TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Anti Feminism Australia's Facebook page, with 44000 readers, is one of several such pages to have been banned by Facebook for "hate speech" or being "potentially unsafe". Even individual subscribers are being suspended or banned.

TamidMT

April 9, 2016
869 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.antifeminismaustralia.com/index.php?/topic/61-facebook-ban-wave/
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Anti Feminism Australia's Facebook page, with 44000 readers, is one of several such pages to have been banned by Facebook for "hate speech" or being "potentially unsafe". Even individual subscribers are being suspended or banned.
Author

TamidMT

Upvotes 869
Comments 175
Date April 9, 2016 3:53 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4e1r2r/anti_feminism_australias_facebook_page_with_44000/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/anti-feminism-australias-facebook-page-with-44000.952206
https://theredarchive.com/post/952206
Red Pill terms in post
feminism
Top posts by TamidMT

Teenage girl posts photo on Facebook of a man she thought was filming her. Turns out the man is innocent, has special needs and is half blind, and his family now fears for his safety after backlash.

1385 upvotes
June 17, 2016
/r/MensRights

(Buzzfeed video, Youtube link) If Moms Were Treated Like Dads. Surprisingly positive for Buzzfeed.

207 upvotes
March 1, 2016
/r/MensRights

Australian State MP accuses firefighters of bullying and sexist culture; female firefighters call BS

146 upvotes
December 19, 2015
/r/MensRights

The Guardian voices outrage against Muirfield not overturning their male-only membership policy, but they'll gladly promote women-only clubs and societies (archive from 2013).

63 upvotes
May 20, 2016
/r/MensRights

Australian Facebook users are starting to notice the double standard in sexual assault cases. Little things like this give a glimmer of hope that Aussie men might stop being demonised.

54 upvotes
April 28, 2016
/r/MensRights

April 28 is International Workers' Memorial Day, commemorating those who die at work: more than 90% of whom are men.

48 upvotes
April 28, 2016
/r/MensRights

How many times, and in how many US states, has the NOW actively opposed shared parenting?

47 upvotes
May 2, 2016
/r/MensRights

Australia: "Female teacher admits to sex with underage boy" and is released on bail until next month.

45 upvotes
January 16, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Vandechoz 254 points255 points256 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

This is feminism.

[–][deleted] 230 points231 points232 points 10 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

When I was a kid, girls would sometimes get boys into trouble for no reason, just because they knew they could. If they screamed and called for a teacher or parent, a boy would get punished. Some of them would just spontaneously scream and cry, without any provocation. All just an act. Then they'd smirk as the boy got dragged off for detention or a spanking. The girls were always believed.

Apparently, they didn't grow out of it.

[–]roharareddit 73 points74 points75 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Why should they grow out of it? Think of the power men have given them.

[–]ztsmart 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

The thing about power is that often when you use it, you end up having less of it. Men, aside from the idiot white knights which are subhuman sycophants IMO, are waking up to the fact that women lie and act in their self interest.

[–]HeyKidsFreeCandy 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Some women. Just because enough of a group takes advantage of a social phenomena doesn't mean they all do.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]HeyKidsFreeCandy 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most people don't think those things. Just an irrational minority. You don't fight irrational hatred with more irrational hatred...

[–]greenmachine64 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That may be true but it's no reason to sink to their level.

[–]ztsmart 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is not sinking to any level it is intelligent. Men are more likely to rape women than...other women, so there is a real risk there. I would certainly not think less of a woman who reasonably protected herself against such a risk by carrying pepper spray, learning self-defense, or whatever.

Likewise, I could get fucked over by divorce or a false claim, so I take steps to protect myself. It is just good practice to mitigate possible risks.

[–]Adanu0 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't matter. Enough of them think this way that the rational ones are drowned out. No pussy passes here.

[–]HeyKidsFreeCandy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This all-or-nothing mentality makes this sub look like a joke. Try to have a rational discussion so that people can actually respect men's rights.

[–]Adanu0 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There is no all or nothing mentality here. These are core theories to the feminazi dogma. You cannot be a feminazi without believing there is a global conspiracy of patriarchy oppressing all women everywhere, or that there is a 'rape culture' in the West. And now, lately, this wage gap farce seems to be worming it's way in.

The only one of those ideas that holds any ground is the rape culture one, and that's in prisons. With men. Who he raped and then are ignored and ridiculed by society at large for it.

There are other things contributing to that, but if you are a feminazi, you support these ideas. You cannot refute that without refuting what feminazism was built upon.

