It's called rubberneckin', baby.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Defending an anti-feminist friend

I'm an anti-feminist

Great.

I've yet to see any kind of acknowledgement that women are the source of modern gender problems from the feminist movement. Which makes their entire shenanigan just one long, drawn out, harrassment of males.

I want feminists in the feminine or transmasculine sides of the gender spectrum to argue with you on this.

I'm truly not to bother convincing you patriarchy is out there for the benefit of the male members of upper classes who inherited their class situation from historical narratives of power and exploitation and men still benefit more from it at large because you are too deep that rabbit hole and nothing I say will work.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

For the record, about every single feminist post I do on Facebook gets commented and debated by an anti-feminist friend, and we can almost always reach some form of agreement, but then we're both Brazilian and face similar realities.

Perhaps a British feminist would do better at debating your opposition.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm an anti-feminist

Great.

I've yet to see any kind of acknowledgement that women are the source of modern gender problems from the feminist movement. Which makes their entire shenanigan just one long, drawn out, harrassment of males.

I want feminists in the feminine or transmasculine sides of the gender spectrum to argue with you on this.

I'm truly not to bother convincing you patriarchy is out there for the benefit of the male members of upper classes who inherited their class situation from historical narratives of power and exploitation and men still benefit more from it at large because you are too deep that rabbit hole and nothing I say will work.

So basically you don't actually have an argument as to why the feminist lens isn't incredibly fucking blind to the problems of males and the way females help perpetuate the gender system.
It's a self-entitlement revenge fueled ideology propped up by a lens that requires accepting the conclusion as your premise, and engages in cult like behaviours that victimize already victimized males, and perpetuate the women = victim, men = perpetrator narrative present in society.
It's patriarchy in drag, and it's adherents should be ashamed of themselves.

That's why you can't convince me of your bullshit. Because you don't have that argument.
You may as well be religious for gods sake. You're demanding I let jeebus into my heart because i'm too far gone down the "Evidence please" rabbit hole.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

So basically you don't actually have an argument as to why the feminist lens isn't incredibly fucking blind to the problems of males and the way females help perpetuate the gender system.
It's a self-entitlement revenge fueled ideology propped up by a lens that requires accepting the conclusion as your premise, and engages in cult like behaviours that victimize already victimized males, and perpetuate the women = victim, men = perpetrator narrative present in society.
It's patriarchy in drag, and it's adherents should be ashamed of themselves.

1. I do have, but my discourse would be feminist, and this would enter an eternal rotation cycle. Got better things to do with my life.
2. This criticism doesn't apply to feminism at large, much less the tumblerite 4th wave I'm used to.
3. I derp good at your posts good, they have arguments I totally have no reaction to because they're based on opinions I don't see as materially real in my experiencing of society.
4. This is totally not my cultural reality.
5. I don't think people bash sexual and gender minorities in a misandrist light, for example, except the worst radfems about non-lesbians... I don't see anything really meaningful from saying feminism is pro-patriarchy. This seems like a conspiracy theory at best.

[Ostroeuropa]

For the record, about every single feminist post I do on Facebook gets commented and debated by an anti-feminist friend, and we can almost always reach some form of agreement, but then we're both Brazilian and face similar realities.

Perhaps a British feminist would do better at debating your opposition.

I doubt it. The anglo-feminists are the most rabid of the lot.
Which isn't a coincidence. As the wealth of the country increases, and the political freedom of corporations and institutions increases, the more of a vested interest the feminist establishments have in perpetuating the status quo and terrifying the shit into females, and shaming males.
It's their bread and butter.
Couple that with the fact that feminism serves the governments agendas and you end up with feminism becoming more and more extreme and cultish the richer a society gets.

You need to expel a person from the party because they wont adhere to the party line?
Are they male?
Gender quota time. Oops. Lost your seat, sorry. We need more women. mmmm....you there miss, the one with none of your own opinions who will just do whatever the fuck I say, wanna be a politician?
Oh god, a woman with opinions. Better make this one a fair election.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

That's why you can't convince me of your bullshit. Because you don't have that argument.

I'm not trying because I'm not interested.

You more than anyone convinces me feminism is not and should not be about men.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's why you can't convince me of your bullshit. Because you don't have that argument.

I'm not trying because I'm not interested.

You more than anyone convinces me feminism is not and should not be about men.

What do you mean by that

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

What do you mean by that

Feminism isn't about ending sexism. It's about ending misogyny.

Misandry is an inherently different and fundamentally new issue. It can't be made obvious through traditional sociologist theory on Western societies.

We need a wholly new literature and analyzing of reality for a masculism that is serious, anti-sexist, non-essentialistic and anti-binarist.

I'm sure there's logic in what you say, but most of your discourse sounds like Aramaic to me.

[Ostroeuropa]

What do you mean by that

Feminism isn't about ending sexism. It's about ending misogyny.

Misandry is an inherently different and fundamentally new issue. It can't be made obvious through traditional sociologist theory on Western societies.

We need a wholly new literature and analyzing of reality for a masculism that is serious, anti-sexist, non-essentialistic and anti-binarist.

I'm sure there's logic in what you say, but most of your discourse sounds like Aramaic to me.

Well, ok. I can appreciate that view at least.
Two movements counterbalancing eachother might be acceptable in the short term. But the problem is, feminists won't allow it. So we're back to square one where the only way forward is to destroy or diminish feminisms hold and institutional power in order to allow a second movement to arise.

[Aurora Novus]

What do you mean by that

Feminism isn't about ending sexism. It's about ending misogyny.

While I agree with you that that is the true aim of Feminism (as it is female focused), many Feminists don't like that being pointed out, and still try and play lip-service to the idea that Feminism is about ending ALL sexism, and consequently, attack individuals who don't turn to Feminism (which generally isn't focused on issues affecting men, sometimes going so far as to outright dismissing they even exist) when it comes to issues regarding men.

Such behavior on the part of Feminists can make one understandably bitter towards the movement.

[Ostroeuropa]

Feminism isn't about ending sexism. It's about ending misogyny.

While I agree with you that that is the true aim of Feminism (as it is female focused), many Feminists don't like that being pointed out, and still try and play lip-service to the idea that Feminism is about ending ALL sexism, and consequently, attack individuals who don't turn to Feminism (which generally isn't focused on issues affecting men, sometimes going so far as to outright dismissing they even exist) when it comes to issues regarding men.

Such behavior on the part of Feminists can make one understandably bitter towards the movement.

And, in fact, makes it's adherents enemies of people who wish to end sexism. It makes it a female supremacy movement, since if only misogyny is ended, but the movement nonetheless quashes attempts to end misandry, that is akin to female supremacism.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Two movements counterbalancing eachother might be acceptable in the short term.

The right name is cooperation. Basically the entirety of feminism says patriarchy is inherently a structure that is there to oppress them right now, and a fringe minority of radical feminists, not even too loud within radfems themselves, denies that it has misandrist discourses and consequences (/according to us/ they're only relevant intersectionally though, as they aren't used to oppress men at large without other oppressions being concomitant; certainly not in my society, where feminism was never exactly popular, and we only became a liberal democracy some 29 years ago).

But the problem is, feminists won't allow it.

They can't exactly prevent it.

It's a natural consequence of when you equate feminism with women's movements.

There was and there is and there will be a men's movement. We just need intellectual focus on it that is not anti-feminist. We can't make MRAs seem like they're the most visible attempts of seriously contemplate our society and culture.

The best place for it to arise is from transmasculine and non-binarily masculine people like me (and you...?), since anti-revolutionary attitudes in cis guy-dominated spaces when it comes to feminism are prevalent even in anarchist and communist circles.

[Arglorand]

I try to take this topic at face value, but I can't help but feel that given your posting history this is just you taking an opportunity to dick on feminism.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

And, in fact, makes it's adherents enemies of people who wish to end sexism. It makes it a female supremacy movement, since if only misogyny is ended, but the movement nonetheless quashes attempts to end misandry, that is akin to female supremacism.

Not exactly.

4th wave feminism contemplates that as an issue of "social justice needs to be done by those who suffer the oppression being fought in such discourse/activism first and foremost".

If men are truly oppressed for being men, such a movement will naturally arise. There are a few non-MRA masculists but they're mostly from foreign countries where there is huge equality between sexes in law, media, education and public institutions, and a relatively wider impact of feminism on society and culture.

In societies where male protagonism is still the naturalized role in most of conceptions of human beings and citizens like mine, and where feminism is a less impacting phenomenon, this is very far to be attained. Furthermore, people are less educated and more conservative.

[Alexanda]

How stupid.

[Aurora Novus]

I try to take this topic at face value, but I can't help but feel that given your posting history this is just you taking an opportunity to dick on feminism.

Not sure if you're talking about Ostro or me...

[Arglorand]

I try to take this topic at face value, but I can't help but feel that given your posting history this is just you taking an opportunity to dick on feminism.

Not sure if you're talking about Ostro or me...

Neither. I'm talking about the OP.

[Trollzilla]

I do not speak Portuguese either. I am not sure how to explain it. But as you say, it does not refer to opposite sex.


Since I am not sure which post you were referring to I can only hope I responding to the right one.

The one where you explain about a friend of yours who wanted to become a woman in order to understand them.

And Portuguese got no insult like 'creep'. It is generally translated to terms that really convey as their true notions 'pervert', 'asshole', 'moron' or similar ones depending on context.

ah I see. Well that is why we dissuaded him because he did not really understand these thing. He thought there was just male and female. He did not understand that is a spectrum. Honestly, I'm still not sure he really understands it after we explained it to him.

Using those words in their proper context shouldn't really be a problem as long as you are not just using them on gender of course.

If a guy is an asshole then he is an asshole.
If a woman is acting like a pervert then she is a pervert. It does not matter what is between her legs.

What is between our legs does not define us.

[Trollzilla]

We never ever hear the word "creep" used to refer to women who stare. It is only used for guys who stare. That is what makes it a slur.

...I've heard it used against women. But that's besides the point. Women haven't paraded through their neighborhood wearing ghost costumes lynching men yet. It's disingenuous to compare it with the word "nigger."

How would you know about that? Were you ever a member of the Klan?

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Using those words in their proper context shouldn't really be a problem as long as you are not just using them on gender of course.

If a guy is an asshole then he is an asshole.
If a woman is acting like a pervert then she is a pervert. It does not matter what is between her legs.

What is between our legs does not define us.

Yeah, my language got no gendered slurs besides the ones targeting lesbians. (Yes, using anti-gay slurs to people, animals and things we go by the with feminine pronouns is a thing.)

[Forsher]

The use of rape was, to my mind, inappropriate but staring at people is still wrong. Apologies if this is somewhat repetitive as I've only read a handful of pages towards the end.

Before I you go on to say "its wrong for men to stare..." what about ads with half naked models of both sexes? Do we avert our eyes?

Looking does not necessarily mean staring. There's a fundamental difference between watching an arse (whether male or female) wander away from oneself for a prolonged period of time and a brief glance. Both are probably wrong but it's the former that the woman in the picture is interested in and that's because it is definitely wrong. Not equivalent to rape in my eyes, but still wrong.

Because "creep" has been used to oppress men for centuries.

As for a woman being a creep, sure, there can be a female creep, if she spends her time in the garden watching a man shower from binoculars hiding behind a bush.

I think any reasonable person can see that "creep" is not in any way meaningfully similar to "nigger" (although I think most uses prior to the modern period, as opposed to early modern of "nigger" would be more akin to our understanding of black... certainly this is the impression Oxford gives me with its first example of a specifically negative connotation being from 1775).*

I don't think that this was really their point.** What Trollzilla was saying is that the word is applied only to males... not that women cannot be creeps or creepy. These two things are probably related and do, in my view, tie in with our traditional understandings of gender roles. When a man stares at a woman's arse (using my example from before) it fits in with a narrative of an active, sexual male. Naturally this doesn't really apply with women so the behaviour is more likely to be interpreted as non-creepy (innocent even).

*This makes sense, historically it was slavery first and racism second.

**Of course, I may just be reading it in a way that makes it lead much more clearly into the below.

We never ever hear the word "creep" used to refer to women who stare. It is only used for guys who stare. That is what makes it a slur.

...I've heard it used against women. But that's besides the point. Women haven't paraded through their neighborhood wearing ghost costumes lynching men yet. It's disingenuous to compare it with the word "nigger."

I cannot recall having heard "creep" applied to women but it probably happens. After all, you can be called a creep/creepy for replying to people on NSG so the triggers are very low. It's a bit similar to slut in that it is primarily directed at one gender. The difference being that creepy behaviours tend to be closer to objectively wrong (promiscuity is a neutral trait).

I'm an anti-feminist

Great.

This is called quote mining. There is a difference in meaning between what you quoted and what Ostro actually said when you removed it from its correct context.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

This is called quote mining. There is a difference in meaning between what you quoted and what Ostro actually said when you removed it from its correct context.

I meant I wasn't calling him an MRA. When I said anti-feminist, I meant him.

[Ostroeuropa]

Two movements counterbalancing eachother might be acceptable in the short term.

The right name is cooperation. Basically the entirety of feminism says patriarchy is inherently a structure that is there to oppress them right now, and a fringe minority of radical feminists, not even too loud within radfems themselves, denies that it has misandrist discourses and consequences (/according to us/ they're only relevant intersectionally though, as they aren't used to oppress men at large without other oppressions being concomitant; certainly not in my society, where feminism was never exactly popular, and we only became a liberal democracy some 29 years ago).

But the problem is, feminists won't allow it.

They can't exactly prevent it.

It's a natural consequence of when you equate feminism with women's movements.

There was and there is and there will be a men's movement. We just need intellectual focus on it that is not anti-feminist. We can't make MRAs seem like they're the most visible attempts of seriously contemplate our society and culture.

The best place for it to arise is from transmasculine and non-binarily masculine people like me (and you...?), since anti-revolutionary attitudes in cis guy-dominated spaces when it comes to feminism are prevalent even in anarchist and communist circles.

Yes, they can prevent it. Havn't you seen them preventing it?
They have institutional power to prevent word getting out, and will utilize their credibility to smear any pro-male groups with bullshit.
Whereas the first feminists had recourse to end this exact same thing being done to them by the government (They started injuring themselves and killing themselves, or starving themselves etc, which forced the state to intervene in their favor and accept feminism)
Men have no such recourse.
We can't up and decide to kill ourselves or martyr ourselves for mens rights, because nobody would care. We're only males dying, that's par for the course.
The only time males get redress for their grievances is either when an open debate occurs, or, when they are being censored, when they turn to violence and kill their censors and overthrow the government, or cause enough havoc that the general public says
"What the fuck is going on!?" and looks up the grievances.
(Same as slaves, incidentally. More proof that the feminist narrative is fucking insane.)

So the feminist movement utilized sexist attitudes in order to get noticed and accepted.
And is now abusing those same sexist attitudes to prevent competition.
Personally, i'd advocate that if any males rights persons get so sick of all this that they want to commit suicide (As some have.) that they do it in the lobby room of feminist organizations.
Go right in, smile at the secretary, and shoot yourself in the face right in front of them.
At least that might finally get them to understand exactly what kind of despicable shits they are being by consistently silencing and oppressing people who are victims of domestic violence and rape. The shocking nature of it might just be enough to get over the hump of "Nobody cares, a male killed himself. boo hoo." Merely martyring yourself wont actually do any good, because nobody cares.
You have to make them care by doing it as publically and as shockingly as possible.

The alternative is to resort to violence. Which I absolutely refuse to do, and condemn strongly, though i'd understand if say, a prison rape victim decided to go out and kill the Justice minister. It'd be understandable, if not exactly the image i'd want for the anti-sexist movement.

Women are in a position where there problems are taken seriously. They do not need to resort to extreme methods. Males? Well, they might have to.
Its how the feminists got accepted after all. Merely complaining about it didn't do them jack. They had to start killing themselves and such. Otherwise the government (Like the feminists are doing to the MRA) would just keep doing smear campaigns and ignoring them, belittling them, etc.

I don't like that fact, but there it is.
Either the feminists stop doing this, or people will have to die. One way or another. Hopefully by the suicide methods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davison

We keep asking them to stop doing it, but they wont. So what recourse is left to males exactly in order to move forward.
And make no mistake, people will die from this. We've already had a few well known suicides from male domestic violence victims despairing at their situation.
Advocating they move those suicides out of their garages where they serve no purpose, and into the lobbies of feminist instiutions, is probably acceptable, if a little underhanded.

It might get some of the feminists to realize what utter hypocrits they are if a bunch of male rights persons shackled themselves in front of feminist magazine buildings and in their lobbies and such to hunger strike.
Who wants to bet they'd have the police remove them.
Wouldn't that be just precious.

[Trollzilla]

...being an MRA isn't in my interests?

Defending an anti-feminist friend would be, but surely not saying people do feminism wrong when I don't really understand their message.

I'm not an MRA. I'm an anti-feminist gender abolitionist. Trust me, I give the MRA a load of shit too. Albeit more politely. I've yet to see any kind of acknowledgement that women are the source of modern gender problems from the feminist movement. Which makes their entire shenanigan just one long, drawn out, harrassment of males.

Hmmm. Well..... I am afraid I must disagree with you there. Women are not the primary source of modern gender problems. I do not know where you get that idea from. But neither are men totally.

Our gender problems are the result of thousands of years of biased patriarchy that was often enforced at the point of a gun because no one wanted discuss these things peacefully. No one wanted to understand anything but their own perspectives.

Today we, the human race, have evolved beyond that but we still carry the scars from our history and that history shows in the frictions we see in this thread. The history that causes men to be socialized to act a certain and women to act a certain way and how they are supposed to interact with each other.

It can be difficult for a woman to know that you don't intend to harm her but it is also difficult for a guy to know that a woman might threatened by his gestures.

You see a wrong, they see a wrong. Everyone sees a wrong. The real problem is not which side is wrong. The real problem is that the wrong will never be addressed as long as we talk past each other. And I have seen some of that in this very thread.

I would suggest that some of you might want to exchange shoes for a while to see it how it feels and looks from the other side of the coin.

To say that one side is right and the other is wrong would be not be logical if both are responsible and both are products of both history and cultural up bringing.

[Trollzilla]

With the kind of stuff like this, I believe the oppression of male persons will happen in the next 20 years and will be treated like second-class citizens. Don't let the Matriarchy take over.

actually that is unlikely.