A potential response from feminists when the misandry perpetrated by feminists is called out

ElisaSKy · 2024-07-28T13:24:02+00:00

"You are aware that practically every country has rape laws banning the rape of women by men, but very few even acknowledge the rape of men by women, right? India, Israel and the UK for instance, define rape as specifically something done to women only by men only, and most countries only use penetration. Society cares enough about the rape of women by men to often make it a capital crime, or a life sentence, or a 20 years sentence, but female teachers raping underage kids, that's 30 days of jail at most. A woman who accepts money to have sex with adult men serves 6 to 12 times longer jail time! You must feel so oppressed to actually have legal recourse when you're raped, and so jealous of people like me, who never had it, still don't have it, and may even die without ever recourse for what has been done to us!

If having recourse against rape and violence is oppression, I want to be oppressed right this very second! Actually, scratch that, I want it yesterday!"

Punder_man · 2024-07-28T19:47:54+00:00

My response to them is to ask them why if these people are "Not true feminists" they do not actively denounce and shame them?
If they don't want these people associated with their movement then they should police their movement better.

Also, "Not ALL feminists" but it WAS feminists who created and pushed for the uptake of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence, a model so biased one of its creators even admitted it and yet, despite this the Duluth Model still stands today as the "Best model for domestic violence between hetero couples". Are the people who came up with this model "Not True Feminists?"

Or, "Not ALL feminists" but isn't it amazing how it was feminists who went to the UN to petition them to reclassify Female Circumcision to Female Genital Mutilation and push for it to be outlawed..
Yet these same Feminists did not even consider asking for men to share the same protections.. They only focused on protections for women.. This is despite us being told over and over again "Feminism is for men too!"

Were these feminists "Not True Feminists"?

If these are examples of "Not True Feminists" then the "Real" Feminists are ineffective or outright useless because it seems that the "Not Real Feminists" are the ones in full control of the movement. And, until this changes my opinion of Feminism and Feminists will remain the same.

Metraxis · 2024-07-28T15:05:11+00:00

Put simply, "no". You are not entitled to revenge or compensation for things that never happened to you, especially from people who didn't do those things. Gender roles are over, and no man owes you anything for just being a man.

IceCorrect · 2024-07-28T13:27:28+00:00

The same people who speak a lot about history believe that communism is peaceful and happy.

GuiltyFarmGirl100 · 2024-07-28T16:57:28+00:00

Reddit feminists for some reason only think about women being raped and murdered by men, and don't think of how often men protected women from rape and murder.

mrkanu · 2024-07-28T16:40:45+00:00

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process she does not become a monster" Nietzsche

"you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain"

In fact the story of the animal farm matches the story of feminism. But then that is true for every "ism".

NullableThought · 2024-07-28T16:58:45+00:00

"Trauma is an explanation for bigotry, not an excuse."

And

"I thought feminism was about equality for all"

WhereProgressIsMade · 2024-07-29T16:15:29+00:00

For any students of history, collective punishment wasn't unusual. Like if someone convicted a heinous crime, capital punishment wasn't enough. They'd kill your wife and kids too for example. Or execute the entire village.

Eventually we (mostly) realized that wasn't very fair to the people who had no part in it - like the 2 year old kid. So we barred collective punishment.

You can see it codified in places like article 33 of the Geneva conventions (violation is a war crime).

Article 33: Individual responsibility, collective penalties, pillage and reprisals. No protected person may be punished for any offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited.

We don't put people in jail for having an ancestor who was a slave owner. We don't put German kids in jail as punishment for the gas chambers of 1940. We don't put Japanese citizens in jail for Pearl Harbor. Someone with some time could probably find some female convicted fellons of some pretty bad stuff who have living descendant. A rebuttal might be, "Should we put this kid in jail for the crimes of X?" They'd be forced to say no, setting up a response of "So why are you holding me and other men alive today responsible for these alleged crimes that happened hundreds of years ago?"

Main-Tiger8593 · 2024-07-30T05:03:09+00:00

QUOTE OF A FEMINIST: "askfeminists"

I think you may be missing the point that all of us have been wrongfully and relentlessly accused of advocating for superiority over men to discredit and silence us.

We know that they're are misandrists who co-opt feminism but it's not our main concern because:

They are a minority
We sadly cannot control that minority enough to make sure that it entirely goes away. It can lurk, hide and act covertly.
We cannot waste all our time and energy on that minority to make it go away and even if we did we would fail miserably.
However, we do call them out, dissociate ourselves from them and that is sufficient to make sure that it's a weak minority.
After all, the point of feminism is to defend women because they are oppressed and this is where our attention should primarily go.
As a result, our attention shouldn't primarily go to hypothetical men who would be oppressed if the minority of misandrists had their way.
But there are ALWAYS men who want us to make it our top priority and just talk about that instead of everything else that we're concerned with.

CaptSnap · 2024-07-28T16:52:25+00:00

A strong rebuttal?

But you have to remember that all of this is a reaction to the rape and oppression of women by men throughout human history.

How many men? How many men raped and oppressed for it to be justifiable to form a group out of subset of people and then to hate them and throw bigotry at them under the movement to end bigotry and bias? First off, just hating a group is bad enough...but to showcase it as the selfrighteous path for the greater good? Thats a tall fucking order isnt it? Thats really the icing on the cake for me.

So how many jews? how many black people? how many italians? how many irish? chinese? slavs? etc etc on down. How many have to be mean before its justified to hate all of them (for the greater fucking good)? Holy shit this is sounding familiar. But lets say you have an answer (as impossible as that is)... but lets say for arguments sake 90% of a neighborhood is bad and 10% is good, is it justifiable to hate the 10%? Are you telling me you believe it is moral for you to hate good people? People that have done nothing to anyone? I assume this has to be an exceptionally high percentage. So high that its no doubt impossible for you to have interacted with everyone right?

So that begs the question, do they have to be mean to you personally? For you to hate a group of people does everyone in that group needed to have been mean to you? Im assuming not since you havent existed forever and you dont know every man on the planet. So you dont have to be personally involved or even be there, you just have to "know" it happened. Is that right? So youre hating people that havent done anything to you but to others?

So how do you know? How much evidence did you look at and how scrutinized was it? If we're going to hate half the goddamn human race I expect its a pretty serious affair right? I mean youd have to be some kind of fucking hateful spiteful piece of shit to readily hate half of everyone on a whim? Like how much evidence would you need to hate all jews? They're like 1% of 1% of the human population, so how much more then to hate HALF of everyone that ever was? Do you have that evidence? Does that evidence exist? Is it even fucking possible? Like we dont even know for sure when the first fucking humans exactly appeared, but you do, because you have all this indisputable undeniable overwhelming evidence to justify bigotry.

Or maybe youre just a fucking bigot and like a hateful smallminded little idiot you grasped at the first chance to hate a group of people and like a true goosestepping moral failure you somehow feel good about that. Thats the fucking scary thing. Like the truely..like genuinely... evil people in history some people now think its GOOD to HATE people and theres a whole social/academic movement that will give them refuge and material.

ImpossibleSide5926 · 2024-08-16T04:33:51+00:00

Everything being said about misandry pre-acceptance to the existence of misandry mirrors everything said about misogyny pre-acceptance to the existence of misogyny. It's identical

Women are not men. Women are simply incapable of formulating accurate metrics from their POV and taking a seat on this one would be greatly appreciated. It's already been outlined ironically by them how external viewpoints provide biases and are to be discounted

We have concurrent movement happening parallel deserving of recognition here in regards to trans. Although, thanks to a trans feminist we do have one that spoke about the-then undefined misandry from women and men at the time and by now I think everyone knows how that ended

It's important to talk about how the resistance by feminists specifically, potentially could be attributed to the idea that accepting misandry as a real thing would cause some collisions with what's already defined as misogynist and it directly causes a collision with all current definitions on what "the patriarchy" is

Is/was "the patriarchy" inclusive to the idea of misandrist rhetoric also serving a building block? Is/was the alignment to both Misogynistic & Misandrinistic ideals key fundamental components to it's existence? And if so what does "the patriarchy" mean now compared to its meaning prior? The potential collision with nearly every feminist book written about patriarchy as it's core ideology cannot be discounted.

Collision aside, disharmony is already apparent with the whole "pick me" rhetoric and how they bully those who stray from feminist opposition to cis-males back into obedience. By now everyone has seen it, and it brutal. It's damn near fake allegation brutal for those they can't get away with making one on. Every man knows a man who's been fake alleged on. Personally Im on my 5th and 3 of them I've never had sexual relations with besides making out with 2 of the 3 and I learned young by trauma never to initiate and to never take a leading role or to escallate intimate engagement until it is outright asked for in the relationship and then it's timidly. No one is studying this, and these things can't make it to a judge because it's covered by hearsay and sensitivity.

Never forget, not being misongystic includes criminality. Every paper that studies female perpetration on every front including SA, cites the outright biases found everytime they study even in blind surveys. It's hard to get through anyone's head

Not only have study's come out that prove the suppression of evidence towards gender symmetry, we haven't studied female perpetration to nearly any trustable extent and we can't because the data is hiding behind cultural bias. Many still believe FSCO's are a myth and having dated a family friend that happens to be one its like the absolute dark ages in regards to it. Multiple people talked to me about it, officer said it was consistent with other reports, and what's conclusive is that nobody is doing dick all about these children

With multiple women when I said I'm uncomfortable during intimacy they keep pushing and had a meltdowns some even to the degree of verbal cohersion. Threats of telling people I was gay being one of them, which like dumb af but it's sad to say did have an impact on my dating life, as was confirmed years later by someone

Literally all the multiple SA's I've endured not only have they been minimized culturally to an "exception to the rule" by men and women to identical degree, but as they stack and as I share stories it's become apparent that it's always been this way and the "men only want sex" rhetoric has wired us to minimize its impact on emotional wellbeing. Nearly every woman into CNC and r-fantasies knows exactly why men say "must have enjoyed it" and these women with experience have given nothing but crickets to degenderize it. They have even paved the path to its connection to prior trauma with things called process traumas and that community has nothing to say towards the wall between the genders?

If I had a table to bet at, I personally would bet everything I had on the prediction that it's only a matter of time before the damn breaks on gender symmetry in terms of criminality in all forms and the same for gender symmetry in terms of anything that has to do with the brain, and the same with emotions. The moment we acknowledge control by emotionally/psychologically abusive tactics to perpetuate crime as a crime itself we'll have just as many female prisons

dependency_injector · 2024-07-28T15:20:39+00:00

"Can you tell me a name of a popular feminist that you consider a misandrist?"

Title	A potential response from feminists when the misandry perpetrated by feminists is called out
Author	WTRKS1253
Upvotes	76
Comments	27
Date	July 28, 2024 1:06 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ee70dn/a_potential_response_from_feminists_when_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-potential-response-from-feminists-when-the.1525578 https://theredarchive.com/post/1525578

Comments