[–]HeyKidsFreeCandy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're moving the goal posts. Even if you do subscribe to the belief that all radfems hold these beliefs, you should isolate your criticism to radfems, and NOT woman as such.

Not all men are rapists, just like not all women are radfems.

[–]Adanu0 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're the one moving the goalposts. Nowhere in that post did I say women in general subscribe to feminazi dogma. I said those who subscribe to feminazi dogma hold these 'theories' to be 'facts', no matter how some people pretend otherwise.

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

That is not all or nothing, just 'enough to be significant'.

[–]ztsmart 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Men see that other women lie and fuck over their partners, but they always delude themselves into thinking it will be different with this one or that they unlike the millions of men who lose everything in divorce are smart enough to avoid dishonest or solipsistic women.

ALL WOMEN are capable of lying, fucking a man over with false claims, and/or using the legal system to screw men over for their own self interest under the right circumstances.

[–]MrAuntJemima 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

ALL WOMEN are capable of lying, fucking a man over with false claims, and/or using the legal system to screw men over for their own self interest under the right circumstances.

Let's frame this another way:

ALL PEOPLE are capable of lying, fucking a person over with false claims, and/or using the legal system to screw people over for their own self interest under the right circumstances.


This works both ways. This is not a gender-specific issue, but one of human nature.

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

Men can be horrible too. Here's the thing though, people are not going to automatically believe a man making a claim against another man the way they do a woman. Also men face consequences when they try to do this type of thing where as women do not in modern society--thus men do not use these tactics

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

Here's the thing though, people are not going to automatically believe a man making a claim against another man the way they do a woman.

There remains a very strong bias against anyone accused of a criminal act in general. So, that this bias is a little stronger when a woman is the accuser is not all that salient of a point. Note that only "gendered" crimes show a strong difference in the bias.

[–]ztsmart 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So, that this bias is a little stronger when a woman is the accuser is not all that salient of a point.

What world are you living in? Because it sure as hell isn't the same one I live in. Domestic violence is not a gendered crime, but if my girlfriend attacks me and I call the cops, it is not going to turn out well for me. And if she calls the cops and tells them I hit her, it is not going to turn out well for me irregardless of whether or not I hit her.

[–]Endless_Summer 33 points34 points35 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not that they didn't grow out of it, it's that no one ever taught them it's wrong. That, and hitting.

Teach women not to make false accusations and not to hit men.

[–]Alkomb 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep.

[–]Alkomb 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, it's actually really sad.:\

[–]TalonX1982 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When I was in Primary or Grade 1, a girl in my class accused me of stabbing her with a pencil. I got shit on for it, even though I was no where near her at the time she accused me of doing it. There was no investigation, it was just assumed that I did it. I even started to believe I'd done it and forgot. She was just a spoiled little bitch who liked getting others in trouble.

But she turned out well. She got drunk and ran over one of her 5 kids in the driveway.

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

Do what wendy did to Cartman in that one episode of south park about cancer tits and beat the shit out of them

[–]Ransal 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They got Breitbart banned from Imgur as well, anything you post with links to the site is hidden without informing the user.

[–]ametalshard 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I hate to say it, but even racists who want the entire US to be 100% Christian and all gays and jews to die deserve the right to free speech.

[–]johnyann 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Their flagship personality is the world's most dangerous faggot.

[–]dominotw 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

their default solution to any real or perceived problem is running to authorities and imposing bans.

[–]JebberJabber -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is FB defending itself against toxic behaviour.
I've seen a screenshot of a post calling for massive abuse of FB's reporting system to attack a particular feminist page. I'd seen that post myself come to think of it.

So there is no conspiracy, FB would have taken down a feminist page for the same thing I guess. (That particular feminist was already serving at least her second temporary ban herself).

It is weird to see how gullible everybody here is, eagerly swapping paranoid fantasies pulled out of each other's asses.

[–]Vandechoz 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Regardless of FB's response, feminists getting together and abusing a service used to report others in order to silence speech they don't like is nothing new.

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

That is not what happened, it was exactly the opposite. Anti Feminism Australia posted a message calling for massive abuse of FB's reporting system to try to get another page shut down. FB saw the flood of complaints in their moderation queue (they would have software to detect this sort of thing) and shut the AFA page down.
I suspect that means the message was from a mod not just a user.

I have seen users on a feminist page suggesting multiple reporting, doxxing or other unethical things, and have cautioned against it. But that is just standard internet crap, I don't see feminists being any worse than others.

