Fair feminists exist and they get hate from both men and many feminist women

[–]BCRE8TVEAnti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill 13 points14 points15 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I believe women identifying as feminists deserve benefit of doubt and presumption of being egalitarian not cakist or misandrist.

If 95% of feminists are cakists or misandrist or both, why does the 5% deserve the benefit of the doubt? If they're a tiny minority (and they are) wouldn't it be on them to show that they are different from the overwhelming majority of people who also use the feminist label?

Community that she leads always shunned misandry. In particular she debunked vulgar understanding of wage gap, supported male victims of female abuse (and Depp in particular way before the final trial).

It's great that you've found an exceptional feminist, but by definition, exceptions do not invalidate the rule.

And she received tonns of hate from both conservative misogynistic men and from other feminist groups that often considered her sort of archenemy. Sometimes she shared the messages she received from feminists and there were extreme misogyny, obscenities and threats.

Well yeah. Feminists hate women who don't hate men, because feminism is largely based on treating men like violent oppressors who must be overthrown.

That's precisely why feminism has such a shitty reputation, because of all the shitty things the vast majority of feminists do.

Men should support such women as being in the egalitarian center is hard, you typically receive kicks from both sides of the spectrum.

Why should we support the 5% of feminists who care about equality, and stop calling out the other 5% of feminists who treat equality like a one way street exclusively to the benefit of women?

Men should support women that support men.

The overwhelming majority of the time, women who support men are not feminists, because feminism actively opposes men.

If she's tired of receiving kicks from the feminists, maybe she should start calling out the feminists who keep kicking her and pointing out how feminism is so shitty that it throws kicks at any woman who doesn't hate men hard enough.

Why do you think feminists are entitled to the efforts of men trying to reform feminism for them? They're strong empowered women who don't need no man, they can do it on their own.

I see no reason why I should try and place myself in the middle of that group of feminists and risk getting kicked by both sides myself. I can just stand outside that and keep pointing out how feminism kicks women who don't hate men hard enough.

[–]Professional_Bat8585Purple Pill Man 18 points19 points20 points 1 month ago (142 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (141 children) | Copy Link

[–]VentyninePurple Pill Man 10 points11 points12 points 1 month ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEAnti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill 6 points7 points8 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VentyninePurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]VentyninePurple Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEAnti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill 10 points11 points12 points 1 month ago* (104 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that feminism treats equality like a one way street exclusively to the benefit of women.

Feminism is literally rebranded Marxism, except it replaces the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie and seizing the means of production, with the oppression of women by men and seizing the means of reproduction.

Feminism treats gender like a class, which is completely inappropriate, and the entire ideology is based on the unscientific and unfounded principle that the patriarchy is due to a male desire to control and oppress women. Feminism treats all men like potentially violent oppressors who must be resisted and women like innocent oppressed victims who can do no wrong (except if those women oppose feminism, heresy is NOT tolerated within feminism).

So when feminism takes such an obviously lopsided perspective of equality, assumes by default that women are always less equal and always need more help and more support, while assuming men are alway more equal and never need more help or support, how could they possibly be egalitarian or have any idea what true equality actually looks like?

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (103 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEAnti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill 9 points10 points11 points 1 month ago (97 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (96 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEAnti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill 11 points12 points13 points 1 month ago* (70 children) | Copy Link

There's plenty of feminist history where black feminists have been consistently left in the lurch once the majority of an organization's demands have been met.

Very true, and I find it funny that they blame "white feminism" for the black feminists being left hanging, and then blame it on whiteness and white men, when it was white WOMEN who failed black feminists.

But it's funny that if you ever call it white WOMEN feminism, to point out how it's the mostly white female feminism who used to be racist, for some reason that's a problem. Almost like you're not allowed to criticize women.

Being a man doesn't stop you from being poor,

No but it means poverty is less of a problem for men than for women and black people, and so poor white men aren't deserving of any consideration and don't count against the "white men have all the power" narrative.

being white doesn't stop you from being neurodivergent,

No but it means being neurodivertent is less a problem for men than for women and black people, and so neurodivergent white men aren't deserving of any consideration and don't count against the "white men have all the power" narrative.

and being a woman doesn't mean you don't hold power in other categories,

But a woman will always be seen as holding less power than men in the same situation, and so no matter how much power a woman has we must always focus on the fact men in general have more power.

but womanhood is not a position of power in itself.

Right, because womanhood is defined by fiat as a position of inherent victimhood and oppression, while manhood is defined by fiat as a position of inherent power and being the oppressor. Any fact that disagrees with this is clearly because it is not coming from a proper feminist perspective, and it must simply be reinterpreted in whatever way is necessary to maintain the point that women are always oppressed and men are always oppressors.

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (69 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEAnti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill 12 points13 points14 points 1 month ago (68 children) | Copy Link

Almost.

They define manhood as opposition to femininity, but they didn't bother to ask men how men defined masculinity, women defined masculinity for men, and defined femininity with the most bad faith interpretation of how they thought men saw femininity.

So they have a gross caricature of both masculinity and femininity, claim that this is how men see things and this is the justification men have used to build society and oppress women.

Whenever men disagree with the gross caricature feminism promotes as how men view masculinity and femininity, then feminism tells men that men have it wrong about their own perspective, and that feminism has it right.

The end result is feminism paints masculinity in the most violent and psychopathic light, completely devoid of virtues or compassion, and paints femininity in the weakest and most disempowered perspective, completely devoid of virtues or strength, because that's the only way they can see things to justify the perspective that men inherently want to control and oppress women and this is what creates the patriarchy.

You don't have to take my word for it, feminist Ellen Pence, co-founder of the Domestic Abuse Intervention Program that started the Duluth model, said so herself

By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff ... remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with ... It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find.[36]

Emphasis mine.

This is not an accident, this is the clear and direct result of the feminist assumptions about men and the patriarchy.

It's basically what happens when you have a faith-based position (the patriarchy) that comes into conflict with reality, and concluding that clearly reality must be wrong.

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE4 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Isn't gauging what people think and believe a faith based analysis?

No we quite literally have scientific domains for that, called psychology and sociology. It shouldn't really come as a surprise that feminism also runs afoul of both of those scientific fields. In as much as sociology uses the term "patriarchy" it has nothing to do with how feminism uses the word, and in as much as feminism uses the term "patriarchy" it is unfalsifiable and unscientific and has basically nothing to do with the sociological definition of the word.

With regards to psychology, again, Ellen Pence said "I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers."

They literally believed they knew how men thought (psychology) and when confronted with factual evidence that they were wrong, the evidence was ignored and dismissed in order to maintain the feminist narrative. When the evidence contradicts the ideology, and you discard the evidence to preserve the ideology, that's antiscientific by definition. It's basically faith-based reasoning.

Material discussion of how society is informed and shaped doesn't often neatly conform to how people believe themselves to exist within that society. Just ask any member of the deep south who's convinced themselves that racism is over.

I agree.

But just like I wouldn't trust someone in the south who is convinced that racism is over, I also wouldn't trust someone who is convinced that Christian persecution is rampant.

I don't trust the person who denies the existence of victims, and I also don't trust the person who paints themselves with a persecution complex and paints themselves as an eternal victim.

Instead I value the perspective of the person who bases themselves on actual evidence, not blind adherence to an ideology no matter what the evidence says.

[–]Eblademonk2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE6 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'll do you one better, wikipedia puts both definitions side by side.

The term patriarchy is used both in anthropology to describe a family or clan controlled by the father or eldest male or group of males, and in feminist theory to describe a broader social structure in which men as a group dominate society.

Sociology denotes that a patriarchy is due to the patriarch having the power, and the patriarch is a single man who is at the head of the household. This means that inherently most men do not have that power and only the one man at the top has that power, whereas feminism defines gender as equivalent to a social class, and treats "one man at the top having all the power" as equivalent to "all men everywhere having all the power".

And sociology is keenly aware that it is completely inappropriate to treat gender like a class, because men and women in the same class have far far far more in common with each other than men of the poor and rich classes have in common with each other, simply because they are men.

Feminism is basically re-branded Marxism, replacing the oppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat and seizing the means of production, with the oppression of women by men, and seizing the means of reproduction.

But the problem, again, is that gender is NOT equivalent to class, no matter how hard feminism tries to shove that square peg into the round hole.

[–]Eblademonk2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Gender and class are not incompatible points of comparison, but they are not equivalent and interchangeable.

You can absolutely compare gender and class, but they are not the same and cannot be treated the same. The scope of experiences of people within the same class is much more similar and people behave more the same and have the same experiences, than trying to pool half the people on the planet together based solely on their genitals.

The poor coal miner and the poor coalminer's wife have far more in common and their lives are much more accurately described by a common class, than are the experiences of the poor coal miner and the rich male mine owner. Besides the both of them being male, just about everything else about their life, power, and experiences, will be vastly different.

There are many more things you can say about someone's life experiences based on their class, and can say them more accurately, than you can say just about gender. You can say things accurately about people based solely on gender, but it is significantly more restricted than things you can say about class, and the common traits about gender tend to have more to do with interpersonal close relations, while class has more to do with large scale social interactions.

To borrow a point from elsewhere, people of different races in the same economic bracket have more in common than not, but we don't pretend white supremacy doesn't exist just because it sucks for everyone to be broke.

Well yes, but how exactly are we defining "white supremacy" here? Because if we define white supremacy as a racist attitude some people have that white people are better, then of course everyone being broke has no impact on white supremacy, because one is an economic reality, and the other is a perspective people hold in their head.

Neither gender nor class are an attitude people have in their head, they are real actual things that you can't just change from one moment to the next with just a change of perspective.

[–]Eblademonk2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean I do, but the problem is that I don't treat the economic outcomes like a one way street to only consider women's issues while ignoring men's issues.

The wage gap has been debunked, and 99.5% of the wage gap is explained by the personal choices people make. It wasn't always like that, but as a society we recognized that was a problem and fixed it, and now that problem no longer exists.

Despite that feminism constantly brings up the wage gap, pooling all women vs all men and completely ignoring part time va full time vs overtime and other factors.

Meanwhile men have been 75% of the homeless people, are 75% of the homeless people, and will continue to be 75% of the homeless people, and no attempt is ever made to change this. It's just an accepted reality.

So I do recognize the economic realities, but I don't ignore the economic realities of men solely because they're men and therefore we don't have to care about them.

I take a truly egalitarian perspective on economic realities, not a perspective that treats equality like a one way street exclusively to women's benefit.

Would the coalminer's wife in your analysis have the same economic liberties or social mobility as the miner himself?

No but she wouldn't die of a cave in of die of black lung either, and wouldn't be drafted to fight in either world wars or Vietnam either.

We can look at the economic realities, but we can't just look at the economic realities on one side exclusively while completely ignoring the economic realities of men.

And funnily enough this illustrates perfectly why gender can't be treated as class, because while both the miners wife and the miner face serious issues, the mine owner and the mine owners wife are living lives of luxury largely devoid of serious struggles.

Gender doesn't cmguarabtee that, but class does. The oppressed rich wife lives a significantly better life than the richest coal miner.

And this is precisely why the feminist approach of only looking at women's issues while completely ignoring men's issues and ignoring class issues, is problematic.

[–]Eblademonk-1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The oppressed rich wife is living a better life than the richest coal miner because she's rich.

Precisely, her class is a better indicator of the struggles she faces than her gender.

If a coalminer dies, his wife is damned to follow soon after because of her financial dependence on her husband, but if she dies, her husband can still work and sustain himself.

And it'd a good thing that historically and to this day 95% of workplace fatalities are men.

The woman whose husband died could remarry and she can also have a job to sustain herself, women have always worried through history, the stay at home wife who didn't work and was entirely dependent on her husband was a product of post WW2 American suburbia, it was a historical exception.

And again you'd never know this if we only looked through a narrow feminist lens obsessed with women's issues and completely ignorant of a broader class perspective throughout history.

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure, my understanding might be lacking, and if so feel free to point out how and where.

Per feminists and the Titanic it kind of depends, if they're actually egalitarian they'd probably say children first, then men and women evenly, but odds are most feminists will be pro women and children first and will use some kind of egalitarian sounding rationalization to justify benefiting from the privileges of chivalry.

Do you believe they wouldn't recognize the devaluation of men in that context as an advantage?

There's a bit of a double negative there so I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. If you are asking whether they would recognize that men's lives are devalued to ensure women's survival, it again depends on the feminist.

Truly egalitarian feminists would recognize that, but most feminists would likely call it either a patriarchal, patronizing, and/or infantilizing towards women, as proof that men are clearly sexist and bigoted against women and see women as less than.

So it depends on whether we're talking to egalitarian feminists, which are vanishingly rare, or the "women are always the most oppressed victims throughout all of history" variety of feminist, which makes up the overwhelming majority of all feminists.

Either way, virtually no feminist would be willing to recognize the female privilege that comes from men's duty to protect women, or recognize how male disposability and the gender empathy gap systematically disadvantages men.

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah. Ok, I see the problem here.

You don't have a concept for patriarchal bargaining, nor do you have an especially positive regard for the idea of benevolent sexism. I get it, it does read on its face like another "poor women" diatribe, but when discussing systemic issues, it's important to have a framework for what consistently generates outcomes. That's how coherence is established.

Feminists broadly understand that it is a function of patriarchy that men are put in positions of danger or violence or hostility in service to power. They even understand for the most part that patriarchy demands strict adherence to arbitrary standards of the men who participate within its confines. It's not that women get no benefits from the system, it's that nobody benefits worth what is extracted from them, and the benefits dispersed are disproportionate.

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

but when discussing systemic issues, it's important to have a framework for what consistently generates outcomes. That's how coherence is established.

I mean I agree with you here, the part I disagree with us the feminist framework that consistently generate the coherent outcomes that women are always the most oppressed victims in history, that masculinity and maleness is never oppressed or cause for oppression, and that there are never any benefits or privileges to being a woman or femininity.

I agree there needs to be a consistent framework, the part I disagree with is where feminism constantly and consistently treats equality like a one way street exclusively to the benefit of women and are completely incapable of ever stepping away from the male oppressor/female oppressed dichotomy.

Feminists broadly understand that it is a function of patriarchy that men are put in positions of danger or violence or hostility in service to power. They even understand for the most part that patriarchy demands strict adherence to arbitrary standards of the men who participate within its confines.

Well yes but they blame it back on men, saying its men's fault because men either set up the patriarchy or benefit from it, so since its men's fault, men are not victims here (because men are never and can never be victims under feminism you see).

It's not that women get no benefits from the system, it's that nobody benefits worth what is extracted from them, and the benefits dispersed are disproportionate.

Except for the men. The men get all the privilege and power and benefits, because it'smen who set up the patriarchy to benefit themselves at the expense of the oppression of women, and men suffer no oppression or issues because they set everything up so it's their own fault if they have problems.

That's the part they don't say out loud but still believe 100%.

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not that it's not worth an academic discussion, it's that it's not allowed as a discussion at all, period, and any attempt to point out the huge double standards and anti-male bias gets painted as misogynistic and anti-feminist, and therefore not even worth recognizing as a serious discussion.

And sweeping problems under the rug doesn't make those problems disappear, it just makes them fester and spread.

Speaking from purely material consequences, the patriarchy hurts everyone, it's just that the damage is unevenly distributed.

Well yes, the damage is by definition massively against women, and any damage against men gets categorized as self-inflicted so it doesn't count.

Because women must always be the biggest victims and men can never be victims, by definition.

Men get the vast majority of the privilege provided that they adhere strictly to a mould that can and will penalize them for failing to live up to its standards. But manhood isn't the thing being penalized in that model, incompetence is. Any man too poor, too colored, too neurodivergent is under threat, but that threat isn't coming from being a man, it's from being the wrong kind of man.

Feminists would never tolerate a discussion saying how women aren't penalized, they'e just penalized for failing to live up to the standards of femininity. It's not femininity being penalized, it's lack of empathy. Any woman too frigid, too loud, too opinionated, and too headstrong is under thread, but that threat isn't coming from being a woman, it's from being the wrong kind of woman.

Notice how anything that is ever a treat to women or femininity is seen as proof of oppression and harm to women and femininity, and that women are the victims, but when it comes to men it's never oppression or harm and men are not the victims.

It's a huge double standard. We use one set of standard to always paint women as the victim, and if men ever fall in the exact same situation, then we use a completely different set of standards to prove the man isn't a REAL victim the way the woman is.

Do you not see the massively blatant double standard here?

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because you're right in the sense that there is a two-tiered system at play, and you're correct that men are penalized under patriarchy, but I'm not sure why it is so important for you to use the same language in order to describe two separate states of oppression?

Because the double standard lies precisely in the assumption that women must always be oppressed while men cannot be oppressed, which leads to the two-tiered system.

It's not that reality has a two-tiered system of oppression, it's that feminism presupposes that women must ALWAYS be the victims while men can NEVER be the victims, and therefore feminism fabricates a two-tiered system to magnify women's victimhood and erase men's victimhood.

This is not a pattern in reality, it is a pattern feminism invents out of whole cloth and IMPOSES on reality, and demands people view their assumption about reality as though it is in fact reality.

You can conceptualize white supremacy, and you understand how wealth disparity functions, so it's almost a work of art how emphatically you refuse to engage with how we organize society by gender.

I have no issue with recognizing how we organize society by gender.

I have a lot of issues with the feminist assumption that this organization of society by gender means women MUST ALWAYS be the most oppressed victims, while men CAN NEVER be oppressed anywhere to the same level or with the same severity as women.

It's that bald-faced assertion of eternal female victimhood, combined with the complete and constant erasure and dismissal of male victimhood, that I cannot agree with.

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think some bell hooks would be very beneficial reading for your analysis, actually.

"The will to change" is literally all about the ways in which patriarchy as a system conditions men into its maintenance through victimization and abuse. These are conversations being had. They're even being had in academic and professional environments, especially with the rise of disaffected young men defaulting to violence as a means of recuperating any sense of meaning and value in life. It's just a matter of recognizing that the public perception of feminism, especially the ideals disseminated across social media or mainstream narratives are not the full academic scope of their practice.

I'm not going to say that there aren't radfems convinced that the only victims in this conversation are women, but that's not how systemic analysis works since at least the third wave of feminist discussion. You should seek out what intersectional feminists are discussing with regards to how women are complicit in the maintenance of patriarchy.

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

See I want to read her as well, "The will to change" has been on my reading list for a while.

The problem is that every single time bell hooks is brought up, it's basically as a dismissal to say "see feminism cares about men, bell hooks wrote a book about it 20 years ago, now shut up". The problem is that, if absolutely nothing has happened since in those last 20 years then it clearly shows that caring about men is pretty damn close to dead last in terms of priorities for feminism.

These are conversations being had. They're even being had in academic and professional environments, especially with the rise of disaffected young men defaulting to violence as a means of recuperating any sense of meaning and value in life.

Well yes, and while the conversations in the academic ivory towers might not immediately default to blaming men for reacting violently to the situation they are forced into, that is precisely the kind of man-blaming and man-hating conversation that happens 90% of the time outside those academic ivory towers.

It's just a matter of recognizing that the public perception of feminism, especially the ideals disseminated across social media or mainstream narratives are not the full academic scope of their practice.

See, if I call myself a pacifist, but I punch everyone in the face who disagrees with me, will you believe my words or will you believe my actions?

Same with feminism, it does not matter how much it claims to be or equality or how much it claims to be for men, when feminism constantly and consistently erases, dismisses, invalidates, and denigrate male victims, well, actions speak louder than words.

It was feminists who started the Duluth model on the assumption that all domestic abuse is due to a male patriarchal desire to control and oppress women, and for the last 50 years feminism has been hard at work erasing the fact that men are half the domestic abuse victims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model#Criticism

It was feminist Mary Koss who instructed the CDC to specifically and deliberately erase male rape victims of female perpetrators from rape statistics, by calling it "made to penetrate" instead. Due to her feminist beliefs, Koss thought it was inappropriate to consider a man as a victim of rape, that bsically men could not be raped by women, and that instead it should be considered "unwanted contact".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_P._Koss#Career

The duluth model still exists to this day. The CDC still erases male rape victims of female rapists to this day.

So when you talk about the "public perception" of feminism, the problem is not the public perception. The problem is feminism's own direct actions that leads to the accurate public perception that feminism actively does not care about male victims.

I'm not going to say that there aren't radfems convinced that the only victims in this conversation are women, but that's not how systemic analysis works since at least the third wave of feminist discussion.

Well that's nice to know, maybe we should inform the 90%+ of feminists who do in fact believe that women are largely the only victims and major victims.

You should seek out what intersectional feminists are discussing with regards to how women are complicit in the maintenance of patriarchy.

Well yes, those women are complicit because they are either rewarded by men, in which case it is men's fault, or because they have internalized misogyny because of men, in which case it is still men's fault.

I am very aware of intersectional feminism, and I am very aware of how at the core of intersectional analysis theory lies the unquestionable faith-based assumption that women are always the biggest victims and men can never be the biggest victims.

Again, if I call myself a pacifist, but I punch everyone in the face who disagrees with me, will you believe my words or will you believe my actions?

Feminism claims to be about equality, but over and over and over again we see feminism treating equality like a one-way street exclusively to the benefit of women.

The problem is not the public perception.

The problem is feminism's own actions.

But feminism completely and categorically refuses to acknowledge that problem, it cannot, because it would require re-examining the faith-based position that women are always the biggest victims and me can never be the biggest victims.

And since that is the core tenet of feminism, they cannot ever re-examine that, and they will continue to deny the problem. The core tenet of feminism is in contradiction with reality. and every single time, feminists choose to believe that feminism is right and reality is wrong.

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If a white woman screamed at a cookout that a black man attacked her, is she the biggest victim when the police get involved?

Of course, she is a woman, therefore she must be believed (#believewomen) and she is the biggest victim by default. If she made a mistake, it was an honest mistake, and you can't hold her accountable because women get constantly attacked and abused and it is only right women defend themselves.

And women would never be racist or make false allegations ever, anyone who implies that is clearly a misogynistic incel, which proves that again women are oppressed and are the biggest victims.

You need to compare people at equal levels of standing in order to accurately assess who's outcomes are worse.

I mean I agree, but the problem is the feminist assumption that female = automatically always the bigger victims, and male = never ever a bigger victim than women.

That's the core sexist assumption that is central to feminism, it's the core dicthotomy between men being by default the powerful abusive oppressors and women being by default the weak innocent oppressed victim.

It's this core central assumption that underlies everything in feminism that I can't agree with.

Life is messy, and feminism is one critical framework that pulls one thread in a life that has multiple interlocking factors.

I agree that life is messy, the problem is that feminism considers gender to be always and forever the single most important factor of all, even when it demonstrably isn't, and then feminism ties itself into philosophical pretzels to justify its own unjustifiable assumptions about gender and power.

Rich women aren't doing better than poor men because they're women.

According to feminism, those rich women might be worse off than poor men, purely because those rich women are women, and those poor men are men, and feminism sees being a man as a bigger and more important privilege than wealth.

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't know what to tell you dawg. There's plenty of discussions on how patriarchal bargaining can afford women with some degree of privilege a measure of power over men without that privilege, and even documented history of men being moved to brutal acts of violence "on behalf of" the women around them, but I haven't seen a feminist ever say that gender is the primary axis of oppression in all circumstances. Hell, "to kill a mockingbird" was written specifically with the intention of drawing those disparities in outcome to light.

I've read some text arguing that gendered oppression is the original hierarchy from which all others are derived, but most writers I've engaged with agree that modern society has only gotten more complex in the ways it can artificially divide people into castes. I wouldn't call the first hierarchy to exist the only one that matters, especially when I still need to navigate like six others before I can clock out of my job.

I do not know where you're drawing the conclusion that feminists believe women are always the victim forever, in all circumstances, but it is reading like a gross oversimplification of a much more complicated idea about how power weaves its way through societal and interpersonal dynamics.

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I also don't know what to tell you dawg. I keep quoting you facts, citing feminists, demonstrating what I mean with my points, and every time you just ignore it and move on to something else, like I didn't just disprove the other 10 points you brought up previously and ignored.

but I haven't seen a feminist ever say that gender is the primary axis of oppression in all circumstances.

Where have you been the last 100 years? Feminism has ALWAYS treated gender oppression as the single largest axis of oppression in virtually every single circumstance.

Hell, "to kill a mockingbird" was written specifically with the intention of drawing those disparities in outcome to light.

Pretty sure the point of TKaM was about racism, not sexism. I'm all for bringing disparities to light and correcting them so we can have a more equal society.

The problem, again, is that feminism treats equality like a one-way street exclusively to the benefit of women. Feminism is extremely eager to fight for the name of equality when women benefit from it, but the moment it comes to equality in favour of men, all of a sudden equality doesn't matter anymore.

I keep pointing out this double standard to you and you keep ignoring it dawg, I don't know what to tell you.

but most writers I've engaged with agree that modern society has only gotten more complex in the ways it can artificially divide people into castes. I wouldn't call the first hierarchy to exist the only one that matters, especially when I still need to navigate like six others before I can clock out of my job.

Well see I'd agree with you about society becoming more complex and there are multiple axes of oppression, but the problem is that feminism still doesn't see it that way, and puts oppression at the top of the oppression totem pole. Your own personal opinion is irrelevant because I'm not talking about your opinion, I'm pointing out how feminism constantly and consistently behaves.

I do not know where you're drawing the conclusion that feminists believe women are always the victim forever, in all circumstances,

Using my eyes and ears. It's really not that hard. How many feminist articles, publications, or schools of thought argue that in any specific area it is in fact men who are the primary or biggest victims, and that it is women who are causing these issues?

You'll never see it happen, because they'll say that either men are the victims from other men, so the male victims don't matter and we need to focus on the male perpetrators (as though the male victims don't matter and don't deserve to be recognized and helped) or they'll say that some individual women can behave badly but this is in no way indicative of women overall (but for some reason this reasoning doesn't apply when we consider that 90%+ of men would never abuse their partner and 99% of men would never rape or murder women).

It's not a gross oversimplification. It's cutting through all the bullshit and the flowery language.

If all of feminism's actions and schools of thoughts in practice end up treating all matters like women are always the bigger victims and men as a group can never be victims, then it doesn't matter how flowery the language or how much window dressing we add.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it likely is a duck.

But for some reason we're never allowed to criticize feminism or say anything negative about it, so then we have guys like you who closes their eyes and completely ignores and dismisses everything that could ever go against the notion that feminism would never cause any harm and would never do anything wrong.

But see that's not a conclusion, that's an assumption, and you and others are just refusing to acknowledge anything that goes against what you already want to believe.

I'm just standing there holding up a mirror and pointing out what's reflected in it. Not my fault if people don't like to see how it makes feminism look bad.

If a pacifist goes around punching people in the face, they're clearly not a real pacifist.

If feminism treats equality like a one-way street exclusively to women's benefit, then they don't really care about equality.

It's not my fault feminism and feminists behave that way. If they don't want to get called out on it, they just need to stop treating equality like a one-way street exclusively to women's benefit. I'll just stand here and keep calling them out on it until they start actually caring about equality.

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I understand how you came to your conclusion. It doesn't hold up for the same reason most dating advice collapses.

A sweeping generalization about the prevailing narrative feminists argue is fundamentally rooted in the ignorance of the average feminist. The ones that don't read a book of theory, the ones that don't take their time to examine issues systemically or their position within the system. It's the feminism discussed in internet forums or legacy media outlets. It's the propagandized, watered down theory that isn't grounded in any structural understanding of capital, patriarchy, or white supremacy.

The Duluth model is ass, but that's not a camp of feminist praxis you need to regard as worth engaging with. It's certainly not the capstone of feminist theory or praxis, in the same way JK Rowling's particular bugbears are only magnified by the amount of power and influence she wields.

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That "sweeping generalization" is directly the result of interacting with the average feminist.

The ones that don't read a book of theory, the ones that don't take their time to examine issues systemically or their position within the system. It's the feminism discussed in internet forums or legacy media outlets. It's the propagandized, watered down theory that isn't grounded in any structural understanding of capital, patriarchy, or white supremacy.

Well yes, that's the average feminist and the vast majority of all feminists.

Not my fault feminism can't police its own members.

We can talk about the academic feminists in their ivory towers, who represent less than 5% of all feminists, and who basically have very little power and control compared to the other 95% of feminists.

Ironic though that Mary Koss and Ellen Pence would both fit your defnition of feminists who read books, examine systemic issues, and their position within the system, and yet they both still came to the exact same conclusion, that men are the oppressors and cannot be victims, while women are the innocent oppressed victims who cannot be the oppressors.

So either we're talking about the vast majority of feminists who aren't the ivory tower academic kind, or we're talking about the ivory tower academic kind, among which we absolutely do need to count Mary Koss and Ellen Pence.

So which is it?

The Duluth model is ass

And it exists solely because of feminist theories and feminist academics who have set up the entire thing and created the world's largest domestic abuse training program for police in the world.

The Duluth model IS ass, and it is ass because it is explicitly based off of feminist assumptions and built by feminist academics who wanted to follow feminist narratives.

This is the part you somehow constantly and conveniently ignore.

but that's not a camp of feminist praxis you need to regard as worth engaging with.

Doesn't matter, it happened, it was created and supported by feminists, it exists, it actively harms male domestic abuse victims today, and feminism has neither apologized for it nor tried to fix its own mess.

Pretending it isn't a problem won't make it go away.

It's certainly not the capstone of feminist theory or praxis, in the same way JK Rowling's particular bugbears are only magnified by the amount of power and influence she wields.

You seriously going to equate JK Rownling to feminist efforts to systematically erase, invalidate, and dismiss male domestic abuse victims, and that these efforts have been ongoing across the US and the world for 55 years, is equivalent to one author saying mean things online?

Do you seriously think that the one in seven men in the US who have endured severe physical violence in their lifetime, is somehow less of a problem than JK Rowling's tweets?

Really?

[–]Shinjetsu011 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is honestly one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've read in a while.

You keep taking the views of specific feminists, specific policies, and specific historical models, then pretending you've somehow proved what all of feminism is. That's not an argument, it's a sweeping generalisation.

You even invent statistics like "90% of feminists believe..." with absolutely nothing to back it up. If you're going to demand evidence from everyone else, maybe start holding yourself to the same standard.

Yes, there have been feminist ideas and policies that deserve criticism. Plenty of feminists have criticised them too. But pretending an entire movement spanning millions of people across decades and multiple schools of thought can be reduced to Mary Koss and the Duluth Model is absurd.

You've built a caricature of feminism that's convenient to argue against, then convinced yourself you've dismantled the real thing. You haven't.

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not saying that this is ALL of what feminism is.

I'm simply saying that at its core, feminism treats equality like a one-way street exclusively to women's benefit.

I'm glad you agree that some feminist ideas and policies deserve criticism. The problem is that most feminist criticism has to do with implementing ideas better according to feminism, and has virtually no criticism whatsoever for how male victims are erased, dismissed, or ignored. That's kind of the problem.

Where is the outrage that male rape victims in the US get erased by calling it "made to penetrate"?

Where is the outrage that in the US fathers don't have as much rights to see their own kids as mothers in 44 out of 50 states?

Where is the outrage that in the US if a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself, she can sue the man she raped, and the man will be forced to pay his rapist child support or go to jail?

Where is the outrage that it is legally impossible for women to rape men in Spain and the UK?

Why is it that when there is outrage, like there is in Spain and Italy, it is outrage that billboards advertize for phone lines for male abuse victims, and feminist groups are outraged that this somehow devalues female victims?

This is not some fringe group of feminists, this is the overwhelming majority of feminists who actively do not care about male victims.

This is not some rare behaviour, it is a core part of the modern feminist movement.

And until feminism does better by men, until feminism recognizes half the domestic abuse victims are men, that male domestic abuse victims are horribly under-served, until feminism recognizes near half the rape victims are men, until feminism recognizes men have no reproductive rights whatsoever, and until feminism recognizes that men face serious issues too and that men need help too, then feminism is actively making things worse for men and male victims.

But feminism cannot do it, because the core tenet of feminism is that men are violent abusive oppressors who need to be stopped, and women are innocent oppressed victims who need to be helped. And anything that goes against this core narrative gets dismissed, invalidated, ignored, and attacked.

I wish I was making this up. I wish this wasn't how things truly worked.

But it is.

So how exactly am I supposed to react to the fact that feminism treats equality like a one-way street exclusively to women's benefit?

[–]Shinjetsu011 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You keep saying "this isn't all of feminism" and then immediately follow it with "at its core feminism believes..." That's still a sweeping generalisation. You're taking examples you dislike and declaring they represent the essence of an entire movement. That's not evidence; it's confirmation bias.

You ask "where is the outrage?" as though the absence of outrage in your social media feed proves none exists. Feminist lawyers, academics and organisations have criticised gendered definitions of sexual violence, advocated for male victims of abuse, and argued for reform of family courts for years. You may think they haven't done enough and that's a perfectly valid criticism, but claiming they don't exist is simply false.

You're also presenting several contentious claims as if they're uncontested facts. For example, the UK does recognise men as victims of rape and other serious sexual offences, even though the statutory offence of rape is defined around penile penetration. A woman who forces a man into sex can still be prosecuted for equally serious offences carrying life sentences. That's a quirk of legal drafting worth debating, not proof that "feminism believes women can't rape men." Stop making shit up to support your arguments. You'd be far better served debating with far less bias.

Likewise, family court outcomes are far more complicated than "mothers have more rights." In practice, courts generally start from the child's welfare and where fathers actively seek shared parenting, outcomes are often much closer than internet rhetoric suggests. There are real issues to address, but you're reducing decades of family law to a slogan.

The biggest problem though, is your logic. You cite Mary Koss, the Duluth Model, a handful of activists, and some policies you dislike, then conclude that the core tenet of feminism is that men are oppressors and women are perpetual victims. That's like saying the core tenet of conservatism is authoritarianism because some conservatives supported dictators or the core tenet of socialism is famine because the Soviet Union existed. It's guilt by association masquerading as analysis.

Criticise bad ideas. Criticise bad policies. Criticise individual "feminists". But stop pretending you've proved something about the entire philosophy when all you've actually done is cherry pick examples that reinforce what you already believed.

It's very clear you've been radicalised against actual, real feminism. You are blind to the actual philosophies most feminists believe and the rights they fight for. You believe extremes support your argument. They do not. You are making shit up like "most feminists believe..." and it's complete and utter bullshit.

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

then immediately follow it with "at its core feminism believes..." That's still a sweeping generalisation.

Is that core generalization wrong?

You're taking examples you dislike and declaring they represent the essence of an entire movement.

No, I'm pointing out significant cases where feminism has not acted in favour of equality, feminism has acted in favour of INEQUALITY, wherever it benefits women, even if it harms men.

That's kind of a big deal for a movement that claims to be all about equality.

And then, when those blatantly unequal things happen, feminism actively does not care unless the victims are female.

You may think they haven't done enough and that's a perfectly valid criticism, but claiming they don't exist is simply false.

You know that's actually fair, I didn't think I was saying these groups don't exist, I suppose I should have specified that some feminist groups are actually good and actually do care about true equality instead of treating equality like a one-way street exclusively to the benefit of women.

The problem is these good feminist groups are a tiny minority and are outnumbered and outmatched by the majority of feminism that does treat equality like a one-way street.

For example, the UK does recognise men as victims of rape and other serious sexual offences, even though the statutory offence of rape is defined around penile penetration.

The UK only recognizes men as rape victims if they are raped by another man. That's why I said that it is legally impossible for a woman to rape a man.

A woman who forces a man into sex can still be prosecuted for equally serious offences carrying life sentences.

But not rape.

That's a quirk of legal drafting worth debating, not proof that "feminism believes women can't rape men." Stop making shit up to support your arguments. You'd be far better served debating with far less bias.

I mean there are feminists in this very subreddit who have said they don't believe it is possible for women to rape men because men are stronger. There's not a ton of feminists who will outright say that, but they exist, and they largely don't get much pushback from other feminists, because the vast majority of feminists don't care about male rape victims, they only care about female rape victims.

Which is why I'm pointing out how the outrage surrounding male rape victims is almost completely absent, because the vast majority of feminists and feminism does not care about male victims.

Stop making shit up to support your arguments. You'd be far better served debating with far less bias.

I'm not making shit up, like I said I have seen it happen with my own eyes. I can't pretend it doesn't happen.

Likewise, family court outcomes are far more complicated than "mothers have more rights."

Well yes but it is still true that in the US, equal shared custody is only law in 6 out of 50 states, in the other 44 states there is not a legal protection for fathers to have equal access to their own kids, the way mothers have this legal protection. So in 44 out of 50 states, mothers actually DO have more rights than fathers. This is the reality of the situation.

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

There are real issues to address, but you're reducing decades of family law to a slogan.

Seems to me that fathers not having the right to shared and equal custody in 44 out of 50 states it a pretty big issue.

You cite Mary Koss, the Duluth Model, a handful of activists, and some policies you dislike, then conclude that the core tenet of feminism is that men are oppressors and women are perpetual victims. That's like saying the core tenet of conservatism is authoritarianism because some conservatives supported dictators or the core tenet of socialism is famine because the Soviet Union existed. It's guilt by association masquerading as analysis.

It's not guilt by association, it's demonstrating how these policies and practices came to be as a result of core feminist tenets and beliefs. These people didn't invent these things out of nowhere.

The whole notion of patriarchy rests on the notion that men are the oppressors and women are oppressed. I'm not taking things out of context, things like erasing male rape victims and male domestic abuse victims is a logical consequence of believing men are oppressors and cannot be oppressed, and that women are oppressed and cannot be oppressors.

Criticise bad ideas. Criticise bad policies. Criticise individual "feminists". But stop pretending you've proved something about the entire philosophy when all you've actually done is cherry pick examples that reinforce what you already believed.

How many bad examples does it take to show there is a problem? How many bad apples are needed to show the bunch is spoiled? I am criticizing bad ideas, bad policies, bad individual feminists, and I am showing how all these bad ideas, policies, and feminists, are all directly a result of core feminist assumptions that men cannot ever be oppressed or victimized as much as women.

It's very clear you've been radicalised against actual, real feminism. You are blind to the actual philosophies most feminists believe and the rights they fight for. You believe extremes support your argument. They do not. You are making shit up like "most feminists believe..." and it's complete and utter bullshit.

Oh no I am not blind to actual philosophies, I actually pay close attention to it. Those philosophies are great for women, because feminism treats equality like a one-way street exclusively to the benefit of women.

I'm calling these things out BECAUSE I am paying close attention, and because the erasure of male victims and female perpetrators is not an exception or an aberrant behaviour, it is the norm, and it is actively supported by feminism.

Hell, in my own country of Canada, feminists noticed that indigenous women get murdered and go missing significantly more than non-indigenous women, which absolutely is a real problem. They tarted the Commission on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women to tackled that very real issue, and lots of good came from it.

The problem is those same feminists who pushed for the Commission, then completely ignore and downplay the fact that the very Commission they wanted, found that indigenous men are 2-4x more likely to get murdered and go missing than indigenous women and girls.

This contradits the narrative that women are always the bigger victims, and so they completely erase, silence, and downplay the very findings of their own commission when those findings are inconvenient to them and does not align with the narrative they want to push.

Again, this is not a rare thing, it is not the exception, this is the pattern that happens constantly and consistently across feminism.

[–]Shinjetsu011 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You've done it again.

You've asserted "the majority of feminists believe X", "this is the norm", "this is a core tenet", "this happens constantly" but you've still produced precisely zero evidence for those claims.

Your evidence consists of:

Mary Koss.
The Duluth Model.
Some Reddit feminists.
Some Canadian activists.
Some unnamed people you've "seen with your own eyes."

That is not evidence for what the majority of feminists believe. It's evidence that you've found examples that support your conclusion.

You also fundamentally misunderstand what patriarchy is. Feminist theory does not say "men are oppressors and therefore cannot be oppressed." It argues that societies have historically organised power around male dominance in many institutions. Those are completely different propositions. Men can absolutely be victims within patriarchal systems; that's been discussed in feminist literature for decades. You're arguing against a definition you've invented.

Your "bad apples" analogy also collapses immediately. A bunch is spoiled when the bad apples are representative of the bunch. You haven't demonstrated that. You've assumed it. Where is the survey showing "most feminists" oppose recognising male victims? Where is the evidence that "the vast majority" support Mary Koss's views? Where is the evidence that "most feminists" think women cannot rape men? You keep making empirical claims without empirical evidence.

Even your legal examples don't prove what you think they prove. A gendered legal definition of rape is not proof that feminism believes men can't be raped. Laws are written by legislatures, interpreted by courts and influenced by countless political, historical and legal factors. You're attributing every outcome you dislike to feminism because it fits your narrative.

The irony is that you've accused everyone else of treating feminism like a religion, while your own position is completely unfalsifiable. Every feminist who supports male victims is dismissed as a tiny minority. Every feminist who doesn't is declared representative of the movement. Every counterexample becomes "not the real majority." That's not reasoning, it's confirmation bias.

You haven't demonstrated what feminism's "core tenet" is. You've simply declared it, then interpreted every piece of evidence through that lens. That's the very definition of begging the question.

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is not evidence for what the majority of feminists believe. It's evidence that you've found examples that support your conclusion.

I mean fair, Mary Koss and the Duluth model are not proof that the majority of feminists believe this.

The fact the vast majority of feminists implicitly agree with and condone both however, is an indication that the vast majority of feminists agree with and condone the work of Mary Koss and of the Duluth model.

So it's effectively a distinction without a difference.

You also fundamentally misunderstand what patriarchy is. Feminist theory does not say "men are oppressors and therefore cannot be oppressed."

Of course it doesn't say that directly, there's a whole lot more window dressing around it to make it seem much nicer and more palatable, but at it's core, that is still 100% correct.

I haven't heard a single feminist ever agree that there could be situations where men are oppressed. Even when men are drafted and sent to die in wars, it's because it was other men who passed those laws, so it's if anything men oppressing themselves, so it is still men's fault.

Men can absolutely be victims within patriarchal systems; that's been discussed in feminist literature for decades. You're arguing against a definition you've invented.

Yes, individual men can be victims of specific circumstances, but it can never be systemic issues, and men as a whole can never be oppressed or victims because they are men.

The closest feminism has ever come to recognizing that men can be victims would be bell hook's The Will to Change, arguing that the patriarchy demands men do violence to themselves and remove part of their own emotions, and that is very insightful and accurate.

The problem is that the next 20 years of feminist literature has completely abandoned that approach and hasn't progressed an inch further in the direction of considering men's issues and men as victims.

Which really goes to show just how little feminism cares about men and male victims. If feminism spends 10x more time erasing, dismissing, and invalidating male victims, than it spends time talking about and helping male victims, it seems to me the good helpful feminists are the exception that proves the rule.

Your "bad apples" analogy also collapses immediately. A bunch is spoiled when the bad apples are representative of the bunch.

That's not what they say about cops or the patriarchy. They say a bunch is spoiled with even one bad apple in the bunch.

Either we use that standard for women and feminism as well, or we take the standard that a bunch is only spoiled when bad apples are representative of the bunch, in which case neither the police nor men are spoiled by the few bad apples in the bunch.

Can't have it both ways.

Where is the survey showing "most feminists" oppose recognising male victims?

The part where feminism actively lies to its followers to constantly and consistently downplay and erase male abuse victims and male rape victims.

You'd think a group that cared about abuse that much would recognize that half the domestic abuse victims are men at the hands of female abusers, but the more feminist someone is, the more likely they are to become hostile at the very idea that men could ever be abused anywhere near as much as women.

Where is the evidence that "most feminists" think women cannot rape men?

If that's the impression I gave I apologize, I didn't mean to make it sound like most feminists think women cannot rape men, I was arguing that a non-zero amount of feminists actively do believe that, and they don't get called out. It's not that a majority of feminists believe this, but for a group that claims to care about rape victims and sexual assault victims, ANY amount of feminists who believe men cannot be raped by women is unacceptable.

It would be like if say 0.5% of all members of the Jewish anti-defamation league thought the Nazis had a point. That would be COMPLETELY unacceptable.

But within feminism it's acceptable because feminism and feminists largely don't care about male victims.

A gendered legal definition of rape is not proof that feminism believes men can't be raped.

I didn't say the law proves feminists think men can'T be raped, I said there is no outrage from feminists about this law that states that legally men cannot be raped by women.

If it was the other way around there would be absolute outrage, as there should be. But the moment the victim is a man, feminism, again, doesn't care, and finds ways to rationalize and justify why they shouldn't care.

You're attributing every outcome you dislike to feminism because it fits your narrative.

No, I'm actually pointing out the specific negative outcomes that feminism was essential to, and that these specific negative outcomes are not only directly attributable to feminism, but that feminism has also made no effort to try and actually fix any of these negative outcomes, because again, feminism doesn't care about male victims.

Every feminist who supports male victims is dismissed as a tiny minority. Every feminist who doesn't is declared representative of the movement. Every counterexample becomes "not the real majority." That's not reasoning, it's confirmation bias.

Point me to a significant enough majority of feminists who make a difference and who call out the other feminists. I'd love to be proven wrong. Like seriously, I don't WANT feminism to work to actively erase and dismiss male victims.

I just can't deny what I am seeing with my own eyes.

You haven't demonstrated what feminism's "core tenet" is. You've simply declared it, then interpreted every piece of evidence through that lens. That's the very definition of begging the question.

And if I was completely wrong, it should be easy to prove it, no?

And yet, almost every single time, interpreting feminism's actions through the lens of men being violent oppressors who cannot be victims, and women as innocent victims who cannot be oppressors, works almost every single time.

Those odds are a bit too high for it to be a complete coincidence, no?

Prove me wrong. By all means show me feminist articles where they point out that men are the victims and women are the oppressors.

Edit: ah the runaway downvote. Don't like being wrong and being called out for being biased do you?

Wasn't me. I don't downvote people who actually engage in good faith. I actually enjoy hashing it out with people and if I am wrong I do want to know. Heck, I'll give you an upvote just to counter whoever downvoted you.

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except it's not. It's to accommodate human endurance, because nobody can work for 4 weeks straight, but people can work in 8 hour shifts with 3 shifts per day in a factory to keep the factory running 24/7.

This has nothing to do with hormonal cycles. If anything it is dehumanizing and sees people as machines, unthinking parts in a chain used to extract labour and value out of them, regardless of what gender the workers are.

But we can't see it that way, because we have to frame everything from the perspective that women are always the most oppressed and everything wrong with society is due to the oppression of women in some for or other, even when the 8 h factory workshift has absolutely nothing to do with hormonal cycles.

We gotta find some way to cram that a square peg into the round hole, no matter how poorly it fits, because the oppression of women is the single most important topic we're never allowed to ignore.

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm fully aware of what a reductio ad absurdum is, the irony is that it's not a fallacy, it's a legitimate way to make an argument.

From the wiki

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical argument, or proof by contradiction, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that following the logic of a contrary proposition or argument would lead to absurdity or contradiction.

I just keep pointing out the absurd premises that underlies most of your arguments.

If you don't want me to keep calling you out on your absurd premises, stop using absurd premises in your arguments.

Stop assuming women are and must always be the most oppressed group ever, and that everything bad or wrong is proof of patriarchy and the oppression of women, and try and actually demonstrate it first.

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you equalize parties across race and class, the largest disparity in outcomes comes from gender.

Well yes, because we've equalized everything else, but the disparity is not consistently and solely in favour of women and stacked consistently and solely in men's favour.

Because if that were true we wouldn't see that near 80% of suicidal people, homeless people, and murdered people were men.

Most of the people at the top are men, but so are most people at the bottom men too, and there are millions more men at the bottom than at the top.

But feminism's sphere of focus is on opposition to patriarchy, which is a system of hierarchy just like race or class.

Well yes, but my problem with the patriarchy is that it outright assumes what it needs to prove. It assumes women are always oppressed and seeks out any and all confirmation of this, while completely ignoring and dismissing everything that could go against the conclusion they want to find. It's a classic case of confirmation bias.

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Still committing the apex fallacy, you're looking at the 10 men who succeed and ignoring the 10,000 men who failed.

Again, patriarchy is shit for everybody, but mechanically it is elevating a specific kind of people.

Yes, a tiny fraction of men, at the expense of most men and women. So if the patriarchy elevated a tiny minority of men at the expense of most men, how can it benefit men?

We describe hierarchies by who's at the top, not who's involved in maintaining it, or punished for failure. We didn't call monarchy serfdom, and we don't call capitalism industrialized slavery.

The difference is that with white supremacy, you don't see most people at the bottom being white. With capitalism, you don't see most people at the bottom being rich. With monarchy, you don't see most people at the bottom being kings.

But with the patriarchy, we DO see most people at the bottom being men.

And that's kind of a big problem, if the system that is claimed to benefit men, harms and fails most men.

Only looking at the top and ignoring everything else is the literal definition of apex fallacy. It is looking at only people at the top, and assuming that whatever applies to those members at the top, also applies to everyone who shares characteristics of the people at the top.

We know that is factually not true, because again, while most people at the top are men, most people at the bottom are also men, and there are far more failed men at the bottom than successful men at the top. We can't say the system benefits men when the vast majority of men fail because of the system.

If the patriarchy benefits men then it is singularly incompetent, since it fails far more men than it helps.

Pretending like the men at the bottom don't exist or don't matter doesn't make the contradiction go away. Ignoring the problem doesn't solve it.

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Like I said, patriarchy harms everyone but a select few, a lot like white supremacy actually.

You said something to the effect of "you don't see white people at the bottom of white supremacy," by way of refutation here, and I think this is perfectly illustrative of my point. Because you're just blatantly incorrect here. The vast majority of US citizens are white, and you can see pretty clearly that being white hasn't stopped most of them from being poor, or being undereducated, or being mistreated by their local governments. White Supremacy doesn't stop existing in the presence of poor white people, it just opens the door for the evergreen LBJ Quote.

A sociological perspective might discuss conflict theory and how struggling for resources has put the oligarchs in a position to shape cultural narratives in order to enrich themselves at the detriment of others, but I want to keep the scope narrow here, to address your concern that feminists seem to think women are the singular victims of a system which we already agree sucks for everybody.

I feel like I need to underscore the point here, that you're not bringing up anything that hasn't already been discussed by academics. The contradiction in treatment between the highest and lowest men in the patriarchal hierarchy is a result of putting men in the position of enforcing that hierarchy. Call it the wages of their labor if you can conceptualize such a practice. It's impossible for any but a select few to reach the top, but depending on how well you uphold the allied hierarchical systems, it will be relatively simple to take a rung above the people who can't.

Women can uphold patriarchy, but they cannot reach the same ceiling, and the floor for them is in a different dimension entirely.

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's impossible for any but a select few to reach the top, but depending on how well you uphold the allied hierarchical systems, it will be relatively simple to take a rung above the people who can't.

And if that is true, why do we say the patriarchy is a system that benefits men, when most people who get stepped on and who are at the bottom rung of society, are men?

This is not a rare case, this is not an accident, this is not an outlier. It is the norm that in the patriarchal system we live in, that feminist claims benefits men as a whole, most of the people who we see being harmed the most, are men.

If most people who are harmed by the patriarchy are men and the people most harmed by the patriarchy are men, how can we say the patriarchy benefits men?

It would be like saying the monarchy benefits blue eyed people, because the total family has blue eyes, but we completely ignore how 90% of blue eyed people were serfs.

To claim that this blue eyed monarchy system benefits blue eyed people, simply because the Royal family has blue eyes, while ignoring the fact 90% of blue eyed people are poor serfs, would be absolutely asinine.

So if we can obviously see the problem with the blue eyed monarchy, why do we refuse to see the exact same issue happening with men and the patriarchy?

Why do we keep ignoring that most people who are harmed by the patriarchy, and the people most harmed by the patriarchy, are men?

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The men harmed by patriarchy aren't being ignored. They're willfully buying into the system harming them.

No I mean you and feminism are ignoring them.

You are saying they are buying into the ayatem, so the harm done to them doesn't matter, doesn't count as oppression, and doesn't even need to be looked at or taken into account. The harm men go through at the hands of the patriarchy gets almost completely ignored and dismissed.

If we actually fully quantified and took into account the amount that patriarchy harms men, we would quickly see thwt patriarchy does NOT benefit all men.

Do you know the LBJ quote about racism?

I did a quick google search and there are a few that popped up. I don't know which one specifically you're referring to. It's generally helpful in conversations to write the full name and specify which quote one is referring to, in order to avoid misunderstandings.

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men under patriarchy are oppressed by the system of patriarchy itself.

Well hold on a minute, earlier you said men benefited from the patriarchy and were not oppressed by it.

So which is it? Are men oppressed by the patriarchy or do men benefit from the patriarchy?

Would it be better to split "men" into smaller groups to more accurately describe which men are oppressed by the patriarchy and which men benefit from the patriarchy?

The LBJ quote I'm referring to is, if memory serves "if you can convince the lowest white man that he's above the highest negro, he won't notice you picking his pockets. Hell, if you give a man someone to look down on, he'll empty his pockets himself"

That's a good quote and very relevant.

How do you feel about this quote in the context of feminism constantly praising women and treating women like they're better than men? After all if feminism convinces even the lowest woman she's morally better than and oppressed by most men, she'll happily empty her pockets for feminism too, wouldn't she?

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They were never traded away between families to secure alliances,

So were men. Marriages as alliance between families used both sons and daughters to make that alliance work.

or purchased using dowry

If your boss purchases your time when you work for him, does it mean your boss owns you as property?

taken as spoils in war?

I mean when it comes to war the rules change because it's a conflict between societies. Women could be taken as spoils, or have their throats slit along with the men and boys, which do you think is better?

What do you think marriage was, if not an economic contract between houses securing the exchange of the bride from the ownership of her father to the custody of her husband?

You have it half right.

Marriage was an economic and or politicsl contract between houses securing the exchange of the bride from the family of her father to the family of her husband.

Because if the father "owned" the daughter then he also "owned" the sons.

For most poor people the dowry was very small and basically served as the funds to start a new family, and since they were poor there was no political or economic arrangement. The vast majority of people were serfs and peasants, and the male and female serfs and peasants were equally dirt poor.

So we still have no useful metric to determine that women are 2nd class citizens.

Do you have a better metric, or can we just recognize that feminism simply assumes by fiat that women MUST be 2nd class citizens and is looki ng for whatever rationalization will justify the narrative they want to spin?

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dude, if you want to hold on to the idea that feminists believe women are the biggest victims in all situations, you can't put that on feminism. You're not engaging with theory by clinging to dogma.

I want to discuss how the familial hierarchy reinforces the cultural standard of men being allowed to own, while women are relegated to being owned, but this conversation has already gone on forever, and every time I think you are earnestly engaging with a premise, you default to the same vapid interpretation of a worldview that you don't share. I hate racists with a passion, but I'm not going to sit here and call them all idiots motivated by their own sense of ethnic superiority.

Can you name a marital tradition wherein the mother gives away her son when walking down the aisle? Maybe I've missed a cultural norm somewhere, but by my understanding, Parents own children (a take that i disagree with, but holds true in the vast majority of legal disputes surrounding a the autonomy of kids), but only men were allowed to take ownership of others.

Men are still culturally regarded as the head of the household, to the point where there's contested legislation today that would strip the voting rights of anybody who's name doesn't match their birth certificate. Three guesses who such a law would impact most immediately-

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you default to the same vapid interpretation of a worldview that you don't share.

Well yeah, because I am asking for the justification for thinking that worldview and interpretation is correct.

I understand how the worldview is internally consistent, once we accept the premises, the question is why should I accept those premises as being true in the first place.

Can you name a marital tradition wherein the mother gives away her son when walking down the aisle?

I don't need to, I simply need to point out how you can give away someone from one family to the next, and that this does not mean the person is property or a slave.

but by my understanding, Parents own children (a take that i disagree with, but holds true in the vast majority of legal disputes surrounding a the autonomy of kids), but only men were allowed to take ownership of others.

If parents own children, then mothers own children too therefore mothers and women are allowed to take ownership of others as well.

I agree with you that parents owning children is kind of a bad way to see it, rather that parents are the guardians of children. But if parents own children, then mothers own children and boys are owned just as much as girls are, at least at first.

Men are still culturally regarded as the head of the household

Yup. Still doesn't mean women are 2nd class citizens. I can agree that men being head of household creates cultural and social power imbalances, but women were not powerless and had a lot of power of their own as well within their domain, because most of ancient society tended to be split between men's domain outside the house, and women's domain within the house. The kind of power men and women had was different and unequal, but women were not powerless.

Three guesses who such a law would impact most immediately

I mean there are a lot of possible consequences, but which gender is at risk of being drafted too? Should we not consider men to be 2nd class citizens if they can be drafted against their will and forced to fight and die in wars?

Are Ukrainian men 2nd class citizens compared to Ukrainian women?

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men have faced, and continue to face historical oppression, but those axis of oppression are not a consequence of their manhood, so much as their subordinate status in some other hierarchy.

See this is the argument that keeps being asserted, and that I do not agree with.

Men face more severe risks of homelessness because they are men. Men face more severe risks of suicide because they are men. Men face more severe risks of being murdered because they are men. Men face more severe risks of being killed or maimed at work because they are men.

In current society men face greater hardships getting into university than women, given 60% of undergraduates are women.

If any of these happened to women it would be seen as clear and obvious proof that women are oppressed because they are women.

But when it happens to men, because they are men, all of a sudden that doesn't count anymore.

I agree that women have faced, and continue to face historical oppression as a consequence of their womanhood. I'm not denying that.

I'm just saying that men have also faced, and continue to face historical oppression as a consequence of their manhood.

And the only argument feminists have is to basically continue to just assert that "that's not how it works", without rhyme or reason or justification beyond just "well women are oppressed because they're women and men are not".

That sounds an awful lot like a faith-based assumption to me, that one simply ought to believe it "just because".

Every time I ask for a metric, there's never a good answer. We have a good metric for white superiority, for capitalism, for feudalism, for religious or sexual persecution, but when it comes to the patriarchy we can't find a single coherent answer for why we should assume that women are oppressed due to being women, but men are not oppressed due to being men.

We just have to assume it on faith.

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man [score hidden] 1 month ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan [score hidden] 1 month ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man [score hidden] 1 month ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan [score hidden] 1 month ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man [score hidden] 1 month ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tradition_Ropes36763 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tradition_Ropes36763 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tradition_Ropes36763 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Bat8585Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Popular conceptions of feminism adhere to the opinion that men and women are inherently equal, so it stands to reason that feminism would by definition in pursuit of equality.

Me and Elon Musk are inherently equal, so it stands to reason that we’re done and free? Whites and Blacks are equal post Civil War. No other consideration? We just…keeping things at a high level now?

If feminism is egalitarianism, then what is core feminism? Are we gonna claim today that only RadFems, Femcels, and 4B are “real” feminists or something. Lmao. And who decides the overton window.

This is like claiming Israel/USA is about global peace/equality while Zionists/MAGA are “for real”.

Feminism doesn’t give a flying frick about male perspective or male outcomes. It’s strictly by and for women, at a less repulsive pace.

If you want to be an egalitarian, go be an egalitarian. You’ll find that it’s hard.

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 month ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Bat8585Purple Pill Man 9 points10 points11 points 1 month ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_85No Pill Man 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_85No Pill Man 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_853 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk0 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_853 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_852 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_852 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_852 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_852 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_851 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think "regardless of gender" is an accurate description of feminism. If it were, men and women's issues would be treated equally. Instead, feminism focuses mainly on women's issues, so gender clearly affects what it prioritizes.

Saying some feminist groups care about men's issues doesn't change that. The question is whether they treat them as equally important. In practice, they generally don't. Even on issues where men are the majority affected, like suicide, or homelessness, or even the fact that boys are now failing in school compared to girls , feminist discussions often still focus more on women than on men.

So I don't think feminism pursues equality regardless of gender. It pursues equality through a gender-based framework, with women as its primary focus.

for the record, i dont think they should ,so i am not expecting them to

[–]Sensitive_Housing_851 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Bat85853 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Bat85852 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The less men are tied to ideas of their identity being wrapped up in ideals of domination, the more allies women have for liberation

Try again. That’s not working out at all. There are nearly 0 statistics western men aren’t far behind western women on. Seems that men are reacting with ferocity, in the polls and on the anonymous internet. Task successfully failed.

Patriarchy operates through men operating within the system to their own detriment.

Does it? The “patriarchy” is the only thing preventing men from being eaten alive under the burden strict sexual selection.

The alternative is a hypersexual market place where a small percentage of men are sperm banks, and the rest are eunuch worker drones (can’t have sexual aggression) caring for life forms that aren’t even their own. We’re already getting there.

wrapped up in ideals of domination,

And what about women’s ideals of domination. Do you think they do not exist? Will they pollute your feminist-egalitarian utopia?

[–]Eblademonk2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Bat85851 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I roll my eyes a little whenever someone brings up the idea of matriarchy

Why? 9.5/10 prisoners are men. Most committing crime and suffering by it are men. Most taxes are paid by men, and most benefits are drawn by women. And so on. For example, the concept of single mothers which are exploding…and men stepping up to be step-fathers in order to avoid a life of loneliness?

They're less of an immediate concern to my ideals.

Of course….you’re basically a woman in practice, demonstrating 0 fealty towards your own gender (if you’re even honest about your flair in the first place). That’s concerning to me.

Are western women currently outperforming men economically?

Yeah, they are…money not only gas earners, but spenders

Do they occupy more seats of social and political power…,

Again, law has rulers, and beneficiaries. Rulers may be men, but men do not have the same natural in group bias that women do. In the modern era, women are absolutely killing it, benefitting off policy. If a woman’s disadvantaged in the West in any manner besides the recent abortion bans, please point it out to me.

[–]Eblademonk2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]statsfoddergreen pill - I'm a Jaded Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]funfacts_82Red Pill Man - or bear maybe 9 points10 points11 points 1 month ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Bat8585Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]funfacts_82Red Pill Man - or bear maybe -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Used-Presentation551 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Outrageous-Floor-424Black Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]pie-martNo Pill woman 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TopShelfSnipesMarried Purple Pill Man 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pie-martNo Pill woman 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TopShelfSnipesMarried Purple Pill Man -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pie-martNo Pill woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TopShelfSnipesMarried Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The solution to that is to socially marginalize the individual assholes who do this, not to create systemic legislation to solve what is ultimately an issue with one individual.

This is invariably where collectivist logic goes horribly off the rails.

To put it another way:

A person points out that there is a law treating two people differently based on protected characteristics (eg "married women can't open bank accounts without their husband" in 1950, or "black people can't buy or rent in this neighborhood" in 1960). The solution is to fix the unfair law.

An individual has done something discriminatory that is not illegal yet but is discriminatory (eg "this guy refuses to hire women who can physically do the work"). The solution is to pass anti-discrimination legislation that prevents the discrimination.

Where it goes off the rails is the following two:

An individual has done something discriminatory that is against existing laws (eg "this guy still refuses to hire women who can physically do the work"). The solution is in enforcing penalties, not in passing "over and above" legislation that starts, say, mandating quotas.

AND

An individual has done something that results in no adverse impacts other than hurt feelings (eg "this guy called that person stupid, it falls outside the scope of any hostile work environment legislation as it didn't happen at work, and I bet it's because they're a minority"). There is no solution to this, other than societal consequences for the person who's being an asshole. You cannot legislate asshole behavior out of existence, and attempts to do so will cause more problems than they will fix.

Besides, the Marxists who create these unnecessary laws over and above state-and-federal-equality are just replacing one hierarchy of power with another, usually to enrich their own standing as the arbiters of a system that is so unnecessarily convoluted that it must be necessity be open to subjective interpretation which they are of course happy to step into the role of.

[–]Outrageous-Floor-424Black Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pie-martNo Pill woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Outrageous-Floor-424Black Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]funfacts_82Red Pill Man - or bear maybe 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Present-Afternoon-70Blue Pill Trans Woman 16 points17 points18 points 1 month ago (20 children) | Copy Link

You're starting from a premise I think is wrong. Some of the hate feminists receive is deserved; activists are capable of using terrible tactics and making bad arguments.

But a great deal of the backlash has nothing to do with tactics.

Even if these women communicated perfectly, many would still be hated because feminism challenges social hierarchies and traditional gender roles that some people derive status, identity, and self-worth from. When your sense of value depends on existing power structures, criticism of those structures feels like a personal attack.

The conflict, then, isn't primarily about civility. It's about power, status, and identity. People rarely react well when the social arrangements that benefit them—or that they believe give their lives meaning—are questioned.

[–]Mela_ninjaPurple Pill Man 14 points15 points16 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

While I can see your point, the issue is that it ends up working against them.

When I was younger, feminism was portrayed more on uplifting women and not hating men. It was more attractive due to the fact that it didn’t imply men are bad but rather the system is. So most people (including men) considered themselves as feminists.

The change came in about 2013 ish in mainstream media. Social media became more focused on rage and engagement bait. So we started seeing the rise of “men are trash/rapists/abusers”.

This change has various variables in play (Astro turfing, over correction, engagement etc). I’m not saying that as feminists we should be coddling people, but to understand that toxicness works against us.

Now we see a subtle shift in younger people and bad faith actors are taking advantage of that.

[–]QuittingAliveNo Pill 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and I think everyone has a different definition of feminist. I have had very many conversations (referring to irl in my case, e.g. coworkers, family, in-laws, friends) with men who have been surprised or even angry when the topic of feminism comes up and I say I'm a feminist. I will ask them what they think feminism is, and responses vary. Most commonly they say it's about hating men. Some say that it used to be good, but new wave feminism is all "femi-nazis." Some say it's about getting equal rights, but that "women have those now", so there's no point to being a feminist other than to get into arguments or get brownie points with women. I have also met one women who had said they are feminist, and when asked their definition, say they think men are trash and women are essentially higher beings.

And honestly, I myself couldn't tell you what being a feminist means. I am not formally educated on the topic, and I often find varying definitions from different sources. To me, I view it as seeking equal treatment under the eyes of the law for people regardless of gender or sex, generally shifting society away from rigid gender norms, teaching people that gender and sex should not be factors in opportunities, treatment, or social status, giving people the same support, and examining why/how bias plays a role within ourselves in order to overcome it. Generally I think of it as prioritizing total equality and equity for people on the matter of gender and sex.

Though, at the same time, I understand that men and women, while equally human and deserve the dignity and rights that all humans do, are fundamentally different. There is no getting around the fact that typical biological men who do not have any genetic disorders or physical alterations/mutations like chimerism do not need menstrual support or products and cannot create human life through pregnancy and childbirth. But I do think they should still be educated on these topics, as it is something extremely common and borderline universal for a large part of the population. And there is no changing that biological women, again not regarding outliers with genetic or physical differences, will have lower bone density, more difficulty building muscle, and less height than their male counterparts. But this does not make them less valuable or less human. And this is not even covering intersex people, gender non conforming individuals, and queer people. It's also not covering the way that societal pressures and differences in upbringing shape people, and how percieved gender tends to affect one's position in society, thus will shape their behaviours.

However, I think gender differences are far too small to pose any significance in life, especially with how much people vary. For example, (these numbers are just for example and not based on any real averages) if men can lift of 70lbs comfortably and woman can lift 50lbs comfortably, that is A difference, but not really relevant when it comes to lifting multiple tons, or 2lbs. Or if men are usually 5'5" to 5'11", and women are usually 5'1" to 5'7", it won't matter if they have to reach something on the floor, and they will both need a ladder for something 20 feet high. And I don't think any one trait is inherent to being male or female, nor that sex alone has impact on one's personality.

Generally, when I have explained my own views, I tend to get positive responses. But I am honestly unclear whether this is "true" feminism, if it is considered radical, or how it would be defined.

Sorry, I realize my comment is extremely long. TL;DR, everyone thinks feminism means something different based on their exposure to the idea, and I am a feminist who thinks feminism means equality for men and women, and that men and women are different, but not different enough to be anything meaningful about their status or social standing.

[–]OppositeBeautiful601Purple Pill Man 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skipsfasterPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intothewild72No Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (5 children) | Copy Link

feminism challenges social hierarchies

No they don't. Replacing top end male leaders with females does not challenge social hierarchies as whole. It literally changes nothing.

traditional gender roles that some people derive status, identity, and self-worth from.

Again, no they don't. Some of them do, but that's very tiny minority. Almost not existent compared to mainstream feminism. Vast majority of them want to eat their cake and have it too.

When your sense of value depends on existing power structures, criticism of those structures feels like a personal attack.

This is what feminism is. Feminists get their sense of value from existing power structure they constructed and every disagreement feels like personal attack for them.

It's about power, status, and identity. People rarely react well when the social arrangements that benefit them—or that they believe give their lives meaning—are questioned.

True. This is why vast majority of feminists can't be egalitarians. They just can't give away arrangements that benefit them, and there will never be equality if they don't learn to share.

[–]RollCaltropsNon-Red Pill 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_CODE_CALCS 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intothewild72No Pill Man -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RollCaltropsNon-Red Pill 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Three of these are so vague they can't be discussed, so I can't say anything about them. If you want to I'm happy to engage with better specifics.

Shelters for women have been pushed for particularly from a DV perspective and from a sexual violence perspective. So many factors stack together to put women in particularly vulnerable positions in these situations and I'm really glad shelters are available, as should you be. Even when it's not about DV, giving birth and caregiving regularly puts women in financially and physically vulnerable situations, and then there's high risk of sexual violence once homeless.

There are not enough shelters that men can access. Men should not be homeless and in need of shelters at such high rates. Men perpetrate yes but also experience violence at a massive rate and are not safe sleeping on the street. My heart breaks for every single person with no safe place to go; it's a sign of a broken society. Given that no vulnerability in particular causes men to need to access shelters, and these are mostly factors that affect all of us regardless of gender, shelters are bandaid over garbage social safety systems. Women don't want men to suffer like this: even if it was totally self interest and not from the perspective of wanting the best for us all (it's not), causing men suffering like this directly hurts women by hurting men first, and it goes around in a circle. We must, must all uplift each other and keep each other safe. Any informed human being or feminist knows this.

[–]intothewild72No Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Three of these are so vague they can't be discussed

Only if you don't understand basic English or live in echo chamber.

there's high risk of sexual violence once homeless

Vast majority of homeless are men. It's not even close. Anywhere.

But I was speaking about DV shelters where every time men try to open one (there are thousands for women, in my country those are maintained by government money) feminists gather and get it closed.

Let me expand on other three that you found vague.

Normalization of systemic misandry when systemic misogyny was eradicated decades ago?

Systemic misogyny does not exist. Period. If it does, give me one example.

We have treated misogyny for decades, you had to expand definition uncountable amount of times just to keep concept as such alive as in real life it barely exists, so nobody takes you seriously. Systemic and cultural misandry still exist and is mainstream and barely gets any pushback.

Examples of systemic misandry are for example draft, MGM, systemic oppression of males in health care (and research) or systemic oppression of boys in western education system.

Now its hard to argue a bit, because it depends what does concept of "systemic" even mean for you. For me its something that is ingrained in laws and regulations, not just cultural.

Money spent on unproven trivialities?

Money is spent on "femicide" panic, ignoring fact that we don't even know if it exists. We literally have no data, and already billions is spent world-wide to combat it.

Pushing irrelevant narratives instead of helping men to eradicate real problems?

There are so many. So, so many. I don't know where to even start. You would never finish reading all I can write about it.

I give you some examples.

Feminists push irrelevant noise about patriarchy while being incapable to define what it even means. Even worse, their different definitions usually not only never existed, those could not exist no matter how they try.

Feminists push irrelevant noise called intersectionality theory, never understanding simple fact that its irrelevant as sex-based dimension is pathetic compared to any other dimension and class dimension is bigger then all other dimensions combined and its not even close.

They basically act as safety valve for elites to keep sheep distracted from issues that matter with irrelevant noise.

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_85No Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Erloys_2026 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_85No Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RollCaltropsNon-Red Pill 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Anyone with any views can be uninformed. The movement of feminism was born out of women moving from property to equal human beings. It is necessary once equal rights in theory are achieved for mutual respect to be established between genders so these equal rights can actually be accessed (the current issue, apart from some lingering legal disparities or even just practices).

It is completely necessary to address rights and access to opportunities that men want, and the support for men to take on any roles in society and relationships that were traditionally limited to and forced on women if they so choose. This includes addressing both men and women's harmful and sexist expectations of each other and deconstructing them, allowing free choice of the individual. This is what I have always understood to be feminism.

Without this equal trade there is no real feminism, there are just (absolutely fairly) angry women, but women who are really pushing in the wrong direction. Of course, any progress for women has always come with the feeling that men have "lost" something (because they now have to share what was all their own before), which is a well understood bias. So like, always, always address your own emotional reactions and be empathetic when encountering these issues, of course.

[–]Sensitive_Housing_85No Pill Man 6 points7 points8 points 1 month ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

My point isn't about what men have lost because of feminism, nor about what you think feminism is meant to be. It's that the movement, as it exists today, doesn't center men, it centers women. even if you think feminism benefits men or is for everyone, it doesn't mean men have equal influence over its priorities or direction.

So why would men's opinions be the deciding factor in shaping the movement? If women are the primary members and the movement's leadership, institutions, and discourse are primarily driven by women, then the responsibility for making egalitarian feminism more prominent lies primarily with feminists and women themselves, not with men or non-feminists.

What you think feminism is has nothing to do with my point. My point is about how the movement actually functions in practice, not its ideal definition.

[–]RollCaltropsNon-Red Pill 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I see. I think it's so odd how feminism is talked about in these spaces as though it's a word that means women. Anecdotally for a moment, my male friends all openly identify as feminists and champion both men and women's rights and opportunities, and I think I hear them use that label more often than my female friends (who being women are more likely to suffer social consequences). From that point of view, I always do a double take when I end up in these discussions.

Not anecdotally, it has been very much required that in order for feminism to have any effect (equalising rights and opportunities for women) that the men holding power champion this, educate other men who respect them, and voluntarily make space for women where there was previously only space for men. Being in a position of power gives you the most sway over the discourse, decisions and eventual changes. Conversely, being in the position of fighting for your rights either means asking those in power to hand them over willingly, or getting violent. And women starting a violent uprising against men wasn't usually seen as the best option so there's been a preference for leaflets and hashtags.

Therefore, these social and policy changes have realistically and for the most part been made by men, thanks to the campaigning of both men and women. So I don't want to say men are driving the bus and write off the hard work of all the women who campaign, but you can see it's not the disenfranchised group choosing what direction and how fast the bus is allowed to go.

This process continues today wherever there is a gap between the rights or opportunities of men and women, or as society is moving towards, whoever you are. Whoever holds the power in any situation must make a call to let a little go and give it to the group that is missing out. This is a process that centres not a gender, but a society that takes care of and respects all members, and we don't seem to have a better popularly used word than feminism. There's no specific direction or priorities for feminism, because it's not an organised movement that you get a membership card and voting rights for. Momentum builds when enough voices get pissed off about the same thing and talk about it to each other, and push together or in a disorganised rabble for change, which it is just as important for men to do as women. All gendered discrimination affecting men is an issue for everyone and I will give a man my feminist soapbox to shout that shit any day of the week.

Of course, feminism has not traditionally centred men because men have always been the centre by default, and gender discrimination still flows mainly in the same direction it always has. This includes the pervasive dismissal of the problems women face even existing, which is wild. This doesn't mean feminism doesn't care or fight for men, it just means there's still so much to address and you're going to hear most about the group that is still suffering the most disadvantage at a particular time.

If addressing issues that affect men is sluggish, it's not because feminism isn't platforming men or asking for their experiences or input. Feminists are men too. It begs the question of why - when men still hold most positions of power and are capable of enacting that change. It's a very, very interesting subject and it's why I believe feminism is genuinely all about addressing all gendered inequality as a whole. In fact I think this is the most interesting and illuminating aspect of this whole topic.

[–]Sensitive_Housing_85No Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m not asking feminism or feminists to champion men, prioritize men, or center men. Having political power in society isn’t the same as having power or influence within the feminist movement, and just because men passed certain reforms doesn’t mean they were the largest group involved or the ones most influencing feminism. Since it’s been acknowledged that feminism centers women and that women are its primary constituency, why is it on men to shape how feminism is viewed? They aren’t the main representatives, women are. Whether some men consider themselves feminists isn’t relevant to my question. Why should men be expected to support egalitarian feminism when their influence in the movement is secondary, instead of placing that responsibility on those who actually shape the movement, which is mainly women?

My question has always been about agency: who has the greatest ability to shape feminism's internal discourse? I don't see how pointing to male politicians or male feminists' answers that

edit: you are also not fully right, the movement might not be fully in agreement, but it has organisation and sometimes government backing

edit2:Even if feminists have fought for men before, that doesn’t mean they center men or equally prioritize them. I’m not asking them to; I’m saying men’s influence in feminism is limited, so putting the onus on them to push a certain brand of feminism forward is placing a responsibility that doesn’t actually belong to them.

[–]Sensitive_Housing_85No Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intothewild72No Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Its pointless play with words and misunderstanding of definitions. Question should be how do they define concept of "feminist" and why it's wrong. Can you be feminist if you do not subscribe to patriarchy theory? What about intersectionality?

I believe women identifying as feminists deserve benefit of doubt and presumption of being egalitarian not cakist or misandrist.

If it tells you that it is a duck, you should still observe if it walks and talks like a duck. Sometimes chicken thinks it's a duck.

ideas of men being naturally smarter, better leaders or more violent

You are probably misunderstanding what she is debunking. You probably misunderstand greater male variability hypothesis. It does not claim that men are naturally smarter, better leaders or more violent. It claims that for some traits, male scores are more spread out than female scores. That means more males appear at both the low extreme and the high extreme. Females are more concentrated closer to the average. Of course when we check violence, it does not work that way. Men are, on average, more physically aggressive. But about leaders and smarters, men tend to be over-represented on top end.

she received tonns of hate from both conservative misogynistic men

Impossible. Definition of it is so confusing that they are such tiny fraction of minority that they just physically can't give "tonns of hate", there is not enough of them. Hatred of women is extremely rare.

Men should support such women as being in the egalitarian center is hard

Men should accept egalitarian women. No need to support anybody who does not support you. It's not one-way street, if you don't scratch my back, I won't expend energy to scratch yours. She is not egalitarian tho. If she self-identifies as "feminist" she can't be egalitarian as she would go against most core concepts of feminism.

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]intothewild72No Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]intothewild72No Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Main-Tiger8537Egalitarian Blue Pill 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]justsomethingPurple Pill Man - Feminist MRA 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_85No Pill Man 6 points7 points8 points 1 month ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_85No Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sensitive_Housing_85No Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PixelperfectionisttPurple reddish pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, this comment section turned controversial pretty quick. I haven't exactly read through much of it, but I do get the theme that many men are saying that if 95% of the feminists are bullshiting then why should we give them the benefit of the doubt?

But that's the exact logic they use with men or beer and 62 or whatever amount of million men headlines, even if those are completely exaggerated. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt even if 1% of that demographic is standing ground for what is right and not being hypocrites. I'll be at least willing to listen and with most of these feminists, you won't need to listen long to identify if they are actually reaching for equality or something like Schrödinger's feminism.

So I'm on op's side on this one. Women really do have a high-minded mentality, and if you dare speak against it, you will be outcasted. And it takes a certain amount of guts to speak against it for what you believe in right. You and Opie is also right when he says that this type of woman gets hit by men too, because they are trying to meet in the middle, but some men see even that through the biaser lens we have developed against feminist women.

Up until a few years back, I didn't even know the word egalitarian, but I have always been one. And one of the first results on Google that I had found for the word "egalitarian" Was a reddit post on r/askfeminists, I think. Asking "what it means when somebody says they are not a feminist but an egalitarian person" , And all replies basically point down to it, meaning that they don't really support equality and want to keep women oppressed under the name of egalitarianism. If they really were preaching for equality, they would have no problem supporting feminism. And I was like, "What the fuck kind of logic is that?" It was one of my first definitive proofs for me that most of these feminists are bullshitters.

That being said, as Op said even I know (know, as in follow influencers online) Who calls out bad people and things on both sides. And honestly, they are the last hope for me in this shitshow.

So I don't care what you call yourself, as long as you're standing for the right thing. And tell me if both sides are hating on somebody who is trying to reach for neutrality and is getting hated, do you think they will continue to do what they do? Also, other people will consider taking the same path. What kind of message does it send if you are discouraging somebody willing to meet halfway? I'm not saying such women are perfect, or that there aren't any contradictions in their logic or ideologies or naming philosophies. But it definitely gives me hope. I don't care if you are a man or a woman. If your actions are just, then I'm willing to listen to you Even if 95% of your demographic may not be like that.

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Powerful-Sherbert990 10 points11 points12 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Powerful-Sherbert990 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424bPurple Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424bPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424bPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424bPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424bPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424b1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424b1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VentyninePurple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424bPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424bPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424bPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424bPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]EblademonkPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424b1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eblademonk1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424b1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VentyninePurple Pill Man -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wolf2424bPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]justsomethingPurple Pill Man - Feminist MRA 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eggsceptnllyoeuffishNo Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TraditionalPen2076Feminism is terrorism 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TraditionalPen2076Feminism is terrorism -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TraditionalPen2076Feminism is terrorism 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Just based on your last sentence alone, I realize that this is a waste of time talking to you. You don’t even understand that being against the blackpill doesn’t mean you have to do everything against the traditional grain of relationships and attraction. You can date someone shorter than you and still think blackpill is stupid. And it’s not hypocritical. I can point to a thousand couples in real life that defy the black pill, and THAT is the evidence.

Just like how voting records prove my other points. Feminists have always voted progressive. That’s not a debate. That is fact. And the progressive platform is for all of those things I presented. Feminists have absolutely protested against the draft and against war. Any major war in the United States has been protested by many individuals, including women, especially progressive women—who are feminists.

[–]TraditionalPen2076Feminism is terrorism 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here we go lol

A non-answer because you have no argument.

And sure, if you want to play dumb about extremely well known history, here are some examples:

World War I: The Women's Peace Party led by Jane Addams, opposed U.S. entry into the war. It later became the U.S. branch of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

Vietnam War: Women were among the most visible leaders of the anti-war movement. Organizations included Women Strike for Peace, Another Mother for Peace, and many feminist groups that linked militarism to women's rights.

Iraq War: Feminist organizations such as CODEPINK helped organize some of the largest anti-war demonstrations in U.S. history. The National Organization for Women (NOW) also opposed the war.

This isn't controversial among historians. Progressive movements and feminist organizations have been a major component of American anti-war activism for decades. You can bury your head in the sand about it if you want, but you're just lying to yourself about what is an obvious reality.

As for the suicide thing, there have been many notable feminists who have stood up for men's mental health. bell hooks wrote extensively that patriarchy harms men by teaching emotional suppression, discouraging vulnerability, and making it difficult for men to seek help. In her book, Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love, she argues that men are harmed by traditional masculinity and advocates changing those norms to improve men's mental health. NOW (National Organization for Women) has supported expanding mental health care and has advocated against rigid gender stereotypes that affect both women and men. Feminists also vote progressive, and it's the progressive wing of government that actually is in favor of allocation more tax dollars to mental health care.

All of this to say...once again, I as a feminist must defend not women, but men, in order to be believed or taken seriously by another man. It is so comically common that feminists in this sub are demonized unless they can prove that they are devoting all of their efforts into men's rights.

Feminists have no such desire of men. We don't expect men to devote all of their energies to winning rights for women or protecting women. We simply want them to vote accordingly and, as RBG stated, "take their foot off our necks."

[–]Sensitive_Housing_851 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MarioWilson122Red Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One good example doesn't really address the broader criticism. Every movement has reasonable people in it. The real question is whether they're representative or influential enough to define the movement.

If she has to spend a large part of her time pushing back against other feminists for misandry, debunking anti-male narratives, and defending male victims from people within the movement, that arguably says more about the movement than it does about her. She sounds more like an exception than the rule.

You also say men should support feminists like her because she's egalitarian. That's fine. The problem is that your own example describes her being attacked by other feminists for taking egalitarian positions. If genuinely equal treatment of men makes someone unpopular within the movement, that raises legitimate questions about what the movement actually rewards.

Supporting fair individuals is one thing. Using exceptional individuals as evidence that the movement itself is generally egalitarian is another. Your example arguably points in the opposite direction.

[–]anonymousppd123123Red Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousppd123123Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousppd123123Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bulky-Actuary175 -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousppd123123Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bulky-Actuary175 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anonymousppd123123Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PodlubnyiNo Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lysa_Bellpost wall ghost 👻♀️ 9 points10 points11 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lemon_geckoWoman (blue). I adopted the bear -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TraditionalPen2076Feminism is terrorism 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]b_berry458Purple Pill Woman 8 points9 points10 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]justsomethingPurple Pill Man - Feminist MRA 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LaFrescaTrumpetaSelf Esteem Pill Woman (blue) 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-Shes-A-Carnivalbitch im back & my ass got bigger, fuck my ex you can keep dat.♀ 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MarkMew -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Gentle_prvNon-Bigoted, Taken Man 😎 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]davidmettyPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ranziel 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 month ago (72 children) | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful601Purple Pill Man 10 points11 points12 points 1 month ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 6 points7 points8 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 month ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 11 points12 points13 points 1 month ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Generally_Confused1Man tf is this shit? Read a book 10 points11 points12 points 1 month ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Generally_Confused1Man tf is this shit? Read a book 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Generally_Confused1Man tf is this shit? Read a book 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee3 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Generally_Confused15 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful601Purple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful601Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You are conflating two different things: a libel verdict and a determination of truth.

The UK court ruled on whether The Sun was protected from libel for calling Johnny Depp a 'wife beater' based on their interpretation of the evidence. The judge’s finding to the 'civil standard'—which is simply a 'more likely than not' threshold—was specific to that newspaper's defense, not a criminal trial assessing Amber Heard's credibility as an accuser.

Pointing to that verdict to claim the accusations were definitively 'true' ignores the fact that the subsequent US trial resulted in a verdict that determined the op-ed contained false and defamatory statements. We are clearly operating under different interpretations of legal outcomes, so I don't see much value in continuing this circular debate.

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful601Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful601Purple Pill Man 10 points11 points12 points 1 month ago* (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 month ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful601Purple Pill Man 10 points11 points12 points 1 month ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful601Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful601Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful6012 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful6012 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful6012 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful6012 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful6012 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful6012 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful6012 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful6012 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They're different cases, not different explanations — same point I've been making the whole time, this is just a new angle of attack on it. The UK trial was Depp v. the Sun's publisher, and the judge found the "wife beater" headline substantially true on the civil standard — his opinion that it was probable, not proof as settled fact, and Depp wasn't even the party being judged there. The US trial was Depp v. Heard, over her own Washington Post op-ed, and a jury found her statements false and made with actual malice — she couldn't substantiate them. That's the throughline: nothing in the UK case proves Amber's allegations were true, and the US case found she lied. If you want to call that five explanations, point to which one actually contradicts another instead of just counting how many times the same claim has been challenged. Amber was a false accuser.

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful6012 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful6012 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful6012 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OppositeBeautiful6012 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Main-Tiger8537Egalitarian Blue Pill 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BusinessZestyclose86Blue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WanabeInflatablePurple Pill Man[S] 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Main-Tiger8537Egalitarian Blue Pill 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Generally_Confused1Man tf is this shit? Read a book 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Generally_Confused1Man tf is this shit? Read a book 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Generally_Confused1Man tf is this shit? Read a book 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Generally_Confused1Man tf is this shit? Read a book 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Generally_Confused13 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee2 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Generally_Confused13 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Generally_Confused13 points 1 month ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LazyyCloudMAN / / it is what it is 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eggsceptnllyoeuffishNo Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wage gap is an issue, but a complicated one, since explicit discrimination can play a role, but so too can preferences informed by gender roles (which the newer trendier "reactionary feminism" seems to be perfectly fine with), and to some extent these things could be due to men being more pressured to be the "provider" and pursue the most economically lucrative fields while women get more acceptance for "following their dream" regardless of what it is... there's a lot of feminist talk about how there should be more women in more lucrative careers, but if things continue to equal out (wage gap still exists but has been shrinking after all already), how many women are going to want to be more accepting towards the men who go for the traditionally "feminine" fields that have lower income, vs still wanting men to focus on the traditionally "masculine" fields that are higher income and potentially crowding women out at least in part due to being a higher percent of applicants?

[–]Bitter-Hat-4736Incel Man -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Fair feminists exist and they get hate from both men and many feminist women
Author	WanabeInflatable
Upvotes	36
Comments	366
Date	June 30, 2026 10:29 AM UTC (1 month ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1ujlfm8/fair_feminists_exist_and_they_get_hate_from_both/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/fair-feminists-exist-and-they-get-hate-from-both.1583963 https://theredarchive.com/post/1583963

Comments