Would You Support a New Egalitarian Movement?

[The balkens]

Overall I think it'd be unnecessary, but we'll see. Personally I feel that the Social Justice movement, and all its various factions, which comprise a broader ideological faction of Egalitarianism, does a decent job of promoting social progress and the ideological basis of progressivism, and educatin, as well as push us toward a better society.

All in all, I feel like we already have a movement for Egalitarianism, in most countries, it's called Social Justice.

Thats Hilarious, considering all the while the movement is doing nothing but balkanize society based not only on class, but gender, race and everything under the fucking sun.

[Costa Fierro]

No, I do not support reactionaries appropriating the language of actual egalitarians.

Then you wouldn't support BLM or feminism.

[New Edom]

Don't bullshit me. One doesn't acknowledge men can be rape victims, one claimed that men are not assaulted as often as women are and the remainder refuse to acknowledge men's issues as valid because "men aren't oppressed".

Umm...what the fuck are you talking about? Are the only feminists you see Chessmistress and Natapoc?

As far as I am concerned, the words "egalitarian" and "feminism/feminist" can't be used in the same sentence.

Then you would be hilariously wrong.

I am an egalitarian, championing the equal rights of all citizens, incorporating ideas from all sorts of social, political, and economic movements, including feminism.

That is, believe it or not, a sentence.

"Enlightened self-interest" being what?

Progressing toward egalitarian policy. It was pretty clear what I was talking about.

Accepting the day when women decide to castrate me because my penis is a "rape weapon"?

Oh, please.

I prefer aggression because that is all men receive these days.

Untrue, of course, but fuck it, it isn't like anti-feminism hasn't injected itself with bullshit before just to exaggerate the issues facing men.

Men have to fight because society treats them like shit.

I am a man, and can confirm this to be a load of bullshit.

Women complain about being objectified in a sexual manner but willingly treat men as objects for their own use, as pawns.

"All women are manipulative, hypocritical bitches," huh? I know where this is going...

Men are seen as disposable, as simply a walking sack of semen. Men are only valued as something that can be used and disposed of. That's it.

Literally anyone who steps outside and interacts with another person knows this is total bullshit.

Society is hostile against men so what else do you expect men to do?

Society is not hostile against men. Western society was fucking built on men's terms, and eventually adapted into a far more egalitarian model. Half of the fucking world is men. Men are in power and hold popularity everywhere and in every corner of every element of society. We aren't living in some Amazonian dystopia.

Except the goals are not mutual.

So basic human rights, voting rights, and property rights for women is not mutually supported by other egalitarians?

Feminism has, by and large, achieved the goals of equality in society and society has changed to the point that women are better treated than men. They receive more help, more consideration for their issues than men do. Feminists fight against equality in the legal system for rape, for domestic violence and for custody of children in divorce,

Yes, many do. And many don't.

because men are portrayed as inherently violent rapists who are unfit to raise children.

Another boldfaced untruth.

They say that, but they don't act on it. How can men trust feminists who claim to be on their side when they do absolutely nothing about their own people blatantly pushing for more and more unequal treatment?

If you refuse to look at their effortd, I can't make you see it.

I'll throw you one lifeline here. Give us just one link that shows feminists demonstrating their integrity toards men by talking about how they propose society should deal with women who abuse children, the elderly, other women and men which does not blame their actions on patriarchy but on their evil criminal behaviour.

[New Edom]

Like I've pointed out before, there'd be no egalitarian movements if not for those who have more power and more majority. So why should such people continue to support political movements that are antagonistic towards them if there's not only little benefit but actually serious loss? What's the appeal?

Loaded question much? Just because you feel antagonized by feminism doesn't mean the rest of the male population is.
Also, to say that "there'd be no egalitarian movements if not for those who have more power and more majority" is very disingenuous. You could argue that several prominent egalitarian movements succeeded when the powerful and the majority caved into the movements' demands, but don't try and take agency away from those movements and act like the dominant class created them. The LGBT+ rights movement in the United States wasn't born when the majority of the heterosexual population started to accept us. The Stonewall riots were not a collective hug between the LGBT+ community and the establishment.

I am not interested in their agency at the moment. What I'm wondering is: what's in it for those who are defined as oppressors? What's the bargain? Why shouldn't those who are defined as evil insensitive monsters just act as they are defined and crush all opposition to their values?

