Criticisms of Feminism

[Nierra]

Feminism = gender equality in all ways. End of story.

Opposing feminism means you believe men and women should not have equal status - and that, imo, is not a valid opinion.

Exactly. Does anyone else notice that the only people who are defining feminism as anything other than equality are people who are opposed to feminism?

If you wanted to know what evolution was, would you ask a creationist? Or would you ask someone who works in the field of evolutionary science?

Really? Comparing anti-feminists to creationists?

Also the only people who have said "feminism means equality for all sexes" on this thread have been feminists.

Also not a lot of moderates who say that, yes myself included.

[Galloism]

Where the shit do you live that women make up the majority of violent crime victims there?

I think you are probably right. I intended to say gendered violence. Apologies. Males are the perpetrators and victims of most violence. (don't misinterpret this... there are some very wonderful peaceful men out there)

Even that claim regarding "gendered violence" is suspect, unless one narrowly tailors "gendered violence" to exclude female perpetrators and male victims, but it's at least plausible, unlike what you said earlier.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why do you doubt that?
How else would you explain the discrepancy?

Source for which?
Well, men are most murder victims, most suicides, most prisoners, most of the homeless and most drug addicts...
Are you asking for a source that sexism causes this?
Because at that point you're basically saying feminist analyses of society are a crock of shit too.

We tend to see a legitimate correlation between the objectification and dehumanization of women relative to the oppression they face as individuals. The deliberate revocation of or refusal to grant rights to women is indicative of sexism. However we furthermore see an inextricable link between the patriarchy and the oppression of men. To suggest, however, that men are more severely oppressed than women by patriarchal values is an extraordinary claim and, on the base, merits extraordinary evidence.

Well, they suffer more violence, homelessness etc.
I'd say that's pretty solid evidence.
I'd also say men are dehumanized.

The MRM narrative is that men have no inherent worth in society. Women are seen as having inherent worth. Men are so thoroughly dehumanized that their only worth comes from their utility and their actions, not their status as human beings.
I'd agree that deliberate revocation and refusal of rights to women is indicative of sexism, but so is revocation and refusal of rights to men, for example, legal parental surrender and circumcision.
Whereas womens problems are seen as worth doing something about, mens are not, because they have no inherent worth.
You see the link between patriarchy and the oppression of men, sure, fine.

Do you also see the link between a majority of women supporting and demanding patriarchy and the oppression of men?
Because make no mistake, if the majority of women opposed the benefits they receive from patriarchy or stopped demanding them, the system would collapse.
The majority of men can oppose this system and it will not change fuck all, because a minority of men can continue to act as the imperialist matriarchy. (I.E, the installed "government" or system put in place by women giving it legitimacy.) in order to continue supplying those benefits to women.
So why then do feminists continually insist on focusing on men, instead of focusing on telling women to knock shit like that off and stop asking for special treatment because it's oppressing men, and damaging womens agency?
I suspect, personally, because they know it wouldn't sell. Women would take a look at it and say "No thanks, i'd prefer to keep my privileges. Keep trying to get me rights while I can keep them though!" which is where we come to the third wave.

[Ostroeuropa]

We tend to see a legitimate correlation between the objectification and dehumanization of women relative to the oppression they face as individuals. The deliberate revocation of or refusal to grant rights to women is indicative of sexism. However we furthermore see an inextricable link between the patriarchy and the oppression of men. To suggest, however, that men are more severely oppressed than women by patriarchal values is an extraordinary claim and, on the base, merits extraordinary evidence.

Well, they suffer more violence, homelessness etc.
I'd say that's pretty solid evidence.
I'd also say men are dehumanized.

The MRM narrative is that men have no inherent worth in society. Women are seen as having inherent worth. Men are so thoroughly dehumanized that their only worth comes from their utility and their actions, not their status as human beings.
I'd agree that deliberate revocation and refusal of rights to women is indicative of sexism, but so is revocation and refusal of rights to men, for example, legal parental surrender and circumcision.
Whereas womens problems are seen as worth doing something about, mens are not, because they have no inherent worth.
You see the link between patriarchy and the oppression of men, sure, fine.

Do you also see the link between a majority of women supporting and demanding patriarchy and the oppression of men?
Because make no mistake, if the majority of women opposed the benefits they receive from patriarchy or stopped demanding them, the system would collapse.
The majority of men can oppose this system and it will not change fuck all, because a minority of men can continue to act as the imperialist matriarchy. (I.E, the installed "government" or system put in place by women giving it legitimacy.) in order to continue supplying those benefits to women.
So why then do feminists continually insist on focusing on men, instead of focusing on telling women to knock shit like that off and stop asking for special treatment because it's oppressing men, and damaging womens agency?
I suspect, personally, because they know it wouldn't sell. Women would take a look at it and say "No thanks, i'd prefer to keep my privileges. Keep trying to get me rights while I can keep them though!" which is where we come to the third wave.

Expanding on this, i've advocated on occasion that malicious non-compliance is the only avenue really available to men to help destroy this system.
If a woman asks a man to carry her things and he refuses, she can socially attack and ostracize him for it and he cannot really do anything to her in return.

If a woman asks a man to carry her things and he accepts, then purposefully fucks up and breaks everything, then he has at least achieved some form of penalty for the woman engaging in this behavior.
This kind of response to womens demands for patriarchy can be applied across the board.
If enough men engage in this type of behavior, women will stop asking, because they will not know if they are asking a malicious non-complier, a non-complier (Not a problem, just attack them), or a conformist.
But crucial to notice, is that the behavior is womens that needs to stop.

[Galloism]

Well, they suffer more violence, homelessness etc.
I'd say that's pretty solid evidence.
I'd also say men are dehumanized.

The MRM narrative is that men have no inherent worth in society. Women are seen as having inherent worth. Men are so thoroughly dehumanized that their only worth comes from their utility and their actions, not their status as human beings.
I'd agree that deliberate revocation and refusal of rights to women is indicative of sexism, but so is revocation and refusal of rights to men, for example, legal parental surrender and circumcision.
Whereas womens problems are seen as worth doing something about, mens are not, because they have no inherent worth.
You see the link between patriarchy and the oppression of men, sure, fine.

Do you also see the link between a majority of women supporting and demanding patriarchy and the oppression of men?
Because make no mistake, if the majority of women opposed the benefits they receive from patriarchy or stopped demanding them, the system would collapse.
The majority of men can oppose this system and it will not change fuck all, because a minority of men can continue to act as the imperialist matriarchy. (I.E, the installed "government" or system put in place by women giving it legitimacy.) in order to continue supplying those benefits to women.
So why then do feminists continually insist on focusing on men, instead of focusing on telling women to knock shit like that off and stop asking for special treatment because it's oppressing men, and damaging womens agency?
I suspect, personally, because they know it wouldn't sell. Women would take a look at it and say "No thanks, i'd prefer to keep my privileges. Keep trying to get me rights while I can keep them though!" which is where we come to the third wave.

Expanding on this, i've advocated on occasion that malicious non-compliance is the only avenue really available to men to help destroy this system.
If a woman asks a man to carry her things and he refuses, she can socially attack and ostracize him for it and he cannot really do anything to her in return.

If a woman asks a man to carry her things and he accepts, then purposefully fucks up and breaks everything, then he has at least achieved some form of penalty for the woman engaging in this behavior.
This kind of response to womens demands for patriarchy can be applied across the board.
If enough men engage in this type of behavior, women will stop asking.

Property destruction is not the answer.

[Ostroeuropa]

Expanding on this, i've advocated on occasion that malicious non-compliance is the only avenue really available to men to help destroy this system.
If a woman asks a man to carry her things and he refuses, she can socially attack and ostracize him for it and he cannot really do anything to her in return.

If a woman asks a man to carry her things and he accepts, then purposefully fucks up and breaks everything, then he has at least achieved some form of penalty for the woman engaging in this behavior.
This kind of response to womens demands for patriarchy can be applied across the board.
If enough men engage in this type of behavior, women will stop asking.

Property destruction is not the answer.

I don't really see any other recourse.
How else are men supposed to get women to stop asking them to do shit, if not by purposefully fucking up when they ask?
Simple refusal opens them to social attacks for which their is no recourse.
Compliance certainly won't do anything.
So what then?

Note by the way, this is exactly what Slaves also did as a form of protest.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Expanding on this, i've advocated on occasion that malicious non-compliance is the only avenue really available to men to help destroy this system.
If a woman asks a man to carry her things and he refuses, she can socially attack and ostracize him for it and he cannot really do anything to her in return.

If a woman asks a man to carry her things and he accepts, then purposefully fucks up and breaks everything, then he has at least achieved some form of penalty for the woman engaging in this behavior.
This kind of response to womens demands for patriarchy can be applied across the board.
If enough men engage in this type of behavior, women will stop asking, because they will not know if they are asking a malicious non-complier, a non-complier (Not a problem, just attack them), or a conformist.
But crucial to notice, is that the behavior is womens that needs to stop.

Again, Ostro, this is a terrible fucking idea.

Like seriously, if you want to increase misandry in the world this is the way to go.

[Ostroeuropa]

Expanding on this, i've advocated on occasion that malicious non-compliance is the only avenue really available to men to help destroy this system.
If a woman asks a man to carry her things and he refuses, she can socially attack and ostracize him for it and he cannot really do anything to her in return.

If a woman asks a man to carry her things and he accepts, then purposefully fucks up and breaks everything, then he has at least achieved some form of penalty for the woman engaging in this behavior.
This kind of response to womens demands for patriarchy can be applied across the board.
If enough men engage in this type of behavior, women will stop asking, because they will not know if they are asking a malicious non-complier, a non-complier (Not a problem, just attack them), or a conformist.
But crucial to notice, is that the behavior is womens that needs to stop.

Again, Ostro, this is a terrible fucking idea.

Like seriously, if you want to increase misandry in the world this is the way to go.

It's similar to what some slaves did in the past.
If you have an alternative that men can engage in i'm all ears.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

It's similar to what some slaves did in the past.
If you have an alternative that men can engage in i'm all ears.

Was it ever successful, or did it just further the image of them as incompetent and sullen?
How about reasoned debate or nonviolent organized disobedience?

[Natapoc]

Expanding on this, i've advocated on occasion that malicious non-compliance is the only avenue really available to men to help destroy this system.
If a woman asks a man to carry her things and he refuses, she can socially attack and ostracize him for it and he cannot really do anything to her in return.

What on earth? Do you seriously believe this actually happens?

Look, if you don't want to carry something for someone: Don't. There is no requirement for men to carry things for women and I don't believe most women expect men to carry their things.

Offering to carry someones things and then intentionally destroying them just because you think women are oppressing you is a really messed up thing to do.

[Gauthier]

Property destruction is not the answer.

I don't really see any other recourse.
How else are men supposed to get women to stop asking them to do shit, if not by purposefully fucking up when they ask?
Simple refusal opens them to social attacks for which their is no recourse.
Compliance certainly won't do anything.
So what then?

Note by the way, this is exactly what Slaves also did as a form of protest.

All men are enslaved to all women now? That's news to me.

[Aidannadia]

It's similar to what some slaves did in the past.
If you have an alternative that men can engage in i'm all ears.

Simply say "no" when they ask you if you don't want to carry their bags? You should have no obligation to in most circumstances and any vindication you receive is unjustified.

[MERIZoC]

I don't really see any other recourse.
How else are men supposed to get women to stop asking them to do shit, if not by purposefully fucking up when they ask?
Simple refusal opens them to social attacks for which their is no recourse.
Compliance certainly won't do anything.
So what then?

Note by the way, this is exactly what Slaves also did as a form of protest.

All men are enslaved to all women now? That's news to me.

Bondage is becoming very popular.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's similar to what some slaves did in the past.
If you have an alternative that men can engage in i'm all ears.

How about reasoned debate or nonviolent organized disobedience?

There is no "Debate" to be had in this situation. It's an entitled demand.
You refuse. Your character is then called into question. At that point you can either enter a debate about sexism with them, which is extremely likely to backfire, fucking hard, since women have the final word on what constitutes sexism in our society, and because people are tend to view treating women equally as being hostile to them, and tend to view treating women with special privileges as equality, the women in question aren't likely to accept your arguments, indeed, it's in their vested interest not to.
(Source on treating women equally being viewed as hostile to women:
https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/ ... sequence=1
)
So now you've just brought even more social damage to yourself, likely even causing yourself to become a focal point of social aggression.

As for nonviolent organized disobedience, well, sure I guess. How does that help on an interpersonal basis though?

By the way, I wouldnt' call it property destruction.
If they give it to you to look after, they are implicitly accepting the risk of you fucking up. They have abdicated responsibility to you.
So don't throw it on the floor and stamp on it. Just don't give a single fuck about if you happen to drop it, and put absolutely no effort in.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

By the way, I wouldnt' call it property destruction.
If they give it to you to look after, they are implicitly accepting the risk of you fucking up. They have abdicated responsibility to you.
So don't throw it on the floor and stamp on it. Just don't give a single fuck about if you happen to drop it, and put absolutely no effort in.

That's absolutely not how that works out legally.

[Vanta Island]

OP, the people you're rambling on about are Feminist Extremists, AKA "Femnazis". Actual Feminists are Susan B. Anthony, not Anita Sarkeesian.

A more accurate comparison would be Ayaan Hirsi.
you know, because... she's not dead.

[Ostroeuropa]

Expanding on this, i've advocated on occasion that malicious non-compliance is the only avenue really available to men to help destroy this system.
If a woman asks a man to carry her things and he refuses, she can socially attack and ostracize him for it and he cannot really do anything to her in return.

What on earth? Do you seriously believe this actually happens?

Look, if you don't want to carry something for someone: Don't. There is no requirement for men to carry things for women and I don't believe most women expect men to carry their things.

Offering to carry someones things and then intentionally destroying them just because you think women are oppressing you is a really messed up thing to do.

Offering isn't what I said.
And yes, it does happen. I've seen it happen.
Women will attack a mans gender if he doesn't acquiesce to demands to do this type of thing.
Another is demands for an escort home and such. There I suppose you could walk painfully slowly.

[Natapoc]

What on earth? Do you seriously believe this actually happens?

Look, if you don't want to carry something for someone: Don't. There is no requirement for men to carry things for women and I don't believe most women expect men to carry their things.

Offering to carry someones things and then intentionally destroying them just because you think women are oppressing you is a really messed up thing to do.

Offering isn't what I said.
And yes, it does happen. I've seen it happen.
Women will attack a mans gender if he doesn't acquiesce to demands to do this type of thing.
Another is demands for an escort home and such.

Where do you live that this actually happens? In what ways do women attack a mans gender if he does not carry her things?

[Kvatchdom]

What on earth? Do you seriously believe this actually happens?

Look, if you don't want to carry something for someone: Don't. There is no requirement for men to carry things for women and I don't believe most women expect men to carry their things.

Offering to carry someones things and then intentionally destroying them just because you think women are oppressing you is a really messed up thing to do.

Offering isn't what I said.
And yes, it does happen. I've seen it happen.
Women will attack a mans gender if he doesn't acquiesce to demands to do this type of thing.
Another is demands for an escort home and such.

Does this all even matter for fuck's sake. Things are how they are, let them be so. We don't need that much change in the developed world.

[Ostroeuropa]

Offering isn't what I said.
And yes, it does happen. I've seen it happen.
Women will attack a mans gender if he doesn't acquiesce to demands to do this type of thing.
Another is demands for an escort home and such.

Where do you live that this actually happens? In what ways do women attack a mans gender if he does not carry her things?

Not carry her things if she asks. I live in south wales. I've seen it frequently enough.
Not all women do it. Some will accept a no. (Perhaps a majority, i'm not sure.)
But some do. And because of that, it's safer to just do what women ask.
They'll attack the gender using real manism usually. Worse if in a group.

[Aidannadia]

Does this all even matter for fuck's sake. Things are how they are, let them be so. We don't need that much change in the developed world.

"Hey, we're better than other places, so why improve? Let's stay the same forever."

[Natapoc]

Where do you live that this actually happens? In what ways do women attack a mans gender if he does not carry her things?

Not carry her things if she asks. I live in south wales. I've seen it frequently enough.
Not all women do it. Some will accept a no. (Perhaps a majority, i'm not sure.)
But some do. And because of that, it's safer to just do what women ask.
They'll attack the gender using real manism usually. Worse if in a group.

Safer? Do gangs of women go around and beat up men who don't do whatever a woman asks where you live?

[Kvatchdom]

Does this all even matter for fuck's sake. Things are how they are, let them be so. We don't need that much change in the developed world.

"Hey, we're better than other places, so why improve? Let's stay the same forever."

Where I live, you won't find gender inequality anywhere. It's non-existent. I am not implying that worse-off countries should not change.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not carry her things if she asks. I live in south wales. I've seen it frequently enough.
Not all women do it. Some will accept a no. (Perhaps a majority, i'm not sure.)
But some do. And because of that, it's safer to just do what women ask.
They'll attack the gender using real manism usually. Worse if in a group.

Safer? Do gangs of women go around and beat up men who don't do whatever a woman asks where you live?

No, but they'll engage in attacks on a persons reputation and such.
Which can lead to social ostracization and actual violence later on.
I'd rather get into a fight that'll be over in a few minutes than have to deal with 5 gossipy people with a grudge. Wouldn't you?

[Natapoc]

All men are enslaved to all women now? That's news to me.

Bondage is becoming very popular.

Is this whole thing just someones bdsm fantasy?