): if someone claims "a woman is beaten every 15 minutes in America," and they are met dozens of times with Department of Justice statistics regarding domestic violence cases—which are, at the very least, dozens of times lower (even counting reported cases, not just convictions)—and that person keeps doubling down on those claims, will that be treated as trolling in future threads? Specifically, the scenario where a person "isn't intentionally lying, but continues to state the same thing after it has been repeatedly and logically refuted"? Those are quotes from lonebadger6 earlier in this discussion.
If we start punishing people for "speculating on victim counts" (which, frankly, we should—because even if it were only 100 women a year falling victim to domestic violence in the US, that would still be a massive crisis requiring a serious response), then IMO, we should also be punishing those who intentionally weaponize false numbers. Doing so doesn't just demonize men; it insults the actual victims of domestic violence.

The whole Pay-gap issue has been dissected from statistical and methodological angles more times than I can count; if someone looks at the raw data—which shows that women globally earn less than men (an undeniable fact)—and somehow manages to conclude that "women are paid less FOR THE SAME WORK" (a purely arbitrary leap in logic), then I honestly don't think it's an insult to tell them their take has zero connection to statistics, logic, economics, or even basic common sense.
Personally, I’ve spent several massive essays explaining why that specific interpretation is logically flawed and economically baseless (if not outright impossible). And, of course, it isn't just me—it’s not even just other users here (including women like briskotter13, ChienSaintHubber, and many others), but also very serious economists and mathematical experts.

Are there "women's issues" regarding employment and the economy? Of course there are. We’ve debated some of them: hiring trends for young women, how pregnant employees are treated, getting young mothers back into the workforce, social discrimination against women in certain sectors... these are all legitimate problems. Trying to solve them doesn't help one bit when people constantly peddle falsehoods and illogical claims.

And will such claims be dismissed as mere trolling if they lack any actual argument beyond "that's just how it is," "I heard it somewhere," "I read it online," "you just don't get it and you hate women," or my personal favorite, "my neighbor's husband's sister once told me..."?

I was wondering how this even gets passed through, but reading this forum makes it clearer. It's not just that unproven numbers are released into the public sphere, but any attempt at criticism is immediately labeled as misogyny. Because apparently, that’s just "something we all know." These widely accepted untruths and "creative facts" form the foundation of every discussion regarding gender relations. In reality, it feels impossible to touch upon any topic regarding men's vulnerabilities without starting from the premise of creating a negative public attitude toward men (violence, the pay gap, the patriarchy). I believe this is one of the main reasons why the moderators hesitate to open threads about men—they worry about it spiraling out of control. If the issue is the breadth of the topic, maybe it's better not to open the thread at all. For instance, how can we discuss quotas—which were reached through lobbying by feminist groups—without mentioning the reasons those quotas exist? To me, quotas are just another major evil that feeds into political favoritism and nepotism.

Exactly. It is incredibly difficult to talk about quotas without touching upon the OFFICIAL excuses that necessitated them in the first place.
In logic, you cannot attack a conclusion without attacking either the premises or the method used to derive those conclusions from them.

I would love for a thread about men to be opened, with a formal invitation sent to federal equality institutions and NGOs to participate in the debate. I would truly love to hear them explain the data that everyone is supposedly expected to "just know" without verification. And let it be a debate where users aren't allowed to post a new reply until they have answered the opposing side's questions and, above all, provided a mathematical and statistical explanation for what they are advocating. Just as there are male trolls, women haven't been lacking in throwing around various platitudes without the need to actually discuss or answer perfectly sensible questions.

Thanks, briskotter13. 🙂
It’s always a bit easier when a woman writes this stuff.

