[–]ParisCummings_ 136 points137 points138 points 6 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Breaker-of-circles 46 points47 points48 points 6 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]IrascibleTruth 50 points51 points52 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

As Karen Straughan pointed out somewhere in one of her videos:

The first wave wanted male privileges (vote, enter contracts while married) without male responsibility (conscription, respond to hue-and-cry laws and bucket brigades, etc.)

The second wave wanted extra privileges for women - Abortion on demand, affirmative action, women only spaces for the sisters but entry into all male spaces, no-fault divorce with alimony, welfare for single mothers, etc.

The third wave is about extra responsibility for men - HeForShe, redefine rape to include just looking at women (unless she want your attention!), believe all women, demanding men step aside so female politicians can get elected, reserved seats on corporate boards, etc.

-==-

None of those "waves" is any different from the others.
They are all about getting the most benefits for the least cost.

[–]ParisCummings_ 28 points29 points30 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ezragriffin15 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The thing is, now the chickens are coming home to lay eggs.

Metoo has made men very aware of their female colleagues and now they aren't willing to mentor and help them.

Now they are going for #MentorHer

This is gonna be bad for both men and women

We're part of a society and both men and women need to work together hand in hand.

But now, companies aren't hiring women due to fear of being Metood and obviously the men aren't helping or training them.

Until many of the amazing women like you, who know nuance and equality, aren't allowed to come out and support your beliefs by the feminist bullies, we will all fall as a society.

PS : I really like your views and username sister. Following immediately. Thank God for women like you who still believe in men. I might create a YouTube channel on guiding men and women on how to tackle modern feminist bullies. I was just going to target men, but your comment has given me hope that we have women who know the truth and are fighting for it.

[–]PlatinumBeetle 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaun2 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]RockmanXX 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PlatinumBeetle 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ParisCummings_ 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Breaker-of-circles -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Keenin455 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Breaker-of-circles -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Breaker-of-circles 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So since I disagree with you you proceed to accuse the whole sub as being a disingenuous forum that is insular. Wow bitch, your logic is really impeccable, maybe you should visit the feminist subs to read whats there.

But wait, you are a feminist. Go astroturf somewhere else. (oops, I called you a bad name, now ignore the rest of my post like a dishonest shit while focusing on that one thing)

" You telling me that women had the right to vote before any of these? "

Yeah, you are stupid. Maybe read my words and extrapolate to what I was referring too. I mean shit, it's only two sentences but let me make it clear.

I explicitly stated that the notion that feminism has done good things or was ever good is feminist propaganda. The people that spread such a notion are the feminists itself, feminists has critiqued feminism and has judge itself good. Obviously little self awareness or integrity can be found in such a judgement.

As to what I quoted of you, I give a question; since women didn't have the vote how did they get the vote without the vote, which is viewed as the only way to make social or legal changes. Anyone with a memory of recent events can see that such changes can be made without the vote, I'm referring to the pussy hat marches that happened a few months ago (probably farther removed from today than what I'm thinking).

So I'm challenging the notion that the vote is important for being able to create change. Since the vote isn't vital for social power then it calls into question the whole reason why suffragettes, aka feminists aka terrorists (they bombed buildings, guessing you didn't know that), wanted the vote and if they actually obtained it when the public viewed such hysterical women as detrimental to society and not worthy of the vote due to their behavior.

So besides all that historical revisionism, let's discuss briefly the foundational beliefs of feminism. Equality of the sexes, men and women are equal. That is the start. They look around and see that women don't have parity with men in many different areas. If the sexes are equal what caused this disparity? They come to the conclusion that men oppress women, and so men must be inherently bad (but aren't the sexes equal? see the problem?). It's that simple, all their theory crafting comes from that.

We can see this attitude before the "first wave" even began with the Declaration of Sentiment in 1848. They blame men for all of women's problems. And every single point that they put forward was wrong, and it's partially due to their belief that men=women.

This shits gone on long enough, I doubt you'll read it honestly or objectively.

[–]WikiTextBot 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Breaker-of-circles 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adanu0 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]deegan79 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ezragriffin5 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roberthoner 56 points57 points58 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points46 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trash62 38 points39 points40 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]IrascibleTruth 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]trash62 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SharedRegime 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]trash62 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]feltentragus -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ReV_DeatH 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotherThrowaway284 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FormedBoredom 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]IrascibleTruth 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There was a time when men didn't have basic voting rights!

What changed was mass, industrial warfare. The state had to then rely on conscription. Men would not go to war without a say in politics (see, New York City Draft Riots), so the franchise was extended to anyone subjected to conscription.

For most countries, women got it at the same time. In a few (e.g. USA), it took a decade or two.

That's it: in almost the whole world, men and women gained suffrage simultaneously; in a few places, there was a very short delay.

As for access to work, all I can say is, historical illiteracy.
In fact, the very surnames Webster, Brewster, or any other -ster signifies a FEMALE guild tradeswoman.
While it is true that wealthy women had little opportunity to work, poor women have always had to work to stay alive (or did, until the welfare state.)

[–]kaushrah 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]IrascibleTruth 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But a movement to bring a particular group out of it was good.

Feminism was always about getting more privileges for women, without adopting greater responsibility.
First wave (suffragettes) wanted male privileges without their duties. Voting, but not to be conscripted or have to respond to hue-and-cry laws, fire brigades, etc. Men got the vote only because of civil war conscription; women got it for nothing.

Second wave (women's liberation) was about extra privileges (alimony, no-fault divorce, abortion, affirmative action, etc).

Third wave was about more duties and obligations for men - he for she, #PoundMeToo, redefining rape, seats on the board of directors, etc.

None of this was legitimate. Feminism has not done anything laudable or worthwhile; all of its changes should be rolled back.

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

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

[–]Keenin455 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]themightyJG 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]carefulthistime 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

so i have my own idea about antifa.

I am aware that antifa has been a thing in europe for a very long time, but it was never seen active in the US before 2017. My own belief is that Hillary Clinton is behind it.

Before the election of Trump in 2016, Clinton was sure she would win and she made several statements about how after she had won, the evil racist republicans would riot in the streets, they would refuse to accept the results of the election.

But, there was zero evidence of this, there was no one except for clinton herself saying anything about any likely failure to peacefully transition.

So i believe she had been funding these violent groups on campus, and that after her election these groups would have gone out and, pretending to be trump supporters, rioted in the streets.

When she lost, she just re-purposed them, had them call themselves anti-facists.

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

[–]flow2high4 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ash8888 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

It depends.

There isn't a standard definition of 'Feminism', so it is impossible to apply an answer to the entire movement.

My grandmother identified as a Feminist. She hoped for a day when the law would be blind to gender, and all would be treated equally.

On the other hand, my 22 y/o cousin-in-law (who also identifies as a Feminist) believes that society is a patriarchy in which the class of men are the oppressors of the class of women. She believes that the oppression of women is the most fundamental form of oppression, one that has existed since the inception of humanity.

The word 'Feminism' means so many things to so many people that it has become a useless word. If we were (collectively) smart we would create a new word to describe the different Feminist beliefs. I think that this would clear up a lot of confusion and better equip us to tackle issues related to inequality.

Imho.

[–]SatchelOfSquid6 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IrascibleTruth 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ash8888 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JZSquared 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ash8888 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]strongandhappy 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ash8888 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]lasciate 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you are suggesting there are no more equal-rights-feminism then I disagree. My experience is that most women want equal rights. Maybe it's my demographic? Or yours? Does anyone have a better source than anecdotal experience?

If someone claims to be a feminist and in favor of equal rights and you believe them, then you haven't discussed their views and goals enough. And don't forget to have them define their terms. Remember that for a long time under the law 'separate but equal' satisfied the mandate of racial "equality".

Ask them how they feel about selective service.
Ask them how they feel about domestic violence and who is perpetrating/suffering it.
Ask them how they feel about child custody; who should get it and how much.
Ask them how they feel about child support and alimony.
Ask them how they feel about ladies' nights.
Ask them how they feel about financial abortion.

Ask them about any situation where women might stand to lose in the pursuit of equality. Then you'll see if "equal-rights-feminists" actually exist.

[–]ash8888 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most of your issues seem to be with the laws in the United States. You should broaden your search a little. There are plenty of women that would see eye-to-eye with anyone browsing these forums on these topics.

Seriously - it's like most people here have never met a real life woman. Let me throw it back at you: Please find me any woman without a social media presence who:

A) Believes in selective service based on gender (in Canada we don't even have this any more).

B) Feels that men who are in domestic violence situations should have no resources.

C) Believes that men shouldn't get child custody solely because they are men. And believes that women alone are entitled to child support and alimony.

I'm ignoring "Ladies Night" because you've lost the plot. No one cares if a group of people sharing a similar characteristics go out for a night. We only care when the same freedom isn't granted to us.

Before you respond understand this: I know there are women out there that believe all these things. I also know there are men out there that believe horrible things. But these are prevelant only because our information-age society sensationalizes the most egrigous examples.

Think of it this way: There are less wars and more peace nowadays, but there is way more way coverage because of the 24 hour new cycle. Anyone watching the news will see more about war than any time in history. Does that mean that there are more wars? No. It just means we are better at reporting on them.

There are people who identify themselves to others as "feminists" who have wildly antisocial views. It doesn't mean that all feminists have these anti-social views.

Yes, we need to work towards equality and some people who call themselves feminists work against our common goal. But your average female isn't as informed or opinionated as the woman on Tumblr, or (apparently) some of the men here.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaun2 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ash8888 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why should you take either example of layman followers of feminism as to what the fundamental beliefs of feminism are? Are these two theorycrafting? Writing the laws? Petitioning the government? No, likely they are doing jack shit in regards to feminism. So I don't care what they believe in regards to the question of feminist tenets and dogma.

" This seems simplistic. "

No shit it's a simplification, is it generally wrong though? Don't bother addressing that though, rather you defend feminism, through obfuscation, by pointing at the unwashed masses.

" As I said previously, "feminist" is just a word people use to describe a wide variety of beliefs. "

If that's the case then the word if functionally useless and impossible to address the ideology and subject it to criticism, hmm I wonder if that was intended?

So, to get to the root beliefs rather than looking at the surface level crap that is believed in multiple interpretations by the layman as the correct feminism, which doesn't matter, we instead look at what is supporting such varying beliefs (your example it wasn't even contradictory, they can belief both things).

Woman's studies is a method of distributing their propaganda, which is essentially 'look how bad women's circumstances were and are, and the agents which caused it is men'.

For gender blind laws, it certainly sounds nice until you realize that men and women are different on some levels. Feminists certainly believed the opposite, and still do (equality), but when they got laws and policies passed that ignored sex, mandatory arrests of an aggressor in domestic violence or looking at just the qualifications of the persons applying for the job, their erroneous beliefs hit reality.

In the first instance, women's arrest rates increased dramatically, matching that of men's iirc. The feminists were appalled and changed that policy back to what it was, before they instituted their own version called the Duluth Model, in which officers are supposed to arrest the big scary one. Wonder which sex that is.

In the second, men were hired far more often than women. Obviously, the feminists shrieked for this to be changed back to benefit women. And there are plenty more examples of this behavior. So what's the fundamental belief here that keeps crashing into reality? Equality, the belief that men and women are the same.

Why else would they think that removing any indication of sex in arrest policies and job applications will benefit women if not for the belief that women are just as capable as men, and somehow in the first example, not as aggressive or violent as men.

To recap, your view of feminism is narrow and uneducated, biased by the laymen's opinion around you, rather than informed by the founders and movers of the ideology. On a side note, if your wife is really a feminist, better prepare now to protect yourself in the case of fallout, especially now as the divorce rates, or desire to divorce, are increasing dramatically.

[–]ash8888 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is...

"the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes." -Dictionary.com & Google Dictionary

"Feminism is a range of social movements, political movements, and ideologies that aim to define, establish, and achieve the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes." -Wikipedia

"A social theory or political movement which argues that legal and social restrictions on women must be removed in order to bring about equality of the sexes in all aspects of public and private life." -Wiktionary.org

It seems to me that my definition is the common one. If you have other 'requirements' before someone meets your definition of a 'feminist' then you are making the conversation more difficult. We aren't using the same words.

Why should you take either example of layman followers of feminism as to what the fundamental beliefs of feminism are?

Sorry. My bad. If you could forward over your pre-approved list of feminists I will only quote from them.

Oh wait, if a socio-political idea has no central authority how can we define it - so we can have a discussion about it? Hummm. Option 1) We can use the definition that is found commonly. Option 2) We can use a more restrictive definition. Which one should we choose?

Well, if we want to spark outrage and division then I think the best way to go is with option 2. I mean, if we use the more restrictive definition, we can then claim that anyone using the term must have the more restrictive beliefs! And you think that moves your narrative forward.

On the other hand, if we want a genuine discussion on a topic we disagree on, then maybe we should use the most common definition. That's what I think. That seems to be the best way to un-"obfuscate" the discussion. However it seems there is disagreement here from you.

So I'm going to go with option 3 - make new terms:

I will refer to the more common, less restrictive view of feminism as"Layman_Feminism". If I need to specify a definition that is more restrictive and more in line with your thinking I will use Radical_Feminism. This is the one where you have people pushing issues beyond "equal rights."

So:

Layman_Feminism = Common use, biggest group, least restrictive definition.

Radical_Feminism = Includes Layman beliefs, but also requires that the person is "theorycrafting, writing laws, petitioning government" etc. as per your last post.

In regard to Radical_Feminists that push any kind of inequality: they are a disease on our whole society. They aren't just hurting men they are hurting themselves - as they are making it more difficult to come up with a truly equal society. We should better identify them, their theories, their laws, and their petitions. We should tear them all down. I'm on the front lines.

But where we differ is on the Layman_Feminists. The Layman_Feminists being the vast majority of feminists because (as you put it) they are not writing laws, or petitioning the government with anti-masculine crap. And in many cases they are working against the Radical_Feminists.

And now back to the point of this entire thread.

The question was asked "Is Feminism a hate group?"

My top-level post was "It depends." It depends on whether you are using the term "Feminism" as Layman_Feminism or Radical_Feminism (or any other more-restrictive definition of feminism). The response came, "All Feminism is Radical_Feminism!" I then disagreed with that for all the reasons I have said here. Again I say, "It depends".

It seems to me that you are hell-bent on having anyone who uses the word 'feminist' to fully grasp your more restrictive meaning, and also be accountable for the restrictions in that meaning. You might have better success communicating if you worked towards finding a common definition - instead of pigeonholing everyone around you with yours. But that's none of my business.

Don't bother addressing that though, rather you defend feminism, through obfuscation, by pointing at the unwashed masses.

I don't feel defensive. If I'm wrong you are doing me a favour by taking the time to explain this to me. Thank you.

I'm also not pointing to the 'unwashed masses' - and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. It sounds a little unhinged to me tbh. I mean, '"Unwashed Masses"? Do people really say that? Apparently they do.

If that's the case then the word if functionally useless and impossible to address the ideology and subject it to criticism, hmm I wonder if that was intended?

Intended?

Intent infers that there is a centralized 'will' in feminism. This isn't the case. Feminism has no central authority that directs its beliefs/actions. It is just a term that is used as an umbrella to describe women's desire to have (and expect) equal rights. I agree that this makes it a less useful term, but the usefulness of a term does not determine it's use. The common parlance does.

That's why I've come up with new terms. See? Constructive. Unlike:

On a side note, if your wife is really a feminist, better prepare now to protect yourself in the case of fallout, especially now as the divorce rates, or desire to divorce, are increasing dramatically.

What an unusually cruel and out-of-nowhere thing to say. ... how do I respond to that... do I just say, "Ok"? Is this how you typically talk to people you just meet? Or do you save this side of your awkward personality for your internet friends?

Anyways, I enjoy it when people I'm arguing with get personal. It means they are almost done. Please Continue...

[–]Mythandros 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ash8888 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]une_petite_merde1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The_Best_01 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NAWALT_VADER 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IrascibleTruth 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PlatinumBeetle 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

the only ways in which women are naturally less capable

Women are less intelligent, by about 4 points. The distribution of female intelligence is also more leptokurtic, so there are a lot less females geniuses (where the real accomplishments occur.)

Women are different form men in disposition and personality. You can look up gender differences in the "big 5" personality traits.

Which sex is "superior"? Depends. Do you value being able to protect and provide or bear and nourish?

Actually, outside of infancy (when women are more attentive and better caregivers), fathers are more important than mothers. You see that reflected in all the problems with children raised by single mothers (a group which, by the way, includes most school shooters.)

The only things I see women able to do which men can't is nurse and gestate; they also do better with infants, although men are capable of that. I see nothing women are better at, except perhaps for manipulation and gossip.

[–]Rodion-Raskolnikov 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vile_The_Savage 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thelastturn2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JustSomeQuestions456 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thereslcjg2000[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JustSomeQuestions456 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wedonteatanymore12 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CristiVasile2000 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]compuwiza1 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]DoubleDollars69 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rabel111 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]corey11899 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]To_me_my_board -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

I'd say feminism is as much a hate movement as MRA or any human rights movement.

Any time you have a group of people who have been marginalized in some manner, there is going to be animosity toward the group that is perceived as the oppressor.

There are, for example, many divorced fathers who have been victims of parental alienation and a biased court system, and such a devastating emotional experience can cause one to collectively see women as a homogeneous group of oppressors. The same can be said of men who are false accused of sexual assault. In some of these cases, such men may (understandably) have animosity against all women or women in general, despite the fact that we all know we can judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. Though this is hard to convince somebody who feels like their oppression is systemic.

Likewise, a woman who has been sexually assault or harassed in the workplace with no recourse, or who has been discriminated against may adopt a similar view of men.

As a result, we see misandrist rhetoric in feminist forums and misogynistic rhetoric in MRA forums, but neither is indicative of the entire group.

If the question is "Is feminism a hate movement?" I guess my answer would no more or less than is MRA.

[–]hork23 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]To_me_my_board -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]To_me_my_board -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]To_me_my_board -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

" "Patriarchy oppresses women" does not equal "patriarchy benefits all men". "

Look up second wavers and learn more about the origins of feminism you defend so much. In fact, go to the first wavers and look up declaration of sentiments to see how much they don't blame men for every perceived injustice upon women.

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

He has not ever permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.
He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.
He has withheld her from rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men—both natives and foreigners.
Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.
He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women—the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.
After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.
He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.
He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.
He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education—all colleges being closed against her.
He allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.
He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.
He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.
He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

If that isn't the basis of patriarchy theory, and holding all men responsible for the ills of women, I don't know what else is. But keep denying reality.

" Any number of feminists point to how patriarchal constructs of masculinity often stunt men's emotional modes of expression and mental health. "

Yes, I know they argue this. That's because their model is inconsistent with reality. When male victims are real and unavoidable they have to justify why they exist, despite the earlier proposed model of patriarchy. So they change their model to further justify their assumptions, that's what the 3rd wavers have done.

" But if you want to put everything in simple binaries because you can be bothered to understand nuances of systems of oppression "

First of all, patriarchy in the real world isn't a system of oppression. The feminist version of it, yes, but that's only a model (get the reference?). Second, the amount of projection from you is unsurprising. I'm challenging your world view and you call me small minded. You can't even entertain the possibility you are wrong and you haven't bothered to argued against what I stated, only telling me that I'm wrong and biased. Bravo on your stellar cognitive abilities.

" Project your caricatures and then attack those straw men. "

Are you going to explain how it's a strawman? Nope, point out the logical fallacy and you win! Total brainlet.

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

[–]To_me_my_board 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nope... now I'm going to call you out for your cherry picking, also known as the fallacy of incomplete evidence.

That declaration was signed by 68 women and 32 men. Not ever feminist. Therefore, it does not represent the sentiments of all feminists. It was signed over 150 years ago and none of the signatories are currently alive.

You also assume 'he' is equal to all me.

You may be surprised to realize this, but not all feminists agree on all points. Just as you and I both support MRA, we still have a difference of opinion.

For example, the SCUM manifesto (which is far more hostile towards men) is not endorsed by all feminist. Surprise! There is a spectrum of beliefs within the movement! Shocking, I know. It's not the simple binary you see it as.

What I've seen from you is repeated logical fallacies and a refusal to speak to the points that I make.

You are clearly unwilling to critically evaluate your position, consider my position (as I have done yours) and therefore this conversation can serve no further purpose.

Hit me up if you ever feel like arguing in good faith and not treating me like and idiot who can see through weak and overt logical fallacies.

Good health to your and your family Stay safe.

[–]hork23 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You just keep doing it...

" now I'm going to call you out for your cherry picking, also known as the fallacy of incomplete evidence. "

FFS, you want me to post a books worth here? For one, we're going piece by piece, one little part at a time. But you keep trying to mark me as some bad guy. You've already made your decision as to any information I provide, and you judge it to be tainted. Again though, you have to explain why it's a fallacy. You haven't and likely never will.

" Not ever feminist. Therefore, it does not represent the sentiments of all feminists. "

I never said it did, you want to keep putting words in my mouth? Gonna call out that fallacy?

" Just as you and I both support MRA "

Why do you keep believing shit I never stated? Stop pretending to read my mind.

" For example, the SCUM manifesto (which is far more hostile towards men) is not endorsed by all feminist. Surprise! "

Who wrote it? Who was forming feminist theory during that time? Which feminist leaders attacked it for its sentiments?

" It's not the simple binary you see it as. "

You're just going to continue assuming that what I said is all I know aren't you? You are failing to grasp the concept of Theory of Mind, might want to stop assume I'm a figment of your mind.

" What I've seen from you is repeated logical fallacies and a refusal to speak to the points that I make. "

Woooow... I write your quotes to specifically address each point, but keep projecting as you haven't done so with any of mine except to say I am committing some fallacy which you haven't shown.

" You are clearly unwilling to critically evaluate your position "

You mean agree with you without support of evidence or argumentation?

Well I'm done. Let me first pretend, like you have throughout, that I have the high road, all the relevant knowledge, and am correct beyond reproach. That anything someone says in retort is just them being wrong or committing some fallacy because I believe different. Ha, ha, ha, I win!

Let me just leave this, a quote from Karen Straughen. Doubt you'll read it but not my problem.

[–]To_me_my_board0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You mean agree with you without support of evidence or argumentation?

Straw man again. I'm not saying you need to agree with me to critically examine your views.

Let me first pretend, like you have throughout, that I have the high road, all the relevant knowledge, and am correct beyond reproach.

Where did I say I was beyond reproach? Is this another strawman?

Look.. you keep moving around, changing your position, relying on logical fallacies and then expect what?

You say that you didn't say every feminist thinks the way, but if that's so, why did you share that long quote? What was that supposed to be representative of? And why did you write the following:

Yet their foundational beliefs are that men and women are equal, yet men oppress women. Only hate can come from such beliefs.

If I incorrectly inferred that you were suggesting they all think that like and that it only lead to hate, then... wow.. I concede the point. But you language is pretty clear. And now you are changing your position? Not all feminists?

How about this, when you write a reply that doesn't use a logical fallacy, I'll reply.

Until then, stay healthy and well.

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

there is going to be animosity toward the group that is perceived as the oppressor

Except, "Men" and "Women" are not social groups or classes. Men&Women co-exist and are co-dependent.

biased court system

Thanks to Feminism.

can cause one to collectively see women as a homogeneous group of oppressors

BULLSHIT, the "Oppressors" are the state. If thieves are running Scot free on the streets, i'm going to be angry at the state for letting it happen. I won't be angry at criminals for being criminals.

In some of these cases, such men may (understandably) have animosity against all women or women in gen

And we constantly correct them and call out such people as misguided, Feminism is a group made by women who promote the idea that ALL men are evil or at least susceptible to the evil called "Patriarchy".

but neither is indicative of the entire group.

So then what is indicative of the entire Group? The LAWS created by Feminists, such as the Duluth model? Or how about the numerous campaigns such as the MeToo movement?

I guess my answer would no more or less than is MRA.

That's real nice attempt to gaslight but Feminism is in no way comparable to MRA. MRAs DO NOT tolerate hatred for Women and do not advocate taking away fundamental rights from Women. Feminists are guilty of both.

[–]To_me_my_board -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think part of the issue here is we are of the same mind on a lot but are looking at things slightly differently.

For example, you say

Except, "Men" and "Women" are not social groups or classes. Men&Women co-exist and are co-dependent.

They are different social groups. That is an objective truth. They have different cultures even. And we are also co-dependent. The two are not mutually exclusive.

This is the same in cases of class. The working, middle, and ruling classes are, I think you will agree, different classes, and yet are co-dependent on each other.

You also write,

BULLSHIT, the "Oppressors" are the state.

I agree 100%. But I'm not talking about who the oppressors are so much as who the perceived oppressors are.

Take Trump for example. I can't count the number of people who support Trump because they hate the elites are opposed to globalization. Trump is elite and a globalist. He is insanely rich and has shipped any number of jobs overseas while employing undocumented workers at his hotels. But his supporters perceive him as something other that what he is. He is the oppressor they hate, but so many adore him regardless because they perceive him differently.

You also write

MRAs DO NOT tolerate hatred for Women

And yes, I agree that this is true of most MRAs. I have seen here and on the RedPill guys call out guys who promote misogyny. However, I have also seen people on here make broad generalizations about women and defend it as reasonable.

I mean, there are any number of feminists who will likewise claim that they do not hate men and do not tolerate misandry, and they may speak honestly, but that doesn't mean that those views do not exist within the spectrum of feminism. They do. And so to does misogyny exist within the spectrum of people who identify as part of MRA, even if the majority feel that is contrary to what MRA is about.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

[–][deleted] 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 6 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]To_me_my_board -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 6 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]To_me_my_board 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

They weren’t oppressed in the way feminists today claim them to be.

So they were? Or weren't?

Define “equal work” ... you’re viewing this through their lens.

Ok... doing the same job, with the same level of experience, at the same level. Let's say, on an assembly line. Everybody has to work at the same speed. If somebody is being paid less based on gender or colour, is that not oppression?

And this was not guaranteed for women until equal-pay-for-equal work legislation came in.

It wasn’t “men” who were oppressing them.

No. It was a system that did favour men in many respects, just as it favours women in others, which is why both need to advocate for themselves.

The First Nation to give women suffrage was New Zealand, in 1893, only 4 years after men.

Three issues here.

You are conceding that women were oppressed, just dismissing it because it was only four years. Justice delayed is justice denied.
This is one example. There are other examples where men had the vote decades longer than women. So this single example reeks of bad faith.
You are only comparing universal male suffrage with universal female suffrage. You are failing to recognize that men, as long as they had property, were able to vote long before women, and even women with property weren't allowed to vote, and that precedent was far more long-standing than the one you gave an example of.

Just because there are two systems of oppression going on (class and gender) and both reach a milestone in short order of each other doesn't mean the second one didn't exist.

I don't feel like you are arguing in good faith. Like you are hoping I'm some idiot who will look at this, fail to see the overt holes in your case, and yield. I'm not.

I see you moving the goal post (changing from no oppression to oppression for a short space of time), cherry picking (only using data that supports your argument) and straw man (claiming that I say men were oppression women when it was a systemic form of oppression).

Given the direction you've taken this conversation, I don't feel like it would be productive for me to continue this discourse with you.

Stay well and healthy, and be safe.

[–][deleted] 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]To_me_my_board 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Everyone was oppressed to varying degrees.

Yes... to varying degrees and for different reasons: gender, race, class. Which is why there is an MRA forum and a feminist forum because both groups experience different forms of oppression.

Straw might sound like a buzz word to you because you use the fallacy. Like moving the goal post (which you've done here).

I didn't accuse you of straw manning for your example. That was cherry picking. I've clearly laid out the rational explaining your fallacies. If you sincerely don't understand how they function, then there is no point in talking to you. If you do understand and are feigning ignorance, then there is no point to talking to you. And if, rather than simply dismissing my claim of the strawman as a use of the buzz and justifying your position as accurate, I'm done.

But you haven't done that.

As I said, you are clear not arguing in good faith and I have not interest to continue a conversation with you.

Stay well and safe.

[–][deleted] 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]To_me_my_board1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

liberations is an exaggeration

You are changing your argument now. Before is that they weren't oppressed. Then it was they were only oppressed for four years longer than working-class men in New Zealand, and now they are just exaggerating their oppression.

your view on the subject is completely infallible

I never said any such thing. Another straw man. I'm open to having a conversation, just not one that is done in bad faith and relies on logical fallacies.

I didn't say you were dumb. I said you were arguing in bad faith. You said you weren't, so I said you are either legitimately unaware of of why your arguments are logical fallacies (which doesn't imply you lack the ability to cognitively understand them but simply that you don't currently have the knowledge and I don't feel like catching you up on that) or that you are being insincere.

Look.

Don't cherry pick.

Don't move the goal post.

Don't use a straw man.

Those are the issues I have. And yes, if you can't see how your arguments fall under those categories than you do lack an understanding of logical fallacies in which case I'm not interested in having a conversation with you. If you do have an understanding and are still using them, then I'm not interested in having a conversation with you.

I have HUGE gaps in my knowledge. I have a lot of growing to do. I can freely admit that. I never claim I am smarter than you; just that I'm not interested in having a conversation with you based on how you are handling your end of the conversation, which is either ignorant or in bad faith.

And if either of us are under the impression that their own understanding in infallible, it's you. You are the one claiming that I only have an understanding from their perspective when failing to realize that you only have an understanding from your own.

[–]adriens -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Is Feminism a Hate Movement?

Comments

Metoo has made men very aware of their female colleagues and now they aren't willing to mentor and help them.

Women want equal privileges; they clearly do not want equal responsibility.

Title	Is Feminism a Hate Movement?
Author	thereslcjg2000
Upvotes	387
Comments	120
Date	April 14, 2020 12:43 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g14uho/is_feminism_a_hate_movement/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/is-feminism-a-hate-movement.1199083 https://theredarchive.com/post/1199083