Does anyone here dispute the assertion that "significant misandry is easily found in the output of mainstream modern academic feminism"

czerdec · 2019-12-02T19:26:27+00:00

I noticed one poster in particular defending feminism far beyond the point where I could take him seriously as any type of male advocate. I feel that...

[–]TheLonelyBull 24 points25 points26 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mtcapri 15 points16 points17 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cyclamate_Soda 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

I think the problem with making such a broad statement from the get-go is that it tends to lead to counterproductive conversations and defensiveness from the get-go. Just like when a feminist says "MRA is filled with reactionary chuds" because the only MRA they are familiar with is a douche like RooshV. It just gives the opponent the idea that you're going to equate their views with the worst possible extremes.

I think the better strategy is to lead off with specific examples, which I am sure you can find. I would advise against copy pasting a whole list of problematic things feminists have said and done as a combative "gotcha" because that is often perceived as gishgallopping (although it might be handy to keep such a list ready for personal use). Rather, you pick one or two prominent examples to start with saying "I'm concerned that X and Y were said by prominent feminists, it sounds like misandry to me. Thoughts?"

Like it or not, anger or the perception of anger is what turns a lot of people off of men's issues (or feminism for that matter). Of course, going the route of patient, principled, charitable debate, you're still going to run into bad faith interlocutors a lot of the time, but I think as a personal strategy it's important to hold yourself to certain standards. I just think the debate can only be productive if one is as precise and specific as possible about the issues and if one avoids discussions about labels.

[–]DignifiedAlpaca 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lady_Coraline2 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (51 children) | Copy Link

I'll dispute this and say that it doesn't just stop at misandry, but extends to misogyny. The reason being: we consider Incels to be misogynistic because they feel entitled to women. The same could be said for feminism. Feminists possess a sense of entitlement towards women's allegiance much in the same regard.

Sarah Palin received rape and death threats, her daughter was essentially ridiculed for getting pregnant out of wedlock, or even that other feminist that Tim Pool talked about who was banned from Twitter for saying men are women.

Linda Sarsour straight up said that Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves to have her ass kicked for stating Islam needs reform. Feminists don't condemn the false rape accusers who not only help provide a smokescreen for rapists to be concealed, but the families that are ruined and the victims that are afraid to come forward because they're misled into believing that authorities won't believe them even if they have evidence.

The constant infantilizing of women (see sexist air conditioning). Ignoring the impact of single motherhood on girls and women, and being disingenuous about how abortion psychology impacts a sizable minority of women.

Feminism has constant misandry, but we need to also remember that misogyny is a rampant problem within the ideology.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[+]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (22 children) | Copy Link

There's a difference between wanting to be loved, and entitlement. Incels don't just want to be loved, they feel entitled to love for selfish reasons.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[+]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link

Just my opinion, but if these people want to be loved, they can't just expect it to happen based on some inflated sense of self-importance. It's normal for them to want to be loved, but they have to bring something to the table. Expecting to be loved as they are, in a state of being where they're not measuring up to their potential, is selfish.

I must confess, though, I've never knowingly met an incel in real-life. So perhaps you have formed a different perspective on the matter than I have.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Well.

you're partially right. But this is the result of teaching young men that all they need to do to attract a partner is to "be yourself" And that any form of approaching women, Showing interest, and etc. Is predatory and unwanted.

In fact there's a comment I have saved to explain this exact issue.

And I guess for some men, they have experiences that tell them that sometimes women do want to be approached, and sometimes women do want to be complimented on their physical beauty, and sometimes women do want to be seen as sexy and invited to have sex. Maybe they had experiences when they were teenagers where horny girls just took over. Maybe they just didn't feel that the messages applied to them. Maybe they don't give a shit and are just willing to take any amount of being called a creep if sometimes it works.

But that's the problem, right? You and I care. We want to be good people who respect women. We want women to like us and respect us. We want to be the good guys who don't objectify them, and who always treat them like fellow humans instead of pieces of meat. So we hear that women don't like being objectified, and we feel uncomfortable saying anything that suggests we noticed their looks. They say they want to be treated as equals, and we feel like we should avoid anything that feels chivalrous. We hear that they feel uncomfortable being hit on in a certain situation, and we worry about hitting on them in any situation. We don't want to be the guy she rants about tomorrow. We want to be the guy women trust and feel safe around.

But that's not what women want in a partner. As much as they protest guys treating them like meat, they want their boyfriends to need them right now. As much as they say they don't want to be objectified, they want their lovers to think they're sexy as fuck. And as much as they say they are uncomfortable being hit on, they love it when a guy is forward and confident about hitting on them. But see, we don't get those messages. Really, the whole idea of women having sexual desire still remains pretty taboo. So we just get the rants.

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I understand there's a difference. But the line is often never explained for many young men.

to once again use a quote from somewhere else.

Here’s the thing: I spent my formative years—basically, from the age of 12 until my mid-20s—feeling not “entitled,” not “privileged,” but terrified. I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison. And furthermore, that the people who did these things to me would somehow be morally right to do them—even if I couldn’t understand how.

You can call that my personal psychological problem if you want, but it was strongly reinforced by everything I picked up from my environment: to take one example, the sexual-assault prevention workshops we had to attend regularly as undergrads, with their endless lists of all the forms of human interaction that “might be” sexual harassment or assault, and their refusal, ever, to specify anything that definitely wouldn’t be sexual harassment or assault. I left each of those workshops with enough fresh paranoia and self-hatred to last me through another year.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2091#comment-326664

When the act of even expressing interest is treated like sexual harassment by some. the only men who get ahead are the ones who aren't afraid of being labelled as such.

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

That's a pretty negative view you have there. That means you believe that the majority of men are willing to sexually harass women if it gets them laid because a very small number of Americans are celibate for life. In reality, there's a middle ground between "harass women if you want sex" and "never approach women for fear of harassment."

I think it's more so that it's a small but outspoken group of SJWs who have insisted that any approach is harassment, when in reality we know that women tend to want to be approached first even in today's day and age. The percentage of American women who identify as feminists is somewhere in the low teens and it's exclusively feminists who claim that asking women out can constitute as harassment in any manner (except in some cases like a boss propositioning his subordinate for sex).

There's no objective way to say that something is or is not sexual assault. If a husband walks up and gives his wife an affectionate squeeze on the butt, in a loving and healthy relationship then it's not sexual assault. They have an ongoing sexual relationship and are comfortable with one another such that he has every reason to feel comfortable walking up behind his wife and doing that even without asking her express permission first.

If a stranger walked onto a subway and squeezed a random lady on the butt, it would be wrong because he had no reason to believe that would be okay.

But we can't make a blanket statement that says "squeezing women on the butt is always sexual harassment," nor can we make a blanket statement that says "squeezing women on the butt is never sexual harassment". Because butt squeezing itself can be a sign of affection between lovers of a violation between strangers.

What you have to take into account is context, relationship and consent.

It's illegal to beat or hit your spouse, a very punishable offense actually. But we don't drag people out of their homes for engaging in consensual BDSM fetishes. Again, it's about context and consent.

Yes, that can cause anxiety in some people because they wish there were just black and white rules where you would always get punished for something or never get punished for it. But that's not how interpersonal communication works and that applies to sex too.

If you do live in the US, then almost everyone in America would benefit from a better sex education with positive messages rather than fear-based ones. Boys and girls are taught all sorts of toxic things about sex, usually in the hopes of stopping them from having it.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

That's a pretty negative view you have there. That means you believe that the majority of men are willing to sexually harass women

I never said a majority. Like the quote you initially responded to states. |

And I guess for some men, they have experiences that tell them that sometimes women do want to be approached, and sometimes women do want to be complimented on their physical beauty, and sometimes women do want to be seen as sexy and invited to have sex. Maybe they had experiences when they were teenagers where horny girls just took over. Maybe they just didn't feel that the messages applied to them. Maybe they don't give a shit and are just willing to take any amount of being called a creep if sometimes it works.

But the constant messages of "everything you do to express interest is sexual harassment." aren't helping. And they aren't just coming from a small minority. I was personally threatened with being shot for asking a girl out. Apparently my interest was creepy to her.

There's no objective way to say that something is or is not sexual assault.

and like said. If walking up to a woman and saying "hey, I think you're attractive. Want to go out some time?" is that vague. A lot of men aren't going to want to risk it. Particularly if they have low self esteem.

You seem to be conflating "expressing interest" with sexual interactions like BDSM or squeezing butts.

I've seen men get called "creeps" and kicked out of bars because they tried to awkwardly talk to a woman.

There are cases of men being lambasted by the public for similar accusations.

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

When the act of even expressing interest is treated like sexual harassment by some. the only men who get ahead are the ones who aren't afraid of being labelled as such.

I was referring to that quote. For that to be true, that would mean the majority of men are okay with it because the majority of men are not celibate for life. In reality I don't think most people in general see the choice as "be a terrible person or be forever alone".

But the constant messages of "everything you do to express interest is sexual harassment."

I've never seen that message outside of the internet. That's not to say it doesn't happen and it might vary regionally but that's an extremist attitude and not reflective of how people meet and find dates.

You seem to be conflating "expressing interest" with sexual interactions like BDSM or squeezing butts.

No, I was referring to your comment about sexual assault prevention classes, unless your sexual assault prevention looks very different from mine.

"hey, I think you're attractive. Want to go out some time?" is that vague.

I don't think it is vague. It's not harassment, because harassment is repeated, unwanted behavior. Asking one time is not harassment. I can see why it's a poor approach to asking someone on a date but it's not harassment.

I've seen men get called "creeps" and kicked out of bars because they tried to awkwardly talk to a woman.

Yes, creep-shaming is wrong and men with poor social skills are disproportionately likely to encounter it. I don't go to bars so I can't speak for the atmosphere there but I imagine alcohol plays a factor in how people interact with one another.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I was referring to that quote. For that to be true, that would mean the majority of men are okay with it because the majority of men are not celibate for life. In reality I don't think most people in general see the choice as "be a terrible person or be forever alone".

Because something tells them that it's OK to do this.

I've never seen that message outside of the internet. That's not to say it doesn't happen and it might vary regionally but that's an extremist attitude and not reflective of how people meet and find dates

I've experienced it, personally.

No, I was referring to your comment about sexual assault prevention classes, unless your sexual assault prevention looks very different from mine.

In context It comes across to me like those sexual assault prevention classes brought up by the original author were the same type of shaming I've brought up. (Here's all the possible things that could be including just talking to a woman, and nothing that isn't)

Luckily nothing of that sort has ever been pushed on me. But I've heard from others that have gone through them that it's not too far off.

I don't think it is vague. It's not harassment, because harassment is repeated, unwanted behavior. Asking one time is not harassment. I can see why it's a poor approach to asking someone on a date but it's not harassment.

To some, Just being a poor approach warrants harassment. I've met a few of those "some"

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PrincessofPatriarchy1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Interesting comment.

So you admit the problem stems from teaching them the wrong thing. I can agree with that. My upbringing was more along the lines of my parents telling me that I needed to get a good woman. A good woman who has her shit together, and meets my standards. I was ingrained with the idea that I can't have this until I'm a good man who has his shit together. It almost sounds like these people don't understand delayed gratification.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhoTheFuckAreYoo1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (26 children) | Copy Link

Hahah, no wonder the Chud comment hit so close to home. Left-wing my asshole.

Let's hope you're acting this way because you're actually 16 years old and not a grown-ass man with these beliefs.

[–]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (24 children) | Copy Link

Spare me your armchair psychology pseudoscience, pet.

Let's instead focus on how much you hate women, so much to the point that you refuse to acknowledge some of the issues, I've so plainly laid out for you to consider. I'm glad that I've struck enough of a nerve that your hatred for women was revealed.

[–]Lady_Coraline2 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Certainly. Allow me some time to compile some sources for you.

[–]Antovigo 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

I will be messaging you in 2 days on 2019-12-05 00:05:20 UTC to remind you of this link

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can} ^{delete this message to hide from others.}

^Info	^Custom	^{Your Reminders}	^Feedback

[+]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

Here is an article from Medium entitled, I’m Suspicious of Male “Feminists” — And You Should Be Too where they argue that male feminists have their own motives for adopting the feminist label.

I'm going to start with Kyle Payne who is honestly just a creep.

Next, we get Hugo Schwyzer with an attempted murder-suicide. It wasn't enough for him to simply only kill himself. He's since continued.

Next is Onision. Need I say more? I believe he was at one time collecting alimony from his ex-wife. That pretty much cements him as a greedy parasite, in my eyes, well, actually the soliciting photos from underage girls is what especially makes my skin crawl about him.

Jian Ghomeshi allegedly creeped on underage girls.

Even Jezebel is remarking on the trend of male feminists revealing themselves to be creeps.

Jarrod Davis, James Deen, Promise Delon Richmond, Nicholas "Sarah" Nyberg, Hannibal the Victor, Richard Carrier, Richard Marmolejo, Devin Faracci, Sunil Patel, Mo Fathelbab, The Skeptic Feminist, Jamie Kilstein, Michael-Jon Matthew Hickey, Donald Trump has proclaimed himself as a feminist, creepy Joe "If you're smart, you'd be a feminist" Biden.

Male feminists are creeps. I have a hypothesis that male feminists go along with the "men are creeps" narrative because they're projecting their own behaviors on the rest of the population.

Other figures like Harvey Weinstein fit this profile.

[–]Lady_Coraline2 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhoTheFuckAreYoo 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

It's definitely a common concept in society that a lot of people -- including a lot of women -- believe is true, mostly from personal experience (ie, not cynicism).

The Simpsons recently had an episode about exactly this topic. And my own girlfriend talks about it. In fact we have a feminist "SJW" friend who fits EXACTLY the characterization that parent is talking about, and doesn't even seem to realize it himself... he's a feminist, and an abject womanizer, and uses his feminist beliefs to actively justify his behaviors around women.

Sure it's not a scientific study, but not everything has a scientific study behind it.

In particular, you have provided zero evidence to back to what you're saying. While parent here has gone out of his way and found a plethora of examples and evidence supporting his views.

If this were a formal debate, he would be ahead right now.

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhoTheFuckAreYoo -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

So not only are you apologizing for non feminist women getting rape and death threats, you're now trying to pretend that you male feminists aren't creeps and perverts. In the very same thread where you refuse to condemn rape and death threats against non feminist women. Let that sink in for a second, before you continue to allow yourself to go die on that hill.

[–]WhoTheFuckAreYoo 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

If I didn't, I'd be a feminist.

[+]WhoTheFuckAreYoo1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

For the last time, grow up kid.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely[M] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]WhoTheFuckAreYoo1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

her daughter was essentially ridiculed for getting pregnant out of wedlock

Her daughter wasn't ridiculed for getting pregnant out of wedlock, she was ridiculed for being a fucking hypocrite telling women to keep it in her pants when she can't stop getting pregnant out of wedlock. That's intellectual dishonesty on you, boy.

Like I said, grow the fuck up.

[+]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Right. You accuse me of intellectual dishonest after you come on here to this subreddit and refer to the majority of is as reactionary chuds and hated by women.

You're a damn fool. Point stands. Feminists are misogynistic and no different than Incels with regards to their entitlement to women's allegiance.

[+]WhoTheFuckAreYoo1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you need to google what intellectual dishonesty is? Because what I'm doing, while annoying to you, isn't it.

And no, your point does not stand. You need to try harder.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely[M] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ciceros_Assassin 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ciceros_Assassin -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]omino231 points 6 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

yeah well big surprise that a mod from the fake menslib reddit would side with feminists

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely[M] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]omino23 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks for taking time to remind me of the rules of this subreddit, I am pretty new here so I appreciate the attention. I did have a question about your statement "Rule. 7." I am looking for the insult, unless you think being a mod or a feminist is an insult? It is TRUE that this person is a mod of the men's lib sub reddit right? I made a statement that I thought the reason why this person might be disputing the assertion is because they are a mod of a subreddit that is notorious for feminist apology and for silencing discussion of topics that don't support feminism. Just try starting a conversation about the wage gap over there and see how it goes, that is why I think their subreddit is fake. If Charles Manson were here agreeing that you should not go to jail just because you told someone to kill people in Hollywood, I would make a similar statement, "of course Charles Manson would say that". Thanks for taking the time to help me understand why this is seen as an insult.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely[M] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ciceros_Assassin -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ciceros_Assassin -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ciceros_Assassin -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ciceros_Assassin -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ciceros_Assassin1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ciceros_Assassin1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, what I said was that CRT was part of feminist academia, not that the two were identical. The two concept are widely different, and claiming otherwise is further dishonesty on your part. Picture two circles, one covering entirely the other. All of what is inside the smaller one is inside the bigger one, but the reverse is not true. CRT is part of feminist academia. Which means that people who are in CRT are feminists, while feminist academia is larger than CRT, which means that you can find feminist academics that aren't in agreement with CRT.

This assertion is very easy to disprove : providing an example of a prominent figure of CRT rejecting feminism, while it is very hard to prove : examining every single prominent name of CRT and showing they are feminists. It is therefore to the person claiming they are different to show it.

So, now that I have lectured you on set theory and mathematical and scientific proofs, would you be willing to demonstrate what you claim?

[–]Ciceros_Assassin1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ciceros_Assassin1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean, I did that already

Saying "it is different" is vastly different from demonstrating how it is different. So far, you haven't done shit. If it is "just a trivial Google search" away from being done, then do it. I don't read your mind, I don't know what you consider would be enough to say that CRT is based on completely different foundations from feminism. To me, CRT is an offshoot of feminism in the same way that biology is an offshoot of physics. Biology is a special case of chemistry, which is a special case of physics. Yes, many part of physics don't really relate to biology, but it can't be said that biology is based on totally different foundations from physics. In the same way, there are many part of feminism that have nothing to do with CRT, but CRT is very much based off of academic feminism. You say this isn't true and just a Google search away from being proven, then do it.

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

[–]WhoTheFuckAreYoo1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (61 children) | Copy Link

Me. I think most of you guys are a bunch of reactionary chuds.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhoTheFuckAreYoo -10 points-9 points-8 points 6 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 18 points19 points20 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]magus678 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]hypercube8855 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely9 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Originally from /u/girlwriteswhat

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".

That's not just "no true Scotsman". That's delusional self deception.

Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don't care. I've been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they've done under the banner of feminism, maybe you'd stop calling yourself one.

But I want you to know. You don't matter. You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."

You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.

You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.

You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.

You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.

You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.

You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.

You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.

You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."

You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.

And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.

You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely[M] 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhoTheFuckAreYoo -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhoTheFuckAreYoo 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Strikester101 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StoicBoffin 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]WhoTheFuckAreYoo1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

Bruh, you're the mod of a sad boi sub for chuds that want to believe they aren't despicable right-wing reactionaries. I'm sorry nobody in MensLib likes you. It's probably more your problem than theirs.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strikester101 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strikester1013 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Strikester1012 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fcsquad3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Plus they've implemented rhetorical limits on comments about circumcision that prevent you from making persuasive points about it to someone who doesn't already agree that it's wrong. You can't compare it in any way, shape, or form to female genital mutilation, for example, even though male circumcision is unquestionably worse than at least one of the four types of FGM that are practiced, and just about everyone (correctly) agrees that FGM is appalling. And you can't call circumcision "mutilation" even though objectively it's a textbook example of mutilation.

These rhetorical limits function a lot like the way American media cease to use the word "torture" to a practice as soon as American forces do it. The feigned rhetorical 'neutrality' actually provides ideological cover to a fucked up reality.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa21 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banmale2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Strikester101 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Cool story, bro. Now be a good little pet and go back to your feminist masters and tell them about this logically insightful comment you posted.

[–]BotThatSaysBro 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]WhoTheFuckAreYoo1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Keep equating women disliking you with rampant misandry, crybaby.

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

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

[+]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Hahaha! Like clockwork. Your pre-programmed and brainwashed responses were not any less absurd than the hundreds before you. Move along, pet. Or stay, if you you feel so compelled to entertain us with your predictability.

[+]WhoTheFuckAreYoo1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

https://tenor.com/view/smrt-homer-the-simpsons-gif-4496018

[–]heimdahl81 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]heimdahl81 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spudmixMachine Rights Activist 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Title	Does anyone here dispute the assertion that "significant misandry is easily found in the output of mainstream modern academic feminism"
Author	czerdec
Upvotes	44
Comments	141
Date	December 2, 2019 7:26 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/e540sm/does_anyone_here_dispute_the_assertion_that/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/does-anyone-here-dispute-the-assertion-that.1064349 https://theredarchive.com/post/1064349

Comments