TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

A clear example of how feminism infantilizes women and excuses sexism faced by men

cheshiredudeenema

March 12, 2018
1700 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://imgur.com/io0e7O0
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title A clear example of how feminism infantilizes women and excuses sexism faced by men
Author

cheshiredudeenema

Upvotes 1700
Comments 235
Date March 12, 2018 12:04 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/83ufr2/a_clear_example_of_how_feminism_infantilizes/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-clear-example-of-how-feminism-infantilizes-women.904507
https://theredarchive.com/post/904507
Red Pill terms in post
feminism
Top posts by cheshiredudeenema

Feminist Pop Star explicitly says she hates men and feminists rush to support her. At least they're not pretending anymore.

723 upvotes
July 12, 2017
/r/MensRights

Feminist group Justice For Women is campaigning to overturn a murder conviction for a woman who bludgeoned her husband to death in a premeditated attack due to supposed "coercive control". Imagine the outcry and the accusations of "victim-blaming" if the genders were reversed.

407 upvotes
February 27, 2019
/r/MensRights

I find it so cruel that men are forced to initiate romantic relationships but are then vilified and shamed for doing so.

403 upvotes
October 6, 2017
/r/MensRights

Apparently AskReddit thinks that the suicide gap is because "women are encouraged to think about others a lot more growing up" and therefore choose less traumatic methods. Because women are the real victims, right? Pure pseudoscience.

232 upvotes
May 23, 2017
/r/MensRights

The UN celebrates International Men's Day by making it all about women. Mainstream feminism, everyone.

209 upvotes
November 19, 2020
/r/MensRights

Pop feminism has moved on from "false rape accusations are so rare they don't even matter" to "it's a myth that false rape accusations ruin lives". 2000 retweets and 7000 likes. This is not a small minority, it's mainstream feminism.

157 upvotes
September 19, 2019
/r/MensRights

The media is now trying to spin Google underpaying men as sexism against women. See how many articles quote wild feminist speculation instead of sticking to the facts.

110 upvotes
March 6, 2019
/r/MensRights

"Women probably suffer more due to war"

87 upvotes
February 6, 2021
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]00saucy00 359 points360 points361 points 8 years ago (84 children) | Copy Link

Reverse sexism isn’t a thing. If anyone, regardless of their gender, is being mistreated just because of their gender then it’s sexism.

[–][deleted] 181 points182 points183 points 8 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

All of this applies to racism too.

[–]Regs2 62 points63 points64 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It pisses me off to no end when some of my brothas start off on their white devil rants. I get it that you're mad, there are some ignorant people out there, but by belittling an entire race you're no better than the shitheads you rail against. And trying to say it's not racist is just a cover so you can justify being a bigoted asshole who wraps their whole identity up in playing victim. The hypocrisy is astounding and I will never stand behind those fools.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Respect.

[–]charlie_yardbird 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's dumb to argue what is or is not "racist." We should be arguing about what is or is not true.

"white devil rants" are dumb not because they're racist, but because they're generally inaccurate information.

For example, I've heard some people say that white people "invented the concept of race to oppress non-whites."

We don't have to call that by a special word ("racism") in order to mock it. We can just point out that it is false (and absurdly stupid).

[–]dcktop 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Holy shit man thank you for saying that.

[–]themolestedsliver 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

fucking thank you.

i really don't get the logic behind combating racism...with racism.

Racism spreads racism it is just simple logic. My father for example, extremely racist and uses the N word as if it were a common noun.

Care to know why? because in the ghetto's of brooklyn where he grew up as the only white family on the block he was constantly told "empty your pockets white boy", at 8 he seen his grandmother get tackled in broad daylight by 3 large black men screaming "get this white bitches purse'. His middle school let kids out early on MLK day because it was known the local black gangs would wait outside and jump white kids as "revenge for killing him".

Does any of this justify his racism? fuck no, but you can at least understand where it comes from. From a very early age he was given constant shit for his skin color by people of another.

Racism spreads racism like a cancer, the second people start realizing calling stuff "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism" or ignorant "can't be racist to white people" is hurting the attempt at equality the better humanity will be as a result.

[–]00saucy00 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very true

[–]charlie_yardbird -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

"racism" and "sexism" are both conceptually invalid.

Races are different. Sexes are different.

Acting under the presumption of those differences does not require a label. These labels are just meant to demonize people for political motivations.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I mean, that's wrong, but you do you.

[–]charlie_yardbird -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Nah, I'm pretty sure it's right.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Are you implying that discriminating against a person on the basis of race isn't racism?

[–]charlie_yardbird -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

"Racism" means discrimination based on race. That's the definition.

We are at the point now where the interpretation of "discrimination" has been so diluted that some people consider it "racist" even just to say that race is a biological reality.

If it is considered "racist" to point out that there are racial differences of biological origin, then the concept has no validity.

It would be like if you were a creationist and you called me an "evolutionist."

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Nobody said that was racist, but you claimed that racism as a whole doesn't exist.

[–]charlie_yardbird -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Nobody said that was racist

People say that is racist all the time.

You aren't very bright.

So, you think I'm an evolutionist?

[–]themolestedsliver 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Lol really think you are in the right when you have to start insulting people?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I didn't state that you were racist for saying that. I questioned the validity of your claim that racism doesn't exist.

[–]00saucy00 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Of course races and sexes are different, and in some (though I can’t think of many) situations you would treat them differently (e.g. putting sanitary bins in female bathrooms but not male ones).

But unfortunately, sexism and racism do exist. Sometimes someone will hate someone else for no other reason than their gender or race, and sometimes people are discriminated for no other reason than their gender or race.

[–]charlie_yardbird 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

People should be discriminated against because of their gender or race.

Gender and races are different. Ignoring that and avoiding treating them different is irrational. Discrimination is rational.

The word "racism" has literally no implications of hatred. That's irrelevant. It's "racist" simply to say "black people are dumber than asians." Notice that is simply a truth claim.

Thinking that races/sexes are different IS racism/sexism. No hatred is needed. If you deny that then you don't live on earth right now.

[–]00saucy00 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In what way do you think we should treat different races differently? (Genuine question, not angry comeback).

I don’t think we should ignore differences in race, it would suck if we were all the same. All I mean is someone shouldn’t miss out on a job or be afraid to go somewhere just because of their race etc.

I disagree with what you say about black people being dumber than asians. There are many reasons why this is incorrect.