Clem Ford recently got a ban for repeatedly posting a pic of a traditional Australian Aboriginal ceremony where two old women had nipples showing. She was knowingly breaking the rules and ignoring warnings and shorter bans so they shut her down for 30 days.

FB earlier banned her for reposting offensive PMs she had received. PMs to public figures are not moderated but stuff she posts is. Again she took the ban to make a political point.

So it doesn't seem FB is soft on feminists, or hard on anti feminists. Any platform would punish AFA's behaviour because it is a direct attack on the infrastructure of the business.

Similarly, they had to punish Clem Ford because she was deliberately and very publicly breaking their content standard rules.

[–]Clockw0rk 117 points118 points119 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

#FeminismSoFragile

[–]vhisic 30 points31 points32 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I followed that page for about 5 minutes before my fiancee's friends started messaging her to bad mouth me and telling her i need to be sat down and taught about why feminism is good.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]arnieschwarz 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And you allow that to happen? Shame in you!

[–]roharareddit 158 points159 points160 points 10 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

"If you want to find out who is in charge, find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

-Samuel Clemens AKA Mark Twain

[–]thrway_1000 59 points60 points61 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

"To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." --Kevin Alfred Strom

Good quote though commonly attributed to Voltaire it's not one of his. Sadly, the quote is tainted because the author happens to be a white supremacist. Guess even a broken clock can be right on occasion.

[–]qemist 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A person who makes a habit of defying conventional wisdom is likely to have insights of this kind, even if their unconventional opinions are rebarbative.

[–]Twinky5959 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, twice a day.

[+]ametalshard -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

That assumes the broken clock makes full rotations of its hands separately enough from eachother.

I still don't understand why people assume the broken clock would be so functional.

[–]Kuato2012 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

The assumption is that a broken clock's hands are immobile. So whatever time they show will be correct once in the am and once in the pm.

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

Eh, I'm getting downvoted to fuck but let me clarify: I know that immobile hands are assumed. That first comment was misspoke. But the point got across. The idiom is objectively flawed.

[+]ametalshard -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

But that's still more functional than it could be. Suppose it's broken but moves. A partially-broken clock is less functional.

[–]snobocracy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What about a partially functional autism measure?
You have much experience with that kind of thing?

[–]ametalshard 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't know what you're talking about, so no. Is an autism measure a test for autism? Either way, I don't see how that question is relevant to the matter of the flawed "broken clock" idiom.

[–]snobocracy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Dude. You are so fucking oblivious.
We all understand your point. Your point about a partially working clock being potentially wrong more than a broken one is obvious to everyone.
Trying to explain to everyone that the idiom "even a broken clock is right twice a day" is technically incorrect, makes you sound autistic. Nobody's making a point about clocks. The idiom is about people.

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

I understand that it's about people. But it's used the wrong way all the time, because truly broken people are never right.

[–]TBFProgrammer 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Because broken != malfunctioning. Something that is broken has stopped functioning. Something that is malfunctioning is functioning to some capacity, but not in the desired way. Unfortunately, many people have a tendency to use broken when they mean malfunctioning, causing this distinction to be lost in general discourse. I say unfortunately, because I've had to work from poorly written bug reports.

[–]ametalshard -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

If it's right twice a day, it is still infinitely more functional than it could be. Is that clock broken by your definition?

[–]TBFProgrammer 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It may be broken, wound down or jammed. The mechanism is not functioning. If a part must be altered or replaced for it to function again, then it is broken.

[–]ametalshard -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If a device does its job in any fashion, how is it entirely without function? You might need to replace the battery in a clock, but even without a battery at all, it still functions 8.3% of the time.

[–]d4m4s74 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A working clock is never right if the owner doesn't set it

[–]ametalshard -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, technically it could eventually be right, as my partially broken clock could be. It would just be at some arbitrary point in time.

Either way, the idiom is faulty. It's also subjective how broken a clock is. That's most of my point; that the "broken" clock assumed in this idiom is far more functional than a broken clock can be. It's feasible for a broken clock to never be right a single time forever.

[–]Xemnas81 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How did it get misattributed to Voltaire?

[–]thrway_1000 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No one knows for sure but their is speculation that it was an attempt to disassociate it from it's actual author. Plus, Voltaire is well respected intellectually and was known for speaking truth to power. It was a natural fit.

[–]BigOldNerd 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?"

-Kevin Alfred Strom

linky link

[–]osborn18 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You know is really tells you something that when people think voltaire said that, then everybody believes it, because it sounds COMPLETELY RATIONAL. Ive heard that quote many many times even from people on the far left.

But because it was said by a fringe right wing guy kevin Alfred storm, it must be bullshit.

This really is explains how our own biases work.

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

Yeah. It wasn't Mark Twain. Sad that no one questioned it. :(

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You should read Gilded Age if you haven't. There's a men's rights theme that runs through it.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]roharareddit 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Was it Einstein? Could have sworn it was Sam Clemens.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The source of the quotation is less importance than it's relevance.

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

Wait, what'd he say?:o

[–]Lord_ThunderCunt 48 points49 points50 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

1984

[–]110Liam 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Mark Zuckerberg is big brother confirmed

[–]JebberJabber 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If Big Brother had been capitalised correctly the commenter below would have recognised it as a name.

[–]Alkomb -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't get it, sorry.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Its a book

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh, right, sorry, & ah, thanks!

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I recommend reading it. It's one of the most widely recognised novels of the 20th century, set in a dystopian "future" (written in the 40s) where the government controls everything including what people see, do, and think. It's the origin of the phrase "big brother" or "big brother is watching you". It's uncomfortably reflective of what the radical left seeks to achieve in the current political climate, silencing any voice of dissent and brainwashing those who disagree to see the "truth".

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

Dang. Thanks!

[–]Lord_ThunderCunt 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sweet!

[–]Alkomb 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But.:c

[–]AzzyMcGee 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why I deleted my Facebook. (Not this specifically, but general censorship and double standards).

[–]Zdrack 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Man the Nazis have come a long way. Instead of the gestapo they're now Facebook reporting.

Oh what's that? It's not the nazis? feminists you say? Couldn't tell the difference.

[–]Zizuirl 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I see it more like the KKK officially took down the "help Africa's starving" page

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Riktenkay 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Godwin's law has been invoked, therefore your argument is invalid and you're automatically wrong! /s

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

for the purpose of anyone that believes that is a valid counterpoint

Godwin's law also doesn't make any statement about the referenced argument's validity.

[+]Winter_of_Discontent -16 points-15 points-14 points 10 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Lol. Feminism=literal hitler!@!!

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]Winter_of_Discontent -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Yes, because clearly not believing that feminism is the modern day Nazi party means that I just don't know history. It's stupid shit like this that makes it harder and harder to defend this movement, let alone this subreddit.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Winter_of_Discontent 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

And, to be clear, it is somehow the same, even when one is government censorship, and the other is a private corporation enforcing it's TOS?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

That interpretation is correct in letter, but flawed in spirit. Censorship-the-legal-construct is indeed limited to describing government action. But that isn't the only meaning it can carry (remember: words and their meaning are fluid; they're described by dictionaries, not defined), especially when you look into connotations.

Noting that the entity doing the "censorship" isn't a government isn't a magic card that grants immunity from criticism. The criticism here being that, especially as pretty much a monopoly medium, Facebook greatly harms the ideal of freedom of speech by using its editorial powers by banning things they merely disagree with. (I don't know if that's an accurate description of what they did, I didn't read the article.)

Also, I think one should be careful of drawing such a sharp government / private dividing line. Government is really just an embodiment of a society's norms. A society's norms are more than just what the government does. When we permit private entities to "censor" but not governments, doesn't that imply that our society tolerates the lack of freedom of speech? Is a society egalitarian when it has no laws prohibiting blacks from drinking from public water fountains, but there are no public fountains but only private ones with a fat "WHITES ONLY" sign on them?

[–]Winter_of_Discontent 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

In no way does Facebook have a monopoly. There are many, many other social networking sites. If you make a website, why shouldn't you be able to decide its content? If there was a monopoly you'd be right, but that's far from the case.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

There are many, many other social networking sites

Yeah, like Google+

If you make a website, why shouldn't you be able to decide its content?

In my neck of the woods, a shopping mall can't turf out hobos just because they look like hobos. We have a sort of in-between state between "public space" and "private property" that you have when you throw your private doors open to the public, like a shopping mall does. You then don't have the right to arbitrarily decide who can come in and who can't.

For a more US-relevant example, should shop owners be able to decide not to serve gay or black customers?

[–]Winter_of_Discontent 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That would be descriminating against a protected class. Assholes are not a protected class.

[–]Benjamminmiller -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The point I was making is that censoring another point of view entirely can lead to bad consequences.

Clarify please. Your point is censorship can lead to bad consequences, so by invoking Nazi Germany are you implying that censorship led to the holocaust?

The other problem is your failure to see correlations to other scenarios that had negative outcomes.

You're missing causation. There's no point drawing a parallel unless you're trying to say there's a causal affect.

