The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Wallenburg]

If they consider themselves MRAs, they are MRAs.

They don't consider themselves MRAs...

That's why they call themselves TRP.

Then radical feminists are not real feminists, since they call themselves radfems.

[Vashtanaraada]

Nope and nope.
Patriarchy in the Marxist sense is accepting that people can be oppressed in other ways bar capitalism. She specifies in saying that whoever is a homemaker often has a disadvantage - that could easily be a man. You could say it exists alongside racism and homophobia etc in society.

STOP saying ALL feminists do certain things. Name me an example of a MARXIST-FEMINIST that's obscured the process of getting gender equality!

If you say Germaine Greer, I'm dismissing everything else you're gonna say. She votes Lib Dem and she's a crypto-radical feminist.

You may as well call it matriarchy. It's not like you're blaming the male gender or men or anything, right?. So why do you insist on calling it patriarchy? To blame everything on men. It's a very transparent sham. Patriarchy simultaneously means everything and nothing, as you're doing currently.

It's the feminist movement. It doesn't matter if there's a few feminists who aren't sexists. Feminists in positions of power and influence as a rule are going to be sexists more often than not.

Sure not as a whole but Marxist feminism can certainly say they do the opposite to radical feminists and actually want equality.

If they actually want equality they should drop the woman-centered narrative. They could start by ceasing to call themselves feminists if they have any interest in a multilateral approach. Don't claim to be for everyone's equality when you're basing equality around making women equal with men. It ignores how screwed over men are as a group, lacking men's domestic violence shelters and not being taken seriously as rape victims.

Consider yourself snubbed, you're not reading me.

[Galloism]

There's nothing wrong with a movement discussing violence and sexism from a woman's perspective and based around women. I've never known a feminist to say that men don't get raped, or that women don't ever beat their spouses. We know that it's a gender neutral issue, but we're catering to women and putting our priority on women, the same way any other movement does with their "type".

You clearly have been blessed having not yet read Chessmistress.

Chess is, of course, the extreme so extreme that even the extremes denounce her.

It's the whole "even evil has standards" thing, but let's keep in mind I've argued for years on this forum that men make up a significant portion of domestic violence and rape victims, and the vast majority of feminists on this forum, for years disputed that, despite me having data on my side.

Only after years of effort are the feminists on this forum actually acknowledging that rape and DV is something that happens to men too - at significant rates.

(To be fair, I'm not sure if this is largely my doing or the fact that the CDC has released studies two years in a row that show DV and rape occur at approximately equal rates to both men and women. Duplication implies authenticity.)

[Galloism]

They don't consider themselves MRAs...

That's why they call themselves TRP.

Then radical feminists are not real feminists, since they call themselves radfems.

This argument doesn't even make sense.

[Valystria]

Many consider themselves to be part of the MRM.

Well, if you insist upon calling radfems part of the feminist movement, it's only egalitarian to include radical MRAs in the MRM.

Red Pillers don't identify as MRAs.

Radical feminists identify as feminists. You can't do an invalid tu quoque. Especially not when using egalitarianism as a synonym for misrepresentation.

The Red Pill aren't radical MRAs though. They're a seperate movement.

If they consider themselves MRAs, they are MRAs.

And they don't consider themselves MRAs.

You must have a problem with egalitarians too for looking down upon a supposed equality movement that only marginalizes everyone else.

When the feminist movement talks about domestic violence and rape, they frame it as a women's issue and not as the gender-neutral issue it should be. That's your movement's problem.


Inequalities should be constantly focused on. It is quite helpful that there are MRAs who don't let the inequalities slide.

And you are correct. The Red Pill, however, does no such thing.

They don't claim to be MRAs.

[Wallenburg]

You clearly have been blessed having not yet read Chessmistress.

Chess is, of course, the extreme so extreme that even the extremes denounce her.

It's the whole "even evil has standards" thing, but let's keep in mind I've argued for years on this forum that men make up a significant portion of domestic violence and rape victims, and the vast majority of feminists on this forum, for years disputed that, despite me having data on my side.

Only after years of effort are the feminists on this forum actually acknowledging that rape and DV is something that happens to men too - at significant rates.

(To be fair, I'm not sure if this is largely my doing or the fact that the CDC has released studies two years in a row that show DV and rape occur at approximately equal rates to both men and women. Duplication implies authenticity.)

I hypothesize that it is a demographic change.

Then radical feminists are not real feminists, since they call themselves radfems.

This argument doesn't even make sense.

How not?

EDIT: Saw the explanation above. *insert joke about needing new glasses*

[Fartsniffage]

Well, if you insist upon calling radfems part of the feminist movement, it's only egalitarian to include radical MRAs in the MRM.

The Red Pill aren't radical MRAs though. They're a seperate movement.

Feminine Imperative: The tendency of media and culture to put women first, excuse their misdeeds (see also: rationalization hamster), and criticize any holding of accountability or pointing out of double standards as being “anti-women”.

The greatest threat to the Feminine Imperative is men becoming self-aware of their own sexual market value and the dissemination of information about how the imperative uses this lack of awareness to perpetuate itself.

Feminine Imperative: Example
Feminine Imperative: How it happened

The feminine imperative is also why so much of what we discuss here rubs people the wrong way. Humans have same-group preference for many things, but when it comes to gender all bets are off. What scientists have found time and time again is that women have same-group preference, but men do not. Furthermore, a large portion of men in fact prefer women's group preference over men's when the two come into contention. There's some interesting theories why that's the case, namely that those who kowtowed the feminine imperative line had better odds of reproducing.

Ultimately we challenge the status quo. As such we face mountains of opposition both online and in the real world, and it will challenge your resolve at times. Those who stick it out and come full circle with the self-improvement process will see lifelong improvements in themselves and interactions with others. However, a common result of which is that you will quite possibly lose some friends along the way, and for two primary reasons:

Your successes are a reminder of their failures
People resist change, and you moving up the pecking order is exactly that

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/com ... _red_pill/

I'm pretty sure I've seen you making these exact same arguments....

[Ostroeuropa]

They don't consider themselves MRAs...

That's why they call themselves TRP.

Then radical feminists are not real feminists, since they call themselves radfems.

That's a fallacious argument.

Radical MRAs are still MRAs.

It would be more like me saying a fashion magazine isn't feminist. As i've repeatedly pointed out to you, stop pretending these movements are equivalent.
The MRM learned from the mistakes of feminism and sought not to repeat them. It's a simple fact that our radicals are not as batshit and sexist as feminist radicals, because we very clearly defined our movement and there are seperate movements for the two arcehtypical sexists.
(Isolationists and Hostile sexists.)

You could say, ANDROCENTRISTS and GYNOCENTRISTS are equivalent. But not the MRM and feminists.
Feminism comprises the vast majority of gynocentrists. The MRM comprises perhaps a third of androcentrists.

[Valystria]

They don't consider themselves MRAs...

That's why they call themselves TRP.

Then radical feminists are not real feminists, since they call themselves radfems.

No true scotsman to an extreme. If you want to start fixing your movement, start admitting radical feminists are feminists, and that they have been the dominant faction of feminism for decades.

[Galloism]

Chess is, of course, the extreme so extreme that even the extremes denounce her.

It's the whole "even evil has standards" thing, but let's keep in mind I've argued for years on this forum that men make up a significant portion of domestic violence and rape victims, and the vast majority of feminists on this forum, for years disputed that, despite me having data on my side.

Only after years of effort are the feminists on this forum actually acknowledging that rape and DV is something that happens to men too - at significant rates.

(To be fair, I'm not sure if this is largely my doing or the fact that the CDC has released studies two years in a row that show DV and rape occur at approximately equal rates to both men and women. Duplication implies authenticity.)

I hypothesize that it is a demographic change.

This argument doesn't even make sense.

How not?

Because TRPers don't identify as MRAs, don't even have similar goals as MRAs, or engage in activism in a similar way as MRAs.

I mean, yeah there's a few people that are both, but there's a few feminists that also identify as NRA members. Yet, you'd be remiss to then conclude that the NRA is a branch of feminism.


A nationstates demographic change or a worldwide one?

[Ostroeuropa]

The Red Pill aren't radical MRAs though. They're a seperate movement.

Feminine Imperative: The tendency of media and culture to put women first, excuse their misdeeds (see also: rationalization hamster), and criticize any holding of accountability or pointing out of double standards as being “anti-women”.

The greatest threat to the Feminine Imperative is men becoming self-aware of their own sexual market value and the dissemination of information about how the imperative uses this lack of awareness to perpetuate itself.

Feminine Imperative: Example
Feminine Imperative: How it happened

The feminine imperative is also why so much of what we discuss here rubs people the wrong way. Humans have same-group preference for many things, but when it comes to gender all bets are off. What scientists have found time and time again is that women have same-group preference, but men do not. Furthermore, a large portion of men in fact prefer women's group preference over men's when the two come into contention. There's some interesting theories why that's the case, namely that those who kowtowed the feminine imperative line had better odds of reproducing.

Ultimately we challenge the status quo. As such we face mountains of opposition both online and in the real world, and it will challenge your resolve at times. Those who stick it out and come full circle with the self-improvement process will see lifelong improvements in themselves and interactions with others. However, a common result of which is that you will quite possibly lose some friends along the way, and for two primary reasons:

Your successes are a reminder of their failures
People resist change, and you moving up the pecking order is exactly that

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/com ... _red_pill/

I'm pretty sure I've seen you making these exact same arguments....

Some of the arguments are the same, but not in their entirety.
We view the same information and come to different conclusions.
Go ask the red pill if they are MRAs.
They'll tell you No.

[Wallenburg]

I hypothesize that it is a demographic change.

A nationstates demographic change or a worldwide one?

Nationstates

[Kelinfort]

Well, if you insist upon calling radfems part of the feminist movement, it's only egalitarian to include radical MRAs in the MRM.

Red Pillers don't identify as MRAs.

Radical feminists identify as feminists. You can't do an invalid tu quoque. Especially not when using egalitarianism as a synonym for misrepresentation.

If they consider themselves MRAs, they are MRAs.

And they don't consider themselves MRAs.

And you are correct. The Red Pill, however, does no such thing.

They don't claim to be MRAs.

So there's no overlap whatsoever?

[Galloism]

A nationstates demographic change or a worldwide one?

Nationstates

Could be, but even some of the old guard feminists that are still around and used to argue against me now at least acquiesce that violence in relationships is not always male on female.

I guess the evidence became too much to ignore.

[Ostroeuropa]

Red Pillers don't identify as MRAs.

Radical feminists identify as feminists. You can't do an invalid tu quoque. Especially not when using egalitarianism as a synonym for misrepresentation.


And they don't consider themselves MRAs.


They don't claim to be MRAs.

So there's no overlap whatsoever?

There is very minimal overlap as i've gone over previously. MRAs burnout and become TRP as they lose more and more faith in humanity, there is a brief period where they are both due to cognitive dissonance, which eventually resolves one way or another.

(Given that a premise of TRP is that women are inherently and unalterably biased in favor of themselves due to biology, the notion of a mens equality movement and activism for it seems utterly pointless to them.)

As an MRA loses faith in women, they sometimes come to this conclusion themselves and drop out of the movement after a period of both believing women are inherently and permanently sexist assholes, and that we should campaign to end sexism.
(The length of time this period lasts is usually not long.)

It's not merely that there's minimal overlap. It's that they are fundamentally fucking incompatible movements. The only overlap that arises is due to cognitive dissonance, and at best you could argue there is wavering faith in women causing some overlap.
(I.E, on a bad day, someone is a TRPer. On a good day, an MRA, and this fluctuates based on mood and recent interactions with women.)

There is far, far more overlap with MGTOW.

[Wallenburg]

Nationstates

Could be, but even some of the old guard feminists that are still around and used to argue against me now at least acquiesce that violence in relationships is not always male on female.

I guess the evidence became too much to ignore.

Don't be silly, Gallo. Evidence is irrelevant when you embrace bellyfeel.

[Gravlen]

What was that you said, "dodging the question"?

Hmm...I wonder if that's applicable now.

Only if you think that refusing to answer you twice is dodging the question. Simply repeating the same nonsense again until people get tired of answering you isn't good debating. I've already gone over previously how you are basically an MRA. Try and find me a feminist intellectual who you support, and i'll point out why you in fact, do not.

Could you tell me why I shouldn't support
- Simone de Beauvoir
- Jo Freeman
- Nina Björk
?

[Ostroeuropa]

Only if you think that refusing to answer you twice is dodging the question. Simply repeating the same nonsense again until people get tired of answering you isn't good debating. I've already gone over previously how you are basically an MRA. Try and find me a feminist intellectual who you support, and i'll point out why you in fact, do not.

Could you tell me why I shouldn't support
- Simone de Beauvoir
- Jo Freeman
- Nina Björk
?

Society, being codified by man, decrees that woman is inferior; she can do away with this inferiority only by destroying the male's superiority.
Simone de Beauvoir

Gynocentric view of the situation.

In itself, homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, without feeling fear, restraint, or obligation.

Homophobic nonsense.

This has always been a man's world, and none of the reasons that have been offered in explanation have seemed adequate.

More gynocentrism.

It is not in giving life but in risking life that man is raised above the animal; that is why superiority has been accorded in humanity not to the sex that brings forth but to that which kills.

Misandry and gynocentrism.

Oh, and she was a fucking nazi collaborator. But that's irrelevant to her sexism, merely indicative of the type of mind she had.
She also sexually abused students of hers and called it female empowerment for a teacher to have sex with students and such.

Oh, and a misogynist.

"No, we don’t believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction."

Here she sounds like a MGTOW Radical. Also note, "Authorized." alluding to her totalitarian tendencies.

"In my opinion, as long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed."

Pretty crazy stuff here too.

Jo Freeman:

"It's time for a new Constitutional Amendment. We should modify the 19th Amendment to allow states to limit the franchise to women. Too many times men have shown that they lack the emotional balance to cast a reasoned vote for candidates for public office. When at least one of those candidates is a woman, their hormones take over.

The recent spate of sexist comments about women running for office is proof of this. Male commentators are inordinately focused on how "hot" a woman is, rating her "tight little butt" rather than her policy positions. Way too many men believe that Palin's ability to attract crowds is due to her "babe factor," or that "right-wing cuties" are what's new in politics today. The list of comments about Hillary Clinton when she ran for President which had nothing to do with her mind or her views and a lot to do with her body is too long to even summarize."

...

"Now we know that it's men who have these raging hormones, only they don't seem to stop. If only men would go through menopause, perhaps they would reach a point where they could see beyond a woman's sexual attraction when assessing her suitability to hold office.

Barring that, we should seriously consider limiting the franchise to women, who have shown themselves much better able than men to keep their hormones under control."

Nuff Said.


As for Bjork, tell you what. Can you find her talking about any mens issues? I don't know enough about her, but if you can't, it's proving my point about how someone who wants to work on mens issues from an androcentric perspective cannot find a feminist intellectual or publication to justify calling their views feminist.

I told you why you shouldn't support the first two, but you're misunderstanding my point.

My point is, if you accept men have issues, and if you accept they need to be worked on from an androcentric perspective, can you find any feminist publication or intellectual from whom you can claim to have derived these views?
No?
Offuckingcourse not, because that makes you an MRA, and you should acknowledge as much.

And if you DON'T think those things, you're just a part of the problem in the first place.

[Gravlen]

Their demand being, "End domestic violence" and "Make domestic violence an issue for the state". Around 1400 women have been killed by their current or former partners over the last decade, their demand is that this stops and the number of women killed are reduced. But you think it's best not to give in to their demands??

It's fair to note that feminists often want the government to intervene in behalf of female victims of domestic violence, but are generally silent on the male victims of domestic violence. They even make sure that all their rhetoric includes only female victims, so as to push a gendered narrative towards domestic violence.

For instance, and this may be some American Exceptionalism and all that, for every 100 women killed by their spouses in the United States, 75 men are.

I seem to recall from previous debates that the US is indeed exceptional in this regard. In Europe around 79 % of victims killed by their intimate partners are women, while 31 % of victims killed by their intimate partners are men. On the other hand, however, men make up 57 % of victims killed by other family members, with women making up the remaining 43 %.
https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/Chapter_2-2.pdf

Globally:

t is estimated that of all the women killed in 2012 (93,000 women), 43,600 (47 per cent) were killed
by their family members or intimate partners, whereas 20,000 of all male homicide victims (6 per cent) were killed by such perpetrators. Thus, at the global level, more than twice as many women as men are killed by their intimate partners or family members

That said, the sex ratio of killing (SROK) in spousal homicide in the US seems to be different from what you said above. In the period of 1976 - 2007, this report says:

For the U.S. overall during this 30+ year period, approximately half as many women as men killed intimate partners, as indicated by the SROK of 48 (table 1).

In the category "Intimate", you'll find Intimate 53,335 spousal homicides perpetrated by men, and 25,846 perpetrated by women. So for every 100 wives killed, you'll find 48 murdered husbands.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's fair to note that feminists often want the government to intervene in behalf of female victims of domestic violence, but are generally silent on the male victims of domestic violence. They even make sure that all their rhetoric includes only female victims, so as to push a gendered narrative towards domestic violence.

For instance, and this may be some American Exceptionalism and all that, for every 100 women killed by their spouses in the United States, 75 men are.

I seem to recall from previous debates that the US is indeed exceptional in this regard. In Europe around 79 % of victims killed by their intimate partners are women, while 31 % of victims killed by their intimate partners are men. On the other hand, however, men make up 57 % of victims killed by other family members, with women making up the remaining 43 %.
https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/Chapter_2-2.pdf

Globally:

t is estimated that of all the women killed in 2012 (93,000 women), 43,600 (47 per cent) were killed
by their family members or intimate partners, whereas 20,000 of all male homicide victims (6 per cent) were killed by such perpetrators. Thus, at the global level, more than twice as many women as men are killed by their intimate partners or family members

That said, the sex ratio of killing (SROK) in spousal homicide in the US seems to be different from what you said above. In the period of 1976 - 2007, this report says:

For the U.S. overall during this 30+ year period, approximately half as many women as men killed intimate partners, as indicated by the SROK of 48 (table 1).

In the category "Intimate", you'll find Intimate 53,335 spousal homicides perpetrated by men, and 25,846 perpetrated by women. So for every 100 wives killed, you'll find 48 murdered husbands.

When you take into account that most domestic abuse is bidirectional, and women initiate most domestic abuse, the best way to limit the murder of women is to start telling them not to hit men instead of purely focusing on men.
That this isn't done reveals that the fact that women are more likely to be killed is merely a convenient excuse to demonize a gender and sweep womens perpetration of violence under the rug. If there was actual giving a shit about women being killed they would take this approach, but there isn't, there is just a sexist impulse to blame and demonize men, for which convenient facts are collected.

Steve Pinker also previously claimed in his book that the rates of men murdered by their spouses declined once women had shelters they could escape to, since they no longer felt they had to murder their husbands in order to end the abuse.
With a man being more likely to be arrested for reporting his abuse than his perpetrator, and a lack of womens shelters, this could also be a factor here. Mens sense of isolation from help would be even more powerful than womens, especially with perceptions surrounding child custody and divorce/alimony being unfair to men.

The lethality of the domestic abuse proves absolutely nothing about how we should focus our efforts. As usual, it is an overly simplistic piece of misdirection used by the feminist movement in order to justify continuation of sexism.

[Chessmistress]

You clearly have been blessed having not yet read Chessmistress.

Chess is, of course, the extreme so extreme that even the extremes denounce her.

That's unfair, and not true.
I have been bashed in another place for saying men are 15% victims of domestic violence (even though a significant portion is perpetrated by other males, and even though violence by women is almost always defensive): the others were saying it was something like 1%-2%! And even if I was polite some of my messages have been cancelled.
I'm "extreme" (aka: right) just only about prostitution and pornography.
EXACTLY like Gloria Steinem, the historical leader of American feminism.

"Whatever the gender of the participants, all pornography including male-male gay pornography is an imitation of the male-female, conqueror-victim paradigm, and almost all of it actually portrays or implies enslaved women and master." - Gloria Steinem

"Prostitution is commercial rape" - Gloria Steinem

[Galloism]

Chess is, of course, the extreme so extreme that even the extremes denounce her.

That's unfair, and not true.
I have been bashed in another place for saying men are 15% victims of domestic violence (even though a significant portion is perpetrated by other males, and even though violence by women is almost always defensive): the others were saying it was something like 1%-2%! And even if I was polite some of my messages have been cancelled.
I'm "extreme" (aka: right) just only about prostitution and pornography.
EXACTLY like Gloria Steinem, the historical leader of American feminism.

"Whatever the gender of the participants, all pornography including male-male gay pornography is an imitation of the male-female, conqueror-victim paradigm, and almost all of it actually portrays or implies enslaved women and master." - Gloria Steinem

"Prostitution is commercial rape" - Gloria Steinem

Clearly, in the context of that post, I was talking about nationstates, where our extreme feminists aren't even as extreme as you. I'm well aware that there are people out there just as sexist as you or moreso (IE, Steinheim, for instance). We just don't have them in Nationstates.


And your 15% figure is woefully too low based on the data we have.


I suggest you review the CDC studies I've already linked you, along with this meta-study with conclusions, and return here once you've educated yourself.

Until then - shoo. The adults are talking.

[Vashtanaraada]

Chess is, of course, the extreme so extreme that even the extremes denounce her.

That's unfair, and not true.
I have been bashed in another place for saying men are 15% victims of domestic violence (even though a significant portion is perpetrated by other males, and even though violence by women is almost always defensive): the others were saying it was something like 1%-2%! And even if I was polite some of my messages have been cancelled.
I'm "extreme" (aka: right) just only about prostitution and pornography.
EXACTLY like Gloria Steinem, the historical leader of American feminism.

"Whatever the gender of the participants, all pornography including male-male gay pornography is an imitation of the male-female, conqueror-victim paradigm, and almost all of it actually portrays or implies enslaved women and master." - Gloria Steinem

"Prostitution is commercial rape" - Gloria Steinem

You're a radfem, you favour females over males. You've also never ever seena dude get done by a girl in a bisexual/very kinky manner lol.

[Galloism]

It's fair to note that feminists often want the government to intervene in behalf of female victims of domestic violence, but are generally silent on the male victims of domestic violence. They even make sure that all their rhetoric includes only female victims, so as to push a gendered narrative towards domestic violence.

For instance, and this may be some American Exceptionalism and all that, for every 100 women killed by their spouses in the United States, 75 men are.

I seem to recall from previous debates that the US is indeed exceptional in this regard. In Europe around 79 % of victims killed by their intimate partners are women, while 31 % of victims killed by their intimate partners are men. On the other hand, however, men make up 57 % of victims killed by other family members, with women making up the remaining 43 %.
https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/Chapter_2-2.pdf

Globally:

t is estimated that of all the women killed in 2012 (93,000 women), 43,600 (47 per cent) were killed
by their family members or intimate partners, whereas 20,000 of all male homicide victims (6 per cent) were killed by such perpetrators. Thus, at the global level, more than twice as many women as men are killed by their intimate partners or family members

That said, the sex ratio of killing (SROK) in spousal homicide in the US seems to be different from what you said above. In the period of 1976 - 2007, this report says:

For the U.S. overall during this 30+ year period, approximately half as many women as men killed intimate partners, as indicated by the SROK of 48 (table 1).

In the category "Intimate", you'll find Intimate 53,335 spousal homicides perpetrated by men, and 25,846 perpetrated by women. So for every 100 wives killed, you'll find 48 murdered husbands.

I wonder if that's because so many times when a woman kills her husband it's ruled as self-defense, thanks to gendered expectations of unidirectional violence in a certain direction.

Do those spousal homicides include cases ruled as self-defense?

The source I had includes all killings, regardless of how ruled.

[Chessmistress]

You're a radfem, you favour females over males. You've also never ever seena dude get done by a girl in a bisexual manner lol.

So funny and so wrong, because that was almost my default sex with my former boyfriend...
Feminism is about women's rights and women's empowerment, not about men.