Criticisms of Feminism

[Chestaan]

I really feel like feminists need to pick one or the other: Either men need to line up behind feminism to fight against all gender roles, or feminists need to get out of the way when men fight for their own rights. Gender roles are imposed upon all of us by traditional conservative forces, and pretending that men's issues don't matter because they've historically had better rewards for adhering to their gender roles is really asinine.

Instead we have cognitive dissonance where many feminists seem to simultaneously hold the belief that feminism will deal with men's issues too and that men's issues are unimportant because men are already privileged.

It's not "cognitive dissonance", it's just a matter of timings.
Feminism will deal with men's issues too: when women will have true equality, men's issues will disappear.
But before women reach true equality, men will suffer more and more due they're losing their privileges: this is expected, and it's a collateral effect, not a goal of feminism.
As long as men are privileged, they have issues, and these issues are secondary because men are, on the whole, privileged.
When men will be not privileged anymore, their issues will disappear.

Because of misandry and bias in favor of women.
Men lack in-group bias. They are bias in favor of women.
Women have an in-group bias in favor of eachother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CW ... %9D_effect

The way to fix this is either with more misogyny in the world, or to decrease misandry and get women to be much more in favor of men, and men to be in favor of men more.

I think the reason you have trouble understanding how an institution full of men could be bias against men is because you assume men think the same way women do. They don't. They aren't as bias as women toward eachother.
This is how mostly male institutions can still discriminate against men and in favor of women, while mostly female institutions do the same.
It's a systemic problem with the way men are perceived and treated.

Both men and women need to address their misandry.

That's the strategy of MRA, more misogyny?

You heard it here first everyone, men are privileged to be given longer prison sentences, to be ridiculed when they are abused or raped, to legally be discriminated against in legal battles. So happy that I have these privileges!

[Regni Invictus]

As far as the OP, I can agree with alot of it. Personally I think this third wave feminism is pretty poisonous and led by some truly talented snake oil peddlers; but the main issue I think is the victim complex that's constantly professed by many feminists. I'm of the crazed, fringe minority that believes modern feminism is not equivalent to egalitarianism; otherwise you'd be an egalitarian. The goal is to elevate the social status of women, and dismantle an abstract big brother patriarchy that is both ubiquitous and explicit in it's oppression (Winston has only to write in his diary at this point).

Men have had many privileges over organized human history, and so have women. Men were historically paid better and treated with more respect; women were relegated in status and had to fulfill domestic roles. Then again, said women also didn't have to hobble around trenches in France looking for a lost arm, for the most part.

Basically what I mean to say is, third wave feminism seems misguided and fascist at its core. If one truly believes in the good ole' principles of universal equality, you have only to espouse that objectively, not taking one's gender, race, nationality in mind. I don't need an angry girl with half her head shaved yelling 'PRIVILEGED SHITLORD' at me to understand the shortcomings of true equality. At the same time, I have zero faith third wave feminism will get us to a better place objectively.

[New Edom]

None of this matters to feminists. There is no real difference, to a feminist, between living in Saudi Arabia and living in Canada. Men might as well beat and kill women openly in the streets. Nothing men say or do is even a millionth good enough until all government, all business, all education, all major health services, all finances are run almost entirely by women with perhaps 5% men. Then they MIGHT consider that there are a few good men out there beyond the handful of Uncle Tom White Knights they drag out for their amusement. Other than that, it doesn't matter. Men need to do their own thing, be wary of government and high finance and avoid entanglements.

Chill.
Pretty sure you're supposed to be better than the above nonsense.
This whole thread has turned into the usual shitstorm of anti-feminist bunkum.
So much for your 'humanist' outlook.

(Although tbh I'm not sure why moderators seem to have merged things into this thread multiple times.
It should've died long ago.)

How about this. You show me at what point in the thread feminists have actually just had discussion rather than hiding behind one kind of propaganda or another.

[Jormengand]

How about this. You show me at what point in the thread feminists have actually just had discussion rather than hiding behind one kind of propaganda or another.

Uh, most of it?

Oh, wait, you're not talking about feminists at all! You're talking about misandrists! Oh, no, they haven't actually had any discussion. Feminists? Have.

[New Edom]

How about this. You show me at what point in the thread feminists have actually just had discussion rather than hiding behind one kind of propaganda or another.

Uh, most of it?

Oh, wait, you're not talking about feminists at all! You're talking about misandrists! Oh, no, they haven't actually had any discussion. Feminists? Have.

Several times I brought up issues that feminists responded to with ideological rote statements, deflected or ignored. I did not see responses otherwise from anyone claiming to be a feminist.

[Jormengand]

Uh, most of it?

Oh, wait, you're not talking about feminists at all! You're talking about misandrists! Oh, no, they haven't actually had any discussion. Feminists? Have.

Several times I brought up issues that feminists responded to with ideological rote statements, deflected or ignored. I did not see responses otherwise from anyone claiming to be a feminist.

Fine, then. Bring up those issues with me and see where it takes you.

[New Edom]

Several times I brought up issues that feminists responded to with ideological rote statements, deflected or ignored. I did not see responses otherwise from anyone claiming to be a feminist.

Fine, then. Bring up those issues with me and see where it takes you.

Alright. I have said many times that I favour egalitarianism, but that i doubt that feminists really support egalitarianism between men and women because there is a tendency to avoid dealing with the issues I am about to list here, by way of one set of examples.

1. Well known spokespersons for feminism tend to frame issues like domestic abuse, consent and sexual abuse as men or males abusing women and girls. Attempts at pointing out increasing gathered research on female initiated abuse of other females, the elderly and boys in particular is often deflected or minimized, or else liberal/moderate feminists say "I don't know any feminists who say that" even when famous well known and celebrated spokespersons of feminism do take this position frequently. So why can mainstream feminists not accept that this can be a problem that can turn people off from feminism?

As a survivor of female initiated CSA, I find it very offensive when I see or hear the message "we need to teach men not to rape". When feminists protest that more women and girls are raped and abused, that should surely just mean that they get more funding, not that the question of how to handle women who behave in an evil way cannot be raised.

And on this particular subject, nearly all 'conversations' feminists 'invite' men to take part in are about men respecting women's boundaries. There is pretty much never any discussion of men's boundaries that women may push against.

2. It would be nice if standard feminist rhetoric didn't imply that sexism is the worst of all things if they are genuinely for equality. Race and class issues are sometimes the key issues in some things, not sexism against women. I feel that this rhetoric tends to imply that women have never been privileged over any large groups of men or other women for instance.

3. I don't believe you should have to believe in Patriarchy Theory or the standard feminist statistics (1 in 5 or 1 in 3 or whatever is being stated depending o who is saying it for instance) to believe that social justice is important. We should be able to say that a rape is just as awful if it is one in a thousand. I don't believe it should matter whether men or women are abused more. When I've taught little kids, and one of them says "You shouldn't hit girls, right?" I say "You should not hit anyone just because you are angry with them." Then I teach them other ways to deal with disagreements or anger.

4. Feminists often use rhetoric that suggests that men don't really care for women, fight on women's behalf or help at all in the cause of equality. Over the last decade or so there has been this refrain of "It's time for men to step up". The rhetoric by well known, famous feminists often seems to imply that feminist women have done all the work on their own, and that men were dragged along kicking and screaming except for a precious few. When this issue is brought up, scornful remarks such as "do you want a cookie/medal/pat on the back" are brought up. How is this comradeship? Answer: it is not.

I don't believe any of these issues could be said to in any way detract from the cause of equality by being dealt with fairly, however i have rarely seen any fair response. What I have generally seen in response are these:

1. Radfem. "Patriarchy is so bad that we don't have time for this nonsense. Men have almost all the power anyway; men's issues need to be dealt with by men. Stop expecting women to do everything for you."

2. Moderate. "I don't know any feminists who say anything like this. Feminism is just about equality."

3. Silence and ignoring.

[Jormengand]

Alright. I have said many times that I favour egalitarianism, but that i doubt that feminists really support egalitarianism between men and women because there is a tendency to avoid dealing with the issues I am about to list here, by way of one set of examples.

1. Well known spokespersons for feminism tend to frame issues like domestic abuse, consent and sexual abuse as men or males abusing women and girls. Attempts at pointing out increasing gathered research on female initiated abuse of other females, the elderly and boys in particular is often deflected or minimized, or else liberal/moderate feminists say "I don't know any feminists who say that" even when famous well known and celebrated spokespersons of feminism do take this position frequently. So why can mainstream feminists not accept that this can be a problem that can turn people off from feminism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Which feminists?

As a survivor of female initiated CSA, I find it very offensive when I see or hear the message "we need to teach men not to rape".

So do I.

When feminists protest that more women and girls are raped and abused, that should surely just mean that they get more funding, not that the question of how to handle women who behave in an evil way cannot be raised.

I... agree? I don't think that you could find anyone who could seriously be called a feminist would advocate for inequality of the sexes, after all.

And on this particular subject, nearly all 'conversations' feminists 'invite' men to take part in are about men respecting women's boundaries. There is pretty much never any discussion of men's boundaries that women may push against.

Yes, I agree. That is in no way a point against feminism, but I agree.

2. It would be nice if standard feminist rhetoric didn't imply that sexism is the worst of all things if they are genuinely for equality.

Funny, because I spend more of my time arguing about homophobia than sexism. And I honestly spend more of my time arguing about sexism against men than sexism against women.

Race and class issues are sometimes the key issues in some things, not sexism against women.

True.

I feel that this rhetoric tends to imply that women have never been privileged over any large groups of men or other women for instance.

It does, irrespective of whether the user of such rhetoric is a feminist is not.

3. I don't believe you should have to believe in Patriarchy Theory or the standard feminist statistics (1 in 5 or 1 in 3 or whatever is being stated depending o who is saying it for instance) to believe that social justice is important.

Given that I'm a feminist who has never believed in the patriarchy, I, um... yeah.

We should be able to say that a rape is just as awful if it is one in a thousand.

"Rape is just as awful if it is one in a thousand." There, said.

I don't believe it should matter whether men or women are abused more.

Well, unless that's symptomatic of something else, but true.

When I've taught little kids, and one of them says "You shouldn't hit girls, right?" I say "You should not hit anyone just because you are angry with them." Then I teach them other ways to deal with disagreements or anger.

And I would say that's a pretty standard feminist position.

4. Feminists often use rhetoric that suggests that men don't really care for women, fight on women's behalf or help at all in the cause of equality.

What? Feminists often are men.

Over the last decade or so there has been this refrain of "It's time for men to step up".

For many of them, it is.

The rhetoric by well known, famous feminists

Some people say that weasel words are great!

often seems to imply that feminist women have done all the work on their own, and that men were dragged along kicking and screaming except for a precious few. When this issue is brought up, scornful remarks such as "do you want a cookie/medal/pat on the back" are brought up. How is this comradeship? Answer: it is not.

Well, anyone who treats men unequally to women isn't a fucking feminist, so there's that.

I don't believe any of these issues could be said to in any way detract from the cause of equality by being dealt with fairly,

Hence the fact that no person of any integrity is saying that.

however i have rarely seen any fair response.

Hope this qualifies as fair.

What I have generally seen in response are these:

1. Radfem. "Patriarchy is so bad that we don't have time for this nonsense. Men have almost all the power anyway; men's issues need to be dealt with by men. Stop expecting women to do everything for you."

Radical Feminists are no more feminists than white chocolate is chocolate or the Democratic Free People's Republic of China is democratic.

2. Moderate. "I don't know any feminists who say anything like this. Feminism is just about equality."

Well, I don't. You haven't given any examples. And yes, feminism is about equality.

3. Silence and ignoring.

Well, I'm not going to try to excuse people who can't be bothered to defend their positions. *Shrug*.

---

Overall, I'm seeing a lot of "Some feminists say" without any actual verification of who they might be, examples, etc, and an assumption that feminism is about ignoring men and just making women's rights better. It's not, it's about improvement of treatment in women in areas in which they're suffering, irrespective of whether the same person is an MRA at the same time.

[New Edom]

Alright. I have said many times that I favour egalitarianism, but that i doubt that feminists really support egalitarianism between men and women because there is a tendency to avoid dealing with the issues I am about to list here, by way of one set of examples.

1. Well known spokespersons for feminism tend to frame issues like domestic abuse, consent and sexual abuse as men or males abusing women and girls. Attempts at pointing out increasing gathered research on female initiated abuse of other females, the elderly and boys in particular is often deflected or minimized, or else liberal/moderate feminists say "I don't know any feminists who say that" even when famous well known and celebrated spokespersons of feminism do take this position frequently. So why can mainstream feminists not accept that this can be a problem that can turn people off from feminism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Which feminists?

As a survivor of female initiated CSA, I find it very offensive when I see or hear the message "we need to teach men not to rape".

So do I.

When feminists protest that more women and girls are raped and abused, that should surely just mean that they get more funding, not that the question of how to handle women who behave in an evil way cannot be raised.

I... agree? I don't think that you could find anyone who could seriously be called a feminist would advocate for inequality of the sexes, after all.

And on this particular subject, nearly all 'conversations' feminists 'invite' men to take part in are about men respecting women's boundaries. There is pretty much never any discussion of men's boundaries that women may push against.

Yes, I agree. That is in no way a point against feminism, but I agree.

2. It would be nice if standard feminist rhetoric didn't imply that sexism is the worst of all things if they are genuinely for equality.

Funny, because I spend more of my time arguing about homophobia than sexism. And I honestly spend more of my time arguing about sexism against men than sexism against women.

Race and class issues are sometimes the key issues in some things, not sexism against women.

True.

I feel that this rhetoric tends to imply that women have never been privileged over any large groups of men or other women for instance.

It does, irrespective of whether the user of such rhetoric is a feminist is not.

3. I don't believe you should have to believe in Patriarchy Theory or the standard feminist statistics (1 in 5 or 1 in 3 or whatever is being stated depending o who is saying it for instance) to believe that social justice is important.

Given that I'm a feminist who has never believed in the patriarchy, I, um... yeah.

We should be able to say that a rape is just as awful if it is one in a thousand.

"Rape is just as awful if it is one in a thousand." There, said.

I don't believe it should matter whether men or women are abused more.

Well, unless that's symptomatic of something else, but true.

When I've taught little kids, and one of them says "You shouldn't hit girls, right?" I say "You should not hit anyone just because you are angry with them." Then I teach them other ways to deal with disagreements or anger.

And I would say that's a pretty standard feminist position.

4. Feminists often use rhetoric that suggests that men don't really care for women, fight on women's behalf or help at all in the cause of equality.

What? Feminists often are men.

Over the last decade or so there has been this refrain of "It's time for men to step up".

For many of them, it is.

The rhetoric by well known, famous feminists

Some people say that weasel words are great!

often seems to imply that feminist women have done all the work on their own, and that men were dragged along kicking and screaming except for a precious few. When this issue is brought up, scornful remarks such as "do you want a cookie/medal/pat on the back" are brought up. How is this comradeship? Answer: it is not.

Well, anyone who treats men unequally to women isn't a fucking feminist, so there's that.

I don't believe any of these issues could be said to in any way detract from the cause of equality by being dealt with fairly,

Hence the fact that no person of any integrity is saying that.

however i have rarely seen any fair response.

Hope this qualifies as fair.

What I have generally seen in response are these:

1. Radfem. "Patriarchy is so bad that we don't have time for this nonsense. Men have almost all the power anyway; men's issues need to be dealt with by men. Stop expecting women to do everything for you."

Radical Feminists are no more feminists than white chocolate is chocolate or the Democratic Free People's Republic of China is democratic.

2. Moderate. "I don't know any feminists who say anything like this. Feminism is just about equality."

Well, I don't. You haven't given any examples. And yes, feminism is about equality.

3. Silence and ignoring.

Well, I'm not going to try to excuse people who can't be bothered to defend their positions. *Shrug*.

---

Overall, I'm seeing a lot of "Some feminists say" without any actual verification of who they might be, examples, etc, and an assumption that feminism is about ignoring men and just making women's rights better. It's not, it's about improvement of treatment in women in areas in which they're suffering, irrespective of whether the same person is an MRA at the same time.

Typical.

Alright here goes.

Heforshe. Generally presents the 'men bad, women good' scenarios. Men's issues presented as 'men not being allowed to cry'.

One Billion Rising. Men overwhelmingly abuse and harm women--men need to step up and stop harming women, women need to learn to be confident.

Slutwalk. Rinse and repeat.

Response to "Blurred Lines". Rinse and repeat.

