It's called rubberneckin', baby.

[Arglorand]

I'm an anti-feminist gender abolitionist.

Is it such a terrible thing to like having a gender

i mean excuse me but i have loads of identities, gender among them, which i'm not just going to go and abolish, thank you very much.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

-snip-

Has it ever crossed your mind that 1. women don't have no magical duty to liberate men from society's idiocy in a movement that is about empowering them generally after they suffer gender violence? 2. you sound just like a radfem, blaming everybody who doesn't see the huge magnanimous bases and consequences of your ideology when 3. maybe the fact it is unpopular (and the fact that NSG has more masculists than radfems should be telling) is because you have a minority view that we people who are natally assigned male have it bad and hard out here? 4. maybe you should get to convince academia first if society doesn't pay attention to your activism, since it is hard for the average person or politician to refute science and say you are just having a temper tantrum, going mad with a conspiracy theory or is just overall ignorant? 5. cisgender heterosexual men have a significantly greater tendency to conservatism and rather lack in interest for liberating identity politics in general?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm an anti-feminist gender abolitionist.

Is it such a terrible thing to like having a gender

i mean excuse me but i have loads of identities, gender among them, which i'm not just going to go and abolish, thank you very much.

I'm sure the Japanese feel the same way about their blood type group.

[Arglorand]

maybe the fact it is unpopular (and the fact that NSG has more masculists than radfems should be telling) is because you have a minority view that we people who are natally assigned male have it bad and hard out here?

truth

the only time I find it difficult to be a male is when I'm on NSG, because everyone is suddenly convinced my rights are being violated when they are not.

[Arglorand]

Is it such a terrible thing to like having a gender

i mean excuse me but i have loads of identities, gender among them, which i'm not just going to go and abolish, thank you very much.

I'm sure the Japanese feel the same way about their blood type group.

I don't give a single shit what they think, thank you very much. I'm not sure how that's related anyway. I'm certainly not going to go kick them in the balls and order them to abolish their blood type.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I'm an anti-feminist gender abolitionist.

Is it such a terrible thing to like having a gender

i mean excuse me but i have loads of identities, gender among them, which i'm not just going to go and abolish, thank you very much.

Ostro's gender abolitionism is quite unorthodox to my experiences.

Most non-binary people will agree with me that trying to make cisgender people into agender people and equate our experiences, erasing those who are really non-binary out of a sorrow dysphoric fate when you are born into that ~1% of the population who goes by transgender out of a natural tendency for that, is by the very least appropriation. A very bad thing in any meaningful social justice movement in the 2010s.

[Trollzilla]

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.

That is not fair. Do you have a vendetta against women?

I happen to know a few female at birth politicians. I can assure they have solid opinions and that those are their own opinions. I have been trying to convince one to run for governor but she wants to focus on voter turnout instead.

But if she was governor, this state would get some much needed reforms.

[Ostroeuropa]

-snip-

Has it ever crossed your mind that 1. women don't have no magical duty to liberate men from society's idiocy in a movement that is about empowering them generally after they suffer gender violence? 2. you sound just like a radfem, blaming everybody who doesn't see the huge magnanimous bases and consequences of your ideology when 3. maybe the fact it is unpopular (and the fact that NSG has more masculists than radfems should be telling) is because you have a minority view that we people who are natally assigned male have it bad and hard out here? 4. maybe you should get to convince academia first if society doesn't pay attention to your activism, since it is hard for the average person or politician to refute science and say you are just having a temper tantrum, going mad with a conspiracy theory or is just overall ignorant? 5. cisgender heterosexual men have a significantly greater tendency to conservatism and rather lack in interest for liberating identity politics in general?

1. Indeed they don't. They do however have a duty not to continue to prevent that liberation.

2. Yes, I'm aware I sound like a radfem. I used to be one.

3. That's kind of the point yes. This is just stating the obvious. The same was true of first wave feminism.

4. Impossible. Gender study academia is a feminist institution. They must relinquish their iron grip on it first. Well, did that happen with the first wave? Were they just having a temper tantrum?

5. Yes. Because they are shamed, insulted, beaten, and overall coerced into accepting conservative values. That's kind of the entire point.

[Forsher]

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.

I disagree. I think feminism is, fundamentally, about ending sexism. I think the problem is that it assumes that there's one pattern of sexism (misogyny) and its perspective is ill suited to dealing with other patterns. However, I then agree that many feminists don't like (or, rather, take poorly) to pointing this out. This then leads into the post Ostro made despite its being chronologically before this one. (Notice the selective quoting which, I believe, doesn't fundamentally alter the meaning of what he wrote.)

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.

I think the reason why many feminists (certainly vocal ones in internet discussions) won't allow it stems from that unwillingness to confront that there are other patterns out there that feminism doesn't address and that other perspectives (beyond those that are currently sought/incorporated) are required. The challenge is, therefore, not to "destroy or diminish" feminism's social capital (if you will) but rather to attack these assumptions. I do think 'breaking' feminism could well end up with a situation where the replacement movements are weaker* summed than feminism is... in a place like the US this would be a serious issue.

I will now discuss the HetRio post that sparked these (what even is chronological order, right?).

*It's a bit like a natural monopoly. It's simply less efficient to have a group of smaller firms in terms of costs even though there are serious issues with just having the natural monopoly.

What do you mean by that

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

This is a viewpoint that I disagree with and, in my opinion, it's fundamentally incompatible with both the expressed views and underlying tones of numerous vocal feminists (at least in an NSG environment). Feminism certainly focusses on misogyny because it's the more pervasive social ill but that doesn't mean that it's not interested in misandry (instead I contend that it simply doesn't identify where these issues are due to failings of its perspective in that it quite possibly assumes misogyny is the one pattern but even if that wasn't so it's perspective is still wrong).

I would also move that feminism is also more defined in terms of a positive aim (establishing social equality) rather than the negative attempt to end this. While this sounds pedantic I believe they are meaningfully different ways of thinking. Again, though, this issue of perspective is apparent. As I have said many, many times, feminism approaches equality from a female perspective.

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

Misandry is not new (the word itself dates from at least the 1800s for instance). With regards to your other statement, theories like the patriarchy (although I dispute its usefulness to the extent of rejecting it) can certainly explain many aspects of misandry. Then there are also ideas like those in a friend's essay that I tried to convey here.

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

Nah, I think we just need what exists to be accepted as serious and, quite possibly, brought up in its own way (thus avoiding the bog standard "what about the menz" comments).

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.

This was not my point.

Ostro's explanation of his position in its full form has a distinct connotation to what you quoted "I'm an anti-feminist". The two words after that are important and while I don't know if Ostro cares too much about this, sooner or later you'll encounter someone who does or where such quoting would matter.

I'd stick around a bit more but the posts are getting too dense and/or long for my remaining waking time.

[Arglorand]

Personally, I suggest abolishing people being dicks to each other, and all these arguments can be laid to rest.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

That is not fair. Do you have a vendetta against women?

I happen to know a few female at birth politicians. I can assure they have solid opinions and that those are their own opinions. I have been trying to convince one to run for governor but she wants to focus on voter turnout instead.

But if she was governor, this state would get some much needed reforms.

Does your party use Gender Quotas?
If not, then your objection is absolutely pointless. I can assure you that parties that utilize gender quotas absolutely do use them to ensure the in-group ideology is maintained. Any time a woman agrees with them, they are used to supplant a male who disagrees. Any time a woman disagrees, she has to win on her own merits.

[Aurora Novus]

I'm an anti-feminist gender abolitionist.

Is it such a terrible thing to like having a gender

i mean excuse me but i have loads of identities, gender among them, which i'm not just going to go and abolish, thank you very much.

It's a rather silly and arbitrary thing to construct an identity around, and causes serious, and moveover, unecessary divisions amongst people. It complicates things in a harmful way.

Much like staking identity in one's "blood type", as was his point about that. It's a stupid idea, simply put. If gender is self-defined, it's meaingless. To stake one's identity in something that is literally meaningless is just silly. To try and construct a social order around that is, at best, dumb, and at worst, blatantly harmful. It'd be like constructing identities around hair or eye colour. It's inane and absurd.

[Trollzilla]

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).


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.

My friend, I used to work for the government and I can assure you there is no feminist conspiracy out there running things.

[Trollzilla]

That is not fair. Do you have a vendetta against women?

I happen to know a few female at birth politicians. I can assure they have solid opinions and that those are their own opinions. I have been trying to convince one to run for governor but she wants to focus on voter turnout instead.

But if she was governor, this state would get some much needed reforms.

Does your party use Gender Quotas?
If not, then your objection is absolutely pointless. I can assure you that parties that utilize gender quotas absolutely do use them to ensure the in-group ideology is maintained. Any time a woman agrees with them, they are used to supplant a male who disagrees. Any time a woman disagrees, she has to win on her own merits.

political parties in the US do not use gender quotas. They are open to all interested US citizens.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Personally, I suggest abolishing people being dicks to each other, and all these arguments can be laid to rest.

That's 50% of the reason I'm [even if loosely] anarchist communist again.

Fairly sure the only reasonable way for the patriarchy to vanish is a revolution that effectively erases about all power structures.

While it doesn't happen, we will continue to have people killing each other or themselves for silly reasons like gender and sexuality for some time.

It's a rather silly and arbitrary thing to construct an identity around, and causes serious, and moveover, unecessary divisions amongst people. It complicates things in a harmful way.

Much like staking identity in one's "blood type", as was his point about that. It's a stupid idea, simply put. If gender is self-defined, it's meaingless. To stake one's identity in something that is literally meaningless is just silly. To try and construct a social order around that is, at best, dumb, and at worst, blatantly harmful. It'd be like constructing identities around hair or eye colour. It's inane and absurd.

That's part of the reason one can't deny transgender people's genders. We are given these assignments based around irrelevant trivia about our bodies (mainly the size of our phallus and appearance of surrounding region and nothing more) and then are forced to follow a very concrete insane road of social order roles that only does erasing our real existence and objective experiences of being who we are.

If it is subjective to you, no problem, but don't say it applies to everybody.

[Ostroeuropa]

Does your party use Gender Quotas?
If not, then your objection is absolutely pointless. I can assure you that parties that utilize gender quotas absolutely do use them to ensure the in-group ideology is maintained. Any time a woman agrees with them, they are used to supplant a male who disagrees. Any time a woman disagrees, she has to win on her own merits.

political parties in the US do not use gender quotas. They are open to all interested US citizens.

In the UK, my party (The labour party) uses gender quotas.

[Arglorand]

Personally, I suggest abolishing people being dicks to each other, and all these arguments can be laid to rest.

That's 50% of the reason I'm [even if loosely] anarchist communist again.

Fairly sure the only reasonable way for the patriarchy to vanish is a revolution that effectively erases about all power structures.

While it doesn't happen, we will continue to have people killing each other or themselves for silly reasons like gender and sexuality for some time.

Unless revolutions kill everyone (like, statistically literally everyone), people don't suddenly become nicer.

A revolution can only erase power structures. It can't erase what people have in their minds. Like, it just physically doesn't happen. The patriarchal nature of society is not a power structure. It's a mindset.

Only time, logic and reason can eliminate mindsets.

[Aurora Novus]

That's part of the reason one can't deny transgender people's genders.

It's the absurdity of gender that is the very reason why I reject transgender people's genders, as I do with all genders. The concept of gender itself is nonsensical to me. If you base it upon physical appearance, it's flawed, because personality traits (which is what we're really talking about when we discuss gender) are not limited or unique in any way to any particular sex. But if you determine gender is self-defined, you make gender become literally, linguistically absurd. Because two people, with opposing traits, could both say they are of the same gender and be completely valid in saying so. It renders the statement "I am X gender" into literally being only equivocable to "I am me". It tells us nothing about you. Your gender becomes literally meaningless, because it lacks explanatory power.

Better to do away with the whole concept altogether. Just see people for what they are. Unique individuals with their own unique sets of personality traits. There's no need to form groups based upon the concept of gender. It's an antiquated way of looking at people. Just like blood type groupism.

[Alexanda]

Staring at people in an inappropriate way may be rude, but calling it 'rape' is just so silly.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's part of the reason one can't deny transgender people's genders.

It's the absurdity of gender that is the very reason why I reject transgender people's genders, as I do with all genders. The concept of gender itself is nonsensical to me. If you base it upon physical appearance, it's flawed, because personality traits (which is what we're really talking about when we discuss gender) are not limited or unique in any way to any particular sex. But if you determine gender is self-defined, you make gender become literally, linguistically absurd. Because two people, with opposing traits, could both say they are of the same gender and be completely valid in saying so. It renders the statement "I am X gender" into literally being only equivocable to "I am me". It tells us nothing about you. Your gender becomes literally meaningless, because it lacks explanatory power.

Better to do away with the whole concept altogether. Just see people for what they are. Unique individuals with their own unique sets of personality traits. There's no need to form groups based upon the concept of gender. It's an antiquated way of looking at people. Just like blood type groupism.

I agree entirely. It's like saying you are team red or team blu.
Fuck, it's worse than that.
At least that might tell us something about which color you like.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I would also move that feminism is also more defined in terms of a positive aim (establishing social equality) rather than the negative attempt to end this. While this sounds pedantic I believe they are meaningfully different ways of thinking. Again, though, this issue of perspective is apparent. As I have said many, many times, feminism approaches equality from a female perspective.

The problem with this is that if a feminist thinks it's the other point, she has authority to make me not comment my opinions on a movement about her own experience as oppressed class. Radfems do it to me all the time because that's the best argument feminism in general here got to keep the "what about the menz" crowd away from them doing obnoxious uneducated shit around, excusing their problematic, offensive attitudes as freedom of speech and so on.

All these people with similar opinions to me not speaking Portuguese, though... You'd rustle the jimmies of so many people who got to have them rustled, our views on many matters are essentially similar.

I especially agree with you on

I think the reason why many feminists (certainly vocal ones in internet discussions) won't allow it stems from that unwillingness to confront that there are other patterns out there that feminism doesn't address and that other perspectives (beyond those that are currently sought/incorporated) are required. The challenge is, therefore, not to "destroy or diminish" feminism's social capital (if you will) but rather to attack these assumptions. I do think 'breaking' feminism could well end up with a situation where the replacement movements are weaker* summed than feminism is... in a place like the US this would be a serious issue.

[Imperializt Russia]

To call it "stare rape" is just bizarre, frankly.
You shouldn't stare though, and certainly not leer. Stealing glances is both discreet and more acceptable.

But, you know, it's another part of the unfortunately ludicrously long list of issues women face for which we got #yesallwomen

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

It's the absurdity of gender that is the very reason why I reject transgender people's genders, as I do with all genders.

People with a lack of gender and an absence of gender identity besides said lack generally suffer from gender dysphoria.

I'd know since I feel far more misgendered by being interpreted as man instead of neutral/agender.

How does your theory explain gender dysphoria? Gender isn't an option, it isn't an arbitrary assessment, it is part of the integrity and essence of the person you are. You would probably understand what I mean if suddenly you started to get your body slowly get the physical characteristics associated with the opposite set of binary people.

If it wasn't uncomfortable, suffocating and very real like that, people wouldn't be transgender, because nobody's cray-cray enough to choose such a thing!

[Trollzilla]

political parties in the US do not use gender quotas. They are open to all interested US citizens.

In the UK, my party (The labour party) uses gender quotas.

what purpose does it serve them?

[Dumb Ideologies]

It's the absurdity of gender that is the very reason why I reject transgender people's genders, as I do with all genders. The concept of gender itself is nonsensical to me. If you base it upon physical appearance, it's flawed, because personality traits (which is what we're really talking about when we discuss gender) are not limited or unique in any way to any particular sex. But if you determine gender is self-defined, you make gender become literally, linguistically absurd. Because two people, with opposing traits, could both say they are of the same gender and be completely valid in saying so. It renders the statement "I am X gender" into literally being only equivocable to "I am me". It tells us nothing about you. Your gender becomes literally meaningless, because it lacks explanatory power.

Better to do away with the whole concept altogether. Just see people for what they are. Unique individuals with their own unique sets of personality traits. There's no need to form groups based upon the concept of gender. It's an antiquated way of looking at people. Just like blood type groupism.

I agree entirely.

And that helps reaffirm your identity as two very special and unique snowflakes I'm sure. Just as my gender identity continues to help me negotiate social structures and existence. Luckily you cannot force compliance with your ideas of "freedom" and instead can only frustratedly assert that it must go away on the internet while everyone else goes on with their lives as usual. Have fun~!