Stop claiming we should support feminism. Just stop!

Klytemaestra · 2015-06-28T23:15:47+00:00

I'm getting really tired of ignorant fools telling us we need to "stop bashing feminism," or that we should "support...

[–]augustfell 35 points36 points37 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Keiichi81 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]leftajar 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChristopherBurr 112 points113 points114 points 11 years ago (187 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hungerwolf 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixthsicksheikssixth 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ChristopherBurr 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RockFourFour 44 points45 points46 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr[🍰] 31 points32 points33 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ChristopherBurr 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ChristopherBurr 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 39 points40 points41 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mavzor 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault_Tec_Boy 31 points32 points33 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_PHAT_CORNDOGS 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

check out how scotland has now all but abolished spaces for female prisoners, meaning there will be a maximum of 100 women in prison, all others get community service sentences. Men just get the regular prison rape treatment.

There have been calls for the same thing in england, but it hasn't been allowed.

in one australian state (shit, forgotten which one) it's now essentially guilty until proven innocent for rape accusees (you have to prove that your belief that it was consensual was reasonable, otherwise it was rape. how the fuck do you prove this?)

in newzealand, feminists have now successfully eroded the fundamental principle of freedom of speech, and anything that is sexist, racist, homophobic etc is now illegal. Not that i agree with sexism, racism etc, but that is no reason to enslave everyone to their own opinions. i am opposed to all forms of censorship, and feminism has actually caused this erosion of liberty. It just infantilises people, as if being exposed to racist viewpoints is such a terrible thing. If you believe racism is wrong, you should be able to use your freedom of speech to counter these beliefs, not silence them and left them foster in resentment against an authoritarian government.

[+]Tedesche -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lurker_IV 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]butthurtstalker -29 points-28 points-27 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault_Tec_Boy 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mythandros6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]cymrich 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have heard many times about this going on for a very long time and unfortunately I don't currently have the time to source anything for you, but unless you just started coming here recently, you should easily be able to find info in the sub. the recent attacks on CAFE are what come to mind immediately. there was nothing anti-feminism about CAFE yet they are protested very aggressively, (I'm sure you can find those videos where feminist protestors pull a fire alarm to stop them from talking and another where they simply make themselves as disruptive as possible so people cant speak or listen), banned from the toronto pride parade via bogus complaints against them and eventually banned forever from that parade when they try to get in again this year... still from bogus complaints against them. Go look at what CAFE is about... nowhere does it say they are against feminism or women... their only "crime" is standing up for men and boys too!

[+]Duncan006 -15 points-14 points-13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]MasterGoshinki -20 points-19 points-18 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MasterGoshinki 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MasterGoshinki0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MasterGoshinki0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hypnosomnia 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]MittenMagick25 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My favorite response to "Men are bringing it upon themselves" is: "If I were to tell you that currently, a black man is six times more likely to be a victim of homicide than a white man, what does that say about our society?" (The response is always that we have a huge racism problem) "Ah, but see, according to you we shouldn't care because 90% of homicides where a black man is a victim, a black man is the perpetrator. They are just killing each other and bringing this high murder rate upon themselves." ("Oh, but they don't have as much choice/freedom because poor economic problems blah blah") "So now we see how sexist you and really all of feminism is: You're willing to look deep into an issue to figure out what in society is actually the cause of an injustice when it deals with black people or even women, but you aren't when it comes to men. This is why I'm not a feminist. It is severe anti-male sexism disguised as equality."

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pemdas1991 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BlacknOrangeZ 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChristopherBurr 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intensely_human 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]The03k 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]intensely_human 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]The03k 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]intensely_human1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BrownBrigadeer 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]funnystor19 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Fastbreak99 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mhrby 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]wazzup987 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]xNOM 25 points26 points27 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]manicmonkeys 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]The03k 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And requiring women to be held to the same physical standards as men in the military would be a good start as well.

Not just in the military, everywhere, really. Women tend to have lower standards for various things compared to men. Well, of course, men and women are different. I can accept that in high school gym class. When it comes to the military, or being a firefighter, I really don't think lowering the standards just so more women can be allowed in is a great idea.

I watched this documentary (Least I think it was a documentary) in my... I forgot the name of the class, world issues or something like that. In it, there was a feminist. Guess what she was doing? Suing anyone who "did not allow" women to be hired. Oh hey, guess where one of those places was? A fire department. Most women were not able to pass the same requirements men have. So, they didn't get the job. That's apparently a no-no.

[–]PM_ME_PHAT_CORNDOGS 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixthsicksheikssixth 47 points48 points49 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cranktheguy43 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]leftajar 28 points29 points30 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

In over half of those points, Feminism has done either the opposite of what you claimed, or has created such disastrous unintended consequences that it completely nullifies any positive benefit:

Expanded voting rights gave more of a say to individual families with more daughters than sons. Women, on the whole, don't pay nearly the amount of taxes that men do. Some don't pay any. We've allowed the recipients of entitlements to vote themselves more entitlements. Can you see where that might go poorly?

Birth control and abortion helped stem the spread of STDs and prevented many unwilling adults from becoming fathers. When have Feminists ever gone to bat for a man paying child support for children proven to be someone else's? Never.

Equal pay and protected class status doubles the pool of potential graduates and employees, making sure that the highest level of achievement, scholarship, and innovation is pushed higher, faster than before. Feminism doubled the supply of labor without any corresponding increase in demand, depressing and stagnating wages. This was one of the major reasons the elites pushed Feminism.

Sexual revolutions and relaxed prudishness made women more willing to experiment in bed and more knowledgeable about how to instruct men to please them and how to please men because being sexual and a woman isn't as stigmatized anymore. We've created a nation of whores. Men are increasingly opting not to get married, or they're importing traditionally-minded women from other countries.

Alimony and child support for both genders has guaranteed single parents income and support for their children, even in hard economic times or when divorce upends personal finances. Seriously? There used to be a financial incentive for a woman to stick with her man, "'til death do us part." Alimony and no-fault divorce create financial incentive to leave!

Dismantling the homemaker / docile wife institution has increased the GDP of the country And caused the birthrate to decline, along with women's happiness.

It struck down a law that lowered the drinking age for women, but not men, because they were "less responsible" (Craig v. Boren) Well, aren't they? Feminists are constantly encouraging the legal system to view women as less responsible when it benefits them.

It allows new masculinities to flourish with less social backlash. Men can be gentler, more fashionable, more feminine, and more sensitive without being as stigmatized for having a rich emotional life as they used to. And now their wives/girlfriends don't want to have sex anymore.

Opening the armed services to women, and eventually opening the front lines, helped the burden of war not fall entirely on men. This is an absolute nightmare for unit cohesion, as told by a female marine, and will make us less effective.

Working women help men stay home and raise children, go back to school, and try to start their own businesses without fear of going homeless and broke. They also divorce their husbands at a much higher rate.

[–]Sinisus 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BigLebowskiBot 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sinisus 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SweetiePieJonas2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]leftajar 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azothlike 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol what a bunch of horseshit.

Your points are either logically braindead, sourceless attempts to take credit for things feminism had nothing to do with, or both.

Expanded voting rights gave more of a say to individual families with more daughters than sons.

Are you serious? Voting power in a democracy is directly divisible by the number of people voting. Giving women the right to vote negatively impacts the voting power of all men. This is zero sum. Fair? Yes. Pro-men? You'd have to be legitimately braindead to think this was pro-men.

Expanded rights to enter into legal agreements and hold property made sure that a father's legacy stayed with his blood and wasn't passed down to sons-in-law or brothers he hates.

Also braindead. For every woman that received property in this manner, there is a man that did not. Also zero sum. Also taking from men, and giving to women. Fair? Yes. Pro-men? You're an imbecile.

Birth control and abortion helped stem the spread of STDs and prevented many unwilling adults from becoming fathers.

Blatantly false. Feminism has nothing to do with condoms, the only birth control that gives men more control. Men have no authority to administer birth control pills or abortions. There are no laws requiring couples to agree on birth control pill usage or abortions. They certainly didn't reduce STDs; if anything, the pill increased STDs, as it resulted in an alternate method of birth control that was less resistant to infection. Giving women these options does nothing to aid men, as men have 0 input in it. It does allow women further control over denying children(anti men), and slightly more control over having them(forgetting a pill is a lot easier than poking holes in someone else's condoms; therefore, this alternative puts men's family planning at risk when it's used).

Equal pay and protected class status doubles the pool of potential graduates and employees, making sure that the highest level of achievement, scholarship, and innovation is pushed higher, faster than before.

Forcing companies to give more money to everyone but men totally helps men outlolol,

Oh lord. I can't continue. So sorry. Thanks for the laughs.

[–]scottsouth 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gnomish8 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gnomish812 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The comment lists a series of initiatives which both directly and indirectly have benefited men.

Correct, but the initial question was:

...has taken on behalf of men.

As I feel this is going to get into a definition war:

be·half
bəˈhaf/
noun
noun: behalf

in the interests of a person, group, or principle. "votes cast by labor unions on behalf of their members"
synonyms: in the interests of, in support of, for, for the benefit of, for the good of, for the sake of "a campaign on behalf of recycling"

as a representative of. "he had to attend the funeral on Mama's behalf"
synonyms: as a representative of, as a spokesperson for, for, in the name of, in place of, on the authority of, at the behest of "I am writing on behalf of my client"

Throughout the given examples, feminism has not been a representative of men, or acted intentionally in the interest of a men as a person, group, or principle. Has there been some collateral good? Absolutely, but it is not feminism working on behalf of men.

It's not like there is a cabal meeting, where the feminist council takes an up-down vote on issues that may benefit men. Feminism is an ideology. People who prescribe to that ideology, and while acting in accordance with that ideology, have done the things listed above. I don't see why that isn't enough for you.

Okay, to invert this. A religion is an ideology. Therefore, by your definition, a single person acting in accordance with their religion is a representative of their religion. Thereby, the Westboro Baptist Church is a representative of all of Christianity? I doubt that.

Taking credit for the actions of individuals is not the movement doing anything. Feminism is a movement, and absolutely does have a collective, a "hive mind" so to speak. Just because you're not "voting" for what happens next doesn't mean you don't get to take part in it. An individual's actions are representative of the individual, not the movement. It is not only possible, but common that an individuals actions are counter to the popular idea of a movement, but fall in line with individual ideology. By giving people a platform, you're giving them the power to represent the movement. If you don't give them an audience, they don't get the power. That is where the feminist movement shows its colors. Who do they give an audience to? What ideologies get people an audience?

So, as stated, I'll concede that feminism has collaterally had some positive impact on men. However, the direct negatives it has caused far outweigh the good. Things like VAWA and mandatory arrests, the tender years doctrine, and the duluth model just to name a few.

Edit: type-os

[–]PM_ME_PHAT_CORNDOGS 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scottsouth -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]william44isme 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]BrenzoG 11 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

That's about women- the daughters.

Again, that was pushed for women, they wanted the right to inheritance.

More women get into university ... Yes the feminists did want the men to benefit from that one.

The sexual revolution, something that many traditional men absolutely despise.

Ahhhhh YES! when I think of all the legislation that has helped men over the years, its the complete lack of reproductive rights and mandatory state enforced financial loss, coupled with the loss of said children. Great. Thanks for that one. Alimony and Custody laws do not benefit men, in almost any circumstance.

I'm really going to need to see stats for that one. I'm oging to guess this is purely correlational because of course GDP is going up as time goes on.

It has prevented other such changes to include men in other countries, in the UK and India, rape can only be committed by a man.

1/5 boys in the US now on Ritalin or other drugs to control "boisterous behaviour", is holding men to a female standard. It is feminising men through the use of drugs and conditioning. This is not a positive of " allowing men to be more emotional at all. But again, was initially purely for female benefit.

This is true.

Yet women still cannot be legally conscripted in the majority of countries on earth, men still can. This push for women in the armed forces, again was done as a "stop discriminating against women" push.

But almost always focus entirely on females in those minority groups.

Mandatory quotas fro having females in any field, causes equally qualified men to lose out of jobs, in stem fields, equally qualified women are now 2X more likely to be employed than men.

Citation needed, what feminists call discrimination I usually don't. Men being a minority in these occupations is biologically based. Men are less drawn to social care jobs.

Now do not get me wrong, a few of these things are entirely beneficial for equal rights, and there was issues to be solved. But dont play it off like feminism did this for men, they did it entirely for women,, and in some cases it had minor benefits for a minority of men - once again, this is a good thing but wasn't their goal.

[–]sixthsicksheikssixth 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DroogDim -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aristox -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]william44isme 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChristopherBurr 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aristox -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_PHAT_CORNDOGS 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you don't want to open that can of worms my friend.

my view can be succinctly summed up as this: feminism, as in a movement fighting for gender equality, i s a good idea in principle, but it is not like that in practice. Here are my two main issues:

1) A core tenet of modern feminism is that women are oppressed, denied freedom, denied opportunities and men have privilege, as a class. This is a lie. Women have more legal rights than men, are being paid the same as men for the same work, and have more employment and education opportunities in the form of affirmative action policies and scholarship programmes for women/ single mothers (not single fathers), etc. The idea that women are oppressed by men as a class is incredibly faulty. My problem lies not only in the fact that their ideology is based on a lie, i have a problem with the results of this faulty narrative for men: if men are seen as privileged in society, why help them? surely helping men is not as pressing as helping women get rid of this oppression? this is summarised by the fact that when i tell normal, non activist people that i'm an MRA (and actively campaigning for it), they go what? Surely it's women who need the help? Then i tell them my grievances, and they go 'ohh'. that's about it. By labelling men as privileged oppressors, their issues are trivialised, and men are marginalised, even seen as evil patriarchal conspirators, meaning their issues get no attention, or worse, their liberties are eroded in the name of female liberation (see, due process rights being removed on american campuses, and even on a governmental level in australia for example, women receiving lesser sentences for crime, and this practice is actually officially endorsed by the government in the UK, especially in Scotland, where women's prisons are being eradicated)

2) An extension of this, feminist market themselves as the movement for gender equality. they focus primarily on women, and when people say 'hey, what about the men?' they just say 'oh, feminism is for equality for both genders, men too!' and then don't supply any concrete examples where feminism has campaigned for specifically male issues. They shut down discourse on men's issues by claiming they help men too, when this is a lie, meaning men's issues get even more marginalised in the public eye, and even more so where it matters, in the law: As a result, government now panders to this viewpoint, as feminism has such a grip on people's views on gender inequality, that they associate the fight for gender equality with the fight for women's rights. This means men don't get helped, if they do, they get attacked by feminists (see when barrack obama introduced a propgram to help young boys avoid gang violence, it got attacked for not being inclusive to girls, or when NOW attacked more equal custody agreements on the basis that men are irresponsible fathers who just want to to control their wives). The violence against women campaign is evidence of this. Men are overwhelmingly the victims of violence and lethal violence (in the uk they're 68% of all homicide victims), yet feminists have made violence against women the issue here. Men are killing men, men are killing women, but when it'[s men killing men, that's fine. when it's men killing women, that's absolutewly terrible and needs to be stopped right now. How have they made violence against women the most pressing issue in the public eye? Sympathy towards women, derived from paternalistic neoteny, something which feminists claim to want to dismantle. But when they're victims, the women must be helped, at all costs. Or when the proportion of female victims of suicide increased in comparison to men: this was seen as a huge problem. However the stats showed that men stopped killing themselves as much, women stayed the same. So it was a success for men, but feminists labelled it as a loss for men. It's ridiculous.

I'm not saying women don't have issues, but they're not the only issues, and considering the death toll for men is a lot higher, the refusal to bestow sympathy towards men is absurd.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aberu -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago* (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod[M] 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Anyone tuning in to read. I have no problem with women's rights advocacy in principle, just in practice it seems to be more about anti-patriarchy reactionism than it does about fixing issues that affect women, and that's my disclaimer to my skepticism and motivation for discussing this, as an MRA, because like some of you may feel in regards to feminism, I feel the MRM has an undeserved bad rap.

I get your point, but you have to realize that feminism has one primary enemy - traditionalism. The MRM has two - feminism + traditionalism. We get shit on by both, and we disagree with both. We recognize many of the same problems with society that feminism does, but our solutions are drastically different, and quite often the solutions proposed by feminists actively harm men.

Being a critic to feminism - an activity that can get a person's life destroyed (by feminists themselves) - is a necessity in our society. Classical white knighting, combined with a series of incredibly delusional people, have created a bubble around feminism so that no one can be critical of it. Erin Pizzey was, and look at the problems she had. Christina Hoff Sommers still uses the term feminist to describe herself, but suddenly her alternative views have made her ostracized by the rest of the feminist community. Both of them are strong supporters of equality, but daring to have an alternative opinion made them outcasts.

As long as feminists refuse to allow for the possibility that they are wrong about things, anti-feminism will be a critically important part of the MRM.

[–]Mythandros 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think traditionalism is feminism's enemy - in a lot of ways it relies upon it to work.

That's because you don't understand traditionalism.

You see traditionalism "supporting" certain ideals, ones which feminism relies upon, when traditionalism does no such thing. Traditionalism doesn't support male disposability, it simply recognizes that it exists. It no more supports that view than one supports that it is impossible to transmute lead to gold, it just simply is.

So traditionalism recognizes these base truths and builds a society which works in light of these truths. Men are disposable, so we need to find a way for men to provide value to society such that they can be valued as human doings.

What egalitarianism and feminism both do is ignore these base truths. They pretend that men are not (or should not be) more disposable than women. So when they set up society they have this problem that men actually are more disposable than women and don't have inherent value like women do. So since the rest of traditionalism was stripped as well, such as having a strong cultural identity which men could serve to gain value, now men are left with only serving women to demonstrate that they are "doing" and thereby deserve value as human doings.

So similar to pretending that we can transmute lead to gold and setting up society such that lead and gold are interchangeable, we quickly find out they are not. And the parts of society which are most closely connected to that interchangeability feel the most strain as the unequal values weigh upon them.

So, no, feminism does not rely upon traditionalism at all. It instead relies on the truths which traditionalism has discovered while pretending that these truths are not true. Traditionalism is in direct conflict with feminism because traditionalism recognizes the imbalance and wants women to do the feminine duties required to keep society going, which feminism wants to reject.

[+]Demonspawn -14 points-13 points-12 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup9871 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aberu 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

It's in support of equality. The social implication of the difference in the drinking age was about stereotypes that women would be more ladylike when drinking and thus more well behaved so they could be trusted with a lower drinking age. Listen to Ruth Bader Ginsburg talk about the significance of this case.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/08/the_mother_of_all_grizzlies.2.html

If you need "feminists" to fight for the cause of smashing gender stereotypes, then you misunderstand the impact of social change as a result of adoption of feminism.

Another example, recently the feminist-led "Rape is Rape" campaign led to many emails sent to the FBI to change their definition of rape being gender exclusive. Basically they fought for the FBI to count rape against men as rape.

NOW (a decidedly feminist organization) has been fighting for women to be on the front lines in the military for a very long time. This benefits men, obviously.

Have you ever met a male nurse? That wasn't possible without feminism.

[–]Klytemaestra 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aberu -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aberu-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra15 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aberu-9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did you read what I wrote? The "male rape" part was an afterthought. It got token mention in a single sentence.

I don't have that interpretation of it. Do you think they are implying forced anal sex is an afterthought as well? The words male and female are mentioned once. The word woman or women is never mentioned in that article. What is unequal about this? That sentence is closely followed by:

With such an incomplete description, the FBI has undercounted rapes by hundreds of thousands of cases, resulting in an inaccurate understanding of the scope of the problem.3

Meaning they were fighting for multiple things that weren't classified as rape (including male rape) to now be classified as rape. You obviously have an ulterior motive based upon your selective reading and interpretation of this.

Like just because they also were fixing the definition in other ways doesn't diminish the fact they were looking to include male rape in the definition.

Also what do you think about the Hate Crime Reporting Act? That extended hate crimes definitions on the basis of gender. Without that, any hate crime against a man for the reason being that he is a man wouldn't have been classified as a hate crime.

Disclaimer: I'm a feminist. I also acknowledge problems with Men's rights in some areas that should be addressed. I think that throwing the baby out with the bathwater (which seems to be your motive) with regards to feminism is counter-productive. Your motivation should be to point out problems that men face and advocate fixing it. It shouldn't be to say that "feminists never do this or never do that" when clearly they have.

[–]Klytemaestra4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aberu-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Rapists often anally penetrate their female victims.

And male victims...

In this case, you cannot protect women without also protecting men.

So? I still don't get why you need feminists to fight for something to change on a gender issue that is EXCLUSIVELY about men. In 1980 NOW passed a resolution that said male-only selective service is discriminatory. Is that advocacy for something solely for men? Can you agree to put this to rest yet? The vast majority of the law makers are male. I don't see your law-makers taking up your cause, despite being male, maybe you should do something about that.

How convenient! Feminists certainly get to claim they were helping men, AFTER THE FACT.

There is a difference between if they wanted to update the definition but not remove the gender specific part, and them going out of their way to push the gender specific part out. I mean cmon dude, you can't be this fucking dense.

[–]Klytemaestra5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aberu0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aberu3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aberu-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aberu-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Also the Prison Rape Elimination Act was heavily supported and pushed by Lovisa Stannow, a feminist"

This explains her actual motivation:

"What we see so clearly is that the prison environment tends to be a hyper masculine environment. Where anyone who is perceived as being feminine or weak or somehow not living up to the hyper masculine ideals becomes vulnerable to abuse. We see that the sexual abuse that occurs between inmates in a male prison is a mirror image of the sexual abuse that occurs in the community, perpetrated by men with women as the survivors. We see that once you have been raped in prison you have technically been considered a woman."

It's all about the female-as-victim narrative. Her hope is that if fewer men are raped in prison, that will translate to fewer raped women in society. It's ALL about the WOMEN.

[–]Aberu-5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheJollySatan5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

An issue occurs when the following gets flipped, will explain after the quote

It's still advocacy for MEN being able to be not as "masculine" and not get attacked for it.

We also need to protect the notion that we can be as masculine as is natural for us without our behavior being altered. 20% of american boys are on ADD medication, these are extremely high rates. Perhaps the model is broken and the lobbyists need to let boys be boys. If this keeps happening the loss of competitive edge among the male of our species is going to be extremely damaging. Overtly competitive nature is a masculine trait anyway you cut it, we need it, yet it is being suppressed.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a32858/drugging-of-the-american-boy-0414/

It's also under attack in american universities with ridiculous burdens of proof being moved on to the defendant.

Safe spaces and trigger warnings in lectures, professors afraid to talk about the hard issues due to someone being upset.

The pendulum has swung to far the other way.

[–]Aberu-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We also need to protect the notion that we can be as masculine as is natural for us without our behavior being altered.

Often I see many people mistaking their masculinity for just misbehaving. I think that's where this interpretation of events comes from.

20% of american boys are on ADD medication, these are extremely high rates.

What does that have to do with anything? I agree that psychiatry is a little weird here in the United States. I don't think it's a conspiracy to de-masculinize boys for some kind of feminist agenda. I also don't think they are prescribing ADD meds for masculinity or masculine traits, I'd have to see some evidence of that.

If this keeps happening the loss of competitive edge among the male of our species is going to be extremely damaging.

I don't know what you are referring to. This sounds like internet evolutionary psychology, which is largely pseudo-science.

Overtly competitive nature is a masculine trait anyway you cut it, we need it, yet it is being suppressed.

I don't know what you are fearing is under attack in regards to masculinity.

It's also under attack in american universities with ridiculous burdens of proof being moved on to the defendant.

That's something I'm a bit in the middle on. I still think Universities shouldn't be trying someone like it's a court of law regardless. If you are raped, it should be reported to the police, not the University. If the police don't do anything, some people resort to the University in this case to be safe from their attacker, but this is merely an illusion of safety, the attacker could still walk on campus, still knows where you dorm is, etc... It's still a problem and it's not entirely the solution. However the drive to reform Campus Courts so-to-speak is based around the current structure of how they grill victims, which is also wrong. I think there has to be a healthy medium of reform, because how it WAS was not functioning properly either.

Safe spaces and trigger warnings in lectures

This is not as widespread as you may think. I kind of agree with safe spaces and trigger warnings depending on the context. I think if you are taking a women's studies course, giving a warning that rape may be talked about in class seems reasonable to me. I don't know why you think this is bad. Saying that intolerant attitudes expressed disruptively will not be tolerated from the students in a classroom seems fine to me. For instance I was in a Geology class a long time ago (I'm old lol) and there was a Young Earth Creationist in it who kept raging at every little thing. Is the Professor not allowed to say that this is not the place for denying the scientific facts? Same with a Teacher telling an MRA to stop spouting anti-feminist rhetoric non-stop in their women's studies class, or a racism-denialist to stop spouting race-denying rhetoric in a race studies classroom. Would you deny the teachers the ability to teach the class based on the curriculum?

[–]TheJollySatan7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Often I see many people mistaking their masculinity for just misbehaving. I think that's where this interpretation of events comes from.

I'll reply after I re-link the quotes you separated. As for them to have context they need to be together.

We also need to protect the notion that we can be as masculine as is natural for us without our behavior being altered.20% of american boys are on ADD medication, these are extremely high rates.

What is the normal rate for ADD, 20%? read the article, the consensus is it is to high as boisterous behavior is now mistaken for misbehavior. Do i think there is a conspiracy, no, the answer is much simpler. Teaching methods have changed and so has the perspective of how to manage a class room. We've never known how to best target each gender in the class room (my mother is a teacher, she hates the new teaching methods). Everyone one is a winner, scaled grades so no one fails, no boisterousness in the playground, no more rote, no more tables. Without the competitive streak in the class room those that want to compete rather than be nurtured lose interest. If messed up socialization we're the cause of the 20% ADD rate, they should eventually reach parity between boys an girls. This hasn't happened, the medication rate for the boys has grown, it should go down the longer social movements such as feminism are in play as it works on normalizing socialization between genders. Occam's razor favors the simplest explanation, the most simple explanation for the discrepancy is that there are innate mental and behavioral differences between the genders.

I don't know what you are referring to. This sounds like internet evolutionary psychology, which is largely pseudo-science.

The Jury is still out, i study sociology so i am all for socialization being a factor in what makes us competitive but it falls well short on it's own. The only logical answer for this is nurture working off what nature provides it with. Until absolute proof is found socialization being the only factor it is no more a valid a hypothesis than evo psych. At this stage it is notoriously hard to measure for the effect of different instances of socialization and control for genetics unless you have twins. Combining the two hedges the odds so it is more likely to be correct. Yes, sociology student that plays nice with evo psych material, who would have thought.

I don't know what you are fearing is under attack in regards to masculinity.

Mistakenly being suppressed as shown by the 20% medication rates i am referring to with american boys. Again no conspiracy, i think it is short shortsightedness on how masculine behavior is not being utilized in an optimal way.

That's something I'm a bit in the middle on. I still think Universities shouldn't be trying someone like it's a court of law regardless. If you are raped, it should be reported to the police, not the University. If the police don't do anything, some people resort to the University in this case to be safe from their attacker, but this is merely an illusion of safety, the attacker could still walk on campus, still knows where you dorm is, etc... It's still a problem and it's not entirely the solution

We agree they haven't got it right then, currently accused students having been suing the shit out of universities for violations of due process. They will keep doing it and just watch as the quality of education decreases even more as they have to pay out more money to these defendants rather than spend them on courses.

k. I kind of agree with safe spaces and trigger warnings depending on the context. I think if you are taking a women's studies course, giving a warning that rape may be talked about in class seems reasonable to me. I don't know why you think this is bad.

Maybe women studies fine, but any law or criminology (i'm sure there are more) student should be prepared to be educated about those topics at any time. The real world isn't going to give you a safe space to run to after you are triggered when applying those topics. You will be less effective in your career as you haven't exposed your triggers to the fullest extent, at the very least they will be depriving other students of the opportunity to dive into the material fully. Lectures material is available on line, if they are concerned about something they may hear/read, they should look up the topic before hand and excuse themselves.

[–]Klytemaestra3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheJollySatan7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aberu-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MyAfricanChild6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aberu-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aberu-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheJollySatan1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aberu0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheJollySatan0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheJollySatan2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theotherkevin23 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]n0ggy -13 points-12 points-11 points 11 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

Most things helping women benefit men. Actually it would directly address many issues I often hear MRA complaining about:

A woman being paid equally implies we don't have to take care of them financially. On the long term it totally changes the whole "treating women" mentality.
A woman feeling and being safe in public places means many positive things for men. Places not becoming sausage fests after a certain hour, women being less wary when a stranger approaches them, etc.
Less "slut-shaming" would result in women taking the initiative a lot more. The main reason women don't approach is because they think it looks desperate and because they're told showing sexual interest is bad.

In any case, feminists focusing on women's issues doesn't mean a lack of interest for men's rights. Claiming otherwise would be like accusing a NPO helping Africa of not caring about poverty in the US.

Now, I would like to ask you a question in return:

What has the MRM done for men's rights or men's causes?

I genuinely have nothing against the concept of "men's rights", but the MRA movement doesn't seem to DO anything besides whine about feminism on the Internet.

Sure, there are some reactionary "feminists" on the Internet (though often pushed to the frontpage by MRAs themselves...) but when you look past the manufactured drama, you notice there are a lot of serious feminists organizations actually achieving something.

If we look at the past three or four decades, it is undeniable that the feminist movement did something for women.

So again, what is the MRM doing for men?

[–]ChristopherBurr 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Most work has been done in the Father's rights movement :
fighting back against Title IV
more help for homeless men

Just to name a few things that the MRM is doing.

Now, to address YOUR list -

A woman being paid equally implies we don't have to take care of them financially. On the long term it totally changes the whole "treating women" mentality.

great, they should pick different career paths to be paid more.

A woman feeling and being safe in public places means many positive things for men. Places not becoming sausage fests after a certain hour, women being less wary when a stranger approaches them, etc.

Actually men are FAR more at risk of violent crime. We get assaulted more, and we get murdered more.

Less "slut-shaming" would result in women taking the initiative a lot more. The main reason women don't approach is because they think it looks desperate and because they're told showing sexual interest is bad

or stop pointing at "neck beards" and "creepy" men.

If you want to invoke change, it's not a one direction thing.

[+]n0ggy -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for your detailed answer.

Most work has been done in the Father's rights movement[1] :

fighting back against Title IV[2]

more help for homeless men

Good examples, though very limited compared to the achievements of feminism.

Also, I'd like to point out that none of these actions benefit women yet you seem to call feminists hypocrites for not doing enough for men.

great, they should pick different career paths to be paid more.

Don't you think their career choice is strongly influenced by the following factors and not just preferences?

the way we educate children (gendered children toys, perpetuating gendered roles stereotypes in the way we educate children, gender representation in the medias, etc.)
how women are perceived and treated in some male dominated areas (recent example) and I can attest of personal observation in the IT field
how people react to women holding managing positions and the general issues related to these positions?

It is absurd to suggest women are will prefer some working fields just because... they're women?

Actually men are FAR more at risk of violent crime. We get assaulted more, and we get murdered more.

I often see this argument but MRAs conveniently like to take out the most important detail: men aren't assaulted BECAUSE they are men. It is an issue, a grave one, but not a gendered one.

Whenever a guy tries to divert the conversation about rape/assault by saying men get raped/assaulted too, I like to ask him what he does before he leaves his house to avoid getting raped/assaulted. I ask him what tactics he uses to keep his drink from being spiked. I ask him how many of his male friends have cried on his shoulder after being raped/assaulted. I ask him which men's magazine has offered tips to escape a rapist. I ask him what areas/times he has identified as high-risk. Because women all have detailed answers to these questions.

(And in case you try to link me the usual "rape stats", please remove the rape prison stats. They are irrelevant if we are to discuss the sense of insecurity in a NON-prison environment.)

or stop pointing at "neck beards" and "creepy" men.

Let's keep the topic mature and honest please. We're not here to talk about teenagers acting like teenagers. Adult women don't call every guy approaching them a creep or a neck-beard. This is fantasy fabricated by some people strongly lacking social skills on Reddit. Most normal people don't even know the word "neck-beard".

[–]Vandechoz 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]n0ggy -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vandechoz3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]n0ggy-7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChristopherBurr 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Good examples, though very limited compared to the achievements of feminism.

MRM is a much younger movement. Feminism has been around since Susan B. Anthony in the 1800's. It took from between 1848 to 1920 for women to get the right to vote. That's 72 years. To compare the accomplishments of the MRM, which is only a few years old and just beginning to gain momentum to the accomplishments of feminism which has been around for 167 years is absurd.

Don't you think their career choice is strongly influenced by the following factors and not just preferences?

No. I disagree with you. Let's just agree to disagree. The fact remains, that if you want to make more money, you need to study and work in something not related to the humanities.

And while I appreciate your personal observation in the field, the studies say that women are given preferential treatment in STEM fields

I often see this argument but MRAs conveniently like to take out the most important detail: men aren't assaulted BECAUSE they are men. It is an issue, a grave one, but not a gendered one.

You can't possibly say we need to make one gender "feel" safe, when the other one is actually NOT safe. It doesn't make sense that if actual assault is not gendered, then why is the need to make a gender "feel" like they are safer than the other one actually is?

Let's keep the topic mature and honest please. We're not here to talk about teenagers acting like teenagers. Adult women don't call every guy approaching them a creep or a neck-beard.

Adult men don't refer to every woman as a slut.

Whenever a guy tries to divert the conversation about rape/assault by saying men get raped/assaulted too, I like to ask him what he does before he leaves his house to avoid getting raped/assaulted. I ask him what tactics he uses to keep his drink from being spiked.

Glad you brought this up. I (and most other men), don't openly do things to attract attention .. like counting lots of money in bad neighbourhoods, concealing my wrist watch when dicy people are around. I stay out of areas known for crime. If I see a roudy group of men in a bar or at a stadium, I separate myself from them .. There are DEFINITELY things men do to avoid trouble. Not being aware of your surroundings is stupid. There are bad people out there, and they will take advantage of you if you're too drunk or put yourself in an unsafe place. I don't rely on criminals to regulate their behaviour to benefit me.

[–]kragshot 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChristopherBurr13 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are tons of programs like Girls who code and Google also had a few programs along those lines. There are just tons of resources for girls to get into tech - which is great for my daughter, but there really isn't much for my son.

As it turns out, women were largely unaffected by the economic downturn in 2007/2008. Fields where women are dominant are mostly recession-proof. Men, on the other hand had not been so lucky. Construction and home building were on a downward trend. There has been nothing (to my knowledge) promoting Nursing or Childhood education to men. These positions offer pensions in many school districts, and are recession proof - the focus has overwhelmingly been focused on getting girls into STEM programs, that they are forgetting about promoting career options to boys.

Today, over 60% of college students are women, and majority of high school and college drop-outs are men, who are completely unrepresented in most academic areas. They face title iv which hunts, rampant feminism theology, women's studies disguised as English Literature and Sociology - College for men is largely unwelcoming.

But hey .. that's ok, we need even MORE initiatives to get girls into STEM programs .. just because that is the single area at university where they are not the majority.

Yet .. I'm expected to get on board, and say I'm a feminist too .. despite the visibly on direction educational programs slanted towards girls starting in middle school and increasing in high school and college. While they take the time instead, to teach my son not to be a rapist - as if he were predisposed to be that way to begin with. Sorry, I'm not a feminist. Nobody is promoting anything towards my son.

[–]kragshot7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]n0ggy -15 points-14 points-13 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

No. I disagree with you. Let's just agree to disagree. The fact remains, that if you want to make more money, you need to study and work in something not related to the humanities.

What a convenient cop-out. The influence of education, peer pressure, and media has been proven. You need to prove a woman's choice isn't the direct consequence of these variables or you "they chose it" argument doesn't have any weight.

Did you seriously provide a video game forum as a source? It's always the same with MRAs. You know you can't find quality proof in respectable sources so you dig the Internet for shady YouTube videos and dubious MRA blogs. As I asked you earlier, let's keep this discussion mature and honest...

You can't possibly say we need to make one gender "feel" safe, when the other one is actually NOT safe. It doesn't make sense that if actual assault is not gendered, then why is the need to make a gender "feel" like they are safer than the other one actually is?

Still trying to decipher your sentence... Anyway, women aren't safer at all regarding assaults because of their gender. As I've said, a man is infinitely less likely to be raped in a non-prison environment. Claiming otherwise is pure hypocrisy.

Adult men don't refer to every woman as a slut.

Do you live in the real world? There is infinitely more men calling women slut than women calling men "creeps" or "neck-beards". Get off the Internet man. And as always, trying to invalidate a women's issue with "whataboutism" reasoning, proving how much you lack arguments to actually refute the validity of feminist's fights.

Glad you brought this up. I (and most other men), don't openly do things to attract attention .. like counting lots of money in bad neighbourhoods, concealing my wrist watch when dicy people are around. I stay out of areas known for crime. If I see a roudy group of men in a bar or at a stadium, I separate myself from them .. There are DEFINITELY things men do to avoid trouble. Not being aware of your surroundings is stupid. There are bad people out there, and they will take advantage of you if you're too drunk or put yourself in an unsafe place. I don't rely on criminals to regulate their behaviour to benefit me.

TL;DR: victim blaming.

Okay, this one settles it. You're actually disgusting. Discussion's over. I knew I shouldn't have tried to have a level-headed conversation with people like you. Good night/day depending on where you live. I'm disabling notifications for answers btw so don't bother.

[–]ChristopherBurr10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What a convenient cop-out. The influence of education, peer pressure, and media has been proven. You need to prove a woman's choice isn't the direct consequence of these variables or you "they chose it" argument doesn't have any weight.

fine, I'll play your silly game. women make up the overwhelming majority at most universities in the US. if there isn't enough encouragement for women to enter higher education, I'm not sure what else is needed. Anything short of being physically carried into college is already being done.

There are more "women in STEM" programs/seminars/scholarships/awards than there have ever been .. far more then anything that encourages men to go into fields that they are under-represented by men by an even larger majority , such as nursing or early childhood education .. but I digress.

Still trying to decipher your sentence... Anyway, women aren't safer at all regarding assaults because of their gender. As I've said, a man is infinitely less likely to be raped in a non-prison environment. Claiming otherwise is pure hypocrisy.

men get assaulted and murdered. Women get raped. It's all terrible. Nobody is making men feel safe, nobody is making women feel safe. I fail to see the sexist issue here. Nobody feels safe .. and nobody should. There are bad people out there, who are happy to do bad things to you.

Do you live in the real world? There is infinitely more men calling women slut than women calling men "creeps" or "neck-beards". Get off the Internet man.

You're seeing the world through your own experiences. I know lots of men who would completely disagree with you because they deal with the world through their experiences.

And as always, trying to invalidate a women's issue with "whataboutism" reasoning, proving how much you lack arguments to actually refute the validity of feminist's fights.

not at all. Being called names happens to men as well as women. That's the point I'm making .. so what, you get called names, so do men. There are immature people of both genders hurling names at each other. This is not a feminist issue, it's a lack of maturity issue.

victim blaming.

I like to think of it as taking responsibility for your actions. There are things a person can do to prevent bad things from happening to them. You wouldn't pull out a wad of 100 dollar bills at 2am in Red Hook Brooklyn because it's likely you will be separated from that wad of 100 dollar bills in a violent way. The same holds true for getting completely wasted at a frat party with people you don't know. In a perfect world, you would be able to do both things .. but the world isn't perfect and bad things happen to nice people. A majority of men are not rapists and a majority of poor people are not violent criminals, but they are out there. Not protecting yourself is at your own risk. People will still get robbed and raped, but you can do things to prevent it from happening.

I'm disabling notifications for answers btw so don't bother.

I figured you would. When you can't win the discussion, it's better to ignore it.

[–]Gnomish82 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I like to think of it as taking responsibility for your actions. There are things a person can do to prevent bad things from happening to them. You wouldn't pull out a wad of 100 dollar bills at 2am in Red Hook Brooklyn because it's likely you will be separated from that wad of 100 dollar bills in a violent way. The same holds true for getting completely wasted at a frat party with people you don't know. In a perfect world, you would be able to do both things .. but the world isn't perfect and bad things happen to nice people. A majority of men are not rapists and a majority of poor people are not violent criminals, but they are out there. Not protecting yourself is at your own risk. People will still get robbed and raped, but you can do things to prevent it from happening.

You know, I love how people attack this mindset. Advocating preparedness and alertness in every other situation is socially accepted. Except this one...

A few years back, I took a trip to Colombia, and the people there taught me something I won't forget:

"A papaya dada, papaya partida."

Also known as "the papaya rules."
Rule 1: You must never offer papaya.
Rule 2: If papaya is offered, someone must take it.

What this pretty common phrase means is, don't give someone the opportunity to do something to you, because once there is the opportunity someone will take it.

Edit:
Fun fact: someone who takes advantage of opportunities like these is called "abeja", which means "bee".

[–]Klytemaestra9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What a convenient cop-out. The influence of education, peer pressure, and media has been proven. You need to prove a woman's choice isn't the direct consequence of these variables or you "they chose it" argument doesn't have any weight.

First, you sound like a Christian apologist making a god of the gaps argument. When feminist arguments are exposed as faulty or deceptive, you idiots always scream that we didn't dot every i or cross every t. The simple fact is that your arguments are a joke. Trying to salvage them by pointing to some vague, unsubstantiated claim about society discouraging women (in the face of evidence to the contrary) isn't going to help you. Second, feminists are the originators of the claim that women are paid less due to sexism. The burden of proof is on you. We have data showing that you're full of shit. The wage gap myth is thoroughly debunked. It's time for you idiots to stop using raw DOL data as proof of pay discrimination.

[–]sixthsicksheikssixth6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mythandros6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You must clearly have a skip in your brain or something. Whenever someone addresses the points you make, you claim to be "still trying to decipher your sentence".

Your lack of understanding of a point doesn't make it any less valid.

"Do you live in the real world? There is infinitely more men calling women slut than women calling men "creeps" or "neck-beards"."

Citation please. Where are your facts? Oh right, this is just your OPINION, not reality. So I have to ask you... do YOU live in the real world? It doesn't seem that way.

"Okay, this one settles it. You're actually disgusting. Discussion's over. I knew I shouldn't have tried to have a level-headed conversation with people like you."

Since you can't win the conversation, and you can't make any valid counter-points.. you quit the conversation, citing disgust or revulsion with the other person. Everyone can see through you.

To quote a too often used internet meme: u mad, bro?

[–]Shockblocked1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jhawk5315 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Whenever a guy tries to divert the conversation about rape/assault by saying men get raped/assaulted too, I like to ask him what he does before he leaves his house to avoid getting raped/assaulted. I ask him what tactics he uses to keep his drink from being spiked. I ask him how many of his male friends have cried on his shoulder after being raped/assaulted. I ask him which men's magazine has offered tips to escape a rapist. I ask him what areas/times he has identified as high-risk. Because women all have detailed answers to these questions.

Doesn't mean anything about their relative risk; the rub is that, to a large extent, men aren't allowed to be afraid of harm being done to them. Feminism, and traditionalism, both minimize the suffering and pain of men, and demonize men who are aware of or who complain about the dangers and troubles that men face.

[–]n0ggy -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminism is the opposite of traditionalism.

No, it's not. It fundamentally relies on traditionalist ideals of women being a protected class and draws heavily from New England Revivalist ideas of women being purer, morally superior beings to base, monstrous men.

Pure paranoia. They are only blamed when they minimize the harm being done to women by using "butwhataboutmeeeennn?" suffering olympics reasoning.

The point of statements like that was never to minimize harm done to women - merely, if you don't care about men as victims of violent crimes, you definitely wouldn't care about women since they are at even less risk of it. Unless, of course, you didn't care about men who are assaulted, killed, raped, etc because you saw them, consciously or unconsciously, as less deserving of compassion than women.

[–]n0ggy-5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, it's not. It fundamentally relies on traditionalist ideals of women being a protected class and draws heavily from New England Revivalist ideas of women being purer, morally superior beings to base, monstrous men.

That's your definition. Every single definition that you find in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and pretty much everywhere outside of the manosphere doesn't describe them as such.

Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.

Nothing about superiority here.

But obviously, it's easier when you make up your own definition for the movement.

But wait.. obviously the dictionaries are part of the conspiracy amirite?

Like I said. Always the same with MRAs, your sources are always blogs, YouTube videos, or studies that are 20 years old (at best), so you make up your own facts.

[–]Terraneaux1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]n0ggy-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nice attempt to stray away from the topic. You don't get to change the subject when you're stuck in the corner. This is not how debating works.

This chart will help. You're stuck in second white box, which is why I won't lose my time furthering the discussion.

You did not provide valid proof to support that:

men have as much to fear as women regarding rape
feminism is about putting women above men

I just gave you the official definition of feminism, proving that feminism doesn't intend to put women above others (which was your claim)

Regarding your claim that men have as much to fear about rape than women, here are some stats:

Lifetime rate of rape /attempted rape for women : 17.6% (1 out of 6)
For men it's 3% (1 out of 33).

Source

But since you can find anything on the Internet, I guess you'll throw me some bullshit source to counter my point after a completely dishonest Google search :) (Very relevant)

B-bye

[–]Terraneaux3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My point was that it's very common for people in your 'camp' to use the definition of 'sexism is prejudice+power' or some equivalent, which is not a dictionary definition. And thus that dictionary definitions are not the end-all of this talk. In any case -

I didn't 'define' feminism. I merely pointed out that feminism as it exists and existed in the western world relies on a framework of western traditionalist ideals. There's a reason feminism isn't taking off in, say, China or Japan - no such cultural gantry exists there to support feminism in the way that we see and saw it in the western world. I said that feminism does not oppose traditionalism - and you started talking about definitions.

If feminists allowed feminism to be criticized when it overreached past the goal of simply achieving equality for women, I might believe you. But it's a self-serving political movement now - advocating by and for women, and it has no reason to stop, even if in some future dystopia the pendulum had swung so far the other way that men were literally an oppressed underclass, the inheritors of feminism would still be harping on about male privilege. Of course, that's the nature of ideology as practiced by humans, and feminism isn't special in that respect, but it doesn't mean that I still don't think its bullshit.

Also, I never claimed that men have as much to fear from rape as women (though if you include the prison population, that almost becomes the case.) I talked about violent crime in general, which men are on the receiving end of much more often than women. Though, I have to ask - what are the criteria for rape used in that statistic? I have a sneaking suspicion it's phrased in a way to erase male victims, which is pretty common (equivalent to the way the Duluth model was created to erase male victims of domestic abuse and violence).

[–]n0ggy-7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]harryballsagna4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Relative risk in a non-prison environment isn't even comparable.

It's my privilege to be the first to hit you off with this. It shows that a) the CDC euphemizes male rape so that it doesn't sound like such a problem, and b) male rape happens at almost the same frequency as female rape. Unless you count prisons, then men get raped way more.

Pick one. Feminism is the opposite of traditionalism.

"butwhataboutmeeeennn?" suffering olympics reasoning.

Amazing how you simply disproved your own point. You are a feminist, I assume, and you minimize the suffering of men, as you have done so here. So we have established that you, a feminist, minimize the suffering of men. Also, traditionally, society cares less about men suffering, dying earlier, dying in war, getting raped in prison, etc.

As you can see, it is very possible to for society to traditionally minimize the suffering of men and for feminism to minimize the suffering of men. It is not a case of the enemy of my enemy must be my friend.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Brosona 23 points24 points25 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dangerousopinions 32 points33 points34 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

If whether you received support from the gay rights movement was based on whether you were a gay man or a lesbian, you might be making a similar comparison.

I, as a white person, don't expect black rights activists to improve my situation either.

Also, gay rights activists aren't in the habit of demonizing heterosexuality or painting all hetero people as oppressors. They also don't put up opposition when other activists lobby government for funds that would largely improve the lives of straight people.

It's a bad comparison to make.

Feminists claim feminism cares about mens issues and also claims that feminism is the way to solve the problems of men...and then does nothing or actively works against any change. So it's an entirely not silly argument. If feminists never claimed to care about mens or mens issues, and didn't oppose attempts to find solve men's problems, it would be a silly argument, but that's not the reality.

[–]Mitschu 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Does the gay rights movement fight for equal rights for straights and gays?

No? It's a gay rights movement dealing specifically with gay issues, not a everyone rights movement dealing with everything (and thus nothing in particular?)

Now, if the gay rights movement came out (pun not intended) and said that they were also a movement focused on fighting for straights and their issues, then your comparison would be apt.

"If you believe in equal rights for men and women then you're a feminist."

The most important part of that sentence is the word "and". Feminists regularly claim that if you believe in equal rights for everyone explicitly including men, then you're a feminist.

So what you've done here is:

"If you believe in equal rights for men then you're a feminist."

"What has feminism ever done for men?"

"So straight people can't support the gay rights movement because it doesn't help them?"

Which is bold, bald, blatant bullshit, top tier goalpost moving, and completely irrelevant to boot.

"The KKK is for black empowerment too!" "Show me evidence of anything the KKK has ever done collectively for the benefit of blacks." "So you believe whites can't support the Civil Rights Movement?"

Nobody has asked if the gay rights movement supports straight-empowerment, if the women's rights movement (not to be confused with feminism) supports male-empowerment, if the black rights movement supports white-empowerment. It is irrelevant because of the very important fact that none of those movements claim to do so in the first place, and while they have the right (and sometimes obligation of consistency) to support other rights groups tangentially to their main focus, special-focus groups are never expected to simultaneously have general-focus. Nobody ever asks "What is the LGBT movement doing for farmers suffering from droughts in Arizona?"

Feminism? Explicitly claims to be an equal rights movement for both men and women, which makes the often-mocked question "what about the men?" 100% perfectly valid to ask.

Does feminism support equal rights for men or does it not?

Because if it explicitly is against equal rights for men, then it is a hate movement. If it doesn't have a stance on equal rights for men (which again would be its right as a demographic focused movement), then that is fine as long as they stop falsely claiming to fight for and support equal rights for men. If it does support equal rights for men, then where is the fucking evidence that they've ever done anything supporting equal rights for men?

Pick one. Hate movement, women's movement that doesn't concern itself with men's issues, or direly in need of any evidence to back up their claims.

[–]wayoftheright 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jimmywiddle 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ImNotIntoPokemon 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Duncan006 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ingenium21 -15 points-14 points-13 points 11 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Sure,

Craig v. Boren was filled by a plaintiff in Oklahoma over its gender-specific drinking age Policy. which prohibited men from drinking before age 21, but allowed women to drink when as young as 18. This implied that men are inherently more reckless and women are more responsible. After the law was struck down, the drinking age became 21 for all. According to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the ruling determined much more than just Oklahoma's drinking age. It determined that the "familiar stereotype: the active boy, aggressive and assertive; the passive girl, docile and submissive" was "not fit to be written into law." So the next time you're drinking, raise a glass in honor of RBG.
Moritz v. Commissioner - challenged the fact that not all men could request dependent care deductions. Although tax deductions were given to women, widowers and divorced men, single males slipped through the cracks. Ending this discriminatory policy was one of Ginsburg's many victories using the 14th Amendment to end the enshrinement of gender discrimination into law.
If dudes knew that women's ability to have sex with them was dependent on the accessibility of birth control, maybe everyone would stop calling it a "woman's issue".
The ever famous Roe V. Wade - Reproductive rights also allowed men to be more active in parenting. And it meant that our lives were not completely ruined because we accidentally knocked up a girl.
The Feminist Majority Foundation helped change the definition of rape to include men. Thanks to the "Rape Is Rape" campaign, more than 160,000 emails were sent to the FBI pressuring it to change its archaic definition of rape. The old definition, "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will," hadn't been changed since 1921. It meant that many types of sexual assaults, including the rape of men, weren't counted as part of the bureau's annual Uniform Crime Report.
The Family and Medical Leave Act - workers in the United States didn't have any protection under the law for family or medical-related leave. That meant that your boss could legally fire you for taking time off to care for your kids, yourself or a sick relative. The impetus for the law came after the formal recognition that "the lack of employment policies to accommodate working parents can force individuals to choose between job security and parenting," and that "due to the nature of the roles of men and women in our society, the primary responsibility for family caretaking often falls on women." The law ensures 12 weeks of unpaid leave for all U.S. workers for every 12-month period to care for themselves or a loved one. Although women were at the forefront of this fight, it allowed all workers to acquire much-deserved time off for caretaking. The National Organization for Women and many other women's organizations believe the law didn't go far enough, however, and it's fighting for expansions to provide workers with paid leave that would benefit all workers, male and female.
Helped Male Survivors of Violence Pursue Justice - Despite the fact that most of the concerted efforts to eradicate sexual assault in the military has come from female politicians such as Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), laws intended to curb sexual assault affect men just as much as women. Women may be more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed through enemy combat, but overall the majority of military sexual assault victims are male.
Prison Rape - The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, spearheaded by prominent feminist activist Lovisa Stannow, advocated for the 200,000 inmates who are sexually abused in U.S. prisons and jails every year, most of whom are men. The organization she heads, Just Detention International, also helped draft and get the bill through Congress.
Equal Pay - That women can bring home a pretty big chunk of change through paid work means men can work less and spend more time with their kids, something that's good for both children and their fathers.
Expanded the definition of Hate Crime to include everyone - The National Organization for Women, along with many other social justice organizations lead the efforts to change the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation and disability.
Planned Parenthood - Planned Parenthood may have been founded by a woman and be generally perceived as a "women's health organization," but it provides services for men too. Planned Parenthood VP of Communications Eric Ferrero once said that although a large number of men come to offer support for their female partner, many show up to get the vitally important services they need. I myself, have gone several times to get tested before I start having sex with a future SO.
Jock Strap - A lady invented the jockstrap. Without feminism, female inventors would have never been able to leave the kitchen to create things that many men use every day.

Just because you don't know about the many things Feminism has done for you doesn't mean it didn't happen. Men's Right's Activists are welcome in feminism, the problem is that Men's Right's activists on reddit appear to be overwhelmingly anti-feminist.

[–]ChristopherBurr 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Craig v. Boren was filled by a plaintiff in Oklahoma over its gender-specific drinking age Policy. which prohibited men from drinking before age 21, but allowed women to drink when as young as 18. This implied that men are inherently more reckless and women are more responsible. After the law was struck down, the drinking age became 21 for all. According to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the ruling determined much more than just Oklahoma's drinking age. It determined that the "familiar stereotype: the active boy, aggressive and assertive; the passive girl, docile and submissive" was "not fit to be written into law." So the next time you're drinking, raise a glass in honor of RBG.

a lawsuite filed by one guy against another because he wanted to have a few drinks. Feminism did nothing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_v._Boren

Moritz v. Commissioner - challenged the fact that not all men could request dependent care deductions. Although tax deductions were given to women, widowers and divorced men, single males slipped through the cracks. Ending this discriminatory policy was one of Ginsburg's many victories using the 14th Amendment to end the enshrinement of gender discrimination into law.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/195464321bqtc622_1575.xml/MORITZ%20v.%20COMMISSIONER - again, this was not filed by a feminist - it was filed by a guy who wanted to be treated fairly.

neither of these ruling had anything to do with feminists groups saying .. hey, men aren't being treated fairly, lets take up that cause. nope. didn't happen. you're cherry picking cases where men defended themselves and judgement was for them.

If dudes knew that women's ability to have sex with them was dependent on the accessibility of birth control, maybe everyone would stop calling it a "woman's issue". The ever famous Roe V. Wade - Reproductive rights also allowed men to be more active in parenting. And it meant that our lives were not completely ruined because we accidentally knocked up a girl.

These refer to reproductive rights, though men don't have any. Today, men are seeking

This is about the ability to back out of parenting and responsibility. Women have the ability to get an abortion or the right to keep the baby - while forcing financial responsibility on the father. Men would like the ability to veto their financial responsibility to children they don't want.

Currently it's a one sided agreement. It should be noted that men are NOT looking to regulate what a female should do with her body, but simply veto his own obligations in conditions that he doesn't want a child

Additionally, seeking the ability to get out of child support for children that are not his and whom he unknowingly accepted responsibility under false pretences

again, this is not feminism helping men.

The Feminist Majority Foundation helped change the definition of rape to include men. Thanks to the "Rape Is Rape" campaign, more than 160,000 emails were sent to the FBI pressuring it to change its archaic definition of rape. The old definition, "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will," hadn't been changed since 1921. It meant that many types of sexual assaults, including the rape of men, weren't counted as part of the bureau's annual Uniform Crime Report.

Well thanks I guess.

The Family and Medical Leave Act - workers in the United States didn't have any protection under the law for family or medical-related leave. That meant that your boss could legally fire you for taking time off to care for your kids, yourself or a sick relative. The impetus for the law came after the formal recognition that "the lack of employment policies to accommodate working parents can force individuals to choose between job security and parenting," and that "due to the nature of the roles of men and women in our society, the primary responsibility for family caretaking often falls on women." The law ensures 12 weeks of unpaid leave for all U.S. workers for every 12-month period to care for themselves or a loved one. Although women were at the forefront of this fight, it allowed all workers to acquire much-deserved time off for caretaking. The National Organization for Women and many other women's organizations believe the law didn't go far enough, however, and it's fighting for expansions to provide workers with paid leave that would benefit all workers, male and female.

not an act of feminism.. in United States v. Windsor wanted rights for herself and sued the US on grunds of discrimination against same sex marriages. She won and the Department of Labour created FMLA in response to the supreme court judgement.

So, again, this was not an act of a feminist group seeing something unfair, and banding together to support men. Men being able to benefit was simply a happy side effect.

so .. still not a lot from feminism

Helped Male Survivors of Violence Pursue Justice - Despite the fact that most of the concerted efforts to eradicate sexual assault in the military has come from female politicians such as Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), laws intended to curb sexual assault affect men just as much as women. Women may be more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed through enemy combat, but overall the majority of military sexual assault victims are male.

this really isn't a thing yet

Prison Rape - The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, spearheaded by prominent feminist activist Lovisa Stannow, advocated for the 200,000 inmates who are sexually abused in U.S. prisons and jails every year, most of whom are men. The organization she heads, Just Detention International, also helped draft and get the bill through Congress.

no mention of prominent feminist activist Lovisa Stannow

Just men standing up for themselves.

Equal Pay - That women can bring home a pretty big chunk of change through paid work means men can work less and spend more time with their kids, something that's good for both children and their fathers.

Equal Pay - It would make my life a heck of a lot easier if my wife made more money. Unfortunately that Psych degree she got in college isn't helping much.

Expanded the definition of Hate Crime to include everyone - The National Organization for Women, along with many other social justice organizations lead the efforts to change the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. Planned Parenthood - Planned Parenthood may have been founded by a woman and be generally perceived as a "women's health organization," but it provides services for men too. Planned Parenthood VP of Communications Eric Ferrero once said that although a large number of men come to offer support for their female partner, many show up to get the vitally important services they need. I myself, have gone several times to get tested before I start having sex with a future SO.

I've done work with Planned Parenthood. They don't really do anything for men except hand out condoms.

Jock Strap - A lady invented the jockstrap. Without feminism, female inventors would have never been able to leave the kitchen to create things that many men use every day.

I thank that woman very much. Men invented the Bra.

Just because you don't know about the many things Feminism has done for you doesn't mean it didn't happen. Men's Right's Activists are welcome in feminism, the problem is that Men's Right's activists on reddit appear to be overwhelmingly anti-feminist.

still, very little from feminism. most of of the stuff you're trying to pass off as feminist initiatives for men, really aren't

[–]MyAfricanChild 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ingenium21 -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vandechoz 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

I'm not going to go through all your claims .

Planned parenthood grew out of the "racial hygiene" movement and as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about roe v's wade its a way of keeping populations that some don't want many of smaller , by giving them the choice to volunteer to use what was called state supported voluntary negative eugenics .

Sure it was marketed as sexual freedom , and it did provide it but there was no agenda to help men there .

Most of your examples seem to be "trickle down" , they help men as a by product .

Feminism doesn't help men , it recruits men as allies to help women which is just a modified traditional sexism .

Feminists did expand the definition of rape to include men raping men, and can very ambiguously include women enveloping men , that in no way makes up the movement covering up abuse that commit by women .

[–]Ingenium21 -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ingenium21 -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheseEyesNeverSmile1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just a few griefs, I overall rather like this list and it gave me a lot to think about.

1. This is an interesting example, but I have difficulty finding proof that it is relevant. Was this legal challenge initiated, funded, or backed by feminists? In any case, I find it interesting that feminism's track record against the "active boy, passive girl" stereotype is rather shoddy at best. This same set of stereotypes is essentially the theoretical framework behind the feminist co-opted Deluth model of domestic violence that ignores CDC statistics in favor of "helping women" by discriminating against men.

3. Birth control is really only a women's issue in the modern day because Feminists have repeatedly stonewalled the development and accessibility of a male contraceptive at both the US government and UN levels.

5. This updated definition of rape is the one that still includes "penetration of a nonconsenting individual," which more or less excludes the majority of female sexual violence offenders who have forcibly enveloped a men.

7. I am actually in favor of these laws and they have helped a number of women. But it is worth pointing out that for aforementioned reasons including the criminal definitions of sexual violence and rape and law enforcement policies for handling gendered violence, it is still very difficult for a victim of female-on-male violence, sexual or otherwise, to be taken seriously by the police or society at large.

8. This is a very good example and I appreciate that you have brought it up. Unfortunately this act has had notoriously spotty enforcement and has done very little to actually decrease the rate of rape in prison. I want to reiterate, however, that this is not the fault of feminism or feminists: I am thankful that they brought awareness to the issue and it is unfortunate that this legislation did not have a larger affect.

10. I did not do much research into this point and I am not attempting to mock or demean it, but I am legitimately curious: in the already small pool of violent crimes motivated by hatred against men, have any actually been prosecuted as hate crimes?

Thank you for sharing your knowledge, Ingenium. I still hold out hope that this thread can lead to a conversation instead of a pissing and yelling contest.

[+]pananana1 -21 points-20 points-19 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]harryballsagna 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can you name one institutional piece of sexism that women are up against that is comparable to 1960s blacks?

If blacks in the 1960s were more populous in all areas of post-secondary education, outperformed whites in all areas of education, lived longer than whites, had four times the medical spending on their diseases, committed suicide at 1/3 the rate, had the vast majority of social programs, died in the workplace at only 1/20 the rate of whites, were less freqeuntly the victims of violence, had special programs to get them into STEM and were hired at a 2:1 ratio, had a ton of legislation backing them and their problems, and had a stranglehold on the narrative of oppression then yes, I would be asking "what the fuck is the Civil Rihts movement doing for whites". Do you know why? Because blacks wouldn't have needed a civil rights movement if the above were true.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wisty 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I understand what you're saying, OP. Just keep in mind that the people claiming that feminism is a worthy cause are simply people who were taught that "if you support equality, you're a feminist" and have only just recently discovered that some feminists aren't very interested in equality (which, as you say, they call "only a few radicals").

Just give those people time. It takes a while for all of the problems of feminism to sink in to people's minds. They don't always notice right away how feminism teaches women to view themselves as victimized. Or how it teaches people to find a way to interpret everything as problematic (video game lets female characters get hurt? misogyny. it doesn't let them get hurt? they're putting women on the sideline, not letting them be part of the game... also misogyny. no women at all in the game? supermisogyny!)

They haven't noticed how their equality movement sees everything from a female viewpoint (treating women worse than men is misogyny, treating women better than men is benevolent sexism). Benevolent to who? Women. Funny how you never see it called "benevolent sexism" when men are treated better than women, isn't it?

[–]Loofa_Jam 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]CACKENBOOLS 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Loofa_Jam -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Loofa_Jam -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court all disagree with your analysis. To say that affirmative action was only relevant decades ago sort of ignores the facts that women and minorities are still not even close to proportionately represented in the workforce. Especially in positions of power.

I think what you'll find is that there are thousands of "competent" people for any single job. Moreover, most interviewers actually do a horrible job at picking the most competent/adequate (there are studies showing this). There are also numerous studies showing a normative bias for the interviewer. Meaning, if the interviewer is a white male from humble middle class background, he's more likely to select a candidate like that.

I strongly disagree that affirmative action no longer serves a purpose, but that is going to be a hated opinion on this sub (I believe a large reason MRAs exist in the first place is due to AA). So, I don't really need to get into it because there is no way we will ever agree. Just wanted to share the counterpoint.

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GHGCottage 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Loofa_Jam -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Goes both ways, though. We see nepotism and other biases effecting hiring all of the time. AA is just open and obvious. It's law and its easy to nail down and point at.

That being said, I work at a law firm and the notion of the "boys club" is so laughably present and in the open its not even funny. I mean, we hire white male attorneys who are not too attractive, and not too graceful as to dent the ego's of the male partners. Annnnnnd then we hire 27 year old supermodel looking women to fill our gender quota. Some would say that benefits women... But not really, because as soon as these women a) get married, b) have a child, or c) openly chastise/decline a sexual advance, all of a sudden they're no longer getting good work.

Anecdotes are anecdotes, of course. Being on the end of bias, whether legal (AA) or de-facto (boys club) really sucks. That's what I see MRA's being about. Sometimes that gets clouded with other nastiness, unfortunately.

[–]GHGCottage0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Loofa_Jam-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not sure why you're getting offended.

The topic comes up all of the time, actually. Our executive committee has meetings, and the info gets relayed to the attorneys. They care about changing the results, but it is pretty tough. Without quotas, essentially no minorities or women would be hired at all (for whatever reasons, I'm not making any assertions here). With quotas, the hiring is superficial. This is just how hiring works at the professional level, as people want to work with others that carry very similar beliefs or bring other "values" (think, huge tracks of land). The hiring strongly reflects the characteristics/desires of the hiring attorneys/committee. If the powerful people in our firm were all black women, I'm sure we would see a totally different bias. That's just not the case. Anywhere. Ever. At least in law and finance.

And don't worry, I'm certain that a very tangible amount of our firms revenue (and therefore my pay) goes to diversity issues.

[–]MittenMagick1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GHGCottage 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Loofa_Jam -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ultramegasaurus 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]DaNiceguy 11 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

And the corollary: You cannot be both a feminist and an MRA. Stop saying you are.

[+]miroku000 -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bakedpotato486 -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hungerwolf 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bakedpotato486 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shinarit 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Foxnos 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cunt69696969 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GenderNeutralLanguag 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

Very few Men's Rights issues are a direct result of feminist activism.

I'm always amazed at the depth and breadth of feminist brainwashing on the public regarding these issues. The simple fact is that almost ALL Men's Rights issues are directly or indirectly caused by feminism and feminist activism.

Men's Rights issues and Women's Rights issues both stem from the same place, outdated dogmatic and regressive gender roles.

These gender roles evolved through trial and error over a millennia of human evolution. ALL animals have gender roles. They are highly effective and they enable long-term survival. Only in the modern technological era are these gender roles starting to become questionable for human beings. Stop calling them "oppressive" and "dogmatic" and "regressive." These gender roles follow natural tendencies and are what got our species where it is today.

[–]GenderNeutralLanguag 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The gender roles did evolve though trial and error over a mellennia or more of human evolution. It is because the modern technological era that these gender roles have become outdated.

Being outdated, very outdated and not helpful makes these gender roles regressive.

These gender roles are blindly enforced by both men and women for no good reason (no reason to enforce biological differences), that makes the gender roles dogmatic.

These gender roles place shit tons of responsibilities and obligations on both men and women (mostly men), that makes them oppressive.

While many aspects of gender roles are evolved biological traits, the social enforcement of them is not. This makes it perfectly reasonable to call gender roles oppressive dogmatic and regressive. Feminism did not create these gender roles. Feminism didn't CAUSE the men's Rights Issues we face.

[–]SerialKitten -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Namkcalb -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elvick 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]govt_took_my_baby 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pepper-Fox 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]XGC75 -17 points-16 points-15 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ippikiryu 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]aslak123 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RU_Crazy 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MonkeyCB 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't denounce the entire feminist movement around the world, and every single person involved with it. There are a lot of feminists who actually mean it when they say they support equality for everyone, and feminism has historically done a lot of good in the world.

But I do denounce third wave feminism, which ignores equality and teaches women to find ways to see themselves as victims in every situation.... which ignores men's issues... which spends its time throwing a shit fit about a scientists shirt and pulling fire alarms at men's meetings while ignoring men's issues... which spends its time comparing men to poisoned M&Ms...

... all while barely paying any attention to actual issues that affect people's lives. A million feminists repeat the blatant wage gap lies, and only a couple pay any attention when a porn star is gang raped in a home invasion. A million feminists spread outrage on Facebook over some guy's shirt, as Texas and Tennessee quietly shut down some more of their few remaining abortion clinics.

[–]Gnomish8 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Although I've learned not to speak it, I've realized there's 3 types of people:
Feminists
Egalitarians
MRAs

Most people in the egalitarian camp prefer to identify as "feminist." Not only because it's socially accepted, but because of how feminism appears to the layman. If, in conversation, they actually do agree with true equality, I mentally classify them as an egalitarian, not a feminist.

If they spout off the normal patriarchy, rape culture, wage gap bullshit, I classify them as lunatics...err... feminists.

Then there's MRAs which we're all pretty familiar with.

Personally, I see myself as an egalitarian, but lean towards MRA simply because, from what I've seen, men need more advocating than women do.

That's my $0.02, and seems to be kinda what you're doing, but instead of dividing between feminist and egalitarian, you're dividing up feminist and 3rd wave feminist. I really don't know which would be more accurate, but I think both methods achieve the same goal.

[–]chocoboat 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ICantReadThis 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]Fanytastic -11 points-10 points-9 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]AkiraZXE 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]geniice -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]L0gic1o1 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]geniice-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]L0gic1o15 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]geniice-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]G-O 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dangerousopinions 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What a bunch of nonsense. Are there people who call themselves feminists that aren't unreasonable? Of course, but it's not a few bad apples, it's the vast majority of the mainstream and most of the organizations and institutions that take the label. You're incredibly naive if you think that there is any value in building bridges with feminism.

Additionally, denouncing the ideology does not make one "as bad as them". That doesn't even make any sense, that's just a statement. In what way would denouncing feminism make one, as a result, as bad as a feminist? Does one become guilty of sexism, bigotry, misogyny, intellectual dishonesty etc, simply for denouncing feminist ideology? I can't see how that could possibly be the case.

You're talking nonsense. I truly hope you can come to see this.

[–]Piroko 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rKremlin 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BearWithHat -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shitgenstein -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nineznuff -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ahatabat -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nick012000 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]BearWithHat -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]headingtoshore -18 points-17 points-16 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I do not think I have spoken in sup[port of feminism, and i don't intend to do so now but since there are no comments here yet I thought I'd drop a note on something I have been thinking about recently, sort of related.

So - there was a movement called feminism, and while there were some outliers the bulk of its mission and membership really did fall in line with that old chestnut, the dictionary definition. Feminism was largely about equality of the sexes.

People worked hard, many goals were achieved, by and large the feminists won and had achieved their major goals, everyone felt pretty good about it.

So what happened was that people who wanted to be popular politically started slapping the feminism label on their packages, the way companies put 'low fat' or 'gluten free' on products today, even tho the people who were doing so - labeling themselves feminists - had no major interest in feminism as such, they were just hitching their wagons to the feminism star.

So - if we refer here to GWW excellent video Atheism You Asked For It where she describes how social media type popular atheism was taken over by people who were not primarily atheists, they were welcomed in and began immediately to subvert the message to their own ends.

So what i am trying to express here is that these people who we call feminists, who certainly do act under the feminist banner and who call themselves feminists really, truly are not. they are the same people who infiltrated atheism, the same people who attack gaming. they call themselves whatever will get them in the door - what they are is opportunists, agenda pushers, politicians, people.

how many times have i heard an mra speaker say words to the effect "hell, by the dictionary definition - I am a feminist" well it's true. And by the dictionary definition the army fighting under the feminism flag is not.

so it's just an interesting trivia fact, but they are not feminists, we are, and we come not to destroy feminism, but to reclaim it.

[–]Dai_Einon 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We're not reclaiming anything. Any feminists that actually give any fucks about equality are the ones trying to take over feminism. It's always been about taking down men and branding itself to gain money and power from social support. Those ones you convince yourself are extremists that took over the movement were the ones that were there from the beginning. And each "wave" of feminism distinguishes itself from the last so each can say "we're not like them, we're the real feminists". They do this because you can't sword fight a fart. You can't kill a ghost. If they make you chase after a shadow when they're the real enemy, they're safe from you. They lied to you and you bought into it.

You cite Karen Straughan. Look at what she says about feminism's beginnings and the "real feminists". Look up Erin Pizzey. Look up the Declaration of Sentiments. Look at this: http://anti-feminism-pro-equality.tumblr.com/post/97170153236/myplaceinfeminism-heres-an-article-about

Patriarchy theory itself lends nothing to equality. And that is NECESSARY to be a feminist. It is their central tenet.

[–]headingtoshore -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That pesky dictionary definition do. here's one

n. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. n. The movement organized around this belief.

And I mean - that's US isn't it?

More and more, i see campus 'feminism' and tumbler 'feminism' as nothing more than opportunist false flag operations.

[–]hork23 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]headingtoshore -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well for one thing I think legislation that ONLY helps either sex is kind of the problem.

Above I pointed out that I was only offering my thoughts as kind of an 'interesting trivia fact' just an observation but I do think it has some value.

If you look to those dictionary definitions, i posted this above

n. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. n. The movement organized around this belief.

And I mean - that's US isn't it?

So as long as those definitions ARE the way they are, we own them. In any debate with one of the people we commonly refer to as feminists, you could trivially show, were you so inclined - that YOURS was the feminist position.

So - redefine the word to more accurately refer to the people who operate under it, or simply point out that they are not what they claim?

I brought up the GWW vid because there is a strong paralell there, these same people attacking a movement - atheism/skepticism and attempting to add a lot of baggage to them in just such a way.

So that there are are 'skeptical' boards where, should a person show up who wanted facts and evidence to back up assertions he (or indeed she) would be v unwelcome.

Just as we have 'feminist' groups, industries even, where should a person show up who wanted to move towards equality of the sexes that person would not be welcome.

I'm just not willing to ignore that disconnect between the definition and the movement - feminism.

The definitions are what they are, i am not on the dictionary comity, they do not consult me on these matters. As it stand, the word feminism refers to 'gender egalitarian' persons and groups, that's US the sort of 'mainstreem' mens movement. i am not the first to notice this - 6oodfella v recently posted a vid with a similar thought in the title, i don;'t think I actually watched it, and I have certainly heard many MRA speakers observe that by the definition, of course, they would be feminists.

All I'm adding here is that, by the definition those OTHER people, the ones very loudly CALLING themselves "Feminism" are not. Feminists, that is - they just aren't.

[–]hork23 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"I'm just not willing to ignore that disconnect between the definition and the movement - feminism."

Then stop fucking trying to label people that or encourage them to take it. It's called an equivocation fallacy when one uses the same word in two different meanings in the same argument and you know people use feminism to mean whatever feels they have at the moment so why you would be so sloppy in your language. It's either dishonest because you have an agenda or just plain wishful thinking that you (and others who join in calling themselves feminist) can "reclaim" (we don't want the fucking word, can you get that through your head?) from people who use it not in the manner that the dictionary definition says its defined as.

Does the dictionary define the word by the ideology its named after? No, it does not. Since people conflate the word with both the ideology and whatever they fancy it means it's garbage, so stop digging it up and calling it gold then trying to sell us it.

[–]Aberu -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

"Why does their support for legislation have to ONLY support women for it to be legitimate to you?"

When advocating for gender equality there are inevitably some conflicts between the genders that require compromise, either one side is held up to equalize them both or one is put down to equalize them. There are cases where women are overwhelmingly advantaged, so either men must be brought up or women taken down, preferably the choice that would benefit all in the long run. So I ask, since feminists claim to be for gender equality where are the choices they made that explicitly disadvantages women to become on par with men, or advantages men to become on par with women, or some combination of the two.

"Women literally get put in a more dangerous battle position"

You do realize the military is volunteer right now (at least in the U.S.), correct? If these women are put into this situation, they made the choice themselves and should have known the consequences of their choices. Who puts them there? You are saying this happens to women where they have no accountability or control over what occurs to them, they did have a choice and they chose to sell their body to the government and all the consequences that comes with that choice. These women are not victims of happenstance, stop thinking them so. Or, at least be consistent and consider men victims of the same fate since as history as showed us, men's fate during war is for the meat grinder.

Which brings up another issue, rights come with obligations. Men were given the right to vote BECAUSE they are conscripted. When the issue was presented for women to choose to be able to vote, many declined because they did not want to be drafted. It is only when the government assured women they would not be drafted for having the right to vote, did women want it. This is an inequality since men are still able to be drafted (and are required, in the U.S., to sign up for the draft or else some of their rights are forfeit) while women are not.

"Also pretty sure advocacy for women on the front lines in the military fits the description of the second thing you are asking for."

Video talking about standards in military and the disparity between the sexes, I agree with pretty much all of it, if women can pass the standard have at it. I'm conflicted whether to consider it a compromise against women and for men's favor, military is male dominated so it only affects a small percentage of men and women. If the standards are lowered due to ideology then people die, same thing will happen with the recent case where a female firefighter failed the test several times but still graduated.

Furthermore, would you consider military service to be a right or an obligation? Perhaps I'm trying to make an exception against considering women in the military any sort of equality advocacy as I'm focused mainly on rights which are denied to men or biased policies in women's favor. I'm thinking this way mainly due to the motivation behind getting women onto the front line but then that's just an excuse, is it or is it not what I asked for? I'm still undecided though you have a point. So, are there any other examples you can think for the question you addressed?

[–]Aberu -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You do realize the military is volunteer right now (at least in the U.S.), correct? If these women are put into this situation, they made the choice themselves and should have known the consequences of their choices. Who puts them there?

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of not only what point I was making, but also how the military works. When you sign up for the Army/Marines, you aren't given the choice to go to the front lines, that is something that is decided for you. Until recently, women were 100% excluded from the front lines. Due to work by feminists to enable putting women on the front lines, less men will be on the front lines in a disproportionate number (100% to 0%). That's equality that greatly benefits men.

Video talking about standards in military and the disparity between the sexes, I agree with pretty much all of it, if women can pass the standard have at it.

I agree, if women can pass the standards so be it. Men should be held to the same standard as well. Some women have been able to, and until only recently, were not allowed to be on the front lines.

If the standards are lowered due to ideology then people die

Have the standards been lowered? If so, you should probably be against that, don't rally against feminists advocating women to be allowed to be on the front lines. There certainly are guys that haven't met the standards before and there certainly are women who HAVE met them. I don't see what the motivation behind this talking point is, and I don't want to presume since that wouldn't be very charitable.

I'm still undecided though you have a point. So, are there any other examples you can think for the question you addressed?

Well it's exceedingly hard to give examples like that. It's almost like you posed a question in a way that no one could ever supply an answer to, so as to position yourself advantageously in the discussion, rather than asking for something reasonable. What legislation can you think of would be needed that would address ONLY an issue for men? For instance, if we change the draft to allow women as well (I'm a feminist, and I'm in support of this, but opposed to the draft altogether on the whole), that's a men's rights issue, but it directly addresses women, so that wouldn't count. If they changed alimony laws so that women didn't just get a crap ton of alimony or whatever, that would be changing a law in relation to how it effects women and not to men, so again a little weird. Give me an example first so I can get a better scope of what you are requesting because in it's current form it seems like a question asked with the presumption that there is no answer. Thanks!

[–]hork23 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

When one goes through the process to get into the military, unless the recruiter is a lying asshole, you are told you will probably deploy within a year. This is the choice they make and the risk they take, no one else can force them to do this so they are choosing to accept the risk of going to the front lines. So no, the fundamental misunderstanding of who is accountable is yours.

I am not saying some legislation or policy change cannot effect women and yet benefit men in a contentious area, you are misreading my words. What change has been made that does not also benefit women (i.e., men are given 50% of custody time with children) or disadvantages women (during the judicial process women are less likely to be convicted and serve a lesser sentence for the same crime when convicted, so removed that advantage women have) so men and women are made more equal?

[–]Aberu-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What change has been made that does not also benefit women (i.e., men are given 50% of custody time with children) or disadvantages women (during the judicial process women are less likely to be convicted and serve a lesser sentence for the same crime when convicted, so removed that advantage women have) so men and women are made more equal?

And that's where the problem in this conversation lies. I think if your requirement for feminists to be right in your eyes is to do something that does what you are describing is unrealistic. On the vast majority of gender equality issues throughout history, the inequality has overwhelmingly been toward women, thus why the history of such advocacy is to bring women equal to men in society. There are some instances where an effort to get gender discrimination out of the work place and society in general for the sake of women has also benefited men. (Men can become nurses now for instance) Most certainly the fact that it would benefit men HAD to have been discussed by feminist advocates, how could it not? It's a great motivator for allies.

This is why this criteria of yours was important question, I understand what you are saying, but I don't know why that matters to have this criteria? It's like you were implying that feminist work is illegitimate on the whole unless they advocate for policies that disadvantage women and help men to make things equal in that area, or only advocate for things that effect men.

I don't know of a single feminist (especially prolific academics/thinkers/writers) that would argue that it's fair that male imprisonment, prison rape, sentencing, or the draft be unequal. I just think it's weird that this (advocating solely for a male-only issue primarily) is a requirement of yours to acknowledge the legitimacy of feminist equality advocacy. They just maybe didn't get around to it because abortion rights are under attack all day, perception of rape is all shitty in the media, pay differences that after accounting for all variables still are around 7-10% based upon gender, under-representation of women in certain positions/jobs, under-representation of women in politics, etc... (Not saying I think those are more important or less, just it seems natural for feminist to focus on those first)

[–]hork232 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"On the vast majority of gender equality issues throughout history, the inequality has overwhelmingly been toward women"

Examples? And how do they compare with how men's lot were? If things were shitty for women they were shitty for men too.

"Men can become nurses now for instance"

Men could always be nurses or did you think the only way to help an injured man on the battlefield was to bring them to women, no that's unrealistic. Perhaps you mean the gender role defined for a nurse TODAY is commonly for women, which is still true as men are not on par with women. This is an example of history being rewritten to further a narrative. List of examples where men were nurses or healers or in modern times an organization was created for male nurses. So when and how were feminists helpful in getting more male nurses?

"Most certainly the fact that it would benefit men HAD to have been discussed by feminist advocates, how could it not?"

So who was talking about it then? Or today even?

"It's a great motivator for allies."

Are they not feminists? Or are you saying men can't be? What a disparaging term, ally. Would you consider a man that supports women's rights advocacy to be an ally? No, he would be a women's rights advocate.

"This is why this criteria of yours was important question, I understand what you are saying, but I don't know why that matters to have this criteria?"

I think you're being deliberately daft or your ideological mindset is running around in circles trying to forget what I had said before. Feminists claim to be advocates for gender equality. To achieve gender equality compromises are required (depends on how equality is defined though, equality of outcome or opportunity). Where are the compromises in men's favor if indeed feminism is for gender equality?

Let's look at VAWA (Violence against Women Act, which discriminates against men), feminists wanted this passed. Now, if one was for equality why not pass a Violence against Humans Act? Maybe women are the primary victims of violence (men are still victims so it still wouldn't justify it)? When we look at the information though, men are more likely to be murdered (page 9), men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women (page 7), women are just as violent if not more so than men towards partners, predominant aggressor laws, [aka Duluth Model](http://www.batteredmen.com/batdulut.htm), presumes males are the perpetrators of violence, domestic violence shelters for men don't exist and family one's deny men access, women cannot rape men except by penetration, male rapes are ignored... I hope you get the point.

So what has feminists done to help men? Nothing? No, it's worse, they actively harm them, but tell me how not all feminists are like that.

[–]Aberu-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Examples? And how do they compare with how men's lot were? If things were shitty for women they were shitty for men too.

Women weren't allowed to vote.
Women weren't allowed to own property.
Women weren't allowed to say they didn't want to marry someone.
Women weren't allowed to work at one point and then later weren't allowed to work many jobs.

There's many more, but I thought it was a universally recognized fact that in general women were subservient to men and second class citizens until historically very recently.

Men could always be nurses

Wrong. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1984 (heavily pushed by feminist groups among other interest groups), employers could discriminate based upon gender. "Nurse" was stereo-typically seen as a woman's job. The number of male nurses was exceedingly low despite it being a somewhat good paying job. In the late 19th century it was not legal for a man to be a nurse. They would give them a different title, with different pay. That's not the only job as well, there are others. The examples you provided were from different societies or isolated examples that were not representative of the gender discrimination on the whole in general. The organization for male nurses you mentioned was started in 1971, 7 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so that's kind of a moot point.

Are they not feminists? Or are you saying men can't be? What a disparaging term, ally. Would you consider a man that supports women's rights advocacy to be an ally? No, he would be a women's rights advocate.

You are really misunderstanding, I'm a man and I'm a feminist. Feminists are a person who supports feminism. An ally is someone who doesn't necessarily organize or advocate feminism in the same way a feminist does, but supports the changes advocated for by feminists. For instance, gay rights movement had allies. I don't know why you think "ally" is a disparaging term, that wasn't made clear.

I think you're being deliberately daft or your ideological mindset is running around in circles trying to forget what I had said before. Feminists claim to be advocates for gender equality. To achieve gender equality compromises are required (depends on how equality is defined though, equality of outcome or opportunity). Where are the compromises in men's favor if indeed feminism is for gender equality?

And I think that question is confused. Why is it necessary for feminists to have done something that compromises women in favor of men for them to be in favor of gender equality? Can you give an example of something you would like to see advocated for that does this so I can understand why it's relevant? If the vast majority of gender equality issues have historically been unfavorable to women, it would make sense that they have been focusing on that, right? You don't see racial equality advocates saying "but what about white people?" do you? There's probably a reason for that.

Let's look at VAWA

The name is stupid. It was to help it get political support. Not many people would want to be caught voting against Violence Against Women Act. Politics as usual. The way it has been wrongfully used to discriminate against men is wrong, in fact there is a provision added to it that says you CAN'T discriminate against men based on it. So if you have been discriminated against based upon gender in VAWA, please report it to the ACLU. They'll get a lawyer and fight for you, and some further clarification may be made. Sweet! I feel like this is a misguided tangent. Find me a feminist who says men who are victims of domestic violence aren't a concern. I would have no problem with the Men's Rights movement if it was about propping yourself up, offering support, and fighting inequality. Too often what you are doing here is the face of Men's Rights Advocacy, anti-feminism. It's like what the anti-white black militant groups are to racial equality.

So what has feminists done to help men? Nothing?

Just blatantly ignore the examples I have brought up. Like the Prison Rape Prevention Act, where feminists specifically were addressing prison rape problems which invariably effects men more than women by a large degree. What about the "Rape is Rape" campaign where feminists advocacy got the FBI to update their definition of what rape is to include many things, one of which was to include male rape in their statistics? I just don't understand why you think an anti-feminist tumblr is more convincing than actual legislation and change that can be fact-checked using google.

[–]hork231 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

PART 1, took awhile as I was lazy and playing Terraria.

First of all, when do you think feminism started, what is your definition of equality, and what is your definition of feminism. I should have asked earlier so we can be more clear.

"Women weren't allowed to vote."

As with history, it's complicated. Owners of property and tax payers in many states could vote and it changed with time, one state restricting women's right to vote later on. It would be interesting to look into why and how this all happened but here's a court decision that stated the right to vote came with recriprical obligations, namely military service. When the choice came up whether women wanted the vote most did not want it in fear of the draft. It is only when they were assured that they would not be draft did women want the vote, they got rights without obligations something that men still do not have. Also, many men could not vote until legislation was passed that took away restrictions. That doesn't make it in the history book though, wonder why.

"Women weren't allowed to own property."

[Depends on when,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_rights_(other_than_voting) women were given more rights as the U.S. grew, just like men were. If you take issue with my rather absolutest statement (feminism has done nothing to benefit solely men) then your statements are also in error as it only takes one example to disprove it, spartan women could own property. Inheritence was one of the major ways to keep property and goods within the family, the male children being the ones that acquired it. Part of the reason I think is that the finances were done by the man since he was held accountable for it. He was also held accountable for his wives actions by Coverture, which states single women could own property, and was in effect for several centuries and throughotu most of the 19th century, hmm. Coverture also explains why women were treated as "second class citizens", they were protected from legal consequences at the cost of freedom.

"Women weren't allowed to say they didn't want to marry someone."

What is marriage? Breaking it down to the legalities of it it is an exchange of goods, men provided support (house, food, etc) to a women in exchange for her reproductive processes and all the products of that process. That means children were the mans property. Which is also why a man could not legally rape his wife, reproductive access was his as he bought it. I'm sure the sons weren't allowed to do what they wanted most of the time either, but it's all about women and their plights right? Again, if it's shitty for women it's shitty for men.

"Women weren't allowed to work at one point and then later weren't allowed to work many jobs."

Then who ran the village while men were hunting? Who repairs clothes and made baskets? Weren't allowed to work my ass, women needed to work to survive. Do you know why some jobs don't allow women? Either because it's too dangerous or women cannot physical do it. If at one point women weren't allowed to work, give a source. Seriously, you have yet to give a single source in all your claims.

"Wrong. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1984 (heavily pushed by feminist groups among other interest groups)"

Then give me a source, or else you are full of shit.

"In the late 19th century it was not legal for a man to be a nurse."

Source please, one example is all you need but more would be helpful.

"The organization for male nurses you mentioned was started in 1971, 7 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so that's kind of a moot point."

Since you haven't proven that it was illegal for men to be nurses then this argument can be dismissed. Also, which one is it? Civil Rights act of 1984 or 1964 that ended discrimination based on sex that supposedly allowed men to be nurses?

"Feminists are a person who supports feminism."

"An ally is someone who doesn't necessarily organize or advocate feminism in the same way a feminist does"

"[An ally] supports the changes advocated for by feminists"

Pick the statement that contradicts the others. If one supports feminism then that person is a feminist, you did not clarify how supporting feminism in a specific way makes one a feminist or not. Since allys support the changes by feminists then they support the goal of feminism (is that not what feminists do, further feminism's goal?) and are therefore feminists. So who are the allys?

Is feminism for equality between the sexes? Yes or no.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Aberu 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toastkitty11 -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Klytemaestra 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Stop claiming we should support feminism. Just stop!
Author	Klytemaestra
Upvotes	278
Comments	280
Date	June 28, 2015 11:15 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3bg86g/stop_claiming_we_should_support_feminism_just_stop/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/stop-claiming-we-should-support-feminism-just-stop.976528 https://theredarchive.com/post/976528

Comments