Feminist man-haters

[The Cat-Tribe]

Insufficient and ridiculous grounds for rejecting peer-reviewed published study -- particularly in the absence of anything other than your own prejudices as evidence to the contrary.

I just gave a whole list of reasons for why I think the study is false. I can't prove it. If I knew it's makers and more about it, I could pronounce it such with much more certainty.

And I (and others) explained why your "list of reasons" are (1) inherently sexist, (2) stupid, (3) utterly inadequate, and (4) fueled almost completely by your own prejudices.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

There is nothing in "modern Feminist policies" that "seeks to advance women in society over men" (emphasis added) or is anti-male.

You are correct that most, if not all, anti-feminism is biased and anti-female.

But the two are not mirror equivalents.

Hah! Bullshit! Feminism:

Let's look at your list of "specific" allegations.

-Pro-choice policies that give the woman the entire control over the fetus.

No. Feminist support giving women the entire control OVER THEIR OWN BODIES.

-Could care less about establishing equal responsibility along with equal rights thus or course making the rights not equal.

Meaningles pablum without concrete examples. At the abstract level, this is untrue. From NOW's statement of purpose (emphasis added): "The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men."

-Does not campaign about women not having equal rights in the military by being barred from combat positions.

Flat out LIE: http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/wim.html

-Does not make any serious attempt at bringing the draft to include women.

Another flat out LIE: http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/draft2.html

-Will fight and fight against social issues such as rape that hurt women but will not fight against social rules such as the "men never hit women" rule, because such rules do benefit them.

No. First, rape hurts both men and women. Second, there is no equivalence between laws against rape and "social rules such as the 'men never hit women' rule." That you would even try to equate them is fucking sick.

The bottomline is that Feminism has based itself off of bringing women up in society and in doing so has forgotten equality. It has focused entirely on women.

Bullshit. For example, from NOW's statement of purpose:

WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility -- hers, to dominate -- his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of `half-equity" between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes.

...

WE BELIEVE THAT women will do most to create a new image of women by acting now, and by speaking out in behalf of their own equality, freedom, and human dignity - - not in pleas for special privilege, nor in enmity toward men, who are also victims of the current, half-equality between the sexes - - but in an active, self-respecting partnership with men. By so doing, women will develop confidence in their own ability to determine actively, in partnership with men, the conditions of their life, their choices, their future and their society.

Anti-feminism focuses both on equality and anti-female bias. Anti-feminism in and of itself is very diverse in it's stances. And thank you for rasing that bolded statement. If Anti-feminists are anti-female then how are they anti-male as well? Do they just hate all people? If so what proof do you have to offer for this?

YOU are the one that expressly stated anti-feminism was pro-male biased. YOU have further illustrated this point with your own "males are superior" bullshit.

What you "know" appears to be lies and anti-feminist propaganda.

Likewise, except for you with feminist propaganda.

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin, Ice and Fire, (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1987)

Classic bullshit. A line taken out of context FROM A FICTIONAL CHARACTER in a FICTIONAL NOVEL portrayed as the author's own view? How pathetic.

[Bottle]

YOU are the one that expressly stated anti-feminism was pro-male biased. YOU have further illustrated this point with your own "males are superior" bullshit.

I don't know about you, but when a guy states his opinion that feminists are man-haters, provides no evidence of any kind, and then spends several pages asserting that females are inherently inferior to males, I view him as a source of the utmost credibility and seriousness. I certainly don't laugh coffee through my nose at his every post.

/deadpan

[Greater Americania]

I don't know about you, but when a guy states his opinion that feminists are man-haters, provides no evidence of any kind, and then spends several pages asserting that females are inherently inferior to males, I view him as a source of the utmost credibility and seriousness. I certainly don't laugh coffee through my nose at his every post.

/deadpan

I even stated in a past post that I don't think all feminists are man-haters. I don't know about you, but when a guy states his opinion against my opinion without even comprehending what my opinion is on the matter and offers up nothing more than sarcasm as a retaliation, I don't view him as a source of the utmost credibility and seriousness.

[Greater Americania]

Good lord, that I should have predicted this...

Same. I thought a feminist could understand that when the companies that are higher up on the charts have fewer female managers than lower ranking companies that this in fact implies that men are better at doing business. I suppose not.

Again, societal expectations based on historic assumptions means males go into maths and science and females should go into more social subjects, much as males should go into business and politics and women should take care of the home, this is nothing to do with inherent ability as such but much to do with cultural & societal modes and expectations.

Women aren't told to go take care of the home any more. Hello? Have you paid attention to societal changes over the past 50 some years? Women are told to go get out there with the men and they are. As we've previously pointed out, no women are in fact entering the work force and storming into business and law schools.

However, bullshit. All students in modern schools are encouraged equally to do good and get good grades. In this pursuit, men have excelled in math and sciences, women have excelled in lingusitics.

Ah, so the reason women are catching up is due to the fact that men are tired of dominating the world and are looking to catch up on their sewing skills,

Sure,

No. I'm not going to repeat myself to someone who uses strawman arguments such as these.

[Soheran]

I thought a feminist could understand that when the companies that are higher up on the charts have fewer female managers than lower ranking companies that this in fact implies that men are better at doing business.

I, on the other hand, would suppose that feminists--being generally more educated and intelligent than anti-feminists--would have a good enough grasp of scientific reasoning to avoid drawing a specific causal conclusion from an ambiguous statistical correlation.

[Greater Americania]

And I (and others) explained why your "list of reasons" are (1) inherently sexist, (2) stupid, (3) utterly inadequate, and (4) fueled almost completely by your own prejudices.

Define sexism. Because if you classify it as the "notion that men and women are inherently different" then yes my argument is very sexist. If other wise, maybe not.

No. Feminist support giving women the entire control OVER THEIR OWN BODIES.

The policy only serves to give women the deciding edge over the future child. If the man wants to have the child, he is subject to the woman's whim. It is pro-female and anti-male.

Meaningles pablum without concrete examples. At the abstract level, this is untrue. From NOW's statement of purpose (emphasis added): "The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men."

Spare me.

Flat out LIE: http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/wim.html

Oh wow, they have a web page. That definently classifies as serious attempt. It's nothing more than oratory.

Another flat out LIE: http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/draft2.html

Same here.

rape hurts both men and women. Second, there is no equivalence between laws against rape and "social rules such as the 'men never hit women' rule." That you would even try to equate them is fucking sick.

*rolls eyes* How does rape hurt men? Aside from the fact that if caught they go to jail and possibly get the death penalty?

Bullshit. For example, from NOW's statement of purpose:

WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility -- hers, to dominate -- his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of `half-equity" between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes.

...

WE BELIEVE THAT women will do most to create a new image of women by acting now, and by speaking out in behalf of their own equality, freedom, and human dignity - - not in pleas for special privilege, nor in enmity toward men, who are also victims of the current, half-equality between the sexes - - but in an active, self-respecting partnership with men. By so doing, women will develop confidence in their own ability to determine actively, in partnership with men, the conditions of their life, their choices, their future and their society.

They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk if you understand the meaning of the phrase.

YOU are the one that expressly stated anti-feminism was pro-male biased. YOU have further illustrated this point with your own "males are superior" bullshit.

You stated that anti-feminism is anti-female. And the study that you're defending states that it's anti-male. Add the two together and that means that they hate absolutely everyone. So I'll ask you again: Do anti-feminists hate everyone and if so on what grounds?

[Greater Americania]

I, on the other hand, would suppose that feminists--being generally more educated and intelligent than anti-feminists--would have a good enough grasp of scientific reasoning to avoid drawing a specific causal conclusion from an ambiguous statistical correlation.

You're right. These statistics are incorrect and inconclusive just because........

[Soheran]

You're right. These statistics are incorrect and inconclusive just because........

I'm sorry if basic concepts like the recognition that correlation does not imply causation are beyond your understanding.

[Muravyets]

And the existence of those organizations has no more to do with your claimed supposed personal observations than the study mentioned in the topic does. You make yourself more irrelevant with each post.

The philosophies of these organizations make up the ideology that is anti-feminism because they oppose feminism. Try again.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact you yourself based your entire argument on what you claim to have been your own personal observations, which you did not prove the truth of but which you still expected us to take as a valid argument.

I realize that, utterly unable to make your arguments relevant because of the thing you chose to base them on, you are now trying to pretend you were basing them on something else all along, but you are not succeeding for two reasons:

1) The thread is the record of what you have said.

2) The OPINIONS of some groups do not create a basis of FACT for your OPINIONS. So the mere fact that there are some other people who hold opinions similar to yours does not make your comments more relevant to the subject of this thread. In fact, claiming that your arguments are valid because there are other people who agree with you is a logical fallacy called "appeal to popularity." It only harms your argument's validity even more.

[Neo Art]

*rolls eyes* How does rape hurt men? Aside from the fact that if caught they go to jail and possibly get the death penalty?

You dont...I mean it didn't occur…I mean…how the…alright, when confronted with the phrase "rape hurts men and women" you immediately go to the image of man as the rapist, and not the raped? Are you fucking shitting me? Did the thought that golly gee, men get raped too, just not penetrate your skull?

[Greater Americania]

You dont...I mean it didn't occur…I mean…how the…alright, when confronted with the phrase "rape hurts men and women" you immediately go to the image of man as the rapist, and not the raped? Are you fucking shitting me? Did the thought that golly gee, men get raped too, just not penetrate your skull?

Now of course I'm going to make a guess, and that guess is that the vast majority of rape victims are women. Am I correct?

[Greater Americania]

I'm sorry if basic concepts like the recognition that correlation does not imply causation are beyond your understanding.

These statistics do in fact imply that women aren't as good as men at business simply because they show that companies with more men are doing better.

[Soheran]

You dont...I mean it didn't occur…I mean…how the…alright, when confronted with the phrase "rape hurts men and women" you immediately go to the image of man as the rapist, and not the raped? Are you fucking shitting me? Did the thought that golly gee, men get raped too, just not penetrate your skull?

Note well: it's the resident anti-feminist who fails to realize that men as well as women are victims of rape.

Not the supposedly male-hating feminists.

[Muravyets]

Guys, seriously, don't even bother arguing with somebody who's playing the "men have higher IQ and do better at sports" game. At least not until he produces something beyond his own personal trolling, erm, I mean opinions.

I'm finding that, in general, it is pointless to debate with anyone whose argument boils down to "and that's why my group is better." When people engage in bigotry specifically for the purpose of ego-boosting, it is extremely rare for them ever to respond to logic and facts by saying, "Gosh, I guess I'm really not superior after all, and that's okay."

The only reasons to engage such people is to (a) exercise one's arguing muscles and (b) expose their fallacies for others to note.

[Greater Americania]

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact you yourself based your entire argument on what you claim to have been your own personal observations, which you did not prove the truth of but which you still expected us to take as a valid argument.

I realize that, utterly unable to make your arguments relevant because of the thing you chose to base them on, you are now trying to pretend you were basing them on something else all along, but you are not succeeding for two reasons:

1) The thread is the record of what you have said.

2) The OPINIONS of some groups do not create a basis of FACT for your OPINIONS. So the mere fact that there are some other people who hold opinions similar to yours does not make your comments more relevant to the subject of this thread. In fact, claiming that your arguments are valid because there are other people who agree with you is a logical fallacy called "appeal to popularity." It only harms your argument's validity even more.

I'm done arguing with you. You consistently attempt to imply that my entire argument is based off of personal observations. You ignore every other sentence I post and focus on them. Unless you can address my notion that anti-feminism in and of itself have pro-male leanings because of what it is, I will no longer reply to anything you post. Good day.

[Soheran]

These statistics do in fact imply that women aren't as good as men at business simply because they show that companies with more men are doing better.

And the decrease in pirates is responsible for climate change.

[Treznor]

*rolls eyes* How does rape hurt men? Aside from the fact that if caught they go to jail and possibly get the death penalty?

You dont...I mean it didn't occur…I mean…how the…alright, when confronted with the phrase "rape hurts men and women" you immediately go to the image of man as the rapist, and not the raped? Are you fucking shitting me? Did the thought that golly gee, men get raped too, just not penetrate your skull?

I think he was trying to scorn the idea that violence harms both the victim and the perpetrator, which is more of a metaphysical argument than anything else.

[Ifreann]

You dont...I mean it didn't occur…I mean…how the…alright, when confronted with the phrase "rape hurts men and women" you immediately go to the image of man as the rapist, and not the raped? Are you fucking shitting me? Did the thought that golly gee, men get raped too, just not penetrate your skull?

Now of course I'm going to make a guess, and that guess is that the vast majority of rape victims are women. Am I correct?

Unless its a 100% majority then some men get raped and therefore rape hurts men.

[Greater Americania]

These statistics do in fact imply that women aren't as good as men at business simply because they show that companies with more men are doing better.

And the decrease in pirates is responsible for climate change.

*facepalm* Way to dodge my point. Your claimed feministic logic isn't showing here.

[Treznor]

You dont...I mean it didn't occur…I mean…how the…alright, when confronted with the phrase "rape hurts men and women" you immediately go to the image of man as the rapist, and not the raped? Are you fucking shitting me? Did the thought that golly gee, men get raped too, just not penetrate your skull?

Now of course I'm going to make a guess, and that guess is that the vast majority of rape victims are women. Am I correct?

That would then ignore the research that indicates the vast majority of rape perpetrated on men goes unreported. Men may not be as statistically likely to rape other men as they are women, but when they do the victims are even less likely to report it.

It happens. A lot more than anyone realizes.

[Greater Americania]

Unless its a 100% majority then some men get raped and therefore rape hurts men.

No, it means that rape hurts some men. Unless it's a massive majority like the amount of rape cases where the woman is the victim, it's not an issue directly involved with one's gender.

[Muravyets]

*rolls eyes* How does rape hurt men? Aside from the fact that if caught they go to jail and possibly get the death penalty?

You dont...I mean it didn't occur…I mean…how the…alright, when confronted with the phrase "rape hurts men and women" you immediately go to the image of man as the rapist, and not the raped? Are you fucking shitting me? Did the thought that golly gee, men get raped too, just not penetrate your skull?

I guess he missed that because he was too focussed on the idea that getting punished for raping people hurts men.

[Greater Americania]

That would then ignore the research that indicates the vast majority of rape perpetrated on men goes unreported. Men may not be as statistically likely to rape other men as they are women, but when they do the victims are even less likely to report it.

It happens. A lot more than anyone realizes.

I'm sure it does but I'm also sure you're blowing it out of proportion.

[Neo Art]

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact you yourself based your entire argument on what you claim to have been your own personal observations, which you did not prove the truth of but which you still expected us to take as a valid argument.

I realize that, utterly unable to make your arguments relevant because of the thing you chose to base them on, you are now trying to pretend you were basing them on something else all along, but you are not succeeding for two reasons:

1) The thread is the record of what you have said.

2) The OPINIONS of some groups do not create a basis of FACT for your OPINIONS. So the mere fact that there are some other people who hold opinions similar to yours does not make your comments more relevant to the subject of this thread. In fact, claiming that your arguments are valid because there are other people who agree with you is a logical fallacy called "appeal to popularity." It only harms your argument's validity even more.

I'm done arguing with you. You consistently attempt to imply that my entire argument is based off of personal observations. You ignore every other sentence I post and focus on them. Unless you can address my notion that anti-feminism in and of itself have pro-male leanings because of what it is, I will no longer reply to anything you post. Good day.

So because she's making an argument you can't respond to, versus one you can, you're not going to continue the argument?

Well, thanks for conceding I guess. Most people would have at least made an effort, but it's big of you to at least admit when you've been outclassed

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

That would then ignore the research that indicates the vast majority of rape perpetrated on men goes unreported. Men may not be as statistically likely to rape other men as they are women, but when they do the victims are even less likely to report it.

It happens. A lot more than anyone realizes.

I'm sure it does but I'm also sure you're blowing it out of proportion.

No, I don't think Treznor was blowing it out of proportion. Men are also victim to rape, they just may not report it as much as women do. Just because you don't report something doesn't mean it isn't happening. There just may not be statistics about it, but it's happening.