Why do you call yourself an anti-feminist?

[The Liberated Territories]

I always thought authoritarian feminism founded the regressive left.

It was pretty regressive before that.

The first recorded time sex work was banned for left wing reasons was all the way in the 1800's under the short lived Paris Commune, and most Marxist-Leninist states have had porn and sex work banned on the books more consistently than any other system besides maybe religious fundamentalist states.

If anything its been getting less regressive as time goes on, though the feminists are the worst offenders in the left when it comes to this

Not surprisingly, the libertarian movement aligned itself with the rights of sex workers due to hostility from both modern feminists and SoCons

[Zoice]

Because those things aren't related? Adults should be free to do what they want with their bodies assuming it doesn't harm anyone else?

They're very related, the idea that sex with kids is exploitation is a development which is 100% derived from the leftist opposition to sex work. If this "regressive" movement didn't exist then, it is not likely age-of-consent would have become a serious issue in the West.

Then that's a good thing, age of consent laws are important. Punishing women for being desperate enough to do sex work is regressive, though.

[Frenline Delpha]

I'm not anti-feminist. Hell, I consider myself to be a feminist of sorts. However, I do despise what most of the movement has become. When you have groups like FEMEN running around topless and such then yea, the overall message kind of gets lost under a bunch of bullshit.

I completely agree.

There are a lot of things about the movement currently that need revamping, as they are often misunderstood. Most of the bigger, technical equality, like education and employment, is already achieved in some 1st world countries, but sexism and other things like that are still very real, both there, and in the worse parts of the world. We didn't win anything yet. Women are still heavily repressed in pretty much over half of the world, and men experience many injustices too, although less often (as mentioned before).

I'm a feminist, shortly. Anyone who believes men and women should be equal is a feminist. But the internet, especially Reddit really loves to circlejerk to ''le equalism xd attack helicopters lel amirite''

No, that'd be egalitarianism.

[Brick Mountain]

I completely agree.

There are a lot of things about the movement currently that need revamping, as they are often misunderstood. Most of the bigger, technical equality, like education and employment, is already achieved in some 1st world countries, but sexism and other things like that are still very real, both there, and in the worse parts of the world. We didn't win anything yet. Women are still heavily repressed in pretty much over half of the world, and men experience many injustices too, although less often (as mentioned before).

I'm a feminist, shortly. Anyone who believes men and women should be equal is a feminist. But the internet, especially Reddit really loves to circlejerk to ''le equalism xd attack helicopters lel amirite''

No, that'd be egalitarianism.

Well, feminism is a part of egalitarianism. The goal of feminism is equal rights of men and women, and if women aren't equal, then it's not egalitarianism. If you're a egalitarian, then you are also a feminist and a mens rightsist.

[New Edom]

No, that'd be egalitarianism.

Well, feminism is a part of egalitarianism. The goal of feminism is equal rights of men and women, and if women aren't equal, then it's not egalitarianism. If you're a egalitarian, then you are also a feminist and a mens rightsist.

Sorry, but it's not just the ignorant on the internet. Important spokespersons for feminism insist on a single narrative with a few variations when it comes to nearly all gender issues. Anything that may be egalitarian but deviates from this is presented by leading feminists as sexism, even if it is actually egalitarian in general principle. The idea that feminism is merely misunderstood is a comon rebuttal that doesn't stand up to examination.

The fact is, feminism would never have succeeded in the West without a generally benvolent attitude towards women and without a form of rule of law in most countries that made it possible to challenge the status quo. Yet the feminist narrative is that men dont' want to share power with women.

The fact is violent crime has been steadily diminishing in the WEst for almost two decades, yet according to feminists its a terrible epidemic that no one cares about but them.

The fact is that the more women are treated with fairnes and as equals, the more feminists nitpick about small things that are more often simply rudeness or stupidity. call them sexism and linkt hem to an epidemic of sexual assault hat they have manufactured.

Any attempt to hold women acountable to any bad behaviour on women's part is denounced by feminists.

Any attempt to draw attention to men's needs is denounced by feminists save for the useles moral crumbs feminsits choose to toss them. Men have no serious problems they dont' cause for themselves as individuals, is the general doctrine.

If any feminists other than rare ostracized liberal feminsits actually accepted any of these criticisms and was willing to discuss them, I'd be fine with that, for any ideology or activist movmenet has its flaws. But most feminists will only admit to petty unimportant flaws that require no correction.

So no. I'm an anti-feminist egalitarian.

[New Edom]

I would like to add something:

There is an increase in rape/sexual assault prevention PSAs that point out ways that people diminish sexual consent, and they target female offenders as well. Yet I have found that feminists in public life and on the internet generally continue to avoid talking about this. They tend to refuse to accept that women should be mentioned as part of the rpoblem. They tend to onlyl talk about male offenders. When they hear people point this out, the average response is to be defensive and to accuse the person of just looking for excuses to attack feminism. Perhaps they shouldn't be surprised that this happens.

[Hirota]

Well, feminism is a part of egalitarianism. The goal of feminism is equal rights of men and women, and if women aren't equal, then it's not egalitarianism. If you're a egalitarian, then you are also a feminist and a mens rightsist.

Except influential feminists and feminist organisations have deliberately and systematically taken the opportunity to suppress any evidence of areas where men are disadvantaged.

If feminism had anything to do with egalitarianism, it would accept the evidence where men are disadvantaged rather than pervert the narrative.

[The Princes of the Universe]

I am neither a feminist nor an anti-feminist. I treat women just like I do men, which means I will demand sammiches from my female feminist friends.
Equality can be a bitch sometimes.

Gender is irrelevant to making sammiches being an awesome thing to do for a friend.

Well, feminism is a part of egalitarianism. The goal of feminism is equal rights of men and women, and if women aren't equal, then it's not egalitarianism. If you're a egalitarian, then you are also a feminist and a mens rightsist.

Except influential feminists and feminist organisations have deliberately and systematically taken the opportunity to suppress any evidence of areas where men are disadvantaged.
If feminism had anything to do with egalitarianism, it would accept the evidence where men are disadvantaged rather than pervert the narrative.

Boom.

[Threlizdun]

It was pretty regressive before that.

The first recorded time sex work was banned for left wing reasons was all the way in the 1800's under the short lived Paris Commune, and most Marxist-Leninist states have had porn and sex work banned on the books more consistently than any other system besides maybe religious fundamentalist states.

If anything its been getting less regressive as time goes on, though the feminists are the worst offenders in the left when it comes to this

Not surprisingly, the libertarian movement aligned itself with the rights of sex workers due to hostility from both modern feminists and SoCons

It would be better to state second wave feminists as opposed to modern feminists. Third wave feminism is sex-positive, and generally rejects the sex worker-exclusive attitudes of the past.

[Frenline Delpha]

Not surprisingly, the libertarian movement aligned itself with the rights of sex workers due to hostility from both modern feminists and SoCons

It would be better to state second wave feminists as opposed to modern feminists. Third wave feminism is sex-positive, and generally rejects the sex worker-exclusive attitudes of the past.

Not some that I've seen. IE, Anita Sarkessian

[The balkens]

It would be better to state second wave feminists as opposed to modern feminists. Third wave feminism is sex-positive, and generally rejects the sex worker-exclusive attitudes of the past.

Not some that I've seen. IE, Anita Sarkessian

who has probably done more damage to the community she is apparently a part of then anyway.

Also shes a cunt.

[The New Sea Territory]

I completely agree.

There are a lot of things about the movement currently that need revamping, as they are often misunderstood. Most of the bigger, technical equality, like education and employment, is already achieved in some 1st world countries, but sexism and other things like that are still very real, both there, and in the worse parts of the world. We didn't win anything yet. Women are still heavily repressed in pretty much over half of the world, and men experience many injustices too, although less often (as mentioned before).

I'm a feminist, shortly. Anyone who believes men and women should be equal is a feminist. But the internet, especially Reddit really loves to circlejerk to ''le equalism xd attack helicopters lel amirite''

No, that'd be egalitarianism.

...and its completely ahistorical to separate feminism from egalitarianism.

Moreover, most people who make this distinction aren't even egalitarians, just right-leaning liberals.

[The New Sea Territory]

It would be better to state second wave feminists as opposed to modern feminists. Third wave feminism is sex-positive, and generally rejects the sex worker-exclusive attitudes of the past.

Not some that I've seen. IE, Anita Sarkessian

Obviously, your direct experience with feminists is indicative of the entire movement.

[The New Sea Territory]

If feminism had anything to do with egalitarianism, it would accept the evidence where men are disadvantaged rather than pervert the narrative.

This is the equivalent of saying to LGBT+ advocates: "straight people have problems, too".

Ok. Cool. That's not relevant to the movement for LGBT+ rights.

[Ashkera]

This is the equivalent of saying to LGBT+ advocates: "straight people have problems, too".

Ok. Cool. That's not relevant to the movement for LGBT+ rights.

Then you don't have any problem with other movements being allowed to talk about mens issues? Good. Now go get your colleagues to cut it out, too.

[The New Sea Territory]

This is the equivalent of saying to LGBT+ advocates: "straight people have problems, too".

Ok. Cool. That's not relevant to the movement for LGBT+ rights.

Then you don't have any problem with other movements being allowed to talk about mens issues? Good. Now go get your colleagues to cut it out, too.

Uh, no.

The problem with men's rights isn't that men don't face gender-centred issues, but that's is entirely a cover for misogyny based on false assumptions, like "women are in control now". Issues that face men don't merit a movement, but, as I said above, this is a completely different issue (commonly used by MRAs to distract from real ones).

[Neutraligon]

It would be better to state second wave feminists as opposed to modern feminists. Third wave feminism is sex-positive, and generally rejects the sex worker-exclusive attitudes of the past.

Not some that I've seen. IE, Anita Sarkessian

Anita Sarkessian is an ass. I also think she does what she does to try and make money. She raised money for how many movies, and how many where actually produced? Then she needed to raise more money for more movies without having completed the first set. She is indeed one of the most harmful people to the feminist movements and I wish people would stop giving her any attention.

[The balkens]

Not some that I've seen. IE, Anita Sarkessian

Anita Sarkessian is an ass. I also think she does what she does to try and make money. She raised money for how many movies, and how many where actually produced? Then she needed to raise more money for more movies without having completed the first set. She is indeed one of the most harmful people to the feminist movements and I wish people would stop giving her any attention.

...

YOU.

I LIKE YOU.

HOLY SHIT.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT.

[Ancient Pluto]

I don't know if I've already said this, but if I have I feel it needs repeating, and I will repeat it every single time I see people arguing between egalitarianism and feminism:

They're just words with no meaning. Terms based on reflex, not definition. Arbitrary sound. An abbreviation devoid of purpose outside of emotional deception and ideological purity testing. White noise. Everything on the internet is like that now, especially when it comes to topics involving feminism.

That is why I don't identify as "feminist" or "anti-feminist" or "egalitarian" or "MRA" or any other similar label. I know what my opinions are, and I will defend my right as an intelligent human being to pick and choose my opinions as ideologically inconsistently as I please without being lumped in with people I don't wholly agree with!

Holy SHIT, topics like this are fucking infuriating!

[Hirota]

If feminism had anything to do with egalitarianism, it would accept the evidence where men are disadvantaged rather than pervert the narrative.

This is the equivalent of saying to LGBT+ advocates: "straight people have problems, too".

Except: NO. IT. ISN'T.

The equivalent in this scenario would be LGBT+ advocates then going out of their way to suppress evidence of those problems because it challenges their preconceptions.

Ok. Cool. That's not relevant to the movement for LGBT+ rights.

Fine, it's not relevant to LGBT+ rights, fine they don't have to do anything about them (although the obvious problem with this line of argument is if these hypothetical LGBT+ types are going to be narcissistic fucktards, why should anyone outside of this demographic even care about LGBT+ issues if these narcissists lack the emotional capacity to care about issues outside their own demographic?), but in this scenario they certainly shouldn't be going out of their way to actually suppress it because it goes against their narrative.

Uh, no.

The problem with men's rights isn't that men don't face gender-centred issues, but that's is entirely a cover for misogyny based on false assumptions, like "women are in control now". Issues that face men don't merit a movement, but, as I said above, this is a completely different issue (commonly used by MRAs to distract from real ones).

This is a flat out lie. For someone who claims to be antifacist, you do sure seem to be acting authoritarian in dictating (without any evidence) what does or doesn't merit a movement.

[New Edom]

No, that'd be egalitarianism.

...and its completely ahistorical to separate feminism from egalitarianism.

Moreover, most people who make this distinction aren't even egalitarians, just right-leaning liberals.

Egalitarian movements predate feminism. Feminism is distinct because it has mostly focused on a single demographic: women. It would be like saying that you shouldn't distinguish abolitinism from egalitarianism. It falls under the umbrella.

The reason why there are people against feminism is because a number of feminist tactics and approaches to activism have deeply divided people from the movement. It is easy to distinguish people who don't want social and political equality for women from those who just don't like feminist approaches to the issue. The former tend to express a general belief that it is the duty of women to become wives and mothers and little else. The latter tend to expres the belief that they do not like current feminist tactics or approaches to social change.

Most of the latter are like me. They used to support feminism but increasingly found that feminist spokespersons or leaders seemed to agree with ideas that were found to be of great concern. They also found that when they raised such concerns that feminists tended to brush them aside or insist on agreement with feminism regardless of any concerns, and found themselves accused of hating women simnply because they didn't agree with feminst ideas.

So it is important to distinguish feminism from egalitarianism, because egalitarianism is a set of values, while feminism has become a general set of doctrines on what egalitarianism would look like. For instance: Patriarchy theory, rape cuture theory, objectification, wage pay gap, insistence on abortion availability and so on. Feminists from the supposedly broad specgtrum including Anita Sarkeesian, Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinem, Emma Watson, Jessica Valenti, Julie Bindel, Naomi Wolfe, Julie Burchill, Catherine MackInnon, Gail Dines, Robert Jensen, Michael Kimmel, Justin Trudeau, Amanda Marcotte...well I could go on, but they all agree with those items I mentioned. And if you don't, you are accused by such people of not understnading feminism. These principles are mandatory for feminism. Feminists who do question these ideas, such as Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Camille Paglia, are accused of being ignorant, anti feminist or even rape apologists by other feminists and active attempts are made to prevent them from stating their opinions.

[Ashkera]

Uh, no.

The problem with men's rights isn't that men don't face gender-centred issues, but that's is entirely a cover for misogyny based on false assumptions, like "women are in control now". Issues that face men don't merit a movement, but, as I said above, this is a completely different issue (commonly used by MRAs to distract from real ones).

Hirota is correct. This is nothing more than a false political attack against any form of gender movement other than feminism, which might dilute feminism's power as the dominant non-Traditional gender discourse.

Is it messy? Yes. But independent male gender consciousness is new. Were the situation reversed, people like you would be demanding to let the messiness slide.

This downplaying of issues, which plays directly into TradCon MenAreStoic gender roles, is exactly why a separate movement will be needed. Perhaps it only seems like it doesn't merit a movement, because, as Galloism has pointed out, Feminist activists have actively swept female violence under the rug.

It's too bad that it came to this, but Feminism's monopoly must be broken to move to the next stage.

[Jetan]

If feminism had anything to do with egalitarianism, it would accept the evidence where men are disadvantaged rather than pervert the narrative.

This is the equivalent of saying to LGBT+ advocates: "straight people have problems, too".

Ok. Cool. That's not relevant to the movement for LGBT+ rights.

Ah, so the movement is not about equality, but about promoting women then?

...and its completely ahistorical to separate feminism from egalitarianism.

Moreover, most people who make this distinction aren't even egalitarians, just right-leaning liberals.

Egalitarian movements predate feminism. Feminism is distinct because it has mostly focused on a single demographic: women. It would be like saying that you shouldn't distinguish abolitinism from egalitarianism. It falls under the umbrella.

The reason why there are people against feminism is because a number of feminist tactics and approaches to activism have deeply divided people from the movement. It is easy to distinguish people who don't want social and political equality for women from those who just don't like feminist approaches to the issue. The former tend to express a general belief that it is the duty of women to become wives and mothers and little else. The latter tend to expres the belief that they do not like current feminist tactics or approaches to social change.

Most of the latter are like me. They used to support feminism but increasingly found that feminist spokespersons or leaders seemed to agree with ideas that were found to be of great concern. They also found that when they raised such concerns that feminists tended to brush them aside or insist on agreement with feminism regardless of any concerns, and found themselves accused of hating women simnply because they didn't agree with feminst ideas.

So it is important to distinguish feminism from egalitarianism, because egalitarianism is a set of values, while feminism has become a general set of doctrines on what egalitarianism would look like. For instance: Patriarchy theory, rape cuture theory, objectification, wage pay gap, insistence on abortion availability and so on. Feminists from the supposedly broad specgtrum including Anita Sarkeesian, Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinem, Emma Watson, Jessica Valenti, Julie Bindel, Naomi Wolfe, Julie Burchill, Catherine MackInnon, Gail Dines, Robert Jensen, Michael Kimmel, Justin Trudeau, Amanda Marcotte...well I could go on, but they all agree with those items I mentioned. And if you don't, you are accused by such people of not understnading feminism. These principles are mandatory for feminism. Feminists who do question these ideas, such as Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Camille Paglia, are accused of being ignorant, anti feminist or even rape apologists by other feminists and active attempts are made to prevent them from stating their opinions.

This. So much this.

[The Emerald Legion]

I don't know if I've already said this, but if I have I feel it needs repeating, and I will repeat it every single time I see people arguing between egalitarianism and feminism:

They're just words with no meaning. Terms based on reflex, not definition. Arbitrary sound. An abbreviation devoid of purpose outside of emotional deception and ideological purity testing. White noise. Everything on the internet is like that now, especially when it comes to topics involving feminism.

That is why I don't identify as "feminist" or "anti-feminist" or "egalitarian" or "MRA" or any other similar label. I know what my opinions are, and I will defend my right as an intelligent human being to pick and choose my opinions as ideologically inconsistently as I please without being lumped in with people I don't wholly agree with!

Holy SHIT, topics like this are fucking infuriating!

You sir/Madam. Are awesome.

[The Great Devourer of All]

I don't.