Don't use comparisons to Nazi Germany. Even if you're right it's impossible to separate the emotional aspects, and it's ultimately just lazy and cliched.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

are you implying that censorship led to the holocaust?

Censorship may not have caused the holocaust (alone) but it certainly didn't help to prevent it.

If there were voices in Nazi Germany dissenting to Hitler's agenda, and they were censored, do you think this played any role in the holocaust happening?

There's no point drawing a parallel unless you're trying to say there's a causal affect.

No. That isn't the only purpose of drawing a comparison. Correlation may not imply causation, but it should give you pause to think if there could be. For example, there could be a common cause. Maybe there was something that caused the Nazis to both censor the press and to exterminate Jews. Maybe there's something that causes feminists to both censor dissenting views and to oppress other groups.

[–]Benjamminmiller -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

The stupidity in this subreddit is astounding. Google logical fallacies so I don't have to explain to you why it's cheap, lazy, and wrong to use them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It is cheap, and it is lazy, but you're going to have to name a particular fallacy you think applies here if you want to argue that the comparison is "wrong".

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

Your logical fallacies are appeal to fear and questionable cause.

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I demand a picture of big red with a charlie chaplin mustache in an SS uniform.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]roharareddit 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He was also the victim of false rape accusation. And he was, indeed, an MRA.

http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/07/worlds-first-mens-rights-organization.html

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Most commenters do not understand the situation. Feminists have achieved an enormous victory -- they are on the way to censor The Internet. What cam Men's Rights do?

[–]AzzyMcGee 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I hear there's this thing called I2p that is basically the newer, safer, better and faster Tor. So...they (feminists) can suck our fuckin assholes.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But what can we use it for? Freedom isn't banned just yet

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why we spend so much time criticizing feminism. ' When fascism returns to the west, this is the clothes it will wear.

[–]ZimbaZumba 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

McCarthyism

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ZimbaZumba 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

Oh, right, sorry, & ah, thanks!

[–]GodManDog 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Contemporary feminism in a nutshell. They are intolerant of dissenting opinions, so they attack/suppress them, usually by labelling them 'hate speech'. You can't even have questions about the demonstrably misandrous words and actions of academic feminists now without being labelled a misogynist.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Facebook is a nightmare of PC lunacy. My manager once complained that "95% of humans are scum" was hate speech, and Facebook disagreed. Then, to test the waters, he made a complaint against the same person for making fun of some foreign guy's name, and Facebook agreed it was wrong and deleted the offending comment!

[–]Ricwulf 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, there are quite a few people on their report team. One person might have gotten one report, and another got the second report.

This is why mass reporting is more likely to be successful because more people will see it, and eventually you might come across a person who agrees.

It's definitely a PC nightmare there, but it also depends when talking about individual cases, because different people handle them.

[–]Alkomb 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Facebook is awful. I just use it for 3 "Pages", or whatever.

[–]redditorriot 23 points24 points25 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Progressives gonna progressive.

What dangerous times we're heading into.

[–]SoraDevin 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

This is regressive though, you're thinking far left wing or the regressive left

[–]Ikatapel 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

i hate when people try to compare social marxism to progressives.

[–]modern_rabbit 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"progressive" is a title, not a descriptor. I could make a murder club and call it "carebears" but nobody would be like "this is murder though, not the carebears!"

[–]Riktenkay 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One of my issues with "progressives" is the name. Anything can be said to be progressive from a certain point of view. So egotistical and self righteous.

I don't like the term "social / cultural Marxism" much either, I doubt Marx would have supported this shit.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SoraDevin -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Or yknow, it's not a fallacy if we're going by the definition of words

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't work with political ideologies, because ideologues lie. You can't allow an ideologue to define their own movement for specifically this reason -- they will define their movement in such a way as to exclude anyone who is part of it, that acts either improperly or simply improperly in their view.

Movements are as Movements do. If 'progressives' mostly agree on something, that's progressivism, regardless of any dictionary definition.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SoraDevin -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not pretending, my views are my own and don't fall under one cohesive group, but if you've got such an ideological axe to grind against the left you go right ahead.

Socially left, censorship and sexism doesn't fall within any tenets, which is what is happening here

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

You have to admit, people who see this become a lot less likely to vote for 'left' parties. So in that way, you and your better have a better argument than 'OMG, how dare you!' when people ask you about them.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]roharareddit 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you believe that allthose marching under the flag of "progress" actualy think that way (especially their leaders) then you are adumbass.

Please forgive me if your post was sarcastic one.

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

'Progressive' is, as progressives do.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Facebook sucks anyway get off it. You pay for their service in advertising and gov monitoring.

[–]civilsaint 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One of the best decisions I've made is giving up Facebook.

This is one more reason I think I made the right decision.

[–]HardKase 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some guy threatened to come to my country and kill me. He didn't get banned

[–]Regiabaretania 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I really enjoyed that group. 😡

[–]TheDude41 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

a

[–]TheDude41 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

a

[–]BackFromShadowban 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Mark Cuckerberg at it again!

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

Someone posted a picture of Trump naked and said "even huge pricks can have small dicks", it was a sketched photo and it's exactly what you can imagine. I thought that type of nudity wasn't acceptable on Facebook so I reported it, and immediately got a response saying it's acceptable nudity based on political free speech. How that gets passed and this, literally people practising free speech and not just a naked picture, gets taken down is way beyond me.

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

Fuck Farcebook!!! I deleted my account years ago.

[–]cld8 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I don't think "anti-feminism" is a good name. It makes it seem like the focus is on fighting the feminists. Rather, "men's rights" or something that focuses on the injustices faced by men, would be better.

[–]Ricwulf 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're implying that the group on FB was a MR group. MR and Anti-Feminists have a big overlap, but they aren't the same group.

[–]MizterUltimaman 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think "anti-feminism" is a good name. It makes it seem like the focus is on fighting the feminists.

Anti feminism = against feminism

Anti feminists = against feminists

[–]zutonofgoth 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agee... anti groups are not constructive. I would hope in the future we just have groups based on equality and discussing facts. But it is going to be a few years. Putting hate on groups who don't understand the facts gets you no where.

[–]Vandechoz 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

but maybe the people in that group did want to focus on fighting against (or at least, documenting/memeing/complaining about) feminism, and not so much on men's rights

[+]cld8 -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

In that case, I think the suspension was justified. "Anti-feminism" is no better than "anti-Islam" or "anti-Mexican". It attacks a specific group of people, rather than focusing on the issues.

[–]Vandechoz 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it attacks an ideology

it's more like "anti-racism"

[–]kellykebab 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is a political and social philosophy that people may choose to follow and which may or may not be valid or moral on the whole. If its tenets or practices are objectionable, critics should be able to speak out against it. Being Mexican is an unavoidable result of heredity.

I actually think that forming any discussion group based on the criticism of any other group should be allowable, no matter how "insensitive" the criticism, so long as it doesn't leak out from the original group. I don't know the details about the above case, but I think active harassment should be punished, not mere assembly.

[–]TheDude41 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

d

[–]JebberJabber -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Just like Reddit, FB does not appreciate groups launching attacks on other groups. I heard there was recently an attack on an Australian feminist FB page by members of Anti Feminism Australia, spurred by posts on that page. Perhaps tolerance of that by the mods was why the page was canned. I don't know, I didn't see it go down.

The individuals were presumably censured for their individual actions. That's normally how it works.

[+]Winter_of_Discontent -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

If it's anything like this subreddit, there was probably a lot of legitimate hate speech. I mean, we aren't pretending that's not a thing, are we? We attract redpillers like flies, no reason to believe that'd be any different.

[–]mwobuddy 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Someone doesn't understand what hate speech means..

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Anything a leftist disagrees with gets marked as 'hate speech' in many countries. It's nothing short of an attempt to criminalize opposition.

[–]kellykebab 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Do you think "hate speech" should still be policed if it only takes place within a well-defined discussion group?

[–]Winter_of_Discontent -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No, but I can't blame Facebook for wanting to delete a cesspool of misogyny. Are we really pretending that that isn't a thing? That we don't all see the comments saying the most ridiculous things? Like, for instance, the "feminism is hitler" Dumbass above me? I once had a guy in this sub try to argue the point that all women hate men, and that all women are actively trying to kill all men.

[–]no_lungs 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

'Feminism is Hitler' is not misogyny. It might be dumb, but if Facebook started banning dumb things, they would have bigger problems.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

They may not be Hitler, but with this move, they have proven themselves to be fascists. The only pillar of fascism their movement does not display is a 'return to greatness' theme, and even then... They talk a lot about an ancient (and never existing) matriarchy that ruled through magic and wonders and a lot of nonsense like that. So while it isn't as systemic as, say, Patriarchy, or 'KillAllMen' or the idea that people who criticize them should face massive social and legal consequences, it is too common to ignore completely.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"feminism is hitler"

That's not hate speech. You repeatedly equate opposition to feminism, or even hatred of feminism, with a hatred of women. They are not the same thing -- that is a convenient and dishonest rhetoric that feminists use to justify calling opposition to their monstrous ideas 'hate speech'. But feminism is not your gender. It is not your race. It is only your political ideology, and that is quite simply open to criticism.

People are allowed to criticize you. They are allowed to disagree with feminism. You feminists ARE fascists when you do things like this. You want to criminalize as 'hate speech' any criticism of you. And that is one of the pillars of fascism.

So think long and hard as to why inarticulate people might compare you all to Hitler and the Nazis. You talk about killing all men all of the time. You talk about men like the Nazis talk about Jews -- the Patriarchy is literally the exact same idea as the Elders of Zion, just targeted at a different group. You believe that all art must serve your ideological ends, so you endlessly harass creators as 'unfeminist' who don't bow to your pressure. You think that you and people like you deserve special rights to speak your mind and air your grievances that you don't believe anyone else should have.

All of that... THAT is what fascism is. Your movement is a fascist movement.

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

I'll ceceed that point. His comparison of feminism and naziism are terrible examples, just the first thing that came to mind.

To my larger point: do you deny that hate speech is often posted here? I'm not saying it's most of the content, and the community doesn't always support it, but it's still here. This subreddit has a reputation for misogyny, and regardless of whether that was true from the beginning, that reputation is sure to attract misogynist posters.

We've all seen them here, posting ridiculous bullshit. Sometimes they're down voted to obliviom, and great conversation takes place about why what they said is wrong, and other times they get complete support and the community seems to rally around them. Then, it's like when Black Lives Matter is brought up on reddit, the further you go in to those threads, the more racist zeal you find.

[–]Winter_of_Discontent -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No, but I can't blame Facebook for wanting to delete a cesspool of misogyny. Are we really pretending that that isn't a thing? That we don't all see the comments saying the most ridiculous things? Like, for instance, the "feminism is hitler" Dumbass above me? I once had a guy in this sub try to argue the point that all women hate men, and that all women are actively trying to kill all men.

[–]kellykebab 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Assuming that the members of a given Facebook group are not actively harassing people outside of their group, why do you think Facebook should shut them down?

[–]Winter_of_Discontent 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't say should, I don't think they have any moral imperative or anything, but I can understand why they would. They in no way benefit from leaving that page up, and risk looking as though they support it. Same reason reddit did away with jailbait and what not. It's in their clear best interest, hard to hold it against them.

[–]Vandechoz 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As long as they treat all other groups the same way with the same general principles, sure. Do you really think that's the case?

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

Do I think they censor anything that could be a PR disaster? I mean, I'd presume. Can't really see why they wouldnt.

[–]JebberJabber -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Word from the sistas is that the Anti-Feminism FB group had an attacking frenzy on a feminist page. Just like Reddit, FB does not like groups which whip up attacks on other groups.
The individual bans would have been for individual misdemeanours I guess.

Downvoted for what?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Criticizing feminism is not misogyny. Most women want nothing at all to do with your psychotic political movement based on hatred and the restriction of civil liberties.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hate speech isn't people saying things you ideologically disagree with. It isn't even people being mean.

I don't believe in 'Hate Speech' at all. It's a term left-wingers invented to justify setting certain statements (all statements that disagree with their ideology) outside of the established Freedom of Speech protections in this country. Hate Speech does not exist as a thing outside of the minds of deluded leftists. People say hateful things, racist things, sexist things; but that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to remove their freedom of speech. That is a right innate to any species capable of speech. It is an inherent aspect of the human being. We speak naturally, therefore it is a natural right that we be allowed to speak.

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

You seem to be mistaken. Societal consequences that are non-governmental are not infringements on your First Amendment protected Freedom of Speech. If you're at a party and start spouting things about how women are all evil, cheating, lying cunts that can't be trusted, and the host of the party kicks you out for being an asshole, they're not infringing on your Freedom of Speech. Freedom is Speech is not forcing people to listen to you. No one is stopping you from saying whatever bullshit you want, just not in my living room.

[+]GoldenGonzo -22 points-21 points-20 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

So what does this have to do with men's rights? Or are you implying that men's right is anti-feminism?

[–]AkaviriDragon 25 points26 points27 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It is anti-feminist. Feminist groups constantly censor men's rights conferences and give free shit to women at the expense of men. As an example, they lie about the wage gap so women get paid more than men, or demand hygiene products for women to be free.

[–]Azothlike 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Uh, if you need an example of Feminists being categorically opposed to equality and men's rights/issues, all you need is N.O.W. lobbying against Equal Parenting laws in virtually every US state they pop up in, because the current unequal system favors women.

Much better example.

[–]Ricwulf 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Also, pointing out that a variety of issues that currently disadvantage men were caused by Feminists in some capacity. Like you said, custody laws are one. They were originally done in a way that the father would get the child by default (Something I believe to be a poor system as well). Due to Feminists, this got changed, not by having equal custody, but by making the mother the default instead.

Another example is the laws and procedures surrounding Domestic Violence. The Duleth Model is used by police to determine who the aggressor is, which uses criteria such as size, weight, potential to harm, and a few other. Most of the criteria used however are traits that men tend to be more prone to having due to sexual dimorphism. The model even states that a victim might attack first so that they can protect their children. That's right, it actually says that the person committing the violence is actually the victim. This means that police can turn up, the man have a whopping black eye with the woman untouched, and he will get taken away.

To say that Feminism and the MRM can work together is wishful thinking by fools that think "Feminism is about equality, those man haters aren't real Feminists", when I couldn't give two shits about who is a "real" Feminist. I care about the actions done, and all the actions so far show that Feminism is extremely apathetic to men, if not actively against it in some cases.

[–]modern_rabbit 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

potential to harm,

Specifically, potential to physically harm. It doesn't consider the actual application of harm or emotional harm. If a girl beats up her bf and calls the cops, even though she did all the abuse he is considered more dangerous...

[–]Ricwulf 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

True. Good point, and worth mentioning.

[–]modern_rabbit 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've no doubt you know this, I just want all the people arriving here from google to recognize that detail. The Duluth Model is an atrocity and people need to understand why.

[–]AkaviriDragon 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

making the mother the default instead.

Caroline Norton, I believe it was.

Duleth Model

Duluth Model, yes. Do you know where it originated, though?

Hm, the draft seems like it could be another example. It doesn't make sense that only men have to get drafted. Did feminism play a part in this?

If I remember correctly, you could only vote if you did military service independently of your sex. This was changed to allow everyone to vote, by the time universal voting and suffragettes/suffragists were about. But somehow men still had to register for the draft anyway!

[–]Ricwulf 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hm, the draft seems like it could be another example. It doesn't make sense that only men have to get drafted. Did feminism play a part in this?

No, this was actually at the time a logical choice that went on to the point where it no longer makes sense.

It originates from back to the days where a village would number in ~100-200 people. The idea was that if you sent off all your men and only 2 returned, the village would be able to repopulate, but the inverse wouldn't be possible. However, such ideas then went on too long and became more "just the way it is" rather than actually functional.

That being said, the draft itself has been maintained, and supported by Feminists. Look up The White Feather Society. It revolved around the idea that to be [publicly] given a white feather was a sign that you were a coward. Well, this society was formed to give men who weren't conscripted these feathers to shame them into signing up for war during WW1. Many of these members were Suffragettes. A famous story was about how a man who was back from serving was on the way to town to receive one of his medals for his service, but he was in civilian clothes, not military. While riding the tram, he was given one of these feathers, all because he was wearing civilian clothes.

If I remember correctly, you could only vote if you did military service independently of your sex.

Not quite. The way that voting worked was that it was available to anyone who owned land. This was regardless of sex. If you owned land, you owned a vote. See, prior to 1918, men didn't have voting rights. It was linked to owning land. Basically, if you owned a piece of the country, you had a say (vote) in the countries options.

Male voting rights were gained in a trade that you had to sign your life as service to the country, which wasn't (in my opinion) a bad deal. If you wanted to vote on decisions regarding your country, you need to serve said country.

See, this is the funny thing that not a whole lot of people understand. When the Suffragettes were initially fighting for the vote, it was women who were the most against this move, as it would mean that they too would have to sign up for the draft. So many Suffragettes changed their plans and wanted a true free vote, something which men at the time didn't have either (and still don't have).

Fast forward to today, and we have the current imbalance where men still have to sign up for the Selective Service to be allowed to vote, while women do not have that obligation.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I've always considered MRM anti-feminism, but I've never called it such because there's plenty of feminist MRA's.

But...I mean, if MRA's are going to start calling it anti-feminism I guess there's no harm in doing the same, yeah?

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

Feminist MRAs probably consider themselves as much based on the old tenets of feminism, trying to 'reclaim' it from where it's gone, but that's ultimately a long-lost struggle and really not helpful to making people understand that modern feminism is about hate.

[–]roharareddit 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you serious.

[–]modern_rabbit 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

MRM is anti-feminism. Problem?

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter