The following is a very informed and highly reusable comment by Karen Straughan in response to a feminist who thinks the many blatant sexists among feminists aren't real feminists:
So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".
That's not just "no true Scotsman". That's delusional self deception.
Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don't care. I've been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they've done under the banner of feminism, maybe you'd stop calling yourself one.
But I want you to know. You don't matter. You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."
You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.
You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.
You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.
You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.
You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.
You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.
You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.
You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."
You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.
And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.
You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.
[–]Reasonable_Amoeba_89 35 points36 points37 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Whenever you point out the bigotry in the feminist movement you always get the same response "They're not real feminists". Whether it's the outright misandry, sexism, transphobia or other prejudice the same excuse is wheeled out "they're not real feminists".
I used to read "Socialist Worker", here in the UK, and contacted the paper asking about the slaughter of Stalin or Pol Pot in Cambodia. Guess what, I got the same response "That wasn't real socialism"
It's 101 of campainging. How do you defend an organisation which is demonstratably corrosive? "Oh those people aren't real <insert group noun here>"
Still to this day I've never received an answer, from feminists, to the question: "Given you've been held back by sexism why are you so keen to perpetuate it?". I honetly believe it's because they don't even realise the sexim the trotting out.
[–]Fine_Musician_1016 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
There’s a name for this, it’s called the ‘No true Scotsman’ or ‘appeal to purity’. It’s a logical fallacy where someone makes a generalization of what they think members of a particular group ought to be like, so any differing viewpoints expressed my members of that group can be quickly disregarded as coming from someone who isn’t truly a member of that group
[–]GingerRazz 23 points24 points25 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I love that quote. I'd actually lost my copy of it I had saved, so I went over, starred the comment and saved another copy of it. It always feels good after going in circles with a no true feminist argument.
[–]ShoutoutsToSimple 23 points24 points25 points (1 child) | Copy Link
It's pretty telling that, for all the times I have heard "those aren't real feminists", I have never once seen someone point out the so-called "real feminists", other than indicating themselves, the random person on the internet that they are. Karen's response does a great job of pointing out that some random person on reddit is not as impactful all this long list of prominent feminists who can actually get shit done. But even if we set that aside, shouldn't these people be able to point to "real feminists" other than themselves?
If the man-hating feminists were truly the minority, then you'd think every time an MRA on reddit points to someone like Katherine Spillar, a feminist on reddit should be able to point to a handful of prominent feminists who are actually fighting for equality. But that never happens. We can list off dozens of prominent feminists who are actively working against men's rights, and the response will always be "those aren't real feminists". But the response will never continue on with, "but these are..." followed by a list of prominent feminists who fight for equality.
It's really telling that MRAs have a huge laundry list of man-hating feminists, but feminists never seem to have even a single example of a feminist who pushes for true equality.
[–]Yithar 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
u/Glossus_inBuccinator
[–]fanclockbedsheet 14 points15 points16 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Damn, that was good. And I wonder how much new stuff can be added to that comment since it's now 4 years old.
[–]sTixRecoil 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
In these specific last four years? Probably double or triple that list at bear minimum
[–]Eklektikos99 14 points15 points16 points (25 children) | Copy Link
Karen Straughan abandoned Men's Rights. She could've done so much but doesn't care.
[–]Mens-Advocate 12 points13 points14 points (2 children) | Copy Link
The criticism of Karen is unwarranted.
[–]Eklektikos99 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
She admits herself it was random. If you don't know, then don't reply. The evidence is clear. She knows the issues and doesn't care. She can choose to do that, but those are the facts. Going on and on about how amazing she is - that's living in the past. Advocacy for men is dead if that continues.
[–]Mens-Advocate 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
She's just trying to be modest. Everyone who has accomplished anything in MR has done so through hard work. This includes even those with quirks, from Elam to Esmay to Straughan to Farrell to Kammer to Feit. They're human.
That's a mis-representation. She knows the issues because she was the first to perceive and raise many of them. For example, she was the first or one of the first to answer the vote issue by pointing out that, in terms of percentage of human history, men have had universal suffrage only slightly longer than women. And her type of passion means, like many of us, she'll care every day of her life. But she still has a right to live her life as she sees fit.
You're an arrogant little coprophage, aren't you? You have no idea who I am but assume anyway, and you arrogate to yourself superiority to many (such as Karen or myself) who may have done far more for men than you.
[–]ImportantResults 2 points3 points4 points (21 children) | Copy Link
Why is that?
[–]Eklektikos99 8 points9 points10 points (20 children) | Copy Link
It is a bit random as to who gets the best opportunity to promote a cause. Which in this case it is her.
She is 100 times more popular with YT views and is welcome on media interviews without being attacked (men are attacked even by so-called MRA's). She got fundraising to go on trips.
Despite all of that, she knows how the situation is dire for men's rights, yet she got married, divorced and remarried. She just dropped it all. Can't be bothered.
She's not obligated to do anything, but as the single person with most opportunity to do so, wasn't very interested.
[–]Mens-Advocate 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Not always random. In Karen's case, not random at all but the result of her astute analysis, her dedication, and her hard work. Did you organise an ICMI?
Fundraising isn't easy. She deserves credit for bringing the movement members, money, and attention.
Excuse me, but all of us face an individual decision - whether to live our lives while advocating, or whether to boycott the whole system. None of us have the right to pressure our colleagues as to how to make this personal decision. You have no right to demand of any MRA that he/she/it personally sacrifice his/her/its life to boycotting the system.
An outright lie. I don't know Karen personally but do know she put in a tremendous amount of work. Attacking our best friends, like Karen, is not a winning strategy - especially when the friends do not deserve the attack.
[–]Eklektikos99 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
These type of replies are exactly why advocacy for men goes nowhere.
[–]Mens-Advocate 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
On the contrary, your repulsive insistence upon shitting all over a solid contributor such as Karen, is exactly why advocacy for men gets held back. But it does indeed advance, so your "goes nowhere" is also a lie.
[–]ImportantResults 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I was sure she is still in this.
Or is it that you'd like her to be more involved than she currently is?
[–]TrilIias 19 points20 points21 points (15 children) | Copy Link
I'm sorry, how did she abandon men's rights? I was just listening to her on a live stream with the Honey Badgers yesterday. You're angry at her for getting married and divorced? Since when are MRAs against marriage, or even divorce? We aren't the same as MGTOW for heaven's sake. Also, let's not pretend like Karen hasn't ever been attacked.
It's honestly tiring how much work it is just trying to keep MRAs from becoming unreasonable extremists. Karen has done as much as anyone for mens rights. We can at least have enough gratitude to not baselessly accuse her of "abandoning men's rights."
[–]Mens-Advocate 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Spot on.
MR is a passionate conviction for all of us. So, even were Karen to decide upon a well-earned break (for reasons of family or just for rest), I doubt she will ever lose the conviction and passion. And, she deserves every bit of praise for all that she has done thus far - a sharp, clear-minded, well-expressed individual who has made a tremendous contribution.
More importantly, we should not attempt to impose any restrictions upon each others' personal lives.
Excuse me, MGTOWs don't necessarily demand everyone boycott society or go MGTOW. MGTOWs differ little from MRAs, recognising the extremely harmful effects of feminism. The difference lies solely in the decision that they will abandon the work and effort to find a good woman for their personal lives.
They think it is looking for a needle in a haystack and correctly point out the relationship remains legally unbalanced even if one finds the needle.
We (MRAs) think it looking for one of two dozen needles in the haystack, with a reasonable chance of being successful. We also think we can engage in a solid relationship while protecting ourselves; forewarned is forearmed.
So, MRA vs MGTOW should be viewed as simply a matter of choosing which strategy to apply reality to one's personal life, in a feminist world. We're not enemies.
[–]colombomumbojumbo 4 points5 points6 points (13 children) | Copy Link
Marriage is an outdated institution that upholds men's defunct role as provider with no rights. So any MRA worth his salt will be against marriage(and divorce).
Karen got married knowing the men involved have no rights. This shows she isn't serious about men's rights.
[–]TrilIias 13 points14 points15 points (8 children) | Copy Link
I've always heard the distinction between PUAs, MGTOW, and MRAs described as the following:
PUAs want to take advantage of a corrupt system
MGTOW want to escape the system
MRAs want to fix the system
You're conflating MGTOW and MRAs, and acting as though Karen isn't an MRA because she isn't acting in strict accordance with MGTOW principles. She hasn't taken advantage of the system against her husband, and besides, she got married years before she had even heard of the MRM. She has even defended MGTOW on many occasions, even from Jordan Peterson who she describes as one of her very favorite people (she's was talking about him at least 5 years before he became famous after speaking out against bill C16).
As an MRA, I can't agree that marriage is an outdated institution, I think it is necessary. Yes, in many ways it is broken and there is a great deal of injustice, but MRAs don't want to throw it away, they want to fix it. If you make staying unmarried forever a condition for being an MRA, we will never, ever succeed. Most people are either married, or want to be married. If you treat all of those people like your enemies, where else do you plan on getting enough support to make any changes?
I'm sorry, I don't normally like to personally address people or insult them on Reddit, but I have higher standards for my own side. If you are going to be retarded enough to wage this pathetic attack on Karen, and presumably the likes of Hannah Wallen, Alison Tieman, Erin Pizzey, and Anne Cools, who have been some of the most effective and the most steadfast MRAs, just because they got married or divorced, then I hope you understand that you are nothing but a dead weight on the men's rights movement. You are less then worthless to the MRM, you are counterproductive, you are ungrateful, and you are childish. Karen has done more for men than you probably ever will. Honestly, how dare you suggest that she isn't serious about men's rights?
[–]colombomumbojumbo 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
Karen isn't out to fix anything. She is living her traditional life style where she has a husband who pays her to be around.
[–]TrilIias 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
Getting married and even being supported by a husband isn't traditional, it's how humans work. It's almost like saying that having a government is traditional. We know that kids are best raised by two parents, and that not having a father in the picture very often results in catastrophe, not just for the kids but for the community. Also, marriage is how we make sure that we provide for as many people as possible. It's basically like the buddy system. Having one person who you know and trust who is there whenever you need them is incredibly valuable, and marriage is the best way to secure that.
Being financially supported by a husband isn't even a bad thing. He's doing it willingly, it isn't as if Karen is suing him for financial support. The broken part about marriage has to do with the legal system that demands child support and alimony and restricts paternal access to children after a divorce. Most of the issues with marriage are about divorce, not marriage itself. Why are you calling marriage traditional, and even if it is, why does that mean it is bad or needs to be done away with?
Karen isn't taking advantage of the law to hurt her husband and is very active in publicly calling for reform to the laws that are causing the problem. How is she not trying to fix it? As I've already said, she's probably the single most valuable person in the MRM and she has done so much to grow the movement. Why on earth are you trying to diminish her work? I seriously don't understand it, and the only thing I can think of is that you can't stand the idea of a woman taking a leading role in the MRM, or you just want to feel superior to everyone regardless of gender and are just targeting Karen because she's so successful. I guess I really don't know your motivation, but it certainly isn't because your accusations are remotely accurate.
[–]Mens-Advocate 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Hear, hear! Absolutely true.
[–]colombomumbojumbo 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Tradcon alert! A woman being supported by a man is completely traditional. It isn't ''how it works''. You are denying reality now so you can support your defunct, anti male, tradcon gender roles.
You are a loser
[–]Mens-Advocate 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
You are right that the traditional conservative view/arrangement is anti-male. However, society will never abandon it; hypergamy may be built into the human genome.
So, the MR task is not to tilt at windmills but to at least moderate both tradcon and feminist excesses.
In that task, the work of Karen Straughan and other female MRAs has been substantial, effective, often brilliant, and much appreciated. There is no need to insist they or any other MRA mutilate their own lives out of "principle".
[–]RockmanXX 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Why can't it be both? its an outdated institution that acts as a necessary evil.
[–]TrilIias 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Outdated how?
[–]Mens-Advocate 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Absolutely true. Here, long ago, I suggested an award for such women:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/39z669/womens_recognition_award/
Emphatically, criticism of their personal lives is unwarranted and counter-productive.
[+]his_purple_majesty1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
No it doesn't. You sound like a fanatic.
[–]colombomumbojumbo 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
yes it does. As taking advantage of a man by holding him to old gender roles shows a lack of respect for the men she deals with.
Look, if you want to be married without rights, don't come to an MRA reddit. Form a ''Marriage at any cost'' reddit.
None of you will do this as your desperation will signal low status to the women you wish to court
[+]his_purple_majesty1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
You're using nearly the exact same argument feminists use when they claim that all male-female sex is rape because there's an inherent power imbalance between men and women. No! The potential for "taking advantage of someone" isn't actual "taking advantage of someone."
Also, marriage is an idea that transcends any one society's instantiation of marriage. You have no idea what it means to Karen or her husband, what kind of roles their marriage lays out, or why they're doing it.
She even has a history of not exploiting marriage benefits:
[–]colombomumbojumbo 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Karen stays home. Her husband works outside to keep there. Standard tradcone shit
[–]KDulius 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I've deployed it more than once.
It often ends the argument because most "real feminists aren't like that!" actually have no idea what heinous shit Feminists have advocated for in the name of women
[–]KarRuptAssassin 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
God just reading this and learning about shit people have done to fuck over men has just killed all motivation for me today.
[–]Svenskbtch 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The problem is that a movement has to rein in and to some extent take advantage of its extremes. We are clearly demanding this stringently from the populist right, including Trump - as we should.
In my country, Sweden, we have a right wing populist party, the Sweden Democrats. Their policies are actually reasonable: strong welfare state, restrict low-skilled economic immigration, and integrating existing migrants rapidly by teaching them Swedish, subsidising the first years wages, and loosening licensing and recognition requirements (to get trained nurses into the work force quickly, for instance). In fact they want something like the immigration system in Canada, a country hardly liable to fall foul of xenophobia accusations.
Yet they emerged from an openly neo-Nazi grouping, and still have radical elements in their midst. We are, as we should, holding them responsible, and they have made strenuous efforts to clean up their act, including excluding party members who were overheard making racist comments in a bar.
Put simply: if the extremists we cite here are indeed not the real feminists, I would still hold feminists accountable for their actions until they clean up in their own backyard. In fact, if they did, the difference between MRA and feminism will not seem insurmountable anymore...
[–]RockmanXX 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
ALL Feminists(including the so called good ones) are drawn towards narratives that are anti-male. Feminists may identify some real problems in Society but the framework they provide to explain it is always anti-male(Patriarchy&Male Privilege) and their dogmatic adherence to these anti-male ideas proves just how much they want to blame&hate Men for Women's issues. The only "Good" feminist is an EX-Feminist.
[–]reddut_gang 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
the real feminist is reflective of the actions of feminism, and the actions of feminism has so far done little to show me that they care about gender equality
[–]a-man-from-earth 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Original here: https://np.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/68v91b/woman_who_lied_about_being_sexually_assaulted/dh23pwo/
[–]Ziogatto 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Feminism: Fights for
EqualityEquityFemale supremacy[–]wanthonio31 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
commenting here for bookmark sake, thank you for this
[–]JohnGawel 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
It's just not true Scotsman fallacy.
[–]FilipIzSwordsman 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
dont mind me i just wanna get banned on the subs which automatically ban
[–]VISUALBEAUTYPLZ 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.
these random people in the internet still spread their ideology to society and people reading that will grow up to become one of those scholars, writers etc.
That's why opposing them in the platform they stand is important
[–]63daddy 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
An organization is what an organization does. The Nazi party was more than just the socialist worker’s party. Feminism has shown time and time again, it’s not about equality. Major feminist organizations have pushed anti-male propaganda, tried to prevent equal rights for men and lobbied for policies that advantage women and disadvantage men. Real feminism is an anti-male movement. Leafing feminist organizations have proven this time and time again.
You can go to the NOW website for example and see they actively oppose equal custody for fathers. You can see they drafted VAWA which actively favors female victims and discriminates against males. As the name indicates feminism advocates for females and against male interests. That’s what real feminism is.
[–]GreatGrizzly 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Holy crap. This feminism onion keeps getting worse after every layer. Feminism has turned into a monster, riding on name recognition alone. Many huge organizations behind this too. There is a good Q&A that mentions why third wave feminists are so radical. They are trying to one up their predecessors. It's less about women's rights and more about what they can think they can get away with.
You damn well know that this would never have made it out to the masses if it was a guy that wrote this.
[–]FatFingerHelperBot 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
Here is link number 1 - Previous text "Q&A"
Please PM /u/eganwall with issues or feedback! | Code | Delete
[–]Broadside_Beers 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Just crossposted this to r/menareevil (edit:typo) r/feminism.
Ban hammer landing in 3… 2…
Edit: 1! Lol
They really don't like anyone messing with their echo chamber. Comical.
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]reddut_gang 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
you still have time to delete this. karen is the good guy here.
[–]No-Masterpiece4598 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh shit
[–]Stoicism1981 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Haha like religion .. feminism have different groups .. they fight too lol
[–]Gr1m5_OG 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Damn, I knew it was bad but I didn't think it was this bad. Sucks to see it
[–]jsusiiakw8 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
There already exists an official female subreddit. With tens of millions of users. Where they discuss their issues and experiences. Where they discuss how to solve them. How are we (men) supposed to solve ours if we dont do the same thing? Many people don't even know that we have any issues. We need discussion. That's why I've created a male subreddit. A place for men to come and talk. To use to improve our situations. To help eachother. To tell stories. Ect.
r/TheOtherGender
Come join and spread it around. Enjoy. Hasta la vista.
[–]ectbot 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc."
"Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are etc., &c., &c, and et cet. The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase.
Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.
[+]marimosensei-1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Remember to move to ruqqus and join mgtow there!
[–]Oncefa2 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
We are not a MGTOW group and we are not MGTOW3.
Many people here have families, children, wives, girlfriends, baby mommas, and even if they frustrate us on occasion, we still love them.
What frustrates us even more are biases in society, issues around nagging, domestic violence, sexual assault laws, the invisibility of male labor in the family unity, institutional biases in family court, gender norms, and that sort of thing.
We also stand for single men and fight against biases against them as well. It's a shame that single women are "empowered" and single men are "shamed". The double standards are obvious and disgusting: you are no less of a man if you are single.
No this is not an endorsement of censorship or whatever happened. Although my understanding is that r/ MGTOW was incredibly misogynistic and there was no need for it. You can "go your own way" and not be sexist. They chose not to do that. Reddit has advertisers who don't like misogyny, because we live in a world that institutionally cares about women. So they banned their sub.
That really has nothing to do with us though and we'd really appreciate it if people stopped trying to make that association.