TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

43

The main thing I absolutely ABHOR about feminism; (self.antifeminists)

submitted by EightBitEmi

Hello, woman unfortunately birthed in the 90’s and raised into the 21st century here. đŸ‘‹đŸŒ Hope you’re all well, and staying sane.

The main reason I absolutely loathe a mass majority of feminism is, it makes ME LOOK BAD. The way a man approaches me in all aspects is, for the lack of a better word, assuming, and with bitterness. I also really hate when women approach me and talk to me, 98% of the time they instantly assume I’m on their side (when they do happen to be feminists) simply because I’m a woman.

I’m pretty old fashioned, the best word to describe me would be “traditionalist” minus the religious aspect of it. I’m all for marriage, having children, and that “white picket fence” as they call it.

Women like me who still have a bit of sense are now being seen as entitled and demanding when all we want are these simple things that were once deemed “normal”. I understand however, because with how narcissistic and demanding women are making themselves to be with all of this feminazi bullshit, I can see why a man’s defenses are up, and why their perspectives are changing in regards to even simply DATING a woman. (Dating, being the first step into a potential serious relationship, and then marriage. Hardly reaches that point anymore. Lol)

But that isn’t even the worst part - OTHER WOMEN CALL ME WEAK FOR WANTING THESE SIMPLE THINGS, and it INFURIATES me. How dare you? Just because I’m not a part of your ignorant little army of narcissistic whiney babies doesn’t make me weak, in fact, I’d see it as the complete OPPOSITE.

Just a little rant. Lol Does anyone else relate? I know there are other women in here and I tip my hat to you in these very, very trying times. Lol It’s hard to be a woman in this century. We’re criticized along with men who mean well. Don’t let them stop you. Be who you want, don’t let the manipulation of these control freaks get to you.


[–]F3daykin16 points17 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I’d invite you to follow the rabbit and really figure out why feminism is even a thing. Plenty of docs on YouTube about the destruction of western ideals and the nuclear family as a goal. Bit of a redpill tbh.

I know guys making 6 figures in their 20s that won’t date western women due to all the BS. Feminism is just a tool to further damage our society imo. Plenty of countries have women that laugh at those feminist ideas because they have always seen them as a tool to manipulate women. Those “woke” women are worth a hundred westernized feminazis imo.

Now if 80% of western woman are a pain in the ass but 20% are traditional types would any smart guy with a lot to offer take a chance? Probably not. Divorce and child laws are retarded in the US so again... Feminism really just screwed up our society and family life so much. Shame. What has even been gained by feminism? Nothing. Just a bunch of women that bitch about no good guys and the cost of box wine lol.

[–]EightBitEmi[S] 10 points11 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I completely agree. I’ve read on this “theory” (only calling it that because that’s all it is right now, unfortunately) once before and it’s highly plausible. You know what makes a strong-willed, good mannered, smart individual of society? One that came from a full, unbroken, stable home. That being one with a mother AND father, both holding these traditional values. Now, it’s possible to be raised by an individual parent that faced unfortunate circumstances to be a stand-alone parent in the first place that STILL teaches great, traditional values, I’m one of them, actually, so it’s still possible - but I’m saying that more than not, an unbroken, mother and father home wins out to create a stable individual.

It’s like the movie Idiocracy in real life, all of the children of this generation are being raised by. . . Well, children. Lol A child can’t raise a child, THEY’D NEVER GROW UP, and that’s quite literally what’s happening now. It’s unfortunate, really.

[–]F3daykin6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Welp. You’re a rare bean in todays society. Wish we had more to offset the craziness tbh.

[–]asianabsinthe0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I think there are plenty like this, however they're not on Reddit or willing to be bothered with the drama

[–]EightBitEmi[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Don’t be selfish and speak out! Lol (being sarcastic) I want these women and men alike to speak up and state their opinions - a lot of people are suppressing them over fears of disagreements. There’s ALWAYS gonna be disagreements. It isn’t “drama”. It’s people being people. I mean, if they divert from the original topic of the matter and begin to attack you personally, it’s already over, it’s already pointless, honesty. But it’s up to you to keep that up - but you can always START a conversation. It’s up to you where it ends. That’s the beauty of it.

You can’t expect everyone to agree with you and you can’t expect everyone to disagree with you and then call it “drama”, it isn’t realistic. State it without fear but go into it with that realistic mindset, have realistic expectation - or DON’T, just DO. Who knows? You could change minds for the better, or maybe you won’t. The goal here isn’t to be right or wrong it’s to discuss things and be okay with having an opinion and others having one as well. Agree to disagree, and stick to your guns if it’s truly right.

[–]asianabsinthe1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You're either a troll or a very rare online breed.

IRL I turn most unreasonable opinions toward reason and win many conversations so that I'm not worried about. The rare screechers I encounter at a bar I'll walk away from.

Online? Meh. I treat anything online like a fantasy novel.

[–]EightBitEmi[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, someone seems to be okay with being bothered with the drama now, are we? Lol You seem to be the fuel that lights that fire in honest discussion and opinion. Oh, the hypocrisy of it all.

And there goes those personal attacks I referenced - good day m’lady, it was a nice, short chat while it lasted. It’s a sad, sad bitter end to a potentially good conversation. I should have never replied after seeing the word “drama” and “winning” (since that’s entirely besides the point) being used in the first place; my mistake, I should’ve know. đŸ‘‹đŸŒ

[–]asianabsinthe0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

"Winning" occurs after I provide evidence, articles, and real life examples and situations placed into scenarios they'll understand so they see that modern day "feminism" is cancerous and a detriment to society. "Losing" would mean they ignore everything and go to the next person to continue their tirade about "down with the patriarchy" for no reason or evidence.

[–]EightBitEmi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, I’d advise that you don’t treat anything “online” as a fantasy novel, because unfortunately the internet is a POWERFUL and very REAL tool used by many to manipulate the masses with their “woe is me” agenda (i.e. Feminism)

It’s really easy to become intimidated and just “accept” what someone’s saying face-to-face because a large majority of the human population is HORRIFIED of confrontation so they just want to get the subject out of the way as quickly as possible - even if that means pretending to admit defeat, as you’ve stated, just to rant on about it and make believe a problem/conjure up a false story online on their computers when they run home.

Hiding behind a computer is easy and you can literally say whatever you want without feeling threatened. You can edit what you say if you happen to stumble on your words, you can always go back and change it. (although usually they won’t because they’re truly so delusional in being 100% correct and shutting off any opposition) People are brave behind their computer screens, and actually quite bold in even the most clearly ignorant of opinions.

But like I said, they’re allowed to. It’s unfortunate, but it’s a fact and we can’t deny it. If they’re willing to talk, TALK - if they aren’t, don’t waste your time. I’m all for that. Time is valuable and should be used wisely on things that are worthwhile and showing themselves to bear promising fruit.

So please, don’t dismiss speaking up “online” because these are REAL people that are effecting other REAL (usually very young and sadly impressionable) young generation of people.

It’s a pretty big deal, so I wanted to touch on that point. Your careless persona is admirable I suppose, I can see you’re about “keeping your cool” and “winning” but that shouldn’t be what it’s about.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]EightBitEmi[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the perfect comparison. And it’s funny, isn’t it? They act so well-established in themselves but are constantly seeking identity and approval by whining and feeling like they have to prove themselves. That doesn’t necessarily scream self-established, it screams insecure and uncertain.

The one true sign that someone is sure of themselves is someone that doesn’t feel like they have to argue and prove themselves, because they’re sure of themselves and they don’t need to hear it from others, although like I said, they do the complete opposite.

Glad you left such a bitter, unhappy, grudge-holding group of bickering manipulative insecure “women” with imaginary oppression. đŸ‘đŸ»

[–]haydensushiguy4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I love these type of women

[–]Lazysweetness4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I cannot upvote this comment enough.

[–]rbecker2603 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Massive respect to you very few women that I know of can take off these bullshit feminist rose covered glasses and see it for what it really is.

[–]sensual_predditor4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

how dare you make up your own damn mind, report for reprogramming at once

[–]Endeavour21501 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The post and the comments. Your mindset and the way you actually exchange ... That self control.

Absolute powermove

[–]EightBitEmi[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why thank you, kind sir. It’s the way it should be despite our disagreements in any matter!

[–]Ronnattt1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I completely agree. I’m also a woman and woman always assume I’m a 4th wave feminist. And if they find out I’m not they hate me. I think that’s so childish because you don’t have to hate someone just because you don’t agree with them. My best friend has radically different opinions to me and we love discussing them.

I am also quite traditional as I was raised that way. But I’m also naturally a masculine woman. I manage to be both. I am true to my masculine side while also being traditional. It’s a nice balance.

Most of the men I know are not for this 4th wave feminism. But have to be cautious. And according to my male friends it’s exhausting.

[–]DanknessEvermemes0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

People should be allowed to live their lives without people pushing them to do something because they are X thing. You should be allowed to do whatever you want isnt that the point in the freedom that people have fought for and died for?

​

Why do people judge overs for how they live their lives and pester someone for not abiding by their way of life because they are on the other side of the fence. Aslong as it aint illegal or imposing on the freedom of others then let them be.

[–]EightBitEmi[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I AM letting them be. I have not ONCE mentioned in my posting or comments that they CAN’T think or be this way; I’m simply stating my opinion and the way that it has affected ME personally in unfavorable ways, just as they stand for whatever they want to stand for and state their (in my opinion and quite a few others) less than reasonable opinions. That’s the beauty of freedom, isn’t it? Not only in doing and being what you want but in being able to voice your opinion on it whether you agree or disagree. It wouldn’t be freedom otherwise. Only problem is, while I do say, despite my disagreements, that anyone can do and be what they want, I have my standpoints as well and I have the FREEDOM to express those standpoints and live by them, and possibly get people to be open to discussion rather than closing off their minds and ears, this is what true debate is. It isn’t loud screaming and whining, it’s listening and considering and then voicing an opinion - sadly, many modern-day feminist lack this respect and only care about their one-track-mind tunnel vision ideologies. They are unwilling to hear anyone else, and that’s already extremely flawed when it comes to views and opinions. You have to be open to discussion and opinion, because not everyone is going to agree with you and not everyone is going to disagree with you, realistically.

So I agree with you, ma’am/sir, people can be and do as they please, I didn’t think that my post would reach the masses and convert people to my way of life - I’m simply, and FREELY, stating my opinion, in which I am very much allowed to do. Lol It’d be idiotic to try and change someone or something in a world of 7 billion - but it won’t stop me from having my very own opinion and it won’t stop anyone else from having theirs. It’s called being human, and having a brain of your own. đŸ‘đŸ»

[–]DanknessEvermemes2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh no I’m not calling you out but rather them

[–]EightBitEmi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, apologies. I mean, it still stands either way. Sadly a part of freedom is opinion but a lot of these feminazi’s are exactly that, NAZIS. They want you to comply and agree. Disagreement is futile and you’re a misogynistic pig rapist if you think otherwise! Lol it’s ridiculous. And don’t get me started on violence. They are extremely violent people.

[–]femenisthere-2 points-1 points  (36 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is as much about the choice as it is about equality. I have a good friend whose ultimate dream is to be a housewife and mum which if that's what she and her partner want than all power to them but that does not mean these ideals should be forced onto other like they have been for so long and it doe not been it should be expected. Your post jut reads iM nOT lIke OTheR GirLZ. I would really encourage you to read real feminist texts also ones from from the current century (as there are various 'waves' of feminism)

​

Also how has feminism screwed up marriages, wasn't it domestic abuse and high rates of depression among housewives in the early 20th century that changed families for the worse? Don't over-glorify what you don't understand. I come from a middle Eastern family/community which is very traditional. i have experienced what you claim to idealise and let me tell you it is full of affairs, trauma and abuse. That doesn't stop everyone from continuing in their gender roles and hiding their dirty laundry as they continue to conform to the patriarchy. So as for your 'theory' about people from stable homes, I'm here to tell you that is wasn't true for my community and while coming from a home with a breadwinner dad and a mum to nurture has made me stronger, it has only done so in all the wrong ways. It has made my siblings and I traumatised after my dad was forced to stay with my abusive mum because divorce is stigmatised and only 'tradition' is acceptable. At least I learnt to stand up for myself however I feel sorry for my brothers who the patriarchy has taught to 'man up' and hide your feelings/not cry which has worsened their mental health leading to aggressive issues in my older brother and saddness in my younger one.

​

I hope you get your nuclear family and I hope it works out but you know little about what feminism actually is and what the nuclear family has meant for so long or you wouldn't be saying this.

[–]duhhhh2 points3 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Also how has feminism screwed up marriages, wasn't it domestic abuse and high rates of depression among housewives in the early 20th century that changed families for the worse?

Feminists have repeatedly blocked progress towards men's DV shelters/services that could potentially cut the rate that women are murdered by their husbands. It worked for women murdering their husbands because they had no good options. Why not save women's lives by giving men the same options instead of using the womens deaths for money and power? /r/MensRights/comments/e6hxvq/battered_husband_syndrome_as_an_explanation_for/

Why has women's happiness both overall and relative to men been declining for the last 50 years if peak depression was over 100 years ago?

[–]femenisthere0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

/r/MensRights/comments/e6hxvq/battered_husband_syndrome_as_an_explanation_for/

I agree with you. I am a feminist so I agree in equal acess. Where have you seen feminist block male sherlters and services as this is not the case in my country ???? Also the post you shared seems to be about battered womens syndrome which is a general term for IPV victims eventually killing their abusers after fearing they can never escape or that their abusers will kill them having been threatened for years. Men can also be battered and kill their abuser, especially in queer relationships. Do you believe abuse victims killing their abuser is not a mitigating factor for any gender? Just to clarify it is actually a mitigating factor for both genders it just so happens that more often women are the victims. Since domestic violence is something that disproportionately affects females, particularly in my country, it makes sense that there are specific organisations focused on them. These organisations are fully entitled to. I never thought my comment would lead to this kind of conversation but very interesting. Personally, I can accept that opinion but I think it is unfair to victims.

Also diagnosis and mental health stigma has changed drastically which means we cannot really rely on past information from 100 years ago. I mean depression didn't even exist in 100 AD, just because it was not commonly documented or given a term didn't mean it didn't exist. It is worth noting that despite stigma, in the last century women at the time had a whole mental illness dedicated for them even, 'hysteria'. Fortunately, resources and our understanding has improved allowing us to spot illness better. People are also more likely to seek help unlike people from the past who did not want to be viewed as crazy or ostracised. In the community I grew up in mental health was still stigmatised and my mum refused to get help for a long time insisting she was perfectly fine. However a normal person doesn't try to kill themselves multiple times but she feared what others would think/we didnt have mental health access. So just because she wasnt diagnosed doesnt mean it wasn't an issue. Make sense?

[–]duhhhh1 point2 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

I am a feminist so I agree in equal acess.

The feminists with influence in my country act very differently.

Where have you seen feminist block male sherlters and services as this is not the case in my country ????

UK, Canada, and USA. Domestic violence research and services have become government funded "businesses". They don't want to give up the influence or share funding.

Do you believe abuse victims killing their abuser is not a mitigating factor for any gender?

I do. I have only seen consideration for this from the courts and media for women. I have never seen a man given any consideration for this and in my country men do not have nearly the support resources to get themselves and especially their children out of an abusive relationship. I agree with the speculation in that link that more men probably murder and/or suicide because they feel that is the best option available to them because they don't have access to less bad options available to women in my country.

[–]femenisthere0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Sorry could you give me specific examples rather than nations? I understand that resources are gov funded but I fail to see how that is sexist so more specific-explanations would be helpful.

In terms of men not having access, that is terrible! Feminist argue that Male victims of iPV are disadvantaged by the patriarchy-because society teachers man that only 'weak' emasculate men are victims so they wont pursue help/feel more vulnerable. Moreover, inequality of access for these victims leading to suicide or murder is so sad. What you believe in is indeed feminist and I would be happy to help you perhaps set up an organisation to focus on providing male aid?

[–]duhhhh1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I suggest reading about Erin Pizzey. She was initially a feminist hero for opening the worlds first few DV shelters. Then she suggested women could be violent and men needed a shelter too. Her dog was killed, there were death threats against her children, and she was slandered for this "betrayal". She fled the country and her name was erased from the history of the organization she founded. You can find much of this in the overview section of her wikipedia page. Once her kids grew up she became an advocate for domestic violence shelters AND a vocal anti-feminist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

Earl Silverman was blocked for funding for years in Canada by feminist lobbiests that insisted there weren't enough abused men to justify one (and only one) in Canada. Women needed the funding more.

https://womenspost.ca/owner-of-shelter-for-abused-men-and-children-commits-suicide-after-financial-ruin-ridicule/

I can't find a link to the US one, but there were people actually picketing that one.

[–]femenisthere0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

That is actually so screwed up and thank you so much for sharing! but do not take the radicals as an example of ideology in practice or a whole movement. Further, I will have to do a lot of research in Pizzey but it seems that she is very anti-militant feminist which are very small minority and were more of a thing in the late 60s-70s and have mostly died out since. Regardless, these people are not true feminist and do not represent us on the whole at all. To make a comparison for you, Fundamentalist Christians or even just conservative christians picket abortion clinics all the time and have always advocated for pro-life laws forbidding everyone - religious or not - form abortions. Yet I do not hate them or disregard their belief system because of it. Christianity is about if one believes the core paradigm at the end of the day and not about picketing. So I wont hate all christians for it because some bad ones along the way have eroded on peoples freedoms.

[–]duhhhh1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Regardless, these people are not true feminist and do not represent us on the whole at all.

Unfortunately they are typical of the feminist researchers, lobbiests, and public policy makers in my country. I started off feminist and eventually noticed what the feminists were doing was creating more inequality not fighting for equality. I want the dictionary definition of feminism which is not feminism where I live.

[–]femenisthere0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It is not typical. I have just told you and also my logic about not basing the whole group on the one still applies. Further, I have read American policy briefs when writing my own, I have also written one about LGBT+ IPV which focused on feminist streams and have not found what you say to be true. I genuinely used feminist american sources when writing mine. Yes some older sources havent been the best. Maybe you have political figures who act in such a way but you can not talk for the literature (pretty much most of the academia I read is American) or policy briefs as you will find that you are wrong about them not being this 'typical' you speak of. Also if you do like the dictionary meaning of what feminism is then you are a feminist. you can be against specific-groups like militant feminism - I mean I hate certain groups and consider them counter productive but i am still a feminist. Reclaim feminism in your country (which might be easier than you think seeing as you have already overestimated the so called majority) tell the people claiming to be feminist that they're doing it wrong, correct them and keep fighting for an egalitarian society. You can do it! Be strong, I believe in you! Have more hope, hopefully you will find your group of feminist. Fingers crossed for you.

[–]duhhhh1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

but you can not talk for the literature (pretty much most of the academia I read is American) or policy briefs as you will find that you are wrong about them not being this 'typical' you speak of

Let me explain American rape statistics. 99% of rapists are men. We have countless programs to shame boys and teach them not to rape and separate programs to teach girls how to recognize and report rape. Not gender neutral consent education. Why? Respected academic researchers that make policy briefs.

For statistical reporting, rape has been carefully defined as forced penetration of the victim in most of the world. You should listen to this feminist professor Mary P Koss explain that a woman raping a man isn't rape. Hear her explain in her own voice just a few years ago - https://clyp.it/uckbtczn. I encourage you to listen to what she is saying. (Really. Listen to it! Think about it from a man's perspective.)

She is considered the foremost expert on sexual violence in the US. She is the one that started the 1 in 4 American college women is sexually assaulted myth by counting all sorts of things the "victims" didn't. A man misinterpreting a situation going in for a kiss and then backing off when she pulls back, puts up her hand, or turns her cheek is counted as sexual assault on a woman. As you hear in her own words the woman's studies professor and trusted expert that literally wrote the book on measuring prevalence of sexual violence does not call a woman drugging and riding a man bareback rape ... or even label it sexual assault ... it is merely "unwanted contact"

You see she has been saying this for decades and was instrumental in creating the methodologies most (including the US and many other government agencies around the world) use for gathering rape statistics. E.g.

Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods. Author: Mary P. Koss. Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume: 8 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1993) Page: 206

Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.

Src: http://boysmeneducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Koss-1993-Detecting-the-Scope-of-Rape-a-review-of-prevalence-research-methods-see-p.-206-last-paragraph.pdf

She is an advisor to the CDC, FBI, Congress, and researchers around the world and promoting the idea that men cannot be raped by women. There was a proposal to explicitly include forced envelopment in the latest FBI update to the definition of rape but after a closed door meeting with her and N.O.W. lobbiests, it mysteriously disappeared. She has many many followers and fellow researchers that use her methodology and quote her studies. That is where most people get the idea rape is just a man on woman crime. Men are fairly rarely penetrated and it is almost always by another man.

Most people talking about sexual violence refer to the "rape" (penetrated) numbers as influenced by Mary Koss's methodologies, but in the US the CDC also gathered the data for "made to penetrate" (enveloped) in the 2010, 2011, and 2015 NISVS studies.

As an example lets look at the 2011 survey numbers: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm

an estimated 1.6% of women (or approximately 1.9 million women) were raped in the 12 months before taking the survey

and

The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate.

vs

an estimated 1.7% of men were made to penetrate a perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey

and

Characteristics of Sexual Violence Perpetrators For female rape victims, an estimated 99.0% had only male perpetrators. In addition, an estimated 94.7% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape had only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (an estimated 79.3%) had only male perpetrators. For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims had only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (an estimated 82.6%), sexual coercion (an estimated 80.0%),

So if made to penetrate happens each year as much as rape then by most people's assumed definition of rape then men are half of rape victims. If 99% of rapists are men and 83% of "made to penetrators" are women ... then an estimated 42% of the perpetrators of nonconsensual sex in 2011 were women.

But since made to penetrate is not rape, the narrative is that men are rapists and women are victims and boys/men that are victims are victims of men. Therefore most of the gender studies folks create programs to teach men not to rape (e.g. /r/science/comments/3rmapx/science_ama_series_im_laura_salazar_associate/). Therefore there is justification for having gendered rape support services which means almost none for males victimized by females.

And before you think that was just one study, it wasn't. The prior year numbers have been pretty close between the sexes every year.

2015 survey results - https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

2010 survey results - https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_ipv_report_2013_v17_single_a.pdf

Scientific American - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known

data revealed that over one year, men and women were equally likely to experience nonconsensual sex, and most male victims reported female perpetrators. Over their lifetime, 79 percent of men who were “made to penetrate” someone else (a form of rape, in the view of most researchers) reported female perpetrators. Likewise, most men who experienced sexual coercion and unwanted sexual contact had female perpetrators.

And non CDC study...

A recent study of youth found, strikingly, that females comprise 48 percent of those who self-reported committing rape or attempted rape at age 18-19.

The Atlantic - https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/

Another non CDC study...

a 2014 study of 284 men and boys in college and high school found that 43 percent reported being sexually coerced, with the majority of coercive incidents resulting in unwanted sexual intercourse. Of them, 95 percent reported only female perpetrators.

And another non CDC study...

National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions found in a sample of 43,000 adults little difference in the sex of self-reported sexual perpetrators. Of those who affirmed that they had ‘ever forced someone to have sex with you against their will,’ 43.6 percent were female and 56.4 percent were male.”

Time - http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers

when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

Just maybe, rape isn't a gendered issue and we should stop treating it like one. But if we acknowledge that, then we would have to point the blame at "rapists", rather than "men". Feminists are not speaking out against this in the name of equality.

If you want to go into Domestic Violence policy, look into the real world consequences for men of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence Intervention created by Ellen Pence. Men in my country who call the police while being beaten by their wives are statistically more likely to be arrested than the perpetrator because of police training. That is feminist public policy. Feminists are not widely speaking out against this for equality.

Also if you do like the dictionary meaning of what feminism is then you are a feminist.

What did you just call me? I'm highly offended. You've been so civil this whole time too!

[–]duhhhh1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Feminist argue that Male victims of iPV are disadvantaged by the patriarchy-because society teachers man that only 'weak' emasculate men are victims so they wont pursue help/feel more vulnerable.

A lot of men don't realize they are victims because society hammers it into their heads not to hit women and women are the victims of domestic violence, not men. There is little gender neutral domestic violence research or education UK/CA/US/AUS/NZ. The focus is "violence against women" and that is what matters.

Moreover, inequality of access for these victims leading to suicide or murder is so sad.

In Australia a feminist organization advertised a men's domestic abuse hotline for Covid-19 DV issues. They didn't advertise it was a line for men who couldn't control their anger and were committing DV. So the men calling for help were accused of being the violent ones and became more despondent. Then the organization that had the hotline put out press releases about all the violent men calling and got more funding to deal with this epidemic of male violence during the Covid epidemic. I don't know what country you are from, but know that the first world anti-feminism comes from actions like this. Efforts to help women are good. Efforts to demonize men and prevent them from getting resources are all too common.

[–]femenisthere0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Your initial point is just agreeing with feminism. It is such a shame that society perceived only women is victims because only women are weak enough. This is what we can sexist and it disadvantages man. Also there is a fantastic text by feminist Jess Hill 'See What You Made Me Do' which is about not taking the extreme feminist route of modeling IPV services as treating people for misogyny nor the opposite of assuming mental health concerns. She takes the middle path and suggests shame has a-lot to do with reasons for abuse.

Also I have scavenged the internet for what you claim about Australia (including right wing media sites in Australia who would be the first to report such a thing like the daily telegraph, sky news and the Australian) but can not find anything. Sources please

[–]duhhhh1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-03/mens-referral-service-family-violence-coronavirus/12207558

https://mensline.org.au/changingforgood/what-is-changing-for-good/

[–]femenisthere0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Sorry did you not read the abc article from australia?? no wonder i couldnt find what you were talking about >

The service is for men who are "seeking help either because they're using violence in their relationships or they're worried they're going to," says Greg Wilkinson, head of services at No To Violence." according to the article which means that yes these services are about dealing with abusers and will obviously use techniques to change them. Duhhhhhhhh.

The article also says "Still, in recent weeks MRS staff have seen old tricks take new forms as the pandemic shapes patterns of abuse: men threatening to expose their wives or kids to friends they claim are infected with the virus; men who are even more tightly controlling their partner's movements because they're together all the time; men lashing out when they're stressed about money, or because they disagree with how their partner's parenting their kids, or because they've just lost their job — a common theme counsellors have been picking up on recently." Please read the article again so you can understand why the service is dealing with male abusers in the way that they are. You had me thinking the hotline was for male victims of violence not the perpetrators.

The article says half of man hang up but that is a reflection of the male abusers not wanting to deal with their actions.

The article also says "For those who stay on the line, counsellors have up to 40 minutes to unpack "what's going on": Why were the police called? How does he think his behaviour affected his partner and kids? What support might he need so it doesn't happen again" it is so crystal clear that it is about male abusers and changing them for the better. The website also makes explicit who the program is for. Abusive males keen to change. Importantly, they mention it is a voluntary program. You completely skewed what this is about. What is wrong with any of this??

[–]duhhhh1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The service is for men who are "seeking help either because they're using violence in their relationships or they're worried they're going to," says Greg Wilkinson, head of services at No To Violence." according to the article which means that yes these services are about dealing with abusers and will obviously use techniques to change them. Duhhhhhhhh.

It was advertised as a mens hotline for help with domestic abuse. There was no indication that it was a hotline for abusers. Men being abused called it and were treated as perpetrators.

Please read the article again so you can understand why the service is dealing with male abusers in the way that they are. You had me thinking the hotline was for male victims of violence not the perpetrators.

Again the hotline was not advertised in this way. Many men called for help as victims. Someone sent screenshots from Facebook with the ad. The ad did not indicate it was a perpetrator hotline.

The article says half of man hang up but that is a reflection of the male abusers not wanting to deal with their actions.

Also the actions of abused men being abused by callbacks from what was simply advertised as a domestic abuse support hotline.

You completely skewed what this is about. What is wrong with any of this??

The ads for the hotline were vague so men mistakenly assumed a mens domestic abuse support hotline was to support men being abused. The purpose was to increase call volume, not to help men.

[–]femenisthere-2 points-1 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Also in response to some direct comments you make:

you say: "The way a man approaches me in all aspects is, for the lack of a better word, assuming, and with bitterness."

Isn't this the very reason why we need feminism? People should not be presumptive and initially bitter against you because of your sex and because they assume your ideology.

you say: "women instantly assume I’m on their side (when they do happen to be feminists) simply because I’m a woman."

it must be terrible to have people expect support ????? individual is a 21st century thing yet you glorify the old days where they values community. At least have some consistency. But whatever not my main point.

you say: mans defences are up"when simply DATING a woman. (Dating, being the first step into a potential serious relationship, and then marriage. Hardly reaches that point anymore. Lol)"

Maybe man just don't want to date you. The feminist I know have no problem dating or marrying. I am very happily in a serious relationship with the man of my dreams who respects me and is also a feminist. Seems like a YOU problem.

You seem to use the word narcissist a lot. Learn what the word means, you speak more like a narcissist than anyone from the little I've seen you type. You are definitely projecting. Just because you use that word doesn't make it true. Your language is beyond passive aggressive. Also your term femanazi is outright inappropriate the feminist movement is not comparable to the fascist nazis. Feminist don't put people in concentration camps and imperialise land. That was a disgusting analogy to make and you should be ashamed. You seem to be in a world of privilege that makes you believe the slightest bit of hurt you feel is the greatest injustice, the feminist movement is so much more than women assuming you're a feminist. Get over yourself.

[–]EightBitEmi[S] 5 points6 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Woah there, a worthy comment, I like it.

I read through, and what you seem to be describing is sensible, old-fashioned feminism(to an extent); you know, one that ACTUALLY changed history. (The right for women to vote, having a say in decisions in the home, etc.) I’m not against that at all. I’m against new wave feminism, 100%.

I want to first touch on the part where you said no one wants to date me, because I do, in fact, have a boyfriend. Of course we have similar views, otherwise we wouldn’t necessarily be together, because that’s how it works. This is GENERALLY speaking from experience as a whole, from when I was single or when I was in past relationships where I was treated that way - it isn’t the case in the one I’m in now, just want to get that part straight and out of the way. Also, generally speaking in terms of friendships with men as well, it’s tough because their defenses are up, and I don’t blame them, as I’ve stated.

Women assuming I’m a feminist simply because I’m a woman is forceful and presumptive, because the moment I say that I’m not and that I disagree with a lot of their ideology, you know what happens? I get an earful. It isn’t an “oh, you’re not a feminist and have a different view of your own? Can we hear it? We’re willing to listen”, It’s “wow you’re so weak you must rely on a man for blah blah blah blah blah [insert negative assumptions and bitterness here and interrupts anything and everything I try to say because it doesn’t suit their agenda]” all because I don’t share their ideologies. That’s forceful, manipulative, and narcissistic, and not seeking for support whatsoever. I truly don’t know where you’re getting “asking for support” from any of that. It’s never to ask for “support” it’s always in forcefully expecting me to share their ideologies right off the bat, SIMPLY because I happen to be a woman and in the 21st century, they never respect and assume that I may just have my very own brain and point of view outside of their own. I don’t know if I can stress that enough.

As for needing feminism so that people won’t be presumptive and initially bitter, it’s BECAUSE of feminism that it’s that way. New wave feminists are narcissistic and bitter, yes, I said it again, because it’s ABSOLUTELY TRUE and I stand on that with the utmost confidence; they call themselves “queens” and “bosses” and a plethora of other highly self-endearing things that just screams, “look at me, I’m insecure and hurt and I’m going to pretend I’m confident and sure of myself by seeking approval all while being haughty and prideful and full of myself to prove a point!”. Not to mention, they’re PHYSICALLY violent and they scream at the top of their lungs when they’re protesting or speaking with someone that disagrees with even one point they’ll make - when someone is sure of themselves and are well established, they won’t feel the need to yell or kick or scream and they definitely wouldn’t have to constantly and forcefully push themselves into the spotlight of media and just everything in general if they were.

I’d like to agree on the point that you made about some feminists are willing and open to marriage and such, I never said ALL feminists were against these things - I said that MOST of them are - and I’m sorry, but they’re making you and these feminists look bad. In every following there’s always one that’s rotting and molding over, and guess what? It tarnishes the entire batch, it’s unfortunate. I speak on statistics, and I’m highly aware that there is a still a sensible (although, unfortunately SMALL) percentage of “feminists”. So, don’t get me wrong, I hear you, and I believe you. I’m willing to hear you out and agree with some of your points, and I’m open to being enlightened.

Narcissistic? I would ask what you perceived as narcissistic in any of my postings, but of course, I know that at the core of this opinion, it’s simply because I’m talking about MY opinion and not yours - so it’s narcissistic. I’m also a racist nazi misogynist and a weakling if I don’t agree with you, right? Lol Let’s just toss “narcissist” in there simply because it’s a word I’ve happened to use against your point of view frequently and quite justifiably - if anything, you’re the one that’s honesty projecting because you seem to be using what I’ve said against me, simply because I’ve said it. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be calling me a narcissist if I agreed with you and didn’t piss you off with my own opinion, right? But let’s not start personally attacking each other here, that’s ALWAYS the end of a good debate/conversation because it has nothing to do with the meat of the subject and more to do with individuals and that never goes anywhere but in and endless circle of senselessness where we only end up biting our own tails.

I’m not glorifying myself - like I’ve stated in one or more of my comments, everyone has the right to their opinions whether we agree or disagree, but the beauty of it is that we CAN have opinions - doesn’t sound like something a narcissist would say. A narcissist is set in their demanding, manipulative ways and is the ONLY one who is right and EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG. Sound familiar? Lol I’ve considered feminism and I’ve even looked into pro-feminist writings and groups and NOTHING could convince me that it was a healthy group of women to follow. But at least I considered it - they didn’t. I was a heathen for disagreeing at all and I wasn’t allowed to say anything opposed to what they were saying.

The literal definition of narcissistic, “having an excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance.” Women. They’re obsessed with women and putting them on a pedestal and everyone has to kiss their feet and call them queens and girl bosses. Don’t get me started on appearance either, the whole body positivity movement is also highly flawed. “What, you’re not attracted to fat women? You’re shallow and you deserve to die. How dare you have personal preferences.” And again, I’ll say it, it’s extremely forceful and manipulative. They’re forcing their way into many aspects, even in who people SHOULD be dating whether they’re attracted to them or not. And yes, physical attraction is a thing, emotion is a part of it but physical attraction is as well, so please don’t try and pull the “hE sHoUlD sImPlY bE aTtRacTED tO hEr fOr wHo ShE iS”. Sure, have that opinion, you’re ALLOWED to, but you can NEVER physically force someone to literally date you just because you’re hurt that they won’t because they don’t prefer you over another. It’s called a “personal preference” for a reason, because it’s PERSONAL. This is common sense - but of course, emotion shuns common sense and logic and is dependent on what they’re feeling, and simply that. Nothing more. Emotion and thought are meant to work together, not one singled out and without the other.

“iM nOt lIkE oTheR GiRlZ” lol oh boy, you have no idea how many times I’ve been called “basic” for being a traditionalist woman. So, it’s actually quite the opposite. And I actually have no problem with being like other girls, because the reality is, there are other girls like me, and I’m happy that there are - my only hope is that more join me. If I didn’t want to be like other girls, I wouldn’t be encouraging them to consider my point of view. I’m not so insecure to try and be different and rebellious so people will pay attention to me and favor me, and I’ve never cared what anyone thinks of me. Basic, unique, or not. I’m, me. I’m established and all of that is for insecure people who feel like they need to be “different” to be “special”. No one is special, we all just have different views and THAT’S ALRIGHT.

My favorite part - me using the term “feminazi” being highly inappropriate. Are you blind and deaf to the EXTREME things they’ve called people for disagreeing with their point of view or even simply existing as a man? I’m sure you’re no stranger to it, since you’re a part of this community and I’m almost 100% sure you’ve come across the disgusting things they’ve said and have called people for disagreeing with anything they say, or to men for simply existing as a man. You’d be in denial to say this isn’t extremely prevalent within the feminist community.

“You seem to be in a world of privilege that makes you believe the slightest bit of hurt you feel is the greatest injustice,” does this not ring a bell? This perfectly explains the very FOUNDATION and drive of modern day feminism, but since you’re trapped in that box of herd thinking - I wouldn’t expect you to see that. I hope you take a peek outside of it though, in other words, I can only simply hope that you maybe, MAYBE consider what others have to say.

Have your opinion, be a feminist, stand up for the sensible feminists that are still around and DO exist, because like I said, a mass majority of the women placing themselves under the same category aren’t helping your cause and they’re only making you, and unfortunately, me, look bad. Redeem your “feminist” name, because it’s been tarnished.

[–]EightBitEmi[S] 4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

[continued]

Plus, we have it good. If you really want to bring feminism to a place that needs it, look to third-world countries where women are being SLAUGHTERED like cattle for even showing their ankles or their faces, or stating even the slightest opinion whatsoever. I couldn’t blame them for being these “feminazis” we have here in the United States - in fact, I’d encourage them to kick and scream and FIGHT for their rights because they don’t have any - YOU do, and so do I. If we didn’t, and if we were in their unfortunate shoes, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, not out in the open or on an open, public platform. So, embrace it. Embrace your freedom of opinion and be open to others because you’re LUCKY to be able to. Feminists, SJW’s, etc. here in the US are just bored and looking for anything to bitch about, they don’t have a single clue how absolutely privileged they are. It’s unfortunate but I embrace opinion because I know for a fact that many aren’t even allowed to have it. You aren’t oppressed, wage-gaps are imaginary and and no one’s telling you you can’t climb to the top. Anyone can, that’s entirely up to you. You can whine and complain and stay stagnant or you can do as you please and move forward.

[–]femenisthere-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah sweetie you're talking to a middle eastern person, I know we need help. Feminist know we need help. Again, only white marketplace feminist that are non-intersectional and do not care for these injustices would disagree with you. And they don’t represent the real movement. I am apart of several groups attempting to help other women in developing countries, clearly real feminist know this is an issue and are working on it to the best of their ability. You said nothing revolutionary and nothing that makes my ideology wrong in your clear attempt to belittle me. It is also worth noting that I currently don’t live in an American country and freedom of speech is not covered in my constitution so another irrelevant (and assumptive as always) point from you. Again because you are so privileged you do not realise that there are injustices happening in your country that even these women are still struggling with like some I mentioned in pt1. Also, oppression is so much more about voting rights, it is as implicit as it is explicit. This is a whole other debate. You have yet to reply to my initial body of text. I also never mentioned the wage gap. That is always the one thing anti-feminist mention (besides #killallman which is a misandry thing and not feminist) and yet I never ever mention it so it is not relevant here. So yeah keep saying that I’m whining as I actually attempt to address the things that you identify as issues not knowing that they affect me very much. You know what else I wonder after you use the word whining to connotate western women? I wonder whether you consider female genital mutilation or homeless women not able to afford tampons thus developing period related diseases from the poor hygiene 'whining'?? In terms of the wage gap and other bs you brought up keep creating other arguments you think you can tear down to distract from real debates and what I have actually said.