[UniversalCommons]

The number one question that stands out is why is that there is a lot of talk about individual rights in feminism, but not enough about education and business rights for women.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

The number one question that stands out is why is that there is a lot of talk about individual rights in feminism, but not enough about education and business rights for women.

Because individual rights are 'sexy' and 'appealing' and oh-so-easy to talk about whereas things like employment discrimination are harder to deal with because they are harder to make policy about. Its the same deal with transwomen. Bathroom Bills are easy to attack and stomp out of existence because its a simple policy to refute - they are discriminatory, get rid of them. Employment discrimination on the other hand is more complex.

[Liriena]

Loaded question much? Just because you feel antagonized by feminism doesn't mean the rest of the male population is.
Also, to say that "there'd be no egalitarian movements if not for those who have more power and more majority" is very disingenuous. You could argue that several prominent egalitarian movements succeeded when the powerful and the majority caved into the movements' demands, but don't try and take agency away from those movements and act like the dominant class created them. The LGBT+ rights movement in the United States wasn't born when the majority of the heterosexual population started to accept us. The Stonewall riots were not a collective hug between the LGBT+ community and the establishment.

I am not interested in their agency at the moment. What I'm wondering is: what's in it for those who are defined as oppressors? What's the bargain? Why shouldn't those who are defined as evil insensitive monsters just act as they are defined and crush all opposition to their values?

Because oppressors don't always need to be cartoonishly villainous to get their way.
Certain Marxist social scientists addressed the relationship between domination and hegemony, between forced and consensual subjugation, between resistances being suppressed and being assimilated, without ever truly changing the circumstances of the oppressors and the oppressed.

[Liriena]

No, I do not support reactionaries appropriating the language of actual egalitarians.

Then you wouldn't support BLM or feminism.

You consider BLM and feminism to be "reactionary" movements?

[Costa Fierro]

I think you are confusing a specific faction within feminism with the entirety of feminism. Not every feminist individual or organization is Cathy Brennan, Anita Sarkeesian, etc. Feminism, like all other broad international movements, is quite diverse.

Anita Sarkeesian et al. are the new mainstream. They're not a specific faction. They're not a lunatic fringe anymore. They are what feminism has become. They are modern feminists. And they're only there because the so-called "moderate feminists" allowed them to take over and start promoting their misandrist agenda.

You can go on and on about how "diverse" the movement is until the proverbial cows come home but the fact remains that your ideal image of feminism and the reality of feminism are two totally different things. You imagine feminism to be a diverse group of people but the reality is that feminism is dominated by the radicals and the sorts of people who have castration fantasies or want to physically abuse small boys because they were born with a penis. Feminism today is not the same feminism that was being promoted 40-50 years ago. People like you need to realize this and realize this fast, otherwise you're going to live in a world where your rights don't matter anymore, not that the rights of men matter much these days anyway.

Also, you should be more subtle about your red herrings... and if you wonder why it seems like black activists protest police officers killing black people more than black civilians killing other black civilians, maybe you would do well to remember that these are police officers we are talking about. These are the people who have been tasked with enforcing the law and protecting their communities, and they should be held to higher standards than gang members and the like.

And the vast majority of law enforcement officers do perform their jobs professionally. This anti-police hate stems more from the association of loss and despair in many black communities when someone is murdered or assaulted because the police are always there.

BLM is more than "a platform for Black Americans to air their racist views without any social backlash and engage in racist attacks against law enforcement". Again, you are talking about a very broad movement that, much like feminism, doesn't have a centralized structure. BLM activists in one region do not necessarily hold the same views, and resort to the same methods, as all others. If you paid attention to BLM figures other than the ones that outrage you, you'd notice that they are not a racist, anti-cop hivemind.

BLM at its core is an anti-police, anti-white movement. Ever since BLM became a thing, there has been a substantial airing of previously unknown and immensely hateful views to people who have done them no wrong but they must be hated purely because of the colour of their skin. There may be a few loose associates who don't believe that all white people should be killed or that white women cannot be raped, but those kinds of sentiments are by far and away the most common you will find associated with BLM.

Can I ask you why you feel the need to diminish the influence the radical feminists and the racist BLM members have on their respective movements?

