The Red Pill | MensRights

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is the reason why I never called myself a feminist in the first place. The more I learned about it in my teen years, and the more I paid attention to what feminists said and did, the more I realized I didn't want to be part of that. More than a decade later, that decision has only been further cemented in my mind. The disparity between feminists' insistence that "feminism is just about believing that men and women are equal!", and treatment of people who don't accept all the other ideas you apparently must have in order to qualify as a feminist, is rather glaring. It's not just about equality. You also have to support abortion, only be supportive of women's sexual choices, believe that we live in a patriarchal rape culture, etc. So, fuck it. I don't need their label in order to believe in equality. If they cannot accept someone unless they use the same label, that's their problem. They an cannibalize themselves if they want. I'll be over here, living my life.

[–]fengpi 93 points94 points95 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuestionSleep86 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I was raised an atheist, and like most of the parts of the bible that I've read. I hate people's interpretations, like how can people think the absent landlord is god? How mouth breathing, pants on head, stupid can you be? Jesus specifically refers to the absent landlord as a builder, then when he asks about a punishment for the tenants, refers to "the stone the builder refused". Those who fall on the cornerstone shall be destroyed. The absent landlord attempts to take what he doesn't deserve from his tenants, but they are the cornerstone, they work the land, he does nothing, so like the psalm says "Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces", he is broken to pieces because all his servants and even his son dies. People read that in crazy different ways though. In most churches they think it is Jesus who answers that the tenants should be killed, but it was Jesus who asks the question what will happen to the tenants, so... did he answer his own question? Many interpretations, like the NIV specifically say "they replied" so it is obvious the Pharisees believe the tenants should be punished, and Jesus rebukes them.

I think that sentiment, that ownership and stewardship are connected is beautiful. We can't even understand that concept today, that if you own land, but someone else works it and improves it, it's their land now. We read that passage and it is so alien, we think the absent landlord is god, because he sends his son and the son is killed. So that says the bible has a record of important things people learned that have been forgotten. Some of things, like the dietary restrictions the Jews keep, have been remembered when they should have been forgotten, but things that should have been remembered have also been forgotten. Like the idea that even a sinner would lend money to get back the same amount of money (long gone in today's world); like that watering a plant for decoration while people die of thirst is sin.

The bible is a beautiful thing, it even records man's transition to agriculture, when we discovered "good and bad", that some plants and animals were good (the wheat and goats we raised), and some are bad (weeds, and predators). Before that we were simply in the garden of Eden, and all things simply were. Even Abraham, and the notion of the one god, suggests the beginnings of understanding objective truth; instead of each god having their own truth, and their own perspective, people began to understand that there would always be a day of reckoning when your understanding of the world gets measured up against reality. They began to understand that there is one reality which encompasses all the little individual realities we inhabit.

Maybe it's just because I never had any pressure to learn or believe in it, but I find the bible an incredible resource, and a powerful tool.

[–]the_unseen_one 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]QuestionSleep86 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fengpi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]QuestionSleep86 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]FCMA32 points 9 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Smoke pot, get creative, think deeper than you've every thought before, come up with your own beliefs

[–]BigOldNerd 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DatGrass14 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FCMA32 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeegte12 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 138 points139 points140 points 9 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

That's a fucking valid point.

I don't really like her, I have to say it. The movie was fantastic, but I have some reservations about her specifically. I mean... she doesn't sounds extremely smart to me.

I'm a girl who has suffered serious abuse in the past, and I had many incentives to generalize men and become a feminist, but I never did it, so I tend to be very critical about the intelligence and judgement of a woman who has been a feminist.

That been said, in her movie's voice-over she said something like: it was extremely difficult for me to understand these men point of view, because as a woman I can't relate to their experiences.

But I know she did a lot of pro gay men activism in the past, so what? She could relate to gay men experience but not to men experience? Why? Because is it easier to understand gays because it's cooler and it's being a SJW trend?

This and other things gave me a feeling of virtue signaling. I mean, that she didn't understand that feminism is stupid and that men in the movie were simply right about what they said, but that her attitude was: Aaaw, men can suffer too! I can understand them and I want to help them because I'm such a good person!

This was my opinion about her stance, but this statement of her is extremely relevant. I'm happy about it.

[–]Lethn 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately this is what a lot of women who think they're feminists believed so I don't hold it against her. She's had several years of indoctrination into believing that only women can be the victims and so on and men are all privileged. Even if people don't say that outright, that is often how they treat men generally and it took her having to see the kind of personal experiences men go through even leading fairly 'normal' lives to realise what a joke feminism is as an 'equal rights movement'.

There are a lot more like her out there I'm afraid, they're not bad people though so that's why I think it's worthwhile being patient with them, the people we should be worried about are what I call the fanatics who truly hate men and the professional activists who make their money off this.

Even for me who's had a relatively normal upbringing aside from shitty school experiences I had to wrap my head around the sheer scale of this operation. I came from the gamer side of things because I started hearing about gamergate and so on and then did more research. I then ended up spotting exactly what the media were doing with how they were trying to demonise men and as I did more and more research just like Cassie Jaye did I realised that this wasn't just one or two crazies on the internet there was a literal conspiracy here to try and make money and funding at the expense of men. Which I think is one of the most sinister parts of feminism.

As long as the evidence is there and undeniable I think most people will open their eyes. The trouble only happens when feminists are allowed to lie and get away with it which is why I encourage alternative media has much as possible and have no problem attacking mainstream media in particular.

She's self-aware now, that's the big difference between a decent person and a feminist, I mean I found it interesting how she complained about Hollywood, the most supposedly Liberal place on earth being sexist. Yet she realised after looking at what she believed that it was incredibly silly in comparison to the kind of shit men go through for merely existing to complain so much about that.

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

There are a lot more like her out there I'm afraid, they're not bad people though so that's why I think it's worthwhile being patient with them

Sure. I totally agree with you on everything you said, and I've already written here about the importance of making other girls aware of the situation.

I wasn't talking about good of bad tho, I was talking about intelligence. There's another thing I didn't really like in the movie, when she said:

MRA and Feminists made totally different points, and I can't understand who is right, the truth has to be in the middle.

Well, nope. Feminists today bear no truth (Not that I'm a purist actually, I personally think all waves of feminism sucked, but in the past a few of their arguments made some sense at least).

I know she said that at the middle of the movie and then she "changes her mind", but there was no fucking reason to state something like that. It's an hook for girls who are sitting on the fance to say "Yeah! It's true, the truth is in the midlle!". No! It fucking isn't! The only thing in the middle between MRA and Feminists is a fucking sign pointing towards Men's Right saying TRUTH.

[–]kagayaki 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

MRA and Feminists made totally different points, and I can't understand who is right, the truth has to be in the middle.

Is that still her position? The fact she no longer identifies as a feminist makes me think she doesn't really believe the truth is in the middle anymore. The video diaries were shot, AFAIK, when she was still doing her interviews, so they were taken when she her brain was still processing that info.

Intelligent or no -- I do give Cassie a fair amount of credit for what she went through, though that may be because the bar is set so low for someone changing their mind on something. Especially when that something seems to generate a fair amount of emotional attachment for the individual who believes in it.

Cassie's video diaries were actually the most interesting part of the movie for me, since I'd heard pretty much everything in terms of statistics and stories already. I think Cassie made this comparison herself, but her experience seemed not unlike religious deconversion stories when atheism was a lot more popular years ago on YouTube. Feminism wasn't a collection of dead abstractions for Cassie; it was an ideology that explained a lot of things in her own life, so there were emotional anchors to the ideology in addition to "logical" ones.

In the end, I think her saying the truth is in the middle was her bargaining with herself as a way to not totally reject what these men were saying and not totally throwing away her previous beliefs.

(not to say that you aren't free to not like Cassie ;) just thoughts from my own perspective)

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

(not to say that you aren't free to not like Cassie ;) just thoughts from my own perspective)

No need for any disclaimer. :) And I don't get easily triggered don't worry :D

As I said, yes, I know she says that at the middle of her path, and it has the task of expressing she's challenging her beliefs. But I even know that it's a movie she edited after she completed everything. At that point we know she understood that feminism was wrong, and yet she decided to edit that sentence in the movie. That sentence's narrative purpose (showing us that she's challenging her views) could be reached saying something like: I was beginning to challenge my feminist ideas and to think that these men were not wrong.. But she decided to use a sentence the truth is in the middle which can be taken by a feminist viewer to say: yes, that was the right conclusion! Undermining her message herself. That's why it's something which makes me doubt about her intelligence.

[–]Philarete 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SantaOrange 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]BigOldNerd 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cloughtower 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]superhobo666 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MizzerC[🍰] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MizzerC[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SantaOrange 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]adelie42 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]THEAdrian 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SantaOrange 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]adelie42 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]girraween 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razvedka 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

What does a smart person sound like?

Smart. I mean... a smart person can properly use logic and intelligence to be the more effective possible.

Why do I say that? I'll quote what I just replied to another comment:

During the movie she said MRA and Feminists made totally different points, and I can't understand who is right, the truth has to be in the middle. I know she says that at the middle of her path, and it has the task of expressing she's challenging her beliefs. But I even know that it's a movie she edited after she completed everything. At that point we know she understood that feminism was wrong, and yet she decided to edit that sentence in the movie. That sentence's narrative purpose (showing us that she's challenging her views) could be reached saying something like: I was beginning to challenge my feminist ideas and to think that these men were not wrong. But she decided to use the sentence the truth must be in the middle which can be taken by a feminist viewer to say: yes, that was the right conclusion! Undermining her message herself. That's why it's something which makes me doubt about her intelligence.

[–]Imnotmrabut 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]residentbio 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]residentbio 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You just asked to explain myself and in the next sentence you are already putting me in a chair as if I'm refusing too. I see a pattern here.

Triggered?? Come on man, don't make me troll you. Don't use that attitude, you said "You are not sounding smart" and didn't say why, I had all the reasons to poke you.

I'm not looking down on people I'm a human, and I'm not an hipocryte. Whenever I experience something I form an opinion about it, and I express it. People don't express certain opinions, because so they won't look like they are looking down on people. I don't like that attitude. I express my opinion and the wall of text wasn't to look smart but to explain it. I failed with you apparently, and probably I'm not good at sumarizing, so I'm okay saying I'm not that smart, I'm a blonde girl after all.

I didn't say I'm above her, I said that what she did with the movie showed me a lack of intelligence, why? I'll quote my reply to another comment. But it's a wall of text, so you are free to skip it and keep thinking that I'm a bad person just because I look down on people

During the movie she said MRA and Feminists made totally different points, and I can't understand who is right, the truth has to be in the middle. I know she says that at the middle of her path, and it has the task of expressing she's challenging her beliefs. But I even know that it's a movie she edited after she completed everything. At that point we know she understood that feminism was wrong, and yet she decided to edit that sentence in the movie. That sentence's narrative purpose (showing us that she's challenging her views) could be reached using something like: I was beginning to challenge my feminist ideas and to think that these men were not wrong. Which she's done in another scene so it was already covered, but she decided to use the sentence the truth must be in the middle which can be taken by a feminist viewer (the target she's trying to convince) to say: yes, that was the right conclusion! Undermining her message herself. That's why it's something which makes me doubt about her intelligence.

[–]residentbio 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Jesus Christ man! Seriously? Are you a Men's Right SJW? Do you people exist here? Jeez! I mean... you came here to complain that I was looking down on people because I questioned someone's intelligence... and now you say that I'm spoiled? That's fucking coherent. And spoiled why? Because I said that I question someone's intelligence arguing with logic, logic that you couldn't retort. And on top of that, as I said in the first comment: if someone has been a feminist, while doing social activism, documentaries and shits, and believed in feminism, and lies such as pay gap and patriarchy, fuck yes I question her intelligence! That's a good reason.

Let me tell you this: if you aren't able to understand something, it doesn't mean that who said it is the stupid one.

An Internet Stranger who's smarter than you. (Yes I'm looking down on you. Feel free to complain about it.)

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

[–]Pornography_saves_li 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rabid_Pink_Princess 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I love the movie, I appreciate it big time, I'm forcing other people to watch it, and I think it's a gift.

That been said, I have an opinion about her, I'm not complaining, it's actually the first time I'm talking about it, because I wanted to share it with you.

As I've answered to other replies, the thing I didn't like is exactly about the video diary and women shedding feminist indoctrination:

In a video diary she said:

MRA and Feminists made totally different points, and I can't understand who is right, the truth has to be in the middle.

No! It isn't! The only thing in the middle between MRA and Feminists is a fucking sign pointing towards Men's Right saying TRUTH.

I know she says that at the middle of her path, and it has the task of expressing she's challenging her beliefs. But I even know that it's a movie she edited after she completed everything. At that point we know she understood that feminism was wrong, and yet she decided to edit that sentence in the movie. That sentence's narrative purpose (showing us that she's challenging her views) could be reached saying something like: I was beginning to challenge my feminist ideas and to think that these men were not wrong. Which she said in another scene, but she decided to use the sentence the truth is in the middle which can be taken by a feminist viewer to say: yes, that was the right conclusion! Undermining her message herself.

Is this a problem which make me boycott the movie? No, absolutely. I'm not talking about it on a feminist channel, I'm talking about it with you. It's just a thought.

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

[–]Rendin 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feedmecarrots 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fernandopox 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Googlesnarks 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]bluefootedpig -27 points-26 points-25 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Googlesnarks 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]PornoAlForno 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saerain 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeegte12 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chambertlo 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BeholdTheHair 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BeholdTheHair 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd start with reading about the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848. That's more or less where feminism got its "official" start. Of particular interest is the Declaration of Sentiments presented at same.

To be fair, there are some reasonable points there, particularly the one about women being seen as essentially morally blameless, but the oppression narrative it's trying to weave rings rather hollow when one considers the socioeconomic status of the attendees (hint: they weren't poor) and most of the items listed are couched in terminology painting men as big meanies who simply want to keep all the goodies for themselves¹ . Never mind the fact the men were the ones held legally (and socially) responsible when things went tits up.

I'd also recommend The Fraud of Feminism by E. Belfort Bax, first published in 1908, in which he authors many of the same criticisms of the then-fledgling movement as are commonly voiced over a century later. Of additional note is The Legal Subjection of Men, which was published the same year and seems to have been a response to J.S. Mill's The Subjection of Women published roughly 40 years prior. I haven't gotten to read the latter yet^2, but as I understand it the two books make natural counterparts.

All of which doesn't even touch on the ugliness to be found in many of the "founders'" personal views regarding race and ethnicity, to say nothing of the rather cozy relationship between the Suffragettes³ and the Ku Klux Klan (edit again for spelling). Granted, the former were generally fairly common for their time, but hey, if social justice activists want to tear down monuments to significant historical figures who owned slaves or held what are now seen as regressive views... "What's sauce for the goose" and all that.

¹ "As a teacher of theology, medicine or law, [woman] is not known." Nary a word about more women in coal mines or on sailing ships. I'm shocked.

² That is to say, I haven't yet read The Legal Subjection of Men. Though I also haven't read The Subjection of Women, which should probably come first.

³ Not to be confused with the Suffragists, who, despite the best efforts of feminists over the intervening century, were not at all the same group.

Edit the Final (I hope): Adding footnotes instead of long parentheticals in-text. Can haz kleenur riting?

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

[–]Quintrell 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JebberJabber 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I take it your phone changed progressive to regressive accidentally.

Have you thought this through? How far back would you unwind feminism?

Back to before the third wave was established as mainstream, from about 1990?

First and second wavers were very big on gender essentialism (which caused inconsistencies and was abolished for the 3rd wave).
In GE they compiled lists of what males and females are like, based on biology supposedly. So they agreed with Karen Straughan and the tradcons and Nazis. Since this was done by women in isolation, and since supportiveness was a core part of their ethos, they awarded women all the nice characteristics.

Since many of the women were badly damaged by their relationships with men, as is natural in the leaders of a protest movement, men were assigned a bunch of negative traits. The negative aspect of male traits was emphasised, as the positive side of female traits had been. So "useful for reaching high shelves" became "can steal from high shelves"

The female supremacism and denigration of men that still infects feminism today was explicit and unashamed in the second wave, as it had been in the first wave.
If you point it out to a third wave feminist they may practice various forms of denial but they are not likely to defend or excuse female supremacism.

A 3rd wave feminist might call you a callous self-centred privileged crybaby who is trying to distract from the greater harm to women by nitpicking over harmless venting, but is far less likely to defend gratuitous denigration of all men. They will probably do "NotAllMen" if possible though, which to me is hypocritical since "NotAllWomen" does not alleviate their rage at a slur on a subgroup of women.
.
The victorious doctrine in the Sex Wars became part of what defined the third wave. Second wavers strongly tended to see porn and other forms of sex work as harmful objectification and exploitation of women by men. Visual porn was of course not of interest to women, everybody knew that whether feminist or not. It was a filthy male habit.

Third wavers gave preference to women's freedom to choose, recognising that even a heavily constrained choice is still a free choice. So thank third wavers for the plentiful, cheap, legal, safe and relatively stigma - free supply of porn and prostitutes that can be delivered to your door as easily as pizza.

You like hairy legs on women? "Lipstick feminist" was a term of abuse by traditional second wavers but the third wavers decided it was now safe to reintroduce and celebrate the traditional feminine presentation that their 2nd wave mothers had rejected for various reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_feminism

So when was this golden age of "real" feminism?

[–]fApajeet 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]Imnotmrabut -19 points-18 points-17 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeegte12 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saerain 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SeeEmmDee 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jeegte12 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]titaniumjew -12 points-11 points-10 points 9 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Being a feminist and a men's rights activist aren't exclusive.

They are exclusive because feminism is against men's rights:

Father's rights group want shared parenting (equal custody) to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. They feel that men should not be punished for being men, and that women should not be awarded custody to their kids simply for being women. Currently women are awarded primary custody almost all the time, even if the husband was the stay-at-home Dad and the woman was the breadwinner.

Feminists fought against this. You can read NOW's own statement here. Also note their usage of anti-male lies, i.e. "fathers are abusive, don't give them custody." That is from 1997, but still remains valid today.

Men want protection against false rape allegations. They feel that a man's life should not be ruined simply on the allegation of a woman who may be a vindictive liar. Currently, a woman can accuse a man of rape for no reason, and the man's name is splashed in the paper and his life is ruined. So, they fought for laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape—not convicted, just charged.

Feminists fought against this, causing it to fail. Also see here, the London Feminist Network campaigning to defeat the proposal.

"The London Feminist Network is a campaigning organisation uniting London based feminist groups and individuals in activism."

Men want an end to the justice system favouring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men.

Feminists fought against this, arguing that no woman should be sent to jail, even women who had murdered multiple people.

Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of "being male" under primary aggressor policies.

Feminists fought against this by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc. Modern, younger feminists are doing it as well.

And sadly, they were successful in this effort of propaganda. For decades, and continuing today, violent men are (rightfully) convicted and punished by the state, while violent women are left to freely terrorize and harm their partners.

The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued.

Men want female rapists to be arrested, charged, and convicted with rape. In Western countries, women are rarely punished when raping men, due to the biased legal system. In some countries, women cannot be punished when raping men, since rape is defined as a male-perpetrated crime.

Feminists fought against this in India, arguing that "there is a physicality [in] rape" and that it would make things "more complicated for judges."

Feminists fought against this in Israel, claiming that changing the law would result in men filing false rape claims.

Men want society to stop thinking only men commit rape or only women can be raped.

Feminists rolled out the dont be that guy posters, which portray all rapists as men.

Or here is noted feminist Mary Koss (author of the famous 1 in 4 study):

Clinical psychologist Mary P. Koss of the University of Arizona in Tucson, who is a leading scholar on the issue, puts it rather bluntly: "It's the man's penis that is doing the raping, and ultimately he's responsible for where he puts it."

Men don't want to be thrown in jail because they lost their jobs and temporarily cannot pay child support.

Feminists fought against this, trying to lower the amount to $5000 before a man is guilty of a felony for not paying child support. If a man loses a decent-paying job, he will now be a felon, go to jail, lose his right to vote, AND be unable to find future jobs—if he cannot regain an equal-paying job within a few months.

Men want equal economic support and help from the government. When the recession hit, male-dominated fields like construction lost millions of jobs, while female-fields like education and healthcare gained jobs. So the government proposed an economic stimulus for those fields.

Feminists successfully fought against this, arguing that it was discrimination to support men, and caused the government to give money to women who didn't deserve it. Hundreds of professional feminists complained against the "sexism" of helping men (who had lost jobs) and not women (who had gained jobs).

Men want the issue of suicide (predominantly male) and educational failure (predominantly male) addressed. Feminists protested several recent events at Canadian universities using such methods as physically blocking entrances and pulling fire alarms. The justification was that the organizing group was a hate group, and the speaker (Warren Farrell) was a rape apologist. The full 2+hour talk was posted online - there was nothing like that discussed. Subsequent events did not even feature Warren Farrell in any way, yet were still met with protests, illegally pulling fire alarms, etc.

As you can see, the claim that feminism fight for men's rights is a blatant lie. Don't believe any feminists that say that. Feminists fight for women's rights. That is a good thing. Feminists also are happy to harm men's rights, as shown above. That is a bad thing. Feminism is about female privilege, not equality.

Some may argue that these cases of feminists harming men is not "representative" of feminism. I ask you: Are there any cases of feminists helping men? No. Yet, there are many cases of feminists harming men.

It is reasonable to conclude from these two facts that feminism fights to harm men.

[–]linkthebowmaster 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]linkthebowmaster 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saerain 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[+]tdoooooot points 9 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

That's not necessarily true. By definition, feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. I consider myself a feminist and I am very much for men's rights and consider myself an ally to the movement. I feel like the term feminism is being clouded by those obnoxious women who screech about their bullshit "causes". They actually go against what feminism is and what it stands for. Those who scream the loudest are the most heard. I truly believe that they are the minority among feminists, and I wish more people could realize that.

[–]slartitentacles 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]tdoooooot points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I could easily cherry pick information like that and spin it around to say that men's rights activists are extremist woman haters. The men's rights group in my area is led and mostly comprised of local pick up artists who have made multiple public sexist campaigns against women. Does that make me believe that all men's rights activists think that men are superior? No. Though when you live in an echo chamber like this and rarely get your information from other sources I can see how you would be influenced to think all feminists are evil man hating nazis. If I got all of my information about these issues from this subreddit, I'd believe that all men's rights activists are women hating neckbeards who disguise their misogyny under a very thin veil.

[–]slartitentacles 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Its not cherry picked. Notable feminists at all levels of almost all feminist organizations, from the smallest to the largest, are all against men's rights. The list of notable feminists who stand up for men's rights is far smaller than those who're against it.

As for why there are so few feminists who stand for men's rights, refer to the post image. What happened to Cassie Jaye is the norm in feminism.

Everytime a feminist tries to raise men's issues for equality, they are systematically driven out. Feminist academics discredit them, feminist media smear them, and feminist terror cells send bomb threats. The attack will continue for years, until the threat to feminism is neutralized. This has been feminism's modus operandi for dealing with dissidents and perceived threats since the 1970s.

[–]Houdiniman111 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]deanreevesii -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]slartitentacles 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]titaniumjew -11 points-10 points-9 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeegte12 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]titaniumjew -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]titaniumjew -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]slartitentacles 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JebberJabber 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately it is currently a game of who has it worst.

Feminists take it for granted women are the oppressed party. The oppression of women by men is a fundamental article of faith. It is not up for serious discussion in ordinary circumstances but they will yell it at you if you like.

Cassie Jaye's experience shifted her opinion. A feminist man traumatised by gendered mis-treatment by legal and cultural institutions may similary shift his opinion. (The world has been kind to me, which I guess is why I don't join the rabid end of MRA-dom).

For feminists this would only become a game if they accepted that the question of which gender is oppressed more has become less than obvious. That is not even on the far horizon for most feminists.
If that day arrives they can either engage in good faith on the basis that they do not get to unilaterally decide for everybody who is oppressed or not, and that a more complex model of oppression and privilege is needed, or they can play it as a tactical game. The latter is more in line with human nature.

In their current model of oppression, if two groups interact and one gains more power, that power will tend to accumulate, be consolidated and be seen as a natural outcome.

[+]g_squidman -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]g_squidman -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You can't have learned that much about men's rights if you haven't realized that meninism is just a parody of feminism. It isn't real, and doesn't exist.

That said, if that's what you think about feminism, it really says a lot about your meninism.

Let's see, feminists have shut down men's conferences on the male suicide epidemic by pulling the fire alarm.

Feminists are actively lobbying to prevent fathers getting default shared (50/50) custody of their kids.

Feminists are actively lobbying to prevent men's domestic violence shelters from being funded.

Feminists are actively fighting to prevent female perpetrators of rape against males from being classified as rapists.

Feminists are actively fighting to prevent men from being recognized as domestic violence victims.

Feminists are actively fighting to take away men's rights to due process when accused of rape.

I mean... what exactly does it say about you that you think feminism is about equal rights?

[–]g_squidman -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	The Red Pill
Author	S5S5S55S
Upvotes	2009
Comments	113
Date	May 29, 2017 1:33 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6dxh4n/the_red_pill/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-red-pill.921706 https://theredarchive.com/post/921706

Comments