I'm sick of liberals blaming the internet for socially patterned things, that would of happened anyway, even without the internet, let alone broadband, social networks and online dating.

Trump won the election.......it's russian bots and russian facebook adverts and Russian fake news fault

Andrew Tate is making school kids misogynistic........it's the ALT-RIGHT PIPELINE'S fault for the recommendations sidebar on youtube bringing people from a mild Steven Crowder to Alex Jones to Richard Spencer to Andrew Anglin

Teenage girls are having negative body image and eating disorders..........it's instagram's fault

Guess what? Objectification Theory dates back to 1997 and Male Gaze Theory dates back to 1972. SHOCK HORROR!!!!!!!!

It would of happened anyway.

It's not a matter of what but when!!!!!!!!!!

The only difference is that the internet allows similar people of a certain minority to congregate together in one place.

This is a world in the UK where objectifying adverts was banned since 2008 and gender stereotypes in adverts was banned in the UK since 2017 and in France airbrushed/photoshopped imagery of people is banned.

My opinion on the alt-right pipeline algorithms and dog whistles, is responsible for radicalisation

France banning adverts with airbrushed/photoshopped models

"do you think social media makes it worse....." But the liberals are going to create more and more CONTROVERSIAL laws and regulations. In my opinion, we do not need laws to enforce the social contract. Do you really want to ask me political questions because that's where this is heading?

But it's never just an insult is it? They're making a value judgement of that person and expressing a social grievance and a certain attitude. I'm not going to comment on that, as I don't know anything about the situation at hand, so I'll just say that it's extremely rude, disgusting and soul crushing. And there's something vengeful and begrudging about it, as the prolonged declining self-esteem is the target.

But you're trying to make it out like it's a gendered thing, when in my opinion, trolling and cyberbullying affects men and women equally. Just because the nature of the language changes when a man is trolled compared to a woman, doesn't make it gendered, it just means that because women are more proactively conscious of their gender in a hypervigilant way, that anything and everything will appear gendered, even when it isn't.

For example, if I told a woman "you're a rubbish police constable" or "you're a rubbish taxi driver" then a woman would weirdly perceive both instances to be gendered, regardless of whether I suffixed that statement with the word "woman", despite women having cheaper car insurance for being better drivers.


I'm not going to assume what specific situations you're talking about, so I'm not going to presume what already happened on what day, to even given my opinion on what happened HOURS BEFORE the offending behaviour.

I would link you to my blog but who has the time to read MULTIPLE blog articles when I've written over 330,000 words on my blog? :P And you know my blog articles are typically 2000-3000 words. I just love longform content.

I think you have to be careful how you answer this question because

  1. Concept creep is real, when comparing now from 15 years ago. For any concept of harm, it's expanded in scope so dramatically, that no two commoners can agree where the scope, focus and range we're talking about here-now, actually lies.
  2. We've moved from "collective understanding" to "sharded understanding"
  3. Younger people don't surf the web, they scroll the news feed (algorithmic timeline)
  4. Conflation changed terminology into buzzwords

I can tell by how these questions are asked, that they either don't live in a western country, or they're a foreign english speaker. To get you up-to-speed, we have to share the same reference point.

For example, the word "jealous" has been conflated with "begrudging", where people say "jealous" when they really mean "begrudging" as the latter has the attitude of "if I can't have it then nobody else can, unlike the former. Another example is "toxic masculinity" which has become a meaningless BUZZWORD as they conflate "male bravado" (like GI Joe), "hen pecking" style teasing, weaponised incompetence, being domineering or a control freak,

You will not see words like words like "fascist" and "toxic masculinity" come out my mouth, as it's applied so loosely and excessively, that it's lost its meaning, so it's just a buzzword. I think nowadays, people have to be more specific and granular about the words they use. You also won't see me conflate the words "jealous" and "begrudging" together.


I can PRE-EMPTIVELY PREDICT what the women are thinking, after reading my answer.

INOOTB I'm Not One Of Those But

I can imagine it now, some man makes a good point then the woman who may disagree although cannot deny it's a valid point (when mentioning what other women do), then seeks to distance themselves from the women (ie. feminists) who are more extreme than them. I mean when after a woman says something, if she is overzealously conflated with what another woman thinks, says or did, just because that women's behaviour is seemingly similar to another woman.

