No. 20666Anonymous 20th August 2015 Thursday 10:16 pm20666Skip this if you don't want to read me bitch about inane shit.
I had contemplated putting this in /emo/, but I don't think I need advice really. I just want to vent and get your opinions. I'll try and be objective.
Anyway, my best mate is getting divorced. "Pretty common." I hear you think, which is true. This woman is twisted though and orchestrated this, I feel.
They were having problems, she clearly wasn't happy for reasons still unclear to my mate and he (oblivious) was getting more and more wound up by her behaviour, because she was deliberately trying to bait him into losing the head over a period of months. So one day he does. He comes home a few hours late from the pub where he was having a couple drinks for his Dad's birthday, after buying her a chippy on route to make up for it, and she accuses him of cheating so he snaps, goes volcanic with rage, and bounces his fish supper off her face and calls her all sorts of names.
This is very bad, I do not condone this.
Queue 4 months later, she has left him because he has "changed" and she didn't love him any more, despite sleeping with him up until the day she fucked off. He is myopic at this stage, distraught, ashamed, can't sleep and can't eat. She is taunting him with guys she is dating, manipulating him and threatening him with their kids. She is a gale force cunt, at this point, in my eyes. His best friends, me and another lass (who he cheated on her with, according to her) build him back up. Get him back out in the world, get him to make her sign a joint custody agreement using Child Tax Credits as leverage.
He goes out, meets a girl. That's fine, things are looking up for him. They agree to go on a date. He fucking tells his ex-wife this, which was stupid, but I understand why he did it; turn about is fair play, etc. She is now livid. LIVID! Starts calling him names, going apeshit, accusing him of trying to replace her in the kids lives by having her "play mother to the kids", full blown meltdown material. They haven't even gone on this date yet, never mind her set foot in his house.
She was the one that left him, she created an opportunity to do that and she left. I don't understand why, but she did. He moped and pined for her for months and we had to drag him out the house, he was depressed over what had happened with fishsuppergate and we had him go to counseling over it. If she wanted him back at any stage during that time she could have had him back. She has no right to give him shit for moving on with his life, when within a week of taking her ring off she was bed hopping and getting pissed every night, smelling of booze when he was picking the kids up from her new gaff.
I fucking hate this woman, lads. I don't want to, but I hate her. There is something seriously wrong with her and I can't for the life of me work out why she is such a horrible person. I've known her for years and I never knew she had this in her. To be fair, I didn't expect my mate to throw his dinner at her, but she has used this as a catalyst for divorce and proof he isn't the man she married. She has been browbeating him about cheating on her since the day they met. Something had to give, at least that is the way I see it, but she takes no responsibility for it.
That isn't true you would like it to be, but karma isn't a thing. The sad truth is she will do just fine burning through everyone around her and moving on to the next group like a locus. People like her don't learn, when a friend is critical of them rather than listen they just find new friends, they are too self absorbed to care what others think if it goes against what she wants. Sucks for your mate OP in that they will have to interact with them indefinately, what I don't understand is how he ended up having kids with her, those sort of people are usually too unstable to settle down with long enough for that to happen, was she some sort of stealth arsehole?
>>20675 He doesn't have to be right about karma, as people get older they'll get better at avoiding people like her like locus and she'll be gradually left further alone.
Why do people make a big show of "kids?" Tell her and the kids to fuck off. Start a new family. Cut all contact with the cunt, and if that means you won't see the brats too, then so be it. Shit happens.
My ex is one of those sorts of people. She might appear to be doing fine, she might appear to be doing great in fact. But in my priveleged position, as someone she thinks she can confide in, I get to see that she is in fact a deeply troubled and insecure individual for whom each passing day is an increasingly bitter cycle of outward success and inward self-pity.
You're probably right that there's no such thing as karma, but I try to stop myself from relishing her torment too greatly, just in case.
>>20682 >>20683 A thing that doesn't exist? Especially as a man, you have no place getting attached to kids who will inevitably be used as hostages against you. Two fingers to that.
>>20689 >>20692 I never understood why the MRA is made fun of. I mean, what is so bad about some sort of group fighting for their piece of the pie? After all, identity politics is king, and everyone wants to be a victim as far as I can see, so why does the MRA get the rough end of the stick?
>>20692 The movement is all about fighting for your kids and probably using them like hostages in the divorce dealings, like women do. So no, I don't think it is some sort of MRA hive.
Because, like in all other types of politics, there are alliances and coalitions. In the current climate it's everybody else against the cis-white male oppressors; and if you want to look anything like a good liberal, you have to take sides with the minorities, gays and women.
I have a feeling that's just a phase, mind you. You can already see the nascant waves of in-fighting amongst the fishmongers and the ethnics. Their goals are seemingly aligned but it won't take long for the savvy to spot how fishmongery grants more privilege to straight, white, middle class women.
It's like Marxism ate a sheet of strong blotter acid and the fractals won't stop.
>>20692 Yes but they are a MRA group, which somewhat demonstrates not wanting to have anything to do with your children isn't a MRA view, in fact for the most part not wanting to be part of your kids lives is the exact opposite of what MRA groups want.
>>20693 MRAs tend to be thinly-veiled bitch-haters. Fathers4Justice aren't really MRAs, not least because they do at least care about one acutal male issue, namely that fathers that wish to remain part of their children's lives after a divorce don't always get to do so. Numbers such as custody statistics and suicide rates are figures of convenience for MRAs, who typically don't really care about any actual issues. You won't find them raising awareness of male cancers or urological issues. With the suicide rates they'll latch on to the fact that a good many of those men end up feeling inadequate, but fail to realise that it's because of the stigma of not living up to the expectations of "masculinity", rather than because men are being suppressed. They won't link it with the woeful provision of mental health facilities, because apparently therapists are for pussies and "real men" should be able to deal with their issues themselves, Or SomethingTM.
>>20697 So... They are like fisherpersons? With many different shades? Or is anything you consider good (like Fathers4Justice) not reeeaaallllyyyy MRA because reasons?
> In the current climate it's everybody else against the cis-white male oppressors
I hate to descend to a level reminiscent of the pre 2000s internet, but seriously, this is how I know you must live your life in front of your computer. If only you didn't live your life under a persistent pounding of various subreddits and Daily Mail article comments you might realise that outside the window there's a whole world full of people whose only inkling about the terms trans or cis comes from barely-digested newspaper headlines on the dangers of trans-fats. And those are the aware ones.
>>20693 >I never understood why the MRA is made fun of. I mean, what is so bad about some sort of group fighting for their piece of the pie? After all, identity politics is king, and everyone wants to be a victim as far as I can see, so why does the MRA get the rough end of the stick?
Because, while a lot of fishing is navel gazing bullshit, all MRA bollocks is navel gazing bullshit.
>>20696 MRAs are a broad church, and can encompass just about anyone who's been slighted in some way, real or imagined, by the fouler sex. What is and is not "an MRA view" isn't really possible to define beyond "fucking bitches, am I right?".
>>20695 >Their goals are seemingly aligned but it won't take long for the savvy to spot how fishmongery grants more privilege to straight, white, middle class women.
You're about a century late in making that observation.
>>20707 >Because, while a lot of fishing is navel gazing bullshit, all MRA bollocks is navel gazing bullshit.
I'd have put those two the other way around. But then you seem a bit mental.
>MRAs are a broad church, and can encompass just about anyone who's been slighted in some way, real or imagined, by the fouler sex. What is and is not "an MRA view" isn't really possible to define beyond "fucking bitches, am I right?".
>>20708 >But then you seem a bit mental
>Yep, you have problems m8.
I happen to work in mental health, and believe it or not, have found that people can actually function quite well without taking a movement of bitter paranoid internet weirdos seriously. Imagine that!
>>20707 >You're about a century late in making that observation.
The main difference now is that we have the notion of intersectionality. While this allows those who lie on the negative end of multiple axes of privilege a voice, it also allows those privileged straight white middle-class women to co-opt the struggles of and claim to speak on behalf of those other groups, and they've ended up making a bigger noise about it than the ones actually affected.
Lad, I'm perfectly aware of that. But my reply was in response to a post that used the term "MRA", which already firmly places the discussion in the context of internet crazy land.
And besides, in the year of our lord 2015, what makes you think the internet noosphere is quite that irrelevant? Those subreddits and comment streams are what will, eventually, put print media and TV out of commission. You're going to have to stop dismissing it all eventually.
>>20713 Bints, nignogs, bumders, muzzers, plebs, etc. Bints have it tough, but wog bints have it harder than non-wog bints, and pleb wog bints have it harder than non-pleb or non-wog bints, etc. This stuff ain't rocket surgery or anything.
>>20715 That's a superficial analysis of intersectionality; it's not just about what difficulty rating your game of life is set to, but what specific obstacles there are in it. A black woman has a whole set of problems unique to being a black woman that aren't encountered by black men or white women, for instance.
>>20729 Doesn't it get patronising? If a black woman opened the papers tomorrow and read about some march by white, liberal, college girls somewhere about how black women should have more shades of brown, wouldn't she at least feel the patronising ridiculousness of it all?
I seem to remember some time ago there being kick back from within fisherperson circles about the movement being too focused on the plight of people who were already quite well off and basically "okay".
>With the suicide rates they'll latch on to the fact that a good many of those men end up feeling inadequate, but fail to realise that it's because of the stigma of not living up to the expectations of "masculinity", rather than because men are being suppressed.
Stop.
You wouldn't label femininity as being toxic, so why would you do it to mascalinity.
I can list off for you a whole world of ways women as a general rule get a better deal than men in society, so stop with the holier than thou 'men can't be suppressed' crap. fishing frequently cherry picks the priverlidged minority of men as examples of male privilidge, and disregards the pain of the majority.
Do you really think the gender of multinational CEOs or their pay really has an effect on greater society? or is that a shockingly small minority which chances are isn't an issue for anyone you have ever met, but fishing will beat it like a dead horse and talk about it like it was representative of society and the privilage of men, even though 99.99999% of men would never be in that position, and really being a CEO is less a quallity identifiable with being a man as being a albino is identifying with being a human.
Homelessness is a 90% male issue, and there are far more of them about then there are of CEOs, do femininist ever discuss about how woman have a privilige over men in that regard, because they are significantly less likely to end up in that position? No men are privilidged and all men have power and that is all there is to it.
And if a homeless man consequently killed themselves it is because of "the stigma of not living up to the expectations of "masculinity", rather than because men are being suppressed". You need to stop treating all women as if they are always wose off than all men. And men like they don't ever experiance pain and it isn't fair to dismiss it off hand. And that men don't encounter some pains like homelessness significantly more than women.
>>20741 Right on cue, here's the evidence incarnate that MRAs don't actually care about issues, only fudged or made-up numbers and claiming men are somehow "suppressed".
Thanks, you can go back to your subreddit now, MRAlad.
>>20741 >Homelessness is a 90% male issue, and there are far more of them about then there are of CEOs, do femininist ever discuss about how woman have a privilige over men in that regard, because they are significantly less likely to end up in that position? No men are privilidged and all men have power and that is all there is to it.
If you cared to take even a cursory interest in what fisherpersons have actually written on the subject, instead of treating the whole thing as some absurd men vs. women football match, you would note that yes, they do. There have been examinations going back decades of how in patriarchal societies men are treated as having agency and women are not. A man has to look out for his family, but first and foremost he must look after himself. If he can't do that, he is a failure. If a woman does the same thing, people are inherently more sympathetic and society as a whole is more likely to take steps to prevent that.
Actually I am entirely familiar with that. My issue is that a lot of the premises are treated as absolute. It isn't just 'the patriarchy' that treat women as having no agency and men as having no morality, a large majority of fishing treat women as having no agency and men as having no morality, they treat pentrative sex as inhernitly perjority or that all men secretly hate women regardless of what those men think they think, if you actually read the works of Germaine Greer some of the ideas she pust forward, are frankly fucking apauling and without base.
Women are almost always acted upon and the victims in feminst theory and that is just absurd, there seems to be more time devoted to propping up that premise that women are victims and not responsible for there actions in fishing than there is to actually looking at womens agency, and that is just something that doesn't wash with me.
Also the question of what being a fisherperson as a man means. I've seen it too often mean chivalry and that is wrong that is just playing into the politics of the middle ages of the past treating women with kind gloves, but too many 'feminsts' like that pampered treatment. The correct way to treat women is the same way you treat a man with equal expectations of them. I treat most men like shit so it stands to reason I should treat most women like shit, anything else is sexism.
>>20770 >a large majority of fishing treat women as having no agency and men as having no morality, they treat pentrative sex as inhernitly perjority or that all men secretly hate women regardless of what those men think they think
A large majority? Really now, on what basis do you presume to make such an absurd claim? I can honestly say that in all the years I was involved with student and green politics, I can count on one hand the number of f eminists I met who held that kind of extreme view (and as you may guess, in those environments you meet a lot of f eminists). They were at best regarded as an oddity and at worst ostracised.
>if you actually read the works of Germaine Greer some of the ideas she pust forward, are frankly fucking apauling and without base.
I can't think of a single ideology I hold that doesn't include amongst its adherents people with ideas I find baseless and appalling. F eminism is a broad church, and even the most committed f eminist will find that she disagrees with others calling themselves f eminists more often than she agrees with them.
>Women are almost always acted upon and the victims in feminst theory and that is just absurd, there seems to be more time devoted to propping up that premise that women are victims and not responsible for there actions in fishing than there is to actually looking at womens agency, and that is just something that doesn't wash with me.
There's a bit more to it than "women are victims and not responsible for there actions", but in any case, a lot of modern academia around social sciences focuses more on society and structures than individual agency. Blame critical theory, not f eminism.
>I treat most men like shit so it stands to reason I should treat most women like shit, anything else is sexism.
Have you given any thought to perhaps not treating people like shit?
>if you actually read the works of Germaine Greer some of the ideas she pust forward, are frankly fucking apauling and without base.
Aside from your terrible spelling, I don't really understand why you imagine or expect her to have theoretically sound ideas that make perfect sense, both to you and generally. Besides, her ideas are going to be a little dated now. For added comic effect, I might lament you for attacking an old lady anonymously on an imageboard.
Again, you may want to be nicer to people in your life and stop treating this issue as a football match.
>They were at best regarded as an oddity and at worst ostracised.
Well we are going to have to agree to disagree because every irl I've met who ever had any serious grounding in the subject was some form of misandrist. I'm not an idiot nearly all people in the west believe in some form of fishing, (I would decribe myself as believing in the equality of treatment between the sexes) and the majority of people are reasonable, but the kind of person who immediately discribes themselves as fisherperson, I've met usually are twisted left wing authoritarians, It's the same way that there shouldn't be anything wrong with someone being vegan, but the reality is there are a lot of unplesant millitant ones.
I'm also willing to belive that our politics differ enough that what you see as a noble cause potentially I see as naked self interest of one group in society, or 'benevolent sexism'. With equality of treatment you need to take the rough with the smooth I dream of a world where women have the oppertunity to fail like men do, and them to accept that as just their failure rather than the invisible strings of the system somehow having it in for them.
>can't think of a single ideology I hold that doesn't include amongst its adherents people with ideas I find baseless and appalling. F eminism is a broad church
So you are pretending that Greer isn't a noted, renowned and popular fisherperson, just a fringe outlier?
>There's a bit more to it than "women are victims and not responsible for there actions", but in any case, a lot of modern academia around social sciences focuses more on society and structures than individual agency. Blame critical theory, not f eminism.
So you just admited my point was true and then said but fishing isn't responsible for it's own actions and acedemic structure, and I should blame the critical-thinkingarcy..
>Have you given any thought to perhaps not treating people like shit?
Why on earth would I do that. And why would you really consider that any of your buisness. I'm happy treating everyone like shit, sand everyone is equally miserable because of it.
I'm sure you realise however, despite you not making it very clear in your post, that your anecdotal evidence on the nature of fisherpersons is skewed by a perception bias, because you don't know any that aren't militant? Yeah?
Ok, great. For the few that might not be getting this (difficult concept, I know), every fisherperson He knows is mental, rather than him thinking fishing is a crazy ideology. The latter would be a baseless claim and it's not his intention to make baseless claims.
If that about sums your opinion on the subject, then I think this slow regression towards the tedium mean can be reversed and the grown ups can start talking again.
>>20776 >Well we are going to have to agree to disagree because every irl I've met who ever had any serious grounding in the subject was some form of misandrist
I'm going to take a wild guess and say I've probably met more than you, and engaged with them more actively than you. Regardless, seeing as this discussion is about fishing as an ideology and a movement, not "people I know", you clearly don't have any basis on which to say "a large majority of fishing treat women as having no agency and men as having no morality, they treat pentrative sex as inhernitly perjority or that all men secretly hate women regardless of what those men think they think". Whatever exactly that's supposed to mean.
>So you are pretending that Greer isn't a noted, renowned and popular fisherperson, just a fringe outlier?
I'm saying that finding the opinions of Germaine Greer distasteful and being a fisherperson are not mutually incompatible positions. The opinions of Germaine Greer, of all people, are not representative of the entirety of fisherperson thought. Hilary Putnam and Richard Rorty were "noted, renowned and popular" pragmatists, but they agreed on virtually nothing.
In any case, it's 2015, Germaine goddamn Greer couldn't be any less relevant. You seem to be giving her far more credit than any fisherperson I know of.
>So you just admited my point was true and then said but fishing isn't responsible for it's own actions and acedemic structure, and I should blame the critical-thinkingarcy..
... No, I said there's more to it than what you're saying. Where modern academic fishing does not focus on individual agency (of all individuals, I might add, not just women), it's part of a broader trend in social sciences.
>Why on earth would I do that. And why would you really consider that any of your buisness. I'm happy treating everyone like shit, sand everyone is equally miserable because of it.
Oh for fuck sake I've been arguing with a 15 year old, haven't I...
Only that unlike Freud who whist being the father of modern psychiatry which everything else is built upon is dead and theories are 100 years old. Germaine Greer is alive and well and still writing works today. So somewhat more relevant.
>>20856 >Germaine Greer is alive and well and still writing works today. So somewhat more relevant
Not really when you consider that the only people who give a shit appear to be posters in this thread.
>>20865 Hm yes, that time she spent in the big brother house was surely indicative of the impact of her later writings on modern fisherperson theory and practice.
>>20868 I "am imply" that her being on the television and in the news is a product of her celebrity, not of her ongoing influence on fishing, which is zero.
