TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

spermjack_attack Archive

View 2 posts and 705 comments by spermjack_attack on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Isn't the sentiment in the comment in agreement with the kind of attitude you dislike. The person's comment said that they don't like the idea of "a woman's body "serves more of a purpose" than a mans," as a means to determine worth or freedom.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 11:19 PM
-5

I'm just not sure why you're moaning over being criticized when you've broken a clearly stated rule. Like, entitled much? Do you think you ought be afforded some special privilege because of... what? You're whole post is that you believe you ought to be able to speak for feminists. This is a problem because you actively work to maintain an extreme level of ignorance on the very subject of the subreddit you wanted so badly to participate in. The rules are clear, and it's you who needs to learn a …
/r/MensRights06/08/13 04:20 AM
-31

It wasn't long before any MRA who dared to answer first (myself included) was roundly criticized. Well... You aren't a feminist and you don't know anything about contemporary feminism. It seems odd that you'd be responding to questions directed at feminists. You were rightly criticized.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 10:36 PM
0

You claim to be a professional but you spend all day... It was sunday... I don't work on sunday. ...with a username that mocks female-on-male rape. And this again. A lot of people seems to think that my user name is a punch line, or a joke. I never really make jokes about spermjacking. In fact, those people who decide to point out my name choose to do it in a fashion that derails the conversations. Admittedly, this may be my fault for picking the name, but I actually rarely (and at least not int…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 04:25 PM
2

It is rather hilarious that as an adult you feel the need to vote brigade. You must be pumping your tiny little pathetic fist. Get a fuckin life looooozah. Or, perhaps the reality is that people recognize that my point is correct. Seeing that I am, in fact, correct.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 04:12 PM
-2

Or are you just pretending 7 hours is a long period of time to try to cover up your stupidity and anti-intellectualism? fractal_shark got you there. But seriously, how married to the idea that we're the same person are you? Would it help to inform you that I have never read an mathematics text above the Calculus level, and certainly not five thousand pages of mathematics. I have read a paper on the sociology of mathematics. It was kind of interesting. But back to the point, it's clear that you s…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 02:49 AM
-1

She has to choose between cleaving to ignorance or have her fans hate her (and we all know how hatred for a woman manifests on the internet---just look at the responses to Tropes vs. Women). I guess I can see why she chooses to cleave to ignorance. That's... a really good point. :\
/r/MensRights04/08/13 09:33 PM
0

Do you really think she can distinguish between honesty and dishonesty? I guess I'd just like others to recognize the rhetorical tactics she uses to deflect the obvious criticisms aimed at her position. But ulitimately, it's interesting to see her do a great deal of work so that she doesn't have to do any work. Johnson is barely 9 pages. But that's 9 pages too much for Girlwrites,notread.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 08:30 PM
-1

So... you were just being disingenuous to deflect criticism... again...
/r/MensRights04/08/13 08:07 PM
-5

I've certainly been honest with you throughout this discussion. On occasion less than courteous, but honest none the less.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 06:06 PM
-2

I'm not going to argue that point with someone who's dishonest... Excuse me, when have I been dishonest?
/r/MensRights04/08/13 05:39 PM
1

Sometimes I wish good'ol Crosshook would come back. You two would get along swimmingly!
/r/MensRights04/08/13 05:23 PM
-2

Oh. So your point is that some people (namely you) think that the term patriarchy blames men? And that's your issue here, that you think something (because it fits your preconceived narrative that feminist are blaming men), and any evidence otherwise (such as the Johnson article above, or 518 pages of feminist scholarship in McCann and Kim's reader) must be avoided at all costs. Otherwise you'd have to deal with all the embarrassing videos and transcripts which record you actual ignorance on the…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 05:08 PM
0

Being privileged and dominant connotes having the power, which means the system is maintained by the agency of men. Being privileged within a system of power doesn't not automatically lead one to have power over said system. In fact, this the the very place where our differing account of patriarchy diverge. Individual men have no more power over patriarchy than individual women, even if within patriarchy masculinity confirms privilege. In terms of changing the current order of thing, men and wom…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 04:42 PM
0

If the gender role meme that positions men as dominant weren't useful, it wouldn't have grown to dominate the minds of damn near every human on earth. Useful to whom? And what is the process which reproduces this meme? Because it certainly isn't natural selection, at least not in any sense of the biology usage of the phrase.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:22 PM
1

Actually, that line is nine pages in. There is a significant amount of tone setting and foundational work prior to this point. And in fact, her conclusion does not "facilitates oppression theory." We do not know what the values, individual personality traits, and culture of a non-hierarchical society would be like, and we have great difficulty in imagining it. But to imagine it we must think that it is possible. And it is possible. Practices produce values: other practices produce other values.……
/r/MensRights04/08/13 01:34 PM
-1

Ha. You really are only good at one thing, and that's deflecting critique. I mean, it's clear that I'm not making those arguements, and that the actual argument actually address the substance of your claims and questions (specifically, that patriarchy as a term, does not automatically entail what you think it does). But because (once again) a feminist is showing GWW that she actually doesn't know what she's talking about, her only option now is to turn around and call that feminist a cunt. You c…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 01:23 PM
-4

I've seen feminists make all of those arguments. I've seen MRAs make all of those arguments. That's a straw feminist you've got there.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 04:14 AM
1

Says Miss Curt herself.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 03:17 AM
4

Ehem... Dr. Delphy
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:37 AM
1

Come on dude. Really? Is that what GenderKing said? Is that really "FUCKING EXACTLY" the same? Dude, give me a break. GenderKing expressed a sentiment of a straw feminist, of which I did provide an example of an actual feminist (which seems to have gone over your head). In fact, what Delphy is suggesting (and of which is not beyond critique) is that that which is masculine is that which is situated as the dominate within gender-hierarchical society. This is not to what GenderKing said. GenderKin…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:20 AM
-1

Well, Christine Delphy is a REAL feminist :-) lol. Some feminists, like Delphy, consider inequality as rooted within the construction of gender as a social object, and this raises the question as to how equality between genders can be reached if the construction of gender itself leads to inequality. These feminists have concluded that gender is situated within a hierarchical structure that presupposes the dominance of men over women. Gender is so intimately tied to hierarchy so as to make the pr…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 01:43 AM
-3

That's a pretty straw feminist you've got there.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 12:49 AM
-3

Are you saying that the only meaning we can know is meaning derived from etymology?
/r/MensRights03/08/13 10:42 PM
-3

Okay. Well, why is the etymology of these words important? It seems like the etymology is independent of their contemporary meaning. EDIT: Also, you were clearly asking about the meaning of the term when you said this: What part of the word "patriarchy" holds women partially accountable for historical gender roles? What part of the idea of women being oppressed and subordinate to men, while men were dominant and privileged, even allows for the possibility that women are culpable? That would be l…
/r/MensRights03/08/13 09:19 PM
-5

girlwriteswhat, not girlreadswhat (girlwatchsyoutube?).
/r/MensRights03/08/13 08:58 PM
3

We can read from wikipedia again, if you aren't willing to do the work yourself: Radical feminists assert that their society is a patriarchy in which the class of men are the oppressors of the class of women. Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy. Radical feminism posits the theory that, due to patriarchy, women have come to be viewed as the "other" to the male norm and as such have been systematically oppressed and marginalized. They also believe that the way to deal with patriarchy and …
/r/MensRights03/08/13 06:25 PM
-6

If feminism was not interested in insinuating men are to blame and women are not (or if it was interested in acknowledging many men's experience of feeling blamed by feminism), it would not have named the force responsible for all oppression, inequality, harm, war, rape, etc, after men (after fathers, in fact), and the force that [reputedly] fights against this evil after women. So, you think that the word patriarchy was used as a means to blame men for "all oppression, inequality, harm, war, ra…
/r/MensRights03/08/13 06:15 PM
4

Capitalism as it was, is no longer present, marxist ideals now infesting our system... What Marxist ideals?
/r/MensRights03/08/13 01:51 PM
10

...you very link contradicts the claim you're making: Radical feminism, which emerged before the 1970s, also took issue with Marxist feminism. Radical feminist theorists stated that modern society and its constructs (law, religion, politics, art, etc.) are the product of males and therefore have a patriarchal character. According to those who subscribe to this view, the best solution for women's oppression would be to treat patriarchy not as a subset of capitalism but as a problem in its own rig…
/r/MensRights03/08/13 01:34 PM
-4

that inevitably turn out to be attempts to appropriate men's problems under the mantle of "feminist patriarchy theory", which inevitably blames all of society's problems on men and absolves women of any responsibility for them. cough (of course, except in the cases where patriarchy can be understood as not inevitably blaming all of society's problems on men and absolving women of any responsibility for them.)
/r/MensRights03/08/13 05:22 AM
2

This is a really bad article. It's bad enough that someone who ostensibly is trying to talk about gender inequality chooses to identify the the group as "the male gender." But the author doesn't even seem committed enough to the issue at hand to bring up and of the really important ways that gender inequality operates to hurt men.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 10:26 PM
1

It's worth noting that feminists don't make up a monolithic body of thought either.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 08:42 PM
1

bell hooks, by Lawrence Chua, BOMB 48/Summer (1994) At the conference, I confessed that I have really violent impulses that sometimes listening to some panels I had wanted to come out and shoot people. The audience laughed, but I wasn’t being funny, and I wasn’t saying it to be cute or exhibitionist. I was acknowledging that the violent impulses don’t just exist out there in black youth or in the underclass, but that they reside in people like myself as well—people who have our PhD’s and our goo…
/r/MensRights02/08/13 05:50 PM
1

I know the quote your talking about, and you've taken it out of context. I'm sorry that her honesty about what it is to be the victim of racial oppression upsets you. Get of yourself. Bell Hooks is a retarded homicidal monkey. Fuck off racist troll.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 11:46 AM
1

Really? that's hardly all or even most feminists. Two are dead, and two are very old (and hardly influential anymore). Also, how does the Susan Brownmiller quote suggest that she's "not about equality"? I mean, the statement is arguable, but it doesn't touch on the issue of equality in a way to suggest she's anti-equality. I mean, some of these quotes are just stock MRA "feminists hate men quotes," but don't suggest that they actually believe that equality isn't the goal.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 11:32 AM
1

Well, all of them are well known highly influential scholars. Kimberlé Crenshaw, for example, was very influential in the drafting of the South African Constitution. Her work brought race and gender equity into the constitution's text. Both Judith Butler and J. Halberstam are very influential gender and queer scholars. In fact, you really can't talk about contemporary scholarship on gender without talking about Judith Butler. Her work is revolutionary. I guess I don't have a link for this one, b…
/r/MensRights01/08/13 11:19 AM
-1

sorry, i misstyped: Except for the fact that most feminists in academia, government, etc aren't working towards equality. The feminists who are pro equality are the ones who just jump on the bandwagon because they like the dictionary definition of feminism, but have no power or actual influence on the movement. It requires a significant amount of evidence to support the claims that most feminists in 1) academia and 2) government (feminists in government?) aren't working towards equality. Until t…
/r/MensRights01/08/13 03:06 AM
-5

It requires a significant amount of evidence to support the claims that [most] feminists in 1) academia and 2) government (feminists in government?) aren't working towards equality. Until that work is done, your claim is a bald assertion. The feminists who are pro equality are the ones who just jump on the bandwagon because they like the dictionary definition of feminism, but have no power or actual influence on the movement. Except of course those feminist who haven't jumped the banwagon, and a…
/r/MensRights01/08/13 01:13 AM
-6

But that fact is, you as an individual are apparently a rapist. And a liar. This is different from some feminists working towards equality and some feminists not working towards equality. Seeing as the latter is different people than the former. You're just one lying rapist.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 12:05 AM
0

The thing is, if you want to talk about feminism, at some point you are going to have to define what feminism is. If you accept that there are feminists that believe feminism is something, and that something is in contradiction with the beliefs of what some other feminists believe feminism is, then you'll have to use some other method of determining the meaning of feminism that doesn't rely simply on the statements of some self-identified feminist. Therefor, the author's choice to define feminis…
/r/MensRights31/07/13 11:52 PM
-5

I take my definition of feminism from what I see self-labelled feminists do and say. And self-labled feminists say they're fighting for the right of women to have equal personhood and participation in society, and do fight for the right of women to have equal personhood and participation in society. so... there you go, there's your definition.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 11:42 PM
2

Do feminists not even bother to claim to be pro equality anymore? Well, this feminist subreddit has a number of problems, and it doesn't look like they're making the claim of pro equality. Is this them basically admitting that if they somehow gained power in real life, they would try to remove the right to freedom of speech from men? No, it looks like it just them organizing their community around the voices of women. While this can sometimes be problematic, it by no means suggests that feminism…
/r/MensRights31/07/13 11:32 PM
2

Actually, the it includes gay and bisexual men. So it only leaves out straight men.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 04:35 PM
-2

You're not wrong because the author isn't white. You're wrong becuase you are wrong.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 03:20 PM
0

Well, you seem to be completely off in your description of "white male, guilt-ridden" as part of this article.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 03:02 PM
-8

Which "big words" were confusing you? I thought it was a pretty good read, and might be able to help with any confusion.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 02:48 PM
-1

Don't waste your time with this inane exercise in white male, guilt-ridden, naval gazing. Lol. I'd check you facts again bro.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 02:20 PM
2

You mean straight men, right? Along that line, it also leaves lesbians out.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 02:09 PM
5

The survey, conducted by RTI International (Research Triangle Park, NC), was administered to 81,566 inmates ages 18 or older... The report doesn't survey six year olds.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 01:58 PM
0

"ideological feminist?" What's that? And how does it differ from your previous use of the term "dyed in the wool feminists?" You need to make yourself clear if you want a clear answer.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 11:33 AM
-1

Funny, Psychology Today didn't say that "about a quarter of dyed in the wool feminists are men," that was GWW. Psychology Today didn't say "If you look at some of the symptoms of PSD, these are all features of... feminist hypotheses," that was GWW. Why you can't tell the difference between Psychology Today and GWW's ass? Mere speculation, yes, but seems less than a coincidental correlation to me. The ASD traits seem more like masculine behavior to me, and the PSD more feminine. Feminism, to me, …
/r/MensRights31/07/13 02:05 AM
0

Once again, I am not sure that the imagery of men's bodies in underwear ads are 1) produced for women, and 2) represent a "not unequal" treatment. There is a big difference between imaging women as sexual objects and imaging men as sexual subjects.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:53 PM
-4

I'd guess about a quarter of dyed in the wool feminists are men. Funny how that fits the ratio of personality-disordered individuals... Funny how the thing you pulled out of your ass supports your stupid ideas...
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:40 PM
0

I thought the part where the gender was flipped from the half-naked woman on the desk to the half-naked man is directly addressing how the organization of men's and women's bodies are unequal. The image of the man's body doesn't produce the same effect as the woman's, "But we’ve become accustomed to a much higher level of stylised, silly, overtly sexy images of women, ones that present them as primarily sexual – which is why similar images of men are jarring." neglects every male underwear ad I'…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:28 PM
1

I don't see any articles decrying Edward from Twilight... I have seen a number of articles critical of the character Edward Cullen. Just searching "feminist on edward cullen" gives a huge number of links... Also this video, "Buffy vs Edward: Twilight Remixed." I don't see any articles... of the other multitude of sexist, unrealistic representations of men... But yes, there are many unrealistic and sexist representations of men in the media. It's something that has been very well studied by gende…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:17 PM
1

I would really suggest doing a self post - in my experience, it let's you add extra context in the discussion intended that most posters don't get normally from just looking at a link. Or you can do what /u/notnotnotfred does and add a comment right after posting to give that context/added detail that you can't get from link posts. That is all good advice, but it seems a little late now. This link has been removed, so no worries. I'll keep this in mind in the future.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 10:42 PM
2

I think the thing is that the difference between murdering people and strict gender constructions is that the latter is very relivent to the MRM and feminism. And, on the occasions I have found myself in agreement with MRAs, it's been around the specific issues regarding how women's and men's bodies are governed in gendered ways. A common (and somewhat successful tool) used by MRAs and feminists alike has been the deployment of gender-flipping. I think it does some interesting work (for both fem…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 09:58 PM
0

Men and women are attracted to each other in different ways, this is biological fact. Gay men and lesbians would seem to disagree.\? ...because they're confusing human biology with social constructs (and demonizing normal male sexuality in the process). Wait? So the sexist objectification women experience is justified because you think it's a biological characteristic of men's sexuality?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 09:47 PM
0

This article points out how women are hurt by strict gender constructions, as men do too. This seems like something that some MRAs and some feminist agree on. Why the reporting?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 09:37 PM
0

Hear hear!
/r/MensRights21/07/13 01:00 AM
0

If you want to talk about reproductive abuse, then talk about reproductive abuse. The example I gave is what bothers me about the "hysteria" surrounding the "myth" of spermjacking, specifically that any woman who happens to get pregnant when her partner doesn't want a child, is a woman who's reproductive abusing her partner.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 10:09 PM
0

You make it sound like you personally are paying for all women's healthcare. You know what, I bet some women pay for their own healthcare. Further, women pay taxes too, so in terms of government provided healthcare, women are paying for their own healthcare. Or we can play it your way. Tell me how oppressed you are when western women and men are paying for the roads you drive on, the police and firefighters who protect you, and the public education which bettered you.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 07:51 PM
1

Well that's a pile of steaming bullshit. Otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time defending governmental and legal privileges extended to women. Where do I "defend" them?
/r/MensRights15/07/13 07:30 PM
1

You operate from the assumption that men have an obligation to protect and provide for women at cost to themselves and thus you enforce the male gender role. I do not operate from this assumption. Nothing I've said or done can lead you to believe this, other than your own bold assertion. Rather, I opporate from the assumption that people "owe" other people compassion, concern and fairness. While what these individual things mean is difficult to discern sometimes, but I don't buy your "people owe…
/r/MensRights15/07/13 04:37 PM
2

I mean...the obvious rejoinder is that some feminists don't blame men (or all men) for the objectification of women
/r/MensRights15/07/13 03:08 PM
0

anything else is a genetic/developmental fuckup. And that my friend... is cissexism.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 02:13 PM
0

I'll let you read this.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 02:02 PM
0

Please tell me you just didn't fucking say this. I said it.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 01:48 PM
0

Nope. Not kidding at all.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 01:38 PM
2

Yeah, seriously, I don't get it because it seems like there are no UofT-like protests in the US. Nor things like that SFU protests. Or anything MRAs ussually list when they complain about feminists doing things today. It seems like all is well in the US regarding feminists, but not other places. And yeah... only the MR perspective. Why is everyone talking about this "famous women aren't calling themselves feminist" thing? Did something happen recently that made these people seem like a big deal …
/r/MensRights14/07/13 03:13 AM
1

Yeah, that might be it. I think Gawker links are censored.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 02:57 AM
1

if you linked to one of the subs or websites /r/MR censors, your post would be blocked.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 02:42 AM
4

Looking for it did force me to read a bit of her other writing, though, and her gynocentrism is appalling. I would no more recommend bell hooks to gain an understanding of society and gender relations than I would recommend a work on phlogiston to learn about physics. Gynocentrism? Do you care to expand on that, or is this another thing google won't help with? Have you read this. Because I really think it shows something completely different from what you suggest about bell hooks' beliefs.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 12:18 AM
-11

I honestly find it almost comical when people talk about western women being oppressed. Comical? Why? Do they know the gravity that comes with that word? Do you want to expound on this?
/r/MensRights13/07/13 11:58 PM
2

As a man who's also a feminist, I certainly comabt negative male stereotypes. I personally combat the steriotype that men... can't be feminist. can't cook, clean, or sew. need to be straight to be masculine. need to be misogynistic to be masculine. can't like cats. Further, I know that feminism can help undo much of the current order of gender to widen the possible gender expressions for both men and women. I know feminism doesn't need the current order of negative masculine and feminine stereot…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 11:45 PM
-15

Oh. I think you don't understand. The ERA doesn't have to over turn any laws for it to actually do something for equality. Because some forms of discrimination aren't actually codified in law, but rather somewhere else (such as business practice). So, your question was moot. But, just because feminists on Reddit can't think of something doesn't mean they don't exist. I mean, I don't have any particular laws in mind, but maybe there are some that are still around (I am a white cis man, so I don't…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 11:29 PM
3

The women at the UofT protest are fast becoming the recognizable face of feminism Well... I run in a lot of feminist circle. As far as I can tell, the feminists at UofT are only becoming the face of feminism to people who read aVfM. Seriously, no one outside the MRM (and those who observe it) even knows who these women are, or what they've even done (as far as I can tell, they've done very little, just annoyed some people). It is the MRM who are getting a skewed picture of feminism. Which makes …
/r/MensRights13/07/13 10:17 PM
4

Cheep cheep cheep? I used to know this guy about a month ago (this would have been before you joined reddit). He was such a chicken. His name was /u/CrossHook
/r/MensRights13/07/13 09:59 PM
3

Well, I was going to suggest that feminism is far more than just an effort to change law, policy or dollars (capitalism sucks). That maybe changing the way we think about gender, inequality and justice requires something more than just the words written out in state laws. I mean, if feminism is more than just politics, then it wouldn't matter whether any of those scholars hadn't really changed any laws. Because, feminism would be about changing society, gender, and inequality into something bett…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 09:27 PM
2

I've read bell hooks saying, explicitly and without sarcasm or metaphor, that society will be better off when it's run by women. Where did you read this?
/r/MensRights13/07/13 09:15 PM
2

A handful of young women at one university does not make an entire movement or an entire face of a movement. Even more so, it seems like the only people who even know about the UofT protests are MRAs. While on the other hand, those feminists I listed above are world renown feminists, and their scholarship has influenced a great deal of contemporary feminist thought. The same can not be said for a handful of women in Toronto.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 07:50 PM
-1

To be fair, I don't like the way the author of the article frames Comins statements any more than you do. But I think it takes a great leap of faith (on your part and on the Times author) to think that Comins believes that all innocent men ought be accused of rape.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 07:22 PM
-1

So they pick on innocent bystanders? That's like saying it's good for molestation victims to go out and rape little kids. Yeah, that is an extreme interpretation of what she said. To most people, it's obvious that she was being specific, talking about sexual assailant. Because that's exactly what she said. That's not obvious at all. You seem to be constructing some sort of straw feminist out of Comins.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 06:52 PM
-2

She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. "To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him." How do you get she believes it's good for all men to be "falsely" accused. Also, I'm still not sure what the distinction is between rape and sexual assault and intimidation. Until that's made clear, it seems like sexual assault and intimidation are very similar, if no…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 06:11 PM
-4

She said it was good for men to be falsely accused of rape. Only if they have sexual assaulted or sexually intimidated someone. I honestly don't think that rape and sexual assault a significantly different. They both are wrong. They both are a violation of the other persons body. I'm not sure making the distinction is important. I can't think of a reason they should be treated any different under the law. I may not agree with the law all the time, but both rape and sexual assault seem very simil…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 06:01 PM
-3

lets look at the whole paragraph, for the entire context: Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of "rape." She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. "To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him." Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. "They have a…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 05:50 PM
1

The last few decades have seen steady and dramatic increases in the incidence of boys and young men suffering from genital deformities, low sperm count, sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer. Come on, this website doesn't even try to support the claims they're making. I have no doubt that there are dangerous chemicals out there, but this website is just paranoia. Also, the whole part about "genital deformities" is blatant cissexism. It's disgusting to see this shit being said.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 04:55 PM
-2

That link does show a blatant example of sexism.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 04:45 PM
2

Well... actually, the person who developed the concept of intersectionality, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, is a feminist. Though there have been (and still are) feminists who are insensitive towards the problems men face today, there are a great deal of feminist like Crenshaw who have been paying attention, and engaging with mens issues using feminism. So, I don't think its fair to say: Feminism, however, is not about equality. Seeing as when you look at a lot of contemporary feminists, Kimberlé W…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 04:34 PM
1

The Catherine Comins quote isn't actually from her. It was written by a journalist. I'm not sure simply being a woman is enough to make Sharon Stone a feminist. I have no idea where you got the idea that Cal Thomas is a feminist... that's weird. Is this really the best you've got? Two dead feminists, two ancient feminists (72 and 82, respectively) two not really feminists, and a misattributed quote.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 04:18 PM
1

Really? 'Don't Be That Guy' ad campaign cuts Vancouver sex assaults by 10 per cent in 2011
/r/MensRights12/07/13 09:19 PM
-1

I will have you know that I was once benned from SRS.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 07:51 PM
1

What have you said that is critical of my "character, intentions, or intellectual processes"? I'm simply stating that you aren't being funny.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 07:34 PM
0

0% funny.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 07:16 PM
-1

obtuse cuntery! lol. That's actually like 18% funny. But saidly, 82% misogyny :|
/r/MensRights07/07/13 07:05 PM
-1

Can you say the same about your home subs? Home sub? I don't own any subs. I'm as much a victim of the system as you.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 04:38 PM
-1

I don't want to watch a video full of hate. Oh, well, maybe you should consider not painting all of feminism as one homogeneous body of thought. I mean, that would be a good step to building a bridge. I don't paint all MRAs as awful monsters like Paul Elam.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 03:31 AM
-1

I'm pretty sure there are a number of MRAs who are honestly interested in building bridges. It's just getting past all the pessimistic MRAs who just want to spend their time hating feminism rather than helping men or boys.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 12:02 AM
1

Well. It's starting to sound like that's what you think.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 03:43 AM
1

That is not the same as saying: Who is responsible for the system--the system of physical and psychological terrorism against women--in Bell Hooks analysis if no one wants it? Men. That is your naive interpretation of patriarchy. Most of us have gone beyond your dull and simplistic explanation.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 03:28 AM
1

Who is responsible for the system--the system of physical and psychological terrorism against women--in Bell Hooks analysis if no one wants it? Men. Neither she or myself have stated that. You're being dishonest or confused (that's an inclusive or).
/r/MensRights05/07/13 03:15 AM
1

The system insists this fact (that males are endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence). Regardless of the wills, wishes or reality of the experiences of individual men and women. It misrepresents the reality of what men and women are or can be. Where are you struggling in your comprehension I've kept these comments short for your benefit, I don't know why you keep getting it wrong.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 03:01 AM
1

Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males... are endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. Read it again, you quoted it correctly last time. It was dishonest for you to cut up the quote to fit your misunderstanding of her writing. Patriarchy misrepresents the reality of what men and women are or can be.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:43 AM
0

It misrepresents the reality of what men and women are or can be.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:31 AM
3

No they weren't. Never?
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:08 AM
0

Well, because feminism is opposed to patriarchy, and patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating Then feminism is against the idea that males are inherently dominating. This also means that feminism is opposed to the idea that females are weak. I am glad you got a chance to learn some feminism today.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 01:51 AM
0

So you believe that there exists a "gendered" inequality, now and historically, that favours a minority of men. Yes, I suppose so. There is a societal order and organization which has and currently favors some men, often through the oppression of women. When it happens this way, we call it patriarchy. Actually, it is a very common usage of the term. For example, see bell hooks Understanding Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 10:41 PM
-2

There seem to be a lot of feminists who misunderstand what "patriarchy" means. I have no doubt. There are a lot of MRAs who don't understand what "patriarchy" means. I think collapsing the etymology of the word patriarchy into the cause of the thing patriarchy is a bad idea. I believe this mistake constitutes a use-mention error.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 02:10 PM
-3

I was using patriarchal as a descriptor, not a pejorative. The term describe how the contradiction works to limit action by women. Either they are acting like a "jaded lesbian rad fem" or their behaving "like a woman ought to." In fact why would you use the word "patriarchy" at all since it explicitly labels "rule by men" as a problem. It has other uses too. Such as the one I've given. I does describe a distinct gendered inequality between women and men, but it doesn't have to be "for men's bene…
/r/MensRights04/07/13 01:58 PM
0

Hum. I guess I haven't met any before. What changed?
/r/MensRights04/07/13 04:03 AM
-3

What? Can you expand on that?
/r/MensRights04/07/13 03:46 AM
-8

Hehe. I don't think very many feminists would agree with you on that assessment of my character. A long while ago I was threatened with a ban after an argument got really long (and the respondent was being uncooperative and offensive). But after a conversation with demmian, I managed to keep myself un-banned. I don't know if AlexReynard has tried messaging demmian, maybe if he agreed to stick to the rules, he could get posting privileges back. But I can't predict what the mod will do. I'm of two…
/r/MensRights04/07/13 12:46 AM
-4

Actually I've been warned by demmian a lot to mind my behavior :P I don't know if the mod warned AlexReynard, but maybe e was.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 12:36 AM
-1

There are a lot of men's rights activists who grew up feminists, so it's not like we don't know what feminism is. Hum, maybe our experiences are significantly different, but who are these MRAs who've grown up feminist?
/r/MensRights03/07/13 09:13 PM
1

Paul Elam loves to lord is ability to ban feminists from aVfM. Pretty much if you call him out on his bullshit, he tells you that you are stupid and that if you continue to debate him, he'll ban you.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 09:01 PM
4

Being historically accurate is not nitpicking. But I recognize that you are threatened by both.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 12:56 AM
3

Fun Fact: The term "Rosie the Riveter" was first used in 1942 in a song of the same name written by Redd Evans and John Jacob Loeb. The song was recorded by numerous artists, including the popular big band leader Kay Kyser, and it became a national hit. The song portrays "Rosie" as a tireless assembly line worker, who is doing her part to help the American war effort. The name is said to be a nickname for Rosie Bonavitas who was working for Convair in San Diego, California. . The "Real" Rosies: …
/r/MensRights01/07/13 03:14 PM
-4

Finally! Someone who gets me... ;)
/r/MensRights29/06/13 01:28 AM
-6

I'm rather impressed they put that image of feminism burning right above their request for donation...
/r/MensRights28/06/13 02:50 PM
1

I rather enjoyed this video... And who said feminists can't have a sense of humor! Though, this is the second time this has been posted here. But it's worth noting that the woman who made this video adds this disclaimer: in case you didn't catch on, this video is supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek parody on some of society's crazy stereotypes of feminists. it's honestly not supposed to be serious or be taken seriously????? this video is not intended to offend anyone; if you want to take anything f…
/r/MensRights28/06/13 02:04 AM
1

NAFALT
/r/MensRights27/06/13 12:09 PM
1

Seriously. At the very least I feel like the spirit of /u/CrossHook is with us, even if not /u/CrossHook himself.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 10:18 PM
0

Okay... well Facebook isn't really conducive of intellectual or academic discussion. Maybe your program has some bad eggs, but I think your objection regarding the state of gender scholarship within sociology doesn't seem very convincing or convinced. BTW, in your image, you state that "That is the statistic being decried by feminists." Decry means "denounce," at least to me when I see it in this context, so it sounds like you are saying '1-in-4 statistic is being denounced by feminists.' Which,…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 05:38 PM
0

...I was told by a professor that experiments are unreliable. I guess my interests in sociology are theory and ethnography, not really "experiments." When I brought up Myth of Male Power and the issues raised in the book, I was called a misogynist and a rape-apologist by someone about a semester or two from her PhD. Farrell isn't really academic level material... also, he does come off as a rape-apologist. Though I am sorry your were treated that way, she should have explained to you her objecti…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 05:08 PM
0

I think they're trying to use Parsons... Who are "they"? As far as I can tell, no one has explained where this came from, so how can we know "their" intent or motive. It just looks like an example of a Parsonian attempt to explain differing crime rates by gender. As far as I can tell, neither of the "quotes" are proposing gender as a social construct or Parsonian theory as a support for a feminist theory. If you're studying gender in Sociology in the US, you might as well be taking Women's Studi…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 04:26 PM
0

But I actually don't think any feminists use Parsonian theory... Also, I can't think of a single modern Parsonian sociologist, at least not one who's influential. Also, the OP said this was a sociology course, not a feminist course. Though they can overlap, I think it's a big leap to assume the image is from a feminist text or course.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 04:10 PM
-3

People don't really subscribe to Parsonian social theory anymore... it's like way out of date and contemporary social theorists have moved away from nomothetic social theory. So it's a little misleading to say they teach this is sociology. This looks like a history of social theory course/lecture.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:11 PM
5

That's not very cool... Why do people think it's okay to police the masculinity of male feminists. Isn't this exactly what MRAs dislike about contemporary gender roles?
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:23 AM
-1

Feminists seem to use it for damn near anything, so it doesnt really matter does it? You seemed to think you could defend those who say it. No, I seem to think you're not willing to talk about the contents of those concepts you're against. Please tell me exactly where to find it please and with detailed breakdowns. It's in the paper and reports. I gave you links and a citation. No, it isnt correct. But it is, for average men and women. whether that is enough to substantiate the claim of a wage g…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:09 AM
-2

Yes. She just can't let it go that I trounced her multiple times over her misunderstanding feminism, feminists, and feminist scholarship. She just gets all angry and then DARVOs me. She basically stalks me around /r/MR waiting for a moment to drop in an let me know she's watching. It's this weird thing where she tries to "gotcha" me, but then fails. Then when I return the favor, she is left speachless, and has to bide her time until her next attempted "gotcha."
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:27 AM
-1

You sure are frustrating. Dude, I'm just trying to have a clear conversation here. Seriously, there are other definitions outside of the NOW (in fact, I never go to NOW's website. If you can believe, they're not feminist enough for me). For example, from the wikipedia page on "war on women:" While the term was not created in 2010, and has been used in other contexts, it became common in American political discourse after the 2010 congressional elections. It goes back farther then 2010, and more …
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:02 AM
0

[continued from the previous comment] And yet that is what feminists claim is happening. I'm not claiming that. And I'm pretty sure I've never heard any feminist say "men beatin' and rapin' women all over the place," and if they did, I'd be curious as to what they were smoking. I mean, I won't deny that I think DV and rape are serious issues that require attention, but I don't think anyone worth listening to is making the claim that all men are "beatin' and rapin'" women. That is essentially the…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 01:13 AM
0

Are MRAs in favor of rolling back the right to abortion, because I got the impression most (or at least some) were okay with the legal right to abortion. As far as I can see not all women are happy with abortion being legal and I cant see how demanding free contraceptives equates to a war on women. Does the abortion issue make up the entirety of the "war on women"? What is the war one women then. Seriously, from my perspective it is a politically charged term, with multiple (sometimes conflictin…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 01:03 AM
0

Okay (just checking). Well, I guess for the first one, a war on women, I am not sure that what that is specifically defined as. I think I've heard it described (within the US, at least) as an effort on the part of congressional republicans (or local state legislatures) to role back the legal right for women to seek abortions or contraceptives. So, if that is the case, I have to say I am opposed to the effort of republicans to role back the right to abortion. Are MRAs in favor of rolling back the…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:23 PM
0

Do you mean the MRM is against the ideas that there is a war on women, the 30% wage gap and men "beatin' and rapin' women all over the place"? Or are they against a war on women, the 30% wage gap and men "beatin' and rapin' women all over the place"?
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:08 PM
0

What are the things that the MRM is against? I guess I've only really thought about the things it's for, but what are the things it's against?
/r/MensRights25/06/13 09:46 PM
0

Well, I've read a lot of the criticisms of feminism presented on this /r/MR, aVfM, and other places within the MRM, and I feel like I've heard them all. To me, its either white knighting, or they have checked their brain at the door [or] the ones that believe feminist theories but havent heard any criticisms of them. Hum, I guess after having studied a great deal of feminism, both as a historical movement and a diverse field of intellectual, philosophical and ethical positions, I just don't agre…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:51 PM
1

Hum, I guess after having studied a great deal of feminism, both as a historical movement and a diverse field of intellectual, philosophical and ethical positions, I just don't agree. Put simply, there are some strong criticism of parts of feminist history (and even some "bad" contemporary feminists), but there is just so much good scholarship, writing and thought. I don't think it's worth it to throw that all away because of some bad apples. It's even more telling, considering that some of the …
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:40 PM
1

But do you believe that any of them are feminists, and stay feminists, because they truly believe in what they believe. I mean, there are a variety of kinds of feminists. Do you think that there are any feminist men who are not disabused, not self-hating, and not "white knighting"? But rather have looked at feminism (both the broader body of feminist thought and history and contemporary feminist scholarship) and have concluded that their feminism is a good thing, despite some of it's disagreeabl…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:13 PM
0

Wait, it's either one or the other? There is no third option?
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:01 PM
0

Well, I'm neither trying to "white knight" or sex feminist women. Not that this describes all male feminists. Many just check their brain at the door like the women. I have no doubt they're are the type of people who do this. I just don't take that kind of person very serious, and it is usually obvious when someone has "checked their brain at the door."
/r/MensRights25/06/13 07:43 PM
0

Feminists would call it misogyny if you described the behaviour differently. Go on... is there more to this?
/r/MensRights25/06/13 06:57 PM
1

Just a real quick question: How do we know either of these women are feminists?
/r/MensRights25/06/13 06:42 PM
0

Okay... well as a feminist who is also a man I guess I take exception to the insinuation that I am equivalent to a member of the KKK. The implication being that I'm somehow extraordinarily uninformed about the very intellectual field I associate myself with. Seriously? Is that the claim you are trying to make?
/r/MensRights25/06/13 06:29 PM
1

Well, that depends. Are you seriously going to suggest that feminists developed the "battered woman's" defense as a means to privilege women when they've been accused of murder (or in this case, attempt to murder)?
/r/MensRights25/06/13 06:13 PM
1

Who came up with and promoted battered woman's defence? her lawyer I imagine.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 05:51 PM
-2

I have family who were drafted or volunteered too. If fact, if it wasn't for my uncle's life service in the as a Seabee, I wouldn't have been able to afford to go to college. By technical, I mean that today the draft isn't really a realistic possibility. The horrors of WWII and Vietnam ultimately created a political environment that removed the draft as a legitimate means to increase military forces. I mean, I completely agree, it's a terrible thing, and I am in favor of removing it altogether. …
/r/MensRights25/06/13 04:45 PM
1

I am not sure it's fair to lay the crimes of Nicole Ryan at the feet of feminists. While it may be true that some women get away with murder, it is also true that some men get away with murder. To suggest this is part of some sort of feminist conspiracy is just strange. Also, Ryan never actually killed her husband... so I am not sure it's fair to say "she got away with it."
/r/MensRights25/06/13 04:33 PM
-1

Well, almost all of this I agree with, actually. Though I would like to point out that just because a lot of these changes were motivated by forces outside of feminism, to suggest that feminist discourse of empowerment and equality played no part in these changes doesn't seem realistic. Feminists have the hard decision of fighting to make it a requirement for women as well and accepting an undesirable responsibility, or fighting for the removal of the draft and helping men. They instead chose to…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 01:57 PM
0

Burden of truth, you prove what you claim or shut up. I'm saying right now that you're a not worth responding to, prove me wrong or it's a fact.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 01:42 PM
-4

Second rule of logic: Modus tollens
/r/MensRights25/06/13 12:52 PM
-8

I didn't realize acknowledging the person I'm responding to by screen name was sufficient to "lose" you. Sorry about that.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 06:41 AM
-8

Mostly because I have no idea what you mean by "attempted circle-jerk and calling out of names," I don't think you were ever "with me."
/r/MensRights25/06/13 06:00 AM
-5

Good retort. I accept the blunt bow out.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 05:18 AM
-13

I've shown feminists have also assembled to address ostensibly woman "favorable" laws in military roles and familial structures, why should we believe feminists weren't the ones who undid laws favoring women criminals? Who else was advocating for gender equity? EDIT: You see, you're taking it as the neutral position that feminists don't actually advocate for equality. This position requires substantiation before you can actually dispute that the discourse of equality fostered by feminists during…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 05:08 AM
-16

If you show me proof of feminists at the time not assembling to address the coddling of women in the courts (and that the policymakers had actually changed their tune in response to feminist activism), then you might have a point. But you don't. I've shown feminists have also assembled to address ostensibly woman "favorable" laws in military roles and familial structures, why should we believe feminists weren't the ones who undid laws favoring women criminals? Who else was advocating for gender …
/r/MensRights25/06/13 04:56 AM
-14

Wait... so in the 20s, you believe someone else other then feminists were advocating for the equality of women? Who was it?
/r/MensRights25/06/13 04:35 AM
-17

In the 1920s, women DID get off for being women... but then feminism came along... and women don't get away with murder anymore... Strange, as if with feminism came... greater equality... Then there is that thing where women used to be barred from military roles... but then feminists changed that... Or women relying on their husband's income... until feminism changed that... It's as if feminism brings about greater equality... Gww, perhaps you should check out feminism.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 04:24 AM
-1

Those books aren't meaningless, and I'm sure if you would/could read them, you'd see that. You dodged this question before, but I think it's worth asking again: Are you CrossHook's new account? Your style of commenting is very similar to his, as is your habit of responding to comments well after it has been made. Just curious.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 01:27 PM
-7

You seem to believe that the only reason a woman would criticize women's (sometimes contextually negative) typical behavioral propensities is that she is self-hating. Nope.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 06:27 PM
-9

Hahaha, there is nothing sexist about stating someone is self hating. I mean, remember your view on feminist men? You believed them to be self hating. Is that sexist? Because, if it is, I was being sarcastic. I change my mind: BAD FEMINIST! BAD!!! I know, I get it. I'm reasonable, well read, and intelligent. This upsets you because I burn down all your straw feminists. Further, contrast this with your lack of any substantial knowledge on feminism (or just general knowledge at all) and it upsets …
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:42 PM
0

Goal post moving. Don't do that.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:21 PM
-9

You're DARVOing. I'm not sure you can just make up acronyms and then transform them into verbs and expect people to understand you babble. That's a typical female thing. tsk tsk tsk... Such a self hating woman... There is no white knight big enough to save you from your own shit. What an awesome feminist you are! Why thank you! I am pretty awesome. All the men at the gym tell me that! Lifting bro, it's heart healthy! On an entirely unrelated point, did you just conflate women with being a femini…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 07:19 AM
-10

Oh gawd... here come my stalker... this is awkward...
/r/MensRights23/06/13 06:52 AM
-13

hehe. You need to read bro, I do it before and after the gym. Keeps my mind as strong as my lats! Plus, they are really good feminists, and they've done really awesome work. You're just lashing out because of your ignorance.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 06:41 AM
-10

Bro, you gotta stretch before you do that.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 06:24 AM
-1

When men admit to weakness, it is a net negative (no one cares, they're seen as helpless and dependent). When women admit to weakness it is not a net negative, it might even be a net positive (depends on circumstances). Net? Boy would I love to see your tool of quantification. Because net implies you've distilled this down to some sort of meaningful measure of quantities. When men admit to being raped, they get no compassion and no support... Weird. At my university, men who are victims of rape …
/r/MensRights23/06/13 04:06 AM
-4

Here's two MRAs in a fight
/r/MensRights23/06/13 03:48 AM
-21

Oh well, there are lots of other really good reasons feminism rocks. Take Judith Butler for example, who isn't undone by her? J. Halberstam is awesome too. Oh yeah! Love The Bathroom Problem! Christine Delphy is awesome, trying to imagine nongender is hard work. But the MRM doesn't have any rock stars like that... It would help if they did.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 03:36 AM
-20

lol, you should put those quotes in "quotes" or > quote However, you should have just copied the text from the Wikipedia page rather then quote mined like you did: Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man is a 1999 book by feminist author Susan Faludi, her followup to Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. The book addresses the state of masculinity in late 20th Century America. The chapters of the book explore various topics including job losses from the closure of the Long Beach…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 03:18 AM
20

Okay... so if I find two quotes from two different MRAs which say contradictory things, does that qualify as MRM hypocrisy? Because this would be a really easy thing to do.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 02:48 AM
30

But these aren't remotely from the same feminists. The top quote is from an American Feminist, and the bottom "quote" appears in an Indian Newspaper. I don't think that qualifies as "hypocrisy."
/r/MensRights23/06/13 02:35 AM
-1

Okay, well I looked at it. I actually looked at a paper some time ago from a nursing journal which came to a similar conclusion. Now... For women on the other hand it triggers our instinct to help take care of them, especially in men. Hmm... Somehow I'm skeptical of this claim. Especially in light of how prevalent the stereotype of the "welfare mother" is in political discourse of social welfare. These women are treated as both weak in terms of social power, but also morally weak. Further, this …
/r/MensRights23/06/13 02:10 AM
-1

For women on the other hand it triggers our instinct to help take care of them, especially in men. Hmm... Somehow I'm skeptical of this claim. Especially in light of how prevalent the stereotype of the "welfare mother" is in political discourse of social welfare. These women are treated as both weak in terms of social power, but also morally weak. Further, this statement seems to assumes that women actively engage in "showing weakness" as a means to exploit the system or men, as if further playi…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 12:43 AM
-7

Because you need to take account of men underreporting. You dont even need to say that women are being overreported to see the flaw. Okay, well that is fair. It's worth noting that Quarkster has taken to the argument that women are overdiagnosed with depression, which is the argument I'm countering (among other lesser arguments). Also, I have no doubt that men under report... but why are we assuming that women don't under report at the same/similar (or even greater) rate?
/r/MensRights23/06/13 12:22 AM
-4

:D This was actually pretty funny! Probs worth noting that the person who made this video added this informative disclaimer: in case you didn't catch on, this video is supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek parody on some of society's crazy stereotypes of feminists. I found it pretty funny... and who said feminist can't have a sense of humor ;) P.S. Judith Butler often cracks a few jokes; every time I watch an interview with her, she gets pretty clever.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 12:11 AM
-8

I'm confused as to how you differentiate between cases of "real" depression and cases of "diagnosed" depression, seeing as the way depression is made known is through diagnoses? Because to make the claim that adding the "be diagnosed with " makes the statement correct, it sound like there is some "truer" state of being depressed which is not determined by the diagnoses process. And if that is the case, what is the means in which we come to know these "truer" cases, and why isn't this mechanism u…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 12:01 AM
-6

I'm not sure what you're point it because, if you skip to the end, we see this exchange: [–]Quarkster Expert consensus, as I said. You have the most qualified people get together and figure out how often field diagnoses are wrong. It's the same way you investigate misdiagnosis for any illness. [–]spermjack_attack Appeal to authority, just as I thought. It doesn't look like you're willing to abide by basic rules of arguments, which is unfortunate. [–]Quarkster Yeah. Expert consensus. You know, li…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 11:50 PM
-7

That his FTFY is irrelevant, or as you said, meaningless.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 11:32 PM
1

Oh, okay.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 11:22 PM
-7

I donno. All I know is that some people seem to have ADD, and those people need treatment. Maybe their is something going on with the DSM... which would mean... we might need a better metric for determining "real" vs diagnosed cases of ADD and depression. Which brings us back to... Unless you have an effective measure which can distinguish between diagnosed and "real" cases, your FTFY is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 10:55 PM
-6

That's fine, I am usually pretty skeptical of popular media reports on public health (and in this case, mental health). I'm not surprised if it's false.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 10:41 PM
-8

the method by which the DSM-IV was written. Oh yeah! And psychologists use the DSM to diagnose depression! Which means all DSM diagnosed cases of depression are ligidimate cases of depression! Score one for women! (oh wait... that means women are twice as likely to be depressed as men... so much for female privilege if that means to being privileged with significantly more depression.)
/r/MensRights22/06/13 10:31 PM
-8

I don't know. Is it?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 10:20 PM
-5

Expert consensus, as I said... Appeal to authority, just as I thought. It doesn't look like you're willing to abide by basic rules of arguments, which is unfortunate.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 09:55 PM
-6

...looking at the rate at which depression diagnoses are wrong in a sample of the population. How do you determine which diagnoses are wrong and which are right?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 09:45 PM
-11

Dude, you are totally off topic. We were talking about real rates of depression diagnoses, not some sort of study on depression. You're claim assumed that somehow women are over diagnosed, which requires an independent mechanism of measuring depression that isn't diagnoses. Dude, learn some scientific methods.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 09:28 PM
1

I was responding to /u/Dawgz83948... What are you responding to?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 09:13 PM
-10

You need more then statistics. You need to know to how many cases are "fake," some method of distinguishing real vs. fake diagnoses. Because all cases are determined by diagnoses, I don't see how/why you are making a distinction between "actual" depression and diagnosed depression. Try taking a methods of science class, like a took several years of. Me too! Mine must have been more up to date! Just graduated last month! :D It must be why your responses are empty of any understanding or relationa…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 09:02 PM
-13

