Feminists sabotage yet another talk on men's equality

[Sailsia]

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.

It isn't doing very well. By your own accounts, the Patriarchy is still all pervasive. What progress has the Third Wave made?

[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?

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.

Anti-egalitarian feminists are no feminists at all.

[New England and The Maritimes]

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.

Anti-egalitarian feminists are no feminists at all.

We can just skip the bullshit and refer to them as "FRAs".

[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.

It isn't doing very well. By your own accounts, the Patriarchy is still all pervasive. What progress has the Third Wave made?

Murder is still all pervasive, what progress have murder laws made?

Seriously. Think before you post.

[Tennliness]

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.

Well, that much I definitely agree with

[The Steel Magnolia]

Anti-egalitarian feminists are no feminists at all.

We can just skip the bullshit and refer to them as "FRAs".

Feminists who are sexist against men are unworthy of the label. They are a shame to the movement, and we should all reject them because of it. Same with the transphobes, same with the radfems.

[Sailsia]

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.

I'm referring to the theoretical patriarchy. You claim the scales are tipped against women, I say they're tipped against men as well as against women, and that feminism cannot actually create equality because it doesn't recognize that the scales are tipped against men as well.

[Ostroeuropa]

We can just skip the bullshit and refer to them as "FRAs".

Feminists who are sexist against men are unworthy of the label. They are a shame to the movement, and we should all reject them because of it. Same with the transphobes, same with the radfems.

Like i've argued before, from my perspective it's impossible to identify as a feminist and believe in feminist theory without being a sexist toward both genders.

Neither, because we're fucking equal.

I'm referring to the theoretical patriarchy. You claim the scales are tipped against women, I say they're tipped against men as well as against women, and that feminism cannot actually create equality because it doesn't recognize that the scales are tipped against men as well.

This.

[Sailsia]

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.

Anti-egalitarian feminists are no feminists at all.

Just like how Trotsky was no communist according to Stalin? Your entire argument rests on perspective.

[Natapoc]

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.

The existence of patriarchy is well documented.

For example, one aspect of patriarchy is "a society ruled by men".


Out of 44 presidents ZERO have been women and all 44 have been men, 100% of presidents in the united states have been male.

Only 20 out of 100 senators are women: The highest number of women in history. At 80% men are making the rules.

The house has 79 women (another record number, thanks to feminism) but still that only comes out to 17.7% of all seats held by women. Giving men more than 80% of the rule making power of the house.

Outside of politics there are others who make the rules: About 3% of the CEO's of publicly traded companies are female (The highest percent in history). So 97% of publicly traded companies are ruled by men (Again men are making the rules and doing the ruling)

Another group involved in ruling is police officers. Only 13% of law enforcement positions are held by women.

That number drops further when you consider women in supervisory roles within law enforcement at 7%..

Do you want more numbers to show that men, as a class are doing the ruling? These numbers alone should be sufficient to prove patriarchy.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Neither, because we're fucking equal.

I'm referring to the theoretical patriarchy. You claim the scales are tipped against women, I say they're tipped against men as well as against women, and that feminism cannot actually create equality because it doesn't recognize that the scales are tipped against men as well.

Besides the fact that you know it does.

Men are privileged in society. That is a fact. There are certain disadvantages they faces because of the patriarchy, yes, but it is inevitably rooted in misogyny when referring to a systematic or institutionalized level.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Anti-egalitarian feminists are no feminists at all.

Just like how Trotsky was no communist according to Stalin? Your entire argument rests on perspective.

Go check the first page of the thread and get back to me about the no true scotsman fallacy.

[Ostroeuropa]

Patriarchy theory.

The existence of patriarchy is well documented.

For example, one aspect of patriarchy is "a society ruled by men".


Out of 44 presidents ZERO have been women and all 44 have been men, 100% of presidents in the united states have been male.

Only 20 out of 100 senators are women: The highest number of women in history. At 80% men are making the rules.

