Criticisms of Feminism

[Ostroeuropa]

Source your claims that he quotes MRA sources, and source that those sources were MRAs, or espoused by MRA forums.
Self-declared MRAs, not people you just insist are MRAs.

Do not source feminists merely asserting this. Give actual evidence.
Let's see if we can prove yet another feminist doesn't understand how to evaluate reality

Ostroeuropa you are so much win today.

I had a mcdonalds breakfast =3

[CTALNH]

Ostroeuropa you are so much win today.

I had a mcdonalds breakfast =3

Shame we only have goodys in greece.

[Ostroeuropa]

Basically, these type of feminists are crap at their job.

Sociology is a science, not a religious forum.
Leave your gynocentrism at the door, or prove it's valid.

This type of religious/cultish thinking also leads these types of feminists to automatically accept anything that fits their narrative, even if it isn't true, such as the shootings incident.
When challenged to provide evidence of this, they will either refer to their preachers telling them it is so, or break down into hysterics.
They can't actually prove it, because it's false. Just like they can't prove Oppressor-oppressed gender dynamics. Because it's bollocks and doesn't line up with reality. All they have is an expression of their gynocentrism as an argument. It isn't an argument.
It's an admission of sexism.

That scientifically minded feminists have to put up with these people is the reason the movement is dying. Many of them have fucked off to join the MRA, or become a new type of ideology.
The ones who stick around are drowned out by this nonsense and able to effect very little change. Imo they should let the babies have their bottle and abandon the feminist label to the zealots, who can then quietly be ignored.

[Soselo]

Ostroeuropa you are so much win today.

I had a mcdonalds breakfast =3

Ew, how repulsive. You deserve actual food.

[Edgy Opinions]

I had a mcdonalds breakfast =3

Ew, how repulsive. You deserve actual food.

Their French fries, cheddar buns and chicken nuggets used to be very decent here in Rio.

I always hated burgers and I think I hate burgers because of them, though.

[Jamjai]

I had a mcdonalds breakfast =3

Ew, how repulsive. You deserve actual food.

like raw tomatoes and eggplants

[Ostroeuropa]

https://feelsandreals.wordpress.com/201 ... le-female/

Proof that even talking about mens issues will cause some feminists to flip their shit, even if you never explicitly challenge them on anything they'll take you talking about mens issues as some kind of attack on their ideology. This massively undermines their argument that they are in favor of those issues too.
This is because they are behaving like irrational cultists. Not all of them, sadly, or i'd just write all of them off and sneer whenever someone said they were a feminist.
As is, I have to weed out the ones who aren't sexist.

Even acknowledging female privilege exists will cause feminists to come out of the woodwork to insult, make bigotted assumptions about the persons gender, mischaracterize, and attack the poster.
That they engage in gendered attacks is basically hilarious, for the reasons I pointed out on the previous page.
It's so blatantly obvious these people are bigots that it's scarcely worth comment.

[Spoder]

Ew, how repulsive. You deserve actual food.

Their French fries, cheddar buns and chicken nuggets used to be very decent here in Rio.

I always hated burgers and I think I hate burgers because of them, though.

Their fries taste stale and clump together at the bottom.

Chicken nuggets in general are disgusting.

Their burgers have always been flattened and smaller than my hand.

[Edgy Opinions]

Their fries taste stale and clump together at the bottom.

Chicken nuggets in general are disgusting.

Weird, their fries are restaurant-like here and McNuggets are better than the ones you can buy frozen in the supermarket.

Then again, McDonalds here is expensive and not seen as a crappy cheap whatever solution to fast food.

[Jamjai]

Their French fries, cheddar buns and chicken nuggets used to be very decent here in Rio.

I always hated burgers and I think I hate burgers because of them, though.

Their fries taste stale and clump together at the bottom.

Chicken nuggets in general are disgusting.

Their burgers have always been flattened and smaller than my hand.

no, their fries taste pretty is the best but ihop fries taste bland at least the local ihop I went too a year ago

yea, I think they should make mcDonald's fries a little bigger

[Serksis Federation]

Their fries taste stale and clump together at the bottom.

Chicken nuggets in general are disgusting.

Their burgers have always been flattened and smaller than my hand.

no, their fries taste pretty is the best but ihop fries taste bland at least the local ihop I went too a year ago

yea, I think they should make mcDonald's fries a little bigger

Stay on topic

[Hurdegaryp]

Their fries taste stale and clump together at the bottom.

Chicken nuggets in general are disgusting.

Weird, their fries are restaurant-like here and McNuggets are better than the ones you can buy frozen in the supermarket.

Then again, McDonalds here is expensive and not seen as a crappy cheap whatever solution to fast food.

Personally I prefer the hamburgers and fries you can buy at your local cafeteria or diner.

[Edgy Opinions]

Weird, their fries are restaurant-like here and McNuggets are better than the ones you can buy frozen in the supermarket.

Then again, McDonalds here is expensive and not seen as a crappy cheap whatever solution to fast food.

Personally I prefer the hamburgers and fries you can buy at your local cafeteria or diner.

Podrão is not better than McDonalds where I come from. *shrug*

Bob's is better but it's a fast food chain too, except it's Brazilian.

[Autonomous Titoists]

Oh god, I ain't touching this with a long pointy stick. I'll just call 'no true Scotsman' fallacy and call it a day.

There's a difference between the normal (sometimes silent ) majority and the extremist nutjobs. See the difference between the average Muslim and the Taliban, the average Christian and the Teutonic Knights, the average American Republican and the Tea Party, etc.

Or do you seriously suggest that asinine extremists represent the defining majority of any tribal group?

Well with some views from imperialist America all the Muslims are "Freedom hating terrorists," and the majority of Americans are christian so Christians are the perfect people. America is full of primitive people with narrow views (someones going to take offense to that, but don't)

[Kelinfort]

Most of the problems with feminism pointed out in this thread do not deal with feminism as an ideology, but traditionalism. No ideology permeates the government of the United States more than social conservatism, and such reinforcement of gender roles, criminal justice punishment, and social order. While I encourage feminists to focus more on these issues, and many have, these problems are not caused by feminism.

[Udinia]

Basically, these type of feminists are crap at their job.

Sociology is a science, not a religious forum.
Leave your gynocentrism at the door, or prove it's valid.

This type of religious/cultish thinking also leads these types of feminists to automatically accept anything that fits their narrative, even if it isn't true, such as the shootings incident.
When challenged to provide evidence of this, they will either refer to their preachers telling them it is so, or break down into hysterics.
They can't actually prove it, because it's false. Just like they can't prove Oppressor-oppressed gender dynamics. Because it's bollocks and doesn't line up with reality. All they have is an expression of their gynocentrism as an argument. It isn't an argument.
It's an admission of sexism.

That scientifically minded feminists have to put up with these people is the reason the movement is dying. Many of them have fucked off to join the MRA, or become a new type of ideology.
The ones who stick around are drowned out by this nonsense and able to effect very little change. Imo they should let the babies have their bottle and abandon the feminist label to the zealots, who can then quietly be ignored.

Where have you been all my life?

[Ostroeuropa]

Most of the problems with feminism pointed out in this thread do not deal with feminism as an ideology, but traditionalism. No ideology permeates the government of the United States more than social conservatism, and such reinforcement of gender roles, criminal justice punishment, and social order. While I encourage feminists to focus more on these issues, and many have, these problems are not caused by feminism.

Would you say that Susurreses and Potenco were feminists, or not.
Because i've pointed out why their behaviour and ideology is riddled with problems.

Would you say any gynocentrists are feminists, or must a feminist be neutral and take a multi-lens approach to the situation?

Basically, these type of feminists are crap at their job.

Sociology is a science, not a religious forum.
Leave your gynocentrism at the door, or prove it's valid.

This type of religious/cultish thinking also leads these types of feminists to automatically accept anything that fits their narrative, even if it isn't true, such as the shootings incident.
When challenged to provide evidence of this, they will either refer to their preachers telling them it is so, or break down into hysterics.
They can't actually prove it, because it's false. Just like they can't prove Oppressor-oppressed gender dynamics. Because it's bollocks and doesn't line up with reality. All they have is an expression of their gynocentrism as an argument. It isn't an argument.
It's an admission of sexism.

That scientifically minded feminists have to put up with these people is the reason the movement is dying. Many of them have fucked off to join the MRA, or become a new type of ideology.
The ones who stick around are drowned out by this nonsense and able to effect very little change. Imo they should let the babies have their bottle and abandon the feminist label to the zealots, who can then quietly be ignored.

Where have you been all my life?

Equestria. I found the portal to the human world in 2013.

[Dumb Ideologies]

You keep using all of these terms like "gynocentricity". Do you also say "heterophobia" or "reverse racism"

Im not sure how to source the point that sexism is something that hurts women the most and that women are more marginalized than men. Its not really that in and of itself that becomes the subject of studies. What I can say is that the feminist movements grievances are much more serious and worthy of consideration than the MRMs concerns.

For starters, while rape is extremely prevalent, false accusations are not, and the false rape accusation thing is a big concern for MRAs. I will state at this point that feminists hat I have known were all very compassionate about mens issues. Prior to coming out, I was a rape survivor who turned male feminist after experiencing rape culture, and all of the feminists I talked to were very supportive and we had an excellent dialogue
https://www.rainn.org/get-information/s ... lt-victims
http://www.buzzfeed.com/charlesclymer/5 ... ing-f-fmeu

I would use heterophobia if it were an appropriate label at the time.
Do you understand what gynocentricity is?
You are literally arguing for gynocentricity. You shouldn't be opposed to the idea, you think it's great.
You're not sure how to point to it because it's bollocks and you've never had any proof of it other than your own prejudicial conceptions of the situation, namely that obviously the women are in a worse position than the men, they're women, and thus utterly helpless.
Rape of male victims is also a concern for the MRA.
And just because false accusations aren't very common in the legal system doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed.

Ah yes, compassionate. As in, well, your rape was surely awful, but mine was worse because sexism. How compassionate of them.

Ostro, stop being right this instant. It disorientates me.

[Hurdegaryp]

I would use heterophobia if it were an appropriate label at the time.
Do you understand what gynocentricity is?
You are literally arguing for gynocentricity. You shouldn't be opposed to the idea, you think it's great.
You're not sure how to point to it because it's bollocks and you've never had any proof of it other than your own prejudicial conceptions of the situation, namely that obviously the women are in a worse position than the men, they're women, and thus utterly helpless.
Rape of male victims is also a concern for the MRA.
And just because false accusations aren't very common in the legal system doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed.

Ah yes, compassionate. As in, well, your rape was surely awful, but mine was worse because sexism. How compassionate of them.

Ostro, stop being right this instant. It disorientates me.

Working exactly as intended. Recycling all those subreddit posts is really starting to pay off. Just keep bombarding people with the MRA agenda until everyone just goes away.

[Kelinfort]

Most of the problems with feminism pointed out in this thread do not deal with feminism as an ideology, but traditionalism. No ideology permeates the government of the United States more than social conservatism, and such reinforcement of gender roles, criminal justice punishment, and social order. While I encourage feminists to focus more on these issues, and many have, these problems are not caused by feminism.

Would you say that Susurreses and Potenco were feminists, or not.
Because i've pointed out why their behaviour and ideology is riddled with problems.

Would you say any gynocentrists are feminists, or must a feminist be neutral and take a multi-lens approach to the situation?

I have not seen Susurreses recently. Potenco has said things contrary to feminism, namely belittling oppression of males and derogatory remarks. While I do not support those, the gist of what they have posted is feminist.

Should, and is, multi-lensed. That being said, it should not be fifty fifty. There should be a focus on women's issues, and groups such as the good men foundation should be treated as allies and focus on men's issues. Two branches, both with the same goal.

[Tahar Joblis]

Most of the problems with feminism pointed out in this thread do not deal with feminism as an ideology, but traditionalism. No ideology permeates the government of the United States more than social conservatism, and such reinforcement of gender roles, criminal justice punishment, and social order. While I encourage feminists to focus more on these issues, and many have, these problems are not caused by feminism.

You seem under the impression that feminists and traditionalists have not colluded.

You seem unaware that social conservatism in the United States allies with feminism whenever the subject comes to regulation of men's behavior.

It's traditional to punish women less severely than men for crimes. Traditionally, this was because women were treated similarly to children - not fully responsible for their own behavior. Every time a woman is put on trial for anything, feminists rise up in a chorus to defend her and introduce mitigating factors, and some feminists are working to exacerbate the gender gap by seeking to keep women out of prison entirely, in spite of the fact that women are disproportionately unaffected by the prison system already.

Alimony is traditional. It was born out of the patriarchal need to repay the man's end of the contract broken between the husband and the family of his now-ex-wife. Feminists have supported alimony.

The system of involuntary asymmetric obligation for men in paternity is a consequence of feminism. The obligations existed before feminists came around; but before first wave feminists, men had superior rights over children as well as superior obligations to children.

The Prohibition movement was the darling of religious conservatives and feminists a hundred years ago. Today, anti-pornography and anti-video gaming movements display the same unholy alliance.

I talked about this recently in the #GamerGate thread. When it comes to regulating the behavior of men, or maintaining special privileges for women, feminists are, collectively, as traditionalist as any other non-progressive group. It is only on the subjects of special male privileges and regulation of the behavior of women where feminists break from traditionalists in any significant way.

[Salandriagado]

1) Because its gender-centric (beginning with "Fem");' whatever happened to the ERA, EQUAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION/MOVEMENT? I guess Equality has long since stopped being the focus!
2) IT ENDS WITH"ISM"!, When in the entire history of the world, has an "ISM" proved to be a good thing!!!!????!!!!????

Pacifism.

[Des-Bal]

I have not seen Susurreses recently. Potenco has said things contrary to feminism, namely belittling oppression of males and derogatory remarks. While I do not support those, the gist of what they have posted is feminist.

Should, and is, multi-lensed. That being said, it should not be fifty fifty. There should be a focus on women's issues, and groups such as the good men foundation should be treated as allies and focus on men's issues. Two branches, both with the same goal.

That's needlessly divisive. You can't prop up a relevant other in the same arena and expect everything to be peachy keen. If both movements are pursuing gender equality there's no reason they can't do it as one single movement.

[Edgy Opinions]

That's needlessly divisive. You can't prop up a relevant other in the same arena and expect everything to be peachy keen. If both movements are pursuing gender equality there's no reason they can't do it as one single movement.

They do it under vastly ideologically different perspectives also often influenced by their own lived experience.

[Des-Bal]

They do it under vastly ideologically different perspectives also often influenced by their own lived experience.

You're still refusing to explain your position, I don't really consider you to be part of the discussion. I have no idea how the hell you think feminism works so I can gain no information from your appraisal of it.