Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What the Deuce - We're all doing porn logic now

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What the Deuce - We're all doing porn logic now

    Hi,

    a Guardian interview with the creators of "The Deuce".
    The first half is about how porn led to internet misogyny. The other half is about Trump.
    He's not my president, so I didn't read that all the way through, but if the second half is as confused as the first, he probably gets bad press.

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...rview-the-wire

    M

  • #2
    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    Hi,

    a Guardian interview with the creators of "The Deuce".
    The first half is about how porn led to internet misogyny. The other half is about Trump.
    He's not my president, so I didn't read that all the way through, but if the second half is as confused as the first, he probably gets bad press.

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...rview-the-wire

    M

    And if you're not into TV series, there's lots of other stuff

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/women

    M

    Comment


    • #3
      The Guardian is such a blatantly Feminist rag. I suppose that's why they bleed red ink every month.

      Guardian Media Group hit with record £173m loss
      https://www.ft.com/content/f5be593a-...4-e0bdc13c3bef

      Guardian to slash costs by a fifth as losses mount
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ses-mount.html

      Apparently Anti-Male / SJW Feminism is great and all, but it doesn't pay the bills. Go figger.... guess all them special snowflakes are gonna have to go out and get some real jobs... but I'm certain all those "Women's Studies" degrees are gonna come in handy...

      Interestingly (quite interestingly, IMO), that seems to be the general trend among Feminist rags-- a good chunk of them, if maybe not all (??) are busy circling the bowl. Gawker media seems to be going downhill, at least its fringe properties such as Jizzabell, which appears to be headed for the auction block. "Everyday Feminism" is going bankrupt. Salon is going down for the third (and with any luck, last) time.

      I think it's a little too early to declare any sort of victory, or even to say that Spring is busting out all over-- but I can't say that I'm losing any sleep or shedding any tears at the prospect of the loss of any of those miserable media shit-holes.
      Last edited by mr_e; 09-11-2017, 06:04 AM.
      FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
      It's time to call it out for what it is.



      The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

      http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

      Comment


      • #4
        Up three steps and through thick wooden doors is a kitchen displaying posters for Sergio Leone’s C’era una volta in America (Once Upon a Time in America), Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch and Simon’s own series Treme, set in post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans. But it is the bathroom that offers an oblique clue as to where he is off to next: period posters announcing long-ago labour strikes – one by police, another by a newspaper guild.
        That is what a reporter that actually wanted to be a soap novel writer does...the style of it, the detailed description of irrelevant details, that try to put the reader in some mood, or some atmospheric set... it is soap drama junk...

        Pornography “affected the way men and women look at each other, the way we address each other culturally, sexually,” he says. “I don’t think you can look at the misogyny that’s been evident in this election cycle, and what any female commentator or essayist or public speaker endured on the internet or any social media setting, and not realise that pornography has changed the demeanour of men. Just the way that women are addressed for their intellectual output, the aggression that’s delivered to women I think is informed by 50 years of the culturalisation of the pornographic.”
        Porn did nothing of that... I think makeup industry and in general fashion industry have done more of this, they are the ones that go around selling "sexy"... because it is now how we "look at each other" as the quote claims, that matters but how we present ourselves to others...

        “I think the culture’s changed because of the way women are depicted in popular culture. Pornography’s a big part of that. You can say nobody’s getting hurt, it’s just a masturbation fantasy and all that stuff, but these women are trafficked, man.”
        I am seriously getting less tolerant to this kind of arguments...

        1. Women on those movies are not forced to do it.
        2. there is a many men in that job as women... you need 2 to make a porn film.

        He believes there is a through line to Trump’s stunning victory in last year’s presidential election. “There’s no doubt if Hillary Clinton had been a man, she would be president now. The code words that were used against not just her but female journalists and everybody that was involved peripherally in the campaign was awful. Never seen anything like it.”
        Yeah.. Bernie is pretty much a Hillary with penis and that didn't go that far neither...

        Simon notes that Clinton received nearly 3 million more votes than Trump last November, only to lose the White House because of the quirks of the electoral college. “I certainly don’t think he represents the aspirations of the United States of America, but he certainly got enough votes that he gets to play at that.”
        Electoral college is a crappy system... I think we all agree on this... so... ?

        And I don't know what else... looks like the guy is directing a TV series about the porn industry, but he dislikes the industry and everything about it... so I guess it will be more like a shockumentary than anything else...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mr_e View Post
          The Guardian is such a blatantly Feminist rag.
          Most MSM are.

          Interestingly (quite interestingly, IMO), that seems to be the general trend among Feminist rags
          Is the media landscape changing overall? And if it is, why?
          I ask because I've seen a change here.
          Many regular posters who used to fill these pages with debate, like Maxx and Plummer, and several more, have dropped out, Ye Olde Cantankerous brigade can harldy muster sufficient indignation for any credible bashing; even our very own mr E doesn't post his regular article screes anymore. I started out here as a lurker, and these days I'm a measureable percentage of the traffic. Something has happened (was it someting I said ...?). There's even less of a "movement" on the front page, too.
          Is it the US political turmoil, with Trump as a backdrop, and e.g. Charlottesville as waystations? Like, suddenly national politics is more "real" than what happens in minor demographic segments (and their causes and issues) like Feminism and MHRM? Or is it only the gender issue, with both sides having "won"; the feminists having become the new mainstream, while the MHRM has breached the wall of silence, leading to "fight fatigue" on both sides? Or is it simply the loss of media lighthouse Milo? With no high-profile newsmaker, the whole thing sliding back to the old media blackout?

          M

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by simpleman View Post
            Porn did nothing of that... I think makeup industry and in general fashion industry have done more of this, they are the ones that go around selling "sexy"... because it is now how we "look at each other" as the quote claims, that matters but how we present ourselves to others...
            Of course. But this is the level of thinking these days.
            And I don't know if you are an avid fan of Feminism textbooks, but they, too, operate on this level of analysis. Talk about the Empress' New Bikini.

            M

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
              Most MSM are.



              Is the media landscape changing overall? And if it is, why?
              I ask because I've seen a change here.
              Many regular posters who used to fill these pages with debate, like Maxx and Plummer, and several more, have dropped out, Ye Olde Cantankerous brigade can harldy muster sufficient indignation for any credible bashing; even our very own mr E doesn't post his regular article screes anymore. I started out here as a lurker, and these days I'm a measureable percentage of the traffic. Something has happened (was it someting I said ...?). There's even less of a "movement" on the front page, too.
              Is it the US political turmoil, with Trump as a backdrop, and e.g. Charlottesville as waystations? Like, suddenly national politics is more "real" than what happens in minor demographic segments (and their causes and issues) like Feminism and MHRM? Or is it only the gender issue, with both sides having "won"; the feminists having become the new mainstream, while the MHRM has breached the wall of silence, leading to "fight fatigue" on both sides? Or is it simply the loss of media lighthouse Milo? With no high-profile newsmaker, the whole thing sliding back to the old media blackout?

              M
              MHRM always has been fringe and poor relation to every other issue going I think. There is little empathy in society for men, and unless you fall into one of the renouncing masculinity categories your existence is demonised with the exception of rich alphas who can happily ignore it all.

              I wouldn't be too surprised by low long term engagement. This forum in my experience has done far better than most in holding something of a cadre of regular posters. If you check the whose online this forum still gets plenty of lurkers. Guest post readers and lurkers who login to read the member's only stuff. A good percentage of those lurkers quite possibly would be feminists looking for muck and examples of all the evil misogyny being perpetrated and planned. I started somewhat mindful about saying that might be misogynistic... but since anything and everything is sexist and misogynist there is little reason to overly worry. However I do think that would affect some people. I noticed once in myself something, perhaps a male thing, but if a read a pile of comments and someone expressed a view I agree with or said what I would have said, then I felt no desire to post anything at all and I wasn't going to create an account just to click like.

              As long as the forum has a cadre that puts out posts and stuff of interest it's alive, lurkers will drop in, some will become regular, old hands will disappear, for whatever reason, managing any social media is quite time consuming. I am not doing facebook or twitter, and I rarely bother posting comments on youtube. Yet still when I get busy, this takes a back burner too.

              Events do affect traffic, this forums is a rare beast and in a good part that is because of the members and balance. It has a strong theme, but is far from groupthink, not even on core MHRM'ey things is there wide consensus. And also it's a free speech zone with really light touch moderation. So I think events of interest will spike activity, I for one will come here to engage in chat that is simply not allowed anywhere else. That of itself is worth coming here. Though I guess many others might not be in the same situation.

              Also some of the most active guys are fathers, and family has a distinct effect on time, both for married, divorced and single fathers. Their life pattern will include periods when all else drops away. Your child being sick or graduating, or struggling to find a job, or sharing a project together will automatically bump everything else, and whether someone finds their way back here on not I guess depends on if some topic reminder occurs that makes them think of checking in here.

              People stick in forums when they feel they are part of a conversation or can join in. On a forum that means when you get a reply or some indication of interaction. Ergo a quiet forum dies, even if the material is good.

              The nature of this forum I think for most does have an aspect of people in transition, it's not permanent theme, it's not craft, hobby or fanship - nor science, history or literature. It's the myriad of ways people become individually aware of the abuse of men's human rights - and what manifestation of that occurs in their life. They may come here just as a port in a storm, if they come here looking for the core of activism, it's the wrong place. No self respecting activist would do their activism on a public forum, though it's useful to sound out ideas, and perhaps look for allies.

              One aspect on that, I think MHRM or any variant, is primarily at it's core true activism. That is, it's about dealing with an issue or issues it's not about being part of a club, nor a movement, it's not about identity or sense of belonging. As the issues of concern get addressed the motivation for activism should decline, and likewise if it's clear it will never get addressed for a person's own sanity they should take balance elsewhere. I've done activism and I don't like permanent or professional activists. I'd almost say I can't stand them, there is something off about them, an amount of cult like mania and cheap thrill addiction, a desire to preach or control. That's one of the reasons I like this place, it comes across to me as men and some women, who have something to say about something, when they've talked about it, that's good enough they don't feel a need to form a gang and start bullying others. If feminists weren't making such in roads into institutional power and warping govt and courts, I wouldn't give a toss about their misandry. They can have their spaces and spout as much hate as they like, even with their behaviour I don't see them as the issue, but the institutions that adopt and act on their bigoted views.

              The political world also does impact here, to an extent beyond events. Groups like feminists, antifa, BLM, BAMN, and a good many universities and other institutions have come out as pursuing full on socialist/marxist agenda's. Feminism declares itself as part of the left, and it's now a matter of credibility for them to be firmly recognised as left wing speakers and theorists. The left has been warped by them and their ilk, I still recall left being about the lives of working people but that's long gone. The right has responded in kind emerging as a visible voice. MHRM doesn't belong in either camp I think, human rights is more basic than policy divination, and shouldn't have a political flavour. However MHRM being anti-feminism connected thing (for good or bad that's the way it's turned out) gets pushed to the right, MHRM and esp MRA being labelled a bad thing, it gets pushed to the right as a tactic to harm the reputation of the right. That does tend to show the extent of disdain held towards MHRM by media and chattering classes, who like to indulge in a bit of righteous indignation and looking down on others judgement. With that backdrop we get a political polarisation happening despite a desire for it to not happen. Which is a shame, left wing minded tend to be more interested in these type of issues, and raising complaint about violations of rights in the social and political sphere. We could use more here, but it's only going to be those who find it comfortable to rub shoulders with the ideologically different, and that unfortunately isn't a trend amongst the many rather sheep like lefties, who really prefer to herd with like minds.

              We have a cumulative of many problematic factors, all with the cherry on top that society in general is cold and disinterested towards the problems of men.

              BTW it's worth looking through whose online occasionally, lurkers delve through this forum to quite some depth, and often pull out interesting old threads that I've not seen or were created a long time ago.
              Last edited by voidspawn; 09-11-2017, 12:17 PM.
              "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
              Originally posted by menrppl2
              Can't live with em, life is great without them.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                Of course. But this is the level of thinking these days.
                And I don't know if you are an avid fan of Feminism textbooks, but they, too, operate on this level of analysis. Talk about the Empress' New Bikini.

                M
                I don't read much of feminism textbooks... I would like to, so to be better inform of their ideas, but the hate hits me and emotionally it depressed me, it does not do me good. So I control the dosis of it to the minimum requirement.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by simpleman View Post
                  I don't read much of feminism textbooks... I would like to, so to be better inform of their ideas, but the hate hits me and emotionally it depressed me, it does not do me good. So I control the dosis of it to the minimum requirement.
                  If you want a concise summary, read Marilyn French.
                  The Women's Room (1977) is the chronicle of 2nd wave feminism; how gynocentrism became political.
                  Beyond Power: On Women, Men and Morals (1985) is the theory to go with the hate.

                  M

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                    MHRM always has been fringe and poor relation to every other issue going I think. There is little empathy in society for men, and unless you fall into one of the renouncing masculinity categories your existence is demonised with the exception of rich alphas who can happily ignore it all.
                    True.
                    I think the little empathy is the main thing, coming out in routine denigration of everything man; the demonization is reserved for men who foolishly - being ignorant of the fact that "man" is not a gender and that women are quite capable, thank you, of fixing the gender system without any input whatsoever from one half of it - believe they have a right to comment on gender issues, to suggest improvements, to make demands, to complain about injustice, or, heaven forfend, to express how they feel.

                    Thank you for your comprehensive "Advice for a young MRA" ...
                    As much of it springs, I believe, from personal experience, I shan't comment on it word for word. A few comments, though.

                    And also it's a free speech zone with really light touch moderation.
                    There is next to nothing of it, which is really good - compliments all around - but some of that which occurs is a bit heavy-handed for my taste.
                    But nothing to complain about, really; it is what it is, and that's that.

                    So I think events of interest will spike activity, I for one will come here to engage in chat that is simply not allowed anywhere else.
                    Agreed. The best thing here.

                    People stick in forums when they feel they are part of a conversation or can join in.
                    Or if the material is really, really engaging.

                    On a forum that means when you get a reply or some indication of interaction. Ergo a quiet forum dies, even if the material is good.
                    Another score for this forum. All who come here are well received, and good faith is assumed, unless and until events show otherwise.

                    The nature of this forum I think for most does have an aspect of people in transition
                    Agreed. My suspicions above were caused by what I see as an exit rate above the average attrition. Perhaps it's just a blip.

                    Some of those who left were excentric enough to be controversial, sparking some very frank exchange of views - real fuel for the forum.
                    That's why it's a sorry sight to see excentricity picked on. We are few enough, no need to drive any contributor away.

                    I've done activism and I don't like permanent or professional activists. I'd almost say I can't stand them, there is something off about them, an amount of cult like mania and cheap thrill addiction, a desire to preach or control.
                    Kiddo still in kiddo years had a brief flirt with the local Antifa. Comment on returning from an anti-NATO rally:
                    "Dad, I'm not sure all the people in the rally really knew what NATO is."
                    Must have done something right, somewhere down the line.
                    In short, yes, agreed. It's much more of a jackass thrill seeking by "defying authority" than anything else.

                    If feminists weren't making such in roads into institutional power and warping govt and courts, I wouldn't give a toss about their misandry. They can have their spaces and spout as much hate as they like, even with their behaviour I don't see them as the issue, but the institutions that adopt and act on their bigoted views.
                    Yes. Real world misery, that's where the line should have been drawn.

                    The political world also does impact here, to an extent beyond events. Groups like feminists, antifa, BLM, BAMN, and a good many universities and other institutions have come out as pursuing full on socialist/marxist agenda's. Feminism declares itself as part of the left, and it's now a matter of credibility for them to be firmly recognised as left wing speakers and theorists. The left has been warped by them and their ilk, I still recall left being about the lives of working people but that's long gone. The right has responded in kind emerging as a visible voice. MHRM doesn't belong in either camp I think, human rights is more basic than policy divination, and shouldn't have a political flavour. However MHRM being anti-feminism connected thing (for good or bad that's the way it's turned out) gets pushed to the right, MHRM and esp MRA being labelled a bad thing, it gets pushed to the right as a tactic to harm the reputation of the right. That does tend to show the extent of disdain held towards MHRM by media and chattering classes, who like to indulge in a bit of righteous indignation and looking down on others judgement. With that backdrop we get a political polarisation happening despite a desire for it to not happen. Which is a shame, left wing minded tend to be more interested in these type of issues, and raising complaint about violations of rights in the social and political sphere. We could use more here, but it's only going to be those who find it comfortable to rub shoulders with the ideologically different, and that unfortunately isn't a trend amongst the many rather sheep like lefties, who really prefer to herd with like minds.
                    An extremely interesting theme, but perhaps not for this thread.
                    Yes, seeing what the various lefts are up to here and there, one despairs at what is, pun intended, left for us; "us" of course being the True Lefties.
                    The "not a monolith" doesn't really cut it, although that's exactly how one feels about it.

                    We have a cumulative of many problematic factors,
                    all with the cherry on top that society in general is cold and disinterested towards the problems of men.
                    Yes; but still ...

                    Well, we shall see: blip or not.

                    M

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      @simpleman Electoral college is a crappy system... I think we all agree on this... so... ?

                      Like bloody hell we all agree the electoral college is a crappy system. In fact, it is more proof that the founders knew a hell of a lot more about politics and human nature than you do.

                      They have records explaining everything they did. They understood that in cities politics were different than in the country. They also understood that cities would of themselves dominate the nation so they wanted to reduce the otherwise absolute control the cities would have on the nation.

                      They gave all states 2 senators, and in the other house, varied depending upon population.

                      They also set it up so a few cities could not take control of the nation. This is amazing since they did not yet know they would ever have cities with millions of people in them. Or, that those cities would be easily controlled by socialists and communists.

                      If we get rid of the electoral college, this nation will almost instantly become Communist. LA and NYC and a few others will simply control the nation, and the millions of people in fly-over land will have little input on what happens. In fact, the main mode of the nation will be robbing the working stiffs in fly-over and transferring it to baby Momma's in the cities.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
                        @simpleman Electoral college is a crappy system... I think we all agree on this... so... ?

                        Like bloody hell we all agree the electoral college is a crappy system. In fact, it is more proof that the founders knew a hell of a lot more about politics and human nature than you do.

                        They have records explaining everything they did. They understood that in cities politics were different than in the country. They also understood that cities would of themselves dominate the nation so they wanted to reduce the otherwise absolute control the cities would have on the nation.

                        They gave all states 2 senators, and in the other house, varied depending upon population.

                        They also set it up so a few cities could not take control of the nation. This is amazing since they did not yet know they would ever have cities with millions of people in them. Or, that those cities would be easily controlled by socialists and communists.

                        If we get rid of the electoral college, this nation will almost instantly become Communist. LA and NYC and a few others will simply control the nation, and the millions of people in fly-over land will have little input on what happens. In fact, the main mode of the nation will be robbing the working stiffs in fly-over and transferring it to baby Momma's in the cities.
                        I would have thought they where just overwhelmed by the logistics of having every citizen to vote in the stated level, so they made it local to have a lot of smaller more manageable pieces... but now we have better roads, better communications, better infrastructure, we can for sure also have a better better democracy.

                        But if you have any documentation about this wonderful debates about cities and farms, this is something I would like to educate my self about... would you point me out on that direction?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
                          @simpleman Electoral college is a crappy system... I think we all agree on this... so... ?

                          Like bloody hell we all agree the electoral college is a crappy system. In fact, it is more proof that the founders knew a hell of a lot more about politics and human nature than you do.

                          They have records explaining everything they did. They understood that in cities politics were different than in the country. They also understood that cities would of themselves dominate the nation so they wanted to reduce the otherwise absolute control the cities would have on the nation.

                          They gave all states 2 senators, and in the other house, varied depending upon population.

                          They also set it up so a few cities could not take control of the nation.
                          From what I can surmise from the Wiki article on the US Electoral college, what you are saying seems to be way off.

                          This is amazing since they did not yet know they would ever have cities with millions of people in them.
                          Yeah, truly amazing .... the founding fathers were not only wise, they were literally psychic ...

                          Or, that those cities would be easily controlled by socialists and communists.
                          So ... New York and Cleveland and St Louis and Boulder and LA ... all controlled by communists...?
                          McCarthy would turn over in his grave.
                          While some tinfoil merchant must be rubbing his hands.

                          If we get rid of the electoral college, this nation will almost instantly become Communist.
                          In a matter of minutes, surely. I can just imagine it.
                          Every little Midwest town erupts in military parades, the mayor in bearskin cap watching from the fire station balcony.

                          LA and NYC and a few others will simply control the nation, and the millions of people in fly-over land will have little input on what happens. In fact, the main mode of the nation will be robbing the working stiffs in fly-over and transferring it to baby Momma's in the cities.
                          Also, the ban on having sex while standing upright will be lifted, although everyone knows full well that it may lead to dancing.


                          And so, Armageddon draws nigh.

                          M
                          Last edited by Manalysis; 09-12-2017, 03:13 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by simpleman View Post
                            I would have thought they where just overwhelmed by the logistics of having every citizen to vote in the stated level, so they made it local to have a lot of smaller more manageable pieces... but now we have better roads, better communications, better infrastructure, we can for sure also have a better better democracy.

                            But if you have any documentation about this wonderful debates about cities and farms, this is something I would like to educate my self about... would you point me out on that direction?
                            "Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

                            "There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."

                            ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electo...United_States) )


                            M

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                              "Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

                              "There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."

                              ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electo...United_States) )


                              M
                              OK... if I understood this right, the point of the electoral college is to allow blacks to vote but making sure they don't actually get to make any decision about the leadership?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X