~ archived since 2018 ~

Why feminists will never understand us.

evil-doer · 2014-09-11T20:17:25+00:00

Feminists are bigots. Todays feminists are prejudiced. They assume men are inherently evil, that straight people are inherently evil, and that white people are...

evil-doer

September 11, 2014

1 upvotes

/r/MensRights

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	Why feminists will never understand us.
Author	evil-doer
Upvotes	1
Comments	32
Date	September 11, 2014 8:17 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/2g4wg4/why-feminists-will-never-understand-us/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-feminists-will-never-understand-us.1620983 https://theredarchive.com/post/1620983

Comments

[–]MRSPArchiver1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rbbrks-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]evil-doer3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]engiewannabe-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]engiewannabe1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rbbrks-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

no, it's the bloggers you see and people writing for feminist websites.

most feminists don't have a blog. most feminists are not activists. most feminists are relatively low-key, non-publicly-vocal individuals. Many, if not most, feminists have never marched, signed petitions, joined groups, or started conversations. Feminists are people who simply believe that women and men should be treated equally by society. The ones you hear from are usually either radical, uneducated, or unintelligent.

your "empirical evidence" comes solely from observing people who choose to volunteer their thoughts--and people who choose to volunteer their thoughts usually are the ones who have more radical views.

these ideas are said again and again, and questioning them gets you branded as racist, sexist, and bigoted yourself.

if you can find legitimate, non-petty ways to question these ideas, i wouldn't label you racist, sexist, or bigoted. but when i hear people saying that women "aren't oppressed" because, for example, it's more socially acceptable for them to be financially dependent on a man, you're just not making a legitimate claim. that's an issue of personal pride, not systematic oppression.

[–]evil-doer4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminists are people who simply believe that women and men should be treated equally by society.

what universe are you living in? this is so far from any reality i am in touch with.

not only do feminists believe crap like this. many regular women and men do also.

i got in an argument on facebook where my moms friends, my mom herself, and my sister all ganged up on me and stated these "facts" to me. and none of them as far as i know even identify as feminists. they were extremely angry at me for even implying that men should be treated equally and without bias.

this opened my eyes to how fucked up society is and how feminists have brainwashed many people.

you have no idea how many people attack me for simply stating that i want everyone to be treated equally. they dont want this at all, they want special victim status. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM. this isnt just the radicals.

[–]rbbrks-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

what universe are you living in? this is so far from any reality i am in touch with.

i'm living in the one where people appreciate what actual feminism is. seriously, look up the definition of feminism. it says nothing about activism, it says nothing about speaking out, it just says that feminism is the advocacy of equal treatment. feminists don't have to be loud or obtrusive or bigoted, and often are not. not my fault that you're blind to the vast majority of feminists because they don't choose to present themselves to you.

my moms friends, my mom herself, and my sister all ganged up on me and stated these "facts" to me. and none of them as far as i know even identify as feminists.

that's my exact point, right there, thank you. you don't know if they identify as feminists--but wait, they're spouting feminist ideals? how can this be! or wait--maybe they do believe in feminist ideals, and are feminists as a result (because, once again, feminism is an advocacy, and not all advocacy is in-your-face), but never went up to you and said "hey, evil-doer, i'm a feminist." and why should they? they don't feel the need to be vocal unless they feel the need to defend themselves.

you have no idea how many people attack me for simply stating that i want everyone to be treated equally.

when have you ever said "i want everyone to be treated equally" and people responded negatively? i'd love an example of that.

[–]evil-doer3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rbbrks-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

are you paid to post here?

who in god's name would pay me to post here? do you really think that's a thing? it's not like feminist groups all sit down together in a room and say "heehee, let's go waste a lot of money paying people to mess with those MRA dummies." sorry, but you're not that high on the feminist agenda. feminist groups don't like the MRM, sure, but they wouldn't waste time and money trying to fight some guerrilla comment warfare with you.

of course you do it in as nice as way as possible so you dont look like a troll, but the content is the same.

I do it in a nice way because I'm a person who believes in civility. Disagreement is not "trolling," it's me saying "hey, there are flaws in your argument that I'd like to point out." Unless you only come here to have people agree with you?

What I'm doing here isn't PR for feminism: I'm not affiliated with any feminist groups, I've never even signed a feminist petition. But I believe in feminist ideals and frankly I like defending them when I see people bashing on them.

As for the gamergate issue and what you call "going full retard" (which is a little rude, come on now), again, you're only seeing those things from people who make a point of posting and ranting about their ideas in public forums. People who choose to volunteer their thoughts. People who aren't listened to as often in the real world. Aka radicals. I know it seems like a lot of feminists out there on the internet being crazy, but for every feminist blogger there are ten non-blogging feminists who would never ever bother you in their advocacy of feminism. you're being intentionally obtuse if you refuse to accept that as fact.

[–]guywithaccount3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminists are people who simply believe that women and men should be treated equally by society.

No.

Feminists are people who believe that women have it worse than men in every way that can possibly merit inquiry. Feminists are people who think that the only way to get to "equal" is for women to get more and more and more privileges, forever, while men are ignored and dehumanized.

Feminists are the people who pull fire alarms to disrupt talks about men's issues. Feminists are the ones who buy and sell sparkly "misandry" t-shirts. Feminists are the ones who pushed the Tender Years doctrine and the Duluth model. Feminists are the ones who treat women as helpless children without agency. Feminists are the ones who say that men need to be silent, that our opinions are worthless and our experiences don't matter. Feminists are the ones who call anyone who disagrees with them a misogynist. Feminists are the ones who manipulate and falsify research, erasing male victims of violence and sexual assault and their female attackers. Feminists are the ones who say that men can't have federally-funded shelters or other programs designed to help them because it would take funding away from women.

We know very well what feminists are, thank you.

[–]rbbrks-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminists are people who believe that women have it worse than men in every way that can possibly merit inquiry. Feminists are people who think that the only way to get to "equal" is for women to get more and more and more privileges, forever, while men are ignored and dehumanized.

By whose definition? Yours? The MRM's? Don't you understand that you are in the overwhelming minority on this issue? None but the most radical feminists would ever say that. Seriously, please, find me a feminist who has said that, and demonstrate that she or he represents the majority of feminist opinion, and I'll believe you.

There is no feminist conspiracy against men. There is, yes, feminist activism against the MRM--but you have to understand that the MRM does not represent the majority of males. You may think you do, but you do not. You represent a faction. Spouting off hatred towards feminists will not improve your standing--it will only make the rest of the world question your movement.

The MRM has legitimate claims. Issues of child custody, alimony, circumcision, suicide rates, and so on are serious and legitimate issues that need attention in our society. But when MRAs focus not on promoting awareness of those issues, but bashing the feminist "enemy," you not only pigeonhole yourselves, you come off to the rest of the world as hateful. If someone quoted this post of yours on Buzzfeed or the NY Times, you would get an overwhelming amount of negative reactions. Stop trying to take feminism down--it won't work. Instead, focus on what's important: legitimate issues men face in modern society.

[–]avantvernacular1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aussietoads2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rbbrks0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

so it's still not fair to label feminists as "bigots."

It is if the group is inherently bigoted. All of the underlying and fundamental ideas of feminism are bigoted. Even the name is sexist. Therefore,anyone who supports feminism must either be bigoted,or at least they support a bigoted ideology which is much the same thing.

So it is,in fact, perfectly legitimate to say that feminists are bigots.

it would be like me saying that republicans are all gun nuts.

I'm not American, but as far as I am aware there is nothing about the fundamental principles of the republican party that would make being a gun nut a necessity. Though it certainly does seem to be a prevalent trait.

in any group there are factions, infighting, and disagreements.

Yes there are,but that's not actually a relative point to make. The fact that feminists don't necessarily agree does not make their ideas any less bigoted.It just means that there are competing bigoted ideas.

[–]rbbrks-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is if the group is inherently bigoted.

that's my point--it isn't inherently bigoted. if there is even one feminist who truly believes men and women should be treated equally in society, feminism as a whole is not inherently bigoted. take into account that there are whole factions of feminism that are very anti- radical feminism, and you've got a group that isn't "inherently" anything in particular. the group holds similar, broad, sweeping beliefs, but the more broad something is, the less bigoted it can be. and feminism is pretty damn big.

All of the underlying and fundamental ideas of feminism are bigoted. Even the name is sexist. Therefore,anyone who supports feminism must either be bigoted,or at least they support a bigoted ideology which is much the same thing.

I don't know about that. Wouldn't you have to say the same thing about the Men's Rights Movement? Is that name not sexist as well? Following your logic, aren't all MRAs bigots? All the fundamental concerns of the MRM are concerned soley with men--isn't that extraordinarily sexist and bigoted?

there is nothing about the fundamental principles of the republican party that would make being a gun nut a necessity. Though it certainly does seem to be a prevalent trait.

There you go. Nothing about the fundamental principles of feminism makes being bigoted a necessity--no definition of feminist ideology will ever, ever say "must be bigoted against men." it may be a prevalent trait in your experience, but it's not a fundamental principle of feminism to be bigoted. I have yet to encounter a MRA who can actually prove with solid evidence (and that means not just a list of contrived, overdone scenarios in which men can potentially be wronged in some way by feminists) that feminism is across-the-board a bigoted group, though many claim such.

The fact that feminists don't necessarily agree does not make their ideas any less bigoted.

So if one faction of feminism says "fuck men, they're all rapists" and another says "actually, not all men are rapists, my brother and husband are perfectly wonderful people, and really all we want out of feminism is to be able to take more than 12 weeks of maternity leave to breastfeed our premature children in the comfort of our homes," are those factions really both bigoted in your eyes? where is the bigotry in the second group? find it, please.

[–]Alzael1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

if there is even one feminist who truly believes men and women should be treated equally in society, feminism as a whole is not inherently bigoted.

It is inherently bigoted whether they believe in equality or not. Equality means whatever someone wants it to mean because it's all in how you measure things. The Klu Klux Klan believes in equality too.They just use a different measuring stick. But if you ask them they will make the same claim about fighting for equality for all the races.They just believe the other races are more equal right now and need to be taken down a peg.

All of the underlying ideas that feminism is based on are sexist and bigoted. Saying that you believe in equality doesn't change that.It just means that your version of equality is sexist and bigoted as well. Whether you're talking about radicals or others.

Think of it this way.If you take the average member of the Westboro Baptist Church and the Christian down the street who gives to charity on the weekends which one is the irrational one?Well both of them, because either way they both believe in a mystic sky fairy.They think the mystic sky fairy is telling them different things sure,but the bottom line is,mystic sky fairy.

A Christian who thinks god tells him to give to charity is just as irrational as a Christian who thinks god tells him to hate gays. The only difference is that ones a bigger asshole than the other.

The same thing applies to feminists. Whatever the individual conclusions,the basis of the ideology is the same.

Wouldn't you have to say the same thing about the Men's Rights Movement? Is that name not sexist as well?

Yes, it is. But sexism is not,in and of itself, a bad thing. There are a lot of things we do that are sexist but we do them for a reason. The reason feminism gets slammed for it is that they base their arguments on the grounds that sexism is ALWAYS wrong (at least when it's women involved,that's why they tend to try to claim that sexism against men doesn't exist because otherwise they would have to fight it). So the fact that they have a name that is obviously sexist marks them as hypocrites and reveals their double standards. Also they claim to fight for equality for everyone, so again,the fact that they identify the movement with only ONE group of people......

The MRM claims to be about mens rights and that's exactly what they do.Their actions match up to that. They care about mens rights just as they say they do.They don't claim to be fighting for everyone and,most importantly, they don't hamper the rights of anyone else (at least not to my knowledge they haven't).

One other thing I should note is that your comparison isn't actually valid. The MRM is a movement,whereas feminism is an ideology. There are different causal relationships involved.

All the fundamental concerns of the MRM are concerned soley with men--isn't that extraordinarily sexist and bigoted?

Sexist yes,bigoted no since they don't demonstrate intolerance of any other groups (except maybe feminism,but the feminists generally seem to start it). In the case of feminism I said that all of its underlying and fundamental ideas are sexist and bigoted. Not it's concerns. That's one of the chief differences between a movement and an ideology. An ideology is a set of fundamental ideas about how the world interacts and works (hence the "ism" suffix).A movement is just a bunch of people trying to do things.

This is why I used the Christian example above to illustrate. Feminism is a perspective on how the world,especially gender, works and interacts. It is these ideas that are sexist and bigoted. These are the basis for all other feminist theory.

Nothing about the fundamental principles of feminism makes being bigoted a necessity--no definition of feminist ideology will ever, ever say "must be bigoted against men."

Again,the same can be said about the Klu Klux Klan or any other hate group. Believe it or not you don't get very far standing on a street corner enticing people with "anyone want to kill some Jews".

I have yet to encounter a MRA who can actually prove with solid evidence (and that means not just a list of contrived, overdone scenarios in which men can potentially be wronged in some way by feminists) that feminism is across-the-board a bigoted group, though many claim such.

One of the first basic principles of feminist theory is that women are oppressed by men. This is a bigoted notion as it portrays men as being oppressive and untrustworthy or harmful to women simply because of their gender. This basic principle (one without any evidence,I might add) influences all other aspects of how feminists view society and their interaction.Therefore those who use feminist principles must either be bigots,or be complicit in such.

There you go.And I'm not even an MRA.Wait till you start really getting into feminist ideas.The batshit runs deep.

Let me ask you a question. Can you name me even one prominent feminist or feminist writer that was not a man-hating sexist? With the exception of Christina Hoff Summers who's pretty much only a feminist by name.

So if one faction of feminism says "fuck men, they're all rapists" and another says "actually, not all men are rapists, my brother and husband are perfectly wonderful people, and really all we want out of feminism is to be able to take more than 12 weeks of maternity leave to breastfeed our premature children in the comfort of our homes," are those factions really both bigoted in your eyes? where is the bigotry in the second group? find it, please.

You're limiting it to only one possible scenario and two possible sets of statements. Funny you would do that since you were previously talking about how wide and varied feminism is.

However it's also not really relevant since,as I said, it is the underlying principles.

[–]rbbrks-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The Klu Klux Klan believes in equality too.They just use a different measuring stick.

The Ku Klux Klan is hardly comparable to feminism; it is small and based in local groups with clearly defined hierarchies and guidelines (they have an entire secret language, set of handshakes, etc.)--people choose to join the KKK, much like they choose to join the MRM. they have activities, movements, so on. they agree to adhere to certain rules and to advocate certain beliefs. there is no paper you sign to be a feminist, no set of rules you must follow, no clear guidelines at all, because, as you said, it's an ideology. An ideology that's extraordinarily difficult to accurately summarize and generalize like you claim to be magically able to do (if feminists all shared the same general ideas, why is the definition of feminism in constant flux among feminist groups?)

A Christian who thinks god tells him to give to charity is just as irrational as a Christian who thinks god tells him to hate gays. The only difference is that ones a bigger asshole than the other.

on the whole, most feminists are not assholes. you know a lot more feminists than you think you do--that's because a lot of feminists don't feel the need to broadcast their ideologies. is a feminist who never says a biased word about her beliefs still an asshole?

The MRM claims to be about mens rights and that's exactly what they do.Their actions match up to that. They care about mens rights just as they say they do.They don't claim to be fighting for everyone and,most importantly, they don't hamper the rights of anyone else (at least not to my knowledge they haven't).

really? that's interesting. because on these threads i've encountered a bunch of MRMs who claim to want true equality for men and women, that don't support the name of the movement because they think it detracts from the point of their movement, and most importantly, because it puts them on the same base level as feminists by being a one-gendered group. sounds like infighting and factions, huh? maybe the MRM really isn't as clearcut as you thought, maybe it really is an ideology--because movements can't fundamentally disagree on important things like what you're fighting for, right?

Sexist yes,bigoted no since they don't demonstrate intolerance of any other groups (except maybe feminism,but the feminists generally seem to start it).

First of all, you've demonstrated intolerance of Christians just in this post by referring to their God as a "mystic sky fairy." Extraordinarily insulting to those who believe in God. So practice what you claim to practice. Further, "the feminists started it" is a childish response, of course you know that. Why can't the MRM be the "bigger person" and respond to feminist critiques by ignoring them altogether? If you claim to be better than feminism, actually be better than it.

One of the first basic principles of feminist theory is that women are oppressed by men. This is a bigoted notion as it portrays men as being oppressive and untrustworthy or harmful to women simply because of their gender. This basic principle (one without any evidence,I might add) influences all other aspects of how feminists view society and their interaction.Therefore those who use feminist principles must either be bigots,or be complicit in such.

One of the first basic principles of feminism is that women are suppressed by culture and society. This is why many feminists get angry at women who support things like pro-life bills. Find me a feminist who wouldn't call Michelle Bachmann "oppressive." It so happens that culture and society are dominated by men, and women men will vote for (Sarah Palin anyone? Relatively attractive, pro-life, generally in favor of traditionally male-dominated values and activities, like hunting)--look at statistics in political leadership, CEOs of companies, owners and coaches of sports teams (a massive part of a nation's culture), owners of broadcasting companies, directors, etc..--they're mostly men. Men dominate culture and society, statistically speaking, and feminists happen to be against a culture and society that does not treat them fairly or represent them evenly, as is the case currently.

Can you name me even one prominent feminist or feminist writer that was not a man-hating sexist? With the exception of Christina Hoff Summers who's pretty much only a feminist by name.

Sure! -Abigail Adams--wrote often about early American policy to her husband John, who actually took her ideas seriously sometimes. Points for John, I don't think Abigail hated him--because he took her seriously. And I doubt she hated any men who considered her thoughts worth at least consideration. -Sojourner Truth, whose famous "Ain't I A Woman?" speech opens with the line (a poorly, and racistly transliterated by white society) "I am a woman's rights." Worked for a number of, as she described them, "kind" male homeowners after achieving her freedom. Didn't hate them, probably because they respected her and paid her. -Betty Ford, prominent supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, establisher of the precedent of a politically active First Lady, winner of the Presidental Medal of Freedom in the early 90s, and wife to Gerald Ford. Happily married to a man, never ever spoke out against men. -Rebecca Walker, daughter of Alice Walker, coiner of the term "Third Wave feminism," (look at that! there are waves! hmm, feminist seems to change a bit, doesn't it? And third-wave feminism is often labelled as a more radical wave, too), who wrote a well-known article, at least among feminists, called "How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart:" one of my favorite lines is "I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying." Doesn't sound like she hates men--sounds like she says he's a pretty important person in her and her son's life, huh? A partner? Worth keeping around?

You're limiting it to only one possible scenario and two possible sets of statements. Funny you would do that since you were previously talking about how wide and varied feminism is. However it's also not really relevant since,as I said, it is the underlying principles.

not irrelevant at all. breastfeeding and maternal rights are a prominent part of feminist activism--these are the feminists who don't bother to engage with MRAs and say mean things, the ones you personally have never encountered, because they're too busy fighting for an important cause that effects them directly to bother with the MRM.

women, legally, get 12 weeks of maternity leave in the US (and it's totally unpaid), whereas in other nations relatively comparable to the US (the UK, for example) can get as much as 280 days of 90% pay. Sounds like something worth fighting for, no? The health and welfare of our children, while allowing women to fulfill their biological desire to childrear and also keep jobs they've fought for? And it's real, committed feminists who fight for it! They're not telling you about it, I am. Why do you think maternity leave is as crappy as it is in the US? It's certainly not because women were equally represented in the creation of the unpaid 12-week legal standard. It's because we in the US happen to live in a society that does not value maternal welfare and forces women to choose between children and work--something that certainly does not happen to men.

[–]SnickerSnak1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminism is what feminism does. Feminism is not a belief in equality between men and women, feminism is the Duluth model, the Tender Years Doctrine, NOW successfully fighting against shared custody, lowered standard for conviction for sexual assault on campus, making sexual contact by college students illegal in California, distributing false statistics on rape/child abuse/wage gap, permanent alimony, her body her choice/his wallet his child support, etc. Not one feminist 'success' has been about equality.

I'm sure there's plenty of very nice people that call themselves feminists. As you explained in an earlier post, these people don't do anything. They don't write the laws, they don't lobby for the laws, they don't oversee the implementation of the laws. They might as well not exist for all the impact they have on the public sphere. These are the useful idiots of feminism. The true character of the feminist movement is on display every day and no amount of NAFALT is able to clean it up.

[–]rbbrks-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

-Not one feminist 'success' has been about equality.

[check out the state ratifications.] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment#State_Equal_Rights_Amendments)

you know what, I'll pick out one for you. Maryland: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex."

So it's not about equality?

I'm sure there's plenty of very nice people that call themselves feminists. As you explained in an earlier post, these people don't do anything. They don't write the laws, they don't lobby for the laws, they don't oversee the implementation of the laws. They might as well not exist for all the impact they have on the public sphere. These are the useful idiots of feminism. The true character of the feminist movement is on display every day and no amount of NAFALT is able to clean it up.

Nope! Most active, useful, driven feminists just don't blog on the internet or make videos showing off their armpit hair: they work to pass bills, work to change standards about maternal rights, work to set standards for equal pay in companies.

Ever heard of the National Committee on Pay Equality? Probably not, because they're not worried about what reddit thinks of them. Too busy trying to lobby for legislation.

How about the Breastfeeding and Feminism International Conference? No? Don't google the kinds of feminist groups that counteract your idea of what feminism means, huh. Don't worry. You're not alone.

What about the myriad feminist groups who fight for affordable and diverse childbirth options for women?

Or the groups who campaign to keep birth control on health insurance because birth control hormones, it turns out, are really helpful for a wide range of female medical conditions and the elimination of subsidized birth control can mean a woman is forced to suffer from endometriosis because someone, somewhere, decided that birth control is just this thing women use to not get pregnant, and because of their ideas of when a soul is formed in a womb, poorer women shouldn't have access to just any kind of birth control.

feminism does all those things. now what is it again?

If you can honestly tell me that you were aware of all these feminist groups, fighting for female rights, I'd be shocked. Because they've made no effort to be on your radar, ever. They don't care about you, they're busy fighting for their own concerns. I don't think they're idiots, but they sure as hell are useful for those women who suffer from constant abdominal pain resulting from their natural female anatomy.

[–]SnickerSnak2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you know what, I'll pick out one for you. Maryland: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex."

I couldn't care less what statute Maryland has passed. For one thing they're using the Duluth model of DV so this law just pays lip service to gender equality.

Ever heard of the National Committee on Pay Equality?

Nope but a quick internet search shows that they're pushing the lie that the misnamed wage gap is due to discrimination against women. You're not really helping your case here.

How about the Breastfeeding and Feminism International Conference?

So where does the equality come in? These people are focused solely on women and their breastfeeding. The best thing that could be said is they're not radical, they're also not notably pro-equality.

What about the myriad feminist groups who fight for affordable and diverse childbirth options for women?

Again, pushing only for women's privileges, not equality.

Or the groups who campaign to keep birth control on health insurance...

Once again promoting privileges for women, not equality.

feminism does all those things. now what is it again?

From the look of your examples it's a female supremacy campaign.

They don't care about you, they're busy fighting for their own concerns.

It's my firm belief that no words you've ever written are as inadvertently truthful as that statement right there. Nothing screams pro-equality like "Screw you, I'm getting mine!" amiright? /s

[–]Could_Care_Corrector1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rbbrks0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I couldn't care less what statute Maryland has passed. For one thing they're using the Duluth model of DV so this law just pays lip service to gender equality.

What does the Duluth model have to do with election fundraising practices? What does the Duluth model have to do with government hiring practices? What does the Duluth model have to do with nominating people for the State Supreme Court? Those are the sorts of things this amendment protects. DV is dealt with in laws, anyway, not constitutional amendments.

Nope but a quick internet search shows that they're pushing the lie that the misnamed wage gap is due to discrimination against women. You're not really helping your case here.

Prove that the wage gap is a lie.

So where does the equality come in? These people are focused solely on women and their breastfeeding. The best thing that could be said is they're not radical, they're also not notably pro-equality.

Do you think men deserve natural breastfeeding rights? There's no equality to be had, biologically speaking. Pay attention: my point was that not all feminist groups blog constantly or do anything to be noticed by you.

Again, pushing only for women's privileges, not equality.

Seriously, I'll quote myself because I guess you ignored this paragraph:"Nope! Most active, useful, driven feminists just don't blog on the internet or make videos showing off their armpit hair: they work to pass bills, work to change standards about maternal rights, work to set standards for equal pay in companies."

don't pretend I was trying to make a different point using those examples. Again, I was making the point that not all feminist groups are vocal on the internet or radical in their claims.

From the look of your examples it's a female supremacy campaign.

So women fighting for breastfeeding and birth control rights -- how again are they oppressing men? Explain. Because to me it seems like they're focusing on issues that exclusively effect women, and therefore cannot by any logic have any impact on male rights.

[–]SnickerSnak2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Those are the sorts of things this amendment protects.

Oh I get it! Gender equality isn't really meant to apply in all cases just certain cases that feminists like yourself have deemed important. I guess in those cases where men are victimized, e.g. the Duluth model of DV, gender equality can take a back seat. It's not like men deserve equality anyway amiright? /s

DV is dealt with in laws, anyway, not constitutional amendments.

A constitution is the supreme law of a land.

Prove that the wage gap is a lie.

I never said it was a lie, I said saying that it's caused by discrimination against women is a lie. Here's a .pdf of a report prepared for the US Department of Labor.

This report finds that the vast majority of the gender wage gap (and quite possibly all of it) is caused by factors other than sexism. This is far from the only evidence, there are many research reports that show that a discriminatory wage gap doesn't exist.

Pay attention: my point was that not all feminist groups blog constantly or do anything to be noticed by you.

And my point is that none of your examples fit your definition of feminism (the belief in equality between men and women) because they don't demonstrate a dedication to equality. Your examples are simply women's advocacy groups.

So women fighting for breastfeeding and birth control rights -- how again are they oppressing men? Explain. Because to me it seems like they're focusing on issues that exclusively effect women, and therefore cannot by any logic have any impact on male rights.

Ok, let's focus on the birth control 'rights' issue. What it boils down to is, feminists want men and infertile women to subsidize the birth control choices of fertile women. Furthermore, they want men and infertile women to help pay for birth control choices that many consider murder (abortion). Do you have any reasonable argument about why I should be forced to pay for a portion of a stranger's birth control including birth control by murder? Isn't being forced to work for someone else for no benefit to yourself slavery? Isn't slavery oppressive?

[–]rbbrks0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh I get it! Gender equality isn't really meant to apply in all cases just certain cases that feminists like yourself have deemed important. I guess in those cases where men are victimized, e.g. the Duluth model of DV, gender equality can take a back seat. It's not like men deserve equality anyway amiright? /s

There is nothing in the law that says male DV victims should be treated any differently by law enforcement than female victims. Find me somewhere, in a piece of legislation, that says the two should be treated differently. You won't be able to. Why? because of that amendment. Now in practice, because society takes male DV victims less seriously, police may not be as attentive to male DV victims--but they're not supposed to, legally speaking.

also, i understand that the constitution is the supreme law of a land. I also understand that there's an entirely different process to passing a constitutional amendment than a law, and that more than one law can address the issue of DV.

I never said it was a lie, I said saying that it's caused by discrimination against women is a lie.

There's an entire entry there about motherhood. Women who have children interrupt their careers to bear and raise children. Fathers don't have to interrupt their careers to raise children. Is that not discrimination? Why can't Dad interrupt his career to stay at home with the kids? Because society frowns upon it? Hmm. sounds like some kind of gender-based issue to me.

And my point is that none of your examples fit your definition of feminism (the belief in equality between men and women) because they don't demonstrate a dedication to equality. Your examples are simply women's advocacy groups.'

And my point is that none of your examples fit your definition of feminism (the belief in equality between men and women)

I still don't understand why you think a feminist breastfeeding group is somehow against equality for men and women. there's no equality on the matter. because men cannot breastfeed, and therefore feminist breastfeeding groups cannot advocate for male breastfeeding concerns--does that mean they should stop fighting for their cause? that makes no sense. that's like saying women should stop going to the gynecologist because gynecologists won't treat male patients.

Ok, let's focus on the birth control 'rights' issue. What it boils down to is, feminists want men and infertile women to subsidize the birth control choices of fertile women.

wrong. birth control is used for way more than just avoiding pregnancy. many women use it to regulate and control their menstruation (if the government can subsidize pain meds, it can subsidize meds that make my monthly cramps less severe), many women use it to treat hormonal imbalances, many women use it to treat more intense conditions like endometriosis. birth control is just hormones, birth control is medicine, and medicine should be treated as such by the government. why should women with endometriosis suffer just because people like you don't understand that birth control has more than one use?

[–]SnickerSnak2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There is nothing in the law that says male DV victims should be treated any differently by law enforcement than female victims.

Yes there is. The Duluth model mandates that women and men be treated differently by police/courts and this is enshrined in MD law. Maryland's actions (Duluth model) speak louder than it's words (a constitutional amendment that they don't actually enforce).

Fathers don't have to interrupt their careers to raise children. Is that not discrimination?

A woman who interrupts her career to raise her children has made the choice to do so. Like many feminists you seem determined to rob women of responsibility and thus deny their agency.

I still don't understand why you think a feminist breastfeeding group is somehow against equality for men and women.

Once again you're attempting to strawman me. Promoting breastfeeding doesn't necessarily oppose equality, neither does it promote it. If a group doesn't work towards gender equality it is not (by your definition) a feminist organization. Make your choice, is this organization feminist (you'll have to change your definition of feminism) or is this organization not feminist (you can't use it as an example of feminism doing good).

wrong. birth control is used for way more than just avoiding pregnancy.

I don't care how many different uses it has. It could be a wonder cure for cancer it still wouldn't change the fact that men and infertile women would, in fact, be forced to subsidize fertile women's birth control. I don't think it's fair to enslave people to pay for a woman's 'medical condition' that can be prevented by her keeping her legs closed. We wouldn't even be discussing this issue of it weren't for Obamacare. I don't actually oppose insurance companies covering birth control, I oppose being forced to buy that insurance.

[–]rbbrks0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

is the duluth model a law? no, it is not. it's a program. no legal ramifications come with not following the duluth model. you may think that somehow maryland saying that nobody can be discriminated against because of gender is discriminatory, but pretty much, it's one sentence saying that gendered discrimination is illegal. so focus on that. the duluth model is not law.

A woman who interrupts her career to raise her children has made the choice to do so. Like many feminists you seem determined to rob women of responsibility and thus deny their agency.

But a man cannot choose to interrupt his career to do the same? Why is only one gender being told having children means leaving work and giving up a career?

If a group doesn't work towards gender equality it is not (by your definition) a feminist organization.

Breastfeeding groups fight for the right to have their specifically female biological needs recognized and attended to fairly by society. There is no equation for breastfeeding with a male biological need, no, but feminists in breastfeeding organizations are fighting for recognition of the legitimate claims of female medical and maternal rights. The fact that women cannot use breast pumps during their breaks in many workplaces, despite the fact that failing to pump milk can lead to poor milk production and pain for the mother, is discriminatory. Feminists fight for the right for women's medical needs to be treated fairly and equally.

I don't care how many different uses it has. It could be a wonder cure for cancer it still wouldn't change the fact that men and infertile women would, in fact, be forced to subsidize fertile women's birth control.

You're being obtuse. basically, a lot of women with endometriosis take endometriosis medicine, and there's a side effect of temporary infertility. what's the difference to you? why does it matter if the name is Loestrin or Endonomore? Women need those meds for real medical conditions. Women suffer without those meds. don't deny women those meds because you think some women "can't keep their legs closed" (and frankly, women on birth control are making a responsible sexual choice, so i'm not sure why you're trying to degrade them by implying they're promiscuous--most people I know on birth control are in committed monogamous relationships).

[–]SnickerSnak2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

the duluth model is not law.

The Duluth model is enshrined in law if it weren't no one would give a shit about it. The Duluth model isn't just some fantasy like patriarchy theory, its impact is felt through the application of laws based on its principles. So no, I don't care if Maryland has an equal rights amendment, they don't enforce it so it doesn't matter.

Why is only one gender being told having children means leaving work and giving up a career?

Citation needed.

Breastfeeding groups fight for the right to have their specifically female biological needs recognized and attended to fairly by society.

Like I said, they fight for female privileges. If a 'right' requires the cooperation of others it's more accurately described as a privilege not a right. It doesn't even matter how moral or just the privileges they fight for are, they are not an organization that promotes gender equality thus they are not a feminist organization.

You're being obtuse. basically, a lot of women with endometriosis take endometriosis medicine, and there's a side effect of temporary infertility.

Are you really trying to pretend that endometriosis is the only reason women ever go on birth control? How disingenuous can you get?!

don't deny women those meds because you think some women "can't keep their legs closed"

So you believe that a woman who makes the decision to enjoy sexual relations has the right to reach into other people's pockets in order to pay so she can be sexually fulfilled without running the risk of becoming pregnant? Let's put a number on it, how many hours do you think is acceptable to force all men and infertile women to work in order to pay for the birth control of a stranger who could accomplish the same thing by not having sex? How much slavery is acceptable to you? An hour a week? More?

...women on birth control are making a responsible sexual choice, so i'm not sure why you're trying to degrade them by implying they're promiscuous...

Their promiscuity isn't an issue. I'm disgusted with the fact that they (and you) seem perfectly willing to have the government hold guns to the heads of men and infertile women in order to force them to subsidize your birth control.

[–]TRPACC-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link