[Wolfmanne2]

No, I do not support reactionaries appropriating the language of actual egalitarians.

Then you wouldn't support BLM or feminism.

I mean, I have my issues with Black Lives Matters. But I have few issues with mainstream or liberal feminism. Women are certainly underprivileged in contrast to men.

EDIT: I wouldn't class Anita Sarkeesian as a radical for the record.

[Costa Fierro]

Then you wouldn't support BLM or feminism.

You consider BLM and feminism to be "reactionary" movements?

Yes. Feminism, for example, is opposed to pornography and prostitution and feminists often fight against laws which liberalizes them, prostitution especially. Feminism and feminists are also opposed to changes to rape laws and domestic violence laws which would define men as victims and also fight against laws which give equal rights to men for custody of children in divorces. Social change in the 1970's was for women's rights to be respected and recognized. That has been achieved and now they're trying to protect the "privileges" women have in society as men increasingly realize their elected representatives have thrown them under the proverbial bus and made men virtually unable to receive justice for crimes committed that would have seen them receive tough sentences if they had committed them.

I suppose BLM couldn't be considered "reactionary".

[Costa Fierro]

Then you wouldn't support BLM or feminism.

I mean, I have my issues with Black Lives Matters. But I have few issues with mainstream or liberal feminism. Women are certainly underprivileged in contrast to men.

EDIT: I wouldn't class Anita Sarkeesian as a radical for the record.

My point, ladies and gentlemen. See, back when feminism was actually about equality for women, feminists like Anita Sarkeesian would have been considered "radical feminists" and been relegated to the fringes of the movement. Now, she is mainstream and so are her views.

Liberal feminism doesn't exist anymore and those who do call themselves "liberal feminists" are only considered such because they don't harbour any castration fantasies.

[Kelinfort]

This is your fourth thread in under a month and I do believe egalitarianism already exists. No need to make a new one.

[New Edom]

I am not interested in their agency at the moment. What I'm wondering is: what's in it for those who are defined as oppressors? What's the bargain? Why shouldn't those who are defined as evil insensitive monsters just act as they are defined and crush all opposition to their values?

Because oppressors don't always need to be cartoonishly villainous to get their way.
Certain Marxist social scientists addressed the relationship between domination and hegemony, between forced and consensual subjugation, between resistances being suppressed and being assimilated, without ever truly changing the circumstances of the oppressors and the oppressed.

So why should men support feminism?

[New Edom]

This is your fourth thread in under a month and I do believe egalitarianism already exists. No need to make a new one.

I don't agree with you. My threads are about particular issues to keep things on topic. But if yo udon't like it, don't post here, there's tons of other threads for you to follow if you'd prefer.

[Liriena]

I think you are confusing a specific faction within feminism with the entirety of feminism. Not every feminist individual or organization is Cathy Brennan, Anita Sarkeesian, etc. Feminism, like all other broad international movements, is quite diverse.

Anita Sarkeesian et al. are the new mainstream. They're not a specific faction. They're not a lunatic fringe anymore. They are what feminism has become. They are modern feminists. And they're only there because the so-called "moderate feminists" allowed them to take over and start promoting their misandrist agenda.

First of all, I may disagree with Sarkeesian on an awful lot, but I do not consider her to be a "lunatic" or even necessarily a radical. I don't find her particularly outrageous. As for her and the likes of her being the "new mainstream", I have my doubts. Sure, she gets a lot of attention, but so do feminists like Emma Watson, Malala Yousafzai, Tom Hiddleston, Amy Poehler, Beyoncé and Patric Stewart. Are they not even more mainstream than Sarkeesian could ever hope to be? Don't they and their opinions get far bigger platforms and far more circulation than Sarkeesian?

Also... yes, feminists did not go out and suppress the freedom of speech of the extremists in their ranks. So?
Do you believe that men's rights activists should try to suppress Roosh V and Return of Kings?

You can go on and on about how "diverse" the movement is until the proverbial cows come home but the fact remains that your ideal image of feminism and the reality of feminism are two totally different things. You imagine feminism to be a diverse group of people but the reality is that feminism is dominated by the radicals and the sorts of people who have castration fantasies or want to physically abuse small boys because they were born with a penis. Feminism today is not the same feminism that was being promoted 40-50 years ago. People like you need to realize this and realize this fast, otherwise you're going to live in a world where your rights don't matter anymore, not that the rights of men matter much these days anyway.

Again, Emma Watson, Malala Yousafzai, Tom Hiddleston, Amy Poehler, Beyoncé and Patric Stewart, to name just a few. Plus countless others with far less notoriety.

Feminism is not dominated by radicals with castration or abuse fantasies, despite what whatever self-victimizing figures you have been listening to might have told you. Are they louder and more numerous than I, and most feminists, would prefer? Yes. Do they get more attention than they deserve (and often from people just actively looking for confirmation of their prejudices)? Yes.

Also, speaking as a man myself? Kindly stop that self-victimizing crap.
Almost every woman in my life has been sexually harrassed in public at least once in the past couple of years, but not a single one of the men, including myself.
I hear disparaging comments about women in general on a regular basis. Only rarely do I hear something of the same nature being said about men, and it usually boils down to the same machismo behind the former.
I see double-standards being applied on a regular basis, and seldom to the detriment of men.

I acknowledge that men face many injustices due to sexism, but I do not use those injustices as a cudgel to beat women's rights with.

So excuse me if I don't feel like throwing my belief in gender equality under the bus for the sake of joining the chorus of delusional and rabid anti-feminism.

Also, you should be more subtle about your red herrings... and if you wonder why it seems like black activists protest police officers killing black people more than black civilians killing other black civilians, maybe you would do well to remember that these are police officers we are talking about. These are the people who have been tasked with enforcing the law and protecting their communities, and they should be held to higher standards than gang members and the like.

And the vast majority of law enforcement officers do perform their jobs professionally. This anti-police hate stems more from the association of loss and despair in many black communities when someone is murdered or assaulted because the police are always there.

Or maybe it stems from a demonstrable racial bias in the criminal justice system persisting to this very day, and sometimes showing itself in the form of brutality against black people.

BLM is more than "a platform for Black Americans to air their racist views without any social backlash and engage in racist attacks against law enforcement". Again, you are talking about a very broad movement that, much like feminism, doesn't have a centralized structure. BLM activists in one region do not necessarily hold the same views, and resort to the same methods, as all others. If you paid attention to BLM figures other than the ones that outrage you, you'd notice that they are not a racist, anti-cop hivemind.

BLM at its core is an anti-police, anti-white movement.

No.

Ever since BLM became a thing, there has been a substantial airing of previously unknown and immensely hateful views to people who have done them no wrong but they must be hated purely because of the colour of their skin. There may be a few loose associates who don't believe that all white people should be killed or that white women cannot be raped, but those kinds of sentiments are by far and away the most common you will find associated with BLM.

Oh, are they? I'm sure you have a poll you can cite on the matter?

Can I ask you why you feel the need to diminish the influence the radical feminists and the racist BLM members have on their respective movements?

A bit of a loaded question, don't you think?

It's not that I "feel the need to diminish the influence" of extremism. It's that, unlike you, I have not been deluded into thinking that the loud voices of the extremists are more numerous and influential than they really are, thanks to years of dishonestly selective coverage, commentary and critique, both by an irresponsible mass media, and by racists and sexists looking for something to excuse their hateful and patronizing preconceptions.

[Liriena]

Because oppressors don't always need to be cartoonishly villainous to get their way.
Certain Marxist social scientists addressed the relationship between domination and hegemony, between forced and consensual subjugation, between resistances being suppressed and being assimilated, without ever truly changing the circumstances of the oppressors and the oppressed.

So why should men support feminism?

In my own particular case, I support gender equality, and thus feminism, in part out of empathy, in part out of my personal core beliefs, and in part for myself. Out of empathy, insofar as I see women around the world still suffering injustices both great and small, and that doesn't feel the least bit right. Out of my personal core beliefs, because I believe in equality, including gender equality, as necessary for any society to truly have harmony, freedom and prosperity. For myself, because I find machismo irritating, exhausting and asphyxiating on a personal level, as a man who doesn't really care about gender roles, and yet lives in a culture where there's often a severely strict enforcement of those roles.

