r/MensRights currently has more subs than r/Feminism!

[–][deleted] 1062 points1063 points1064 points 7 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde 296 points297 points298 points 7 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 179 points180 points181 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Loumier 109 points110 points111 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]l-Orion-l 32 points33 points34 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]galloog1 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]markypoo4eva 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Toaster-Duck 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Loumier 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sneakpeekbot 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revan733 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MeepPenguin7 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKnightAlone 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dukunt 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Just reading all the stupidity going on over there and now being able to point out how retarded they were was pissing me off

Pretty much exactly the ridiculousness we're going to face. I guarantee I disagree with most of the people in this sub about so many things, but I also disagree with everyone everywhere about a fuckload of things. I like to consider both sides of every balance, but the illogical reality is that every Yin/Yang argument has the majority of people yelling either White or Black, meanwhile, they're ignorant to the fact that the heart of their own argument is the opposite color.

When people see women as victims constantly deserving support, they're literally falling prey to our evolved desires to support and protect women, and while that's natural and fair, it's normally tied to a lot of freedom from the male side of the equation. As it stands now, men are being demonized, financially damaged, culturally ostracized, and unconditionally hated for being weak. Men are naturally expected to be strong, but society is basically no longer allowing us to do that in many natural ways. We're still demanded to be the assertive pursuers of dating, then the hypergamous reality of women still has them dating up, all while we're being shamed for being "incels" like that's somehow new. It should be blatantly considered promotion of "toxic masculinity" to call people incels, yet it's what's happening culturally. And if you're strong and assertive, you better do it all perfectly in the right way and toward the right person, because otherwise you're going to be seen as a violent predator and demonized for thinking about the thing that caused every fucking one of us to exist.

It's absolute insanity. I'm looking at these internet attitudes mainly, but these hiveminds will dictate the future of our culture. We're being trained by shills and plenty of other seamy groups into a state of purely hateful division, and it's disgusting to see this from my perspective as a humanist. All that matters to me is the chance to share a balanced perspective between different arguments, but what's happening? Slowly, my one account, when I'm "not allowed" to make alts for risk of being shadowbanned, is being ostracized sub by sub based on the whims of a few people who control the conversation of millions.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chloeia 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]skellious 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]skellious 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skellious -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]chloeia 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]not---a---bot 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Rogocraft 45 points46 points47 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mrmastermax 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hawker101 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NOTcreative- 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ancapss 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]substance90 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ancapss 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]substance90 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HMTheEmperor 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]HMTheEmperor 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]HMTheEmperor 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Applejaxc 394 points395 points396 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]topsecreteltee 92 points93 points94 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 50 points51 points52 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]glass20 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]glass20 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]glass20 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]glass20 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Applejaxc 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Qaey 289 points290 points291 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aerofan2 233 points234 points235 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]shinlo50 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aerofan2 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shinlo50 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dmfreelance 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Fuckoff555 -37 points-36 points-35 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aerofan2 57 points58 points59 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Fuckoff555 -17 points-16 points-15 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]harrro 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fuckoff555 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Saleri81 -11 points-10 points-9 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SOMEWIERDGAM3R 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fuckoff555 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SOMEWIERDGAM3R 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fuckoff555 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Fuckoff555 -42 points-41 points-40 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aerofan2 39 points40 points41 points 7 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fuckoff555 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AloysiusC -11 points-10 points-9 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Best_01 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aerofan2 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]The_Best_01 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hardinator 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]3happy5u -22 points-21 points-20 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JKMC4 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]bearslikeapples -47 points-46 points-45 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]goodmod 204 points205 points206 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]dingoperson2 254 points255 points256 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Twebified 97 points98 points99 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]FijiTearz 53 points54 points55 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kensin 60 points61 points62 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Twebified 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cookiedough320 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]chinawinsworlds 37 points38 points39 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Genesis2001 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]chinawinsworlds 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hardinator -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]ptchinster 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bearslikeapples 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 285 points286 points287 points 7 years ago (71 children) | Copy Link

[–]comehitherhitler 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]enigmaticbloke 56 points57 points58 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hardinator 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flapklaas 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterDex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AloysiusC -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterDex 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Genesis2001 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xMoody -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]MasterDex 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elickson 65 points66 points67 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]originalSpacePirate 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morgany23 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpinEbO 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Krieger117 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]markypoo4eva 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points40 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]maplehobo 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HerpDerpingVII 30 points31 points32 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The following is a comment by Karen Straughan in response to a feminist who thinks the many blatant sexists among feminists aren't real feminists:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]HeroWords 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]functionalsociopathy 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jason2306 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pathfinder24 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]morerokk 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]glottony 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Me_ADC_Me_SMASH 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]owlsareclever 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I subscribe to r/feminism and guess both that sub and this one will always attract extreme views and sweeping statements. I don’t think feminism (damn, tried to autocorrect to demon ahaha) and men’s rights are mutually exclusive, but just separate issues in their own right. I care about both, but don’t think they necessarily need to be compared. The danger arises I think when sentiments around ‘all men’ or ‘all women’ are thrown about. I speak with my dad a lot about some of the pressures/toxicities around being a man - however I think sometimes he struggles to take his ego out of things when I speak to him about feminist issues, when my frustrations are obviously not his fault. I think a lot of it is just unpicking some of society’s horrible constructs, which is natural given how things have changed in the last century.

I’ve been banned from the r/feminist_videos sub because I have an opinion which isn’t radfem/terf, when really I just don’t like hate speech. Much like I’m sure mensrights don’t want to represented by incels, feminists don’t want want to be represented by radical feminists. Sorry, think I’ve just rambled!

Edit: got the sub wrong

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

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]BroaxXx -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lendari -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lendari -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]sakura_drop 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yet again this old post by /u/GirlWritesWhat proves itself useful:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note that the people and groups mentioned here were/are out there in the real world, not on an internet forum. And it's not a recent 'tumblr crazies' influenced phenomenon, either; Erin Pizzey, who's frightfully negative experiences with feminists date back to the 70s, is a woman who opened the first domestic violence shelter in the modern world - actual action, not just lip-service or slacktivism - but because she acknowledged that domestic violence went both ways: that men could be - and often are - victims and women can be -and often are - abusers, she ended up on the receiving end of all kinds of pretty serious abuse for many years, at least some of it from feminists. Here's a link to an AMA she did on Reddit 5 years ago.

Actions speak louder than dictionary definitions.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotARealAtty 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Radio_Kid_7 -11 points-10 points-9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bearslikeapples -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alfredo094 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Bloodtinted1 -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CoreyCantSkate 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]maxcorrice 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]not---a---bot 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]maxcorrice 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]alamotexas 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funky-Poo 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 63 points64 points65 points 7 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 67 points68 points69 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]dduusstt 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Twebified 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Cest_la_guerre 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]tenchineuro 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -12 points-11 points-10 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]more_than 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]XenoX101 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]XenoX101 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NecroHexr 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ndguardian 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bearslikeapples 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bearslikeapples 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drezzzire -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

First.. I'm going to point out that you couldn't name a single right

Women are under way more fear of sexual assault then men.

Men are sexually assaulted by women as much as women are by men.

Time

Scientific American

A lot of times when women come forward about it guys automatically see it as fake and get offended.

Three times as many rape accusations are proven false (8%) as are proven true (2.25%). We have moved past believing rape accusations without supporting evidence.

Not to mention that society still keeps women under a plethora of double standards.

Yes... double standards that benefit women...

Not to say that men don’t suffer the same but it’s worse for women.

Yeah... women are far safer than men from all violence including sexual violence, and women are treated far better than men by the justice system at all levels.... but I'm sure someone said something mean to them... so they have it worse.

Let's look at rights that women have but men don't have.

Genital Integrity

The right to vote

Parenting Rights

Self Defense

Equal protection under the law

Reproductive Rights

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]grandmasbroach -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MussieGangEnrichment 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]N0madicaleyesed 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]leemajors416 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BriceIdges13 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]nate_hoodsie 30 points31 points32 points 7 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 50 points51 points52 points 7 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chinawinsworlds 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

You are really good at using highly suspect analogies. The vast majority of people don't get legally obliterated by marriage.

I'm saying that I have a great marriage, so it would be disingenuous for me to say marriage is a bad option, but I also am admitting that clearly not everyone has my situation, which is why you should be damn sure.

I don't understand why you have to twist these argument with piss poor analogies. You said yourself you are married. Can you not provide any good reasons to get married, even given the legal imbalance towards women specifically in familial court settings.

I think we would both agree on the horrible nature of the law and how it skews, but that's a different situation to advocating or not advocating for marriage in all/some/no situations.

I have many friends who have gotten married, and each of them is a case by case basis. If I don't know the spouse because they live elsewhere (friend is about to get married who lives in another state and I've never met his fiance') then I'm going to push the angle of being sure and I'm always one to ask how you know you are willing to forsake all other women to commit to this person for your life, and is she willing to do likewise. Also the nuclear weapon analogy is poor IMO because you don't obliterate one person with a Nuke but hundreds of thousands, Perhaps a loaded gun would be a better analogy, but then it also weakens the point of your analogy, because if you can't trust someone with a loaded gun, then you really shouldn't be in any kind of relationship with them.

Bill Burr makes these point very poignantly and with great hilarity with his bit about an epidemic of gold digging wh*res.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

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

I don't blame men who can't trust someone enough to make that commitment.

It's not an equal commitment, in fact, the wife is making no commitments at all.

God forbid if anything happened to my wife, I doubt I could find someone else.

She could replace you pretty easily though. The dating scene has changed, or died, I've been out of that loop for so long I know how you feel.

But she and I dated since we were 17 and 15, dated for 7 years, and have been married over a decade. We literally grew up together, and I can't imagine ever trusting another woman on that level if the unthinkable happened.

I know how you feel, my wife and I have been married longer than that.

Also, when Chesterton said that it was a completely different time for marriage.

Things are completely different from when you got married too.

[–]Historybuffman 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kensin 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not just the MGTOW crowd. A lot of people here came out of horrific marriages where their exes abused them, took advantage of them, and/or prevented them from seeing their own kids. With very little support for men in those situations and a very biased family court system plenty of men here see marriage as a broken and dangerous system.

Some men only start looking into men's rights after being personally screwed over at which point they can come here still very angry and bitter and it comes out in various ways. The only thing we can do about unfair downvotes is give our one upvote when we see an innocent comment getting buried, but I can say I've seen the occasional angry venting posts and comments here downvoted and discouraged when they started bordering on misogyny. The mods and the subscribers here do a pretty good job keeping this place from being filled with that kind of hateful stuff.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Lucius_Martius 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am a MGTOW, yet have a girlfriend. I am against marriage, yet don't care if others marry.

MGTOW is about your own choices in your own life. There is no overlap between "our movements" because where the MRM is a movement for legal and social equality, MGTOW is a set of measures to live a happy life in our unequal world today. They complement, not overlap, each other.

But I grant you that there are some MGTOW who don't get that either. Many have been horribly exploited by horrible women and have issues because of that. As long as they don't harm anyone I can't blame them for reacting the way they do and drawing these conclusions. MGTOW can be a great way to cope with that. Ignore women and get your life in order. It's literally the best thing you can do or suggest in that kind of situation.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sakura_drop 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sakura_drop 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GingerAphrodite -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Well this is kind of ridiculous. A person's view on societal problems is as personal and individual as their views on politics or religion. Nist because somebody identifies as supporting/being part of a group doesn't mean they blindly agree with everything that group stands for. The term feminist tells you just as much about what somebody believes as calling them a Democrat, a republican, a Christian, or just about any other large group term. Every large group has subgroups. Just because somebody's a republican doesn't mean they don't support gun law provision or even support a gun ban. They might support abortion. Somebody who's Christian can range anywhere from believing a woman should wear a skirt at all times and keep her hair up to just following the basic tenants of the faith. Somebody could be a Democrat and vehemently opposed to abortion or very firmly in support of gun rights. They know what they're actually supporting because their views and their beliefs are what they are supporting. They don't have to agree with everything every feminist group says to be a feminist just like you don't have to agree with everything a men's rights activist says to be a men's rights activist. The spectrums of societal issues are far too broad to assume the worst out of somebody just because they fall under an umbrella term that covers a wide range of beliefs on that Spectrum.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]GingerAphrodite -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]GingerAphrodite 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I decided to do a little research because I hadn't known that. It is worth noting she was considered to have a secondary role in the crime in a group of 6. I do not say that to mitigate her guilt, I only point it out because your comment implies she acted alone and was solely responsible for her crime and that it was gender motivated. The truth is she committed that heinous act with 2 other women and three men. Although it has been suggested that the victims sexuality was a motivating factor, there is no evidence that his sexuality or gender played a role in this crime.

Again, I only bring those facts up because they are relevant, not because she is innocent or should be forgiven. Anyone who would take part in such a cruel and heinous crime is a trash human being, including the 3 men and 2 women who were also involved.

Do I think they should be choosing someone like that as a keynote speaker for the women's march? That depend largely on what she has to say. I believe criminals also deserve a voice and too often they are silenced for past choices. So if she's talking about women's rights in prison it would be relevant to have her as a speaker if she is actually rehabilitated. Overall all though my initial reaction is that she shouldn't have been a speaker (even with a relevant speech) because her crime is obviously going to cause division and animosity and be a bad image for the movement (in the exact way you presented it which is basically "a man killer is the keynote speaker for the feminist movement"). There's plenty of female criminals who have not committed violent crimes against men that could have and should have spoke.

But even assuming gender was a motivating factor in her crime, it's not like all feminists agree with violence against men. I grew up going to church camps and Christian conventions. Quite often a speaker would say something that I didn't agree with (and that many people in the crowd didn't agree with). Just because I went and hears them speak doesn't mean I (or even the majority of attendees) agreed with everything they said. Maybe they had 40 min of relevant, edifying, educational speaking that included 5 min of beliefs that I consider BS. That 5 min doesn't negate the quality of the other 40 min, and although I'd like to see a speaker that didn't include that 5 min of BS, I'm not the only person in the crowd and the event planners have to take everyone into account and typically err on the more extreme/intense side of beliefs. All I can do is fill out a comment card and hope it shifts toward what I would like to see.

Having a convicted murderer speaking at an event (any event) does not mean the event inherently agrees with violence or that speaker's crimes. Listening to a speaker doesn't inherently mean that you agree with, support, or believe everything that speaker says. And going to an event or identifying with a group does not mean you inherently agree with, support, or believe everything that group says, supports, or stand for.

I support the thin blue line but I also support changing police culture (like the blue shield). I support black lives matter and all lives matter but also believe there's a difference between police brutality and necessary violence. I support 2nd amendment and gun reform. Being a part of a group shouldn't define a person.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]GingerAphrodite 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Okay, I have a question then. How do you change the image of a movement if you don't get involved and encourage that movement to change to what you want it to be? It's easy to sit here and bitch about what the feminist movement and the leaders of feminism are saying. I don't like a lot of what they're saying (probably because I see myself as more egalitarian). But if nobody with a more moderate or different opinion ever gets involved in that movement and nobody who disagrees ever starts identifying with that movement, continue on whatever path it's on instead of better representing its members beliefs. Plus, the people who represent movements or groups tend to have more extreme and intense views of the topic than the general supporter. You want somebody who is dedicated to the cause to represent the cause and unfortunately that often means having somebody whose views are more extremists then the average supporter. I'm not saying that smart or that I agree with it but that's the way it works. If you promote somebody to represent your group that is lukewarm or somewhere in the middle you're not going to get the same appeal to the more extreme supporters and you're not going to get the same appeal to the moderate supporters who feel like the people who represent the cause aren't really dedicated.

[–]functionalsociopathy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]NotARealAtty 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]staticsnake 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]adamdavid85 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Sure let me tell you about bell hooks. Here is her take on the me too movement and men violence against women. She doesn't think it's right to just blame and hate men but instead look at all the terrible things that men go through to understand why men get that way. This is a healthy and caring way to look at a real problem and as a man I feel like she is fighting against the demonization of men

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/bell-hooks-roots-male-violence-against-women

She also wrote this book. Check it out. I don't agree with everything she says but this is a mainstream feminist saying some pretty reasonable shit.

https://books.google.ca/books/about/Feminism_is_for_Everybody.html?id=zxLuoAEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

There is a lot more but this is a good start.

I remember going to an international men's day event in my home town and I found out that the event (which focused on mental health and suicide amongst other things was started in part by prominent feminists.

Look I'm not going to tell you to just blindly love feminism or everyone who promotes it. There are a lot of people and groups that really piss me off and I think they unfairly blame men for the human condition. But this sub has been poisoned and I'd like it if you considered that.

[–]tenchineuro 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

This is a healthy and caring way to look at a real problem and as a man I feel like she is fighting against the demonization of men

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/bell-hooks-roots-male-violence-against-women

-- rather than excoriating the worst behavior of men, hooks analyzes masculinity as a kind of regime that oppresses everybody, including men.

So masculinity is the problem, I'm not sure how she separates men from masculinity, do you know?

Found this (menslib of all places)...

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/8vil6h/how_would_you_respond_to_bell_hooks_and_her/

-- As the movement progressed, as feminist thinking advanced, enlightened feminist activists saw that men were not the problem, that the problem was patriarchy, sexism, and male domination. It was difficult to face the reality that the problem did not just lie with men.

-- It became evident that even if individual men divested of patriarchal privilege the system of patriarchy, sexism, and male domination would still remain intact, and women would still be exploited and/or oppressed.

-- <blockquote>These men identified themselves as victims of sexism, working to liberate men. They identified rigid sex roles as the primary source of their victimization, and, though they wanted to change the notion of masculinity, they were not particularly concerned with their sexist exploitation and oppression of women.<blockquote>

-- Patriarchal masculinity teaches men that their sense of self and identity, their reason for being, resides in their capacity to dominate others.

-- We do know that patriarchal masculinity encourages men to be pathologically narcissistic, infantile, and psychologically dependent on the privileges (however relative) that they receive simply for having been born male. Many men feel that their lives are being threatened if these privileges are taken away, as they have structured no meaningful core identity.

Yada yada, we live in a patriarchy that oppresses and exploits women. I really do not think she's on men's side, it rather looks like she desires to study the enemy to disarm him, and is annoyed that feminism has no interest in paying any attention to men at all.

She rather comes off like this...

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/23/236d556e831b1044aa0e8b0902fb95f6fc385e5eb7ca1d68eb5ce79ba53f9b94.jpg

So I'm not ready to count Bell Hooks, she has a different lead-in, but the hook seems to be the same.

I remember going to an international men's day event in my home town and I found out that the event (which focused on mental health and suicide amongst other things was started in part by prominent feminists.

Which prominent feminists? I would assume they were there gathering info on how to prevent any such events from happening again.

But this sub has been poisoned and I'd like it if you considered that.

Of course, this sub is patriarchal, dominated by men, etc..., right?

But you have posted no information about what I asked, this hypothetical 'good' mainstream feminism. Can you point me to them?

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

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I mean I did point you to one and you dismissed it without honest consideration.

I wrote a long post of honest consideration, which you dismissed without comment.

I mean it sounds like you don't believe that any form of masculine behaviour is toxic or bad

To the extent that a behavior is toxic (whatever exactly you mean by that) there is nothing necessarily masculine about it. Women commit DV against men and children, are you going to claim that these women are masculine?

so any feminist I show you that points out that SOME ~~masculine~~ behaviour is toxic

I'll accept it as corrected above (again, depending on what you mean by toxic).

will defacto be labelled as anti male in your eyes.

Do you give readings like other psychics? A lot of what Bell Hooks says is indeed anti-male and her disclaimers don't change that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

If I told you I believed toxic femininity is a different type of toxicity would you better understand my point (not agree but understand).

Behavior (now there's a slippery word) is neither masculine or feminine, there is no behavior (whatever that means exactly in this context) that is not done by men and women.

The way men are socialized leads to a specific type of toxicity that is very different from the toxicity created from feminine socialization.

There are almost no social controls on women today, and they know it. They also know that they can ruin any man by way of a false rape accusation for which they will not be held accountable and they will walk or get probation for a crime that a man would see 20 years for. So I think you need to flesh out this female socialization issue.

Sometimes I feel like mra types are too worried about conceding that some male behaviour is specifically male and toxic as if by doing so they'll lose all future points.

That you give a behavior a gender places you solidly in the feminist camp. And typically feminists assign different values to the same behaviors in men and women, do you do the same? This would explain why you give behavior a gender BTW, the same behavior is bad when done by a man and good when done by a woman, right?

[–]adamdavid85 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]genkernels 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I absolutely agree with a lot of that. That's a pretty beautiful video. Unfortunately, neither feminism, nor society as a whole, is headed that direction at this time.

