Why do you call yourself an anti-feminist?

[The House of Petain]

Sexism is alive and well within the progressive community and with both genders. Seriously. Look at Bernie Sanders supporters.

Or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama.

Thought not quite as rampant in the Hillary camp. In Obama's case, certainly. I mean that's why my father and I voted for him in the primaries.

[Galloism]

Or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama.

Thought not quite as rampant in the Hillary camp. In Obama's case, certainly. I mean that's why my father and I voted for him in the primaries.

Actually, it's pretty significant - two major Hillary surrogates were very sexist in their statements, and when people called them out on it, Clinton complained about political correctness run amok.

Because, you know, we expect her people not to be sexist, and that's political correctness.

Or something.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7589

Springfield College recently cancelled a “Men in Literature” course on the grounds that its inordinate emphasis on one gender creates a “hostile environment” for women.
The school also objected to an essay assignment on the treatment of males in academic environments, saying students should be required to write about the opposite gender.

[Wallenburg]

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7589

Springfield College recently cancelled a “Men in Literature” course on the grounds that its inordinate emphasis on one gender creates a “hostile environment” for women.
The school also objected to an essay assignment on the treatment of males in academic environments, saying students should be required to write about the opposite gender.

Because that is totally on topic.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7589

Springfield College recently cancelled a “Men in Literature” course on the grounds that its inordinate emphasis on one gender creates a “hostile environment” for women.
The school also objected to an essay assignment on the treatment of males in academic environments, saying students should be required to write about the opposite gender.

Because that is totally on topic.

It is. It's an example of how the feminist movement doesn't tolerate people advocating for men and will work to shut them down, how institutions which pander to and allow feminist courses and courses which focus on women and such don't seem to understand that this creates a hostile enviroment for men, despite them becoming a dwindling minority on campuses and despite their human rights being violated by witch hunts in the USA.
But they DO realize it for men-in-lit courses. ("Realize." I don't think it would, given that women-in-lit courses were also available.)

This professor also had this incident:

"Gouws had gone further by replying to the proliferation of feminist anti-rape posters on his colleagues' office doors. He put on his own office door flyers that presented statistics on rape that contradicted the widespread claim that one in five women are raped during their undergraduate years. His materials were torn down by a departmental colleague, and later, his door was vandalized."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-end-o ... le/2002347

It shows that the movement and the institituions under its control are determined to maintain a monopoly on the discourse, and most of their bullshit about "You can help men." is misdirecting, their institutions and many of them themselves intend to stop you if you try. Not an isolated incident either.
Feminist controlled institutions are the biggest obstacle to gender equality at this time.

It's an example of how "WAHHH! HOSTILE TO WOMEN!!!" is used as a means to shut down anything that might help men, but the converse of "Feminism is hostile to men." doesn't hold water for them, suggesting the agenda is:

1. Disingenuous or lacking self-awareness
2. Supremacist
3. An active obstacle to equality


At they point out in the MRM reddit, the demand here is for one womens class, and one gender neutral class where mens studies can be overseen and have the dialogue controlled and directed by women. This is also the nature of the feminist movement.
Sections of it are entirely devoted to women, but they maintain a "WE HELP MENZ TOO!" lie by having sections where mens issues are talked about subserviant to whatever makes women comfortable and doesn't challenge their supremacy in the movement.

Suppose if feminists could not discuss anything that men didn't like.

This, along with the onslaught against male only spaces, leads to this conclusion from some:

Most people understand that if one allows men unsupervised time together they might start seeing the world for what it really is.

Functionally that appears to be the case, but the feminists themselves probably don't see it that way and think "Why is it that as soon as men have some time alone to discuss their issues, they become anti-feminist. MUST BE MISOGYNY."

[Wallenburg]

Your angry tirades against "feminist" current events are not related to the topic. The topic is why you are anti-feminist, not what is happening at this or that university.

[Ostroeuropa]

Your angry tirades against "feminist" current events are not related to the topic. The topic is why you are anti-feminist, not what is happening at this or that university.

"Pointing out bad things feminists do is not related to anti-feminism."
Like I said, merely not being a feminist isn't sufficient. You have to oppose feminism to be pro gender-equality. The reasons I oppose feminism are numerous, and they keep giving me new ones.

[The East Marches]

Because that is totally on topic.

It is. It's an example of how the feminist movement doesn't tolerate people advocating for men and will work to shut them down, how institutions which pander to and allow feminist courses and courses which focus on women and such don't seem to understand that this creates a hostile enviroment for men, despite them becoming a dwindling minority on campuses and despite their human rights being violated by witch hunts in the USA.
But they DO realize it for men-in-lit courses. ("Realize." I don't think it would, given that women-in-lit courses were also available.)

This professor also had this incident:

"Gouws had gone further by replying to the proliferation of feminist anti-rape posters on his colleagues' office doors. He put on his own office door flyers that presented statistics on rape that contradicted the widespread claim that one in five women are raped during their undergraduate years. His materials were torn down by a departmental colleague, and later, his door was vandalized."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-end-o ... le/2002347

It shows that the movement and the institituions under its control are determined to maintain a monopoly on the discourse, and most of their bullshit about "You can help men." is misdirecting, their institutions and many of them themselves intend to stop you if you try. Not an isolated incident either.
Feminist controlled institutions are the biggest obstacle to gender equality at this time.

It's an example of how "WAHHH! HOSTILE TO WOMEN!!!" is used as a means to shut down anything that might help men, but the converse of "Feminism is hostile to men." doesn't hold water for them, suggesting the agenda is:

1. Disingenuous or lacking self-awareness
2. Supremacist
3. An active obstacle to equality


At they point out in the MRM reddit, the demand here is for one womens class, and one gender neutral class where mens studies can be overseen and have the dialogue controlled and directed by women. This is also the nature of the feminist movement.
Sections of it are entirely devoted to women, but they maintain a "WE HELP MENZ TOO!" lie by having sections where mens issues are talked about subserviant to whatever makes women comfortable and doesn't challenge their supremacy in the movement.

Suppose if feminists could not discuss anything that men didn't like.

This, along with the onslaught against male only spaces, leads to this conclusion from some:

Most people understand that if one allows men unsupervised time together they might start seeing the world for what it really is.

Functionally that appears to be the case, but the feminists themselves probably don't see it that way and think "Why is it that as soon as men have some time alone to discuss their issues, they become anti-feminist. MUST BE MISOGYNY."

Do you have a link to that quote from "Most people understand that if one allows men unsupervised time together they might start seeing the world for what it really is." I'd like that as a source for later discussions if possible.

[Ostroeuropa]

It is. It's an example of how the feminist movement doesn't tolerate people advocating for men and will work to shut them down, how institutions which pander to and allow feminist courses and courses which focus on women and such don't seem to understand that this creates a hostile enviroment for men, despite them becoming a dwindling minority on campuses and despite their human rights being violated by witch hunts in the USA.
But they DO realize it for men-in-lit courses. ("Realize." I don't think it would, given that women-in-lit courses were also available.)

This professor also had this incident:

"Gouws had gone further by replying to the proliferation of feminist anti-rape posters on his colleagues' office doors. He put on his own office door flyers that presented statistics on rape that contradicted the widespread claim that one in five women are raped during their undergraduate years. His materials were torn down by a departmental colleague, and later, his door was vandalized."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-end-o ... le/2002347

It shows that the movement and the institituions under its control are determined to maintain a monopoly on the discourse, and most of their bullshit about "You can help men." is misdirecting, their institutions and many of them themselves intend to stop you if you try. Not an isolated incident either.
Feminist controlled institutions are the biggest obstacle to gender equality at this time.

It's an example of how "WAHHH! HOSTILE TO WOMEN!!!" is used as a means to shut down anything that might help men, but the converse of "Feminism is hostile to men." doesn't hold water for them, suggesting the agenda is:

1. Disingenuous or lacking self-awareness
2. Supremacist
3. An active obstacle to equality


At they point out in the MRM reddit, the demand here is for one womens class, and one gender neutral class where mens studies can be overseen and have the dialogue controlled and directed by women. This is also the nature of the feminist movement.
Sections of it are entirely devoted to women, but they maintain a "WE HELP MENZ TOO!" lie by having sections where mens issues are talked about subserviant to whatever makes women comfortable and doesn't challenge their supremacy in the movement.

Suppose if feminists could not discuss anything that men didn't like.

This, along with the onslaught against male only spaces, leads to this conclusion from some:



Functionally that appears to be the case, but the feminists themselves probably don't see it that way and think "Why is it that as soon as men have some time alone to discuss their issues, they become anti-feminist. MUST BE MISOGYNY."

Do you have a link to that quote from "Most people understand that if one allows men unsupervised time together they might start seeing the world for what it really is." I'd like that as a source for later discussions if possible.

It's a common meme in the MRM. But here's where I saw it this time.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OneY/comments/ ... _ignoring/

OneY is a place for discussing mens issues. It has a large MRM demographic.

[New Edom]

Yeah you're brushing aside much of what I said.

I once would have agreed with you. The problem is that the labels are there. .That's reality. Feminists, the pouplar movments right now in it, WANT the labels. I could do without them by personal preference and just call things freedom, equality, etc. But these people insist on defining anything that doesn't agree with their orthodoxy as misogyny or ignorance, and anyone who speaks up for men's issues is an MRA and a bad person, so tell m e: what would you do differently after you've spent years trying to reason with people who not only shout you down but try to destroy your reputation? Bow out of the discussion? Do a hamster wheel of trying to talk about values that are ingored? or would you accept that these people are your opponents and bring them down to size?

I am. Because it was utterly irrelevant.

And it is entirely possible to point out their hypocrisy and bullshit without descending into their own level of idiotic tribalism. It's not reality. It's a perception of it. Feminism is no more a law of nature than Slytherin is.

Refuse to acknowledge it and it goes away.

Utterly amazing. Every now and then someone like you comes along and basically spreaeds a bunch of ridiculous platitudes that are untrue. Like this is just some airy fairy theory floating in the ether and everyone is an idiot but you

Tell this to people who lose their jobs, get humiliated in public, lose their opportunities in higher education, lose custody of children, are profiled as rapists or molesters, tell this to people who have to deal with policies created due to some ideology. You'd just ignore it, right?

"Oh well, I lost my job and was hounded out of my town, but I will not identify what did it, I'll just let it roll off my back." I didn't realize I was dealing with a zen monk. You have no help, you have no solution. But enjoy feeling superior to everyone else. meantime, I will actually be conerned with the civil rights and freedoms of other people.

[Wallenburg]

Like I said, merely not being a feminist isn't sufficient. You have to oppose feminism to be pro gender-equality. The reasons I oppose feminism are numerous, and they keep giving me new ones.

You forgot the /sarcasm tag, Ostro.

[Ostroeuropa]

Like I said, merely not being a feminist isn't sufficient. You have to oppose feminism to be pro gender-equality. The reasons I oppose feminism are numerous, and they keep giving me new ones.

You forgot the /sarcasm tag, Ostro.

So you don't actually have an argument beyond snark, good to know.

I am. Because it was utterly irrelevant.

And it is entirely possible to point out their hypocrisy and bullshit without descending into their own level of idiotic tribalism. It's not reality. It's a perception of it. Feminism is no more a law of nature than Slytherin is.

Refuse to acknowledge it and it goes away.

Utterly amazing. Every now and then someone like you comes along and basically spreaeds a bunch of ridiculous platitudes that are untrue. Like this is just some airy fairy theory floating in the ether and everyone is an idiot but you

Tell this to people who lose their jobs, get humiliated in public, lose their opportunities in higher education, lose custody of children, are profiled as rapists or molesters, tell this to people who have to deal with policies created due to some ideology. You'd just ignore it, right?

"Oh well, I lost my job and was hounded out of my town, but I will not identify what did it, I'll just let it roll off my back." I didn't realize I was dealing with a zen monk. You have no help, you have no solution. But enjoy feeling superior to everyone else. meantime, I will actually be conerned with the civil rights and freedoms of other people.

"Just get over it" applies to rape victims too, but curiously it's never used there.

[Wallenburg]

You forgot the /sarcasm tag, Ostro.

So you don't actually have an argument beyond snark, good to know.

You called anyone who isn't anti-feminist a sexist. Such a claim deserves nothing but snark.

[Galloism]

So you don't actually have an argument beyond snark, good to know.

You called anyone who isn't anti-feminist a sexist. Such a claim deserves nothing but snark.

He's obviously too extreme, and anybody can see that, but there are valid reasons for him to say what he does, and I understand his point of view (although I don't agree with it).

The feminist movement, as a whole, in the past couple of decades, has worked tirelessly to reinforce gender roles on men, cast men as aggressors, cast women as innocent, and attempted to prevent any discussion, awareness, or addressing of men's issues, along with pushing for passage of sexist laws or the prevention of making the laws equal where they aren't.

I understand his hatred. I think he's throwing out the baby with the bathwater of course, but I do get it.

[Ostroeuropa]

So you don't actually have an argument beyond snark, good to know.

You called anyone who isn't anti-feminist a sexist. Such a claim deserves nothing but snark.

That's not true. It's possible to be misinformed, and I never claimed what you say I did. I merely said that to be pro-equality, you have to be anti-feminist, and i've provided abundant reasons why that's the case over the years.

You called anyone who isn't anti-feminist a sexist. Such a claim deserves nothing but snark.

He's obviously too extreme, and anybody can see that, but there are valid reasons for him to say what he does, and I understand his point of view (although I don't agree with it).

The feminist movement, as a whole, in the past couple of decades, has worked tirelessly to reinforce gender roles on men, cast men as aggressors, cast women as innocent, and attempted to prevent any discussion, awareness, or addressing of men's issues, along with pushing for passage of sexist laws or the prevention of making the laws equal where they aren't.

I understand his hatred. I think he's throwing out the baby with the bathwater of course, but I do get it.

"It's valid, but it's too exterme."

[Wallenburg]

You called anyone who isn't anti-feminist a sexist. Such a claim deserves nothing but snark.

That's not true. It's possible to be misinformed, and I never claimed what you say I did. I merely said that to be pro-equality, you have to be anti-feminist, and i've provided abundant reasons why that's the case over the years.

That's total bullshit, Ostro. What is the difference between saying that you have to be anti-feminist to support gender equality, and saying that if you are not anti-feminist, you oppose gender equality?

[Ostroeuropa]

That's not true. It's possible to be misinformed, and I never claimed what you say I did. I merely said that to be pro-equality, you have to be anti-feminist, and i've provided abundant reasons why that's the case over the years.



"It's valid, but it's too exterme."

That's total bullshit, Ostro. What is the difference between saying that you have to be anti-feminist to support gender equality, and saying that if you are not anti-feminist, you oppose gender equality?

People who claim to be egalitarians but not anti-feminists aren't sexists, they're merely impotent.

If you want to cook dinner you have to turn the oven on, but not doing so doesn't mean you're actively trying to poison everybody. It could mean you're not aware of the problem, mistaken, stupid, misinformed, think the oven already is on when it actually isn't, etc. Plenty of other explanations, but none of them change the fact that you have to switch it on to actually cook dinner. You COULD be trying to poison everybody, ofcourse. And it might say something about your character if you stomp your feet and shake your fist when someone questions why your oven isn't on and refuse to change it, even after they've explained at length to you why that's a problem.

But even there, being intellectually dishonest and not liking to admit being wrong is more likely than active malice, hatred, and sexism in my opinion.

Babies aren't little packets of racism and sexism, because they lack awareness of the problem. So it goes with "Egalitarians" who aren't anti-feminist, either they just don't know what they are doing wrong, don't understand what they are doing wrong, or refuse to countenance the idea that they could be wrong.

[Valystria]

Like I said, merely not being a feminist isn't sufficient. You have to oppose feminism to be pro gender-equality. The reasons I oppose feminism are numerous, and they keep giving me new ones.

You forgot the /sarcasm tag, Ostro.

You've yet to offer anything other than endless snark and denialism.

To be in favor of gender equality requires not being a feminist. Feminism is an ideological women's rights movement, not a gender equality movement. For someone to call themselves a feminist, that requires actively and willfully viewing gender and sex inequalities through the woman-centric lense of feminism, and insisting the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men is somehow the same as being for gender equality itself. It clearly isn't.

An adherent of feminism will not seek to address gender inequalities, except where the feminist perceives an inequality against women. Again, it's not a gender equality movement. Feminism is a women's advocacy movement and only that. Conflating feminism with gender egalitarianism only perpetuates and creates inequalities, as equality is not the goal except where and whenever women's rights and status are not equal with that of the men.

So yes, someone with gender equality as a genuine goal would oppose conflating women's rights advocacy with gender egalitarianism and therefore not be a feminist.

[Galloism]

You called anyone who isn't anti-feminist a sexist. Such a claim deserves nothing but snark.

That's not true. It's possible to be misinformed, and I never claimed what you say I did. I merely said that to be pro-equality, you have to be anti-feminist, and i've provided abundant reasons why that's the case over the years.

He's obviously too extreme, and anybody can see that, but there are valid reasons for him to say what he does, and I understand his point of view (although I don't agree with it).

The feminist movement, as a whole, in the past couple of decades, has worked tirelessly to reinforce gender roles on men, cast men as aggressors, cast women as innocent, and attempted to prevent any discussion, awareness, or addressing of men's issues, along with pushing for passage of sexist laws or the prevention of making the laws equal where they aren't.

I understand his hatred. I think he's throwing out the baby with the bathwater of course, but I do get it.

"It's valid, but it's too exterme."

The reasoning for your position is valid, but the conclusion isn't a valid one. You go too far.

Much in the same way that it's a valid argument to point out the Republican party's tireless efforts to fight against minority voting rights, but would be a little too far to conclude that all Republicans are against democracy.

[Wallenburg]

You forgot the /sarcasm tag, Ostro.

You've yet to offer anything other than endless snark and denialism.

Untrue.

To be in favor of gender equality requires not being a feminist.

Untrue.

Feminism is an ideological women's rights movement, not a gender equality movement. For someone to call themselves a feminist, that requires actively and willfully viewing gender and sex inequalities through the woman-centric lense of feminism, and insisting the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men is somehow the same as being for gender equality itself.

Your point? The MRA is an ideological men's rights movement, not a gender equality movement. For someone to call themselves a MRA, that requires actively and willfully viewing gender and sex inequalities through the man-centric lense of men's rights advocacy, and insisting the advocacy of men's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to women is somehow the same as being for gender equality itself.

It clearly isn't.

Really? That's a pretty radical claim.

An adherent of feminism will not seek to address gender inequalities, except where the feminist perceives an inequality against women.

Untrue.

Again, it's not a gender equality movement. Feminism is a women's advocacy movement and only that.

If you insist. But by that same rule, the MRM is not a gender equality movement, but only a men's advocacy movement.

Conflating feminism with gender egalitarianism only perpetuates and creates inequalities, as equality is not the goal except where and whenever women's rights and status are not equal with that of the men.

Maybe for some, but not for all feminists.

So yes, someone with gender equality as a genuine goal would oppose conflating women's rights advocacy with gender egalitarianism and therefore not be a feminist.

Untrue.

[Hellions]

I'm not an anti-Feminist, I'm an Equalist.

Oh hi, Amon!

Out of curiosity, does this title set you apart ideologically from the feminist mainstream, or do you want another name because feminism as a title because it doesn't adequately cover the issues you personally care about?

Its called Egalitarianism, but it's the thought that counts right?

[Ostroeuropa]

The mens rights movement doesn't claim to be an all-encompassing gender equality movement, so it isn't a comparable flaw in them to be male-focused. It's the difference between "Here are my important demands." and "Here are everybodies important demands.".
If the second one lacks some, you can reasonably conclude that the people advocating that position think the other demands aren't important.

In that sense, the mens rights movement DOESN'T view sexism through an explicitly male-focused lens. It views sexism against men that way. This isn't the first time the claim that the movements are equivalent have been made, nor the first time the explanation for why they aren't has been offered.

(More analogies;
A camp of four people is sat around, and they all need various medicine. One of them goes to the radio and requests that "We all need heart medication.", when only she does. Another tries to go up and so he can say "I need anti-biotics.". If the former then also insists over and over again that she'll handle it, and tries to prevent anyone else using the radio saying it's her job, she's a murderer. He isn't. This is a personification of the movements, while individual members may differ in their behavior.)

[Wallenburg]

The mens rights movement doesn't claim to be an all-encompassing gender equality movement, so it isn't a comparable flaw in them to be male-focused.

Really? It doesn't claim to seek equal rights for men?

It's the difference between "Here are my important demands." and "Here are everybodies important demands.".


If the second one lacks some, you can reasonably conclude that the people advocating that position think the other demands aren't important.

No, not really. I'm not aware of any serious movement that claims that those not part of the movement, and even opposed to it, share its demands.

In that sense, the mens rights movement DOESN'T view sexism through an explicitly male-focused lens. It views sexism against men that way.

So then feminism isn't sexist, since you claim it is gynocentric.

This isn't the first time the claim that the movements are equivalent have been made, nor the first time the explanation for why they aren't has been offered.

It's a piss-poor explanation.

(More analogies;
A camp of four people is sat around, and they all need various medicine. One of them goes to the radio and requests that "We all need heart medication.", when only she does. Another tries to go up and so he can say "I need anti-biotics.". If the former then also insists over and over again that she'll handle it, and tries to prevent anyone else using the radio saying it's her job, she's a murderer. He isn't. This is a personification of the movements, while individual members may differ in their behavior.)

I don't see how that compares to the movements at all.

[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.

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.

Agree in principle with ya there.

[Galloism]

(More analogies;
A camp of four people is sat around, and they all need various medicine. One of them goes to the radio and requests that "We all need heart medication.", when only she does. Another tries to go up and so he can say "I need anti-biotics.". If the former then also insists over and over again that she'll handle it, and tries to prevent anyone else using the radio saying it's her job, she's a murderer. He isn't. This is a personification of the movements, while individual members may differ in their behavior.)

I don't see how that compares to the movements at all.

His point is that feminism, as a movement, has not only attempted to help women where women are disadvantaged, but actively prevented anyone from helping men where men are disadvantaged while claiming that any attempts to do so, apart from feminism, are anti-equality.

Feminism, as a movement, has been actively trying to prevent equality for men for at least a couple decades. MRAs have not attempted to prevent equality for women (that I've seen). This may not apply to all individual feminists, but it does, collectively, as a movement. This also doesn't apply to all MRAs, but it does, collectively, as a movement.

MRAs have been loud, obnoxious, and annoying at various points, but they haven't actively tried to prevent equality the way prominent feminists have.