~ archived since 2018 ~

Quick Gender Facts

[deleted]

October 3, 2012

25 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.martynemko.com/articles/men-dont-have-it-easy-either_id1594

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Quick Gender Facts
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	25
Comments	30
Date	October 3, 2012 6:05 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10v2mo/quick_gender_facts/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/quick-gender-facts.1012175 https://theredarchive.com/post/1012175

Comments

[–]thehoneybean 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]theguesser10 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]IncorrectUser 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]theguesser10 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I spent about half an hour typing out a response to this, but you know what? No.

Rich ruling elite does in every way count as a privileged male history. Those who make the rules can make them as they see fit and throughout history we have seen these rules treat certain groups unfairly time and time again. To think otherwise is idiotic.
2
It's posts like these that make people view /r/MensRights as a radical unfair group of whiners. In reality, true feminists don't wish or fight for the things most often talked about on here. In fact they fight against these they call "radical feminists". People like you, with your factless assertions are no better or worse than these radical feminists. You are exactly the same, just on different sides.

One has only to look at the language you use

Please illuminate... You can't

to discount the possibility of your thoughts having any rationality or reason to them. No? Don't believe me? Then here's some more:

And then the courageous political lesbian atheist rape survivor single-mother domestic violence victim stood up and punched the professor out!

"And rightly so!" wildly applauded the class, who all instantly converted to feminism.

And this takes the delicious three-tiered cake of irony:

All groups that pass a certain size will be comprised of 90% idiots who only barely qualify as part of that group. I believe that most MRAs are really Egalitarians, however, while most Feminists are continuing the already-victorious movement as a tool to gain power and justify their hatreds.

[–]AloysiusC -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

I spent about half an hour typing out a response to this, but you know what? No.

Lol. If it were so "obvious", then you'd surely not need to spend that much time concocting a response to a very simple request.

Rich ruling elite does in every way count as a privileged male history.

Only if all or the vast majority of males were in that rich ruling elite. Since that was never the case, this claim is simply false.

2.

Quote or illustrate but don't just paste links expecting others to do your research for you.

It's posts like these that make people view /r/MensRights as a radical unfair group of whiners.

And that is supposed to confirm male privilege? Ad hominem fallacy and false generalization.

In reality, true feminists don't wish or fight for the things most often talked about on here.

Not enough. If they're for equality, they should be fighting those things with the MRM. The fact that they fight the MRM more than the issues raised by the MRM reveals their sexist bias.

In fact they fight against these they call "radical feminists".

While there is a well established conservative feminism in the mainstream media, what you call "true feminists" are actually radical.

You are exactly the same, just on different sides.

Regardless of methodology, the crucial difference is that men face real systemic discrimination. Women do not.

[–]theguesser10 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I spent half an hour gathering and formatting links arguing against IncorrectUser and reiterating my points, some of which I left in there as I felt they were the more important message I wanted to get across.

Only if all or the vast majority of males were in that rich ruling elite. Since that was never the case, this claim is simply false.

This is idiotic, truly idiotic. The ruling elite dictates the laws the rest must follow. If the ruling elite are all male then they may well make these laws favor males over females, and we have seen this in many cultures around the world and in many different ways.

Quote or illustrate but don't just paste links expecting others to do your research for you.

This is obviously in response to the statement about women being regarded as property.

And that is supposed to confirm male privilege? Ad hominem fallacy and false generalization.

I'm sorry, what? This has nothing to do with male privilege. This is not ad hominem fallacy, this is not false generalization. This is talking about the attitude of many users of this subreddit. An assertion which I then backed up with ample evidence from the user's comment history.

Not enough. If they're for equality, they should be fighting those things with the MRM. The fact that they fight the MRM more than the issues raised by the MRM reveals their sexist bias.

While there is a well established conservative feminism in the mainstream media, what you call "true feminists" are actually radical.

Sorry, what? You do realize there is an actual feminist movement? They don't hate men, and they don't concern themselves with the same issues that radical feminists do because those aren't real issues and they know it. They focus their attention on issues which would make even you vomit just hearing about. They focus their attention on gross violations of basic human rights in third world countries, they focus their attention on corporations physically exploiting and hurting people in third world countries. And if they came face to face in an argument with someone like you they would not argue, they would merely brush you off as a lunatic.

