Surprisingly sound thinking from college students

[–]theskepticalidealist144 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]170 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics59 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]46 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chervenko4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kadivs2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh fffffffFFFUCK I am sick of people who do this! I was recently in a protracted argument with a male feminist who argued that misandry doesn't exist because it is not part of institutionalized sexism against men. For starters, I pointed out that this justification was wrong. Secondly, I pointed out that his definition fails because misogyny is never defined as being dependent on how society acts; it can refer to cultural or individual hatred of women. I backed this up with four separate dictionary definitions. He insisted that they weren't the proper sociological definitions. So I looked up "sociological definition of misogyny" and found exactly one quote from one guy that fit. He responded that plenty more sociologists definite it that way too. I asked him to show me proof. He said he wasn't going to, because I would just dismiss them.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUCK!!!!!!!!

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan31 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Froztwolf10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cmcagle7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jeanralph3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CedMon2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-83 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]15251541 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fakeyfakeythrowaway-50 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seriesoftubesguy45 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fakeyfakeythrowaway-48 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]15251537 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist37 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]maxp0wah9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Every study that I've seen that asks the same questions of men and women gets the same result. Here's a paper that also talks about various other studies, but dont assume this is some kind of anomaly.

GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE: THE EVIDENCE, THE DENIAL, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRIMARY PREVENTION AND TREATMENT

...Despite these writings, the prevailing conceptualization of PV remains that it is primarily a male crime and that the few women who do perpetrate PV do so almost exclusively in self-defense or in retaliation for a long history of victimization. Because of this conceptualization, it is necessary to present the evidence on symmetry in perpetration rate, motivation and risk factors for partner violence before moving on to explanations for the misperception and the implications of the misperception for designing more effective modes of prevention and treatment of PV. ....Several studies, including large and nationally representative samples, have found that that the most prevalent pattern is mutual violence, and that female-only violence is as prevalent as, or more prevalent than, maleonly violence. This is true even for severe partner violence such kicking, attacks with objects, choking...

[–]WhyDoYouHateTruth-8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]meeeow-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not my paper, and the links are provided above if you want to know what they've considered. Although I'm not sure how you could qualify that kind of consideration in an objective paper without introducing heavy potential for bias.

Edit: That may have come off as a bit more snarky than I intended. I mean to say that I'm not intimately familiar with the paper but the information you are looking for should be in the links provided.

But you're nearly making a "men can take it" argument here, which I think is a really problematic argument. Look at suicide rates and homelessness rates to see how well men in our society are handling the things that are being thrown at them, including abuse. I've seen enough battered men to know that a woman, even a small woman, can do a great deal of physical harm through abuse. Particularly if the man refuses to fight back (which is the smart thing to do if he doesn't want to be in jail).

[–]meeeow1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]meeeow2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist29 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fakeyfakeythrowaway1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fakeyfakeythrowaway1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

lol. You you cant call strawman when you also admit you don't know what the other person is saying.

Y'all set up an exremist definition of feminism and claim that's what feminism is because it's so ridiculous and extremist as to seem unconscionable and easily refuted

No it isnt, thats what the example of VAWA was showing, and its just a single example of many.

Its not some fringe minority that believe this stuff. Its every single example of a feminist and feminist group that has any power or influence. Its the only ones lobbying government's, getting laws passed, the only ones in interviews, only ones in protests, only ones creating well funded anti-rape and domestic violence organisations. If there are any reasonable feminists, they are entirely silent and invisible and therefore irrelevant.

[–]seriesoftubesguy20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

VAWA, Violence Against Women Act.

Summed up it is a misandrist one sided feminist inspired, and backed piece of legislation which thankfully expired on this last new year but unfortunately is being backed again by, guess who, feminists. A piece of legislation which set into law bias against men.

If your original post was accurate it would read

Feminism...advocates the notion that women are superior to men, should have more rights and less responsibilities, and receive unearned pay for less work.

Feminism is a practice if female supremacy, chauvinism, hate of men thinly disguised as egalitarianism.

If I didn't know it was an ideology I would call it a religion about vaginas for all its dogma.

Men are too often the victims of feminist thinking and policy, you're "stawfeminist" accusations and NAFALTing disgust me.

I think maybe you should read this, educate yourself before you jump on the good ol "MRAs hate feminists, so they must hate women" bandwagon.

Though I have a feeling you'll be taking the lowroad, most people do.

[–]fakeyfakeythrowaway-9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The misogyny in this thread and this sub disgusts me, so I guess we're even.

That's a tu quoque fallacy.

I wasn't on the "MRAs hate feminists, so they must hate women" bandwagon before, but I'm starting to see where they got the idea.

MRAs here tend to value free speech and open communication more than avoiding the appearance of misogyny. If you go to any of the feminist subs you'll find that they avoid the appearance of misandry by engaging in an aggressive campaign of censorship and post deletion; nevertheless, there is still a lot of misandry in those forums - especially /r/ShitRedditSays - and the fact that is is not censored should tell you even their leadership supports it.

I'd also like to point out that just because people are free to make misogynistic comments here without reprisal doesn't mean those comments are universally supported. They are also free to make misandric comments. They are also free to troll and pretend to be MRA while saying vile shit. If you went to one of those other subs and made argumentative comments like you are now, you'd be banned.

To use our commitment to free speech as an indication that we support misogyny is a strawman. To assume that all of us support what the minority may say is a guilt by association fallacy.

Please keep in mind as you read the forums that you're reading material that is mostly raw and unedited. If you don't believe free speech is important then your very presence here contradicts such a belief.

[–]Pecanpig8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sottish15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kadivs2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blueoak923 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think it's almost as bad for MRAs to say that feminists aren't for equality as it is when feminists say they are for equality. Both of those statements are hiding the reality of what they mean.

Feminists and MRAs disagree on the current state of inequality. Feminists want equality, but they see the path to it through inequality - i.e. VAWA, and they see the current state of inequality as being worse for women because of the mental gymnastics you mentioned. Or perhaps they see perpetual inequality in an unequal world as the solution (think giving a short person perpetual access to a stool to be equal to a tall person)

I think it's important to repeat these types of ideas, because otherwise MRAs look like nutjobs to the average person and/or feminists when you say "feminist aren't for equality".

[–]fakeyfakeythrowaway-18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AgentmrmOrangemra6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fakeyfakeythrowaway-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Amunium4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fakeyfakeythrowaway-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wizzer108 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thesmoothsmoothness1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VEGETABLE_FART12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VEGETABLE_FART17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Amunium3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Amunium1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nanomagnetic-23 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arlieth13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nanomagnetic-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nanomagnetic2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior94 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alaysian14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theozoph14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know it is a problem here. I'm sorry I'm sure I am making arguments a lot of you have heard before, but I just wanted to start a discussion to talk because I'm a shy individual and I'm not sure if i could talk to people about this in real life. Just writing internet comments gets me nervous, haha.

You don't know if it is a majority. I suppose you could be referring to the majority of the vocal people, but I don't think that is a fair way to be looking at things. I know that feminists are out there who have radical views, and I know that they also fall under that category of feminism.

Thank you for talking to me. It's nice to know that people don't think all feminists this way. I suppose I'm a bit shaken because I'm used to TwoX referring to feminists and feminism in a more positive light.

Edit: Watching the video, one more thought comes to mind. A lot of feminists use the NAFALT argument because they are trying to change the vocal majority to a more egalitarian viewpoint. This video also sounds like your FAQ. Yeah, there's a lot of feminists like those quoted in the video. It might even be the majority, I honestly don't know. I think the NAFALT argument should be brought up anyway though, just to remind people that it actually is true.

[–]blueoak910 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kurtu51 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Collective824 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am glad to see you responding and learning, that is what this place in essence is about. Its not about bashing or oppressing, its educating and leveling the playing field for men now that the pendulums swung to far to womens favor. You are talking and being open and not insulting which is what we like. you can hold your own views but you are listening and as I read your posts I see you are seeing more than what you thought was there originally.

The problem is with modern feminist decrying NAFALT but not holding the radical fringes (who vocalize loudly and proudly therefor seem to be the majority) accountable, the radicals stay as the spokespeople for feminist even if the majority does not agree. Feminist need to hold their own side responsibile as we do our best to. Letting women like the girl who loudly verbaly harrassed a guy in toronto for wanting to learn is not acceptable, nor is saying that by tearing down some ones poster they put up excersizing their freedom of speech fair because they are silencing some one elses freedom.

Did I make sense or was it a rambaling mess?

[–]blondewarrior4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LadyOlduvai5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The fact remains that you came here for a genuine discussion from a differing viewpoint rather than coming in with a shield of bias and a chip on your shoulder. It's appreciated and we (with the arrogant presumption that I speak for the majority here)want to make sure that you understand just how welcome folks like yourself are here!

We don't insist that everyone agrees with us, heck we don't always agree with each other. Being open minded, honest and respectful is really all we ask, and you've delivered in spades!

I personally identify as both a moderate feminist (in the academic sense rather than the radical one) AND a MRA, so I tend to place myself more in the "Equalitarian" camp. Unfortunately, there are way too many issues to tackle on the whole, so various "rights" activist groups spring up. I sort of hope it turns into the "think global, act local" kind of idea... band together to fix an issue, but make sure that your "fix" doesn't make the situation worse for someone else.

I see a lot of that here, and I hope you do to!

TL:DR Welcome! And please stick around asking questions and challenging ideas.

[–]blondewarrior3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Coldbeam3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Collective822 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LadyOlduvai6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Collective822 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LadyOlduvai2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Collective822 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LadyOlduvai1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Collective822 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LadyOlduvai1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alaysian2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kurtu53 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]notcaptainkirk1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Rivers8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Rivers11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sorry, looking back I don't think i explained myself correctly.

If a woman penetrates a man (with a non organic object), it is considered sexual assault

If a man penetrates a woman, regardless of what or how he does it, it is considered rape.

The law clearly does not state the item 'he' uses to rape the person. The way rape is caused is if the act is considered sexual.

This implies that a woman can penetrate a man, and the act would never be considered sexual, because women dont get off on rape, only men do. Or rather this is what I interpret from the legislation.

So, a woman CAN penetrate a man, but is considered sexual assault, which has a sentence of 10 years maximum, whereas a man can penetrate a woman, and it be considered rape, which can carry a life sentence.

The disparity in the law is that a woman can commit rape and only get 10 years, whereas if a man does it, he can get life.

[–]blondewarrior4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Rivers5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually, I thought you had posted in another thread. Sorry about that. But funnily enough, the argument I was making in another thread makes the case clearly.

Though it isn't just in law; male disposability is something that permeates our society. It's a lazy analogy, but think about life boats. Women and children first and all that malarky.

I think what the poster is saying is that regardless of what form of society we live in, whether 'patriarchal' or 'feminist', male disposability is still a massive issue which is completely overlooked by the majority of society, who either simply don't realise its existence, or deny it is there altogether. The poster questions the validity of a system that does not recognise male disposability as a concept, or which simply consideres males disposable without thinking twice about it. I bet half the feminists you ask haven't heard about male disposability; that doesn't mean they won't think it is wrong.

[–]revokatt2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Rivers1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Rivers6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem is that there are many instances which male disposability is prevalent that no one even thinks of questioning. The attack on feminism here, as I see it, is that feminism puts priority on issues that, compared with many problems comparatively more damaging to men, get pushed aside, primarily because male disposability gets in the way of society viewing men as important as women.

This is not to say that many feminists don't believe they are problems, but in the feminist society we live in, sensationalism plays a large role in creating 'facts' about rape, for example, that aren't true, and shouting much louder about the problems facing women, pushing them into the limelight, and forcing issues that regard men to a place where people either don't listen or don't hear about them. My point was this screams of male disposability to me.

Take domestic abuse, for example. The figures on domestic abuse in the UK show that violence is perpatrated by the woman almost as much as it is by the man (I think the figure is 60/40%), yet domestic abuse to women is taken far more seriously by all members of society. I mean even my brain right now finds one abhorrent while the other just disgusting. Again, this comes down to male disposability.

[–]blondewarrior2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LadyOlduvai7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Rivers2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LadyOlduvai2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Think about how many Anti-violence campaigns there are which focus exclusively on violence by men against women and children. Many of these also attempt to put the entire responsibility for fixing these problems on men, completely ignoring that men are nearly as often victims of domestic violence, and that women are more likely to commit acts of violence against children than men are.

The issue is that there is NO GOOD REASON to make laws like this which are gender exclusive. Violence affects everyone and NO ONE deserves it.

Creating special laws to 'protect' half of society from the other half is tantamount to saying that one half of society is inherently violent and abusive while the other is prone to be victims. It creates a false binary and a dangerous dichotomy wherein anyone who DOESN'T support such acts is seen as being misogynistic or as defending abusers.

Edit: missed a past participle suffix. (I'm I nerd, I know.)

[–]blondewarrior2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I prefer not to categorize myself, I prefer to get as equal as I can perspectives (grouping by gender) on both sides of the issues that both men and women face, and vote accordingly, when I manage to remember to vote.

There are a few different kinds of feminism as well, they are typically called 1st gen, 2nd gen, and 3rd gen, with 1st gen being a reaction to the original domestic roles of women in the household. A lot of women were being abused and censored during this time, so it was a very dramatic turn in things in society, and there are obvious waves from generation to generation of females within the feminist community, at least those that I notice.

Today, I think the vocal majority of feminists do not bother to see both sides, at least from what I have read on /r/feminism, but reading /r/mensrights a few years ago, I recall similar sentiments.

The problem often is, I find (and I myself have been guilty of the same illogical sexism and division amongst genders) that people create associations with either sex based on their own very limited experience (a very small group of people). Now together in large groups, this can create great change, but with the internet around, I honestly think that it is just separating the two sex groups and create further divisions, when the problem really is the moronic government and bad judges who allow their own biases to control a viewing and interpretation of the facts.

Both sides (defendant/accuser and their respective attorneys) manipulate the system though, many lawyers are basically built to be adept at this, but who can really blame them I suppose, many of them were trained in a system that teaches them the only way to survive is manipulate a jury that is often specifically selected to be easily swayed. The systems have grown so complex that many courtrooms are ironically doing the opposite of the intended goal of the balance of the power in the courts. Which I find seriously, sad. Sad sad sad.

Personally, when it comes to who is provider and who is caretaker in the home, I think that's a personal issue within the family. But it sucks when one partner is leveraging the probability of the courts favor, to manipulate the power balance within the household.

[–]blondewarrior4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not sure exactly how many modern feminists believe that males should be disposable,

Which modern feminists? I think the ones fighting against fathers rights can't really value males too much... the ones who support VAWA and think that that males don't really need access to shelters and such like women do probably don't hold their value that higher either.

Also,if anything you HAVE to generalize the whole view point... that's pretty much the whole idea of a movement/ideology like feminism OR men's rights. It's obviously not right to generalize a gender, but hopefully you see the difference between something like gender (or race, or orientation or eye color) and an ideology that holds certain ideas that people CHOOSE to join.

Anyway, the reason we have to generalize a view point, is that anything otherwise is some variation of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

The point is, they are all feminists, so when they actually accomplish something under the name of feminism, or anyone actually does something under the name of feminism... then ALL people who use that title are at least partially responsible for supporting that person, whether they actually agree with them or not.

I mean, let's say everyone here joined the KKK, and we weren't racist at all. Would you still call the KKK racist if they were still having klan meetings and beating up black people? I mean, all of us are totally not like that, and we say so all the time.... yet we still choose to be a part of the KKK and apparently don't have a strong enough voice to stop the racism. Are we at least partially responsible for the racist things KKK members do, especially when they can go around and say "We just got 50,000 new KKK members, that means our message was right".

[–]blondewarrior1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]all_you_need_to_know1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DeathHamsterDude3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hey. Welcome to the sub! Firstly, yeah, I agree with you mostly. I think what you need to take from this is that most of the feminists people are talking about on here are the ones who have the most active presence on the Internet, and are who we come into contact/conflict the most. They are the most vocal, and the most vocal are often the most radical. Unfortunately, the most vocal often are the ones who get laws put into place as well, such as VOWA, or who protested the Warren Farrell talk. So the feminist movement is more impacted by this smaller subset of extremist feminism than by the larger subset of even-minded feminists, who are mostly unaware of where the feminist movement as a whole has been diverted by the extremists.

I hesitate to speak for the entire sub, but mostly when people say feminist here, they mean those feminists. I'm not going to pull a No True Scotsman on it, but yeah, there are plenty of feminists who are lovely people just looking for equality. But those feminists don't spread vitriol on the web, they just tend to get on with their day, totally unaware of the fact that someone on the Internet under the same umbrella term as them just suggested that there should be a culling of men until we are only ten percent of the population (actually a thing, but I can't link the video right now as I'm not at my PC).

So, when people here say 'feminism' can go suck a bag of dicks or whatever, take it with a grain of salt. Sure, I wish people here would be a little more precise in their definitions, but I don't speak for them, nobody but themselves do, and I can't tell them to only speak in a certain way just because it's what I would personally prefer. As was said in the subreddit of the day post, the majority of us here are egalitarians, and we're all for women's rights, as long as that means equal rights. Or equal opportunities anyway. The reason some people here can come off as aggressive is that it can get a little tough having these pretty damn important issues fall on deaf ears. Ears that have ruled it impossible by definition for men to experience sexism, on either a personal, societal, or lawful level.

Edit: it's a dream of mine that someday we won't need a Men's Rights Movement. I'm an egalitarian, and I wish everyone was too. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people, or at least people with power, don't think of Men's Rights as an important issue. Quite a few think it isn't an issue at all. When we can look at Men's Rights without people thinking it is an attack on Women's Rights, and vice versa, then I'll hang up my privilege galoshes (tm) for good, and put on my warm, fuzzy, egalitarian slippers.

[–]Pornography_saves_li1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blondewarrior1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Keep in mind the concepts of Cognitive Dissonance and Halo Effect.

Cognitive dissonance is the process by which people reinforce their beliefs when challenged rather than changing them. It's easier to reinforce a belief, to turn something into an exception or trivialize it, than to lend it credence and true examination.

A Halo effect is a positive stereotype. For example, since we're talking about feminism (I'm choosing to use feminism as an egalitarian movement as an example), let's say that I'm discussing a topic with someone. They say they're a feminist. My first reaction is to assume they're for equal rights. Well, they could be a gender supremicist that favors women, but still claim the label of feminist. This means that if I'm discussing a topic with them, I'm more likely to view their discussion points as more egalitarian before introspection or examination.

These processes make it easier to categorize information and store it. Our brains are lazy. They want to use as little energy to complete a task as possible. After all, they're constantly burning energy and rewiring things is expensive in terms of energy consumption. To break out of cognitive dissonance is a pain in the ass and takes exposure, critical thinking and most of all willingness to examine one's own beliefs critically. Failing to do so will often leave people trapped where they were at the beginning.

[–]Pornography_saves_li0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]410LaxMD18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mcknuckles5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]imagine_me_naked2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]red_firetruck8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]My_Post_Is_On_Topic8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]coldvault10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stratisphear4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LadyOlduvai2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iseeyoutroll1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]andy9214 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Samccx194 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]greenGB3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]greenGB2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]7wap3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NewThink1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Darth-Glory3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sir_fappington3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Collective822 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NeckBeardNegro2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VforWHATBITCH1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Porksta0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]offthetwig0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stratisphear6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]offthetwig5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stratisphear5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]offthetwig2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stratisphear1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]firebadmattgood3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Stratisphear-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]firebadmattgood2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]beastgunner0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bla341120 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FayteWolf-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nofreedom4theUS-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]karma1337a-9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rottingchrist12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Motafication-23 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Amunium10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	Surprisingly sound thinking from college students
Author	NewThink
Upvotes	1135
Comments	203
Date	January 31, 2013 7:40 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/17na0r/surprisingly-sound-thinking-from-college-students/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/surprisingly-sound-thinking-from-college-students.1605275 https://theredarchive.com/post/1605275

Comments