Feminists sabotage yet another talk on men's equality

[New England and The Maritimes]

No, it doesn't.
Someone said "How is it misogyny" and you whined about how it denies women power and agency.
Then you completely accept how it does similar things to men.

It does, yes.

Which is not misandry.

This argument is starting to bother me.

So I will join in and get even more bothered.

It is misogyny because it is not about "hating men" it is about "hating men who act like women." That's the whole fucking point. If you "act LIKE A WOMAN" you are discriminated against, not if you "are a man."

[The Steel Magnolia]

It does, yes.

Which is not misandry.

You're awful at this if you still can't see your own doublethink here.

I'll just refer you to my most recent post.

[Ostroeuropa]

In what universe does men being discriminated because of their gender not mean misandry, the hatred of men, but misogyny, the hatred of women?

The universe where we're capable of looking into the source of the matter?

What source is that. I'd remind you feminist theory is an entirely unsupported string of claims based off an unproven premise.

[The Steel Magnolia]

The universe where we're capable of looking into the source of the matter?

What source is that. I'd remind you feminist theory is an entirely unsupported string of claims based off an unproven premise.

I wasn't aware inductive reasoning was an unproven premise now.

[Ostroeuropa]

It does, yes.

Which is not misandry.

This argument is starting to bother me.

So I will join in and get even more bothered.

It is misogyny because it is not about "hating men" it is about "hating men who act like women." That's the whole fucking point. If you "act LIKE A WOMAN" you are discriminated against, not if you "are a man."

That must be why those pansy male prisoners get harsher prison sentences than women.

[Freelanderness]

No see, because it institutionally discriminates against women, a by-product is the systematic discrimination against men. Therefore, it is a case of sexism. Are you understanding?

I still have abso fucking lutely no idea where you are getting the idea this was set up to oppress women and just-so-happens to effect men.
Like I said, if you seem to be denying someone consciously set it up this way to fuck over women, then you have to judge it based on who it effects.
Sans a motive, all we have is this domestic violence institution routinely fucking over men.
Not women.

Ostro you might want to take a step back from the debate, because you're letting your emotions get involved. Take a breather, and think about it, because you've said a few out-of-character things.

As for the patriarchy, it's set up in a way for those in power to control the behaviour of those below it. It does this by creating gender roles, and then punishing people for stepping out of it. It does this by fostering a divide between the genders, and by creating animosity towards women. It does a hell of a lot more things, but these are the relevant ones.

The question is not who does it effect. The question is, who is in power, and what are their motives? Because it is not women in power, trying to make life a living hell for men. It is a group of upper-class, white, cis-gendered men who are intent on preserving their power in life. It's based on self-preservation, as many things human are. If they perpetuate the idea that men are big and strong, and women weak and submissive, then suddenly they've created a difference (where there is little to being with) and a power-dynamic between the groups. They've also created a situation where victims of domestic violence are either normal (if they're male victimizing a female, or nonexistent if they're a female victimizing a male). Are you following this so far?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And?
So fucking what? Nothing about the patriarchy mandates it cannot be misandrist.

Besides, y'know, its very existence.

It can and does uniquely affect men negatively. That is not, however, misandry.

I think he is using the dictionary definition of misandry.

Which isn't what I think about when I hear "you should man up".

"You should man up" is also an old, dying concept within machismo, or our own brand of male sexism in Latin America (I'll be using this word from now on, seems more acurate than "sexism" actually is). Machismo states that men have to be the leaders and the heads of household and that a woman must be submissive, and that if a man cannot control his woman he is nothing but an emasculated person.

Which is exactly what's going on here.

[Ostroeuropa]

What source is that. I'd remind you feminist theory is an entirely unsupported string of claims based off an unproven premise.

I wasn't aware inductive reasoning was an unproven premise now.

Well, it is if there are plenty of alternatives.

[The Marxist State]

It can and does uniquely affect men negatively. That is not, however, misandry.

In what universe does men being discriminated because of their gender not mean misandry, the hatred of men, but misogyny, the hatred of women?

It is the institutionalized misogyny that says men are superior to women that ends up hurting male victims of abuse because how could a "superior" male be abused by an "inferior" female?

[Sailsia]

No, it doesn't.
Someone said "How is it misogyny" and you whined about how it denies women power and agency.
Then you completely accept how it does similar things to men.

It does, yes.

Which is not misandry.

As Ostro pointed out, this is a textbook example of doublethink.

[The Steel Magnolia]

This argument is starting to bother me.

So I will join in and get even more bothered.

It is misogyny because it is not about "hating men" it is about "hating men who act like women." That's the whole fucking point. If you "act LIKE A WOMAN" you are discriminated against, not if you "are a man."

