The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So feminism is supporting harmful traditional narratives and acting as the perfect antithesis to gender equality in areas where those narratives hurt men. That's not a problem or anything.

Yes, it's a problem - to the same degree that it's a problem when anyone else supports harmful traditional narratives. Feminism can't legitimately be singled out as contributing more to the problem than any other group or ideology that does so.

Well, no, it can't.

The problem is that feminism bills itself as the grand solution to sex, relationships, and everything under this sun when it comes to men-women relationships. So it is an easier target than, say, people who believe Vatican II is invalid for doctrine in the Catholic Church.

Christianity, coincidentally, is a low-hanging fruit for the same reasons feminism is.

[Des-Bal]

Yes, it's a problem - to the same degree that it's a problem when anyone else supports harmful traditional narratives. Feminism can't legitimately be singled out as contributing more to the problem than any other group or ideology that does so.

1. Feminism specifically bills itself as existing to address harmful traditional narratives.
2. If you're arguing that someone stumbling upon a beating and then jumping in themselves is exactly as reprehensible as the fucking animals who were already there then I'd have to wonder what defense you think you're raising.

[Galloism]

So feminism is supporting harmful traditional narratives and acting as the perfect antithesis to gender equality in areas where those narratives hurt men. That's not a problem or anything.

As said, such "traditional narrative" it's very likely to be very inflated, exaggerated, but also to have a biological basis: differences in mating strategies between sexes can be observed in all the mammals.
I think that saying that "all men always want it" it's wrong, but I don't think it would be totally wrong to suppose, given the reality of differences in mating strategies, that most (not all) men are hardwired to a default "yes" while most (not all) women are hardwired to a default "no". Hence why the requests of Indian and Israelian Feminists make sense, when we also take in account the unbalancement of power within a patriarchal society.

Wow. Way to directly encourage rape. You actually did it.

That's amazing. I guess you're done tiptoeing around your rape support and ready to say "go ahead and fuck em even when goddamn unconscious. Most men are in a default state of consent anyway".

Nice to get it out in the open and quit all this dancing around.

[New Edom]

You then said that we are in a culture that maintains that myth, I responded saying that proves feminism's influence, and then you respond with your nonsensical response that feminism didn't invent it. Thats completely irrelevant

No, it's entirely relevant. The myth was already present in the culture. If feminism weren't talking about the myth, it would still be present in the culture to almost the same degree, if not entirely to the same degree. Your logic is backwards; you're putting the cart before the horse.

You're assuming that 'men want it' is the key issue. It's an important issue, butit's not the only issue. The main issue is actually that men's issues in general are not considered important and are belieed to eclipse womens needs.

Being an ally to feminists most often means that men are expected to suppor twomen in the sphere of feminism. Discussion of men's needs--which has been attempted many times--is generally rejected on the part of feminists.

[Solaas]

No, it's entirely relevant. The myth was already present in the culture. If feminism weren't talking about the myth, it would still be present in the culture to almost the same degree, if not entirely to the same degree. Your logic is backwards; you're putting the cart before the horse.

You're assuming that 'men want it' is the key issue. It's an important issue, butit's not the only issue. The main issue is actually that men's issues in general are not considered important and are belieed to eclipse womens needs.

Being an ally to feminists most often means that men are expected to suppor twomen in the sphere of feminism. Discussion of men's needs--which has been attempted many times--is generally rejected on the part of feminists.

Why men's issues should be important to a movement that is meant for women?
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/12/ ... -misogyny/

Feminism! A movement by women, for women. Or is it something about… Equality…? For… People?

Depends on who you ask. According to a recent article at Bustle, it’s all pretty hard to pin down.

Suzannah Weiss writes, “A large part of feminism is obtaining equal treatment for women, so understandably, a lot of feminist efforts and rhetoric focus on women.”

Crazy, right! And, apparently, a really big problem. It seems the biggest problem with feminism today, according to third wave feminists, is women! Damn, ladies — haven’t we learned how to stay out of all this yet?

Weiss goes on to explain that the way women talk about women’s subordination under patriarchy (also known as the reason feminism exists) can “unintentionally erase trans and non-binary people.” It’s a funny way of framing things… Similar to saying, for example, that Black Lives Matter “unintentionally erases” white people. Or that the labour movement’s focus on the working class “unintentionally erases” the upper class. Does the animal rights movement “unintentionally erase” non-animals? Do Indigenous rights activists “unintentionally erase” other groups marginalized by white supremacy and colonialism?

See what I’m getting at? It’s ok for political movements to have particular aims. We do not need to talk about everything all at once. Indeed, all movements, in that sense, are “exclusionary.” But for some reason, it is only the women’s movement that is expected to accommodate everyone, and to ensure no one feels bad or left out. Odd!

In fact, this is not odd at all. It is sexist. As long as patriarchy has existed, women have been expected to put everyone else‘s needs before their own. They are meant to think about the feelings of others first — to speak up about their own needs and desires is framed as selfish.

None of this is to say that the feelings and rights of people who identify as trans or “non-binary” don’t matter, it is only to say that the purpose of the women’s movement is to liberate the class of women, who are oppressed, as females, under patriarchy. (In other words, if you are female and you also identify as trans or “non-binary,” yes, this is still about you.) This should not be a controversial statement for anyone who claims interest in the feminist project, but nonetheless countless do-gooders have taken it upon themselves to condescendingly explain to women that they need to sit down and shut up about their own material reality, within their own movement.

Your identity is your own choice, but that doesn’t change the fact that patriarchy exists as a means to legitimize male power over females (i.e. the class of people capable of giving birth). The notion that we should degender conversations about feminism suggests we pretend not to know who is oppressing whom, and why — a mindfuck if there ever was one. (Is it just folks vs. folks? Who are the folks? Why are some folks raping other folks?! It’s a mystery…)

One of the phrases Weiss takes issue with is the point often made in order to remind the world that indeed women exist, are human, and matter, that is, “Women are half the world’s population.” While she argues that this “neglect[s] the rights of so many people,” I struggle to see how. It is simply a statement of fact. Stating that the Blue Whale currently exists but is on the endangered species list does not erase the fact that other animals exist or even that other animals are endangered. In any case, whether or not a person identifies as “pangender” or “agender” does not erase their biology. One’s chosen identification, for example, cannot erase a penis or a uterus, nor can it erase the socialization and consequent inequality that comes from being born a boy or a girl, in this world.

Weiss says this “statistic is based on the fact that approximately half of people are assigned female at birth,” failing to understand that the vast majority of people are not “assigned” a sex at birth (with the exception of intersex people, who have historically had sex imposed on them against their will, though the intersex rights movement has made progress on this recently), but, rather, are simply born either male or female, a thing that is acknowledged and recorded at birth.

While Weiss complains earlier in the piece that those who name women’s liberation as the purpose of the feminist movement “conflate gender with biology,” it is, rather, the gender identity movement that does this by refusing to acknowledge that biological sex is a real, material thing, separate from gender roles (i.e. the things that are imposed on humans through socialization, based on sex).

“Everyone comes out of a woman” is yet another phrase we are informed must be barred from feminist speech…. As if a dick has ever birthed a baby. (Yikes, bros, amirite?!)

Efforts to deny that females are the only humans capable of giving birth not only feels like serious crazy-making (I mean, surely we all know how babies are made?) but, again, erases the struggles and dangers women face in patriarchal society. Pregnancy is a serious thing. It has very real implications on women everywhere. In many countries throughout the world, women are still criminalized for miscarrying or for trying to get abortions. Patriarchy exists in order to control reproduction — a thing that continues today even in glorious, “free,” America. It is reprehensible to deny this as a gendered phenomenon.

Weiss and I almost agree on one thing: the claim that “feminism is just the belief that women are equal to men.” Indeed, the purpose of feminism is not to say that women are just like men. We are not. There are differences between male and female bodies that impact our daily lives. Weiss quickly loses the plot, though, when she concludes, “Feminism is the belief that all genders are equal — and all races, sexualities, and more.” The purpose of feminism is to get rid of sexist gender roles, male supremacy, and male violence against women. While, yes, feminists are (or, at least, I would hope) opposed to oppression as a whole, we do have a specific mission in this movement.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You're assuming that 'men want it' is the key issue. It's an important issue, butit's not the only issue. The main issue is actually that men's issues in general are not considered important and are belieed to eclipse womens needs.

Being an ally to feminists most often means that men are expected to suppor twomen in the sphere of feminism. Discussion of men's needs--which has been attempted many times--is generally rejected on the part of feminists.

Why men's issues should be important to a movement that is meant for women?
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/12/ ... -misogyny/

-trite snipped for sake of length-

If the Feminist movement is exclusionary, then why does it bill itself as the answer to everything and everyone who seeks equality for women and men?

If it is exclusionary, then that means only women get benefitted, and the question then becomes "which group of women get benefitted the most?" because it sure as hell isn't all women as it claims to be if it claims to be exclusionary.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Once you say your movement is "exclusionary" the questions is not whether or not it is fighting for equality, but rather, whose interests is it looking after. Because if it is exclusionary, then it cannot claim to fight for equality for women under the current form of social structure; it, rather, is fighting to covet dominance of interests in the public, which by then is a pretty good question to ask as to whom, exactly, benefits from these interests.

And, considering most women who are prominent in the feminist movement are white, middle-class, and college educated, it doesn't take a fucking genius to figure out who would benefit.

[New Edom]

You're assuming that 'men want it' is the key issue. It's an important issue, butit's not the only issue. The main issue is actually that men's issues in general are not considered important and are belieed to eclipse womens needs.

Being an ally to feminists most often means that men are expected to suppor twomen in the sphere of feminism. Discussion of men's needs--which has been attempted many times--is generally rejected on the part of feminists.

Why men's issues should be important to a movement that is meant for women?
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/12/ ... -misogyny/

Feminism! A movement by women, for women. Or is it something about… Equality…? For… People?

Depends on who you ask. According to a recent article at Bustle, it’s all pretty hard to pin down.

Suzannah Weiss writes, “A large part of feminism is obtaining equal treatment for women, so understandably, a lot of feminist efforts and rhetoric focus on women.”

Crazy, right! And, apparently, a really big problem. It seems the biggest problem with feminism today, according to third wave feminists, is women! Damn, ladies — haven’t we learned how to stay out of all this yet?

Weiss goes on to explain that the way women talk about women’s subordination under patriarchy (also known as the reason feminism exists) can “unintentionally erase trans and non-binary people.” It’s a funny way of framing things… Similar to saying, for example, that Black Lives Matter “unintentionally erases” white people. Or that the labour movement’s focus on the working class “unintentionally erases” the upper class. Does the animal rights movement “unintentionally erase” non-animals? Do Indigenous rights activists “unintentionally erase” other groups marginalized by white supremacy and colonialism?

See what I’m getting at? It’s ok for political movements to have particular aims. We do not need to talk about everything all at once. Indeed, all movements, in that sense, are “exclusionary.” But for some reason, it is only the women’s movement that is expected to accommodate everyone, and to ensure no one feels bad or left out. Odd!

In fact, this is not odd at all. It is sexist. As long as patriarchy has existed, women have been expected to put everyone else‘s needs before their own. They are meant to think about the feelings of others first — to speak up about their own needs and desires is framed as selfish.

None of this is to say that the feelings and rights of people who identify as trans or “non-binary” don’t matter, it is only to say that the purpose of the women’s movement is to liberate the class of women, who are oppressed, as females, under patriarchy. (In other words, if you are female and you also identify as trans or “non-binary,” yes, this is still about you.) This should not be a controversial statement for anyone who claims interest in the feminist project, but nonetheless countless do-gooders have taken it upon themselves to condescendingly explain to women that they need to sit down and shut up about their own material reality, within their own movement.

Your identity is your own choice, but that doesn’t change the fact that patriarchy exists as a means to legitimize male power over females (i.e. the class of people capable of giving birth). The notion that we should degender conversations about feminism suggests we pretend not to know who is oppressing whom, and why — a mindfuck if there ever was one. (Is it just folks vs. folks? Who are the folks? Why are some folks raping other folks?! It’s a mystery…)

One of the phrases Weiss takes issue with is the point often made in order to remind the world that indeed women exist, are human, and matter, that is, “Women are half the world’s population.” While she argues that this “neglect[s] the rights of so many people,” I struggle to see how. It is simply a statement of fact. Stating that the Blue Whale currently exists but is on the endangered species list does not erase the fact that other animals exist or even that other animals are endangered. In any case, whether or not a person identifies as “pangender” or “agender” does not erase their biology. One’s chosen identification, for example, cannot erase a penis or a uterus, nor can it erase the socialization and consequent inequality that comes from being born a boy or a girl, in this world.

Weiss says this “statistic is based on the fact that approximately half of people are assigned female at birth,” failing to understand that the vast majority of people are not “assigned” a sex at birth (with the exception of intersex people, who have historically had sex imposed on them against their will, though the intersex rights movement has made progress on this recently), but, rather, are simply born either male or female, a thing that is acknowledged and recorded at birth.

While Weiss complains earlier in the piece that those who name women’s liberation as the purpose of the feminist movement “conflate gender with biology,” it is, rather, the gender identity movement that does this by refusing to acknowledge that biological sex is a real, material thing, separate from gender roles (i.e. the things that are imposed on humans through socialization, based on sex).

“Everyone comes out of a woman” is yet another phrase we are informed must be barred from feminist speech…. As if a dick has ever birthed a baby. (Yikes, bros, amirite?!)

Efforts to deny that females are the only humans capable of giving birth not only feels like serious crazy-making (I mean, surely we all know how babies are made?) but, again, erases the struggles and dangers women face in patriarchal society. Pregnancy is a serious thing. It has very real implications on women everywhere. In many countries throughout the world, women are still criminalized for miscarrying or for trying to get abortions. Patriarchy exists in order to control reproduction — a thing that continues today even in glorious, “free,” America. It is reprehensible to deny this as a gendered phenomenon.

Weiss and I almost agree on one thing: the claim that “feminism is just the belief that women are equal to men.” Indeed, the purpose of feminism is not to say that women are just like men. We are not. There are differences between male and female bodies that impact our daily lives. Weiss quickly loses the plot, though, when she concludes, “Feminism is the belief that all genders are equal — and all races, sexualities, and more.” The purpose of feminism is to get rid of sexist gender roles, male supremacy, and male violence against women. While, yes, feminists are (or, at least, I would hope) opposed to oppression as a whole, we do have a specific mission in this movement.

I am sick and tired of this. The next time feminists appeal for men to help them or support them, they can go to hell. I'm tired of you people not being able to come to consensus on what your story is. I'm tired of the lies and hypocrisy. This post has crossed a line for me completely. I know you can get away with it with people who don't care about history, so probably this will go on, but this is just too much. Enough.

[Neutraligon]

Why men's issues should be important to a movement that is meant for women?
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/12/ ... -misogyny/

I am sick and tired of this. The next time feminists appeal for men to help them or support them, they can go to hell. I'm tired of you people not being able to come to consensus on what your story is. I'm tired of the lies and hypocrisy. This post has crossed a line for me completely. I know you can get away with it with people who don't care about history, so probably this will go on, but this is just too much. Enough.

Or,it could be that different people have different views of what feminism means and disagree with each other.
My personal view is that feminism is about the equality of women with men, and thus should focus on women's issues, the same way the NAACP focus on African American issues. Does this prevent them from also supporting men's issues, no.

[Chessmistress]

My personal view is that feminism is about the equality of women with men, and thus should focus on women's issues, the same way the NAACP focus on African American issues. Does this prevent them from also supporting men's issues, no.

There are even plenty feminists who support animal rights and are anti-speciesism

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/12/ani ... ist-issue/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samita-sa ... 99578.html

http://www.thescavenger.net/feminism-a- ... 84674.html

Personally I think that's bullshit, especially the article from Everyday Feminism, and that her point 4 is the most ludicrous.

[The Grene Knyght]

Why men's issues should be important to a movement that is meant for women?
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/12/ ... -misogyny/

I am sick and tired of this. The next time feminists appeal for men to help them or support them, they can go to hell. I'm tired of you people not being able to come to consensus on what your story is. I'm tired of the lies and hypocrisy. This post has crossed a line for me completely. I know you can get away with it with people who don't care about history, so probably this will go on, but this is just too much. Enough.

I'll keep this post in mind next time I see #notallmen posted anywhere

[Ostroeuropa]

I am sick and tired of this. The next time feminists appeal for men to help them or support them, they can go to hell. I'm tired of you people not being able to come to consensus on what your story is. I'm tired of the lies and hypocrisy. This post has crossed a line for me completely. I know you can get away with it with people who don't care about history, so probably this will go on, but this is just too much. Enough.

Or,it could be that different people have different views of what feminism means and disagree with each other.
My personal view is that feminism is about the equality of women with men, and thus should focus on women's issues, the same way the NAACP focus on African American issues. Does this prevent them from also supporting men's issues, no.

I think its difficult for men who care about mens issues to feel like part of a movement where it seems like a large number of the people baring its name don't respect their issues and stuff.
It's why i'm an MRA. I think we need to split the movements.

[New Edom]

I am sick and tired of this. The next time feminists appeal for men to help them or support them, they can go to hell. I'm tired of you people not being able to come to consensus on what your story is. I'm tired of the lies and hypocrisy. This post has crossed a line for me completely. I know you can get away with it with people who don't care about history, so probably this will go on, but this is just too much. Enough.

Or,it could be that different people have different views of what feminism means and disagree with each other.
My personal view is that feminism is about the equality of women with men, and thus should focus on women's issues, the same way the NAACP focus on African American issues. Does this prevent them from also supporting men's issues, no.

Yeah that's the standard line. Who cares? What GOOD does it do?

What do feminists do for men other than pat white knights on the head, scold them constantly about how they're responsible for the thoughtcrimes of other men, and support men who are effeminiate? The price of equality for nearly all people speaking for feminism is men humbling themselves before the altar of feminism. Give me a break.

[New Edom]

I am sick and tired of this. The next time feminists appeal for men to help them or support them, they can go to hell. I'm tired of you people not being able to come to consensus on what your story is. I'm tired of the lies and hypocrisy. This post has crossed a line for me completely. I know you can get away with it with people who don't care about history, so probably this will go on, but this is just too much. Enough.

I'll keep this post in mind next time I see #notallmen posted anywhere

Do whatever the hell you want. What difference does it make?

Men like myself, who WERE harmed and neglected much of their lives by women, have no voice int he god damned feminist movement, quite delibereately. No recognition, no acceptance, like being a dirty word. So fuck the movement. Do what you want.

[New Edom]

My personal view is that feminism is about the equality of women with men, and thus should focus on women's issues, the same way the NAACP focus on African American issues. Does this prevent them from also supporting men's issues, no.

There are even plenty feminists who support animal rights and are anti-speciesism

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/12/ani ... ist-issue/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samita-sa ... 99578.html

http://www.thescavenger.net/feminism-a- ... 84674.html

Personally I think that's bullshit, especially the article from Everyday Feminism, and that her point 4 is the most ludicrous.

I know what you stand for. At least you are honest about it, though what you stand for I loathe entirely. May it fail, wither and die.

[Chessmistress]

There are even plenty feminists who support animal rights and are anti-speciesism

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/12/ani ... ist-issue/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samita-sa ... 99578.html

http://www.thescavenger.net/feminism-a- ... 84674.html

Personally I think that's bullshit, especially the article from Everyday Feminism, and that her point 4 is the most ludicrous.

I know what you stand for. At least you are honest about it, though what you stand for I loathe entirely. May it fail, wither and die.

Thank you for the appreciation.
As for the last part: it's not going to happen. Quite the opposite. There will be, limited to USA, a stop or a nearly stop (more likely the latter than the former) for the next 4 years. It's not even so bad: 4 years of nearly stop will be good in order to sediment and by so making permanent the goals already reached. Perhaps there will be some attacks on abortion, but I think they cannot really put things back: they'll be mostly an annoyance rather than a real threat, in the great scheme of the things (that's the only thing that's really worthy). Then, 4 years from now, things will start again to go forward, towards true substantive equality.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I know what you stand for. At least you are honest about it, though what you stand for I loathe entirely. May it fail, wither and die.

Thank you for the appreciation.
As for the last part: it's not going to happen. Quite the opposite. There will be, limited to USA, a stop or a nearly stop (more likely the latter than the former) for the next 4 years. It's not even so bad: 4 years of nearly stop will be good in order to sediment and by so making permanent the goals already reached. Perhaps there will be some attacks on abortion, but I think they cannot really put things back: they'll be mostly an annoyance rather than a real threat, in the great scheme of the things (that's the only thing that's really worthy). Then, 4 years from now, things will start again to go forward, towards true substantive equality.

I don't think that will happen as much as you think it will.

The truth of the matter is, America is not Sweden. Sweden is more to the left than the United States is.

If anything, the U.S. is more right-libertarian than left-authoritarian even if I criticize the United States a lot. Also, many of the measures for "true, substantive equality" infringes on the states' powers, of which Sweden is a unitary government, and as such it is much easier to administer than 50 separate states under a Federation.

[Neutraligon]

Or,it could be that different people have different views of what feminism means and disagree with each other.
My personal view is that feminism is about the equality of women with men, and thus should focus on women's issues, the same way the NAACP focus on African American issues. Does this prevent them from also supporting men's issues, no.

I think its difficult for men who care about mens issues to feel like part of a movement where it seems like a large number of the people baring its name don't respect their issues and stuff.
It's why i'm an MRA. I think we need to split the movements.

I don't disagree there. Just like feminists need to work to restore their name that many of the movement have so tarnished, I think MRAs need to do the same thing. Unfortunately just like there are too many or too loud a group of feminists who are mysandrist, there are too many or too loud a group of MRAs who are misogynist. I think the two groups can work together on their issues, but I also think there should be two groups since there are issues that effect men more then women, and there are issues that effect women more then men (very poor stay at home moms versus the violence men face).

[Neutraligon]

Or,it could be that different people have different views of what feminism means and disagree with each other.
My personal view is that feminism is about the equality of women with men, and thus should focus on women's issues, the same way the NAACP focus on African American issues. Does this prevent them from also supporting men's issues, no.

Yeah that's the standard line. Who cares? What GOOD does it do?

What do feminists do for men other than pat white knights on the head, scold them constantly about how they're responsible for the thoughtcrimes of other men, and support men who are effeminiate? The price of equality for nearly all people speaking for feminism is men humbling themselves before the altar of feminism. Give me a break.

It odes about as much good as realizing that not all anti-feminists like yourself are also anti-woman. It odes the same good to realize that not all right/left wing want the destruction of society. It does good because the second you stop lumping everyone into the same god damned category of people you hate is the second that people can actually start getting something done about the people who are actually a freaking problem. You are perfectly right to criticize those who have and are causing you harm, you are perfectly right to call out those whose actions would cause you harm, but the second you lump every single god damn one of us into that group is the second you make it impossible for those of us who trying to do something about it to change it.

Depends, some of us try to and point out the violence face, some of try and fight so that men are not the only ones who get drafted. Some of us try and point out that men face issues of domestic abuse and inequality there, and that some of what feminists are saying are directly harming men.

I get that you have been harmed by women all your life, truly I do. You are perfectly right to feel anger at the women who have hurt you and then told you that everything you faced was right and just because you are a man, and that you should just have put up with it. Don't become the standard barer that those women and men can point to as the problem because of how you decide to treat women.

[New Edom]

I think its difficult for men who care about mens issues to feel like part of a movement where it seems like a large number of the people baring its name don't respect their issues and stuff.
It's why i'm an MRA. I think we need to split the movements.

I don't disagree there. Just like feminists need to work to restore their name that many of the movement have so tarnished, I think MRAs need to do the same thing. Unfortunately just like there are too many or too loud a group of feminists who are mysandrist, there are too many or too loud a group of MRAs who are misogynist. I think the two groups can work together on their issues, but I also think there should be two groups since there are issues that effect men more then women, and there are issues that effect women more then men (very poor stay at home moms versus the violence men face).

I've tried to do this for years. What have I achieved?

And it's easy to want to have this balanced approach, but I strongly disagree. The main leaders of the men's movement, whatever you want to call them, regularly say that they agree with the values feminists esposue but disagree with their actions. Feminist leaders, by contrast, regularly lie about what men and men's activists actually want insisting that they do NOT want equality.

Here's an article that mentions many of these things : Cathy Young article

Where MRA, MGTOW and general red pill articles and vlogs call attention to things that feminists have acteually done and said in the context in which they were presented originally, feminists do the opposite, will talk about how feminists shut down rape apologist Warren Farrell, or how MRAs don't understand feminism and how feminism is just wonderful for men so they have no point at ll. They will resort to ad hominems that are worse than anything most red pillers say. Where red pillers may refer to particular feminsts as fat and ugly--to my thinking very inappropriate and unfair--it is INDIVIDUAL. By contrast, many feminists talk about anyone who disagrees with them as part of a large demographic of degenerate and worthless people.

So I don't see how you can call these things equivalent. It is not men's activists who are turnin g on the fire alarms, cancelng conferrences, silencing public speakers, and calling for people to get fired. This is being done by feminist leaders who are generally admired, near as we can tell, by millions of other feminists.

as for common ground, some of us have been struggling for years around here just to have recognition of the notion that maybe a broder definition of victimhood in assault cases needs to be accepted--and every two weeks we go through the same battle again. So what common ground are you talkng about?

[Neutraligon]

I don't disagree there. Just like feminists need to work to restore their name that many of the movement have so tarnished, I think MRAs need to do the same thing. Unfortunately just like there are too many or too loud a group of feminists who are mysandrist, there are too many or too loud a group of MRAs who are misogynist. I think the two groups can work together on their issues, but I also think there should be two groups since there are issues that effect men more then women, and there are issues that effect women more then men (very poor stay at home moms versus the violence men face).

I've tried to do this for years. What have I achieved?

Probably about as much as I have in fighting it, which is not much. If it has become to much for you then fine, I however have not given up, and will continue to fight against the issues I see, both in feminism, and in the stances you take which in some cases are as bad as the ones feminism take.

And it's easy to want to have this balanced approach, but I strongly disagree. The main leaders of the men's movement, whatever you want to call them, regularly say that they agree with the values feminists esposue but disagree with their actions. Feminist leaders, by contrast, regularly lie about what men and men's activists actually want insisting that they do NOT want equality.

And yet the followers of men's rights have shown they do not care what the leaders say. A movement is just as much about the followers as the leaders. Many of the men's rights activists I have dealt with, they have told me outright that I have take a slot in school from a man who deserved more. That I undoubtedly got my position not because of working hard, but simply due to me being a woman. That it is probably my fault some guy out there did not manage to get into an engineering school. Yet I do not think all men's rights advocates are like that, because I have also met those who tell those men they are being idiots. You have given up, I get that. Fine. Don't expect me to accept your labeling of me nor the actions that that harm women because you are bitter.

As to the common ground, let's see the right for men to take leave for the birth of a child seems like a good one. Some women do make more then men, and so having the man stay at home for some families does make more sense, and yet this is not an option right now. Funny thing, doing something like this may also help deal with the image men have of not being care givers, which can in turn help them when it comes to things like say custody battles.

[New Edom]

I've tried to do this for years. What have I achieved?

Probably about as much as I have in fighting it, which is not much. If it has become to much for you then fine, I however have not given up, and will continue to fight against the issues I see, both in feminism, and in the stances you take which in some cases are as bad as the ones feminism take.

And it's easy to want to have this balanced approach, but I strongly disagree. The main leaders of the men's movement, whatever you want to call them, regularly say that they agree with the values feminists esposue but disagree with their actions. Feminist leaders, by contrast, regularly lie about what men and men's activists actually want insisting that they do NOT want equality.

And yet the followers of men's rights have shown they do not care what the leaders say. A movement is just as much about the followers as the leaders. Many of the men's rights activists I have dealt with, they have told me outright that I have take a slot in school from a man who deserved more. That I undoubtedly got my position not because of working hard, but simply due to me being a woman. That it is probably my fault some guy out there did not manage to get into an engineering school. Yet I do not think all men's rights advocates are like that, because I have also met those who tell those men they are being idiots. You have given up, I get that. Fine. Don't expect me to accept your labeling of me nor the actions that that harm women because you are bitter.

As to the common ground, let's see the right for men to take leave for the birth of a child seems like a good one. Some women do make more then men, and so having the man stay at home for some families does make more sense, and yet this is not an option right now. Funny thing, doing something like this may also help deal with the image men have of not being care givers, which can in turn help them when it comes to things like say custody battles.

Yes I'm sure it will be effective because it will benefit women. But then the leaders of feminism will simply move the goalposts again to keep the fires burning, as they have done over and over again. How much submission will be enough?

[Mattopilos]

I've tried to do this for years. What have I achieved?

Probably about as much as I have in fighting it, which is not much. If it has become to much for you then fine, I however have not given up, and will continue to fight against the issues I see, both in feminism, and in the stances you take which in some cases are as bad as the ones feminism take.

And it's easy to want to have this balanced approach, but I strongly disagree. The main leaders of the men's movement, whatever you want to call them, regularly say that they agree with the values feminists esposue but disagree with their actions. Feminist leaders, by contrast, regularly lie about what men and men's activists actually want insisting that they do NOT want equality.

And yet the followers of men's rights have shown they do not care what the leaders say. A movement is just as much about the followers as the leaders. Many of the men's rights activists I have dealt with, they have told me outright that I have take a slot in school from a man who deserved more. That I undoubtedly got my position not because of working hard, but simply due to me being a woman. That it is probably my fault some guy out there did not manage to get into an engineering school. Yet I do not think all men's rights advocates are like that, because I have also met those who tell those men they are being idiots. You have given up, I get that. Fine. Don't expect me to accept your labeling of me nor the actions that that harm women because you are bitter.

As to the common ground, let's see the right for men to take leave for the birth of a child seems like a good one. Some women do make more then men, and so having the man stay at home for some families does make more sense, and yet this is not an option right now. Funny thing, doing something like this may also help deal with the image men have of not being care givers, which can in turn help them when it comes to things like say custody battles.

Pretty much this. And the fact is, I have simply taken the fact that the term feminism has become very, very, subjective, and will push whatever they think it is - whether it is for just women, men and women, or more than that. I couldn't care less being labelled a feminist or an egalitarian, as long as I know where I stand on the issues. Would it be better to split the movement into two as feminism and MRA? I don't know, because clearly they both have disagreements themselves, and both have some off as misogynist or misandrist. The movements are less organized than it looks in that sense, and they themselves cannot agree on what their views are. Would it be better as one group? I also don't know. All I know is that I have my views, and people have theirs on the issue of women's and men's rights.

[New Edom]

Probably about as much as I have in fighting it, which is not much. If it has become to much for you then fine, I however have not given up, and will continue to fight against the issues I see, both in feminism, and in the stances you take which in some cases are as bad as the ones feminism take.


And yet the followers of men's rights have shown they do not care what the leaders say. A movement is just as much about the followers as the leaders. Many of the men's rights activists I have dealt with, they have told me outright that I have take a slot in school from a man who deserved more. That I undoubtedly got my position not because of working hard, but simply due to me being a woman. That it is probably my fault some guy out there did not manage to get into an engineering school. Yet I do not think all men's rights advocates are like that, because I have also met those who tell those men they are being idiots. You have given up, I get that. Fine. Don't expect me to accept your labeling of me nor the actions that that harm women because you are bitter.

As to the common ground, let's see the right for men to take leave for the birth of a child seems like a good one. Some women do make more then men, and so having the man stay at home for some families does make more sense, and yet this is not an option right now. Funny thing, doing something like this may also help deal with the image men have of not being care givers, which can in turn help them when it comes to things like say custody battles.

Pretty much this. And the fact is, I have simply taken the fact that the term feminism has become very, very, subjective, and will push whatever they think it is - whether it is for just women, men and women, or more than that. I couldn't care less being labelled a feminist or an egalitarian, as long as I know where I stand on the issues. Would it be better to split the movement into two as feminism and MRA? I don't know, because clearly they both have disagreements themselves, and both have some off as misogynist or misandrist. The movements are less organized than it looks in that sense, and they themselves cannot agree on what their views are. Would it be better as one group? I also don't know. All I know is that I have my views, and people have theirs on the issue of women's and men's rights.

Neutraligon presents a false narrative in which feminits and MRAs are equal in voice. The fact is that most mainstream media ewith possibly the exception of Fox News--I do not count Breitbart or Rebel Media as mainstream--support feminism without hesitation, attacking on its behalf anyone who disputes its popular claims. A handful of public voices such as Bill Maher support Christina Hoff Sommers and more liberal feminists, but overwhelmingly the rest support mainstream 3rd Wave intersectional feminism. The same is true of most universities. Feminism has won huge swathes of influence as an ally of liberalism in the culture wars.

Anyone who has criticized feminist initiatives publicly can expect to be humiliated and attacked as an immoral person on Al-Jazeera, The Young Turks, Huffington Post, the Guardian, Salon, NBC, the CBC, the BBC, and other popular sources.

The United Nations has invited famous feminists to talk to them to support hte notion of rape culture and online harassment. The Prime Minister of Canada, and the President of the United States and Vice-President supported feminist definitions of harassment and rape culture even over those of more liberal feminists.

So whose voice exactly is marginalized here? Neutraligon pretends that this is an equal problem, an equal effort, but it has become entirely unbalanced, and efforts on the part of men's rights activists which have tried to say "we support equality, but we disagree with how we are represented" have been time and time again denounced as being no different from the worst kinds of misogyny.

So when she pretends this is the same and that it is an equal problem, she's not presenting a truthful picture, and I've been trying to talk to her and her allies about this for quite some time. Yet she acts as though she's on some moral pedestal. As far as I can tell, all she wants to do is make sure girls in areas where there is a lack of educational opportunity are taught math. That's great, but that's about another issue, not the issue I am raising. If she has any generosity of spirit she can recognize that

NOTHING!!!! NOTHING!

Of what I have been saying is against that. There has been nothing that I have said that is meant to get in the way of peple getting fair opportunities of education. However if she wants to make some deal with the devil to get that and throw men under the bus to do it, I will not tolerate her suggesting she is on the side of the angels and I'm just giving up. Not in the face of the kind of lies her post perpetuate.

[The Grene Knyght]

Pretty much this. And the fact is, I have simply taken the fact that the term feminism has become very, very, subjective, and will push whatever they think it is - whether it is for just women, men and women, or more than that. I couldn't care less being labelled a feminist or an egalitarian, as long as I know where I stand on the issues. Would it be better to split the movement into two as feminism and MRA? I don't know, because clearly they both have disagreements themselves, and both have some off as misogynist or misandrist. The movements are less organized than it looks in that sense, and they themselves cannot agree on what their views are. Would it be better as one group? I also don't know. All I know is that I have my views, and people have theirs on the issue of women's and men's rights.

Neutraligon presents a false narrative in which feminits and MRAs are equal in voice. The fact is that most mainstream media ewith possibly the exception of Fox News--I do not count Breitbart or Rebel Media as mainstream--support feminism without hesitation, attacking on its behalf anyone who disputes its popular claims. A handful of public voices such as Bill Maher support Christina Hoff Sommers and more liberal feminists, but overwhelmingly the rest support mainstream 3rd Wave intersectional feminism. The same is true of most universities. Feminism has won huge swathes of influence as an ally of liberalism in the culture wars.

Anyone who has criticized feminist initiatives publicly can expect to be humiliated and attacked as an immoral person on Al-Jazeera, The Young Turks, Huffington Post, the Guardian, Salon, NBC, the CBC, the BBC, and other popular sources.

The United Nations has invited famous feminists to talk to them to support hte notion of rape culture and online harassment. The Prime Minister of Canada, and the President of the United States and Vice-President supported feminist definitions of harassment and rape culture even over those of more liberal feminists.

So whose voice exactly is marginalized here? Neutraligon pretends that this is an equal problem, an equal effort, but it has become entirely unbalanced, and efforts on the part of men's rights activists which have tried to say "we support equality, but we disagree with how we are represented" have been time and time again denounced as being no different from the worst kinds of misogyny.

So when she pretends this is the same and that it is an equal problem, she's not presenting a truthful picture, and I've been trying to talk to her and her allies about this for quite some time. Yet she acts as though she's on some moral pedestal. As far as I can tell, all she wants to do is make sure girls in areas where there is a lack of educational opportunity are taught math. That's great, but that's about another issue, not the issue I am raising. If she has any generosity of spirit she can recognize that

NOTHING!!!! NOTHING!

Of what I have been saying is against that. There has been nothing that I have said that is meant to get in the way of peple getting fair opportunities of education. However if she wants to make some deal with the devil to get that and throw men under the bus to do it, I will not tolerate her suggesting she is on the side of the angels and I'm just giving up. Not in the face of the kind of lies her post perpetuate.

The problem, I think, is the amount of MRAs reacting against feminism for the purpose of reacting against feminism, and for no other reason, and present their MRA status as an extension of that.

[White Chrobatia]

fourth wave feminism is an ironic meme invented by the military-industrial complex to ruin women's lives