And perhaps part of of the reason we aren't headed in that direction is because not only has empathy and empathy-based approaches like that of the video been eroded, but also the Socratic and other systematic approaches to discourse have been pushed to the wayside (occasionally by those advocating for an empathetic approach instead, but usually by the arguers). When people disagree there is a lack of an attempt to ask questions of each other. To understand each other and gain a lesser agreement. I can usually establish some baseline of agreement from which to anchor a disagreement given 6-7 posts of back and forth and justapose the views in a manner reasonably agreeable to myself and my interlocutor, but that isn't how public debate runs anymore.

For some reason there has been a large-scale destruction in several political areas of accepted ground rules and first principles to argue from and anchor disagreeing views. It used to be such a thing existed. Instead it seems that final destination itself is now treated as a first principle. My favorite example of this is the abortion debate, which is often such a hilarious caricature of sophistry it hurts that argumentation style is real.

Most unfortunately, the same reason the destruction of systematic approaches to discourse has been possible -- combined with feminism's prior history -- is why I believe mainstream feminism will never adopt the video's empathetic approach in its dealings with men's issues.

--

If you want me to react more analytically to the video, I suppose my only disagreements are nitpickey. Disagreements with such things

"men are oppressed by patriarchy" -- lol, okay, that one might be a more significant disagreement, but it a disagreement to something tangential to her overall point, so it still qualifies as a nitpick.
"identity politics sometimes..." -- perhaps this is just a minimizing rhetorical tactic which I approve of to a point. Still, no, that's the fundamental problem with any politic that discriminates on identity, including sometimes the rich/poor politics that I tend towards. Rather, politics needs to adhere to something akin to the Rawlsian veil of ignorance and therefore avoid all sins-of-the-father type reasoning in order to be just.
"robbed people of compassion and replaced it with moral superiority" -- moral superiority is different from feelings of moral superiority, it is more or less ontologically impossible to replace compassion with actually moral superiority, which is something we should be striving for.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

That's fine. While certainly feminist language gets a lot of flak here, merely accepting the label doesn't make one opposed to men's rights. The obvious example is Christina Hoff Sommers, but even Margaret Atwood got some praise from this corner upon her rejection of MeToo. And even plainly bigoted feminists who don't see it themselves and genuinely believe in gender equality are less reprehensible than their peers.

The problem is not the label, the problem is feminist..."orthodoxy", shall we say. The worst of that, is of course, feminist political advocacy. Chief amoung such advocacy nowadays is the NOW, the largest feminist organization in the United States and possibly the world, which opposes gender equality relatively openly. And it is blatantly dishonest. I even saw that feminists have claimed credit for legal changes beneficial to men that they in fact opposed vehemently (found that from this discussion). Feminist advocacy, has, since the 1800s legally privileged women over men -- and many of these things clearly not as a matter of affirmative action or anything that could be related to gender equality (also many that were, but I'm focusing on the bad here), for instance, the Married Women's Property Acts, which caused marriage to become a one-way wealth transfer, rather than a unification of finances, and the subsequent demand for 50-50 authority over the "joint" wealth despite that being entirely sourced from the husband (anything the wife made or previously acquired was hers alone, and none of the husband's property was his alone). And yet all this time, there has not been any significant feminist advocacy organization in opposition to the blatant sexism of feminist advocacy. Because of this, moderate, equality-seeking feminists by identifying as such lend their tacit support and moral legitimacy to the orthodoxy.

But the crimes of feminist orthodoxy go further. Mainstream feminism brutally attacks those who demonstrate genuine empathy for men and commitment to the truth. One of the board members for the NOW, Warren Farrell, decided he wanted to, in addition to his advocacy for women, also pursue gender advocacy for boys in the way that sexism affected them (because, you know equality). He was quickly ostracized and went from being a successful speaker to being brutally deplatformed. He did not cease his advocacy for women. Erin Pizzey, the founder of the first domestic violence shelter for women (and shortly after, for men, though that shelter had to close down) fled England after death-threats from feminists on account of her gender-neutral fact-based approach to generational violence. And you can read of similar stories of social ostracism from several other personalities. Even more moderate feminists join in this sort of thing, for they believe what they are told: such people and actions are anti-women. Thankfully, the discerning mind, such as Akanbi, can easily avoid becoming part of this.

And finally, there are the bigoted teachings of feminist orthodoxy. For instance, until very recently it has been feminist doctrine that domestic abuse is a gendered problem of which women are largely victims and men are largely perpetrators, despite readily available evidence to the contrary (this in particular was something Erin Pizzey was guilty of heresy for). The fact that men as a group earn more than women as a group (especially gross, not hour-for-hour) somehow is solid evidence of oppression (it isn't, even top feminists like Kimmel explain that it is largely the difference between the choices of mothers with multiple children and fathers with multiple children, but the belief remains). The solid belief that women had it much worse than men 100 years ago compared to today (that'd be the ~1920, a horrifying time to be a man even ignoring the wars). Unfortunately, it is impossible to quickly purge feminist teachings of bigotry, because not only are individual teachings sexist, but it is pervasive throughout feminist terminology. It is no accident that feminist orthodoxy is very concerned with gender neutral language (this concern can be a good thing), but names terms relating to bad things after men even if that bad thing is not fundamentally gendered, and terms related to good after women (such as using the name "feminism" itself for a gender equality movement). even if that good thing is not fundamentally gendered. Chief amoung these bigoted belief systems is the idea that society values and for the past couple hundred years has valued men and masculinity over women and femininity and as a result assigned them power (this is called Patriarchy). Which wouldn't be bigoted were it true, but it is profoundly and obviously baseless given a brief study of the life of the common folks from the early 1900s, and that belief is used as an excuse for feminist advocacy.

Bell Hooks, who Akanbi (I looked at her twitter) seems to be read up on, is one of the significantly less problematic paragons of feminist thought (if you want problematic quotes that include some of the less nice folks from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd wave, look here). Hooks attempted to purge what she called "man-hating" from her corner of feminism. But Hooks is not free of bigotry. This thing from FemRADebates is pretty sweet example both how strong, and how feeble her attempts were. She attempts to care for men, but does so in a terribly paternalistic fashion. Hooks simultaneously blames men for men's problems and men for women's problems precisely because she is building off of the flawed foundation that is the sexist philosophies of feminism. To quote one of the responses from that thread:

I'm not convinced by bell hooks, however. Sometimes she says things that are true and useful about men, but I think her larger outlook is not something that I find particularly beneficial as a man...

Male oppression of women cannot be excused by the recognition that there are ways men are hurt by rigid sexist roles. Feminist activists should acknowledge that hurt, and work to change it - it exists. It does not erase or lessen male responsibility for supporting and perpetuating their power under patriarchy to exploit and oppress women in a manner far more grievous than the serious psychological stress and emotional pain caused by male conformity to rigid sexist role patterns. ("Understanding Patriarchy," The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love, published in 2004.)

and

a key issue hooks identifies for men in another book, Feminism for Everyone, published in 2000, is "patriarchal masculinity," which "encourages men to be pathologically narcissistic, infantile and psychologically dependent on the privileges, however relative, they receive simply for having been born male" and which is the main form of masculinity around today, the argument seems to go. The psychological stress associated with being domineering and violent towards others is another big problem for us, naturally. (Me paraphrasing hooks. )

To me this doesn't really seem like all that compassionate or helpful an approach to men. Yes, she says that men's problems are serious, but she only says that as part of a broader picture of women being the primary victims of gender issues. If Paul Elam admitted that women do have important problems, just far less important ones than men have, I doubt hooks would hold him up as a model of compassion for women.

I suspect Akanbi is significantly Hooks' superior in this regard. But when the above is one of the most compassionate views of men to come out of lauded feminist thinkers (and given the views of the other thinkers), it is little wonder why people here, including myself, view feminism as a hate movement broadly detrimental not only to men, but also women. And I think I've provided sufficient material to argue that no one who legitimately believes in gender equality should call themselves a feminist, even though there are many such people who do. Also, as I pointed out, feminism is only getting worse over time, not because the rhetoric is getting worse (that is very hard to do given what's out there), but because the worse rhetoric is becoming more mainstream.

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

In addition to having a broad look at feminism in general, another thing to understand is the things that aren't there. Omissions. If you look to feminism, the biggest men's issue is social conditioning of emotional expression. And the second biggest is something like the pressure to succeed or lead and how that be devastating to someone who just isn't quite as good at things as other men. Maybe if you run into someone with a more open mind you might hear about some of the aspects of male disposability and the lack of empathy for men, and if you have experience with someone really great you'll even get to hear that one of the main reasons men don't express emotions as much as women is because male expression of emotion, even for adult men, can be heavily penalized. This is perhaps further than Bell Hooks ever got, for instance.

These. Aren't. Pressing. Men's. Issues. These are reflections of women's issues, and that's why feminism talks about them. Male disposability is a reflection of hypoagency. Men's pressure to workplace succees is a reflection of women's maternal duty (and also contributes to less women succeeding in the workplace than men). Men's lack of free emotional expression is a reflection of women's lack of free lifestyle expression.

"What?", one might ask. "These cause extreme stress and that is no joke. Moreover, serious causes of stress are pervasive in our culture." Yes, absolutely. But the most important men's issues are not a few specific causes of stress, good grief! Yes, that causes real damage, yes, that even takes real lives in small numbers. But the most important men's issues are issues that, in large numbers, bring people to financial ruin (you want to talk stress...), takes years of their lives away (especially death), and those that remove from them their most important relationships, especially children (and of those, it is particularly problematic for boys deprived of their fathers, even mediocre or bad fathers).

Child custody. A US study conducted in 2004 found that although the tender years doctrine had been abolished some time ago, a majority of Indiana family court judges still supported it and decided cases coming before them consistently with it. The most recent data I could find for the US says that over 40% of child custody at divorce was sole-mother, and not shared. Similar statistics are available for 2011 (full article) in Canada. The outlook for children of single parents, especially mothers, is pretty bad (some of the statistics in that source are disputed IIRC), and horror stories from fathers are not hard to find. Oh, and it could also cost a man a substantial chunk of his life savings, but that is a lesser issue (come to think of it, this is actually what makes debtor's prisons a thing in the US, but even that isn't really as big of an issue -- so that kinda demonstrates what I mean by men's repressed emotions not being all that).

Discrimination with respect to divorce. This is pretty hellish now, but it used to be worse due to feminist reforms that have been since abandoned. It used to be that if a wife abandoned her husband, he would be unable to get a divorce, but still have to provide all of the wife's needs, even if she was wealthier than he. Detailed discussion concerning unjust financial ruination would take far too long, but I'll leave you with this: "While divorced women are no more likely to kill themselves than are married women, divorced men are twice as likely as married men to take their own lives." (from Benatar's book The Second Sexism).