You say that what I call true feminists are actually radical. What is wrong with you? They are not fighting against mens' rights, and they are not fighting against a mens' rights movement. These are rational people, not irrational radicals, and believe it or not they're actually quite reasonable. Do you know why you don't hear much about them? Because they're not the ones making headlines with their crazy ideas and books of hatespeech.

Regardless of methodology, the crucial difference is that men face real systemic discrimination. Women do not.

Regardless of whether men or women face discrimination, your attitudes are the same. They are unsupported and unwavered by fact. You both seek out any article no matter how dubious and thrust it into people's faces screaming "Look at me! I'm a victim!". This behavior is sickening and is the reason this subreddit is viewed the way it is. Being right for the wrong reason is just being wrong.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

If the ruling elite are all male then they may well make these laws favor males over females, and we have seen this in many cultures around the world and in many different ways.

They "may" or they "will"? The first doesn't make the case and the second can easily be proven false by example: currently the majority of politicians and CEOs in the US are male. Nonetheless, the law does not favor men over women (quite the opposite).

You're conflating class hierarchy with gender hierarchy. The ruling elite does indeed look after itself but it does not see all men as part of itself. Chances are, if the ruling elite are mostly or entirely male, they'll implement laws to make it harder for other males (potential competitors) to rise up.

You do realize there is an actual feminist movement? They don't hate men, and they don't concern themselves with the same issues that radical feminists do because those aren't real issues and they know it.

Specifically what issues do your "actual" feminists concern themselves with that are not radical and why are those issues labelled "feminist" as opposed to just human rights issues?

You say that what I call true feminists are actually radical. What is wrong with you?

Well I did presume that you were referring to the feminists that stick to the definition that claims feminism fights for the equality of the sexes. Unless that presumption was wrong, describing them as radical is appropriate.

Do you know why you don't hear much about them? Because they're not the ones making headlines with their crazy ideas and books of hatespeech.

Well if they're so unappreciated, then they're not "the actual feminists" but just a fringe group.

Regardless of whether men or women face discrimination...

Disregarding discrimination and whether it's real or not in gender discussions is hardly sensible.

You both seek out any article no matter how dubious and thrust it into people's faces screaming "Look at me! I'm a victim!".

The only remotely fair way to compare the MRM with feminism is to compare today's MRM with feminism from the 1960s. And lets take a look at how hostile, openly man-hating, sexist and even violent feminists were in those days. I think such a comparison make the modern MRM (even the whiny one you talk about) look many times more rational, fair and peaceful and less sexist too.

Comparing modern feminism, which is well established in academia and politics, enjoys masses of tax payer funding, has a complete monopoly on gender issues in the mainstream, with the MRM which is a fringe group that mostly gets dismissed as a hate group or ridiculed, is absurd.

[–]theguesser10 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Anyone can call themselves a feminist. But to want equality for women means not bringing women above men, which is exactly what all these "feminists" you talk about are doing. In that way, they are not feminists, these are the radical feminists I'm talking about. You have to keep in mind that we're in the first world. All our problems and issues which we've dealt with haven't necessarily been dealt with in other parts of the world.

Specifically what issues do your "actual" feminists concern themselves with that are not radical and why are those issues labelled "feminist" as opposed to just human rights issues?

They are labeled as human rights issues. Just like we would label the right to vote as one. Or to own property. Or to an education. Or to birth control. Or to not being sold as a wife. Or not to be killed for being raped. All things which feminists have fought for and won in our very own society. Feminists fight for these things in these cultures because like it or not, there does exist a distinct male privilege in them.

These feminists aren't a "fringe group", it is the ones you have contact with that are. Why? Because once again, they aren't arguing for ridiculous ideas and making themselves heard like man-hating radical feminists are. But maybe more accurately, because those man-hating radical feminists are the ones you want to argue with, and so they're the ones you seek out.

A quick browse through your comment history shows your fanaticism. I will not engage in this any further with you. I suggest you read up on true feminism and its views, you'll be pleasantly surprised and I'm sure you'll be a much happier person for it.

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

In that way, they are not feminists

No true Scotsman fallacy.

these are the radical feminists I'm talking about

Wanting equality for men and women is a radical aspiration - unless there's some other meaning you're thinking of when you say "radical feminists".

All our problems and issues which we've dealt with haven't necessarily been dealt with in other parts of the world.

Aaaand there it is - the classic bait and switch. We started off discussing discrimination against men in the US and ended up talking about discrimination against women in developing countries.

But maybe more accurately, because those man-hating radical feminists are the ones you want to argue with, and so they're the ones you seek out.

You said yourself that the "radical man haters" have the public presence. Now you claim I see mostly them because I seek them out and deliberately overlook the others. Perhaps you should work on basic coherence. And while you're at it, it is not my responsibility to "see" feminism for what a non-vocal element would like it to be. If the man-haters are the most vocal with the biggest attention, then the place to look for responsibility is with them.

You don't get to hide all feminism behind some small minority that supposedly has good intentions and disregard all the others as "not actual feminists", then lay it at everybody else's feet to properly understand your picture of feminism.

A quick browse through your comment history shows your fanaticism.

Yup. You've caught me and discovered my evil plan.

I will not engage in this any further with you.

Coward. The decent way to end this conversation would have been to not throw in name calling and more condescending advice after slamming the door. But that's how you started talking to me, so it fits that you'd end that way too.

I suggest you read up on true feminism and its views

Guess I'm not a true believer. I prefer to deal with people as individuals.

you'll be pleasantly surprised

Unlikely. If this "true feminism" is what you describe it, then I'd be disappointed in their failure to promote equality in their own back yard. And if it is what I think it is, then I can hardly be surprised.

I'm sure you'll be a much happier person for it.

More condescending preaching - of course AFTER you stop talking to me - of course.

[–]theguesser10 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

In that way, they are not feminists.

Figure of speech. As such, they are not feminists. There, happy?

Wanting equality is not a radical notion in this day and age. Wanting all men who have sex to be declared as rapists is.

Aaaand there it is - the classic bait and switch. We started off discussing discrimination against men in the US and ended up talking about discrimination against women in developing countries.

This is not a bait and switch. Nowhere did either of us say anything regarding geographical location or discrimination against men. These feminists are in the US and they are fighting for people outside it, they're allowed to do that and it doesn't make them not feminists. Of course I'm sure you'll just take that as meaning that now men and women are equal in the states or men are behind, well these feminists are also fighting huge societal problems for both girls and boys in media, education, health care, and legal issues including the ones MRA advocates for such as custody, imprisonment, and sex crimes. What do they do for these issues? Do they get magazine articles with crazy eye-catching titles like radical feminists? No, they conduct studies, write papers, and do research which is then presented to the various governing bodies which said studies concern.

These aren't some small minority. They are the majority. But as everyone knows, a small minority can easily be louder than the majority. This majority does discredit and disavow radical feminists vehemently, but as I just said the small radical minority can much easier make the front page with provoking headlines. I think you should also know that men can be feminists too.

Let me be clear about why I brought up your "fanaticism". That was a euphemism for the complete, unwavering lack of reason or logic you've showed in this subreddit. From your comment history it would appear you not only hold every woman who identifies as a feminist personally responsible for every issue you have with them. It's clear you think men have been completely destroyed and taken advantage of presently and throughout historical development. One of the large issues feminists are currently dealing with is the performance of boys in school, which just so happens to be one of the issues MRA are dealing with. I'd bet my bottom dollar that if one of them talked to you about it you'd scream and cry that they were saying boys are stupid.

I have a question for you. Do you think I'm a man or a woman?

[–]AloysiusC2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh so now you are still talking.

Nowhere did either of us say anything regarding geographical location

As a matter of fact, I did and also explained why I didn't earlier since it was given by the OP that we were talking about the US.

unwavering lack of reason or logic you've showed in this subreddit.

You need to actually point out the fallacious reasoning you claim to have found. Just calling out "lack of reason or logic" is just smearing. By all means, tell me where I'm wrong and I'll be happy to change my opinion.

These feminists are in the US and they are fighting for people outside it, they're allowed to do that and it doesn't make them not feminists....These aren't some small minority. They are the majority.

Ok, you've been going on and on about these "actual" feminists. How about actually pointing us to some of them along with some explanation on what makes them more "actual" than the others. And, are you talking about feminist academics or feminist activists?

But as everyone knows, a small minority can easily be louder than the majority.

You mean how the MRM is misogynist because a small minority is? Judge a movement by its intentions as indicated by its accomplishments. The MRM, with its tiny support base, has at least drawn attention to some terrible injustices and cases of discrimination against men. It has not gone out to hinder women's accomplishments. Show me how feminism has done anything like that.

From your comment history it would appear you not only hold every woman who identifies as a feminist personally responsible for every issue you have with them.

Liar. I have never said anything like that. I don't even think feminism is the cause for most of male issues as and this I have said too on several occasions. You should not use "comment history" to try to make a case here. Whatever I said elsewhere has a different context and is best left there. You want to argue with that, do it there. But bringing those things here is just really bad form.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that if one of them talked to you about it you'd scream and cry that they were saying boys are stupid.

That would depend on what they actually say. I'd sure protest if they somehow reduce it to some inherent inferiority in boys. Would you not?

Do you think I'm a man or a woman?

Don't know. Don't care. Like I said, I deal with people as individuals. You should try it.

[–]theguesser100 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nope, you never said anything regarding geographical location, and nope it doesn't make any difference to our conversation.

Now I want to be very, very clear here. I am not responding to this for you, I am not answering you, I am not telling you anything for your benefit. I am writing this in hopes that others will see it and understand what I'm talking about, because you are already truly lost as I elaborate below.

You want quotes from yourself? Well here they are:

"A very small minority of feminists are bad." Maybe, but the majority of feminists are sexist. And as such they'll never achieve the stated goal of equality.

This was a discussion on real feminists versus radical feminists where the son of a feminist had to explain to you and others what the difference was. So, someone with firsthand experience and a pretty good window into the academic world of feminism tells you something and what do you do? You simply say it isn't so. No reasoning, nothing to back it up, and it's a pretty strong assertion, a really strong one in fact, one strong and unsupported like saying all men are pigs. Not only that, but earlier in the conversation you said this:

While it's true that not all feminists are bad, it's also true that not all nazi's were bad. Comparing them to Nazis. Great. This will really bring the conversation to places. Just an FYI, most Nazis were civilians as they represented a much greater population than military personnel, most of them weren't bad or evil but completely mind controlled by the propaganda Hitler had created. Many still to this day regard him as the greatest propagandist in history, and for good reason. But that's besides the point. On to the next!

The definition of feminism is flawed. Dictionaries list it that way because they only use established academic references, and those happen to be feminists. That's one of the problems with using dictionaries for definitions. They are only as reliable as the academic rigor of the subject in the field. In other words, the dictionary definition of feminism is whatever feminists say it is.

The definition of feminism is as follows from Merriam Webster

1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the >sexes 2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

From Dictionary.com

The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

How exactly is this a flawed definition? Where did you say this anyway? Oh yes! It was another thread telling you that crazed man-haters are NOT feminists in any sense of the word. They can call themselves feminists but that does not make them feminists any more than calling myself a genie makes me a genie. GET THE FUCK OVER IT. This is not a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

You actually have the gall to say that dictionaries' definitions of feminism are flawed because they use established academic references which are feminist. Your mind is clearly unchanged no matter how many times people tell you that man-hating "feminazis" are not feminists. AloysiusC, you do not know what feminism is. Want more proof of this?

Here

And a whopper of a big one here. You're very quick to call this an appeal to numbers fallacy. It is statistically sound to conclude that since it was a top voted post it is generally representative of the population of this subreddit. I hope this link shows you that you are in fact the loud-spoken outlier. You are the radical here. You are the reason this subreddit is viewed like this. Now I'm all for mens' rights, but after subscribing to this subreddit for a few weeks I agree wholeheartedly with Urban Dictionary's definitions. Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf? Same concept.

I don't even think feminism is the cause for most of male issues...

I think I've proven my point here well enough.

As for using your ""comment history" to try to make a case here"... I see no logical lapses in what I've said. The context is clearly visible via the "context" button and I've elaborated on some of the relative points in this post. It is not bad form to bring them up in here. Bringing up these posts as evidence for your refusal to listen to anyone telling you something you disagree with is perfectly acceptable especially if the topics discussed in said posts are the same topic which we are discussing. I've used your comment history to construct a strong case against you where I and several other community members have argued the same exact stance only to be met with objective statements from yourself that lack any evidence to back them up.

I've had enough of this exchange and I honestly do pity you if you think you are right about feminists. I would like to add one last thing though.

Let's go back to where this started:

Men have never been any more privileged than women.

Common women were never regarded as property, and almost always regarded as equals to common men, in most cultures and civilizations throughout history.

So, let's look at the US.

Up until recently women were not allowed to vote, men were. This is male privilege.

Up until recently women were not entitled to a full education, men were. This is male privilege.

Up until recently women had no say in family or household matters, not by law but by culture. This is male privilege.

I suggest you take a look at the show Mad Men, it's an accurate portrayal of culture back then and it will probably make you vomit. This is an example of what male privilege looks like.

Should we go back in time further? Maybe to ancient Greek or Roman times where women could not own property and were at the command of their fathers until they were married, at which point they would be at the command of their husbands. This is male privilege.

You do not seem to understand what the word "privilege" means. Male privilege does not mean men back then had some power which we don't have anymore. It means men back then had some power which women back then did not. You can gain privilege by having more rights or power, and you can gain privilege by taking it away from others. It makes no difference, it's still privilege either way.

It's truly sad that you and other users like yourself have turned this subreddit into what it is. Because it's not helping mens' rights issues, it's actively fighting against them. You're making the entire issue of mens' rights look like a laughable complaint from a bunch of teenagers. And you actually think it's unfair that people take the opinions of academics and PHDs over yours. Pathetic.

[–]AloysiusC2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nope, you never said anything regarding geographical location

Liar

because you are already truly lost as I elaborate below.

More unnecessary hostility. Get some manners!

You want quotes from yourself?

I told you before, if you want to discuss those things, do it where they were written in the proper context. Stick to the topic at hand. Your attempt to sidestep and mix different threads is just derailing.

So, someone with firsthand experience and a pretty good window into the academic world of feminism tells you something

Appeal to authority.

and what do you do? You simply say it isn't so. No reasoning, nothing to back it up,

They didn't ask for it. That doesn't mean I don't have any. Jumping to conclusions clouds your perception.

like saying all men are pigs.

Not even close. Attacking feminists is not equal to being sexist unless you believe all feminists are women and all women are feminists.

The the point about the Nazi analogy was that it is a logical fallacy to identify individual members of a group (feminism) with a certain property (not "bad") and then conclude that the group it self shares that property. While it was truly a heavy handed analogy, the actual point is logically as sound. By all means show me what's wrong with it or shut up.

How exactly is this a flawed definition?

I explained what's wrong with the definition (or at least what's wrong with its source).

They can call themselves feminists but that does not make them feminists any more than calling myself a genie makes me a genie.

Flawed analogy. Genies don't exist so calling yourself one can never make you one. While feminists do indeed exist and even dictionaries acknowledge that there are different schools of feminism each of which refer to themselves as feminists and declare the others not real (just as you're doing here).

I asked you before if you're talking about feminist activists or academics. Can't make up your mind, huh?

You actually have the gall to say that dictionaries' definitions of feminism are flawed because they use established academic references which are feminist.

Precisely. For rigorous fields of study such as the hard sciences, dictionary definitions are very reliable. But for ideologically undermined fields such as feminism, they are not. Interestingly, the origin of the word "feminism" had a different meaning - one that is far more accurate even today. It would be interesting to find out how and when that changed. My guess would be that it came about when it became widely accepted as true that women were oppressed and fighting for women's rights = fighting for equality. But I'd have to look into that a little more closely.

You're very quick to call this an appeal to numbers fallacy.

Because that's what it was. Somebody using "many people think this way" as an argument to strengthen their point.

It is statistically sound to conclude that since it was a top voted post it is generally representative of the population of this subreddit.

No it isn't. Voting on the internet is very much obscured by several factors such as that only a small percentage of readers actually vote and that those voting are more likely to have a strong opinion on the subject.

You are the radical here.

I am radical in the sense that I want true equal rights and equal treatment of both sexes.

Common women were never regarded as property, and almost always regarded as equals to common men, in most cultures and civilizations throughout history.

I never said that. You're confusing me with another commentator. You're really slipping now. And you expect people to believe you accurately quote me from different threads when you can't even get simple things right like telling my comments from others.

Up until recently women were not allowed to vote, men were. This is male privilege.

Men's right to vote was only achieved a few years before women, and unlike women, their right to vote was tied to conscription. Men had to earn their right to vote by risking/sacrificing their lives for their country. Some privilege.

Up until recently women had no say in family or household matters, not by law but by culture.

You're going to have to be more clear and precise than just saying "the culture denied women a voice". That isn't evidence of oppression. It's just a subjective opinion.

I suggest you take a look at the show Mad Men

TV shows from the 21st century set in the past are now accepted as historical evidence for the time they were set in. There's that awesome feminist academic rigor I was talking about. How are you not embarrassed?

Maybe to ancient Greek or Roman times where women could not own property and were at the command of their fathers until they were married, at which point they would be at the command of their husbands.

Ah, the times when for example Spartan women told their husbands to come home from battle victoriously or dead? As for property, not all men were allowed to have property either. It's only male privilege if being male actually grants you that privilege.

And you actually think it's unfair that people take the opinions of academics and PHDs over yours.

Appeal to authority. Being an "academic" or having a "PHD" does not make you right and others wrong. And you're also not speaking the truth: I never said it was unfair or that people even should take my opinions over anyone else's. Just read what I write, don't misquote, don't lie and don't hide behind titles. I'm not asking anything that I don't deliver myself. Pity you can't meet that standard.

[–]theguesser101 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Like I said before, you have to actually point out the flaws, not just say they're there. That's not reasoning or arguing. It's just intellectual cowardice. And just telling me to reread instead, is just more condescending babble.

You say that I agree with you on what we were originally arguing about (but of course fail to say how. surprise!). This is more bad form, telling me what I agree with instead of actually making logical inferences. What we were originally arguing about is the claim that men are or have been more privileged than women. I never said that there was no instance of male privilege, only that the sum of all male privileges at a given time never exceeded the sum of all female privileges.

I realize that is a very bold claim that flies in the face of your politically correct dogma but you have not even remotely approached its refutation. Just listing instances of male privilege is not sufficient (even if you leave out the price that those privileges came with). You have to list all male/female privileges and their costs and consequences and then weigh them up against each other. And I seriously doubt your capacity to create or even accurately interpret such a document.

I have just one more question: Do your "actual" feminists support women's right to abort? I'll presume that they do, since I've never encountered feminists that don't. But, the problem here is that that creates an inequality because it gives a mother the power to terminate a father's child and it gives her the power to force him into parenthood. This is not just a small inequality, it's a huge one. For the record, I support the right to abort as it is the only way not to end up violating the right to physical autonomy. However, equality it is not. When things become serious, feminists clearly decide against equality unanimously.

Even though it's the ethically correct decision in this instance, it does cost feminists the label of advocating for equality. At best they must ad a qualifier such as "equality so long as it doesn't interfere with xyz".

I only wrote that because you asked me to elaborate on what's flawed about the dictionary definition. Probably you're going to claim that's "full of flaws" too without actually finding any.

I don't believe you're arguing in good faith. I think you're too strongly motivated to make it look like I'm wrong rather than get at the truth. I think your mistake was that you were too quick to dismiss a claim that your ideological world view just wouldn't allow you to even contemplate (the earth MUST be flat after all).

I realize, that I'm not going to succeed in convincing you within this discussion no matter what I write. It's just asking too much from you. Instead, I'll have to be content with the remote possibility that this got you to think about the issue a little more rather than just blindly accepting what feminists tell you as the stone engraved truth. That's the best I could hope for and if you aren't going to do that now, then the odds of more discussion getting you to do that are too slim to be worth the effort.

You keep saying you want to pull out but then don't. Well, just like with everything else here, I'm going to actually do what you just claim to be doing and end the conversation.

[–]theguesser101 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Okay, first of all, I think you should pay better attention in your history class.

Same right back at you.

It shows just how people's perceptions of mens' rights have been skewed to the point where people assume standing up for men means hating women.

Interesting that you notice that too. Imagine, for one moment what sort of mentality it takes to think that way. It's the same mentality that looks at history and interprets it as "his-story" simply because it focuses on people instead of on women. It's the same mentality that concludes that, as long as some women are underprivileged relative to some men, therefore all men are privileged over all women.

In other words, the same mentality that made you condescendingly tell me to pay attention to my history class when I said something that threatens the "women are victims, men are perpetrators" narrative.

[–]theguesser10 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]theguesser10 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]echoesinthenight -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]HerpNeverDerps 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]echoesinthenight 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Willy637 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Magrias 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]echoesinthenight 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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