Flip the Script: No consequences for her

[–]BernieSandersgirl101 1835 points1836 points1837 points 8 years ago* (175 children) | Copy Link

[–]such-a-mensch 1222 points1223 points1224 points 8 years ago (120 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kyle_Fischer 112 points113 points114 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]such-a-mensch 38 points39 points40 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Circle_0f_Life 559 points560 points561 points 8 years ago (96 children) | Copy Link

[–]TacoOrgy 291 points292 points293 points 8 years ago (76 children) | Copy Link

[–]Circle_0f_Life 124 points125 points126 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]cp710 45 points46 points47 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Circle_0f_Life 48 points49 points50 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]dork_of_the_isles 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Circle_0f_Life 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]ntx7 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowAwake90000 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you an American who supports the constitution? Cause you have to be clear if you want equality for human beings, or states, or corporations. You might be all talk, while you pay thousands of dollars a year into a system that gives some people 1/2 the vote it gives others (That's Montana with 1 House Rep for ~1 million population, and RI with 2 house reps for ~1 million population for the folks that don't know how to figure it out). You see it had to be bumped down from 3/5, because now everyone gets to vote, or at least that's how one constitutional loyalist explained it to me on reddit long ago.

I'm sure you're thinking of how small and insignificant your contribution to this system is. However the vast majority, something like 75%, of the Federal Budget comes out of regular middle class paychecks, and most of the rest is borrowed against expected future middle class paychecks. So you may be a very significant part of inequality in this world, despite your thoughtful position.

*Oooh downvotes, I'm sure a well reasoned response in support of the constitution is soon to follow... I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, I'M A GOOD BOY TEACHER. CAN I HAVE A GOLD STAR? No gold star for you little Timmy, not until an immediate family member has died for the flag. Why don't you go and earn a gold star for your mommy if you are a good boy.

[–]HenryCGk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowAwake90001 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HenryCGk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowAwake90001 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HenryCGk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowAwake90001 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HenryCGk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowAwake90001 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HenryCGk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowAwake90001 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HenryCGk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThrowAwake90000 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Representatives and Senators are not the same. The House of Representatives and the Senate are two distinct voting bodies. I have not mentioned the Senate to you once. Also you have a "pore" in your skin, your English, is poor, extremely poor.

*Do you understand the distinction between the House of Commons and the House of Lords? The Senate is a bit like the House of Lords, and the House of Representatives is roughly the equivalent of the House of Commons. A very important distinction is that each seat in the House of Commons has a constituency (thats what the people they represent are called) of sixty thousand to ninety thousand people, while House constituencies, as Ive mentioned range from five hundred thousand to one million.

Try to focus and take a deep breath you can barely spell a single word correctly and you even went back to edit. Are you British or Russian?

[–]HenryCGk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tacoman3725 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]rach2bach 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]l2eversel2obot-2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nisutapasion0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Azurenightsky -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ReadeDraconis 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

I'm going to sound hella sarcastic saying this, but, could you point out in my post where I said he's wrong?

I mean, factually, what he says is correct, for the most part. The enslavement and tyranny parts can be argued, depending on your view, but the rest is pretty spot on. And I don't think I ever challenged that.

But he's got a lot of implications there. And without any supporting info, as you said. Atop that, he's posting it as a response to a thread about feminism; one has to wonder the implications of that. Without further context, his post seems to be bordering on crazy extremism itself. At least, that's all I can assume, given what I currently know. I've not got the energy to dig through his post history to find out more about his stance.

That's what I challenged - or attempted to challenge. The lack of relevance to the discussion and his presentation. Not the factual accuracy. Apologies if it came across any differently.

[–]LateralThinker13 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]Throwaway69716971 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]hyperion_ho -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]hyperion_ho -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]SalvorCo 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]SalvorCo6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hyperion_ho1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]magalead4 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hyperion_ho1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Throwaway697169711 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bulk2win9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpiritofJames 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]dudeguy1234 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]brewmastermonk 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]brewmastermonk1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpiritofJames 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]SpiritofJames2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hyperion_ho1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpiritofJames1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicesegue-9 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yuk0njack2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Supernova141 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]XenoX101 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why every movement and every sect should always be treated with skepticism. Some are better than others, none is immune to the fallibility of human kind. Naturally this includes MRAs. But with a healthy dose of skepticism/cynicism, you can see that for feminism to exist we need MRAs to exist, in order to act as a check and balance for feminists. Though this also means the converse is true, without any feminists women would have no movement to rally around (unless it were renamed, which isn't such a bad idea). And indeed before any feminism women were very much subservient to men in most every domain.

The real problems occur when people start to get shamed for not being part of a movement, e.g. not supporting feminism, or not partaking in politics a la Taylor Swift. Because when it becomes taboo to support something, those views eventually become silenced or so few in number that they become statistically irrelevant, which ultimately affects the amount of representation these views get in the court of law and public opinion/polls. Every ying needs a yang.

[–]alienforceNOTW-11 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

they just want their turn on top

No, MRAs are the only social activists who think like this. Activists from other social movements come together to stand as one. This is a principle of activism anyone involved with these movements understands. You can not isolate yourself, advocate only for yourself, and still expect to be able to improve your condition.

If Men's Rights is a reactionary movement, if it is not a movement of solidarity, it will fail. You will gain the sympathy of none by blaming your problems on feminism, by insisting on a caricature of feminism as reality and by backing up your worldview with a PJW video. If you actually give a shit about the lives of quiet desperation countless men lead, understand that social justice is not zero sum, and by treating it like it is, you're certain to lose out.

[–]lichlordgodfrey 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]alienforceNOTW-6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

All the "good" feminists have no power to shape public or private policies.

You're residing in a bubble if this is your perception of the women's movement. Misandrists and TERFs are as influential among feminists as tankies are among Sanders supporters.

And the solidarity you speak of is being abused by charlatans and power-hungry politicians-in-training

Solidarity has nothing to do with them. Politicians, chief among populist charlatans and careerist pundits, will jump to the front of any movement the moment it looks like it might succeed, but they have no credibility among the people they leapfrogged. They can pander all they'd like, posting Beyoncé lyrics on twitter and reciting focus-grouped talking points on Sunday morning news shows, but no one listens or cares, and our loyalty to them is as deep as a puddle.

fails if people do not toe the same ideological line near perfectly.

You don't know what you're talking about. Contentious debates are over tactics, not ideology.

[–]DarthCerebroX8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here’s a dozen examples of mainstream feminist organizations (such as NOW, the most powerful feminist organization in the world) fighting against true gender equality..

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

The following is a very informed comment by Karen Straughan in response to a feminist who thinks the many blatant sexists among feminists aren't real feminists:

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".

That's not just "no true Scotsman". That's delusional self deception.

Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don't care. I've been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they've done under the banner of feminism, maybe you'd stop calling yourself one.

But I want you to know. You don't matter.

You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."

You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.

You're not Mary P Koss (one of the most highly regarded feminists alive today- who is credited with changing the federal rape laws and the FBI definition of rape), who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape... meaning whenever a woman takes advantage of an inebriated/sleeping/unconscious man or forces him to sleep with her, these crimes are classified as a much lesser charge.

You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.

You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.

You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.

You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.

You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.

You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."

You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.

And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.

You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.

—

[–]alienforceNOTW1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The effort you put into your responses is appreciated.

You're arguing against the point I've made that misandrists aren't influential among feminists. With the assumption that the examples you cite are valid, I'll respond with a 2015 poll you might already be familiar with. Of the 47% of respondents who identify as feminists, only 14% (representing roughly one-third of the original 47&) identified as "strong feminists." Let's boil down anyone who considered themselves a strong feminist to mean a radical feminist and we're talking about one in three. This is baseless as they might as well be liberal feminists who are proud or unabashed about their beliefs, but on the reverse, we can safely assume that someone who identified themselves as a feminist but chose not to tack on 'strong' when given the option is not a radical or misandrist. So what do you think is the percentage of feminists who are misandrists, considering we're starting with such a small pool of one in three to begin with? (And, laughably, that includes men, though I'm sure there are a few whacky misandrist men running around. The numbers for women are 60% feminist and 17% strong feminist.)

"The 47% who identify as feminists, even if they aren't radicalized, are unknowingly lead by radicals, so I am still an anti-feminist"

And yet, still the problems women face remain. How do you respond to that? You're criticizing a label by citing bad feminists and not engaging with its principles and reasons for existing. A list of bad feminists don't void the problems women face or contradict their need for advocates. It might mean I've misapprehended the integrity of the contemporary women's movement (obviously, I don't think I have), but it doesn't negate the inequality women around the world endure. Calling yourself an anti-feminist implies that you are dismissive of women's movements in general. Your assumptions are that if you go to feminists with men's issues, like our rate of suicide, they will deny it, be unwilling to do anything about it or will just chalk it up to the patriarchy. Considering your interest in this subject, I'm sure you're aware of examples that contradict those you've given me here; I'm sure you're aware of examples of feminists who advocate for men's issues. At the same time, many of those who carry the anti-feminist label, who create anti-feminist content, are outwardly, obnoxiously reactionary--read the comments in this thread. Are both camps to blame? I can easily compile a list of bad behavior from MRAs. I won't even have to leave Reddit. What remains if we, equipped with our lists, really are surrounded by so many bad actors?

It brings us back to the absurd notion that social justice is a zero sum game, found in the comment I replied to originally. This is something I'd much rather debate, as I am genuinely concerned about the issues men face but am also deeply skeptical of the MRA community. My position is MRAs will not succeed, and we will all suffer as a result, if the MRM remains a hive of reaction flocked to by misogynists, chauvinists and "traditionalists." It is these people who push a notion of zero sum social justice, because for them social justice really is zero sum. For the rest of us, taking a hard look at the systemic issues people face results in a healthier society. For us, the notion that social justice is zero sum can be dismissed with a casual knowledge of the extensive cooperation between women's, labor, black, lgbt and Latino activists--cooperation that could include men's activists if the MRA community wasn't so antagonistic. You've made the conclusion that feminists shut down MRA events because they're all a bunch of misandrists, and in doing so, you ignore the conduct of the MRA community; you ignore how feminists might perceive MRAs considering the "manosphere" is drowning in reactionaries. How can MRAs or their sympathizers be tolerated by feminists if they're going around declaring social justice to be a zero sum game, implying their activism is to counter feminism? It's seems much more logical to reach out to feminists, though you may not be able to call yourself an MRA until the label is no longer associated with reaction. We need MRAs, we need advocates for the issues that men face, but they'll get absolutely fucking nowhere if they remain a safe harbor for some of the most regressive elements of society.

[–]DarthCerebroX6 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DarthCerebroX3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here’s some more examples ..

—-

Feminism and feminists have a long history of fucking over men and silencing men's issues... so yes, they kind of are in direct opposition to men’s rights and true gender equality..

Do you have any idea how the Men's Rights Activists that are trying to bring awareness and fix mens issues are treated by feminists?

Every time MRA's try to hold an event or conference they are protested, and threatened, censored and many times shut down. They are met with chants of "racist, sexist, anti gay- go away MRA". Even academics such as English professor at University of Ottawa, Janice Fiamengo, was trying to give a lecture about men's issues and feminists pull the fire alarm and shut the whole thing down.

They can't even bring awareness to Men's issues, much less start to address them. How can MRA's fight to fix these problems when they're not even allowed to make people aware of them!?

Another example is one I already mentioned, the way feminists have fought to keep a monopoly on the domestic violence issue. You should research Erin Pizzey . She's a women that created the very first women's shelter. After she had spent so much time with DV victims (men and women because she didn't discriminate) she learned that men were victims just as often as women, and that the abuse often went both ways. When she tried to release her findings feminists fought to censor her. They threatened her, harassed her and ran her out of the country. She went on to co-found A Voice for Men and became a strong supporter of Men's Rights issues.

This kind of behavior and pushback is the reason that there are thousands of DV shelters for women today, but only one men's shelter. And out of all the female domestic violence shelters, less than 5% are willing to take in men.

Also the Duluth Model that was created by feminists which states that DV is caused by the patriarchy giving all men power over all women. They claim that because women are the oppressed gender, it's impossible for them to be the aggressor. These ideas were made into laws that have discriminated against male victims for decades and these practices are still in use in many states today.

If you take the time to actually research the feminist movement, you might learn that feminism has harmed men and fought against men's issues a lot more that you ever imagined.

There's a reason we are anti-feminist..

EDIT: regarding feminism and domestic violence....

Even today, with all the statistics showing that men make up half of all domestic abuse victims... and that women are actually the aggressor 70% when it comes to unreciprocated violence....

.. Mainstream modern feminists continue to push these false narratives that domestic violence is a women's issue and that it's Men that are the abusers.

Katherine Spillar , director of Majority Feminist Organization and executive editor for Ms Magazine, said in her interview for the red pill movie that...

"The whole issue of domestic violence-- that's just another word really. It's a clean up word for wife beating.. because that's what it really is.

Its not girls that are beating up on boys, it's boys that are beating up on girls."

Yeah... this is coming from someone with a lot of power and influence in the feminist movement and you could argue that she is a big spokesperson for the movement...

.. And yet she has no problem denying the existence of male DV victims and painting men, and only men, as the abusers.

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

[–]cp710 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Circle_0f_Life 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[+]nicesegue -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

Bullshit... the last thing we need is even more feminism...Feminists are the ones that actively perpetuate those gender norms because it benefits women .... Mainstream feminist organizations actively fight against shared parenting bills , fight for women to be given even more lenient prison sentences, try to deny all the statistics showing women abuse their partners at the same rates as men, etc etc...

Hell, feminists are the ones that pushed the “tender years doctrine” which states that children belong with their mothers in those early years because women are the best caregivers.

They want to get rid of those gender norms when it harms women.... but they have no problem supporting those gender norms when it benefits women...

Let me paste a comment to illustrate what I mean... I’ll bold the relevant paragraphs, feel free to read the whole thing though.

——

Here’s a dozen examples of mainstream feminist organizations (such as NOW, the most powerful feminist organization in the world) fighting against true gender equality..

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

The following is a very informed comment by Karen Straughan in response to a feminist who thinks the many blatant sexists among feminists aren't real feminists:

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".

That's not just "no true Scotsman". That's delusional self deception.

Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don't care. I've been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they've done under the banner of feminism, maybe you'd stop calling yourself one.

But I want you to know. You don't matter.

You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."

*You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it *would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.