[–]charlie_yardbird 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In what way do you think we should treat different races differently?

Well, right now we are already treating races differently. Ironically, we do this under the guise that they are all the same (and thus different outcomes need to be corrected).

For example, you'll see stuff like "black girls code" that encourages black women to get into STEM.

I think we should do the exact opposite. There should be programs for coding for white and asian men, not black women. Why? Because white and asian men are the people who are predisposed to being interested in STEM. You want to encourage those who are already predisposed, not those who aren't interested to begin with.

That's just one example of the absurdity. We should be investing in the MOST capable, not the LEAST capable.

All I mean is someone shouldn’t miss out on a job

Why not?

If the guy interviewing me hates white people, and thinks they're "white devils," then why should he be forced to hire me?

or be afraid to go somewhere just because of their race etc.

What does race have to do with it?

Do you think there's any justifiable reasons why a person should be made to feel afraid to go somewhere?

So why single out race?

I'm afraid to go to the ghetto. Not because it's full of blacks and hispanics, but because it's full of crime (although tbh that's cause and effect).

I disagree with what you say about black people being dumber than asians. There are many reasons why this is incorrect.

No, you're wrong. Black people are dumber than Asians. This isn't even debatable.

I can only assume you've never left your small little town and have never actually met any black or asian people. Or perhaps you have, but your dogmatic adherence to modern liberalism has blinded you to such an obvious reality.

That's all beside the point, anyways. It doesn't matter if it's true or false. The point is: You are demonizing the belief of an objective reality.

Let's say I was wrong, and black people are smarter than asians. Well, in that case wouldn't I just be missing some evidence? Or, perhaps I made a logical error? Would that make me "evil." Do I deserve to be stigmatized for that? Why does this stigma only extend into the narrow topic of biological differences between humans? Is it "racist" to say that border collies are smarter than poodles?

Think about it, a bit. You're demonizing the open discussion of biology and psychology.

Again - you can't say I'm exaggerating the stigma or how it is applied to people. You know damn well you'd be called racist for any sort of argument you give that the races have differences in intelligence.

[–]00saucy00 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I presume that when you say predisposed you mean genetically predisposed? Don’t get me wrong, I believe genetics have a big effect on human qualities, behaviours etc. but it would be irrational and unscientific to exclude environmental factors.

A lot of the things you have said make lots of sense if you ignore environmental (in our case cultural) factors, which have an even bigger effect on social animals such as humans.

You should read into this, it can be quite interesting and it’s useful to get the whole picture before making your mind up. (Good life lesson there).

When you say blacks are dumber than asians, I see where you get that from. There is a stereotype that asians are smarter than most, if not all, ethnic groups. Whilst I’m sure there are some genetics involved, this actually stems mostly from the cultures in Asia (most notably in China, Japan and Korea). In these countries there is (generally) a very high amount of pressure to perform well academically. This pressure is much much less in other counties so people from these countries don’t perform as well (on average). But this doesn’t mean that every individual Asian person is smarter than every individual black person. You’re generalising a bit too much there.

This also leads into your point about how you see black women being encouraged to go into coding more than white and asian men. The reason you see such programs is because for cultural and historical reasons, black women have had less opportunity to get into coding. The point of these programs isn’t necessarily to balance out the number of people from each race, but to allow people to get into something that maybe they’re great at or really enjoy, but otherwise wouldn’t have know that because they didn’t have access to it.

You might think that giving everyone the opportunity to code (or other subject) makes no difference overall to human success in that area, but only allowing some of us to try means that statistically we’re far less likely to make technical advances in these fields.

White or Asian men shouldn’t be discouraged from taking STEM subjects, not at all. You say there should be courses for them, but there already are. They haven’t got ‘white’ or ‘Asian’ or ‘man’ in the program name, but these groups generally have more access to these opportunities to begin with.

Anyway I’m done for now. Do some reading into the relationship between genetic and environmental factors on, well, anything. (Not an angry comeback, I promise). It’s interesting, I really recommend it and environmental factors have a bigger effect than you might think.

[+]kwilly15bb -59 points-58 points-57 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Except for the fact there were power structures in place and while they aren't as obvious now there still is a fallout that will take time to clear out. Over 200 years of slavery to war to institutionalized racism can't be just wiped away in a generation or two.

[–]NotARealAtty 58 points59 points60 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Apparently when your hear "racism" you immediately assume "racism against blacks," which isn't surprising. The majority of minority groups, from the Irish, to Italians and most recently Asians, have overcome discrimination within a generation or two, so your argument that it can't be wiped away in a generation or two doesn't really hold water. It's almost as if differences exist between certain groups...

[–]Hiihtopipo 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And actually, to top that all off, the Chinese were practically used as slaves for the railroads as well.

[–]seedlesssoul 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You mean we are all equal and not all equal at the same time?

[–]professor_mcamateur 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

equally slaves, who were given opportunities to overcome obstacles in America.

queue African American choking back tears: You whities will never understand, never!!

[–]NotARealAtty 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I certainly didn't suggest that, but that seems to be the way the person I responded to views things.

[–]seedlesssoul 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I said it sarcastically, but I really think it is true. We are all of different race and creed and our ancestors go back millions of years. We are different by appearance and color and gender, but we are all humans and deserve that respect from each other before we can fix any problems in the world. That is moving on from slavery like other groups have, move away from genocide as many have. The person you responded to looks at any type of racial talk is directed to black people and that's just wrong.

[+]kwilly15bb -10 points-9 points-8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for pointing that out. Even though there were actual racist implementations against Blacks (just skin color) all throughout the America's for a large amount of people for a very long time most recently it shouldn't always be the first thing that comes to mind. Its defenitetly not just white people who are racist towards me. Obviously my reference was in relation to a specific place and period and so it was specific in that way however it would have been more appropriate as an example of actual power structures that women don't have currently although there were in the past just like blacks in America. In getting back to your comment when I consider everyone outside of America I actually think it's purely stereotyping or xenophobia. With that being said none of these groups had it as bad for as many generations as black Americans did. I understand that may come off as unempathetic but dark skin alone was the reason for being racist. All those groups have lower melanin. In your example an Irish and Italian could change their last name, drop their accent (if needed) and blend right in. Black Americans did that and the black still stood out. Asians is a broad term. Honestly a little to much to answer. They've definitely gotten shit on as well but not as long or in the same areas as black Americans. Most immigrants had some combination of wealth/education/trade/craft which have them better opportunity to work and accrue wealth (even just sending money back to the mother country). Doesn't speak for everyone that migrated from Asia to the US but it is definitely a leg up on an educated poor person without opportunity.

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Found the beta...

[+]kwilly15bb -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

In response to this, be sure to skip Uber drivers who aren’t white. If they want to make it about race, so can we. Vote with your dollars in ALL things, my friends.

You wrote this. I'm not sure if you have good intentions or those who up vote you.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I did write this. Well done researching my history to find something which offends your sensibilities.

Equality requires all things being equal. All things. My intention is to create balance where others wish to create imbalance. Equality where others push inequality.

If feminists cost a man his job, I'll make sure I do my part to restore balance by not hiring a female candidate. If Uber wishes to discriminate against whites based on race, I will advocate for white people to discriminate against Uber drivers based on race.

If feminists and racists don't like what I do, perhaps they should not gleefully push their hateful agendas.

[–]kwilly15bb 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that you feel that someone is being racist to you so you should be racist to someone else. Fight hate with hate? That's not equal.

[–]pobretano 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Strangely, so many feminist act that way. When someone says #NotAllMen, they immediately answer "so go talk the men who are that way". Just look at the Rantzerker 102...

So, go talk to the anti-whites that it isn't cool to be anti-white. Preaching to this choir is useless.

[–]kwilly15bb -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't really get your reference. She seems pretty extreme in her views which is usually a bad idea. If anyone is anti-white that's not good at all. It doesn't mean you have to be racist towards them. It's OK to not care but it's only hateful when you start to discriminate. It's only possible to progress when we are together not when we fight. If all women fought all men there'd be no more humans. If all ethnicities fought each other there'd be no earth.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't really get your reference.

Yes you do.

[–]genuinely_insincere 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly, you're supposed to pay the good forward, not the bad.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's exactly equal. Fighting hate with love is unequal.

[–]kwilly15bb -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hate and love are both emotions resulting from strong feelings. They are the same thing. You would fight hate with apathy if you were truly equal.

[–]pobretano 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Treating "hate" with mere "apathy" would result in nothing - and by "nothing" I would cite "no Civil Rights Movement".

Even Thoreau's Civil Disobedience needs a degree of opposition. Not brute hate as an answer, but opposition. And opposition isn't apathy.

[+]KamiCon -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes, however white people would like to call the "discrimination" they face racism, when that's not what it is.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh really? And what exactly do you call, say, being passed over for a job because you're white and the company is looking more for diversity?

How about, as a commentator put it above, being called "White Devil"?

Wait, let me guess, it's not discrimination because whites can't be discriminated against. Is that so?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Please tell us what you think it is then...

[–]SarahC 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd rather not see the emanation of vile and contradictory excuses for thoughts coming out of their comments...

[–]theothermod 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What is it, then?

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

Prejudice, just like what was stated above. Try to keep up.

[+]DirHR -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

This is true but the word reverse is meant to distinguish between the sexism everyone talks about and the sexism that most people ignore.

Now everyone is against sexism but most people just ignore it when it happens to men. The term reverse sexism makes it harder to ignore because most people are going to make the distinction in their mind and most people aren't going to come right out and say they support reverse sexism.

In other words, the word sexism doesn't currently apply to men according to the masses and until that changes, a distinction is helpful.

[–]TheStumblingWolf 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I think that's the very reason the distinction shouldn't be used. Doing so legitimizes the distinction. We should insist on calling sexism sexism.

[–]DirHR -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Currently when a person speaks of sexism outside of mens rights circles, it is assumed by most that you are referring to sexism against women and ONLY women.

We need the distinction unless we want to continue to be ignored, IMO.

[–]TheStumblingWolf 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

If we keep insisting on using on in the context of men too it will create attention (negative and positive - it's all good) and make some people think. Reverse sexism sounds like something that's not really sexism. Like minigolf. It's golf, but not really.

[–]DirHR -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Well whatever. I have been trying to get people to listen for over a decade by inserting men into conversations about sexism and you can imagine how well it usually goes. I think the term 'reverse sexism' creates a distinction with little effort that forces people to think outside the ordinary but opinions will vary.

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's confusing to create a new term for something that already exists, and there's nothing "reverse" about it just because it's not the stereotypical version of the event.

If you saw a rich person steal from a poor person, would you call it reverse stealing? If you saw a short and thin person beat up a tall and muscular person, would you call it reverse fighting?

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

You could just say "sexism against men".

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

Currently when a person speaks of sexism outside of mens rights circles, it is assumed by most that you are referring to sexism against women and ONLY women.

I don't know about your circles but i have had plenty of conversations that involved sexism that included men and seen many more online not just in small pockets of MRA's.

Are you more likely to hear about "sexism women face"? yes without a doubt that is just how the womens rights movement ingrained in our society and mixed with identity politics.

But to consider that when you mention sexism you are specifically talking about ONLY WOMEN is quite the short sighted assumption.

More common doesn't mean 100% without fail as you are alluding to.

We need the distinction unless we want to continue to be ignored, IMO.

No a distinction will make it more easy to ignore it.

for starters "reverse sexism" doesn't even sound like what it means, because this just in lazily attaching a word to a very broad term doesn't sound right.

It sounds like the opposite of sexism which isn't at all what the conversation should be about.

sexism is discrimination women and men face, that is why it is called sexism..... you defeat the purpose of making it inclusive by arguing for a different term let alone a lazily done politicized term.

Do you have an actually argument aside from parroting "WE NEED A DISTINCTION" because this seems like your opinion you are trying to force to be a fact.

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

I mean it's all context. I started throwing in a "that's sexist" comment here and there when my once feminist mother would make derogatory male comments. I believe it had a much greater affect than says "that's reverse sexism". It put the term on the same playing field as she's used to and made her realize the hypocrisy of her beliefs as she had to see her two opposing views side by side. I know it sounds weird but ever since I've done this she's gotten much better about her attitude towards men and me and her have gotten closer.

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

This is a good case for reverse sexism and racism. It's the actual point when it's used. Although the correction still stands in my opinion, it doesn't need to be backed up with vitriolic hate. It's like biting the hand that feeds.

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

In other words, the word sexism doesn't currently apply to men according to the masses and until that changes, a distinction is helpful.

The word is clearly defined and most people know that. Don't yield the territory of defining the language to the authoritarians or you may as well just give up now already. There's no such thing as reverse genocide you see.

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

In other words, the word sexism doesn't currently apply to men according to the masses and until that changes, a distinction is helpful.

How does that make any sense?

Wouldn't a distinction reinforce the concept that "they aren't the same" and more disunity?

3/4's of the time i hear the terms "reverse sexism" "reverse racism" it is from liberals mocking anyone else except a minority complaining about something.

the other 1/4 is from people who understand that adding "reverse" to those phrases are people trying to steal a very general word for their specific political ideology.

The sexism "everyone talks about" should also include sexism men face but that would get negated if pointlessly make another word for it...

[+]blessedblackwings1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is reverse sexism. At least what feminism has become these days.

[–]00saucy00 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sexism isn’t discrimination against women by men. It’s discrimination against anyone and by anyone based on gender.

Women can be sexist to men. Men can be sexist to women. Women can be sexist to women. Men can be sexist to men. Etc. Etc.

That’s why I’m saying that reverse sexism doesn’t exist, because it’s just called sexism.

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

I guess what I meant to say is that modern feminism is sexism. Not reverse, just sexism.

[–]bufedad 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

No, feminism is sexism.

[–]sagacious_1 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Can we please not go down that road? Hopefully we're all aware that there's a big distinction between the majority of feminists that are fighting for equal rights, and the extreme man-hating feminists. If you think feminist are sexist by nature because of the name, realise that this sub is r/mensrights, not r/humanrights, but we still implicitly understand that it's about equal rights.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]sagacious_1 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So first of all, I actually do appreciate your response. This isn't a rebuttal, because I agree with your points (besides the somewhat snarky tone), but let me clear a few things up:

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist

I never called myself a feminist, I think you're just assuming that I am. Funny enough, the reason I don't like the label is for a reason we would probably agree on; it hitches me to cart that contains a lot of issues I don't necessarily agree with, and people would make assumptions about my beliefs. I think where we don't see eye to eye is what we picture when we think of feminism, though both have their truth.

When I talk about feminism, I'm thinking of the movement over the century that has served to right a lot of very legitimate wrongs. I don't think you will deny that women were in a significantly worse place a hundred years ago, and that there are still SOME issues where sexist beliefs and policies cause harm. Every group needs their advocates (regardless of race or gender, including men) to fight for hopefully equal treatment. I believe that the majority of people that say "feminism is good" are talking about this idea of creating equality. However, sometimes these people can be mislead into supporting a sexist idea because someone has convinced them that a gross inequality exists where one might not.

On the other hand, you are talking about "feminists", people who make this cause an essential part of who they are. I completely agree that the people and groups you described are being sexist. Some may be misguided or ignorant, but that's not an excuse. However, I do see these cases as an extremist view of feminism, like conflating patriotic ideals with nationalism. I went a very liberal college, and I guarantee that a good chunk of the people would 1) say they agree with feminism, and 2) would see the situations you described as horrible injustices.

If we look back at my original reply, I was saying that feminism doesn't equal sexism, and I stand by that. At the same time, I agree that there are a lot of feminists, especially in the political sphere, that push sexist ideas.

Finally,

Some random person on the internet

Aren't we all?

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

That's actually a quote of Karen Straughn.

Edit: The reason I used it, while it was seemingly directed at you, was in response to your bit about "Hopefully we're all aware that there's a big distinction between the majority of feminists that are fighting for equal rights, and the extreme man-hating feminists"

Second edit: When I talk about feminism, I'm thinking of the movement over the century that has served to right a lot of very legitimate wrongs. I don't think you will deny that women were in a significantly worse place a hundred years ago, and that there are still SOME issues where sexist beliefs and policies cause harm. - I would say women were in a worse spot in some cases, but still better in others. Hell they got to vote without signing up for the draft.

Every group needs their advocates (regardless of race or gender, including men) to fight for hopefully equal treatment. I believe that the majority of people that say "feminism is good" are talking about this idea of creating equality. However, sometimes these people can be mislead into supporting a sexist idea because someone has convinced them that a gross inequality exists where one might not. - Equality paradigm shifted on us. There still isn't equality. We now have female supremacy in almost every facet of life.

On the other hand, you are talking about "feminists", people who make this cause an essential part of who they are. I completely agree that the people and groups you described are being sexist. Some may be misguided or ignorant, but that's not an excuse. However, I do see these cases as an extremist view of feminism, like conflating patriotic ideals with nationalism. I went a very liberal college, and I guarantee that a good chunk of the people would 1) say they agree with feminism, and 2) would see the situations you described as horrible injustices. - Again you're using the whole "misguided" or "ignorant" when the feminists in power are power-hungry monsters.

If we look back at my original reply, I was saying that feminism doesn't equal sexism, and I stand by that. At the same time, I agree that there are a lot of feminists, especially in the political sphere, that push sexist ideas. - Actually, most feminists are sexist as hell. If you think a movement that got equality then continued further and took things away from the other gender, in the name of "equality" they're not freedom fighters. They're sexists.

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

I'm thinking of the movement over the century that has served to right a lot of very legitimate wrongs.

It has done little more than vilify men with the same kind of rhetoric that ethnic cleansers use. And yes, I'm talking about the earliest feminists.

I don't think you will deny that women were in a significantly worse place a hundred years ago

Worse than what? Today's women? Well duh. Everybody was worse off back then.

Or worse than men of a hundred years ago? That's just no true.

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

Yes... 100 years ago, women were oppressed and prevented from destroying their bodies and giving their lives for their families like these poor fools:

Belgian Miners

[–]00saucy00 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks all of this.

I believe in equal rights between men and women, but I can no longer call myself a feminist because feminism is now associated with people who are going too far the other way.

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

Hopefully we're all aware that there's a big distinction between the majority of feminists that are fighting for equal rights

The largest feminist organization in the world (National Organization for Women) has been fighting for decades to prevent equal access to children after a divorce (shared parenting being the default).

You claim the majority of feminists are fighting for equal rights... prove it. Prove the man-hating feminists are on the fringe. Prove they are the minority. Prove they are extremists.

I mean, you can't, but I'd be happy if you did.

[–]charlie_yardbird -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"sexism" isn't a thing.

Men and women are different. Treating them differently as a result of those differences is just behaving rationally.

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

As if treating somebody different is automatically consistent with their differences. Kill all men isn't sexist because it's treating them differently to women and men and women are different.

[–]noleague 434 points435 points436 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I like that they compared themselves to a child

[–]SuperPwnerGuy 233 points234 points235 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It's also sexist to assume women have no power.

[–][deleted] 188 points189 points190 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Women have no power any time it's convenient for them not to.

[–]Luchadorgreen 78 points79 points80 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And this is ironically a significant source of power.

[–]recon_johnny 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This should be stickied.

[–]CountVonVague 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And don't men dare to try the same behaviors on penalty of great shaming

[–]goober_boobz 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

God forbid men are reduced to infantile submissive babbling grunts after years of excusing sexual deviancy in women and promoting the emasculation of men through the legal system of castration called divorce and custody arrangements. But let the ladies all focus on the gender pay gap, as if wages for all earners haven't been stagnant whatsoever since the 1980's.

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

women have the power to have no power

[–]garden_toolshed -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A terrible generalisation.

[–]notacrackheadofficer 35 points36 points37 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

''I'll take the kids and everything you own'' punch punch punch punch

[–]desderon 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is schrödinger's sexism.

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

Yeah but they like that sexism.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Saves us a step

[–]garden_toolshed 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you serious dude.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. (But probably not meant how you think I meant it)

Namely, it saves us the step of pointing out that this nonsense treats adult women as children and that's absurd. If someone's just gonna come out and openly claim women should be treated like children, it makes it a lot easier to just point out how ridiculous that is.

[–]TutelarSword -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or are they calling men children? Parents can usually hit a child by spanking them, but if a child hits back they get in more trouble. Or if you don't believe in hitting children at all, the whole thing falls apart since that means no one should be hitting.

[–][deleted] 90 points91 points92 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Children are scolded for hitting adults all the time (at least when they have good parents). This comparison makes no sense.

[–]azazelcrowley 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Misandrist Feminist apparently wasn't scolded as child for hitting parents.

Shocker. Explains a lot. "The way to get what I want is to be an abusive asshole."

[–]FlatTire2005 84 points85 points86 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If this is true, then women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, drive vehicles, own their own property, own guns, etc.

If this is true. Oh, it isn’t? Well I guess women can continue to do these things and also accept the consequences of being a shitty adult. Maybe just don’t be shitty! Best of both worlds.

[–]DirHR 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Is feminism just a key that frees women to act as they want or is feminism a whip forcing women to act this way?

[–]FlatTire2005 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Depends on what you think feminism is. Unfortunately, a lot of people think it means women ca do no wrong and if you disagree you’re a sexist shitlord.

I am but a lowly man, but I like to think real feminism means equality, not what we currently have. I totally agree that men shouldn’t shout rude things to women on the streets, but at least there aren’t a shit ton of laws that treat women as inferior or expendable like there is with men.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is a word that can mean anything to anybody and can be used to justify any behavior no matter how good or evil, just like religion.

[–]DirHR 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So it's worthless.

[–]Medason 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a word? Yes.

[–]HeForeverBleeds 110 points111 points112 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, both feminism and traditional gender stereotypes infantilize women. The main difference is that feminism is inconsistent: they'll say women are like children when they're arguing for perpetual female victimhood, then they'll say women are stronger, smarter, better leaders, etc. than men when they're arguing why half or more of CEO's or politicians and STEM majors should be women, or arguing why female athletes should be paid the same

The hitting a child analogy is wrong anyway, because

  1. Sexism doesn't require a 'power structure'. It requires being prejudice towards someone due to sex
  2. The idea that there are power structures in society that advantage men over women / male privilege is a myth in the first place

Saying things like sexism against men doesn't count because of social power is begging the question, since there are already so many prejudices and disadvantages that males face for being males that what is the evidence that males have more social power in the first place?

[–]DownvotedByShitters 47 points48 points49 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Internal post at my workplace which was featured on the front page. The first line:

Have you ever heard the expression “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”? Well millennial women are out to change that!

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, who doesn’t want to eat the cake they have??

Edit: sorry, I was making a dumb joke and people are taking it seriously. My bad.

[+]spendshi_YYC_Mayor1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

That's why that saying is stupid. No one has a cake just sitting there for it to be admired.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, the meaning is you can’t both keep and eat your cake. Once you eat it, it’s gone. You can’t have two incompatible things.

There is probably a better situation that would fit that proverb, but I’ve yet to hear it.

[–]tallwheel 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Spend your dollar and save it too"?

[–]DirHR -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I can't believe how badly some people butchered that proverb when it certainly isn't hard to understand.

[–]lethrowaway4me 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bc it's backwards. It's supposed to be "You can't eat your cake and have it, too" implying that they are mutually exclusive actions. Once you eat the cake, it's gone. You can't have it after that.

[–]BBQ_HaX0r 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not about eating the cake you have. Obviously you 'have' it if you're eating it so the expression seemingly makes no sense. It should be rephrased to something like: "Eat your cake now and have it later too." It's basically saying you can't eat your cake now and still have it later to eat as well.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know, I was making a dumb joke.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Jokes on them. If they continue down this path men will be the new women, then we’ll “take back the super social power” because oppression.

[–]CountVonVague 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

they'll say women are like children when they're arguing for perpetual female victimhood, then they'll say women are stronger, smarter, better leaders, etc.

Perhaps they just believe that children should lead the world and adults stopping them are immoral?

[–]ScottyBrown 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Traditional doesn’t infantilize women. It gave women a lot of power and a position as the benefactor of men’s work. They now want both traditional roles

[–]rainman206 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The value of an athlete resides in their marketability to fans, not their athletic talent or professional record.

The question ought to be why doesn't anyone give a shit about women's sports?

[–]curiouslyengaged 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Maybe because women are children .. FTFY

[–]xNOM 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Modern women are children when it comes to responsibilities. But adults when it comes to rights.

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

Exactly - damn I got downvoted - there are lot of blue pills on this sub that refuse the truth ...

[–]garden_toolshed 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Such a disgusting viewpoint!

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

It's not a viewpoint. It's a fact. Make me a list of rights men have that women don't. Then make me a list of responsibilities women have that men don't.

Then make me a list of what fraction of government services are used by women. And a list of what fraction of taxes raised are paid by women.

[–]HeForeverBleeds 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

They are not children. They are treated like children, at least when it comes to being held accountable. There's a significant difference between their actually having the mental capabilities of children, and their simply being presumed to have them

[–]curiouslyengaged -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

They're more like adolescents who have the mental capacity to understand responsibility but choose not to. It does work both ways - expectations from and by play a role in the net result.

[–]El_Stupido_Supremo 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

All women?

Seriously. You have to not generalize like this. My wife is an mra and a feminist by her definitions. She's also one of the most grown up stable people I know. Which is why I picked her. And I like to think that my masculinity and readiness to bust my ass to succeed like her is one of our commonalities that creates a better relationship.

When you guys generalize all of one group you're by definition a bigot.

Be better than what you're up against if you want success in your endeavors.

[–]curiouslyengaged 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh boy - nice for using that word - you know if she just gets it in her head that she wants to clean you out - she will - then you'll see how much her MRA credentials are worth. I clearly know that individual people can be extremely competent. When I talk in generalities I talk on average not about individual high contributors who are outliers.

[–]El_Stupido_Supremo 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not rich. She isn't poor. If she wants my tools and $800 trucks then that's that. I'm willing to bet that in a divorce I could get alimony.

I disagree with alimony so I wouldn't go there.

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

All alimony? I mean, I think I get what you’re saying, but what about a situation where an SO or something essentially keeps them as a house wife/hostage? Doesn’t allow them to get a job, knocks em up, etc.? One problem with abusive relationships is they basically keep them dependent.

[–]abend2 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Equality is granted to equals. If you can't handle being an equal then you don't deserve equality.

[–]averis1 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You summed it up beautifully.. in only five words.

[–]kwilly15bb 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The thing with equality is that it doesn't exist. Socially it's possible but in reality it's not.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

this is spot on, it does not exist, It is an idea/ideal. IMO a shitty one at that, In Australia when i was growing up in the 80's & 90's there was a very strong social attitude of giving people a 'fair go'.

I think the attitude of fairness was superior in many ways.

[–]thrway_1000 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminism is sexism, just the socially acceptable kind at the moment. Feminism is also a hate movement with power, so they can definitely be sexist.

[–]Darkerfire 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They have a lot of money now too, getting subsidized by the government for all of their "inspire women" events who truly are disguised sexism events teaching young women that they need to work together to fight the imaginary oppression men puts on them. We are slowly creating a society where women gets many more opportunities to network and get funding for their projects than men does, and sacrificing scientific/business integrity for a forced equal representation of genders everywhere in fields who naturally lack women presence.

[–]crnext 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminism is no more about equality than heads / tails is about standing a coin on its edge.

[–]theDmc231 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But I want my cake and I wanna eat it too!

[–]cheshiredudeenema[S] 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Also, no surprise that this was retweeted by everyone's favourite feminist, Clementine Ford. This is mainstream feminism now.

[–]boringcarpets 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pay attention, it's been the mainstream for some time

[–]DolphinsAreOk 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So its ok for a child to hit its parent?

[–]workthrow22 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

this 'reverse _____ doesnt exist because of _____structure " is getting soo old. and its still dumb

[–]mymarkis666 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But can't a 14 year old child knock out a 20 year old adult woman? That's fine?

[–]KingRobotPrince 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah and a female boss couldn't harass and bully a male member of her junior staff because "he has all the power".

Could you imagine how badly all but the top few per cent of males could be treated if this was accepted?

[–]outdoorsybum 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Sexism is sexism. Racism is racism. It doesn't matter it you're a majority or minority. If you a black man deny a white person from a job because he is white , that's racism. If you, a woman, deny a man a job because he is a man that's sexism. Just because you believe that some grand conspiracy is plotting against you because of your genitals or skin color, you have some serious issues to work out.

Although I understand that these events tragically happen. And when blatant sexist/racist discrimination happens you should report it.

[–]garden_toolshed -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No grand conspiracy, just reality.

[–]outdoorsybum 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Show me.

[–]halloween__jack 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

5 yr old account with negative karma, hmm...

[–]garden_toolshed -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

what!?

[–]McFeely_Smackup 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sheer idiocy aside, how is it that people like this manage to miss/not notice/ignore the VAST amount of power women are granted in western society?

Where does this idea of "men have power, women are powerless" come from, it's like some kind of victim fetish role-playing. The reality is women are granted far more 'power' than men are, and they exercise it in ways like this...belittling men and declaring men have no right to equal treatment.

[–]v574v 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The definition of power:

the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.

The historical male version:

  • the capacity or ability to direct the behavior of others or the course of events.

The historical female version:

  • the capacity or ability to influence the behavior of others or the course of events.

[–]crippsy1988 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's true, no such thing as reverse sexism or reverse racism. It's called sexism and racism. Fact.

[–]LilGreenCorvette 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Seriously!

[–]crippsy1988 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably

[–]Soldier4Christ82 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There is absolutely, however, such a thing as retalliatory racism; people using the fact that either they personally, their family, or their race were targeted for racial discrimination as an excuse to hate an entire race just because of what was done to them by a small handful of people of said race, or worse, even just one person of said race.

[–]crippsy1988 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't like it but it's a standard human reaction. Cheated on by a woman, hate women. Beaten by a man, hate men. Its not good as you end up becoming that you hate but one day we as a race might have the wisdom to sort ourselves out for once.

[–]8880886 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What about children that kill thier parents? Are they less than murderers? Are the wounds inflicted less deep?

[–]lonewolfhistory[🍰] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

By there logic, women are nothing more than children. Children have very few rights. Therefore, again by there logic, women shouldn't have voting rights or other such rights afforded to adults. Based off there logic only of course

[–]gevander 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists who use this argument also want to ignore that "power structures" (who has the power in a given place or time) are fluid and situational .
The manager at McDonald's has ZERO power in the hospital. The celebrities who say "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!" are trying to take power where they have none (or little).
Most power structures don't care about the gender of the person wielding power.

[–]LilGreenCorvette 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hate these "reverse" blahblah things. Sexism is sexism, it's not reverse. where in the dictionary does it say "sexism is the unfair treatment of onllyy women"?

I'm a woman and hate all this stereotyping on men. My mom is a huge man basher because of her toxic experiences and doesn't understand all men aren't like that, just the ones she chose.

[–]BruceCampbell123 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

sexism is related to power structures

Says no dictionary ever.

[–]Quintrell 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For now.

[–]DVHeld 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, a child hitting an adult is still wrong.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're right.

Reverse sexism isn't a thing.

It's just plain old sexism.

[–]srkelley5 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So are they arguing that women are inherently inferior to men? Do they ever read what they post before posting it?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

intellectual consistency is too much for some people to handle.

[–]SkeptiCynical 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Combating the pseudo-intellectualism that would present such a shortsighted, retarded shower-thought as a fact is just as important as combating toxic feminism.

[–]phoenix335 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If a power difference would be required to make behavior illegal or immoral, it would present a very very difficult question to solve:

Who determines if a power difference really exists?

That question is impossible to solve and it will be forever unsolvable since human society and social behavior are the most complex interactions of any system that we know. It is impossible to determine the degree of oppression, and it is perfectly possible for one individual to be oppressed on one issue and be the oppressor in another, or even the same issue. Also, the same acts can be oppressive on one person or beneficial when applied to another.

Oppression and power structure as a mode of determining guilt or morality is completely subjective and therefore a moral hazard of the highest degree to apply as a measure in social interactions.

[–]MagicTire 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Sexism is OUR word!! And you can't have it!!"

[–]Stephen1985 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did this person just compare women to children? Oh dear.

[–]chambertlo 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists are petulant children that want to use their female privilege to subjugate men rather than strive for equality.

[+]1493271 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Women are not children. They are responsible for themselves and can defend themselves

[–]DirHR 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Then why do they always blame men?

[+]1493271 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

You honestly think women are like children?

[–]DirHR 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why do they always blame men?

[+]1493271 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Because they aren't held accountable. Not because they're children. Its an easy way out. Simple. Your turn.

[–]DirHR 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Originally you said:

They are responsible for themselves

and now you say:

Because they aren't held accountable.

If they aren't held accountable then they aren't responsible for themselves.

[+]1493271 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

My point is that they are capable of being responsible.

If they aren't held accountable then they aren't responsible for themselves.

People can hold themselves accountable if they so choose.

[–]DirHR 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your question doesn't have anything to do with what I said and so I didn't answer it.

Capable of being responsible doesn't mean shit. Kids are capable of being responsible too but often they must me held accountable before they accept that responsibility.

Women make a choice to blame all their problems on the patriarchy or the nearest man.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

They aren’t saying women are children exactly. They’re saying there’s an imbalance in power and they liken it to an adult vs a child. Completely stupid anyway since there’s no imbalance in power like that, but that’s what they were doing.

[–]DirHR 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, they are saying women are like children compared to men sometimes and then other times women are like the superior to men. It just depends on which benefits them the most at any given time.

Maybe they have multiple personality disorder.

[–]Halafax 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

no personality disorder

[–]desderon 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough but you'll have to admit the metaphor is begging the ridicule. And even worse, if a man used the same metaphor he would be shamed to death, there would be no space for nuance.

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

I'm ready to accept women as adults. And many of them are. But for some reason many of them seem to be revelling in perpetual childhood.

Is there a female version of Peter Pan syndrome?

[–]desderon 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is there a female version of Peter Pan syndrome?

Feminism

[–]SKNK_Monk 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was hoping there was something snappier I could use, but you're also correct.

[–]Copidosoma 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"They aren’t saying women are children exactly."

Of course not. It is a metaphor.

[–]Ninjetik 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right, I should let my 5 year old drive.

DOWN WITH POWER DIFFERENTIALS

[–]meltedcheeser 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is embarrassing.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'll agree with this as long as I get to hear every woman and minority say the words "I am a child and you are the adult".

[–]garden_toolshed 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wow dude are you serious? You are a scary dude.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks my dude

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

Lol

[–]CondemnedZealot 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Every time I see one of these while flipping through my front page my immediate instinct is to downvote it. Then I realize the sub it's on and that we're actually lambasting it.

[–]alclarkey 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have been physically assaulted on multiple occasions, told not to drive down this street, attempted robbery with a screwdriver, on mulitiple occasions by black people. Are you going to sit there and tell me the things they did to me, the slurs they yelled at me, they're not racist?

I have seen it multiple times, men express anger and frustration, but they're not allowed to because they might get violent, even when they say they have no plans of doing so, that's not due to sexism?

When you're in family court and everything you say gets twisted around to make you look like the bad guy, that's not due to sexism?

When you call the police about your abusive wife, and you get arrested instead, that's not sexism?

[–]Surtysurt 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Power is completely irrelevant in any conversation of racism or sexism.

[–]FemaleHypnotist 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

There's strong women and there's weak men (mostly mentally) Well, if a stronger woman abuses a weaker man, this is "sexism" Sexism is the abuse of the weaker, whether male or female. Actually I wouldn't call it sexism but just plain abuse regardles of gender. As a matter of fact I no longer believe there's such a thing as sexism. It's just the stronger who abuses the weaker, regardless of gender.

[–]thatCigarGuy 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But when a child hits an adult you tell them they have been bad.

[–]booblover513 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet we teach kids all the time not to hit adults because it’s wrong. Pretty silly point that is being made there.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She’s flexing her Priviledge in a way that victimizes her at the same time

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The next person who tells me I can’t experience racism, sexism, or any other form of prejudice is going to get an ear full, sick of hearing it.

[–]CrackaDon_YT 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Remember guys, gender is just a social construct. Gender isn't real. But women are real. And the patriarchy is keeping them down. The genderless male patriarchy that is male but lacks gender other than male. Also, women are real. But gender is not. But women are. Also men, who are bad and women are good, but gender is bad, but that's okay because it doesn't exist. But women do.

[–]fakeprincess 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ur mom gay.

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

My genderless yet female yet genderless female parent? No, u

[–]RhEEziE 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If I see a random woman on the street and think she must be dumb cause she's a woman. What power structure did I utilize to accomplish this sexism?

[–]professor_mcamateur 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

reminds me of a news story years back where some young kid, about 6 years old and a child of a broken home, ran towards a police officer in the trailer he lived in while holding a knife. the officer shot the kid, kid died.

[+]Tom_Doniphan1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

They got the women being children part correct.

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

Wow

[+]carbenz1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

unrelated note: hitting children as an adult is very fun.

[–]KingRobotPrince 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Stupid post. The reason a child hitting an adult is not as bad as an adult hitting a child is that an adult if far stronger and capable of doing considerably more damage.

For this to be the same it would mean that sexism could not hurt men as much as women, which is obvious horse shit.

To say you aren't allowed this or you cannot go here because you are a man, is no different than saying the same to a woman. To say 'kill all men' is no different to 'kill all women'. No amount of perceived "power" is going to change that.

It's obvious what they are trying to achieve. To establish a discourse where they establish that men "have the power" therefore no man can ever experience sexism. Allowing them the freedom to treat men awfully.

Kind of reminds me of the 'blame the rich/blame the Jews, kill them all they are or oppressors' mentality of Stalin and Hitler.

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

Stalin is a pretty apt comparison. What with the cultural Marxism and identity politics

[–]candidly1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What fucking genius posted this nonsense?

[–]ahremanes80 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So, given the example in this post as a reference point, men are the adults and women are the children hitting back in retaliation. Grow the fuck up women... Hitting an adult is only gonna get your ass beat as a child.

[–]psomaster226 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wait, is she saying it's completely acceptable for a child to hit an adult, regardless of context?

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

It's still wrong for a child to hit an adult though...they didn't really think this through did they?

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

I have no idea if traditional feminism embraces this idea but I think many normal people can see that there are microcosms in the world in which minorities or women are in power or are equal in power. The “reverse racism” argument holds no merit.

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

There are more female managers in the workplace because off extreme sexism against men. Women have the most power to have flipped the script in forty years

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

Children are only different from adults because of the power structure? Or the difference between children and adults created the power structure?

I'm so confused by this analogy. Reminds me of the time I worked on a case where we won over $300k against a law firm that fired a white attorney in order to hire a black attorney.

[–]C2074579 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Any woman who agrees with this is saying that she is lesser than men. HA! Take that femicunts.

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

A clear example of a child who wasn't loved.

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

Not my normal forum, but FYI both are probably assault and battery and the severity of the damage may control (you might want to know that children can be tried as adults in many jurisdictions and children do commit murder) as well as heightened penalties for crimes against certain types of people (like senior citizens or people under a certain age). I really hate pointing out that the term children is vague since all of us have parents and are children. I assume the author meant people under the age of majority, which not only differs by jurisdiction but also can change by statute.

Generally the difference is in the facts and the strength of those facts rather than assumptions, a lesson everyone should probably learn if you want to uphold the rights of people (or get to the truth) and not just spread stupidity.

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

So I am superior to women in practically every way? Hmmm.

[–]4iamalien 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What about a good looking female with power over males?

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

Feminists hold all the power on campus. So you can’t be sexist against them.

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

So, women are children and men are adults? I feel like this erodes more feminist arguments than it supports.

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

Sure reverse sexism isn’t a thing. It’s just sexism, regardless of the the power structure or dichotomy in which said sexism occurs , so when a member of the minority targets a member of the majority guess what it’s still an act of prejudice no matter which ways it goes.

[–]jpin86 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sexism is sexism in both directions

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

lol finally admitting that their role in society is similar to that of a child.

[–]Leneord1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Twitter user is a sexist for making a woman equivalent to a child

[+]Peridorito1001 -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

For what is worth not all feminist think like this , I don’t know how many think like this but looking at Twitter probably isn’t looking at what is “normal” , so let’a try to not generalize saying all feminism is like X , that’s like saying Men’s right movement is sexist because this one dude said something sexist , feminism is about bringing equality to women , but not all feminist are about bringing equality

[–]boringcarpets 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet it is the mainstream; even retweeted by mainstream and published feminists. it is the prevalent philosophy of feminism. It's all very well saying "these "few" people don't represent feminism" but when misandry and infantilisation and victimhood is the prevalent movement, how else cab it be seen? The so-called "equality feminists" are almost always nowhere to be found, never front and centre, and if they are (eg CHS and Karen) they are shouted down and protested

[–]DarthCerebroX 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Sure, not all feminists think this way... but when it comes to the mainstream feminist movement, this is absolutely how they treat men/women based on their actions.

Here’s a dozen examples of mainstream feminist organizations (such as NOW, the most powerful feminist organization in the world) fighting against true gender equality... So you can see what I’m talking about.

** Karen Straughan on the “those aren’t real feminists” argument**

The following is a very informed 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 (one of the most highly regarded feminists alive today- who is credited with changing the federal rape laws and the FBI definition of rape), 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... meaning whenever a woman takes advantage of an inebriated/sleeping/unconscious man or forces him to sleep with her, these crimes are classified as a much lesser charge.

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.

—

[–]garden_toolshed -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Wow time to spend less time on the internet...

[–]nforne 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We often get moderate feminists coming here to say that feminism is wonderful, and the feminists who work against equality are a tiny, vocal minority.

What you just read is a thorough rebuttal written a while ago by Karen Straughan. It explains some of the ways mainstream feminism works against equality.

It gets copy/pasted here quite often. Saves time.

[–]garden_toolshed -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I see

[–]DarthCerebroX 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol, nice rebuttal dude.... Someone points out that the mainstream feminist movement is a completely different beast than your normal everyday feminists, that the mainstream movement actually fights against men’s issues and true gender equality... and i back it up with dozens of real life examples.

... and you’re only response is to tell me to spend less time on the Internet?

Shame on me for actually giving a shit and researching the stuff I’m passionate about. Shame on me for actually informing myself instead of just listening to what buzzfeed or my gender studies teacher tells me about how feminism is totes “the greatest”. Shame on me for not being another mindless drone who just goes along with whatever the mainstream opinion tells me to believe...

Going forward I’ll have to remember to take a page from your book and just bury my head in the sand so I can remain ignorant and uninformed about how the world really works.

Why are you even here if you’re not interested in learning something?... You just like to shame the people that took the time to research, are willing to help others learn, and actually try to make a difference in this world?... Does doing that make you feel better about yourself, less insecure and intimidated when you realize how utterly clueless you really are?

You’re like that dumb jock bully in school who when somebody makes you feel stupid because you don’t know something, you get angry and call them a nerd for studying too much.

EDIT: Nevermind... I see that you’ve been on reddit for 5 years but somehow you’ve managed to remain at negative karma. That’s quite the accomplishment tbh. You must be some kind of professional asshole.

[–]garden_toolshed -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow... I appreciate the effort but relax..

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

feminism is about bringing equality to women , but not all feminist are about bringing equality

I ran that through the filter, absolutely nothing came out.

Feminism is about granting privileges to women without requiring they accept the responsibilities that go with them.

[–]IamBrian -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You’re exactly right.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Shhh, don't tell them they have no concept of using storytelling devices when it comes to similes and metaphors.

[–]garden_toolshed 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Who is they?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

:P

[–]JHHELLO -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good picture, awful, awful title that takes away from the sub

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter