Feminism in decline

[Divitaen]

So Evil Feminazis would oppose male birth control pills, a medical advance that would be the wet dream of many single males and PUAs that would allow them to be sexually active with practically guaranteed protection from unwanted pregnancies because Evil Feminazis want to entrap men into relationships and suck paternity from them?

Nope. Not a tin-foil conspiracy at all.

Why do leftists always accuse other people of being conspiracy theorists?

Because we've heard a lot of ridiculous conspiracy theories. And many leftist ideas get shot down using slippery-slope conspiracy theories.

[Blakk Metal]

And many leftist ideas get shot down using slippery-slope conspiracy theories.

All of which are based on things that actually happened.

[Kelinfort]

And many leftist ideas get shot down using slippery-slope conspiracy theories.

All of which are based on things that actually happened.

We're all fucking animals now?

[Gauthier]

And many leftist ideas get shot down using slippery-slope conspiracy theories.

All of which are based on things that actually happened.

Do you have any actual points to make on the subject discussed right now or were you just trying to go "SUCK IT, LEFTISTS"?

[Divitaen]

And many leftist ideas get shot down using slippery-slope conspiracy theories.

All of which are based on things that actually happened.

Like what?

[Tahar Joblis]

You aren't really reading, are you?

They will, by the way, similarly be interested in "limiting access" to male birth control pills once they come out. If they continue to try to block birth control pills at all. But right now, that's a hypothetical future as far as Republicans are concerned, and they'll start reacting once they see it.

Now, right now, your typical feminist will speak in favor of a male birth control pill. But if men start using it, it takes much of the power over reproduction out of women's hands. I expect that as with child custody laws, feminists will find reasons - as in the above - to oppose the actual use of the pill and lobby for restrictions.

Umm wait, I'm kind of confused. It sounds like an interesting point you are making there. Why would a feminist wish to limit male access to male contraception pills? It seems that they should be in favour of bodily sovereignty and autonomy, in the same way as we feminists support principles of reproductive sovereignty for women. How does the male pill contravene women's reproductive health?

If they're actually in favor of bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, gender equality, etc, then they ought to. But then again, feminists ought to have supported gender-neutral custody laws; joint custody as the legal default arrangement; et cetera. In practice, whenever women's interests conflict with gender equity, bodily autonomy, etc, a number of feminists find a plausible-enough rationalization to stand behind, and feminist organizations fight tooth and nail on the side of women's interests. Feminism, in practice, has been a women's interests lobby; not a gender equity lobby, a bodily autonomy lobby, or anything else.

A number of doctors have, in fact, in violation of standing medical protocols, required a wife's permission before giving a vasectomy; feminists haven't particularly troubled themselves over this. MRAs are not happy with this practice. And why is it happening in the first place? Because a number of women will throw a fit if their husband has a vasectomy.

Now, I'll be happy if my prediction is proved wrong... but history very strongly suggests that the movers and shakers of the movement will line the full power of feminist organizations behind women's interests regardless of what platitudes are preferred by rank-and-file feminists and regardless of what it means for gender equity.

[Divitaen]

If they're actually in favor of bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, gender equality, etc, then they ought to. But then again, feminists ought to have supported gender-neutral custody laws; joint custody as the legal default arrangement; et cetera. In practice, whenever women's interests conflict with gender equity, bodily autonomy, etc, a number of feminists find a plausible-enough rationalization to stand behind, and feminist organizations fight tooth and nail on the side of women's interests. Feminism, in practice, has been a women's interests lobby; not a gender equity lobby, a bodily autonomy lobby, or anything else.

A number of doctors have, in fact, in violation of standing medical protocols, required a wife's permission before giving a vasectomy; feminists haven't particularly troubled themselves over this. MRAs are not happy with this practice. And why is it happening in the first place? Because a number of women will throw a fit if their husband has a vasectomy.

Of course I don't support women deciding on vasectomies for men any more than I support laws that require husband consent for a wife's abortion. That being said, I don't think its fair to say that a lack of feminist statements on the issue means feminist support. I mean, this issue is fairly under-reported, so its possible feminist organizations have not formulated a stance on it, but if feminists have come out in open support of requiring wives' consent then of course that would be clearly despicable.

And I do think feminists do generally support bodily autonomy and sovereignty, for both genders. Of course I would never claim the feminist movement is perfect, but modern-day third-wave feminists at least have generally championed gender reassignment surgery both ways, Ariel Levy as mentioned in a previous article openly champions male contraception, third-wave feminists generally support prostitution and pornography for both genders etc...

[Galloism]

So Evil Feminazis would oppose male birth control pills, a medical advance that would be the wet dream of many single males and PUAs that would allow them to be sexually active with practically guaranteed protection from unwanted pregnancies because Evil Feminazis want to entrap men into relationships and suck paternity from them?

Nope. Not a tin-foil conspiracy at all.

It's not exactly a conspiracy theory to state feminists might oppose male contraception when we have documented proof of feminists opposing male contraception.

[Ostroeuropa]

If they're actually in favor of bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, gender equality, etc, then they ought to. But then again, feminists ought to have supported gender-neutral custody laws; joint custody as the legal default arrangement; et cetera. In practice, whenever women's interests conflict with gender equity, bodily autonomy, etc, a number of feminists find a plausible-enough rationalization to stand behind, and feminist organizations fight tooth and nail on the side of women's interests. Feminism, in practice, has been a women's interests lobby; not a gender equity lobby, a bodily autonomy lobby, or anything else.

A number of doctors have, in fact, in violation of standing medical protocols, required a wife's permission before giving a vasectomy; feminists haven't particularly troubled themselves over this. MRAs are not happy with this practice. And why is it happening in the first place? Because a number of women will throw a fit if their husband has a vasectomy.

Of course I don't support women deciding on vasectomies for men any more than I support laws that require husband consent for a wife's abortion. That being said, I don't think its fair to say that a lack of feminist statements on the issue means feminist support. I mean, this issue is fairly under-reported, so its possible feminist organizations have not formulated a stance on it, but if feminists have come out in open support of requiring wives' consent then of course that would be clearly despicable.

And I do think feminists do generally support bodily autonomy and sovereignty, for both genders. Of course I would never claim the feminist movement is perfect, but modern-day third-wave feminists at least have generally championed gender reassignment surgery both ways, Ariel Levy as mentioned in a previous article openly champions male contraception, third-wave feminists generally support prostitution and pornography for both genders etc...

Source.
Source your claims that your views are mainstream in feminism and you havn't just got ideological blinders on.

[Divitaen]

Of course I don't support women deciding on vasectomies for men any more than I support laws that require husband consent for a wife's abortion. That being said, I don't think its fair to say that a lack of feminist statements on the issue means feminist support. I mean, this issue is fairly under-reported, so its possible feminist organizations have not formulated a stance on it, but if feminists have come out in open support of requiring wives' consent then of course that would be clearly despicable.

And I do think feminists do generally support bodily autonomy and sovereignty, for both genders. Of course I would never claim the feminist movement is perfect, but modern-day third-wave feminists at least have generally championed gender reassignment surgery both ways, Ariel Levy as mentioned in a previous article openly champions male contraception, third-wave feminists generally support prostitution and pornography for both genders etc...

Source.
Source your claims that your views are mainstream in feminism and you havn't just got ideological blinders on.

Well 'mainstream' is subjective, so I don't know how mainstream you consider the following sites/activists:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2 (explaining how feminism in the 1970s was rather anti-trans, but mainstream feminism today is largely in support of transsexualism)
http://feminspire.com/male-birth-contro ... happening/
http://jezebel.com/5913267/whore-pills- ... -come-true (Please don't react harshly to Jezebel's use of 'whore', Jezebel is using it in a complimentary way to argue that men having access to contraception will normalise sexual liberation in both men and women and end slut-shaming)
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/feminist-porn/
http://www.feministpornawards.com/what- ... rn-awards/

[Kelinfort]

Source.
Source your claims that your views are mainstream in feminism and you havn't just got ideological blinders on.

