[R] Flaming and Baiting in Feminist Thread

[New haven america]

this reads as "I know my argument is bad, but I'm going to accuse the others of being too stupid to understand it instead of working to make it coherent"

you aren't getting this. it's literally Not An Argument. that entire portion of my post is not supposed to be interpreted as an argument. it's an illustration of the logical flow between principles with the express purpose being entertainment, which i literally said there.

you are right on one thing, though - this massive disagreement is due to wildly irreconcilable differences in beliefs and worldviews. you believe in an eon-spanning global conspiracy to oppress you,

are you guys like actually stupid or are you intentionally wildly misconstruing the nature of the patriarchy because i genuinely cannot tell which one it is

and you demand massive privileges to compensate.

god, the window you guys unwittingly provide into the male worldview with this shit. you people are genuinely are so fucking sick in the head, you so hate the idea of treating women as anything more than sex and food machines, that you think someone advocating for ensuring women have safe and free access to healthcare, are treated properly in the workplace, are safe doing the same basic things as men, and are not raped on camera for an audience of millions of sex addicted freaks is "DEMANDING MASSIVE PRIVILEGES". every time one of you posts, i become just a little bit more misandrist as it becomes more and more terrifyingly clear to me how genuinely, incomprehensibly sociopathic and scummy men are when confronted with issues that affect anyone other than other men.

gallo, ostro, and I all believe broadly in actual equality (though I'm sure we differ on several details).

or to put it more simply, you're a supremacist, but nobody else here is

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's really not a "task" to read Ostro's posts? they're like, marginally more difficult than any standard text wall, if that.

it's not a "task" or whatever, sure, but it's very unpleasant and just not something i want to do, solely because of his formatting and writing style. again, i have no issues reading what gallo writes because even though gallo is generally writing a bunch of bull shit that i disagree with just like ostro, he always writes it in an articulate and easy to read manner.

reading them might require you to think critically, which is something you definitely don't want to do

this coming from proctopeo

edit: now that I've thought about it for a bit, radical feminism is pretty much just inceldom but for women

femceldom is its own thing and there is some overlap between femcels and radical feminism but they aren't fundamentally linked, speaking as some1 who is both but for separate reasons (i.e., i would still believe in radical feminism if god magically dropped a boyfriend into my lap) & who knows a lot of representatives of both groups. a lot of radical feminists and possibly even the majority either have a boyfriend/husband or are lesbians, and they've got no interest in arguing about how evil men are because of not wanting to sex them like incels do. radfems' criticism of men and patriarchy is fundamentally rooted in different motivations from incels' criticism of women and "gynocracy".

Bolded the main points of contention.

[New haven america]

"I don't care to argue the point" comes off as pretty close to that ngl

the reason i wrote that is because i already knew at the time of writing that the extent of the counterarguments provided would be:
- gallo deciding groups cannot count as parties because he has no fucking idea how to comprehend any social unit at a higher level of organization than the individual, and possibly deciding to make even more of a clown out of himself by arguing that men are historically oppressed
- if ostro ended up online, he'd probably do his MO, which is to read the first sentence or two, then use those to make a long series of more and more wildly incorrect assumptions about the rest of the content and go off on a retarded tangent based on those assumptions
both of which, i would note, were indeed what the counterarguments were. both are simply pointless to argue with because they are based on intentional misinterpretations, lies, and/or irreconcilable differences in belief systems. so the point of that section was not to present an argument meant to be debated, because the debate would be useless and stupid, the point was simple illustration and color for the audience.

no? tone down that ego for a minute - it's clear that you don't care to argue the point because you can't, and you're using his sloppy writing style as a hackneyed smokescreen

see above. i could let ostro offload the task of reading comprehension onto me and waste huge amounts of time explaining in great detail things that he could figure out if he simply took 5 minutes to thoroughly read and consider what i wrote, or i could do something productive like simply teaching him a few tips about how to make it not borderline physically painful to read the dreck he's constantly spewing.

well
this whole discussion here kicked off after I responded to one of your posts, that despite its length, had very little of substance (which is what I had initially addressed)
I haven't actually fully read your other effortpost(s) so maybe they're more substantial; I just skimmed them to get the gist

okay

Also, this bit right here that got cut off in the OP.