If you concur with any, or two, or all three of those aspects, feminism deserves your attention. That doesn't mean you have to agree with anything and everything any feminist says (once again, Cathy Brennan exists, and she's terrible). That doesn't mean you have to pretend extremists don't exist or that some men's rights activists don't have legitimate grievances. And that doesn't mean you have to become a radical who sees a patriarchy everywhere. You can always choose to focus on more pressing issues than how many female billionaires exist.

[New Edom]

So why should men support feminism?

In my own particular case, I support gender equality, and thus feminism, in part out of empathy, in part out of my personal core beliefs, and in part for myself. Out of empathy, insofar as I see women around the world still suffering injustices both great and small, and that doesn't feel the least bit right. Out of my personal core beliefs, because I believe in equality, including gender equality, as necessary for any society to truly have harmony, freedom and prosperity. For myself, because I find machismo irritating, exhausting and asphyxiating on a personal level, as a man who doesn't really care about gender roles, and yet lives in a culture where there's often a severely strict enforcement of those roles.

If you concur with any, or two, or all three of those aspects, feminism deserves your attention. That doesn't mean you have to agree with anything and everything any feminist says (once again, Cathy Brennan exists, and she's terrible). That doesn't mean you have to pretend extremists don't exist or that some men's rights activists don't have legitimate grievances. And that doesn't mean you have to become a radical who sees a patriarchy everywhere. You can always choose to focus on more pressing issues than how many female billionaires exist.

So those are your personal reasons. But what if people don't agree that there are so many injustices that they need to follow ideological approaches to dealing with issues regarding labour, finances, marriages, relations and social interactions? What if they like being manly and notice women like it so they feel it is profitable to keep being so? How would you persuade them otherwise?

[Sociopia]

No, because I reject egalitarianism. People are inherently unequal, so to base an ideology on equality is utterly nonsensical.

[Miarie]

I already support several egalitarian movements, including feminism and black activism against racially biased police misconduct.

KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE
Ｉ ＡＭ ＬＡＵＧＨＩＮＧ ＭＹ ＦＵＣＫＩＮＧ ＡＳＳ ＩＮＴＯ ＯＵＴＥＲ ＳＰＡＣＥ

[Costa Fierro]

First of all, I may disagree with Sarkeesian on an awful lot, but I do not consider her to be a "lunatic" or even necessarily a radical. I don't find her particularly outrageous. As for her and the likes of her being the "new mainstream", I have my doubts.

Why? Her views and views like hers are more prevalent than they ever have been and they're more widely accepted by feminist academics. I am under no illusions as to where the feminist movement is heading.

Sure, she gets a lot of attention, but so do feminists like Emma Watson, Malala Yousafzai, Tom Hiddleston, Amy Poehler, Beyoncé and Patric Stewart. Are they not even more mainstream than Sarkeesian could ever hope to be? Don't they and their opinions get far bigger platforms and far more circulation than Sarkeesian?

For one thing, the only actual feminist there is Malala Yousafzai and that is because she faces actual oppression where she lives. Emma Watson and the remainder of the people on there are not feminists. They only say they are because it gives them a good image, especially with regards to the two men you included in that list. If they actually saw what feminists were supporting, the ideas that are promoted and the ultimate end goal of feminism, I can say with confidence that none of them would call themselves feminists, even if it's only lip service.

Also... yes, feminists did not go out and suppress the freedom of speech of the extremists in their ranks. So?

So you're enabling the radicalization of the mainstream.

Do you believe that men's rights activists should try to suppress Roosh V and Return of Kings?

Of course. The feminist portrayal of all MRA's as evil, misogynistic women-haters has done a huge amount of damage to the movement. Damage which is extremely difficult to repair purely because of the amount of influence feminism has on modern society. Hell, feminists openly suggest that as a man, if you aren't a feminist, you're sexist. You can't advocate for equality if you approach gender issues from purely one perspective but that is the paternalistic attitude that feminists readily display when it comes to men's rights.

Again, Emma Watson, Malala Yousafzai, Tom Hiddleston, Amy Poehler, Beyoncé and Patric Stewart, to name just a few. Plus countless others with far less notoriety.

Again, a list of people who, bar one, are not actual feminists.

Feminism is not dominated by radicals with castration or abuse fantasies, despite what whatever self-victimizing figures you have been listening to might have told you.

Think again.