"Don't tarnish everyone with the same brush. I don't create the hivemind.", they say. "Try to separate that feminist's opinions, proposals and attitudes, from whatever that sexist or misogynistic man is exhibiting. Just because that man's flipping burgers at mcdonalds for minimum wage, it doesn't mean that only the journalist in the literati (who has more money and influence) should be under the spotlight."

Okay then. Here goes!


So what behaviour, hostility, opinions or attitudes, is supposed to be the transgression here?


  1. Domestic abuse (including verbal and psychological abuse)
  2. Coercive control (as defined by the british government, women's aid, scottish women's aid, relate uk, the mix uk and refuge)
  3. Being territorial
  4. Rating women's appearance either around women or on a group level around men
  5. Making sexist jokes
  6. Making smear websites and people-rating websites
  7. Believing in chivalry and being chauvinistic


  1. Ignoring women's contributions and ideas in group discussions and group projects
  2. Some type of "cold shoulder fetish", for lack of a better name, where men like doing borderline stuff, like walking too close behind a woman on the street, or giving the non-verbal impression that the woman going onto the bus can have the designated seat, before hurrying up in the last second, sniping, to surprisingly get the pre-granted seat instead
  3. Weaponised incompetence, where men fake being rubbish at the cleaning and laundry, in order to pressure women to do it
  4. Being standoffish, evasive and guarded around women, especially when a man who asked the same question or greeting, despite not being a friend or proper acquaintance, got a completely different treatment
  5. Making sneery jibes about a woman's age, whilst also intentionally lying about their age and placing a disproportionate emphasis on it (Taylor Lorenz said this happens to her and it's misogyny and I agree)


  1. Hating on women who do onlyfans as a self-employed sole-trader, whilst hypocritically seeing nothing wrong with pirated content appear on porn websites (with their laizzes-fairre attitude) along with corporate porn studios with a pyramid hierarchical structure - all with those men consuming more porn than most men
  2. That pregnant women shouldn't eat cheetos, in the same way they shouldn't smoke while pregnant (I actually saw some offended woman share a clip of the Whatever Podcast where this was spoken)
  3. Telling women, explicitly or implicitly, that the only reason why they ever got any sort of prominence, exposure, stature or footing, within the creative arts, performing arts or STEM industry, is because they're a woman who benefited from affirmative action or a diversity hire, so their work output is inferior
  4. Slut shaming women
  5. Victim blaming women (including based on what they wear)

PREVAILING ATTITUDES (but I didn't do anything abusive or rude, did I?)

  1. Having a "mono messiah complex", as defined by my blog article.
  2. Being domineering
  3. Being a control freak
  4. Triple Green Finger Trap (see my next answer) (for lack of a better terminology) (I used to do this often as a teenager but in a brooding ruminating way, not in a derisive sneering way)
  5. Not curbing the visceral reactions upon hearing you're privileged, when around the other demographic (see my next answer) (for lack of a better terminology) (I used to do this often as a teenager but in a brooding ruminating way, not in a derisive sneering way)
  6. Committing "male bravado" as if somehow, they have to be some hyper-masculine GI Joe type character (this is also often called performative masculinity)
  7. Hen pecking, style teasing (to carve out their hierarchical position)
  8. Always trying to one-up everyone
  9. Microaggressions

For example, intrinsically my TONE is brusque (or abrupt) so I've had to tone it down, compared to 15 years ago, as people are MUCH MORE passive aggressive nowadays with significantly less "direct insults", nowadays compared to back then, so I could be perceived (by others) as being passive aggressive from my tone, just because other people often are.

(but I didn't do anything abusive or rude, did I?)

Exactly! That's why it's an attitude.

And even so, you're probably right in PRINCIPLE as well. It's not so much what you're saying or the principles behind the merits of it all but instead the attitude of HOW you expressed it.


I think I'm going to have to post 2 more answers, to answer this question, as this is long enough as it is.

I've listed 25 behaviours above and out of them all, I think that I only did 2 of them as a teenager. Whether I've grown out of it, I would like to think I have but even if it's not as bad as it was back then, I'll let you be the judge if I've stopped doing that in its entirety.


Read this article that went viral. I remember reading it over 10 years ago so I wonder why she moved it from her personal website to Medium.


Two women who are in a relationship say they were told ‘we don’t want to see that here’ when they kissed while waiting for a takeaway.

Alice Bowerman, 31, kissed Terri-Ann Metcalfe, 34, her girlfriend of two years, at Marmaris in Nottingham after a night out.

Despite it being 3.30am, staff at the takeaway told them ‘we have families here’. They were asked if the staff would tell a man and woman to stop kissing they were told they would not because ‘that’s normal’.


However, Ms Bowerman said that the manager of the takeaway then told her ‘I like to see girls kiss’ when confronted.



Now if you look at those 25 behaviours above, they are completely different to this Objectification Theory.

So when you say "men who treat women like objects", do you mean anything of the sort of the long list above, or anything that would be objectification as according (and anagolous) to the two links directly above?

see my next 4 answers and these links

I'll add some sources to here later, as the ideological and theoretical CACOPHONY is so sprawled out all over the place, 20 years later and still the theory isn't a settled theory.

https://www.pearltrees.com/desbest/toxic-masculinity/id76333490 https://www.pearltrees.com/desbest/objectification/id76333532 https://www.pearltrees.com/desbest/anciliary-to-objectification/id76349430

#2/3 of that answerAs a male, if you ever have to try to have a conversation with a woman who complains about objectification, to ask her what it is, for what behaviours that got glossed over, why it's harmful and why it's such a big deal - you'll find that they regrettably CANNOT articulate their feelings into words.

They'll just say that it's a PERVASIVE female experience, like frost on the grass at 7am or seeing your breath in the air at 7am or not noticing the smoggy air in the city relative to the countryside, that because it's become so normalised and "a part of the wallpaper", that we forget to notice it when it's right in front of our faces, that it's so pervasive it's become inconspicuous.

Okay....so it's become so pervasive that it's become inconspicuous to pick out, like blending into the wallpaper.

So then they have to go onto the internet, to find an article that someone ELSE wrote, as they're not able to articulate their feelings into words, or given an example, as......it's become so pervasive to inconspicuous, that's it become a part of the wallpaper.


So there's that TACT thing. In this world, we have to be co-operative with each other and self-regulatory over our behaviour, even if we don't want to gain anything off another person.

I have no problem in changing my behaviour AROUND women to be tactful of things that I don't understand. However when they go around changing laws, regulations and rewriting media, that's a whole different issue, which I won't get into hear, to avoid derailing the topic.

Let's talk about the here and now, the micro scale, men's behaviour around women.

I am sure that everyone has been upset about something at least once, where other people didn't understand why it was so hurtful to them. And on the flip side, I'm sure that everyone, also at least once, has also failed to understand why something was so offensive or demeaning to another person, to such an extent, after observing someone else's belittled reaction to it.

If everyone in the world wasn't co-operative and self-regulating over their behaviour, over the things that shall convey tact over things that they didn't understand what the big deal was and found confusing, then society wouldn't function.

I do see that point and do agree with that one there!

With that said,






Those women have completely missed the point, that men were trying to make. Men doing victim blaming, invalidating women or derailment topics, although it's very disheartening for the cause, that doesn't detract from the point that reasonable men (like me) were trying to make.

Men can see that what they see in the real world, does not match the depiction of what these feminist FAQ websites say (that are aimed at educating clueless men)



If you could wave a magic wand and make all sex crime magically disappear for 20 years, women would STILL find a way to be disgusted by male desire.

Feminists can talk about "gender is a social construct" all they want but "social construct" break down, when those very same women, start inadvertently CONTRADICTING themselves. So I'm supposed to take what people say at "face value", when their behaviour is in direct contradiction to what they say?

The cognitive dissonance is real!

Along with these logical fallacies.

  1. motte and bailey fallacy
  2. ad absurdium fallacy
  3. fallacy of composition and fallacy of division

see here later on https://www.pearltrees.com/desbest/logical-fallacies/id76360801

and the next screenshots from my blog

At the end of the day, men know, which women need to learn to accept, that women ARE DISGUSTED by male desire, so about all this "stop objectifying women", it has absolutely nothing to do with tact or not blindsiding or invalidating women and it has EVERYTHING to do with women being disgusted by male desire.

If you could wave a magic wand and make all sex crime end for the next 100 years, women would STILL find a way to be disgusted by it.


  • Insert
  • some
  • images
  • here

things to condemn


  • violence
  • jokes
  • chivalry
  • domineering
  • horseplay

don't feed the trolls and don't take their ab absurdium arguments seriously


Is the designated cause and the effect, back to front? Does the effect happen before their stated cause?


Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim