Terry Crews is the absolute best

Okay, I realize I might get flack for posting this, and if you want me to take it down, I will, but I feel this needs to be shared because Terry Crews is an amazing human being. 

http://www.independe...t-10106529.html

I disagree with him. Not entirely, but I think he's falling into the same trap a lot of feminists fall into. Putting every single speck of blame onto men. His diatribe started out alright, but the whole 'pride' part of his speech bugs me. Because you don't have to be a man to be proud. And you don't have to be a man to be so proud you let it stop you from progressing. Women are just as capable of being blinded by their own accomplishments and successes, it's certainly not something tied purely to a person's sex. You'd think a so-called spokesman for equality would understand that in this, men and women are equal. Whether you're swinging your dick or flapping your cunt lips, you can be blinded by your own pride and stagnate, becoming someone you wouldn't want to become.

The bit regarding wars, as well. I won't disagree that the primary aspects revolve around men. But the way he (falsely) rationalises the thought processes behind what drives people to go to war are so skewed I can't even fathom where his head's going with them. It's like he's swinging wildly, in some foolish attempt to try hitting something that seems right.

Millions of people have died because of male pride, because one man would not back down. Male pride will say: 'I’d rather blow up my whole family than have everyone look at me as though I’ve lost.'

That isn't how war works at all, and the fact he's trying to claim this particular thought process of a sacrifice for the (right or wrong) 'greater good' is purely a male viewpoint is laughable.

I wonder how much (or more likely, how little) Crews knows about the extent of the laws, rules, and social constructions that favour women over men, even in a clear case where the man would be in the right? By equality, how does he (and his feminist buddies) intend to deal with those? How will they equalise them?

I disagree with him. Not entirely, but I think he's falling into the same trap a lot of feminists fall into. Putting every single speck of blame onto men. His diatribe started out alright, but the whole 'pride' part of his speech bugs me. Because you don't have to be a man to be proud. And you don't have to be a man to be so proud you let it stop you from progressing. Women are just as capable of being blinded by their own accomplishments and successes, it's certainly not something tied purely to a person's sex. You'd think a so-called spokesman for equality would understand that in this, men and women are equal. Whether you're swinging your dick or flapping your cunt lips, you can be blinded by your own pride and stagnate, becoming someone you wouldn't want to become.

 

The bit regarding wars, as well. I won't disagree that the primary aspects revolve around men. But the way he (falsely) rationalises the thought processes behind what drives people to go to war are so skewed I can't even fathom where his head's going with them. It's like he's swinging wildly, in some foolish attempt to try hitting something that seems right.

 

 

 

That isn't how war works at all, and the fact he's trying to claim this particular thought process of a sacrifice for the (right or wrong) 'greater good' is purely a male viewpoint is laughable.

 

I wonder how much (or more likely, how little) Crews knows about the extent of the laws, rules, and social constructions that favour women over men, even in a clear case where the man would be in the right? By equality, how does he (and his feminist buddies) intend to deal with those? How will they equalise them?

I didn't think about that. I assume that it wasn't his intent to put all the blame on men. When I posted this, I was moreso excited that someone as big as Terry Crews was speaking about this and I had the rationalization that 'he's not speaking about every single man on the planet'. And I do agree on the pride part now that I think about it.

It probably wasn't. But that's how it came across to me. I'm not exactly pro-feminism (hell, even the NAME screams inequality) but still. He did wake up a bit and discuss equality about halfway through, but even that felt tainted by his arguments. Everyone should be equal, everyone should have a fair shot, but that entire chunk was about him. His family, his kids, his opinion.

All in all, he just comes across as admonishing other men for being men. It's unnecessary for men to patronise women, to patronise other men. But again, that isn't gender-specific. Men and women both are just as capable of being shitty to each other, god knows I'm about as bitchy as they come sometimes.

The problem is that for every equal aspect the sexes share, or even you and I share, there are countless more that are proportionately unequal. Certainly, every single person on this planet is a unique fluffy snowflake, and that's exactly why tailoring equality can never work. We're just simply too different from one another on a base level. Our emotions, upbringing, our reactions to events, everything that has shaped our lives from birth to this exact moment differ greatly, and I don't think that's something we should berate ourselves for. We can design rules and laws as much as we want, but at their core, there will always be someone targeted negatively by them. There has to be a loser.

But really, the issue I see here is that he's trying to unite people, but he's picking a side at the same time, so he's going to have opponents, people who disagree with, or who feel singled-out by his seemingly provocative attack on a certain group of people (men). And on the other side of the field, there are groups like the Men's Rights Movement, and other groups who are fighting for the same thing, but mirrored. They want the same treatment women get, which in many cases can be seen as them being treated better than men. Because, in those cases, we are. I could walk out of my door right now, point at the mailman and yell "he raped me!" and you know what? His career would be ruined instantly. He'd get arrested. People would judge him guilty long before any trial. But as a man, try doing the same thing. Step outside, point at a woman, and yell "she raped me!" and you know what you'll get? A slap on the back and a "nice work bro", because society inherently views things like this from a skewed perspective. Because as a woman, I have rights, I have socially-constructed shields that you don't. I have an unfettered advantage on an uneven playing field.

And that's not equality.

It probably wasn't. But that's how it came across to me. I'm not exactly pro-feminism (hell, even the NAME screams inequality) but still. He did wake up a bit and discuss equality about halfway through, but even that felt tainted by his arguments. Everyone should be equal, everyone should have a fair shot, but that entire chunk was about him. His family, his kids, his opinion.

 

All in all, he just comes across as admonishing other men for being men. It's unnecessary for men to patronise women, to patronise other men. But again, that isn't gender-specific. Men and women both are just as capable of being shitty to each other, god knows I'm about as bitchy as they come sometimes.

 

The problem is that for every equal aspect the sexes share, or even you and I share, there are countless more that are proportionately unequal. Certainly, every single person on this planet is a unique fluffy snowflake, and that's exactly why tailoring equality can never work. We're just simply too different from one another on a base level. Our emotions, upbringing, our reactions to events, everything that has shaped our lives from birth to this exact moment differ greatly, and I don't think that's something we should berate ourselves for. We can design rules and laws as much as we want, but at their core, there will always be someone targeted negatively by them. There has to be a loser.

 

But really, the issue I see here is that he's trying to unite people, but he's picking a side at the same time, so he's going to have opponents, people who disagree with, or who feel singled-out by his seemingly provocative attack on a certain group of people (men). And on the other side of the field, there are groups like the Men's Rights Movement, and other groups who are fighting for the same thing, but mirrored. They want the same treatment women get, which in many cases can be seen as them being treated better than men. Because, in those cases, we are. I could walk out of my door right now, point at the mailman and yell "he raped me!" and you know what? His career would be ruined instantly. He'd get arrested. People would judge him guilty long before any trial. But as a man, try doing the same thing. Step outside, point at a woman, and yell "she raped me!" and you know what you'll get? A slap on the back and a "nice work bro", because society inherently views things like this from a skewed perspective. Because as a woman, I have rights, I have socially-constructed shields that you don't. I have an unfettered advantage on an uneven playing field.

 

And that's not equality.

Agreed, especially with that double-standard rape thing. I read an article about male rape from the perspective a man who was raped by a woman, and it's just so wrong how male rape victims are treated. People need to understand that rape is traumatizing, no matter WHO it's done to.

What a load of bollocks you're spouting. Feminism = gender equality. That's literally it, no fucking about. 

What a load of bollocks you're spouting. 

Me?

Not you, no. Although to address your point about male rape; that's still something where feminism is significantly necessary. Due to our patriarchal society, there are plenty of men see other men who are raped as weak or insignificant, and probably women too. Saying 'what about male rape' kind of defeats the point.

Not you, no. Although to address your point about male rape; that's still something where feminism is significantly necessary. Due to our patriarchal society, there are plenty of men see other men who are raped as weak or insignificant, and probably women too. Saying 'what about male rape' kind of defeats the point.

Good point

What a load of bollocks you're spouting. Feminism = gender equality. That's literally it, no fucking about. 

It's really not.

But it is, though. That's exactly what it is.

This thread got weird.

I like Terry Crews. Ever since White Chicks.

Let us celebrate his hilarity by showcasing one of his greatest clips.

I am a bit annoyed that someone I enjoy watching on tv has an opinion that is pretty shitty.

Saying that pride is responsible for a lot of conflict and death is understandable.

Saying that male pride specifically is responsible is bullshit, and sexist.

Which is ironic coming from someone who is openly a feminist.

And on the topic of feminism being the definition of equality, it kind of sort of is.

It is an implication that women currently are not equal and are striving for equal right to that of men.

Gender equality by focusing on the needs of one gender specifically is destined to fail, and be met with hostility.

Women and men are equally unequal in their own ways and until everyone realises this we are going to be stuck running in circles trying to prove who is more deprived.

..until everyone realises this we are going to be stuck running in circles trying to prove who is more deprived.

I hate that shit.

"Woe is me!"

"Woer is me!"

STFU.

I hate that shit.

"Woe is me!"

"Woer is me!"

 

STFU.

saaaaaaaaaaaame. 

I am a bit annoyed that someone I enjoy watching on tv has an opinion that is pretty shitty.

Saying that pride is responsible for a lot of conflict and death is understandable.

Saying that male pride specifically is responsible is bullshit, and sexist.

Which is ironic coming from someone who is openly a feminist.

 

And on the topic of feminism being the definition of equality, it kind of sort of is.

It is an implication that women currently are not equal and are striving for equal right to that of men.

Gender equality by focusing on the needs of one gender specifically is destined to fail, and be met with hostility.

Women and men are equally unequal in their own ways and until everyone realises this we are going to be stuck running in circles trying to prove who is more deprived.

Your issue with feminism lies in a fundamental misunderstanding of what the movement actually is, or rather, a shallowness in that understanding.

Feminism is not a movement that narrowly aims to bring women up to the standards of men. That would ignore the privilege and stratification afforded to different sectors of society based on race, religion, creed and sexuality. Rather, feminism--specifically modern feminism--is a school of thought that says: there are systemic issues with our current western society that impacts both women and men. For women that might be the perception of comparative weakness, income inequality and a prevalence of rape. For men that is inequality in divorce settlements, custody of children and a general ignorance towards male rape.

Of course there are intrinsic biological differences between men and women. These are not inequalities however. The norms of society ought to be challenged with constant progressive forward thinking and that is what feminism aims to achieve. The initial step, is in the way men and women treat one another.

Furthermore, this is nothing personal but your quotation about Crews where you say: "Saying that male pride specifically is responsible is bullshit, and sexist." is petulant. Male pride largely is responsible for countless issues in modern society. Pride in and of itself is something that is tolerable in small dosages, but when applied to a scale of nationalism or any general feeling of superiority, becomes toxic. This sort of toxic belief regularly manifests itself in the form of male dominance over...what I can broadly only describe (metaphorically) as oestrogen.

To use a rape scenario: rape is not an engagement for sexual gratification, rather it is an instrument of dominance and the assertion of pride. Crews is absolutely right to shoot down male pride. There can be no pride in being at a societal apex.

I guess the main reason feminism bothers me a bit is that it is called feminism.

When women had no rights it had a place, but now that women have equal rights why is the movement even around, especially under the same name.

Why not call it egalitarianism, or equalism, or humanism?

My saying that a sexist comment is sexist isn't childish.

A man who observes a history of violence and war, then waxes about male pride ruining the world is the petulant one.

I agree that being over prideful breeds shitty activities between people and nations, but you can't drop that on an entire gender just because it has been mostly done by men. Men tending to be the gender that rises to political power would be a valid argument for gender inequality.

Hell, wasn't it Egypt that elected a female prime minister and had her immediately assassinated by douchy radicals?

Terry Crews observes a bunch of douchebag/power hungry rulers and leaders do a bunch of douchebag/power hungry things worldwide and says that it is because of macho man pride bullshit specifically, and I don't think that is accurate. I think it is a pride/power thing, not a machoism arm flex that causes war and conflict.

Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner. It probably seems a bit silly to reply now but as I said (briefly, before the comment got knocked off), I've been incredibly busy with work on site and by the time I get in I don't have any energy to do much of anything. I didn't want anyone to think I just couldn't be bothered to offer up a repost though. I may be many things but I know my manners.

So, the reason that feminism is so called is because females are of the gender that is underprivileged. The best way to achieve equality, the best way to start on a road to absolute equality is to advocate for the rights of the underprivileged and the maltreated. The movement is still around because women in America earn 70 cents to the dollar. Because it is necessary for the LA metro to put up signs telling male passengers not to openly masturbate on trains over female passengers, to stop male passengers touching female passengers and to stop male passengers following female passengers. It is still around because when a woman is raped she is instantly put under a spotlight and scrutinised as though she is the one at fault. It's still around because wearing 'provocative' clothing makes said rape acceptable. It's still around because if I ever had a daughter she would be born more disadvantaged than I was because of her genetics. If you think that women have equal rights then perhaps you are fortunate enough in your situation that you don't see the issues women face, much in the same way that I--as a white man--see policemen as helpful whereas a black man would be more inclined to see them as dangerous.

Male pride absolutely does cause a myriad of issues though. Men tend to be in geopolitical leadership positions and male politicians far outweigh the females. Your argument smacks of 'not all men', which is a bit laughable. Male pride destroying the world doesn't have to be political, it can materialise in any situation and it all adds up to fuck the earth up. I don't know about Egypt, but the current president is Fattah el-Sisi and Mubarak was most definitely a man. I would disagree that being male does not factor into the bad things world leaders do. It's not the only factor but machismo is definitely a prevalent one.

I never said that women didn't have their gender specific troubles, but the world is not the big scary rape-fest that you seem to think it is.

Women are sexually assaulted on a pretty even scale as men, we just don't hear much about men being assaulted because of the culturally biased idea that men are stronger so we couldn't possibly be raped, we must have allowed the act. Sexual assault of any kind on any person is unforgivable, but women are not the only ones who suffer.

The income thing is sort of bogus.

Damn near every millionaire and billionaire alive in the world today is a man, which definitely happened because the world that these men worked in to get to that point was a hell of a lot more sexist than it is now. Other than those guys, men and women generally make the same income. So even though average men and women make the same money per hour, those male millionaires and billionaires throw off the curve drastically. Everywhere I have worked along side women I have never seen a difference between what I earned and what they earned. Hell, I worked at Swiss Chalet while in school and three out of four managers were women, and the owner of the building was as well. They sure as hell made more money than all of the male line workers did. Women also still have the nice little socially acceptable bonus of letting their husband be the bread winner while they do the stay at home mom thing. So that number of working females is lower than the number of working males in North America, which again affects the curve. I also read an article a while back pointing out that women tend to choose careers that focus more on interpersonal activities like nursing, social work, psychiatry, personal service worker, etc. All of which are not very high paying jobs. While men tend to strive for high money earning professions over high emotional earning ones. Just another socially/biologically enforced standard for both genders.

Saying that if you have a daughter she will be more disadvantaged than you because she is female is exactly the sort of thinking that allows sexism to keep on trucking.

As I said before, both genders have their perks and their unjust struggles.

We will never achieve anything even close to true gender equality as long as we as a society keep playing tit for tat about who is suffering more.

In the last sixty years women have achieved more as a gender in every way imaginable than they did in the ten thousand before that, and things are only going to get better.

The vast majority of divorces are instigated by women, and they tend to come out on top financially.

We don't go around saying that female greed is ruining the institution of marriage.

Correlation does not mean causation.

Pride and being power hungry are not gender specific.

Men do terrible things, terrible things don't happen because they are men.