/r/antifastonetoss doesn't know about LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]thereslcjg2000left-wing male advocate 27 points28 points29 points 6 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lady_Coraline2 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strikester101 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]bkrugby78 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]azazelcrowley 26 points27 points28 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

They talk about the need for reform while still using the narrative derived from stats that erase made to penetrate in order to pretend rape is a womens issue instead of a gender neutral issue, and criticize the MRM for trying to make it a gender neutral issue instead of recognizing it as a womens one. In a way that's worse because it gives the impression that their statement that women are the overwhelming majority of victims and men the overwhelming majority of perpetrators is true *even after* you stop erasing made to penetrate victims.

The comment you linked is also nowhere near as supported in terms of upvotes as the one peddling the false narrative about rape being a womens issue with an overwhelming majority of male perpetrators. You've found 19 people telling the truth in a room of over four thousand lying misandrist twats. Statistically that's a margin of error.

https://www.reddit.com/r/antifastonetoss/comments/eamin8/feminism_is_mens_rights/favpxqi?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

Notice as well this comment chain you linked involves some moron who heard the fact made to penetrate victims were erased from MRAs, and didn't believe it because it came from us. Didn't bother to check or anything, just braindead style rejected it because we were the ones saying it, then when a peer says "Dude, that's true", he's shocked. That's the level they're at in this discussion and it explains loads about why they're thick as shit about it as a group, they don't care about facts, just in-group and out-group status.

Moreover the explanation that "Feminists know this is shit" and that it stems from patriarchy and so on is another lie, because you can trace it to things like Mary Koss (Feminist academic) and her testimony to the US senate that rape should not include male victims and spewing some patriarchy theory shpiel as to why. In some places it predates feminism, but in some places it is due to feminism. It also ignores that feminists spend an inordinate amount of time peddling propaganda and demonizing men based on that warped definition, so I guess they only know it's shit when confronted on it directly, like a shroedingers misandrist. The moment you stop observing, they forget what they "Know" and start framing the topic as male perpetrated and due to misogyny again.

What a fucking comfort. I guess so long as coppers acknowledge institutional police racism when you directly confront them on it that makes it alright and they can keep doing what they've always done, right? "Hey, we know this is bad, so that makes us the good guys and makes your criticism of us as total bastards invalid.". <- Your brain on feminism, less self-awareness than racist cops.

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

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (229 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points 6 years ago (227 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (226 children) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (173 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (172 children) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (164 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (163 children) | Copy Link

men have traditionally held political power while women have held social (and moral) power.

Thats a stretch to say women have held more social power considering that wealth is the biggest source of social power. Also women have been considered irrational, less intelligent, and expected to be submissive to men in the home, in public and by law.

But thanks for replying it's informative to me to understand what the scope of belief is here in this subreddit.

Thanks for sending me the mission statement. I agree with some points but think generally the cynicism against feminism is unwarranted considering that feminism isn't to blame for the problems brought about by the male gender role and toxic masculinity. If anything they're shedding light on those issues but it offends a lot of men and causes them to shut down instead of examine what gender is. In truth men's advocacy isn't incompatible with modern feminism, it should run adjacent to it as it needs it's own space to fully flesh out discussions on men's issues.

Edit: spelling

[–]LacklustreFriend 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for taking the time to engage. If you want to understand our views better, I encourage you to stick around and ask questions. We welcome friendly and honest discussion.

While I agree with you that feminism is not the progenitor of men's issues, it is at best ignorant or misunderstanding of men's issues, and at worst complicit making men's issues worse. Feminism is not the issue, but it is one of many issues.

Just to better flesh out my explanation to patriarchy theory, as I believe it is central to the issue I have with feminism. There are several assumptions that underpin patriarchy that are incorrect. First, a general definition of patriarchy in feminist theory - a patriarchy is a society where men have power, and they construct and operate that society to the benefit of men at the expense of women. Here are the incorrect assumptions:

1) It assumes political (formal) power is the only form of power, and that women do not wield any form of power.

2) It assumes that men in power never use that power for the benefit of women

3) It assumes that because those who are in power are men, therefore all men are powerful.

4) It assumes being in a position of power is the same thing as having power.

For 1) women absolutely have and continue to social power. Women have the primary say in how children are raised. Matchmaking and arraigned marriages are usually organised by women. Women have always had agency in how their families and communities operate. The White Feather Campaign in WW1 and the Temperance Movement in the 1800s and early 1900s are good examples of how much social power women could wield. The White Feather Campaign was an initiative where women would hand white feathers to out of uniform men in Britain in order to shame them into enlisting. The idea alone of being shamed by a women in public was enough to cause men to go to their deaths in the trenches. The Temperance Movement was closely associated with the Suffrage Movement and very popular among women. It was based in large part on the idea that alcohol was a blight on society and that it caused men to become lazy and abusive towards their families. By using fears of failure of wellbeing towards women and children, the effectively curtailed alcohol consumption on moral grounds which in the USA resulted in a constitutional amendment.

For 2), men frequently use power for the benefit of women. On a purely common sense, emotional level, men have mothers, sisters, wives and daughters they love, cherish and care about and have always acted as protector and providers for. When a man has power, that power is shared with female relatives. A wealthy man has a wife and daughters who benefit from that wealth.
There is also the cognitive bias towards women, such as the Women are Wonderful effect and related phenomenon, showing that men have a outgroup bias towards women and women have an ingroup bias. That is, there is is more general concern for women and positive reflection on men ("gender empathy gap"). I also consider you look into the concept of "male disposibility", that the lives of men are valued less than women - men have shorter lifespans, are the vast majority of workplace deaths and suicides, women and children first etc. I find it hard to assert that only men benefit from men in power when men fall behind women in so many metrics.

For 3), the average man is not a president, a CEO or something remotely close. The average man is working an mediocre, often physical demanding job in order to provide for his family who he loves. This man wields no institutional power, he is a slave to the system as the average woman is.

For 4), there is often a large conflation between having power and being in a position of power. Myself, and many male advocates/MRAs believe power is misunderstood. A man may be in a position of power, but he still has duty and obligations, to his family, to his community. I think in the truest sense, power is having choice. A man who feels pressured into a high paying job and being a breadwinner does not have a choice, he has obligations, which is not power.

There are people who say what I have said far better than I can. The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell does a great job of examining power from a different perspective. As much as I disagree with Paul Elam on somethings, this clip of him from the Red Pill Raw Files explaining male power and male disposibility is great, and I strongly recommend you watch The Red Pill by Cassie Jaye if you haven't already to get a better understanding of MRA perspectives.

[–]homo_redditorensis 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for your in depth response, I'll try to keep this reply concise.

1) I don't agree, feminism in general doesn't make the mistake of believing that political power is the only form of power. Just that its usually the most absolute, direct and dominant form.

But I do agree that masculinity as a concept is fragile in the sense that women (and other feminine coded things like the colour pink) have the power to "emasculate" men and thus pressure them into complying with certain masculine, even dangerous, tropes. So yes I agree that this "power" exists but I wouldn't say that feminists ever argued that women have zero influence on individual men.

2) I think this is an incorrect generalization but it's complicated. Plenty of decisions have been made "for women's benefit", after all, the women of a group must have basic necessities to survive and reproduce.

Also the ingroup/outgroup bias part of your comment is a common argument I've seen from MRAs and its oversimplifying a massive subject which is empathy and perhaps even prejudice. Empathy in one situation does not translate into empathy in a different situation. Men have a tendency to show more empathy with male characters in fictional work for example. There's in group bias there. Also men tend to believe other men are more intelligent and more competent than their female peers even when those female peers perform better. That's another kind of in group bias. There's no such thing as only one kind of in group bias. So the results of those studies youre talking about, though may reflect some truth, is much more limited in scope than MRAs tend to believe.

3) It doesn't make this assumption. People in power will generally skew their actions towards their own interests and have their actions be informed by their own experiences. So there is a privilege to having people similar to you make decisions that affect everybody.

4) Theres no such thing as absolute freedom in our society but someone in power inevitably makes decisions that affect the wellbeing of other people. This is a privilege. Being in a position of power by definition means you have control over others that others don't have over themselves. Yes, this comes with obligations, but the fact that power means power over people shouldn't be disputed.

[–]LacklustreFriend 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

I probably could have worded 2) better. When I said "men frequently use power for the benefit of women", what I meant is that men do not exclusively use power to the benefit of men. From a purely biological, "caveman" mentality is makes sense that men in power have a vested interest in the well-being of women. I think the cognitive bias towards women is stronger than you believe. Think of it on a purely intuitive level. How does the average person react when they see a man hit or verbally abuse a woman in public compared to a woman hit or verbally abuse a man in public. Why are the deaths of women portrayed more tragically and dramatically than the deaths of men in media?

Men have a tendency to show more empathy with male characters in fictional work for example.

They don't, all evidence points to the opposite. Consider these studies https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0193397303000042 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1948550616647448

Also in case you missed it (I edited it in) I added a couple of recommendations at the end of my previous comment to understand the views better, including a video clip that explains male power and disposibility from an MRA perspective.

Edit:

Theres no such thing as absolute freedom in our society but someone in power inevitably makes decisions that affect the wellbeing of other people. This is a privilege.

Just as easily considered a burden and responsibility. Having the wellbeing of other, your family, resting on your shoulders is a huge burden, and it is forced up most men. If it not something that directly benefits you, and makes your life stressful, is it really a privilege? Many people would not want that responsibility.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

From a purely biological, "caveman" mentality is makes sense that men in power have a vested interest in the well-being of women. I think the cognitive bias towards women is stronger than you believe

I think you're assuming that I don't know that chivalry exists and that this bias is a thing. I get why you're assuming this, but it's a wrong assumption in my case because I'm very aware of the fact that people treat women's safety as more important compared to men of the same social class. My father works in a dangerous job and its something I've thought about a lot. When I hear about one of his coworkers getting injured I immediately imagine if they were a woman, the company would probably feel more pressure to ramp up the safety measures.

They don't, all evidence points to the opposite. Consider these studies

I can't find it now but I remember reading a study about boys not connecting with female characters or ascribing more sinister or less charitable interpretations for bad behaviour than male characters.

But in trying to find it I could only find this study that shows both genders empathize more with male characters.

found both male and female readers—in Canada and Germany—preferred male protagonists. That is to say: both males and female readers agreed more strongly with an item that stated, "I feel I can understand and appreciate the main character and situation of he story," and one that stated, "I would like to continue reading to find out what happens next in the story," when the protagonist was male as compared with being female

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304422X10000239

But my main point is that the ingroup bias thing MRAs talk about isn't all encompassing. There are many examples where men show clear bias against women and in favour of men, such as when they relate more with male perpetrators of sexual harassment than female victims:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0361684319868730

“It is widely assumed that a lack of empathy for female victims explains why people blame them, but we actually found that empathy for the male sexual harasser was a more consistent explanation of variability in victim blame.

“To improve responding, everyone, but especially men, should be mindful that their empathy for a male sexual harasser can increase their likelihood of blaming women for being sexually harassed.”

Theres also the fact that women are punished more severely than men for the same mistakes at work, but this effect is reduced when the women are working at a company where there are more female managers. The researchers believe this is an example of in group bias that both men and women demonstrate, but one that currently affects women much more negatively.

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/when-harry-fired-sally-the-double-standard-in-punishing-misconduct

Despite committing misconduct less often and less severely than men, female advisers in the financial adviser industry face more severe punishment in the labor market, a finding strongly correlated with the gender composition of the managerial team

So my point is that it's complicated. Saying "men have an ingroup bias against men" is wrong as a general statement. It may be correct in some contexts, but not others.

[–]LacklustreFriend5 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I disagree that that there isn't an inherent cognitive bias that generally favours women

I believe this is erroneously reductionist approach. There's no such thing as one form of cognitive bias. It's proven, not up for debate, that there is a cognitive bias against women with regards to competence and intelligence. On the flipside there is a proven cognitive bias against men with regards to physical safety.

My point about feminist academia is that it has a vested interest in portraying society as unfavourable to women.

Proof that it's a vested interest?
Society is unfavorable to women with regards to women having power over their own lives, bodies, sexual freedom, political power, employment opportunities, etc. Society is unfavorable to men with regards to being free to do things that it deems "not masculine" such as being unemployed or financially dependent, a victim of violence or rape, needing mental health support, etc. More information and investment, I would argue, is necessary to help solve men's issues.

[–]LacklustreFriend4 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here is a comment by another frequent user on this sub that is better sourced and examination of bias towards women that I.

Is it not self evident why feminist academia has a vested interest in portraying society as unfavourable to women? Feminism is fundamentally based on the notion that women have it worse than men. It's existence is fuel by highlighting areas that women are disadvantaged. Do you think feminists in academia and in power one day will go, "okay mission accomplished, no need for feminist anymore, guess I'm out of a job"?

Society is unfavorable to women with regards to women having power over their own lives, bodies, sexual freedom, political power, employment opportunities, etc.

The thing is, society is unfavourable to me for the exact same reasons. I think there's a tendency to view the male gender role as having gotten the better end of the deal. It sucked for both genders. An expectation men have to die in war/get drafted, or go down the coal mines, is also not having control over their lives and bodies.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here is a comment by another frequent user on this sub that is better sourced and examination of bias towards women

I wasn't refuting the fact that sometimes biases favour women. What I'm refuting is the common myth among MRAs that bias toward women is the only or even most common form of bias there is, which frankly is a ridiculous and extremely distorted assertion.

Do you think feminists in academia and in power one day will go, "okay mission accomplished, no need for feminist anymore, guess I'm out of a job"

Thats not really how science works.. These feminists are writing and commenting on what they see in society. If the results of their studies show that feminism is finally not needed and sexism is over then they will love on to study other things. You can't possibly believe that thousands of years of sexism can just vanish or be solved in one lifetime right?

An expectation men have to die in war/get drafted, or go down the coal mines, is also not having control over their lives and bodies.

The draft hasn't been implemented in decades and is currently being changed to stop being male only. Feminists are not pro war nor are they pro draft either.

In our day to day lives men don't have to worry about their bodily autonomy. You also can choose to lobby for better labour rights or unionize to improve safety for coal miners. There are literally a million more productive things men's rights activists could be doing to make life safer and better for men but instead they choose to be antifeminists and spend 90% of their energy on hating feminism. Feminists don't want men to die in coal mines. They want you to unionize.

It really makes no sense to keep seeing Feminism, and not Conservativism as the enemy to men's liberation from sexism. No sense whatsoever.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You seem pretty loud for this claim to be true.

And in what ways most feminists are marginalized today? The ones I can see live in safe, affluent countries, granting them opportunities that are mostly equal to men, tout college degrees, and do jackshit to help women in the third world countries.

So far, I have seen you faithful exhibiting feelings of artificially manufactured outrage by liberal application of what can be termed as "inverse-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy" (and I hope you know what are the principles of CBT that are proven to teach people emotional resilience) where your philosophy teach people to be helpless, anxious and powerless by telling them that they are victims, that they are feeble, and that people who would hurt them are everywhere and discourage constructive steps to take back power in their lives, like taking self-defense classes, as "victim-blaming" and so on.

Face it, if you have a college education, speak English and have time to debate this, while living in a first world country, you are probably less marginalized than most men here.

Edit: Typo. Rephrase.

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

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (142 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (141 children) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

This is a major barrier I find when discussing feminism with the average feminist. To quote part of a comment I made a while ago:

It's also important to note that there are also two broad types of feminism. "Equality/Equity Feminism" which is the feminism based on the pure equality of the sexes, the average Jane's definition of feminism. The other feminism is "Gender Feminism" (I sometimes like to call "Institutional/Ideological Feminism"), who believe historically and currently society is inherently oppressive to women, and men are inherently oppressive. Gender Feminism is rooted in Patriarchy theory (which has more meaning than simply "men have political power". Male advocates have no objection to Equality Feminism (on the contrary, they celebrate it). Male advocates object to Gender Feminism because they believe Patriarchy theory is wrong (that is, not an accurate representation of society), and that Gender Feminism is actively harming men (e.g. Duluth model, Tender years doctrine, downplaying male victims of rape etc).

Gender Feminism is what holds the position of power. Gender feminists have complete control of academia, and actively influence laws and policies, such as NOW blocking Shared Parenting bills. When myself and most other people here refer to feminism, we are referring to feminism in its active, actionable form, that is Gender Feminism. They are the de facto legitimate branch of feminism by virtue of being the most powerful and influential branch of feminism.

being written out of being rape victims

Forgetaboutthelonely here is referencing Mary P. Koss, a prominent feminist scholar, who has been foundational in how feminist study rape. Koss has influenced CDC policy so that "made to penetrate" is not considered rape, and indirectly influencing the legal definition of rape in the USA being ""Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." That is, made to penetrate is legally not rape in the USA.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is, made to penetrate is legally not rape in the USA.

I believe this has no longer been the case for a few years now.

Mary Koss does not equal all of feminism and certainly her old school traditional views of gender and rape don't reflect modern feminist thinking. Which is why I originally asked "what do you disagree with that most feminists believe" and not "has a feminist ever said anything sexist?".

I also don't think gender feminism is an established thing and not do I think most modern feminists agree with the tender years doctrine (which is actually pretty antifeminist if you think about it) and the other stuff you mentioned.

Again, this is why I originally asked what do most feminists believe that you disagree with. Everytime I ask this its always the same old thing about Mary Koss and Tender Years Doctrine and I kinda wanna get to the heart of real disagreements between living people who currently make up the movement.

[–]LacklustreFriend6 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is still the current definition of rape used by the DoJ in the USA. What you may be thinking of is that definition used to be “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” and was changed to the current definition “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

So it went from a case of explicit discrimination against male victims of rape to implicit discrimination. Also note this change was made in 2013. In some countries, such as the UK and India, the rape laws still explicitly discriminate against male victims of rape (that is, legally, men cannot be raped at all).

You're right, the average feminist such as yourself does not agree with these things. The issue is the feminists who are in power, like Mary P. Koss, and organisation like NOW who block Shared Parenting bills (which is in agreement with the spirit of Tender Years), do believe in this. You are correct that Koss is not all of feminism, but she, and feminists like her, are the actionable and active form of feminism. She is an leading voice in feminism. They are what feminism is in the practical level. The feminists who influence society do believe in these kinds of things. I don't think I can stress this enough:

The feminists who are in power do discriminate against men. Power legitimizes their form of feminism.

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend6 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely6 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]homo_redditorensis3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely4 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Literally every single thing you wrote here I would also propose the exact same things to you.

good. you make some posts and I'll make a sticky to this sub.

I'm happy to support men's causes. Just stop presenting feminism as though it's your biggest enemy.

then stop allowing shitty misandrists into power and defending them with motte and bailey arguments. if these people weren't in power then there wouldn't be nearly the amount of opposition.

We are better allies to you than conservatives, unless your intention is to revert us all back to the past.

we aren't as conservative as you think.

think feminists can do be better and theres plenty of room for improvement but if you're gonna be antifeminist then obviously we can't be allies.

until i see genuine effort to oust misandrists and questioning of misandrist dogma I'll be critical.

no single raindrop feels responsible for the flood. and calling yourself a feminist is a choice.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely4 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Explain to me how anything I said was a motte and bailey argument?

when we say we're against feminism for good reason you come in here arguing that we're wrong. and when we point out that there's some VERY good reasons for us to be so. you go back to the bailey that its "not all feminists"

And again I'll have to raise your points at the next radfem convention where we'll all vote to remove libfems from power in order to properly destroy the patriarchal hierarchy we currently still live in. Are you gonna be there?

you could spend your energy spreading awareness of these issues hut instead you're choosing to be here.

we aren't as conservative as you think

Then stop agreeing with Conservative articles and turn your ire against the establishment, the neoliberal structure that fucks us all over, and find join us in destroying the patriarchal power structure and eliminating gender roles

only when you stop demonizing men with caustic terms like Toxic masculinity.

[–]homo_redditorensis2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

when we say we're against feminism for good reason you come in here arguing that we're wrong. and when we point out that there's some VERY good reasons for us to be so. you go back to the bailey that its "not all feminists

It's not a fallacy to believe that a few wrong feminists doesn't make all of feminism wrong. Simple as that.

you could spend your energy spreading awareness of these issues hut instead you're choosing to be here.

Would you rather have an echochamber?

only when you stop demonizing men with caustic terms like Toxic masculinity

It's a shame that you guys continue to misunderstand what those words mean. Toxic masculinity does not mean all of masculinity is toxic. Some of masculinity is good, like having a drive to get what you want, standing up for yourself and others, aka being assertive. And thankfully millions of men are agreeing with the fact that some aspects of masculinity like don't cry or have emotions and don't empathize with people really fucking sucks. And so do millions of psychologists. Would you rather people be politically correct and pretend there's nothing wrong? Or what's a word that doesn't offend you but still refers to the same concept? Maybe you can push for a new word, I don't care as long as the concept is being rightfully criticized and gender roles are being destroyed.

[–]InitiatePenguin2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How have I mischaracterized Pinker?

You don't seem to actually understand what blank slate means. Please read the Areo article I provided, and stop refusing to acknowledge that blank slatism is the lifeblood of feminism, with your position, regrettably, being in the top quartile by sanity.

Wanting to eradicate gender roles is a position that maps out to real world actions.

You twist and distort. If I had to predict what your views are from actions, I'd say you want to keep privilege and special protections, and only want to eradicate the parts you dislike about your gender role — no consistency for men.

Read some Warren Farrell on this, he wrote extensively on this, I won't repeat him. At least open his Wikipedia page...

Please describe the gender roles?

Why? You are trying to shift the burden of doing intellectual work on me here.

And describe what you don't like about them.

I dislike how your movement was the biggest and most consistent enemy in our efforts to liberalize the downsides of the male gender role, which I have said for the tenth time now.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You don't seem to actually understand what blank slate means

You haven't answered my question. I asked you how am I mischaracterizing Pinker. "You don't understand it" is not an answer. Show me the part of what I wrote that mischaracterizes the concept?

I bet you can't.

I had to predict what your views are from actions, I'd say you want to keep privilege and special protections, and only want to eradicate the parts you dislike about your gender role — no consistency for men

Wrong again.

Why? You are trying to shift the burden of doing intellectual work on me here.

I find it amusing that you keep refusing to answer this basic question.

I dislike how your movement was the biggest and most consistent enemy in our efforts to liberalize the downsides of the male gender role, which I have said for the tenth time now.

Wrong again. Conservativism is your enemy. Stop embracing their regressive ideas about masculinity and you'll make progress.

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Anyways, /u/homo_redditorensis...

Talking to you was initially interesting and engaging, but now I see that you are too wedded to an unfalsifiable system of belief to question your stances on these issues, and that you don't show much actionable, meaningful compassion for men, we literally are second-class citizens to you, when advocacy is concerned.

What's worse, you also did not respond to the substantial portion of any of my comments, citing various fairly phony reasons to dismiss legitimate criticisms of your movement out of hand.

If you were interested in educating yourself more, cared for men, — I believe such a person would have behaved differently. Maybe you do, and you will study the sources I cited, but this isn't very productive for me, and now I can see that you are only interested in proselytization, and uninterested in the humanity of men, or in good faith engagement with your opponents, not willing to do any intellectual legwork.

This is to be expected, after all, you are a mod of r/feminism, and this religious, unquestioning zeal is what made you qualified for the position. I apologize for some of my more adversarial phrasings, but I hope you understand — I care deeply for these issues, and people like you are a big part of the reason why male issues still aren't addressed in the affluent, liberated parts of the world that could afford to a long time ago.

I hope will find it in your heart to see men with more compassion in the future, and I gave you pointers on authors who could help you do that: Cathy Young is a good equity feminist author who is currently active, and you could study the life and works of Karen DeCrow to learn what a feminist with compassion for men looked like.

P.S. I'm now going to block you, so that the temptation of arguing with you further doesn't take more of my time.

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hope you come around to r/AskFeminists sometime and work out the gaps in your understanding of gender theory :)

Why do the feminists always claim we should study gender theory, the same was as the Christians always try to get you to read the Bible, when neither of these texts adequately predicts what an average believer will tend to do in real life, and how their activists will exert their influence on policy?

Would you spend years reading the Bible when you needed to understand why Evangelicals act the way they do towards homosexuals, or what Westboro Baptist Church believes? Well, we aren't buying your "theory" excuse, either.

The gap between your movement's words and actions is just too large. Male advocates aren't misinformed, we just learned to be on guard against deceit from past experience.

Edit:

Additionally, there was a brilliant study by the Pew Research Center in 2010 that showed that atheists have more religious knowledge than practicing Christians: https://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

I strongly suspect the same is the case with a majority of feminists compared to a majority anti-feminists or non-feminists. In my experience, most self-identified feminists have no knowledge of feminist theory whatsoever, and no desire to learn about it — instead they possess a vague sense of own self-righteousness cultivated and reinforced by college, multiplied by the psychological needs met by their secular religion, and react to the right buzzwords expected from their tribe.

So maybe it's your understanding of men and men's issues we need to work on, instead ;)

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Gender differences in psychology is explained by radically different socialization of genders in gender theory.

This is called the "blank slate" approach, and it was thoroughly debunked dozens of times now, which you would have known, if your BSc touched on Steven Pinker more seriously than to tell you all that he's such a bad person.

Please stop pretending that you know something about stuff you obviously don't know something about.

I am inclined to believe that there is a mixture of nature and nurture in human psychology, but that our current society shapes our behaviour and thus our brain to be gendered.

This is a little better than your average science-denying feminist, but your view is still largely blank slate.

But I wonder why MRAs are always trying to argue that gender differences are innate?

This is a dumb view, which we don't hold.

Most MRAs are not gender essentialist, we acknowledge that socialization plays a role, we just don't want you to twist and pervert facts into the blank slate narrative when it's convenient to you, of which your movement has an extensive track record.

I guess I'm going to have to educate you myself:

In the view of feminists, men are still advantaged, and there is still much work to do. Feminists perceive that women still cannot access the same job opportunities as men in the same numbers and earn less overall. To them, this indicates discrimination or, at the least, pervasive cultural conditioning which discourages women from achieving their potential. In the feminist view, men are dangerously violent, especially against women. They infer this by pointing out that men are significantly overrepresented among violent criminals and that although most victims of violence are also men, reported intersexual violence shows men to commit much more against women than women do against men. This imbalance is particularly significant in sexual offenses. Feminists understand these data as indicative of societal norms in which men are socialized to be violent, especially to women, due to the influences of pervasive misogyny and patriarchal assumptions. Feminist beliefs such as these ultimately rely upon what is known as “blank slatism” or “social constructivism.”

Blank slatism is the belief that human psychological traits, cognitive abilities, and behavior are all learned, rather than being even partially dependent upon inherited biological traits. Particularly, under blank slatism there can be no inherent difference in psychological, cognitive, and behavioral traits between men and women. Instead, differences between the sexes are believed to be entirely socialized, meaning they are learned largely from others in the attempt to conform to societal norms — recollecting the famous declaration “gender is a social construct.”

The connections between feminist thought and blank slatism are both deep and complex. The view that humans are psychologically “blank slates” (tabulae rasae) from which the ideology gets its name, has a long history within feminism from the early days of “consciousness raising” but is now heard most commonly in intersectional feminist thought, which relies upon postmodern notions that knowledge and truth are constructed by dominant discourses. As a result, a blank slate ideology is now a central tenet of both radical and liberal feminism and contravening it can carry serious social consequences.

[...]

These differences, which have been replicated over and over, discredit the blank-slate hypothesis that all cognitive and psychological differences between men and women are socialized, but they also disprove gender essentialism. Studies repeatedly show that men and women are more alike than different and that it is rare for men and women to have all the traits more commonly associated with their sex. The reality is: that the sexes are much more alike cognitively and psychologically than different and that differences are significant enough to have an impact on life choices and that individual variation means that we cannot rely on these trends to tell us anything about any individual. This seems to be counterintuitive to many people who argue for gender essentialism. It is likely that this is because we humans form our conclusions largely on observation and experience, and we are much more likely to notice differences than similarities.

Read the rest of it here, so that you at least have a vague idea of what you are disagreeing with: https://areomagazine.com/2018/06/19/the-pendulum-need-not-swing-why-gender-roles-are-not-the-answer-to-blank-slatism/comment-page-1/

(not that it would stop your comrades about continuing to lie about this, mind you)

[–]sneakpeekbot1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IronGentry5 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IronGentry6 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminist's attitudes are similarly prejudiced as who's then?

As what you are convinced the worst of the men's activists are. I'm not implying it's true — just acknowledging your argument. Which was the least substantial thing I said, yet it's the one you want to react to.

While I understand how your philosophy seems to teach you to be maximally outraged as a political tool, this worldview has it's downsides — and this is one, and no one seems to be interested in building any safeguards about that into your community.

Also if you're downvoting, pls chill with that, I can't discuss properly when Im being forced to wait 9 minutes between every reply.

Maybe this will teach you some sympathy on how it feels to be a man in the pro-feminist spaces. At least I'm not siccing a moderator on you every time you say something I disagree with.

But fine, I'll stop downvoting.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely4 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

mary p koss is a feminist.

Yes but throughout the last 2 centuries of feminism, it has evolved over time to gradually abandon old traditional prejudices. Feminists in 1870 for example were generally less feminist and less comprehensive in their feminism than feminists in the 1930s, feminists in 1960s were faring better than those in 1940s, etc. Humanism in general has had a similar trajectory. By modern standards, humanists in previous centuries fall short too.

then why has it never been called toxic in the same manner?

Idk that's how language just naturally progressed to suit the topic of discussion. I think it intuitively makes sense given the specific role of masculinity in society. But I don't object to the usage for femininity either.

look up warren farrell and the protests for his talks.

I knew you'd bring this one up lol it happened in like 2012? And it's because the men's rights movement was a cesspool of hate and misinformation much worse than it currently is (its still bad but goddamn was it pure cancer back then). They were objecting to the antifeminist and misogynist rhetoric. CAFE has since held many more events and even opened up a men's shelter. So I'll repeat my question, any recent protests that you can name? Any this year? Last year? 2017?

look up what happened to the red pill documentary.

Dude seriously? That "documentary" was pure misinformation, dishonest and extremely biased right wing trash. Summed up it was "men have problems and its all feminist's fault, let's not blame gender roles or patriarchal hierarchy or anything that disrupts the traditional/conservative hegemonic worldview at all, ever". You can't seriously be telling me that this subreddit actually agrees with that propaganda? Honestly that's extremely disappointing

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

mary p koss is a feminist.

Yes but throughout the last 2 centuries of feminism, it has evolved over time to gradually abandon old traditional prejudices. Feminists in 1870 for example were generally less feminist and less comprehensive in their feminism than feminists in the 1930s, feminists in 1960s were faring better than those in 1940s, etc. Humanism in general has had a similar trajectory. By modern standards, humanists in previous centuries fall short too.

and yet they remain prominent figures. hell katherine spillar is still the head of a number of feminist institutions.

then why has it never been called toxic in the same manner?

Idk that's how language just naturally progressed to suit the topic of discussion. I think it intuitively makes sense given the specific role of masculinity in society. But I don't object to the usage for femininity either.

i do.

because words have meaning. and when you use a loaded term like "toxic masculinity" it ends up being understood in the most literal sense. not the academic one.

and when there's no symmetrical term for femininity. what does that tell us?

look up warren farrell and the protests for his talks.

I knew you'd bring this one up lol it happened in like 2012? And it's because the men's rights movement was a cesspool of hate and misinformation much worse than it currently is (its still bad but goddamn was it pure cancer back then).

yet it was still protested because his words were taken out of context to slander him.

They were objecting to the antifeminist and misogynist rhetoric.

what rhetoric exactly?

CAFE has since held many more events

many of which have been protested.

Any this year? Last year? 2017

and how can we be sure it won't be a repeat of the past? why put resources into shit if it's going to be shut down.

Dude seriously? That "documentary" was pure misinformation, dishonest and extremely biased right wing trash.

have you watched it? it showed exactly the same shit I've been talking about. men wanted equal rights and were shut down by feminist organizations.

blame gender roles or patriarchal hierarchy or anything that disrupts the traditional/conservative hegemonic worldview at all, ever".

like i said elsewhere. gender roles didn't lobby against equal parenting legislation. didn't write men out of rape statistics. didn't oppose mens shelters.

You can't seriously be telling me that this subreddit actually agrees with that propaganda? Honestly that's extremely disappointing

what's disappointing is that you can't see that there's some honest truth behind us saying that feminism has done a lot of shit that's harmed men. and the lack of effort to amend it and condemn misandry is why many oppose it.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend5 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You do realize that making stuff up about the men's advocates doesn't make it true?

Edit:

And as I repeatedly tried to show you, on paper you claim that you oppose "unjust dehumanization of men", but then you immediately turn to dehumanizing and demonize men who disagree with your politics as "hateful", as if your life dependend on the fact that this is the only reason why someone would disagree with you.

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless they want to see how terribly misguided and right wing the MRM is.

Hey u/LacklustreFriend, this one obviously haven't watched the Cassie Jaye documentary and doesn't know anything about it, but instead, read some screed about it by someone who haven't watched it either, and then allowed her upset emotions (something Jaye talked about in the movie — feminists cultivate this bias in their own) to do the rest of the work of dehumanization.

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

/u/homo_redditorensis

Honestly I really don't want to be dragged back into a week old argument. While I get involved in my fair share of heated internet arguments, this one has become particularly vitriolic, something I try to avoid. I will just leave this one comment. Mewacketargi, I know when people misunderstand or misrepresent your views it's incredibly frustrating, but there's no point in being antagonistic, just ignore if it's not productive.

homo_redditorenisis, I think you may be conflating The Red Pill film by Cassie Jaye and TheRedPill subreddit. They unfortunately have a similar name, but they are not the same thing. TheRedPill subreddit didn't even exist during production of The Red Pill film. They both take their name from the Matrix reference, but they do not hold the same views. Ironically in a very old AMA of Cassie Jaye you can see Redpillers and MRAs arguing over the term - they are not the same movement. If you haven't watched the film please do. It has nothing to do with TheRedPill subreddit.

I'll also just make one last attempt to explain why people here, and most MRAs, are critical of feminism. Many MRAs and male advocates are former feminists. Many MRAs have experienced firsthand the blatant discrimination men face. These are men who can't see their kids due to misandrist courts. These are men who are victims of domestic violence or rape who received no support or revictimized by the "support" systems that are in place. These are men traumatized by their genital integrity or the genital integrity of boys they care about being violated. These are men whose lives have been ruined by false sexual assault allegations. These are women who care about how the men they love are being hurt by a society who does not care about them.

When they look for answers about how such blatant discrimination can exist in our society, one of the many things they find is that feminism is responsible for putting into place many, many (not all) of the discriminatory laws, policies and attitudes towards men. That feminist theory has actively demonized men. That feminism and feminists claim they are the movement for equality of both sexes and men's issues too, but then feminist media prioritizes perceived trivial slights against women like exercise bike ads and air conditioning over the men's issues that directly harm countless men everyday. That the feminist movement has not directly and tangibly help men's issues (you know who is challenging the draft legally? Not feminists, the NCFM). And when they try and talk about it, they get smeared as reactionary, misogynistic incel neckbeards.

Please understand that feminism is only one movement of many movements for equality. Feminism is not synonymous with women or women's rights. Criticism of feminism is not criticism of women. Feminism is not infallible and has committed many actions that deserve to be criticized, and has theory that deserves to be criticized. Feminism is not just simply advocating equality of the sexes, it has a world view, a culture, an ideology.

I'm not commenting further in this spat.

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nope I mean the Cassie Jaye documentary. I've watched it and it's horrible, not even a speck of actual analysis in it. It refuses to actually criticize structural problems behind men's issues. It's purpose is quite literally to just ble feminism for every single one of men's issues, and spread misinformation.

This review of it sums it up

I feel like Cassie Jaye wanted to pretend like the MRM doesn't have any toxic/misogynist parts, and where a decent interviewer doing a real documentary would have pushed some of these guys on that, she just... didn't. I get that she wanted to show the "other side" of the MRM, but you can't really do that honestly without addressing its problems as well. She falls all over herself, in fact, to either defend or ignore the misogynist rhetoric inherent in the manosphere. She portrays horrible men like emotionally vulnerable, pleasant father figures. She has too much sympathy for guys like Paul Elam. She makes the few feminists that are featured look like uptight, out-of-touch assholes parroting feminist talking points that they don't really understand, and wow, let's talk about selective editing for the anti-MRA rallies and protests. She makes opponents of Warren Farrell etc. type rhetoric look as crazy and as unhinged as possible, which is rather hilarious considering, again, the way she tries to make some of these dudes look like sensitive, kindly grandfathers who just want what's best for everybody.

She also doesn't identify, or even try to identify, any systemic causes for the issues facing men and boys. It's just "ah, blah, feminism is why men have it hard, and literally no other possible reason!" Overall it struck me as amateurish propaganda (also suspicious since it was funded by a lot of manosphere-type groups)-- it just wasn't very well-done and was obviously biased.

Also there's too much in the rest of your comment to respond to but I'll just pick one

That the feminist movement has not directly and tangibly help men's issues (you know who is challenging the draft legally? Not feminists, the NCFM).

Yeah feminists focus on women's issues. The thing is they do not oppose the ending of a draft for men. In fact polls ever since the early-mid century have indicated than men, Conservative men, are the ones most likely to be in favour of the drafting of men.

So technically, feminists are better allies to men than conservatives are. Better allies than tradcons. But you'll never see an MRA admitting this.

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

None of this is a substantial criticism of Cassie Jaye's documentary.

Edit:

In more detail:

"Men start wars" is a feminist lie based on the "men are violent by nature" myth, since it is the political demands of both men and women placed on leaders that lead nations to war.
"Criticizing the neoliberal status quo" isn't realistically within the scope of the documentary like this, Jaye had to cut ruthlessly as is.
Unionization doesn't address the problems of gender division of labor, it's like a topical aneshetic.
Conservatives aren't a defining force in a conversation around gender in US today.

To conslude, that Jaye wasn't sufficiently anti-capitalist, and the movie wasn't done by a far-leftist isn't a good criticism of it, — it was extremely balanced and well made, as much as feasible for a moderate production aimed at reaching the greatest number of people.

Not that it stopped feminists who have never seen from completely mischaracterising it.

Give me one substantial criticism.

Edit: Typo. ETA.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They also conveniently leave out how AVFM and Paul Elam and his work are hateful to women.

This is factually inaccurate. Paul Elam's work is not harmful to women, and he is not anymore hateful than your average radical feminist writer.

I'm not a huge fan of him for this reason, but if the genders were reversed, as a feminist, he would be firmly within the Overton Window of the conversation around gender.

So please try to show some consistency, even if it's something alien to you.

ETA: Additionally, I find it particularly funny that as a radical feminist you dislike Paul Elam. Hostility and the more adversarial approach to the conversation around gender was mainstreamed and normalized by feminists decades ago. Today, men are learning the rules of the game and adapting to it.

I'm not huge fan of that myself, but it just makes sense that more and more prominent MRAs are going to be like Paul Elam — the ban against men being listened to when they are angry was after all, a conservative gender norm, and we are mostly past that now.

This is something you will just have to come to terms with, u/homo_redditorensis, — it was your movement that has defined the rules of engagement in the "gender war" as such, and now your enemy adapted and will use them against you.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely5 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'd love to reply to all this but first I want to ask, are you someone who is willing to admit that masculinity as a gender role is flawed and pressures men to be superior to women?

i would admit that masculinity is flawed. but not that it pressures men to be superior to women. they wouldn't be the fodder dying in the trenches if that was the case. it pressures men to be disposable providers.

would you be willing to admit that feminism as a movement has harmed men and actively worked against the notion of equality in several ways through misandrist dogma?

and would you also be willing to admit that a lot of the pressure for male gender roles comes from women and society as a whole. making it a problem that we should address at a societal level instead of levying the blame against men?

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]homo_redditorensis-1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

because words have meaning. and when you use a loaded term like "toxic masculinity" it ends up being understood in the most literal sense. not the academic one.

By people who are too offended to understand what qualifiers do, and what masculinity means. It gets to the heart of the problem of the MRM, you refuse to criticize gender roles because masculinity provides too many privileges for men to feel comfortable letting go of it. Women have been damning and criticizing femininity for hundreds of years. Wanna know why? Because traditional femininity fucking sucks. Sit down, be pretty, listen to men, be virgin, don't speak too much, don't stand up for yourself, don't have ambitions, etc.. These are all things women have despised for many decades and said "FUCK THAT" to lol. Think about it. A lot of men don't want to leave their throne of privileges, and who could blame them? So there's less incentive to even understand the concept of gender roles, let alone actually criticize them.

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

By people who are too offended to understand what qualifiers do, and what masculinity means.

OR by people who know that when you call something toxic. it means you think that thing is toxic.

It gets to the heart of the problem of the MRM, you refuse to criticize gender roles because masculinity provides too many privileges for men to feel comfortable letting go of it.

we're happy to criticize. but we're not about to demonize men in doing so.

Women have been damning and criticizing femininity for hundreds of years. Wanna know why? Because traditional femininity fucking sucks.

funny how toxic femininity never became a commonly used word then.

A lot of men don't want to leave their throne of privileges,

die at work. be disposable. show no emotion about it. die in war. do the dangerous jobs. be a man. put your body and life on the line.

so fucking privileged.

and who could blame them? So there's less incentive to even understand the concept of gender roles, let alone actually criticize them.

there's plenty of incentive. but we're not going to use loaded terms that demonize men to do so.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

OR by people who know that when you call something toxic. it means you think that thing is toxic.

You're proving my point. Saying "black bears" doesn't mean all bears are black. Because you're referring to a specific species of bear.

but if instead you said "disgusting bears" without ever clarifying what a non disgusting bear is. what does that imply?

and for further analysis. let's look at another comment

I hate Toxic Blackness. Toxic Blackness harms Black people. It's why Black people create a disproportionate amount of violent crime, it's just part of their culture, and it needs to go. Not all Black people, of course, and not all Black culture, just the toxic parts—like associating doing well in school and having good jobs with being White. Black people need to stop being toxic, and we need to help them. They're part of the problem. They're suffering from a sickness of their own making, and me—a White person with these "progressive" ideas—I'm the cure. I'm trying to help.

I'm not hating on Black people, just pointing out problems with society and Blackness. It's not racism dressed up as anti-racism.

/s

What a fucking joke.

A qualifier is a word or phrase that changes how absolute, certain or generalized a statement is.

yes. terms like "a little" or "very"

not fucking "toxic" which is a descriptor

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This shouldn't be necessary since as I said, the traits usually associated with masculinity are praised to the moon and back since time immemorial lmao like heroism and bravery, assertiveness, strength, etc so it's a mystery to me that you still need to hear masculinity being complimented after only hearing that for centuries..

But if you count journalists there's Elizabeth Plank. Academics theres MS Kesilica. 99% of feminists would also agree with this, they just don't fixate on it because society already praises masculinity, but I don't think you understand this. I'm dealing with a raid on r/Feminism from a million teenaged boys right now but if you search positive masculinity you'll find it.

Also, masculinity shouldn't even exist. Neither should femininity. These are old school ways of talking about traits that every human being should have. I don't think you quite understand that this is the position from which feminists are coming from lol

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This shouldn't be necessary since as I said, the traits usually associated with masculinity are praised to the moon and back since time immemorial lmao like heroism and bravery, assertiveness, strength, etc so it's a mystery to me that you still need to hear masculinity being complimented after only hearing that for centuries..

I'm not talking about society.

I'm talking about feminists.

But if you count journalists there's Elizabeth Plank. Academics theres MS Kesilica. 99% of feminists would also agree with this, they just don't fixate on it because society already praises masculinity, but I don't think you understand this. I'm dealing with a raid on r/Feminism from a million teenaged boys right now but if you search positive masculinity you'll find it.

well then let's see them.

Also, masculinity shouldn't even exist. Neither should femininity. These are old school ways of talking about traits that every human being should have. I don't think you quite understand that this is the position from which feminists are coming from lol

oh i did. my problem is that the term toxic masculinity without either symmetric terms for femininity or similar dialogue about the positive traits shows me that it's a thinly veiled method of demonizing men.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not the word itself that offends, — it certainly didn't serve to offend when it originated during the era of mythopoetic men's movement, — it's a contemporary and perfectly normal, justified reaction that built up consistently with how it was used as a bludgeon, to demonize and villify, which indeed, you likely won't do anything about, with the way your movement attracts those who want to legitimize their neuroses and male-bashing and tends betray their supposed principles for momentary convenience over, and over again.

You won't, but you could.

You can't. Because it's not the word that bothers you, it's the concept.

It's always a pleasure dealing with a mind-reader! Or more likely, you are just someone who is incredibly pretentious, and you have no idea what about this bothers me.

Edit:

Well, technically, there were a few precedents of feminists who did, like this good woman, but a feminism with a conscience and compassion seems about as rare as Klansmen who wasn't racist, so I'm not holding my breath to turn out to be one.

On these issues, the feminist movement has mostly come down on the side of women's interests rather than gender equity. The New York State chapter of NOW has opposed joint custody since the early 1980s, claiming that it would give fathers leverage to blackmail mothers into settling for less child support (talk about gender stereotyping!). Nationally, the organization issued statements in 1996 and 1999 comparing fathers' groups to abusive men and formally resolving to counteract these groups' influence and defend mothers who supposedly face gender bias in courts.

One of DeCrow's last published articles, in the Syracuse Post Standard, was written almost a year ago for Father's Day 2013 and ran under the title, "We should cease thinking about men as the enemy of women and children."

Today, when DeCrow's voice is silent, hers is the kind of feminism we should be seeking to revive.

"I think there really should be no such thing as a men's movement and a women's movement," she said in her speech to the National Congress for Men. "I think that we're after the same thing."

Too bad this wasn't anyone who knew feminism well, and tried to make it toxic. Like say, a former head of a NOW chapter. Article: https://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/a-feminist-who-looked-out-for-men-too-cathy-young-1.8466127

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't agree with his views nor do I agree with your argument. Gender roles that are pushed into every child from birth are not necessary.

You don't appear to understand what his argument even were. You keep repeating this, as if it refuted my position, but this just shows that you don't understand what blank slatism is.

Here, read this so you can learn:

But when confronted with this information, and studies that show non-socialized sex differences in cognition between men and women, social scientists, gender scholars, and gender feminists have a tendency to deny, obfuscate, downplay, and deflect like the most devout of believers. What do they believe in? The blank slate. That we are all born, in Lockean terms, tabulae rasaes. Or, they refer to relativistic ideas about “scientism” and posit that it’s not possible to “objectively” know these things.

More here: https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/16/gender-trouble-gender-feminism-and-the-blank-slate/

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You keep misunderstanding me

Also, masculinity shouldn't even exist. Neither should femininity. These are old school ways of talking about traits that every human being should have - me

And

This view is hopelessly blank slatist and divorced from reality. You need to read some Steven Pinker. - you

You're arguing that Pinker's disagreement with blank slatism runs counter to my beliefs that gender roles should not exist. I know what Pinker's arguments are. I'm not refuting that nature and nurture both coexist to shape individuals. What I do argue is that

Gender roles as they have existed and currently exist today are unjustified, even if there are biological factors that explain some of the differences between genders
Biological differences are difficult to determine
Variation within genders is massive

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let me give you one example that sends an average feminist into a hissy, shaking, anti-scientific fit. It is well-established by psychologists that men exhibit much more variability in most personality characteristics, while women tend more towards the average part of the normal distribution; this meaning, that when it comes to the IQ, there are much more both morons and geniuses among men.

This is well-known to scientists, if not very PC, and not written about in newspapers.

The extreme deviants on the good end of the male spectrum outnumber female deviants something like 2 : 10, and so this is the major percentage of the explanation why men who receive most Nobel prizes, while feminist op-ed authors don't even acknowledge the very well-established gender difference in the interest in people vs things (see Roy F. Baumeister on this), and claim that men outnumbering women in the STEM is entirely due to sexism.

Your political philosophy entire existence relies on acceptability of extremely simplified, dumbed-down explanations of reality that can be conveniently shouted as slogans during protest, there is litter or no scientific literacy (even if you are charitable and take social constructionism to broadly be science), and censorship is necessary, and seen as good.

Like it or not, this can't be denied.

Edit: Typo.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

feminist op-ed authors don't even acknowledge the very well-established gender difference in the interest in people vs things (see Roy F. Baumeister on this), and claim that men outnumbering women in the STEM is entirely due to sexism.

It's still undetermined how much is due to biological factors and how much is due to environmental factors like sexism. I am of the belief, and a lot of feminists who have researched this agree that it seems to be a mixture of both.

What i do not enjoy is when MRAs and right wingers use this to mean that sexism doesn't exist and we've figured it all out. I have always, ever since I began studying the brain and psychology, believed that humans are a mixture of both nature and nurture.

Increased female participation in the economy, education and political empowerment significantly reduce the size of the discrepancy in variances between males and females across the three educational domains studied here. If these increase, we might expect the variance gap to decrease.

https://largescaleassessmentsineducation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40536-019-0070-9

These authors replicated very similar results to the best research on male variability hypothesis conducted thus far and concluded that though there is good research that suggests that MVH is true, the effect is similar but varies in magnitude across different countries, and there is a relationship between female empowerment and a reduction in the variability gap. They argue more research is needed to understand what affects the variation between countries and why female empowerment reduces the variability gap. There is another piece of research that argues that more variability in women's performance in a country is related to how well women do in STEM in that country and concluded that reducing sexism would increase variability and thus greater performance in women.

As a STEM woman myself, I have faced innumerous run ins with sexism all throughout my life and academic career that make me question staying in the field at all, despite achieving great marks. I find it frustrating how many men seem to not care about how difficult it currently still is for talented and bright women of all ages to not only be encouraged but also not discouraged from pursuing passions related to STEM. Oppressing women shouldn't be a goal of male advocates, unless you're just an antifeminist. You should be a friend to women and work primarily on ending sexism, not justifying it. Sexism still exists. Women are still discriminated against in STEM. Science papers with a female name are still rated more poorly than the same writing with a male name. Resumes with a female name as well. Girls are still pressured to go into certain fields more than others due to lack of role models in STEM, childcare duties, gender roles, and other forms of sexism. Women perform better on typically masculine tests when they believe that they are facing a female opponent, even when in reality they are facing male opponents. Women in male dominated careers still face incredible difficulty in attaining mentorship, and promotions even when controlling for experience and accomplishments. Similar effects of all of these have been demonstrated in other minorities such as black people. This isn't the time to end initiatives aimed at reducing sexism against women and making sure girls have a more gender neutral upbringing and aren't limited by their socialization.

Your political philosophy entire existence relies on acceptability of extremely simplified, dumbed-down explanations of reality

You'll obviously think that considering the dumbed down, propagandistic cherry picking of feminist theory that you read. Plenty of feminists are also neuroscientists, psychologists, anthropologiste, cognitive scientists, etc and have the scientific literacy and knowledge to back up their world views. There is a massive body of evidence that backs up feminist theory, which is why it's so dominant in academia in the first place.

Contrary to what your algorithm machine has learned that you enjoy reading there is a lot more to feminist thought than just mainstream pop feminism.

[–]InitiatePenguin2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But I don't object to the usage for femininity either.

Most people don't. But when the first reply to Toxic Masculinity is always "what about toxic Feminity?" It...

Derails the conversation
Is done from a reactionary and defensive position
Absconds responsibility of men's own actions onto women

Someone wants to talk to me about the ways traditional femininity and gender roles ultimately harm them and their relationships with others? Sure. Submissiveness, meekness, a women's place is to cater and cook.

But ultimately, I see no benefit in a men's community by focusing their complaints on women and Feminists, which is why MensLib exists, and why this sub has become one of the only places to do so.

It's not a coincidence that the same men who reject the usefulness or even the plain phrasing of Toxic Masculinity are the ones who are also advocating (disengeniously) for the term to be reflected onto women.

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As far as I'm aware, NOW opposes a change to custody laws that forces or makes 50/50 custody mandatory unless proven detrimental.

This is called "revocable presumption of joint custody", and every psychologist who understands the importance of fathers agrees that it's a good idea.

I am personally, however, flexible and open to discussion about what is best for the child.

There is no need for further discussion, the scientific consensus is too overwhelming.

NOW opposes it because they care about the well-being of children much less than about inconveniencing some of their donors.

So as a younger feminist, who's not American, I think my views are different from NOW's.

No offense, but why should I care about your views, which don't have an influence on my life in any noticeable way, more than about the hypocrisy of the institutional feminists whose actions routinely contradiction their stated noble ideals?

Edit:

I can't find the original analysis I was thinking of, but this articles re-hashes it just fine:

Let’s look at the history of shared parenting. The majority of this research was conducted by historian and citizen blogger Prentice Reid. As early as 1986, the president of one chapter of the National Organization for Women, the largest feminist organization in the US, complained about the unfairness of equality when it meant giving up a traditional female privilege. Women, feminists argued, are equal, except when they are special and then equal doesn’t count and is unfair and won’t everyone please remember that men suck? In 2001, feminists refused to even sit at the table with men to discuss men and women sharing, equally, the responsibilities and decisions involved in parenting.

What is the rationale behind opposing equality? Men suck. That’s what feminist opposition to equality boils down to. How do men suck? Let us count the ways.

According to NOW’s 2005 statement opposing shared parenting, kids seeing their fathers isn’t necessarily a good thing. Surely, in the case of abusive or negligent fathers, that is likely true. It is also true of abusive or negligent mothers. Feminists insist all fathers should be denied the right to equality because some fathers might be abusive or negligent, while completely ignoring the fact that most violence against children is carried out by women. And don’t even try to get feminists to address the piss poor job most single mothers are doing. Children without fathers in their lives suffer in measurable, meaningful ways, but feminists fight tooth and nail to keep Daddy on the margins.

In 2009, NOW upped the ante, and declared that fathers who want a relationship with their children after divorce are really only interested in controlling the woman. Fathers don’t really want to go to dance recitals or school picnics or rake the leaves in the backyard or cuddle with their kids, watching the game on TV because they love their children and want to maintain lives and memories with their babies. No. It’s because men want to access and control the woman.

(mentioning your username, so that you get notified of the update to the comment, u/homo_redditorensis)

More: https://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2015/03/if-feminism-is-about-equality-why-do-feminists-oppose-equality/

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No offense, but why should I care about your views, which don't have an influence on my life in any noticeable way

You fail to recognize that you're arguing with an individual with a specific set of beliefs, not an organization. You also still fail to recognize that feminists are better allies to your movement than conservatives. Has the movement been perfect every step of the way? Hell no. But you exaggerate your criticism of feminism and act as if it's the antithesis to men's liberation from harmful roles in society when its very obviously not.

Also please refrain from citing antifeminist think pieces and stick to quoting facts and primary sources. It means nothing to me to see some blogger rehash all the same ideas you've been arguing. I haven't seen any of NOW's direct quotes that argues bullshit like "kids don't need fathers". Also the single mother hate in that article is major yikes territory wtf

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You fail to recognize that you're arguing with an individual with a specific set of beliefs, not an organization.

Yet you excuse, normalize and defend them, amplifying the harm they do to men, — how morally wrong you need to be in the head to use this as an excuse, I just don't comprehend.

Edit: And you continue refusing to acknowledge legitimacy of any criticism of feminism.

You also still fail to recognize that feminists are better allies to your movement than conservatives.

Conservatives are flawed, but open to working with us on some issues, while you were the worst enemies of progress every step of the way, controlling the women's studies academia which remains "women studies", even although you call yourself "gender" these days.

Edit: In other words, you are so, so used to trying to weasel out of legitimate, carefully-worded criticisms of feminism by calling them "anti-feminist". Why should I let it slide? I don't care if this is anti-feminist or not, I only care if this is true.

Also please refrain from citing antifeminist think pieces and stick to quoting facts and primary sources.

The articles were factual, detailed and correct. And Cathy Young isn't an anti-feminist. Refusing to read these is on you, and your refusal to grapple with the truth.

Also the single mother hate in that article is major yikes territory wtf

You meant to say that you refuse to acknowledge that presence of a father, or a male figure is linked to vastly better outcomes for the child, and frame that as a "hate", somehow?

Edit: This is another perceptual bias, bigoted and unjust, that your movement perpetuates, — you are so used to casting every point of disagreement as "hate", "bigotry", etc etc, to shut your opponent down, that I don't know how you would even function if we were talking in a space that didn't allow these weasely excuses.

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But you exaggerate your criticism of feminism and act as if it's the antithesis to men's liberation from harmful roles in society when its very obviously not.

I say as much, because this is factually true.

You may not wish to harm us, but your moronic blank slatist ideas harm us more greatly than any deliberate malice every could on purpose... Were you really blind enough to miss everything I said about early MRAs being ex-feminists, and feminists being marginalized from the mainstream of their movement if they suddenly found themselves sympathetic to men? If so, then re-read my comments.

Clearly, you are perfectly content to continue being factually misinformed, because you have no reason to care about male issues and men's suffering in a personal way — the only remotely sympathetic thing I've heard you say was along the lines of the normal feminist malarkey of "wait until we dismantle the patriarchy, then we'll care about you".

[–]mewacketergi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is definitely not.

Here we can see you using another cheap and empty propaganda trick. Most anti-feminists want gender equality, which feminist doesn't hold a monpoly on.

Here you can educate yourself:

Do American women still need feminism? A controversial social media movement called Women Against Feminism features women explaining — mostly in “selfies” with handwritten signs — why they do not. Feminist responses have ranged from bafflement to vitriol or mockery to arguments that these women don’t know what feminism is. But while this new movement has its silly aspects, it raises some much-needed questions about feminism’s present and future state — and, in the weeks since it first attracted notice, many prominent feminists have helped validate some of the criticisms.

One might assume that Women Against Feminism is a traditionalist backlash against gender equality. Yet many of the women say they reject feminism precisely because they are pro-equality. A blogger who goes by AstrokidNJ has analyzed a week’s worth of posts on Women Against Feminism and found that 46 percent were egalitarian, 19 percent endorsed men’s issues, and 12 percent criticized feminist intolerance toward dissent. Only 23 percent reflected traditionalist views such as support for distinct sex roles, chivalry, or full-time motherhood.

But aside from the fact that cliquish in-jokes are off-putting and “ironic” hate can still sound pretty hateful, the “misandry” joke falls flat because there are too many real-life examples of feminist anti-male bias. The National Organization for Women has fought against more rights for divorced fathers, often suggesting that men who advocate for such rights are abusers. Feminist groups urging stronger enforcement of domestic violence laws have cried foul when such tough policies have led to more arrests of women. Anti-rape activists have championed campus rules that brand the man an attacker and the woman a victim if they have sex while equally intoxicated.

More here: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/09/01/women-against-feminism-some-women-want-equality-without-anger/rqFNSIJp22YWQy6jGPvhPJ/story.html

You choose to do that because you're an antifeminist first, male advocate second.

Another lie. I am precisely the opposite. You are inventing facts now, how Donald Trump of you!

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Gender roles, slut shaming, discrimination in the workplace, sexual harassment, rampant victim blaming.

You would need to be more specific. All of these things have been stretched so far, they have almost no objective meaning, instead being what's convenient to a feminist in the moment.

Fun fact, — if you take things too far for a few short decades, normal people tend to get sick of you and start doubting even relatively legitimate issues you bring up. And these groups mostly consist of people who believe in some forms of gender equality, but are sick of your quasi-religious bullshit.

As I said before, there are extremely good reasons beyond "being uneducated" why less than 20% self-identify as feminists, but more than 80% support ideas of gender equality in the West.

It's not even a given that feminism supports the interests of an average, normal human woman at this point.

Edit: Also, try r/exfeminists, you might even learn a thing or two about gender equality, like, for example, these facts: https://www.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/d69ft4/heres_a_long_list_of_the_history_of_feminists/

Edit: Typo.

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

shared parenting

You mean the thing that feminists argue is required to guarantee liberation from gender roles

domestic violence

Not disputed by feminists.

false accusations

Feminists agree that false accusations are obviously immoral, not okay and if proven should be punished. What they disagree with you on is the prevalence. Generally, MRAs downplay the rate of real rape, the severity and prevalence of victim blaming, and exaggerate the numbers of false rape accusations. False rape accusations are rare and make up a tiny proportion of all rape accusations.

sexual abuse

Feminists generally do not deny that sexual abuse against men are both 1) underreported 2) not taken seriously due to prejudices against men as sex crazed and sexist myths about who can be raped and 3) extremely damaging to victims.

Out of curiosity, who are these feminists you're arguing that make up such a large proportion of the movement that supposedly oppose advocacy for male victims of abuse? Can you find me a thread on r/AskFeminists where they argue this?

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You mean the thing that feminists argue is required to guarantee liberation from gender roles.

You mean that thing then they opposed for five decades? Yeah that. Good luck convincing me that your words are more important than your actions, when we have so much precedent of them being at odds to each other.

Not disputed by feminists.

Recognition of male victims is opposed, male shelters — shut down, or opposed.

False rape accusations are rare and make up a tiny proportion of all rape accusations.

FBI data shows it's the same rate as other crimes, between 5 and 10%. Yet feminists deny even that.

False rape accusations are rare and make up a tiny proportion of all rape accusations.

You lobby for a legal system that would make them more wide-spread, harder to defend against, and easier for abusers to ruin the lives of the accused even before the court date.

This is vile, and a decent human being would have opposed this.

Feminists generally do not deny that sexual abuse against men are both 1) underreported 2) not taken seriously due to prejudices against men as sex crazed and sexist myths about who can be raped and 3) extremely damaging to victims.

"Words are cheap, show me the code," as Linus Torvalds said. I can show you feminist actions to the contrary, but you can't do otherwise.

It's just a lie, aimed at placating the progressive.

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

[–]homo_redditorensis -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men were dominant over women through all of history. Laws written down over hundreds of years codified this dominance. This is the consensus held by historians and sociologists. You understand that "this isn't up for debate" doesn't literally mean no debates are allowed, it means the consensus and evidence is extremely well established and sound. Don't take things too literally, it's a bad faith tactic and weakens your arguments.

Anyhow, there is room for nuance. Working class man are drafted in war and more likely to die in dangerous jobs. Working class women are more likely to push for safety measures in their workplace. Statistically, it has been proven that as women enter a workplace safety measures rise and number of fatal incidents decline. It can be argued that this is a form of privilege that women have, and men are discouraged from asking for safety measures due to being shamed as less masculine. Being protected from hazardous jobs is a form of female privilege.

Where's the lack of nuance? Men's privilege involves leadership, women's privilege involves protection. I've said this from the start.

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men were dominant over women through all of history. Laws written down over hundreds of years codified this dominance.

This is just more radical feminist nonsense. When you start with this generalization, you end up with a religious view of the world. An average man had more power in some ways, an average woman in others, yet you focus only on the area where women were disadvantaged.

Anyhow, there is room for nuance.

Which your movement has fought to stamp out, silence and discredit, for decades. And yet you admit to no criticism, to no wrongdoing, only noticing things in feminist thought you like.

Where's the lack of nuance? Men's privilege involves leadership, women's privilege involves protection.

The lack of nuance in the activism and intellectual background of your movement, which currently effectively holds monopoly on this issue in academia only addressed the female downsides of their gender role, and opposed and silenced those who tried to do the same for men.

This is vile, and this is reprehensible, and an average feminist is aware of this, and does nothing.

And this is why I oppose you.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

i know I'm not the one you asked. but since the question is a good one i wanted to put in my two cents.

my main issue with feminists can be summed up as such. they certainly aren't all misandrists. but even if some say misandrists don't represent them. they've been doing a shit job at keeping misandrists out of representative and powerful positions.

I've seen far too much misinformation and slander regarding mens groups that was clearly done with the intent to shut them down. just look up common discourse regarding figures like warren farrell. nothing but shit taken out of context for the purposes of slander.

and as I've advocated for repeatedly. the constant shaming and predatorization of male sexuality is what is leading men down the pipeline to incel and redpill beliefs. not some fucking women hating conspiracy. when you punish innocent hurting people, they'll lash out because they know they can at least get solace in the fact that they'll do damage on the way down.

and finally historical inaccuracy.

men as a group didn't have power. that was something only the wealthy had. and while the poor women were stuck at home the poor men were dying in the mines and trenches.

[–]homo_redditorensis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

Wealthier women had power over poor men. It's not like men as a group moved in isolation from women. Most of history can be summed up in a kind of Marxist framework where the elite oppress the poor. And in almost all cases, the elite was made up of both men and women, and the poor was made up of both men and women.

And poor women actually tended to fair better than poor men did.

This was true, for exanple, during Medieval Europe (during which time we had quite a few female rulers), in the countryside during the early industrial revolution, and many would argue during the industrial revolution as well (research shows that women held considerable amount of power in rural communities during that time period, and then lost it during urbanization, but the changing gender roles during that time definitely privileged women more than men).

Of course many people would argue today that women are generally more privileged and more powerful than men are. While I'm sure this point is debatable, you'd have to almost bury your head in the sand to pretend that women don't, at the very least, hold substantial amounts of power in the modem world.

After all, women, and in particular, feminists, have,

Rewritten child custody laws
Rewritten divorce laws
Continue to successfully defend current custody and divorce laws
Outlawed the sale of alcohol
Legalized the sale of alcohol
Rewritten sexual assault and domestic violence laws
Reformed our education system in ways that help women and harm men

And that's just on the legal front. On the social front the impact is even larger.

The women's movement is hugely powerful and influential. And it has helped shape our society for well over 100 years now. To deny this is not only factually wrong, but I think it is hateful towards women as well. It would be like denying the contributions of female inventors and female scientists. Well, here all we're doing is denying the contributions of female political and social movements. Things like temperance, suffrage, the women's Ku Klux Klan, the underground railroad, the white feather movement, espionage, pacifism, the sexual revolution, etc. Not to mention feminism itself and our modern "you go girl" culture.

Women have helped build and shape this world into the image that we see today. And I honestly think there's an implicate level of misogyny that exists when you start trying to deny this and talk about how women are powerless and oppressed instead. It removes women's agency, it ignores women's accomplishments in society, and I think it flies in the face of history and contemporary politics.

[–]homo_redditorensis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

heteronormative, patriarchal status quo

How would you define this? I know you're getting a lot of responses here so I don't want to take up too much of your time. But in the past the only thing I've seen this defined as is basically on par with the Marxist definition of the bourgeoisie. Except with the implication that the bourgeoisie are all men (even though women own 60% of all capital assets in the United States, 50% in the UK, and probably similar rates elsewhere).

This sub should spend 98% of its time and effort criticizing gender norms

We do criticize gender norms. I actually made a post just yesterday about unpaid / paid labor, specifically addressing the bread winner and home maker gender roles. And while we discuss feminism a lot, I'd peg it at well under 50% of the content. Right now on the front page, the first topic discussing anything related to feminism is the 12th one down. The discussion about Bernie Sanders, which is the highest discussion with a lot of comments, doesn't mention feminism at all in the comments.

And it's not like we don't have good reasons to talk about feminism, either. You don't have to look far to see all of the harm that feminism has caused over the years.

We're not strictly anti-feminist though. There are other feminists who post here and I respect their opinions and usually find a lot of common ground with them. And I think there is a lot of room for men's advocacy to get along with feminism. I would even call myself a feminist, even though I doubt many feminists would include me in their ranks... Something similar happened to Warren Farrell who was basically "disowned" by the feminist movement in the 90s despite being a women's rights activist ever since the 60s.

I'm very much in support of female empowerment and things like that though. My girlfriend is a feminist and she does feminist coloring books and says things like "I am woman hear me roar".

I think there is a line where female positivity can turn into female supremacy but I also think it's healthy to be proud of your gender. And in a lot of ways this is what feminism is to most women. It's not about patriarchy and oppression but is about empowerment and being proud of who you are.

And men deserve to have the same thing. We deserve to be able to celebrate international men's day without being called sexist. We deserve to not be seen as a bunch of criminals or pedophiles. And we deserve to be able to talk about masculinity without it being seen as "toxic" (or as a psychiatric condition per the APA, similat to how being gay used to be seen as a psychiatric condition).

Ultimately I want to encourage better understanding. I want to work on women being accepted in the workplace, and I want women to feel comfortable in public spaces. But I also want to work on better marriage and child custody laws for men. I want men to treat women like professionals, and I want women to respect fathers and husbands (and the way they prefer to do things) at home. And I see no reason why this can't happen.

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

I just want to commend you for your civility and respect.

2.

How would you define [heteronormative patriarchal values]

I'll borrow the definition from wikis article on Heteropatriarchy

Heteropatriarchy (etymologically from heterosexual and patriarchy) is a socio-political system where (primarily) cisgender males and heterosexuals have authority over cisgender females and over other sexual orientations and gender identities. It is a term that emphasizes that discrimination exerted both upon women and LGBTQ people has the same sexist social principle.

Heteropatriarchy creates an environment of oppression and inequality for racial and sexual minority groups. Heteropatriarchy depends upon the perspective of gender roles, in which men are considered strong, able, and intelligent and females are depicted as weak, unable, and naive. The gender and sex identities created and protected by the projected status quo ensures the power of heterosexual man in a regime of compulsory heteropatriarchy.

The practice of legal (and social) culture of relegating gender to the realm of "women's issues" and sexual orientation to the realm of "sexual minorities' issues” is fundamental to a heteropatriarchal society. Heterosexual men are not only given primacy over other gender and sexual minorities, but are also encouraged and rewarded.

3.

And while we discuss feminism a lot, I'd peg it at well under 50% of the content. Right now on the front page, the first topic discussing anything related to feminism is the 12th one down.

This is progress IMO but there is room for improvement. The comments section of a lot of posts have a tendency to drift towards feminism often.

4.

And men deserve to have the same thing. We deserve to be able to celebrate international men's day without being called sexist

I don't have a problem with international men's day at all. But chauvinistic attitudes should be avoided, and promotion of the removal of gender norms for men should be encouraged. I think the way r/menslib celebrated international men's day was excellent.

And we deserve to be able to talk about masculinity without it being seen as "toxic" (or as a psychiatric condition per the APA, similat to how being gay used to be seen as a psychiatric condition).

This is where I disagree, the APA does not say masculinity is a disability. It says toxic masculinity is unhealthy. That's very obviously not saying the same thing.

I want to work on women being accepted in the workplace, and I want women to feel comfortable in public spaces. But I also want to work on better marriage and child custody laws for men. I want men to treat women like professionals, and I want women to respect fathers and husbands (and the way they prefer to do things) at home. And I see no reason why this can't happen.

I agree with all of this 10000000% and would add that without this happening then there is no justice. It's not only compatible with my belief system, it's also extremely necessary.

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. I don't hold any such beliefs, you are just used to blaming people who disagree with you as "misogynist", which I indeed see as a mental problem.

Edit: And continuously trying to see in your opponents something that's not there is one of my biggest gripes with feminists — something Cassie Jaye illuminates in her movie — it's extraordinarily dehumanizing, and you specifically train people for this.

Edit: And what's wrong with anti-feminism? You don't have the monopoly on gender equality in the same way that the UK Labor doesn't have the monopoly on being left-wing. Why can one be a leftist and still criticize them, but if I criticize you it's necessarily a sign of my misogyny?

You are using these propaganda tactics, over and over again, without noticing it, because it's so normalized in your movement — big part of how your folks got so morally and intellectually bankrupt seems that you accepted anything that was politically useful, and made for good activism, and it gradually ate away at your commitment to the truth.

Edit: If you want examples, all of this is very well documented in Christina Hoff Sommers' Who Stole Feminism, which you probably haven't read, but should.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let me rephrase my question, so women and men who don't deny the existence and prevelance of misogyny and antifeminism in our society are "dreaming it up"?

They are a) overstating it, b) seeing only the half of it that benefits their politics, while conveniently omitting the rest of it, and c) being the biggest obstacle to gender equality when it comes to men.

Also antifeminism is anti women's rights and social equality.

It is one of your movement's biggest lies. You can claim it all you want, but a lie is still a lie, and it isn't any more true that say, claiming that a conservative is not a conservative just because they are a NeverTrumper.

It just makes no sense whatsoever to someone who isn't in your echo chamber, and you will have to acknowledge that.

A lot of you just choose not to be allies. Instead here we are agreeing that society is shitty to men but yet you refuse to agree that society is also shitty to women.

That is another egregious lie.

Read the sidebar, we literally explain why this isn't the case — we agree with the genuinely egalitarian parts of feminism, which is what, 10%? I agree with most equity feminists alive today, it's just that your movement's moral corruption means there are not many left, and those that are outsiders.

That is because in order to be considered an ally, you want us to self-flagellate, and support anti-equality, anti-male parts of your movement, which we won't do.

You can be a men's advocate without being anti women's rights.

Most of us support equal rights and opportunities, it's just at this point, an average feminist wants special privileges and protections for women, and "equality" for men, like in that famous saying, "To my friends everything, to my enemies — the law".

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And in a different comment you were arguing against the eradication of gender roles. Is this a fair characterization of your beliefs? Tell me where I'm wrong.

"Eradication" is a silly, un-educated, anti-scientific propaganda language that appeals to teenagers looking for meaning in life, but doesn't mean anything in practice, or rather, it could mean anything, as convenient.

I like improvement's in women's rights just fine, where they weren't hypocritical, or came at the cost of men's liberty, but I also want to lessen the downsides of the male gender role, and to this the institutional feminism is the biggest, most staunch enemy in the Western world.

We oppose feminism because we want gender equality.

This is the biggest thing you don't understand about men's advocates, and repeating that propaganda trick about "but feminist just means..." isn't going to work on anyone who did their own research — it only mostly works on the general public, which is why you still use this lie.

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Tell me where I'm wrong.

You are wrong where you conveniently overlook the fact that the most influential MRA public intellectuals (and I'm not touching on an average r/MensRights poster, because presumably you wouldn't want to be characterized by the misandry that r/Feminism users churn out) were always pro-egalitarian figures who were disillusioned with feminist prejudice towards men.

Look up Neil Lyndon's No More Sex war, which initially came out in 1992. It was rooted in egalitarian values, but he was still ruthlessly slandered and mischaracterized by then-feminists (you can still see the articles slandering him in the archives), — just like you attempted to mischaracterize me, and attribute to me views I don't have.

This is not a coincidence that repeats over and over through the decades, this is just how feminists are taught to think by their intellectual leaders.

All because your movement gained popularity and political power riding on the gigantic, vile lie that you can't be anti-feminist without being anti-women, while you don't even speak for an average, normal non-feminist women — and I hope you are aware that less than 20% of people in the west self-identify as a feminist, while more than 80% support gender equality?

There are multiple surveys confirming this, — look it up.

Edit: ETA.

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman’s world and responsibility — hers, to dominate — his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of `half-equity” between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes.

Can you point out where the problem is?

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They focused on women's advocacy, yes. But they also changed the conversation and pushed for progressive ideas about gender roles for men before anyone else. And most recently feminists were involved in a campaign to change the FBIs definition of rape to include male victims of rape.

CHANGE the definition of rape The FBI’s definition of rape – "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will" -- was written more than 80 years ago and is the basis for their Uniform Crime Report statistics on rape. That definition excludes victims of forced anal or oral sex, rape with an object, statutory rape and male rape.

Also feminists argue and advocate for gender neutral parental leave, or paternity leave that is equal to maternity leave in duration and pay. Your enemy against this are conservatives and capitalists.

I'd also add that men having more parental leave would increase the amount of time they can spend with children, which in turn increases their likelihood of having greater shared custody.

I would also like to clarify that I believe that it's justified and necessary for men to have their own advocacy groups since women's advocacy group will not represent all of men's issues as adequately as one run by and for men. What I disagree with is the characterization of feminists as evil and man hating as you keep erroneously pushing. Men's advocacy may disagree with mainstream feminism, especially given the decades of antifeminist propaganda that they've adopted, but they need not be enemies the way it is so commonly pushed by MRAs. Hence r/menslib

Edit, on alimony reform

NOW opposed the bill for reasons other than the alimony reform.

And they weren't the only ones.

The Family Law Section of the Florida Bar supports the alimony portion of the bill, but not the child-sharing component.

It's the very bad changes to custody law that were opposed - and not just by feminists.

“Not only will alimony be affected by the proposed legislation, but also timesharing,” Quick said. “The bill is calling for a 50/50 timeshare split. This affects child support payments. More timesharing equals less payments. Regardless if the child is more bonded with one parent over another, or if one parent works longer hours, or if the parent has emotional or substance abuse issues — there will be an equal split. The kids should have a say in whom they want to live with. And that person should be able to afford their clothing, food and activities. We must ask ourselves ‘What is in the best interest of the child?’ “

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And most recently feminists were involved in a campaign to change the FBIs definition of rape to include male victims of rape.

The forced to penetrate fiasco? This isn't helping men.

I would also like to clarify that I believe that it's justified and necessary for men to have their own advocacy groups since women's advocacy group will not represent all of men's issues as adequately as one run by and for men.

This is better than I expected, from a self-identified radical, but I hope you have some self-awareness that institutional feminists are our biggest enemy here, and your position is a minority opinion in the feminist movement.

I'd also add that men having more parental leave would increase the amount of time they can spend with children, which in turn increases their likelihood of having greater shared custody.

Making lives more comfortable for women isn't helping men in any direct, sensible way. You are helping men here only because this indirectly benefits women a lot. For example, the way you perpetuate demonization of male sexuality alone does more damage than this helps.

Hence r/menslib

A censorious self-flagellating cesspool that only advocates for men when it's not controversial, not inconvenient, and doesn't contradict feminism? Count me out, I still have some dignity left.

Men's advocacy may disagree with mainstream feminism, especially given the decades of antifeminist propaganda that they've adopted, but they need not be enemies the way it is so commonly pushed by MRAs.

You mean you want to continue to bring us down unopposed for another five decades? When you systematically oppose something, this makes you an enemy. Your demonization of men makes you our enemies.

I'll think about it... how about... no.

What I disagree with is the characterization of feminists as evil and man hating as you keep erroneously pushing.

I'm sure all those misandrists in power in your movement... got there.. by chance.

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]homo_redditorensis -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bkrugby78 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]homo_redditorensis -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Aaod 19 points20 points21 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuato2012left-wing male advocate 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]serpentineeyelash 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

Yes, one reason why I created this subreddit is to distinguish my positions from that streak. But another reason is that I don't think male advocacy positions are inherently "fascist". In fact they contradict fascism when you look at it logically: fascists advocate restrictive traditional gender roles for men as well as women. So I think it's only through historical accident that men's issues are becoming associated with the far right.

The "manosphere facilitating radicalization towards the alt-right" may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, at least in some ways. When any non-feminist approach to men's issues is constantly portrayed as "fascist", left-wingers become wary of talking about it, which means only right-wingers want to associate with it and it drifts further and further right.

And you can't deny a significant amount of demonization is directed at anyone who dares to criticize feminism. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least three instances where antifa protested anti-feminists despite them not being fascists. They protested Warren Farrell for his controversial argument that date rape can be caused by miscommunication, a position which they misportrayed as "date rape is exciting". They protested James Damore for arguing there are evolutionary reasons why women might be less interested in the tech industry, a position which they misportrayed as "men are biologically superior". And they protested Australia's March for Men which, though unfortunately it appears it was opportunistically organized by some far-right racists, in terms of content it featured speakers who clearly weren't fascist and were just talking about men's issues.

I'm not saying any of the aforementioned people are perfect, but does it make any sense to call them "fascists"? The point is that antifa's tendency to call any feminist-critical position "fascist" is a big reason why many stopped trusting that accusation when it's made against actual crypto-fascists - which has made some people more willing to listen to actual fascists.

In short, by demonizing any feminist-critical discussion of men's issues as "fascist", antifa have handed fascists the recruiting tool of claiming to be the ones who care about men's issues.

[–]mtcapri 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]homo_redditorensis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mtcapri 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

Title	/r/antifastonetoss doesn't know about LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Author	Oncefa2
Upvotes	16
Comments	252
Date	December 19, 2019 6:59 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/ecxnc3/rantifastonetoss_doesnt_know_about/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/rantifastonetoss-doesnt-know-about.1201995 https://theredarchive.com/post/1201995

Comments