The house has 79 women (another record number, thanks to feminism) but still that only comes out to 17.7% of all seats held by women. Giving men more than 80% of the rule making power of the house.

Outside of politics there are others who make the rules: About 3% of the CEO's of publicly traded companies are female (The highest percent in history). So 97% of publicly traded companies are ruled by men (Again men are making the rules and doing the ruling)

Another group involved in ruling is police officers. Only 13% of law enforcement positions are held by women.

That number drops further when you consider women in supervisory roles within law enforcement at 7%..

Do you want more numbers to show that men, as a class are doing the ruling? These numbers alone should be sufficient to prove patriarchy.

I can just as easily demonstrate that people with hair are dominating society. It wouldn't mean that theres a systematic oppression of bald people. That society is run by people with hair and by men is somewhat a given.
That doesn't address patriarchy theory, you've just defined one part of it, not addressed or sourced it's actual argument.

[Sailsia]

It isn't doing very well. By your own accounts, the Patriarchy is still all pervasive. What progress has the Third Wave made?

Murder is still all pervasive, what progress have murder laws made?

Seriously. Think before you post.

No, but your ideology is entirely focused on eliminating the patriarchy. So are you saying its a goal that is impossible to accomplish?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Anti-egalitarian feminists are no feminists at all.

Just like how Trotsky was no communist according to Stalin? Your entire argument rests on perspective.

No, it's because scholar feminism and just "run-of-the-mill" feminism are different.

One is a very coherent field which advocates egalitarianism and equal rights for both men and women, the other one is something any dumbfuck Female Right Advocate (to use the new definition provided) picked up and uses it now to bash men.

I don't need to say which one is which.

[Ostroeuropa]

Also, considering feminists are routinely flipping back and forth between
"We'll address your issues too!"
and
"IT'S A WOMENS RIGHTS MOVEMENT WE DONT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT!"
often from the same poster, how the fuck am I supposed to take anything you say seriously.
Maybe before complaining that people don't understand feminism you should get together and actually make a coherent and cohesive platform or something.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Murder is still all pervasive, what progress have murder laws made?

Seriously. Think before you post.

No, but your ideology is entirely focused on eliminating the patriarchy. So are you saying its a goal that is impossible to accomplish?

I don't know.

Probably not, if I'm honest - I'm nothing if not a moderate and a realist. That does not mean, however, it's not a goal worth fighting for.

Every piece of resistance, every time I stand in the face of people like TJ and Ostro, every time I assert my value and my agency, every time I defy all of those who would see me dead and devalued - every time I fight for my rights, every time I fight for equality.

I will always do this. Every action of mine is political, my very being is defiant, and it will remain so until I die.

The least I can do is try my hardest to ease the burden on everyone else.

[Freelanderness]

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?

Not necessarily, because misandry would imply a hatred of men. Institutionalised sexism, is what you're looking for, I believe.

[New England and The Maritimes]

No, but your ideology is entirely focused on eliminating the patriarchy. So are you saying its a goal that is impossible to accomplish?

I don't know.

Probably not, if I'm honest - I'm nothing if not a moderate and a realist. That does not mean, however, it's not a goal worth fighting for.

Every piece of resistance, every time I stand in the face of people like TJ and Ostro, every time I assert my value and my agency, every time I defy all of those who would see me dead and devalued - every time I fight for my rights, every time I fight for equality.

I will always do this. Every action of mine is political, my very being is defiant, and it will remain so until I die.

The least I can do is try my hardest to ease the burden on everyone else.

I don't think you're a moderate when you're fighting back. There's no middle ground to be had. It's all or nothing, and we need to fight to the death for the ultimate end goal of a free society.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, but your ideology is entirely focused on eliminating the patriarchy. So are you saying its a goal that is impossible to accomplish?

I don't know.

Probably not, if I'm honest - I'm nothing if not a moderate and a realist. That does not mean, however, it's not a goal worth fighting for.

Every piece of resistance, every time I stand in the face of people like TJ and Ostro, every time I assert my value and my agency, every time I defy all of those who would see me dead and devalued - every time I fight for my rights, every time I fight for equality.

I will always do this. Every action of mine is political, my very being is defiant, and it will remain so until I die.

The least I can do is try my hardest to ease the burden on everyone else.

I don't see at all how i'm denying you agency or equal rights by saying your ideology is bunk and you should just think people deserve equal rights.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, but your ideology is entirely focused on eliminating the patriarchy. So are you saying its a goal that is impossible to accomplish?

I don't know.

Probably not, if I'm honest - I'm nothing if not a moderate and a realist. That does not mean, however, it's not a goal worth fighting for.

Every piece of resistance, every time I stand in the face of people like TJ and Ostro, every time I assert my value and my agency, every time I defy all of those who would see me dead and devalued - every time I fight for my rights, every time I fight for equality.

I will always do this. Every action of mine is political, my very being is defiant, and it will remain so until I die.

The least I can do is try my hardest to ease the burden on everyone else.

Whoa, you are just... yea. So much this.

[Natapoc]

The existence of patriarchy is well documented.

For example, one aspect of patriarchy is "a society ruled by men".


Out of 44 presidents ZERO have been women and all 44 have been men, 100% of presidents in the united states have been male.

Only 20 out of 100 senators are women: The highest number of women in history. At 80% men are making the rules.

The house has 79 women (another record number, thanks to feminism) but still that only comes out to 17.7% of all seats held by women. Giving men more than 80% of the rule making power of the house.

Outside of politics there are others who make the rules: About 3% of the CEO's of publicly traded companies are female (The highest percent in history). So 97% of publicly traded companies are ruled by men (Again men are making the rules and doing the ruling)

Another group involved in ruling is police officers. Only 13% of law enforcement positions are held by women.

That number drops further when you consider women in supervisory roles within law enforcement at 7%..

Do you want more numbers to show that men, as a class are doing the ruling? These numbers alone should be sufficient to prove patriarchy.

I can just as easily demonstrate that people with hair are dominating society. It wouldn't mean that theres a systematic oppression of bald people.

If a little more than half of all people were bald and yet bald people held few if any positions of authority or power then yes it would mean that there exists systematic oppression against bald people.

[Sailsia]

I'm referring to the theoretical patriarchy. You claim the scales are tipped against women, I say they're tipped against men as well as against women, and that feminism cannot actually create equality because it doesn't recognize that the scales are tipped against men as well.

Besides the fact that you know it does.

Men are privileged in society. That is a fact. There are certain disadvantages they faces because of the patriarchy, yes, but it is inevitably rooted in misogyny when referring to a systematic or institutionalized level.

What is this institutionalized level? You believe in a conspiracy, very similar to that of those who believe in the NWO. Who are these patriarchs?

[The Steel Magnolia]

I don't know.

Probably not, if I'm honest - I'm nothing if not a moderate and a realist. That does not mean, however, it's not a goal worth fighting for.

Every piece of resistance, every time I stand in the face of people like TJ and Ostro, every time I assert my value and my agency, every time I defy all of those who would see me dead and devalued - every time I fight for my rights, every time I fight for equality.

I will always do this. Every action of mine is political, my very being is defiant, and it will remain so until I die.

The least I can do is try my hardest to ease the burden on everyone else.

I don't see at all how i'm denying you agency or equal rights by saying your ideology is bunk and you should just think people deserve equal rights.

You would not.

[Freelanderness]

Also, considering feminists are routinely flipping back and forth between
"We'll address your issues too!"
and
"IT'S A WOMENS RIGHTS MOVEMENT WE DONT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT!"
often from the same poster, how the fuck am I supposed to take anything you say seriously.
Maybe before complaining that people don't understand feminism you should get together and actually make a coherent and cohesive platform or something.

Or maybe we could recognise that diversity in opinion is natural and part of every movement?