Are they louder and more numerous than I, and most feminists, would prefer? Yes. Do they get more attention than they deserve (and often from people just actively looking for confirmation of their prejudices)? Yes.

Hence they are the mainstream. What part of that do you not understand?

Also, speaking as a man myself? Kindly stop that self-victimizing crap.

It's not self-victimizing. Unless you've experienced domestic violence at the hands of a woman or have been raped as a woman and seen absolutely no justice, received no support and have seen nothing but mockery and derision from the people who should have supported you the most, only then can you understand the actual issues that men face.

Do I speak from experience? No. But others here on this forum have. And to sit there and call it an act of "self victimization" is not only insulting to me, it's insulting to them. Unless you are perfectly fine with invalidating their experiences purely because they are men, then you really need to gain a new perspective.

Almost every woman in my life has been sexually harrassed in public at least once in the past couple of years, but not a single one of the men, including myself.

Given that there was a thread where the mere idea of a man approaching a woman and saying "hello" was considered to be sexual harassment and a hate crime, why exactly should I be inclined to believe the opinion of someone who thinks a man's experiences at the hands of abusers and rapists is "self victimization"?

I see double-standards being applied on a regular basis, and seldom to the detriment of men.

Well you would do, because you are the one applying them.

I acknowledge that men face many injustices due to sexism,

No you don't. Otherwise the victimization comment would not have been made.

but I do not use those injustices as a cudgel to beat women's rights with.

I'm not against women's rights. I'm against movements that are inherently hostile to men. That is feminism.

So excuse me if I don't feel like throwing my belief in gender equality under the bus for the sake of joining the chorus of delusional and rabid anti-feminism.

You can't really claim to believe in gender equality when you also believe in feminism. But hey, I'm sure being castrated sounds like a lot of fun.

Or maybe it stems from a demonstrable racial bias in the criminal justice system persisting to this very day, and sometimes showing itself in the form of brutality against black people.

That would be more the case there. A lack of justice does more to alienate certain minority groups from the legal system than law enforcement officers would.

No.

So you've gone from pretending that all the radicals are not the mainstream to outright denying it exists. Brilliant.

Oh, are they? I'm sure you have a poll you can cite on the matter?

You only have to look at the social media support for the killings of police officers and for the genocide of white people.

A bit of a loaded question, don't you think?

It's what you were doing, although you've now decided to outright deny that anything BLM supporters have said is anti-white.

It's not that I "feel the need to diminish the influence" of extremism.

But you are. Instead of acknowledging the radicalization of the mainstream, you're still spouting the same feminist lie that the radicals don't represent the mainstream. They do. Whether or not you're willing to accept facts as facts is your own problem.

It's that, unlike you, I have not been deluded into thinking that the loud voices of the extremists are more numerous and influential than they really are, thanks to years of dishonestly selective coverage, commentary and critique, both by an irresponsible mass media, and by racists and sexists looking for something to excuse their hateful and patronizing preconceptions.

I find it amusing that you call me deluded, yet espouse equally deluded claims that the radicals are still on the fringes and that BLM doesn't include any racism at all.

I mean what else do you have to claim next? That men should be feminists if they know what's good for them?

[Natapoc]

"Enlightened self-interest" being what? Accepting the day when women decide to castrate me because my penis is a "rape weapon"? I prefer aggression because that is all men receive these days. Men have to fight because society treats them like shit. Women complain about being objectified in a sexual manner but willingly treat men as objects for their own use, as pawns. Men are seen as disposable, as simply a walking sack of semen. Men are only valued as something that can be used and disposed of. That's it. Society is hostile against men so what else do you expect men to do?

I am not sure why you think society, women, or feminists think this about men but you could not be further from the truth.

Feminists don't want to castrate you and your penis is not a rape weapon unless you use it that way.

You are not seen as disposable and your semen is not something anyone is likely to even think about or want to hear about. We certainly don't see you as a walking sack of it.

It sounds like you have been influenced, perhaps brainwashed, by some of the more unsavory corners of the internet.

Please do yourself and others in your real life a favor and deeply inspect your beliefs, ideally with a person in real life who you know and trust. Aggression and fighting will only hurt you and those who love you.

[USS Monitor]

Sure, she gets a lot of attention, but so do feminists like Emma Watson, Malala Yousafzai, Tom Hiddleston, Amy Poehler, Beyoncé and Patric Stewart. Are they not even more mainstream than Sarkeesian could ever hope to be? Don't they and their opinions get far bigger platforms and far more circulation than Sarkeesian?

For one thing, the only actual feminist there is Malala Yousafzai and that is because she faces actual oppression where she lives. Emma Watson and the remainder of the people on there are not feminists. They only say they are because it gives them a good image, especially with regards to the two men you included in that list. If they actually saw what feminists were supporting, the ideas that are promoted and the ultimate end goal of feminism, I can say with confidence that none of them would call themselves feminists, even if it's only lip service.

Who died and made you the official gatekeeper of the feminist movement?

[Drown]

No.

[Costa Fierro]

I am not sure why you think society, women, or feminists think this about men but you could not be further from the truth.

Really? You don't see any inherent objectification in how men are treated with regards to their roles in society, their expectations when it comes to the military and to manual labour?

Society sees men as tools, as instruments of labour. There's no inherent value in a man's live. Sure, we have laws against murder but it's only because we deem the artificial and forced ending of a human's life against that human's will to be inherently immoral.

If you don't think men are not treated badly by society, you only have to look at the ways men are falling behind in things like education. Or, distressingly, their higher rates of homelessness and suicide. And it's not just academia, mental health or homelessness. Men who suffer from domestic abuse lack the institutional support and even the support from the police and from the legal system. Of the shelters in that article, 33 shelters are for men, and 18 of those are for gay men. Compare it to the 4,000 or so shelters for women and you can't deny the massive discrepancy in terms of support. Yes, female-on-male domestic violence is reported at lower rates than male-on-female, but that is because the majority of the violence goes unreported. And it gets worse when men become victims of rape, because they have even fewer resources and support than male domestic violence victims. Not only that, some jurisdictions don't even recognize female-on-male rape as rape. I haven't even addressed the disproportionate prison population, tougher criminal sentences or higher vulnerabilities to assaults, murders, muggings and even sexual violence.

And a lot of these are intertwined with widespread social beliefs and expectations. Men are expected to be providers and to look after themselves and so there's virtually no help when a man cannot look after himself. Hence why men become homeless at rates higher than women do and why more men are homeless than women. Men are told to never hit a woman and whilst I accept this as a perfectly legitimate social expectation outside of legitimate self-defense circumstances, it's not the case for everyone. So if we're told to never hit a woman, what happens when a woman hits a man? What happens if the man defends himself? Is he allowed to? What if she claims he was violent and he gets arrested? Who are the police, the courts, society going to believe? He can't defend himself because he'll be arrested. He can't escape because he'll end up homeless. So the only solution is suicide, as he doesn't have support and society sees him as weak not only for allowing a woman to beat him up but also for not fighting back. It's virtually the same thing for male rape victims, with added victim blaming or suggestions that it wasn't rape because he had an erection and therefore wanted it.

So yeah, society doesn't totally screw over men. After all, we cannot be victims of our own "oppression" can we?

Feminists don't want to castrate you and your penis is not a rape weapon unless you use it that way.

And yet, the widespread belief that men cannot be victims, or shouldn't be recognized as such legally and socially, seems to be rooted in feminist thought, so surely castration would be a logical extension of this line of thought, would it not? And what would you have to say to the popular feminist line of "teach men not to rape" and the explicit implication that all men are rapists? Surely if this idea was not so widespread within modern feminism, the implication that the penis is a rape weapon wouldn't also be as widespread?

You are not seen as disposable and your semen is not something anyone is likely to even think about or want to hear about. We certainly don't see you as a walking sack of it.

Except as a man, I am seen as disposable, because again, society sees men as beings with little or no inherent value. As for my semen, that depends on whether or not I am fertile. In which case, a potential wife who wants children would probably want to know if I can give her them.

It sounds like you have been influenced, perhaps brainwashed, by some of the more unsavory corners of the internet.

Care to elaborate on where you think I have been "brainwashed"?

Please do yourself and others in your real life a favor and deeply inspect your beliefs, ideally with a person in real life who you know and trust. Aggression and fighting will only hurt you and those who love you.

I don't need any introspection at all. I'm not going to be convinced to support an social movement that is hostile to me.