Well 'mainstream' is subjective, so I don't know how mainstream you consider the following sites/activists:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2 (explaining how feminism in the 1970s was rather anti-trans, but mainstream feminism today is largely in support of transsexualism)
http://feminspire.com/male-birth-contro ... happening/
http://jezebel.com/5913267/whore-pills- ... -come-true (Please don't react harshly to Jezebel's use of 'whore', Jezebel is using it in a complimentary way to argue that men having access to contraception will normalise sexual liberation in both men and women and end slut-shaming)
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/feminist-porn/
http://www.feministpornawards.com/what- ... rn-awards/

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/05/pen ... h-control/

[Ostroeuropa]

Source.
Source your claims that your views are mainstream in feminism and you havn't just got ideological blinders on.

Well 'mainstream' is subjective, so I don't know how mainstream you consider the following sites/activists:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2 (explaining how feminism in the 1970s was rather anti-trans, but mainstream feminism today is largely in support of transsexualism)
http://feminspire.com/male-birth-contro ... happening/
http://jezebel.com/5913267/whore-pills- ... -come-true (Please don't react harshly to Jezebel's use of 'whore', Jezebel is using it in a complimentary way to argue that men having access to contraception will normalise sexual liberation in both men and women and end slut-shaming)
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/feminist-porn/
http://www.feministpornawards.com/what- ... rn-awards/

That's all well and good for the male pill frankly. (Though i'm still extremely skeptical. Some feminist publications occasionally do a piece on male domestic violence victims, but spend 90% of their time still pushing the duluth model. Their actions speak louder than their words.)
But your porn examples are suspect for a number of reasons, most prominently that the anti-pornography movement is mostly consisting of the unholy alliance between feminists and traditional conservatives.

I have a post or two here dealing with this that i'd appreciate you read over to understand my perspective on why feminist rhetoric and ideology is a problem for society.

viewtopic.php?p=24890714#p24890714

Nobody responded to it in the other thread.

Basically, anti-pornography feminism is backed by the establishment and used as a weapon to bludgeon opposition to wide-sweeping internet surveillance, and because while being pro-porn can be twisted into being anti-woman, being anti-porn very rarely is.
Because of feminists making misogyny so socially unacceptable to the point that even the mere accusation of it can end careers, the only choice for media outlets is an anti-pornography stance, etc.

Basically, feminisms ideology and gynocentricity causes problems in society. To be a feminist is to be a problem.
Note that all of those things ask for "Feminist porn", but it's fairly clear the market doesn't want that. So they are, in fact, anti-pornography as it currently stands, or are just pissy about how nobody wants their porn.

Do you, Divtaen, believe in misandry and reject the oppressor-oppressed gender dynamic?
Do you believe mens issues need to be dealt with as much as womens?
Do you believe women perpetuate sexism less, as much, or more than men?
What male issues are you aware of?
What female issues are you aware of?
Do you suspect your involvement in the feminist movement may have something to do with your views, should I prove to you that these views are sexist against men? (I'm fairly confident you'll flub one of these questions in my view.)

[Divitaen]

Well 'mainstream' is subjective, so I don't know how mainstream you consider the following sites/activists:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2 (explaining how feminism in the 1970s was rather anti-trans, but mainstream feminism today is largely in support of transsexualism)
http://feminspire.com/male-birth-contro ... happening/
http://jezebel.com/5913267/whore-pills- ... -come-true (Please don't react harshly to Jezebel's use of 'whore', Jezebel is using it in a complimentary way to argue that men having access to contraception will normalise sexual liberation in both men and women and end slut-shaming)
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/feminist-porn/
http://www.feministpornawards.com/what- ... rn-awards/

That's all well and good for the male pill frankly. (Though i'm still extremely skeptical. Some feminist publications occasionally do a piece on male domestic violence victims, but spend 90% of their time still pushing the duluth model. Their actions speak louder than their words.)
But your porn examples are suspect for a number of reasons, most prominently that the anti-pornography movement is mostly consisting of the unholy alliance between feminists and traditional conservatives.

I have a post or two here dealing with this that i'd appreciate you read over to understand my perspective on why feminist rhetoric and ideology is a problem for society.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p24890714

Nobody responded to it in the other thread.

Basically, anti-pornography feminism is backed by the establishment and used as a weapon to bludgeon opposition to wide-sweeping internet surveillance, and because while being pro-porn can be twisted into being anti-woman, being anti-porn very rarely is.
Because of feminists making misogyny so socially unacceptable to the point that even the mere accusation of it can end careers, the only choice for media outlets is an anti-pornography stance, etc.

Basically, feminisms ideology and gynocentricity causes problems in society. To be a feminist is to be a problem.
Note that all of those things ask for "Feminist porn", but it's fairly clear the market doesn't want that. So they are, in fact, anti-pornography as it currently stands, or are just pissy about how nobody wants their porn.

Well like I said, as far as I know you had older feminists like Andrea Dworkin who were very anti-pornography, but the younger generation of feminists have very different views. They are often anti-censorship and argue that censorship has harmed women's liberation in the past. Ellen Willis was the first who argued that pornography would lead the world to a sex-positive society and normalise female sexual expression. Susie Bright has said that "It's a far different criticism to note that porn is sexist. So are all commercial media. That's like tasting several glasses of salt water and insisting only one of them is salty. The difference with porn is that it is people fucking, and we live in a world that cannot tolerate that image in public."

That's actually the best illustration I can give you. Feminists believe that porn is laced with misogyny, yes, but modern feminists like Susie Bright, and feminist porn actresses like Nina Hartley and Sasha Grey, believe that misogyny exists everywhere, in the media, in advertising, in TV shows, in movies. Its not a reason to rejects such mediums altogether, but to reform it by saturating it with sex-positive, more egalitarian portrayals of women actively pursuing sex in pornographic films.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's all well and good for the male pill frankly. (Though i'm still extremely skeptical. Some feminist publications occasionally do a piece on male domestic violence victims, but spend 90% of their time still pushing the duluth model. Their actions speak louder than their words.)
But your porn examples are suspect for a number of reasons, most prominently that the anti-pornography movement is mostly consisting of the unholy alliance between feminists and traditional conservatives.

I have a post or two here dealing with this that i'd appreciate you read over to understand my perspective on why feminist rhetoric and ideology is a problem for society.

viewtopic.php?p=24890714#p24890714

Nobody responded to it in the other thread.

Basically, anti-pornography feminism is backed by the establishment and used as a weapon to bludgeon opposition to wide-sweeping internet surveillance, and because while being pro-porn can be twisted into being anti-woman, being anti-porn very rarely is.
Because of feminists making misogyny so socially unacceptable to the point that even the mere accusation of it can end careers, the only choice for media outlets is an anti-pornography stance, etc.

Basically, feminisms ideology and gynocentricity causes problems in society. To be a feminist is to be a problem.
Note that all of those things ask for "Feminist porn", but it's fairly clear the market doesn't want that. So they are, in fact, anti-pornography as it currently stands, or are just pissy about how nobody wants their porn.

Well like I said, as far as I know you had older feminists like Andrea Dworkin who were very anti-pornography, but the younger generation of feminists have very different views. They are often anti-censorship and argue that censorship has harmed women's liberation in the past. Ellen Willis was the first who argued that pornography would lead the world to a sex-positive society and normalise female sexual expression. Susie Bright has said that "It's a far different criticism to note that porn is sexist. So are all commercial media. That's like tasting several glasses of salt water and insisting only one of them is salty. The difference with porn is that it is people fucking, and we live in a world that cannot tolerate that image in public."

That's actually the best illustration I can give you. Feminists believe that porn is laced with misogyny, yes, but modern feminists like Susie Bright, and feminist porn actresses like Nina Hartley and Sasha Grey, believe that misogyny exists everywhere, in the media, in advertising, in TV shows, in movies. Its not a reason to rejects such mediums altogether, but to reform it by saturating it with sex-positive, more egalitarian portrayals of women actively pursuing sex in pornographic films.

Can you name me one area feminists have improved by getting involved with it an imposing their ideology, other than repealing laws explicitly banning women from certain things, or laws explicitly promoting equal treatment of the genders?
I can't. Because it's my view that whenever they get involved, due to their gynocentric understanding of the situation, they inevitably discriminate against men.
If we allow feminists to reform porn, they'll fuck that up too. It is in their nature.
They fucked up education.
They fucked up the justice system. (Though to be fair, this was already a mess.)
They fucked up the civil courts.
They fucked up domestic violence. (With the duluth model and discriminating against men.)
etc.

Did you read the linked post, by the way?
Do you believe in misandry and reject the oppressor-oppressed gender dynamic?
Do you believe mens issues need to be dealt with as much as womens?
Do you believe women perpetuate sexism less, as much, or more than men?
What male issues are you aware of?
What female issues are you aware of?
Do you suspect your involvement in the feminist movement may have something to do with your views, should I prove to you that these views are sexist against men? (I'm fairly confident you'll flub one of these questions in my view.)

(All of these are important for me to understand what your view of feminism is.)

[Divitaen]

Can you name me one area feminists have improved by getting involved with it an imposing their ideology, other than repealing laws explicitly banning women from certain things, or laws explicitly promoting equal treatment of the genders?
I can't. Because it's my view that whenever they get involved, due to their gynocentric understanding of the situation, they inevitably discriminate against men.
If we allow feminists to reform porn, they'll fuck that up too. It is in their nature.
They fucked up education.
They fucked up the justice system. (Though to be fair, this was already a mess.)
They fucked up the civil courts.
They fucked up domestic violence. (With the duluth model and discriminating against men.)
etc.

Did you read the linked post, by the way?
Do you believe in misandry and reject the oppressor-oppressed gender dynamic?
Do you believe mens issues need to be dealt with as much as womens?
Do you believe women perpetuate sexism less, as much, or more than men?
What male issues are you aware of?
What female issues are you aware of?
Do you suspect your involvement in the feminist movement may have something to do with your views, should I prove to you that these views are sexist against men? (I'm fairly confident you'll flub one of these questions in my view.)

(All of these are important for me to understand what your view of feminism is.)

Ok, let me deal with the second part first. I did read your linked post and let me tell you what I think about your views on feminism. I think feminism is about gender equality, and yes feminist groups like NOW have framed the debate in terms of patriarchy and male oppression of women. However, the key is I do reject that feminism today is gynocentric in nature. Even looking at posts on EverydayFeminism or on social media, most of the widely-circulated cartoons and comics on feminism even show how patriarchy and gender roles harm men and women. Shira Tirrant and many other feminists have always argued that gender roles cause greater stress on men, makes men's identities and masculinities tied to employment and financial security, and it harms men who don't conform to the image of strong, hyper-masculinity. That is my view on feminism as well, that it is liberating both men and women from the harms of a patriarchal society's self-reinforcing gender stereotypes on male strength and female submission that harm both sexes. I have also consistently believed that certain male issues help women. For instance, ending gender discrimination in alimony and child custody help to break streotypes of men as breadwiners and women as homemakers.

On the second part, let me just give a few examples. Feminists have raised considerable awareness on human trafficking, and in countries like Singapore recently in 2014, anti-human trafficking measures are often passed because of strong feminist lobbying and campaigining. Feminists have been involved in crafting anti-discrimination laws such as the Equal Pay Act to help women in the workplace, although I suppose that counts under promoting equal treatment. They've encouraged implementation of rape shield laws to prevent slut-shaming of rape victims. They've raised awareness on and passed legislation such as VAWA to target domestic violence (even though the law is called VAWA the domestic violence services are meant to help both genders). And of course feminists have helped implement laws to end arranged marriages, legalise abortion, make contraception insurance-covered under the PPACA and have fully paid maternity leave and to have laws to protect pregnant women from workplace discrimination.

[Gauthier]

So Evil Feminazis would oppose male birth control pills, a medical advance that would be the wet dream of many single males and PUAs that would allow them to be sexually active with practically guaranteed protection from unwanted pregnancies because Evil Feminazis want to entrap men into relationships and suck paternity from them?

Nope. Not a tin-foil conspiracy at all.

It's not exactly a conspiracy theory to state feminists might oppose male contraception when we have documented proof of feminists opposing male contraception.

And specific instances is proof that all feminists hypocritically oppose male contraceptives while demanding female contraception. Yep. It's a mystery why they don't demand condoms be banned.

[Des-Bal]

And specific instances is proof that all feminists hypocritically oppose male contraceptives while demanding female contraception. Yep. It's a mystery why they don't demand condoms be banned.

You've made such a compelling argument that it couldn't have happened that reality has shifted and it no longer did. You've won.

[Gauthier]

And specific instances is proof that all feminists hypocritically oppose male contraceptives while demanding female contraception. Yep. It's a mystery why they don't demand condoms be banned.

You've made such a compelling argument that it couldn't have happened that reality has shifted and it no longer did. You've won.

I point out a Biased Sample fallacy sarcastically and you suddenly insist I claimed feminists never opposed male contraception. You're sure good with building strawmen for all the times you accuse me of doing it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Can you name me one area feminists have improved by getting involved with it an imposing their ideology, other than repealing laws explicitly banning women from certain things, or laws explicitly promoting equal treatment of the genders?
I can't. Because it's my view that whenever they get involved, due to their gynocentric understanding of the situation, they inevitably discriminate against men.
If we allow feminists to reform porn, they'll fuck that up too. It is in their nature.
They fucked up education.
They fucked up the justice system. (Though to be fair, this was already a mess.)
They fucked up the civil courts.
They fucked up domestic violence. (With the duluth model and discriminating against men.)
etc.

Did you read the linked post, by the way?
Do you believe in misandry and reject the oppressor-oppressed gender dynamic?
Do you believe mens issues need to be dealt with as much as womens?
Do you believe women perpetuate sexism less, as much, or more than men?
What male issues are you aware of?
What female issues are you aware of?
Do you suspect your involvement in the feminist movement may have something to do with your views, should I prove to you that these views are sexist against men? (I'm fairly confident you'll flub one of these questions in my view.)

(All of these are important for me to understand what your view of feminism is.)

Ok, let me deal with the second part first. I did read your linked post and let me tell you what I think about your views on feminism. I think feminism is about gender equality, and yes feminist groups like NOW have framed the debate in terms of patriarchy and male oppression of women. However, the key is I do reject that feminism today is gynocentric in nature. Even looking at posts on EverydayFeminism or on social media, most of the widely-circulated cartoons and comics on feminism even show how patriarchy and gender roles harm men and women. Shira Tirrant and many other feminists have always argued that gender roles cause greater stress on men, makes men's identities and masculinities tied to employment and financial security, and it harms men who don't conform to the image of strong, hyper-masculinity. That is my view on feminism as well, that it is liberating both men and women from the harms of a patriarchal society's self-reinforcing gender stereotypes on male strength and female submission that harm both sexes. I have also consistently believed that certain male issues help women. For instance, ending gender discrimination in alimony and child custody help to break streotypes of men as breadwiners and women as homemakers.

On the second part, let me just give a few examples. Feminists have raised considerable awareness on human trafficking, and in countries like Singapore recently in 2014, anti-human trafficking measures are often passed because of strong feminist lobbying and campaigining. Feminists have been involved in crafting anti-discrimination laws such as the Equal Pay Act to help women in the workplace, although I suppose that counts under promoting equal treatment. They've encouraged implementation of rape shield laws to prevent slut-shaming of rape victims. They've raised awareness on and passed legislation such as VAWA to target domestic violence (even though the law is called VAWA the domestic violence services are meant to help both genders). And of course feminists have helped implement laws to end arranged marriages, legalise abortion, make contraception insurance-covered under the PPACA and have fully paid maternity leave and to have laws to protect pregnant women from workplace discrimination.

On your first point, you don't seem to understand that they are still using a gynocentric perspective, even when they acknowledge mens issues, because they acknowledge those issues from a womans POV, or a man parroting that POV. Everydayfeminism and such attributes most mens problems to misogyny, which is an ideological assertion that just focuses us back on women and their image problem and how it needs to be fixed. They acknowledge mens problems in order to dismiss them and promise that somehow, magically, mens problems will be fixed when womens are.

On the second point:
They fucked up human trafficking too mate, because of their gynocentricity. Here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=330712&hilit=ostroeuropa+trafficking
(Do not post)

Rape-shield laws is a fair one, though some are very poorly written.

The VAWA is a monumental fuck up, as is the duluth model. The influence of feminists on the domestic violence issue is TERRIBLE. I can't believe you'd defend them here. Their campaigning perpetuates stereotypes and demonizes men too.

Legalized abortion is another fair one, though i'll note that on the broader area of reproductive rights, they've managed to fuck that up too.

Make WOMENS contraception insurance covered, not mens. I count that as yet another fuck up by them.

Make WOMEN have fully paid maternity leave, not men very often with paternity leave. Yet another fuck up.

So we've either got a movement of complete incompetents, or a movement that is fine for womens issues and not the place for mens issues. Which is it.

[Galloism]

It's not exactly a conspiracy theory to state feminists might oppose male contraception when we have documented proof of feminists opposing male contraception.

And specific instances is proof that all feminists hypocritically oppose male contraceptives while demanding female contraception. Yep. It's a mystery why they don't demand condoms be banned.

Not at all. These were prominent feminists representing the larger feminist movement at an internationally relevant conference.

Like I said: I hope the tune has changed. I just will wait to see when it becomes reality to find out.

[Divitaen]

On your first point, you don't seem to understand that they are still using a gynocentric perspective, even when they acknowledge mens issues, because they acknowledge those issues from a womans POV, or a man parroting that POV. Everydayfeminism and such attributes most mens problems to misogyny, which is an ideological assertion that just focuses us back on women and their image problem and how it needs to be fixed. They acknowledge mens problems in order to dismiss them and promise that somehow, magically, mens problems will be fixed when womens are.

On the second point:
They fucked up human trafficking too mate, because of their gynocentricity. Here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... rafficking
(Do not post)

Rape-shield laws is a fair one, though some are very poorly written.

The VAWA is a monumental fuck up, as is the duluth model. The influence of feminists on the domestic violence issue is TERRIBLE. I can't believe you'd defend them here. Their campaigning perpetuates stereotypes and demonizes men too.

Legalized abortion is another fair one, though i'll note that on the broader area of reproductive rights, they've managed to fuck that up too.

Make WOMENS contraception insurance covered, not mens. I count that as yet another fuck up by them.

Make WOMEN have fully paid maternity leave, not men very often with paternity leave. Yet another fuck up.

So we've either got a movement of complete incompetents, or a movement that is fine for womens issues and not the place for mens issues. Which is it.

First, I don't think the point is men will be helped when women's issues are resolved. The focus is more that we should be breaking down patriarchal gender stereotypes, and that process will liberate both men and women. So the focus is still not women-oriented.

For VAWA, the reauthorisation of VAWA in 2013 made it explicit that gender discrimination is not allowed in domestic violence provision. Although women's-only shelters may exist for psychological reasons (female victims may be uncomfortable around other males due to personal fear and vice versa), resources cannot be discriminatorily applied. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s47/text

For women's contraception, as the article mentioned earlier, there are issues in the industrial release of male birth control, but once the production issues are out of the way, as I argued before, I think the feminist movement will get behind making male birth control accessible to all.

And again, as far as I know, feminists also support paternity leave because it breaks the stereotype that women are caretakers. http://time.com/2853080/fathers-day-gif ... m-for-men/

Finally, for human trafficking, I understand there may be problems in people thinking women are the main victims of trafficking, but I don't consider this a "Fuck Up" on a policy level. On the example of Singapore I mentioned earlier, as a Singaporean and an activist at HOME, a feminist anti-trafficking group, in 2014 we campaigned and got an anti-trafficking bill passed which targeted all trafficking victims, and solutions of victim protection, non-deportation and ensuring a right to work for all victims are things which help both male and female victims, even though feminist groups have been pioneers in raising awareness for and campaigining for such laws to be improved, as recent amendments to the human trafficking act in the US have been proposed after campaigining by NOW (Jon Stewart covered how the law stalled during his HateWatch segment)

[Tahar Joblis]

It's not exactly a conspiracy theory to state feminists might oppose male contraception when we have documented proof of feminists opposing male contraception.

And specific instances is proof that all feminists hypocritically oppose male contraceptives while demanding female contraception. Yep. It's a mystery why they don't demand condoms be banned.

The difference between condoms and a male pill is that you generally know a condom is in use. Right now, if a woman wants to become pregnant by a man, all she has to really do is get him to not wear a condom (or use a condom with holes poked in it).

Also right now, nobody has to accurately disclose the fact that they are taking / not taking birth control before having sex, in part because feminists have been very gung-ho about making sure women's use of the female birth control pill is completely outside of male control, even informal male control.

Vasectomies are really hard to get (as alluded to previously) - and being fairly permanent, aren't viable options for men who don't want children right now or don't want children with this particular woman. While potentially reversible, reversals aren't by any means guaranteed to succeed.

So. With a male birth control pill, the option becomes available for men to become voluntarily infertile without letting women know. From the perspective of a typical woman who wants to have kids, this poses a scary potential problem. (It also increases the potential for serious backfires when a man on the pill denies being the father when he otherwise might decide to believe a woman who says he's the father.)

That is to say, we can see a way in which this causes problems for some women by giving men more control over their own reproductive output independent of the decision to have sex... a way that is very distinct from condom use.

[Gauthier]

And specific instances is proof that all feminists hypocritically oppose male contraceptives while demanding female contraception. Yep. It's a mystery why they don't demand condoms be banned.

The difference between condoms and a male pill is that you generally know a condom is in use. Right now, if a woman wants to become pregnant by a man, all she has to really do is get him to not wear a condom (or use a condom with holes poked in it).

Also right now, nobody has to accurately disclose the fact that they are taking / not taking birth control before having sex, in part because feminists have been very gung-ho about making sure women's use of the female birth control pill is completely outside of male control, even informal male control.

Vasectomies are really hard to get (as alluded to previously) - and being fairly permanent, aren't viable options for men who don't want children right now or don't want children with this particular woman. While potentially reversible, reversals aren't by any means guaranteed to succeed.

So. With a male birth control pill, the option becomes available for men to become voluntarily infertile without letting women know. From the perspective of a typical woman who wants to have kids, this poses a scary potential problem. (It also increases the potential for serious backfires when a man on the pill denies being the father when he otherwise might decide to believe a woman who says he's the father.)

That is to say, we can see a way in which this causes problems for some women by giving men more control over their own reproductive output independent of the decision to have sex... a way that is very distinct from condom use.

Translation: "All women are avaricious golddiggers who want men to get them pregnant so they can trap them in relationships and suck their wallets dry. Except when they don't want children themselves."

[Egoman]

Just like in other ideologies, its idiots are going to be the death of it. That is how ideologies work. Communism is seen as stupid due to its utopian idiots and regimes around the world promoting and having promoted it. Environmentalism is seen as stupid due to its common opposition to nuclear power and genetically modification of organisms. Religion is seen as stupid due to its unfalsifiable claims of a deity or anything supernatural and its authoritarian and discriminatory and often also archaic nature. As for feminism, take your pick: some feminists think trans people don't belong to their movement. Some feminists shame sex workers. Some feminists hate men. Some feminists have a tendency to inflate trivial issues. Some feminists claim things to exist which don't exist.

[Chessmistress]

A number of doctors have, in fact, in violation of standing medical protocols, required a wife's permission before giving a vasectomy; feminists haven't particularly troubled themselves over this. MRAs are not happy with this practice. And why is it happening in the first place? Because a number of women will throw a fit if their husband has a vasectomy.

Now, I'll be happy if my prediction is proved wrong... but history very strongly suggests that the movers and shakers of the movement will line the full power of feminist organizations behind women's interests regardless of what platitudes are preferred by rank-and-file feminists and regardless of what it means for gender equity.

Vasectomy is an interesting case
I generally agree with that

Consent by partner

It is not a legal requirement to involve both partners in the decision-making and consent process. There is a widespread misconception that a wife must consent to her husband undergoing vasectomy. If, against a man's wishes, his wife is informed of and asked to consent to her husband's vasectomy, this can be regarded as a breach of medical confidentiality and an infringement of an individual's right to self-determination (i.e. autonomy).

It's a matter of bodily autonomy of the male, allright.

Still, I think he MUST inform the partner (note: the partner, not the wife) of his decision.
He can NOT keep it secret.
Personally, I support the idea of rape by deception / rape by fraud

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... crime.html

And that should be the case: a partner must inform her about his reproductive decisions.

“My response to that is there are many ways to sexually assault a person. Violence is one of them. And there are no words that can come to relating the horrible violation of a person when that happens to them,” Short said. “But we should not look asunder. We should not simply cast away the concept that people are defrauded of sex.”