Good quote on feminism by evolutionary psychologist steven pinker

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 167 points168 points169 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Siganid 44 points45 points46 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnotherDAM 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

And you think this quote is any different? It feels like the feminist brigade is here triangulating; let's unpack this quote.

Feminism as a movement for political and social equity is important

So, the quote opens with a pandering appeal that he is all for "feminism" despite its undisputed history of demanding all of the rights but none of the responsibilities - sounds "important" to me. /s

... as an academic clique...is not.

But that is ALL that feminism is - ask ANY self identified "good feminist" when feminists intend to demand women take on a single responsibility forced upon men and she will backpedal to the academic pablum faster than a unicyclist going the wrong way at the running of the bulls.

Eliminating discrimination against women is important,

Well duh, except "discrimination" is invariably defined by women to mean "we don't have at least 50% of everything". A better quote would have been "Ending Discrimination is important"; but Pinker didn't say that - he implicitly assumes that discrimination against women has always existed.

...but believing that women and men are born with indistinguishable minds is not.

Again, DUH, but more double speak from Pinker. If you accept the scientifically demonstrable fact that little boys and little girls are different then statistically you must accept that there will be different outcomes in the populations of males and females - which is the basis for all the ranting feminists do about "discrimination".

Freedom of choice is important,

As if to believe that there has been untold generations of fathers who deprive little girls of "choice". Utter BS. I "forced" my step-daughter to play scales on the piano not because I demanded she become a concert pianist but because it would enrich her life. I am certain most fathers throughout history felt pretty much the same.

...that women make up exactly 50% of all professions...

Pinker clearly isn't being honest about Feminism's Endgame (tm). Feminists currently demand AT LEAST 50%, and if you think they are going to stop there then you haven't been paying attention.

And eliminating sexual assaults is important,

Pinker makes two implicit assumptions here: a) only assaults committed by men are important to worry about, b) sexual assaults CAN be eliminated. Once again Pinker proves himself a feminist - women don't assault in his world - and sexual assault is a crime for which collective punishment is OK.

Think that through - the ONLY way to eliminate sexual assaults is to first assume that it is not an individual committing the crime but an innate quality of an entire group (men) which can be trained (or punished) out of them. Feminists have demonstrated that if society reduces the per capita incidents of rape that they will only broaden the definition of rape to prove you wrong.

...but advancing the theory that rapists are doing their part in a vast male conspiracy is not."

You cannot "eliminate sexual assault" unless you buy into this notion so Pinker is at best duplicitous.

EDIT: sigh, their -> there

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

[–]vardaanbhat5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]meeselbon573 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Siganid 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Archibald_Andino 61 points62 points63 points 8 years ago (78 children) | Copy Link

[–]68696c6c 57 points58 points59 points 8 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]FreeThinkingMan -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]68696c6c 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s 2018, not 1920. If you want to play the historical oppression game (which is pointless but you went there) you’ll have to explain exactly anything women have suffered is worse than the millennia of conscription men have endured. Men have suffered indentured servitude, slavery, and abuse for all of history, just like women. But men have also been forced to fight and die by the thousands, sometime millions on top of that. You can’t be an adult and not fucking know that, it’s not a small thing you can just forget about. There is absolutely nothing worse than war and historically, women know nothing about that. So don’t cry to me about historical oppression if you’re not going to acknowledge that. History has been, on the whole, terrible for anyone who wasn’t rich and powerful and to claim that men on the whole somehow had it better is bullshit.

Keep in mind that for most of history most men weren’t even allowed to vote either. And for most of history no one got to vote. Also women in the US don’t have to register for the draft to vote, so who really has more voting rights these days?

[–]ratbacon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[+]FreeThinkingMan -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]ratbacon 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

Note women couldn't even vote in the UK and USA until the 1920's. Skim that timeline looking at the year they were allowed to vote. You know nothing about oppression.

My delicate male sensibilities aren't offended it's just you are wilfully painting a false narrative. The issue of suffrage is portrayed as a gendered issue when in reality it was as much a class issue as anything else. For example, women could vote in the 18th century but only if they were sufficiently wealthy.

It took the common man the requirement to die in their hundreds of thousands for them to win their vote along with womens, yet the gender script airbrushes over this peace of history as it does not serve the narrative people like you want to portray. Instead, a single woman who managed to get herself trampelled to death is lauded. That is what is offensive.

[+]FreeThinkingMan -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (52 children) | Copy Link

WRONG, educate yourself and don't let your tendency to confirmation bias misogny impede your research or ability to read. Mind you this is just the UK, you act as if that is the entire history of woman's suffrage in the world. It obviously is not. But even that one anecdote you use as some ace up your sleeve is completely incorrect. Suffrage is indeed gendered and that time line produces the grander context that confirms this. Again you are comparing the UK to entire history of women's suffrage.

Are you ready for a history lesson from a non mysoginist perspective? Men of wealth could vote after the great rebellion(even before it but it wasn't as influential) and they were solely the ones who decided who would represent them in parliament and create the laws that govern women's lives. So now that we cleared up that men decided the laws for the first few hundred since England was a constitutional monarchy(and more prior to it), we can now get to when women were allowed to vote. In 1918 women of wealth were allowed to vote as long as they were over the age of 30, this at the time ALL men over 21 were allowed to vote. It wasn't till 1928 that women were allowed to vote. So men were allowed to vote hundreds of years before women were, just imagine how much female oppression was created by their male overlords since they had zero political power before 1928. It was very gendered.

Read chapter 6 of this book if you are man enough, so you will truly see how heroic the suffrage movement actually was and the nature of patriarchal subjugation whose effects are still seen today. It is horrifying and eye opening more then you can possibly fathom at the moment. You are ignorant of these realities so I can see how you can view women's suffrage as unimportant and unheroic.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnint6.html

It will bring tears to your eyes if you have any decency and insight into male privilege, some feminist ideas. Please don't be willfully ignorant of this.

[–]unpopular-_-opinion 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]FreeThinkingMan -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

What you need to understand is that 99.9% of all the men who have ever lived in this world have been plebs at the mercy of the ruling class just the same if not worse than women

This is a fallacy, the only thing that matters is modern times when democracies existed. Women got the right to vote hundreds of years after men did, nearly everywhere democracy existed including the UK. The denial of women voting, in modern times when democracy has existed, suffrage was very much indeed gendered.

the vote was only made available to men in 1918 only if they signed up to answer the call to war.

That is not true, all men over the age of 21 were allowed to vote regardless if they served or not. You could vote at the age of 19 if they served.

I might add that women didn't need to put their lives on the line ever for that right.

I recommend you watch the incredible film The Suffragette. You need some serious perspective. Women did sacrifice their lives, families, children etc for the right to vote in the UK. Watching this film make you see the absurdity and inhumanity of playing your oppression olympics you seem so insistent on doing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=056FI2Pq9RY

Those men of wealth you talk about made up less than 1% of the population

No it was actually 5 percent.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnint6.html

Read this chapter if you actually care about this subject. It will open your eyes and should make you cry just like that film will, once you see and understand what women went through.

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

Women got the right to vote hundreds of years after men did, nearly everywhere democracy existed including the UK.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Riiiiiight.

Here in Canada, less than 15% of the men in the country met the income and property restrictions that had been attached to the federal franchise in 1867 (our founding). The very same bill that opened up voting to all white women in the country in 1922 removed those income and property restrictions, because for women to get the vote those had to be out of the way. That ALSO opened up the franchise to the other 85% of male Canadians that had never voted prior.

So, the vast bulk of men and women in our country got the franchise on exactly the same day, at exactly the same time.

In the UK the propagation was in fits and starts, using reform bills that passed in stages and watered down franchise restrictions over time, but the 1832 Reform Act, to pick one out of the pile, only expanded the electorate to about 650 000 people, adding about 40% more voters to the pile. In a nation of 16M people, that left about 85% of men without a vote, even at that late stage.

You treat men like they are monolithic, but you clearly don't have a whiff of a fart's knowledge about how the franchise came to be over the near 800 years it took for male franchise to become universal. There wasn't even a universal slate of MPs in the UK until the late 1800s, so some ridings had no representative to even vote for.

Jesus, get your ass off youtube, out of movie theaters and Hollywood drivel, and away from websites that quote a few paragraphs from significantly longer monographs. Pick up an actual history book on the expansion of the franchise and not this shit you're filling your head with.

Start with a good reading about what happened at Runnymede, because until that first step was taken, ALL the power was in the hands of the monarch. You want to talk about sacrifice? Then think about all the men that died on bloody fields in Europe fighting to wring rights we take for granted from the hands of the elites so that the common man could even invent a word like 'franchise'. What the fuck was a 'vote' when the king and his retinue of immediate advisors literally ran everything? It took FOUR HUNDRED YEARS just to get the parliament in the UK to have primacy over the monarch.

All the suffragettes in the world added up don't even equal one major battle in the hundreds of battles across Europe that were fought over the centuries to win those inalienable rights.

[–]FreeThinkingMan1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do note women in canada couldn't vote until 55 years after men could by your own admission.

This comment I just wrote address nearly all of your points.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7n8atv/good_quote_on_feminism_by_evolutionary/ds2ipm3/

This part of my comment to another person also addresses another point in your comment.

What you need to understand is that 99.9% of all the men who have ever lived in this world have been plebs at the mercy of the ruling class just the same if not worse than women

This is a fallacy, the only thing that matters is modern times when democracies existed. Women got the right to vote hundreds of years after men did, nearly everywhere democracy existed including the UK. The denial of women voting, in modern times when democracy has existed, suffrage was very much indeed gendered.

You can also look into my follow up on this subject here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7nkqh7/who_was_the_first_woman_to_vote_in_england_before/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do note women in canada couldn't vote until 55 years after men could by your own admission.

So you count the date for 'men' by the date of the foundation of the country, because at that time 15% of men could vote? The day the very first man could vote is the date 'men' got the vote? That's both childish and dishonest. I'm sure the other 85% that didn't have the franchise until 1922 would have really enjoyed being lumped in with the wealthy landowners by your asinine logic.

Did they all sit around in the pub, enjoy the 'vote by proxy' because they had a Y chromosome and so they were kinda, sorta, almost voting because some male landowner cast his ballot that election day? The franchise is an INDIVIDUAL right, Sherlock. If I can't vote, I don't have the franchise. It doesn't matter that the factor owner I work for has it. I still don't have the franchise.

Again: pick up an actual book and stop being this dishonest.

[–]FreeThinkingMan1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are the one being INTELLECTUALLY dishonest, like the rest of you professional victims. I have consistently said women weren't allowed to vote before men basically all over the world, which means suffrage is gendered. If only men's interests are represented, then of course they aren't going to vote people into office that create laws that discriminate and oppress other men simply because they are men. They will however ignore the interests and concerns of women and create laws that discriminate against women simply because they are women. This is obviously significant, regardless if it is only some men in power. Stop lying to yourself kid.

Read this chapter from this ACTUAL BOOK so you can have your eyes opened. Edit: I had linked this book to the comment you replied to so you saying I don't read actual books shows you don't know how to read simple english and are willfully ignorant to things that disprove your defense mechanisms.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnint6.html

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are the one being INTELLECTUALLY dishonest, like the rest of you professional victims.

It's the exact opposite, son.

If you know that the franchise was rolled out to men in successive waves and yet you lump them all together on that first date, you're being illogical, ideological, and blatantly dishonest. You think native women, who got the franchise in the late 1960s in Canada would agree with your logic, which would argue that the very first day some women could vote in Canada was the day 'women' got the vote? They should just forgive and forget that white women with military relatives could vote in 1917, but because they were native, they had to hold off until 1969?

In any academic discussion on this topic, you'd be out and out ridiculed. But I think you know precisely how dishonest you're being. You're clearly trolling.

[–]FreeThinkingMan1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If only men's interests are represented, then of course they aren't going to vote people into office that create laws that discriminate and oppress other men simply because they are men. They will however ignore the interests and concerns of women and create laws that discriminate against women simply because they are women. This is obviously significant, regardless if it is only some men in power

See this is called a logical argument. This logical argument PROVES and SHOWS that the fact only men could vote, and not women, regardless if they were poor or not, is significant to women and the laws that determine their lives. This fact means this is not insignificant as you would like to believe based off dogmatism and your inability to reason logically. Stop lying to yourself kid, you have no logical counter argument, that explains how this is insignificant.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/logical-argument-definition-parts-examples.html

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are a total moron, buddy. Troll or not, this is about the single most idiotic pile of 'logic' I've ever encountered. I strongly encourage you to take your tripe and put it into an academic paper, and let me know how well you do with it. If ONE man can vote, then 'men' have the vote. One kid in kindergarten got cake, the rest did not. Ergo, kindergartners all got cake. That's a two year old's logic.

What a freaking joke you are, seriously. And the ENERGY you're expending on this tripe ... either you are a world class idiot, like the gold medal version of idiot, or you're a troll with so much time on your hands that you want to take trolling to an entirely new level.

Google the 'fallacy of composition' or 'faulty generalization', which assumes that what is true for one part of the whole (in this case a subset of men) must be true for the whole (all men). You talk logic, but you don't even make it to step one without falling for a ridiculously simple informal fallacy to avoid.

[–]FreeThinkingMan1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreeThinkingMan1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The PhD means I've done a goodly amount of academic writing and publishing, and I've actually done a handful of formal logic courses because Philosophy is also one of my subjects of interest. One of my best friends has a PhD in Philosophy, in fact, and he teaches at two universities in my city. His wife is friends with my wife.

But hey, regale me with how someone who's falling all over himself in his rush to hastily generalize the male franchise is a master logician and I'm really the student.

All you're doing is just reinforcing, over and over, that you have no clue what formal logic actually is or how to use it, and that for you, ideological thinking and hammering the same flawed premise home, over and over and over, is your version of 'logic'.

Could 100% of men vote in Canada in 1867? You know the answer to that is 'no', but you don't like what that actually means for your argument, so you'll cling to your fallacy with both hands and piss into the wind, instead.

That's your business. If you're that emotionally invested in this fallacious argument of yours, feel free to engage in whatever mental gymnastics you feel you need to do to maintain that fiction for yourself.

Don't expect anyone with any real education to take you seriously, though, and I certainly don't. At this point, you're entertainment, and I'm limping it along just to see what malarkey you're going to try next to make your point.

In other words, are you a good troll, an entertaining troll that might keep my interest for more than an hour or two? Or is the limit of your creativity in your trolling to repeat the same argument, over and over? Kind of seems like the latter.

You've committed the cardinal sin of trolling, kiddo, and that's being boringly repetitive.

[–]FreeThinkingMan1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

explain how I am being fallacious.

I did. Your postulate is that 'men' had the franchise in 1867 is a fallacy of composition. That it's an error in fact is demonstrated by the historical reality that only 15% or so could actually exercise the franchise in 1867.

You took the behaviour associated with the component (rich, landed white men) and fallaciously assumed it applied to the whole (men). You did so by generalizing on the sex, and ignoring the racial, class, and wealth characteristics of the component that were also limiters of the behaviour.

The problem here isn't that I haven't tabled your fallacious reasoning, it's that you refuse to acknowledge that it's fallacious. It's like playing chess with a three year old. The three year old calls it 'chess', but he's making the rules up as he's going along, and at some point, the adult just gives up on ever having a real game.

Pretend that 'men' had the vote in Canada in 1867 if you want. Live in your fantasy. I really don't give a fuck. The reality is what the reality is, and if you don't like what reality has to say about your postulate, reality is going to keep on chugging. Eventually, though, you'll find no one wants to play chess with you.

And that's where I'm sitting. I wanted a chess game, and what I got was a toddler pretending he knows how to play.

Night, night, lite brite!

[–]FreeThinkingMan1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is not a fallacy of composition. You simply don't understand English.

You state and set the context of the correct reading of my argument.

Here in Canada, less than 15% of the men in the country met the income and property restrictions that had been attached to the federal franchise in 1867 (our founding). The very same bill that opened up voting to all white women in the country in 1922 removed those income and property restrictions, because for women to get the vote those had to be out of the way.

I then state, note the meaning of words.

Do note women in canada couldn't vote until 55 years after men could by your own admission.

The context of this is very specific statement is produced by your comment which I am referencing, that acknowledges only 15% of men could vote. At this same time women could not vote. So men could vote, when women couldn't. Men does not imply 'all'.

men could vote, men voted, etc

Does the usage of this word immediately imply "all" men? No it obviously does not, ESPECIALLY since I am working with your acknowledgement that only 15 percent could. See what it exactly means and meant was

some men could vote, some men voted.

This usage of the word 'women' is also used in that exact way. You keep making the assumption of all women and all men. ONLY men could vote when women could not, that is a fact.

I even clarified your misunderstanding. When you said

So you count the date for 'men' by the date of the foundation of the country, because at that time 15% of men could vote? The day the very first man could vote is the date 'men' got the vote?

Do you see how that is a straw man that continues to demonstrate you think I meant "all men" when I obviously communicated "some men". Since that is a straw man that obviously misinterprets what I communicated that is dishonest.

The only thing that matters is that women could not vote when men could vote, men were the only voters. This fact, regardless if it is only 15% of men, has tremendous and far reaching consequences. Specifically it shows that gender specifically, especially in Canada's case shows voting rights is a gendered issue. There was no other reason, class, color of skin, etc that prevented women from voting other then them being women.

One kid in kindergarten got cake, the rest did not. Ergo, kindergartners all got cake.

The fact you kept interpreting what I was saying as all men, after I clarified and clarified and clarified shows your dogmatism and fundamental inability to follow logical arguments because of it. I also noticed you edited out some of your language, after I had already responded to them which even further showed how incorrect you were. You should have pointed out your edits obviously, that is another form of intellectual dishonesty on your end.

FYI, there is no surer way to make an ass out of yourself is to call a person a bunch of names(like a child) and then be incorrect. If you could have followed my counter arguments you would have known EXACTLY what I was arguing but you kept persisting saying I was saying something else. Please note your irrationality that is produced by your dogmatism on this matter. You literally reinterpreted the English words I used to confirmation bias me into a crazy person rationalize your dogmatism.

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreeThinkingMan1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

You are willfully ignorant I'm afraid.

Men gained full suffrage in the uk in 1918 and women in 1928. 10 years. You were only an order of magnitude out.

There was no law prior to this saying that women specifically couldn't vote. depending on the time, it was based on class and wealth.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP13-14

Those same female suffragettes you mention are many of the people who shamed men into going to foreign countries to get blown up while they stayed safe at home. This is not a case of 'the good guys vs the bad guys' like you seem to want to frame it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

The only way you can grossly simplify this to the supposed historical oppression of women is if you have an unfounded political bias and an emotionally (as a opposed to rationally) based agenda to push.

The things you are pushing and the way people like you push them borders on religious zealotry. All you are achieving is creating a divide between men and women not bringing them together.

Broaden your mind, for everyone's sake.

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

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

[+]FreeThinkingMan -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]unpopular-_-opinion 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FreeThinkingMan0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]unpopular-_-opinion1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreeThinkingMan1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I honestly don't feel like explaining the blatantly obvious to you anymore.

LOL, because you can't. I refuted literally all of your points in your last comment and you couldn't refute a single one.

plebs who've had absolutely no say in how this world was and is run and were/are at the mercy of the ruling class. Privilage comes from wealth and class not gender...period!

Are you a troll? The ruling class has subjugated those who they have subjugated but guess what GENDER the ruling class has been throughout ALL of western history and even still TODAY.... MEN.

Stop lying to yourself kid, these are concrete facts we are discussing... why you hate women so much and those who want to address their oppression is pathological. You deny all logic and evidence because desperately want to act like you are just as oppressed for one reason or another. It is weird.

If you can take a break from meditating under your Eliot Rodgers shrine, watch that film, read that chapter I linked, and for the of women and stop lying to yourself and stop competing in the oppression Olympics.

[–]Zepherite 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

You are projecting

Top argument. So much intellectual content and originality. Try again

You are wrong by magnitude of hundreds of years.

No. It is factually correct that men and women earned universal suffrage 10 years apart. This is indisputable fact. I provided a source you can read. You can lead a horse to water...

It isn't about men and women. It's about power and land ownership.

For example:

...a few women were able to vote in parliamentary elections through property...

This is women voting from 1832 because it was written into law that they could.

Prior to that, it was not specified in law which gender could, you just had to own land. Most people didn't so most people couldn't. This is fact. No room for maneuver.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-shilling_freeholders

Learn how to read and stop lying to yourself kid.

Yeah I've read the bill of rights and I don't remember it saying anything about whether women specifically can or can't vote. Take your own damn advice and read your own god damn sources.

[–]HelperBot_1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Forty-shilling freeholders

Forty-shilling freeholders were a group of people who had the parliamentary franchise to vote by possessing freehold property, or lands held directly of the king, of an annual rent of at least forty shillings (i.e. £2 or 3 marks), clear of all charges.

The qualification to vote using the ownership and value of property, and the creation of a group of forty-shilling freeholders, was practiced in many jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, Ireland, the United States of America, Australia and Canada.

[–]FreeThinkingMan0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is factually correct that men and women earned universal suffrage 10 years apart. This is indisputable fact.

I never disputed that... who are you arguing with, was your comment meant for someone else. I could have sworn I told you I wasn't arguing against that.

I didn't say all men could initially vote. Just that women couldn't vote until hundreds of years after men could. Learn how to read and stop lying to yourself kid.

Note I didn't say "ALL MEN". Saying that there was no law is also disingenuous since women were not allowed to vote by custom, until a law was formally put into place preventing them in 1832. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832#Women's_suffrage

Look into "first woman to vote in England/UK" and you will not find one until 1867 under unique circumstances. Not a single woman was known to have voted before it was formally made illegal for them to do so in 1832. So you can see how disingenuous and intellectually dishonest your position is. Your quote from wikipedia is unsupported.

In doing some research on this subject it is important to note the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1884

increased the amount of males that could vote to 60 percent of the male population. This contradicts the false narrative being spun here that hundreds of thousands and millions of men had to give their lives in WW1 in order for them to be able to vote and until then only the ultra wealthy were able to. 60% of men couldn't have been that wealthy during that time.

FYI, you shouldn't be so hostile and negative when debating facts that can be proven. This shows your hate and contempt for feminists which is a bit absurd. I will look into your quote from wikipedia since I actually care about the facts.

I dug further into that quote from wikipedia into the source of that claim. Your source says.

Before 1832 the disfranchisement of women had been by custom rather than by statute but there has been little research into the subject and “it is impossible to conclude that women never voted”.1

[–]Zepherite1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I never disputed that fact...

Good. I'm glad you concede you're wrong.

Saying that there was no law is disingenuous...

You do not understand the meaning of disingenuous or intellectually dishonest. It is factually correct that there was no law stating women couldn't vote prior to that time.

Not a single woman was known to have voted before it was made illegal for them to do so...

The first ever election was in 1695. At that point we don't have records of who voted. Nobody officially knows if a woman voted although it will have been a tiny amount if any since the defining factors for being eligible were only afforded to the rich and powerful. It didn't really have anything to do with gender, it was power. Most men couldn't vote then either. This does not support anybodies position, let alone yours.

However when someone comes along (like yourself) and says men got to vote 100 years before women it undermines your argument because you cannot know that.

So what we are left with, is the period between 1832 and 1918 where women couldn't vote. Only 1 in 7 men could vote. We're still only allowing the rich and powerful the vote which is what people have been telling you. You are still provably wrong.

... Representation of the people act 1884

Increased the amount of males that could vote to 60 percent of the male population. This contradicts the narrative that hundreds of thousands and millions of men had to give there there lives in WW1 in order to vote...

No it doesn't, it proves it. 40% of 23 million is 9.2 million males that couldn't vote at the start of 1914. Conscription alone raised 2.5 million men. That's 2.5 million men that were told they had to fight.

The 60% that could vote were indeed wealthy compared to the rest. You either had to own a property valued at £10 or pay rent of £10 annualy when it was ammended in 1884. I mean the way it was decided was literally based on wealth.

Guess which part of the population the army were mostly conscripted from? It wasn't the powerful or the wealthy or women. It was those 40% of men who had no vote.

The suffragettes of the time sat pretty, shaming conscientious objectors into going to fight. I mean literally bullying and ostracizing from society. It's shameful, just as shameful as denying someone's right to vote. We don't talk about the suffering of men though. Only the suffering of women matters (this is one reason why only 7% of people in the uk identify as feminist. People see the double standards).

Feminists really need to understand this. If we're all going to work together to help each other, feminism needs to understand it does not, and never has, had the monopoly on being morally virtuous. It's (very) flawed and has things to learn from opposing opinions. Unfortunately, there is a high proportion of feminists that think their chosen religion, I mean movement, is beyond reproach.

FYI, you shouldn't be so hostile and negative... This shows your hate and contempt.

I have no hate or contempt (who's projecting now?). If you give me a source which you have clearly not read (while questioning someone's ability to read no less), or state something which is easily verifiable to be false, I will call you out on it and I don't care if that hurts your fee fees. I'm not going to treat you with kid gloves. Do you believe you are so morally pure that I should just listen and believe? That I should watch my tongue? Who do you think you are?

What I do feel sorry for is the feminists who are so driven by emotion that they betray their own goal of equality.

There are feminists we like here on this sub. Christina hoff summers is one that often comes up. She thinks logically and factually. That's all you need to do to have ideas accepted round here.

[–]FreeThinkingMan0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Good. I'm glad you concede you're wrong.

You are truly illiterate.

No. It is factually correct that men and women earned universal suffrage 10 years apart. This is indisputable fact.

I never disputed this fact once. I was NEVER talking about universal suffrage I was talking about the ability to vote for who will represent the country...

You are fundamentally not getting the main idea I am communicating. This thread here I am linking will help you understand since you don't understand English nor know how to follow an argument. Especially the second comment mine in that thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7n8atv/good_quote_on_feminism_by_evolutionary/ds2jtdm/

It is factually correct that there was no law stating women couldn't vote prior to that time.

Again, show me proof women voted before that time I mentioned. Be intellectually honest. Even if there was no law yet somehow women couldn't/didn't vote is the exact same thing as if there was a law. I even quoted your source and pointed out how you ignored the logical argument presented to you in favor of assumptions. I will point them out again.

Before 1832 the disfranchisement of women had been by custom rather than by statute but there has been little research into the subject and “it is impossible to conclude that women never voted”.

That is a quote from YOUR source. I then asked you to

Look into "first woman to vote in England/UK" and you will not find one until 1867 under unique circumstances. Not a single woman was known to have voted before it was formally made illegal for them to do so in 1832.

Of course you didn't look into that because that would contradict your narrative and you have no intellectual honesty.

It didn't really have anything to do with gender,

Yeah, because we know that having wealth, property, resources, and opportunity had nothing to do with gender /s. Stop lying to yourself course all those things had to do with gender. Who had and didn't OWN resources was entirely based on gender during that time. The fact you don't know how women were economically oppressed all throughout that time, shows how uneducated you are on the subject. This fact proves you wrong. Since the ability to vote was based on who had resources , and those that did have resources was dependent on gender, then the ability to vote was gendered.

Conscription alone raised 2.5 million men. That's 2.5 million men that were told they had to fight.

They didn't fight for the right to vote. To say they fought for the right to vote is complete nonsense and defies the very nature of how conscription worked. Again, in 1918, all men whether they served or not over the age of 21 were allowed to vote. The whole narrative that millions died in WW1 for the right to vote is completely false. If you were 19 and served you then had the right to vote. That whole narrative only exists to ignore the fact that women had no vote, essentially if not completely up until 1918 in England.

The first ever election was in 1695. At that point we don't have records of who voted.

This is again intellectually dishonest and just nonsense you use to rationalize your willful ignorance in that you don't want to do the research and don't want to know the answer. Women voting would be a big deal and we wouldn't have to have ledgers that contain women's names to if they voted or not. The recording of history was not some new event around 1695.

I am currently looking further into the history of property rights of women around that time, because there is a good possibility the men owned everything their wives had, wives were their property, etc which would prevent women from voting. There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't know if women voted before 1832 in England.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnint6.html

I suggest you read this chapter to get an idea of the norms and ways women were treated in the western world around that time, most importantly how property rights function in those heavily patriarchal times.

I have no hate or contempt

So you naturally just communicate like a child?

[–]Zepherite1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FreeThinkingMan1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Please... you can't logically argue your positions. You don't know what an ad hominem attack is of course, you use it as a defense mechanism to protect your dogmatism. If I present logical counter arguments for everything you said, which I did, and then call you an child(or any label), that is not an ad hominem since I presented counter arguments that address your "arguments". I have found this mental gymnastics maneuver very common in this sub whenever people can't logically defend their arguments from counter arguments and then run off.

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

You are the very definition of willful ignorance and mindless dogmatism. Please a better thinker in the future and when you engage in debates muster up the intellectual honesty and courage to see them through. Dogmatic anti feminists tend to be severely lacking these traits which makes sense, because then you people would just be feminists and men's rights activists. Something you kids probably think is impossible because your anti feminist propaganda has conditioned the false belief they are mutually exclusive into you.

[–]WikiTextBot1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ad hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself.

[–]Zepherite1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your appeals to debate are empty when you refuse to engage with what myself and others present you. You write text next to what is said but don't actually address what was said.

I presented logical counter arguments which you ignored and then claimed that I presented none. This is you trying to undermine me without presenting an actual argument. I do not wish to go in a circle explaining them to you again as it is likely you will not engage with them again. I do not wish to validate your dishonest methods by engaging them. I'll engae in faith if you do. You haven't

Most of the things you accuse me of you are guilty of. The lack of self awareness you have shown in your writings is concerning. I can only hope this exchange has been an exception to your normal behaviour.

I know exactly what ad hominem is. When you make an attack on someone's character, say by calling them a child, it is irrellevant to the discussion (i.e. a logical falacy) and an attack on that person (making it ad hominem). Far from me using it as a defence, it is you using it as a way to attack without good faith. By denying this, you strengthen my position. Everyone can read back and see your name calling.

That last paragraph is pure arrogance. The version you are pushing as propaganda is the prevailing opinion. The version I noe know id the one I have come to by actually reading about what happened. I am the one who has grown and changed their opinion. You are the one that is blindly following the feminist religion.

You need to take your own advice.

[–]FreeThinkingMan0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, show me proof women voted before that time I mentioned. Be intellectually honest. Even if there was no law yet somehow women couldn't/didn't vote is the exact same thing as if there was a law.

and this

Yeah, because we know that having wealth, property, resources, and opportunity had nothing to do with gender /s. Stop lying to yourself course all those things had to do with gender. Who had and didn't OWN resources was entirely based on gender during that time. The fact you don't know how women were economically oppressed all throughout that time, shows how uneducated you are on the subject. This fact proves you wrong. Since the ability to vote was based on who had resources , and those that did have resources was dependent on gender, then the ability to vote was gendered.

Is check mate kid, stop lying to yourself.

When you make an attack on someone's character, say by calling them a child, it is irrellevant to the discussion (i.e. a logical falacy) and an attack on that person (making it ad hominem).

If I provide a logical counter argument then call you a misogynist that is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem specifically is used when there is no counter argument provided. If I said, "what you said is incorrect because you are a misognist", that would be an ad hominem. Stop using words you don't know the meaning of. Arguing in "bad faith" what a meaningless cop out. Yeah I am arguing in so much bad faith I took the time to create a quite lengthy ask history post on this.

Just admit you couldn't refute my counter arguments so you threw a tantrum and ran. The length and time it took for you to write down your whining is how long it would take to provide counter arguments but you couldn't, so you ran.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7nkqh7/who_was_the_first_woman_to_vote_in_england_before/

[–]Zepherite1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]datcat2 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Swagasaurus-Rex 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]datcat2 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]njullpointer 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The actual rate is something like 2% max.

The 1-in-4 mantra comes from the only paper that feminists ever really cite, the miller-brown paper, and even then they are nearly always either deliberately or unknowingly misquoting it, and even if they accurately cite it, it's a fucking mess.

This paper is notoriously terrible because it basically equates cat-calling with sexual assault, which then gets quoted as "raped" (hence the ridiculously high amount of 'rapes'). It's also responsible for the lie that sexual assaults (read: rapes) don't get punished, as it deliberately equates reports with occurences, which obviously don't match up with convictions.

Even now, accurate research is hard to come by, because the stigma of investigating this sort of thing (and discovering that, shock and horror, women lie a lot more often than presumed about being raped for many reasons) can end your career.

[+]datcat2 -10 points-9 points-8 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]datcat2 -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[+]datcat2 -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Ted8367 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Proteus_Marius 33 points34 points35 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TestamentaryOtis8 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]TestamentaryOtis16 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This quote is not typical Pinker, who is a staunch gynocentrist and feminist himself.

What Pinker wants to convey in this quote is that there is a difference between feminist theory (which, for him, is crazy) and feminist activism (which for him is great). According to Pinker, feminist theory is delusional, but feminist activism has accomplished some great things, like reducing violence, rape, ...

However, this is a big mistake (probably conscious on his part). Feminist activism and feminist theory are inextricably linked. There is no feminist activism without feminist theory. Feminist activism on domestic violence is grounded entirely on feminist theory on domestic violence (Duluth model). Feminist activism on rape/sex assault is grounded entirely on feminist theory on rape ('rape is power', 'rape is men's control over women', 'rape is part of patriarchy and patriarchy is all around us'). And so on....

You cannot separate feminist activism and feminist theory. Activism has always been based on theory. Feminism is activism+theory, inextricably linked.

And this is why feminist activism eventually went as crazy as it did, with 'affirmative consent' and 'dear colleagues letter' and 'metoo' and all that. Because activism was always based on crazy/delusional/hateful/vengeful theory.

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

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

[–]circleofshit666 35 points36 points37 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]raxical 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crusader_1096 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TestamentaryOtis1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Pinker's Blank Slate is a decent read but Better Angels is a work of political ideology, not science. Its conclusions are rejected by most anthropologist and archeologists, ie actual experts in the field.

“there is no paleontological support for the notion that our stem ancestors regularly engaged in intragroup and intergroup killing, infanticide, cannibalism, or female bashing.” (Russell)

"their finding of about 2% total killings in Old World Paleolithic and New World Archaic populations is drastically different from the commonly cited figure of 15-25% of deaths being violent. (See Ferguson “Pinker’s List: Exaggerating Prehistoric War Mortality”). Oddly, Pagel says the study is consistent with portrayals by Steven LeBlanc and Lawrence Keeley of “hunter-gatherer societies as being engaged in ‘constant battle”-- which predicts how this article will be publicized in broader media. Yet Gomez et al. themselves note the opposite: “This result contrasts with some previous observations,” citing Keeley and Pinker as examples."

"their rates of killing increase dramatically with developing social complexity and political hierarchy. Prehistoric bands and tribes come in around that 2% marker, but the chiefdom bar looks like 8 or 9%. This finding is consistent with a wide spectrum of anthropological writing, that social complexity leads to more war. Their measured fall-off in killings with historic and contemporary states is not a surprise, since war in pre-state societies involves combat participation for virtually all fighting-age men, whereas states use specialized armies representing a much small fraction of the population. And as Max Weber told us and Gomez et al. reaffirm, state governments claim and enforce “a monopolization of the legitimate use of violence.”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/war-scholar-critiques-new-study-of-roots-of-violence/

Pinker's work on war has been widely praised in the dominant media because it presents a rather rosy view of human "evolution" under civilization -- evidently every society believes its own propaganda.

[–]zenhoodman 42 points43 points44 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sambomike20 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Spoonwood 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]threeweeksdungeon11 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

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

The quote by Pinker concerns feminism, NOT supporting women. Note how the quote starts. Feminism is not a movement for political and social equity since women and girls have more protections (e. g. legal maternal surrender via adoption or abortion, laws against female genital cutting, laws which acknowledge female rape victims as more worthy of concern than male rape victims, the Affordable Care Act in the United States) and fewer obligations under the law (men having to register with the Selective Service System, how the state pursues men more vigorously for child support money than women) than men do.

And you simply don't support women by paying them lip service if they believe they have fewer rights and more obligations under the law than men, if the reverse is the case. That's more like pandering to deluded people.

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

[–]imightneedhelp101-5 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]zenhoodman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[+]FreeThinkingMan 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hchen5041 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sv21js 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spoonwood 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

It depends on where you live. Male genital cutting makes for a good example, since places like the U. S. and the U. K. have explicit bans on female genital cutting bans of minors, and there is no explicit law banning male genital cutting. Though, some people argue otherwise on the basis of other laws.

Sometimes laws include the possibility of male rape victims, sometimes they don't. But, even with an inclusion of male rape victims that might misled one into thinking there exists equal status, when the law might include oral and anal rape of a man by a penis, but exclude rape of a man's penis by a foreign object such as a fleshlight while including rape of a woman's vagina by a foreign object such as a dildo.

Another common one is requirements to register for or to actually serve in the military. And penalties that accompany failing to register, but that isn't quite so universal when you start to look at a country like Israel which includes women as having to register/serve in the military.

The death penalty being only applicable to men is another one, but that sometimes does apply equally on the books to both sexes.

Women having the ability to surrender men legally after sex is another example, while men don't have that ability. That one works, but I think it rather contestable as to whether both sexes should have the right to surrender responsibilities to support children, or whether neither sex should have such a right. And I'm not so sure that discrimination makes for the biggest issue in such a matter, unlike with respect to the draft where I do think discrimination makes for the biggest issue.

And that indicated another problem here. I mean, for example, when you consider male genital cutting, the issue there isn't discrimination so much as the contemptible cutting. The discrimination is bad, but it would NOT be an improvement if more female genital cutting started occurring, even if it were more equal. Or in other words, emphasizing equality under the law too much could be bad, because it could end meaning that things could end worse for both sexes. That wouldn't be the case with, for example, women having to get drafted, because it would mean that fewer men would get drafted and thus things would be at least better for one sex. But, with something like genital mutilation, things could get worse for both sexes if equality gets valued over everything else.

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

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

[–]DirHR 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]pomegranate2012 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]patriargate2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]lonewolfhistory 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]chykin 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/PAID2011.pdf

That includes links to loads of other studies. In table 3, the one with the consistent participants, at the age of 16 boys had an average IQ of 101.461 with an sd of 15.235 and girls had an average IQ of 99.681 with an sd of 14.085. Girls scored better than boys at ages 7 and 11 in this group, the authors attribute this to slower intellectual maturation for boys.

So while the difference may seem small you have to understand that statistically a difference of even that much in standard deviation means a much larger spread than you would imagine, meaning men are dominant on both the higher and lower ends of the IQ spectrum, while women dominate the average.

I really don't care to get into the biological/socialized debate. I honestly feel like the socialized argument is pretty much nonsense, women are in no way shape or form held back academically, if anything they're highly advantaged.

[–]chykin -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

if intelligence is impacted significantly by the way society treats us

Provide evidence for this claim please. Oh wait, there is none. Debate over. That's why it's pointless. There is zero evidence whatsoever in favor of the socialized debate while there are evolutionary biology reasons that could be a factor in the development of both men and women that we have concrete evidence for.

We already know that boys and girls, at birth, show interest in different things. We know that women are more neurotic, emotional, and less assertive. It's not a hard leap to make that men, who take the most risks and are generally the leaders, would be biologically advantaged to be smarter.

I give the odds of it being socialized a -100%, there's no reasonable way to make that conclusion whatsoever. Like I said, girls and women are EXTREMELY advantaged in schools. I would argue that it's actually less skewed now because of that and that the bell curve would be naturally greater for boys and men if we accommodated boys more in school.

[–]chykin -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

You're just too dumb to keep up, don't lie about it.

You're turning to insults? Nice debating.

if intelligence is impacted significantly by the way society treats us

Provide evidence for this claim please.

You think that an individual would be exactly the same no matter where they grow up? Culture, values, religion, experiences, parenting, play no part in their development?

We already know that boys and girls, at birth, show interest in different things.

Do we?

We know that women are more neurotic, emotional, and less assertive. It's not a hard leap to make that men, who take the most risks and are generally the leaders, would be biologically advantaged to be smarter.

It's an odd leap to assume it's biological.

I give the odds of it being socialized a -100%, there's no reasonable way to make that conclusion whatsoever.

Based on what?

Like I said, girls and women are EXTREMELY advantaged in schools.

Based on what?

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chykin0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]chykin 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]chykin -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]1Dumbknight1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]FreeThinkingMan -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vandechoz 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[+]FreeThinkingMan -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

That is a blind assumption there is no uniting philosophy or guide to being a feminist contrary to what your anti feminist propaganda leads you to believe.

Your exposure to actual feminists is outrageously narrow. I chalk it up the fact you frequent this sub and get your information probably from right wing information sources that also create this narrow caricature of what a feminist is.

The reality is, is that most, (a very high percentage if at not all) , of liberal female policy makers(at the local, state and national level) are feminists and fight for the actual rational feminists things that create real change beyond existing as woman doing powerful non "traditional" female things. I would also argue that most if not all of powerful female ceos at big companies identify as feminists. I would also wager most women who have "untraditional" jobs like acting, directing, musician, etc also identify as feminists. If you are a woman who experiences and combats sexism on a daily basis they most likely identify as a feminist. Many of these women do actual great feminist work, empower women, etc some of them their very life and untraditional choices make them feminists alone.

I can't emphasize enough the significance of frequenting right wing information sources and information sources that promote "traditional roles" in formulating your understanding of who identifies as a feminist. Again, your understanding of what a feminist is is essentially the 14 year old Tumblr feminist or some radical who made an ass out of themselves on YouTube and you were exposed to because it was a video demonstrating the extreme irrational.

[–]DarthCerebroX 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (4 children) | 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.

—

[+]FreeThinkingMan -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarthCerebroX 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

There’s no need to be a condescending prick... I wasn’t trying to reply directly to your point, but I’ll do so now...

you people only view the crazies as feminist/feminism while completely ignoring all the rational,

We definitely don’t deny the existence of all the tons of rational and reasonable thinking people out there that identify as feminists. There’s plenty of people out there that are egalitarian and believe in true gender equality.

We know this because many of us here used to be those types of feminists, especially the younger MRA’s ... Many of us were raised in a society where feminism has been the default standard regarding gender equality. We were raised with the ideals that feminism is supposed to stand for... that women are equals and should be treated equally as men.... So we know that those people out there exist because we used to be them and we know plenty of people in our lives that are egalitarian and still identify as feminists.

The entire point of that “Real Feminists” comment was to highlight the unfortunate fact that those people don’t matter.

Those people don’t have any power or influence over the mainstream feminist movement. They aren’t the career professional feminists who work for feminist organizations like NOW, that lobby the governments to influence public policy and pass misandrist anti male policies that give women special treatment.... or launch propaganda campaigns that mislead the public and negatively effect society’s collective view of men. They aren’t the feminist in academia that come up with all the ridiculous feminist theories for which these policies are based. They aren’t the activists that are our protesting men’s conferences or spreading misinformation and lies to the general public convincing everyone that men don’t have any real problems.

THOSE are the people that matter... Those are the people that actually make an impact on society and do things that negatively effect our lives.... The Mainstream feminist movement is the only feminists that actually matter and that’s why they are the people we actually focus on.

And that’s why we don’t focus much on the good hearted egalitarian people out there ... because there isn’t any reason to....

I mean, what exactly would you like us to do? Every time we point out ways in which mainstream feminism harms men, male victims, and men’s issues in general... are we supposed to preface it first with “NotAllFeminists” ?? Are we supposed to remind the readers of all the causal feminists out there who believe in gender equality but don’t actually do much of... anything?

Why would we do that? What’s the purpose in that?

It’s like comparing all the people that play football with their friends on the weekend to all the professional athletes in the NFL .... which group actually matters when discussing football?

It’s the same thing with feminism and gender politics discussions.... Those people don’t influence my life in any way... but all the mainstream feminists out there sure as hell do and that’s why I actively try to fight against them.

You’re coming here acting like you understand everyone’s perspectives when you really dont have a clue ... Nobody here is trying to pretend that every person in this world who identifies as a feminist is one of the man hating lunatics we always point out. It’s just those people don’t matter so why would we waste time talking about them?

And if you disagree with my perspective... then kindly tell me how those “good hearted” feminist actually matter. Please give me some examples as to how those people actually make a difference in society like all the professional feminists that make up the feminist movement.

Do you seriously believe those egalitarian casual feminists have as much power and influence as all the people in the examples I gave you? ... If the answer is no, then ask yourself why should I bother with them then?

If those people matter and actually have influence.... then why aren’t they stepping in and reigning in all the power hungry misandrists that run the feminist movement? Why aren’t they telling mainstream feminism, “hey, you’ve gone too far! You are hurting men and you need to stop!”?? Why aren’t those people doing anything to reform the feminist movement and hold it accountable to all the ideals that feminism is supposed to stand for?

If all those good hearted, rational, egalitarian feminists out there don’t have the power to actually change things within the feminist movement.... then they don’t matter one bit... And if they don’t actually matter... then why the hell should I focus on them?... All the feminists that do have power and influence, they are going to continue making men’s lives worse and I will continue to fight against that movement because of it.

If all the “good feminists” like yourself are so important... then here’s a crazy idea, Why don’t you guys actually fix the problems within your movement and why don’t you make Feminism stand for the ideals and beliefs that it claims to?

Oh, that’s right.... You can’t.... because you don’t have the power or influence to change a damn thing.

[+]FreeThinkingMan -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is pretty ironic, it is actually you who are paying attention to feminists who are not relevant and assigning to significance to them they don't deserve. The 14 year old girls on Tumblr and radical academics that the vast majority of feminists don't read(neither of the niche groups).

The reality is, is that most, (a very high percentage if at not all) , of liberal female policy makers(at the local, state and national level) are feminists and fight for the actual rational feminists things that create real change beyond existing as woman doing powerful non "traditional" female things.

You are not grasping the large amount of people this composes of. Nearly every Democratic female politician in the United States, if not all, identify as feminists. County Judges, City Council Women, State Reps, State Senators, Governors, Congress Women, Senators, Supreme Court Judges(Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor), etc.. These feminists create policy at every level of government and the vast majority of them are not misandrists or the tumblr feminists you view all feminists as. It is nearly impossible to win elected office if you are a misandrist and create policy that harms half the people who are voting(men), this is common sense.

For them to dignify the extremists you focus on is beneath them because these extremists are not as significant in culture or reality as you think they are. The ones you focus on don't have actual power. I can only imagine you attribute more power to these powerless radical feminists because you frequent subs like this, right wing information sources that use click bait headlines to caricature feminists this way, and probably frequent social media that does the same.

I would also wager most women who have "untraditional" jobs like acting, directing, musician, etc also identify as feminists.

These feminists are also far more influential then these groups of niche radical feminists since they create art that influences millions of people's minds, feelings, and beliefs. I can't speak out so much for musicians, but my understanding of female feminist filmmakers, directors, writers, producers, and actors, they don't communicate this unhealthy and radical feminist view that you cherry pick and focus on. They have more power then the twitter feminists you focus on because their ideas reach millions more minds and move culture far more.

You need to stop consuming so much anti feminist propaganda your understanding of the percentages of how feminists think and who they are is completely off. Your extreme generalities are also absurdly off. Again, you should start saying and thinking "some feminists" as opposed to saying/thinking "feminists" in order to escape your absurd generalizations and understanding of what feminists and feminism is. I get the impression you are not going to be able to escape your dogmatism, if you consume information from right wing information sources then you have an even worse chance. This circlejerk sub of antifeminist propaganda doesn't help as well.

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

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

You do see the irony in your assumption-laden post contrasted with an accusation about my assumptions, I hope.

Sure, I'm not counting the CEOs and actors that are generally ignorant of the problems the average man faces, but that ignorance is partly why so many of them are feminists...they feel the guilt of their extreme wealth and misidentify it as male/white privilege.

My experiences are from discussing issues with the so-called moderate side of Feminism, the ones who are willing to even give half a second to even consider men's issues. They think they support equality, but if you spend enough time getting to the root of their beliefs, they overwhelmingly believe that men's only problem is, ultimately, men. I would love it if these people were confined to the internet, as you seem to think, but they are the ones writing the rule books. Hateful people like Mary Koss and Michael Kimmel are who the ignorant feminist politicians look to for guidance when enacting policy.

[+]FreeThinkingMan -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

they are the ones writing the rule books

There are no "rule books". The very first line of my comment you ignored because your dogmatism was this

That is a blind assumption there is no uniting philosophy or guide to being a feminist contrary to what your anti feminist propaganda leads you to believe.

This is why all of your absurd generalizations on what feminism is and who feminists are is completely incorrect.

Hateful people like Mary Koss and Michael Kimmel are who the ignorant feminist politicians look to for guidance when enacting policy.

Sure maybe the "ignorant feminist politicians"(I don't know where on earth you get that view from anyway). Most feminists don't even read academic feminist literature... Most female feminist politicians are not "ignorant feminist politicians" and their main source of guidance on enacting policy is statistics and data... Reread my last comment you didn't understand it because of your bigoted dogmatism.

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

By rule books I mean policy, like laws and employee/student rules of conduct. And feminists absolutely are writing those, in ways that are harmful to men. And they are doing so in ways that are not generally criticized by Feminism.

And just where do you think they're getting their statistics? Do you even know who Mary Koss is? She informed the CDCs stats that showed a large disparity in rape victims by sex...by purposely redefining female rapists of men out of existence. Once you correct for that little "mistake", the statistics reach parity. Those ignorant feminist policymajers then take the flawed feminist data and continue to state that men aren't a priority.

When I call these people ignorant, I mean it in the Hanlon's Razor way. If they aren't actually ignorant, that's not a good thing.

Anyway, I'm well aware of the "not a monolith" claims. But there are some areas of commonality between the different feminist sects, and a belief in actual equality is not one of them; Patriarchy theory is.

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

I would love it if these people were confined to the internet, as you seem to think, but they are the ones writing the rule books.

You from your world view that is only informed by anti feminist propaganda, only angry misandrist feminists write "rule books"?

By rule books I mean policy, like laws and employee/student rules of conduct

Are you aware of who creates laws and policy? I will give you a hint, it is not women. 20 out 100 Senators are women. In the House of Representatives 84 of the 435 reps are women. 5 out of 50 Governors are women. A woman has never been president... Women make up more then half of the United States population yet are not in positions of making policy/law at that rate and representation gets even worst as you go back in time. Where on earth do you come up with these fictions if not just anti feminist propaganda? Do you just make these things up yourself?

I would imagine your claim about who creates employee and student rules of conduct is equally false and a product of right wing antifeminist propaganda.

Anyway, I'm well aware of the "not a monolith" claims. But there are some areas of commonality between the different feminist sects, and a belief in actual equality is not one of them; Patriarchy theory is.

Care to share your source for this? Where in the feminist bible does it state this? Did you just make this up too? FYI those stats I mentioned to disprove your ridiculous claim that female misandrists create laws/policies is a perfect example of the patriarchy in action. How men are still in a power at absurdly disproportionate levels currently and creating laws that women must live under despite women making more of the population.

[–]Vandechoz 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

your world view that is only informed by anti feminist propaganda

I already told you that my view of feminism is informed by discussions with feminists.

who creates laws and policy? I will give you a hint, it is not women.

Standard feminist tactic: claim that the person criticizing feminists is actually criticizing women, so you can later call them a misogynist.

I would imagine your claim about who creates employee and student rules of conduct is equally false and a product of right wing antifeminist propaganda.

It sure as hell wasn't anti-feminists that wrote the Dear Colleague letter that caused men to be kicked out of college on a spurned lovers' say-so. There are lots of centrist and leftist antifeminists too, you know.

patriarchy in action. How men are still in a power at absurdly disproportionate levels currently and creating laws that women must live under despite women making more of the population.

You guys love to hit the Apex Fallacy, every time. Look at the top, see men, blame men for society's ills. Ignore the men at the bottom. I knew you'd get to it sooner or later, you "moderate" feminists always do.

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

You made up absurd nonsense that misadrist feminists make laws and policy own up to it. That is complete fiction. You are saying your conversations with feminists informed you of this absurd lie? Stop lying to yourself, you have demonstrated pure pathological delusion. Put down the Kool aid. Obtain some respect for the truth.

I had to Google Apex fallacy, you commit the opposite of it, you judge all feminists by the worst of them, which was what my very first comment here was mentioning. Literally every person who attempted to engage logical discourse viewer feminists ad the Tumblr feminists and radical academics that are not read by most feminist.

I have never heard a leftist say women should know their place, not try to break glass ceilings, stay in the kitchen, and be taken care of by the powerful providing man. Misogyny and antifeminism is a distinctly right wing phenomenon. Left wing information sources don't put out anti feminist propaganda from cherry picked sources. Men create laws and policy "rulebooks" at an outrageously disproportionate rate never forget that. Stop debating edgy 14 year old tumblirinas and then obtaining "your understanding" of feminism from that. Obviously that is bad method.

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

misadrist feminists make laws and policy own up to it

Mary Koss

Dear Colleague Letter

My claim is that the misandrist feminists pushed flawed narratives on the research, and were believed by moderate feminists who actually make the policy. The moderates do not cull the misandrists from the movement, they actively work with them to create anti-male policy.

you judge all feminists by the worst of them

No, I deliberately do not judge feminists by their worst Kill All Men types. I don't blame feminism for radfems or TERFs because they are a tiny minority and, importantly, feminists generally call them out on their bullshit. I focus on the far more common feminists who manipulate statistics, use false data, blame men as a class for society's problems, and enact anti-male policy.

I have never heard a leftist say women should know their place

I don't know why you think this is relevant. I have heard many leftists say men should know their place. Is that somehow more OK?

Misogyny and antifeminism

These are vastly different things. Many antifeminists are antifeminist partly because they were not comfortable with the misogyny they see within feminism.

You keep trying to make this a Left vs. Right issue, but it's just not. The Right sucks just as much for men's issues as the Left, they just screw men in different ways (sometimes they get together to screw men, such as in family law).

[–]Greg_W_Allan 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Vandechoz 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s just a few more examples to help you understand our perspective and illustrate why we are anti-feminist.

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.

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

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

[–]68696c6c 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

So here’s the thing.

A few years ago, I was really into being a fiscal conservative that cared a lot about individual rights. This was around the time the Tea Party was a big thing. I stumbled across one of their websites talking about their ideology and it made them sound relatively moderate. Didn’t mention anything about religion or anything radical really. So I thought to myself “well the Boston tea party sure was neat, and these guys seem to line up with my beliefs, I guess I’m a tea party guy”. Then I read more about actual tea party leaders, and about the kind of policies they actually supported, and the kind of things they actually said and realized I was not at all aligned with their image, I just liked freedom and not giving the government money for wars. So, did I keep saying I was a tea partier? Hell no! That shit was toxic as hell and I noped the fuck out of there.

When I was a Mormon kid I thought that even though the Book of Mormon was obviously not true, that maybe the underlying philosophy had some value and maybe the people I went to church with were still good people. Then they did the whole prop 8 thing in California, and I started realizing that regardless of how I saw the church or how the people I went to church with saw it, the church was what it was and stood for a lot of things I didn’t agree with. And they used my tithing to pay for those things I didn’t like. So did I keep calling myself a Mormon and tell people “that’s not what the church is about, not all members are like that”? Hell no, I distanced myself as far as I could from it and stopped giving them money.

Point is, if you don’t agree with the things the feminist movement does and says, don’t call yourself a feminist. Your personal beliefs about what the moment is don’t matter, that won’t affect how other people see you. Feminism would rather bitch about the wage gap and manspreading and fight for 50% female representation in specific area they care about than actually fight for real equality. So if you don’t agree with that, don’t call yourself a feminist. Because you aren’t.

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

[+]FreeThinkingMan 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

You wrote a whole lot of nothing just to prove you are the exact type of person I was describing.

Your exposure to actual feminists is outrageously narrow. I chalk it up the fact you frequent this sub and get your information probably from right wing information sources that also create this narrow caricature of what a feminist is. The back ground you come from as well

The reality is, is that most, (a very high percentage if at not all) , of liberal female policy makers(at the local, state and national level) are feminists and fight for the actual rational feminists things that create real change beyond existing as woman doing powerful non "traditional" female things. I would also argue that most if not all of powerful female ceos at big companies identify as feminists. I would also wager most women who have "untraditional" jobs like acting, directing, musician, etc also identify as feminists. If you are a woman who experiences and combats sexism on a daily basis they most likely identify as a feminist. Many of these women do actual great feminist work, empower women, etc some of them their very life and untraditional choices make them feminists alone.

I can't emphasize enough the significance of frequenting right wing information sources and information sources that promote "traditional roles" in formulating your understanding of who identifies as a feminist. Again, your understanding of what a feminist is is essentially the 14 year old Tumblr feminist or some radical who made an ass out of themselves on YouTube and you were exposed to it because it was a video demonstrating the extreme irrational.

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

If you are a woman who experiences and combats sexism on a daily basis

The moment you wrote this you lost any and all validity to your argument. You, like 99% of those who identify as feminists, have bought into the idea that women somehow live in a constantly oppressive environment and, worst of all, think that oppression and adversity is something that happens exclusively to women. Or that somehow it is worse when women experience it... because reasons.

The truth is that feminism is a highly toxic ideology and it matters little what those who identify as feminists do on a daily basis. Feminism has destroyed several pillars of our society already and is not giving any indications of stopping any time soon.

All the positive empowerment and various other buzzwords you may want to bring up pale in comparison to the damage that feminism has done, the deplorable policies it has pushed and the shameful attitudes it has generated in far too many people.

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

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

I specifically said women who experience sexism. So yes that would be exclusive to women.

If you believe only women face sexism, you are wrong. If you are trying to hide behind phrasing to veil the fact that you think sexism against women is somehow worse than sexism against men, well, you are just proving my previous statements correct, aren’t you??

would you mind sharing with us what these SPECIFIC "several pillars of our society" that feminism has destroyed.

Sure, here you go, the things feminism has destroyed and the tenets upon which they exercised such destruction:

The value of the father/husband figure. (Dumb men/women need men like fish need bicycles) The value of masculine role models. (Toxic masculinity) The reciprocity of man-woman relations (Men always oppress women, never the other way around) The equity of perks and burdens of each gender. (Patriarchy) Due process and presumption of innocence (metoo, listen and believe, preponderance of evidence)

If you still think those changes are the product of a handful 14 year olds on tumblr making blog entries, you are either blind, brainwashed or a hypocrite.

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

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

Men don't experience the same prejudices and sexism as women experience because they are men

Boy, at least have the guts to admit that what I already stated is true. You have bought into “women have it far worse because reasons”.

See? I have no problem with stating my beliefs because I have reality to back me up. You on the other hand need to tiptoe around the rhetoric shaky ground feminism has taught you to parrot, because you know the second you admit to any of their victimhood-based pillars, reality-based arguments are gonna come raining down upon you. That’s why you need to call people “extremists”. It’s a well known feminist move. It is called shaming and deflection.

So yeah. You don’t really have valid arguments other than “feminism is gud because sexism, mon”

Poor wymin. Thank god they have feminism and you.

[–]68696c6c 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I’m not talking about individual feminists. I know a lot of them and most of them are fairly moderate and reasonable. I’m talking about the feminist movement and the issues it chooses to focus on and ignore. You can believe in equality but if you label yourself a feminist you’re aligning yourself with a movement that, in modern times, has not demonstrated an interest in equality. The feminist movement has not shown an interest in abolishing the draft, for example. Nor has it sought to ensure that women are sentenced equally to men in the US justice system. Prominent feminists have said incredibly offensive and sexist things, but have gone unpunished while the movement continues to villainize men over trivial things. The feminist movement has used bullshit statistics to support its claims. If you don’t agree with those actions, don’t align yourself with the movement. A non toxic movement actively purges toxic members. Feminism has not done that.

I’m not a right wing nutjob. Reread my comment. I left the LDS church because it was too conservative. Soon as I realized the Tea Party was a Christian radical movement I disregarded it. I said I liked a couple ideals they claimed to support but actually didn’t. I like a lot of liberal ideals too and don’t affiliate myself with any party.

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

[–]68696c6c 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Individuals that align themselves with a movement implicitly endorse the actions of the movement as a whole. That was my original point. Hillary Clinton is a self proclaimed feminist is she not? She campaigned on reducing prison sentences for women, in 2016, an extremely UNequal, unconstitutional, and unethical position. How many feminists condemned that position? The position barely even got any attention despite the fact that if she would have won and attempted to implement such a policy it would have violated the presidential oath of office to uphold the constitution. Seems to me like the movement doesn’t have a problem with that. Pretty similar to Republicans continuing to defend a pedophile running for senate in a lot of ways. If you wouldn’t call yourself a Republican because the party didn’t condemn Roy Moore, then I don’t see how you can accept labeling yourself a feminist while the movement refuses to condemn Hillary Clinton. If you don’t agree with a movements actions, don’t prop them up by making excuses for their misbehavior

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

[–]68696c6c 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]-manatease 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]FreeThinkingMan -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Your exposure to actual feminists is outrageously narrow. I chalk it up the fact you frequent this sub and get your information probably from right wing information sources that also create this narrow caricature of what a feminist is. The back ground you come from as well(ex Mormon, thought you identified with a far right wing group).

The types of people below are the actual movers and shakers not your cherry picked list of feminist academics or Twitter feminists.

The reality is, is that most, (a very high percentage if at not all) , of liberal female policy makers(at the local, state and national level) are feminists and fight for the actual rational feminists things that create real change beyond existing as woman doing powerful non "traditional" female things. I would also argue that most if not all of powerful female ceos at big companies identify as feminists. I would also wager most women who have "untraditional" jobs like acting, directing, musician, etc also identify as feminists. If you are a woman who experiences and combats sexism on a daily basis they most likely identify as a feminist. Many of these women do actual great feminist work, empower women, etc some of them their very life and untraditional choices make them feminists alone.

I can't emphasize enough the significance of frequenting right wing information sources and information sources that promote "traditional roles" in formulating your understanding of who identifies as a feminist. Again, your understanding of what a feminist is is essentially the 14 year old Tumblr feminist or some radical who made an ass out of themselves on YouTube and you were exposed to because it was a video demonstrating the extreme irrational.

[–]-manatease 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]FreeThinkingMan -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

After reading your past comments more thoroughly I need to point out that you are less intelligent fundamentally as demonstrated by your sweeping generalizations about feminists, inability to understand different belief systems, inability to distinguish credible sources of information, inability to distinguish clickbait, and tendency to mindlessly consume anti feminist propaganda without a single application of critical thought.

Of course, but the tail is wagging the dog and the silent majority are silent whilst the movers and shakers do their thing.

Here is why you are misinformed on your thoughts on the "silent majority" and how you fundamentally are oblivious to who the actual "movers and shakers are" because you are less intelligent.

It is pretty ironic, it is actually you who are paying attention to feminists who are not relevant and assigning to significance to them they don't deserve. The 14 year old girls on Tumblr and radical academics that the vast majority of feminists don't read(neither of the niche groups).

The reality is, is that most, (a very high percentage if at not all) , of liberal female policy makers(at the local, state and national level) are feminists and fight for the actual rational feminists things that create real change beyond existing as woman doing powerful non "traditional" female things.

You are not grasping the large amount of people this composes of. Nearly every Democratic female politician in the United States, if not all, identify as feminists. County Judges, City Council Women, State Reps, State Senators, Governors, Congress Women, Senators, Supreme Court Judges(Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor), etc.. These feminists create policy at every level of government and the vast majority of them are not misandrists or the tumblr feminists you view all feminists as. It is nearly impossible to win elected office if you are a misandrist and create policy that harms half the people who are voting(men), this is common sense.

For them to dignify the extremists you focus on is beneath them because these extremists are not as significant in culture or reality as you think they are. The ones you focus on don't have actual power. I can only imagine you attribute more power to these powerless radical feminists because you frequent subs like this, right wing information sources that use click bait headlines to caricature feminists this way, and probably frequent social media that does the same.

I would also wager most women who have "untraditional" jobs like acting, directing, musician, etc also identify as feminists.

These feminists are also far more influential then these groups of niche radical feminists since they create art that influences millions of people's minds, feelings, and beliefs. I can't speak out so much for musicians, but my understanding of female feminist filmmakers, directors, writers, producers, and actors, they don't communicate this unhealthy and radical feminist view that you cherry pick and focus on. They have more power then the twitter feminists you focus on because their ideas reach millions more minds and move culture far more.

You need to stop consuming so much anti feminist propaganda your understanding of the percentages of how feminists think and who they are is completely off. Your extreme generalities are also absurdly off. Again, you should start saying and thinking "some feminists" as opposed to saying/thinking "feminists" in order to escape your absurd generalizations and understanding of what feminists and feminism is. I get the impression you are not going to be able to escape your dogmatism, if you consume information from right wing information sources then you have an even worse chance. This circlejerk sub of antifeminist propaganda doesn't help as well.

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

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

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

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

[–]ubuntufig -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Good quote on feminism by evolutionary psychologist steven pinker
Author	Pingaz99
Upvotes	2867
Comments	201
Date	December 31, 2017 12:45 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7n8atv/good_quote_on_feminism_by_evolutionary/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/good-quote-on-feminism-by-evolutionary.908511 https://theredarchive.com/post/908511

Comments