It's true that male trolls exist, and there are certainly misogynistic users on similar topics. As for me, and briskotter13 as well, we are simply interested in whether female and male trolls will be punished equally.
I genuinely enjoy debating topics with someone like north wind—we usually keep things incredibly civil, and honestly, we even enjoy to 😍—but when it comes to subjects like this, her arguments almost always devolve into condescension. It’s the usual "you have no clue," "do some reading," followed by endless facepalming, sipping coffee, and, quite frankly, insulting her interlocutors.
It seems whenever BadPig makes a joke in a much more harmless way or just wants to "grab a coffee," he gets hit with warnings EVERY SINGLE TIME without fail.
And when ZgSash loses his cool after a few posts like that—not at north wind specifically, but just in general—becoming rude or crude, he gets banned.

As for the guys—look, I’m not saying anyone should escape consequences if they deserve them. Quite the opposite! If they break the rules and undermine the discussion, they ought to be penalized. My only point is that it would be fair if the agitators and trolls on the "other side" were treated with the same level of scrutiny.

I remember back in the day, even Eugen C., who is a moderator now, had a style of discourse that nearly brushed against what you'd expect from a pillar of society, just positioned on the other side of the barricade. (Not a complaint about Eugen, mind you—he’s a dear 😉).

Just to be clear, I'm speaking as a regular user here, not as a moderator over in Politics, so my influence on this is exactly the same as yours... 🙂
Generally, I agree that any kind of number-padding should be penalized. I recently posted over in the Attorney General thread that I personally think we should penalize both those who deny the horrors of Jasenovac by citing negligible or insulting figures and those who claim there were 700,000 victims...
The same logic applies here.

The pay-gap is a bit more complicated, at least from where I'm sitting. The media constantly pushes the idea that women earn less on average without providing any real context, so I suspect most users reaching for that argument aren't acting out of malice or trolling, but genuinely believe it's true. Though, I highly doubt anyone actually thinks the levels of physical violence between genders are comparable...

lonebadger6 said:briskotter13, you've made a solid point here, though there are certain parts that just don't add up or frankly make no sense to me...

That might amuse you, but it leads nowhere and just ruins the discussion for everyone else.

The bigger issue arises when someone tells a truth we simply don't want to hear or that doesn't align with our views. That's why terms like misogyny, misandry, and things like that are used—they're just tools for people in a higher social position to silence their critics.

That’s a pretty strange take. Are you saying misogyny, misandry, and all that stuff don't exist? That they only exist to shut someone down?

On topics like this, I've seen plenty of falsehoods and plenty of truths that aren't politically correct, but I've rarely seen actual misogyny.

I honestly don't know what to say to that... 🤔

The fact that a forum user claims most inventions came from the male side isn't misogyny, it's just the truth.

Sure. The problem is if that user uses it to imply men are smarter, more capable, or better, without considering the underlying factors that led to that. At that point, it borders on misogyny, which by definition isn't just hatred, but also belittlement. So, we end up with the idea that the claim itself isn't "the truth," because it's never just the claim alone. There's almost always an accompanying message that is wrong and offensive.

On the flip side, would claiming a woman is beaten every 15 minutes be misandry? Because the Department of Justice statistics show an interval of exactly 90 minutes. Or is it misandry to say there were 75 rapes last year, but estimates suggest only one in every 15 cases of men being slandered was reported?

It depends on the context. And stormyraven14 mentioned earlier that the issue is how these topics are always driven by the same users using the same rhetoric. If all of you arguing about this right now showed up in both places to "dominate," then moderating would probably be much easier. But when the "others" absolutely dominate, sometimes locking the thread is the only real solution...

So, if someone reads a claim online and repeats it without adding generalizations—no, that's not misandry. If they follow it up by saying all men abuse women—then yes, it is. And if they keep banging their head against the wall after receiving an argued rebuttal—it's definitely misandry.

And just for the record, even though you didn't ask, saying that violence against women doesn't exist—or that it's minimal, or claiming that physical abuse against men is exactly the same level—is pure misogyny... though I suppose the Government and those lizard people in power would prefer we keep that quiet, so I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of why that's true...

Because we women are just so much weaker and more delicate, right? And apparently, any bit of criticism directed our way is automatically labeled misogyny... Is that your way of telling us we're just less intelligent and incapable...

You’re digging way too deep into this and drawing some pretty massive conclusions, when really, the truth is just much more mundane... and it happens over and over again. These kinds of threads, if I recall correctly, almost always spiral into total chaos right from the jump. It isn't usually people like briskotter13 or Thomas Morgan67 causing the mess... it's more like "felixxi." Not just a few outliers, but a glaringly obvious majority. Which makes it perfectly logical, even predictable, that the whole discussion just turns into a rant against women.

Aside from that first thread where things actually stayed civil before devolving into total chaos... everything else opened up from the jump just served as an excuse for people to be misogynistic...

So, I have a question here, and I promise I’m not trying to start a fight or be difficult... Why don't you, Thomas Morgan67, or anyone else just start a thread the normal way so we can actually have a conversation like everyone else does on here...
So, Nancy Tirelli dropped some sexist nonsense. It could be about her specific comment, or just a general rant. But it’s always the same pattern in those first few posts: "Nancy Tirelli said this and that, which is horrific, being a man in this country is the worst thing ever, if a man had said it everyone would be ringing the alarm bells, we're the ones under threat, women can get away with anything, soon they'll have a permit to beat us up..." It gets to the point where you can't tell if the issue is actually what Tirelli said, or if the real problem is that you aren't allowed to say things like "women are stupid," "women belong in the kitchen," or "she deserved to be assaulted because she wore a mini-skirt"... I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get my point...
It seems perfectly normal to me that a thread this open-ended gets shut down right at the start... and just to be clear, I’m speaking strictly as a regular user here, not as some moderator over in the Politics section, nor did I close it myself, nor was I even asked about it...

Even if they’re being insulting, I honestly just want to figure out where all that negativity is coming from, so maybe I can actually help change whatever it is that's eating people alive...

That's lovely. I'm not being sarcastic at all...
Insulting people is against the rules on Forum.hr, and honestly, I’m all for that... You’re more than welcome to have your own opinion, but trying to have a real debate about it feels pretty pointless when we both know nothing is ever going to change...

The whole point of this forum is to have different opinions and actually talk about them...

Yeah, let's stick to sharing opinions and having actual discussions... instead of just making things up or hurling insults at each other...

This is actually a really solid piece on this subject... I was just scrolling through this piece on the Houston Press about how much the local arts scene is struggling right now... it really makes you wonder if all that effort to keep culture alive is even worth it when the funding just isn't there anymore...

Some things just aren't matters of opinion. Just like anywhere else in the world, there isn't a single human rights charter or any Constitution out there that actually grants absolute freedom of speech... it's nothing more than a complete myth.

I get the feeling...

Trust me, your gut is lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it, but you've definitely got the wrong impression...

I am always happy to help put together a discussion thread on just about any topic. I’m even willing to start the thread myself if that helps. I don't necessarily have to be the one driving the conversation or participating heavily once it's up, but I am more than happy to get the ball rolling.

The real issue starts almost immediately after a thread is even opened. Any topic deemed "ideologically inconvenient" gets hit with instant censorship. It feels like they try to shut down specific parts of the discussion entirely. They’ll allow us to talk about certain subjects, sure, but only under such strict oversight that you’re essentially walking on eggshells. They give you just enough rope to participate, provided you never, ever touch their "sacred cows."

This needs to be stopped, and that can only happen if the moderation team and the Forum.hr administration actually have the will to step up and do something about it.

Believe me, you’ve got it all wrong. You don't have to take my word for it, but you are definitely misreading the situation.

I have a feeling the woman has a very good intuition about this...😉

lonebadger6 said:Just to be clear, I'm speaking as a regular user here, not as a moderator over in Politics, so my influence on this is exactly the same as yours... 🙂
Generally, I agree that any kind of number-padding should be penalized. I recently posted over in the Attorney General thread that I personally think we should penalize both those who deny the horrors of Jasenovac by citing negligible or insulting figures and those who claim there were 700,000 victims...
The same logic applies here.

The pay-gap is a bit more complicated, at least from where I'm sitting. The media constantly pushes the idea that women earn less on average without providing any real context, so I suspect most users reaching for that argument aren't acting out of malice or trolling, but genuinely believe it's true. Though, I highly doubt anyone actually thinks the levels of physical violence between genders are comparable...

Exactly. That’s what briskotter13 referred to when she called it "the thing we all know."

So, we claim to "know" things, but we almost never stop to ask ourselves how or why we actually know them in the first place.

The media essentially constructs our entire reality. Because of that, it’s completely natural that we turn to them for guidance and place our trust in their reporting during times like these. They effectively dictate what we "know," yet you rarely hear anyone stop to ask where that information originated, how it was verified, or why we’re being told it’s the truth in the first place.

Zachary Turner6 passed along a really solid comparison to a similar situation earlier, linking back to that piece about male intellectual superiority.

Why is it that citing the media is considered perfectly normal on one hand, but doing the exact same thing on the other is labeled as trolling, going off-topic, or inciting hate?

I already know what the answer is, but I’m curious to see how the "authorities" on this forum weigh in.

It’s happening again. They just keep shutting down threads regarding that sexist comment made by one of our Congresswomen.

It’s honestly pretty ridiculous that you actually have to ask for permission just to start a new thread.

What are we actually doing here?

Our goal here is to reach an understanding with the Forum.hr administration. We are hoping to gain their approval to open a new discussion thread focused on ideology—specifically how it shapes our society and impacts the daily lives of everyday Americans.
Despite the fact that asking for permission isn't exactly standard practice when you want to start a new thread, here we are.

So, here is the scenario we find ourselves facing. Predictably, once we request permission to proceed, the response is that this is a "critical issue" riddled with loopholes—a topic that serves as a breeding ground for misogyny.

Nobody bothers to actually define what they mean by misogyny, but whatever; let’s move on (below).

After labeling the subject as a potential hotbed of misogyny right out of the gate, there is an immediate suggestion regarding how such a topic *should* be approached. Essentially, pressure is being applied to anyone looking to start the discussion, nudging them toward a compromise. They want us to temper our political stances because, apparently, holding a differing view is "dangerous" to the integrity of the conversation itself.

In this situation, a person who starts a thread—feeling lucky just to have been granted permission to discuss something that a mentally and socially healthy society would debate without hesitation—will likely seize the opportunity to play it safe. To avoid conflict, they will attempt to open the topic without presenting provocative views, facts, or even mere indications. They will aim for a level of discourse that fosters a false sense of harmony, carefully avoiding any challenge to the status quo currently being served up by mainstream media.

What is actually happening here?

It is self-censorship.

Once the average person has endured public shaming, ridicule, mockery, labeling, bans, and persecution, they are forced to bow down once again and say, "Yes, sir." This happens because "the authorities" do not permit any viewpoint that deviates too far from the socially accepted norm. (And for those who might try to argue that most people don't actually feel this way: the percentage of people actively supporting such a stance is irrelevant. What matters is the compliance with a subtle majority, which is used to manufacture a false consensus.)

The majority is irrelevant because the majority doesn't make the decisions.

Even if a topic is allowed to live under strict conditions, it inevitably leads to the suppression of debate and the silencing of questions that the "authorities" deem ideologically unacceptable.

This brings us to the crucial moment. Either we reach an agreement and allow for the opening of a truly provocative discussion, or you will simply issue a blanket ban on anything you deem ideologically incorrect or politically incorrect.

The ball is in your court—the leadership of this forum. Make a decision. Discuss it among yourselves, reach a verdict, explain your reasoning, announce the decision, and leave space for us to respond or ask follow-up questions.

I believe we have laid all our arguments out on the table. Now, it is your move.

If this continues on its current path, the only outcome is for the discussion to be moved to an off-topic section, which will lead to its inevitable closure, leaving us once again without a concrete answer.

lonebadger6 said:Just to be clear, I'm speaking as a regular user here, not as a moderator over in Politics, so my influence on this is exactly the same as yours... 🙂
Generally, I agree that any kind of number-padding should be penalized. I recently posted over in the Attorney General thread that I personally think we should penalize both those who deny the horrors of Jasenovac by citing negligible or insulting figures and those who claim there were 700,000 victims...
The same logic applies here.

The pay-gap is a bit more complicated, at least from where I'm sitting. The media constantly pushes the idea that women earn less on average without providing any real context, so I suspect most users reaching for that argument aren't acting out of malice or trolling, but genuinely believe it's true. Though, I highly doubt anyone actually thinks the levels of physical violence between genders are comparable...

I get that, but you are still a moderator—which means you can (if you actually want to, of course) share some of those experiences or the principles you follow when you're moderating.

Generally, I agree that anyone just throwing out numbers for clout should be penalized. I actually wrote recently on the Attorney General thread that I’d personally penalize both those who deny Jasenovac (or mention insignificantly small figures) and those who claim there were 700,000 victims.
The same logic applies here.

Thanks for the input.

The Pay-gap is a bit more complicated. At least, that's my impression. The media constantly highlights the fact that women are paid less on average without offering much context. So, I suspect most users—men or women—who reach for that argument aren't doing it with malicious intent or trolling; they genuinely believe it.

But if they are repeatedly debunked with actual statistics and logical arguments, and yet they stubbornly persist in their claims without providing any new reasoning? In your view—both as a user and a moderator—is that considered trolling or just destroying the discussion?

Unless I think someone truly believes, for instance, that the levels of physical violence between genders are comparable.

The ratio? No. Statistics don't lie. But the motive or reason behind the physical violence ratio...? Can we discuss whether men are a "more violent gender" or if they are simply physically stronger, making them more likely perpetrators than women? After all, how can we solve a problem without correctly identifying its cause?

The latest example from Policy 🍿

So this is that famous "freedom of speech" we're supposedly guaranteed in our "free democratic society"—where you can basically do whatever you want, though even that might be off the table if they decide otherwise.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:The latest example from Policy 🍿

Let’s play a little game, shall we... let's pretend I'm the moderator of this politics forum just so I can walk you through how I’d handle things, along with my reasoning (it doesn't matter if I moderate somewhere else; here I'm just a user, and there I'm just a user, so feel free to play along)...

0. Taking everything that follows into account, I actually agree with what Ryan Vaughn7 did, because honestly, you all brought this on yourselves. From the very jump, the thread wasn't normal, wasn't argued, and lacked any kind of actual quality discussion.

But, let's say it hadn't been locked.

1. The whole thing kicked off because of some banal comment by a man claiming women are more intelligent. It was a pretty stupid take, but calling it outright misandry is a massive stretch. Comparing it to skin color is completely off base, but I won't dive too deep into that, since the point isn't the opening post, but rather how I would have moderated it.
I'd agree that the Morning somewhat misanthropic headline is basically misandrist—though really, it's less about misandry and more just pure stupidity...

2. Morgan Rodriguez57 gets a custom 100 points for trolling, commenting on moderation, and being intentionally obtuse since they know they shouldn't be doing that (there's a separate thread for those kinds of comments).

3. dernakamal gets 30 points for trolling/off-topic posts.

4. Whatever anyone personally thinks about Hap's post—it's fine.

5. Jesse Cook4 -- deletion and a yellow card.

6. dernakamal—this is where you start seeing why the thread needs to be shut down; an unargued claim.

7. surround—all good.

8. Jesse Cook4—confirming there is absolutely no appetite, not just from him, but generally, for even attempting a normal, reasoned debate on this topic.

Ryan Vaughn7 simply took the shortcut and closed the thread without handing out a few deserved cards, which means certain people, especially Morgan Rodriguez57, got off easy. There you have it 🙂