Criminal sentencing discrimination. This accounts for thousands of years of men's lives, away from family and children, every year. 63% longer custodial sentences, and a far greater likelihood of receiving a custodial sentences.

--

And once you get beyond that there are things like homelessness (men are ~70% of unsheltered homeless, less when including sheltered, see stats from US, Canada, UK), and the response (especially institutional reponse) to male victims of domestic violence. Even these things have far, far more grave and tangible impact than mere emotional repression or people turning their noses up at male tears.

These issues are omitted by feminism in discussions about men. Some gender equality movement! But even worse is that more than half of what I just mention mostly fixed by fucking tomorrow with simple legislation. So blind is feminist theory and practice, that even nice, empathetic people who have tried study men's issues can have no idea of the real practical issues that men face.

So check yourself. Remember if that was part of your introduction to gender equality. If it wasn't, perhaps there was a good reason for that. But perhaps there isn't.

This sort of thing carries over into male-focused feminism. Key issues like domestic violence, divorce (excluding child custody), and sentencing discrimination have barely ever been discussed on the feminist men-focused subredit /r/menslib -- homelessness is discussed slightly more often but the few posts I see about it are more than a year old.

--

Oh look at that, I've written two books in response to two sentences. Erm, sorry.

[–]Lethn 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm afraid you are quite wrong about the niche extremists. Not that there are niche extremists - of course these views are only shared by niche extremists and not by the majority of those who label themselves feminists. But you make the common error of supposing that the niche extremeists are on the fringes of the movement. They in fact comprise the core of the movement. They compose the dogma, teach the courses, write the books, discipline the outliers, run the formal organisations, set the agenda, lobby the government and thus make the actual changes.

Until you start to actually read the actual literature rather than just listen to the popular 'dumbed down' rhetoric you won't get a sense of what's behind this movement.

Have a read for example of what some of the foremost feminists back in the day thought of the family unit:

Robin Morgan “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”
Mary Jo Bane “in order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”
Helen Sullinger “We must work to destroy [marriage]… The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men… All of history must be rewritten in terms of oppression of women.”

And of course these women have been successful to some extent in their goal of destroying the institution of marriage. The various laws and precepts by which the family courts are run, for instance, have been dictats from leading feminist organizations using one-sided statistics and propaganda that demonizes men. The immediate goal of which has been the removal of men from power within families. Today married men have few if any de-facto rights within a marriage or divorce situation, whereas women have a great many.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Most marriage laws protect the person with the least amount of money coming out or the person who was wronged in certain situations.

Now I don't want to attempt to gloss over the many and deep issues in regards to laws that discriminate against men but where I live I've seen friends and colleagues who had wealthier wives receive alimony and child support.

Now because men often pick jobs that make more money this situation is rare and men feel put upon. But whenever I read about a man getting alimony or child support I get a bit more hope that thing sjust aren't done changing.

Again I don't want to belittle the challenges faced by men by the sexist laws that either infants like women or demean men. I'm lucky that not a lot of those laws exist where I love and we are still actively getting rid of them.

Those nut jobs you quoted are people I never heard of when I went to school and volunteered and participated in feminist workshops and public events in school. Yeah I heard some stuff I disagreed with and I got into some heated arguments but the vast majority of womenthere didn't support extremist views.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, as you say, the vast majority of women jn feminist groups do not support extremist views. But the minority that do, are in the driving seat. And it is their demands, prejudices and fears that drive the policies (like the Duluth model and the Violence Against Women Act) which place men at a legal disadvantage instead of a level playing field.

It is their castigation, pejorative framing and propaganda that causes newspapers and other media to seek only to redress the grievances of women, while branding those who speak of the challenges men face ‘misogynists” and thus socially untouchable.

It is the cumulative invective of these people that allow a new climate in which arguing for free speech or due process gets you tarred a ‘Nazi’ . I find this sudden lurch towards censoriousness and McCarthyite witchunting quite disturbing.

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Flapklaas -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotARealAtty -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Sarkhan_Bup 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bdavey011 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sarkhan_Bup 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]masterdebator300 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]masterdebator300 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cy1999aek_maik7 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]cy1999aek_maik4 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The extremists we see on YouTube aren't representative of the whole population of feminists. Hence both groups should work together instead of competing to see who has the largest sub base.

Unfortunately that has been repeatedly tried. The result isn't what you suggest, even among non-representative more moderate feminists.

The representative population of feminists tried to ban The Red Pill documentary in Australia, disowns those members who seek to understand male gender roles and problems, such as Warren Farrell, castigates and threatens those members who try to understand the full depths of women's issues, such as the founder of the first women's shelter Erin Pizzey. The largest feminist organization in the US, and possibly the world, opposes alimony reform and equal child custody legislation, even when it has broad support and supermajority approval, approval far greater than the members of the government of the state that happened in.

[–]lonewolfhistory 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]cy1999aek_maik0 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]lonewolfhistory 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cy1999aek_maik1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lonewolfhistory 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cy1999aek_maik 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hyppointhewater 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LoneKharnivore 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drezzzire 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whystare 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Except MRMs are all for equality of opportunity, while Feminists seek equality of outcome. They are totally different ideologies with different implementations.

