Something i think we all should read because i feel this means that our two groups are able able to reach a common ground.(MRAs and Feminists) Xpost to /r/Feminism

[–]CosmicKeys 69 points70 points71 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]hugolp 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]silverionmox 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hugolp 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]buckyball60 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SageofLightning 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MartialWay 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dinky_hawker 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GGSkeletor 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sowhatisit 25 points26 points27 points 13 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wagesj45 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]sowhatisit 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]wagesj45 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BonanzaCreek 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BonanzaCreek 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Wizzad 13 years ago* [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

First post I read on the xpost: "her fears about men were completely justified".

Good luck trying to reach a common ground.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Fair in that the comment was downvoted. My guess is by MRA's as it seems we have raided that posting.

As far as the threats go, its quite different to threaten Obama compared to a single blogger. Someone like Obama has a personal security/protection team on him 24/7 and all threats are look into and the real ones are dealt with. This woman has no such protection and such has to take threats with more meaning. Threats made on the internet today can't be taken that lightly. As there has been cases where they have been carried out.

I will also say while there are radical MRA's out there and even those that troll others under the title of being an MRA we MRA's need to be vocal about not threatening others let alone feminists. As it only lead to adding to our bad image. We got bad enough of a one already, we don't need to make it worse.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The world is not a scary place. It's an awesome place. People need to love and play more. But instead we focus on the negative narrative that people tell us. The reasons are because fear sells and that humans are terrible at managing and understanding risk, basically if something has a very tiny percentage of happening, but a big impact we focus on that. So instead of getting a flu shot (which kills between 3k and 50k people in the USA) we worry about terrorist attacks (which there were 3k deaths on 9/11 and then just a handful of attacks with few people killed in the following decade). The flu is a much bigger killer than terrorists if you live in America, and there is data to back that up.

The overwhelming majority of people are good. In America, I interact with 100's of people each day and none of them have tried to kill me. This is true not just for me, but for a vast majority of Americans. Most people do not steal, hurt, or kill. I'm sorry you have been told that the world is a bad place, it really is not. People sell fear because it gives them power.

Love your kids and let them play and be kids. They don't need the added stress of worrying about things that likely won't happen to them.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not saying everyone is bad, but most people are not good either.

Yes, most people are good. I walk down the street everyday and pass 100's of people. Most of them don't rob me. This experience is not abnormal, it is normal in America.

People sell fear because it is incredibly motivating. But the truth is that the world is an awesome place! Full of awesome people.

The human brain has a hard time managing risk. There are some things in life that have such a small chance of happening that we shouldn't worry about them (for example, a terrorist attack in America). But things that kill many more people, just not all at once, so we ignore those risks (the flu kills between 3k and 50k people a year).

Sure, I cheated at Risk that one time, but that doesn't mean I'm a bad person. The world is full of people just living and trying to be happy. So go out and hug your kids and play with them. Tell your friends you love them and enjoy their company. Live, love and laugh!

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bascome 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MergeTheBands 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ss_camaro -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oldbluebox 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 40 points41 points42 points 13 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

While it's good to see one individual opening her eyes and her mind to see that her point of view was based on misinformation, this post very clearly does not demonstrate a middle ground between the MRM and feminism. In fact, it highlights exactly why that middle ground does not exist.

The misinformation upon which Mrs. Karvunidis based her opinion and decision is the more available "information" out there because of feminist influence. What happened in her case happened because feminists have consistently striven for a public view of men as abusers and sexual predators, even going so far as to suppress data in order to maintain the illusion. The blog doesn't demonstrate that there isn't a conflict, but instead acts as a reminder of why there is one.

Bottom line: No, we still can't all just get along.

[–]Inbefore121[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlightsFancy 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Uh, you really think "feminism" came up with the man=bad/woman=good dichotomy? Ever hear of the Victorian concept of the Angel in the House? Or perhaps the notion of the Maddonna? Pretty sure women (at least demure, virginal mother-figures) have been seen as "good" and men as "bad," corrupted by worldly desires and sinful urges, for a lot longer than "feminism" has been an ideological force in Western society. I mean...wow. You seem to like clinging to false absolutes, but how could you misread thousands of years of human cultural history, and come out with the conclusion that "feminism" (a movement that began, very generously speaking, in the 18th century) is solely and entirely responsible for a concept that is so deeply engrained in Western religion, philosophy, politics and social life?

What are you even basing your claim on?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://i.imgur.com/bi9pM.jpg

This is a statement that
1. attributes pedophilia only to men (by omitting women).
2. only mentions little girls as victims.
3. cites feminism as a solution.

This not only tries to link pedophilia and men, but also reserves both victim status and credit for superior morality to women.

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

Here we have a feminist calling all men rape supporters. Her support for her own accusation, posited in the form of a question at the end of the post, is an extensive list of behaviors, with no evidence to back up why any of them are actual support of rape. In her list she attacks such gender neutral behaviors as intoxicated-sex, having a bondage fetish, resistance to having the law dictate verbal behavior during sex (the jab at consent,) supporting any aspect of female choice within the sex industry, whatever opinion a man has on abortion (both sides are represented, and both are apparently wrong) watching pornography depicting women (but apparently gay porn is okay?)

...

Much of what she's listed demonizes behavior with which nothing is inherently wrong, but many things on her list are also things to which a lot of women knee-jerk object whether they are feminists or not. By making a long list like that, she associates all of the listed behaviors with one another, so that anyone who fits one will be perceived as associated with all of them. Near the end, she throws in "He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of “consent” or “willingness,"' associating behaviors on the list which are not abnormal, predatory, or in any other way wrong with defending apparent sexual interest in minors... and then finishes up with the assertion that all men are like this.

http://feministcurrent.com/5800/dude-throws-tantrum-on-account-of-sexism-feminists-laugh-their-faces-off/

She specifically says in her post...

The fact is that it is far more likely that children are going to be molested by a man than by a woman. Statistics show that approximately 90% of sex offenders are male.

So what’s more important, Johnny? You being slightly inconvenienced for about 2 minutes out of your life until you are sitting down again in another seat? Or potentially avoiding some kids having to sit next to a pedophile?

If dudes like Johnny actually gave a shit about sexism and, like, actually wanted women and children to both feel and truly be safe in this world, then there are some things they are going to have to do: a) stop molesting/assaulting/raping/beating, b) stop standing by while other men molest/assault/rape/beat, and c) stop covering up for and protecting creeps and abusers. "

So, first she equates having to sit next to Johnny with having to sit next to a pedophile... then uses the "do you still beat your wife?" method of asserting that "dudes like Jonny" molest/assault/rape/beat, stand by while other men do it, and cover for them. In other words, that all men are violent rapists and child molesters/pedophiles.

This is part of what hides feminist pedohysteria from their fringe "nice" supporters - they don't describe abuse of children as a separate thing from abuse of women. To feminists, there are women, and there are womenandchildren. So no one sees "abusing children" because children aren't treated as a separate subject; pedohysteria is displayed in conjunction with rape hysteria and violence hysteria.

At the end of the last line, she adds an completely out of context (to the event discussed) and hyperbolic association between the maligned flier, "dudes like" him (all men) and JERRY SANDUSKY. Because apparently, for this self-identified feminist, the act of sitting next to a child on an airplane equals the molestation of over 50 kids... if you're a man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_sYi6jteAs

Describes an attempt by feminists to link pedophilia with (male) football fans.

Petition to which he's referring

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Idiopathic77 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Idiopathic77 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]all_you_need_to_know 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is more "can't we all just get along."

Common ground with feminists is not possible. Common ground with former feminists could happen. The two concepts are not the same.

The repeated claim of shades of grey in feminism is made based on the failure to differentiate between the claims of peace some modern armchair feminists state, and the actions of abuse which the advocacy of active feminism represents. There is no middle ground between the MRM's fight against anti-male discrimination, and the movement that has been advocating that discrimination.

I've seen way too many people claim to be feminist, then go right down the list of existing feminist activism, and claim to not be for any of it.

It's like saying, "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in Hell, or that Jesus was anything more than a well-spoken philosopher with a loyal group of friends, and I don't follow the bible... I'm not sure there really is a God... I don't go to church, and I'm not interested in getting baptized... I'm totally against charitable giving and any form of evangelism, and I don't believe in dictating anyone's morality or even following a set of personal rules. I have sex with whoever I want whenever I want, indulge in every item of the list of 7 deadly sins as I please, and don't ever worry about being judged for it. I think the 10 commandments are just outdated. There is now way that existence was created by an intelligent being, and there is no such thing as 'sin.' But I'm totally Christian."

If one eschews the entirety of the belief system's active and effective advocacy, can one honestly claim to be a part of the movement? Because that's what one would have to do in order to find common ground with MRAs.

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoegazer666 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

It's more likely that the face of feminism can become more moderate, than it is for feminism to just disappear. EVERY social group in history has been forced to adapt to current ideologies or suffer their own demise. We live in the age of unlimited information: hateful acts performed by the major leaders can't be hidden from the (generally more moderate) majority like they could twenty years ago. As a result, pressure will rise on those leaders to either change or step down as their intentions are exposed.

Feminism isn't going anywhere, but with a little education and a lot of patience it could very well evolve into something the MRM can cooperate with.

Feminism isn't some indestructible and unchanging force, it's just another political group. Like any political party, the leaders are entirely subject to the will of their constituents, but nothing can change if those constituents aren't up to date and informed.

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kirkayak -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ottawadeveloper -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

See, the problem is you portray "feminism" as "the group of people who are asserting 'all men are predators'". Which is essentially a wordy way of saying "All true feminists assert that all men are predators". Which is a no true scotsman fallacy - there are clearly some people who identify as "feminist" who do not asset that "all men are predators".

What we have in this specific instance is a group asserting "we want to take precautions in what we teach our children (so that they don't fall prey to predators" and "we don't want to teach our children that all men are predators"). The obvious solution is to take reasonable, carefully targeted measures that reasonably ensure the safety of children while not teaching that one gender is more dangerous than the other.

And let's be honest, "reasonable" also includes "justified". Most child abuse (if I remember right) is not from strangers, as is asserted even in this article, but from family.

shrugs there ARE middle grounds here, that is my point, and that we can find them so everyone (men and women, on both sides of the coin strangers and family) feel comfortable with the situations.

[–]Kirkayak 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that feminist advocacy - the outspoken, out-in-front-getting-shit-done feminism does assert that "all men are predators."

I've seen way too many people claim to be feminist, then go right down the list of existing feminist activism, and claim to not be for any of it.

It's like saying, "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in Hell, or that Jesus was anything more than a well-spoken philosopher with a loyal group of friends, and I don't follow the bible... I'm not sure there really is a God... I don't go to church, and I'm not interested in getting baptized... I'm totally against charitable giving and any form of evangelism, and I don't believe in dictating anyone's morality or even following a set of personal rules. I have sex with whoever I want whenever I want, indulge in every item of the list of 7 deadly sins as I please, and don't ever worry about being judged for it. I think the 10 commandments are just outdated. There is now way that existence was created by an intelligent being, and there is no such thing as 'sin.' But I'm totally Christian."

Armchair feminists who do nothing but argue on the internet that feminism is not that bad are not representative of the movement... because they do nothing. They have no value to the movement except as shills for the activists... warm bodies whose presence gives public credence to the overall cause. In other words, identifying as feminist, but doing nothing to combat feminist bigotry and hatred, does not make you anything but a mouthpiece for everything they've said before you came along.

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imthere -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Actually, no - my "Christian" is a "nice" feminist. The Republican party has a platform. I don't agree with parts of it, and I agree with other parts, but the platform is still the party platform. Outside folks attempting to impose a perception of the party based on their own bigotry don't make Republicans anything different than what they are.

The same is true of Democrats. The Democrat party has a platform. Same as with the Repubs, I disagree with part of that platform, and agree with other parts, but the platform is still the platform. Outside folks attempting to impose a perception of the party based on their own fears don't make Democrats anything different than what they are, either.

My inability to adhere to either platform means I cannot call myself a member of either party. I'm not conservative, and I'm not liberal. I have conservative viewpoints on some issues (in the fiscal category - but not all) and liberal on some others (in the social category - but not all) and therefore it would not be an honest self-assessment to call myself either one.

Feminism has a platform, too. The problem is that many people who call themselves feminists eschew that platform in its entirety... yet still choose to wear the label. That choice is an act of supporting the platform while claiming to support only the name. It's a false claim, and they deserve to be called out on it every time.

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you state support of liberal candidates - even if you do not vote - you've had influence. By publicly associating yourself with liberalism, you add to the number of people perceived as being in agreement with their overt actions. This encourages others to feel comfortable stating alliance with the party without ever researching any deeper than to listen to the party line - their public ad messages.

The same can be said for a band. By publicly stating that you like their music and listen to it, you support the band's popularity, thereby encouraging others to check them out. Further, your public support, when added in with the band's other public supporters, can lead to the perception that liking that band is cool - and therefore to the decision of individuals who choose their music for its popularity to listen to that band. In doing so, you contribute to the band's status among people who actually purchase music. In effect, you act as free advertising for the band.

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OD I think you should be more careful about how you use quotes. You say:

you portray "feminism" as "the group of people who are asserting 'all men are predators'"

What Oneioros said was:

feminists have consistently striven for a public view of men as abusers and sexual predators

He did not say it was asserted that ALL men were predators. Rather that it is just an association that is encouraged. That men are more predatorial, more likely to abuse, talking in language that assumes male aggression, etc.

This is something common in feminism. Unlike 'all men predate' which is less common.

Most child abuse (if I remember right) is not from strangers, as is asserted even in this article, but from family.

A possibility, but as much as I buy into that, I think we should keep in mind that a lot of child abuse won't get reported (or of those, won't result in convictions) and that there exist false accusations, so we should keep in mind where such statistics originate from and how accurately they might reflect reality.

Not sure why this was brought up save a potential segway into the whole 'let's keep in mind most abusers are men' crap which similarly we need to look at contexts for.

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ottawadeveloper 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Inbefore121[S] 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ReverendHaze 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but I refuse to vote for a Republican as long as they continue to hold the social policies that they do. It's about looking at the whole picture. I refuse to attribute a label to myself that strongly associates my beliefs with those I directly disagree with. Catholics do not reject their religion on the basis of child molesting priests and the WBC because those are far from the norm within Christianity and the actions of those groups are denounced by religious leaders.

People clinging to labels despite their beliefs is a problem that we as a society should be beyond by this point. We should let our beliefs define how we label ourselves and how we allow others to label us, not the other way around. Were feminism a reasonable, united front devoted to gender equality, I would be glad to call myself a feminist. Since it's not, I don't. It's the same reason I don't call myself an MRA actually. Too many vitriolic reactionaries.

[–]electriophile 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ReverendHaze 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First off, outlawing abortion is not a liberal cause. It is not tied to the notions of small government and fiscal conservatism, but that does not mean it's a liberal idea. It is merely a social policy rather than an economic platform and while the Republican party long stood for economically conservative policies, that does not make outlawing abortion legislation liberal, it makes it a separate part of the party's platform.

I actually agree with you that current feminists who seek equality and disagree with the political groups who seek feminine superiority should adopt a different name. Unfortunately, many would rather say "we had the name first" or the "they're not real feminists" rather than abandon the term, which perpetuates support for unfair feminine-superiority "feminist" organizations in the name of early, equality-increasing feminists. Challenge the policies of current day feminism and it is seen as a challenge to early feminists who gained women the right to vote.

This is why the MRM needs to move past the vitriol employed by the legitimately misogynist members of the movement and deeper into education. If we can show that the policies endorsed by NOW are not in line with equality-seeking feminist ideals, we may yet be able to cooperate with the reasonable members of the feminist movement.

[–]DerpaNerb 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Should a fiscal conservative stop calling himself a republican just because tea partiers are acting like assholes?

Yes.

Because you can be a fiscal conservative without being a republican. If your views don't align with what the republican party is actually doing... then you are not a republican and should not call yourself one if you don't agree with what they are doing.

Should observant Catholics reject their religion just because some priests are molesting children

Now you are just strawmanning. Unless you actually think an official policy of the catholic church is to molest children. BUT... if it was, then obviously you wouldn't want to be a member of that church. You would leave it, and create your own (which is why there are 1234123121 different denominations of christianity).

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I do agree that the very nature of the word seems exclusionary. However, a group that focuses on one gender's problems isn't inherently bad - after all, the MRM doesn't crusade trying to increase female literacy in the Middle East, because they're a men's group. Likewise, feminism doesn't have to address men's issues, since they're a women's group. The issue arises (as we see in many institutionalized feminist organizations) when one tries to silence the other. The MRM, as a men's group, doesn't concern itself with women's issues and leaves them to women's groups. Certain branches of feminism, on the other hand, become enraged when any attention is directed toward men, even from groups that have nothing to do with women.

If they prioritized gender equality, they would gravitate to a term which described that.

Is not the Men's Rights Movement for gender equality? Why do they not have a gender neutral title? It's not the name that defines a group, it's the actions.

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I do agree that the very nature of the word seems exclusionary. However, a group that focuses on one gender's problems isn't inherently bad

I think the distinction is between a 'rights movement' versus an 'ism' which sounds like a more expansive philosophy. A people can be an 'activist' for many things, many kinds of rights. But a pure -ist seems a lot broader...

That and MRA is largely reactionary to feminism, I think. Even though there was a legitimate need for it such as when there was a draft, I don't think it was until other rights (such as to wealth) were intruded upon, that people began to get more riled up.

MRM doesn't crusade trying to increase female literacy in the Middle East, because they're a men's group.

Well obviously because increasing literacy is the biggest gripe MRA has with feminism /s Equal access to education is an egalitarian aim we can share, feminism has no monopoly over it. Pure feminism would be giving women preferential education over men, which is what we can see happening in the 1st world nations.

Is not the Men's Rights Movement for gender equality? Why do they not have a gender neutral title?

It's an aspect of an egalitarian movement. Feminism isn't despite what they say, because they have long been associated with non-egalitarian aims.

I think perhaps we should change to 'Male Rights Movement' though what with how circumcision and education problems for boys comes up. A 'Female Rights Movement' rather than a 'Women's Rights Movement' would then be a proper compliment under egalitarian labels. Could even abbreviate to 'Fem Rights' for 1 less character than Male, would be okay.

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I can agree with your first sentence, but not your second. Fringe extremist MRAs are not trying to dictate the show. There are feminists trying to manipulate and control the MRM with demands of softening the movement, but the principles of the MRM do not lend themselves to extremism. Where feminism lobbies to replace perceived discrimination against women with real, concrete discrimination against men, the MRM's protest is against the real-life effects of that discrimination. Pointing out those wrongs isn't extremism, even when it's pointed out with great vehemence and flair. Extreme feminists advocate for gendercide and enslavement. "Extreme" MRAs advocate for equal accountability. The difference is blatantly obvious.

You'll also notice, I am sure, that even in the area of doxxing, the two movements do not match.

Feminists participated in and encouraged the seeking of personal information on men whose personal activities they disapproved - violentacrez, posters in voyeur subs with men as the target audience. These identities were pursued through research and stalking - violentacrez, in particular, was sought in this manner, with Chen digging among his friends for his personal information.
Those doxxed immediately (within days) suffered a variety of harmful real-world consequences, including job loss, harassment, and assault.

MRAs hotly debated the choice of some of our compatriots to report on readily available, already public information on feminists whose political activities constituted an attack on the movement, a direct attack on the right of a group within the movement to peacefully assemble for the exercise of speech, and personal attack against attendees of an event. Dire predictions of violence and depravity were made. The information was cited anyway.
Those reported on have suffered... nothing. Nada. Kaput. Not one MRA has done anything to any of the protesters who were "outed" (their already public identities cited) by AVFM.

The two movements are very, very different in their handling of and reaction to information, circumstances, and factors within society. It would be downright dangerous for us to forget that.

[–]electriophile 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Pointing out those wrongs isn't extremism

I never said that. I'm talking about traditionalists who try to hijack the MRM to further their ridiculous agenda by restoring gender roles and bringing men and women back to the 1850s. They're in the ovewhelming minority, but they're unbelievably loud and give a terrible first impression.

"Extreme" MRAs advocate for equal accountability.

Again, you're looking at the wrong MRAs. You might say, "Oh, well the genuine misogynists aren't real MRAs," but it doesn't matter. They call themselves MRAs and that's all that matters to someone outside looking in.

Not one MRA has done anything to any of the protesters who were "outed" (their already public identities cited) by AVFM.

I noticed you mentioned violentacrez earlier - I don't approve of what was done to him any more than you do, but AV's identity was also already public.

The two movements are very, very different in their handling of and reaction to information, circumstances, and factors within society.

While true, that doesn't change the fact that most MRA's are armchair activists who don't do anything for the movement aside from grumble in online forums. I think that the common feminist victim mentality and hostility can go down while simultaneously MRA's can take more action to promote equality for men instead of sitting and complaining.

Feminism isn't going anywhere, there's too much emotional attachment to the term. However, its definition can change.

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm talking about traditionalists who try to hijack the MRM to further their ridiculous agenda by restoring gender roles and bringing men and women back to the 1850s.

Please link to a post which provides an example of this - I've seen the accusation a lot, but never encountered an example of it here.

Again, you're looking at the wrong MRAs.

I don't think so. I think that advocacy for genuine equality is often seen as misogyny because it contradicts feminist assertions related to discrimination and female needs.

but AV's identity was also already public.

The only "justification" I've seen for that claim is that VA had a facebook account. Chen even admitted to having gone through VA's friends fishing for information leading to his identity. VA's identity wasn't public; Chen had to hunt him down to get the information he disclosed. When Chen stated that he was going to dox VA, I did some searching myself. I couldn't even find an image of him associated with his reddit identity at that time. There was nothing linking the identity "violentacrez" to a real name. His reddit identity was not clearly and openly associated with his real life, his home, or his job. If it had been, the consequences of outing him would have occurred much earlier, during the furor over /r/jailbait.
Beyond that, VA was not involved in any kind of two-way battle - he hadn't actually committed any action against anyone. Doxxing him was a personal attack, with the stated goal of damaging him as punishment for disapproved associations, not overt actions... but with the actual goal being exploitation of the frenzied hatred leveled at him by SRS, and for nothing more than page views.

The girls, on the other hand, had overtly placed themselves in the limelight, creating a physical, outrageous, newsworthy public scene, acting out violently, making their faces famous on camera, and some even stating their names (thereby doxxing themselves.) The illusion of privacy in that is completely manufactured.
Further, their actions were a direct attack. They did do something to somebody, and that somebody retaliated by refusing to allow the attack to be covered up (and the group of attackers did try that, filing complaints against youtube news sites for uploads of video of the public protest.) AVFM's support of that effort included making removal of those videos a moot point, by pointing out the existing public identities of those involved - including the open and out-there president of the university's student union, whose youtube channel I found in under 2 minutes, before her identity was discussed on this sub.

Calling the two doxxing incidents equal is like claiming that disclosing the identity and location of your next-door neighbor along with a false association with activities that are similar to, but less acceptable than, your neighbor's actual lifestyle (as VA was called a pedophile) to the entire internet would be the same as including the perpetrator's known identity in reporting of a violent crime.

Feminism isn't going anywhere, there's too much emotional attachment to the term. However, its definition can change.

No, its definition cannot change. It is what it is. Feminists can abandon the movement for egalitarianism, but their doing that will not make feminism an egalitarian movement. Choosing to continue to use the title of a movement after one eschews its tenets and principles would not be a means of elevating the movement, but an act of lying.

[–]electriophile2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Please link to a post which provides an example of this - I've seen the accusation a lot, but never encountered an example of it here.

A single post? I can give you dozens, hundreds if you give me enough time. It's been pretty nice the last two months or so, I think the mods have actually started banning assholes, either that or assholes have stopped being given the attention they crave. I've been quite pleased with the turn /r/mensrights has taken recently. But, I'll give you a well-cited list of the most prominent and well-known misogynists of the forum. These are not one-off commentors, they add a significant amount of content to the discourse here. Jump to the bottom for the list, it's a long one.

I don't think so. I think that advocacy for genuine equality is often seen as misogyny because it contradicts feminist assertions related to discrimination and female needs.

Quite possibly, and certainly so for the radfems. I think the issue is that most feminists get their ideas of what the MRM is from the leaders of the movement, who are often true misandrists. The only way to combat this is to present facts, with no emotion involved. You can't swing into a feminist political landscape screaming about how feminism is literally Hitler and expect to get very far.

with the actual goal being exploitation of the frenzied hatred leveled at him by SRS, and for nothing more than page views.

That was absolutely the primary reason behind the VA scandal. It was a cheap and easy moneymaker.

No, its definition cannot change. It is what it is.

I don't think you know how words work. Definitions change all the time. Social movements change all the time. You think the Republican party (for example) is even remotely similar now to what it was 70 years ago? Hell, even feminism today is radically different from how it started. "Patriarchy theory" (at least the feminist version, patriarchy is most certainly a thing) or "rape culture" didn't exist back when women were fighting for their right to vote; feminism has been around a lot longer than those moronic tenants.

Choosing to continue to use the title of a movement after one eschews its tenets and principles would not be a means of elevating the movement, but an act of lying.

No, it would be a basic principle of the nature of language.

Now for the examples of fringe extremists:

/u/truthman2000 was an extremely vocal and vicious traditionalist, utterly anti-egalitarian and constantly spouting the idea that men should always be decision makers and that women's suffrage and women in the workplace is one of the worst decisions made in history. He would post at least three new topics per week, many of them anti-woman (and, to that effect, anti-nontraditional-man), and post dozens of comments in the same vein. The disturbing thing is, he was often highly upvoted until the mods got sick of his shit and banned him about 3 months ago. You need look no farther than most of his replies in this thread about how it's in the nature of women to abuse men and their power when given rights. He has also posted articles saying that women can't help but be manipulative and that sometimes domestic violence is acceptable. Also has said that equal rights will lead to the destruction of society. Hilariously, he had compiled a list of frequent (and often quite prominent) /r/mensrights posters, decrying anyone who disagreed with him as a secret feminist. I started to suspect that he's a troll when he made a thread encouraging men to use the pull-out method rather than use condoms, suggesting to me that he might be intentionally nasty in an attempt to make MRM look bad, and this particular post made me deeply concerned that he was trying to trick MRAs into unwanted pregnancies. I think he eventually quit reddit after people stopped paying attention to him.

/u/demonspawn isn't quite so angry or irrational, but he is in the same vein, believing that women's suffrage, education, and gender equality will bring about the destruction of civilization. He's still quite active and a very prominent member of the forum. A common theme in /r/mensrights is that both mothers and fathers are equally important and therefore deserve equal parental rights - Demonspawn is of the opinion that mother's aren't even remotely as important as fathers. Another lovely tidbit: "The men's rights movement is not an equality movement." As if he somehow speaks for all MRA's. Here we see him saying that female privilege is a biological default we cannot be rid of, therefore we must balance their privilege. Notice how the people who called him on his bullshit were downvoted quite heavily. Now, what does demonspawn think the best way to balance inherent female privilege is? Why, removing female rights, of course. He has also said, conversely, that since male disposability can never be eradicated, men should therefore be granted more rights than women to "balance it out." My favorite part: advocating violence against women and authority figures to take back the rights of men by force.

/u/mayonesa, another traditionalist. Somewhat more reasonable than the previous two, although he is a well-known white supremacist. Still, there is still the deep-seated notion of the value and importance of traditional gender roles, and that men's problems arise from the base nature of women. I like how he agrees with Todd Akins's "legitimate rape" comment, saying that if a woman really wants to get pregnant her cervix will slurp up the semen. The implication being that if a woman got pregnant from what she claimed was rape, she must have wanted to get pregnant and therefore is falsely accusing her alleged rapist. He definitely doesn't like equality or egalitarianism.

/u/JeremiahMRA. Can't say I'm sorry that fucker was banned, although his sockpuppets show up frequently. Horrific opinions abound: Domestic violence is okay if the woman really deserves it! And 99% of women are shit!

/u/factory2 was another big one, but he deleted his account. I think he left reddit as /r/mensrights slowly became less of an echo chamber for his particular brand of insanity. He definitely went out kicking and screaming at the end, though.

This post is long enough as it is, but I think I made my point. The crazies are in the minority. The crazies are shrinking and dying out. Thank god. But the crazies still exist, and ignoring their existence will only cause the MRM to end up just like feminism, with the sane majority sitting quietly on their asses while the nutjobs make the most noise and got the most attention. Feminism ignored their crazies, and because of this the crazies were able to come into power while moderate feminists plugged their ears and closed their eyes because they didn't want to admit to what their movement had become, or that they must make an effort to change it. Don't think the MRM is immune to the same fate.

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You didn't give me dozens of assholes. You gave me people with whom you disagree, whose manner of stating their opinions is not sufficiently softened up for your tastes. That individuals hold less trust or regard for groups which have done damage in their lives is not evidence of hatred, but of learning not to be naive.

Your twisting of their various statements to suit your aim of excusing slapping the label "misogyny" on them is very telling - especially in your link to the JeremiahMRA comment on the Rihanna/Chris Brown incident, where the violence was reciprocal. You're labeling self-defense as a form of abuse simply because the defender was a man, and the assailant against whom he defended himself was a woman... all so that you can call a commenter who pointed that out a misogynist for saying that men should be allowed to defend themselves against women.

Demonspawn's statements are not made in a vacuum, either. Look at the changes which are in place today because of those factors. Tell me that you think they've put us in a good place, and you'll earn my permanent disdain and disregard.

Mayonesia's statement on pregnancy may be inarticulate, but it's not ill-informed. Go for fertility treatment - they'll tell you that your emotional state affects your ability to get pregnant. While on rare occasions, forcible rape can still result in pregnancy, the high level of stress and pain involved usually prevents conception for the same reason stress at other times affects fertility. It's not misogynist to make that association at all. It's simply a statement which you don't like.

Factory was chased out of the sub by misandric feminists bent on getting rid of one of the longest-standing and more knowledgeable members of the MRM. Those who attacked him deserved everything he said to them in return, and worse. Personally, I think he showed admirable restraint, and I doubt his reason for leaving was anything more than disgust with what the sub has begun to tolerate from reddit's feminist users.

There are studies and anecdotes showing the damage done in a child's life when he or she is raised without a father, in a single-mother household. Where are similar studies showing the same problem stemming from single-father households?

Going through post-by post, your entire list is like that. It reads like a manboobz blog post.
For each name you list, you lay unwarranted character associations (or state character traits which are not bad traits as if they are, like being a traditionalist.) You also seem to be confused about the difference between an individual who is aware that discrimination is not limited to protected ethnicities, nor is it deserved as a means of retaliation for either the perceived or real wrongs of humanity's past... and an individual who hates.

I do not now and never did have a problem with any of those guys, but instead felt that they made valuable contributions to the discussion. What you've shown me here isn't that there's misogyny in the MRM, but that you consider criticism to be hatred if that criticism is directed at a group with whom you sympathize.

But the crazies still exist, and ignoring their existence will only cause the MRM to end up just like feminism, with the sane majority sitting quietly on their asses while the nutjobs make the most noise and got the most attention.

This is your problem in a nutshell. You presume to define relevant, legitimate opinion as "crazy" because you disagree with it... and you think that there's a silent, sane majority in ideological feminism, which has repeatedly demonstrated otherwise by its actions.

If you're going to label anything you disagree with "misogyny," I expect to be included in that number. I vehemently disagree with feminist theory - all of it.

There is no patriarchy.
There is no rape culture outside of prison.
There is no glass ceiling.
There is no pay gap.
There is no systematic, institutionalized discrimination against women.
There is no need for any system to be put into place to protect women from discrimination, where that protection is not equally extended to men.

Men are not privileged over women.
Men are not more dangerous than women.
There is no more excuse to treat all men as potential rapists than there is to treat all women as potential rapists.
There is no more reason to fear violence from men than there is to fear violence from women.
Gender roles were not created by men, nor are they or were they a design for oppression of women.
Male society is not the cause of existing issues which women face.

Rape is not an accident that can happen due to lack of communication, but a deliberate act which ignores or bypasses the victim's right to refuse.
Objectification is not gender-specific, but is committed universally. Women do not deserve to be the default for custodial parenthood. There is no more merit in female parenthood than male.
Childbirth and custodial motherhood are not conditions which are inflicted upon women. Women do not have either the right or an excuse to expect restitution for either.

There is not a single indignity, not a single form of oppression, not a single human rights violation to which women are subject, which is not also visited upon men.
There are human rights violations faced by men which women do not experience.
There are human rights violations faced by men which trace back to feminist activism, based on feminist lies.

You can't swing into a feminist political landscape screaming about how feminism is literally Hitler and expect to get very far.

Tough shit. :)
Feminism is what it is - a completely false, completely unmerited fascist ideology based in hatred and resentment, with political goals centered on institutionalizing feminist power and dominion over others through changes in law and policy. Their real-world, real-effect actions have clearly demonstrated that. Ideologues of an oppressive force aren't going to suddenly become rational because their target victims coddle their egos. Being tolerant of the "nice" feminists is really cruel - it only encourages them to believe there's some magic middle ground where male society would and should put up with their abuse. You're basically saying (albeit with a ridiculous hyperbole instead of a real example) that because feminists can't handle being faced with what they support, discussion with them should coddle them and submit to their beliefs. That's a load of bullshit - if they literally were Nazis, would you think you could persuade them to love Jews?

Choosing to continue to use the title of a movement after one eschews its tenets and principles would not be a means of elevating the movement, but an act of lying.

No, it would be a basic principle of the nature of language.

That's a false statement. The existence of language evolution has nothing to do with evolution of ideology in a movement. The title of a set of beliefs does not become something else simply because a small, inactive, insignificant faction of it prefers not to think of themselves as being associated with what it is all about.

edit - omitted the end of a

[–]rottingchrist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Going through post-by post, your entire list is like that. It reads like a manboobz blog post.

Many of those posters readily admit that they are "not for gender equality" and want to go back to traditional gender roles. So they are legitimate examples of the kind you asked for.

I'm talking about traditionalists who try to hijack the MRM to further their ridiculous agenda by restoring gender roles and bringing men and women back to the 1850s.

Please link to a post which provides an example of this - I've seen the accusation a lot, but never encountered an example of it here.

It's not a case of painting them as such, like Titboy does.

truthman2000/JeremiahMRA/12521otheraltsofhis even runs a sub called "anti-egalitarian".

I'm as anti-feminist as they come, and wholly agree that there is no common ground to be reached with feminists, but there is an extreme faction of MRAs that does want to go back to traditional gender roles (and sometimes beyond), and many of those same posters also tend to agree with some far-right positions that are decidedly anti-equality. However, I agree that they should not be banned for their views.

But I disagree with them just as much as I do with feminists.

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

At the outset, I'll have to point out that I am not for the feminist concept of gender-equality, which is what most people seem to be talking about when they say that. I support equality of legal treatment. In other words, if the law gives something to one gender, it has to give it to the other. If the law places a limitation on one gender, it has to place that same limitation on the other. To many people think of outcome instead of start-out when discussing "equality." It's wrong to use government power to equalize outcome - you cannot do that without discrimination against someone.

A problem with electriophile's assertion is that wanting to bring men and women "back to the 1850s" is an impossible accusation. In the 1850s, gender roles were not the only thing which was different, and for gender roles to truly return to that time period, the other factors upon which they were founded would also have to return.

The "examples" which electriophile cited aren't gender-traditionalism, or misogyny (to which, in earlier discussion, he/she (sorry, I don't know/care which) equated gender-traditionalism), nor are they a return to the 1850s. The commentary he/she used to link to them is inaccurate in its description of the comments, and its representation of whether or not they are examples of misogyny or traditionalism.

Since I didn't go in-depth on demonspawn's comments before, let's look at those:

on suffrage:

Suggesting that the government works better without the women's vote is not misogyny. It's an analysis of the facts and the consequences of allowing women's suffrage.

Suggesting that women retain the right to vote without the corresponding responsibilities that men face is misandry

This is an accurate statement. It isn't misogynistic to expect that rights would be attached to responsibility. Nor is it gender-traditionalism to attach those rights to that responsibility. Men have to register for selective service in the U.S. to vote. Do you think suggesting that requirement be extended to voting women is advocacy for traditional roles?

On fatherhood

That's because the genders are not equal, but instead complimentary:

Mothers tend to coddle and protect their children.

Fathers tend to challenge and prepare their children.

Mothers teach equality.

Fathers teach equity.

Considering that civilization itself is built upon male ideals, fathers tends to be much better at creating a child who will fit into the adult world. This is not to say that mothers are not important, trust me they still have an important role, but that role is not as critical in raising adults which fit in.

This is also an accurate statement... within the context... and therefore not misogynistic. It's also not about traditional roles, but about the actual effects of parenting in relation to a child's chances of becoming a successfully functioning member of adult society. Also, electriophile mischaracterized the statement as a statement that fathers are more important than mothers, period, where the sentiment is clearly modified with the condition, "in raising adults which fit in." It doesn't matter whether the misrepresentation was accidental or deliberate, it's still an untruth.

On the next statement, just like manboobz, for the catchline, a single part of an entire statement is taken out of context. To read "female privilege is inherent to the biological human condition and as such cannot be removed" without relating it to "Until you can demonstrate a way of convincing society to treat men and women as equally disposable, this fantasy of equality between men and women cannot exist and is not a valid argument" and taking into account the reason why the concept of male disposability evolved (the difference in reproductive capacity between men and women) creates a dishonest representation of that statement, as well. And again, that's not an example of either traditionalism, or misogyny; simply a statement that if society is going to eschew traditionalism, it either has to shit or get off the pot. To eschew traditional limitations, but not traditional responsibilities, places an undue burden on the sex to which all of the responsibility falls. That such a society would eventually self-destruct should be self-evident.

In the comment electriophile describes as "taking away women's rights," Demonspawn is discussing taking away women's ability to dump all responsibility/consequences on men, by equalizing the right to not accept parental responsibility, and equalizing representation under the law. And he's right - that would cause women to suffer... those who currently use existing conditions (the child support system, VAWA) to their advantage. Having a cow over seeing the word "suffer" doesn't change the nature of the statement, but it does say something significant about the reader.

Next, we have the line which labels calling violence a factor which cannot be assumed will never happen "advocating violence" (and against specific groups, at that). The statement that follows is the admonition that circumstances will reach a point which will necessitate violence, again not an advocacy of it, but a prediction... yet in electriophile's comment, it's labeled as advocacy.
The two aren't the same... but feminists treat them that way often. It would be labeling the warning that one is likely to become infected with a deadly virus if one participates in unprotected intercourse with an infected lover as a death threat from the cautioning party... or calling the statement "If you break into my house and attack my family, I'll shoot you" a death threat. Conditional statements are not absolute.

I went through the links on mayonesia enough to point out that - again, they're not examples of traditionalism, or misogyny, but simply statements with which electriophile disagrees. Repeating the question/answer combo that predicated the comment with the list doesn't change that.

This is what I was talking about - people viewing the sub from a feminist perspective treat advocacy for genuine equality (an equal start, not a guarantee of an equal finish) as misogyny, and anyone who disagrees with them as "hijacking the sub." This is not a feminist sub. Feminist sympathy doesn't own discussion here. Disagreement with feminist abuses of power belongs here, is not extreme, and is not about traditional roles. Criticism of damaging female behavior and discussion on its causes also belongs here, it's that behavior which leads to a lot of the issues that are the reason for the movement. Acknowledging the biological end of those causes is also not misogyny. It is unrealistic and unproductive to think that one can solve any gender issue without acknowledging that reality.

Humans have instinctive behaviors triggered by biological motives, just like every other animal in the planet. We're nothing special, even with our cognitive abilities. If we want to overcome the destructive way in which those instinctive behaviors conflict with modern circumstances, we have to be able to use our cognitive abilities to identify, decode, explain, and override them. Denying that they exist will in no way help with that.

[–]tyciol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most feminists haven't even heard of legal paternal surrender, so how could they form an opinion on it? When I still described myself as feminist, I had never heard of (much less thought of) that idea until I discovered reddit. My first thought wasn't revulsion, it was, "Huh, that's interesting. Seems only fair, really." I didn't magically stop being feminist just because I thought LPS was a good idea; that didn't happen until much later.

But you seem to be conflating average feminist with feminist organizations. Yes, yes, I know that your average feminist usually doesn't actually do anything, while the feminist organizations call the shots. However, these average feminists have been taught their entire lives that the word feminism = equality, therefore anything that isn't feminism is anti-equality. You don't fight that impression by ranting about how horrible feminists are (when you in fact mean the powerful organizations), you do it by presenting supported and unbiased facts without involving emotion. From that point you let them draw their own conclusions. Some will leave feminism, some will agree with you but hold on the the title of feminism due to its sentimental value (if not its ideas), and some will dismiss you deranged lunatics. We don't really need to give a shit about what that third group thinks, as long as we can get the first two to sympathize. With time, they'll outnumber the ones who consider men's rights to be ridiculous, and then change can be made. It's all about the communication.

[+]FlightsFancy -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ottawadeveloper 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coinin 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]procom49 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kantus 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Heterohabilis 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]lilblackdress05 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

>“….Apex fallacy is the idea that we assign the characteristics of the highest visibility members of a group to all members of that group. This fallacy has a particularly damning effect on the feminist construct of patriarchy. Women have looked up, and seen that the top of society is made up of men that hold power. They then attribute that characteristic to all men. The line of thinking goes, all CEO’s are men (mostly true), therefore all men are CEO’s (not even close). Feminists fail to look at the men at the bottom of the pyramid.”

I would also like to add that idea that the patriarchy (male oppression) is present in everything, and every action is automatically interpreted to symbolize a man oppressing a woman. Somebody cut you off in traffic? Blame it on male oppression, instead of the fact that some drivers are just asshole.

It's similar to original sin, now that I think of it. Humans have original sin, therefore all humans are sinners. Men have a majority of members in elected positions in the government, the government does bad things, therefore, all men are to blame. Some men rape, therefore blame all of man. I don't understand why we can't blame the criminal.

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]T-rex_with_a_gun 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]T-rex_with_a_gun 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireReadyAim 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]roadhand 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AgentmrmOrangemra 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobandgeorge 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dysana 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pauldustllah 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Umbra_Tsubaki 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gamerp4 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MartialWay 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JamesRyder -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JamesRyder 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the people here are overwhelmingly calm and collected. No matter what she says it is certainly NOT going to be one of the posters here.

We have a lot of calm and collected people here. I would even agree that these traits seem overwhelming. But that doesn't mean it will CERTAINLY NOT be one of the posters here, because no community is perfect.

the feminists are the ones who killed Erin Pizzey's dog

That's a strong possibility though I'm not sure they ever proved who did it.

were screeching outside of the Warren Farrell talk

Those protesters were probably feminists, yeah. Though I expect a troll or two having some fun might've snuck in.

They have an established history of violence, the MRM does not.

History of actual violence isn't relevant, we're only talking about verbal threats here.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]misingnoglic -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments