Feminism Discussion Weekly Discussion Thread

AutoModerator · 2023-03-11T17:00:13+00:00

Abortions, child support, workplace issues... discuss feminism here.  Please Join Us on Discord! Include your reddit username, pill color, age and...

[–]gofigure62 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]questioningfeminist 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]__ButWhy__ 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OldStorageUnit 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Here’s some examples that don’t fall into “Apex”

Women are oppressed through domestic labor. The majority of domestic labor/child-rearing is unpaid and falls on women.
In the majority of developing countries, women are subject to institutional violence. Ex. child marriage, femicide, domestic abuse, sexual violence.
In many parts of the world women still have limited to no legal rights and little economic opportunities.
Women are at a higher risk of medical malpractice. Medical research on female subjects is limited. Many conditions that only effect women (ex. Endometriosis) are under diagnosed and understudied.
Women have limited access to reproductive rights. In many parts of the world, women can be forced to give birth (or abort) against their will. Access to birth control is limited.
Women are subject to FGM (which unlike circumcision, can result in infertility, death, complete loss of sensation)

As far as I’m aware feminists stand in staunch opposition to patriarchy. Circumcision is a practice invented by patriarchy and perpetuated via patriarchy.

I have never met a feminist that was “pro” circumcision. No feminist rhetoric supports circumcision. I believe women were not in the streets to codify men’s reproductive rights because they were marching for women’s reproductive rights, which have never been codified.

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

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

[–]__ButWhy__ 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]nemma88Purple Pill Woman -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]questioningfeminist 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Diabolical12341 points 3 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Diabolical12341 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]questioningfeminist 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SliptheLust, Thrust, Bust and Dust 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterTeacher123 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]OldStorageUnit 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]questioningfeminist 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BigOleGreenTrees 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flashy-Country-800 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Remote-Ad-5105 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoInjury1499Traditionalist 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]adool666 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuatraveZoomer; anything else is no redditor's business 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flashy-Country-800 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]uwuskincarePurple Pill Bisexual Woman 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Flashy-Country-800 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Katatonicsnake 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Katatonicsnake 3 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Katatonicsnake 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]LowCreddit♂ I am Kenough 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nothatyoucare 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]nothatyoucare 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]puddingbike 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]meganrush1221 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]nothatyoucare 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Its funny seeing the circle of diversity complete itself when its comes to various nerd communities as they gained popularity over the decades. Table top gaming, online computer gaming, etc.

What I find particularly interesting is that the fact that gay clubs and bars exists but lesbian bars and clubs are almost extinct. What gets me about this is that gay men are a very small portion of society. And they're not swimming in money despite that says they are. But even with their small proportion of society and not swimming in money, gay men still made gay bars become a thing and keep them going.

Lesbian bars on the other hand are practically extinct at this point. And given how there's much less friction between lesbian and straight women you would think that straight women would go to lesbian bars to support their fellow women. And AND no men there right? But no, straight women insist on going into gay male spaces over and over again.

[–]meganrush1221 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]meganrush1221 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I can say personally as a straight woman I’ve been to lesbian bars and have had a great time. The few times I’ve been to gay bars it was not strictly men, men and women and majority were gay. Plus women don’t go to male only spaces like bath houses…or Men’s saunas. perhaps straight women feel safer from men at gay bars, I’ve heard that argument before. No risk of being drugged and assaulted by a gay man. (Not implying that all straight males drug, rape and assault women) but it’s more likely to happen when you’re not at a gay bar. The other side of this is that women, lesbians especially, are saying to the men in their private female only spaces “you are not welcome here”. I have never once heard a gay man say he feels unsafe because a straight woman has entered the gay bar

[–]nothatyoucare 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I can say personally as a straight woman I’ve been to lesbian bars and have had a great time

That's cool. However there's only like 20-ish or so lesbian bars in the country. This link has it at 15 and this one has it at 21. If straight women had been supporting their fellow women more I feel there wouldn't be such a low number. Gay bars are in the 100's at least.

The few times I’ve been to gay bars it was not strictly men, men and women and majority were gay.

Right. But lesbians don't always feel at home at gay bars. As one research paper put it

to show how the masculine domination of these spaces converges with the greater willingness of straight people to occupy them to create an atmosphere where many LGBTQ women feel excluded and alienated

Plus I've heard lesbians say when they do go to gay bars (since there are so few lesbian bars) they run into an issue of the women being majority straight.

Plus women don’t go to male only spaces like bath houses…or Men’s saunas.

I mean you say this but then I think back on the straight women going onto grindr and causing issues. Grindr was a way for gay men to meet in places without a gay bar or queer space, what business did straight women have going on there? Here's an epic rant from a grindr user to read first hand the issues from their perspective Or there's also an article that goes into depth about it

Women have seemingly been trying to get on Grindr since it launched in 2009. (invasion of male spaces) Founder Joel Simkhai “received tens of thousands of requests from women asking for a straighter, female-friendly version of Grindr,” according to a 2011 piece in the Guardian. (Simkhai’s solution? A straight version of the app called Blendr, which debuted in 2011, but never really caught on, (Even when women are given their own space they want to stay in male spaces)

But many responses were hostile. “Get the fuck off our app,” one user told her. “Stop invading our spaces.” McKenzie, the Bisexual Resource Center board member, remembers the first time he saw a cis woman on the app, about a year ago. “It was almost a strange novelty on a website that has plenty of strange novelties,” he said. “But I also did get that feeling…that somebody has invaded the clubhouse.” He told me inevitably the tenor of the site changes when women come into the mix.

When talking to men, the conversation quickly turns to frank discussions of sex, but with women, he said he feels more reticent bringing up sex. “I was very uncertain of whether or not I was getting catfished…Because this is not an app designed for women to be on there.

perhaps straight women feel safer from men at gay bars, I’ve heard that argument before.

I've heard this argument all the time. But if this was the motivation why not go to lesbian bars where there wouldn't be men at all? Keep in mind, when straight women go into gay male spaces, they're not always wanted.

Many straight women who frequent gay bars weighed into the discussion to explain that queer spaces can feel like safe spaces for them too.

Meanwhile, plenty of LGBT+ people argued that queer spaces should be reserved for members of the LGBT+ community. Some suggested that keeping such spaces for queer people is essential to protect the safety of the community.

“Well if we can’t be there where else are we supposed to go, we deserve a safe space too,” one TikTok user wrote.

But another added: “These comments. Y’all are allies until we ask you to let us have our safe space. Then suddenly y’all are mad we ‘make everything about us.’ Performative.”

I feel this is a major point:

One TikTok user wrote: “If straight women want a ‘safe space’ they can create a women’s only club. You don’t just take someone else’s safe space.”

Gay men and lesbian women are small minorities of the population and they were able to come together with their resources to make these places for themselves. With the amount of resources and purchasing power that hetero women have they're even more capable to do the same as the person in the article alludes to.

No risk of being drugged and assaulted by a gay man

Well low risk of being drugged sure. But assaulted? As in physical assault? These are still men you know. And women are in their space, but don't take my word for it:

This whole thing reminded me of this absolutely insufferable article from some insufferable feminist site I read a long ass time ago. The whole article was essentially this fucking retard complaining that the gay community had a misogyny problem because she was being given (and rightfully so) the cold shoulder by all the patrons at a gay bar. 👏SHITHEAD👏 The reason you're not getting a warm reception is because it's a bar for gay men. You are neither Gay,nor a man. At least if you were a straight man,you'd be nice eye candy,but you can't even meet us halfway. I wouldn't go to a fucking lesbian bar and expect great service because It's not my place. It's for lesbians.

Plus there's the double standard of what women would flip their shit over if hetero men did they let gay men do and don't get angry. Things such as touching, grabbing, etc. gay men get more leeway with.

What’s more, queer people can be just as grabby with straight women as they are with us. I’ve spoken with many straight women who’ve had their breasts touched by gay men without consent, and the rationality is the same on both sides: Because we aren’t sexually compatible, this kind of contact is deemed innocent or harmless.

The other side of this is that women, lesbians especially, are saying to the men in their private female only spaces “you are not welcome here”. I have never once heard a gay man say he feels unsafe because a straight woman has entered the gay bar

About that:

many LGBTQ people I spoke to said a straight person’s presence in a majority-queer space can make them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, and defeats the very purpose of a queer space in the first place. This unease can be magnified in sexual spaces, where acting on our desires can be regarded as entertaining — or worse, inappropriate.

But its not about just "safe" or "unsafe". Plus once straight women come in sufficient numbers what follows is straight men.

In the bars, certain kinds of interactions with straight patrons provoked gay patrons to angrily claim the space as their own, such as when straight women touched gay men’s bodies without their permission or talked to men in an objectifying manner (e.g., “You’re so cute; why are you all so cute?”).

So in summary, if women want to feel safe from men they have the money, power and resources to:

“If straight women want a ‘safe space’ they can create a women’s only club. You don’t just take someone else’s safe space.”

[–]meganrush1221 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

I have thoughts and feelings on that too.

I support people being who they want to be and all that when it comes to lgbt stuff. But this thread reinforces just how loud the t's are becoming in those spaces and drowning everyone else out.

Link to my comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/11l1krg/daily_community_chat_megathread/jbc9lbo/

My comment:

https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/11l683l/get_off_this_sub_if_you_disagree_with_trans/?ref=share&ref_source=link

https://i.imgur.com/uFecxkE.png

https://i.imgur.com/BY0DGyE.png

But yeah, Lesbians are feeling the pain and askgaybros had some users talking about it too.

If a woman ever had to deal with violent sexual assault and now she's supposed to share space with a woman who has a penis i can definitely empathize with her uneasiness as that penis is now terrifying and represents trauma. And as much I support trans people to do what they want with their bodies and find their own peace they should be able to see how that's kinda fucked up.

It seems to me almost all the uproar around trans issues seems to mostly concentrate on MtF.

[–]meganrush1221 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]meganrush1221 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nothatyoucare 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]meganrush1221 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-Shes-A-Carnivalbitch im back & my ass got bigger, fuck my ex you can keep dat.♀ 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]meganrush1221 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-Shes-A-Carnivalbitch im back & my ass got bigger, fuck my ex you can keep dat.♀ 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]meganrush1221 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]meganrush1221 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-Shes-A-Carnivalbitch im back & my ass got bigger, fuck my ex you can keep dat.♀ 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Firm_Affect3266 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am a man who likes to talk about a variety of things and I thought about this for a while and this what I came up with as a reasonable explanation. 1. If they wish to create their own community I say why not let them if they can be contempt that’s one good thing going for them if they don’t use a Violent/offensive approach they will be free to discuss what they want and they will be responsible for their own words no harm no foul if they wish to be separate. 2. It gets rid of some bad issues to discuss with them because now they have a community to do that with so other issues can be brought up where things can go on to find a solution or answer. 3. I see it as if they can get a business license as for they will need it to do business I as a man will respect their wish and not shop there but if they want to work under someone then they going to have to deal with working with men as for it’s just nearly impossible to find a workplace where it’s not coed almost the same for education because well money is how things run of course there are other options for that but that’s to discuss for all of you I as a man understand that their is a point in it and I have to stay out of. But in the world we live in it’s like school coed only 1 world your free from having to deal with men but once out in the streets it’s like me saying hey I can see you but I don’t have to acknowledge you but I still will I can speak for everyone else though it’s tough to do that because I believe everyone needs a helping hand

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (150 children) | Copy Link

[–]Twinseo09 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RegTextoffenderTANSTAAFL 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FizzleMateriel 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PeacesquadCrimson Pilled Man 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (144 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]nexkell 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nexkell1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nexkell1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

Pregnancy has injured and killed more women than war ever has men.

This is what you get when obstetrics was one of the very few fields of medicine that was always female-dominated. Once men entered it, maternal mortality crashed and burned by two orders of magnitude, i.e. to greater extent than infant mortality.

YOU. ARE. WELCOME.

Men suffered less and were granted privilege for their suffering

Most men who fought in wars were never granted any privileges. They were recruited/conscripted peasantry sent to clog weak parts of front lines with cannon / arrow / spear fodder. Most of them never were granted anything for it, and just wanted to go home.

As for historically biggest killer of all times, smallpox, the first disease completely eradicated thanks to men who organized and planned and carried out the eradication campaign, man who invented the vaccine, men who improved and mass produced the vaccine, is estimated to have taken 400 million human lives in 20th century.

Pregnancy/childbirth complications are estimated to have taken around 60 million on the same time scale.

You are welcome.

[–]OldStorageUnit 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First of all, women were not obstetricians, they were midwives.

"Midwife" is a historical name for the equivalent of modern obstetrician in all senses that matter.

Midwives had little formal training, they were were denied access to educational institutions for medicine.

"Institutions for medicine" do not fall out of the sky and get appropriated by men by virtue of them running faster.

Secondly, men forced women out of the field.

No. They created the practice of physicians and outcompeted midwives into extinction, due to application of superior methods of accumulation and honing of knowledge, in contrast with midwives' paradigm of operating on analogy and magical thinking, which resulted in midwives' rate of success oscillating between negative, zero, and occasional random luck, while (male) obstetricians, despite starting out with quite worse initial "stats", quickly gained momentum. Which was better for everyone.

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

You actually taught me something I didn't know, so thank you for that. I sincerely mean that.

Now that the mask is off, I think that the scientific/mathematic merits of our debate is inherently dubious. There simply is not enough data. Heck, I know of women who died in childbirth during warfare at the same time.

The true answer is that we all live on soil soaked in blood older than our oldest stories. We are all children of kings, slaves, murderers, wives, and harlots.

Hell, I was nearly born breach. I would be dead without being c-sectioned.