No. It's important that unknowns be recognized even if they cannot be eliminated. What the hell are you gibbering about? "unknowns"? lol, you're silly. Go learn some scientific method. lol, my argument comes right out of philosophy of science. I'm not sure why you tried to appeal to the scientific method, other then out of some empty understanding of what it means.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 08:34 PM
-12

Unless you have an effective measure which can distinguish between diagnosed and "real" cases, your FTFY is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 08:23 PM
-2

They may complain and be diagnosed at higher rates, but the suicide rates tell a much different—and more accurate—story. Not all suicide is caused by depression. In fact, a seminal sociological text, Suicide (Émile Durkheim), establishes this fact. So yeah... But I don't think it's fair to say they "complain"and are "diagnosed at higher rates," it makes it sound like you think they are lying or something. As for females 'suffering' from a lack of ego. Well, that's just laughable. Why is that lau…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 06:04 PM
-9

What part is nonsense?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 05:53 PM
1

...because it offers up the fantasy that biological differences don't exist and/or can be overcome through authoritarian social conditioning. Haha. Are you saying that IRL, Janeway would have been crippled by her vagina?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:07 PM
3

But getting lost on the other side of the galaxy had nothing to do wither her being a woman. I don't think that makes it the opposite of feminist.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 01:56 PM
1

If it makes you feel better, as a feminist I don't think you're a feminist. Does that help?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 05:44 AM
0

So is your criticism that women are at fault when they are raped?
/r/MensRights21/06/13 02:29 PM
1

Lol, not even you can freeze my peaches. Seriously dude, your misogyny is weak. You need to learn to lift.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 02:28 AM
2

Lol. Bro, you gotta get a look at these guns. So, would you settle a question in r/amr: are you CrossHook's new account?
/r/MensRights21/06/13 01:39 AM
1

Okay... But my point still stands.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 01:29 AM
4

Dude, you're wack! I think we're done here. You just keep repeating the same ignorance of feminism, and the same generalizations I warned you about in the very beginning of this: You run into the problem that what you see as the "same patriarchy theory," is in fact a MRA construction of feminist beliefs that fails to reflect the vast majority of feminisms. This is your problem, because it leaves you only with broad generalizations of feminism that doesn't really match any feminists. Therefor, wh…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 10:53 PM
7

Show me the figures that they use to demonstrate the prevalence of DV and rape by gender... We don't use figures. When a man comes in and is a victim of rape, sexual assault, or abuse, we provide the same services we would provide to a woman who was victim of rape, sexual assult, or abuse. ...I will prove to you that they are misleading. How can you know you will prove something you haven't even seen? That seems like backwards logic. ...which are carefully worded to exclude envelopment, pretty e…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 10:35 PM
4

The original DV movement was started by Erin Pizzey... ...in the UK. Further, the Haven House was founded in 1964 in California. This was much earlier then Erin's project. If you show me the stats your group uses... I don't think you even know what you're asking for. Why would we need stats to provide support and services to male victims of rape and sexual assault? We provide them no matter the prevalence. Reproductive abuse is common... I'm not sure what "common" means, but I'll role with it. .…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 10:23 PM
9

Show me the data your group uses for domestic violence and rape, and I will show you how they are covering up and minimizing female perpetration. Data? I just told you that we fully acknowledge that men can be victims of domestic violence and rape, and thus provide support and service to those men who suffer from DV and rape. The funding for all your groups comes out of the 1.25 billion a year that FMF and its legal wing organise through VAWA. I don't know how true this is (I'm pretty sure most …
/r/MensRights20/06/13 10:10 PM
3

It says that general society is more supportive of male abuse victims than feminist services. Well, even if this is the case, it is still true that feminism is doing more for male victims than the MRM, because the MRM is doing nothing for them. Feminism took over the original DV movement... The original DV movement was feminist. What are you talking about? Show me your groups stats. and I will show you where they are lying and erasing rapists and victims. What stats dude? Be more specific. ...an…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 09:57 PM
7

I know who Nathanson and Young are, and I not to impressed with their work. They both redily admit in their book that there work is purely speculative. Normally, a book review considers the book’s claims and whether or not these claims are useful, valid or contentious. Nathanson and Young admit immediately that everything about their book, Spreading Misandry: TheTeaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture, has nothing but contentious claims. As they elaborate in theintroduction of the first …
/r/MensRights20/06/13 09:46 PM
5

you are an official feminist that says male abuse victims can trust them... Feminists (such as the ones at my university's women's center) have done more for men subject to abuse and sexual assult than the MRM. So, yes, male abuse victims can trust feminists. jokes about reproductive abuse on the internet. I don't think you're listening. Spermjacking is a mythical event where a woman steals sperm from a man for the purpose of exploiting him through child support. There is no reason to believe th…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 09:22 PM
1

Is there anything else to this, or is it just a bald assertion of hypocrisy?
/r/MensRights20/06/13 08:44 PM
17

It seems like you weren't being genuine in your question as OP, because it seems like you've already made up your mind. Your movement... When did I take control of the entire body of feminist thought and activism? ...is lying about abuse rates I certainly am not. ...deliberately keeping envelopment excluded as a definition of rape... Not myself or any majority of feminists. ... running discriminatory abuse intervention services with taxpayers money... I'm not doing this. In fact, I just gave an …
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:46 PM
13

I don't think you've read anything I've written. But I think we're getting off topic, can we return to my original comment: But then you run into the problem that what you see as the "same patriarchy theory," is in fact a MRA construction of feminist beliefs that fails to reflect the vast majority of feminisms. This is problematic, because it leaves MRAs only with broad generalizations of feminism that doesn't really match any feminists. Therefor, what MRAs are talking about are straw feminists.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:31 PM
21

From now on when I'm talking to you I'm going to refer to rape of women as cuntjacking. So, I guess that makes you just as bad as the straw feminists you hate. You've sunk really low bro. Do you even squat? Feminists are for the most part, callous assholes that support disgusting ideas like discriminatory abuse intervention services. You don't know very many feminists do you? Your perspective is weird because at my university women's center, we help provide services to men who've been abused and…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:21 PM
21

Very few [feminists] seriously deny that men suffer (see intersectionality), so to suggest that is to be dishonest. Bro, come on. Your understanding of feminism is limited at best. Also, I'm not sure you know what 'strawmaning' means. I don't care for jokes about partner abuse. But spermjacking is an entirely different thing, Spermjacking is hysterical woman-fearing construct deployed by some misogynistic MRAs. Partner abuse is a real thing. Secretly stealing a dudes sperm in an attempt to explo…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:08 PM
1

emasculation? I'm confused, how are all these 'facts' about the economy, education, etc related to emasculation?
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:58 PM
23

Right, you dismiss... I dismiss the idea that "women are scheming, spermjacking harpies who will do anything to make a quick buck." But you don't like jokes about rape and people laughing at women for being concerned about rape. Yes, I don't care for rape jokes. Just as I don't care for jokes about partner abuse. But spermjacking is an entirely different thing, Spermjacking is hysterical woman-fearing construct deployed by some misogynistic MRAs. Are you made of straw? As noted before. I life br…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:48 PM
-1

Oh, well when I was typing out that I wasn't straw, I thought about what I'm made of to disprove the (weird) question. So I responded "muscle and bone." I followed it with the "you lift bro?" because I think the phrase is funny, and the word muscle makes me think of the gym. It was really just a random offhanded response to the random question which took the term "straw feminist" as literal.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:37 PM
2

Always? I do lift, but I don't think I always talk about it.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:25 PM
25

...callous, hypocritical feminist cunt. Whoa. Strong words... and misogyny. Would it help to know that I actually do care about issues of reproductive abuse, I just dislike the level of woman-fearing hysteria present within MRA discourse of "spermjacking." Are you made of straw? Nope, muscles and bone. You lift bro? Are the feminist adademics that cover up abuse made of straw? What feminists academics are trying to cover this up. Name them, make them visible. Because all the academic feminists I…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:08 PM
21

But then you run into the problem that what you see as the "same patriarchy theory," is in fact a MRA construction of feminist beliefs that fails to reflect the vast majority of feminisms. This is problematic, because it leaves MRAs only with broad generalizations of feminism that doesn't really match any feminists. Therefor, what MRAs are talking about are straw feminists.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 04:54 PM
-2

I am a little surprised by the fact that you either recalled it so well you went looking for it, or were so determined to attack me that you went looking for anything useful and found it. The important fact is that I found something that substantiated my claim. You seem to be forgetting this. You keep attacking my character with baseless assumptions while I am holding up a mirror and showing you your reflection. Does the reflection upset you? If it makes you feel uncomfortable, then that is your…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 11:53 PM
-4

Oh my. That's a lot of words about Wooly. Boy, do I not care about her. Both of you have vapid arguments. I just think that you're just playing that part up to justify your little cat fight. You've spent a LOT of time thinking about this (or me, more specifically), haven't you? Honestly, I came up with that little argument in about a minute. Though I'm impressed you thought it required much thought. I guess the description of your motivation is more accurate than previously supposed. now I feel …
/r/MensRights18/06/13 10:01 PM
4

Paltry affirmations of her facade. I mean, it's clear her thought process is backwards here: GWW hates/fears that in which is mischievous and distrustful. Through personal experience as a woman, GWW knows women are mischievous and distrustful. Feminists advocate for women. Feminists advocate for the mischievous and distrustful. GWW hates/fears feminism. I mean, she even recognizes her misogynistic view of women when she reflects on herself as a woman: In fact, if I do recognize myself in someone…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 06:21 PM
-10

Oh, come on GWW, "Okay, I really wasn't interested in doing this"? I kind of have to address it, because I'm vindictive. FTFY. You love doing stuff like this. 95% of your content is attacking feminists and people you don't like. Seriously, your "concern for the well-being of men and boys" is a flimsy pretext for your rampant misogyny and anti-feminism.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 01:21 PM
0

Who's telling them how to behave?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:28 AM
0

That you are currently enjoying a freedom that you do not support the extension of yourself. I don't moderate any subs. It's a fitting analogy for the relationship between men and feminists. What about the intersection of men who are feminists?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:14 AM
-12

Lol, your point?
/r/MensRights17/06/13 05:00 PM
-25

Straw Feminist!
/r/MensRights17/06/13 12:53 PM
-1

Butler provides the grounds for understanding how both men and women are policied, and how gender is the means in which both are limited. Like Delphy, Butler argues that to understand gender, we must go beyond gender. This shows how feminism and feminists are working towards a world where both men and women (if we would even choose to identify them as such) have significantly more freedom of expression and choice.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 10:13 AM
0

Butler never talks about toxic masculinity, AFAIK. Do you know much about Butler? your comment suggests you don't.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 09:59 AM
-5

Well, I think you're a pompous ass. Butler is badass, and if you can't see the connection, well, I'm sorry for you.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 04:35 AM
-8

Awesome Feminism
/r/MensRights16/06/13 02:23 AM
-6

Sorry, I should have given you the link to the apropos point in the video.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 02:13 AM
-10

Yep, totally awesome feminism.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 01:58 AM
-11

But maybe I honestly believe that feminism is about helping both men and women undo the disadvantages of a gendered system of oppression. See Delphy and Butler.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 12:19 AM
-9

Couldn't it also be about removing the disadvantages of being a man? I see no reason why we should forget that part.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 11:26 PM
-4

I just think it's misandrist to reserve the title for only men.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 06:00 PM
-3

Since you identify women as honorary men... honorary men? I didn't say they were men. ...when you insult them with the word mister. So it's an insult to me a mister?
/r/MensRights15/06/13 05:50 PM
-4

Equal opportunity misandry, I am impressed. lol, thanks for the complement! Can women experience misandry?
/r/MensRights15/06/13 05:04 PM
-3

I suppose I've gone beyond gender, and I think that women can be misters too.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 04:43 PM
-5

Exactly? So why is the OP using the same strategy that brigaders use?
/r/MensRights15/06/13 04:12 PM
-13

lol, you're just mad sea_warrior schooled your sorry ass. So now you link to the /r/MR post to try to get misters to brigade it? Also, seriously? Do you know what censoring means?
/r/MensRights15/06/13 12:10 AM
0

Congratulations! You've just repeated everyone else's argument!
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:47 PM
1

Sure. Sounds like fun.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 10:34 PM
1

Oh my gawd. I'm not sure what 90% of this comment is about...
/r/MensRights12/06/13 09:13 PM
1

Nope! KRosen333 is right, you have no idea what you are talking about. Levine's ethnography of 'clone' subculture is a good place to start to clearing up your ignorance on gay subcultures. Your treatment of Bear subculture as fetishizing fat hairy bearded ‘daddy’ men, costumed in man-job uniforms (like the Village People.) Or John Hurt’s tranny character in 'Kiss Of The Spider Woman', whose love of a blond Nazi SS officer was based on the sexy uniform/ indifferent to what it stood for. is pretty…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 07:42 PM
-4

It's easy to be the "leading expert" on a term when you've made it up. I'm the leading expert on `cryptosubversion.'
/r/MensRights12/06/13 07:03 PM
1

Feminist theory states that-- as the oppressed group-- women have 20/20 vision regarding their male oppressors, while men are 'blinded by privilege' about women's experiences; Boy, that is one bald assertion... Hope you can back that up! so that any feminist talking out of her ass about what videogames or pornography or fast cars 'mean' to men is considered to trump men's own lived experiences. I understand that people don't like Anita, but ya gotta let it go.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 06:27 PM
1

I say this because feminist theory has embraced the post-modern view that no objective reality exists, only subjective interpretations. Nope. Paula M. L. Moya essay "Chicana Feminism and Postmodernist Theory," elegantly demonstrates how the difficulty of maintaining postmodern positions on reality creates a diversity of intellectual and political strategies to understand the experiences of women within the intersections of patriarchy, racism, and global inequity. Feminists have replaced the obje…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:49 PM
0

My assertion does not require feminists to believe it to be accurate. Whew, I am glad to know it's just an assertion. But if the implication of Feminists ideas creates beliefs that are anti-male, how can feminists who believe the ideas are not anti-male come to believe things that are anti-male?
/r/MensRights12/06/13 02:02 PM
-1

Butler is pretty awesome. Gender Trouble really upset a lot of feminists with her ideas about performativity, prompting her to write "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: And essay in phenomenology and feminist theory." So it's odd that the OP decided to call Judith Butler out, it's as if she doesn't actually know what Judith Butler writes about.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 01:51 PM
-1

Weight lifting helps me sleep. Feminism is just for fun!
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:33 AM
-6

...The next essay in the book is Judith fucking Butler’s “Gender Trouble.” What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:06 AM
-2

But if the implication of Feminists ideas creates beliefs that are anti-male, how can feminists who believe the ideas are not anti-male come to believe things that are anti-male?
/r/MensRights12/06/13 04:34 AM
2

lol, this is the point in which you get done. When I mischaracterize your argument. LOLZ. Double that standard for me ;) Now I'm moon walking out of here. This was the best way to end this!
/r/MensRights12/06/13 04:24 AM
-1

By acknowledging that feminists, especially male feminists are morons of the highest order. Yes, go on. Is there any more to this argument, or is that it?
/r/MensRights12/06/13 04:14 AM
-2

Every single one of the items I listed, as they are defined by feminism (academic, radical and mainstream) is not only anti-male. How do reconcile this statement with the feminists (and male feminists included) who don't believe that all of these things are anti-male.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 03:47 AM
3

I'm impressed man, you caught me. You caught the one sentence where I make the claim: In fact, if we want to talk about biological differences, the higher percentage of body fat makes women more competent at endurance hunting. Fuck, I'm impressed. You caught where I slipped up. That was pretty clever dude. I was all over this thread trying to keep track of multiple derails, trying to track each argument, and I fucked up. I made a claim that I didn't believe. Good job bro, that was some good hunt…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 03:27 AM
2

I know who Baron-Cohen is. He's a autism researcher (and psychologist) who's gotten an inflated opinion of his own ideas. His work on autism might be sound (I don't know, I don't research autism), but his gender stuff is shit. I've read some of them before, and he's embarrassingly stupid. The first paper shows nothing. It is just the dumbest form of psychological operationalization on social factors. Are you going to tell me that variation between male sexed and female sexed babies and what they…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 02:02 AM
4

The subject I challenged you on was your demonstrably false assertion that women are superior endurance athletes to men. Which is something I never claimed. I have never made this claim. I will repeat myself: This claim was never made. At one point I pointed out how the differences in male and female anatomy go both ways. That when people lay out reasons for the male biological superiority, they only do so by ignoring "facts" that suggest women are just as capable. I don't have a good explanatio…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 01:45 AM
1

Saying that gendered labor wasn't present before agricultural development isn't important to Bem's argument, as hers simply explained the emergence of gendered division of labor as a cultural artifact. I allowed the subject to get derailed, and everyone jumped on board because it gave them an opportunity to show off their gender essentialism. But I am at least glad we established that the MRA present in this thread believe that women are are less than men in both basic and complex physical tasks…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 12:29 AM
3

If your data are wrong, your conclusion is unfounded. The data being presented is orthogonal to the claims I'm making.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 10:49 PM
1

Well, endurance hunting tends to require multiple people. I'm not sure whatever difference there are between men and women would yield significant variation in hunting success based on the gender distribution of the hunting party.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 08:49 PM
0

Bringing down a largish animal with a spear sort of depends on that, no? Spears don't seem to be the only way (or earliest way) of hunting. I wonder if there is a better way?
/r/MensRights11/06/13 07:55 PM
1

No, seriously, I have never disputed these 'facts.' Rather I have suggested that in the grand scheme of things, these 'facts' don't support the claim that women are significantly less capable of hunt compared to men. But everytime I say this, some MRA jumps back in and says: Average marathon completion times differ by about half an hour between men and women. Record times seem to differ by about half that. Which is fine, because hunting isn't the same as a marathon. Like, seriously, everyone wit…
/r/MensRights11/06/13 07:35 PM
3

I've seen this guy's work. He's a joke, and the science presented here is shaky at best. Honestly, if you are citing youtube videos (even if they're television shows), you're doing some pretty shitty sociology.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 07:09 PM
3

Patriarchy is unfalsifiable... Patriarchy isn't a theory, it's a descriptor. Feminism is the only discourse that has not re integrated other theories of social analysis in order to develop a new discourse... Dude, do you do sociology? There are lots of examples of feminism integrating other forms of social thought. Take Bartky for example. Modern feminism was originally an offshoot of Marxist schools of thought... Read "The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism." It is a conflict theory. Soci…
/r/MensRights11/06/13 01:47 PM
1

Sociology student here. Oh boy! One of my kind! I can cut theories of feminism to pieces in the same language the academics use. Wut? (a lot of the theory is still unfalsifiable) Wut Wut Wut? Do you even do social theory bro? Marxism and conflict theories have this weakness, why anyone would think feminism which comes from these theories... Wut wut? Who taught your introductory theory course? GWW? There is one gigantic issue feminist and to a less degree sociologists need to get passed. A lot of…
/r/MensRights11/06/13 04:41 AM
1

Seriously? This isn't even the most important point of my response to the OP. Fuck, you folks need to get over your male supremacy fantasies.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 03:48 AM
3

Oh, it's mostly because I reject the claim that these differences are significant enough to make them better hunters. This runs contrary to your claim of knowledge of hunting. First, The original claim is that I don't believe the difference in average running, jumping, climbing, and carrying abilities is significant enough to result in significant difference in ability at hunting. Second, you're accusing me of lying. Of which I'm not interested in arguing with someone who assumes bad faith.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 11:46 PM
4

Yes, I realize that some feminists believe this. But some feminists do not. Quite a few feminists believe that unequal treatment is bad. Quite a few feminists avoid the broad generalizations which attempt to describe the experiences of all men and all women.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 11:14 PM
7

Like why are we trying to order all these things? It seems so petty. More so, on the occasion that MRAs are right about the dynamics of inequality, it shows how contextualized gender inequality is. Simply looking at gender is shortsighted (and is reflected in the shortsightedness of much 2nd wave feminism), and good theories of inequality require an intersectionalist approach. Over the past 50 years, much of social science has moved away from nomothetic theories, and I really don't think there i…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 10:24 PM
-1

What link? I already told you that I don't take you seriously.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 10:05 PM
4

I think the nuances of how patriarchy disadvantages both men and women, and how it intersects with racial, class, and sexual dimensions of oppression makes that question difficult (or impossible) to answer. At best, attempting to answer that question makes invisible the contours of inequality. Specifically, whatever this "benefit" is, it is something with many dimensions, and the use of "overall" doesn't allow for ideographic examinations and explanations.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:54 PM
1

Oh, it's mostly because I reject the claim that these differences are significant enough to make them better hunters. There is more to hunting then running, jumping, climbing, and carrying. In fact, as someone who actually hunts, there is a lot more to hunting then this.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:31 PM
-2

That only happens everytime you, GWW, and other MRAs reinterpretate feminist arguments to fit your understanding of feminism. Such as here. Folks here keep acting like they understand feminism, and when a feminist points out that the MRA understanding is flawed, MRAs ignore and keep repeating the same claims over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and o…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 05:40 PM
-3

Hehe, did you get grumpy and decide to "rant?" I'm sorry, but you weren't carrying on a productive conversation, so I dumped you. You derailed, and I wasn't going to invest time into our conversation. You were ignoring my points, and introducing arguments orthogonal to mine. That's bad debate style, and I wasn't going to waste my time.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 05:30 PM
0

Um, first, I used 2 gendered woman's names, 2 gendered men's names, and 2 ungendered names (Kelly and Kim). So yeah... You misread the example. But do women have the capacity for brute strength or endurance that men do? That answer is no. Completely not true. Like there is no foundation for this. Seriously. Nothing. None. Zip. Zero. I recognize that people think they understand sexual dimorphism here in this sub, but most don't. All I have to do is point to a female bodybuilder, and your entire …
/r/MensRights10/06/13 05:15 PM
6

Apex fallacy?
/r/MensRights10/06/13 05:00 PM
2

Once again, there is no reason to base the difference in hunting abilities based on gender or sex. As stated here.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 04:49 PM
2

But what's the method of determining that men are "better" than women. I totally recognize that people can tell who individually is the better hunter, but there is no reason a priori to assume that the differences in hunt capabilities are based on gender. So, wouldn't the obvious method be to simply assess who is better at hunting by simply identifying the better hunters. Also, hunting wasn't always a lone activity. Often it was communal, so in this way, there is no "better hunter," because ever…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 04:35 PM
1

I'm skeptical of the claim that "women chose to work inside the home out of a desire to avoid physically demanding and frequently dangerous labor." It seems dependent on the idea that work around the house for these women was easy and infrequent. It's as if the claim makes invisible all the things that need to be done to upkeep a house, raise children, prepare and preserve food, etc. Along the same vein, I think the view that field work is "more valuable labor," is misplaced and androcentric. As…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 04:25 PM
1

Who said hunting was a solitary activity? 'When John goes out to hunt, he brings back a deer. When Jane, Mark, Kyle, Alice, Kelly, and Kim go out hunting, they bring back back bison. Hmmmm...'
/r/MensRights10/06/13 04:02 PM
0

Um the idea is that there is actually a lot to do if your job is to stay at home cooking, raising children, etc. There was a lot to do (as was out in the field). Further, the division of labor wasn't instantaneous, so it was a slow progression to gendered division of labor. Because someone needed to work the fields, and because women were charged with child care, men became the people who worked the animals. Like I said somewhere else, this is a weak point in Bem's theory.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 01:39 PM
-1

You forget, "primitive" peoples don't have modern biomedical, scientific, and statistical techniques to figure those facts out. How would the know which gender was more effective? Wouldn't it have been that those people who fail to bring back food, be the ones less likely to be sent out again. So whichever women or men who were successful would be the women and men who went out again.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 01:29 PM
8

I meant that women and men foraged and hunted together. Disregard GWW glib comment, I did not mean that men and women both lactated. Also, I didn't deny the presence of gender roles, just that gender roles alone don't explain gendered inequality. Further, Meed's work has been highly criticized for a number of reasons, of one which was her claims about gender in other cultures. I don't agree with Mead. GWW is collapsing all feminist into one feminism, and mistaking my claims with her misunderstan…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 01:19 PM
0

I imagine Bem means that when men were out on the "property," they interacted with each other more. I know she looks at the use of work animals as one of the motivators for dividing up the labor. You can't have children running around the feet of an ox, so while the women stayed at the house tending the children, men would work the oxen. Work animals were used to travel, so when it came time to go to other properties, the man would go because he knew how to work the ox. I think this is one of Be…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 01:08 PM
4

Regardless of the differences, it still doesn't support the claim that women couldn't hunt.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 12:57 PM
-10

To you.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 03:44 AM
-7

Welcome to the party, your 5 days late and annoying. Get out.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 03:11 AM
-6

So you never passed high school? Dar har har! You're a funny kid! Keep up the good work! And High School!
/r/MensRights10/06/13 02:44 AM
-2

This question was addressed to feminists. Not you. And I don't think you even answer the question.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 02:31 AM
3

Life expectancy numbers can be fishy. I imagine there was a great deal of variation, but there is evidence to show that nomadic populations tended to stay in areas where life was easiest, and the whether was somewhat consistent all year long. but it took considerably more effort from a given amount of food Well, not quite. In fact, anthropological evidence shows that maybe 2 to 5 hours a day were spent gather/hunting and doing other necessary tasks (though sometimes this evidence is suggests tha…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 10:55 PM
4

There are two things: How are we telling the gender of one chimp from another? What is the difference between sex and gender for chimps?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 10:41 PM
7

As an aside, I'm not the one downvoting you. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. No problem. Honestly, I was somewhat impressed this question was asked. It seems common for some MRAs to assume feminism is this body of thought, homogenious all the way through. But actually, questions like this one (which I have interpreted as "where did gender inequality come from") are really good questions. This isn't something that feminist scholars all agree on, or something easily solved. Thanks f…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 10:15 PM
5

There is this common myth, reproduced within European culture, that before the advent of "civilization," life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." However, this isn't supported by anthropological evidence which shows that pre-agrarian peoples often lived in moderately sized nomadic communities, had good health, ate well, and lived well into their 40s.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 07:59 PM
5

Do you have any evidence for women being able to endurance hunt anywhere near as well as men? Fat is broken down at a higher rate when heart rate is increased over long periods of time. Your body depletes muscle stored glucose in about fifteen minutes of rigorous exercises and then switches over to metabolizing fats. If the hunt takes place over a few hours, having a higher body fat percentage would allow you to keep it up for longer. The added weight for women compared to men doesn't seem very …
/r/MensRights09/06/13 07:48 PM
6

The Inuit were not agrarian, and hunted more likely due to necessity, and had gender divisions of labor. That is true. I certainly don't think that Bem's explanation of gendered division of labor is applicable to all societies, and this is a good criticism. But your comment seems unrelated to the bit you quoted. Men have higher levels of endurance, actually.... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this whole part an apex fallacy? You're looking at the best and strongest of modern athletes and gene…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 07:33 PM
6

Feminist pap?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 06:40 PM
5

Biologically, men are better-suited to overt violence and chimpanzees, though not human, divide their labor along gender lines. I don't think there is any good reason to believe this. Humans aren't chimpanzees, so that does not follow. I just don't by arguments which explain human behavior through animal analogy. Further, there were other ways to hunt that didn't require "overt violence." Endurance hunting, for example. In fact, if we want to talk about biological differences, the higher percent…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 06:28 PM
9

No seriously. It's a modern myth that only men hunted. It's not true. There was no reason to divide up the labor based on gender. Men and women raised children together, hunted together, foraged together, etc. There was no benefit to dividing the labor up based on gender, and in many ways this produced a much more egalitarian society. In fact, a major criticism of Bem's theory of agrarian division of labor is that some feminists believe it fails to explain why women needed to stay at the home, a…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 05:54 PM
3

Many native American tribes were agrarian. Have you ever wondered why so many east coast cities have the word "field" in it? It's because they were built on land native Americans had cleared for farming. It follows from this that there would be a somewhat gendered division of labor.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 05:43 PM
2

Yes, the general idea was that prior to agricultural societies, the gendered distribution of labor did not exist. Men and women foraged and hunted side by side. This has been supported by anthropological research.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 05:28 PM
3

1) It was a gradual process, taking place over centuries as labor technologies developed. 2) Bem supposes that the division of work brought men out of homes and into the community more then it brought out women. For a while, this didn't create that much of a power differential, but as farming technologies increased the amount of land a farm could cultivate, the distance between houses increased, and women became more isolated. Ultimately, this would mean that men were able to effectively organiz…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 04:40 PM
0

No, rather that when the work was divided up in the fashion that it was, men eventually gained more power then women. Power is not the same as value.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 04:13 PM
19

That's actually a good question, and it's something feminists regularly disagree on. I don't think feminists have developed the reason, but there are quite a few reasonable explanations. A good explanation, is the one provided by Sandra Bem in Lenses of Gender. Her's is a historical materialist explanation, and she supposes that it was the gendered division of labor when humans transitioned into an agrarian society which produced gendered inequality. As labor divisions arose, labor forms became …
/r/MensRights09/06/13 02:07 PM
1

I currently live in the Northwest, but I've also lived on the East Coast. Let me give you an example of androcentrism. On Bodybuilding.com's website, there is a section with training advice based on gender and age. However, when you look at this page, what do you see? I see that this page only has information for one "special" gender, women. This is because women are the second sex. Men are the focus of the entirety of the rest of the website, and that the experiences of women (among others) are…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 01:43 PM
-1

There certainly a lot of people here who criticize patriarchy and women... So yeah, that quote is dumb.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 03:12 AM
-3

I walk around London, day to day, and I see signs of a gynocentrism... Well, I walk around the US and see signs of androcentrism. In advertising, in universities, in the government, etc... I mean, I'm not describing the patriarchy of (or lack their of) UK. I'm describing American patriarchy.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 02:56 AM
-5

The man with a knife in his hand about to cut another mans throat.... .... or the woman earlier that week, rubbing her pussy in front of him saying "you'd do it if you loved me..." Who was it who nagged Macbeth into being unhappy with his reward, and drove him to commit murder? Lady Macbeth had all the power in that situation. You provide a hypothetical question, then answer it with a fictional story to substantiate your claim that: women have power. That's pretty weak. Rarely do contemporary fe…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 12:41 AM
-3

That is actually a good definition of patriarchy. It's the definition most contemporary feminists use.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 12:29 AM
-1

Feminism seems to be more backward (most believe women must be protected from their mistakes... I don't think this is at all true in any real sense. This is pure MRA straw feminism. ...and top, well supported Feminists even supported the Iraq war) I don't know if you're talking about a specific feminist, but many feminists I can think of either don't have an expressed opinion on this or were opossed to the Iraq war. Either way, the Iraq war isn't a feminist issue... while Men's Rights seems to b…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 12:18 AM
0

That's bullshit. MRAs represent all ends of the spectrum, and include men of different races. That doesn't change the fact that those MRAs who dominate the discourse are primarily libertarian. Which isn't entirely unrelated to the fact that they are mostly white, cis, straight, and men.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 09:36 PM
2

You're a testament to that ;)
/r/MensRights05/06/13 01:21 AM
1

Dude, you are a riot. Keep up the good work ;)
/r/MensRights05/06/13 01:00 AM
1

Thank you for bothering to watch this video this time. Go watch that dumb cunt's SECOND video. When she is talking about the reverse version of woman in a refrigerator she brings up Wreck it Ralph and says how it's so rare it is hilarious when it happens. Her exact words are The gender role reversal is so unusual that it borders on the absurd, which is one of the reason’s why this scene from Disney’s Wreck it Ralph is so humorous. Which is to say: She's isn't saying that it's funny to her, but r…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 11:30 PM
1

Lol, even looking at the format of YouTube, it doesn't lend itself easily to discussion. So, even if people wanted to be decent and intelligent, it's hampered by the implementation. So combine the fact that some Amazing YouTubers feel justified threatening her and the shitiness of the formatting, there is ample reason to turn off comments. I mean, at least reddit got it somewhat right, it's a comment section for websites with shitty comment sections. I mean, if I really ever wanted to make a you…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 10:54 PM
-15

That is actually standard procedure in a formal debate. In high school... Whether you like it or not, ignoring arguments weakens your case. In your eyes. At the very least, any person worth caring about who sees this conversation will recognize how bad your arguments are. I don't need to refute them for other people to recognize how bad they are. It would seriously be a waste of my time (and I waste my time on reddit) to continue entertaining you (though at the moment, this is entertaining me)
/r/MensRights04/06/13 09:58 PM
-13

I realized after this: CEO's are not really that powerful as they can easily lose their position if they don't produce good results. that you have really nothing intelligent to say. I mean, it seemed like you were confused about feminism, which is understandable if you eat the stuff aVfM feeds their flock. But your claim about how CEOs "can easily lose their position..." is just as deluded as they come. You seriously don't even understand what CEOs do and how CEOs become CEOs. I imagine the next…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 08:47 PM
-9

to disable comments. The fact that this is an issue makes you laughable.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 04:05 PM
-11

No. It shows that she wants to shield herself from criticism, and shut down debate. The markings of a small intellect, but par for the course for feminism. There is lots of debate about on here. So she must be doing something... Have you ever noticed how strictly feminists regulate comments online? Because lots of folks think that just because there's a feminist disagreeing with them, it justifies calling said feminist a cunt. I would regulate the that kind of stuff too. But ultimately, why are …
/r/MensRights04/06/13 02:28 PM
-8

Pretty flimsy excuse... Lol, seriosuly, if not being able to call a feminist a cunt in youtube video comments is your issue with her. Well, you've got some pretty flimsy concerns. By that same reasoning we should not have conventions like TAM or Pride Parades because Theists will make bigoted slurs. Because these are totally the same things... "Theists"? You sound crazy when you use that word.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 01:59 PM
-10

She wanted to do a series to discuss sexism in games, then disables all means of discussion on her channel. Perhaps when she says "discuss" she means "talk about this, but in places where words like cunt can be avoided." I mean, there are plenty of discussions on the video going on elsewhere (including here), so I don't think it's that bad she disabled comments. YouTube has a terrible community of faceless misogynists. Disabling comments is the best way to prevent them from taking over the discu…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 01:48 PM
-19

WAT! She's disabled comments to her YouTube! Misandry! MISANDRY!
/r/MensRights04/06/13 01:27 PM
-11

True, but lets try not to goalpost shift. No goalpost shifting here: It seems that feminism isn't as powerful as it is suggested, seeing as how men still hold the vast majority of political, economic, and social power.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 01:17 PM
-6

I think you folks should start here. If you want to tone down the name calling, you should start with misdirected attacks at random feminists. Note that the quote in the image isn't even a quote of Anita's. And yet it is being used a fuel for the MRA pyre.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:29 AM
-1

and a cunt Who's a cunt?
/r/MensRights04/06/13 04:13 AM
1

The words in the picture after the comma are proof enough I watched her lame attempt to only view women as the only victims. She never said those words... And those who turn away from facts You're making these facts up... As far as her only women beg to be killed statement... She never makes this claim The death of a loved one is the quickest way to set up a story line and easiest to understand and for gamers to pick up. Why are they so often the loved ones of men, and heterosexual... But just b…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:48 AM
1

On the topic of FF6, it is by far my favorite FF. Which brings us to your claim that Cyan and Lock aren't developed by their respective damsels. I will agree that there is more context to the stories, but actually, your retelling doesn't change the fact that Cyan had a wife in the fridge, and Locke had to (as kind and gentle as he was) mercy kill his lost love. I don't think either of these presentations of these tropes is nearly as bad (and honestly sometimes offensive) as those presented in An…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:35 AM
-1

She is a dumb cunt. How is this so? I mean, unless there is something more to being a "dumb cunt" then being a woman you disagree with, I have a hard time believing it's not just misogyny. BTW: From my conversation with him, he doesn't have any reason to call her that other then the fact that she's a woman and a feminist.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 02:34 AM
1

I'm late for the gym, but I want to say this: I agree, those are good examples of mentors. I remember the Chrono Trigger one, and I think it fits. I think there is more to her analysis then just fitting characters into gendered trope boxes. But that deserves a more thorough response. But consider that all the damseled characters are always women, and protagonists men. I mean, you could do the trope with non-heterosexual men and women, but it just doesn't happen because the norm is for protagonis…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 01:04 AM
-9

Oh my gawd. Christina Hoff Sommers has not aged well :| Especially compared to her Wikipedia page. Of course I'm talking about her backwards ideas. Haven't aged well at all!
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:42 AM
-1

Lol, so both you and YouTube misogynists don't understand what a dissertation is. Ha! This is pretty funny. Well, I'm glad that at the conclusion of this discussion we can agree on a few things: You don't understand Sarkeesian argument (as evinced in the conversation and your original post). You're angry because you think feminists are trying to take away your video games (I believe SRS calls these 'man toys'). Your only contact with Sarkeesian's arguments (and dissertation) is through YouTube v…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:31 AM
1

Pretty sure the fact that she herself called men stronger and have more self control and self confidence than women and any woman showing dominance is just doing so under the disguise as male trumps any points you can make. I just reviewed the transcripts, she doesn't make those claims anywhere I can see (unless there's a secret message your privy to). Because her own statements support damsels in distress. That doesn't make any sense. Seriously, have you watched her videos? There is a differenc…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 11:30 PM
-1

Well, patriarchy is characterized as being male centric, so the default is assumed from the masculine perspective. This totally lacks context. It totally doesn't totally lack context. The arguement was formualted by de Beauvoir, in Le Deuxième Sexe (The Second Sex), and refined in Butler's Gender Trouble. There is a reason these arguements have been published in books, and it is because they require a great deal of context. Take for example chivalry. It's male-centric because men are expected to…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 11:19 PM
1

I'm not watching that guy's YouTube videos. I've seen them before, and he has no idea what he's talking about. Rather then derail by trying to waste my time on YouTube, why don't you address the thing I asked in the above comment.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 10:43 PM
1

Viewing women being used as plot devices as multiple hidden messages makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. I didn't say "hidden." And if "tropes aren't bad things, but rather tools and devices present in writing" what the fuck are you complaining about? Who's complaining? You seem to be assuming a lot of content to feminist arguments without any grounding for these assumptions. Which brings up the question of whether you've actually watched the tropes vs. women videos. I can constantly sur…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 10:32 PM
0

since feminists are irrationally after evil video games... You're making the mistake of thinking that feminists (like Sarkeesian) are stating that these games are 'evil.' Earlier, I pointed out that Sarkeesian said ...but please keep in mind that it’s both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy a piece of media while also being critical of it’s more problematic or pernicious aspects. Sarkeesian (and other feminists) regularly enjoy media that is sexist, heterosexists, etc... But t…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 09:43 PM
0

For the second point a game like Dishonored is like a movie... I understand what narrative driven game play is. But this doesn't seem directly related to your claims here or here. How did we get from discussing the content of her arguments to Total War? Or your explanation of what a narrative driven story? What's the connection? Neither seem to contradict what Sarkeesian is arguing.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 08:37 PM
-1

It seems like there are a few things here: Well, patriarchy is characterized as being male centric, so the default is assumed from the masculine perspective. Those things that are 'generic' or 'neutral' are actually masculine, and those things that a 'othered' and 'different' are feminine. A good example of this would be gay men. They are different from the norm and thus stigmatized as being 'less than men' and 'effeminate.' If feminism is both characterized by a hate of men, and having all "the…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 08:21 PM
-1

Did the video talk about Total War: Medieval 2? I don't remember it. I think the focus of analysis was game narratives, not game play or mechanics. So, unless this game contains a developed plot and a distinct protagonist, I think it's outside of the scope of her analysis. And if we aren't playing games because of a craving for historical accuracy to real events in history then we like games that don't conform to what is politically correct because playing damsel in distress games is like watchi…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 08:10 PM
-2

If her analysis of tropes in games is a value when no one cares about those aspects of the game, than that makes my arguments that empowered women in games/movies set in medieval times ruins the attempt to be historically accurate in any way. What? Why do games have to 'accurately' represent women in medieval time? More so, what makes you think they accurately represent men? And, what about games not set in fantasy Europe? Yes some women spoke out and didn't conform and cut their hair to be in t…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 05:30 PM
1

Am I missing something, or does that about sum it up? I think that is the general idea, but the last part "When done to a man, this makes me laugh. When done to a woman, this makes me mad" is incorrect. First, she doesn't say "this is funny to me," but rather that "when the death of a male character is portrayed as a 'Stuffed into the Fridge' trope, it is communicated as humorous." This, in part, is because the cultural narrative marginalizes the experiences of women, and thus the portrayal of w…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 05:16 PM
-2

...but please keep in mind that it’s both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy a piece of media while also being critical of it’s more problematic or pernicious aspects. Like any other media analysis, Sarkeesian's videos aren't a demand for game developers conform to a trope prescription. Just because the content may be problematic, does not mean the media itself is of no value. In fact, I would argue that understanding these tropes allows for a fuller experience of these games,…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 04:32 PM
-4

boo-hooing? She didn't once cry? Her analysis was calm, collected, and measured.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 02:54 PM
-9

Which makes one wonder: how long until more people jump the aVfM ship? I might have my details mixed up, but less then a month ago, didn't the london aVfM affiliate break off last month?
/r/MensRights03/06/13 02:39 PM
-2

The implication isn't that the damsel in the fridge trope is in every game, but that it is present in some games with common characteristics. Further, the trope is present across multiple medias, which is explained in the video.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 02:08 PM
-6

When I listen to her the phrase "You dumb cunt" is said a lot in my mind. Someone's being a little misogynistic.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 01:54 PM
-12

The comments in this thread make me wonder: Did any of these MRAs ever even watch her video. I watched them both for the first time two days ago. I'm pretty impressed with her work, and they were both informative and entertaining.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 01:41 PM
0

Lol, this only happens to white middle class teenagers. It's part of growing up in middle American I guess. And at the very least, it's hardly an issue of rights...
/r/MensRights03/06/13 02:50 AM
0

Why don't you come out and tell me that the Patriarchy Theory concept of power structure and the belief that women are oppressed and disadvantaged are not central to feminist ideology. Because the phrase "feminist ideology" makes you look dumb. Anyone who thinks there is one unified body of feminist thought doesn't know shit about feminism. you know that in order for you to be taken seriously, you'll have to back that up by showing how feminist advocacy is not based on those concepts, either in …
/r/MensRights02/06/13 10:57 PM
-3

Mu
/r/MensRights02/06/13 10:47 PM
-2

Do you believe that women are marginalized and men benefited overall or not? Boy... the use of the term "overall" assumes that we can quantify these things in some meaningful way, and is a significant problem to your thinking. What are we considering as "benefits"? This would be important to answer your question, as a general answer would be kinda unhelpful. Overall? What about men and women who find themselves at the intersections of multiple forms of oppression (such as racial or class oppress…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 10:36 PM
-3

Actually, no. Because what you've written out isn't an observation of gender roles, it is an unsupported assertion. kinda like that theory of gender you have, you know the one about hypers and hypos. You know the one that you assert all the time, but is unsubstantiated. I think it goes like this: "People think men are strong and fast, thus they are better then women because they have hyperagency. People think women are slow and dumb :( thus have hypoagency and pregnancy. It's tragic but true." G…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 10:25 PM
-2

This is a trivial point. No it's not. Do you not know the difference between a description and a theory? I mean, they aren't the same. Like, do you need some STEM education? Call it a patriarchy hypothesis or theory or whatever you want to call it. I don't think you know what a hypothesis is either. I asked fractal how a society comes to be organized into a patriarchy. That would be a theory of gender. How does a society come to be organized to reflect: Good question, but until you can understan…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 10:11 PM
-3

Men control, women submit thus men are benefitted while women are marginalized overall. That's where the hatefulness comes in. You are just making this shit up as you go. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you truely don't understand the difference between patriarchy and a theory of gender. But I am glad fractal_shark recognizes your problem: you cannot differentiate between patriarchy and men. Feminists can and do. You cannot condemn feminists when the problem here is your inability…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 09:59 PM
-1

No. I'm summarizing the very same theory of gender that you've just written out. You need to read more closely it's important to recognize that this is a general description of what patriarchy is. It is not a theory of society. When I use patriarchy, it is as a container to put a number of general social 'facts' which are related in terms of how they organize the bodies of men and women in modern society. Once again, you make the pivotal mistake of think a description of patriarchy is a theory o…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 09:49 PM
-5

What's wrong with Christina Hoff Summers? She has backwards and undeveloped thoughts. She is just as gender essentialist as Pinker, Farrell, or Dworkin. Her book, Who Stole Feminism is just Sommers dividing all of feminism into "libertarian feminists" (equity feminism) and "*other feminists" (gender feminism). It is the laziest classification of feminists I have ever seen (and even the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd wave system is pretty lazy). In Sommers' (and others) work, she has created a mythic feminist…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 09:37 PM
-2

Oh, well, that's a pretty easy thing to do. It looks like fractal_shark already pointed to Allen Johnson as a good example (of which, we can all agree, he isn't a 'man-hater'). But it looks like you've got some objections there, so we try my take on patriarchy. It comes with a little preface. First, I believe that patriarchy ought be understood as a descriptor for the kind of world where some bodies are gendered as weak and feminine and other bodies are gendered as strong and masculine. This kin…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 09:00 PM
-5

I'm rather unimpressed. All you managed to do was to reproduce something you heard from GWW. How about this: Can you bring me something 'man-hating' that any of these contemporary feminists, historians or social theorists have said: Judith Butler, J. Halberstam, R.W. Connell, or Allen Johnson. It would be ludicrous to deny that these are just a few of the most influential contemporary feminists. And yet, as far as I have read, they all don't embody the rhetoric of 'man-hating' in which the MRM s…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:16 PM
-6

Whatever you want to call it--feminist theory, patriarchy theory--please do define it. Which one? You seem to think these are all interchangeable. What specifically do you want to know?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:04 PM
-4

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Conference on domestic violence in San Salvador, El Salvador (17 November 1998). Her comment was about how when western military power in…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 07:49 PM
-6

Okay... I'll just copy it to here so you don't have to click the link... I think this can be seen most clearly when observing the dialogue of specific MRA leaders. In this comment by a MRA anti-feminist, the author makes claims about a feminist idea, which she has termed Patriarchy Theory. Then, from this MRA construction of Patriarchy Theory, this person then explains (or, I would rather call it mansplain, even in light of the gender of the author), what feminism means to feminists. I think thi…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 07:10 PM
-1

me saying another redditor's words are going to be put on display in a museum with their name under it in the future, is threatening to harass them? Why are you coming up with such a convoluted scheme to harass those you oppose? Are you suggesting that MRAs have a strange plan to build space museums? How is that to help men and boys? I think you're supporting the position that the MRM is about anti-feminism, not about men and boys (or suicide victims). Are you people insane? So now you're questi…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 07:00 PM
-5

Go too 3:00 minutes in, that's when the video evidence starts. I can't offer evidence in a reddit comment for obvious reasons. I go to that place in your video, and you know what I find: Nothing that supports the claim that feminism is "a movement that demonizes men with the same rhetoric used in the past against Jewish and black people?" But more to the point, what content was present in that video that you couldn't have written out? Come on, do you really want me to believe that you can't make…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:44 PM
-2

[You are] desire to damsel seems to have collapsed into a black hole of absolute absurdity. Who's being damseled? You? Why are you suddenly playing the victim. You're the person who's subtly threatening to harass another redditor. That's not okay. I recognize that you, as an embodiment of female privilege, think it's okay for you to break the rules, but remember that if any man were to do that, they'd be banned from reddit. So, if I were you, I'd watch your step. This is a place of equality, and…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:25 PM
-7

So suddenly any woman who identifies as a feminist is the enemy because you've defined any feminist as someone who demonizes men (of which, I am certainly not one of them). You're scope of understanding feminists literature, scholarship and activism is woefully narrow (and over 20 years out of date). Also, stop linking to your videos where you blather on. If you have something intelligent to say, you should be able to write it. You are using Youtube as a crutch for bad argumentation.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:13 PM
-6

I assume in the future they'll be able to track down the original author fairly easily so I imagine his or her name will be inscribed under it for the future to see. Is this a veiled threat to doxx the original author? lol, look to your sidebar. Isn't that what you want? No, I oppose doxxing and harassing. And that's why I oppose aVfM.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:59 PM
-11

Galvanizing suicide victims puts me in a similar mood. Which really makes me wonder: who are the worse people? Those that exploit the tragic death of an individual to direct anger and violence at innocent women, or those that simply "shit" on the dead? I mean, I think aVfM has done both (as the former might be a form of the latter), but maybe if they'd just pick one, they'd be less terrible.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:47 PM
-6

Lol, Can't I have hope? Is rationality and logic so much to hope for from an MRA? Or is it all sarcasm? An a separate note: Did you really link to an /r/MR comment to get /r/MR users to brigade their own sub?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:37 PM
-5

Yes, AVfM does nothing for men. Nothing. It just makes money off of their suffering. That puts it right in line with the rest of society. thank you for finally admitting what an unhelpful thing aVfM is. It is really good to see an actual MRA standing up against aVfM and saying "enough is enough, anti-feminism doesn't help men, and neither does aVfM." Thank You for the truth.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:25 PM
-3

You see, you're wrong here to. Why is it that you can make claims about what feminism's core concepts are but for some reason the MRM is too special to have a core ideology. Now you're just making excuses.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:40 PM
0

Did you just try to ignore the parts of my post where I showed how there a other kinds of feminist advocacy? I gave examples of the other kinds of advocacy that isn't bad, you ignore it and reassert that all feminism is bad. You're the one giving fallacious arguments.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:28 PM
-3

Oh, oneiorosgrip, I am touched you've written a post about me. Gosh, I must be blushing. However, I would like to make it clear to everyone that I don't believe all feminists are like this. Specifically, I don't believe that all feminists use NAFALT argument as a form fallacious reasoning. And to be even more specific, that I don't believe that the NAFALT argument is actually a bad argument. To demonstrate this, I have an example of a division present within the body of feminist thought. A commo…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 04:09 AM
1

About the sexual instinct, now that you mentioned what you did, it can be even more easily attributed to an instinct, only this time it would be the Feminine instinct. Are you saying that because I'm not straight, I am therefor feminine?
/r/MensRights01/06/13 10:52 PM
1

So you aren't heterosexual? Nope, not heterosexual.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 10:06 PM
1

In addition, don't you think I would know better than to waste my time on a person likely to be in a state of delusion because of his predisposition to support the Female Gender motivated largely by his sexual instinct, that clouds his judgement? Is the implication here that I am heterosexual? Lolz, you're a misogynist and heterosexist! This is pretty funny. What was it you were saying again: If I choose to justify Anti-Feminism, that would mean Anti-Feminism needs justification and that would i…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 09:54 PM
0

Lol, only /u/cannotfindWMD would be able to say... ...QED. CrossHook is right
/r/MensRights01/06/13 09:30 PM
1

Lol, a feminist challenges your narrow view and you have to shut down the conversation. This is seriously the biggest problem with the MRM: they think they know what feminism is, but the moment a feminist approaches them and says "hay, I think you've got this wrong," you have to run away back to the safety of ignorance. All this time I was wondering how could an MRA be so irrational. I can now breath a sigh of relief. Thanks for being honest. Like, you're happy that you can simply use my identif…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 09:17 PM
1

Apply Occam's razor. Explains it perfectly. That's not what occam's razor means.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 08:39 PM
1

I'm a feminist. What's wrong with that?
/r/MensRights01/06/13 08:29 PM
0

Babe, you know this isn't true. Come on babe, I'm a feminist and I don't need other women's approval, and I don't throw other feminist males under the bus. Babe, it seems like a bad rhetorical strategy to call your opponents "retarded."
/r/MensRights01/06/13 07:49 PM
1

Yes, Feminism is about Females, so Yes it is true. But this is not true. It's worth noting that even if feminism is about sexism and oppression, gender analysis can (and does) include men. To say it is just about females is to overlook the relational aspects of gender and sex between the binary categories of male and female, man and woman. bell hooks suggests both feminism is about more then just women and that men can suffer from sexism. "By repudiating the popular notion that the focus of femi…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 07:39 PM
1

Feminism is about Females, not Males. This is not true. An impact here can also signify a slap on the wrist. An impact so inconsequential, that Feminism durability is still the same as it was before these instances. Now you're just being flippant. We need something significantly more profound, much more consistent, much more unwavering for it to be able to qualify as a Penetration. Which is what? It seems like you would need to understand feminism to be able to penetrate it.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 05:43 PM
5

[TW: Bad ass women in space] What!?! Janeway and Seven of Nine are like the best ever!
/r/MensRights01/06/13 05:29 PM
1

You said feminists of color, and post-modern feminism, both of which include Females. And men too. And women. And females. It seems like a bad idea to conflate feminism with women. Nope, metaphorically speaking, none of these have penetrated. Penetration implies 'entering and permeating', as in entering for good. The criticisms of Marxist, post-modern and colored Feminism have unfortunately not been steadfast, instead just been ephemeral. I think the meaning conferred by metaphor is subjective, …
/r/MensRights01/06/13 05:14 PM
1

Yes, other Females can penetrate Feminism shield I said feminism, not females. What feminists of color, Marxist feminism and post-modern feminism has done unfortunately cannot be termed as penetration, but only a severe critique Maybe I thought the "shield" was metaphorical, and so was "penetrate," but it sounds like you mean something literal.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 04:40 PM
-1

a feminist hates more than women, it's a feminist male. Do feminist men hate feminist males?
/r/MensRights01/06/13 04:28 PM
-2

Funny, feminists of color penetrated the shield of early feminism. Marxist feminism penetrated the shield of libral feminism. post-modern feminism penetrated the shield of radical feminism. Maybe it takes feminism to penetrate feminism.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 03:39 AM
-4

And I am indulging this fantasy in a very long article on the Internet, because my exhibitionist desire to parody Andy Hinds is greater than my respect for Andy Hinds. I think the authors point is that the slate article is actually very offensive becuase the slate author wasn't being sincere, but rather making light of something that isn't really that funny (specifically, constantly sexually objectifying women). So, the author of this article, is parodying the slate article by suggesting that ju…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 03:28 AM
4

I do not mean to boast, but even after reading virtually every book on gender equality ever written, I don't think I can name a single person who can match my knowledge of MRA issue. Does this include feminist texts?
/r/MensRights31/05/13 11:06 PM
-1

Yes, this looks like a joke to me.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 02:08 PM
-11

Do you think you know what it's like to be a woman more than GWW, an actual woman and mother? Mu. Now: Do you think GWW knows what it's like to be a man more then me, an actual man? Just answer the question, it's simple.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 01:30 AM
-14

She knows what it's like to be a Latino woman more than you do, idiot... SHE'S A WOMAN. That doesn't follow! Where are you getting the idea this makes any sense! Read some chicana feminism or works by feminists of color. There are a lot of great critiques of the very argument you just made. And even if your argument is true. She has no business talking about men, because I'd understand what it's like to be a man more then she does. So, before I answer your question, answer mine: Do you think GWW…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 01:16 AM
-9

So basically what you're saying is that "medically constructed" knowledge (that is, empiricism) is merely an extension of "feels". Also that "normal" is subjective. No. That's not what I said. In fact, I have challenged the very claim that medical knowledge is purely empirical. Did you not read the above: Analogy is a crucial element in the kinds of idealization and standardisation through which biomedical representation produces its anatomical objects, and biomedicine's specification of the nor…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 01:06 AM
-21

So you're saying that you, as a man, know more about the experiences of women than an actual woman. Got it. Do you think you've caught me in a trap? Because you didn't. There are many experiences of women, and your thought suggests that somehow the simple fact of being a woman gives you access and understanding of all women. How would a white Canadian woman know the experiences of a Latina American woman just by virtue of being a woman? The answer is: there would have to be some sort of method o…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 12:40 AM
-13

Simply by virtue of her being a woman (let alone her sexual orientation) she is FAR more aware of the experiences of women than you are. I see no reason why that would be true. She is clearly blind to the experiences of most women, especially in light of how often she describes other women as manipulative, deceitful, greedy, unempathetic, uncaring, and cruel. I'm not denying that there are some women (and some men) who are like this, but if you'd believe everything GWW says, you'd think women ar…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 12:21 AM
-3

Oh, I was actually talking about a video I once saw where GWW gave a speach at a pancake house about being a libertarian. It was 99% made-up bullshit about feminism. Those retirees didn't look to entertained. I didn't realize she had a job there too.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 12:03 AM
-18

You stalk GWW. She was the one who found me and commented about me. I don't know how that constitutes stalking. You think the word crazy is misandric. I was being more or less glib with the use of "misandric" because I'm not sure it's well defined. I think it is ablist, but honestly I don't think that will convince many people here. You imply ableism is bad then compare having ADD to being mentally unfit. Not quiote. I imply reproducing abilist discourse because someone is prejudice against femi…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 11:53 PM
-16

The very act of being insulted by perceiving yourself to have been called a woman by me (which is not what I said--in fact, I said the opposite) is an expression of misogyny. You say that you didn't call me a woman (which you didn't, I never made the claim you did), and thus I wasn't insulted by what never happened. How could I have reproduced misogyny by not getting offended by what you never said? You see, I was never offended because you never said that I was a woman. Therefor, I didn't repro…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 11:29 PM
-28

lol, what part?
/r/MensRights29/05/13 10:34 PM
-53

you chastised me for not appreciating you "friending" me on reddit, since it meant I didn't know what real friendship was, or whatever batshittery you said... Suddenly friend-zoning GWW is "chastising" her. Though, I'm not sure my point was that you "didn't know what real friendship was," but more along the lines that adding someone to your "friends list" on reddit doesn't seem to mean anything more then then "I clicked a little green box." How does crazy and cat not fit? Cat is correct (I have …
/r/MensRights29/05/13 09:43 PM
-18

he's a dude, but the crazy, cat part seems to fit. Oh, and GWW does misandry too.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 08:08 PM
1

Of which, neither WomenCount or Stacy Mason actually call themselves feminists or articulate their positions as feminist positions.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 12:52 PM
-15

Honestly, I haven't watched the GWW video or JtO. GWW is pompous misogynist who can't stay on topic (or entertain a crowd of retiries at a pancake house to save her life). JtO is has been featured on my blog for his troubling lack of understanding in regards to queer issues. But I can lock my cat out of my room (GWW induces kitty vomiting) and watch the videos *if you really think their that effective at "debunking" and "destroying." But if you're just trying to waste 30 mins of my life on youtu…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 01:50 AM
0

No, your argument was that the word "clinical" didn't mean "clinical" because you didn't like the ways the words "hypoagency" and "hyperagency" were being used. Oh yeah, well that was one of two conversations present in that thread, of which you kept derailing with your anti-feminist babble! But I thought you were talking about the proof you don't know what you're talking about, because it seems most apropos in this conversation. Your rant about hegemonic masculinity was addressed in another dis…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 01:39 AM
-12

NAFALT does not work as an argument in this sub. OMG, you're a riot! This isn't a real argument, no more then your "this is just semantics argument." Also, as to the response the the NAFALT-coutner arguement: see here below the hline
/r/MensRights29/05/13 01:09 AM
0

Lol, did you even read the post comments on /r/AMR. This comment is by someone who's making fun of feminism. Bro, do you even poe? EDIT: But more to the point, Someday I'll get the screen shot before you do! Haha! Then we'll see who's skirting around the rule against links to /r/AMR.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 12:46 AM
0

ecause you disagreed with the terms being described, but didn't want to challenge the terms themselves, you argued that you couldn't understand the description of them, because post-structuralism... and as the discussion continued, you demonstrated pretty clearly that your reason for feigning confusion was "I don't like the terms and the meaning behind the post," not post-structuralism. Almost, but I can't give you any points this time because you missed the most important parts. My arguement wa…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 12:33 AM
0

This is great coming from someone who argued with me just a few days ago that words have no solid meaning because she didn't like what was being said. You are a riot. Well, that isn't quite what I argued, but you're close enough for half points. In fact, the post-structural argument actually does support the claim that there is "variation within feminism." I mean, this is obvious, but it's an important to realize that the post-structural critique of gender leaves both existentialist feminism and…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 11:30 PM
1

Just so you know, the "your argument is semantic" arguement isn't an arguement. You seem to think it's some sort of 'get out of jail free card,' which allows you to dismissing anything someone says. It's a really lazy tactic. To say an argument is "semantic," you must first recognize what it means for something to be "semantic." That is, semantic means: Of or relating to semantics or the meanings of words. So, if your argument is that my argument depends on the meaning of words, then your argume…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 10:05 PM
1

Correlation doesn't imply causation. We label every woman who seeks special treatment a feminist (provided she doesn't espouse traditionalist ideals). So far this formula has a success rate of 100%. I'm sorry, this seems like a misapplication of statistics (and cargo cult science as well). How are you defining "success rate"? Because it seems like you are not doing anything scientific or statistical, but rather you've defined "feminist" as "every woman who seeks special treatment," and thus taut…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 07:11 PM
0

everything about this woman's claim traces right back to feminist advocacy, which mostly boils down to the idea of treating women's experiences, desires, and feelings as of paramount importance, and that men's rights, freedoms, and lives, and very often also children's welfare should all be modified or even sacrificed for the benefit of women. This seems like a big claim to make, and doesn't seem to account for variation within feminism. Specifically, if we were to try to classify this woman's r…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 02:43 PM
0

But feminism is much more complicated then a door. The criticisms I make here in this post identify why it doesn't seem like a good idea to label something Feminism just because "it walks like a duck."
/r/MensRights28/05/13 02:32 PM
-2

Well, there are two things here: It seems like a bad idea to jump the gun and label every woman who decides to talk about family life and working life a feminist. Like, would it be fair to label Phyllis Schlafly a feminist just because she talked about the need to women to stay home? It also seems bad to fail to differentiate between the different kinds of things that different kinds of feminists say. I will admit that this author is writing about a kind of feminist concern, one in which is most…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 02:21 PM
-1

Babe, I don't advocate for unfair policies and I'm a feminist. And I don't believe that women should get more for working less. I am not entirely sure where you are getting these ideas?
/r/MensRights28/05/13 01:57 PM
-6

You've made me the happiest feminist ever! I love my tag Also, my point is kinda important. This post does defeat the claim that MRAs can differentiate between feminism and women.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:10 AM
8

Egg donations are significantly more invasive, and require a great deal more medical attention to gather. It shouldn't be surprising that the kind of time, energy and money needed to do this means that the payment will be higher. This really says nothing about feminism. Maybe something about capitalism, but not about gender relations.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:00 AM
-2

Women Count doesn't actually identify itself as a feminist political organization. I'm not sure how much that's worth, but it seems like they aren't actually feminist. Also, the article's author does mention feminism anywhere in the article.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 04:48 AM
0

Um, it is worth mentioning that this woman not once in the article says she's a feminist. Also, I visited her political organization, and they don't once mention being feminist either. In fact, it could explain a lot of the problems in the article...
/r/MensRights28/05/13 01:35 AM
-2

Not that I think it will change much about your arguement, Kaitlyn's girlfriend is 15, not 14.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 10:22 PM
1

Um, for some more context. It Kaitlyn is an 18 year old woman, and her partner is a 15 year old women. In regards to how the law is deployed when it comes to age of consent, I think this is clearly a case of where our legislation doesn't match realistic understandings of the lives of young men and women. This is just as bad as when an 18 year old guy is charged with statutory rape because he is having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. In both cases, it seems like a miscarriage of justice.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 04:41 AM
1

Gay men generally like men, don't talk in radical feminist lingo, and are more likely to objectify other (attractive) men than women at gay clubs, unless they are friends with the women in question (who are okay with dirty dancing). That doesn't follow. Just because gay men can objectify men doesn't mean they are incapable of objectifying women. I'm just telling you this, since your view of what gay clubs are like seems to be primarily a combination of how they are represented in the media, and …
/r/MensRights26/05/13 03:57 AM
2

You are a little off topic...
/r/MensRights26/05/13 03:46 AM
1

Sex-positive feminists that buy me dinner and then have sex with me. Do you know any? Quite the pickup line.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 11:07 PM
2

An alternative interpretation follows in a post I shared in r/ainbow There is something about some parts of the modern gaybros masculinity complex that depends on the subtle misogyny of othering women and, in this case, of heterosexist gay hero fantasies. What is even more problematic, is I don't believe this produces an interesting myth about women in gay men's space: specifically the myth that gay men can't perpetuate misogyny. As a gay man who frequents gay clubs, one of the most common thing…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 10:30 PM
1

Read Rethinking Sex and Gender by Christine Delphy!
/r/MensRights25/05/13 10:18 PM
1

You're contradicting mainstream feminists on this, as their entire argument on presentation of women in media is exactly as I've laid it out. OH NO! Please don't tell the feminist hive collective, oneiorosgrip! I will be in so much trouble, they'll take away my feminist cookies and my hyperagency! Feminists disagree all the time, it's not something new to me, it's just new to you. I'm glad you've come to see some sense. Okay, I've read through your accusatory rant, and I don't really care to res…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 10:06 PM
0

Look at you, selectively quoting things. But more to the point: the use of the term "clinical" as an adverb, describing the attitude with which the action described in the verb it modifies as dispassionate, objective, and analytical, something you could easily have gotten from the context of the sentence if you were not feigning confusion yet again. Okay, the things is, I don't believe the terms are these things, because I do not believe that the terms "hypoagency and hyperagency" are dispassion…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 05:03 PM
1

This makes me interested to learn your understanding of the term. What is your interpretation of the word "clinical?" Is it limited to the medical use of the word? What I think it means doesn't really matter. If you would like to know, I don't think clinical means anything substansive in this context, but clearly Jolly_mcfats meant to communicate something, so thus my question. Remember, (from Appelrouth, S. A. and Desfor Edles, L. (2012) Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory): While st…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 03:32 PM
1

“They called her a slut and a whore. All this she wrote in her journal. I just found out. I didn't touch her journal before (the suicide). That's personal,” the mother said. Slut and whore are gendered insults. Like... it was in the article feministing linked to. It's the reason they said: Queens middle school student Gabrielle Molina hanged herself after months of gendered bullying.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 07:07 AM
1

Wait, you are the one assuming that she was bullied by boy... doesn't that make you the misandrist? I mean, Feministing just said the bullying was gendered, you assumed it meant the bully was a boy. I understand that most of these days feminists are just closeted misandrists, but to use the tragedies of underage people of their same gender is awful. It would like you are a closet misanderist. I mean, in what way does this show anything you suggest. The girl clearly was clearly involved with gend…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 04:06 AM
1

Did you mean: Because it establishes something important: many feminists, MRAs, and laypeople will not digest this terminology without the proper academic context. The effect of this language will largely be reflective of what they guess is meant. Because otherwise that isn't a fair summation of my point. I committed a sin in my first post, and assumed esoteric knowledge. When I refer to the signifier and signified... I don't think it's really that esoteric, but my background might bias me in th…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 03:14 AM
-1

The MRM talks about the exact same phenomena when it uses the terms "hypoagency and hyperagency"- except that the MRM's terms are clinical and precise, and do not attack either gender. But isn't the fact that those terms "hypoagency and hyperagency" are only used to describe women and men respectively, suggesting that they are actually being used to attack a gender. Also, I'm not sure the use of the terms are very precise... I mean, (not to belabor the point), what is a "cultural tendency?" Is i…
/r/MensRights24/05/13 09:49 PM
-3

You do a lot of work here, but as far as I can tell, you are just providing alternative explanations for the same facts. I'm not sure what this has to do with Men's Rights? I mean, a lot of your arguments are "well, women didn't have power because men had all the power and responsibility, therefor women weren't being oppressed." This does not seem like a good argument, because it seems to suppose that it's good that men had all the power, because they also had all the responsibility which evens …
/r/MensRights24/05/13 05:45 PM
2

This is a good question, and one I need to think on a little more. But at this moment (8am, and eating a bowl of french toast crunch), I think I can give you a somewhat thought out answer. So, in regards to advertising (both commercial and political), I think that they do work in a fashion. But this is because advertising is more then just language. Advertising depends on a number of cultural "artifacts" in which to be "tethered to." It isn't simply that the language itself has an effect, but th…
/r/MensRights24/05/13 03:18 PM
1

Oh, well, us post-structuralists don't have that problem!
/r/MensRights24/05/13 05:22 AM
0

oxymoron Whoa! Pulling out the ol' Oxford Dictionary, I see! Impressive!
/r/MensRights22/05/13 05:33 AM
0

Yes, it is predominately a disease of people born with only one X chromosome. Cis women are privileged with two X chromosomes. While cis men are oppressed as males, with only one X chromosome. This is a scientific fact.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:54 AM
0

I'd like to see a link to anything intelligent you've written, Miss Hagiographic. I just don't thing you are at all familiar with rational thought, modern social theory, or contemporary feminist scholarship. which would explain your refusal to provide any support for your claims. Also, what specific claims of mine are you talking about? Is it my claim to not hate men? My claim to love my boyfriend? or my father? or my grandfather? or my sociology mentors? or my microbiology mentors? or Karl Marx…
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:07 AM
0

the fact that man-hating people like you have taken over the field of sociology is precisely why it's thought of as being such a joke. Whoa whoa whoa, man-hating? Who said I hated men? When have I ever said I hated men? And to answer all of the above: No, I do not hate men. It would be weird to state such a claim. I love lots of men: my boyfriend my father my grandfather my sociology mentors my microbiology mentors Karl Marx Michel Foucault Surely you'll only do research that supports the Femini…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 07:30 PM
-1

No sociologist would spend their entire day trolling through the men's rights subreddit. Hay! I just graduated a few days ago, can't I spend time on my favorite sub while I'm getting ready for work ;_; You're no sociologist, bitch. Babe, Bachelors of Science in Sociology and Bachelors of Science in Biology (emphasis in Microbiology). Which, to be fair, is only the beginning. But for Reddit, it's enough to qualify.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 06:29 PM
1

And.. Your point? A lot of the "hard sciences" don't think that sociology is a useful discipline. Are you using an argument from authority/popularity here? I'm really starting to question if you understand what the scientific method is... Haha! You appeal to sociology then denounce it! And you're doing science! You are a funny guy! Good luck to ya! I'm off to the gym for some technologies of the self!
/r/MensRights21/05/13 03:18 PM
2

CrossHook, babe, is there anything I could say that won't upset you? To be fair, I am of the opinion that we all live in a racist society, and in that regard we are all influenced by racism to one degree or another. Pretending otherwise, seems to me, disingenuous. In a slightly less relevant tangent, I do appreciated that you brought that Huffington Post article to my attention (even if the title of your post wasn't quite accurate). I don't know about you, but I think the Huffington Post is a dr…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:47 PM
0

Calling your work satire doesn't suddenly make it clever. Is this satire or sociology? (I mean, if it's satire, are you satirizing the MRM?) I mean, my comment here is satire, satire of your blog.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 01:49 PM
-1

Except that not all sociologists agree that the topological system you are using is useful. I will admit I had forgotten about Weber's designations of such, but your usage has nothing to do with his classifications (and know even less about feminism or sociology then I previously thought). Coopting sociological work will not help your baseless argument. You set out four steps to becoming a cult, which seem to have nothing to do with Weber's use of the term. Specifically because you seek to use a…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 01:39 PM
-1

they are sociologically considered a cult. That isn't a real thing. Sociologist speaking. But you have failed to address my question: Is the MRM a rape cult? Because my argument still holds (if yours does).
/r/MensRights21/05/13 06:07 AM
-1

Would you not agree that feminism is a small group that has practices regarded by others as strange/sinister? Nope, many of them are rational and sincere. How is that low ball? It's the definition, Also, the article is a satire, something you clearly didn't understand. It's fine, it goes over a lot of feminists heads too. It's low ball because it is such a weak argument to say "I don't understand this thing, therefor it must be religion." It is just the author (I assume you're the author?) admit…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 05:33 AM
-4

This is pretty dumb... the assumption feminism is a cult is pretty low ball.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 05:16 AM
9

Why do you keep using the word hatred. It sounds like you think her argument is "I don't like lesbros because of feelings." And situating her classification of lesbros as a way to distance herself from them is a disingenuous interpretation of this article. Especially when the author says: yet I too am guilty of being a lezbro: I've brought my own "male gaze" to parties with go-go dancers, I sometimes have "bro-time" with certain queer female friends (no girlfriends allowed), and I've certainly d…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 04:53 AM
8

blame butch dyke assholes on the menz Is that some internalized homophobia?
/r/MensRights21/05/13 01:21 AM
7

Many derided the group for elevating traditional masculine traits and thus perpetuating misogyny among gay men, but as a queer woman, I see that this form of masculine privilege doesn't just operate in the gay community. ...I think she means "A lot of people fear that encouraging masculine traits also encourages sexism, but as a queer woman, I don't think this is true for the gay community". Did you read the article... that isn't what she is saying at all. She's saying that in fact, masculine pr…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 12:20 AM
0

It's something you let go of once it's no longer relevant. What is this something that is "no longer relevant"?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 11:42 PM
0

Other then living in a racist society, what specifically are you suggesting when you call me a "RACIST BITCH"?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 10:35 PM
-11

There is a festering stigma around the history of racism in America, Shouldn't there be a festering stigma? America has a really racist history filled with terrible things like genocide, internment camps, working people to death, medical experimentation, slavery, etc. This shouldn't be something we try to sweep under the rug. Especially when it continues into the present. In a debate about discrimination in class, I am called a "White Hetero-Male" in order to "prove" that I am incapable of under…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 11:10 PM
-15

If you agree that racism didn't end with slavery, then why did you appeal to slavery to show "guilt by complexion" is silly? If racism continued after slavery ended, then how would your ancestors arriving on this continent after slavery was happening demonstrate that "guilt by complexion" is silly? As you've agreed, racism was alive and well while they were in America. At least some of your ancestors were racist, as it would be very absurd to claim that all your ancestors magically rose above th…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 10:46 PM
-6

whose ancestors arrived in America just in time to fight in the Civil War; but had no hand in the enslavement the preceeded it. Racism didn't end with slavery...
/r/MensRights19/05/13 10:36 PM
8

Let's switch the genders on this and see how everyone feels about it: If being gay were really a choice, every man in the world would be a gay man within ten minutes of ever meeting a woman. Hum... I'm not sure how I feel...
/r/MensRights16/05/13 05:21 AM
-1

Top comment: Murderously upset, and fiercely litigious Well, that's disturbing...
/r/MensRights15/05/13 02:56 PM
1

First, what wikipedia page? The old Violinist Thought Experiment Second, don't rely to strongly on wikipedia if you want me to take you at all seriously. I would like to imagine you actually read the original post, but that would require me to be taking you seriously.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 02:12 AM
1

You're talking in circles bro, go back and just reread the Wikipedia page. You're kinda pathetic.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 01:11 AM
1

But the issues isn't about inconvenience, it's about bodily autonomy. If we agree that women have bodily autonomy, we can agree that they don't have to give their bodies over to anyone, even fetuses. This isn't about the right to kill anyone who "inconveniences" you. That sounds really petty, as if you don't know what the substance of this argument is about. In fact, I find it mildly disturbing that on a sub all about men, there are a bunch of men talking about limiting women's right to bodily a…
/r/MensRights15/05/13 12:17 AM
1

There are living human organisms who have reached the adult stage who have inconvenienced me profoundly, caused me physical harm, and placed me in poverty, and that lasted well more than 9 months. Are you talking about someone specific? I'm not sure who they are, but I'm not sure why this matters... Similarly, there are men forced to abuse their bodies for the benefit of living organisms for years. Some of those men are forced to do so at great risk to themselves, and some end up sustaining inju…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 11:44 PM
0

I don't know why you are insisting on moralizing the status of "living system." I'm just pointing out that the definitions are flexible (and that some are better then others). The reality is that in the violinist thought experiment, we it doesn't matter whether the fetus/violinist is a living system or not.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 10:38 PM
-1

Growth, development, and reproduction Fetuses can't reproduce. However, my main point was to show that the definition for a living thing given in the link was a bad definition. I'm even willing to consider fetuses living, but that fact has no bearing on the subject.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 10:15 PM
1

Ehem, From a 100 level biology textbook: Although we cannot define life with a single simple sentence, we can come up with a series of seven characteristics shared by living systems. Cellular organization Ordered complexity Sensitivity Growth, development, and reproduction Energy utilization Homeostasis Evolutionary adaptation Raven, Johnson, Losos, Mason, and Singer (2008) Biology, McGraw Hill It seems like a fetus is missing some of these characteristics.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 02:12 PM
0

I see women as adult capable of making decissions over their own bodies. I'm not sure what you are seeing them as. Uteri that need to be controlled by the state or other men?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 01:51 PM
0

At least I'm seeing women as people, not enslaved uteri.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 06:07 AM
1

I guess then we just can't see eye-to-eye on this.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:52 AM
2

But shouldn't they have autonomy over their body. Isn't that what other people have?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:34 AM
1

that is the uterus' sole purpose - to protect and nurture the developing child. thus, while the unborn child is still using the mother's body for sustenance, we are not opening up floodgates for forced organ donations - we are only asking for nutrition and shelter. Wait, who gave uterus a telos? Also, aren't women more then just uteri? Aren't they people too?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:24 AM
2

to his or her body. Or E. But seriously, the claim your making is what the thought experiment is suppose to answer. It doesn't matter whether the fetus is given bodily autonomy, this doesn't override a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:13 AM
1

So, what about cases were every precaution was made, but it still happened. Shouldn't a woman still be given the right to choose what happens to her body?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:25 AM
1

Wait, how is this a "financial abortions." How did we get to this subject?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:15 AM
1

That is true. So, what about cases were every precaution was made, but it still happened. Shouldn't a woman still be given the right to choose what happens to her body?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:05 AM
1

What about rape? That seems like a situation inflicted on a woman. Or if the man chooses to not wear a condom, without informing the woman. Or the condom breaks, and he decides just not to get a new one?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 03:55 AM
0

Wait, did the violinist steal a random man's credit card? That is stealing... but maybe it's okay because credit card charges can be disputed by the man who's had his card stolen. The bank takes care of that, they have specialists who will investigate fraudulent credit card charges. Maybe in the time it takes to investigate the fraudulent charges, the violinist would have recovered!
/r/MensRights14/05/13 03:45 AM
1

wait, now I'm confused... If men don't pay child support they die? Or if women get abortions, men die or pay child support? This seems convoluted, I think the original thought experiment was just about a woman's right to control pregnancy.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 03:34 AM
1

Cool. But I still think she has the right to refuse to subject herself to the procedure for nine months. What do you think?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 03:23 AM
1

Isn't that a dark thing to say. Like, on what grounds are we making the claim that women only care about a man's money? I mean, why do are we thinking this?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 03:13 AM
1

You made a mistake in retelling the thought experiment. In it the woman is the dialysis machine. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system …
/r/MensRights14/05/13 02:55 AM
2

I'm just calling you out for giving GWW a "pussy pass." Also, as far as I know, SRS considers r/MR low hanging fruit.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 11:31 PM
0

Okay, I get it now. You're white knighting for GWW.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 11:05 PM
1

be using her videos as part of their course? Boy, dude, this made me laugh so hard. What sad university professor is using her videos? (and what credentials?) lol, I don't know why you keep pretending like her bad use of language isn't a problem. I already told you, her "substance" rests on the language she uses. If she can't even get basic concepts right, the problems with her "substance" become clear. I have repeated this before: Like, there is a really good reason to not call our most recent …
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:22 PM
1

You didn't address really anything she said. Why not, SRS poster? Oh, because to address the complex reasons why she was really really wrong, would require her to have a basic understanding of evolution. She clearly lacks that (as evidenced here and in other places). So, rather then try to communicate books worth of knowledge to her through reddit, I instead suggested that she school herself. This isn't a naked appeal to authority, it is a naked suggestion that she bother to learn about the thin…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:41 AM
2

Anti-intellectual much?
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:02 AM
-3

Did you know, when real biologists talk about evolution, they try to use precise language so as to avoid terrible miscommunication, such as what we are observing here. Like, there is a really good reason to not call our most recent common ancestor to chimpanzees "human." It is because this most recent common ancestor is not a human. To conflate the two provides ample ground to make the kind of misinformed statements and ideas you are making. Such as the idea that human behavior can be explained …
/r/MensRights10/05/13 04:46 PM
-6

Believe me, feminism and women aren't nearly as bad as some people make them out to be. In fact, there are a lot of really awesome feminists, of which Judith Butler, Christine Delphy, and bell hooks are good places to start... but I don't know if being 13 makes these texts more or less difficult. It isn't as bad as it looks, and you shouldn't worry to much about it. Just remember that women are people too. That you should always ask for consent. And that communication is key to any good relation…
/r/MensRights08/05/13 04:59 AM
1

This is a really good point. I mean, there is no reason to say that someone without a college education can't contribute to a body of intellectual thought. But the vast majority of what GWW says about feminism, biology, evolution, and even science is woefully uninformed. It doesn't take much to see that. I mean, just look at the things she says about primates and humans, and her "logics" and "science" falls apart. It reminds me of "The Case of the Hooligan Cocks," in which Dr. George Levick, a B…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 03:41 AM
1

Well, no. In fact, my use of the term misogyny oversimplifies Catherine Waldby's (the author of AIDS and the Body Politic) specific argument, and is not the specific word she uses. Rather I used misogyny because it is more easily recognizable then the wording she uses. She describes it as "a phallocentric order" (which I suspect some people might take exception to). To explain this a little further, there is a tiny bit of background to the theory work. She describes the AIDS epidemic as a "sexua…
/r/MensRights06/05/13 11:50 PM
1

Really? But the other regulars in /r/askfeminists are so nice. Like, I've been rude to folks like you before (the mod there asked me to stop being so cleverly rude, and I respect that). But if that's all it takes for moderates to become anti-feminists... well they weren't much of a moderate to begin with. I mean, I am a "moderate" on a lot of issues, but I would be a little embarrassed if a correspondence with someone on reddit was enough to change what I think. I mean, I'm a college student, th…
/r/MensRights06/05/13 02:09 PM
0

Hegemonic masculinity weighs way more then that. But good try challenging my masculinity, bro.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 01:52 PM
1

Honestly, there are a fair share of radical and ridiculous feminism. But I think some MRAs get to caught up on bad stuff (which is admittedly really bad sometimes), to see that the good stuff. Right now I am reading a book by a Australian feminist titled "AIDS and the Body Politic." The whole book focuses on how a culture of misogyny hurts men who suffer from AIDS, because these men get pushed out of the category of what is the "healthy masculine cultural body," and thus subsequently marginalize…
/r/MensRights06/05/13 01:38 PM
0

Awesomeness! Love programs which encourage women to participate in traditionally male dominated fields.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 04:28 AM
-5

So yeah, it seems kind of well, unnecessary to rename the idea. Bam! You hit the nail on the head. And yes, historically there have been feminists who've had really bad ideas about what gender equity looks like. But those feminists don't make up a majority (not then, and not now). I think that some of the best feminist activism and theory has arose in response to bad feminist theory. Feminists like Judith Butler, J. Halberstam, R.W. Connell, and bell hooks are perfect examples of the good femini…
/r/MensRights06/05/13 04:15 AM
1

If gender "is socially constructed." How is it every culture in all of history everywhere, no matter how secluded constructed gender in identical fashion? What you're saying is impossible. Because that is not true. If gender is a social construct, the construction of gender would have varied beyond comprehension all over the world. Yes, this is somewhat true. Yet no matter what texts you read from any time period all over the world, gender is always portrayed in an identical fashion. Nope, not t…
/r/MensRights06/05/13 02:40 AM
2

Lol, glad you decided to skip the important content...
/r/MensRights05/05/13 11:24 PM
3

You have an argument that you've pointed out THAT my language is soaked in misogyny, but you have yet to explain HOW it is. That is, you've made a claim, but failed to demonstrate how that claim is true. Now that is a job for another day. But I'm glad you asked for it, I promise to deliver. (unless I forget) As far as my accusations, what accusations have I made? Please, spell out what actual, really-and-for-true accusations I've made against you, of stalking, crushing or negging... LMAO, can't …
/r/MensRights05/05/13 11:09 PM
1

Negging? Really? Lolz. No, rather I'm suggesting that your weak attempts to bolster your own self-importance at the expense of my moral character are evidence that you really don't have much content to offer, at least in regards to contributing to productive dialogue on gender. In fact, you quite often state things that you just pull right out of your ass. And when someone points out how your language is soaked in misogyny, you choose to attack the messenger (me) with accusations of stalking, cr…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 10:20 PM
3

So... I saw something you said in a youtube comment (this morning), and then remembered something you said about a week ago, and now I'm "keeping track" of GWW. I mean, if I didn't know you better (and believed in such a thing), I'd think you were trying to use your female privilege to accuses me of something untoward... It almost sounds like you are troubled by the fact that someone actually reads the things you type... As if you are embarrassed by the things you say? I mean, if you do feel emb…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 08:36 PM
0

Aw, you're no fun. I mean, I was interested in your views on feminism and gender theory, but if you don't want people quoting you on them... well, I guess you don't have much to say. Instead, you can keep accusing me of stalking or trolling. Carry on GWW, carry on.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 06:10 PM
-1

seeing that bright red GWW is always a pleasant surprise. I friend lots of people. Mostly those I've had conversations with, so they stand out in the future. But I guess some people don't know what it means to be a friend.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:50 PM
3

Nope, just easy to find the stuff when you're surfing the MRM wave (come on, the first quote was at the top of the linked youtube video). Though thanks for the false accusation. Whether you like it or not, you are The MRA. So you're bound to be quoted... eventually. EDIT: Also, I've 'friended' you, so seeing that bright red GWW is always a pleasant surprise.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:40 PM
-3

oh, gawd, this again (I keep forgetting people hate this screen name). I agree, reproductive abuse is DV. Spermjacking is not real. Do you think spermjacking is real?
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:29 PM
0

Wha!?! Joke? I didn't say anything about DV?
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:18 PM
-1

So, there a quite a few different angles that feminists have taken with the conceptualization of gender and sex. But, normally the use of these terms goes something like this: Gender is socially constructed. We often use the terms "women" and "men" to signify we are talking about gender. The idea here is that the things we see as "gender" are things that are made up within our shared culture, and then confer gender onto a body. So, from a basic level, muscle mass, hair length, dress, body presen…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:08 PM
-6

RobotAnna is amazing! I don't understand your complaint. Unrelated, I like how you don't understand sarcasm /s
/r/MensRights05/05/13 04:44 PM
3

It absolutely floors me how many women see their husbands working like fiends, with barely an hour to relax and spend time with loved ones, so that she can stay home, turn that around and say, "We're done, and it's your fault because you weren't THERE for me." So true, so true, so true, from the lips of angels. These women are like monsters. Like, if they would just ball up and work like a man, they could have: "calculus, alternating current, the telegraph, the transistor, radio, penicillin, the…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 03:09 PM
4

What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights05/05/13 02:59 PM
-5

my whole view on feminism is skewed Now you're getting it! Yes, you're views on feminism are skewed... and that's why you posted here, and not /r/askfeminists.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 02:04 PM
-4

why would I constantly vouch for her intelligence in my initial post Because you're making excuses for yourself. You "vouch" for her, because you as a man think you are the person who will validate her. You are telling me she's intelligent while simultaneously telling me she doesn't know she's wrong. Which is it? Is she wrong or is she intelligent? constantly try to think reasons why she carries a non-factual viewpoint with reasons that don't infringe on her intelligence or ability to think rati…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:13 AM
-6

Yeah, it sounds like you just don't believe her. Like you don't think she's smart enough to have done her own research. It sounds like you think you know better then her just because she says she's a feminist. I mean, really, what you "paraphrase" is the most banal feminism ever. Seriously, you're killing my erection because of how vanilla that feminism is. Like, try this on for size: I believe that gender inequality is a product of the heterosexist institution like marriage, and the assimilatio…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 04:51 AM
4

What I came here to ask is how people think I should deal with her viewpoints should they arise again. Give her a chance. It sounds like you didn't even listen to her. Especially if you can't hear over all that "screaming internally." Don't be an asshat, try to open your mind to the idea that she's a rational human being that can decide for herself what's true or false about feminism. I know I did it once, I'm sure you can too.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 04:06 AM
1

No, just curious. I can't figure out what's going on with all the nested parentheses throughout.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 03:38 AM
1

I'm impressed with this mess of a copy-paste dump. Where did you get all of this from?
/r/MensRights05/05/13 03:10 AM
2

And that's the problem... They don't accurately reflect what feminists actually believe.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 02:49 AM
2

You know, I can empathize. CrossHook calls me a names all the time. And he's not really the worst of them. However, if you are really concerned about reaching out to MRAs, you shouldn't get caught up in the trolls. There are a handful of worthwhile MRAs who don't judge you for everything they blame feminism for. They are rare, but exist. However, those MRAs who are too blinded by their hate (of feminism or women, often I cannot tell) don't really care about men's issues anyways. I waste my time …
/r/MensRights05/05/13 12:46 AM
1

It seems to me; as an outsider who is not a feminist, that the terminology is what people get hung up on. This is a realistic point. But the solution isn't to stop using terminology. We need this language to make sense of what we are talking about. We need to understand that when we say "gender," we don't mean "sex," or "gender characteristic," or other terms. We can't simply drop all the words we are using and make up a new language everytime a member of our group gets a bad idea. Rather, we ne…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 10:21 PM
3

Oh, ok. I mean, I do in part agree with you. His kind of sentiment isn't really uncommon, and for the most part, it is the kind of sentiment I've come to expect from some MRAs. However, I think that quite of few who are subtly transphobic recognize that they can't be as obvious about it as he is. It just seems like folks who have to give voice to the very worst ideas are mostly just trolls because they aren't even bothering to give it much thought (in the "real world," or online). And, I've seen…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 09:39 PM
2

I wouldn't talk to this troll, he's a really bad one.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 09:21 PM
1

Well, he fails to make that distinction (that he is talking about heterosexual men). So don't pretend it's there. Furthermore, he makes blanket claims about men, which I don't think even applies to heterosexual men. Are you telling me that all heterosexual men want "a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists." Like, he just makes up shit about heterosexual men that frames them as sex hungry rapists. Like this is real misandry!
/r/MensRights04/05/13 09:09 PM
-1

Oh, sorry about that. I try not to let things go unreplied because it gives the illusion that the trolls made a point. But you're right, it also encourages the trolls to keep it up. I'm not ussually used to people here being interested in actually talking about these issues. I think your goal is admirable, and for that I will try really hard to let these trolls go (this time!). I am sorry for participating in feeding the trolls. So! I would like to contribute, constructively. Thank you for the g…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 08:43 PM
1

Really? prominent feminists in academia? Tell me who they are. Please, impress me with your prowess! I would like to know who these academic feminists you quote are? Also, in my comment above quoting MRAs... I quote GWW... Who is the MRA of MRAs. Second probably only to Warren Farrell (who doesn't even identify as an MRA himself). So I think mine certainly aren't random. Third link is to aVfM, the radhub of MRM.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 08:26 PM
2

Frankly your whole final paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion at hand... Really? You don't think discourse which erases non-heterosexual cis men is relevant to the discussion at hand. When discussion makes claims about the the nature of men. When that author states that this nature is a "natural, not a moral, fact." Really? He's making normative claims about sexuality that can't account for non-heterosexual men and when I point this out, it's "irrelevant to the discussion at hand." You seem…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 08:16 PM
-2

Similar to when MRAs quote (or just flat make up things about) feminists randomly?
/r/MensRights04/05/13 07:59 PM
1

This is a good article to start your literature search with: Adoptive Parents, Adaptive Parents: Evaluating the Importance of Biological Ties for Parental Investment But if you want more, here are also some good articles: Potter, D. (2012), Same-Sex Parent Families and Children's Academic Achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74: 556–571. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00966.x Frias-Navarro, D., & Monterde-i-Bort, H. (2012). A Scale on Beliefs about Children's Adjustment in Same-Sex Famili…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 07:49 PM
3

Keep in mind, he never defines what a "utopia" is. He's talking out of his ass. What does "utopia" mean to you? We need to know that, if we are going to talk about "sexual utopias" and then "men's sexual utoptias." I mean, interestingly enough, I don't know how "a world in which no such limit to female demand" could be a utopia for a gay man... unless they aren't real men to you or the author?
/r/MensRights04/05/13 07:33 PM
2

For example children have the highest grades, lowest levels of crime, etc, when living with their biological parents and when those parents are married. LOLZ. You forget to mention that this is only true if we live in a society where alternative familial structures are stigmatized, thus stigmatizing children living in households of adopted same-sex parents (among other variations on the nuclear family). Sorry, I've done the research, children living in areas where their familial structure isn't …
/r/MensRights04/05/13 07:23 PM
-1

If you understand female mating patterns most everything he says makes perfect sense, and can be backed up by other independent sources. Okay, I have degrees in both biology and sociology, that this sentence is just bad bad understanding of everything human related. Female mating patterns, really, is that how you want to talk about human beings? Like we are some sort of bird of paradise? Come on man, give human beings some credit... We clearly have advanced beyond mating dances and bower buildin…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 07:12 PM
0

I read that, but thanks for the ugly text dump. Let me repeat myself: NO FEMINISTS WERE CITED. You want to know what this author did decide to cite. Five books (he counted one book twice). Of which, one was written by an asshat, Schopenhaurer (love his misogyny in the morning). And the others are just badly written texts complaining about women or feminism, or modernity. Five online articles, only two of which actually have working links (one is even an article of his, which doesn't seem to be o…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 06:38 PM
-1

Regardless, my criticism still stands: [The statement, "Most MRAs understand feminism better than most feminists understand the MRM"] is a really big statement. One I don't believe seeing as I understand a great deal about the MRM, and yet a lot of MRAs seem to know little to nothing about feminism (especially in light of the kinds of things CrossHook seems to believe about feminism). Seeing as how there are a lot of different kinds of feminism, suggests that people who say... "[Feminists believ…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 06:28 PM
2

But the author is trying to speak about feminism, while not once suggesting that the things he is saying feminists actually believe. I mean, I could say that paleoconservatives are traditionalist asshats, but there's no reason to believe me... until I provide a source.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 06:10 PM
-3

this is the most concise summation of feminism Really? How can this be ever remotely a summation of feminist when the author doesn't once cite a single feminist? This article is woefully bad. Find some real feminism, and leave the summations to posers.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 05:50 PM
-3

The MRM understands feminism The movement understands feminism? How can a movement have an understanding. Did you mean MRAs? Which, in this case, is a really big statement. One I don't believe seeing as I understand a great deal about the MRM, and yet a lot of MRAs seem to know little to nothing about feminism (especially in light of the kinds of things CrossHook seems to believe about feminism).
/r/MensRights04/05/13 05:40 PM
-7

Stop trying to tell us what feminism is about, MRA. FTFY
/r/MensRights04/05/13 05:30 PM
2

... This blog supports the traditional family. Family includes Mom and Dad. Family is the strength of a Nation. This blog seems really bad. Are you honestly suggesting that we should look to writers like this for manufactured ideas about feminism? This person sounds like they don't know anything about feminism, but have managed to read a few pages of 1984.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 05:17 PM
1

Me either, never, ever, ever, EVER. /s
/r/MensRights04/05/13 01:24 PM
0

Oh, I didn't mean for the post to appear to be "infiltrating."Yeah, I responded to the question above (I was using the author's "we"). As it is, this was a case of mistaken identity*. :P But I'm not entirely sure why simply agreeing is enough to make folks suspicious about my motives.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 12:09 AM
2

Oh, I was using the author's "we." Sorry, it's kind of a bad habit, but it is a convention of the kind of writing I'm used to. "We" in this sense often refers to "the reader and the author," since the author often assumes that the reader knows and agrees with certain principles or previous theorems for the sake of brevity (or, if not, the reader is prompted to look them up), for example, so that the author does not need to explicitly write out every step of a mathematical proof. Because I do agr…
/r/MensRights02/05/13 11:51 PM
1

Yes... I did read further (I actually read this article two days ago). I even recognize in a comment here and here. Why are you getting all hyper-vigilant on me?
/r/MensRights02/05/13 10:48 PM
4

I agree, it seems like a more functional category of American novelist by century would be preferable. You could even do that while having an overlapping categories of American men Novelists and American women Novelists. I think the problem comes up when the 'unmarked' categories are treated as just that, 'unmarked'.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 03:39 PM
0

I doesn't look like it. It wasn't until after this issue caused a stir that someone else tried making the category: A user called lmurchie created a new category: American men novelists. Immediately other Wikipedians objected. A distinctive feature of the Wikipedia culture is the development of shorthand for various rhetorical devices. For example, an editor has only to say, “A new user created this unhelpful WP:POINTy category, compounding our problems,” and everyone knows that WP:POINT is a li…
/r/MensRights02/05/13 03:29 PM
-1

I imagine that the process of managing these categories takes more then just 5 minuets, seeing as the editor needs to review the page, make sure things are cited correctly, etc. Also, it said so in the article: On April 1 Lambert started working alphabetically through all American novelists and moving the women into Category:American women novelists instead. First he did Patricia Aakhus, at 5:44 PM. Two minutes later, Hailey Abbott. Then Megan Abbott—pausing also to add her to Category:Universit…
/r/MensRights02/05/13 03:18 PM
1

I dunno, slowly removing all women from the Wikipedia list of American novelists sounds like sexism. I mean, think about it if the sexes were reversed. We would be in an uproar.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 02:44 PM
3

half-baked "theories" that they inform how our society operates. half-baked!?! Please, the recipe says two cups of post-modernism, a stick of intersectionalism, lesbian separatism to taste (none, thank you), socially constructed 9x9 pan, bake at 350 for 50 minutes. This feminism is hardly half-baked. Looks like you need to get thee to a bakery, (wo)man!
/r/MensRights02/05/13 12:36 AM
2

Valenti and Marcotte Is that really the extent of your knowledge of feminist scholars? Feminist bloggers? You're pathetic.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 03:22 PM
0

I can't think of any feminists who've written articles condemning Dworkin as the ignorant self-righteous hamplanet she was. Demonstrating that you don't know any significant feminist scholars of the 90s, 2000s, and now 2010s. No surprise, you are talking out of your ass. BeeTeaDubz: Even feminists who predate Dworkin don't wouldn't agree with her. Simone de Beauvoir and Christine Delphy come to mind. Also, doesn't your the MRA "feminist" mascot, Christina Hoff Sommers, count. I know she disliked…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 03:14 AM
-9

You do know that separatist feminism has widely been criticized within the feminist community, right? Like, I have a hard time thinking of a popular contemporary feminist who identifies or advocates for the kinds of things that Valerie Solanas. Like, I do believe that some of the things Valerie believed were dangerious, and being a feminist does not absolve her of that (or her crime). So it's really disingenuous to say... then have other feminists picket for her release from prison, while callin…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 12:43 AM
2

The MRM should only be about problems that are biased laws because of being born a man. Beautifully stated. And this is exactly why the MRM is condemned to an existence of complete irrelevance. If you can not locate where oppression comes from, you will forever be condemned to perpetuate it.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:17 PM
-2

Okay... well, you really should both read what I wrote, and reread what you type. Learning how to write is also an important tool for communication. I'm suggesting that because it is phrased as "there are already many communities devoted to these topics, which is why they are not common on r/MR," is to suggest that the bulk of r/MR concern is on straight men's issues (no surprise). I'm not arguing that when gay or trans men face suffering, MRAs aren't seconds behind appropriating it (We can all …
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:32 AM
-1

...So did you not pass reading comprehension in high school or what? This: And even taking this one step further, the only issues that are MRM issues are forms of oppression which are experienced by white, western, straight, cis men. Does not mean the same as this: "And even taking this one step further, the issues that are MRM issues are forms of oppression which are experienced only by white, western, straight, cis men." Please don't waste my time if your brain hurts to much to think.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:10 AM
-3

Perhaps the author was suggesting that rather calling it a Men's Rights Movement (MRM), it should be called a Straight Men's Rights Movement (SMRM). Seeing as how when MRA's say "we believe men are oppressed as men" the obvious question is "as what kind of men?" Because it seems like the real big issues MRAs are concerned about are issues which seem to be primarily straight men's issues. In fact, this subreddit's FAQ states: Officially, r/MR supports the LGBT communities, and universal equal rig…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 02:08 AM
2

Actually, this is a really common sentiment among feminists, but the OP's decision to omit the rest of the quote in the headline makes it sound like the author is being malicious. Christine Delphy states something very similar in "Rethinking sex and gender" [Near the end of the section titled] Hierarchy as Necessarily Prior to Division ...If women were the equals of men, men would no longer equal themselves. Why then should women resemble what men would have ceased to be? If we define men within…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 07:42 PM
1

I simply said that the strategy posited by these radical feminists would not work very well. You don't know anything about anything. Let me inform you: Persistence hunting is a hunting technique in which hunters use a combination of running and tracking to pursue prey to the point of exhaustion. While humans can sweat to reduce body heat, their quadrupedal prey would need to slow from a gallop in order to pant. Today, it is very rare and seen only in a few groups such as Kalahari bushmen and the…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 04:18 AM
0

The radical feminist argument you made about female body fat allowing for long chases during the hunt is just absurd. Chasing an animal which is faster than you is a very poor hunting strategy; you want to ambush and you want to wield weapons which can be thrown faster than you can run (which requires upper body strength). If these radical feminists were really the ones leading tribes after mammoth meat, then I'm afraid there wouldn't be any remaining indigenous arctic peoples to speak of; they …
/r/MensRights26/04/13 03:59 AM
1

I recognize that those sources establish two things That there is some measurable difference in the in the body fat distribution, lean muscle mass, BMD and skeletal structure between men and women. Men suffer a disproportionately larger number of fatal work injuries then women in the U.S. The last article just doesn't seem directly relivent, and to reach your conclusion, we have to suppose a great deal about what is "truly" motivating these women, and I can't see how the researchers jumped to th…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 02:06 AM
-1

Excuse me? I'm not trivializing male suicide (or any suicide). Why are you insulting me and accusing me of sadism?
/r/MensRights25/04/13 04:18 PM
1

The privilege men have in your patriarchy is "male privilege", not masculinity privilege. Your response to my argument is to change my argument... That's not how this game works... Men who embrace your "analysis" are either uninformed or extremely self-loathing. That sounds a lot like misandry
/r/MensRights25/04/13 03:19 PM
-2

Like Big Red screaming "shut the fuck up", so she can lecture about it. Boy oh, if that doesn't come off as dehumanizing and misogynistic.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 03:08 PM
1

...how could society ever perform the functions which men have always done and which women are largely either unable (due to physical muscle mass) or unwilling (due to privilege)? Citation needed.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:54 PM
-4

I didn't come here to defend jezebel (I really don't like jezebel anyways). But if you're looking for a quick and dirty answer: Patriarchy privileges masculinity, which isn't something all men embody, and it's something that some women embody (though in this latter case, these women have to work hard to balance their femininity as women with their masculinity). Saying it privileges masculinity isn't the same as privileging men; though it is true that it is easier for men to "work" towards mascul…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 06:23 AM
-8

You know what's really problematic: The fact that the only people who ever use the phrase "patriarchy theory" is MRAs. Like, I have never seen a feminist use the phrase "patriarchy theory"... ever... And I know a hell of a lot of feminists. So yeah, when you talk about "proponents of patriarchy theory"... I can only imagine you're talking about MRAs... which would explain the inconsistency of the many MRA definitions of "patriarchy theory". So yeah...
/r/MensRights25/04/13 06:04 AM
1

Spellcheck is a function built into your browser, not into Reddit. So, it gets underlined by your computer, not by the reddit server...
/r/MensRights21/04/13 10:01 PM
4

Goebbels wasn't a medical doctor... He had a PhD, "writing his doctoral thesis on 19th century romantic drama."
/r/MensRights21/04/13 09:14 PM
7

That is true, there have been feminists who've voiced very transphobic views. Mary Daly, Sheila Jeffreys, and Janice Raymond are examples of a feminist who's essentialization of gender has resulted in excluding trans men and women from feminist activism. I don't like any of these people, and my observation is that a significant portion of modern feminist theory rejects this kind of second-wave essentialism. Seeing as how folks like Judith Butler, J. Halberstam and R.W. Connell have voiced extrem…
/r/MensRights19/04/13 05:22 PM
5

I don't think that the Men's Movement is the same thing as men. I think there are lots of men who don't see themselves as a part of MRM, and see feminism as helping men. For example, there are plenty of queer men, men of color, trans men, and white cis ablebodied straight men who see feminism as helping men and also don't see themselves as part of the MRM.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 04:41 PM
1

Just take a look at some media outlets like The View... Is that really the extent of your understanding of feminism...
/r/MensRights19/04/13 01:36 AM
0

Going over your posts again, you make a strong case for the MRM being anti-feminist, and I agree with that concept. However, I've already pointed out, and as as the commenters pointed out in your first article, anti-feminism does not necessarily equate to misogyny (though it certainly can in some instances). I'm glad you bothered to read it this time around, and you've gotten pretty good at splitting hairs... I guess that's what you call "shifting the paradigm" or something... Again, if you'd li…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 04:49 AM
-4

I really don't have the time nor the patience to explain feminist ideology to you, but yes, as a long-standing movement feminism has a well-established ideology. I'm afraid you'll simply have to do your own research and establish your own opinion on the matter. Please, don't misunderstand. I was simply asking you to expose your ideas to critique, so as to allow me to better inform you as to where you're wrong. I mean, I at least bothered to do research on feminism, Men's Rights and Men's Issues …
/r/MensRights18/04/13 04:22 AM
-2

So... you think that feminism has an overarching ideology (which is?) and a deep-rooted tradition of man hating (which isn't exceptional, but the norm?). It sounds like you are just making this up to suit your preference of MRM over feminism.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:51 AM
0

But isn't the Men's Rights Movement tainted by a deep-rooted tradition of woman-hating and opposition to... well, that last part doesn't seem to be the case, MRAs seem to really like some varieties of femininity.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:35 AM
-1

So... someone saying you're not a feminist is sufficient enough to make you an anti-feminist?
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:07 AM
-1

I'm curious. Why do you call yourself anti-feminist, when you also say that there is a "right way" to do feminism. I mean, is there a reason you prefer anti-feminist over Christian Hoff Sommers feminist?
/r/MensRights18/04/13 02:56 AM
2

I did the research, the moral panic involving masturbation had pretty much subsided by the turn of the century (the whole Kelloge thing was kind of a joke in the early 20th century). The persistence of circumcision in the US arose from a medical culture which just reproduced the medical reality: Sociology of medical knowledge provides with some tools to consider how circumcision fits as a characteristic of modern American culture. Medical professionals operate on socially constructed medical kno…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 02:41 AM
1

Actually, that's a really good point. I have to admit, it's been a long time since I have seen the term used (and I don't frequent SRS very often, it's kinda boring to me). Honestly, if I could change my user name (is that something you can do?), I would. To often, people have gotten hung up on it, and it derails the conversation (as it has done here). However, I do think there is some truth in my concern over spermjacking or reproductive abuse. It's that when MRAs really get engaged over instan…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 02:31 AM
3

the medical benefit of circumcision doesn't outweigh two things... bodily autonomy for one, and the right to fully realized sexual pleasure. No, I agree with you, whatever health benefits there may be to circumcision, that doesn't outweigh a man's right to bodily autonomy. In fact, if there are health benefits to circumcision, I fully believe that men are more then capable to make the decision for themselves as to whether or not to get circumcised, and don't need other people making that decisio…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 11:45 PM
0

But don't you think that there is a difference between medical procedures which are performed to control sexuality, and medical procedures which incidentally control sexual experience. I mean, mastectomies surely have an effect on a woman's sexual experience, but no one is arguing that mastectomies are performed to control their sexuality.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 09:37 PM
0

Wait... where was that claim made? I can't find anywhere the word "worse"
/r/MensRights17/04/13 06:05 PM
1

Nope. Read again. I'm mocking the use of a "spermjack" as a term which describes type of abuse with misogynistic implications. Interesting that quite a few people are upset that the blog chooses to use circumcision to refer to a procedure performed on men's penis, and FGM to refer to a procedure performed on women's vagina. And yet, when men harm women through manipulation of reproduction, it's called "reproductive abuse," but when women manipulate men it's called "spermjacking."
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:55 PM
1

What hair splitting are you referring to?
/r/MensRights17/04/13 03:21 PM
1

I think it's funny that rather then discussing these issues like adults with a measure of rationality, some folks decide to call it "spermjacking" and tell ludicrous stories of women abducting their sperm in condoms for the purpose of extorting child support. I think it's funny that rather then engage in some productive dialogue about how domestic abuse happens, some folks want to focus on cartoonish depictions of women and feminists as man-hating monsters who don't care about other people (eith…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 03:02 PM
0

Spermjacking is a form of domestic abuse? Please explain.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 02:34 PM
0

In the blog post, isn't there a quote from a feminist activist saying: Male circumcision is a problem too, I am against that as well Also, the blog post doesn't ever say "what about teh menz lol." I'm not sure what your complaint is...
/r/MensRights17/04/13 02:06 PM
-1

when animals mate they select partners with desirable attributes. those attributes are passed down and eventually become the norm for a species. Oh gawd! Does that mean that bacteria don't evolve!?! And like, all the asexual species don't evolve either? What about species who don't get to select their "partners", like plants. Plants don't get to make any sort of decision about who their mates are. Do plants not evolve either? Boy, it seems like with as simple as your explanation of evolution is,…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 03:10 PM
-2

What's the "domestic violence industry"?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 11:12 PM
-1

"characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind" ...which is not the same as "never genuine and original." So I have no idea how you reach to conclusion: A subjective painting cannot be original or genuine because it is merely a representation of that which is perceived. The genuine and original was the thing perceived. Who said that subjective things can't be genuine or original. Couldn't they be genuinely subjective, and original? Why must subjective …
/r/MensRights10/04/13 06:15 PM
-2

Boy... that's a lot of words, but they are all pretty meaningless. A subjective painting is never genuine and original, by the very definition of subjectivity. And yet... that's not what subjectivity means... I mean, if we wanted to, we could say something about the subjective nature of art... but you're not doing that... you're not doing anything.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 06:04 PM
-6

And you're good at editing and expanding your comment after the fact. Also, bad at philosophy of art.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:48 PM
-7

Well... 3 out of 4 ain't bad. EDIT: I guess now 1 out of 4, because Piroko is the final arbiter of all art /s
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:37 PM
-4

Eh'hem: Artemisia Gentileschi Tell me this isn't a powerful image: that is really great, genuine, and original... of permanent value in any sphere... with mastery of technique... And that was over 150 years before Schepenhauer...
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:17 PM
1

Ah, I was thinking that. lol.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 03:38 PM
2

But it looks like in every other category of Game Industry employment, women make less. Women make 17,000 less than men as artists and animators. Women make 15,000 less than men as game designers. Women make 6,000 less than men as producers. Women make 33,000 less than men as audio developers. Women make 10,000 less than men as QA testers. Women make 26,000 less than men as Community Managers, CEOs, HR, IT, and administrators.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 03:09 PM
1

Nice! I think wondering is wonderful!
/r/MensRights03/04/13 10:19 PM
0

So... why did you?
/r/MensRights03/04/13 09:25 PM
1

Just wondering.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 06:31 PM
1

Why did you ask this question?
/r/MensRights03/04/13 02:22 PM
4

I am a feminist. I am sorry if you do not agree with my personal brand of feminism, but I am a feminist nonetheless. Are you a feminist?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 10:03 PM
0

Why does the author keep saying "post-industrial"?
/r/MensRights30/03/13 03:42 AM
0

Well, I wasn't saying she was a feminist in this post, I was just explaining who she is. This says she's a feminist: Peaches' latest electro-punk album is both explicit and explicitly feminist. Catherine Redfern reviews Impeach My Bush
/r/MensRights30/03/13 02:05 AM
1

Link? I wonder what this feminist is thinking to suggest such a stupid thing.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 01:54 AM
0

I just learned from my boyfriend the other day that women no longer outnumber men. He read it on wikipedia.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 01:43 AM
-1

you're a feminist. You've got that right! But I bet non-feminists like her too. I mean, I don't think there is any relation to being a feminist and liking so called "shitty music."
/r/MensRights29/03/13 11:31 PM
-1

Awe, come on. "feminists just like her shitty music"? I don't think she's shitty, she's very brilliant!
/r/MensRights29/03/13 07:38 PM
-2

I disagree. There are good feminists (of which I listed 14).
/r/MensRights29/03/13 07:26 PM
0

I mean that I think their feminist positions are wanting (and thus not "good"), of which I explained earlier... Sommers sets out to juxtapose "equity feminism" with "gender feminism," when what she is really saying is "libertarian feminism" and "all other forms of feminism." I think this is an impoverished view of feminism, and does little work to describe actual feminist projects. But the most damning thing is that her work doesn't do anything remotely close to feminism. Regarding Paglia, I don…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 07:10 PM
-1

Nope again. I simply didn't list them because I don't think they're good feminists.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 02:36 PM
-1

Nope; I didn't say that. I simply was explaining why I wouldn't list them as modern feminists worth listing in response to the original request.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 03:26 AM
0

Peaches "is a Canadian electronic musician and performance artist." Her songs are noted for disregarding traditional gender norms and for their use of sexually explicit lyrics. She plays her own instruments for her songs, programs her own electronic beats, and produces her own albums. She's pretty badass! I bet GirlWritesWhat knows who she is, Peaches is famous in Canada.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:44 AM
-1

Ugh... The dilemma is that the only people who call Paglia and Sommers feminists are Paglia and Sommers (plus other anti-feminists). However, if you are at all interested in my two cents, the problems with Paglia and Sommers is their projects aren't feminist. Sommers sets out to juxtapose "equity feminism" with "gender feminism," when what she is really saying is "libertarian feminism" and "all other forms of feminism." I think this is an impoverished view of feminism, and does little work to de…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:24 AM
-2

Judith Hooks: "Tolerance is worse than censorship." - seems pretty craycray I don't know who Judith Hooks is, I imagine you meant Judith Butler. I imagine you gleaned that little quote from wikipedia. [citation needed] because I don't know if Butler ever actually said that exact quote (which is what the double quotes mean, btw). However, without the context, I don't think you establish Butler as "craycray" (though I thought the question at hand was whether they were crack pots), in light of cont…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 11:57 PM
-1

I'm a dude, dude. Check your pronouns.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 11:46 PM
-2

lol, which ones are crack pots?
/r/MensRights28/03/13 04:15 PM
-6

Judith Butler bell hooks Patricia Hill Collins Kimberlé Crenshaw J. Halbarstam Margaret Atwood R.W. Connell Paula Moya Allan Johnson Ruth Hubbard Christine Delphy Octavia Butler Bonus Feminists! Peaches Tori Amos
/r/MensRights28/03/13 03:55 PM
-7

Adria reinforced the idea of us [females] as threats to men, as unreasonable, as hard to work with… as bitches. This is truth. How is that true? That sounds kinda misogynistic... I mean, if you just flip the genders, wouldn't you say it's misandristic?
/r/MensRights22/03/13 03:28 AM
1

You said: No one in feminism criticized these feminists for violently protesting a discussion on boys suicide. That is not what they were protesting. It wasn't until I pointed out that you didn't watch the video yourself that you caught on that (so it was really you who doesn't have "knowledge of the subject"): they were protesting because he wrote in a book that sometimes men date rape woman because they didn't understand that she didn't want sex. Which is such a cowardly way to both phrase wha…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 10:57 PM
1

Is this really what you are going to do to me? Just keep sending me to youtube to have to sort out the facts for you? I'm not your errand boy. Do it yourself.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 10:19 PM
1

Yeah... you miss the point. I imagine that "No one in feminism criticized these feminists for violently protesting a discussion on boys suicide" because that wasn't what those feminists were protesting. I'll give you a hint as to what they were really discussing: Watch the video and listen to why they are protesting. EDIT: Though I notice that most protesters didn't identify as feminist in the video. But I don't know if the distinction is important in this context.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 09:42 PM
-3

That's the view from the inside, where small doctrinal differences appear large. Quick alert the feminism pope! He must be told about the schism! But seriously, a great many feminists value the reflexive characteristic feminist theorizing has taken within the past 30 years. And, IMHO, it has made for a better, stronger, more critical body of feminist thought. Also, that second paragraph is just garbage. It's going to be very embarrassing for you when you brighten up (if you brighten up).
/r/MensRights21/03/13 06:07 AM
1

There is 0 relevance in your post.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 05:56 AM
1

It sounds more like you are the "gender ideologue" by simply rejecting Hubbard's status as a scientists simply because she would disagree with you... Not very rational or intelligent of you. Almost like you've let your emotions get away with you and are now behaving like some rabid gender ideologue... hysterical much?
/r/MensRights21/03/13 05:41 AM
3

But I'll ask again for clarification: What is the difference between "a political/gender scientist" and "a real scientist"?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 02:22 PM
3

Hubbard gave up science in the 50 or 60s and began working in political gender ideology. Her political, ideological work is not science. You don't become emeritus faculty of biology by giving up your academic career in your 30s... But I'll ask again for clarification: What is the difference between "a political/gender scientist" and "a real scientist"?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 02:06 PM
1

Oh, I'm not addressing it because I don't think it's a comprehensive summary of what is a common characteristic of feminism. Rather I think it is a straw feminist you've proposed, and therefor I don't have to fight you over it.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 04:09 AM
0

I love it when anti-feminists come across a terrible conceptualization of feminism and latch onto it like a scared child. The idea that feminism is anti-male/man/masculinity is so outdated it's kinda hilarious when I come across it. I feel like I'm reading something out of a fairy tail... a very patriarchal fairy tail... Oh, wait, love isn't the right word... I dislike it.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 03:28 AM
0

I can't believe that your definition of anti-male is so broad... How deluded can you get? kettle calling the... oh... you've already appropriated the struggle of black men and women for the MRM... deluded
/r/MensRights20/03/13 03:15 AM
1

Ok... I don't care about the political minutia of Norway, and I don't think some sleazebag pedaling evo/psych around Europe as being a serious challenge to the study of gender. Sorry, it just doesn't matter that one institute has been closed because of political backlash. Also, Ruth Hubberd is a real scientist (biologist) from a real big institution (Harvard). So... yeah... creepy Norwegian polemicist versus very influential and well-read Harvard biologist... yeah... We both know who wins. BTW: …
/r/MensRights20/03/13 02:58 AM
1

Ah, that looks obnoxious to watch, and also not real science. Though it is interesting to note that he proposes a evo/psych explanation of gender, something that even real biologists (and evolutionary biologists) reject as bunk. However! Here is a real scientist who talks about the social construction of gender: Ruth Hubberd: One notable instance from men is when they revive various old and unfounded biological theories on women to justify the typical subservient positions of the female gender. …
/r/MensRights20/03/13 02:22 AM
1

Except of course, those scientists that say gender is entirely socially constructed. But maybe I don't understand what you are saying. What exactly is a gender ideologue?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:46 AM
1

I'm not sure that those two understandings are compatible.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:35 AM
2

This is actually a good point. No one looked at this persons genitals before assessing their gender, so you can't start talking about their genitals (or brain for that matter) until you've actually examined them. So the objection to saying the person is, in reality a woman because of some physical traits is wrong, seeing as we haven't confirmed the existence of those physical traits.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 03:21 PM
4

As some one who actually knows about biology, all of those things are just plain wrong. Seriously dead wrong. However, if we decided to conflate socially constructed gender and medically constructed sex (as you have ignorantly done), then you have like 1/6, which is still an "F".
/r/MensRights18/03/13 03:10 PM
2

That is not Wikipedia's definition of the feminist usage of the word patriarchy. Patriarchy does have multiple definitions. Only the feminist one is relevant in this discussion.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 05:43 PM
1

They actually do. They actually do what? Use "patriarchy" to mean eggs over easy? Do you have an example of this? That definition is more accurate than the second one you gave, What do you mean by "accurate"?
/r/MensRights16/03/13 05:25 PM
3

The patriarchy is a bullshit illogical hypothesis anyway. (de-emphasis mine) Don't we have to know what something means before we can say that it's illogical? Well, I suppose we could claim it's illogical without understanding it, but then we're bad thinkers. Why are we arguing about what it means when that is completely arbitrary as each individual feminist thinks it means something else? It's not completely arbitrary. No feminist uses "patriarchy" to mean eggs over easy. There may be some dist…
/r/MensRights16/03/13 04:01 PM
6

Meaning is not entirely contained in etymology.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 03:31 AM
2

The Patriarchy Theory as I have seen it defined: The theory that men have created a system that only benefits men at the expense of women. Where did you find that definition? For comparison, Wikipedia gives Most forms of feminism characterize patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 01:11 AM
1

Oh, I'm not saying that they are coming to the same conclusions, but from my experience with both their work, they both start from the same premises. It's the gender essentialism that I'm talking about. Both make this big assumptions about gender, and then move on to conclude curtain things about society, men, and women (which, Warren Farrell concludes much less crazy, but still bad, things). I think Farrell is much more palatable then Mary Daly, but I mostly think this is the case because he ha…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 02:42 PM
2

It does not include cases of rape which go unreported, or which are not recorded. Nor does it specify whether recorded means reported, brought to trial, or convicted. Nor does it take the different definition of rape around the world into account. That's not the number of rapes per year. Now fuck off, you lying feminist troll. I may be a feminist, but I'm not the one misrepresenting statistics (lying), or being an asshole (troll).
/r/MensRights12/03/13 02:32 PM
-5

So if the Wikipedia statics are the real statistics, and the 1 in 1000 statistic is not on Wikipedia, does that mean we should conclude the 1 in 1000 statistic is not real?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:34 AM
-9

The real statistics not being the ones on Wikipedia?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:16 AM
-3

Your accusation is that I'm lying? What a cowardly response. By the way, it sounds like you have a vested interest in under-exaggerating rape. I certainly didn't see the 1 in 1000 claim on the Wikipedia article you linked.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 04:43 AM
1

The real rate is more like 1 in 1000. I'm sorry, but I don't fucking believe you. I'm a decently comfortable middle-class white man. Most of my friends are also middle-class and relatively isolated from social problems. I would say I know fewer than 1000 women. At most a few hundred. I know multiple women who have been raped. And that's just the ones I know about. So that's---just from my very sheltered perspective---much, much, much more than 0.1%. Your number is bullshit.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 04:33 AM
1

Ok, because that is what I was trying to communicate. That when men are deprived of much needed health coverage, they will ultimately suffer worse health outcomes.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 02:45 AM
1

Excuse me? By the way, the idea that depression and anxiety are caused by something as trivial as health insurance premiums shows a tremendous ignorance of how deeply rooted and severe these issues are. Are you telling me not being able to afford health care is going to have a positive effect on the health and well being of men? I'm sorry but that completely ignores... ...how deeply rooted and severe these issues are.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 02:29 AM
1

Well, I guess I would argue that though men probably receive less stigmatization then women, but I actually don't think that promiscuity is always rewarded for men. For example, I think that single men are not treated nearly as well as married men (which single men are also more likely to be the promiscuous men, at least I imagine). For example, I believe things like health insurance is more expensive if you're single then if you're married. I do know that married men have better health outcomes…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 01:45 AM
1

The differences between American and New Zealand culture are irrelevant, however, to the topic at hand. You know as well as I do that the two cultures are similar enough that if something as fundamental as sexual behavior happens one way in New Zealand, it probably happens similarly in America. Ah, and I argue that the causation is backwards. Rather, that In New Zealand and America (both misogynist cultural atmospheres) women who break normative standards on sexual expression suffer social conse…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 01:01 AM
2

Well, I'm glad to see that's not what people are arguing... It's just the causation sounded backwards. That's all. Your problem here is that it was done in New Zealand? I guess I'm just assuming that not all "Western" countries are a like. But I'm just saying that because it seems to be the case.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 12:32 AM
2

Are you telling me a cohort study of women born in the 70s and who live in New Zealand can be generalized to all women? Western women? American Women?... I could go on... His claim was generalized to all women... So that is my obvious objection to it.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 12:07 AM
2

"longitudinal study of a birth cohort born in 1972-1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand" Eek! I think that is troubling. Extrapolating from a cohort of women who grew up in 1970s New Zealand to the claim people who are promiscuous, and especially women (studies show the more partners a woman has the less happy they are in general with partners), have, I believe, a higher chance of having personality disorders hidden within the detritus of their carefree and fun lifestyles. Is a pretty big inferential le…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 11:47 PM
2

I guess I just don't believe it because I haven't seen any proof. Sorry, I figured a strong claim like that could be backed up with some strong evidence.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 11:08 PM
1

I know it's the 'in' thing to be a slut or whatever, but people who are promiscuous, and especially women (studies show the more partners a woman has the less happy they are in general with partners), have, I believe, a higher chance of having personality disorders hidden within the detritus of their carefree and fun lifestyles. Women who don't conform to your expectations of feminine sexuality must have "a higher chance of having personality disorders." O_O That's some heavy shit O_O
/r/MensRights11/03/13 03:01 AM
0

I don't know what this blog is, but I don't care for ICP. Like, I don't know a single contemporary published feminist who would reference that blog as good feminist work, and I am not advocating whatever this blog is advocating. I'm simply saying that the end of rape is something MRAs and feminists have in common. the vast majority of feminist discussions of rape ignore any victims that aren't women raped by men. I both think that's an empirical claim, and something I, in my experience, have not…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:35 AM
1

Awe what! Those topless gay-rights advocates are so bad ass! Don't listen OP, they're pretty cool.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:03 AM
0

Yeah, and if you call that kind of action spermjacking, you'll just invite people to make fun of it (as is in my name). But regardless of all that, I am guess I'm not so sure I think spermjacking is that wide spread of a problem, but I suppose I could be wrong. In the case of the men and boys who have been raped, they share a common plight with female rape victims (that is, there are women who are forced to take a child conceived in rape to term). So, I guess that there is some common ground bet…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 11:50 PM
1

What are "non-logical mathematical axioms?"
/r/MensRights10/03/13 11:24 PM
2

One think I think helps make for a better feminism (and a better feminist) is to broaden you familiarity with different feminist writers. What's awesome about the 21st century is that never before has so much feminist scholarship published. I think it's awesome when a feminist (like you) questions the contents of feminism because I think attitudes like that help make for a stronger feminism. I think you are on the right track, and I beginning from the start of feminism the concern for oppression…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 10:59 PM
1

You have statistics, or you have nothing. That is a starved intellectual position. You'd better establish that "You have statistics, or you have nothing" by using statistics, otherwise you have nothing.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 10:14 PM
0

The definition of an axiom is something that is self-evidently or assumed self evidently true. Lol I can tell you've never read any of the literature in mathematical logic. Which leads to wonder why I should even listen to anything you say with regard to the subject? You clearly have not the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Penelope Maddy has a really nice paper about the justifications we use for believing axioms of mathematics, set theory, in this case. She pays particular attentio…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 09:58 PM
0

How is ∀x(∃y(y ∈ x) ⇒ ∃y(y ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z(z ∈ x ∧ z ∈ y))) falsifiable? Further, you're falsely assuming that mathematical axioms must be truth claims. something that cannot both be and not be at the same time under the same conditions. I don't know who is assuming this axiom. From how it's written, it does not sound like the sort of axiom that would be adopted by logicians or mathematicians (as it's neither a logical nor mathematical axiom). I didn't find anything about the "axiom of contradiction" …
/r/MensRights10/03/13 08:46 PM
0

it's certainly not scientific. I was not claiming it is scientific. Nonetheless I believe your example statement is falsifiable. Please expound. How would one falsify the claim that all truth claims must be falsifiable?
/r/MensRights10/03/13 07:33 PM
0

If your claim is that all truth claims must be subject to falsifiability, then you ought consider that that view is self-defeating. The truth claim "the only way to reach truth is through falsifiability" is itself not falsifiable. So the only coherent view is that not all truth claims must be falsifiable.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 06:45 PM
-1

Come on bro, that is some weak sauce. How does your characterization of intersectionality make it useless. People use it, and it also happens to work. In any case, is the claims made with or due to intersectionality even falsifiable? Why does this matter? I'm not proposing s scientific theory (which is why I think you are parroting the word "falsifiable"). Did you read any of the stuff posted? Are you just missing the point entirely?
/r/MensRights10/03/13 06:07 PM
-3

OMG ;_; what kind of "gender studies, sociology and psychology" courses are you attending? Did your university library burn down!
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:30 PM
1

You have statistics, or you have nothing. That is a starved intellectual position.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:15 PM
0

you have to account for everything else first, otherwise it's just arbitrary declaration. It sounds like you're going to have to back that up with something other then your declaration there of. I just don't see it as being an essential component of social justice (your petty game of "whos got it worse"). Intersectionality does. No it doesn't, you're making that up Tell me, is intersectionality theory even falsifiable? Now you are speaking nonsense. Who said intersectionality theory?
/r/MensRights10/03/13 04:51 PM
1

According to intersectionality, IF divorce were even applicable, which is arguable, women would suffer more because they are both divorced and women. It is impossible for a divorced man to suffer more (all things being equal otherwise), because he does not suffer in anyway purely because he is a man. Come on dude, I have already told you (or at the very least others) that there is no place for that kind of petty ranking and ordering of oppression. It's doesn't get any work done and pits men vs w…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 07:23 AM
1

Intersectionality is not about that. According to intersectionality in feminism, if it's even applicable here, then the divorced status is where the oppression comes from, not from being male. Come on, then wouldn't women be suffering "equally" in divorced status? I mean, women can be divorced too, do they suffer equally? If so, then it is only divorce, not the intersection of divorce with gender that creates the inequality we see in divorce. I think the draft is clearly a case where the history…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 06:48 AM
-2

Yeah, but it isn't a cat, it is a theory explaining the distribution of oppression across a population by taking into account the intersection of social facts and identity. But, I've already said that before, and you keep saying it's a cat... But! Speaking of cats, you can verify that both accounts are mine because I have posted pictures of my cat (Margaret, a female cat) under both accounts! Here and Here. Though she is significantly more grumpy in the first, the boyfriend was over and she hate…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 06:24 AM
1

That is just the silliest question ever. First, because the specificity of the intersection (thus, the term intersectionality), determine what can even be said, just saying "all other things being equal" is nonsense, seeing as these categories are not equal. Second, why do we need to say who's more oppressed then who? A powerful characteristics of of intersectional theories is they can locate oppressions without having to rank them. Gawd, just go here and read the quote (even read the article it…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:53 AM
1

Um, but the possibility of violence for any of these people isn't erased by me providing a specific answer to something that GWW asked for. She wanted me to concoct a situation where a man was being more oppressed then a women. That's all I had to do. If you want it can be a gay trans man in a men's bathroom and a lesbian trans woman in the women's bathroom. But that would only add another dimension of inequality to the picture, and a dimension in which we need intersectional theories of oppress…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:42 AM
-4

You are not understanding questions!!! That was a question. Don't answer questions with questions, it's bad form when you don't understand the question. If, as a biologist, you believe that speciation does not happen, then I'm terrified for the future of stem. Show me where I said that!?! I said was that if a feminist achieved a nuanced and fair-minded understanding of gender, history and oppression, they would no longer be a feminist, or they'd be lying about either their beliefs or their name.…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:23 AM
1

The thing to keep in mind, Warren Farrell is just as bad as Mary Daly, IMHO. Warren Farrell hold such similar positions, just simply a different account on how it is currently organized. The things is, the Dalys and Farrells struggle with an attempt to reconcile their idea of the perfect, co-harmonious gender structure, that they don't consider that the ways we are trying to "preserve" gender while changing it's place in society are not compatible goals. Therefor, there are feminists, like Chris…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:10 AM
-2

I seriously don't know about the specifics, I swear I once saw you say something about once buying into a feminist idea or something. Maybe I saw that on your blog, but I don't have a photo memory for GirlWrites&Video. I suppose That is why I phrased it as a question (with the mark at the end, looks like this "?", I will demo it for you in the next two sentences). Have you ever changed your mind? Like, changed something you believed but now you don't so your life is different now compared then t…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 04:41 AM
-2

You really are determined to apply the least charitable interpretation onto everything I say, aren't you? OMG! now you're just mimicking me! What have I done ;_; But regardless what I've done to your arguement content, I think the analogy is still broken, because feminism isn't a religion. I am so glad you didn't respond to my criticism of your evolution analogy. Fuck, I would wipe the floor with you if that was what this debate is about. HAHA, I'm a feminist and a biologist! #STEMFEMinist (we e…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 04:25 AM
0

Yeah, you fail to see the larger philosophical problem of objectivity and subjectivity, and thus just fail... So, not doing it here with you. Yes, I have said "masculinity is privileged", maybe so as to meet you on some common term, but you refuse to agree on the term, so I am abandoning it. Can't I change my mind? Do you never change your mind? You have historically (I thought I once claimed that feminism had fooled you, but now you know better). Couldn't you give other people the luxury of cha…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 03:44 AM
-1

Did not say... ...because he is male and embodying the cultural ideal of masculinity. Though their might be some reasons to suppose that, and I don't think it's completely wrong. The intersectionalist approach would locate him there because of more then just that. Consider for a moment how black men have been historically constructed as a risk to white women. Then the hypermasculinization of black men can be seen as the exaggeration of the risk that black men pose to white women. But regardless …
/r/MensRights10/03/13 03:34 AM
-1

Um, I guess to the last part, I'm not sure what the inverse of "a woman refusing to have sex with her husband to be domestic abuse." (understanding the concept of inverse as: the inverse of 2 is 1/2; or even in the logic sense) But, I don't think "a woman refusing to have sex with her husband to be domestic abuse", or that a man refusing to have sex with his wife to be domestic abuse (or any other combination of pronouns, gendered terms, or number of members). I'm not sure how this is related to…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 03:11 AM
-2

And yes, I do see what you are saying about my user name. But I think in part, I'm not sure that it should be taken as a serious example of "female privilege" and "male oppression". This is in part because the trope of "sperm jacking" is so comical, I don't imagine MRAs seriously endorse it as a threat to men (I mean, the idea comes of as making women out to be cartoonish villains). I mean, I swear there is like a bad episode of Dharma and Greg where an ex of Gred abducts a vial of his frozen se…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 02:46 AM
-1

Wait! See, you're doing it again. I said: I didn't realize your understanding of feminism relies on the concepts of "female privilege" and "male oppression". You made a little error in your reading: You're joking, right? "Male privilege" and "female oppression" are not feminist terms? So, in regards to this, you say: My understanding of feminism relies on the feminist exclusion of the concept of female privilege and male oppression. Ok, well, I think I have suggested over and over that our under…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 02:33 AM
-1

But does it make any sense to talk about a generic "male" free of "all other characteristics". This is where, at least I think, the matrix of domination is very useful to MRAs. Consider cases of divorce, where MRAs argue that men are unfairly treated compared to women. It seems to me that it is never just that these men are men, but rather that the are men in divorce. Considering this, it seems that it is the intersection of divorce and men where this inequality arises, and where the inequality …
/r/MensRights10/03/13 02:19 AM
-3

Next funny thing: For what it's worth, I don't think that transmen feel much more apprehensive in such situations than transwomen. Because: The risk is equal for transwomen, but transwomen feel less risk. This is because women can be assumed to not be dangerous or threatening in their natural state. (female privilege) The risk is lower, and transwomen feel less at risk because they are. the risk is higher, and transwomen feel less at risk because women can be assumed to not be dangerous or threa…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 02:08 AM
-5

Wait, before I even finish reading, let us clear this up: This is where we part philosophical ways. Because studies have consistently shown that even after being victimized by violence, men are less fearful of violence than women who have never been victimized by violence are. Literally, men who have experience of their actual liability are less afraid of violence than women who have no experience of it. And even look at your assessment that a transman feels more oppressed in a male-only environ…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 01:48 AM
0

You're the one who's insisting I use the term male privilege... Not me... which has been a significant part of my posts... so yeah... I'm moving away from your caricature of male privilege (why do always wildly distribute your capital letters throughout your sentences?). Even in the original thread with I_love_bees, you were the one to begin using the word privilege, and I was forced to use it to correct your misunderstanding about what I was saying. I think this is an important example of what'…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 01:35 AM
1

Oh, I guess I don't lay claim to running r/feminism, and I don't think their policies are any more enlightening. I just know that after being downvoted enough, people's responses start building up because I have to wait to respond. It ends up making it hard to follow the individual threads in which I'm being asked a response. My point might be more akin to what other MRAs have already stated in this thread. You know what bothers me about that thread? I'll give you a hint--it nas nothing to do wi…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 01:13 AM
0

Hum, honestly, and I don't feel bad saying this, a lot of popular and commercial western feminists think this is an essential characteristic of feminist theory. This, of course, is not widely held within, what I would call academic and professional feminists (which, I recognize my classification of "academic and professional" based off a very uncomplex epistemology). Honestly, when MRAs bring up criticisms that some feminists have historically advocated racists, homophobic and transphobic positi…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 01:02 AM
-6

You don't have very good reading comprehension do you (which would explain so much!) I asked: am I betraying any rules of r/mensrights? Sorry, let me give you a breakdown of the ways I'd like you to interpret Are my actions uniformly breaking any r/Mensrights rules? Is Men's Rights universally hostile to anyone expressing feminist inclinations, or have I broken some sort of r/mensrights rule? Is the expression of dissent from GWW prescribed dogma a downvoteable offense on r/mensrights? Is the us…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 12:45 AM
1

Can I do it in a link and let you figure out what it is by yourself? I have been operating from the position that when I say things (for example) like "I didn't say uniformly," both myself and the person I am responding to recognize that if I didn't say it, then the addition of that word must be important to the point of my original comment. Instead, for some reason, some people respond by using a different synonym of uniformly, or then choose to add a different meaning to my (and other feminist…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 12:28 AM
-1

ITT: GWW telling me what I'm essentially saying without reading what I am specifically saying I'm just saying that no one hear knows anything about intersectionality and thus have no idea where it's going (including you). Instead, you just make it up as you go along, and I'm forced to pick up your loose threads as you type. I mean, couldn't a system of understandin oppression to be as follows (this is long, but I hope you'll read it): Placing African-American women and other excluded groups in t…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 12:04 AM
-3

Like, I gave you an example (which was in "some context") and now I'm dancing around the issue? I am suggesting that because of how highly contextualized individual cases of violence (of which, I was using as an operationalization of oppression), I produced an example which erased other ways oppression acts on individuals. Like... This isn't anything novel, or directly troubling to feminist projects. For one example, things like "education, able-bodiedness, income, profession, attractiveness, bo…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 11:48 PM
-3

Um, it's kinda ridiculous that as I post here I am being downvoted to such an extent I have to wait to make further posts. Like am I betraying any rules of r/mensrights?
/r/MensRights09/03/13 11:12 PM
-2

I guess my thought is, once again, why are we ordering oppression like this? Like, do we have some sort of "unit of oppression" we are using. The intersectionalist approach doesn't construct such a way of measuring, so it seems like you are telling me what the intersectionalists approach is concluding by adding something I, and other intersectionalists, haven't ascribed to the position.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 11:01 PM
-8

Maybe because they aren't identically situated so such a conjecture would seem absurd (i.e., one person's a man and one person's a woman). But I mean, seriously, if that is all I have to say then I can say it. This is not only my thought on the matter, but is also present in Judith Halberstam, The Bathroom Problem. I'm sorry but the pages of import are missing in the online version. So, I hope that's ok. A trans man, in the space of a mens bathroom is going to feel more oppressed, in some ways t…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:50 PM
-2

You see the problem: the knowledge that women 'have it worse' than men. Do you see why this not useful knowledge? Inequality is all around us, but saying this ignores the intersection where inequality happens. It is through knowledge of the systems of inequality in which we see how it happens and how it can be resisted. I don't know of any contemporary feminist who's thesis is 'women have it worse than men', and I probs wouldn't take a project that wished to establish that fact very seriously. S…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:33 PM
-6

Um... I think that this specific branch in the thread is getting muddied. I have pointed to where the disagreement with what GWW and others have claimed. In other portions I give examples to how intersectionality doesn't do what is being laid claim it does. I was showing that intersectionality does not make uniformity claims. So... there is your disagreement? I said earlier how weird the claim "Just that no oppression comes from being a man," here, maybe that helps? Like your previous post where…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:17 PM
-3

I don't think the intersectionalist account can answer this question. Doesn't it seem like a bad question? What would we do with such an answer? What would it tell us? How would we know?
/r/MensRights09/03/13 09:57 PM
-5

...because the post has more then just the line I do claim that masculinity is privileged then maybe I'm claiming more than just that line... here's another line Isn't anyone slightly bothered by the strategy deployed within this argument on behalf of GWW GWW write this like: All the other bullshit of "intersectionality" and kyriarchy is just window dressing, frankly. All other things being equal, kyriarchy sees men as uniformly privileged by masculinity and women uniformly oppressed by feminini…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 09:46 PM
0

Wait? Is that the point of disagreement? All male oppression comes from sources other than being male, according to feminist thought. So... the idea that feminists do believe men face oppression, but not because they are men is where the conflict arises? Well, good news, that isn't true. For example, many feminists theorists have argued that masculinity and race intersect to oppress black men, as black men. That is, it isn't just about being a man, it is the intersection... thus intersectionalit…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 09:29 PM
-1

Being an intersectionalist will add to/remove from this or sub points of each major point. Once you do that, the definition no longer matches, and is therefor something different. For instance, taking "economic" and diluting it down to just the difference in wealth and nothing else related, to prove the same point of men having it better. What does this even mean, at what point does the introduction of intersectionality change that definition? Furthermore, it is really clear that where ever that…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 09:14 PM
-5

And this... is not at all what intersectionalists would suggest. Even the use of this hierarchical organization of these things suggests a "master identity," of which internationalists address as being inadequate. I agree, I am arguing that masculinity confers privilege, however, I disagree that masculinity confers privilege uniformly. Collins refers to the various intersections of social inequality as the Matrix of Domination. This is also known as "vectors of oppression and privilege" (Ritzer,…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 09:03 PM
-6

You stated: Feminism's paradigm of gender as historical, class-based oppression--essentially a Marxist paradigm where women are the proletariate and men the bourgeoisie, women the oppressed and men the privileged oppressors, is a kindergartener's model of society. I stated: This is just bad representation of social theory, and is not how many feminists, Marxists, and Marxist-feminists conceptualize inequality. In fact, a large amount of modern feminist theories use intersectional approaches to t…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 08:51 PM
-2

yeah, you don't understand. I your statement here sums it up: You are as much a feminist in this sense as a christian who says "I'm a christian because I'm a moral person", and follows nothing else of the Christian belief. You don't understand what feminism is. Is feminism a religion? Because in that case, you just have stopped taking feminist seriously, and if you aren't taking the content seriously, why even talk about it? I think the other thing is that you see feminism as having one uniting …
/r/MensRights09/03/13 08:36 PM
-8

I just think calling the use of complex terms to describe complex phenomena "mental gymnastics" implies that feminists are are being disingenuous. I don't think the history of the term supports this claim. Intersectionality (or Intersectionalism) is the study of intersections between different groups of minorities; specifically, the study of the interactions of multiple systems of oppression or discrimination. This feminist sociological theory was first highlighted by Kimberlé Crenshaw. This ide…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 07:53 PM
-12

Isn't anyone slightly bothered by the strategy deployed within this argument on behalf of GWW For example, in one comment she states: Feminism's paradigm of gender as historical, class-based oppression--essentially a Marxist paradigm where women are the proletariate and men the bourgeoisie, women the oppressed and men the privileged oppressors, is a kindergartener's model of society. I_love_bees replies: [This] is not how many feminists, Marxists, and Marxist-feminists conceptualize inequality. …
/r/MensRights09/03/13 07:16 PM
6

I think that this is just not true. I think that when you're only familiar with feminist thought from tumblr, you can end up with that kind of impression that feminists rarely define their phrases and terms. But feminist scholars (gender studies, philosophy, sociology, etc) do work really hard to make the language within their respective feminist theories coherent and functional. In fact, it is a largely productive place within feminist thought to reconcile differing accounts of gender and patri…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 06:41 PM
3

Do you look at people's genitals to figure out their gender?
/r/MensRights04/03/13 02:56 AM
-25

if the bitches want to go to war over it well I'm sure we have many itching for a fight. It sounds like it is MRAs who think that this is even a big deal... sad little people.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 02:30 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter