Also posted in FEMRADebates, I thought you all might like a look at it though some of it may be divergent from MRM ideology: (I realize we don't like to talk about JUST feminism without bring up mens issues, but this one seemed too important to let slide since it has implications for the future of the movement we should be aware of.)

So I lurked around in a few other places for a while and i've been lurking here, I thought i'd share my observations. If i'm mistaken about any please do tell me so, i'm making this post in good faith. I'll try to get this across to all the feminists without being confrontational. The MRAs here I suspect will already know what i'm talking about, (Albeit, havn't expressed my particular view) but there are MRAs who need to hear this too. Feminism. You are all using that word to mean SO MANY THINGS.

Feminism: A history of the discussion on gender relations and the dialogue between them with the aim of improving those relations.

^ In this sense, I am a feminist. As in, someone who participates in that conversation with the goal of improving gender equality. However, for the purposes of this post i'll refer to this as "Feminist Dialogue." A feminist in this sense is someone participating in dialogue on how to achieve gender equality with the goal of gender equality in mind.

Feminism: An ideology which purports that women are systematically oppressed by males who are in control of society. This may harm males, and women may also participate in the oppression, but women suffer more of this problem because the males are in control of society, or should be focused on for other reasons. Some feminists do claim that they are solely focused on women and men should have their own movement without accepting the above. These are fine to an extent, but the problems they cause will be covered later.

^ In this sense, I am not a feminist. I don't see why that's a problem. And the constant attempts to say "then you hate women." by a certain variant of feminist is just cultish and stupid behavior that people should be ashamed of, MRAs get up to it too, and I've had my fair share of acting this way. But for feminists, especially when you attempt to conflate ideological feminism with feminist dialogue, it is underhanded and exclusionary of differing perspectives. SUCH AS:

MRM: An ideology which purports that men are systematically oppressed by society, gender roles, and are not actually in control of anything due to societal expectations and the threat they find themselves under. If they do not use the """Power""" they have in the ways they are told to and are expected, they will be destroyed or attacked as individuals either socially, economically, or physically.

The MRA's, in this sense, are a part of feminist dialogue. They are not the second type of feminists, and nor should they have to be in order to be treated like participants in that dialogue.

The attacks that MRA's who voice this viewpoint as "Sexist" is an attempt to demonize them, and may well harm their reputation. It's as such, pretty compelling proof of their argument that the second type of feminism is systematically part of the oppression of males.

New Rule: If you categorically deny that a demographic faces prejudice for being a member of that demographic, it's because you're the one engaging in the prejudice. All it takes is for one of these types of people to get into a position of authority, and suddenly they will ignore all the people from that demographic who are just "whining" about non-issues, which are obviously trivial compared to our demographics issues.

The result of this is that the institution gears itself toward helping one demographic and systematically ignoring the needs of the other. The ideology that men are at fault for the problems of society is a way of removing the responsibility of women for their participation in it. It is just another expression of hyperagency in males and the helplessless of females. It is patriarchy in drag.

By saying the males are "In control" it implies the women are not. It also implies the males have a choice in how to act in circumstances where they may not. It justifies a focus on women and their problems that institutionally oppresses males wherever this ideology gains ground.

Society is sexist because of the way it views men and women. Feminism is a part of the narrative on how we view men and women. It's adherents have a voice in society with which to influence the view of women and men, and themselves view women and men in particular ways. While the second type of feminism has been a useful narrative in curtailing mens sexism against women, it is Woefully inadequate at removing womens sexism against women, womens sexism against men, and mens sexism against men.

Further, the default assumption of some of the ideologies adherents seems to be that if their premise isn't accepted, it is impossible to be a supporter of feminist dialogue. This is patently fucking absurd. It's for these reasons that I refuse to identify as a feminist. The adherents of the ideology has poisoned the dialogue.

Were feminism not so heavily gynocentric, and were instead the liberal-MRA (And indeed, some liberal-feminist) approach of:

"Both genders causes sexism, this hurts everybody, nobodies problems are particularly more important, everybody should be free to pursue their life without unwarranted expectations from society, and without being told their liberty isn't as important because of their gender, or told that they shouldn't discuss their problems because others have it worse, or told they can't have resources because of their gender. We should approach each situation without making out that one gender suffers more and instead fix the problems in society that arise because of gender, and understanding how it effects both in different ways for each issue we address and attempt to solve it for all of them."

If that were the case, I may well have let the title slide and said I am a feminist. But because of the intellectually dishonest shellgame between the ideology and the dialogue however, I can no longer do that. I refuse to associate with such an ideology and signal boost it. I am a gender abolitionist or an anti-sexist. The constant "Progress" like the "Violence against women act" (Signal boosting that women are victims, and implying men are not. Yes, it helps women. Prejudice often benefits the in group in the short term. That does NOT make it progress toward gender equality. It makes it progress toward a matriarchy in-group that is convinced it is being oppressed.) and "Teach men not to rape" that comes from them is a result of the gynocentric outlook on society that blinds them to the oppression they are engaging in. Women gaining a right that men don't have is the creation of a sexist situation. Arguing against the ideology which creates these situations is not an attack on women, it is an attack on sexism. When did feminism become an enemy of gender equality?

When I say feminists are sexists, this is what i'm talking about. I'm saying that the second type of people are sexists, because sexism is inherent in their ideological premise. This should be obvious when you consider the era in which it originated and realize that women can be sexists too. Sexism detoxification is a process, not a pill, and feminism 2 endangers the project by providing an overly simplistic and biased narrative that should be discarded. This doesn't make them bad people. Lots of people fall into all kinds of social and intellectual traps for a whole mess of reasons. This is part of the reason I'm so annoyed with the intellectually dishonest posts in this around the web and the insults that keep getting thrown around. Those that act this way are actively contributing to a situation where people are afraid to question feminism two's place in the dialogue and whether it is making society a worse place.

Through the focus on females, sexist situations are created and the problems of males are ignored. A key example of this would be FGM V MGM. Previously both were legal. This is obviously bad.

The feminist movement successfully campaigned to have FGM outlawed. This is, in fact, the creation of a sexist situation that occured because it helps womens rights. When feminists get upset that people oppose feminism and bring up how it's gotten women rights, they are ignoring that this isn't the complaint. The complaint is that it's forging a privileged group in society. "How could you oppose feminism? What about FGM?" as an example. Akin to an aristocrat genuinely believing and arguing that the system must be preserved because of the privileges it affords them, and that anyone who wishes to oppose aristocracy must be out to get them somehow, and ignoring that the argument is:

"We actually all want the privileges of having our lives and our problems taken seriously." This could not occur under a double-lens system, which would have felt compelled to analyze the victimization of men in this regard as well. It doesn't give them equality with men, it merely gives women rights.

Ofcourse women deserve rights. That doesn't make feminism a gender equality ideology, and I think i've conveyed why.

It's a hijack of feminist dialogue. However, the ideology is ALSO making it difficult for men to get rights, as well as contributing to problematic narratives in society akin to black people being constantly portrayed as muggers and rapists in movies. Feminism as such, must be opposed.

The dialogue however, must continue. If you want to call the dialogue a feminist dialogue, that's probably fine, because it gives historical context to the discussion. I've been convinced by the behavior of it's adherents that feminism must be purged from the dialogue except as a counter narrative to the MRA. (I.E, "This is womens experience of sexism." v "This is mens experience of sexism.") and that to call the dialogue a feminist dialogue as opposed to a gender dialogue or anti-sexist dialogue would just result in the same type of bullshit being perpetuated. (I.E, the portrayel of women as victims to the exclusion of men, thereby reinforcing the notion that men are in control.)

Feminism was at it's best as a gender discussion and relations improvement. Ideologues have stolen feminism, as have people who believe patriarchy is a fact, rather than accepting it as description of womens experience of sexism, and acknowledging males experience of sexism doesn't undermine their perspective.

They should have no place in our movement for gender equality. But apparently, that means I must just hate women. Sorry If I annoyed anyone. But if you accept that it's a good thing to point out sexism, then surely you have to accept that, if I see feminism2 in itself as an inherently sexist ideology, then I should point it out. Anti-feminists of this kind and myself are not out to destroy the feminist dialogue and prevent it's continuation toward a gender equal outlook in society. We're out to destroy gender roles, and prejudice, which compels us to be out to destroy feminism 2. And you should be helping us. Well, what do you think?