To give an example: let's say there's a race in which a man and a woman compete. And let's assume that on average, a man runs 10% faster than a woman.

Let's say that over 10 races, it is observed that men won 7 races,

Equality of opportunity advocates will totally ignore the speed difference and will want to keep equal starting and finishing lines, acjnoledging that men will win more running races and women will win more at other stuff.

Equality of outcome advocates will want a 10% headstart for the woman so that 50% of winners are female.

This becomes so apparent when they speak about lowering army enrollment physical requirements for females or complain about "hidden barriers" to female success. They want to change the game so that they get 50% of whatever they want. They want an advantage over men.

They will say: "women earn less" wothout looking at the reason (they work less overtime and take more vacations)

They will demand that tech companies hire a fixed % of their employees as females, or face fines, without looking at the reason why numbers are skewed in the first place

They believe there are no biological differences between a man and a woman brain, and that bringing up is what makes the difference, (oh it's a social construction!) when evidence suggests otherwise.

No one in MRM cares that 90% of nurses are female, it is only brought up to counter that 90% of plumbers or tech geeks are men. To suggest that the percentages are not because "oppression", and to indicate their hipocrisy that they demand getting male dominated jobs, but not equalize female dominated jobs as well.

Your notion of justice could be equality of opportunity, or outcome. You're free to believe what you want. You can be an MRM or a feminist.

But at least understand the ideological difference.

{Obligatory from mobile comment}

[–]tenchineuro 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lonewolfhistory 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]XenoX101 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]puppehplicity 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This isn't a win-lose thing.

Feminists created the Duluth model... which states that women only use violence in self defense. This means that any man reporting being the victim of domestic violence is arrested (by those police departments using the Duluth model) instead of their abuser. In fact, studies show that men reporting domestic violence to the police are more likely to be arrested than their abusers.

Thanks feminism...

The National Organization for Women (the largest feminist organization in the world) has been fighting for decades to prevent fathers from having equal parenting rights during divorce.

Feminist organizations around the world are looking to extend the gender gap in the criminal justice system (which is already six times as large as the racial sentencing gap) so that things are even MORE unequal between the genders.

Lastly, one of the keynote speakers for the "Women's March" was convicted of kidnapping, torturing (for weeks... to include a red hot poker shoved up the butt), and eventually murdering a man. That's what she did to be there.

So... while it shouldn't be a win-lose thing... feminism is making it into a win-lose thing...

[–]MussieGangEnrichment -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MickDaster 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Minostz12 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cest_la_guerre 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cest_la_guerre 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IComeBaringGifs 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fuckoff555 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

That actually means jack shit. Look for twoxchromosome for example, I know that it was a default sub and that's why it has a lot of subscribers, but they can pop up on r/all so easily usually with more than 10thousands upvotes, and they do it frequently. Unlike us that even though, we have more than 193 thousands subscribers, our top posts rarely get to the 4 thousands, and our posts rarely get to r/all which means less people seeing our problems and the disadvantages that we have. Also the number of people online in our sub is really small compared to the number of our subscribers, and that's what really matters. Other subreddits with way less subscribers than us have more people lurking in it regularly. This means that we have a lot of subscribers that don't even come here to check the sub. So having more subscribers than r/feminism really means jack shit.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fuckoff555 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YukonCornelius72 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jason2306 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chambertlo 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]leemajors416 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[+]Beltox2pointO -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]atred 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]huoyuanjiaa 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Beltox2pointO -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Which has absolutely nothing to do with feminism?

feminism, since it's an idea has a set of beliefs that people follow or at least ideas they believe as a whole else the label is useless because its too vague.

Does the mere fact I celebrate Christmas make me a Christian?

yes, if you believe that jesus existed and was the son of god (along with the rest of their ideas)... if you don't then no.

If you only go to church on christmass and easter, you might be a christian, but you would be a "bad one"... Just like if you follow feminism but don't really do anything or don't agree with one of their tenements (for example patriarchy theory)

Millions across the world celebrate Christmas and Easter and are in no way affiliated with the church.

because those are secular holidays. I specifically said "only go to church on easter and christmass"

You're clutching at straws to feel good about having more members in an online community with a heavily biased user base.

no I am not. I am asking you why you are using a no true scottsman fallacy to justify most feminists who are popular being generally shitty people to men.

It's pathetic.

yes. Your reading comp IS pathetic.

[–]Beltox2pointO -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]atred 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]atred 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chambertlo -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tfWindman -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]U21U6IDN 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]alanpartridge69 -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]Lethn -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Itzjacki 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Itzjacki 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Boywithpants -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Freedogvol -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Robfu -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MussieGangEnrichment -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]PapaGeorgio23 -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SOMEWIERDGAM3R 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PapaGeorgio23 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]brznks -11 points-10 points-9 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]brznks 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]brznks -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]leemajors416 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotARealAtty 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mamaluigi1933 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]such-a-mensch -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]GreatBayTemple -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Best_01 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kuppb -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoobifiedSpartan -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrHeinzKlaus -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	r/MensRights currently has more subs than r/Feminism!
Author	EasterlyCactus
Upvotes	3270
Comments	451
Date	November 6, 2018 1:00 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9ujm24/rmensrights_currently_has_more_subs_than_rfeminism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/rmensrights-currently-has-more-subs-than-rfeminism.1184019 https://theredarchive.com/post/1184019

Comments