I will grant you that death from childbirth might be more common in our small pockets of peaceful modernity. But I think that it would be a mistake to project our present peaceful status quo on history or on wartorn regions like central africa, asia or the middle east. Violent death was once as common as the summer rains.

So what do you think? Do you still think this is a question worth asking?

Who wins the victim olympics? You or me?

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I'll not say thank-you for a time period where women interested in science was burned as a witch,

Women WERE allowed to practice obstetrics. In fact, for the most of history, in most places, they were the only ones allowed or at least expected to do it. There was no time in history where only women were burned as witches. During Salem witch trials, the only victim tortured to death rather than executed was a man.

was pulled out of school to marry and birth children for a man

Google -> Hajnal Line

who could legally rape and beat her,

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/zanv9r/q4allwhen_did_men_first_have_to_be/iynbhc9/

in a time where teaching women to do more then read was considered wasteful

By other women, since by cost/benefit analysis, locking a noble man in marriage is insanely easier than actually proving yourself against enthusiastic competition on marketplace of goods, services, or ideas. I agree that we did fuck up in allowing women to enjoy the privileges of nobility by right of marriage; maybe we should reflect on it and don't allow widows to inherit their late husbands' assets today, so that women have more motivation to build themselves up as human beings. And then say "you're welcome" when actually succeeding and transcending and utilizing all of women's potential becomes their only way of survival.

All that period reflects is the great things women could have done that men robbed them of. Boo.

What great things? That period that never happened supposedly ended in late 19th century. Then again in early 20th century. Then again in mid 20th century. Then again in late 20th century. And again between these two points, and a couple decades to couple centuries back as well, depending on who you ask.

The greatest (by financial cost) achievement women made since then is crashing the worldwide fertility and forcing men to pay for it.

[–]Cherry08881 points 3 years ago* [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link

Witches were burned at the stake Witchcraft was a felony in both England and its American colonies, and therefore witches were hanged, not burned. However, witches' bodies were burned in Scotland, though they were strangled to death first.

of whom roughly 80% were women,, mostly over the age of 40.

actual facts.

The world has not been as invested in women’s education for as long. Oxford didn’t allow women until 1920.

But to give credit Marie Curie discovered radium and polonium and helped lay the groundwork for the development of the x-ray and to cancer treatments. One of the biggest killers to this day

Most women are anti war and conflict. In fact they found women who have taken on positions of power have more masculine traits than feminine. Men are still to this day responsible for most war crimes and atrocities.

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

The world has not been as invested in women’s education for as long.

Ohmygosh, the goalpost moved all by itself. Women ARE part of the world.

One of the biggest killers to this day ….you’re welcome

MSC was neither discoverer of radioactivity (Henri Becquerel), nor inventor of radiotherapy (Emil Grubbe).

discovered radium and polonium

To my knowledge, neither radium nor polonium are used in radiotherapy; what is most commonly used is Cobalt-60 (Harold Johns).

Most women are anti war and conflict.

Yes; Rosika Schwimmer said that giving women the right to vote will end all wars. It didn't.

Men are still to this day responsible for most war crimes and atrocities.

Men are responsible for most of everything.

One you’re assuming she never contributed to their life.

No; I'm saying that it was a grave mistake to allow women to enjoy privileges of nobility by the right of marriage, which caused many stereotypes about women not actually needing useful skills. Women were given the opportunity to enjoy the privileges that for men were granted either by birthright, or by right of lifetime military service, or exceptional achievement. This was not the system created for the purpose of keeping women dependent, subjugated, and illiterate. It was not designed as such, it was not made with this idea in mind. If men wanted to create a system for such purpose, they'd do a way better job.

Should he not inherit any of my mums vast assets if she passes before him?

You are misinterpreting the purpose of this paragraph, which is a thought experiment. The point of this thought experiment is to demonstrate that you are operating within a catch-22 mindset.

If women are granted ability to sustain their livelihood without ever achieving anything, you see it as oppression of women.

If their survival depended on their achievements, you would also see it as oppression of women.

Which very much makes the idea of oppression of women unfalsifiable.

[–]Cherry08881 points 3 years ago* [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link

Yes we are apart of the world and had to fight for it.

Radium 223 is a type of internal radiotherapy treatment. Internal radiotherapy means giving radiotherapy to the cancer from inside the body.

Of course it didn’t end all wars. Men still exist and cause wars. Putin is a good example

Men are not responsible for everything but they’re certainly responsible for a lot of things that are bad.

No I don’t see women having opportunities and not doing “anything” with as oppression. I see it as their choice and that’s the great thing about life. As long as the men and women involved in those decisions do it without judgement.

And not working doesn’t = not doing anything. Raising little human beings is a very important role. Do I think western women are disadvantaged? To a point . No. But I do believe life in general in easier for men.

Maybe you should learn how to make your points without so much distain and male superiority then I’ll be more open to seeing your view. But the way you read isn’t pleasant.

Anyway have a good one. Bye 👋

[–]abaxeronRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, bye. For anyone else who is curious:

Yes we are apart of the world and had to fight for it.

More like "whine for it".

Radium 223 is a type of internal radiotherapy treatment.

Women collectively are not helping your case by flailing around the same still-radioactive corpse of tragically deceased woman who got her second Nobel prize by herself and not together with her husband for a simple reason that it is not awarded posthumously.

Of course it didn’t end all wars. Men still exist and cause wars.

Schwimmer did not say that wars will end when men end. She said that they'll end when women get the right to vote.

Putin is a good example

Women outnumber men in Russia by ~11 million, mostly within the voting demographic. Women ran for president three times since collapse of Soviet Union; all three got the lowest ratings of all the candidates.

Men are not responsible for everything but they’re certainly responsible for a lot of things that are bad.

Absolutely; men are not responsible for breastfeeding, for example. Including breastfeeding after taking alcohol, smoking, or taking heavy drugs.

As long as the men and women involved in those decisions do it without judgement or resentment.

Judging and resenting others is a right.

But I do believe life in general in easier for men.

Yes. We don't have periods, we don't get pregnant, we're more resistant to STIs, run faster, punch harder, lift more, more tolerant of certain sources of irritations, less prone to certain allergies, and so on. In no way it means that we're naturally in the position to be forever the slave caste and work for the well-being of women who hate us.

[–]Cherry08881 points 3 years ago* [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

Of course a man would say we whine when we want things. Yet men whine on here far more than women do. Literally this feeds are full of men crying that life is so unfair for them. Ironic right? You’re literally whining about how unfair life is for you because women apparently don’t work (49% of the work force is women).

You realise Russia is a communist country? They are fed a forced narrative and some have no idea what is going on. But Putin knows exactly what he is doing and why.

How many women breastfeed after doing those things? Talk about pulling at straws. Ridiculous argument. How many men beat their wives/girlfriends after doing such things? I mean most women who are killed each year is by someone a woman is intimate with.

What women do you slave caste? 49% of the work force is women.

Funny how to skipped over most of the things you couldn’t argue in your (men’s) favour.

Case closed 👋

[–]abaxeron-1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You’re literally whining about how unfair life is for you because women apparently don’t work (49% of the work force is women).

Look up the definition of workforce. It is different from the definition of employment. You know why it's different? - To make an impression that women contribute to the world more than they actually do.

You realise Russia is a communist country?

..............................So not only your understanding of the past is completely off, but your understanding of the present is like 35 years outdated.

Communist party of Russia holds only 13% of seats in its parliament.

How many women breastfeed after doing those things?

More than women executed for witchcraft. "Talk about pulling at straws."

How many men beat their wives/girlfriends after doing such things?

Last time I checked, either less, or within the same order of magnitude as men who take their own lives from messy divorce/breakup.

I mean most women who are killed each year is by someone a woman is intimate with.

Yes; because women are protected from every other source of danger.

What women do you slave caste?

The US social security system alone transfers in the order of 100 billion from men to women every year.

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

Absolute hot, smelly, fly ridden garbage.

https://spotterup.com/mass-psychological-casualties-in-warfare/#:~:text=On%20the%20beaches%20of%20Normandy,all%20soldiers%20became%20psychiatric%20casualties.

After 60 days of contact with the enemy, 98% of combatants are psychiatric casualties. After every war, we have boatloads of men with PTSD and other psychological issues ranging from survivor guilt to addiction.

"Richard Gabriel, in his excellent book, No More Heroes, tells us that in the great battles of World War I, World War II and Korea, there were more men pulled off the front lines because of psychiatric wounds than were killed in combat. As a matter of fact, more soldiers were lost from psychiatric casualties than all of the physical casualties combined."

"There was a study written on this phenomenon in World War II entitled Lost Divisions, which concluded that American forces lost 504,000 men from psychiatric collapse. A number sufficient to man 50 combat divisions! Worst of all were those rare situations in which soldiers were trapped in continuous combat for 60 to 90 days. In those cases, 98 percent became psychiatric casualties."

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nexkell1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RegTextoffenderTANSTAAFL 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]RegTextoffenderTANSTAAFL 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scandi_Navy 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I was clearly joking. But fair enough, time to set the cringe aside. I will seriously examine the merit of your claims.

While I acknowledge that millions of women die in childbirth, it is not clear to me that those deaths outweigh the numbers of men who die in warfare.

Set aside history for a minute, if you expand the purview of our discussion to prehistory (the lion's share of modern humanity) then the numbers get even bigger.

There is also the question of what constitutes "warfare." Formalized conflict between uniformed soldiers is a recent thing evolutionarily speaking. But irregular warfare is something that would have saw armed groups of men raping, murdering, and enslaving both men and women.

I don't know about you, but I think that dying in childbirth is mildly better than being raped to death (its also why I dont want women on the front lines).

Here is a evolutionary blackpill for you. Part of the reason women are postulated to be able to move on so quickly is because they needed to be able to adapt to living with the men who captured them and murdered their fathers, brothers, sons, and husbands.

That is evolutionarily also why men struggle with the idea of "our" woman being with someone else. In an evolutionary sense, it means that we are already dead. I have felt this dread firsthand.

To be honest with you, I don't really care who died more. I think the Spartans had the right idea.

The only people in Sparta who were laid to rest with honors were men who died in battle or women who died in birth. Honestly, I would be okay with that.

[–]clonku 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Nevarinin512 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago* (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nevarinin512 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago* (56 children) | Copy Link

Show proof that childbirth is historically the most common death. I doubt it. Most likely it’s neither war nor childbirth. It’s probably exposure and general life health issues that arrive outside in nature.

Edit: I just checked historical causes of death. Number one, by a large margin, are infections. Neither war nor childbirth are even in the top 10. You loose :)

Then, not every birth results in horrible birth injuries. The again a birth injury isn’t the same as dying. Furthermore the death rate for childbirth up until 1935 was 4-5/1000, the highest reported numbers between 1700-1935 is 30/1000. That’s 3%.

Additionally it’s insanely easy to verify that historically men died sooner and still do. Back then the rate for male mortality between 15-60 years of age is about 2x-3x that of women in the same time period.

All this and your whole argument is: childbirth! Everybody is born by childbirth, ergo is must be childbirth.

Every person being born by a woman doesn’t proof that women died the most historically and childbirth is the reason. That’s a logical fallacy and a jump in logic, not definitive proof.

I already pointed out that your historical understanding of autonomy of men is more than lacking. The vast majority of males who lived didnt have the autonomy and freedom you claim they did. It’s simply not correct that most poor men could vote. They couldn’t, you just think they do because you heard that men could vote and women couldn’t, but that isn’t accurate.

You also immediately jump to the next point to be right once pointed out that your historical knowledge about voting rights is severely lacking. Jump ship once called out. Nice 👍

So overall no stats, no historical knowledge and 0 logical conclusions. You just want to be right, but you are wrong. Pure bias, no content.

[–]Cherry08881 points 3 years ago [recovered] (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nevarinin512 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]OldStorageUnit 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nevarinin512 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

My comments content: not only ad hominem, Previous comment: only ad hominem. Very comparable, obviously the same for you. 🙄I “cried” very much indeed as can totally be seen in my comment.🙃

Do I think writing down numbers is a grand slam or is it simply you assuming that I must think that?

Was I even the only one doing it? Am I blind on one eye or is it you?

Saying men couldn’t vote even though women also couldn’t does help my argument actually.

The same is true for saying that most men and women also died of infections.

If you don’t see how, then I am pretty sure you don’t realize what my actual argument is and what I am discussing, because it isn’t who had it worse and it isn’t that more men died.

Do you know what is actually being discussed by me? One tip: you literally mention it in your previous comment, yet you arrived at the wrong conclusion in the end. :p

[–]OldStorageUnit 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Ffs. You’re not making any argument anymore.

I don’t give a fuck. Ad Hominem or not I literally don’t give a shit. Using logical fallacy to argue is for pseudo intellectuals. I’m just calling you out on hypocrisy.
You made a claim about childbirth. You made this claim based on statistical evidence. You did not source your evidence, but replied to the previous comment that they had no statistics/no data. I’m simply pointing out that having statistics and data to support your argument means nothing. You need to source the data. Otherwise you’re pulling numbers out of your ass. Once again, I am attacking your hypocrisy.
We are talking about these points in the context of gender oppression. It does not matter “what killed the most people” gender neutral. Obviously the original response did not make the assertion that childbirth took the most lives. We are making the argument that, from a gender isolated suffering perspective, childbirth has never killed a man and was the one of the leading causes of premature death for women, racking up a death toll higher than any male-isolated premature death cause. In the context of the parent response, you bringing up gender-neutral causes of death doesn’t matter.
You originally argued the notion that most men couldn’t vote. I am asserting that ALL women couldn’t vote. Women had it worse.

[–]Nevarinin5121 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OldStorageUnit1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I just said I do not care about “muh logical fallacy”. It’s a childish way to argue and makes you look like a twat. If you’re going to attempt to use logical fallacies in your argument at least make it palatable. Are you in middle school?
I don’t care what the other person did. I am responding to your claims. Not the claims the other person made. You still have not supported your data. It is more disingenuous to publish unsubstantiated data to support a claim as opposed to simply making the claim without the data. Fabricating evidence to debate a claim is ridiculous.
I would not be a hypocrite, as I simply made a claim. You on the other hand, brought up statistical evidence without a claim.

Regardless, there is no statistical evidence to source for my claim. (Which I state, unlike you - you make a claim and make up numbers). My argument rests on the fact that childbirth killed a countless amount. Childbirth killed before recorded history, on large scale, throughout the existence of the human race. There are no “male-only” causes of death that occur at the same scale. There is nothing to compare to. It’s billions to 0.

It does matter. It means that a small sector of men were able to impose the law on poor/black men and ALL women, regardless of status. When men with no property or black men received the vote, they did not extend the vote to any women, poor, rich black etc. meaning that men were indeed privy to privileged women were never allowed to conceptualize.

[–]Nevarinin5121 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OldStorageUnit1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow haha I bet you totally don’t care. Interesting how this is the shortest point in my response yet the longest in yours. Guess what I still don’t give a fuck. Using isolated logical fallacies to argue is cringe.
Not my opinion again, but considering we’re having this conversation in the style of a debate/argument - yes. Making a false claim is disingenuous sure, but making a false claim and using false evidence to back up such an assertion is doubly disingenuous.
Not an opinion. This is a factual statement. The process of childbirth can only kill the women. Childbirth is necessary to sustain the population. Ergo childbirth has happened throughout the course of human history. (We can agree this all to be fact). There is no such process that has killed only men throughout the course of human history. The amount of deaths attributed to childbirth are thus incalculable and that number is greater than 0, which is the amount of deaths attributed to a factor killing men and men alone.
Here’s the flow. Commenter A stated that men have always had more societal privilege and autonomy afforded to them. You asserted that “haha look you’re so stupid I bet you didn’t know most men couldn’t vote anyway”. I then responded to make the argument that it doesn’t matter whether all men could vote, because no women could vote. Why does it matter? Because to grant the right to vote, the voting population (which was entirely made up of men) had to vote on it! On top of that, men were represented in legislature while no women were, meaning that for the majority of history the governing body made decisions that favored men as a group.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter if you believe you are arguing that men were more/less oppressed. I am arguing the points you made against another persons argument. That persons argument stated that women historically experienced a greater degree of oppression (in this case, personal rights). To oppose the argument, you made the claim that the commenter did not account for the fact that a proportion of men could not vote. I’m simply pointing out that regardless, the original commenters assertion still stands.

Also just a helpful tip, moving the goalposts of the conversation in written debate is much harder to do than in real life. Simply look up and reference. You can’t go “I didn’t say that” when everything said is documented in writing:

[–]Nevarinin5122 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hahaha I can’t anymore. How gullible are you even? lol

And lol to you believing childbirth can only kill the women. Same as thinking it’s incalculable when we calculated the total amount of humans that ever lived. Obviously with approximation, but it’s obvious how both are connected no?

It’s actually quite important to notice I am not arguing for who’s more oppressed and if you would have actually followed the conversation I’ve had you would have known the other redditor also didn’t argue that and you wouldn’t be attempting to tell me not to move the goalpost in written conversation or tell me your position, not realizing we did the exact same.

I‘m out, this has become boring as you’ve essentially said nothing so far. Gotta say it was pretty easy to string you along, Don Quixote. Hope it was fun attacking an obvious windmill. I felt like I left you enough tips to figure that out, but guess not.

[–]OldStorageUnit1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Haha of course you can’t anymore you’re losing the plot.

Yes, childbirth can only kill the women. If a child dies during childbirth, they did not die from the act of preforming childbirth. As far as I am concerned, cis men cannot birth a child. The amount of people that ever lived is calculable because we can use data sets to approximate populations. It’s much harder to do such a thing to approximate cause of death.

The original poster stated that women had less autonomy is society, less rights. That was the topic I was addressing. You’re welcome to quote yourself on how the topic was not about oppression. Women were oppressed because they had less rights.

I figure you usually enter arguments with the hope that you will be annoying and pretentious enough to get the last word in. I saw you doing this in the thread and figured to lead you into this cellar box of an argument. Looks like I beat you at your own game. Guess you didn’t manage to squeeze the last word in.

[–]Nevarinin5121 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cherry08881 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nevarinin512 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nevarinin512 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

Yes, childbirth is and was a vector for disease. Thank you captain obvious.

That still doesn’t mean childbirth is the leading death cause for all of humanity throughout history. 🤦‍♂️

Your attempt at making both statements somehow an equivalent is the true face palm here.

It’s a bit funny when you wanna compete via medical knowledge, yet you seem to have no clue about the fact that there are obviously more vectors of disease that are more significant, even for women. Don’t come at me with out of context medical stuff when you seem to barely know the basics. I am actually quite well educated in the field of medicine so you’ll find it tough to discuss with me if all you do is throw out a bunch of keywords and flippant half-assed logical conclusions like „childbirth is a vector for disease, if diseases is a major leading cause this means childbirth is the biggest cause.“

That’s a logical conclusion that belongs in middle school maybe....

I also did not strawman the topic into voting as I am not the one who mentioned it. You discussed that with someone else. I just corrected your notion that men had somehow all the privileges when objectively only a tiny minority had those.

This isn’t me building a strawman, that is me correcting your lack of history knowledge.

Also, voting rights aren’t a bogus strawman point when discussing oppression, lmao. The logical extension of this point of yours is that women weren’t oppressed because they couldn’t vote. If not being able to vote isn’t oppression and a strawman , then women not being able to vote is also not oppression and a strawman. Makes zero sense.

Of course you are moving the goal post. Suddenly the leading death cause is....risky behavior (lol, really?) and so it’s their own fault. You just wanna blame men lol.

You basically just claimed a 2x-3x higher mortality over human history is just because of “more risky behavior.” What type of bogus claim is that? Pure reductionism and barely any connection to reality.

Most people died of infection, not risky behavior. Most men also died because of disease. That’s not due to “risky behavior.” Also 15-60 isn’t just “young men.”

Also, having to go to war for your local lord or whatever can’t exactly be boiled down to “risky behavior” to begin with.

Stop throwing words around like strawman and whatnot when your argumentation is full of logical fallacies and you can barely recognize logical fallacies to begin with. Ridiculous.

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nevarinin512 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

You are embarassing yourself. I have no clue why you thing you can hang here besides you suffering from the dunning kruger effect. Taking apart your insanly weak argumentation is literally childsplay. I cant even feel smart about it....

You are unable to detect that you are attempting to mix multiple things and timeframes into one. Historical deathrate, studies by insurance companies (that dont measure historical death causes?!), childbirth = infections, ergo is childbirth the leading cause of death. None of this makes any sense. Its all a big mix of non-connected things because you seem to simply hit google with keywords and you dont use your brain to actually read what those studies even measure.
Studies by 21 century insurance companies that measure the death causes for men and women in the 21 century have litrally zero bearing on the overall historical leading death. These studies didn't even measure hisotrical death causes because why would insurance companies of the 21 century give a shit about people who died centuries ago?
The leading cause of death for women and man throughout history is infections. Not falling from roofs, not voluntarily engaging in risky behaviour, not childbirth and not war. How about you bring studies relevant to the topic and not studies that are entirly irrelevant because they a. dont measure what we are discussing b. aren't relevant to the timeframe. Our time frame isnt the 21 century, but roughly -3000 BC to today. You do realize that, ya? Cause you claimed women died more throughout human history, which is most definitly a bit more than just the 21 century.
I never argued that men dont engage in more risky behavoir and this obviously leads to an increased death rate. You just seem too dense to understand that the total amount of death by risky behaviour is so insignificantly smaller compared to the death rate by infection in the grad scheme of all human history that its compleltly laughable to use this as an argument for the historical death rate.

I don't know if you noticed, but you havent engaged with ANY of my arguments, while I did nothing but refute yours. You know why that is? Because you are unable to engage with them and come out on top. If you dont think so, please pick one of them and actually engage with it instead of moving onto the next thing to attempt to gloss over the fact that I continously take your arguments apart. Go defend them with actual relevant stuff to that specific argument instead of changing it to something else again.

Last time you switched it up by going for "risky behaviour", now its studies by insurance companies in the 21 century measuring risk in the 21 century.

Do you have any arguments that dont rely on moving the goalpost and strawmen? Now come on. Bring the goods and stop attempting to win a discussion by switching shit up constantly. It won't work, ok?

*Your strawman are insurance company studies from the 21 century that arent even relevant fot anything before the 21 century, which is what we are actually discussing.

[–]CatchPhrazeMaster Of Memeology 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hosj_KarpBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nevarinin512 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Nevarinin5121 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Also voting is a stawman, things even poor men could do woman could not:Own property Speak in public Use banks Work outside the home without permission Live alone.Men have had various levels of autonomy and freedom but women have always until recently still just had less. It's a red herring or purposely misinformation when men pretend otherwise.

Voting is a strawman and even poor man could do it, but women couldnt. Thats what you've said.

Historically incorrect. Throughout history, most men couldnt vote.

In the United States, voting is almost something we take for granted today. In 2016, almost half of eligible voters, over 100 million people, didn’t vote. Since this country was founded, the ability to participate in the government has been a constant uphill battle and the United Kingdom has known the same struggle. Hundreds of years ago, the only voice that mattered was the king until the Magna Carta opened the decision-making process up to the barons and Parliament formed. The members of this parliament were chosen by the King until 1265 when Members of Parliament started to be elected from the various counties.However, even at this time, it was an incredibly small number of people who were able to elect these representatives, who were referred to as the “Knights of the Shire”. The Knights of the Shire Act in 1432 was the first parliamentary legislation to establish who was enfranchised to vote for the members. The act gave the right to vote to “Forty Shilling Freeholders”, meaning that only owners of real property who paid taxes to the Crown of at least 40 shillings per year (roughly £2,500 in today’s money). This remained the status quo for another 400 years, even after the passage of the Bill of Rights 1869 that provided for regular parliamentary elections. A survey from 1780 revealed that the number of enfranchised voters amounted to only 3% of the United Kingdom’s population.

Does this say every poor man could vote to you or only an elite class? Mh? This is just Britian, but we can find this literally everywhere on the globe. Read some books instead of just parroting "man had all the rights, women were oppressed" while clearly not even remotly knowing anything about the history of voting rights.

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nevarinin5120 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze0 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nevarinin5121 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhraze1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RegionalPoliceReality Pilled 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

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

But, I think a lot of men are unaware of themselves being misogynistic

Please we both know its all men who are and not a single woman is ever misandristic, not like feminism hates men or anything.

watch feminist videos that delve into how men express it unknowingly

Why would any man watch videos from the very people who hate them? More so feminists think the AC being cold is sexist now. Everything is sexist to feminists least when women don't have the upper hand over men and even then things are still sexist to women. And its always mens fault for the sexism.

I think feminism in how it's been portrayed as a strawman these days is inaccurate to rational feminist ideals, and I do think that men should be better informed.

No you like all other feminists don't like us men pointing out what feminism is actually like. As you rush in going "that's not real feminism" when we literally point to feminists doing it.

[–]Hosj_KarpBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Distinct_Water_5075 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I kind of agree. Most men don't understand academic feminism, and there is a lot of strawmanning.

All that being said, I don't think you need a degree in gender studies to see how badly feminism as an ideology has failed to address men's issues, if not directly undermine them.

For example, women of colour, disabled women, and older women all have a harder time dating due to not meeting patriarchal (men's) beauty standards. This is seen as a feminist issue. In this regard, men are expected to do better (change their standards).

However, men of colour, balding men, and short men all have a harder time dating due women's beauty standards. This is not seen as a feminist issue. Infact, in this scenario men are still expected to do better (work harder to become viable dating prospects).

In my opinion, feminism claims to be for both men and women, and yet young men today are failing and don't feel like feminism is addressing their concerns. Instead, they're flocking to Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson instead.

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

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

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Hosj_KarpBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]PeacesquadCrimson Pilled Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RahLytPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LaloTwinsRed Pillier 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]my_alt_has_alts🥟 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OddCardiologist2981 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]OddCardiologist2981 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]UneastAjiBurden of proof is a fallacy, this isn't a courtroom. 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]edgyny𝔓𝔲𝔯𝔭𝔩𝔢 𝔓𝔦𝔩𝔩 𝔐𝔞𝔫 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]edgyny𝔓𝔲𝔯𝔭𝔩𝔢 𝔓𝔦𝔩𝔩 𝔐𝔞𝔫 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]RegTextoffenderTANSTAAFL 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]RegTextoffenderTANSTAAFL 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]edgyny𝔓𝔲𝔯𝔭𝔩𝔢 𝔓𝔦𝔩𝔩 𝔐𝔞𝔫 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]edgyny1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RegTextoffender1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]edgyny1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nexkell 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]OddCardiologist2981 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]UneastAjiBurden of proof is a fallacy, this isn't a courtroom. 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]UneastAjiBurden of proof is a fallacy, this isn't a courtroom. 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]WilliamWyattDPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RegTextoffenderTANSTAAFL 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RegTextoffenderTANSTAAFL 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]mummydontknow -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]xTakki27Color of Pill = Blood Oxygen Saturation < 0.65 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]stepitupagainkara 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

There's this idea that every time men are shitty to women (manosphere, mra, redpilled guys in general), it's just payback for what "feminism" did to them.

But unless you seek out feminist shit it doesn't really reach you. Most feminsit ideas/articles are usually more mocked than they are believed, so i just don't understand how you are victimized by it.

Just look at any popular metric, on youtube for eg, if you search feminism, the top results by views have more anti feminism than anything. Or if it is feminism related, check the comments and nearly always people will be mocking it. So how are you victimised?

In contrast, redpill shit is so popular on youtube, you get viral clips and shorts and so many youtubers and podcasts, and they rarely get criticized (except very recently with the Andrew tate thing).

So yeah, i just can't see feminism as this big baddie. They're more pathetic than anything.

[–]nexkell 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Twinseo09 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Twinseo09 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

Metoo, Corporatations promoiting feminism/"diversity", and social media totally never has feminist shit reaching people these days.

It reaches people and they mock it. I'm sorry but one or two "the guardian's opeds" should not be oppressing you as a man, some retard writing about how long movies are patriarchal has no one agreeing with it, and it's only held up as a mirror to mock feminism. The same way i do not care or consider myself oppressed if some famous philosopher a thousand years ago wrote about women being inferior as long as people don't currently agree with it or use it to promote misogynistic rhetoric.

Despite its not. There's far more feminist content on youtube and that social media than that of redpill stuff is.

Insanely divorced from social media, are you a boomer? Literally just search feminist on youtube and sort by views and tell me that the most popular representations of feminism isn't anti feminsit, give me five female centred channels whose last ten videos only shit on men or point to some random man behaving badly, name one female podcast that constantly bashes men going viral on twitter, has people agreeing with it, and show it being held up as a representative of genz men.

What led you to this take?

I'm not saying women never do bad things, but our hatred really does pale in comparison to how much you bash/mock us. And when women do do it, i do feel bad, but then again, it's not like you guys will care if the roles were reversed so i can't bring myself to care either.

[–]nexkell 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry but one or two "the guardian's opeds" should not be oppressing you as a man

No one said anything about oppression. You are derailing and deflecting from the claim you made.

Insanely divorced from social media, are you a boomer?

Aww did I hurt your feelings kiddo?

Literally just search feminist on youtube and sort by views and tell me that the most popular representations of feminism isn't anti feminsit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyuUWOnS9BY

That video was the top one for me. I have a feeling you won't get that due to your own personal search history or that you are lying.

I'm not saying women never do bad things

But they don't do bad things just the men. And please your hate for men is ever so mainstream and normalized while hate for women from men is ever so pushed back. And you women cry about men not treating you better all while you treat men like shit.

[–]stepitupagainkara 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

No one said anything about oppression. You are derailing and deflecting from the claim you made.

I did. My original claim was that men who use feminism as a screen for being shitty to women as "payback" are wrong because they've imagined the oppression by feminists.

That video was the top one for me. I have a feeling you won't get that due to your own personal search history or that you are lying.

I don't lie. And I'm glad that you found this on top, because so did i. And if you scrolled down ten centimetres, you'd see all the the other videos in the top ten results are antifeminist, or debates with antifeminists overwhelmingly supporting their side. Look at the top twenty, and you'll see all others are antifeminist, save for one song by SNL called "this isn't a feminist song" and a debate by Jubilee. You'll even see an mra video. But you won't see any other feminist one. So tell me, is the discourse about feminism not dominated by anti feminists?

And you women cry about men not treating you better all while you treat men like shit.

I don't cry over it anymore.

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

[–]UneastAjiBurden of proof is a fallacy, this isn't a courtroom. 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Hosj_KarpBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stepitupagainkara 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]UneastAjiBurden of proof is a fallacy, this isn't a courtroom. 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]nexkell 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]nexkell 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]stepitupagainkara 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So? I never said feminists were not seen or viewed negatively. I was refuting the claim by you that feminism was not popular. I proved it was and is popular.

You did not read my first two links.

Feminism is mainstream and numerous companies even commercially promote it and arguably promote/support it culturally within the company.

Feminism is mainstream and unpopular. My whole argument is that feminism is only popular among the pmc journalists which is why you feel feminism is popular, but that is not the case among regular people.

So is feminism. But I am glad anti feminism is growing. As maybe then feminism either dies off or stops being a anti male movement.

Yes, we are getting polarized.

Glad you found some relief that you couldn't get despite the vast majority of popular discourse online being antifeminist.

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

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]stepitupagainkara 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MouthSandTeethTongueWaived the "be civil" protection 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]katyushas_boyfriend 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Hosj_KarpBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]chancetolive 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago* [recovered] (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]OldStorageUnit 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]chancetolive 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]OldStorageUnit 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]chancetolive 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]chancetolive 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OldStorageUnit 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Perhaps you are wrong. Have you considered this?

The female body I inhibit had historically been subjected to sexual slavery through the institution of marriage. Forced to bear children without its constant. Barred from institutions of academia. Our great-grandmothers could not vote, our grandmothers could not have bank account, our mothers could be raped by our fathers and I am born in the “progressive” country where women “have it all and then some”.

Historically, my female ancestors were property in the legal definition. Today my sisters are still property in the cultural definition. On a philosophical level can you not see how the trauma inflicted upon an entire half of the population is oppressive? How it continues to oppress?

Why would I seek your truth? Your truth is a delusion. Your truth comes at the expense of my existence.

[–]nexkell 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FancyComfortable4678 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Hosj_KarpBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah? And virulently anti-white rhetoric has been present since the start of abolition through to the civil rights movement through to black lives matter today. People act like the civil rights movement was all peace and kumbaya totally unlike BLM today! but there was actually tons of "kill whitey" shit present then too. Is that bad? Yeah. Is it as bad as the oppression the whole group experiences? Of course not.

Just because some oppressed people develop an unjustifiable and destructive hatred towards not just their oppressors but anyone they see as resembling them doesn't mean the movement for liberation for that group is invalid.

Yes there have been strains of misandry in feminism from the very beginning. Misandry isn't good. Women who spout misandry are bad people doing harm to society. Still not a reason to oppose the goals of feminism though.

[–]HolyPenguine2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]animorph_fan34 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexkell 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Men were not simply given the right to vote, in the US at least, we have to submit to the selective service.

Through conscription and taxes, our bodies and labor are property of the state. We cannot even drive without pledging our bodies to the state.

By comparison, the 19th Amendment simply handed the franchise to you with nothing offered in return.

Current projections show that 50% of women aged 30 are childless and its seems improbable that they will have children before their fertility window closes. If true, then they will not be contributing to the tax base.

If the declining birth rate persists, you can say goodbye to the social entitlement programs like Social Security.

If this current Administration (which was elected by a majority of women) blunders into War War III, a generation of men will be sent to die for a country that despises us. (at least how it appears to me).

At least the poor boys in WWII had families to come home to. (Boomers helped jumpstart the post-war economy).

[–]edgyny𝔓𝔲𝔯𝔭𝔩𝔢 𝔓𝔦𝔩𝔩 𝔐𝔞𝔫 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]fiftypoundpuppyBlue Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I am unhappy to inform you that most career-oriented women are not immortal.

What happens to these childless career-oriented women are aged out of the workforce and there are insufficient people to replace them?

Look at Japan for example if you want to see what happens to a country that falls below the replacement rate.

Without a population surplus, you can say goodbye to social entitlement programs like Social Security, or anything else that requires a sustainable tax base.

The wildcards are our rapidly debased currency and unsustainable globalist economy.

The FDIC has predicted that we are headed for a banking crisis that will make 2008 look like a drunken little league game. If there is a run on the banks due to fractional reserve banking then we (men & women) are in for a world of hurt.

It might be a smart time to retool your career into a blue collar direction.

[–]fiftypoundpuppyBlue Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What is it with people always acting like this is a goddamn dichotomy?

"Either I have children or I really, really care about my career."

You realize there are women who just... have to work because they need money to survive?

I'm not independently wealthy. My parents are well-off but I'm probably not going to see that money for a couple decades. So to support myself, I have to work. It's a means to an end and nothing more.

There's probably more women who think and feel the way I do than career-obsessed women or family-oriented women but for some reason, society likes to pretend we don't exist.

I don't care about the downsides of not creating enough wage slaves for capitalism. It's more of a harm to create people than to leave them in non-existence.

People should save for their own retirement. Or maybe - crazily - society should figure out other ways to maintain a society that isn't based on an unsustainable Ponzi scheme?

We're going to be in for a world of hurt either way. It's better to change things now with a population of 8 billion than trying to course-correct a planet of 16 billion.

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I meant no offense ms.fiftypoundpuppy. I think your worldview is the prevailing one, but my concern is that its not always realistic for biological and economic reasons.

Education wastes a lot of our time, and the Feminists have shot themselves in the foot with how they have retooled the academic system to cater to women over men (i.e., equity politics).

Hypergamy and the runaway Pygmalion effect we see on social media means that most of these successful women might not have an accurate/healthy self-image or may struggle to find a man that meets their standards.

When I started down this path, it was disheartening for me to realize how many women are unable to accurately evaluate their smv and kept failing to sufficiently vet the men they encountered.

I don't blame you for not caring about birthing more wage slaves for a machine that chews us up and spits us out.

I just personally take issue with Feminism because I think it was sold to women in bad faith. Why do you think these giant heartless corporations embraced women's lib?

I think it was so they could double the supply of workers and cut wages in half. Think about it, if half the population have been added to the workforce, then the potential employers have all the leverage with setting wages.

I wish I was wrong, but I don't think I am. If the economic collapse plays out the way I think it will, I think marriage is going to be much rarer in the future. (Barring an unforeseen change in our culture).

[–]OldStorageUnit 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Stop being patronizing. Gender equality is clearly possible with the annihilation of the human race/ We’ve been fighting the institution of patriarchy for long enough and the sky isn’t falling because of it.

Education does not cater to women. Education has become equal opportunity. Men are no longer special by virtue of “being a man”, and women have excelled into institutions based on merit. I find it ironic how you being up the idea of education being a waste of time. Perhaps, my dear Mr_Vaynewoode, you should consider the value of education and what it can do to open up your narrow minded worldview.

The effects of social media go both ways. I’d hardly say it primarily affects women’s standards for partners. More and more men can’t get it up without viewing obscure, specific pornographic depictions of sex featuring edited, surgically altered women.

To be entirely honest with you, there is no such thing as sexual market value. We’re not trading sex slaves. You’re not entitled to have sex with a women because you find her attractive and/or not hot enough to find someone better. She’s out of your league on the virtue that she’s not attracted to you.

This is the funny thing. Feminism in it’s true form is Marxist. You cannot obtain gender equality without class equality. Neoliberals co-opted feminist rhetoric, likely fearing that having half of the working class population collectively demanding rights could go full class struggle real quick.

The idea that feminism put women in the workplace is stupid. Women were expected to bring income prior to feminism. The majority of low-skilled factory labor was done by women and children. Feminism actually helped keep children out of the workforce, alongside other workers movements, minimum wage and the 40 hour work week were established. You’ve been sold bullshit. Women having financial rights and the ability to access jobs by virtue of merit, not barred by gender did not give companies leverage power to set wages.

In all seriousness marriage is an archaic institution. It’s not necessary anymore. Who cares if marriage rates go down.

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you meant "Gender equality is possible without the annihilation of the human race."

As for pair bonding, I think you grossly overestimate the male porn addiction phenomenon. It's an inadequate prosthetic version of actual relationships. The real value of sex for me has been in maintaining my bonds with my partner.

I have no desire to "own" anyone, I just wanted accountability and reciprocated respect.

As for the fall of the West, it happened 50 years ago, its just taking its time to reach terminal velocity with the birth rate.

The Anglosphere in particular has always been a thoroughly gynocentric society. Your "Patriarchy" was predicated on male provisioning enough resources to attract and keep a woman.

Education absolutely does cater to women post Title IX reforms. How many scholarships exclusively cater to women vs men? Men and Women are psychologically different and we do not learn the same.

As for Women entering the workforce, I was judging it according to Standards of the Middle Class.

My issues with Feminism are the same as the issues I have with Marxism. There is no end point where Equality has been reached, and there is no sense of restraint in regards to where the other parties are involved.

I accept that Marriage is dead, but I am done with being blamed for its demise. I would respect Feminists a lot more if they just accepted the consequences of their own choices.

Let it Burn.

[–]Preme2 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]potoriccoI call my car Rico 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MouthSandTeethTongueWaived the "be civil" protection 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway164_3 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HungerISanEmotionBeautiful Prince Man 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RandomRedditGuy322Half My Posts Get Removed by the Jannies Pilled -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicoleberry1620F I just like the color purple 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Scarce12 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]caption291Red Pill Man I don't want a flair 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MouthSandTeethTongueWaived the "be civil" protection 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheDustLordNo Pill 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Luciansleep5’6 pretty boy/ male 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Lucr3tius 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]12throw1234away34both genders equally suck 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago* (57 children) | Copy Link

I think a lot of modern adult women love to reject old double standards and outdated ideals that disadvantage them, cherry pick new ideals that would benefit them and fight for them, while happily accepting the old double standards that continue to benefit them.

I’m a modern, independent woman who doesn’t need a man, but a man needs to approach me 100% of the time and pay for all the dates.

I’m a strong, powerful woman who deserves to have a seat at the Fortune 500 board room table, but I don’t want to do the menial and unglamorous tasks needed to sustain society, like garbage collection, sewage disposal, and the trades.

I can have all the physical and lifestyle preferences for men when it comes to romance and don’t question or shame me for them, but men can’t have their own physical and lifestyle preferences for women without my getting to question and shame them.

I honestly don’t care what you want and fight for. But at least be consistent from top to bottom and left to right. Don’t be a hypocrite.

[–]animorph_fan34 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men do the exact same thing, this has nothing to do with women. Men still want to women to be “traditional” in that they have no body hair and wear makeup and feminine and submissive but also are “modern” in that they’ll split the check and be willing to get sexual immediately. Men expect women to be a equal earner while doing most of the housework and childcare

There is no gender that “needs” to approach the other. Plenty of women who do not approach men have a difficult time dating so they suffer the consequences. Same goes for men. People in general do not like to approach. Same can be said for dates, men don’t NEED to pay, just like women don’t NEED to wear makeup, but it will hurt your romantic prospects.

Women are fighting to end sex based discrimination in EVERY industry. It is more important for women to have a seat at the table when in comes to government policy and board rooms because women need to be present in decision making that affects the lives of all women

The last point is especially stupid and juvenile. Both genders criticise the other gender for their dating preferences. Any time a women hints at having a height preference on Reddit she’s relentlessly attacked by insecure angry men. I’ll stand by that no one cares that men prefer thin women or cisgender women. But a lot of the preferences men have come across as predatory

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

I’m a modern, independent woman who doesn’t need a man, but a man needs to approach me 100% of the time and pay for all the dates.

Whenever guys on this sub wanna make the "feminist are hypocrites" argument, they always align feminist issues like abortion rights, workplace discrimination, and rape/murder of women with men paying for dates or holding doors open. That's how unbelievably deluded you are, that you think those two things are even remotely equivalent.

I'll tell you what though, go talk to some women and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they will happily agree to split the bill in exchange for things like abortion rights and not being sexually harassed at work.

I’m a strong, powerful woman who deserves to have a seat at the Fortune 500 board room table, but I don’t want to do the menial and unglamorous tasks needed to sustain society, like garbage collection, sewage disposal, and the trades

I wonder why more women don't go into trades. Do you think it's related to the horrific discrimination and harassment they deal with?

I can have all the physical and lifestyle preferences for men when it comes to romance and don’t question or shame me for them, but men can’t have their own physical and lifestyle preferences for women without my getting to question and shame them.

This one is just plain bullshit. Feminism has never been about "men must be willing to date any woman without restriction."

But at least be consistent from top to bottom and left to right. Don’t be a hypocrite.

And don't create strawmen arguments because you don't like what they have to say.

[–]katyushas_boyfriend 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

abortion rights

Abortion restrictions are not discriminatory just because they primarily affect women. Only women can gestate. There is no equivalent situation where men are allowed to kill a human embryo or fetus that they're gestating.

workplace discrimination

Many anti-feminists would suggest that feminists are exaggerating the prevalence and severity of sex-discrimination against women in the workplace, and more importantly, downplay or outright deny the existence of sex discrimination against men in the workplace.

"Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere."

"Men who apply for female-dominated jobs face a significant chance of being rejected at application stage, suggesting the existence of deep-rooted gender stereotypes."

"To detect the presence of gender-based hiring discrimination in software engineering roles, this paper analyzes data collected from a correspondence study. Response rates for 1,865 fictitious applications sent to unique firms reveal positive discrimination in favor of female applicants. Specifically, applications randomly assigned a female name exhibit a 41% higher probability of being invited to move forward in the interview process than those with male names"

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Abortion restrictions are not discriminatory just because they primarily affect women. Only women can gestate. There is no equivalent situation where men are allowed to kill a human embryo or fetus that they're gestating.

Sorry, what does this have to do with women being denied abortion rights?

Many anti-feminists would suggest that feminists are exaggerating the prevalence and severity of sex-discrimination against women in the workplace

Unfortunately, "women are liars" is not a valid argument.

"Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere."

"Men who apply for female-dominated jobs face a significant chance of being rejected at application stage, suggesting the existence of deep-rooted gender stereotypes."

"To detect the presence of gender-based hiring discrimination in software engineering roles, this paper analyzes data collected from a correspondence study. Response rates for 1,865 fictitious applications sent to unique firms reveal positive discrimination in favor of female applicants. Specifically, applications randomly assigned a female name exhibit a 41% higher probability of being invited to move forward in the interview process than those with male names"

What does this have to do with women being harassed and discriminated against in the workplace?

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

Excuse me, may I ask why "women are liars" is not a valid argument? (Insert obligatory 'not all women' caveat here).

If you do a deep-dive on rape, sexual assault, and harassment accusations you find that a startling number are unable to be substantiated and even worse are outright false.

Its also disturbing that no real effort exists to catalog or record these bad faith abuses of our social, civic, and criminal justice systems.

There also is a clear Feminist penetration of the bureaucracy of Governmental, Academic, and Corporate HR departments.

In fact, I would argue that Human Resources would not exist without the Feminist Penetration of the Workforce. (Ironically, Women's economic liberation seems to be at the expense of single income households)

Take the Rollingstone Article for example which alleged that a UVA student was gangraped at a frat house. (Duke Lacrosse also may have contended with something similar)

In the UVA case, the woman was allowed ro remain anonymous, whereas the falsely accused had to publicly enter a potentially hostile job market.

I would post links, but I don't want to accidentally disrespect the rules for this subreddit.

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Excuse me, may I ask why "women are liars" is not a valid argument?

Sure, because baseless conjecture is not acceptable I'm good faith debate.

find that a startling number

Between 2-10% of reported rapes are false.

There also is a clear Feminist penetration of the bureaucracy of Governmental, Academic, and Corporate HR departments.

Which explains why harassment of women is so prevalent in government, academic, and corporate settings.

Ironically, Women's economic liberation seems to be at the expense of single income households

How is that ironic?

Take the Rollingstone Article for example which alleged that a UVA student was gangraped at a frat house. (Duke Lacrosse also may have contended with something similar)

Yep, those are two high profile false rape incidents in the last 20 years. I'm not sure what your point is, but there you are.

In the UVA case, the woman was allowed ro remain anonymous, whereas the falsely accused had to enter a hostile job market.

I guess you don't actually remember anything about the article? The guy that was accused was given the pseudonym "Drew" and, in fact, one of the first disputed facts of the article was that there was no member of the fraternity that matched the description of "Drew." That's because he didn't exist, he was a catfish persona that Jackie had made up.

Moreover, considering the article fell apart in the span of about three weeks and gained far, far greater notoriety due to the sheer fact that it was false, your hand-wringing that someone had to enter a "hostile job market" is pretty far-fetched.

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate that you are arguing in good faith (assuming you arent lying).

(1) What makes you think that the "women are liars" argument is based on conjecture? I have seen it firsthand.[hint - you have been talking about it].

The #MeToo movement was predicated upon belief without evidence (i.e., believe all women), and that has damaged/polarized the gender dynamic to this day.

People lie. Women lie. I just think its ludicrous that we don't have have any legislation to punish women for false rape/abuse/harassment accusations. Sure we have civil court, but I think false accusations are sufficiently damaging enough to qualify as criminal offenses.

(2) I am genuinely curious about what you think about women who lie about abuse/harrassment to gain custody of children? What about paternity fraud?

(3) I am also curious about the dataset that is being used to feed the 2-10% rape statistic you mentioned.

Most Attorney Generals have a vested interest in securing convictions, it would not surprise me if that number of false rape accusations is much higher.

I need to do a deep-dive into the reliability of dna evidence. I know that different genealogical testing firms can get wildly different results, I am curious as to why this is and how this applies to forensics.

(4) Based upon testimonial evidence, even if an accusation is recanted, it has a way of following a man around.

Example: Patrice O'Neal's "Greatest story ever told on radio" https://youtu.be/CybGo6hALVo

[–]katyushas_boyfriend 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PodlubnyiNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I've never seen anyone equate rape with holding doors open.

Sorry, are you trying to tell me that when feminists talk about equality, they're not talking about things like rape, abortion rights, and harassment?

The easiest way to expose the hypocrisy of feminists is to propose drafting women into the military

Why would feminists support drafting women? Most feminists I've heard talk about this issue oppose the draft entirely.

Or making rape laws gender neutral

Again, this isn't something I've observed feminists to be against. Do you have something to support this claim?

Or letting men opt out of parenthood.

Neither gender is allowed to unilaterally abandon a child (with the exception of safe havens, where either parent can).

Your main complaint seems to be the feminists aren't arguing for men's issues, which, why would they?

[–]PodlubnyiNo Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, are you trying to tell me that when feminists talk about equality, they're not talking about things like rape, abortion rights, and harassment?

What does that have to do with equating rape with holding doors open? I've never seen anyone make that comparison here.

Why would feminists support drafting women? Most feminists I've heard talk about this issue oppose the draft entirely.

If men get drafted, then so should women. That's equality. Feminists always cop out by claiming they're against the draft altogether, but when it comes down to it they're happy for men to be drafted and women not to be. Case in point, the recent feminist-led opposition to women being added to Selective Service. No one suggested abolishing the draft altogether.

Again, this isn't something I've observed feminists to be against. Do you have something to support this claim?

Mary Koss is responsible for the CDC and others classifying female on male rape as "made to penetrate":

"Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman."

Feminists in India opposing gender neutral rape laws

Feminists in Israel opposing gender neutral rape laws

Neither gender is allowed to unilaterally abandon a child (with the exception of safe havens, where either parent can).

Women can unilaterally have an abortion. If she can decide not to be a parent, then he should have the same opportunity. That is fair. Yet the same people who want abortion on demand for women will tell a man: shoulda kept it in your pants then! if he wants to opt out. In practice a woman can give up a child for adoption without the father's consent (adoption agencies will say she should inform the father, but it's not a requirement). A man cannot without her consent.

Your main complaint seems to be the feminists aren't arguing for men's issues, which, why would they?

Feminists don't just not argue for men's issues, they actively oppose men's issues. Whether the issue is paternity fraud, reproductive rights, domestic and sexual violence against men, the education gap, the sentencing gap etc, you literally cannot advocate for men without running into feminists.

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

What does that have to do with equating rape with holding doors open? I've never seen anyone make that comparison here.

Sure you have.

"Women want equality but still want men to open doors and pay for dates."

The equality women seek, as mentioned previously, includes issues like women being raped. So to compare them is to necessarily equate them, otherwise the question being asked is "why do women care about this very serious problem while ignoring this miniscule social norm" which is self explanatory.

Alternatively, if you're going to claim "well obviously they don't mean rape when they're talking about what women are trying to accomplish," then the argument fails by not actually understanding what feminism's goals are.

Which one is it?

If men get drafted, then so should women.

So then advocate for that.

My question was why feminists who, in my experience, have been in favor of abolishing the draft altogether would advocate for women to be drafted.

Mary Koss is responsible for the CDC and others classifying female on male rape as "made to penetrate":

No, what Mary Koss was referring to was unifying the terms used in research studies to categorize the various different types of rape/sexual assault/nonconsensual sexual contact. I heartily disagree with her assessment at least at a legal/colloquial level, but pretending that she's somehow trying to claim that men can't be raped by women is blatantly disingenuous.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/nfqxs9cxu524gk2/Koss%20-%201993%20-%20Detecting%20the%20Scope%20of%20Rape%20-%20a%20review%20of%20prevalence%20research%20methods.pdf?token_hash=AAEFRT8VplwV5Xgc0Fxab0-YwewdVbDKZYSPAiCDkjjNcw&dl=1

Feminists in India opposing gender neutral rape laws

Hold up, how far afield are we wandering here? Because I can find some pretty choice comments from men in other countries, yet I don't think you would find it fair for those to be applied to men in the west, no?

Women can unilaterally have an abortion.

That's because women get unilaterally pregnant and are unilaterally burdened and endangered by pregnancy, thus get to make a unilateral decision. A woman, however, cannot give birth and just abandon the child (except at safe havens), which is what you are suggesting men should be able to do. Once the baby is born, men and women are subject to the same rules.

they actively oppose men's issues.

And your example of this is a woman talking about standardizing terms for research studies back in 1993.

you literally cannot advocate for men without running into feminists.

That's weird, because I see and participate in discussions about these men's issues (with the exception of paper abortions and paternity fraud, which is MRA nonsense), and I never have any problems with feminists telling me no.

I do, however, see men interjecting into discussions about women's issues all the time which women and feminists, quite rightly, attempt to shut down.

[–]PodlubnyiNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

Women want equality but still want men to open doors and pay for dates.

You know this is not equating rape with holding doors open. It's a reference to the attitude I don't want to be a barefoot and pregnant housewife but I still expect a man to pay my bills.

My question was why feminists who, in my experience, have been in favor of abolishing the draft altogether would advocate for women to be drafted.

You wanted examples of feminist hypocrisy. Demanding equality but howling with outrage when someone suggests drafting women too (you know, equality) is a perfect example. Given the choice, if there had to be a draft, you'd prefer an all-male draft, wouldn't you?

No, what Mary Koss was referring to was unifying the terms used in research studies to categorize the various different types of rape/sexual assault/nonconsensual sexual contact. I heartily disagree with her assessment at least at a legal/colloquial level, but pretending that she's somehow trying to claim that men can't be raped by women is blatantly disingenuous.

She said exactly that in a more recent interview:

"How would [a man being raped by a woman] happen… how would that happen by force or threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How does that happen?"

And your example of this is a woman talking about standardizing terms for research studies back in 1993.

Koss is an advisor to the CDC, FBI etc on their methodologies on gathering rape statistics. She is the reason the CDC classifies female on male rape as "made to penetrate".

Do you think rape laws should be gender neutral?

Hold up, how far afield are we wandering here?

Do Indian and Israeli feminists not count? I could also point to Britain where a woman legally cannot be convicted of raping a man. An attempt to change this law a few years ago was shouted down by, you've guessed it, feminists.

That's because women get unilaterally pregnant and are unilaterally burdened and endangered by pregnancy, thus get to make a unilateral decision. A woman, however, cannot give birth and just abandon the child (except at safe havens), which is what you are suggesting men should be able to do. Once the baby is born, men and women are subject to the same rules.

That is fine, she can decide whatever she likes with her body. Just don't expect a man to pay for her unilateral decision.