Majority of anti-domestic violence ads. Any protest of it--rinse and repeat.

But here we see yet again, when feminists want to promote their ideas, they just throw out rhetoric. When someone points out something that is commonly known, they want proof, If proof is offered, they drop the discussion. No thanks.

[Jormengand]

Typical.

See, we don't have to change our arguments when they're correct. The reason is that we keep saying the same stuff is because you keep being wrong about the same stuff.

Alright here goes.

Heforshe. Generally presents the 'men bad, women good' scenarios. Men's issues presented as 'men not being allowed to cry'.

"And, the more I spoke about feminism, the more I realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop...my male friends were unable to express their feelings... Men, I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue, too. Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society, despite my need of his presence as a child, as much as my mother’s. I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a man. In fact, in the UK, suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality, either."

Try again. Emma Watson and Heforshe absolutely recognise, and I'll say it again, that "Gender equality is your issue, too. Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society, despite my need of his presence as a child, as much as my mother’s. I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a man. In fact, in the UK, suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease." Not "Boys don't cry."

One Billion Rising. Men overwhelmingly abuse and harm women--men need to step up and stop harming women, women need to learn to be confident.

"We were able to put out a call that was just an invitation for women and men to rise and dance..." note how many of the people in the video are in fact men. "End violence against women" is not a misandrist goal.

Slutwalk. Rinse and repeat.

Given that it's fighting something that actually happened and the message is not "Men need to learn not to rape women" but "Women need to stop being told that they're asking to be raped", which is a perfectly true and unambiguously valid message, I don't see the problem.

Response to "Blurred Lines". Rinse and repeat.

I'm actually not sure what you're about any more. Given that the reception of it was mostly positive, with the worst that could be said of it being that "It's a subject that when in the right hands can be smooth and soulful, but in the wrong, crass and chauvinistic ... you need the right balance of charm and swagger to pull it off." Which is entirely true and entirely non-evidential as far as anything you're saying.

Majority of anti-domestic violence ads. Any protest of it--rinse and repeat.

Some people say that weasel words are great.

But here we see yet again, when feminists want to promote their ideas, they just throw out rhetoric.

Please don't dismiss valid arguments as "Rhetoric".

When someone points out something that is commonly known, they want proof,

Here is some evidence that bears shit in woods. Please source all claims, even if you think they are obvious.

If proof is offered, they drop the discussion. No thanks.

Not this one, she doesn't.

[New Edom]

In no way does Emma Watson mention women being capable of evil or having the slightest degree of agency. Do not pretend that feminists care about men at all; they only see women as victims and men as perpetrators. Name me a well known feminist leader who actually addresses women's agency for evil other than bell hooks, whose words on this matter are largely ignored.

[Jormengand]

In no way does Emma Watson mention women being capable of evil or having the slightest degree of agency.

Does she mention men being capable of evil? She didn't say a word about it in her speech, and I don't think you can say with a straight face that any feminist would, when actually asked the question (one which I doubt they have ever had to entertain, being as the answer is blindingly obvious) say that women were incapable of evil.

Do not pretend that feminists care about men at all

Many feminists are men.

Name me a well known feminist leader who actually addresses women's agency for evil other than bell hooks, whose words on this matter are largely ignored.

You ever heard of Christina Hoff Sommers? Well I have, and I never heard of One Billion Rising or Slutwalk before you posted them.

"The 64-year-old academic is the star of hit YouTube series The Factual Feminist, which doesn’t just stick up for men, but also calls-out the sisterhood on false stats, cruel comments and double-standards. You know, the stuff that alienates men from the gender equality debate in the first place."

[Chessmistress]

In no way does Emma Watson mention women being capable of evil or having the slightest degree of agency. Do not pretend that feminists care about men at all; they only see women as victims and men as perpetrators. Name me a well known feminist leader who actually addresses women's agency for evil other than bell hooks, whose words on this matter are largely ignored.

Andrea Dworkin

Recently, more and more feminists have been advocating social, spiritual, and mythological models that are female-supremacist and/or matriarchal. To me, this advocacy signifies a basic conformity to the tenets of biological determinism that underpin the male social system. Pulled toward an ideology based on the moral and social significance of a distinct female biology because of its emotional and philosophical familiarity, drawn to the spiritual dignity inherent in a "female principle" (essentially as defined by men), of course unable to abandon by will or impulse a lifelong and centuries-old commitment to childbearing as the female creative act, women have increasingly tried to transform the very ideology that has enslaved us into a dynamic, religious, psychologically compelling celebration of female biological potential. This attempted transformation may have survival value--that is, the worship of our procreative capacity as power may temporarily stay the male-supremacist hand that cradles the test tube. But the price we pay is that we become carriers of the disease we must cure. It is no accident that in the ancient matriarchies men were castrated, sacrificially slaughtered, and excluded from public forms of power; nor is it an accident that some female supremacists now believe men to be a distinct and inferior species or race. Wherever power is accessible or bodily integrity honored on the basis of biological attribute, systematized cruelty permeates the society and murder and mutilation contaminate it. We will not be different.

It is shamefully easy for us to enjoy our own fantasies of biological omnipotence while despising men for enjoying the reality of theirs. And it is dangerous--because genocide begins, however improbably, in the conviction that classes of biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrimination. We, who have been devastated by the concrete consequences of this idea, still want to put our faith in it. Nothing offers more proof--sad, irrefutable proof--that we are more like men than either they or we care to believe.

"Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea," first published in Heresies No. 6 on Women and Violence, Vol. 2, No. 2, Summer 1978.

[New Edom]

In no way does Emma Watson mention women being capable of evil or having the slightest degree of agency.

Does she mention men being capable of evil? She didn't say a word about it in her speech, and I don't think you can say with a straight face that any feminist would, when actually asked the question (one which I doubt they have ever had to entertain, being as the answer is blindingly obvious) say that women were incapable of evil.

Do not pretend that feminists care about men at all

Many feminists are men.

Then evidently I'm insane or my own experiences in life are a delusion. When the blurred lines thing came up and people around me were showing me blogs about 'teaching men and boys to respect women' and I pointed out that the problem went both ways, they either said "that's generally understood" even though there was no mention in the public speaking by feminists, male and female, to this effect. The target was men and boys. But never mind, it's understood. Somehow I'm crazy for wanting to have it said that people generally need to understand consent better.

Except according to you this generally doesn't happen, so I have no cause for complaint.

When I brought up in this thread and in other places the difficulties that were had in creating a men's shelter and counseling center for male survivors of CSA in my own city, from both feminists and traditionalists, people brush it aside or say "whatever" not "Yes, this is a struggle for understanding we need to have." So yeah, I feel dismissed and treated with contempt in that way. But according to you this doesn't happen, and I imagined it or those people were not true feminists.

So in short, I have no cause for concern. I must just be crazy. Thanks.

[Chessmistress]

You ever heard of Christina Hoff Sommers? Well I have, and I never heard of One Billion Rising or Slutwalk before you posted them.

"The 64-year-old academic is the star of hit YouTube series The Factual Feminist, which doesn’t just stick up for men, but also calls-out the sisterhood on false stats, cruel comments and double-standards. You know, the stuff that alienates men from the gender equality debate in the first place."

But Christina Hoff-Sommers is an anti-feminist disguised as feminist!
Even Rational-wiki said it
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers

Christina Hoff Sommers (born 1950) is a self-declared feminist (though third-parties[1] typically refer to her as an anti-feminist) author,

https://mancheeze.wordpress.com/2014/01 ... e-for-men/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11399362

[Jormengand]

Then evidently I'm insane or my own experiences in life are a delusion.

It's possible.

When the blurred lines thing came up and people around me were showing me blogs about 'teaching men and boys to respect women' and I pointed out that the problem went both ways, they either said "that's generally understood" even though there was no mention in the public speaking by feminists, male and female, to this effect. The target was men and boys. But never mind, it's understood. Somehow I'm crazy for wanting to have it said that people generally need to understand consent better.

Anyone who thinks you're crazy for wanting men to be treated as women's equals is, by very definition, not a feminist.

Except according to you this generally doesn't happen, so I have no cause for complaint.

Put the strawman down.

When I brought up in this thread and in other places the difficulties that were had in creating a men's shelter and counseling center for male survivors of CSA in my own city, from both feminists and traditionalists, people brush it aside or say "whatever" not "Yes, this is a struggle for understanding we need to have." So yeah, I feel dismissed and treated with contempt in that way. But according to you this doesn't happen, and I imagined it or those people were not true feminists.

There shouldn't be men-only shelters for the same reason there shouldn't be women-only shelters, or men-only or women-only anything else.

So in short, I have no cause for concern. I must just be crazy. Thanks.

Fuck off. You accuse me of spouting rhetoric, and then you start spouting rhetoric. You accuse me of ignoring your arguments, and then you ignore every single one of my arguments in favour of attacking me for something I didn't even say. So yes, this is a perfect counterargument you have here...

But it's a counterargument to an argument that I never actually made.

Meanwhile, you've ignored every line of argumentation where I've shown you were wrong about Emma Watson, wrong about OBR, wrong about Slutwalk, wrong about feminism, wrong about citations of evidence, wrong about feminists, wrong about men, wrong about what feminists say - you didn't address any of my actual points: you give some concerns, I answer all of those concerns. Instead of responding to that, you immediately jump to a single things, and point to a list of feminists that you have a hate-on for. I show you exactly why none of them have done anything they're accused of, and you launch into a vicious attack against whether Emma Watson has done something completely unrelated or not. You then tell me not to "Pretend" that Emma Watson cares at all about men, despite me already having proven that she does. You ask me to provide a feminist who mentions that women might be evil, and we provide two. Then, you go onto a rant where you say that you're offended, as though that constituted an argument or a comment. And then you accuse me of calling you crazy, which - guess the fuck what - I never actually did.

Do you need it in thousand-foot tall flaming letters or something? You are not crazy, you are wrong.

[New Edom]

Then evidently I'm insane or my own experiences in life are a delusion.

It's possible.

When the blurred lines thing came up and people around me were showing me blogs about 'teaching men and boys to respect women' and I pointed out that the problem went both ways, they either said "that's generally understood" even though there was no mention in the public speaking by feminists, male and female, to this effect. The target was men and boys. But never mind, it's understood. Somehow I'm crazy for wanting to have it said that people generally need to understand consent better.

Anyone who thinks you're crazy for wanting men to be treated as women's equals is, by very definition, not a feminist.

Except according to you this generally doesn't happen, so I have no cause for complaint.

Put the strawman down.

When I brought up in this thread and in other places the difficulties that were had in creating a men's shelter and counseling center for male survivors of CSA in my own city, from both feminists and traditionalists, people brush it aside or say "whatever" not "Yes, this is a struggle for understanding we need to have." So yeah, I feel dismissed and treated with contempt in that way. But according to you this doesn't happen, and I imagined it or those people were not true feminists.

There shouldn't be men-only shelters for the same reason there shouldn't be women-only shelters, or men-only or women-only anything else.

So in short, I have no cause for concern. I must just be crazy. Thanks.

Fuck off. You accuse me of spouting rhetoric, and then you start spouting rhetoric. You accuse me of ignoring your arguments, and then you ignore every single one of my arguments in favour of attacking me for something I didn't even say. So yes, this is a perfect counterargument you have here...

But it's a counterargument to an argument that I never actually made.

Meanwhile, you've ignored every line of argumentation where I've shown you were wrong about Emma Watson, wrong about OBR, wrong about Slutwalk, wrong about feminism, wrong about citations of evidence, wrong about feminists, wrong about men, wrong about what feminists say - you didn't address any of my actual points: you give some concerns, I answer all of those concerns. Instead of responding to that, you immediately jump to a single things, and point to a list of feminists that you have a hate-on for. I show you exactly why none of them have done anything they're accused of, and you launch into a vicious attack against whether Emma Watson has done something completely unrelated or not. You then tell me not to "Pretend" that Emma Watson cares at all about men, despite me already having proven that she does. You ask me to provide a feminist who mentions that women might be evil, and we provide two. Then, you go onto a rant where you say that you're offended, as though that constituted an argument or a comment. And then you accuse me of calling you crazy, which - guess the fuck what - I never actually did.

Do you need it in thousand-foot tall flaming letters or something? You are not crazy, you are wrong.

You aren't showing me anything. You are holding to the party line that feminism is perfect in all respects, and denying that any discussion or rhetoric is ever stating things in a way that is not entirely true. I've been through this several times in this thread already with people who used exactly the same arguments. I am not interested in ideological rhetoric.

[Chessmistress]

You ask me to provide a feminist who mentions that women might be evil, and we provide two. Then, you go onto a rant where you say that you're offended, as though that constituted an argument or a comment. And then you accuse me of calling you crazy, which - guess the fuck what - I never actually did.

Wrong, I provided ONE: Andrea Dworkin.
You provided Christina Hoff-Sommers: anti-feminist, she have even joined A Voice for Men!

Not surprisingly you cite an anti-feminist as "feminist" since

Given that I'm a feminist who has never believed in the patriarchy, I, um... yeah.

I never heard of a such thing as a feminist who do not believe in patriarchy.

So I have to fix that

Radical Feminists are no more feminists than white chocolate is chocolate

So

Radical Feminists are feminists like dark chocolate is chocolate - indeed dark chocolate is the purest chocolate, Christina Hoff-Sommers is no more feminist than shit is chocolate - they just have a similar color

[Jormengand]

You aren't showing me anything.

You mean apart from all the answers to all the questions you asked?

You are holding to the party line

You sound like a parody of yourself.

that feminism is perfect in all respects

Can you come up with a better solution than equality?

and denying that any discussion or rhetoric is ever stating things in a way that is not entirely true.

Well, you've given me no reason to believe anything else. It's all like, "Waah waah standard arguments waah waah party line waah waah rhetoric waah waah." You haven't actually given me any proper arguments.

I've been through this several times in this thread already with people who used exactly the same arguments.

I'm going to start going through a phase of quoting myself until you understand.

See, we don't have to change our arguments when they're correct. The reason is that we keep saying the same stuff is because you keep being wrong about the same stuff.

I am not interested in ideological rhetoric.

This is neither ideological, nor rhetoric. This is the actual facts of the case as presented to the best of my ability, and if you're not interested in that, I can give you co-ordinates within a 10-metre radius of the door.

:rofl:

Go look up what feminist actually means, and you'll see why "Radical feminists" are not, in fact, feminists. And you have heard of a feminist who doesn't believe in the patriarchy because you've heard of me, just now.

[Chessmistress]

:rofl:

Go look up what feminist actually means, and you'll see why "Radical feminists" are not, in fact, feminists. And you have heard of a feminist who doesn't believe in the patriarchy because you've heard of me, just now.

If patriarchy wouldn't exists, Feminism would have no reason to exist.

[Jormengand]

If patriarchy wouldn't exists, Feminism would have no reason to exist.

MRAism exists and the matriarchy does not.

[Steamtopia]

Go look up what feminist actually means, and you'll see why "Radical feminists" are not, in fact, feminists. And you have heard of a feminist who doesn't believe in the patriarchy because you've heard of me, just now.

If patriarchy wouldn't exists, Feminism would have no reason to exist.

If matriarchy wouldn't exists, Men's Rights would have no reason to exist.

[Chessmistress]

If patriarchy wouldn't exists, Feminism would have no reason to exist.

MRAism exists and the matriarchy does not.

MRA (Christina Hoff-Sommers joined a voice for men, again) exist not due some fictional matriarchy, but due they're defending male privileges: some of them really believe they're oppressed because they do not recognise their privileges, some others are simply misogynists.

[Salandriagado]

Go look up what feminist actually means, and you'll see why "Radical feminists" are not, in fact, feminists. And you have heard of a feminist who doesn't believe in the patriarchy because you've heard of me, just now.

If patriarchy wouldn't exists, Feminism would have no reason to exist.

No, it wouldn't have a good reason to exist. That's a very different thing.

[Apollion]

I have responded to several threads concerning this subject. I fully support gender equality. However I, as well as many others, feel that the current movement of feminism does not adequately represent all genders. One possible reason for this, as I described in an another thread, is due to language.

Feminism, by definition, does not mean equality of genders. It is a advocacy movement that strides for the equal rights of women based on the principle of equality. The ideological counterpart is masculism that fights for rights for men based on the principle of equal rights.

The ideology that represents the equal treatment, rights, and opportunities for all genders equally would gender egalitarianism/equalism, which is a sub-section of egalitarianism.