​

Trust me I don’t need you telling me any bit of that last reply but of course you believed that only you and your fellow anti-feminist had ever thought of that and you must be oh so clever! ridiculous. I even mentioned in my initial post how I came from a middle eastern community. Never once did I complain about oppression yet you had the audacity to say I was “deaf and blind” earlier. Maybe read my posts that is why I write them after all. I dont need you to tell me what disadvantage is like or that I should observe it because i have had no choice but to do so. I will not just have some American assume Im ignorant and that only they have a right to decide who is privileged or not. Besides the whole point of new wave feminism is to educate previous feminist on the fact that they have been privileged and should fight for all not just educated, wealthy, able bodied western women. Here you are pulling shit out of your ass. Because you're used to attacking dumb buzz words which dont apply to me nor have I ever mentioned and you're obsessed with ad hominem. I thought you were ok till you arrived at this final paragraph which just comes across so damn arrogant. I AM MIDDLE EASTERN. I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN TO THESE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES YOU TALK ABOUT. I AM A NEW WAVE FEMINIST. I VOLUNTEER WITH OTHER NEW WAVE FEMINIST IN AN ORGANISATION WHICH FIGHTS PERIOD POVERTY IN THESE POOR COUNTRIES AS, BECAUSE OF FEMINISM, THESE WOMEN REALISE THERE IS INJUSTICE EVERYWHERE. ALL INJUSTICE FACED BY MAN OR WOMEN ON THE BASIS OF THEIR SEX IS WRONG AND I WANT TO FIX THAT. IS ANY OF THAT WRONG OR INCONSISTENT? ONLY YOU HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT. ALSO SOMETIMES I CANT EVEN TELL IF YOU'RE AGREEING OR DISAGREEING WITH THE WHOLE OF FEMINISM. WHAT YOU HAVE JUST SAID IS A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT FEMINIST TELL OFF ‘MARKETPLACE FEMINIST’ FOR. AND MOVE FORWARD TO WHAT?

[–]Broadside_Beers2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Eh, it seems the main effort across the scope of all your arguments is to disassociate feminism from misandry and its related practices, rhetoric, social-political influences and scholarship.

Unfortunately, just because you feel that you’re in the good and true brand of feminism, you’re really not. Feminism as an ideology has existed independently of you and other groups that espouse to be feminists since at least 1848. And it will continue to exist after you’re gone.

If only more people who truly believed in equality and human rights signed up to be “humanism” or “egalitarianism” then Feminism would stop getting a free-pass with its duplicitous and misandrist nature.

Anyway, power to you for working in areas that actually need attention and will be actively saving lives, regardless of gender. But from people who also truly care about equal rights it would be really swell if you and others like you could stop doing it under the banner of Feminism as it only gives them freedom to keep on with their manipulative agenda, instil young minds with a sense of victimhood status and entitlement (or self-hatred if they’re boys), and free them and their destructive and hateful actions from scrutiny.

[–]femenisthere-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

U say: Unfortunately, just because you feel that you’re in the good and true brand of feminism, you’re really not.

Well guess what, I don’t just ‘feel’ that I am in the majority. You seem to be the one who is seeing what they want based on how they feel as you have been exposed to a very specific and actually small scale brand of feminism that hasn’t even existed that long. However, due to media attention, shitty feminist cringe comps of silly baby feminist/misandrist, living in a bubble or perhaps surrounding yourself by a choir of anti-feminism, you believe them to represent the larger part of feminism. I can say that I am a part of the majority with authority because what I have said is actually what gender theorist teach and is what literature is about. No academic lit actually talks about the bs you say feminism is. Besides academia has to have integrity and among the first thing people learn is how to formulate an argument which has to fit a criteria to make sure it is ‘valid’ (in the academic sense of the word) otherwise it will not be published so if you do not believe feminist text then don’t believe any theory texts as than nothing has integrity. So, do not tell me I am in the minority because of how you feel or because of people on twitter.

​

U: Feminism as an ideology has existed independently of you and other groups that espouse to be feminists since at least 1848. And it will continue to exist after you’re gone.

Youre attempting here to depict me in such a way as if I am ignorant of feminism as a movement despite the fact that I am the only person who actually recognises what that entails and that means feminism does get to be diverse as all movements are. I know the movement existed way before and will continue to exist way after me as I am not arrogant. Never did I insinuate it would not. So, this attempt to belittle me rather than all the many arguments I made, is moot. I already know this, and all my points still stand so how about you come for that. Like all movements it will develop subcultures, spinoffs, post-thought, different forms and so forth. What is so hard to get? The only things you seem able to attack are misandry or what feminists deem marketplace feminism which has really taken shape in the last decade (media is the apparatus of change used by privileged people to make feminism seem accessible and cool) These two groups are not representative of the movement at all. Also, the only thing you seem to know about feminism is it started in 1848. Well yes, the first wave began, so what? What’s your point?

​

U: If only more people who truly believed in equality and human rights signed up to be “humanism” or “egalitarianism” then Feminism would stop getting a free-pass with its duplicitous and misandrist nature.

Well now we can talk about misandry because yes, they’re two different movements and you don’t get to amalgamate them so that way you can convince yourself feminism hates men. It doesn’t make sense, if I wanted to deconstruct the structuralist argument I can’t than attack post-structualism as they are two separate things and if anything, the structuralist will agree with me. Make sense??? Moreover, feminism falls under the umbrella of egalitarianism, they are not mutually exclusive just because you have been brainwashed so. Read the lit. You just seemed pissed of because feminism has ‘fem’ in it – but this Ignores what it actually means. Besides what free pass do you speak of?

​

U: Anyway, power to you for working in areas that actually need attention and will be actively saving lives, regardless of gender. But from people who also truly care about equal rights it would be really swell if you and others like you could stop doing it under the banner of Feminism as it only gives them freedom to keep on with their manipulative agenda, instil young minds with a sense of victimhood status and entitlement (or self-hatred if they’re boys), and free them and their destructive and hateful actions from scrutiny.

No, I will not stop working under the banner of feminism because that is exactly what it is. If there is something that exist for your cause why would you not unite under it? Just because you want reasons to not like it does not mean it is not the correct term to use. I am a feminist and I am a feminist because I believe we cannot have true equality without equality between the sexes. Are you getting it? If I want that then that means I am a feminist. If you want that then that means you are a feminist. Sorry some shit debaters who barely knew what they were talking about ruined the word ‘feminism’ for you but that doesn’t mean demonise a whole movement - as you said it existed before and will exist after you. Elliot Rodgers went on a murder rampage and I don’t tell you to stop using the term ‘men’s rights’. If you believe in a focus on man’s rights over women’s rights than you are a men’s rights activist and I can’t just tell you well find another name. I’m not entitled.

[–]femenisthere-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

you know what I think is happening here. You know I make sense so - besides trying to make it seem as if feminism is this big thing I dont understand (despite the fact that I have actually studied it) - you try to make me seem as if I am a small part of feminism. Cause: "If she makes sense I have to agree with feminism or I could pretend feminism is the opposite and that she speaks for a few so I can continue hating it. I will base a whole movement on a few twitter celebrities, shitty youtube videos of old men talking down college students who barely know what they're talking about or are usually radicals who do not represent us at all, as well as a few people I know in rl. It just has to represent the whole movement because I say so and because I can not see something as bigger than what I have experienced or more than what anti-feminist condition me to think. Fuck the literature and what a majority of feminist actually say. Fuck I'll term the people who actually make sense as "real feminist" and still hate the feminist movement despite agreeing with logical points as "real" because that makes sense. After all anti-feminist have been able to disarm feminist arguments before which makes me confident in disarming feminist points... oh wait their buzzwords and the points that they dismantle aren't actually feminist talking points and these feminist actually make sense. Damn must be a small minority."

instead of down-voting me actually debate my points. The few comments I have received dont even attack logic. You're allowed to not like feminist but dont you dare claim its because it represents what it doesn't. Just admit you dont like egalitarianism and move on.

[–]Broadside_Beers0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I’ll keep it succinct because I’m on a work break;

  1. For someone who talks about academia having integrity you’re awfully naive. Case in point; https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/thewest.com.au/news/world/fake-academic-scandal-adolf-hitlers-mein-kampf-words-used-in-embarrassing-journal-hoax-ng-b88979974z.amp

  2. Also, thank you very much for demonstrating exactly what I said you were doing; attempting to disassociate feminism from hateful misandry. At this point, with all the readily available evidence out there, I have to assume you’re either stubbornly naive or wilfully ignorant. Duluth Model. VAWA. NOW. Rape laws. Domestic Violence laws. DV Shelters (especially re: Erin P.). The Red Pill Documentary by former feminist Cassie J and the reception of that by Australian Media. Title IX on US campuses. So on so forth.

  3. Using the high number of regular humanists who mistakenly label themselves as feminists as evidence that they are the real meaning behind feminism... I get it, and I wish you were right, really. I do. Building on what i said previously; you and your peers are not the representatives of feminism. It’s really a very simple concept. The people who define an ideology aren’t the mass of followers, it is the People In Charge. Scientology (or whatever other cult) isn’t defined by all the people who follow it, it is defined by the people who lead it, run it, write the doctrine and largely (in regards to a social-political ideology) influence the law. Or do you deny the Duluth Model as an implementation of Feminism? Or the fact that it is defended by Feminism? Or the fact the feminism is the primary obstacle in making laws gender neutral in regards to domestic violence or even allowing fathers an equal right to be a a dad as a mother a mum?

  4. I predicted, and am not at all surprised, that you tried your best to twist my argument to something you can attack, and where you couldn’t, tried to draw me into the same petty bullshit you and the OP were engaging in.

What happened is that I picked out the lynchpin on which your entire argument is balanced on; that being that feminism is synonymous with gender equality.

It has succeeded in convincing the general populace due to excellent propaganda (re: societal gaslighting), but for anyone who does unbiased research that quickly falls apart. That being said, I have recently come to the epiphany that (in the interest of self respect and my own mental health) that it is not my responsibility to educate you, or anyone else, who has only ever done their own echo-chamber research (and yes, I used to be a committed feminist for at least 15 years, so I know all the kind of stuff society and feminist groups would have us believe.) I have since then read dozens of articles and reports (super boring, but enlightening) talked (and am talking) to myriad of people on both sides of the fence, and been in numerous debates with devout feminists.

I supply facts and NON-anecdotal evidence to demonstrate my argument. And you can see this across multiple conversations I’ve had in the past just on this platform.

Without fail, every time, self-appointed feminists resort to ad hominem, straw manning, false equivalency or a combination thereof or other logical fallacies to attack me or invalidate what I’m saying. I’m not saying You will; but you have already demonstrated a willingness to argue disingenuously as I have indicated earlier, and frankly, if you are so naive as to the actions of Feminist Leaders being indicative of exactly the opposite of true equality, then you are woefully under-equipped to be debating people on this who have done their research (point to note; it would be intrinsically disingenuous to align your brand of “feminism” with the empirical facts regarding feminism, even if it lines up with what I’ve been saying! Why? Because, again, regular people don’t define what an ideology and political movement is about. The people in charge, the people who write the rhetoric and the policies do represent the leaders of your ideology.). And if you are wilfully ignorant to how feminism is only after the kind of “equality” that benefits women (and deliberately or carelessly oppresses men) then I have to assume you don’t know what true equality even means, or that you have a very peculiar understanding of if. Even if I listed every possible resource/citation I have (and there are plenty to be easily found, both in my comment history and the men’s rights sub) I am likely right in assuming that you’d reject every citation I supplied in order to hold on to the usual data from department of women’s studies or similar. I’d love to assume that you have done your own comprehensive research, knowing full well that sources from feminist parties are as twisted as the -still- persisted wage gap fallacy as much as “gender studies” degrees in universities BUT it is only fair that I still assume you have until you unequivocally prove otherwise, because that is... well, fair.

And yes I know about constructing good argument, and that’s why I can quite easily identify your own use of false equivalence, false cause, tu quoque, or any other number of logical fallacies often used in arguments. In fact, what with my barrage of arguments, you could quite easily accuse me of gish galloping, you will likely accuse me of false equivalency on subject matter you want to flat out deny.. you get my point. We can play the argumentative strategy and logical fallacy game till the end of time, but we aren’t in a structured debate right now. I have to assume that when presented with facts and logical arguments you will consider and asses, and you have to presume the same in reverse. That being said, you actually did nothing to disprove what I said previously, in fact, you demonstrated my point perfectly.

Anyway, I’ve cut to the chase and gunned for the lynchpin to your entire argument: that feminism is practically synonymous with equality. Bold statement, and so easily disproven.

If you have done your non-revisionist research on the first two waves, as well as the current wave (debate is still up for whether we are in wave three or four) then no one should need to educate you. I could bring up the Duluth Model and Mary P Koss as but one easy example but if you’re truly about equality and denouncing the few fringe misandrist “feminazis” then I would assume you and your brethren are already disgusted by this government adopted and feminism endorsed doctrine and would be working against it? In the name of real equality?

Anyway. May have gone slightly over my break. Happy to have constructive discussion. Have a good read and a good look at what feminism represents. And have a long hard think about the true meaning of equality.

P.s. Men’s rights people aren’t looking for privilege. We just want basic things like a life without lethal legal and societal discrimination, and for fathers to have as much a right to their kids as the mothers. Also to not get freely mutilated at birth. Also to be treated as people with hearts and souls like women. You might notice men don’t really complain about shit attitudes from people unless it is to point out how socially accepted it is to hate men. If some people hated men and it was generally realised that hating men was a shitty and sexist thing to do men’s rights people would likely do absolutely nothing about that. It doesn’t bother mens rights people that some men and women are androphobic and or misandrist, what bothers us is how socially and legally accepted those views and associated behaviours are. Have a think about that, and the implications thereof. implore you.

Peace

[–]femenisthere-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

First of all your point about discrediting academia and related article was silly for a bunch of reasons

  1. The paper could have been run for any discipline and return the same results, eg the famous anti-vax paper which doesn’t mean that all science is fake

  2. The paper did not use a controlled group

  3. The paper assumed people are unethical and aim to publish dishonest work with the authors also exploiting their academic status

  4. The authors also relied on a shit university which was having misconduct issues to get the paper published which is the weak link here.

  5. people did pick up on it – yes afterwards but that is why accountability is important. good academia is much more than just passing the board. I have read terrible papers that are so very boring such as one the annoying greens party but what makes a properly acclaimed academic work is whether it is accepted into cannon, what the criticisms are from other academics and how long it lasts.The right people never actually engage with their text.

  6. My point was that you did need to use academia from feminist because you are complaining feminist are saying something they are not hence show me where they are saying the things you claim.

  7. the newspaper claims it discredits all related social theory but does not because not all feminist theory deconstructs texts, as some papers are about experiments on current audiences in which case criticisms easily point out flaws in texts and some are about general theory eg I cant remember her name right now but one of the papers I studied was about why misogyny can only exist within an institution and rarely is the individual actually a misogynist.

  8. If you maintain that all academia is wrong because a bunch of people published a fake main kampf reading than your theories are also invalid by that same standard. We then live in a world of anarchy.

  9. The paper also doesnt suggest anything about the feminist who gave honest evidence and truthfully deconstructed it. So let me refine the academia we are referring to to 'honest' in case you did not already consider this apart of the criteria for reputable academia

  10. You missed the part in my comment where I said ‘reputable’ academia not just academia

Yes I am disassociating feminism from misandry. Amazing that you can read. They are different that is why they have different definitions and literary cannons. the only blur is within radical feminist essentially being misandrist but using the term radical feminism to appear feminist but that’s a fringe group who isn’t widely excepted into contemporary academia circles and was at its peak in the 70s having pretty much died except for a few old woman and dumb teens. Your examples are either a reflection of second wave feminism (Duluth model which I have just finished a paper on explaining why it should not be used unless misogyny is identified in IPV screening – the general current wave feminism lens so your example was just shit) or dismissive of the fact that it is ok for women to have legislation specifically targeted towards than when something disproportionately affects them and yet are often not helped or listened to in the judicial process. The red pill documentary was just an example of a white, marketplace feminist finding out that not just she experience sexism in unjust ways – with her not seeming to realise that this is what normal intersectional feminist believe. Also documentaries are often criticised for how sympathetic they can make causes as she used her interpretations to create a completely wrong narrative. Yes men face serious sexist issues but these are sexist, feminist issues not a men’s liberation issue however she associated them as if that is correct without critically questioning. The documentary just incorrectly uses terms and does not fundamentally understand feminism so it is wrongfully sympathetic. Documentaries are powerful and they are unfortunately extremely subjective with this being especially so.

Yes we are a representation of feminism. Egalitarianism is an umbrella term for a wide array of movements that believe in equality but instead of brushing over certain groups specific movements focuse specially on them eg feminist focus especially on sex and Marxist (I am not one but I don’t believe theyre not egalitarian just because I don’t like them) who focus on sex and libertarians who differ with Marxist on how equality is to be achieved. It is completely normal for there to be different groups under one umbrella just as there is different subgenres of rock under the grenre of rock. My peers and I are a representation of feminism because that is what our texts and curriculum literally say. Egalitarianism is one of the premises of feminism that is automatically assumed. I have found a free text for you that focuses specifically on feminism in a study that observes indicators of egalitarianism across different countries (so you can see it presumes egalitarianism in women liberation). https://www.jstor.org/stable/41600975?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents So why don’t your give me academic texts from feminist that are widely accepted that say we are not egalitarian. So don’t give me that bs about how you really wish I was correct. I bet you base your assumptions of feminism on youtube debates with radical undergraduates who know nothing and marketplace feminist on twitter who haven’t studied a feminist text in their life.

You said people who define ideology are the people in charge
 yes the academics. The feminist academics say it is about equality. Academics literally have the authority. The example you gave of scientology demonstrates this sentiment, it is the thought people who lead others. So, what’s your point, are you agreeing with me?

Again, you know my sentiments about the Duluth model which was developed in the 80s and mostly defended by privileged feminist. The Duluth model isn’t accessible or equal at all, you should read Australian feminist Jess Hills book ‘see what you made me do’ to understand more about what real feminist believe. Also the patriarchy was the one that initially told people that the father had to have the children and women never received them which is why old feminists fought for that. Things have since changed and a new wave begun so we can see new implications but yeah inequality sucks doesn’t it ! That’s the whole point.

I did not twist the argument into an attack, did you not actually read my response? She was the one who literally lied or was extremely passive aggressive to me. I was very polite in my initial message and told her that I had sympathy for her but that these people didn’t represent feminism. So nice try twisting what I said but maybe have a read again.

No that was not the lynchpin my whole agreement was balanced on. My comment was about traditionalist families but sure if you believe so then have a read of paragraph two and I would love to engage more in this in another debate. You just assumed my argument because youre used to having certain buzzwords and I am straying from the script which makes you look wrong / you’re trying to take control of the argument and frame it in a certain way you know how to tackle so you can seem as if you’re proving me wrong. How about address my questions about traditionalist families?

Socital gaslighting how? Am I gaslighting you ? I just offered texts and explained the logic + history of things. Ok since you have read many texts please offer me multiple reputable academic sources from feminist that are saying what you claim feminism says.