[Reploid Productions]

Not the worst flaming/trolling I've seen, but Cek has been smacked more than enough to know better by now.

[New haven america]

Danke

[The Free Joy State]

Same poster as reported by OP (I actually made a separate thread then belatedly spotted this). I realise the ruling has already been made, but thought it best to mention this so any necessary notes can be made (snipped the ones already reported by New Haven America).

Calling people with depression "losers", suggesting another user may be autistic and so "doesn't actually know what's going on", implying a poster is a clown... Left the context in for the first one, which makes the post very long (emphases mine):

Here's what I have off the top of my head, and keep in mind this is no particular order besides the order I thought of them:

1) Rape equality. Getting treatment by the justice system at least as "good" (i put that in quotes) as women have it, although ideally getting both to a better state.
2) Domestic violence equality (1). Getting treatment by the justice system at least as "good" (i put that in quotes) as women have it, although ideally getting both to a better state.
3) Domestic violence equality (2). Getting treatment by domestic violence services at least as "good" as women have it, although ideally getting both to a better state (common reaction by domestic violence services is to accuse the abused man of being the abuser).
4) Domestic violence equality (3). Getting treatment by society (friends, relatives, etc) at least as "good" as women have it, although ideally getting both to a better state (common reaction by society is to accuse the abused man of being the abuser).
5) Voter suppression repeal. Men have had a minority of political power due to voter suppression for decades - women have wielded the majority of the political power through their vote due to the effects of voter disenfranchisement. This is felt especially hard in minority communities, but broadly affects men as a class as well.
6) Bodily integrity rights. Get men to have at least much bodily integrity rights as women have. Ideally, both need improvement.
7) Reproductive rights. Give men the same legal reproductive rights (regarding choosing to become a legal parent or not) that women currently have.
Birth control rights. Give men the guaranteed legal right over their own reproduction at least to the extent women have it. This means guaranteeing birth control coverage for insurance in the same way women's birth control is guaranteed covered, at a minimum.
9) Repeal the selective service, leaving men with the same lack of legal requirements as women.
10) Fix the discrimination against boys in school when it comes to education. We know boys are marked down compared with girls for comparable work, and this needs to end. I'm a fan of blind grading to help deal with these kinds of biases. This is probably a major component for the significant enrollment gap into college based on sex.
11) Fix the discrimination against boys in school when it comes to discipline. Boys are disciplined harder for similar offenses. This is especially true among minorities, and is a major component of the school to prison pipeline that disproportionately affects boys and even moreso minority boys.
12) Fixed the investigation/conviction/sentencing gap between men and women. We know women are less likely to be charged, convicted, less likely to serve jail time if convicted, and receive substantial sentence discounts for equivalent crimes compared with men. This is especially noticeable in black men vs black women, but affects men of every race.
13) Fix training for law enforcement regarding domestic violence to recognize the wealth of data that's on the subject now regarding male victims. Old models (like I was taught) where you must arrest the man no matter the circumstances do not stand up to scrutiny and just perpetuate inequality.
14) Fix the police killing gap between men and women by treating men more like women. Somewhere around 96-97% of police killings are of men, despite making up only 49% of the population. It's time police be taught to deescalate and not kill their target just because their target is a man.
15) Fix early childhood home education by educating their parents not to beat their boys from an early age. Boys even by the time they are 1 year old have significantly more beatings than girls, and this creates significant issues throughout childhood and adulthood.
16) Encourage parents to read with their boys. Girls are far more likely to be read to by their parents as very small children compared with boys. This likely affects boys early childhood development and leads to lifelong lower language skills for boys (one of many factors, no doubt).
17) End the whole white knight bullshit. Boys should not be taught from birth that they have to put themselves at risk to protect random strange women/girls. It harms them and gets them killed. #NotYourShield
18) Equal child custody. Shared custody should be the standard, with a specific legally articulable reason or mutual consent needed for a variance from that standard. Prior to the breakup, shared custody was the default, so it should remain so afterward.
19) Stop beating boys for showing emotion. It stunts them for life, and it's a very standard practice.
20) Actually work with little boys, the way we currently do with little girls, on how to classify and talk about their emotions. Many men and boys can't put words to their emotions - this is because they were never taught.
21) Equalize (de jure) the rape laws where they are currently unequal. Quite a few states have done this, but not all have. We did an analysis some time back and IIRC there were a dozen states where raping a man as a woman is quite literally a lesser crime than the reverse. It shouldn't be.
22) End discrimination against men in the workplace when it comes to taking time off for family matters. Right now, men are punished far more heavily than women for taking time off for family. This should not be the case.
23) Teach women not to cut off men in their lives from friends. One of the most common things that follows in marriage is that men lose all of their friends (this does not happen to women who get married, by and large), so their only support "network" (if you can call it that), is their wife. This causes really bad problems if the marriage ever breaks up for any reason, not to mention does bad things to the wife (if it stays together) when she's her husband's only support network.
24) Teach everyone that hitting men is just as wrong as hitting women. Men suffer the lion's share of violence, and this is because violence against men is considered more acceptable than violence against women.
25) Stop the idea that men need to be the ones "bringing home the bacon". This is a common thing that men suffer, especially at the hands of women, who seem to be the primary enforcers of this gender role. Men can be just as good of homemakers or child carers or part time-worker plus those things as women can.
26) Stop forced labor of prisoners (this disproportionately affects men). It's really just slavery that we're ok with as a society, and we shouldn't be.
27) Get the UN to stop denying male war rape victims support. Currently, most UN aid explicitly excludes giving any rape medical aid to male war rape victims, despite war rape against men being very common.
28) Recognize that men are disproportionately killed by COVID based on their gender, and research needs to go into why and what we can do about it.
29) Recognize that men disproportionately die sooner that women, and look into what we can do medically and support wise to correct this imbalance and extend their lifespan out to match women's.
30) Rethink how we approach psychology. It disproportionately doesn't work as well for men because men (statistically speaking) do not respond as well to talk therapy (this may be due to the language skills issue mentioned above). There's been some suggestions on this front, but it's not been as concrete.
31) Pursuant to 31, end the stigma against men especially in seeking mental help, which is a much worse stigma based on their gender.

Ok, that's what you get at midnight after a few beers. There's probably a few I missed, but that's just off the top of my head.

i haven't slept in 36 hours so i'm not gonna try to refute all of these (i dont even disagree with all of them in principle anyway) but i do appreciate that U actually did manage to come up with the number u said, very well estimated of u. i will make notes on a couple ones that i agree with and want to expand more on, or ones that i want to describe disagreement in more detail.
1/21. sure, obviously rape of men should still be recognized as rape under the law.
5. sorry, this is retarded, and bear with me for a moment as i get Class Reductionist - the whole issue with this boils down to class issues, no disenfranchisement is caused by being a man, minority men are simply most commonly lower-class and the lower-class is the most likely to be unable to fulfill whatever measures are required by disenfranchising laws. im sure you can come up with some oppression narrative for that but if u magically took every one of the men who gets disenfranchised by these voter id laws and retroactively made them women while changing nothing else literally nothing would be different about it.
8. sure! but keep in mind that birth control equality also means men and women should be sharing about the same amount of the burden in the birth control process, so you'd better be prepared to also start having to take pills that completely wreck your natural hormones juuuust like women have to. equality ain't all picnics and, uh, uncircumcised kids? that seems to be what you want, yeah?
9. personally i think that the selective service should be expanded to include women but i suppose that's really just a difference in political perspective, we do share the same fundamental goal of equalizing its application so i'll count that as an "agree"
11. school to prison pipeline would be a good name for a band
13. yeah ok that seems fair
14. i'm going to victim blame here, honestly i think part of the blame is on men for this and some of the other law enforcement stuff you're up in arms about. men often intentionally try to present themselves as threats in ways that women simply don't, and also just commit more crimes. i guess u shouldn't stereotype but that's sort of what you have to do in on-the-spot life-or-death evaluations, from my understanding (ur the former cop though so if u say im wrong on that ill accept it). like, tranquilizations of lions vs. house cats, obviously lions are going to win even if half the time the lion wasn't actually doing any harm. because lions r simply more likely to do serious harm on average.
15. ummmm could we maybe encourage parents to not beat any of their children? because the way u worded this leaves an enormous awful gaping loophole
17. so true #EnsureZeroEmpathyFromDay1 #YourMurderIsNotMyProblem
22. yep im in full agreement with this, parental leave should 100% be able to be shared (and should be fully paid)
23. i have never heard of this being a large scale phenomenon outside of abusive relationships, are you sure this is a thing. it seems very counterintuitive to me - like, personally, i certainly don't intend to do that when/if i get married. in fact, i'd much rather my husband have male friends than not, cuz i do Not want to have to listen to facts about sports or whatever male hobby he might be into. i'm fairly certain most women would share that perspective.
26. like the disenfranchisement thing this really has absolutely nothing to do with being male at all whatsoever like absolutely it should be ended but it also isn't oppression against men, it's oppression which primarily men happen to experience due to another common factor. these are two different things and it seems like u have trouble distinguishing those.
27. sure yep i have never heard about that but absolutely shouldnt be the case
30. im very glad you brought this up because i actually have a massive vendetta against psychology and psychiatry. i've got general criticisms up the wazoo and, incidentally, i also feel like a couple aspects of the fields are detrimental to women's rights - i've written a whole article about this, actually. my criticisms are mostly focused on diagnoses and attempts at medical treatment for psychological problems, though, and i haven't though a whole lot about therapy, but i do think you raise a valid point there, so i may add that to my repertoire of Arguments Against Psychology.
31. ehhh i think thats sort of true but also it depends on what they're seeking help for. mental/neurological diseases that result from Doing something aren't stigmatized for men, like nobody's going to criticize a veteran for getting help for PTSD. it's more diseases that are considered Nuisances which dont contribute from anything and dont have any real origin like depression and anxiety that it's stigmatized. now i do think it's a problem that that's stigmatized for men and not for women, because anxiety and depression should be stigmatized for both genders actually. simply go outside and lift a weight or drink some chamomile tea (btw i'm allowed to say this because i'm diagnosed with both major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder yet i keep them in Check most of the time because im not a Loser).

ok that's all i have to say on those. everything else can be inferred, you know basically what i believe.

Incidentally, this is a really common scenario. As a person who has worked with a number of male domestic violence victims after I discovered this stuff, I'll tell you right now this is a really common scenario.

well aware of that. that's precisely why i picked it. you took that juicy delicious bait and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker!

So, as you hit on, it's not a lie. It is of course self serving and lacks nuance, and she's using it in order to further her abuse by isolating him from his friends. Most domestic violence situations are mutual (as in, different spouses are the violent aggressor at different times). Now, you didn't specify whether he hit her back in self defense (Ie, she hit him and he hit her right back) or if it was sometime later it got to him and he hit her while she wasn't hitting him at the time (aggressor at that moment).

It's not right for her to use this as a method to isolate him from his friends and further her abuse, if that's the question.

i think you're approaching this from more of an analytical/legal perspective rather than an ethical one, which i probably should have anticipated. i was hoping more for the latter, but i'll work with it.

so then, let's recap in more general terms. given a party A which has consistently and over a long period of time abused a party B in multiple ways and party B having abused back in at least one relatively smaller incident following a long period of exposure to party A's abuse, for party A to claim party B was the primary aggressor while omitting details about the overall context of the situation in order to weaken the trust of party B's support system in party B and continue the pattern of abuse is in general unethical, though party B's action may or may not have been appropriate.

i'm very glad we seem to agree on this principle; this axiom is in fact an easy (if somewhat contrived) means of demonstrating the ethical problem with the arguments you and other MRAs propagate, party A being {men} as a general unit represented by any arbitrary man to which the relevant conditions apply and party B being {women} as a general unit represented by any arbitrary woman to which the relevant conditions apply; B's support system would of course be all those concerned with the well-being of the women around them. thus:
given men, a party which has consistently and over a long period of time abused women in multiple ways and any arbitrary woman having abused back in at least one relatively incident following a long period of exposure to male-perpetrated abuse, for any arbitrary man to claim women or any arbitrary woman are or is the primary aggressor while omitting details about the overall context of the situation in order to weaken the trust of those concerned with the well-being of the women around them in women and continue the pattern of abuse is in general unethical, though any arbitrary woman's action may or may not have been appropriate.

now of course, you may always invalidate the original axiom and fix this whole logical conundrum if you'd simply like to say that the female abuser actually wasn't in the wrong. i would LOVE to hear you say that.

and no point in arguing over this. it doesn't really mean anything in terms of the discussion at hand. i just thought it would be really fun to reassert my hatred of what you stand for using your own logic (maybe a liittle tiny bit stretched, but still). and it was!

I'm not going to go into the pornography thing because that's a whole nother discussion with a lot of difficult problems.

oh so my refusal to discuss female-on-male rape, that was indicative of me not having empathy for the male victims. but you expect me to just let this slide? no no no, my friend. you aren't off the hook. either you don't care about the victims or pornography or you're going to talk about this issue. which is it, buster brown?

But when it comes to rape, while I acknowledge - and agree - women have a lot of problems when it comes to rape, there is a differential in societal treatment of men raped by women vs women raped by men (and men raped by men and women raped by women). Women raped by men are, to your point, victim blamed an uncomfortable portion of the time. This is true! It's unconscionable.

Men are charged with wasting police time, filing a false report, or threatened with such if they try to report it. This happened so commonly in my support team that we now advise men who are raped to take an attorney (if they can afford one) or a savvy relative (if they can't) with them when they try to report to make sure they can actually make it through the reporting stage without getting arrested.

Put another way: if you said "hey, we need to do something to improve how victims are treated by police", that would be a positive act that relatively few people could disagree with. If you said "hey, we need to do something to improve how black victims are treated by police", that would be a positive act that mostly only racists would disagree with. If you said "hey, we need to do something about how white victims are treated by police", there would naturally be a lot of suspicion. This is because although white victims are sometimes treated badly by police, focusing on the group who already receives better treatment to get even better treatment is... weird and possibly racist/sexist.

and if the whole idea were "we need to make sure male victims of rape are treated fairly just like female victims" that'd be great. my point isn't and has never been that that idea is wrong. the point is that as i've already said, this is a red herring, hinging itself on the acceptance of a number of much less trivial and much more totally and completely wrong ideas.

I actually don't agree with every principle. There's several things I think are off base.

which ones. you've got to say which ones otherwise you're just doing empty weasel words. its not like its a secret... or is it?

So, this is a lie. The one I just linked to you was the average of three studies (2010, 2011, and 2012), all of which got very similar (but no the same) results. I also did separate reports on 2010 and 2011 when they came out. Come on, at least read it.

When the same result gets repeated multiple times showing (roughly) the same thing, you should know reproducibility implies reliability.

what in the world do you mean just linked to me ?? i feel like i vaguely remember u linking some at some point but that had to have been like weeks ago and also i think i ended up busy with something else and forgetting to read them so honestly i had no idea that that was the case. i also have some issues with my memory and things tend to fall through the cracks pretty often so its also possible i may have read them and forgotten. can you do me the favor of simply linking again and then i will take a Look.

Yeah, I'm talking about rape and abuse victims you're hurting. Deliberately.

i'm rubber you're glue

The intentionally simplified spelling is another odd facet.

how do u still have an issue with people saying "u" on the internet in 2021 go back to last decade

and if u mean typing in lowercase with less punctuation that is my proposed english spelling reform and it's orthophobic for you to be criticizing it

So, just so you know, we've studied this when it comes to male access to resources in the DV space, where, keep in mind, a strong plurality of men are raped - by an intimate partner. Keep in mind, this discussion started because such things were exclusive to women in California, and it took a lawsuit to get them open to men.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/

mmm ok yeah dv is a different beast from just plain sexual trauma clinics. alright i do see the problem.

Aye. It also helps that "egalitarian" is rather open-ended, with there being no established dogma associated with the term.

are you larping as scottish now or what

It's neither convoluted nor a trap. You're mad about it because it outs a very damning fact that you're trying fruitlessly to deny: you don't actually care about male rape victims.

(i do, but for the sake of argument) so what if i dont? what r u gonna do about it?

Only seems to be feminists who associate the label "egalitarian" with being an MRA, and even then, only some of 'em.

"only seems to be people who are correct who do [correct thing]"
well and i mean obviously there are other contexts to the word but in the context of gender issues it's pretty universally understood that egalitarians r simply MRA lite. im pretty sure MRAs who self-identify as such would tell u the same. though that's an assumption; i haven't asked any. perhaps we need to get ostro in here?

I believe his point is that many of your opinions have found themselves squarely within Poe's Law. That is to say, your posts read like a parody of feminist beliefs.

or maybe he is simply autistic(-adjacent) (or an aquarius?) and doesnt actually know what's going on or really understand the foundations of feminist theory. at least, that's the explanation i'm going with.

There is actually!

Feminists and a lot of groups that focus on intersectionality say that egalitarianism is bad because it doesn't focus on the nitty-gritty details of oppression or the individual experience, instead choosing to take a utopian view on human behavior and plight. Also, a lot of feminists are of the idea that egalitarianism=feminism, no ifs ands or buts about it.

the "feminists" who will tell u that are libfems who will also tell you that they read theory because they read "women don't owe you pretty." that idea and its pop feminism friends are a load of semantic garbage with no theoretical backing or real meaning and the people peddling it dont even deserve to be given the moniker "feminist" honestly

The reality of Turkey as a Middle Eastern country. A cashier was beaten up by men for saying sanitary pads were on sale. It should not be difficult to guess which political party the people who use violence against the cashier voted for.

CHP? :^)

The normalization of violence against men can also be outlined in media portrayals and the hypergamic nature of feminist activism there reveals the flaws in their movement and its mindset.

the only thing that i can picture reading this sentence is you putting on more and more clown makeup with each word

Then there's a rather long lecture on Ostro's writing style, in which the poster explicitly states they will not answer the post and suggests Ostro may be "in high school or a college freshman" (which suggests age-related baiting): viewtopic.php?p=38840434#p38840434

Which is followed up with this:

On the previous page you ignored someone who pointed out you use contractions, do I really need to point out to you that I don't bother with grammar hygiene specifically because this is an internet forum and not an essay?

oh wow u can't even comprehend the distinction between "prescriptive grammar" and "techniques for improving flow" well that explains why this is such an issue

it looks like thjere have been a lot of posts and so i can't pull the posts i need to with the "topic review" thing so bear with me as i go through all the posts made overnight

Dismissing other posters as "the lightweights" seems rather baity, too:

btw, my little pico de gallo, i am going to respond to u, i am simply still working on writing it. it's a lot of effort and im just taking a break and dealing with the lightweights

[Reploid Productions]

Given Cek is already enjoying a 2-week vacation from the forums, I'll just add a note to the record for the other reported posts.