A question for those who identify themselves as feminists.

erilaz123 · 2022-07-11T15:08:16+00:00

I know that feminism has to say it mildly a image problem, and that there are genuinely good people who care about the issues both biological sexes faces. I am...

[–]bottleblank 20 points21 points22 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ferbuggity 24 points25 points26 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]bottleblank 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ferbuggity 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bottleblank 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceCorrect 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ferbuggity 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TextDependent6779 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ferbuggity 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PimpingShrimp 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Affectionate-School3 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 34 points35 points36 points 4 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]KD_Ram 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KD_Ram 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sydnaktik 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]erilaz123[S] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AndyBrown65 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Huffers1010 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

But like I stand by my view that the majority of women I know share a similar perspective to me, at the crux of their feminism.

That is one of those things I've seen break down fairly quickly once you start asking questions such as 'What is Patriarchy Theory and is it applicable?', 'What are the inherent masculine traits of toxic masculinity?', 'Does the wage gap exist due to sexism?'.

My wife was a feminist, until we had discussions at length that were not just the circular, 'this is true because I heard it often enough' talk she learned about feminism, learned the statistics that counter the narrative, and heard about how feminist doctrine affects the lives of men, or the inordinately racist past (and arguably present) of feminism in the west. She since rescinded the title of 'feminist', as a blatantly racist, supremacist ideology runs counter to her morality, but like many women, she had no idea of the past, or the human cost involved. She got the sunshine and rainbows version of feminism, not the ugly as well as the good, but that is emblematic of the American education system, I think.

[–]JustMissKacey 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]PactScharp -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Ah, the misandrist hypocrite liar is back to push the already wildly debunked "wage gap"... Imagine my utter shock at you infesting this sub again with your lies & dishonesty.

It's funny how multiple people called you out & gave you multiple sources & you couldn't so much as bother as to click on ONE of them.

"Which is generally the approach taken by any “feminist” whose opinion is based on improving society and not JUST being angry"

So zero feminists then? Because all feminists believe that wage gap is down to sexism & they're all angry.

"I don’t consider myself a feminist mostly because your definition feminist isn’t necessarily the same as mine or the next guys."

Lol, back to denying your blatant ideological biases, ey? Here's the thing, you've already argued in favor of EXACTLY what feminists, even of the "radical" kind, would say. Case in point you're a feminist & you know it very well... you only pretend not to "be one" on this sub to score points & play yourself off as more credible.

To anyone reading this thread, this is a woman who unironically pushes beliefs like "patriarchy" & "toxic masculinity" & believes that masculinity is inherently "homophobic" & that men's emotional repression is a result of that & "white imperialism". She is an ideological wolf in sheep's clothing.

[–]JustMissKacey 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Paid-Not-Payed-Bot 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

No where have I said wage gap is caused by nothing but women hating discrimination.

But the reality is money does equal power. The more money a person has the more equitable power they have.

That equity translates over into the option to be home with family, take care of your health, determines the quality of your food, housing, education options.

Is it reflective of men over women? No. Unequal distribution of wealth or resources will always mean the person with more money, has more power comparative to those who don’t. It doesn’t matter who is the one with the money and who isn’t.

You have to have a home or a partner to sway for the argument that household authority is the real power to even be remotely valid. And at the same time

I’m actively fighting unequal distribution of household authority! Because it shouldn’t exist. One wrong isn’t justification for another. It just means two things are shitty and need change

Also that is some homophobic garbage talking about “house wives benefiting from mens work”is a justification of a wage difference as if strait, nuclear families are the only people on this planet who matter.

The world is a big place. People are single. People are in same sex relationships. People are widowed. And despite it not mattering to you, the households where women are the bread winners matter equally to the ones who aren’t.

——-

Complexities of the Gender Pay Gap

The gender pay gap has many nuances that can make it confusing to understand and even more difficult to address. First, there are two types of calculations for determining how much money women earn versus men, according to Payscale. The uncontrolled gender pay gap figure, which is $0.82 for every dollar, looks at the average pay for men and women regardless of their jobs. The controlled gender pay gap looks more specifically at the pay for men and women performing similar jobs. The difference is narrower with the controlled gender pay gap, which shows $0.98 being earned by women for every dollar made by men. However, even though the controlled gender gap looks smaller, it still results in a lifetime earnings loss of $80,000.

In 2022, the uncontrolled gender pay gap is $0.82 for every $1 that men make, which is the same as last year. Payscale’s gender pay gap report does not show that the uncontrolled gender pay gap has closed during COVID-19. If anything, closure of the gender pay gap during 2020 and 2021 reported by other institutions such as the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE) may be due to high unemployment, especially among lower wage workers, which artificially shrinks the gender pay gap. In subsequent years, the gender pay gap could widen.

The controlled gender pay gap is $0.99 for every $1 men make, which is one cent closer to equal but still not equal. The controlled gender pay gap tells us what women earn compared to men when all compensable factors are accounted for — such as job title, education, experience, industry, job level, and hours worked. This is equal pay for equal work. The gap should be zero. It’s not zero.

article addresses many of warrens points with data

————

[–]PactScharp0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So firstly you cite a "diversity & inclusion" article... suffice it to say, these institutions only manage to exist based on the premise that (unjust) inequality is still a pressing issue. Regardless of that, it's funny how you went from sources saying the "controlled" pay gap is still 7%, to 5%, to 3% to now 2% and lastly 1%.

The common factor? Every single one of these analyses make the SAME claim that the gap still remains once you control for lifestyle choices. Except they all have widely different outcomes. 7% and 1% is not a trivial difference... we have already established that these so-called "controlled" comparisons do NOT take into account "every" factor, and are in fact often very limited, to the point of not even including actual hours worked (beyond assuming that every "full time" worker, works the same amount of hours, which is false). That's not something you even attempted to deny or refute because you knew my contention with your garbage studies was entirely valid.

The point is, even "multivariate" analyses that are still quite lazy & don't account for many factors, already show a drastically lower "gap" than the infamous 23% that feminists love to bring up. With every factor you take into account, the gap shrinks... in fact, there comes a point where the data shows that women are paid MORE than men for the "exact same work". It's hilarious that you don't mention any of that because it completely destroys your anti-male narrative. Gee, I wonder why??

Even now, this first article states a 2% difference. Not only does the cited analysis in that article make the grossly unscientific claim that the remaining gap is "entirely due to sexism" (as I explained before, no credible scientist worth their salt would EVER say that), they also state a ONE % difference:

"The controlled gender pay gap is $0.99 for every $1 men make, which is one cent closer to equal but still not equal. The controlled gender pay gap tells us what women earn compared to men when all compensable factors are accounted for — such as job title, education, experience, industry, job level, and hours worked. This is equal pay for equal work. The gap should be zero. It’s not zero."

Let's look at these factors: "job title, education, experience, industry, job level, and hours worked"

Yet again, this is a very barebones comparison. A meger SIX factors. Regardless, it doesn't take into account how "job title" can mean widely different things. On top of that "hour worked" in and of itself is not an accurate benchmark either. It's not just the amount of hours, it's also the type of hours. A woman working a 9h00 to 17h00 job (8 hour work day) will not earn the same amount as a man working a 22h00 to 6h00 job. Both work the same amount of "hours". Even if they have the EXACT same position, education, age, "job title" (again, assuming that's even an accurate benchmark to begin with), experience, industry, etc. than the man WILL earn more. Because late shifts are paid more. It's that simple.

Men are more willing to work late/night shifts. They're more willing to work overseas of far from home. These aren't things that your petty analyses even remotely account for. Warren's analysis DOES account for these things & the result of that is that we see women are being paid slightly MORE than men. And that's not even talking about things like pay negotiations, promotions, etc. Warren's analysis blatanty proves that if women make the exact same choices that men do, they will receive equal pay IF NOT MORE.

On another note... Statistically, no one with half a brain would also ever take a 1% difference in analysis as anything other than meaningless. When the disparity is that small, the chance for deviation is extremely likely, if not a certain fact. You'd know this if you had any sense about statistics, science or academia, but you clearly don't as we've already established.

A "ForbesWomen" article saying "but guys, the pay gap IS real!" is not meaningful evidence either. Just admit the fact that you lost. Fucking hell, you're so pathetic about this.

[–]JustMissKacey1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

An opinion Ed article is not a source. The sources provided within it are.

And you’ve gone from stating no one has any proof on wage gap to arguing with me about a anti wage gap source that actually agrees with the existence of gender wage gaps but justifies it and even extends it to an issue that harms men cause you know GENDER wage gap is just a wage gap between GENDERS and is not limited to harming just women. The existence of it doesn’t change just because you flip whose getting the shit the stick.

Because it is a complex issue.

Anyway.

My one tiny opinion means literally nothing in the grand scheme of your life. But I can’t stop anyone from losing sleep over it.

Keep throwing insults, anger and hate. I can’t stop you or anyone else. But it isn’t going to change where I stand on human rights advocacy for gendered and non gender issues. Nor is it going to suddenly turn me into the man hating monster you’re staying up at night waiting for.

I don’t, won’t, and never will take one persons actions and beliefs and use that to measure how I should react to an entire demographic.

And frankly.

If I can have empathy for my mothers rapist and my sexual abuser, your hate of me, can’t touch my feelings on mens rights.

Sorry not sorry.

[–]PactScharp0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"And you’ve gone from stating no one has any proof on wage gap"

Yep that's exactly right. Not one of the sources you mentioned, even just now, have provided any evidence that the remaining gap of "one" % (oh the horror!) is down to "sexism". It/you just assume that's the case.

"to arguing with me about a anti wage gap source that actually agrees with the existence of gender wage gaps but justifies it"

Bitch please, STOP FUCKING LYING about this. At no point does Warren "agree" that the wage gap is down to sexism. Again, NO ONE denies that an AVERAGE wage gap exists. We all know that. What people are saying is that the disparity is not down to prejudice, because it's not, and Warren further (and correctly) argues that the gap, regardless of the fact that it's NOT motivated by discrimination, also doesn't necesarilly "disadvantage" women either, once you get down to what predicts happiness in life. You went from that argument to "Warren explicitly said, word for word, that women are being violently beaten by their toxic male oppressors to stay home, produce babies, sacrifice their careers & accept lower pay for 'THE EXACT SAME WORK'". Yeah, he said no such thing. He in fact, stated the OPPOSITE. That once you account for these 25 factors, women are actually being paid MORE. Please explain why that doesn't matter.

"The existence of it doesn’t change just because you flip whose getting the shit the stick"

The "existence" of the the wage gap is not motivated by pay discrimination. That's the entire point. Whether or not the pay gap results from or in damaging lifestyles is a seperate issue.

"Because it is a complex issue"

Says the misandrist who blames patriarchy for women earning less & immediately goes to the "it's due to pay discrimination" answer, despite zero evidence suggesting that's the case.

"My one tiny opinion means literally nothing in the grand scheme of your life. But I can’t stop anyone from losing sleep over it."

Look who's talking.

"Keep throwing insults, anger and hate."

Lmfao, poor you. Your comments are objectively far more hateful than mine. Yes I call you an idiot, because that's exactly what you are.

"I can’t stop you or anyone else"

From telling the truth & calling you out? No you can't.

"But it isn’t going to change where I stand on human rights advocacy for gendered and non gender issues"

That you hate men. Yes, we know.

"Nor is it going to suddenly turn me into the man hating monster you’re staying up at night waiting for."

I agree. It's not what you're going to "turn into". It's what you are.

"I don’t, won’t, and never will take one persons actions and beliefs and use that to measure how I should react to an entire demographic."

I'm reacting to YOU. Not women.

"If I can have empathy for my mothers rapist and my sexual abuser, your hate of me, can’t touch my feelings on mens rights."

More of that desperation to paint yourself as a hero & women as victims. Please get over yourself. I'm obviously also affecting your "feelings". Although I agree I clearly can't change your views on actual men's rights, which are grossly negative.

[–]PactScharp0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"No where have I said wage gap is caused by nothing but women hating discrimination."

It is clearly your implication. If you now pretend to acknowledge it's "not about that", then you never had any right whining about it in the first place. Stop backtracking because you realize your own sources are hilariously inconsistent & constantly show smaller gaps with more thorough analysis.

"But the reality is money does equal power"

Not really. But let's assume that's true. Fine. Women control most of male income, so even by your OWN standard, women are more powerful. Congrats, you played yourself, clown.

"The more money a person has the more equitable power they have"

And again, women control that power for the most part. If you don't like that highly inconvenient fact, and only want to talk about "single" women vs "single" men. Fine. Go ahead and do that. Except single/unmarried women actually outearn their male counterparts "for the same work" by almost 10%. They are literally THE highest earning group. No matter how you slice it, by YOUR own standards (which I don't agree with, which is why you won't see me whine like a bitch about any of this garbage), WOMEN are the more "powerful" sex (financially). So if you are so desperate to complain on behalf of anyone, it should be men. Of course, you won't ever do that. Shocker!

"Is it reflective of men over women? No. Unequal distribution of wealth or resources will always mean the person with more money, has more power comparative to those who don’t."

So women have more power than men, is what you're saying? Great, checkmate feminism.

"You have to have a home or a partner to sway for the argument that household authority is the real power to even be remotely valid."

Lfmao, you also have to be married (as a woman) for the pay gap to even "exist". Women who live their own lives, minding their own business (and logically have their OWN homes) do not "suffer" from that issue & as I said, are outperforming their male counterparts. You are literally destroying your own petty argument.

"I’m actively fighting unequal distribution of household authority! Because it shouldn’t exist"

Who says it does?

"Also that is some homophobic garbage talking about “house wives benefiting from mens work”is a justification of a wage difference"

Jesus fucking Christ... get your radical, extremist left-wing garbage out of my notifications please. What I said is a fact. Women not only reported to be happier during the height of the "patriarchal nuclear family", but even today, women choosing a more balanced lifestyle & having men take up that workload is highly correlated with a happier lifestyle. It's exactly why I told you before that men are too stupid to realize what's really important in life & actually spend more time at home with their kids/wife. Of course, that's a double edged source, because men have a much stronger desire to (financially) provide than women ever have/will, so in a sense, bringing in the cash IS men's way of "caring" for their family... and for many families, men are "forced" to put in the hours to ensure the best outcome for the kids. To look at that and say men are privileged beasts who oppress women into being home-bound baby factories, even going so far as to say it's "homophobic garbage" (WTF is even the connection) is absolutely disgusting. This has nothing to do with gay people. What on Earth are you even talking about? The "pay gap" really only starts to manifest itself once (married) men & women have kids. Only THEN do women CHOOSE to spend more time at home & men more time at work. That's not something you can just translate to gay relationships, for OBVIOUS reasons.

"as if strait, nuclear families are the only people on this planet who matter."

I genuinely have no clue how you got to that conclusion.

"The world is a big place. People are single."

Yep & single women outearn single men. Try harder.

[–]PactScharp 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

"What I found was there are 25 differences between what men and women do in the workplace. That each of those differences on average lead to men earning more money, but each of those differences also lead to women having better lives. So once again the women have outsmarted us! So the book therefore does not suggest that women should do each of these things because I obviously want women... I have two daughters... I want women to have better lives and men to have better lives. But it suggests that there are 25 significant decisions that, when all those decisions are controlled for, that men today actually earn less money than women do for the same work. They earn more money than women do for 25 different types of decisions at work but obviously those decisions allow for a road map to be created for any woman who loves to earn more money. But going through each of those decisions she can find 25 different ways turning more money than the average man should she wish to. However each of those decisions come with trade-offs when you move quickly. When you work extra hours oftentimes you don't enjoy it as much when you work in certain fields like hazardous occupations, most people don't enjoy dying as much and so the outcome of doing these these things that earn more money do not necessarily lead to a better life."

You: "Warren 'literally said' the wage gap exists! See, you're wrong, women are still oppressed & there's discrimination!!!!!!"

Let me just repeat Warren's ACTUAL words here: It suggests that there are 25 significant decisions that, when all those decisions are controlled for, THAT MEN TODAY ACTUALLY EARN ***LESS*** MONEY THAN WOMEN FOR THE ***SAME*** WORK.

It completely negates EVERYTHING you've said before, about the idea that women are still being screwed over & are being paid less "even when you account for every factor". That's just not true. You literally took the guy who made the SINGLE MOST THOROUGH multivariate analysis of the pay gap in human history & still you managed to put words in their mouth & make the claim that the wage gap is down to "sexism". What a fucking joke.

[–]JustMissKacey 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PactScharp0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I haven't "decided" anything. I payed for my own education. I also have 2 (3 by US standards) STEM degrees, so that's going to influence my pay as well. Not something you or your analyses even take into account. I studied 6 years in total.

I don't have kids yet so there's no sacrifice. My goal is to grind now & achieve my maximum so that once I hopefully do have kids, I can spend more time with them & my partner & worry about the things that REALLY matter in life.

That said, all throughout my life, I have worked much harder & much more than women around me. Why? Because there's no cost yet. I don't have a family. That meant I often worked 14 days straight without a break, worked on the weekends, on holidays, I worked late/night shifts, I worked 17-18 hours days, etc. I DELIBERATELY took that work BECAUSE I knew the pay was that much better. I really didn't care at all for the "free time" I had to "sacrifice" as a result. I doubt I won't care if I have kids though. But the point is, I've never met a woman who was willing to make the same decisions. In fact, I've often seen women complain about having to work 7 days straight, despite doing normal shifts. Not to say there aren't women like that, but it's just less common. Again, partly because women are not as stupid as men as to work so hard/much when there's no need to.

"If I want to work in a coal mine and risk getting black lung that’s my business and I want to get paid for taking the same risks at the same rate."

Yes and that's exactly the point. Very few women are willing to do that. A lot of men are. That's going to influence pay statistics. That's not men's fault. It's not "female oppression". It's not "sexism". It's the consequence of the free choices that men & women make. Go cry about it.

"Just like men should have the ability to make those same “25 significant decisions” to earn more money without “risking dying” as he put it."

Lol, how absurdly naive. I've done several jobs that rank in the "top ten" most dangerous jobs & I wasn't even aware of it. Risk of death is always going to be a factor. I really have no idea what freaking utopia would satisfy you, but I can tell you right now, it's never gonna happen.

[–]Paid-Not-Payed-Bot1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustMissKacey1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PactScharp0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I worked 14 days straight because I wanted to & because I enjoyed the work. It was during summer breaks & I worked as a garbage collector during my city's anual festival. Working those 14 days straight made me more money than working 4 "normal" weeks. So why wouldn't I take that? In the end, I have MORE time off, I earn more, and I get to enjoy my city's festival every day, albeit as a worker, but still... For me, it was entirely a win win. It allowed me to pay for my school, for my travels, for my food, for my theater trips, or what have you.

Also, I'm a man. You're a woman. If I want to be valuable in the eyes of women, I need to have some status or cash or anything of that nature. Even despite my academic achievements, my earning potential, etc. most women will still see me as nothing more than a worthless dog. That's just how things are. Just because YOU can get away with not working as much & not having that type of money, doesn't mean I can. That's just not how it works. Because women universally care about what guys can bring to the table. Men simply do not give a shit how much women can bring to the table (financially & acedemically). You're lecturing me on the basis of your own female reality. That's quite absurd & it's not how things work. Sorry.

"As my husband always says “there’s always room for improvement”"

Right, no one contests that, but at what point are you going to be satisfied? Life is inherently unfair & we're never going to reach the utopia. It's exactly why you won't ever see me whining that women earn more than men when you TRULY take "everything" into account, because the extent to which that's down to gender is miniscule & it pails in comparison to the decisions *I* can make. Treating pay as an individual process instead of a grand social conspiracy against group X, is MUCH more productive. You can literally show that there's also a pay gap between blue & brown eyed people, yet no one is marching in the streets for "brown eyed rights" or some BS like that, because people recognize there's a difference between causation & correlation. And that's all this "pay gap" nonsense boils down to.

Again, blaming that on men/patriarchy/sexism/what have you, is flat out disgusting & I have ZERO patience for it. It blows my mind you are taken aback by my reaction to such wickedness. Seriously, wtf do you expect?

[–]PactScharp0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cheerf0l 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aerial_coitus 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (71 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Purpled_Pistachio -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

Not always, initially it was about the right to vote and many feminists were married and loved the men in their lives and just wanted to be able to have a say in the running of their country. Then it was about equal work pay and ability to have good role models for young girls etc. All worthy causes in my opinion.

Feminism today has gone off the rails however and alot of it is just women saying why men are bad in every way possible and lumping the good ones in with the bad ones. There are a few worthy causes like the MeToo and body positivity movement but frankly those have been exclusionist towards men, to the point where male rape victims ( straight, gay, trans and more ) still do not get their stories taken seriously and society still finds it acceptable to shame men for things like height or penis size.

It wasn't always bad but it definitely has lost its way.

[–]Darkwolf90 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]capt-on-enterprise -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkwolf90 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]capt-on-enterprise -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Purpled_Pistachio -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkwolf90 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkwolf90 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I didn't call you stupid as that would be a generic unconstructive insult. In the past women did not have certain rights and it was good for everyone to fight for them and feminists were a part of that.

However, much like planned parenthood which was established to literally push minorities into self inflicted eugenics to create plausible deniability; There are good reasons for allowing access to PP programs. That doesn't justify nor even attempt to consider the flaws the intent behind its creation instills in the organization.

An analogy would be the difference between shooting a gun into the air vs shooting at a person. One has intent and the other disregard that both can lead to the death of someone. Hence why there are criminal charges for both. One is more egregious than the other but we have rationally decided that attempting murder and reckless endangerment should both be discouraged through punishment.

The current misandry of feminism isn't new, it was there the entire time. Feminism wants men to be slaves to women as they see women as superior to men and justify this through the claim that it's for our own good. They were second class citizens in the past however now men are second class citizens and they want to be Queens in a disturbingly literal sense.

[–]Purpled_Pistachio 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Huffers1010 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to keep saying it. The word "feminist" is not a controlled term and anyone is free to self-identify as a feminist. Some people who do that hold entirely reasonable views. Some don't. The history of it is somewhat murky but that's largely irrelevant to the situation now.

What matters here is that there are people around who will happily call themselves feminists who we really don't want or need to upset; it doesn't help us to do that.

Yes, there are some people who describe themselves (with dubious accuracy) as feminists who might better be called female supremacists, and whose views are outright anti-male and so ludicrously extreme that dialogue is almost impossible, but it costs us very little to continue trying to initiate reasonable dialogue, refuse to be provoked, and generally do what we can to create a reasonable interaction.

[–]sparklepuff97 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well said! It isn't synonymous with female supremacy. I talked about the troubled roots of the movement in previous comments. There has always been an element of racism, but many scholars (there are many, many Black feminists, including the wonderful Kimberle Crenshaw) today are elaborating on feminist theory to make it more inclusive. I will keep linking this article about intersectionality: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination . THIS is the kind of thinking I subscribe to, and as you'll see, the kind of think MANY feminists today subscribe to. It is a step towards progress. It is NOT misandry, in fact men are an integral part of it.

The literal definition of feminism is equality of the sexes. The historical roots of the movement, at least in the US & UK, were to get women the right to vote, not to eliminate men. Women didn't have it for centuries here in the US, it wasn't until the 1960s that black women could vote. I also will not point any fingers beyond this, but men are just as involved in our racist past.

[–]DavidByron22 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It feels like you came here wanting some men to tell you that it's OK for you to be part of an anti-male hate movement that you KNOW hates men.

It isn't OK.

Maybe you can find some fellow feminists to tell you otherwise here, and maybe even some naive MRAs who haven't really thought it through yet because they're young, but it doesn't change the fact of the public polling that represents millions of young men saying they think feminism is sexist and anti-male.

You're not OK. It's not OK to be part of a hate movement.

The fact that I have to tell you that it's not OK to be part of a hate movement shows you kinda belong in that hate movement because you're not OK yourself.

People who REALLY want equality don't need to be told that being in a hate movement is problematic do they?

The literal definition of feminism is equality of the sexes

What was the definition of Nazism in German dictionaries in the 1930s?

elaborating on feminist theory to make it more inclusive

inclusive never means including men. Men are the hated minority group that feminism targets.

if you want men to tell you you're OK stop supporting an anti-male hate movement.

[–]Huffers10102 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I should probably preface this by saying that I'm not very interested in endless semantic arguments that, by their nature, can't ever really reach a useful conclusion; some people will claim to be certain things and we can't stop them. Suffice to say that I would hesitate to refer to myself as either a feminist or a men's rights activist because both terms are now so hopelessly loaded for many people (I might go with "strict egalitarian," but even that's easily misinterpreted).

I hesitate to get into intersectionality and critical theory here, but if that's what's informing your thinking, I'm afraid we're going to have to find some way to civilly disagree because I don't like either Crenshaw or Shapiro on this issue (I don't like Shapiro much in general). Crenshaw appears to have realised she's created a monster and I would respect her more if she were a lot more vocal about the fact that her ideas are being horribly misused.

The problem is that no matter how cleverly you frame it, and Crenshaw does frame it cleverly, all of this fundamentally rests, as the article correctly says, on critical theory. This is a very sticky subject as the term isn't even that well defined, as you'll have quickly discovered if you've ever read a paper on it and discovered that the first twenty paragraphs are twenty completely different definitions of what it is. What's fairly universal is that it's based on the classic Marxian power struggle.

The problem with this is that it implies that the entire theoretical underpinnings of intersectionality is based on considering people in terms of their group membership. Put simply, you can't intersect the interests of (say) black people and women without first separating members of those groups conceptually from the rest of society in the first place, which is exactly what the progressive project is trying to stop people doing!

My bottom line is that everyone is entitled to pursue anything, and I will die with you on that hill, but I'm not going to support the known-misuse of what's basically a really obscure little corner of mid-twentieth-century philosophy in order to justify, in the end, telling people they can't have things because of what, rather than who, they are.

[–]UnfurtletDawn 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Cheerf0l 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceCorrect 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

Not always, initially it was about the right to vote

They had a funny way of showing it, from the first recognized feminist document, the Declaration of Sentiments signed in 1848 in Seneca Falls NY.

https://www.womenshistory.org/sites/default/files/document/2019-08/Day%203_0.pdf
Declaration of Sentiments
by Elizabeth Cady Stanton
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.

It's not even pro-female, it's simply anti-male.

it was about the right to vote

Women did not want the vote, they did not want to be subject to the draft and forced to work in fire brigades and posses and all the other things that were required of men. They still don't.

and many feminists were married and loved the men in their lives

That's why they wrote nothing but horrible slander about all men.

and just wanted to be able to have a say in the running of their country

They in fact did not, for reasons mentioned.

Look, you are a well trained feminist droid, I'll say that much, but you can't translate the feminist hatred of men into history. History is a matter of what actually happened in the past.

[–]Purpled_Pistachio -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago* (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm curious as to why you think denying women the right to vote is not oppressive? At the time of first wave feminism, there were many overwhelmingly male groups, who quite literally organized just to oppose women getting the vote. The anti-suffrage movement was alive and well (there was literally a "National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage" and others).

Wouldn't you be upset if someone stood in your way of your ability to vote and make decisions? (Yes, since you are in this forum).

It took years (decades to centuries) for women to earn many of the rights men had since arriving in the US (owning property, etc.). Women have literally couldn't even open a bank account on their own without a male relative or spouse until 1973 in the US.

History creates legacies, which echo into the present.

You guys act history was kind to women, and that we always had the same freedoms you did. We didn't. First wave feminists were advocating for literally one issue (which was a problem, because they excluded women of color for this reason, believing more than one issue would be too difficult), it wasn't until the second wave that things like sexual liberation came to the forefront.

We just had our rights rolled back in the US again recently. No laws regulate men's reproductive systems. You cannot deny the power dynamics are different. Nevertheless, I support men's issues & believe the only way to progress is if we stop pointing fingers and just listen to one another.

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You've been lied to.

Women opposed women's right to vote - and for good reasons. Men mostly favoured it. feminists of the day recognized this truth and their thoughts were recorded. If this was a war of the sexes then men fought for women's right to vote and women against.

You're completely ignorant of history.

Of course you are because you accept at face value the education of a hate movement.

No laws regulate men's reproductive systems

Are you kidding me???? Men have almost no reproductive rights -- far FAR less than women even with Roe vs Wade overturned.

You're completely ignorant of sex issues.

Of course you are because you accept at face value the education of a hate movement.

Nevertheless, I support men's issues

You don't. Or you'd know that men have fewer reproductive rights.

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm curious as to why you think denying women the right to vote is not oppressive?

Men paid for the right to vote with millions of deaths, by being draftable for military service, and for bucket brigades and for posses chasing armed criminals and many dangerous tasks when they were considered men at 14. Many paid with their lives. Millions more paid in WW1, WW2 Korea and Vietnam. Women, most of whom did not want the vote for the reasons just given paid nothing.

But you do have to credit suffragettes with being the first domestic terrorists, bombing the hell out of London and inventing the IUD and the letter bomb. Now that's feminism in action.

And what man would not support the feminist 'white feather' campaigns where they zealously tried to shame any man, even underage boys into going off to war to die. I mean, what's not to love about that?

And the 'Votes for Women, Celibacy for Men' campaign, I'm sure that's got your support.

It took years (decades to centuries) for women to earn many of the rights men had since arriving in the US (owning property, etc.).

This is simply false.

You guys act history was kind to women, and that we always had the same freedoms you did. We didn't.

Men did not have freedoms so much as they had responsibilities, even to women they did not know. Unmarried women had all the freedoms of men, even the right to vote most places. Married women had few responsibilities to their husband or even their children, the husband was responsible for providing everything for her.

Look, I realize that you don't give a fuck about history when you can flaunt your anti-male feminist stereotypes. And I also realize that you don't care about reality on the ground in ages past. So what more is there to be said?

[–]Purpled_Pistachio -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yithar 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Because r/MensLib is so amazing when it comes to male victims of rape, am I right?

https://np.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/pc8uof/unpacking_the_chuck_derry_ama/

I have on occasions stated that male rape victim's shouldn't consider MensLib to be a safe space. Someone pointed out to me that MensLib doesn't claim to be a safe space.

Given how this AMA must have been re-traumatizing for many men who are/were victims of DV combined with how recently a post and thread where several male victims (including me) told stories how they were re-traumatized by the treatment they got in some progressive spaces were just removed I would suggest that the sub makes it explicitly clear in the sidebar that they aren't a safe space for male victims (preferably with links to spaces/resources that explicitly works towards being safe).

[–]Purpled_Pistachio 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yithar 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It's true that not everyone on r/MensLib holds the same viewpoint. It doesn't really matter though when the mods heavily censor viewpoints (basically the mods pick and choose which viewpoints they want to stay in the subreddit, making it a true echo chamber):
https://www.reveddit.com/v/MensLib/comments/v67ev0/the_stigma_around_male_domestic_violence_and_how/

The point is that the mods let Chuck Derry come for the AMA in the first place. When you invite someone for an AMA, you have to do your due diligence to make sure it will be positive for the community. Like it doesn't matter that some people hold different viewpoints, because the damage to male victims of rape on r/MensLib was done with that AMA.

This is the aforementioned AMA, for reference:
https://np.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/pbzhoe/hi_menslib_im_chuck_derry_ama/

While I wouldn't say r/MensRight is perfect, as no sub is, but at least opposing viewpoints aren't removed by the mods. And the mods don't invite people who hold views that men can't be victims, to hold AMAs.

[–]Purpled_Pistachio 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Yithar1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We are going with the mods censor different viewpoints that aren't "good enough" for them. If they don't censor something, then it's "good enough" for them. In any case, I don't want a mod deciding whether a different viewpoint is good enough to show up as a comment. Basically the thing you're pointing out is the whole stupidity of the whole situation. Generally you won't know your comment is removed unless you've gone so far as to piss a mod off and they respond to your removed comment.

This, sadly was not "good enough" for them:

I do feel some sadness though, that even in an article specifically about men, that the "but women have it worse" line is there. Not because of the statements validity, but because comparative suffering just isn't a super healthy way to look at things.

That comment wasn't even talking about the validity of the statement, and it was still removed. I think that comment is a prime example of exactly what u/tenchineuro was talking about:

Have a great time at Menslib, which is literally men's rights from a feminist perspective, just don't try and talk about men's issues

Comments are only removed on r/MensRights if they break certain rules like "all women are blahblah".

[–]PactScharp 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

You lied about feminist history though & men here are not going to let that slide, and rightly so. Also, MensLib is a fucking toxic, anti-male cesspool of pathetic simps, but mostly (female) feminists who are just pushing gender ideology unto men rather than doing anything usefull.

You say men here "just want to complain", while there's some truth to that, you ignore the fact that there have been a crap ton of efforts by real MRAs to change policies & campaign for men's issues, but they are ALWAYS blocked immediately by feminists & politicians. You say "that's how this works", as if women ever faced the same backlash & scrutiny... yeah, that never happened.

At worst, feminists were regarded as "annoying" perhaps... but the MRM has officially been labelled as a terrorist hate movement. Men marching for their rights would royally piss off a huge, if not majority part of female voters, so there's zero insentive for politicians to pander to men's groups or their issues given the fact that women make up the majority of the electorate. It's not a trivial difference either. We're talking about millions of voters... this is what sways entire elections & they know it.

Men (even the "patriarchal, oppressive, male only establishment of old" actually voted HIGHLY in favor of women's rights... the issue wasn't necesarilly about gender per sé, but that's another topic entirely) are sympathetic & caring towards women & their struggles in a way that women simply are not & will never be towards men. In fact, women's bitterness & contempt towards men is growing every year.

It's not like there haven't been efforts... but when people like Earl Silverman were literally bullied to death by feminists for the crime of caring about men & trying to start a shelter for male victims, then you know that there's precisely ZERO pity or interest for men on a societal level.

Feminists (especially today) don't get backlash for giving resources towards girls who've suffered FGM or something. That's something 99.9999% of all men/people would support. Feminists get backlash, for their never-ending hateful rhetoric & whining about non-issues like the "wage gap"... despite this, feminists/women don't risk their jobs, social status, friends or credibility by attending women's marches. If I organized a "men's march", not only would I likely be arrested, I would almost certainly lose my job & never work again. You can pretend like the same was true for women, but that's a fucking JOKE.

Yea yeah... we all know about the 3 women who were arrested for """protesting""" for female suffrage (it was a bit more than "protesting", but whatever)... but we never hear about the MILLIONS of men who had to die or be brutally mutilated for life before universal male suffrage was put on the table.

The truth is that you can't motivate men into attending or organizing these types of events, because the gender dynamic simply doesn't allow for that to happen. It's easier to convince men into dying in some war to "protect their country & family" than it is to convince them to stand up for their "rights as a man". Because men know the consequences.

So yes, I kinda agree... most of the guys on this sub won't really do anything meaningful to progress men's rights (although you could SURELY level the same accusation at feminist subs too, although I doubt you care)... but at the same time, let men just have a fucking space to vent already... I'm not here because I'm an "MRA". I'm here because I was tired of this constant feminist anti-male hatred that I'm confronted with on a daily basis (don't pretend like you know what that feels like as a woman, you don't) & this is the ONLY place where my opinions/struggles won't be immediately bashed & expelled.

It's funny that feminists often see men "not expressing their feelings" (which feminists/women are hugely responsible for in many ways) as "toxic masculinity", yet even if this sub was "purely" about venting (and it's not), isn't that what you feminists tell us to do?

Ideally, I would prefer more practical actions for change, but that chance decreases every year as anti-male contempt (especially in young women) rises. Maybe men are "cowards" when it comes to that, but most men are convinced it's not worth it or won't change anything, and that's assuming men are even aware anything needs to be changed at all... given the fact that men are far less neurotic than women (objective psychological fact), most men aren't even inclined to complain about any of this & blindly accept reality without thinking about it.

"Protest to have laws changed, do something big and performative if you have to. Form male support groups for rape survivors and host MRA events. Heck, even create a YouTube channel and talk about these issues, spread awareness to not only men in the movement but men outside of the movement as well"

Woman, there are HUNDREDS of YouTube channels talking about these things. Problem is, they are all demonized, demonitized & seen as "hateful alt-right extremists".

It's so bad that it's come to the point where I have seriously contemplated making a thorough, deep & highly scientific analysis on YouTube that is very welcoming towards women & doesn't make them feel lectured or talked down to, in order to explain the "male experience". Problem is, the chance I would get any views at all is tiny, and even if I did, the flaws & bigotry of feminism & the societal "hypocrisy" of women would "have" to be part of that (and by "female hypocrisy", I wouldn't use petty PUA/Red Pill/MGTOW talking points, but rather point to credible scientific analysis about average female behaviors that influence men in many potentially harmful ways)... but the moment I'd do that, I'd immediately lose a huge part of the female audience. Who knows, maybe in a year or two, I'll make it.

[–]Purpled_Pistachio -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]PactScharp 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It's replies like this that are the reason why you're getting any "hate" here at all... we can all tell you're a feminist, and that isn't something that going to be accepted with open arms.

Feminist ideology has done unspeakable damage to gender relations & men's rights/issues. That's just a fact. Pointing out how feminism has "done some good", is not only dishonest, but it simply paints a gross picture of history.

I'm not sure what any of your links are supposed to prove. A history of the suffragettes? Okay? I'm well aware of that history. Which is exactly why I call out your dishonest framing of how "oppressed" they were, how selective they were in their outrage, how bigoted they were & most of all, how dismissive & oblivious they are/were to the history of male suffrage, rights, duties & responsibilities. Something that SHOULD have been part of the conversation from the very start, but never was.

Second link, I have heard about that story. I fail to see its relevance. She was not killed "because" she stood up for women's rights.

"Opinion remains divided over whether the 41-year-old intended to sacrifice herself or whether she just aimed to disrupt the race."

Suffice it to say, feminists have glorified this woman & made her the stuff of legends, when in reality, she was likely either crazy or extremely stupid & didn't mean to sacrifice her life in the quest for "women's rights"... gladly ignoring that all men didn't have the right to vote either in 1913, but who fucking cares.

"nonetheless became the first woman to give her life in the fight for female emancipation."

Yes, first and only. Zero women were ever killed for marching for their right to vote. That quite literally never happened. Period. This isn't a matter of opinion, but of historical fact. And to paint this as "giving one's life" is rather foolish. She wasn't forced into giving her life. She didn't face any real threat. Again, more than likely, she just make a retarded decision that cost her life.

Barely 3 years later, this is what millions of men had to endure, through no fault or choice of their own... of course, most of the men who then suffered in the mud & were blown the shreds had ZERO right to vote, but that's yet again, not something any of the suffragettes ever talked about:

https://youtu.be/SS1dO0JC2EE

Yes, these are the exact "privileged, toxic male oppressors" that feminists today constantly whine about & view as nothing but a bunch of spoiled, disgusting, misogynistic tyrants. How "privileged" they were indeed.

Not only has there never been a single shred of compassion towards men's sacrifices, but suffragettes in fact openly SUPPORTED the male only draft & labelled men who hadn't enlisted as cowards worthy of public humiliation & outcast.

There's a big difference between being forced to do something that almost certainly results in death & making a STUPID decision to make "a point" without contemplating the risks properly. The idea that these things can be compared is highly asinine.

Third source only proves how radical, violent & deranged the suffragettes were. I don't count suffragettes putting themselves on fire through sheer incompetence as a meaningful "sacrifice" for the cause. Give me a break. It sure as hell isn't something men today could or would get away with it. Wtf is even your point?

Fourt source is what I referred to previously about a few suffragettes being arrested. This didn't amount to more than a few dozen IN TOTAL throughout the ENTIRE 20th century. Get over yourself. There are currently HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of men arrested & spending the night in jail for trivial or juvinile behavior & have likely faced excessive force as a result. Of course I disagree with these things, but again, comparing a few feminists being arrested (for more than just "protesting" btw) is extremely petty. I mean history is full of horror & THIS is the worst that feminists had to endure? Okay.

Fifth & sixth source is more proof of violence by suffragettes & their ignorance as to why "women" as a group were awarded suffrage later than (all) men. Again, wtf is this supposed to prove?

You have only exposed your complete ignorance to human history & instead chose to drink the man-hating feminist koolaid. More power to you. But don't be surprised then that men call out your bullshit. When you say you're "genuinely trying to help & support men", that obviously isn't true & you know it.

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron22 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

That's what feminists did and it worked.

Western society has always been about protecting woman and men being disposable.

Last century miners went on strike for better working conditions, they were met by strikebreakers and sometimes the army and many were killed or injured. No one cared. It was not until women protested they they were losing the support of their husbands that conditions improved, and only because they would help the women.

This has been true whenever men tried to get better working conditions, no one cared and killing men who complain was always considered acceptable.

Strikebreakers are no different in other places in the world.

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9780429354243-13/kill-striking-workers-without-being-prosecuted-armed-bands-strikebreakers-late-imperial-germany-amerigo-caruso
11 “We can kill striking workers without being prosecuted”: armed bands of strikebreakers in late Imperial Germany

If men went on a million man march, they would be mostly unemployed when they returned (if not jailed by the local police) and if they owed CS would face jail when they could not pay.

How did feminists handle DV? Feminism blamed all DV on men. In 1996 or so feminists wrote the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which among other things denies male DV victims recognition as DV victims and denies any resources to male DV victims (which is still true today). But that was not enough, some female abusers were still being arrested and feminism could not support that, so in the next VAWA re-authorization feminism changed the previous Primary Offender model to the feminist written Duluth Model. What is the Duluth Model you might ask?

Duluth is predicated on the "patriarchal terrorism" paradigm of partner violence. That is, men beat their female partners in order to assert masculine dominance within their relationships. Their motives are to conform to patriarchal norms and to reify a the patriarchal social/political/cultural order of male dominance and female subordination within the home.
Under this faulty model, women cannot, as a conceptual matter, perpetrate partner abuse. If they hit their male partners, it was in self defense. If they hit first, or are the only partner who hits, they are doing it within the context of "violent resistance" against presumed emotional or psychological abuse on his par

Because the VAWA also requires mandatory arrest policies, the VAWA + Duluth literally requires police to arrest male DV victims of females.

What works for women won't work for men. Men with any complaints whatsoever are called whiners and incels.

And feminism works hard and successfully to block any reforms.

Look, I can see that you're on the blame all men bandwagon yourself, you may know absolutely nothing, but your hatred shines through anyway.

[–]Purpled_Pistachio 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap3 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Yithar1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]reverbiscrap1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Died after throwing herself in front of King George the 5th horse at a racing derby in 1913 on live television.

She was not killed, she tried to pin something on the Kings horse in the middle of a race and things did not go well for her. In effect she accidentally killed herself.

https://archive.ph/mQm42
Suffragette Emily Davison DIDN'T want to kill herself at the Epsom Derby: Relative speaks out about what REALLY happened as she appears on Celebrity Big Brother to tell all
Suffragette Emily Davison was trampled by George V's horse at Epsom in 1913
The widely held belief is that she killed herself to raise awareness for the cause
But her relative dismissed the story as a 'myth' and insists she didn't want to die
Spoke out after the incident was recently brought up on Celebrity Big Brother

She was arrested a total of 9 times for protesting women's rights

Feminists at that time were committing arson, bombing the hell out of London, setting off explosive devices in public, at banks, destroying the homes of MPs they did not like and sending mail bombs to elected officials. Feminism literally invented domestic terrorism, the IED and the letter bomb. You can call that 'protesting women's rights' if you want, but then all feminists are apologists for female violence, aren't they? You yourself are supporting domestic terrorism.

[–]Purpled_Pistachio1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purpled_Pistachio1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

https://archive.ph/J8CD4
The Feminist Fatales: Far from peaceful protesters... how Britain's Suffragettes turned to 'TERRORISM' to win vote by blowing up trains and torching tearooms - amid claims their tactics DELAYED women's rights
Simon Webb counters popular view in his book The Suffragette Bombers: Britain's Forgotten Terrorists
He claims 'history has been kind' to Emmeline Pankhurst and the other leaders of the movement
He argues that they carried out a 'widespread and sustained bombing campaign' across the country
Activists also carried out arson attacks, including on tea house at Kew Gardens in Richmond, West London
The first terrorist bomb to explode in Ireland in the 20th century was planted not by the IRA, but by the suffragettes.
They also invented the letter bomb; designed to maim or kill those with whom they disagreed.
One of the first bomb attacks carried out by the suffragettes was on the house of chancellor of the exchequer Lloyd George.
It went off at a little after 6am on 19 February 1913.
The bomb, which brought down ceilings and cracked walls, was planted by none other than Emily Davison, who later died beneath the hooves of the king's horse at the 1913 Derby.
There is currently talk of erecting a statue of Emmeline Pankhurst near Parliament, which is a little strange when we consider how unpopular terrorists are these days.
Pankhurst was the leader of the suffragette terrorists.
After the explosion at Lloyd George's house, she was brought to trial at the Old Bailey for complicity in the attack and sentenced to three years imprisonment.
The day after Mrs Pankhurst was sent to prison, a bomb was placed outside the Bank of England.
Fortunately, a policeman managed to defuse it before it detonated in the crowded street.
For the next 16 months, the bomb attacks came thick and fast. Some devices, such as one planted at St Paul's Cathedral on 7 May 1913, failed to explode.
Others, such as the large device left at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh a fortnight later, did go off, causing a great deal of damage.
The wave of bombings led to a hardening in the government's position, as well as alienating those who supported the idea of a change in the law to allow women the vote.
There had been every chance before the bombings began that a private members' bill to introduce the vote for women might succeed in getting through Parliament.
But few politicians wished to be seen giving in to terrorism and, as a result, this bill failed even to gain a second reading.
After the failure of the bill, it was plain that the suffragette bombers were harming the struggle for women's civil rights far more than they were aiding it.

Look, this is pointless and we seem to have no common ground for discussion. I'm done. You can have the final word.

[–]Purpled_Pistachio1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Key word "claims". I don't think it delayed but ig we'll never truly know for sure since the war started and all women were later given the vote for joining the war effort (10 years after the war ended but sure ig)

From your same link

• They are simply seeking to condemn these radical women who were campaigning for their democratic right to the parliamentary vote.

• Although there is no one accepted definition of terrorism, a key aspect is the intention to harm or take life, particularly of innocent civilians.

• Throughout the suffrage campaign, Emmeline Pankhurst emphasised that human life should not be endangered.

• As late as 1975, the former suffragette Mary Leigh, then in her nineties, recollected: "Mrs Pankhurst gave us strict orders… there was not a cat or a canary to be killed: no life."

Like I said, as long as no unconsenting party is hurt I can stand behind some property damage if it is for a good cause.i don't understand why we cannot just agree to disagree but regardless I thank you for this discussion, it has been very eye opening.

[–]DavidByron2 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]asbestos-debater 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]DouglasMilnes 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby125 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DouglasMilnes 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Affectionate-School3 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch0306 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

I identify as a feminist, but a “sane feminist”. I don’t believe all men suck, and certainly don’t think they all should be killed.. my lord lol. To be honest, those of us that are “sane feminists” really have a hard time with other, more extreme feminists.. which are, by the way, not the majority but rather a small yet very very loud minority. If it makes you feel any better, those same whackadoos you’re talking about have no problem verbally shredding women who don’t agree with them. For example, if you’re looking for a good time go to r/witchesvsthepatriarchy and say you think trans women shouldn’t compete in women’s sports. 😳

But seriously, feminism is being destroyed by these people. They don’t want things that are actually beneficial to women for the most part. They simply cling to some ultra liberal ideals not based in science or reality. They will quickly shred those of us who defend women’s spaces- like sports- or those that believe in the classical definition of a woman. Hell they will even shred you if you are a stay at home wife/mother and choose to dedicate yourself to your family.

So, in short, these kinds of feminists dont just hate men. They hate other women who choose to live their lives differently or have differing opinions.

[–]genkernels 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch0306 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Pity. It'd be nice to have some fixed point to study up on.

I think if it is so hard to find such a leader, and if as I suspect there also has not been such a leader since at least the 1960s, perhaps even since the beginning of feminism, it well justifies the perceptions of feminism as being unhinged at best.

It isn't as if there haven't been the Paglias and Sommerses of this world, but such people are universally unpopular to (largely reviled by, even) the majority of feminism. The "extreme feminists" rather than being a loud minority, are in fact the center of the movement. Intersectionalists are the feminist orthodoxy of today, and intersectional feminism is very clearly a hate movement. Moreover it has been ingrained into the political process, it is the institutional feminism with the power to make law. It opposes shared parenting, creates unconscionable divorce outcomes, absurdly genders DV and homeless resources, and makes regulations for the purpose of perverting due process of law. There are few men's issues that exist today that are not in some way exacerbated or caused by this feminist power. Yet the more sane amoung the feminists that I've interacted with commonly call it a vocal minority. It's absurd.

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I wrote a really long response to this thread, where I explain some of the history & intersectionalism better. Will try to link it somehow. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vwknjv/comment/ifsshvo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Intersectionalism is not about avoiding ridicule. Quite the opposite. It's about bridging everyone's experiences where they overlap. The evil that different groups are facing often comes from the same source. Since there are different forms of prejudice, sources of discrimination can "compound" especially for people who belong to multiple marginalized groups/minorities.

Here is an, involving conversation with Kimberlé Crenshaw, a Professor of law at Columbia University, who coined intersectionality in 1989, originally centered around the experiences of (but not at all limited to) black women (https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination). She clarifies how it is not a hierarchy however, and how men are not "at the bottom" (Ben Shapiro tried to claim that was her point, she responds to him). Her "flavor" of feminism is one I think many people can agree with.

Men's experiences do intersect with those of feminists, and forcing men into some enemy position puts us even further from equality/progress. The above article is more a survey of intersectionalism. When I can find an article talking about the relation to men's rights in a more academic sense, I will link it.

[–]genkernels 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Will try to link it somehow.

Next time try: link it [somehow](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vwknjv/comment/ifsshvo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).

This will then show up as: link it somehow.

Intersectionalism is not about avoiding ridicule.

No, but you said you think there is a lot of feminist content that is innocuous on its own, but is ridiculed for simply being tied (to) feminism and not prominently supporting men. I'm curious for an example. I'm confident I won't receive one.

Intersectionalist feminism is different from other feminism in that it is more clearly the opposite of innocuous, and much less given to recognizing the humanity of men. Intersectionalist feminism is precisely a hierarchy whereby the least vulnerable women can be magically considered more vulnerable than the most vulnerable men.

One polemic against this insane heirarchy writes (of "When a Man’s Home Isn’t a Castle: Hegemonic Masculinity Among Men Experiencing Homelessness and Mental Illness."):

Yet she so clearly subscribes to modern-think — that there are always oppressors and oppressed — that she could write, of one of the homeless men she interviewed, that his tall stature and build “have allowed him the privilege that many men, and few women, are privy to — not being ‘scared of walking outside at night’.”

This despite homeless men walking around dangerous areas of a city being almost certainly in some level of fear of violence. I guarantee you that homeless men take steps to minimize that risk. And that risk is most prevalent at the intersection of being male, and poor, and physically located amoung other poor males. Because as much as feminist evangelists may like to pretend so (you and wildwitch are different in this regard), intersectionalism does not merely describe the correlative knock on effect that one may receive from having more than one undesirable or desirable trait. It describes a particular and peculiar way of looking at the world dogmatically through the lens of stereotypes with that greasy sort of paternalistic empathy that caused Occupy Wall Street to platform people based on race as early as 2011. If one reads feminist literature with regard for the knock on correlative effects of undesirable traits, but without that empathy in mind confusion will be the result. It assumes patriarchy, a world created by men, for men -- as if such a description of the world could even remotely be defensible.

This hierarchy is indeed established with at least the veneer of eliminating racial and gender hierarchies, but it became popularized precisely as such hierarchies were naturally dying to an onslaught of enlightenment rhetoric and revivified them.

EDIT:

Also the article you linked contains these gems:

That brings us to the concept of intersectionality, which emerged from the ideas debated in critical race theory. Crenshaw first publicly laid out her theory of intersectionality in 1989...

Surely describing intersectionality as a refinement of CRT is a good sign, lol.

For example, DeGraffenreid v. General Motors was a 1976 case in which five black women sued General Motors for a seniority policy that they argued targeted black women exclusively. Basically, the company simply did not hire black women before 1964, meaning that when seniority-based layoffs arrived during an early 1970s recession, all the black women hired after 1964 were subsequently laid off...Crenshaw argues in her paper that by treating black women as purely women or purely black, the courts, as they did in 1976, have repeatedly ignored specific challenges that face black women as a group.

Because labour rights are bad when people at the top of the hierarchy are affected. Because it isn't enough to be equal, equality must fundamentally encompass the concept of reparations. Rather than recognize the knock-on-effects as a real and separate issue, the situation must be governed dogmatically by stereotype. And in a multiple thousand-year patriarchy, anything may be justified against human lives today on account of what is now dust.

/EDIT

--

Men's experiences do intersect with those of feminists, and forcing men into some enemy position puts us even further from equality/progress.

Indeed, but since you don't appear to have made your post by mistake (which I find quite odd, given its disconnected with anything that I wrote save one word), it's worth referring back to what you responded to.

Moreover it has been ingrained into the political process, it is the institutional feminism with the power to make law. It opposes shared parenting, creates unconscionable divorce outcomes, absurdly genders DV and homeless resources, and makes regulations for the purpose of perverting due process of law. There are few men's issues that exist today that are not in some way exacerbated or caused by this feminist power.

You see, my concern is not merely that the paternalistic stereotypes and the dogma that men organized society for the benefit of men as a group -- my concern is not merely that these views are hateful by nature. My concern is primarily that the intersectionalist powers that be are hateful by action. It isn't that men are spoken of as an enemy that is the chief rebuke. It is that people (who happen to men, and who sometimes only are men on account of the intersectionalists' fancies) suffer material loss at the result of unjust policy. If feminism had not been overtaken by intersectionalism or similar (such as the sentiment of the Declaration of Sentiments), the result would not have been so. The fruit of Betty Friedan's work, who is by no means an ideological saint, is markedly different from the policies of intersectionalists.

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"To Crenshaw, the most common critiques of intersectionality — that the theory represents a “new caste system” — are actually affirmations of the theory’s fundamental truth: that individuals have individual identities that intersect in ways that impact how they are viewed, understood, and treated.

That is what Crenshaw says, but not how Crenshaw applies. You can explain Crenshaw's revulsion to the labour movement's more fair practices if you like, but I don't see how you're going to get around her demand for retaining recent hires on account of their race specifically, during a severe business crisis. Detroit would have negative population growth from '71 to '90 and my understanding is that was the same crisis that drove the layoffs. This is a normal thing for the sillier feminists like herself, to talk about individuality while justifying her policy recommendations by collective guilt. I challenge you to find in Crenshaw's policy proposal a justification that would avoid defining a mere lack of quotas as racism.

Crenshaw and the article tries to paint opposition to this ideology as coming from a concern over outcomes. In fact however, what drives the opposition is the rigid injustice of imposing the stereotype on policy. The idea is itself the problem. It's not because society hasn't been willing enough to let go of individual privileges, but because what is being demanded is by its very nature inequality.

But as always with these types when the dogma doesn't result in success, the problem was that the dogma wasn't followed rigidly enough or with enough human sacrifice. It isn't enough to be equal, but equality must include reparations.

Black women are both black and women, but because they are black women, they endure specific forms of discrimination that black men, or white women, might not."

And here we go back to defending intersectionalism, but NOT as a combination of correlations. In order to justify the insanity, not only is intersectionalism not about black women being both black and women, but rather about black women's unique experience as a stereotype unto itself. So even if an action can be disproved as being racist and disproved as being sexist, it can still be both racist and sexist without any evidence except that some people who happen to match the stereotype don't achieve their desires. Moreover, under no circumstance must black women's experiences as individuals be included (such as senority at a compan) -- if that were the case the justification for collective guilt as a remedy would dissapear.

"But Crenshaw said that contrary to her critics’ objections, intersectionality isn’t “an effort to create the world in an inverted image of what it is now.” Rather, she said, the point of intersectionality is to make room “for more advocacy and remedial practices” to create a more egalitarian system."...Intersectionality operates as both the observance and analysis of power imbalances, and the tool by which those power imbalances could be eliminated altogether.

It is completely contrary to egalitarianism for the solution to the problem to be defined by racial categories. And for the tool for the observance of the problem to itself be the solution is an affront to empericial analysis. In defining intersectionality thus, she hasn't defined a method but rather a cult. But enough about Crenshaw, a critical race theorist is hardly the person to go to for a more broadly feminist definition of intersectionalism, they are simply too fringe and unhinged. For that, we should go to the author of "feminism is for everyone".

Intersectionality allow us to focus on what is most important at a given point in time. I used to say to people, if you’re in a domestic situation where the man is violent, patriarchy and male domination—even though you understand it intersectionally—you focus, you highlight that dimension of it, if that’s what is needed to change the situation. I think that, again, if we move away from either/or thinking, and if we think, okay, every day of my life that I walk out of my house I am a combination of race, gender, class, sexual preference and religion or what have you, what gets foregrounded? I think it’s crazy for us to think that people don’t understand what’s being foregrounded in their lives at a given point in time. Like right now, for many Americans, class is being foregrounded like never before because of the economic situation. It doesn’t mean that race doesn’t matter, or gender doesn’t matter, but it means that right now in many people’s lives, in the lives of my own family members, people are losing jobs, insurance. I was teasing my brother that he was penniless, homeless, jobless. Right now in his life, racism isn’t the central highlighting force: it’s the world of work and economics. It doesn’t mean that he isn’t influenced by racism, but when he wakes up in the morning the thing that’s driving his world is really issues of class, economics and power as they articulate themselves. I guess I wish we could talk about: what does it mean to have a politics of intersectionality that also privileges what form of domination is most oppressing us at a given moment in time.

As you can see, neither the feminist icon you chose nor the most popular ancient intersectionalist connects intersectionalism with combinations of correlations, but always combinations of stereotypes. The word oppression is used to emphasize the intent behind the result -- which since it is so farcical on its face to address to any individual, is instead levelled at a collective. The description of intersectionalism as a combination of correlations is nowhere present in the definition.

But the description of this foundational idea is consistent with a hierarchy of stereotypes, but not what you claimed at first. Now you're changing what you said because I happen to not be completely illiterate on these matters. It's always a shell game with feminism.

But there are misguided people who will absolutely use the term/concept of intersectionality as a springboard for their own agendas.

You can claim anything as a misuse if it makes the cult look bad. But find me an intersectionalist feminist policy initiative -- of which there are no shortage -- that doesn't use intersectionalism in a most reprehensible manner.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch0306 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch0306 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Because I actually spend time talking to other women. I work with nothing but them.

Your claims were about feminists, not women.

From women in their 70’s to young women still in their late teens. I understand how different feminism looks between generations

So you can't tell the difference between women and feminists? No big shock. Would you believe that some men call themselves feminists and that many women do not call themselves feminists? Who knew?

Women speak differently around other women than mixed company, and you’re more likely to receive real information and expansions on thought processes when you’re not.. ya know…

I disagree, men experience open contempt from many women and no women ever object. Killallmen is supported by women. I know you'll disagree that men's lived experiences count, so we'll leave it at that I guess.

Hanging out in Redditland in an echochamber group.

Please tell me what else you assume about me.

[–]WildWitch0306 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Tell me what else you assume about me.

Well I assume you’re frankly an ass. Who clearly hates women- likely because you’ve been rejected repeatedly or maybe you just have mommy issues. But you can’t even sit and take someone’s opinion. Your clear need to be “right” ,likely in order to gain some sense of superiority is as obvious as a Mack truck. You entirely lack the ability to respectfully consider an opinion that was asked for, and seek instead to discount it and manufacture arguments that simply needn’t exist. Your antisocial online tendencies are likely a reflection of real-life behavior and your open disdain for women is evident. Of course I realize that feminists can be men. I have a good friend who is male and proudly calls himself a feminist. And of course I realize there are women who do not identify as such. But the majority of the women I referred to are feminists. Some of them OG, bra-burning feminists. I feel pretty confident of what I speak.

But you’re free to try and argue, discount my opinion, and write paragraphs the size of War and Peace in your desperate attempt to discredit an explanation of someone’s personal experience..which isn’t even something that anyone else is capable of discrediting.

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff971 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch0306 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Malkor 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch0306 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch0306 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch0306 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch0306 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Even feminist defenders admit feminism is bad.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/30/feminists-treat-men-badly-its-bad-for-feminism/

Young men especially are seeing that feminism is sexist (90% in South Korea where feminism was an issue at the last election). I don't need to rely on my personal experience though it has to be said that the evidence there is overwhelming as it is for most men.

You can see concrete sexist policies enacted in the name of feminism and often after specific lobbying by recognized and self described feminist representative groups such as NOW. Popular leaders of the movement, popular (best selling) texts attack men. And we have the evidence of Twitter where they handily tell you how popular some tweets are (whereas we don't get the same metric from fb as to how popular which memes are) so we know extreme anti-male hate like "KillAllMen" is very popular. We also have the evidence of that phrase being shortened to "KAM" in feminist circles because it's so widespread it has earned an acronym.

I, for one, speak out against blatant man-bashing and hating

Can you give an example of you doing that please? eg on Reddit.

Not that one person makes a difference but I just doubt it's true even for one person.

In short the evidence for feminism being about hate is the same as the evidence Nazism was about hate. Read the texts of the leadership. It's right there in black and white. Look at what the movement did and does. It's right there. Best selling books called "Hating men is good" or whatever. Leaders saying men should be all killed off. And what's more you know about all this evidence too, don't you?

Personal experience

That's what YOUR claim is based on isn't it?

Why are you trying to defend hate by minimizing and denying it goes on?

I, for one, speak out against blatant man-bashing and hating

Not here. On this sub you've defended and minimized hate. it would have been great if you'd come on here speaking out against it (though you'd really need to do it on a feminist board to work). You did the opposite. You defended the hate. You said oh don't worry that's only a tiny number of people so it doesn't matter. So which is it? Do you speak out or do you minimize and defend hate?

[–]WildWitch0306 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Look man, check my profile. I literally just joined Reddit. I saw this post, and I answered with my personal views and experiences. Yes, radical views in any movement is bad for said movement. You’re correct. Never said otherwise. I said that these people are a highly vocal minority. Which would suggest the majority is not as vocal on the whole.. which means you’re trying to argue a point I had already conceded. But to say it never happens is patently false. It does happen, just not as often as it should. And as for your “sexist policies”.. what sexist policies. What 90% on what specific topic? I need stats, quotes, info.. more than just your quick presentation I’m supposed to accept as evidence? As for my conduct here.. I haven’t bashed men. Or validated radical feminist ideology. Twitter is a toxic cesspool for all kinds of radical ideology and I don’t participate there, either. Truth is I don’t do social media for this reason. My objections to man-hating happen in real-life. Where, ya know, it actually counts. You can take my word for it or not, but I’m certainly not obligated to present evidence that I’m a fair-minded human being to you. You can believe it or not, as you like.

Further, you are the same side of the coin. You disdain radical feminism because you feel that you have been caught in the cross hairs of undeserved treatment and hatred by these individuals, yet fail to see how it has made you just as bad. You object to wide labeling of men with negative stereotypes, yet attach negative stereotypes to everyone who calls themselves a feminist. In essence, you come off as basically the same thing you claim to hate about feminism. Misogyny and misandry are equally bad looks.. we can agree on that count, correct?

And you’re going to go with a Nazi comparison? Really? Couldn’t you at least come up with something original? I have no desire to go on a feminist board and argue with those yahoos. Did you not read the part of my original comment where I said they were psycho towards other feminists who disagree with them? I have a life, man. I like conversations and respectful dialogue, not their strong suit. I guess I can best describe it by comparing it to BLM. Black people have had it rough historically ( like women). Nobody can deny they often get an unfair shake ( like women). Just about everyone agrees with the sentiment “black lives matter”, but many strongly disagree with the political group/movement because of its tendency to venture into extremes. Feminism, to me, is much the same. I doubt you have any issues with the cores of feminism- equal pay, equal treatment, fair sports competition, etc., but understandably dislike the extremism that exists in the political movement/group. Right?

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

radical views in any movement is bad for said movement. You’re correct

I didn't say that. That's a feminist slogan. You say you only just joined Reddit but you talk just like all the other fakers. Radicals don't have different ideologies to their movement. You can't excuse feminism by pretending "it's only the radicals". You use the same defense of hate that all feminists use. Because you're all the same. Give me an example of any movement where the so-called "radicals" believe the opposite of the movement. Are vegan radicals cannibals? Are pro-life radicals in favour of abortion? But you pretend feminist radicals hate men when the rest of the movement want the exact opposite. It's bullshit. Name one other movement where it works that way.

to say it never happens is patently false.

Give me an example then. Where can I find this "majority" of good feminists criticizing the "minority" of man hating "radicals" as you pretend happens?

And as for your “sexist policies”.. what sexist policies

Aren't you supposed to be pretending that you see the bad feminists? Did you forget? Where's your script? You just claimed "good" feminists criticize "bad" feminists and now the next sentence you're saying "what sexist policies"?

OK how about the way feminists lobbied (successfully) to make the Violence Against Women Act sexist to make it illegal to help any male victim of DV in any shelter in the USA that receives federal monies (ie almost all of them)?

How about the way Obamacare only covers female contraceptives and no male contraceptives?

How about the way Obama and Biden now have pushed feminist interpretations of Title IX to deny male students basic civil rights when accused of some sort of sexual harassment?

How about sexual harassment as a whole, based as it is on the idea that all men are rapists, a feminist dogma?

What 90%

Sorry - that was a reference to polling data from the South Korean election saying 90% of young men saw feminism as anti-male.

I need stats, quotes, info

But you already know plenty or what did you mean when you said the "good" feminists should criticize the "bad" feminists more?

My objections to man-hating happen in real-life

OK give examples.

I’m certainly not obligated to present evidence

Then I won't believe your extraordinary claim.

Further, you are the same side of the coin

An ad-hominem argument. Irrelevant. Also false btw, but you don't actually care.

You disdain radical feminism

My disagreeing with a hate movement is not the same as your hating people just because they were born a certain way. Kind of the exact opposite in fact. But keep defending hatred of men. It really helps me to see who you are. You say you claim to be the "good" feminist that criticizes "bad" feminists but in reality you're defending them with all the arguments they always use. Kinda looks like you're one of them doesn't it? Can you explain to me why you're defending hate at this point? I mean if we were talking about Nazis and you came out and said "well you disagreeing with Nazis makes you just like them" I'd be like, wow is this woman a Nazi? Why is she defending them?

Aren't YOU pretending to disdain radical feminism too? Was that a lie?

And you’re going to go with a Nazi comparison? Really?

Again you're defending the feminist hate at this point. Why? I mean forget about me refuting your point which is easy because it's just rhetorical, but WHY are you defending hate?

Couldn’t you at least come up with something original?

Sure I sometimes use other hate movements like the WKKK but if people haven't actually heard about them the point doesn't land does it? Kinda the point of going with the best known example you know. I didn't know you score arguments on originality instead of actual logic and facts.

I like conversations and respectful dialogue

Do you? You came on a civil rights board for men's rights and said you were part of an anti-male hate movement. If that doesn't say "respectful dialogue" what does?

Black people have had it rough historically ( like women).

Like men you mean.

Just about everyone agrees with the sentiment “black lives matter”, but many strongly disagree with the political group/movement because of its tendency to venture into extremes

Because it's a cutout for feminists. BLM is run by feminists, not black men. They emphasize female victims even though over 95% of police brutality victims are male. They insult and attack white men even though cops attack white men a lot more than black women.

Feminism, to me, is much the same.

Feminism is a cutout for feminism? Feminism took over feminism? No, it's always been bad.

I doubt you have any issues with the cores of feminism- equal pay, equal treatment, fair sports competition, etc

Everyone except feminists and Nazis supports equality. But "equal pay" isn't about equality. It's a hate slogan. "Fair sports" is another area where feminists demand (successfully) anti male discrimination. I already mentioned title IX above.

I might have some sympathy if I felt you really had been under a rock for the last 150 years and somehow woke up and found the movement you used to think was X had come to mean Y. But if that's your act you need to act better. because you don't come across that way at all. However I'll also say that if that had really happened then you'd just leave the movement that had become to mean the exact opposite of what you felt it was. You certainly wouldn't spend time defending the way it was.

[–]WildWitch0306 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

You don't listen too well do you?

You can try and convince yourself that you're not a hatemonger but your problem is most of the young generation of men have had enough of your gaslighting. Those 90% of young South Korean men aren't alone because similar things are happening in the other industrialized countries. Maybe your plan is to insult and gaslight them all like you've been doing for 150 years?

Maybe you plan is to insult them all and ask them why they are angry? I'm sure that will help them think of you as a "good" feminist. Or you could just tell them they all hate women like you just did to me. I'm sure that will work so well.

You refuse to listen to men. You gaslight men. You're a feminist. You're in a hate movement. And as far as I can see that's no accident; you're where you belong. If all this seem wrong to you then maybe you should spend a few seconds trying to see things from someone else's point of view. A man's point of view. I know -- crazy right? Why would you ever give a shit what a mere man thinks? You never have so far.

[–]WildWitch0306 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron21 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I’m not part of a hate movement. And your bad experiences aren’t “personal information”. Personal information is where you live, your name, things like that. Suggesting that your anonymous personal experience is somehow protected, private information is dense. Not me.

You have a real victim complex that’s kind of gross and embarrassing in a male, quite frankly. I could tell you a million reasons and experiences that could and should make me hate men. I don’t. I don’t feel like I’m being targeted by men. I don’t have ridiculous broad-reaching and sweeping generalizations for men. So I believe in equal pay, protecting women’s sports and basically seen as equal to a man in my work. That makes me a member of a hate-group? That’s targeting you? Yeah.. I really suggest getting some CBT. You don’t have to be an angry, lonely guy with a victim complex. Just sayin .

[–]DavidByron21 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I’m not part of a hate movement

So you stopped being a feminist since we started talking?

You have a real victim complex

You know nothing about me. You're gaslighting again.

that’s kind of gross and embarrassing in a male, quite frankly

You think everything about being male is gross and embarrassing I would bet.

I could tell you a million reasons and experiences that could and should make me hate men.

So you admit you hate men and endorse other women hating men. You also admitted you're in a hate movement.

I don’t have ridiculous broad-reaching and sweeping generalizations for men

You just said, "that’s kind of gross and embarrassing in a male, quite frankly"

I believe in equal pay

No you don't. You believe in women being paid more for doing less.

protecting women’s sports

No you don't. You believe women should get more funds for less participation.

That makes me a member of a hate-group?

You SAID you were in a hate movement.

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hahaha use the term “gaslighting” correctly next time. Telling a delusional person the truth isn’t gaslighting. Haha. And nope.. I don’t think everything about men is gross. I rather like men. When they aren’t whining that they are victims when they aren’t.

No, I specifically said I do not hate men. I’m not you, I don’t take bad experiences with individuals as a indication of men as a whole. Unlike you a feminists. Lol

Calling your behavior gross and embarrassing is not a broad-reaching generalization. It’s a specific comment about you.

I believe in equal pay for equal work. You can’t say I don’t. Because I do. You don’t get to tell me what I believe, especially when I have never said otherwise.

I said I’m a feminist. That has more to do with my personal opinions than being a part of a group. And it’s not a hate group. Is BLM a hate group?

And ass for women’s sports.. no it’s not about money. It’s about keeping bio men out of women’s sports. But you probably don’t like that, do you?

What about being a woman made you hate yourself And other women so much?

[–]DavidByron21 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn’t say men were delusional. I said you were delusional. That’s not gaslighting. It’s the truth. Have you noticed how literally NOBODY is jumping to in the agree with you? Or even upvote your comments? Because you’re a certifiable whack job.

Having feminist ideals doesn’t make me part of a hate group. And calling feminism a hate group is, in fact, delusional. Feminism is not about hating men. Some women take it there, but that’s certainly not a definition. When you look at the textbook definition of “feminist” it has nothing to do with hate. And I’m not a member of a hate group. The only one who seems to think it’s a hate group is you. Lol Just because you say something doesn’t make it true.

I don’t give a fuck about South Korea. Have you ever been there? Lol Their culture is one of the most sexist in the world. ( Been there). One poll out of an Asian country is not hard facts. And you don’t have hard facts. You have conjecture and opinions with no real stats or anything else to back you up.

I’m sorry you hated being a woman but you aren’t a victim because you decided to be a man.

[–]DavidByron21 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Having feminist ideals doesn’t make me part of a hate group

Feminism is a hate movement.

You are a feminist.

Do you know what a syllogism is?

Some women take it there

So you admit your movement is full of anti-male hate.

When you look at the textbook definition of “feminist” it has nothing to do with hate

Then you quote an authority that you just agreed is saying something false - you're authoritarian. That's also consistent with a hate movement. You're inconsistent and lying all over the place. Which is it? Is feminism ("text book definition") "nothing to do with hate" or is it full of women who hate men as you said the line before? Are you even trying to make a logical case for your opinion? Do you even know how? Hint: try to avoid contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next.

The only one who seems to think it’s a hate group is you

As expected you seem to think things are true or not depending on how many or who else believes them. That's why I've been telling you since we began talking that hundreds of millions of young men, perhaps now a majority in industrialized countries, think feminism is a sexist movement that attacks men. Most women agree to the extent they don't think feminism is about equality exactly.

One poll out of an Asian country is not hard facts

So you're racist too? It's not "just Asia" and it's certainly not one poll. I was just referring to the article on the results of South Korea's recent election being tilted by the attitude towards feminism. At any rate when you said it was just me, you were lying (again - how tiresome that most of the stuff you say you don't believe yourself).

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Lol Ok I’m about to destroy your little world.

Nothing you say is rooted in fact. Like your chosen gender, you seem to think because you “feel” some kinda way and think something is one way it is. What you don’t realize is that you are delusional. You decided to be a dude and now you’re whining that you’re a victim. That’s special. You aren’t a victim. Nobody has targeted you. You don’t get an unfair shake because you have a dick. Feminism Is not a hate group. Asian countries are culturally more patriarchal. Is it racist to say that Africans are predominantly black? No? Didn’t think so.

You can call me a Nazi, a bigot, a hate-group member or whatever you like. I’ll laugh because it is so glaringly obvious you’re a miserable person with an incredible amount of self-loathing, likely some mommy issues and probably some childhood trauma Somewhere. You are an angry, vitriolic and arrogant individual who literally cannot determine fact from opinion, and can’t see that your own confirmation bias is making things seem like facts that are not.

For the last time.. feminism is an ideology. Not a specific group or movement. I don’t hate men, and I certainly don’t advocate such. Just because I think you are an ignorant idiot doesn’t mean I think men are.

[–]DavidByron21 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron21 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron21 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron20 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron21 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are literally no objective “facts” you’re presenting!

Oh you mean to establish feminism is a hate movement? I wrote a web site about it many years ago and it's become a pretty well established theory now. If you haven't heard of it I could go over it with you except for one problem.

I can't be bothered wasting that much time with someone who can't write two sentences without lying or contradicting herself, and seems to think it's a great argument to attack the other person on a personal level.

Besides which -- you yourself noted that there are many man hating feminists. This proves feminism isn't an equality movement so just how many theories are left?

Are you simply completely ignorant of what feminism does in real life or something? I know mostly feminists lie and pretend to be ignorant but are you actually ignorant?

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron21 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]garlicramen 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lots of things these days including pop feminism, trans activism and intersectional feminist academia I would say are antifeminist and in direct opposition of feminism's original progressive ideals. But I'm a gender-abolitionist so I'm usally written off as transphobic.

I have no problems with trans people, all gender identities are stupid including those of cishets. Gender isn't real, only sex is.

I believe in equality of the sexes and raising boys and girls the same way (while acknowledging their biological differences) which means nothing in this world, no thought, emotions, behaviour, personal style, should be labelled as "feminine" or "masculine" as it's horribly outdated, sexist and diminutive.

To answer the question as to how I deal with the fanatics, I'm the one labelled radical and it truly feels that way in this backwards society. I deal with it by engaging on anonymous forums as my views would hurt me professionally if voiced in public.

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gil-galad5150 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]gil-galad5150 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gil-galad5150 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]A9SteakSauce 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Relaxing-homie 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]c9it 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is about men -- hating men -- far more than women.

That would be like saying Nazism is about white people more than it's about Jews. The whole distinguishing feature of Nazism was hating various minority groups. Characterizing Nazism as "a group of people that fight for white people" isn't accurate is it?

And you can see this all the time in their fake issues like abortion. Feminist slogans about abortion spend far more time attacking and demonizing men (most of whom are pro-choice for women even while feminists say men must never have a choice) than they do trying to make a case for abortion rights. For the feminist the abortion issue is chiefly a vehicle for spreading hatred of men.

Feminism is about men -- hating men. It's not chiefly about women.

It wouldn't even make sense to say a movement was about helping women specifically -- because everyone in our society does that. It's like saying you're a movement for promoting people breathing air. Well yeah but nobody's saying different are they?

[–]c9it -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]c9it 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Oh you don't understand what a comparison is?

A comparison or a metaphor is where someone highlights certain qualities in common between two or more situations or things for the purposes of illustrating an argument, or making a point about one of the situations or things.

So what you did there (pointing out other qualities not in common) is a misunderstanding of what a comparison is. You acted as if I was saying two things were identical. Do you understand? Is English not your first language?

For example, I said feminism is like Nazism because they're both hate movements. But I didn't mean they were both historically started in Germany in the 1920s.

Perhaps you'd like to try again?

Oh did you mean to pass up this?

Give me an example of a feminist issue which they don't turn into a conversation about men please

[–]c9it 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

no need to mansplain

But I think there was. Because you didn't understand. Maybe if you don't want to be "mainsplained" to you should put a little thought into being less of a "bimbo"? People might think you're really like that instead of acting stupid for attention or whatever that was all about?

they’re not comparable at all

Ah well you seem to have another basic problem that requires "mansplaining" here. An argument is not the same as making a statement of your opinion. I already understand you disagree. What would move the conversation forward would be you trying to articulate the reasons for your opinion. Or do you want me to just guess?

men are a big cause of our issues which is why men come into the conversation in feminism

That sounds like you're agreeing with me that feminism fails the Bechdel test. It's all about men, not women.

the whole sole purpose of feminism is to uplift women… not men

Yeah because it's a hate movement. I know. Nice of you not to pretend it's about sex equality like so many feminists.

But back to the feminism is all about men thing. Perhaps you'd like to try talking about the specific example I raised which is abortion discussions. Male oppression or whatever nonsense doesn't cause pregnancy. Pregnancy is a natural occurrence for all mammals and animals as a whole. So why does feminist treatment of abortion revolve around men? many women are against abortion rights. Women legislators vote for the laws. A woman supreme court justice voted to overturn Roe v Wade. Seems like this is an issue you could talk about without talking about men. But instead feminists constantly talk about men when they talk about abortion.

Why do you pretend it's men doing something to women when opinion is split about evenly?

It's just because you can't stop talking about men, isn't it?

[–]c9it 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Someone wrote a book about the old KKK and tried to find some old members to ask them about it. It's similar to what you're trying to do here. Of course they are aware of the problematic nature of their alliances. But if you can get past that stuff the response for those old KKK people was

"All the best people were in the KKK back then"

So even in the intervening years these old women and men never stopped trying to justify themselves even when it became beyond obvious what they had got themselves involved in. The fact is that the "reasonable" popular hate movement members stop associating with hate at some point so they cease to be feminists so the people you're looking for don't exist.

There was a few decades back there when they would sort of half leave the movement and try to sort of half distance themselves from it while still calling themselves a feminist but they'd make up qualifying words to say "Oh I'm not THAT type of feminist". But such excuses only last so long. It doesn't really help after a while to keep saying the equivalent of "Oh I'm not a racist Nazi, I'm one of the good ones".

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]erilaz123[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I am also a non native speaker.

I am absolutely not a feminist, but a equalist.

The Marxist feminist's and others has royally messed up things since the beginning,- and perhaps you know about Erin Pizzey ? Emmeline Pankhurst and her cohorts?

In the event you haven't heard:

Feminism has always been full of crazy females. Take, for example, Emmeline Pankhurst and Admiral Charles Penrose Fitzgerald who sent many young men, as young as 15-16 years old, straight into the blender of blood, flesh, death, suffering and mud that World War I was.

The white feathered brigade as they were called saw themselves as guardians of the English Spirit, and all men were to do their duty for the flag.

Giving a white feather to a man in civilian clothes was really a brilliant tactic because it worked on so many different levels. Not only did it make men feel ashamed, but it also made them feel that they were not good enough for these women.

Many had questioned the morale of such a campaign from the very beginning, but now that these White Feather women began to accuse war veterans who had been wounded in the service of their country, the public began to have far greater problems with this tactic. These incidents only increased as the war dragged on because more and more men were sent back to England with war wounds and amputations.

The White Feather campaign was an obvious attack on masculinity and an overt manipulation of gender in the pursuit of national recruitment. There was no finesse in the actions of these women, their tactics were clear for all to see.

Withdrawal of sexual desire and the public shame of a man were clear signs of a well-thought-out recruitment operation. The public knowledge about the gender attack behind the White Feather campaign did not make it any less effective, but it also led to disgust and hatred towards the women who dared to participate. It was a patriotic movement, but it was still an ugly way to do things.

One of the reasons why this campaign was successful was that these English women were seen as innocent, beautiful and pure. Women were the milder sex, and that is why criticism from them caused such pain.

It was a loss of femininity, women should be kind and caring, the mothers of the nation! It was unheard of and unthinkable that this level of cruelty and defiance in women even existed!

Young girls even used the white feather to get rid of troublesome boyfriends.

They even made a "services rendered" aka The Silver War Badge medal so those who had participated was spared the shame of receiving a white feather.

One wonders if Pankhurst and company thought about the consequences of such an action.

Feminists even tried to pull this stunt off again in WW2, but without any success.

A white feather left a mark on every man who got one, a shame they never forgot.

My personal opinion on why the screeching horde of madness has not been stopped is because people are afraid of being ostracized.

This is not a personal attack on you,- just to clarify.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]erilaz123[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Jakeybaby125 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby125 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby125 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Mate, I'm British and I read about politics in the US, Australia and France. I think I'll be good

Well then identifying as a feminist is basically worthless then. If there are so many different types with some types saying the other types are fake with the other types saying the same thing, there is not one true definition of feminism so you describing yourself as one is worthless. Ideologies always need to have fixed definitions in order to make sense of what people do in the name of that ideology and, if necessary, others to call them out if they stray from the path. Feminism seems to be the only ideology that does not do this and it shouldn't be an exception to the rule. I'll tell you another fast way: egalitarian. Egalitarianism and, to an extent, Mens Rights Activism sticks to the notion of wanting equality. Feminism doesn't

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jakeybaby125 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

feminism has an image problem. I completely agree

To put some numbers on this, I've been saying feminism is a hate movement for about twenty years and seen the theory taken up more and more by MRAs as people get used to it. At this point it feels like it's about to go to a mainstream view. We have the various polling data on young men from various industrialized countries where they are rejected feminism en masse, but the nature of the rejection is hard to gauge specifically as usually polls only ask for a sort of thumbs up or thumbs down which is a very broad measure.

"Nearly 90% of men in their twenties are anti-feminist or do not support feminism,"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60643446

But my question is, how far do they realize that feminism is a hate movement? They reject feminism and we know that men support sex equality, so it's clear these men feel feminism is anti-sex equality. The question is do they see feminism as a sexist movement advocating for the interests of women over men, in the same way any self advocacy movement is biased in favour of it's supposed members, or do they (correctly) see feminism as much worse than that?

Many, many feminists ....share my outlook

Well that's not how young men see it. You're basically gaslighting millions of young men. They experience the hate of feminism and then you say, "No, your life experience is wrong and in fact you must accept what I tell you". If you really want equality you need to accept what young men are saying. These are polling results not an anecdote about my circle of close friends as yours is. Hard data.

just like any movement, there are those on the radical/problematic end

That's not true. Radicals don't believe the exact opposite of the rest of the movement. Radical vegans aren't cannibals. Radical pro-life people don't support abortion. Radical atheists don't worship some deity. When you say radical feminists are anti-equality that's a lie. Well it's no lie they hate equality. The lie is they hate equality because they are radical. They hate equality because the rest of the movement does. Radicals have the same ideology and dogma, they just take it more seriously or are more outspoken and work harder, or their means for advocating might be more forceful or illegal. But they don't actually believe anything different, let alone believe the exact opposite of the rest of the movement.

Besides which if this was true wouldn't these feminists be kicked out of the movement for betraying the movement's ideals? But in fact they are the leaders of the movement. They are leaders because the normal members agree with them. And as leaders they also set the policy for the movement.

What are you doing about these so-called radicals? If you think radicals have taken over feminism and making it a hate movement then what are you doing about it?

If you want to make a comment about SA, for instance

Did you know the feminists at the CDC have defined the rape of men out of existence to manipulate their polling data (that says men are raped as often as women and 80% of the time the rapist is a woman)? This is real feminism at work. Not your handful of friends you claim are "nice" feminists. Real feminism, really manipulating data to deny services to male rape victims. What are you doing about that?

[toxic masculinity] gets invoke so often by the wrong kinds of feminists that men think it is something we say only to insult them

It's not an insult. It's hate speech. You are repeating hate speech when you use that phrase so please stop doing that. Will you stop? Or will you keep using the phrase and gaslight young men by saying "this is not offensive" when they find it offensive. You're telling men they aren't offended by feminist hate speech. They are. Now how do you think they see you when you are gaslighting them like this?

But I try to console myself with the notion that a lot of vicious anti-feminist rhetoric exists because such men are upset, and feel resentful over assumptions being made about them... not because they truly hate women

You are the one pushing these young men to hate women. It's you. Because you absolutely refuse to distance yourself from the hate movement and instead defend it by gaslighting them. I would like to tell these young men that their issue isn't with women but rather with feminism, a political movement consisting of some women and also some men. You make that harder by making it look like all women whether they hate men or not, call themselves feminists. You refuse to distance yourself so it's only rational that these young men see all women represented by the feminist hate. And honestly it's hard for me to tell them they are wrong when as far as I can see the only reason you stick with feminism is because, yes, you really do hate men on some level. At the very least to the extent that you have no problem associating with a hate movement. You see the hate, but you stick with the movement anyway. What does that say about you?

I am a defensive person myself and have faced some trauma in the past, particularly from my father

One man? One man attacked you and you're saying that's an excuse to generalize to all men? These young men are getting attacked by feminism a movement of great power representing millions of women. Not one woman. Do you see the difference?

Many of the authority figures in my life are male, and men are typically much bigger, louder, and physically stronger than I am

Young men often live with a single mother who is bigger and stronger. They go to school which is also an all woman environment. Did your school have no female teachers? I really doubt you had their experience. And how many of your male authority figures were members of a hate movement attacking your sex explicitly? How many daily told you that all women are rapists or whatever? Another poll form the UK found that most boys realize that adults think girls are better than boys by the time they are eight years old. That's a poll not an anecdote. Girls realized adults think girls are better than boys by about four years old. So I figure you've known that yourself for a long time.

Stop gaslighting men. You DO NOT HAVE the issues men have. Men are oppressed and women are not. Stop trying to lie to men about their lived experience. It's completely different. They won't believe your lies over their own lived experience and they'll just see "oh another feminist hating on men"

I am not going to specifically talk about the concept of patriarchy

Good because that's more hate speech. Oh but you can't help yourself and talk about it anyway. You repeat a bunch of feminist lies. Why do you repeat the lies of the hate mongers if you pretend you're not like them? I think you repeat their hate slogans and lies because you're just like them. Why do you say you do it?

I believe power dynamics originating in of our historical past (think first wave feminism in US and before), do still favor men's interests. After all, the right to vote didn't exist in the USA until 1920 for (predominantly white) women, 1952 for first generation Asian-American women, and 1965 for black women

The Nazis said the same things about the Jews. They made up stories about how Aryans had been oppressed by a secret Jewish organization called ZOG. Feminists have lied about history for a century. If you really want the truth (and I don't think you do) we can talk about all that historic stuff separately, but what is the purpose of talking about the past? It's bigotry. You're saying because men in the past did bad things that means young men today who had nothing to do with whatever your grandfather got up to -- need to pay for those men's "sins" --- sins that are just lies anyway of course but even if it were true, what the HELL has any of that got to do with young men today?

It does upset me when people try deny ripple effects of history

Translation: "I believe men today must be punished for what I falsely believe MY male ancestors did to THEIR female ancestors"

That's the mentality of a hate monger. You are saying all men must be punished for the "sins" of men in the past. It's irrational even if the sins existed. It's classic bigotry logic.

in reality, feminism has never been about hatred and division.

In reality it always has been. You don't know any history.

I hope anyone who has read this far can understand that feminists can see toxic aspects within our own movement

Oh we know you see the hate. You just don't do anything about it and continue to support the feminist movement anyway. We interpret that as you being anti-male whereas you don't see any problem with it, that's the difference.

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

So my life experience is thereby entirely wrong, simply because it is not the same as yours/young men's? I literally described how I was abused in my own home, by my parent (and how I learned about misandry from this). You didn't mention that women have lived experiences too, even once. There is no "victim" group here, people of all genders experience trauma. This is exactly why we need intersectionality. Our experiences overlap more than you realize.

But before that discussion, how fucking dare you compare me (a Jewish woman) to a NAZI. Seriously? That is sick. I'm sorry, but I am not lying about history. Feminism cannot be compared to mass genocide (carried out by...mostly men).

Your commentary is purely extrapolation, I didn't express any of the viewpoints you mention, you are creating a false narrative.

You can fact-check every date I shared. Each one corresponds to legislation that can be found in the US legal record (19th amendment in 1920, the Immigration & Nationality Act in 1952, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act). It is not revisionist, it all happened whether you would care to acknowledge it or not..

I expressed in my response that men's issues are unique, valid and need to be discussed alongside women's issues. I expressed that feminism absolutely has problems, especially around language/communication, as well as racist origins that intersectional feminism is addressing (https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination).

The words sin, hatred, anti-male and punishment did not appear in my comment. I never said radical feminists are anti-equality (equality of the sexes is the definition of feminism, if you don't support it you're not a feminist), only that radicalized feminists are problematic for various reasons. I specifically said I am against "all men"-type statements, that overgeneralize and portray men in any sort of dishonest/negative light.

I am trying hard to express that I am literally on the same side as you guys.

"...I cannot think of men's issues without my brothers and other men in my life that I love and respect coming to mind. I only want the best for them, and hope they would want the same for me. "

I want the best for all of you. I said that I have men in my life that I love & respect, and how I keep them in mind when I speak about feminism. I am against misandry and misogyny. I acknowledge that criminals are criminals (of all genders), and that the overwhelming majority of men are good and decent people, hence why less broad language ought to be used when discussing women's issues, so as to not come across as an accusation of all men. The same goes for men talking about feminists.

But you are cherrypicking pieces of my comment and leaving out where I express that I am actually on your side/only want equality. Just so we are clear:

"I grew up with two amazing older brothers, and do not like to hear blanket statements that variously claim all men are sexist pigs and otherwise bad (especially those that are just conjecture, that is just pure misandry). I also do not like rhetoric that denies the existence men's issues, and treats discourse as though men's and women's issues are somehow mutually exclusive.

Many, many feminists (the majority I've ever known and I believe the honest majority, despite what the media claims) share my outlook. True feminism is all about equality, rejecting misogyny/misandry and doesn't leave men behind. But again, I don't feel this is at all the REAL majority and that the media gives a false impression of this."

I came here for a civil conversation and to demonstrate that feminists are not evil & can support men's interests and issues, not to be called names. If you cannot accept that feminism is not the same as misandry (just like how men's rights advocacy is not the same as misogyny), then we will never make progress. I'm so sick of this thread and will not be commenting again, congratulations.

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

How dare you compare me (a Jewish woman) to a NAZI

You act like one. Why do you do that is the better question surely? Of course a lot of Jews did co-operate with the Nazis, just as many men are feminists.

I am not lying about history

Because you're ignorant? Ignorance is not an excuse if you keep pretending you do have knowledge. You are lying about history.

You can fact-check

I've been researching this stuff for over twenty years and here you come gaslighting me as if I was some newbie who never heard anything. When that's YOU.

I am literally on the same side as you guys.

You're not. Stop gaslighting men. You're a feminist and part of a hate movement.

I want the best for all of you

That's a lie. Apart from anything else if you wanted the best for men you'd condemn the feminist hate movement. Instead you defend it. Stop gaslighting men. Stop "femsplaining" men's lived experience to them as if you knew a damn thing about it.

I said that I have men in my life that I love & respect

You don't respect them because you're a feminist.

I am against misandry

You're part of an anti-male hate movement.

you are cherrypicking pieces of my comment and leaving out where I express that I am actually on your side

I'm showing you (and everyone else here) that you are contradicting your claims to want equality.

ETA:

So my life experience is thereby entirely wrong

You don't have any life experience as a man

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

And now I'm being likened to a religious nut. Seriously?

Your "views" on my commentary are invalid because they are not true. You can have those opinions about other feminists, but I made it explicitly clear what I believe and what I do not believe in. Misandry is something I am vehemently against.

I am speaking for myself ("I" only), which I can do. I want I want the best for men. My brothers are the only family I have since we lost our mother almost 20 years ago and are some of the best people I know. I thankfully know what good men look like because I had the two of them looking out for me growing up. I want to look out for them too.

I said that it is my opinion/observation that most women I know feel similarly to me, I wasn't speaking for anyone nor did I ever claim to. Feminism is very fragmented these days and no one can speak for everyone.

If you can't accept that I agree with men's rights, then you have some serious issues.

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WideVermicelli9 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trapezemaster -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]erilaz123[S] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]trapezemaster -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]trapezemaster 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

“Apparently”….also, this news is from a long time ago and about a small group of outliers.

Outliers? How?

The political group they started is not based on “kill men”, that’s just something a few of them said

Well, that is feminist equality, even without the hashtag.

I keep seeing news from Sweden. For example, the Swedish colleges gave advantages to 'underrepresented' groups, primarily women. When women became the majority and men started asking for the advantages they were due, the program was stopped.

Feminist grade schools are teaching girls to spit and act like boys normally do and boys are made to act like girls normally do.

The feminist idea is that prostitution should be legal buy buying sex should be illegal. Of course, this makes the primarily male patronage criminal.

I've not seen any sign that feminism in Sweden or any of the Nordic countries is any different from feminism in the US today. So what can I say, I find your claim of 'outlier' suspect.

[–]trapezemaster 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You don’t have to suspect it, you can find me some evidence of a large movement of feminists saying the want to kill men, then I might start to take that seriously. I know lots of feminists. I’m a man, and a feminist. I don’t know any of them who want to kill anyone. The desire for murder is rare among humans, let alone in movements who’s aim is to level the playing field. Yes, that might give women privilege for a period of time…I’m personally ok with that and it negatively impacts me, but I’m doing ok. Until there is equal gender representation in all areas of the world, we can assume that’s the result of centuries of men deliberately excluding women from positions of power and certain jobs.

No one wants to kill us for our gender. You’re probably thinking about trans people, maybe should be concerned about them. They ARE getting killed by people who think they should all die just for being who they are. Men who were born with male anatomy do not have that same problem. People might want to kill us for different reasons - domestic abusers and total shitbags like that get killed, but not for just being a man. They get killed for being shitbags.

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The desire for murder is rare among humans,

The hashtag #killallmen disagrees with you.

Until there is equal gender representation in all areas of the world

Who says that things should be like that. And there is never a sunset clause on the anti-male sexism feminism creates and supports. That alone proves that their 'representation' claims are whole cloth lies.

No one wants to kill us for our gender.

Valerie Solanis and Andy Worhall would like a word with you.

Men who were born with male anatomy do not have that same problem.

Tell that to the millions of men and even underage boys who died in WW2 thanks to the feminist 'white feather' campaign.

People might want to kill us for different reasons

As near as I can tell, you're claiming that...

Men kill women just because they are women.
Women do not kill men bacause they are men.

Sounds like you could have been one of the authors of the Duluth Model.

The seems something like your assertion...

Duluth is predicated on the "patriarchal terrorism" paradigm of partner violence. That is, men beat their female partners in order to assert masculine dominance within their relationships. Their motives are to conform to patriarchal norms and to reify a the patriarchal social/political/cultural order of male dominance and female subordination within the home.
Under this faulty model, women cannot, as a conceptual matter, perpetrate partner abuse. If they hit their male partners, it was in self defense. If they hit first, or are the only partner who hits, they are doing it within the context of "violent resistance" against presumed emotional or psychological abuse on his part.

[–]trapezemaster -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Tigarana -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with your point that the term "equalist" is more correct. I personally consider myself a feminist as I fight for the injustice I see happening to me (a woman) and women around me. But I would also consider myself an equalist and support men's rights (hence why I follow this sub to learn more).

How I see it is like this: There are some issues unique to women imo (reproductive rights, lack of credibility in health care, unsafety/sexual harassment), for which I will stand up.

Some issues impact both sexes, but differently, e.g. expectation that woman stays home to take care of children while man needs to work. I think fighting for change can help both genders

And some issues impact predominantly men, e.g. incarceration, war. Which I have no personal experience with.

I've seen that sometimes feminists get blamed for picking up women oriented problems, but I (as a woman) find it very difficult to bud into male issues. For one, men have the power there to change things (much more than I feel I have as a woman), plus I don't have the personal experience. All of these things make it (in my opinion) more difficult to fight for those "male-oriented" problems.

[+]Wood-lily -15 points-14 points-13 points 4 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

I guess I’m into equality too, but I’m a woman, so I guess that makes me a feminist, but I’m really just into love and peace and hard work.

I think the issue is what we value and allow each gender to perform in society.

We obviously value soldiers because we pay them. Do we pay mothers to raise children?

I think the most women can do in society is hurt men’s feelings and make them feel left out. They don’t actually have to global economic power or representation to enact change, so arguing with them is kind of pointless until they or you get the point that the whole point of both gender debates is that everybody just wants to feel equally compensated, appreciated, validated, and safe from physical harm. We all want fairness.

You have to understand where someone is coming from and their personal narrative to understand why they feel strongly about a subject. That gives you context for understanding. It also gives you context to empathize and help that person chart healthier paths if their anger is misdirected, say, at an entire population of men rather than the one man or multiple men who hurt her or someone she loved.

It may be helpful to remind her, if the issue is sexual assault, that it is society’s normalizing and ignoring or sweeping child sexual abuse under the rug and urging victims to stay silent and have shame that has caused the anger. Not the collective “all men” myth so many people believe.

Edited for shitty grammar

[–]TextDependent6779 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

but I’m a woman, so I guess that makes me a feminist

hey, just cause you're a woman, doesn't mean you have to be a feminist.

They don’t actually have to global economic power or representation to enact change

feminism has been making changes for decades. lile NOW going against default 50/50 custody. i think what you meant to say was that individual women don't have the power to enact changes, just like us! women as a collective have made changes.

hell, even some women individually can start taking steps towards equality. if mothers would stop mutilating their children upon birth, it would be a huge step of progress.

help that person chart healthier paths if their anger is misdirected, say, at an entire population of men rather than the one man or multiple men who hurt her or someone she loved.

but when a man's anger is misplaced at all women? i don't see people stepping up to understand misogynists. in fact, i see people actively arguing they shouldn't give sympathy.

[–]bottleblank 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

I think the most women can do in society is hurt men’s feelings and make them feel left out.

Ah yes, the good old "men are afraid that women will laugh at them, women are afraid that men will kill them".

Or "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". Pick your poison.

In either case, have you heard of incels? Allow me to introduce you. These are men who have been made fun of, insulted, had their feelings hurt, and certainly been left out. A lot. By women, by girls, by men, by boys, by parents, by teachers, by society, by media.

Those very same incels that the world is suddenly now so scared of, so far in fact that many want them branded terrorists.

I don't consider that just "hurt[ing] men's feelings" or "mak[ing] them feel left out".

I consider that a miscarriage of social justice.

[–]WildWitch0306 -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

Hmmmm incels are like radical feminists in that they are very quick to blame others for their misfortunes in life rather than looking in the mirror and wondering if maybe there’s a personality flaw somewhere. Nobody- even men- are guaranteed to get laid or have a romantic partner. We all ( well, most folks) want that, but we aren’t guaranteed it. If you’re an obese neck beard with bad hygiene who lives in his mom’s basement then yeah.. you might have some dating problems. Hell, my 400 lb( not exaggerating here people) loser brother in law somehow gets laid and I don’t even understand the mechanics of how that’s even possible. So it’s not like your physical appearance is an automatic deal-breaker for sex or romantic relationships. If you are consistently alone/involuntarily celebrate/ cant keep a partner it’s probably an indicator of some personality flaws.

But men or women.. nobody can make your life awful/bad/whatever unless you allow them to. Blaming another gender ( on either side) for all one’s woes just tells me they’re a weak, oblivious individual who can’t realize that maybe they are in fact the biggest issue in their lives.

[–]bottleblank 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch0306 -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Punder_man 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch0306 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m a bigot against…. Whom? I know that’s a fun buzzword to use when someone says something you disagree with but it is neither true, nor applicable in this instance.

Im sincerely very sorry that happened to you. You will never meet a more heartfelt supporter of victims- female and male- of abuse than me. I myself am a survivor. So it is with heartfelt empathy and understanding that I encourage you to seek psychiatric therapy to unpack your childhood traumas. You dont have to carry all that with you forever. I know it’s far easier to isolate and hate the world, but that path goes nowhere my friend. You are capable of having relationships that are healthy, if not “normal”.( Whatever “normal” is supposed to look like). You just have to do a little self-work so that you can break down those walls and let people in.

I really hope you consider finding a therapist you click with and working through your stuff. I’m rooting for you.

[–]bottleblank 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Oh, yeah, cool, the autistic guy who spent 25 years of his life being ignored, bullied, abused, and wrapped in cotton wool so he couldn't go anywhere or do anything, meet anyone or learn anything, well, I guess he can just spring fully formed from his parents' care, drop into the nearest bar, and make a bunch of friends!

Perhaps he'll meet a woman there too, who absolutely won't reject him as being "creepy", socially inadequate, desperate, inexperienced, or needy, because everybody's so accepting of men who have been left behind!

He'll surely be able to woo her with the wealth he's amassed from the excellent job he has, based on his wonderful and highly productive school experience and wad of qualifications!

Wait, no, sorry, the other thing. I meant to say "he's pretty fucked and you know it".

[–]WildWitch0306 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

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

From a survey conducted on a major incel forum in 2019:

Do you suffer from autism? 25.9% Yes
Do you suffer from depression in a constant manner? 59.4% Yes
Do you suffer from anxiety, stress, or emotional distress in a constant manner? 74.4% Yes
Have you ever considered suicide in a serious manner? 67.5% Yes
Have you considered suicide in a serious manner in the future if "things don't change"? 69.5% Yes
Do you believe you have missed "developmental milestones" that other people have naturally been able to experience? 94.9% Yes

Do you have friends? 50.7% No
Are you happy? 85.8% No
Are you optimistic about your future? 73.5% No

Top 5 reasons respondents believed they had trouble finding a partner:

Appearance (86.6%)
Self-confidence, social anxiety, etc. (72.3%)
Lifestyle (e.g., too much time indoors) (67%)
Physique (i.e., weight/muscle) (56.8%)
Status (e.g., wealth, job, perceived "power") (56%)

[–]WildWitch0306 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]bottleblank 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don’t necessarily disbelieve you. I’m simply stating to continue to live in such a way is a choice. There’s mental health resources( covered even under Medicaid and available through apps and via telehealth) and there are also ways to connect to other like-minded, similar individuals of either gender. People don’t have to live a shit life. But it’s easier to be angry and blame other people. I simply think many of these folks would benefit from a hardcore introspection, and ditching the stigma that “real men” don’t get mental health help. Because yes the fuck they do. And that’s great. Hopefully more follow suit.

Edit: That is not me saying all men need mental health help or that anyone that does need it needs it because he’s a man. I would like that made abundantly clear. Somewhere along the line, the same boneheads that came up with “men cant be raped,” and “men cant be victim of domestic abuse,” came up with “real men don’t get mental health help.” Which is bullshit.

[–]bottleblank2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It sure as shit isn't easy to be angry and blame other people, and there are often very legitimate reasons for being angry at other people.

The 2020 version of that poll, which I just added to the previous comment, shows that 70.8% of respondents were bullied at school. I'd say that's pretty statistically significant. Now, you can argue that "other people were bullied at school too, and they didn't turn into incels", and you'd be right. But what their disposition was, what support they had, and how bad the bullying was, isn't specified.

The point I'm getting at is that what you're saying is effectively equivalent to "depressed? just cheer up, problem solved!". It's not easy to seek help, it's not easy to get help, it's not easy to find the right help, and that's not the victim's fault.

You can be as positive-thinking as you like, "just go out and meet friends", "just make a bit more effort to jazz up your wardrobe", "just get fit", "just go see a therapist", like those are somehow answers to a complex soup of horrible, horrible emotions and scars caused by many other people, over many years.

These men are introspective. Introspective enough to know that they're seriously lacking the tools to go out there and make a life, the way we were told we should, as men, as boys, for a long, long time. It was true for me 30 years ago, it's true for the early-20s incels now. You've no idea how much introspection goes on, how much searching for answers, how deep you dig in your own brain, how much you try to reprocess everything that went on, over and over, to try and find the key to not feeling utterly miserable any more. They know exactly what hurts, they face it every single day.

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bottleblank2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And it’s a choice to not be relentless in the pursuit of a professional you click with.

In an ideal world, sure. But, if I might borrow a concept from the mental health (and autism) world, let's talk "spoons".

"Spoons", for anyone unfamiliar, are a measure of mental (and/or physical) energy a person with a chronic health issue has. A visual representation of how much effort that person can spare that day to get things done.

If you have insufficient "spoons" to get up, wash, get dressed, make food, and so forth, you're certainly not going to have enough to, say, make an appointment with a doctor, or attend one.

Especially if you suffer severe anxiety, as many of those incels (and many autistic people) do. It's a struggle to use a telephone, it's a struggle to engage in conversations with people, it's a struggle to trust people, it's a struggle to request help, it's a struggle to allow yourself to be placed in the care of somebody who may control you.

So it's not just personal choice, no. It's not a "character flaw". It can be the very real, very damaging result of severe physical or mental illness. I don't disagree that somebody in that position needs help, but to suggest that anybody can just get up and do it, because it's the right thing to do, is unrealistic.

People don't choose to be chronically depressed, or chronically anxious, or paralysed by mental and/or physical health. It comes with the territory.

[–]IceCorrect1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IceCorrect1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IceCorrect1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WildWitch03061 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bottleblank1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Evidently it wasn't just me, though, was it? Communities of thousands of men feel the same, and that's just the ones who identify as incels, and those poll results cover only the ones who responded. A decent sample size of many hundreds, as I understand it, but not everybody.

This appears to be a growing, dare I say it, societal problem. I don't think telling me to think a little more positively and pull myself up by my bootstraps is going to solve it.

You're right, I am emotionally invested. Because I don't want those men to live in misery or commit suicide because nobody cared to listen to them, or take their issues seriously, or engage with them in a way that made any sense to them. Something many other people seem entirely content to watch happen, in addition to actively insulting and banning them, furthering the problem and justifying what those incels believe to be true.

Edit: I should add, while I remember, that a lot of these men have trust issues (for fairly obvious reasons) and are reluctant to let rip to a medical professional because they expect to get sent away with platitudes or (as they see it) meaningless homework like meditation, or further abused, disbelieved, disregarded. They don't feel that the existing help is suitable for their problem as psychologists and psychiatrists are not generally trained to understand these issue, or, as far as I understand it, men in general.

I wish I'd said that earlier, I'm actively trying to make an effort to be more direct in explaining why men suffer the problems they suffer, not just "it hurts, of course they're mad".

[–]Wood-lily -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]bottleblank 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

WHY do people have such an inability to understand that, just as women claim that men do to them, humans are influenced by their surroundings?

A woman is allowed to say that she's bitter and angry at men because they mistreated her, abused her, caused her misery.

Why is a man not allowed to express the same? Why can he not find himself in an unpleasant mental state at the hands of others, who he could not control, mistreating and abusing him? Why is he not allowed to be disappointed or distressed at constantly being left out of social activities, shunned, disregarded, treated as an outcast?

Do you not think that a formative life of being ostracised and refused social inclusion of any kind is going to influence your opinion of who you are and who other people are, when it wasn't your fault and you didn't even understand why?

Social interaction, acceptance, community, companionship, intimacy - these are all things that we, as humans, seek. We feel physical pain when denied them. Loneliness too has a physical toll, said to be equal to that of a daily smoker. You can't just decide on your own to "be social", you must be accepted by others in order to do that. You can't gain practice in it, you can't experience it, you can't enjoy it, as long as nobody else allows you to.

This, in later life, puts you at a disadvantage, one that many will pick up on in your awkwardness and inexperience. You can't fix that on your own, and if everybody around you is rejecting your attempts to learn, to be included, to join in the fun, you're screwed, and eventually you realise that.

If you choose to be alone, that's one thing. Being forced to be alone, and society continuing to enforce that for years to come because you're socially inadequate, that's entirely another.

[–]Wood-lily -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Anyone who still feels this way as an adult; I would hope they first seek self acceptance and love, because they have been through a lot, and deserve compassion.

I would hope this love would give them the understanding that, as an adult, we get to choose who we surround ourselves with and who we don’t. As adults, We are equipped with the armor of knowledge and wisdom that We previously lacked.

What social activities does this person want to attend and why is he being shunned from them and treated as an outcast by these people? Who are these people exactly?

All I can say is I I can sense the pain in your writing, I believe what you are saying is 100% true, I know that it hurts, and I had a childhood that felt very similar. It freaking sucked feeling powerless and out of control.

I can only have love for me, and that draws other people in. I reach out to others as friends. Sometimes they accept and they introduce me to new friends. I’m not afraid of rejection because I understand other people have different preferences and time availabilities. This goes for both men and women.

The dreams society has for me are not always in line with the dreams I have for myself. I made the decision to live my life unabashedly me. I suffered for venturing outside the norm too much, so in public I mostly just put on the mask of civility, but I do have a sticker. I only respect the personal dignity of people who respect my personal dignity.

The truth is that nobody gets or gives affection in adulthood. It’s something you have to have for yourself before you can have it from others. And you have to work hard as hell loving yourself despite all the crap, but know there’s a lot there to love. A person with talents, abilities, qualities, and a core essence that others would find beautiful.

I hate that women know they have society’s approval to be emotional and men don’t. And I hate that some women play the card they are dealt to their advantage and twist their words like a knife in some men.

I know every person deserves all the things you’ve listed.

I wish I could hug all of them.

[–]bottleblank 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

I would hope this love would give them the understanding that, as an adult, we get to choose who we surround ourselves with and who we don’t. As adults, We are equipped with the armor of knowledge and wisdom that We previously lacked.

It's very difficult to "love yourself" if you've never been given the chance to think of yourself as anything other than a waste of DNA and oxygen, which is something that can and will happen under conditions of prolonged exposure to such negativity. If all you've ever heard said about yourself is that you're not worth being around, that you're creepy, you're weird, you're stupid - that makes a mark, and it's very difficult to erase.

It's true that as an adult (at least in theory) you can choose to surround yourself with the people you think best suit you, but many people don't do that even when they have the option, and many of those who haven't had the option continue to not have that option because they still don't have social experience.

Again it comes down to socialising and relationships being a two-way street - you can't magic one out of thin air just because you want one or think you're ready for one, somebody has to validate that desire, that need, by allowing you that closeness with them. Whether romance or simply friendship, that can be difficult to come by, especially for men, and increasingly so the older you get, as people have their own friend groups already, and are pairing off with new partners to settle down and have families. Priorities change, and if you haven't had the opportunity to do your learning and exploration, you don't really get that chance again.

All I can say is I I can sense the pain in your writing, I believe what you are saying is 100% true, I know that it hurts, and I had a childhood that felt very similar. It freaking sucked feeling powerless and out of control.

I had a significant chunk of adulthood stuck in much the same conditions too. See above, re: increasingly difficult the older you get. But I appreciate your recognition of the experiences I'm describing.

I’m not afraid of rejection because I understand other people have different preferences and time availabilities. This goes for both men and women.

It's true that the person you're trying to befriend or form a relationship with may simply not be the right person, you may be incompatible, that's fine. But constant rejection forms an expectation and, again as mentioned earlier, a difficulty in exercising experience to gain better results. Of course nobody wants to be around an emotionally immature, socially awkward, unaware man as an adult. Especially a woman. I understand that. But if it hadn't been such a problem right from the starting line, if people had been more accepting, those skills could've been developed. They weren't, however, because that's not how growing up works.

So when it comes to working out why you've not been successful as an adult, all you have to go on is "nobody liked me as a kid, I'm trying now as an adult and people still seem to ditch me or not invite me, I don't understand, they don't tell me why, so I must be the problem". That's the very foundation of inceldom. Torn between hating oneself for being inadequate and broken, and hating society for making you that way and for rejecting what they created. I understand that there's not much empathy for incels and I understand why (at least I understand the given reasons why). But this is the root of it, and why we need to be doing better in supporting men who are in this position - so they don't spiral down into a self-destructive self-abusing hermit.

Further, there's little to no decent mental health or social learning support available, especially to adults, and especially to men. You might get lucky if you're an autistic child and find some medical support service able to help for a while, but after that - well, good luck buddy, you're on your own. Worse still, people - and indeed society as a whole - will insult you for your condition, compounding the issues.

I made the decision to live my life unabashedly me.

So did I, eventually, but it took me decades of misery to get there, and I'm still unable to truly do it on account of having to try and unpick those same decades of abuse and controlling behaviour, of loneliness and distress, of confusion and anger. At this point, I'm me, I'm unlikely to be anything else, and so I must embrace what "me" is. But "being me" doesn't solve the lack of socialisation or intimacy, those are innate and powerful needs, I can't rationalise them away by being good at hobbies or having an interest in some particular media.

The truth is that nobody gets or gives affection in adulthood.

Clearly some do, or at least a pretty realistic simulation of it. Many people are in happy relationships, many people have good, long-term friends. Not everybody, and not necessarily that many friends, but there are examples. However, that (if I might repeat myself again) is often influenced by having positive experiences as a younger person, to build experience, confidence, to understand how relationships work, and what you want to get out of them or give to someone else.

A person with talents, abilities, qualities, and a core essence that others would find beautiful.

This sounds good, but doesn't necessarily play out in practice. In fact it's considered a heinous lie by many who find themselves lonely, because it implies some Disney-like ending where the good guy/girl gets the happy ever after, because they were strong and virtuous and pretty and smart. It's a crap shoot. It's not like that in real life, you're not guaranteed success no matter how much effort you put into relationships or self-improvement. That's not to say it's not worthwhile or that you shouldn't do it, but it's really not true to suggest that becoming somebody you love, or becoming some sort of ideal, is indicative of future social accomplishments.

I wish I could hug all of them.

So do they. Well, actually that's sort of complicated because they don't like the idea of sharing. Also some with autism or histories of being abused aren't super stoked about touch.

But, uh, the thought was there, and I'm sure they... acknowledge that. Probably.

[–]Wood-lily 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Bottleblank. We used to be the same. I was you. I know you. I see you. I understand you. I feel you.

You are not what anybody has said about you. You are better. If you believe and perpetuate the lies others have told you against yourself, then you’re no better than they are.

It’s not fair, and it’s harder than anything most people will ever have to deal with, but it’s the reality you live in, and it’s what you have to do.

But there is a reason to do it. A very good reason. It’s because people aren’t born bad, they are usually made that way by society or others who mistreat them. So you can rest assured your tormentors have been tormented in a similar way- they wouldn’t be doing it to you if they hadn’t experienced it themselves.

So have compassion for those who hurt you. Even though they don’t deserve it now- they were a scared child once too who went through a crappy life and when they grew up they didn’t even know what they were doing was wrong or maybe they had been too hurt by life by that point that they quit caring about other people.

And if you can have compassion for them, then give it to yourself, and make the decision to stop the cycle. That is within your control.

I think it’s rational and reasonable to disavow relationships if you are happier single. It hurts me to know people out there are choosing to be single to avoid further pain rather than loving being alone.

I also think any violence that results from one’s own pain is just piling more hurt onto more hurt which will cause more hurt for other children and their children’s children. Even when it’s justified it’s never justified.

Can I just ask, who were you at 5, what activities did you like?

[–]bottleblank 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for the moral support. Although I should say that I'm not really here for me - well, I am, but more in terms of me as a part of men as a collective. I somehow had it in me to survive this stuff long enough to start coming out the other side, but many men don't.

That is why I tell my story here. That is why I stand up for incels.

I've made it this far, and trying though it is to fight to make something out of this wreckage of a life I've been left to salvage, I still have some sliver of hope to nourish and the resolve not to let the bastards win. No thanks to the feminists who seek to destroy men like me, but I can't do much about that.

But there are men out there who aren't coping, just like I wasn't coping years ago. There are men who have died, or will die, because nobody took them seriously, nobody listened, nobody cared. If I'm able to open up and explain what I went through, and how that felt, and why it was a problem, maybe somebody can take that and build something from it.

Maybe somebody will understand that men aren't just stoic rock sculptures who exist only to pester women for the use of their genitals. Maybe somebody will stop and think before broadly insulting an entire gender, or some socially-detested sub-group formed into something they never wanted to be. Maybe somebody will understand that, despite the common narrative, men do feel things and have deeper needs, and are not immune to the side-effects of being human.

We don't disavow relationships because we want to be single. We feel locked out, unable to compete, lost on the route about a mile out from the place we all started, while everybody else is half way across the country. Quite literally, sometimes, if the few people you did get to know went off to university. But I digress. It's not a dislike for relationships, it's not a hate for women, but an existential realisation that we're probably never going to be able to share our lives with people we care about. Because nobody cares about us enough to allow us to experience that.

Can I just ask, who were you at 5, what activities did you like?

Odd question, but from what little I remember, and remember hearing about my childhood, I was pretty happy to be left at pre-school or school to go about whatever we were doing, I assume happy enough to try and socialise. I remember being interested in playing the keyboard as a kid, drawing, playing with Lego. The usual sort of things. But the bullying started pretty early, not long after 5 actually, so... make of that what you will.

[–]Wood-lily 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bottleblank 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wood-lily 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Wood-lily 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceCorrect 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wood-lily1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IceCorrect1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

You describe our human needs very eloquently. I am autistic and understand being isolated. I have also experienced a great deal of rejection form the opposite sex. However, I do not blame men or society for my rejection, I blame the specific individuals who rejected me and them alone.

I can understand the necessaity for incel spaces to exist, and support men being vulnerable about their feelings. I don't agree with any feminist who tries to debate that incels have an inherent right to exist. But what I will stand by is that incel forums have been breeding grounds for very harmful ideas, and have damaged many young men by taking advantage of their ostacization. They are conditioned to believe women at large are superficial and otherwise to blame for the actions of the individuals who hurt them.

Extremist incels are a serious problem. Their lack of insight, apparent objectification/entitlement to women's bodies (I would say they also objectify men's bodies too at times, since physical traits are a common topic of discussion) and frequent promotion of deeply misogynistic power structures under the guise of "tradition" is frankly repulsive.

Things get taken to dangerous extremes. And for what? "Catastrophization" is a real psychological phenomenon, often seen by individuals who have been through significant trauma. They have been given reason to believe that only their lives will never change for the better, and that their rejection will only continue. Contrapoints talks about this in the video she made on incels, in a way that really resonated with me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD2briZ6fB0&t=1639s ). If you have 35 minutes and an open mind, she has a critical but I think deeply sympathetic view on the issues.

Pain gives rise to anger, which when unresolved can gives rise to further discrimination (in this case, misogyny...no one can deny that a lot of seriously derogatory language is used) and even violence (several perpetrators of mass gun-violence that have made headlines in recent year have had incel ties).

The same thing occurs within other groups, including radicalized feminists. Women do crazy shit when they are hurt. You just don't hear about it as often in the media. There are innumerable reasons for it, but I think we can all acknowledge that most feminists are women and we tend to commit different types of crimes on average (i.e violent vs nonviolent).

None of this is to say incels need to be "silenced". Quite the opposite. I just think there need to better ways to support these young men, promote love & acceptance at all levels and prevent harm.

[–]bottleblank 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe the "extremist incel" problem is that significant. I really don't think there are that many men (yet) who are far enough gone that they would do genuine harm.

But even assuming there were, my position is that we need to stop focussing on how much of a problem that is and how they deserve all the crap they get thrown at them, because that perpetuates and exacerbates the lack of empathy - empathy that we need to try and resolve this.

I understand your points, which I want to make clear - I do understand why people find them concerning and why women think that these men are what they think they are. But I also want to make clear that they didn't just happen in a vacuum, they weren't just born evil, and the reversal of this trend won't happen in a vacuum either, nor will it happen by beating them with a stick some more.

To focus too much on, or to keep reinforcing how problematic this situation is (specifically with the incels themselves as the cause, rather than the symptom), is to completely miss the point and make it much more difficult to come to some kind of amicable and productive solution to it.

[–]sparklepuff97 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well put. It doesn't happen in a vacuum (every person's story is unique) and it is definitely hard to understand the real scope of the problem. I agree that there likely are not many truly bad seeds (i.e. those who would resort to violence), I think it is because of the media coverage that the problem feels inflated.

I do not believe women are the sole root of the phenomenon (we aren't all a bunch of bimbos looking for the Chaddiest Chad, and we have issues of our own that infringe on forming relationships), I think it is systemic. It is hard to distill it down to all of its causative factors.

Regardless, incels need their spaces and I do hope an amicable solution can be reached. I have empathy for anyone who is ostracized (especially over one's appearance/etc.), having been through that myself.

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

I don't think women, exclusively or entirely, caused this problem. But I do think many contributed to it, and still contribute to it now, perhaps more than ever.

You can go back decades and see movie and TV show portrayals of the nerdy kid in high-school getting picked on by boys, degraded and rejected by girls, and for boys who experienced that it was bad enough back then. But now it's extended far beyond high-school, well into the period where those (now) men might have had a chance to recover from their bad experiences. It already sets you back to have had your social learning time sullied and denied to you, but at least in your late teens and early twenties you might've been able to make up for lost time.

With the internet, with media, with governments all singing the same anti-male tune, I don't think those wounds can heal nearly as quickly, if they ever do at all. I think they're constantly re-opened by the hardcore (but somehow mainstream) feminist rhetoric that seems to have become commonplace in places you wouldn't likely have found it before. How do you process being a victim when you're told it was all your fault, by everything, everybody, everywhere?

Even beyond the "officially sanctioned" anti-male messages, we have large, or at least very loud, groups of people online who are quite happy to throw slurs like "incel" around and to point out that any man who utters a word about being in an unfortunate mental space or having issues with extreme feminist messaging must be some kind of monster. Anybody who stands up for them also gets a piece, for sympathising with so-called criminals and misogynists, and "enabling" them.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it is definitely hard to understand the real scope of the problem

It's not that hard. We have opinion polling. We have things like the Twitter hash tag "KillAllMen" becoming a trending hash tag which indicates it's popularity. We have the fact that feminists started using "KAM" instead of "KillAllMen" because they had to type out "KillAllMen" so many times they needed to shorten it from 10 characters to 3. We have the enduring popularity of obvious anti-male hate speech by memes spread on fb and high sales of tracts like "The Society For Cutting Up Men" or other leading anti-male books, ideology and leaders in the movement.

There's a mountain of evidence and even you yourself admit feminism contain hate.

But then you say we should just ignore all that and feminism means equality because {no reasons}

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We obviously value soldiers because we pay them.

Male and female soldiers.

Do we pay mothers to raise children?

Normally the father pays for the mother to raise the child.

But let's look at public expenditures...

For welfare, for which mostly only women or women with children are eligible...

https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/public-welfare-expenditures
How much do state and local governments spend on public welfare?
In 2019, state and local governments spent $744 billion on public welfare, or 22 percent of direct general spending.2 As a share of direct general state and local spending, public welfare was the largest expenditure in 2019. It was the second-largest expenditure from 1977 to 2014,

Hmmm, what was spent on the armed forces in 2019?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Budget for FY2019
For FY2019, the Department of Defense's budget authority was $693,058,000,000 (Including Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority).

So it looks like in 2019 $744 billion was spent on social welfare for primarily women and women with children and $693 Billion on military spending, which above and beyond buying tanks and planes includes the salaries of female and male soldiers.

Looks like more is spent on women and children to me.

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wood-lily 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wood-lily 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wood-lily 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wood-lily 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wood-lily 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Wood-lily 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

From a reproductive standpoint in my state, yes, but I think society in general discourages emotional expression in boys and discourages many other behaviors and occupations and hobbies traditionally seen as feminine or not objectively masculine. So I think men have less socially acceptable ways to express themselves and less socially acceptability when entering traditionally feminine type roles. I also think the standard of manhood expected of men is really constricting, and unless you look, think, talk, act, play sports, and do business like a rich white guy, most men probably don’t feel very free, either.

I think it’s absolute BS that the government would force a male rape victim to pay child support to his rapist exactly like I think it’s absolute BS for the government to force a woman to birth her rapists baby.

But the priority here is just about the government not wanting to pay for the consequences of the environment they created. They shoved the responsibility onto individual men. That’s not right. It takes a village to raise a child.

I think we need to be taking care of each other. I really do believe that men and women just want to live in peace together. It’s the societal demand for more money, more things, fast cars, pointless competition and pissing contests, power grabs, and all the other meaningless crap that messes with peoples heads. We are all conditioned to believe that just by living this certain type of lifestyle, being accepted, etc, then everything will be ok.

What really sucks is even when you do all that hard work to get what you were told by society you should want, most people still end up feeling empty. And this comes down to the fact that NOBODY wants to be controlled by anybody else. We want freedom not chains. That’s all.

I have other things i could say on women’s ability to make choices in society, but I am in a men’s rights space, so I want to learn about and focus on those aspects that impact men here that are otherwise invisible to me unless I ask! So thank you for sharing and asking questions.

[–]iainmf 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

To swing back to men rights, seeing women as powerless, or having significantly less power than men, creates problems for men. For example, women's violence against men is excused and minimised. Their violence is often excused as a form of resistance to oppression. Male victims are often treated as perpetrators.

Because of this, MRAs try to highlight women's power and men's vulnerability. It's a difficult task because feminists have been emphasising women's vulnerability and men's power for decades. (Which is ironic considering their opposition to that exact gender stereotype).

Having an external locus-of-control is correlated with poorer life outcomes. So it is a balancing act to highlight men's vulnerability in a way that does not encourage men to believe they don't have control over their lives.

[–]Wood-lily 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hope I answered in a way that explained I believe both men and women are constricted by societal expectations to the detriment of both genders. I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful to compare battle wounds over who has more power where. It’s not a p*ssing contest.

People are scared, people are out there being raped, people are out there having false rape accusations levied against them, people are out there getting shot and beat up. People. I care about the people. All of them.

I see most people are here because of very deeply painful experiences around gender and sex that typically started at an early age in the home. Those home dynamics are an extension of larger societal values that only gives approval to people who are conformists to dominant narratives that require believe in the myths you mentioned- that boys can’t be victims of domestic violence or rape, etc.

I know I’m in your space and just by being here it can be scary. But I promise you I am here to learn and listen.

[–]Yamochao 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It's strange because I mostly see extremely hostile rhetoric in the comments section of this sub. I track this sub pretty closely and I'd say ~80% of what gets posted is posting crazy, man-hating stuff (screenshots of DMs, reddit comments, memes some idiot made, etc), and claiming that it's representative of the general opinions of feminism/western culture. There's also a lot of anecdote, (e.g., "all the feminists I know...," "why does every feminist I know...")

Please go ahead and look at the front page if you don't believe me.

This is not "fact-based"-- it's really easy to choose a widely held belief/identity (like "Democrat" or "Feminist" or "American") and cherry-pick extreme and hateful voices. That's just law of large numbers-- pick a big group and some of them will be extreme. Extrapolating extreme examples as a representative sample is a fallacy.

Likewise, the "all the feminists I know" posts are likely to be an unrepresentative sample. If someone is very outside that culture-- likely antagonistic towards it-- the "feminists" you encounter personally who you know are feminists are probably met in the context of protest or being very verbal/aggressive about their beliefs. Just like if I'm a liberal from a liberal city, the "republicans I know" are mostly idiot protestors, idiot classmates who cant stop talking about politics, etc. The loudest voices are often the dumbest. There's bound to be stupidity and extremism in your observation if your only observation is in the context of antagonism. You just aren't seeing the feminists who are super reasonable people with feminism as a compartmentalized portion of their identity, who have pretty reasonable opinions like "abortion should be safe and legal," "rape should happen less," and even lots of overlapping stuff you'd probably agree with like "men should have less expectations to fit into rigid definitions of what a man should be." These are the people who serve you coffee, take your mail, whatever, they're reasonable feminists. Those people don't get into your tally of "all the feminists I know" because they're not extreme, loud, and vocal about politics.

"Fact-based" would be pointing to survey data, census data, criticizing thought leaders, etc. This absolutely does happen here, and I applaud it and participate in those discussions when it does, provided they're in good faith. I would participate more if I saw more of that here, because that's falsifiable evidence that can be discussed and debated, and could even persuade me and change my mind.

I usually post pretty calm stuff here, but get downvoted because my opinion is goes against the status quo, even when I'm literally replying to posts claiming to pose a good faith question for feminists. Hopefully this post will be an exception :)

Sociologists have proved again and again and again, for these reasons above, people tend to greatly overestimate the extremism of people who disagree with them on almost every major issue.

A feminist.

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anih1list 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

I’m certainly not making excuses for tantrum-throwing feminists, but I’m going to add something I think is unique to this conversation, which is why they act how they do.

Suppose you were interacting with a Nazi. Would you invite him to debate in a public political forum? Probably not, since even if your arguments are 10x better, there are 100x more people who aren’t Nazis than ones who are. By sheer numerical odds, the worse argument will likely convince more people to support it. In fact, the Nazi is not really interested in a debate because his talking points are so bad, he is just there to cause chaos and confusion with deliberate bullshit. There is no way to engage in good faith with a Nazi who wants us all dead. All you can do is call him a Nazi and punch his face. But what if you’re wrong? What if the person is not, in fact, a Nazi? This is basically what happens when a feminist goes hysterical. They believe engaging in a civilized and calm manner with us is just as stupid as doing so with a Nazi. They think we are so self-evidently evil and wrong that it’s a fine optical strategy to simply lash out rather than engage honestly.

And all of this stems from the fundamental misunderstanding that anybody who says “Men’s Rights” is doing so as a bad faith effort to deflect from women’s struggles. In the same way, every day I see people in this sub saying that feminism is inherently anti-male, which is mostly false.

It’s also important to remember that just saying “these just the facts, look at the studies” does not necessarily mean you are using them in an intellectually rigorous way. Ben Shapiro will often throw out bullshit or out of context figures and then claim others are “triggered by facts”. I swear I once got into a debate where my opponent just kept throwing studies at me, and every time I read the studies they ended up supporting my position instead of my opponent’s. Just remember not to confuse the veneer of cold rationalism with actual rationality, which cannot be directly self-assessed.

[–]sparklepuff97 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate your take as a feminist, I hit some similar points in my original response. People on opposite sides really do feel that advocating for the "other" (men's or women's) issues undermines progress towards alleviating their own. It is saddening. Feminism has never been anti-male-- extremist feminists, a minority, can be. Yet the way I hear feminism described at times makes me think that many men think all feminists are the second-coming of Valerie Solanas (google at your own risk).

I certainly don't view the men's advocates, such as this thread, as Nazi-like (I'm Jewish, I try to keep those kinds of analogies out of my mind). But I would agree with your point about a perceived sense of self-evident evil about men's rights proponents. It is sad, really. There are misogynistic assholes in the world, but as is the case with feminists, they do not represent the attitudes of the majority.

Extremism on both sides makes a lot noise and makes a lot of people fearful. And the approach of political pundits in popular media of "owning" feminists or sexists or whomever with facts is usually about 80% logical fallacy, 10% cherry-picked data from the literature and 10% verbose fluff. Ben Shapiro is a pompous POS as far as I'm concerned.

[–]erilaz123[S] 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm less familiar with British history but was taught a little bit during my first women's history course. I do know the suffrage movement had its own controversies and flaws overseas. The white feather is a strange piece of propaganda indeed, not something I would support nor would the feminists I know, and a reminder that feminism has been militant in the past. The young men who risked everything for their country deserved better treatment, to be sure.

In the US only one suffragist (supporter in US movement, for anyone unfamiliar) technically ever died during the first wave, trampled by a horse by accident...part of this is that one of the key leaders (who had many flaws in her approaches as well) Alice Paul was brought up as a Quaker and was a staunch pacifist.

I believe in England the the Pankhurst sisters (both of them)/the suffragettes (term for supporters in UK's movement) were actually more openly violent and killed a few people (<10). Not much higher than many events of today, but still lives lost and shocking for the time.

These shortcomings are things modern feminists (the real ones who bother to study history) take into account. Feminism is a work in progress. Intersectionality, the acknowledgement of where different people's experiences overlap & which includes men, is a huge part of progress (this is a great article featuring the scholar who coined the term: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination). The women who did it first didn't get it right, so we learn in the present to improve. It is important we never forget where we came from.

This is not the first movement in history where the founders made critical mistakes (I am not going to delve further into historical racism and other forms of prejudice since those would require further at length discussion, but you know what I mean). That is exactly why we must keep working on it & not discard it.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

my first women's history course

How many men's history courses have you taken?

The white feather is a strange piece of propaganda indeed, not something I would support nor would the feminists I know

Gaslighting. Feminists supported it. You pretend they don't. Why can you never just admit the truth? Nobody can take a liar seriously.

Is the White feather campaign really the hill you want to die on? Why do you lie? I think it's because as a feminist you're brainwashed to never ever ever EVER concede even one point in an argument. Because if you ever make even ONE concession the whole edifice of lies might come down on you.

In the US only one suffragist (supporter in US movement, for anyone unfamiliar) technically ever died during the first wave, trampled by a horse by accident

That was the UK. You mis-rememebered. it was king George's horse.

[–]sparklepuff97 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I said the white feather was propaganda. It was created by the suffragettes, as the person I was replying to said (erilaz123 aka OP). I didn't lie about anything.

My entire comment was a concession that feminism has made mistakes/shortcomings:

"These shortcomings are things modern feminists (the real ones who bother to study history) take into account. Feminism is a work in progress. Intersectionality, the acknowledgement of where different people's experiences overlap & which includes men, is a huge part of progress (this is a great article featuring the scholar who coined the term: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination).

The women who did it first didn't get it right, so we learn in the present to improve. It is important we never forget where we came from.

...This is not the first movement in history where the founders made critical mistakes..."

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anih1list 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

would’ve had

if only there was a way to find out what the Nazis "would have" done.

The US Government does not “fund” feminism

Billions of dollars.

non-profits

feminism isn't a non-profit

there is no pro-feminist agenda in our government

LMAO. you're hilarious.

This is nothing but conspiratorial bullshit.

I love the way you people can't just admit ignorance and ask. Nothing telegraphs your complete lack of integrity as well as actual knowledge so well.

If Nazis were being funded by the US

OK so you don't know that either then. Really do you know anything about anything?

Azof[sic] Battalion

Oh you're just pretending to be ignorant. Well maybe you're mostly ignorant but a side order of simple liar as well. So I guess I'll just assume you're not worth talking to because it's all a performance for you anyway. No point in me telling you how wrong you are when you already know.

[–]Anih1list 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anih1list 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anih1list 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Anih1list1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

Title	A question for those who identify themselves as feminists.
Author	erilaz123
Upvotes	53
Comments	336
Date	July 11, 2022 3:08 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vwknjv/a_question_for_those_who_identify_themselves_as/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-question-for-those-who-identify-themselves-as.1123156 https://theredarchive.com/post/1123156