What facts? You replied one article from the west post lol I supplied anecdotal and reputable academic texts so try again. Maybe if you did point me to many reputable sources I would believe you when you said “unbiased research [feminist propaganda] quickly falls apart”. How am I in an echo-chamber of research? I mean I am in this thread aren’t I? and if there were reputable sources against feminism I would have gladly read them. Good try making me look as if I exist in the echo-chamber. I also didn’t use ad hominem (well I did get passive aggressive but still relied in logic), straw manning, false equivalency but OP did which I pointed out. You’re using the idea of ‘you are wrong (1) because I have interacted with feminist who have used these techniques when talking to me (2) which is a fallacy in itself so ok. Don’t assume I wont believe every citation you have to offer just show me all of them and I can either prove you right or prove you wrong but it is uncharitable and unfair just to assume. You have not actually proved your point at all. Almost everything you say is a hypothetical. Also could you point out explicitly where I used false equivalence, false cause, tu quoque - just as I pointed out exactly where OP went wrong in using these. Thank you that would be much appreciated.

PS. Feminism says its also unfair for society to make presumption against men because of their sex too.

[–]femenisthere-2 points-1 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I would like to begin by saying that I appreciate how open you are in some ways and how I appreciate how you are less passive aggressive, at least initially, than in your first post. I look forward to deconstructing what you have to say and I totally understand that some things are a difference of opinion which is completely fine and I respect that you are allowed to prefer some things one way and I another. Other things I do outright disagree with but I will explain myself so you can understand and also respond if you would like.

​

You say “I read through, and what you seem to be describing is sensible, old-fashioned feminism(to an extent); you know, one that ACTUALLY changed history. (The right for women to vote, having a say in decisions in the home, etc.) I’m not against that at all. I’m against new wave feminism, 100%.”

I am not an old fashioned feminist in fact I barely relate to first or second wave of feminism save for their goals. I appreciate contemporary academic literature which I have been fortunate enough to study. In terms of ‘actually’ changing history you seem to refer to only huge legal changes in western countries as real change. I do believe that a lot of what marketplace feminism is complaining about are minor things in comparison but there are still tangible concerns for these (and all) feminist such as FGM, period poverty, high rates of male suicide (which is so sad but unfortunately the patriarchy tells man to hide their feelings), high rates of domestic abuse by male partners, the pink tax and so forth. Further, there are issues for all (or I guess what you have wrongly misinterpreted as old-fashioned feminist) feminist as many wide-reaching legality changes have not happened all over the world. Besides feminism is about not just legal but social and political change. We are still yet to see women in most representative, cooperate or otherwise, positions because of how we value them socially. Moreover, a movement should not be confined to what you subjectively consider important and relevant to yourself. Movements can be pervasive and valuable in numerous ways. Personally, the feminist movement has given me great value.

​

You say: “I want to first touch on the part where you said no one wants to date me, because I do, in fact, have a boyfriend. Of course we have similar views, otherwise we wouldn’t necessarily be together, because that’s how it works. This is GENERALLY speaking from experience as a whole, from when I was single or when I was in past relationships where I was treated that way - it isn’t the case in the one I’m in now, just want to get that part straight and out of the way. Also, generally speaking in terms of friendships with men as well, it’s tough because their defenses are up, and I don’t blame them, as I’ve stated.”

I suppose I was being very harsh when I made that comment as I found that you were unfairly generalising and just because something may be the case for you does not at all mean that it is a valid point against feminism on the whole. Your experience does not speak for mine so does that make you wrong or does that mean you unjustifiably used your few experiences to inductively make a point. I however do not want to say your experiences are untrue as you have probably had these encounters. I am not saying you haven’t but you can not just go about generalising. That does not make it true and that does not make my whole ideology wrong. I am not a buddhist and am only using this for an example but the Buddha was locked away in a castle of luxury by his father which meant that his experiences did not speak for everyone nor make his perception true despite that being his whole world. This was a man who never knew death or poverty until he left. My point being that it seems like an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

(PT1)

[–]femenisthere-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

You say: “Women assuming I’m a feminist simply because I’m a woman is forceful and presumptive, because the moment I say that I’m not and that I disagree with a lot of their ideology, you know what happens? I get an earful. It isn’t an “oh, you’re not a feminist and have a different view of your own? Can we hear it? We’re willing to listen”, It’s “wow you’re so weak you must rely on a man for blah blah blah blah blah [insert negative assumptions and bitterness here and interrupts anything and everything I try to say because it doesn’t suit their agenda]” all because I don’t share their ideologies. That’s forceful, manipulative, and narcissistic, and not seeking for support whatsoever. I truly don’t know where you’re getting “asking for support” from any of that. It’s never to ask for “support” it’s always in forcefully expecting me to share their ideologies right off the bat, SIMPLY because I happen to be a woman and in the 21st century, they never respect and assume that I may just have my very own brain and point of view outside of their own. I don’t know if I can stress that enough.”

As I mentioned in my original comment it wasn’t my main point and I do not want you to employ the strawman argument. Perhaps I should not have said support but did not know how else to word my point. I understand where you are coming from and would like to assure you that I do feel bad for those who talk down on you. However, this does not make them narcistic. Rude, yes. This is not something to blame feminist for however but the cultural group you’re interacting with at a personal level. I have had some terrible interactions with anti-feminist but I do not believe that all anti-feminist are sexist pieces of shit who like to demean me based on these experiences. I am the bigger person and acknowledge that we’re products of our milieu. I will not generalise or believe any one experiences as representative of such a broad and diverse movement as that would just be silly. Please do not use this as an example to say that I would be the only one because again that would be presumptive and almost a way to dismiss my arguments because it admits that they’re true but limits them to one person and therefore as not important.

​

You say “As for needing feminism so that people won’t be presumptive and initially bitter, it’s BECAUSE of feminism that it’s that way. New wave feminists are narcissistic and bitter, yes, I said it again, because it’s ABSOLUTELY TRUE and I stand on that with the utmost confidence; they call themselves “queens” and “bosses” and a plethora of other highly self-endearing things that just screams, “look at me, I’m insecure and hurt and I’m going to pretend I’m confident and sure of myself by seeking approval all while being haughty and prideful and full of myself to prove a point!”. Not to mention, they’re PHYSICALLY violent and they scream at the top of their lungs when they’re protesting or speaking with someone that disagrees with even one point they’ll make - when someone is sure of themselves and are well established, they won’t feel the need to yell or kick or scream and they definitely wouldn’t have to constantly and forcefully push themselves into the spotlight of media and just everything in general if they were.

Well theyre a man who hate feminist and don’t take it out on the woman like my brother so I do not think it fair to blame feminism for mens bitterness but the individual – the person who is bitter. Nevertheless, I am a new wave feminist that you refer to. I do not use these points. Further, this is just semantics, the whole point anyway is to be empowered after centuries of women being legally referred to as their husbands property and treated as such. What about male new wave feminist who do not refer to themselves as queens, does your point also refer to them. What about feminist not from English countries who are not a part of this ‘queen’ culture, does your point also refer to them?

Also when have new wave feminist been truly physical and violence? I think it would be helpful if you could give specific examples especially as this may allow me to point out how these people are not true feminist or just bad debators. For example, something that may resonate with you was something I saw on this sub. I saw an anti-feminist post about how all feminist are ugly and then a fellow anti-feminist responded with a great comment about how that was not appropriate or a fair reason to dismiss an argument. They then had a somewhat constructive conversations. Just like that, not all feminist should be represented by the baby feminist or just any feminist who is shit at conversing. That isn’t fair and it definitely does not represent all of us – trust me as someone who has been a part of many academic and general feminist/political debates and groups. Moreover, I have been screamed over many times by people of differing ideologies, not that I use this as point to generalise just as an example. In terms of violence, I once made a policy report on IPV and found many stories of women being stoned for not wanting to marry and males talking about how they killed their wife because no one could have them or because they didn’t do their homely duties. I would say that that is violence. If you view these anti-feminist as violence than you must dismiss this page for the same reason you dismissed my ideology.

(PT2 OF 8)

[–]femenisthere-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You say “I’d like to agree on the point that you made about some feminists are willing and open to marriage and such, I never said ALL feminists were against these things - I said that MOST of them are - and I’m sorry, but they’re making you and these feminists look bad. “

Sorry I had not realised you did not say 'all' and I am glad to see you recognise that these individuals who are not truly feminist make us look bad.

You say: “In every following there’s always one that’s rotting and molding over, and guess what? It tarnishes the entire batch, it’s unfortunate. I speak on statistics, and I’m highly aware that there is a still a sensible (although, unfortunately SMALL) percentage of “feminists”. So, don’t get me wrong, I hear you, and I believe you. I’m willing to hear you out and agree with some of your points, and I’m open to being enlightened.”

What statistics if you don’t mind me asking, I would also appreciate real academic sources if you don’t mind from reputable sources.

In terms of the academic literature I can say that I am in the majority. I know this because of our texts, curriculum, departments and debates. I think I understand who you are referring to, I am assuming marketplace white feminist who are super privileged and have, to a small extent, tarnished the reputation of feminism in order to make it appear more accessible. However a lot of what is deemed wrong about them is just bs from the media. However, if your logic still stands than I believe the woman who was killed in Chicago by a man for ignoring his cat calls would represent your ‘batch’ and just what a ‘bad batch’ you all are, no? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/04/mass-shooting-1989-montreal-14-women-killed

I am not saying this is true of you all I am just carrying your logic to its end and revealing to you that if you actually listening to what youre saying then your ideology is worse otherwise you need new arguments. Youre allowed to say ‘I just want to be at home and I think all women should be at home’ as an opinion but you can not use that as a point to argue that my ideology is wrong. Logic of Ideology and opinion are vastly different, one must be valid, charitable and flow while the other gets to be whatever you want based on however you feel.

​

You say: “Narcissistic? I would ask what you perceived as narcissistic in any of my postings, but of course, I know that at the core of this opinion, it’s simply because I’m talking about MY opinion and not yours - so it’s narcissistic.”

You were the person to first use the term for people you do not agree with – do you realise the hypocrisy now?

(pt 3 of 8)

[–]femenisthere0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

You said: “I’m also a racist nazi misogynist and a weakling if I don’t agree with you, right?”

I never used the word Nazi about you and literally never even mentioned the word racist in fact I shamed you for using the term which is not appropriate for this context. Please stop and don’t make up things to make me look bad now that you realise the term looks worse by whoever uses it. Do not put words in my mouth. Have a mature conversation. So just to repeat I never used that term to describe someone only you did.

You said: “ Lol Let’s just toss “narcissist” in there simply because it’s a word I’ve happened to use against your point of view frequently and quite justifiably “

Again, isn’t that what you did? people disagreed with you and you immediate termed them as narcissist. I picked up on it and used it to make a point about your use of the word.

​

You say “- if anything, you’re the one that’s honesty projecting because you seem to be using what I’ve said against me, simply because I’ve said it.”

No, that is how you make an argument, I have gone to university for this so trust me. Besides is that not how you debate, you mention what one has said? What else would you prefer me to use, comments that are not your words (like you have I guess just making up stuff I never said like apparently believing you to be a racist)??? My mother was diagnosed with narcism and one of the things the therapist said was she was unable to accept responsible and instead would turn to make others look crazy in defence which is what you seem to be doing right now. Also, I can assure you I am not a narc.

​

You say: “Otherwise, you wouldn’t be calling me a narcissist if I agreed with you and didn’t piss you off with my own opinion, right?

I can easily agree with people without calling them a narcissist unlike you. For example, I am personally not a libertarian and disagree with it but I still have many libertarian friends and even the ones who are not my friends are still not narcissist unless they have narcissist traits. On the other hand, I have a friend in a woman’s portfolio who I have found to be a narcissist even though we agree on things. Please let’s not get ahead of ourselves or be angry at me for a term you happily introduced when it supposedly suited you.

PT4 of 8

[–]femenisthere0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

You say: “But let’s not start personally attacking each other here, that’s ALWAYS the end of a good debate/conversation because it has nothing to do with the meat of the subject and more to do with individuals and that never goes anywhere but in and endless circle of senselessness where we only end up biting our own tails.”

You are right that would be grasping for straws. Glad we could agree. The narcissist thing was never my main point and added on after, my main point remains to be what was said in my initial text about traditionalist families.

​

You say: “I’m not glorifying myself - like I’ve stated in one or more of my comments, everyone has the right to their opinions whether we agree or disagree, but the beauty of it is that we CAN have opinions - doesn’t sound like something a narcissist would say. A narcissist is set in their demanding, manipulative ways and is the ONLY one who is right and EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG. Sound familiar?”

Again, I also like to debate and don’t view others as narcissist when they don’t agree. You were the one to introduce the word for people you did not like. I do agree with you that we should share our opinions, I never said I was against that just so we are clear and I am only sorry that I did not see you say that. Anyhow, my original post about traditionalist families still stands. Which in all of your response you never refer to.

​

You say: I’ve considered feminism and I’ve even looked into pro-feminist writings and groups and NOTHING could convince me that it was a healthy group of women to follow. But at least I considered it - they didn’t. I was a heathen for disagreeing at all and I wasn’t allowed to say anything opposed to what they were saying.”

That’s perfectly fine. That is your opinion and you don’t have to. I guess I am lucky to not have entered any of the feminist circles you speak of which are very unlike the ones I have witnessed and do not speak for all of us at all – far from it.

​

You say: “The literal definition of narcissistic, “having an excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance.” Women. They’re obsessed with women and putting them on a pedestal and everyone has to kiss their feet and call them queens and girl bosses.”

See what you did there was presumptive as you identified all women or at least you did not clarify some women. By putting the word women after the definition for narcism you claim all women are narcissist that only care about physical appearance. Men also care about their physical appearance. There are women who do not care about their physical appearance. Do you not care about yours and do you presume it’s because you’re anti-feminist? Here I thought this page mocked feminist for not caring about their appearance and for supposedly not shaving their armpits. Interesting. Anyway that is how that first bit reads but your later point seems to be that feminist demand people worship women’s physical appearances which just isn’t true and I have yet to come across one piece of literature on this. On the contrary I have read many feminism criticisms about womens only social value being in their physical appearances and how society sells them on this for consumerist and patriarchal agendas. I am genuinely surprised. Is this truly what you think feminism is??? Regardless, it is not.

(PT5)

[–]femenisthere0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

​

You say : “Don’t get me started on appearance either, the whole body positivity movement is also highly flawed. “What, you’re not attracted to fat women? You’re shallow and you deserve to die. How dare you have personal preferences.” And again, I’ll say it, it’s extremely forceful and manipulative. They’re forcing their way into many aspects, even in who people SHOULD be dating whether they’re attracted to them or not. And yes, physical attraction is a thing, emotion is a part of it but physical attraction is as well, so please don’t try and pull the “hE sHoUlD sImPlY bE aTtRacTED tO hEr fOr wHo ShE iS”. Sure, have that opinion, you’re ALLOWED to, but you can NEVER physically force someone to literally date you just because you’re hurt that they won’t because they don’t prefer you over another. It’s called a “personal preference” for a reason, because it’s PERSONAL. This is common sense - but of course, emotion shuns common sense and logic and is dependent on what they’re feeling, and simply that. Nothing more. Emotion and thought are meant to work together, not one singled out and without the other.”

​

I agree with you that when dating we are all entitled to our own opinions. However, those who argue that fat shaming is wrong is not manipulative just because you disagree. If they're completely relying on emotionally charged methods and making you feel like shit for disagreeing than I suppose it is but if they just have that opinion and are deconstructing fat shaming then all power to them. You make explicit that feminist only rely on feelings to make a point however I am confident that I have considered evidence and logic for all my points. Literature standards have also ensured that feminist texts also rely on logic and not feelings, your point is just an insult to academia. I cannot believe you have disregarded decades of extensive feminist academia because you want to frame the narrative in such a way that flatters you as logical. Besides, this is growing further and further from the original post.

​

You say: “”iM nOt lIkE oTheR GiRlZ” lol oh boy, you have no idea how many times I’ve been called “basic” for being a traditionalist woman. So, it’s actually quite the opposite. And I actually have no problem with being like other girls, because the reality is, there are other girls like me, and I’m happy that there are - my only hope is that more join me. If I didn’t want to be like other girls, I wouldn’t be encouraging them to consider my point of view. I’m not so insecure to try and be different and rebellious so people will pay attention to me and favor me, and I’ve never cared what anyone thinks of me. Basic, unique, or not. I’m, me. I’m established and all of that is for insecure people who feel like they need to be “different” to be “special”. No one is special, we all just have different views and THAT’S ALRIGHT.

I am not insecure and yet I disagree with you. Just claiming people are insecure isn’t a valid point. Feminist are allowed to disagree with you but the jist is that we will fight for your right to choose what you (and men who don’t want to conform to masculine roles) want and our only hope isn’t that ‘more join me’ (as you say of your own group). We love that people are true to themselves and it is unfortunate that they have been limited from existing as they please. We just want those obstacles that allow those not like you to do as they want, not to hinder you from doing what you would like. Also it seems like you use emotion to make a point, you keep insisting that feminist are insecure without real evidence just because it suits what you’re saying and fits how you perceive them.

(pt 6)

[–]femenisthere0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You say “My favorite part - me using the term “feminazi” being highly inappropriate. Are you blind and deaf to the EXTREME things they’ve called people for disagreeing with their point of view or even simply existing as a man? I’m sure you’re no stranger to it, since you’re a part of this community and I’m almost 100% sure you’ve come across the disgusting things they’ve said and have called people for disagreeing with anything they say, or to men for simply existing as a man. You’d be in denial to say this isn’t extremely prevalent within the feminist community.”

That is a logical fallacy and my point still stands. You should not use that term femenazi and just because you have heard others use terrible terms does not make it correct. If you expect a welcoming and open debate form me than I can except the same form you rather than hostility. You’re using insults again btw, everything negative you have said of feminism applies to you aka you just use emotion, insults and generalisations to make a point.

​

You say: ““You seem to be in a world of privilege that makes you believe the slightest bit of hurt you feel is the greatest injustice,” does this not ring a bell? This perfectly explains the very FOUNDATION and drive of modern day feminism, but since you’re trapped in that box of herd thinking - I wouldn’t expect you to see that. I hope you take a peek outside of it though, in other words, I can only simply hope that you maybe, MAYBE consider what others have to say.”

I do consider what others have to say which is why I am always open to debate and have read widely. As I have mentioned also I grew up in a conservative, traditionalist community so your view has been most of my life, I have taken more than just a peak. Do not disregard my experiences for your point or to cover for your actual privilege. How does that ring a bell? Did I say I feel hurt by what you say and think it is the greatest injustice? Has anyone? I didn’t just to be clear and this is not the driver of feminism the driver is a need for egalitarianism pertaining to the sexes. Very assuming there. Again point does not stand.

​

You say: Have your opinion, be a feminist, stand up for the sensible feminists that are still around and DO exist, because like I said, a mass majority of the women placing themselves under the same category aren’t helping your cause and they’re only making you, and unfortunately, me, look bad. Redeem your “feminist” name, because it’s been tarnished.

What is this majority you speak of ???? Who are you referring to ??? What do you mean redeem my feminist title??? I will give you another example so you can see how your logic applies: Just because the officially names 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' uses the title ‘democracy’ to refer to themselves does not make it correct and it is not every democracies responsibility to fix that ‘reputation’. Moreover, you would not use a fake democracy to say you are justified in being anti-democracy. That does not make sense, how about fake feminist defend themselves or how about you change your group name to anti-people who pretend to be feminist. There is no reason to attack my ideology. Only illogical people would use NK 'democracy' as an excuse to attack actual democracies.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter