~ archived since 2018 ~

I’m tired of these females living life on easy.

matthew831821 · 2020-12-05T01:26:45+00:00

As a member of the men too movement I would like to say these females need to be held accountable for what they say. Today I log on to Twitter and see a female...

matthew831821

December 5, 2020

6 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	I’m tired of these females living life on easy.
Author	matthew831821
Upvotes	6
Comments	28
Date	December 5, 2020 1:26 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/k6y9gy/im_tired_of_these_females_living_life_on_easy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/im-tired-of-these-females-living-life-on-easy.839085 https://theredarchive.com/post/839085

Comments

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

[–]matthew831821[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]obligatoryclevername 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jcisne2 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]matthew831821[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NICE_THATS_NOT 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]matthew831821[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Apprehensive_Ad1248 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]NICE_THATS_NOT 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]excess_inquisitivity 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]NICE_THATS_NOT 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]excess_inquisitivity 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NICE_THATS_NOT 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]excess_inquisitivity 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Dls95405 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]NICE_THATS_NOT 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dls95405 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]NICE_THATS_NOT 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dls95405 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]NICE_THATS_NOT 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dls95405 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Macsfixed 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Apprehensive_Ad1248 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NICE_THATS_NOT 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]novhaku 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Motte-and-bailey again. The problem being that even extreme feminists can put on a facade of not being "extremists" when it's convenient to them. They constantly do so to silence MRA activists (also menism, wth). And your point about feminism being about the rights of women, and that's it, is constantly criticized by feminists themselves, again, whenever it's convenient to them (we know what the truth is).

Would you go into the cage of a tiger that maybe might eat you, maybe might let you go because it is not hungry? It's the same idea here. Not all woman will do that (and within the ones that will not do that, there is yet another subset that might change their mind thanks to human opportunism and feminism giving them the opportunity to do so without any repercussion). But every single one COULD do it thanks to the support of the state and because it's authorized. Which makes it dangerous, even moreso if they seem content with the statu quo which is dangerous to men in the first place. Humans aren't born one way and stay that way forever. That's the real problem. And why, all women being like that or not, it's safer to err on the side of caution, since men are not able to read minds yet. It'd be one thing if there was punishment for abusing these female privileges, which would act as a deterrent against it. But as it is now, they have the support of the state. So all women are not like that but all can POTENTIALLY be or become like that. That's the problem. And society has to be blamed for that, since there's no punishment for this kind of bad behaviour when it comes to women as opposed to, say, rape when it comes to men. When at risk and when you have NO chance of getting any support, always assume the worst-case scenario.

Most feminists aren't born misandrists. A ton were "good people" until they noticed that blaming men for everything is a good "get out of jail for free" card for them, and the state supports them when it comes to using it (again, the big problem with feminism is linked to the last generations being unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions, hence why human opportunism is the big problem, it just turns out that feminism is enabling it, BIG TIME), calling it empowerment. That's why the divide between misandrists and non-misandrists is way more complex that what you make it seem like, it's more often rooted in opportunism rayher than any real "belief". The only way to be really sure of one's good will is if the person actually gets her hands dirty openly defending things that go directly against female privileges, that way she can't just do a complete 180° with everyone calling it "empowerment". Otherwise, it's not that easy. The divide between feminists and radfems isn't that black and white; hell, even the divide between "neutral woman fine with the statu quo" and radfems isn't that black and white. Most people here have probably seen countless "good feminists" that were really egalitarians ending up abusing feminism to no end, because they could and were incentivized to it for their own personal gain.

Every woman CAN, that's the problem, and when it comes to something that might ruin your whole life, it's better to stay careful even if you end up being wrong. Particularly if the "woman that isn't like that" doesn't take any risk and is just enjoying the statu quo, which, conveniently enough, keep them in a position of power. Women that aren't just parroting feminism ideology are fairly well-received here, the thing is, they usually understand that. If you're living in a neighborhood where thievery isn't illegal, you'll probably lock your door anyway, even if your neighbors seem like good people to you and you have no reason to doubt them.

A lack of action, even when it comes to things as simple as saying that you disagree with something, is a type of action. And the vast majority of people falls into this, which is the problem. Reaping the fruits of a sexist system, while "disagreeing with it" but without saying anything out loud that would get their privileges removed. That's why there's a difference between, say, christina hoff sommers that actually "ruined her own reputation" by opening her mouth and your average twitter "I'm not a feminism, but..." that might start screaming "patriarchy" the next day to justify the fact that she was fired even if it was for perfectly legitimate reasons.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy is probably the fallacy feminists use most often. People that debate feminism ALWAYS get it thrown in their face very quickly.

Motte and bailey (MAB) is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches between a "motte" (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as "culture shapes our experiences") and a "bailey" (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as "cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge") in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended.

In this context:

-When they need good publicity, feminists use the "feminism is for equal rights for men and women, it's what is written in the dictionary" card. It's accepted by nearly everyone, which is good.

-Then, someone thinking about men's rights might ask for them to speak about DV against men. The feminist rhetoric becomes "you don't even know what feminism is about, it was created to make women's rights equal to men, it's not our job to deal with men in the opposite way" (falling back on the historical definition it was created for, equality but only from one side to another).

-The guy hears that, and okay, fine, as a result he creates an MRA group. Then feminists shifts again to the "this is just a group of fascists and misogynists, they are useless, feminism is here and is THE movement for EQUAL RIGHTS" (shifting to the first definition again) while trying to either discredit the MRA movement, outright forbid it or stop it like they have done with some MRA protests. It is useless after all, feminism is here to do the job when it comes to equality. Rinse, repeat. This scam has been that way for ages.

Feminism always works by shifting between multiple definitions and "arguments" depending of what is the most useful to them at the moment, using the definition that seems "nice" enough to retreat and justify nonsense and sexist arguments.

Not all women will do this, but society makes the situation risky enough for you to be suspicious towards the ones fine with the statu quo as well. The sentence "All guns are loaded" exist for a reason.

The important word here is the word DETERRENT. The problem is that there isn't any deterrent against being a misandrist. Society doesn't have any deterrent when it comes to sexism towards men. And a lot of women, including anti-feminists, wouldn't do anything against the laws that are currently rigged against men. See: paper abortion. This lack of deterrent make it so that it's difficult to see misandry as a black or white situation. Because when something is allowed, it might be used, one way or another. Humans ARE opportunistic beings. So, the system is the problem, and then it "rains down" on subgroups because it's just too easy to abuse (which is a cultural problem, women, as in "people with XX chromosomes", aren't the direct cause, create the opposite situation with any other group in the exact same circumstances and you'll probably have the same results. Having a lack of deterrent for problematic behaviors will lead to even "good" people abusing it and it becoming a grey area since it's culturally incentivized. And while I love felines, if it was me I definitely wouldn't risk going into a tiger's cage).

[–]Oncefa2 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]matthew831821[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link