Speaking only for myself, this part of your statement I could see me at least partially getting on board with, but...Sly Cherry Chunks wrote:If we do this excersise; looking at boys falling behind in school, suicide rates, etc - isn't it fair to argue that the male gender is the one in the most widespread imminent danger
That last word in particular poisons the whole thing in downright spectacular fashion; if you'd said, perhaps, that certain issues which most directly affect males "aren't getting enough attention", that's at least a notion one could reasonably look into, but suppressed, once again, implies a deliberate, ongoing and malicious act - and a universal one, at that, so no one can be trusted if they don't go all in on "liberating" men from that which holds them back. Or did you misspeak?....seeing as a lot work is being done to balance things for women yet men's issues seem to be universally suppressed?
Off the cuff that Gavin guy seems to tread rather close, though he comes at the same, decidedly passive endgame from the "it's the natural, preferred order of things" angle more than the "there needs to be a Men's History Month too" slant (though for all I know he's said that too at some point, I'm quite sure more than a few of his compatriots have).Who's says this?
The paragraph following the sentence you quoted should pretty well cover it, methinks; the official line is forever "no, no, I'm just trying to bring more attention to men's issues", but somehow the appended notion of "...and anyone who's not instantly 100% on board with this is trying to outlaw fun" always, always ends up making an appearance.Explain.
By order of your fellow threadgoers, not me.Okay so more jovial mockery, more BIL gifs, less "wrongthink".