Why do you call yourself an anti-feminist?

[Philjia]

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 actual distinction is that people who choose feminism are by and large authoritarian while those who chose egalitarian are by and large liberal.

[Frenline Delpha]

...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.

[The balkens]

Thank you based edom.

[New Edom]

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 topic is important. People are trying to figure out how things work. For people who have no issues with gender roles, who have never had any issues with egalitarianism, bully for them. This is the equivalent of people who have a great metabolism and athletic by nature hating that people feel a need to talk about fitness. Or people who don't like some movies complaining that others do like them. Or people who are great at studying dismissing different schools of aproach to study. If you're not interested, why don't you focus on stuff you're interested in?

[Chestaan]

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).

Yeah, because apparently father's not having rights, women who have sex with men with no consent legally not being rapists, under-representation of men in third level education, the Duluth model whitewashing male victims of domestic violence, men having a lower life expectancy than women and men getting tougher criminal sentences than women even for the same crime doesn't merit a movement.

Who do you think you are to decide what merits a movement? You're claiming that men shouldn't have a movement to fight for their rights and at the same time claiming that these concerns can't be brought up within the largest gender rights movement in the world, which claims to fight for the equality of genders. You claim MRAs use the movement to spread misogyny, and maybe some do, just like some crazy scumbags within the feminist movement such as Andrea Dworkin have used it to spread their horrible hateful world view. But in what way does that take away from the legitimate concerns of MRAs? You're just doing what, sadly, so many who call themselves feminists do, and that is pushing legitimate issues that men have under the rug for the gain of your own ideology.

[The Emerald Legion]

You sir/Madam. Are awesome.

The topic is important. People are trying to figure out how things work. For people who have no issues with gender roles, who have never had any issues with egalitarianism, bully for them. This is the equivalent of people who have a great metabolism and athletic by nature hating that people feel a need to talk about fitness. Or people who don't like some movies complaining that others do like them. Or people who are great at studying dismissing different schools of aproach to study. If you're not interested, why don't you focus on stuff you're interested in?

It's less that I'm not interested and more that I am rather offended by the us or them nature of the discourse. This is largely caused by tribal attitudes from certain parties but the human mind is an intensely complicated thing. Trying to break down everything into two all consuming categories is ridiculous and harmful.

The topic is important. But the idea that everything an everyone can be broken down into 'an egalitarian' or whatever is ridiculous. Words are just words.

The point is that by trying to neatly label everything you actually take away from the discourse rather than add.

[Philjia]

The topic is important. People are trying to figure out how things work. For people who have no issues with gender roles, who have never had any issues with egalitarianism, bully for them. This is the equivalent of people who have a great metabolism and athletic by nature hating that people feel a need to talk about fitness. Or people who don't like some movies complaining that others do like them. Or people who are great at studying dismissing different schools of aproach to study. If you're not interested, why don't you focus on stuff you're interested in?

It's less that I'm not interested and more that I am rather offended by the us or them nature of the discourse. This is largely caused by tribal attitudes from certain parties but the human mind is an intensely complicated thing. Trying to break down everything into two all consuming categories is ridiculous and harmful.

The topic is important. But the idea that everything an everyone can be broken down into 'an egalitarian' or whatever is ridiculous. Words are just words.

The point is that by trying to neatly label everything you actually take away from the discourse rather than add.

The point of the topic is to justify the words with developed ideas.

[The Emerald Legion]

It's less that I'm not interested and more that I am rather offended by the us or them nature of the discourse. This is largely caused by tribal attitudes from certain parties but the human mind is an intensely complicated thing. Trying to break down everything into two all consuming categories is ridiculous and harmful.

The topic is important. But the idea that everything an everyone can be broken down into 'an egalitarian' or whatever is ridiculous. Words are just words.

The point is that by trying to neatly label everything you actually take away from the discourse rather than add.

The point of the topic is to justify the words with developed ideas.

Which is precisely the problem.

You start with "X is good." and then go on to try to rationalize why, which inevitably leads to tribalism. Don't raise a standard and then defend it.

[New Edom]

The topic is important. People are trying to figure out how things work. For people who have no issues with gender roles, who have never had any issues with egalitarianism, bully for them. This is the equivalent of people who have a great metabolism and athletic by nature hating that people feel a need to talk about fitness. Or people who don't like some movies complaining that others do like them. Or people who are great at studying dismissing different schools of aproach to study. If you're not interested, why don't you focus on stuff you're interested in?

It's less that I'm not interested and more that I am rather offended by the us or them nature of the discourse. This is largely caused by tribal attitudes from certain parties but the human mind is an intensely complicated thing. Trying to break down everything into two all consuming categories is ridiculous and harmful.

The topic is important. But the idea that everything an everyone can be broken down into 'an egalitarian' or whatever is ridiculous. Words are just words.

The point is that by trying to neatly label everything you actually take away from the discourse rather than add.

Labeling is part of a number of academic disciplines which enable you to identify things. While it is important to be open minded, it is more important to be able to clearly identify what people are talking about. Things like freedom and equality are values; how someone applies them is often ideological, and that is where the words for those identifications becomes important.

Feminism began as a form of activism within a larger ideology--Judeo-Christian Western Civilizatin's old fasioned liberalism. This liberalism was about balancing property and private interests/initiatives with community values. Early feminists founded organizations like the YWCA for instance. However in the 1950s a new approach to the movement had begun that ultimately would result in the 2nd Wave, which took part in a counter culture to Judeo-Christian values in many respects. By the late seventies it had become an ideology. Where early feminists fitted their activism within Judeo-Christian social values, 2nd Wave feminists rejected those values.

This is where ideas like Patriarchy Theory come in. Patriarchy Theory, objectification, rape culture, are all related to Marixst theories about materialism in origin. The very notion of freedom and equality in Feminism is now deeply rooted in these ideas. Liberal feminists or libertarian feminists don't really fit in with the overall narrative. The narrative I am referring to is that of a varied group of people who accept a ind of Nicene Creed of feminism: Gloria Steinem, Catherine MacKinnon, Amanda Marcotte, Naomi Wolfe, Gail Dines, Robert Jensen, Michael Kimmel, Sheryl Sandberg, Jessica Valenti, Julie Bindel, Julie Burchill, bell hooks, Emma Watson, all may seem very diverse, but in fact they all agree that there is a thing callled Patriarchy and it is the root of all harm and trouble in the world. This is not activism alone; this is ideological.

Now: feminists insist generally that they should have a monopoly on the tone, ideas and policies concerning gender relations in the West and claim to have the only right to do so in other countries too. When people disagree with them on policy making, jurisprudence or cultural teaching, they are accused of being anti woman. Even feminists who dissent from this idea--egalitarians who believe women can succeed on their own merit--are isolated and attacked.

At its root, feminsm is a social innovation tied strongly to the industrial revolution and rule of Common and Civil laws in the West. Without these it is highly arguable that it would have come into being. Fair enough, it exists. Like any other innovation that has been proposed to make people's lives better, it has its benefits and its costs. Feminists resist, violently at times, against any examination of the costs. It would be as though cell phone companies became outraged when people put up signs in their shops saying "please do not talk loudly on your cell phone".

In response to this refusal to negotiate and discuss and the insistence that 'what is good for feminism is good for everybody', people have responded with verbal and activist hostility. I will be the first to agree that some of it is very counterproductive. However it would be great if the feminists got off their high horse. I have tried many times to have productive discussions with feminists and have found that 95% of the time, they just want to demand obedience to the feminist narrative come what may.

Much of what is wanted really comes down to fairness, and feminsts may have a civil discussion on it when they come to accept that not everyone who disagrees with them is a raging misogynist. Unti that time,t he arguments will continue.

[Ostroeuropa]

Quote from reddit, two of them;

Lots of great things said here, and I wanted to add another thing:
I'm a professional in the advocacy side of national politics. Using a throwaway because saying this can hurt my career, and I don't want anything coming back to me.
I work for a left-wing org. Lots of major funders (both organizational and individual), directors, public advocacy professionals, and whatnot. People of influence. My particular org hosts and supports a number of Democratic candidates on the left side of social issues, namely feminist candidates.
In one of our coalition meetings (consisting of all women....and then there's me) with partner orgs, the topic of men's advocacy came up. This includes issues like enrolling men in college, suicide, and yes, domestic violence. A few of these women knew about the CDC study that cited that men make up over 40% of domestic abuse survivors. These women in the know, plus all the other women in the room, started laughing at the idea of men's advocacy. Joke after joke. We're talking white-collar, college-educated, somewhat-powerful women who firmly believe that women should own the victim card in American politics. Many of these women want gender norms to change for women but not for men.
Now, why is this the case? We can go into the philosophy of feminism (which I have a number of gripes with), sure, but let me stick to what I know. The reason why women's orgs will not support men's orgs and issues is because their leaders want nothing to do with men's issues. Supporting men's issues is unpopular and consumes lots of resources--(wo)manpower and money.
The US govt and national and international funding organizations don't place any emphasis on men's issues or how women-centric orgs have, in a number of cases, taken resources from men's orgs and shot down conversations on men's issues.
Trust me, if you want to talk about issues like this with an upper-tier org like mine, you're going to get laughed out of the boardroom. Competition for money and the straight-up passive-aggressive hostility many of these people (mostly educated women's rights advocates) have for men's issues is shocking. People used to tell me feminism is about women and men. Trust me, in the application of things, they don't give a damn about us.
If you guys have any questions, let me know. I can answer anything here for you. I'll stay on this account for the day. Not sure if it'll gain any traction but hoping many of you can see this side of American politics.

And

As a former prosecutor who handled a number of domestic violence cases, I have to agree. There was one male who came into the intake center on multiple occasions who was turned away. I finally met him and had his abuser (his wife of 10 years) charged. Trying to get him any type of help or shelter was nearly impossible. In fact, when he appeared in court I was the only one standing next to him while the perpetrator (defendant) had 3 case workers helping her in addition to her attorney. All three were either domestic violence advocates or former ones working with local agencies. One of them, a friend and former coworker actually asked the victim what he did to make her hit him. Hit him with a cast iron pan multiple times. Let's be honest, men are more often the perps in theses cases but not always. Women have traditionally had fewer resources and ability to leave such a relationship and find safety. But an abuser is an abuser regardless of gender or relationship status.

These are two examples of why OPPOSITION to feminism is necessary to be an egalitarian. The feminist movement is the biggest lobby for rapists and domestic abusers in history, and has entrenched bigotry and prejudice in the heart of our institutions.

[Zoice]

]Quote from reddit, two of them;

Lots of great things said here, and I wanted to add another thing:
I'm a professional in the advocacy side of national politics. Using a throwaway because saying this can hurt my career, and I don't want anything coming back to me.
I work for a left-wing org. Lots of major funders (both organizational and individual), directors, public advocacy professionals, and whatnot. People of influence. My particular org hosts and supports a number of Democratic candidates on the left side of social issues, namely feminist candidates.
In one of our coalition meetings (consisting of all women....and then there's me) with partner orgs, the topic of men's advocacy came up. This includes issues like enrolling men in college, suicide, and yes, domestic violence. A few of these women knew about the CDC study that cited that men make up over 40% of domestic abuse survivors. These women in the know, plus all the other women in the room, started laughing at the idea of men's advocacy. Joke after joke. We're talking white-collar, college-educated, somewhat-powerful women who firmly believe that women should own the victim card in American politics. Many of these women want gender norms to change for women but not for men.
Now, why is this the case? We can go into the philosophy of feminism (which I have a number of gripes with), sure, but let me stick to what I know. The reason why women's orgs will not support men's orgs and issues is because their leaders want nothing to do with men's issues. Supporting men's issues is unpopular and consumes lots of resources--(wo)manpower and money.
The US govt and national and international funding organizations don't place any emphasis on men's issues or how women-centric orgs have, in a number of cases, taken resources from men's orgs and shot down conversations on men's issues.
Trust me, if you want to talk about issues like this with an upper-tier org like mine, you're going to get laughed out of the boardroom. Competition for money and the straight-up passive-aggressive hostility many of these people (mostly educated women's rights advocates) have for men's issues is shocking. People used to tell me feminism is about women and men. Trust me, in the application of things, they don't give a damn about us.
If you guys have any questions, let me know. I can answer anything here for you. I'll stay on this account for the day. Not sure if it'll gain any traction but hoping many of you can see this side of American politics.

And

As a former prosecutor who handled a number of domestic violence cases, I have to agree. There was one male who came into the intake center on multiple occasions who was turned away. I finally met him and had his abuser (his wife of 10 years) charged. Trying to get him any type of help or shelter was nearly impossible. In fact, when he appeared in court I was the only one standing next to him while the perpetrator (defendant) had 3 case workers helping her in addition to her attorney. All three were either domestic violence advocates or former ones working with local agencies. One of them, a friend and former coworker actually asked the victim what he did to make her hit him. Hit him with a cast iron pan multiple times. Let's be honest, men are more often the perps in theses cases but not always. Women have traditionally had fewer resources and ability to leave such a relationship and find safety. But an abuser is an abuser regardless of gender or relationship status.

These are two examples of why OPPOSITION to feminism is necessary to be an egalitarian. The feminist movement is the biggest lobby for rapists and domestic abusers in history, and has entrenched bigotry and prejudice in the heart of our institutions.

Can you see how you're focusing on one side of the coin of women being seen as weak? That prejudice is bad for women, for obvious reasons, but also bad for men because if they are victimized by the stereotypically weak woman then they'll be mocked. If women were seen as equally strong and independent as men, then men wouldn't be suffering from that.


Also, correction, the biggest rape organization is the Catholic Church.

[Ostroeuropa]

]Quote from reddit, two of them;



And



These are two examples of why OPPOSITION to feminism is necessary to be an egalitarian. The feminist movement is the biggest lobby for rapists and domestic abusers in history, and has entrenched bigotry and prejudice in the heart of our institutions.

Can you see how you're focusing on one side of the coin of women being seen as weak? That prejudice is bad for women, for obvious reasons, but also bad for men because if they are victimized by the stereotypically weak woman then they'll be mocked. If women were seen as equally strong and independent as men, then men wouldn't be suffering from that.


Also, correction, the biggest rape organization is the Catholic Church.

The catholic church doesn't lobby the government for ways to protect rapists and domestic abusers, they just cover it up themselves.
It's the difference between a criminal gang, and an existential threat to democracy. One is a policing issue, one is something you could justifiably use laws like the Patriot act or intelligence services to curb.

You're also ignoring the testimony (Which is far from isolated) that the heads of womens organizations and feminist groups are the reason this isn't taken seriously as an issue and they lobby to keep mens issues out of the discussion. and worse, lobby to provide rapists and domestic abusers with extra legal assistance against men.

I'm focusing on one side because it's the only one that actually needs help right now. The other is firmly established in institutions and academia, and the insistence on the repeated gynocentric focus is part of the reason men are so screwed by this system.
In addition, the "Women are weak" canard being the source of lack of action is unproven, a feminist assertion based in ideology and rejection of the notion of misandry.
It isn't actually the case, look here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtVHnZX8E50

If it were weakness, why would they be smiling, cheering it on?
It's not weakness. That's feminist misinformation, distortion, and gynocentrism, a kneeejerk refusal to understand the truth that has been pushed in academia. It's not that women are seen as weak, it's that men are seen as subhuman and any action against them is justified and deserved. Why else would they be smiling?
Why would the women talked about in the testimony be laughing?

Part of the reason for this culture of hatred toward men is the feminist narrative. You're contributing to the problem by continually reframing mens issues to be all about women and how poorly they are treated.

A further expression of feminisms toxic influence on society is chauvinistic revanchism (Which this arguably an expression of.) where women (And more disturbingly, some men) seem to argue that it's just mens turn to get oppressed because of womens historical grievances.

[Devon Teyson]

I don't.
...I just watch too much porn.

[The Ben Boys]

]Quote from reddit, two of them;



And



These are two examples of why OPPOSITION to feminism is necessary to be an egalitarian. The feminist movement is the biggest lobby for rapists and domestic abusers in history, and has entrenched bigotry and prejudice in the heart of our institutions.

Also, correction, the biggest rape organization is the Catholic Church.

When there's a billion person organization, statistically that will happen. Next largest rape organization is China. Then India.

[Lowell Leber]

If feminists are about equality than a man should be able to abort his financial responsibility the same as a woman can abort a baby.

[Arcipelago]

If feminists are about equality than a man should be able to abort his financial responsibility the same as a woman can abort a baby.

This is an amazing point.

[Arcipelago]

Women are so advantaged in society. They get to choose whether a baby lives or dies. They get to keep the children in a vast majority of divorces, as well as most of the money. Women get shorter sentences in jail. The education system is systemically leaned towards them, with young boys being punished for normal boy behavior. Feminists shouldn't complain because life is unfair for everyone.

[Philjia]

If feminists are about equality than a man should be able to abort his financial responsibility the same as a woman can abort a baby.

Only if the woman refused an abortion, as opposed to being unable to obtain one due to financial insolvency or the man refusing to assist in the process.

[Arumbia67]

Because they often seem to treat male rape victims like we don't exist, or are too insignificant a number to matter. Unless they can hijack our experiences and use them to talk about patriarchy of course.

[Arumbia67]

If feminists are about equality than a man should be able to abort his financial responsibility the same as a woman can abort a baby.

Only if the woman refused an abortion, as opposed to being unable to obtain one due to financial insolvency or the man refusing to assist in the process.

Whether or not he has to help should depend on the case. If she stopped taking birth control, or did something else to get pregnant without his knowledge, he shouldn't be required to care for the child. There should be a limit on how much child support can be paid as well. Something like 2500-3000 a month would be fair.

[Galloism]

Only if the woman refused an abortion, as opposed to being unable to obtain one due to financial insolvency or the man refusing to assist in the process.

Whether or not he has to help should depend on the case. If she stopped taking birth control, or did something else to get pregnant without his knowledge, he shouldn't be required to care for the child. There should be a limit on how much child support can be paid as well. Something like 2500-3000 a month would be fair.

I'm much less worried about the upper end than the lower end.

For poor noncustodial parents, child support can exceed disposable income, so they literally have to choose between starvation or homelessness and paying child support.

[Donut section]

Only if the woman refused an abortion, as opposed to being unable to obtain one due to financial insolvency or the man refusing to assist in the process.

Whether or not he has to help should depend on the case. If she stopped taking birth control, or did something else to get pregnant without his knowledge, he shouldn't be required to care for the child.

No, he should be able to make a decision regardless of other factors.

[Philjia]

Whether or not he has to help should depend on the case. If she stopped taking birth control, or did something else to get pregnant without his knowledge, he shouldn't be required to care for the child.

No, he should be able to make a decision regardless of other factors.

If he had the means to pay for an abortion and the mother wanted one but he refused to pay or otherwise assist he's not got a leg to stand on.

[The Emerald Legion]

It's less that I'm not interested and more that I am rather offended by the us or them nature of the discourse. This is largely caused by tribal attitudes from certain parties but the human mind is an intensely complicated thing. Trying to break down everything into two all consuming categories is ridiculous and harmful.

The topic is important. But the idea that everything an everyone can be broken down into 'an egalitarian' or whatever is ridiculous. Words are just words.

The point is that by trying to neatly label everything you actually take away from the discourse rather than add.

Labeling is part of a number of academic disciplines which enable you to identify things. While it is important to be open minded, it is more important to be able to clearly identify what people are talking about. Things like freedom and equality are values; how someone applies them is often ideological, and that is where the words for those identifications becomes important.

No... no it's not more important.

It's that very shorthand that has LEAD to this. Words only mean what the listeners think they mean. So quite bluntly, no we don't need a clear rapid shorthand. In fact we need to get RID of the clear rapid shorthand and encourage actual discussion rather than just people throwing shitfits because their team lost.

It's not a game. We have goals and this insistence on treating ideas to solve the problems on the way to those goals like teams in a football game is harming people.

[Donut section]

No, he should be able to make a decision regardless of other factors.

If he had the means to pay for an abortion and the mother wanted one but he refused to pay or otherwise assist he's not got a leg to stand on.

I'm not entirely sure of what you mean by this, but I'm going to go with "his only way out of responsibility is her decidi to abort."

Which is a problem.

Abortions should be legal. Period.
His choice to terminate his responsibility should be legal. Period.