That must be why those pansy male prisoners get harsher prison sentences than women.

Eh, almost. You're on the right track though.

There are a number of reasons, I'm sure you read the other thread in which Gravlan went over numerous other concerns.

[New England and The Maritimes]

This argument is starting to bother me.

So I will join in and get even more bothered.

It is misogyny because it is not about "hating men" it is about "hating men who act like women." That's the whole fucking point. If you "act LIKE A WOMAN" you are discriminated against, not if you "are a man."

That must be why those pansy male prisoners get harsher prison sentences than women.

What are you even talking about? Women get lesser prison sentences(ON AVERAGE) for a few reasons, some stemming from patriarchy and some for the simple reason of basic fairness when considering punishments.

[Freelanderness]

This argument is starting to bother me.

So I will join in and get even more bothered.

It is misogyny because it is not about "hating men" it is about "hating men who act like women." That's the whole fucking point. If you "act LIKE A WOMAN" you are discriminated against, not if you "are a man."

That must be why those pansy male prisoners get harsher prison sentences than women.

It is to do with why male prisoners get harsher sentences. Because they're viewed as fully adult, strong, etc, and thus fully culpable, whereas a female is considered either less adult, weak, or simply unable to do anything other than bear children.

[Tennliness]

I'd say it's doubly sexist against both men and women, since it says women aren't capable of real abuse, while conversely saying men aren't truly men if they aren't able to handle the abuse like a man would.

I'd wager it's probably leaning more to the women, though. I'm no expert on this stuff, though, so...

Most people would erroneously think that there is only masculine and feminine. If you are not masculine, you therefore must be feminine.

That negatively impacts men, sure, but it comes out of a hatred of femininity, and thus misogyny.

I'm seeing the logic, but since it does negatively impact men, the fact that the byproduct of patriarchy can be negative towards men is still an issue, right? I just wanna make sure

Ultimately though, I think you're only looking at the obvious and initial effect rather than the core of the problem.

The core of the problem is misogyny. But that doesn't negate the effects it has on men, and we win nothing by denying proper support and care to victims of abuse, male or female.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

Hm... I think I see where you're coming from with that. It's not disliking them for being men, after all; it's because they're acting like what they consider to be womanly. Right.

Yep.

The way the social norm of a gender binary is set up, men who "act like women" are "not real men" and they should be punished for the deviation. Women who "act like men" are also not real women and should also be punished for it. The problem is that the "woman" role in our society is far more restrictive than the "man" role, and that's because the "man" role tends to be defined as "not like the woman" where the "woman" role is defined by a whole host of restrictions on their agency.

I see.
/Learning tonight.

[Natapoc]

The universe where we're capable of looking into the source of the matter?

What source is that. I'd remind you feminist theory is an entirely unsupported string of claims based off an unproven premise.

What premise would that be? The Premise that men and women should have equal rights and power and be treated equally under the law? Yes I suppose that's not the kind of thing that can be proven.

It's an statement based on the idea that people should all have equal value and rights, Luckily it's not one most people disagree with at it's core unless you call it feminism.

[Oceanic Vakiadia]

This is beyond ridiculous. This is why I was an MRA for a few months. This is why the word "feminist" has been poisoned. Nonsense like what is being spouted here.

Can you just accept the men can be victims of sexism too, and NOT because of some conspiracy against women?

[Ostroeuropa]

I still have abso fucking lutely no idea where you are getting the idea this was set up to oppress women and just-so-happens to effect men.
Like I said, if you seem to be denying someone consciously set it up this way to fuck over women, then you have to judge it based on who it effects.
Sans a motive, all we have is this domestic violence institution routinely fucking over men.
Not women.

Ostro you might want to take a step back from the debate, because you're letting your emotions get involved. Take a breather, and think about it, because you've said a few out-of-character things.

As for the patriarchy, it's set up in a way for those in power to control the behaviour of those below it. It does this by creating gender roles, and then punishing people for stepping out of it. It does this by fostering a divide between the genders, and by creating animosity towards women. It does a hell of a lot more things, but these are the relevant ones.

The question is not who does it effect. The question is, who is in power, and what are their motives? Because it is not women in power, trying to make life a living hell for men. It is a group of upper-class, white, cis-gendered men who are intent on preserving their power in life. It's based on self-preservation, as many things human are. If they perpetuate the idea that men are big and strong, and women weak and submissive, then suddenly they've created a difference (where there is little to being with) and a power-dynamic between the groups. They've also created a situation where victims of domestic violence are either normal (if they're male victimizing a female, or nonexistent if they're a female victimizing a male). Are you following this so far?

Given that they are the ones who made gender relevant in your opinion, why is their gender relevant to the discussion.
Do you honestly think they set things up to benefit anyone other than themselves?
Ofcourse not. So systematically oppressing males for not fulfilling their standards IS part of the goal JUST as much as systematically oppressing females for not fulfilling their standards is.
They want men expendable and obedient, and women chaste (except with them) and silent.
Just because they are men too doesn't mean fucking jack shit. It's still them oppressing us.
The entire feminist argument is as insane as saying "Well it turns out hitler was ethnically jewish. GUESS HE WASNT AN ANTI SEMITE."

[Ostroeuropa]

What source is that. I'd remind you feminist theory is an entirely unsupported string of claims based off an unproven premise.

What premise would that be? The Premise that men and women should have equal rights and power and be treated equally under the law? Yes I suppose that's not the kind of thing that can be proven.

It's an statement based on the idea that people should all have equal value and rights, Luckily it's not one most people disagree with at it's core unless you call it feminism.

Patriarchy theory.

[Sailsia]

That must be why those pansy male prisoners get harsher prison sentences than women.

It is to do with why male prisoners get harsher sentences. Because they're viewed as fully adult, strong, etc, and thus fully culpable, whereas a female is considered either less adult, weak, or simply unable to do anything other than bear children.

Under this token, you could say that society is misandrist because it treats men so harshly. Who would most people rather be, after all, a mother baking pies, or a soldier dying in a trench?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Most people would erroneously think that there is only masculine and feminine. If you are not masculine, you therefore must be feminine.

That negatively impacts men, sure, but it comes out of a hatred of femininity, and thus misogyny.

I'm seeing the logic, but since it does negatively impact men, the fact that the byproduct of patriarchy can be negative towards men is still an issue, right? I just wanna make sure

Absolutely! It's a huge problem, and one that needs solving.

I'm just saying that bitching about feminism, which is the organization dedicated to solving that very problem, is counter productive.

[The Steel Magnolia]

This is beyond ridiculous. This is why I was an MRA for a few months. This is why the word "feminist" has been poisoned. Nonsense like what is being spouted here.

Can you just accept the men can be victims of sexism too, and NOT because of some conspiracy against women?

They are and can be victims of sexism.

The usual talking points are examples of misogyny, however.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm seeing the logic, but since it does negatively impact men, the fact that the byproduct of patriarchy can be negative towards men is still an issue, right? I just wanna make sure

Absolutely! It's a huge problem, and one that needs solving.

I'm just saying that bitching about feminism, which is the organization dedicated to solving that very problem, is counter productive.

So fucking dedicated they are that none of their websites address the issue and regularly campaign for shit like "End violence against women." which i've already been over in this thread as one of the most sexist campaign slogans possible.

/Shut up mens, we're dealing with the sexism you face.
/GIVE US OUR FUCKING MONEY OMG MONEYNMONEYMONEYMONEY
/oh my god arey ou still talking about that rape thing and domestic violence? We're ON it, jeez guys.
/MONEY MONEY MONEY PAY GAP MONEY MONEY MONEY

[The Steel Magnolia]

It is to do with why male prisoners get harsher sentences. Because they're viewed as fully adult, strong, etc, and thus fully culpable, whereas a female is considered either less adult, weak, or simply unable to do anything other than bear children.

Under this token, you could say that society is misandrist because it treats men so harshly. Who would most people rather be, after all, a mother baking pies, or a soldier dying in a trench?

Neither, because we're fucking equal.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Absolutely! It's a huge problem, and one that needs solving.

I'm just saying that bitching about feminism, which is the organization dedicated to solving that very problem, is counter productive.

So fucking dedicated they are that none of their websites address the issue and regularly campaign for shit like "End violence against women." which i've already been over in this thread as one of the most sexist campaign slogans possible.

I mean it's not like they were the ones to campaign against sexist rape definitions while MRAs sat on their asses and bitched about getting friendzoned by women who wouldn't fuck them.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This is beyond ridiculous. This is why I was an MRA for a few months. This is why the word "feminist" has been poisoned. Nonsense like what is being spouted here.

Can you just accept the men can be victims of sexism too, and NOT because of some conspiracy against women?

Sexism does happen to men as well, we are less protected under the law than women are.

However, it is because of old laws, not feminist laws, which have strived to be more egalitarian than what you give them credit for.

Now, crazy feminists? Yes! Definitely, fuck them and their fucking discrimination towards men. However, feminism (the feminism I know and respect) is pretty much against this particular brand of feminism.