List of reputable Men’s and Women’s Rights organizations?

Absolutely it does. Feminism says all men are rapists for example and then says rape is worse than murder. Feminists say men run everything and uniformly do it to hurt women. Men are described as the enemy of women by feminism. Examples are ubiquitous. Even when feminists are writing books to say feminists don't hate men they say stuff like that. Feminism dictates that men are a birth group are morally inferior to women. Men are seen as a toxic pollution on the planet. Men are cursed by God to hurt women. Men are a foreign power enslaving women and worse. All these metaphors and facts have been supported by the movement by central and well respected leaders.

Have you ever met a feminist or read anything they have ever done or said?

At any rate that's an excellent start to a definition though it needs some refinement because on the whole that sort of tribalism is sadly very common among people. For example any nation group might qualify. Foreigners are typically treated worse than citizens and thought of as lesser because "patriotism". Another bad example would be say rapists where people think they are worse morally and they're right of course, and they say they should be treated worse (locked up). Again Victorian era traditional conservatives (of which feminism is an off-shoot) also said that men were inferior to women morally and that men and women should not be treated equally, but we wouldn't call them a hate movement against men because they nevertheless had good things to say about men in other respects and bad things about women in others.

But on the whole that was an excellent answer to give if you just made it up on the spot.

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

Feminism says all men are rapists for example and then says rape is worse than murder.

It does not. Some feminists tweet #yesallmen, which certainly is misandrist, but they do not literally mean it.

Feminists say men run everything and uniformly do it to hurt women.

It does not. Feminism blames all societal sexism on patriarchy, which they claim is a societal structure set up by men that favors men over women, but that is not the same as saying men have some secret agenda or even a subconscious one to control/enslave women.

Men are described as the enemy of women by feminism.

No, patriarchy is.

Examples are ubiquitous. Even when feminists are writing books to say feminists don't hate men they say stuff like that.

Citation needed.

Feminism dictates that men are a birth group are morally inferior to women. Men are seen as a toxic pollution on the planet. Men are cursed by God to hurt women. Men are a foreign power enslaving women and worse. All these metaphors and facts have been supported by the movement by central and well respected leaders.

Again, citations needed. Honestly, some of what you’ve said here just seems bizarre to me. You’re not dealing with feminism in an empathic manner here, not trying to understand what it’s really saying. Feminism is certainly misandrist in many ways, and deserves a lot of criticism, but it is not a hate movement, that’s just silly.

[–]DavidByron2 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So for example the history of sexual harassment as a concept is rooted in defining men as rapists of women. Catharine MacKinnon came up with the idea based on her idea that all heterosexual sex is rape of the woman by the man.

Some feminists tweet #yesallmen

And "some" support sexual harassment as a concept too I hear.

Do any oppose?

Feminism blames all societal sexism on patriarchy

"Patriarchy" means "men run everything to hurt women". Who the hell did you think was running the "patriarchy" in feminists' minds?

that is not the same as saying men have some secret agenda or even a subconscious one to control/enslave women.

That is actually exactly how it's described by bell hooks in her well known book "Feminism is for everybody" where she attempts to tell people feminists don't really hate men but you know men are all evil rapists that love to hurt women so...... I mention this book especially because it's been recommended to me many times buy feminists attempting to say feminists don't hate all men,. Which they do.

https://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Everybody-Passionate-bell-hooks/dp/0896086283

But for a more classic example we could go with the original "birth place of feminism" the 1848 Seneca Falls meeting which described men as an army that had been enslaving women forever and that women need to rise up and fight men for their liberty in the same way the US colonists had fought off the occupying British the century before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_Falls_Convention

And here's your "men are pollution" / genocide quote:

https://quotefancy.com/quote/1154807/Mary-Daly-If-life-is-to-survive-on-this-planet-there-must-be-a-decontamination-of-the

As to God saying that men were cursed to hurt women that goes to Sarah Grimké. She talks about it here in her letters. She was someone you've never heard of who was the biggest thing in feminism in the early 19th century I guess.

http://www.worldculture.org/articles/12-Grimke%20Letters,%201-3.pdf

But you must be trolling me if you really think feminists don't say men are morally inferior to women. Everything they say broadcasts it at maximum volume.

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

So for example the history of sexual harassment as a concept is rooted in defining men as rapists of women.

Huh?

Catharine MacKinnon came up with the idea based on her idea that all heterosexual sex is rape of the woman by the man.

Please connect this quote from CM to sexual harassment as it is presently thought about.

"Patriarchy" means "men run everything to hurt women". Who the hell did you think was running the "patriarchy" in feminists' minds?

They still blame patriarchy, not men.

That is actually exactly how it's described by bell hooks in her well known book "Feminism is for everybody" where she attempts to tell people feminists don't really hate men but you know men are all evil rapists that love to hurt women so...... I mention this book especially because it's been recommended to me many times buy feminists attempting to say feminists don't hate all men,. Which they do.

I’m not going to read the whole book to find the part you’re talking about. Find me a direct quote if you want to assert she’s saying that.

But for a more classic example we could go with the original "birth place of feminism" the 1848 Seneca Falls meeting which described men as an army that had been enslaving women forever and that women need to rise up and fight men for their liberty in the same way the US colonists had fought off the occupying British the century before.

Again, the Wikipedia page doesn’t describe what you’re talking about, but even if it did, I could easily see that language being symbolic, rather than literal. Feminists have never made any call to arms of women against men.

As to God saying that men were cursed to hurt women that goes to Sarah Grimké. She talks about it here in her letters. She was someone you've never heard of who was the biggest thing in feminism in the early 19th century I guess.

And Julie Bindel has actually argued for a filling of the male population. But she is derided by many feminists and not a good example of one who receives universal support. Same goes in spades for Grimke, who I doubt most modern feminists are even aware of.

But you must be trolling me if you really think feminists don't say men are morally inferior to women. Everything they say broadcasts it at maximum volume.

I’ve met plenty of feminists who espouse female superiority over men, but far more who don’t. That some members of a group are hateful does not make a movement itself a hate movement. You’re grasping at straws, and as soon as you find a few with some mud on them, denouncing the whole pile as soiled.

[–]DavidByron2 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you want to know the history and origins of sexual harassment as an industry and concept try this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Heterophobia-Harassment-Feminism-American-Intellectual/dp/0847689883

Please connect this quote from CM to sexual harassment as it is presently thought about.

Did you mean to post a quote there? What did you mean?

I’m not going to read the whole book to find the part you’re talking about. Find me a direct quote if you want to assert she’s saying that.

Just read the forward. I think by the second or third page she's let the mask slip and is saying men are all inherently nasty and violent but maybe some of them can be reeducated. You can find the forward on-line if you Google. I'm not doing that more for you. Do it yourself.

Or don't.

the Wikipedia page doesn’t describe what you’re talking about, but even if it did, I could easily see that language being symbolic, rather than literal

Of course it was symbolic. And the symbolism was saying men and women are in an eternal war where women are the innocent good people and men are the rapacious barbaric violent assholes. As for the text of the Declaration of Sentiments I'm sure you can find them for yourself. It's basically like a re-written US Declaration of Independence. A symbolic declaration of war against men. Men vs Woemen. Bad vs Good.

Same goes in spades for Grimke, who I doubt most modern feminists are even aware of.

200 years alter I'm sure you are right but she was very influential. I'm showing you that the hate for men has depth. It's integrated into the movement from its foundations.

I’ve met plenty of feminists who espouse female superiority over men, but far more who don’t. That some members of a group are hateful does not make a movement itself a hate movement

So if I can find white supremacists saying blacks are not inferior then you'd conclude they are not a hate movement would you? Well I got bad news for you. They say that stuff a lot. Especially when talking to people outside their tribe of course. So are you changing your definition in such a way that Nazis and the KKK would not be considered hate movements too?

[–]DavidByron2 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You’re not dealing with feminism in an empathic manner here, not trying to understand what it’s really saying

No. You're not.

Feminism is certainly misandrist in many ways, and deserves a lot of criticism, but it is not a hate movement

Well it certainly passes the criteria that you suggested as a definition of a hate movement doesn't it? That's a less emotional and more rational question to ask. "A hate movement directly asserts that one group of people is inferior to another" Feminism obviously does that which is what you describe there as "misandry".

Here's a more modern flip on the all men are rapists thing you may have seen for yourself:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_Rapist

And here's another: https://www.salon.com/2013/03/08/can_men_be_taught_not_to_rape/

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

Feminism obviously does that which is what you describe there as "misandry".

No, it’s not. I think feminism is guilty of a great deal of indirect or subtle misandry, and for ignoring and allowing to continue a lesser degree of direct misandry. But the fact remains that the feminist agenda is not to subjugate men; that its aims will result in men being subjugated despite their intentions not to is another point entirely.

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_Rapist

Your link itself debunks what you claim it’s saying.

https://www.salon.com/2013/03/08/can_men_be_taught_not_to_rape/

This is a decent example at least, but you’re still interpreting her rhetoric too literally. She’s not saying all men are budding rapists, she’s saying men don’t respect women’s sexual boundaries enough, and that that’s part of the problem contributing to rape. I don’t agree with her, but she’s not saying all men are rapists.

[–]DavidByron2 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

....and doesn’t argue for unequal treatment of them.

That at least is easy to prove directly with examples. In 1994 and every few years since the feminists lobbied for the Violence Against Women Act which made it illegal to help male victims of domestic violence (while spending billions on female victims). It's not just the USA where domestic violence as an issue is run by feminists and is implemented in a total segregationist and discriminatory manner, often by law. This includes institutional pracices of police officers who are trained by feminists to think only males are violent and only females can be victims.

Feminists successfully lobbied for the FBI to change it's definition of rape a few years ago. They advocated a definition that excluded male victims of female rapists. The CDC also defines men raped by women out of existence citing "experts in the field" (ie feminists like Mary Koss) who say men can't be raped by women because meh men don't feel real pain. In Israel recently there was a move to finally criminalize women raping men and it was opposed by feminists there.

On college campuses feminists in the USA have lobbied and got a violation of men's rights when accused by women of sexual assault that violates the civil rights act. It's a continuation of the old time lynchings that feminists used to support back when they were more popular. Men accused of rape should simply be assumed guilty say feminists.

Feminists champion discriminatory laws in family law too, and have even gone so far as to say women shouldn't be locked up for any crime at all recently.

No other group lobbies for more inequality in law than feminists. Feminists are the number one group demanding inequality.

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

Violence Against Women Act which made it illegal to help male victims of domestic violence

LOL, wtf that’s just not true. Honestly, it’s just moronically shameful that you think that. Stop giving MRAs a bad name by spreading that lie.

This includes institutional pracices of police officers who are trained by feminists to think only males are violent and only females can be victims.

That’s the Duluth Model, not VAWA.

Feminists successfully lobbied for the FBI to change it's definition of rape a few years ago. They advocated a definition that excluded male victims of female rapists.

Citation needed. IIRC, that was about gettin marital rape recognized officially as rape, and the FBI recently confirmed that male victims and female perpetrators count in their numbers.

In Israel recently there was a move to finally criminalize women raping men and it was opposed by feminists there.

Again, citation needed.

On college campuses feminists in the USA have lobbied and got a violation of men's rights when accused by women of sexual assault that violates the civil rights act.

They did indeed, but that was a response to colleges sweeping reports of on-campus rape under the rug and pressuring female students not to go to the police. They crossed a very important line of equality. The first decent example of an actual misandrist stance feminists have taken so far, but one stance on one complex issue does not a hate group make.

It's a continuation of the old time lynchings that feminists used to support back when they were more popular.

Citation needed.

Men accused of rape should simply be assumed guilty say feminists.

Not really that simple. They don’t say they should be presumed guilty, at least not in a court of law, they just don’t mind due process protections as much as they should, because in the case of sexual assault cases, they tend to get in the way. This is misandrist in its bias, but it is not arguing that men should be presumed guilty by judges and juries, just because they were accused.

Feminists champion discriminatory laws in family law too

They have defended reforms to family court law that would correct biases against men, yes. But they have never directly argued that men deserve to be discriminated against.

and have even gone so far as to say women shouldn't be locked up for any crime at all recently.

Not really true. They have argued for the closing of all women’s prisons, but not that female murderers, for example, should go without incarceration. Again, you’re oversimplifying their actual positions.

No other group lobbies for more inequality in law than feminists. Feminists are the number one group demanding inequality.

LOL, the Christian Right is trying to enforce its religious views on everyone directly through the government in the U.S., and Wahabi Islam is overthrowing governments to achieve the same ends. Extremist Christians have argued that gays be converted to heterosexuality, be denied the right to marry, and denied the right to parent. Religious groups remain far more supportive of actual discrimination than feminists.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

that’s just not true

So I had a lot of people tell me that and I ended up writing to the STOP fund co-coordinator and asking them. It's true. it's also on their web site still. Again I don't have much patience for blowhards who disseminate false information as you are doing here. Explain to me why you had a false belief about this law (VAWA) please. I was around when they passed it. Every feminist web site on the internet advocated for it. A huge push for it. Well I did find one that didn't but they don't really count as it was Wendy McElroy's if you know who she is/was. I asked hundreds of feminists about the law and about half denied it was sexist and the other half said it was supposed to be sexist and that was a good thing too. I linked to the text of the law for the ones who denied and then I would get banned. And that's how feminist web sites all came to ban people btw.

Citation needed

By you because you don't know? because of your ignorance about the topic? Here it is:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/recent-program-updates/new-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions

that was about gettin marital rape recognized

It doesn't say that and in fact it does not recognize rape of husbands by wives. So I'm calling bullshit on that characterization.

the FBI recently confirmed that male victims and female perpetrators count in their numbers

Per the link above the FBI sent out a FAQ about the law and they very definitely did NOT say "this includes men raped by women" even though they listed sodomy and other examples. So here's the thing. If the FBI doesn't tell the states what it covers the states will carry on not sending data on any men raped by women. There's been zero attempt to get the states to send this data. In any case the change in the wording was lobbied for by feminists. Any years later "clarification" that may not even have been sent to the states, was not. But if you think otherwise please show me a listing of the FBI of male victims of female rapists.

On the lynching thing: https://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134849480/the-root-how-racism-tainted-womens-suffrage

They don’t say they should be presumed guilty, at least not in a court of law

You often hear feminists complain about how "acquitted rapists" should be punished more. In Canada there are various punishments that are carried out against an accused man before trial especially that's true in DV situations. Feminists have a long history of lobbying for laws that eliminate men's civil rights in these cases called "rape shield laws" often.

I'm bored of this (Googling for citations that you could easily have Googled yourself). Many many many examples and you can find them for yourself. The point is proven that feminism fulfills your second criteria for a hate movement. They advocate for unequal treatment.

[–]JebberJabber 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Female on male rape is collected under the NIBRS, and is reported as Rape in the UCR's Summary Reporting System. It is discussed at the very end of the 2014 letter about the new rape definition.
Most states do not use NIBRS, and report directly in the UCR summary format.
The FBI would presumably greatly prefer for states to all produce NIBRS data since it is much more detailed, but has no power to enforce it. One impediment to states implementing NIBRS is their own laws, which may be a bad fit with the definitions it uses.
.

In the NIBRS, 11A = Rape includes female victims of male offenders, and male victims of female offenders.
Rape in NIBRS includes male victims of male offenders as long as there is also at least one female offender.
11B = Sodomy in NIBRS includes male victims of male offenders or female offenders, and female victims of male offenders or female offenders.
If your program allows for all of those variations listed, it is compliant with the NIBRS.
The FBI UCR Program will convert both offenses, Rape and Sodomy, in addition to the offense Sexual Assault with an Object, to Rape for publication in Crime in the United States. LEAs that report via the NIBRS will not need to change the way in which they report Rape to the FBI, since NIBRS already allows for all factors relevant to the collection of data under the new definition of Rape.

Also,
The FBI UCR Program is comprised of both the Summary and the NIBRS.
Both of these data collections make up what is traditionally referred to as “UCR.” More detailed information about crimes is collected from agencies that participate in NIBRS.
However, since the FBI UCR Program continues to receive the preponderance of UCR data from agencies who report via the Summary, the FBI converts the NIBRS data to Summary data to report the crime statistics to the nation.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/recent-program-updates/new-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions
.
Here is how it was reported in 2013:
Effectively, the revised definition expands rape to include both male and female victims and offenders, and reflects the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape, especially nonconsenting acts of sodomy, and sexual assaults with objects.

... capturing data without regard to gender...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/rape-addendum/rape_addendum_final

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

The law says rape is penetration, however slight, of the oral, anal or vaginal opening with a penis
(Iowa does not count objects or non-penis body parts as qualifying for rape). The law ends with Males and females are both capable of committing the crime of rape as defined in this section.
Since rape requires a penis to penetrate something, and females don't have one yet are still capable of rape, it is clear that Idaho follows the modern (in the last 25 years) pattern of recognising the penetratee can be the offender.

I checked Idaho law because I've heard it is a conservative state. It is, so much so that it makes no mention of consent, effectively defining consent as lack of physical resistance unless coerced by some other means. If Idaho recognises penile rape of men by women then I imagine most of the other states would. I don't know if other states use the word "rape" for F>M or a different term as do UK, NZ and at least one Australian state.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JebberJabber 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Feminists successfully lobbied for the FBI to change it's definition of rape a few years ago. They advocated a definition that excluded male victims of female rapists.

Aside from the FBI's removal of gender from its rape definition, I believe the vast majority of states, if not all of them, removed gender from their rape law during the 90s or later. Here is the law from the conservative southern state of Idaho, for example. The first and last sentences are:

18-6101. Rape defined. Rape is defined as the penetration, however slight, of the oral, anal or vaginal opening with a penis accomplished under any one (1) of the following circumstances: [spouse is only mentioned in regard to deception not exemption, and is not gendered]
Males and females are both capable of committing the crime of rape as defined in this section.

https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH61/SECT18-6101/

The misreading of the definition to imagine that penetration implies the penetratee can not be the rapist is a common MRA misconception. It is hard for me to understand how someone with as much exposure to these issues as yourself can maintain this belief, and the one about the widespread deletion of the spousal exemption by most states resulting in a gendered exposure to husbands only.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

You seem to confuse the FBI statistical definition with Idaho's criminal definition. I have no idea why you did that. Did you just mean to say other people than the FBI define things in different ways? I'm talking about the FBI UCR definition because feminists had a very public national campaign to change the FBI's UCR definition. Maybe you weren't very old when it happened. I mean it wasn't that long ago...... You should appreciate if you dont know it already, that the FBI definition is not a criminal definition at all. The federal government has two definitions of sexual assault (one regular, one for the military) which are defined in the US code (ie federal law) which is of course written by the federal legislature, not the executive. the FBI is part of the executive. The FBI's UCR definition is a statistical definition which they use for purposes of calculating how much rape happens. So it's similar to the way the CDC uses a certain definition of rape for its surveys and research.

The misreading of the definition to imagine that penetration implies the penetratee can not be the rapist is a common MRA misconception

It's actually a feminist standard created by the likes of Mary Koss which is why for example the CDC uses and publicly defends the use of it. Or perhaps you think the CDC is controlled by really "ironic" MRAs?

http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/definitions.html

The feminist-ridden executive branch certainly uses this definition whereby male victims of women are entirely deliberately excluded so the only question is whether the FBI agrees with the CDC's definition or not. And whether under lobbying from feminists the FBI changed it's definition to be the feminist standard. Unfortunately the FBI didn't choose to make it clear which to my mind means that they let the states assume (correctly in my opinion) that they intended to exclude male victims of women (unless those women were anally raping the men with a device). This is certainly strongly suggested by the examples the FBI gave to the states at the time which mentioned rape using a device but failed to mention an example of a woman forcibly having sex with a man for example while they were passed out --- one of the very most common forms of rape there is.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

OK, this is making more sense now. If you are right it is a big problem. I did notice the FBI did not specify the common situation of F>M penile penetration. I'm not in the US so much of this is unfamiliar to me.

I've skimmed through Koss's arguments and don't like them.
I don't have an answer for what should be done with CDC statistics.

The current situation allows male victims of women to be nearly all erased by only quoting "rape" figures for men and women. I'm sure that happens accidentally, and probably intentionally too.

I'm not happy with just lumping "made to penetrate" in with rape though, because that allows people to present rape as a roughly (60/40) "equal" problem, and this sub is full of people very eager to do that.

That would be an egregious misrepresentation of the significance of rape. I know male rape is hugely under-reported at every step and men are hopeless at seeking treatment but there is still no way I can believe it is a roughly equal problem in terms of damage done. I see a lot of suicidal men on our suicide sub, they freely admit to all sorts of things including rape by men but they hardly ever mention rape by women except as one element in the context of an abusive relationship. That is not to say they were never raped or that it was not a big problem in some cases, just that it was not typically of significance to their suicidality.

Boys abused by older women eventually suffer the same sort and severity of symptoms as girls so far as I can see, with the additional problems of not being taken so seriously by many.

I have seen men with nearly the full spectrum of harm from being raped by women but in general the harm seemed to be lower. There was a significant portion who declared no damage (not counting those who were obviously in denial) and hardly any at the most extreme end of PTSD where a tragically large minority of women live.

[–]goodfoobar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

"It is worse for women" is the big thing I didn't like about Koss's reasoning. That has no place in the law.
I have not noticed feminists promoting that line myself, though I'm sure Koss is not alone. I've noticed women on average are a lot more sympathetic to male victims of women than men are.
Feminists are far more likely to take it seriously than non-feminist women too.
The tough bit will be when they have to consider a woman facing a 4 year sentence over one of the complex and difficult cases that we often see for men, with the man's word being important to the verdict.

The baseline sentence should be the same for F>M rape.
The victim impact report is considered as one of a list of mitigating / aggravating factors to adjust the base sentence. Gendered differences in impact will only be considered insofar as they end up affecting the individual e.g. it has been suggested women are about twice as susceptible to PTSD, but all that matters to the court is whether that individual has it and its severity.

Mortal fear has a huge exacerbating effect on PTSD and is very highly gendered in its distribution and effects, but again the court should only consider how it affects the individual.

My guess is the penalties for F>M rape would on average be lighter just from the above two effects alone. That would not be unfair, it would arise from genuine differences in men and women.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure that happens accidentally, and probably intentionally too

It's policy therefore intentional.

I'm not happy with just lumping "made to penetrate" in with rape though

Because male victims just dont count as real rape victims right? That's what you feminists say.

because that allows people to present rape as a roughly (60/40) "equal" problem

Where the male victims are the 60 you mean? Sure. That's what the evidence says its true. You don't like reality?

there is still no way I can believe it is a roughly equal problem in terms of damage done

Because you are prejudiced. men have feelings. they are human beings too you know.

Boys abused by older women eventually suffer the same sort and severity of symptoms as girls so far as I can see

So kind of you to admit boys are human beings. At what age do they cease to be?

in general the harm seemed to be lower.

Because you dismissed it. The same thing happens with other minority groups. For a long time people said Negroes couldn't really feel pain. Then someone discovered what was really going on is that Negroes weren't allowed by society to express their pain. Weirdly people now call that old attitude racist.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

I don’t know, I think that in any group there’s a differentiation between those who are “radical” and those who are not. With two-thirds of women freely identifying as feminists and one-third of men, it’s quite a generalization. That would be assuming that over half our population actively hates men, which I’m sure you’re basing off your internet experiences, wherein radicals of either movement are going to actively tear each other down.

But to each his own. I know a lot of feminists and anti-feminists talk in circles about this so there’s really no point and I think you know that. I love men and I also love women... I think the point of this post was clearly that I’m trying to open my mind a bit and I’m asking people - who likely know best - where I should go doing my research to avoid any level of sub-conscious confirmation bias. Im aware that there are biases (I believe in any movement since there will always be opposing views and some level of propaganda with widespread internet access) and I am looking to combat that. I pretty obviously don’t have a hateful agenda here, as I am just trying to get the correct resources to educate myself, so if you think there was a better sub I could have reached out to please let me know. Otherwise, that’s all I have to say to you.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

With two-thirds of women freely identifying as feminists

It's about 24%.

and one-third of men

About 16%.

it’s quite a generalization

I think you are using that lazy thinking slogan incorrectly here. What am I generalizing about? And what difference do the numbers make? How many Germans do you think supported the Nazi party in WW2? A lot more than 24 or 16 percent I can tell you. So does that mean the Nazis must have been OK after all?

That would be assuming that over half our population actively hates men

No because you're not counting all the people who actively hate men but who are not feminists. Every time we go to war hundreds of thousands of men die so I'm pretty sure it's not a big stretch to say pretty much most everyone hates men. Either that or killing innocent people is not to be seen as a negative sign I guess? But as amusing as this line of conversation is it misses the point which is that the word "hate" in the phrase "hate movement" doesn't mean the emotion. Or do you think all Nazis went around all day muttering "I really hate fuckin' Jews" to themselves all day? The word "hate" in the phrase "hate movement" is political hate. It's tribalism. It's a desire to separate out from the perceived other. To be sure the other is always seen as negative and lesser, but the emotion that comes closest is "contempt" I would say. But ironically there's a little fear in there too. This is the central contradiction in tribalism. The other are lesser and weak, but somehow they are a big threat and (if tribalism becomes a hate movement) secretly run everything somehow.

I love men

"Some of my best friends are black"

I think the point of this post was clearly that I’m trying to open my mind a bit

Then consider how close minded you have just been in reply to me. You asked about helping men. I told you that you can't do it while calling yourself a feminist and you reacted by femsplaining to me that oh gosh I don't know what I'm talking about, and oh gosh my life experiences are worthless. I may think that I've researched this stuff for twenty years but you're a woman and here to tell me what's really true, eh?

I am just trying to get the correct resources to educate myself

By contradicting anything anyone tries to tell you?

So you came to get advice and I gave you some and you say fuck that I know better than you do.

that’s all I have to say to you

And here I thought you had come to listen and it was you that asked me for advice not vice versa. I can't describe how saddened I am not to get more of your wonderful wisdom. Goodbye.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Your source (correct me if I’m wrong) is a Huffington Post online poll. My source is from the Kaiser Family Foundation, conducted by phone interview as a simple random sample nationwide.

My point is that I’m not here to learn such complex issues from Reddit. That’s like going on Facebook for news. I’m here to ask people’s help, not argue about whether feminism is a hate movement or not. Reddit is either for discussion or advice on these types of forums. I made it clear I was looking for advice, but you weren’t offering advice (and I don’t know why you thought I was trying to offer you advice either?). I just feel our interaction is meaningless in this context because we have a fundamentally different understanding on what feminism is, and that isn’t gonna change - particularly when I don’t really know anything about the men’s movement yet and I need to do my own research. I can’t just take what other people say as law. Do you understand that you’re never going to illicit change this way?

Anyway, I don’t really understand why I’m being equated to Nazis here. The reason this conversation will end right here regardless of what your response is is because I know that this will go in circles, like I said earlier. Sorry to have rubbed you the wrong way, and if I am totally wrong in my beliefs and I am as bigoted as you imply, then hopefully I can turn that around.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

correct me if I’m wrong

You're wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/national/washington-post-kaiser-family-foundation-poll-feminism-in-the-us/1946/

It looks like they had a "push" question before they asked people whether they were a feminist or not. It doesn't seem to be a particularly loaded one but I assume that is responsible for the large difference between them and other polls. They also gave two choices corresponding to "feminist" which would tend to boost numbers beyond a standard question simply asking "are you a feminist?" or "do you identify as a feminist?" Mentioning "anti-feminist" as a choice is very unusual too. I've only seen that once before in UK poll.

I’m here to ask people’s help, not argue about whether feminism is a hate movement

Then quit doing that. You asked for advice. I sad that going to a civil rights group and labeling yourself as a member of a hate movement might not work out so great. That should be very obvious and yet here we are arguing about it. Just like a Nazi arguing with me over whether they should try to do volunteer work with the SPLC the point is NOT whether YOU happen to think being a Nazi or being a feminist is fine, the point is how you will be perceived by others.

So I am telling you how you will be perceived by others and you're gas lighting me. Oh gosh no, you dont really think that. Yes I do. I am telling you right now that when you call yourself a feminist that will cause problems. This should be obvious to you but it isn't because you're in a feminist bubble where you think feminism is awesome and not a hate movement. People in the men's rights movement generally don't like feminism because it's a hate movement.

I can't say it any simpler. Are you really unable to grasp this?

Sorry to have rubbed you the wrong way

You didn't.

[–]JebberJabber 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

"I AM NOT ANGRY!!!!"

You sure fooled me.

OP has serious doubts about feminism and came here in good faith seeking advice on where to find MRA info which does not contain the hating and generalisations she has noticed are so common on feminist and MRA sites.

She was potentially a much-needed bridge to convey understanding of the MRM back to women and feminists but, appears to have found the interaction so unpleasant and unproductive that after being given some leads to other sites she has deleted the account she has been using for 3 months for men's issues. (She could not use her main account since that would lead to auto-banning by many other subs).

It is very rare to find feminist women with the thick skin and grace to be capable of sustaining a discussion here. I have recommended the RBOMI to feminists but I link it directly to RBOMI not our sidebar.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rbomi/wiki/main

I very seldom recommend women of any political leaning come here because them seeing this sub will result in revulsion and contempt in most cases, it simply taints the men's rights brand and any issues associated with it.

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

Hi, thanks for this link. It is useful to me. I am a feminist and female MRA but intend to try not to be on this subreddit anymore in 2018 as it makes me a bit bitter towards MRAs despite also the nice interactions I've had (though the subreddit keeps pulling me back because I'm always interested in men's rights, so I don't know whether it'll work out). Of course I understand that the negativity towards me has to do with me being a feminist (not a feminazi btw, and pro men's rights from the start) and I don't blame the whole subreddit because of some people, but it's better if I safeguard myself against bitterness. This also does not mean that I'm any less on the side of men's rights as it was also my main interest as a feminist. But now that I won't be interacting here, it's good to have the RBOMI to refer to whenever I'm arguing with people in other places about men's rights.

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

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]goodfoobar 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]DavidByron2 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vandechoz 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]DavidByron2 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

Title	List of reputable Men’s and Women’s Rights organizations?
Author	Kaylasharkk
Upvotes	10
Comments	61
Date	December 29, 2017 5:28 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7mschr/list_of_reputable_mens_and_womens_rights/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/list-of-reputable-mens-and-womens-rights.908613 https://theredarchive.com/post/908613

Comments