Women can give up the child for adoption without the father's consent. There is no legal requirement to even name the father on the birth certificate. In any case she can just claim she doesn't know his name or he's abusive and the adoption will go ahead. A man cannot do the same.

That's weird, because I see and participate in discussions about these men's issues (with the exception of paper abortions and paternity fraud, which is MRA nonsense), and I never have any problems with feminists telling me no.

I'm not talking about debates on Reddit. Look up Carnell Smith and other paternity fraud campaigners. To a man, they'll say the most vehement opponents of giving relief to paternity fraud victims are feminists. Apparently, feminists think the issue is "MRA nonsense" and women should be allowed to trick a man into thinking he's their kid's father.

"MRA nonsense".

QED

I do, however, see men interjecting into discussions about women's issues all the time which women and feminists, quite rightly, attempt to shut down.

r/askmen is so full of women offering their opinions on men's issues it's become a cliche. Classic example: question for men... and the first response starts woman here... By way of comparison, try being a man offering an opinion on r/askwomen.

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

You know this is not equating rape with holding doors open

Then you're making a disingenuous argument by misrepresenting what feminists are actually trying to achieve.

I don't want to be a barefoot and pregnant housewife but I still expect a man to pay my bills.

Not only are you now moving the goalposts, you're just making shit up.

You wanted examples of feminist hypocrisy.

Being in favor of abolishing the draft is not hypocrisy. I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what that word means.

Given the choice, if there had to be a draft, you'd prefer an all-male draft, wouldn't you?

I would prefer there's no draft at all.

She said exactly that in a more recent interview:

While, again, I find her statement abhorrent, the source I found attributed this to a radio interview in the 80s.

Mary Koss is wrong about how she views men being raped.

Koss is an advisor to the CDC, FBI etc on their methodologies on gathering rape statistics. She is the reason the CDC classifies female on male rape as "made to penetrate".

Source?

Do you think rape laws should be gender neutral?

In western countries, of course. In a place like India, human rights activists have (correctly, in my opinion) pointed out that making rape laws gender neutral simply gives rapists another avenue to avoid charges (see my next paragraph).

Do Indian and Israeli feminists not count?

Great. An 11 year old girl in India was gang raped and then blackmailed into saying she consented by her rapists, who said their defense was that one of them had touched her arm suggestively and she didn't pull away.

I would argue that defending gang raping a child because she didn't pull her arm away while saying rape laws should be gender neutral is far greater hypocrisy than being gang raped and saying the laws shouldn't.

What do you think?

Women can give up the child for adoption without the father's consent.

No she can't. If you're going to argue that she can do it anyway, then I'm going to argue the father can do it.

There is no legal requirement to even name the father on the birth certificate.

Okay?

Wait, are you saying women are tricking men into getting them pregnant so that they can secretly have a baby and give it up for adoption?

A man cannot do the same.

A man can absolutely accuse the mother of being abusive to gain custody. A man can also drop off a baby at a safe haven location, just as the mother can.

paternity fraud campaigners

I cannot express how little I care about paternity fraud campaigners. If you want a DNA test, get a DNA test. Quit trying to make fetch happen with this absurd issue.

giving relief to paternity fraud victims

You are more than welcome to sue a woman for emotional damages if she has committed paternity fraud. I'm not sure what other relief you believe you should be entitled to.

r/askmen is so full of women offering their opinions on men's issues it's become a cliche. Classic example: question for men... and the first response starts woman here... By way of comparison, try being a man offering an opinion on r/askwomen.

r/askmen is more than welcome to make it men only.

And it's really weird to hear you argue that like men don't butt into women's discussions all the time.

[–]PodlubnyiNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Then you're making a disingenuous argument by misrepresenting what feminists are actually trying to achieve.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. You are the only one claiming that men equate rape with opening doors for women.

Not only are you now moving the goalposts, you're just making shit up.

That's what the opening doors comment is a response to, not rape.

Being in favor of abolishing the draft is not hypocrisy. I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what that word means.

Wanting women to be excused from the draft when men are not is hypocrisy.

I would prefer there's no draft at all.

We both know why you won't answer my question.

While, again, I find her statement abhorrent, the source I found attributed this to a radio interview in the 80s.

This definitely isn't from the 1980s:

https://clyp.it/uckbtczn

In western countries, of course. In a place like India, human rights activists have (correctly, in my opinion) pointed out that making rape laws gender neutral simply gives rapists another avenue to avoid charges (see my next paragraph).

This is the exact argument western feminists use to justify current misandrist rape laws. Funny how false allegations are suddenly a concern when it's women who might be on the receiving end.

Great. An 11 year old girl in India was gang raped and then blackmailed into saying she consented by her rapists, who said their defense was that one of them had touched her arm suggestively and she didn't pull away.

What does this have to do with female rapists actually being prosecuted for rape? Feminists in India want it to be considered rape if a man breaks off an engagement, but want a woman drugging and raping a man not to count as rape (and it doesn't).

No she can't. If you're going to argue that she can do it anyway, then I'm going to argue the father can do it.

Yes she can. If she refuses to name the father, how exactly is the adoption agency going to ask for his permission? No man could show up with a kid claiming he didn't know who the mother was.

Wait, are you saying women are tricking men into getting them pregnant so that they can secretly have a baby and give it up for adoption?

What?

A man can absolutely accuse the mother of being abusive to gain custody. A man can also drop off a baby at a safe haven location, just as the mother can.

I meant she can claim he's abusive if she's trying to give up the kid without his permission. Again, the man cannot drop off a kid at a safe haven without her consent.

I cannot express how little I care about paternity fraud campaigners. If you want a DNA test, get a DNA test. Quit trying to make fetch happen with this absurd issue.

You just proved my point. I don't care if you don't care about something that is exclusively perpetrated by women against men, but men do and they run into your feminist friends who fight tooth and nail to protect the women who do it.

You are more than welcome to sue a woman for emotional damages if she has committed paternity fraud. I'm not sure what other relief you believe you should be entitled to.

For a start she can repay all the child support money taken from him under false pretenses. A prison sentence for the fraudster would be nice too.

r/askmen is more than welcome to make it men only.

Wouldn't be allowed. Only women-only spaces are permissible. Something else men have your feminist friends to thank for.

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I'm not misrepresenting anything

You absolutely are. When you claim "women want equality but still want men to open doors," you don't then get to pick and choose which pieces of equality you're talking about.

That's what the opening doors comment is a response to, not rape.

Okay, even if that were true, it's still a disingenuous argument since there is no tenet of feminism that states "men must pay all my bills."

No matter how you try to contort this argument, it's a bullshit argument.

Wanting women to be excused from the draft when men are not is hypocrisy.

But you're projecting that argument. As I've stated repeatedly, every feminist I've heard speak on the subject is in favor of abolishing the draft altogether.

We both know why you won't answer my question.

I did answer your question. I'm in favor of abolishing the draft.

This definitely isn't from the 1980s:

https://clyp.it/uckbtczn

Thank you for the clip. As I stated, I find her stance to be abhorrent and regressive.

This is the exact argument western feminists use to justify current misandrist rape laws.

But again, where is this happening? You're saying it's happening but you're not showing it's happening. Virtually every article I can find shows this happening in India, where there is a very good reason for them to make that argument. Is there an example of this happening in Europe or NA? I did find an article about California, the bastion of western "wokeness", making their rape laws gender neutral.

What does this have to do with female rapists actually being prosecuted for rape?

I'm illustrating the hypocrisy of men. Isn't that the issue at hand? You want to paint all feminists with the same brush but I can't do the same with men? Men want women to be prosecuted for rape but are okay with gang raping an 11 year old?

If she refuses to name the father,

Okay, then we're back to you believing that women will trick men into getting pregnant, carry the baby to term, and give it up for adoption? Why?

I meant she can claim he's abusive if she's trying to give up the kid without his permission.

And a man can do the same. You're assuming there's a difference but not showing that there actually is.

I don't care if you don't care about something that is exclusively perpetrated by women against men

No, I don't care about this manufactured outrage at a miniscule issue that already has a solution in place. You are perfectly welcome to get a DNA test if you doubt paternity and you are perfectly welcome to sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress if you find out your partner committed paternity fraud.

For a start she can repay all the child support money taken from him under false pretenses

You can claim that in the damages for your lawsuit.

A prison sentence for the fraudster would be nice too.

Why would there be a prison sentence for a civil matter?

Wouldn't be allowed.

Source?

[–]Podlubnyi2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You absolutely are. When you claim "women want equality but still want men to open doors," you don't then get to pick and choose which pieces of equality you're talking about.

Nobody is talking about rape when they say this. Nobody equates rape with men opening doors for women. You have completely made this up out of thin air.

That statement is a reference to cherry-picked equality that is often found among modern women, ie: I don't want to be a housewife but I still want a man to pay my bills.

Okay, even if that were true, it's still a disingenuous argument since there is no tenet of feminism that states "men must pay all my bills."

I never said this was a tenet of feminism.

But you're projecting that argument. As I've stated repeatedly, every feminist I've heard speak on the subject is in favor of abolishing the draft altogether.

And as I said, this is a cop out feminists hide behind to evade the hypocrisy of their position. They only gave a shit about the draft when someone proposed adding women to Selective Service a couple of years back. And again, none proposed abolishing the draft, just excluding women from it.

I did answer your question. I'm in favor of abolishing the draft.

Which is not always an option. Like in Ukraine right now. Male-only draft or men and women drafted?

But again, where is this happening? You're saying it's happening but you're not showing it's happening. Virtually every article I can find shows this happening in India, where there is a very good reason for them to make that argument. Is there an example of this happening in Europe or NA? I did find an article about California, the bastion of western "wokeness", making their rape laws gender neutral.

I already mentioned Israel and Britain.

Men want women to be prosecuted for rape but are okay with gang raping an 11 year old?

I never said anything of the sort. I want rapists - both male and female - to be punished.

Okay, then we're back to you believing that women will trick men into getting pregnant, carry the baby to term, and give it up for adoption? Why?

You are putting words in my mouth. Women can avoid parenthood by putting put a child up for adoption without the father's consent by simply not naming him. An option not open to men.

No, I don't care about this manufactured outrage at a miniscule issue that already has a solution in place. You are perfectly welcome to get a DNA test if you doubt paternity and you are perfectly welcome to sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress if you find out your partner committed paternity fraud.

If paternity fraud was something done to women by men, I'm sure you would be all over it. It would already be illegal and your feminist friends would probably want it classed as rape.

But when something malicious is done to men by women on a large scale, it is dismissed as a "miniscule issue" and "manufactured outrage". You just proved another of my points.

I'm all for DNA testing, especially for child support orders. But for some reason it's women and especially feminists who oppose them.

Perhaps hospitals shouldn't bother making sure that mothers and newborns aren't separated using tags etc. Just hand her any baby and if she finds out later it's the wrong one, tough, should've got a DNA test before you left with the kid. She can always sue the hospital if she's that bothered.

Why would there be a prison sentence for a civil matter?

Fraud is a felony.

Source?

Male-only spaces aren't allowed. Even male gay clubs have to accept women.

Most of the Red Pill subs have long since been banned or quarantined, while man-hating subs like r/FemaleDatingStrategy and r/TwoXChromosomes still exist unfettered.

[–]Soloandthewookiee1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nobody is talking about rape when they say this.

Then your argument is disingenuous by misrepresenting what feminist goals actually are.

I never said this was a tenet of feminism.

Maybe you should figure out who you're actually talking about then, because it seems to change with every post.

And as I said, this is a cop out

Abolishing the draft is not a cop out.

They only gave a shit about the draft when someone proposed adding women to Selective Service a couple of years back.

So your complaint is that they weren't fighting hard enough for a men's issue? That's not hypocrisy, bro.

Which is not always an option.

It absolutely is. There's no cosmic requirement that every country must have conscription, and plenty of countries have abolished it.

Like in Ukraine right now. Male-only draft or men and women drafted?

I have no idea what Ukraine's conscription policy is and I have no idea how that's relevant to feminists arguing that the draft should be abolished.

I already mentioned Israel and Britain.

I have no idea of the culture in Israel so I can't speak intelligently on that, but as for Britain, you again made a claim that women were fighting against it, and I'm not seeing the evidence of it.

I never said anything of the sort. I want rapists - both male and female - to be punished.

And yet your complaint is that the law is worded such that female rapists are charged with lesser crimes like sexual assault, not that a group of men can gang rape a child and then be acquitted because they touched her arm and she didn't pull away. That's a far greater hypocrisy than women wanting men who gang rape children to be convicted while keeping rape laws women-specific.

Or, perhaps, you can just admit that cultural differences from other parts of the world do not fit neatly into a very narrow discussion about the supposed hypocrisy of feminism.

You are putting words in my mouth.

You're saying this so much that I'm not convinced you've actually made a definitive statement yet.

Women can avoid parenthood by putting put a child up for adoption without the father's consent by simply not naming him. An option not open to men.

Correct, because men don't give birth. I'm asking what scenario you're envisioning this happening where a woman convinces a man to knock her up, but then somehow the dude doesn't bother to ever find out about it yet still wants to keep it, while the mother carries it to term and then gives it up for adoption while keeping it a secret.

If the guy wants to keep the baby, where was he in the 9 months it took to gestate said baby? He just came in her and then never contacted her again, yet she's supposed to somehow know that he wants to raise a baby?

If paternity fraud was something done to women by men

Men have had children with other women and never told their wives throughout all of history.

on a large scale

Lol, no, this does not happen on a "large scale." Even in cases where the person suspects they are not the actual father, the overwhelming majority of the time, the putative father is indeed the actual father. Among all births, the number is miniscule.

Furthermore, in order for it to be fraud, the mother must know that the supposed father is not the actual father. These discussions always pretend like women somehow innately know who the real father is which, of course, is idiotic.

Finally, you still have not explained what you actually want that can't be satisfied by what is available. You are able to get a DNA test if you want it, and you are free to sue the mother if she commits paternity fraud. The only other thing you've mentioned is jail time, which is stupid since, again, this is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

But for some reason it's women and especially feminists who oppose them.

Imagine that, women resent being baselessly accused of cheating.

Fraud is a felony.

Family court is civil.

Male-only spaces aren't allowed.

You have literally provided nothing to support that claim.

Most of the Red Pill subs have long since been banned or quarantined, while man-hating subs like r/FemaleDatingStrategy and r/TwoXChromosomes still exist unfettered.

I don't recall the last time TwoX or FDS brigaded someone with death and rape threats to people, but if you have evidence to the contrary. Incidentally, TwoXChromosomes is also not women-exclusive.

[–]Podlubnyi2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Then your argument is disingenuous by misrepresenting what feminist goals actually are.

You're the one who keeps claiming someone equated rape with holding doors open.

Maybe you should figure out who you're actually talking about then, because it seems to change with every post.

I never said men paying for things was a tenet of feminism. You literally just made that up.

Abolishing the draft is not a cop out.

Course it is. That's why you keep dodging the question.

Male-only draft or men and women drafted?

So your complaint is that they weren't fighting hard enough for a men's issue? That's not hypocrisy, bro.

You keep claiming that feminists want to abolish the draft when in reality they just want to exclude women from it. Why don't you just admit it?

It absolutely is. There's no cosmic requirement that every country must have conscription, and plenty of countries have abolished it.

And yet about half the countries in the world still have it, and the other half would introduce it in a heartbeat if they got invaded tomorrow.

And yet your complaint is that the law is worded such that female rapists are charged with lesser crimes like sexual assault, not that a group of men can gang rape a child and then be acquitted because they touched her arm and she didn't pull away. That's a far greater hypocrisy than women wanting men who gang rape children to be convicted while keeping rape laws women-specific.

You are deliberately fudging the issue by bringing gang rapes and other issues into it. Someone proposed that female on male rape should be acknowledged as rape and the perpetrators punished as rapists. Feminists in India and Israel and elsewhere have successfully stopped such laws being changed. Agreed or not?

You're saying this so much that I'm not convinced you've actually made a definitive statement yet.

Maybe just stop attributing things to me that I never said.

Correct, because men don't give birth. I'm asking what scenario you're envisioning this happening where a woman convinces a man to knock her up, but then somehow the dude doesn't bother to ever find out about it yet still wants to keep it, while the mother carries it to term and then gives it up for adoption while keeping it a secret.

You are missing the point so I'll keep it simple. Woman is pregnant. Woman doesn't want baby. Woman has multiple options to avoid parenthood. Woman can have an abortion. Woman can use safe haven laws. Women can give it up for adoption without the man's knowledge or permission. Man has none of those options and gets told shoulda kept it in your pants then.

Men have had children with other women and never told their wives throughout all of history.

To my knowledge no man has ever managed to dupe his wife into thinking a baby he had with some other woman is hers.

Lol, no, this does not happen on a "large scale." Even in cases where the person suspects they are not the actual father, the overwhelming majority of the time, the putative father is indeed the actual father. Among all births, the number is miniscule.

Depending on the study, 10-30% prevalence worldwide. Even if you go by the smallest estimates available, as I'm sure you would, that amounts to literally millions of paternity fraud cases.

Furthermore, in order for it to be fraud, the mother must know that the supposed father is not the actual father. These discussions always pretend like women somehow innately know who the real father is which, of course, is idiotic.

She has inside information. She knows she was screwing at least one other guy when she got pregnant, and thus there is a doubt regarding who the father is but goes ahead and tells Point Dexter its his anyway.

Finally, you still have not explained what you actually want that can't be satisfied by what is available. You are able to get a DNA test if you want it, and you are free to sue the mother if she commits paternity fraud. The only other thing you've mentioned is jail time, which is stupid since, again, this is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

It's not as simple as 'get a DNA test, bro'. The woman might not agree to it. Some places won't allow it without the mother's permission. Some courts will disregard it anyway, like if there's a default judgement in place. Others have a statute of limitations on contesting paternity.

Nor is 'just sue her, bro' the answer you think it is. Child support payments are never reimbursed (see the Bradley amendment), even in cases of proven fraud. If the mother is broke anyway, suing her is pointless, and as a matter of public policy courts are reluctant to award compensation for this, besides which the time wasted raising someone else's child cannot be recovered.

Ideally, there should be a mandatory DNA test before the father's name goes on the birth certificate or he has to pay any child support. No doubt your feminist friends would fight tooth and nail to oppose it.

Gray Davis vetoed a bill in California that would have allowed men to request a DNA test and challenge paternity orders, under pressure from NOW and various other women's groups. Imagine that, men wanting to address an issue that affects them and running into feminists opposing them.

Imagine that, women resent being baselessly accused of cheating.

Evidently it isn't always baseless.

Family court is civil.

And fraud is criminal. Child support enforcement has criminal penalties. Paternity fraud victims have been imprisoned for not paying child support for children who weren't even theirs, so jail time for women who commit this fraud would be welcome.

You have literally provided nothing to support that claim.

Feel free to name the male-only subs that still exist. Indeed, name any prominent male-only club or organisation that hasn't been forced to accept female members.

I don't recall the last time TwoX or FDS brigaded someone with death and rape threats to people, but if you have evidence to the contrary. Incidentally, TwoXChromosomes is also not women-exclusive.

There was an 2XC post a while back calling for shootings of men that got literally thousands of upvotes. But inciting violence against men is okay, right?

[–]Soloandthewookiee1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Male-only draft or men and women drafted?

Neither, abolish the draft entirely.

when in reality they just want to exclude women from it.

Source?

And yet about half the countries in the world still have it, and the other half would introduce it in a heartbeat if they got invaded tomorrow.

Your speculation on modern military doctrine is not really a valid argument.

You are deliberately fudging the issue by bringing gang rapes and other issues into it.

No, I'm just not allowing you to cast a ridiculously wide net while restricting what I'm allowed to generalize. For someone so obsessed with hypocrisy, you certainly don't seem to have an issue practicing it yourself. Wanna know what the word for that is?

Man has none of those options and gets told shoulda kept it in your pants then.

First, I just have to acknowledge that it's really weird you're arguing like that's not literally what men tell women all the time.

Now, as already mentioned, women get the option for an abortion because they are uniquely burdened and endangered by pregnancy. Men are not, so men don't get to have an abortion.

Men are also able to utilize safe havens.

Your only complaint seems to be that a woman is not required to name a father on the birth certificate which, if you climbed down off your cross for a moment, you would realize is practical for several reasons. First and most obviously, a woman may not know who the father is. Another instance would be that a woman may have been impregnated by a man who raped her, giving her a very good reason for not wanting to notify the father.

You seem very obsessed with this hypothetical case where a man impregnates a woman, makes no effort to contact her for 9 months, but then is determined to be a father yet the woman wants to give it up for adoption, so he must veto it. So I'm asking how is this realistically happening? Why would a woman believe that a dude who hasn't made any effort to contact her in 9 months is suddenly interested in taking primary custody?

Depending on the study, 10-30% prevalence worldwide

10-30% of people who suspect they are not the father. So even if you believe you aren't the dad, the odds are still overwhelmingly that you are.

She has inside information.

That's not how fraud works.

It's not as simple as 'get a DNA test, bro'. The woman might not agree to it. Some places won't allow it without the mother's permission.

Nope, you do not need the mother's permission to do a DNA test.

https://checkout.paternitylab.com/home

Nothing about this order form requires the mother's permission.

It really is as simple as get a DNA test, bro.

Some courts will disregard it anyway, like if there's a default judgement in place.

Yes, if you fail to show up to court, they are not going to give you a do-over.

Others have a statute of limitations on contesting paternity.

Correct, there are statute of limitations on almost everything, so if you're so worried about it, you can do the DNA test at birth.

Nor is 'just sue her, bro' the answer you think it is.

Sure it is. You can absolutely list the money you've paid for child support among your damages in a lawsuit, the Bradley Amendment does not prevent that.

If the mother is broke anyway, suing her is pointless

This is not something unique to paternity fraud, this is the nature of civil law.

Ideally, there should be a mandatory DNA test before the father's name goes on the birth certificate or he has to pay any child support. No doubt your feminist friends would fight tooth and nail to oppose it.

Absolutely, it's idiotic. You can already get a DNA test at birth and contest paternity. Making it mandatory is just so that you can do it without suffering any consequences from your partner that you're accusing of cheating.

Gray Davis vetoed a bill in California

You are still able to contest paternity in California.

Evidently it isn't always baseless.

If you have a belief that your partner has cheated, you are welcome to get a test. Inflicting tests upon everyone, however, is baselessly accusing every woman of cheating.

And fraud is criminal.

Fraud is both. Since this is fraud dealing with a family court issue, it would be civil.

Child support enforcement has criminal penalties.

Correct, child support is a court ordered payment and ignoring court orders will typically result in you being arrested. Again, this is not unique to men.

Feel free to name the male-only subs that still exist.

I have no idea because I'm not obsessed with this idea. But you are more than welcome to create your own.

Indeed, name any prominent male-only club or organisation that hasn't been forced to accept female members.

I am not sure why you're expecting me to do your research for you. You are completely welcome to form a private club and set whatever membership rules you want.

There was an 2XC post a while back calling for shootings of men that got literally thousands of upvotes.

Source?

[–]Podlubnyi1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Neither, abolish the draft entirely.

Abolishing Selective Service was not on offer last year. Adding women to it was. Feminists had the choice between supporting gender equality or campaigning to protect the female privilege of not being drafted. They chose the latter.

We both know why you won't answer.

And it is basically why men make observations like women want equality, but still expect a man to pay their bills

No, I'm just not allowing you to cast a ridiculously wide net while restricting what I'm allowed to generalize.

Feminists have successfully campaigned against gender neutral rape laws.

A prominent feminist researcher and advisor to the CDC/FBI etc deliberately excluded female on male rape from the definition of rape. We all know why she did this.

These are facts, however hard it may be for you to accept them.

Men are also able to utilize safe havens.

Show me the man who dropped a kid off at a safe haven without the mother's permission.

Now, as already mentioned, women get the option for an abortion because they are uniquely burdened and endangered by pregnancy. Men are not, so men don't get to have an abortion.

I don't object to a woman deciding whether or not she has an abortion. I do object when her decision has major consequences for a man when he had no say in that, especially if conception happened as a result of criminal or nefarious behavior by her. A 13 year old boy who was a victim of statutory rape by an adult woman was ordered to pay her child support and that's not a unique case. Her body, her choice is fine, just don't expect him to spend the next 18-21 years paying for her choice.

You seem very obsessed with this hypothetical case where a man impregnates a woman, makes no effort to contact her for 9 months, but then is determined to be a father yet the woman wants to give it up for adoption, so he must veto it. So I'm asking how is this realistically happening? Why would a woman believe that a dude who hasn't made any effort to contact her in 9 months is suddenly interested in taking primary custody?

You are the only one who has mentioned this hypothetical case.

The mother can give up the kid without the father's knowledge or consent. The father cannot do likewise. Ergo, an option to avoid parenthood open to women but not to men.

Nope, you do not need the mother's permission to do a DNA test.

A recent case from England. Note how the mother refused to let him DNA test the kid. Should he have just kidnapped her and done it? There is also the fact that the child support authorities continued to bill him even after acknowledging the kid wasn't his. Good luck getting a penny of that £38,000 back either. Just sue her, bro.

Yes, if you fail to show up to court, they are not going to give you a do-over.

You get done over even if you never get served.

Absolutely, it's idiotic.

Nothing to do with idiocy and everything to do with protecting women from the consequences of their actions. Why do you think feminists oppose relief for paternity fraud victims? You are aware there are guys who get falsely named as the kid's father and don't even know it until their wages start getting garnished? It's a scam often pulled on men in the military. Look up Tarron James and Bert Riddick. Get a DNA test bro wouldn't have helped them.

You can already get a DNA test at birth and contest paternity. Making it mandatory is just so that you can do it without suffering any consequences from your partner that you're accusing of cheating.

If the Government can steal a man's money under the guise of child support, freeze his driver's licence and imprison him for not paying, they should at least have to prove he is really the father.

It's funny how you complain that this issue characterizes all women as cheaters, yet you basically expect all men to assume they are being deceived and DNA test the kid the second it comes out of the womb, otherwise tough. Perhaps, you know, women just shouldn't defraud men and cheat them out of their time and money under false pretenses.

Sure it is. You can absolutely list the money you've paid for child support among your damages in a lawsuit, the Bradley Amendment does not prevent that.

You can list whatever you like. Doesn't change that child support payments will not be reimbursed and would not count towards any damages, because courts won't award damages connected with the costs of raising children. Feel feel to provide an example if you believe otherwise.

Fraud is both. Since this is fraud dealing with a family court issue, it would be civil.

When paternity fraud costs men their money, their time and sometimes their freedom, it should also have criminal consequences for the women who perpetrate it.

Putting false information on an official document is also a criminal offense.

This is not something unique to paternity fraud, this is the nature of civil law.

Which is why your just sue her, bro advice is basically worthless. Suing won't bring back the years he lost raising someone else's kid, and potentially the chance to have his own family.

Still, next time a woman complains her baby got switched at the hospital, I'll be sure to say just sue them, girl.

I have no idea because I'm not obsessed with this idea. But you are more than welcome to create your own.

This is what feminists do when men try to create their own spaces.

Source?

https://old.reddit.com/r/JustUnsubbed/comments/xvlkaf/actually_did_a_few_months_ago_but_just_unsubbed/

[–]Soloandthewookiee1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Abolishing Selective Service was not on offer last year.

Abolishing Selective Service is always an option.

Feminists had the choice between supporting gender equality or campaigning to protect the female privilege of not being drafted. They chose the latter.

Actually, opposition to making Selective Service gender neutral came from Republicans. Huh, looks like you're wrong. Again.

(By the way, there actually was a bill to abolish the draft that same year).

Feminists have successfully campaigned against gender neutral rape laws.

Men have successfully evaded justice for gang-raping a child by claiming she consented.

Show me the man who dropped a kid off at a safe haven without the mother's permission.

Well, considering that the entire point of safe haven laws is to be anonymous, that information isn't going to be available, now is it?

I do object when her decision has major consequences for a man when he had no say in that

Correct, men do not get pregnant, therefore they do not get to decide on abortions.

You are the only one who has mentioned this hypothetical case.

Correct, because you have given no hypothetical in which this scenario could arise.

A recent case from England.

Let's read what the article says:

the mum in the case refused to respond to the request for a DNA test.

Huh. Doesn't say anything about needing her permission. Looks like you're wrong. Again.

There is also the fact that the child support authorities continued to bill him even after acknowledging the kid wasn't his.

No, they refused to wipe his past due child support debt.

You get done over even if you never get served.

If you have a better way of process serving, by all means implement it. But that's how civil court works for everybody. You are not special.

Nothing to do with idiocy and everything to do with protecting women from the consequences of their actions. Why do you think feminists oppose relief for paternity fraud victims?

Because there's already relief available, as has been exhaustively discussed.

Doesn't change that child support payments will not be reimbursed

You have not read what the Bradley Amendment says and you do not understand how damages in civil cases work. You are talking out of your ass.

Which is why your just sue her, bro advice is basically worthless. Suing won't bring back the years he lost raising someone else's kid

Neither would putting her in jail, doofus. That's why civil torts exist.

I'll be sure to say just sue them, girl.

...do you think people wouldn't sue them in that case? How deluded are you?

This is what feminists do when men try to create their own spaces.

This is not men trying to create their own space, these are women exercising their free speech against an MRA speaker. Looks like you're wrong. Again.

https://old.reddit.com/r/JustUnsubbed/comments/xvlkaf/actually_did_a_few_months_ago_but_just_unsubbed/

Boy howdy, I hope you never read "A Modest Proposal."

[–]Podlubnyi1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Abolishing Selective Service is always an option.

The choice was between adding women to the draft or not.

Women want equality, but still expect men to die for them.

Actually, opposition to making Selective Service gender neutral came from Republicans.

In alliance with feminists. Imagine that.

(By the way, there actually was a bill to abolish the draft that same year).

A proposal that never made it into the NDAA bill. Adding women to the draft did and was then taken out at the last minute.

Men have successfully evaded justice for gang-raping a child by claiming she consented.

More obfuscation. Women have raped underage boys and then sued them for child support.

Correct, men do not get pregnant, therefore they do not get to decide on abortions.

Nor should women get to decide whether a man becomes a father.

Correct, because you have given no hypothetical in which this scenario could arise.

You invented this hypothetical and just ignored what I said.

Huh. Doesn't say anything about needing her permission.

You missed the part where they had to send a request to the mother for a DNA test. Mom ignored the request. No DNA test. Imagine that.

No, they refused to wipe his past due child support debt.

Continued to demand child support money from a man they'd accepted was not the father.

This is the other reason mandatory DNA tests are necessary, not only to protect men from women who defraud them, but to protect them from unscrupulous child support services who have carte blanche to extort money from men and don't even have to prove it's the right one.

Because there's already relief available, as has been exhaustively discussed.

Not there isn't, and no it hasn't.

You have not read what the Bradley Amendment says and you do not understand how damages in civil cases work. You are talking out of your ass.

Actually, you don't understand. Child support money will not be reimbursed and will not count towards damages. Since I've already given you the opportunity to give an example, I assume you don't have one.

Neither would putting her in jail, doofus. That's why civil torts exist.

Imprisoning a murderer doesn't bring the victim back, but we still do it. Imprisoning women who commit paternity fraud might discourage others from doing it, as would mandatory DNA tests.

Much like with the draft, we all know why feminists oppose such things.

This is not men trying to create their own space, these are women exercising their free speech against an MRA speaker. Looks like you're wrong. Again.

That was a men's suicide group they were harassing.

...do you think people wouldn't sue them in that case? How deluded are you?

Sure you just spent ten years unknowingly raising someone else's kid, but just sue them girl. It'll make it all better.

Huh, looks like you're wrong. Again.

You haven't been right once yet, but good effort.

[–]Soloandthewookiee1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The choice was between adding women to the draft or not.

Incorrect, there was a bill to abolish the draft entirely. I even provided a link to you. Futhermore, abolishing the draft is always an option.

Women want equality, but still expect men to die for them.

Can you show me the feminist tenet where they expect men to die for them?

In alliance with feminists. Imagine that.

Hahahahahahaha

More obfuscation. Women have raped underage boys and then sued them for child support.

More obfuscation. Men have raped underage girls and murdered them.

Nor should women get to decide whether a man becomes a father.

No one can force you to be a father. If you believe making child support payments mean you're a father, boy do I have news for you.

You missed the part where they had to send a request to the mother for a DNA test.

Because she had the kids, genius. He didn't need the mother's permission to get the test, he wanted the mother to take the kid for a test.

but to protect them from unscrupulous child support services who have carte blanche to extort money from men and don't even have to prove it's the right one.

I don't think you actually know what any of those words mean.

Not there isn't, and no it hasn't.

Yep.

Actually, you don't understand

Then please, quote me the text in the amendment where it says "child support cannot be recovered as damages in a paternity fraud case." It must be in the text and any failure to quote it would mean that you're a liar, right?

Imprisoning a murderer doesn't bring the victim back, but we still do it.

TIL paternity fraud is just like murder.

That was a men's suicide group they were harassing.

Liar. Your own link says that it's not the case.

Sure you just spent ten years unknowingly raising someone else's kid, but just sue them girl. It'll make it all better.

Do you believe that if a hospital gives you the wrong baby, they go to jail? Do you have any concept of how the justice system actually functions?

[–]Podlubnyi1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Incorrect, there was a bill to abolish the draft entirely. I even provided a link to you. Futhermore, abolishing the draft is always an option.

And it was defeated. As stated, the NDAA bill which passed the House proposed adding women to Selective Service. It was only taken out as a late compromise.

So your choice was to accept gender equality or campaign against it. Which side did you pick?

Can you show me the feminist tenet where they expect men to die for them?

The tenet which opposes adding women to the draft.

More obfuscation. Men have raped underage girls and murdered them.

Women have raped and murdered men. What's your point?

No one can force you to be a father.

Actually you are unwittingly right. The courts will throw a man in prison for not paying child support but won't lift a finger to actually help him see the kid.

I don't think

This is true.

Because she had the kids, genius. He didn't need the mother's permission to get the test, he wanted the mother to take the kid for a test.

Ergo, her permission was needed.

Then please, quote me the text in the amendment where it says "child support cannot be recovered as damages in a paternity fraud case."

The Bradley amendment prevents child support payments being reimbursed no matter what the circumstances. Public policy prevents them being recouped as damages.

TIL paternity fraud is just like murder.

Nobody said that except you.

Do you believe that if a hospital gives you the wrong baby, they go to jail? Do you have any concept of how the justice system actually functions?

Who said anything about anyone going to jail here? You are literally making things up out of thin air.

[–]Soloandthewookiee1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So your choice was to accept gender equality or campaign against it. Which side did you pick?

Equality of course. The draft should be abolished.

The tenet which opposes adding women to the draft.

Sure, show me that.

What's your point?

You tell me. You're the one that decided if you can find anyone doing something, that can be applied to the whole group.

but won't lift a finger to actually help him see the kid.

Again, I don't think you understand how the courts or the legal system in general works.

her permission was needed.

Correct, you cannot kidnap children. You do not, however, need the mother's permission for a DNA test if you suspect you are not the father.

The Bradley amendment prevents child support payments being reimbursed no matter what the circumstances. Public policy prevents them being recouped as damages.

You didn't quote the text, ergo you are lying.

Nobody said that except you.

Well, you did.

Who said anything about anyone going to jail here?

Again, you did.

[–]Podlubnyi1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Soloandthewookiee1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Podlubnyi1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]12throw1234away34both genders equally suck 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I painted with too broad a set of strokes, so I’ll accept this criticism for my assertions.

Let me be hyper specific: the women I run into in my day to day life (at work, my friends, etc) and the women I date tend to exhibit these traits I mentioned.

I live in a major metropolitan city that’s very liberal. And I am liberal, too. I think too many men are sex pests, treat women like shit, use their bodies as fleshlights, harass them, and come across as entitled to their attention and or bodies. So I want to be clear that too many men have too much to improve on.

But going back to the women in question, they’ll routinely pick out the flaws in men, but conveniently ignore or explain away the toxic femininity they or their friends display.

Using a man for his resources and attention even though she knows he wants more.

Complaining about the patriarchy but refusing to split bills on dates. They’ll do the fake gesture of reaching for their purse when the check comes, but if you actually take them up on their offer, there won’t be a second date.

I know plenty of women who are true to their word and actually walk the walk. They’re progressive and insist on splitting the bill with their partners. They communicate openly and effectively. They acknowledge when they’re in the wrong and take accountability.

But these women are few are far between. And from a romantic potential perspective, what I’ve found is these women tend to not be very appealing partners from a physical standpoint. They make great friends and I cherish their companionship. But sadly they tend to not be the most attractive women. They tend to be overweight, not very pretty, very homely in how they present themselves, etc. This is not to say they are less valuable as human beings. But from a dating marketplace perspective, they are not the most appealing to men like me.

I have a female friend who is very liberal and goes on feminist marches. She’s a lawyer who makes $150k a year and no debt. She proudly proclaims “I want to date a feminist man who will pay for my drinks and lifestyle.” She said it somewhat jokingly but that’s the kind of double standard life they’re okay living.

A lot of the very attractive women I meet and date who also are self proclaimed liberals fighting against misogyny etc also cling onto old fashioned dating norms because they can and because it benefits them.

Here’s an example of a profile I ran into a while back that I think secretly represents a lot of these types of women: https://imgur.com/a/YwsBVC6

She’s probably being tongue in cheek, but I think a lot of these modern, feminist, attractive women live in a world of cognitive dissonance where they want all the positives of feminism (which they should and I also support) but still want to benefit from old double standards.

I have no studies or data to back all this up. But if I were to guess using numbers, here’s what I think:

Given 100 random women in a major liberal city, let’s say 25 of them are moderately to highly attractive and above average. Within that cohort of 25 women, around 20 will be self proclaimed liberals with modern views of dating and relationship. But of those 20, I suspect 15 of them actually don’t want modern, 50/50 relationships. They’d still rather have a traditionally masculine man while abandoning traditionally feminine ideals.

So around 60% of the women I date are hypocritical in what they expect to receive and what they want to give.

This is the very specific point I’m trying to make.

[–]animorph_fan34 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

The comment is insane. You’re whining because the very small group of young wealthy attractive women you’re tying to date have high standards ?? Well of course if they have men of all ages interested in them they can be selective. This has literally nothing to do with feminism at all. Feminism is about removing structural barriers for women and female liberation, it isn’t about getting rid of all gendered social norms. The most ridiculous thing about this is that it’s men reinforcing the fact that men should pay for dates - any woman will tell you this and there’s empirical support for it.

It’s not possible to remove all gender roles, women still suffer under unfair beauty standards.

You can say “beauty standards are unfair and unattractive people shouldn’t be treated badly” that doesn’t mean you personally can have no standards for looks in a partner or you’re a hypocrite

[–]12throw1234away34both genders equally suck 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]animorph_fan34 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]12throw1234away34both genders equally suck 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"When in doubt, deny all terms and definitions."

I must confess, I see little purpose in these feminist vs realist debates because I feel that most parties involved are not playing by the same rules, or arguing for the same reasons.

If someone is arguing from a utopian ideological perspective, they always seem uninterested in entertaining evidence that runs contrary to their worldview.

Its ironic because most 'Anti-Feminists' like me started from a Feminist or Egalitarian World View, until our experiences and research showed us that Reality does not comport with their unilateral victimhood narrative.

I believe that a wise person maintains a healthy skepticism about all beliefs, and attempts to make falsifiable claims to back up our positions.

Its unfortunate, because I believe a debate where two people genuinely try to come to an understanding of the truth is a beautiful thing. Unfortunately, we live in a tribalistic world that is more interested in tearing each other down.

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pizzashillsmom 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]peteypete78Red Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluestjuicePeople are wrong on the internet! 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]peteypete78Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]peteypete78Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]peteypete782 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]peteypete78Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lucr3tius 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]peteypete78Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]peteypete78Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]peteypete78Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoloandthewookieeBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]peteypete782 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bubbly_TaroSpeculaas, bitches. 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Vaynewoode 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluestjuicePeople are wrong on the internet! 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]bluestjuicePeople are wrong on the internet! 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saraimarsenasuper slut for a super simp ♀ 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]12throw1234away34both genders equally suck 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]animorph_fan34 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Overarching_Chaos 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PodlubnyiNo Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]12throw1234away34both genders equally suck 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]12throw1234away34both genders equally suck 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]12throw1234away34both genders equally suck 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheukycheeze 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Overarching_Chaos 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lift_and_LurkMan: all pills are dumb 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[S,M] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Feminism Discussion Weekly Discussion Thread
Author	AutoModerator
Upvotes	6
Comments	384
Date	March 11, 2023 5:00 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/11op2u4/feminism_discussion_weekly_discussion_thread/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/feminism-discussion-weekly-discussion-thread.1176602 https://theredarchive.com/post/1176602

Comments