The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Sovaal]

Not sure if I’m in the right place, but those of you who know me probably are aware of my old story about my past of white man hatred, and I’d like to ask what can be done to combat such things so that no one else has to be misled into an ideology of vengeance and hatred.

But then how are you supposed to become a Sith lord?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Not sure if I’m in the right place, but those of you who know me probably are aware of my old story about my past of white man hatred, and I’d like to ask what can be done to combat such things so that no one else has to be misled into an ideology of vengeance and hatred.

But then how are you supposed to become a Sith lord?

“From my point of view all white men are evil!”
“Then You are Lost!”

[Sovaal]

But then how are you supposed to become a Sith lord?

“From my point of view all white men are evil!”
“Then You are Lost!”

But seriously to be not racist is ultimately up to the person, there's nothing you can do really beyond present evidence to the contrary.

[West Leas Oros 2]

“From my point of view all white men are evil!”
“Then You are Lost!”

But seriously to be not racist is ultimately up to the person, there's nothing you can do really beyond present evidence to the contrary.

True. A shame I had to learn the hard way.

[Des-Bal]

But seriously to be not racist is ultimately up to the person, there's nothing you can do really beyond present evidence to the contrary.

I disagree, you can present people with information that encourages self-analysis. There are plenty of people who don't know their racist or sexist because the narrative is that racism is a thing that white people do and sexism is a thing men do.

[Sovaal]

But seriously to be not racist is ultimately up to the person, there's nothing you can do really beyond present evidence to the contrary.

I disagree, you can present people with information that encourages self-analysis. There are plenty of people who don't know their racist or sexist because the narrative is that racism is a thing that white people do and sexism is a thing men do.

to not be racist is ultimately up to the person

[West Leas Oros 2]

But seriously to be not racist is ultimately up to the person, there's nothing you can do really beyond present evidence to the contrary.

I disagree, you can present people with information that encourages self-analysis. There are plenty of people who don't know their racist or sexist because the narrative is that racism is a thing that white people do and sexism is a thing men do.

But often they cling to those narratives, despite evidence to the contrary. I know I did. They disregard everything that disproves them as false, perpetrated by bigots, and apologetic to the “enemy”

[Des-Bal]

I disagree, you can present people with information that encourages self-analysis. There are plenty of people who don't know their racist or sexist because the narrative is that racism is a thing that white people do and sexism is a thing men do.

to not be racist is ultimately up to the person

there's nothing you can do really beyond present evidence to the contrary.

[Des-Bal]

But often they cling to those narratives, despite evidence to the contrary. I know I did. They disregard everything that disproves them as false, perpetrated by bigots, and apologetic to the “enemy”

Which is why you focus on encouraging self-analysis rather than pushing your own narratives. Invite people to champion the concrete, to look to data and evidence. Spread the belief that beliefs are not sacred and what can be destroyed by the truth ought to be. Convince people to be open and then destroy their world view.

[Sovaal]

there's nothing you can do really beyond present evidence to the contrary.

Yah, because the choice to not be racist is ultimately theirs. Only way I can force a racist t not be racist is to stop all brain function.

[Des-Bal]

Yah, because the choice to not be racist is ultimately theirs. Only way I can force a racist t not be racist is to stop all brain function.

It's not about forcing people.
You can present contrary information and encouraging self-analysis. You can't just teach people new information you have to teach them new ways of thinking.

[Sovaal]

Yah, because the choice to not be racist is ultimately theirs. Only way I can force a racist t not be racist is to stop all brain function.

It's not about forcing people.
You can present contrary information and encouraging self-analysis. You can't just teach people new information you have to teach them new ways of thinking.

In order to teach someone they need to be willing to learn.

[Des-Bal]

In order to teach someone they need to be willing to learn.

That would be an uncontested point.

[Ardenesia]

I support feminism, as long as it includes trans women and sex workers. TERFs and SWERFs don't deserve to be called feminists.

[Augementalist Imperium]

I believe abortion should be illegal except for when the mother is in danger, as a feminist.

It used to be permissible in the 70's, but medical science has advanced and we have discovered its not just a pile of cells!
And I am disgusted at the fact that people are tearing fetuses apart because they are irresponsible and have no maternal instincts or desire to take care of a baby, use freaking condoms if you are going to have extra-marital sex (statistics show it leads to single motherhood and more).

An opinion.

[NeoOasis]

I believe abortion should be illegal except for when the mother is in danger, as a feminist.

It used to be permissible in the 70's, but medical science has advanced and we have discovered its not just a pile of cells!
And I am disgusted at the fact that people are tearing fetuses apart because they are irresponsible and have no maternal instincts or desire to take care of a baby, use freaking condoms if you are going to have extra-marital sex (statistics show it leads to single motherhood and more).

An opinion.

Condoms are not 100% effective, you should know that by now. You should, as a feminist, also understand that not all mothers have the financial or mental means to raise a child. Since the 70s medical science has advanced, and in many cases our understanding of mental illness has increased. That doesn't even include the issue that women today continue to earn less than men, and wages across the board have fallen short of keeping up with anything.

I am disgusted by the fact that old white men in Washington think they have a moral obligation to tell women what to do with their own bodies despite showing a total lack of empathy or sympathy for women and their children. And to make matters worse, no one in congress seems all that invested in actually providing women with birth control meaning women are left with either trying to guess her safe days, or use the less than perfect condom.

Until congress provides people with valid birth control and post birth child care, I will remain firmly pro-choice.

[Galloism]

I believe abortion should be illegal except for when the mother is in danger, as a feminist.

It used to be permissible in the 70's, but medical science has advanced and we have discovered its not just a pile of cells!
And I am disgusted at the fact that people are tearing fetuses apart because they are irresponsible and have no maternal instincts or desire to take care of a baby, use freaking condoms if you are going to have extra-marital sex (statistics show it leads to single motherhood and more).

An opinion.

Condoms are not 100% effective, you should know that by now. You should, as a feminist, also understand that not all mothers have the financial or mental means to raise a child. Since the 70s medical science has advanced, and in many cases our understanding of mental illness has increased. That doesn't even include the issue that women today continue to earn less than men, and wages across the board have fallen short of keeping up with anything.

I am disgusted by the fact that old white men in Washington think they have a moral obligation to tell women what to do with their own bodies despite showing a total lack of empathy or sympathy for women and their children. And to make matters worse, no one in congress seems all that invested in actually providing women with birth control meaning women are left with either trying to guess her safe days, or use the less than perfect condom.

Until congress provides people with valid birth control and post birth child care, I will remain firmly pro-choice.

Heck I’d support it after that. People should not be forced to become parents against their will.

[Philjia]

I believe abortion should be illegal except for when the mother is in danger, as a feminist.

It used to be permissible in the 70's, but medical science has advanced and we have discovered its not just a pile of cells!

Please tell me more about your vegetarianism.

[Sovaal]

I believe abortion should be illegal except for when the mother is in danger, as a feminist.

It used to be permissible in the 70's, but medical science has advanced and we have discovered its not just a pile of cells!
And I am disgusted at the fact that people are tearing fetuses apart because they are irresponsible and have no maternal instincts or desire to take care of a baby, use freaking condoms if you are going to have extra-marital sex (statistics show it leads to single motherhood and more).

An opinion.

Eh, I'm not acceptant of abortion in ever case under the sun but you realise that the status of the mother, such as being single, poor, etc, can greatly hamper the life of the infant? The last people I want raising children are partying college kids.

[Anime North America]

I support feminism, as long as it includes trans women and sex workers. TERFs and SWERFs don't deserve to be called feminists.

Those people have such a strange view on trans folk. I remember meeting a former TERF who was actually angry her daughter wanted to be a boy. She said her "inner feminist" was shouting, "how dare you insult the beautiful female body you were born with?"

Just about everyone hates TERFs, so I doubt they'll get any clout past tumblr blogs and webcomics, but I still shudder to think such hypocritical people champion themselves as feminists.

[Hirota]

I support feminism, as long as it includes trans women and sex workers. TERFs and SWERFs don't deserve to be called feminists.

I don't agree with either demographic, but as far as I can tell it's just another group of feminists thinking they can decide what is good for all women regardless of if they want it or not, the same as most of those silly little cliques on page 1.

[Thanatttynia]

I personally doubt that given my own experiences with MRA and MRA-adjacent communities but a more inclusive movement towards gender equality couldn't be a bad thing.

First of all, I'll make it simple for you. Given that a number of feminists have crossed the line between feminist and mra - Karen DeCrow and Warren Farrell are probably the most famous two - to varying levels demonstrate this isn't an issue that has to be dominated by petty tribalism.

Lol I’m noticing that the levels of condescension and parochialism haven’t lessened any amongst people involved in the MRM since I last checked, that’s good to know.

Of course, given the excommunication that occurred with those two names in particular. - who thinks of Warren Farrell as a member of NOW when he is now considered "the father of the men's rights movement" - the same father who said "there should be neither a women's movement blaming men, nor a men's movement blaming women, but a gender liberation movement freeing both sexes from the rigid roles of the past toward more flexible roles for their future."

I guess I just see feminism as an adequate gender liberation movement freeing both sexes from the rigid roles of the past. Your mileage may vary, I respect that. It doesn’t change my view.

You have the father of the mra, a former feminist, calling for a less dogmatic, less entrenched movement. And you still think (anecdotally of course) that the MRA has no interest?

Yes, based on personal experience being on the internet around MRAs and people involved in MRM-adjacent movements. I also don’t get how you go from ‘two feminists are now MRAs’ to thinking feminism is holding gender equality back. That doesn’t follow.

Feminism isn't about claiming women can't be bad people.

Absolutely. It's entirely about claiming anyone who isn't a feminist is a bad person.

Well, I think a lot of people would be justified in thinking people who disagree with the premise of feminism are bad people depending on how they define 'bad person.' I don’t, but I don’t think a lot of people are bad people. You can have problems with the feminist movement or even completely disagree with strands of it but I think if you’re against the equality of the sexes/genders then you have questionable morals.

[Thanatttynia]

This might well be the case, but the evidence of an economy in which women and men are given exactly the same opportunities would be no wage gap at all.

This may or may not be true. It depends on whether or not men and women (statistically) make different choices.

Unless we’re going to start claiming that women and men are biologically wired to make certain choices differently (which… I can see but I’m not going to go there on here considering it’s a whole nother conversation and can quickly devolve into something very different no matter who’s discussing it) then, yes, the evidence of there being no structural inequalities based on gender would be no gender wage gap at all.

Suffice it to say that biology does play some role in how females and males make decisions; that being said, I think society plays a much bigger role in determining these things than biology does.

There is nothing inherent within women or men that means they are more or less suited to participating in a modern tertiary economy. Whilst the wage gap continues to exist in favour of men, it’s clear that the economy is more suited towards men than it is towards women - the exact point I was trying to debate with Ostro before he veered off into full-on denial of sexism.

Um, the economy isn't probably more suited towards men than it is towards women. It's just men work with the metaphorical point of a gun to their head more, so they work harder. Women by and large aren't forced by society to work until their dead, so they don't work as much (when it comes to the job market).

Men work with the metaphorical point of a gun to their head? I’m not trying to be dismissive of your point here but as far as I can tell from the people around me they literally don’t any more than women do. I’m seeing a lot of generalisations without evidence backing them up here. I’m fine with these sorts of things because I get that not everything can be evidenced with data, but allow me: people in general are forced to work until they’re dead - women get paid less for the work that they do because society continues to expect them to do unpaid work, but since the 20th century when they entered the workforce they have also been expected to find paid work in addition to that. So whilst both men and women are expected to work, men aren’t expected to do unpaid work as well as keeping a job down, and because of this have much more free time than women.

It might be both of our opinions that we would rather be expected to care for children than to work until we’re dead, but there is nothing formally better about either work or family life. Different people enjoy and find fulfilment in different things. It can’t then be said that it’s worse for men because they are expected to do things we personally find worse than the things women are expected to do.

There's a ton of sayings surrounding this, like "No one on their deathbed wishes they spent more time at the office."

Well yes, but presumably, no one on their deathbed wishes they hadn’t been paid for work that they did unpaid.

Unfortunately, however, women actually end up with five hours less free time than men per week because they are more likely to be doing unpaid work such as caring for children or vulnerable adults. I don’t see how this is harming men.

Because men WANT to be allowed to care for their children, but can't, because of society punishing them if they do.

I’m not seeing that society punishes men for caring for their children. Men could care for their children in the five hours more spare time they have than women, but they don’t as society expects women to do that.

By the way, one of the sources on that page goes into detail about the work of "child co-presence" because the person is responsible for "harm not being visited on that child". Which is sort of true, but I'm having trouble calling it work when a mother and child watch TV together.

I don’t know, looking after a child or a vulnerable adult is a lot of work even if there’s no strenuous physical labour involved.

Here’s the methodology behind the Eurofound surveys.

That's pretty general. And I can't seem to find the specific questions they asked.

Given the absence of any other sources of such wide and detailedinformation on these types of things it’s good enough for me.

I’m not seeing it, sorry. I accept that men are expected to work more than women, but conversely men are not expected to devote any of their free time to unpaid work. If unpaid care was paid work, I think we’d see the pay gap narrow massively.

I don't think so. I think you've got the cart before the horse.

Because the man is at the office slaving away in a job he hates but can't leave because if he doesn't he's a failure as a man, his wife winds up picking up the slack. The former is causing the latter, not the other way.

As far as I can see it, the assumption that paid work is harder than unpaid work is rooted in male privilege and the sexist attitude that women’s work or work associated with women is less important than men’s work or work associated with men. If we look at both types of work as being important and dificult, there is no ‘picking up the slack,’ just women being expected to e fine with not being paid for their labour.

Men being forced to stay in their jobs because otherwise they’ll be seen as a failure is a consequence of capitalism, not feminism. See the government-sponsored hatred of disabled people who rely on benefits or entitlements, or the social attitudes around women who pursue wealthy men (as a legitimate career choice) and then staying at home. The capitalist narrative is that people who don’t work are failures. This combined with the assumption that men are more willing and more able to work (coming from the millenia of men being allowed to work in many more professions than women were) leads to a situation in which men who don’t work are viewed somewhat more as failures than women who don’t work are.

There is a household work gap that persists, but I wonder if that's because men are often more expected to do unpaid work outside the home - fixing roofs, painting, mowing, fixing the car, etc. The reason why I was looking for the Eurofund questions is that these questions are often left out, and therefore it's assumed that men do less work. It's just the work is done 50ft from the home, not in the home.

If that was the case, men wouldn’t have five hours more free or leisure time than women. Leisure time excludes unpaid work. ‘Unpaid work here is defined as anything households perform for themselves or other households as opposed to pay market services for. This may include childcare, adult care, volunteering, cooking, cleaning, DIY, gardening, transporting themselves or others, or ironing and washing clothes.’

I wholeheartedly agree with you here. Anecdotally, I’ve been some form of sexually assaulted myself and never told anyone. When a female family member of mine was raped, she did inform the authorities, and told them who it was. She submitted herself to all their tests, but the CPS ultimately decided they couldn’t bring a case against him. How sexual assault and rape are currently dealt with doesn’t work for men or women.

Look, sometimes the bad guy (or woman) gets away. That's unfortunate, but you have a whole class of men who would never ever report a boss for sexual harassment no matter what she does because they know the only response is laughter because of their gender.

I mean, it’s not just that ‘sometimes the bad guy (or woman) gets away.’ The bad guy (or woman) gets away in the overwhelming majority of cases. In England and Wales, only 17% of victims of rape or sexual assault report it. Of those rapes which are reported, only 7% end in conviction.

I’m also not sure that the only response to male rape now is laughter. The world has moved on quite a bit in the last few years on these issues; whilst a lot of less socially progressive people would probably laugh at male rape and wider society annoyingly continues to find it funny in the abstract (e.g. in comedy,) I think a male victim of rape would be taken as seriously by the authorities and people they know as a female victim would. Sexual harassment I take your point, but I’m not seeing how feminism is holding us back on this issue.

I read the results and skimmed through the text in that source but I’m not seeing this. It looks to me as though in every statistic excepting being forced to penetrate, more women than men self-report as victims? Could you point me to which part of the study you’re referring to?

Sure, table 6. 4,774,000 women suffered physical domestic violence from a spouse in the last twelve months. During the same period, 5,452,000 men did. For bonus points, although not what I was originally trying to point out, when it comes to psychological aggression (what some papers call coercive control) 17,091,000 women suffered in the last 12 months, compared with 20,471,000 men.

Thanks, that’s interesting. I wonder why the 12-months figure doesn’t fit with the estimated number of lifetime victims, if both of those figures are taken from the same survey. Psychological aggression in that survey does include coercive control but also includes things like name calling.

Without minimising the physical and psychological effects of domestic violence, I do think it’s worth keeping in mind that in general women are much physically weaker than men. Exceptions exist, of course, but in general a hypothetical man could kill a hypothetical woman with his bare hands, whereas the reverse isn’t true.

Whilst men may be being harassed more online than women, I doubt that any sizeable proportion of that harassment is based on their gender, whilst I think it would be found that a lot of harassment directed towards women is based on their gender. I can think of plenty of gendered slurs primarily used against women, for example, but only a few primarily used against men (and where I can, they are generally slurs which question a man’s masculinity or aim to feminise a man so as to insult him.)

Misandristic tweets tend to be more general. Such as calling for the killing of all men or culling men down to a small percentage of the population.

You know, stuff that makes you want to goose step.

Makes you want to goose step?

Honestly I very rarely encounter anything like that online. There’s a fringe element of radical feminism that calls for stuff like that which the mainstream of the movement ignores (and could do more to disavow and condemn.)

Only misandristic things I encounter are things like ‘men are trash’ or ‘men are canceled,’ which are puerile and discriminatory ‘jokes.’ They’re annoying but I think when things are generalised to such an extent, the threat isn’t really there.

I don’t see that these examples are indicative of as much widespread misandry as you maybe think they are. Personally speaking, I encounter a lot more misogyny in the culture than I do misandry, and although I know you can’t take my anecdotal evidence at face value, I’m sure you’ll understand that my own personal experience has led me to accept a feminist reading of culture. You will note that those arguing that women shouldn’t be included in the draft aren’t exactly what you’d call feminists, suggesting the root of their problem with that is probably in outdated attitudes towards the role of women as opposed to misandristic tendencies.

I USED to think that I encountered a lot more misogyny in culture than I do misandry. Now I have established a mental pattern of turning every phrase around and thinking "now if it said women instead of men, would I still feel the same way", and found a lot of times I just didn't.

Once you start examining things that way, you'll realize it's been slapping you in the face this whole time.

I feel like I do this already. There’s a lot within (liberal/woke) feminism that I disagree with because of it, and whilst it might hurt my feelings, I don’t think it’s enough for me to disavow feminism altogether. I’ll make a conscious effort of doing this over the next few weeks and see where I stand at the end of that.

And when it comes to the draft, we send men to their deaths against their will based on their gender and have for centuries. That's misandry on a large and institutional level.

How we haven't seen that is telling to our biases.

The draft should be abolished altogether. I can’t say that it has its roots in misandry, however. It comes from a time in which misogyny was the norm - women were excluded because they aren’t biologically suited to fighting the type of warfare that was fought historically and it was socially unacceptable for a woman to be interested in military matters, which were a man’s domain.

Couldn’t agree more that there should be more screaming about the suicide epidemic, but it has been covered at least in the UK media.

In the UK, it's worth noting your most famous feminist in parliament tried to kill any discussion of the male suicide epidemic in parliament because men are privileged and we shouldn't talk about men's problems.

Who? That’s very depressing.

[Thanatttynia]

Have fun on your date lol I guess it’s good to know you were never debating in good faith you just wanted to try and convert me to your weird religion. You failed! Sorry b!

I did have fun, lots of fun, and now i'm drunk, so if we can de-escalate a bit on the hostility that might be fruitful, but right now i'm belligerent so kindly look past it if you could. I was debating in good faith, and yes i'm trying to convince you. are you under the impression I have to make you my priority? No, my girlfriend is my priority. This isn't speed mafia mate, this is regular mafia. I can take as long as I please.

I mean, I’m not sure where you got the impression that I was gagging for a reply. You can take as long as you want or not at all, it’s all good.

Point me to where I said this

Here you go.

Okay, let's start with some basic examples and questions.

What would you need to prove to you that western society is misandrist?

Probably some actual evidence of widespread and systemic misandry the weight and scale of which is such that it overrides all of the evidence to the contrary that I have seen.

Lost it at 'opponents of feminism at least try to understand what feminism is' sorry what? when? who? I've never encountered a single moral person who a) understands feminism and b) opposes it; this is because feminism as a movement is about equality between the sexes and/or genders.

As for your half-baked caricature, I'm happy to tell you it doesn't fit me at all! I don't read the Mary Sue! I'm not into liberal or woke feminism! I don't oppose men's rights movements on principle! I oppose what has come to be known as the men's rights movement because it has time and time again shown that it's not and has never been about minimising inequalities between the sexes and/or genders that negatively or disproportionately affect men, it's a place for men who want to whine about being oppressed (despite scarce evidence of that happening on any meaningful level) because a) being a man no longer has quite the same level of cultural, social or economic capital it used to have and b) people love to whine about themselves and how the world treats them in general and will find any excuse to do so.

Again, point me to where I said this. Misrepresenting what I’m saying isn’t making me more likely to just believe you, negging doesn’t work in online debates :/

Your previous posts in this thread, see above.

Oh, you got me lol. That’s my fault. Wrong choice of words, I sound like I was a little bit excited. Apologies. Presumably meant to type ‘scarce evidence of that happening at the same level as it happens to women,’ as I was getting at with the ‘weight and scale.’ Which is still my position, though it’s been moderated after looking at the evidence you and Galloism have presented vis-a-vis the justice and education systems. I guess I just think that the problems there are the result of gender roles negatively affecting men, pushing me further into my dislike for performative gender.

My statistics on domestic violence are from the Office of National Statistics. Yours are from?
You’re going to have to be specific about what ‘dynamics’ you mean here.

Surveys on the population show it's about equal, and that in fact women initiate most domestic violence. (Bi-directional domestic violence is mostly initiated by women.). It's merely that it tends to be the men who get jailed for it, even if they are not reciprocating and are purely the victim.

Male victims of domestic violence are more likely to be arrested than the perpetrator if they seek help. This impacts state gathered stats and especially criminal stats.

Worrying. I’m not defending the state of things by any means but I would reiterate here what I’m saying in the post previous to this about the biological differences between men and women and how they change the reality of domestic violence.

What methodological errors were those? It seems we both have studies to support our own view.

Yours is from several years ago.

Which isn’t a methodological error, just a consequence of time passing. In a few years, your source will be from several years ago. I’ve not seen any significant societal change on gender or how we use the internet in the time since the study was done such that it would invalidate the results.

Yes, I mean that thing. I don’t have any personal affiliation to her, you can say what you want about her, I don’t give a shit. Managing to make this about her instead of about the legitimate concerns she and others had is indicative of both your contempt for women and your unwillingness to acknowledge anything that doesn’t slot neatly into your narrow worldview.

Lemme get this straight. Gamergate is sexist because you've made accusations that you haven't managed to prove, but the anti-gamergate movement chiefly composed of feminist activists wasn't sexist for helping a domestic abuser get a court order gagging her victim? In fact, the ones who sided with the domestic abuser and worked round the clock to get her victim gagged? Those are the ones making these accusations, and many of them are proven liars, in fact given that it's an anti-media corruption movement, you'd think at least some skepticism of the claims from feminist journalists against them would be warranted, but nope!

Tell you what. Let's be as charitable as possible and say all the feminists who rallied around Quinn without noting her domestic violence against her ex being called out was what started the shitstorm, aren't exactly the most ludic or perceptive when it comes to noticing sexism, so maybe the shit they said about gamergate should be taken with a grain of salt.

Okey doke!

Once again, managing to make this about Quinn shows that you completely missed the point of their critiques of video games and the surrounding culture. I don’t know if she is a domestic abuser and neither do you. This wasn’t/isn’t Quinngate no matter how it started; it’s not about any one specific person.

This isn’t true, it’s criticism of feminism and so-called “social justice warriors”, who are perceived as a threat to hyper-male, misogynistic nerd culture that was not inclusive of women. We can both do this. Do you have any sources for your claim that it’s criticism of ‘a bunch of feminist crap in what are ostensibly game review magazines’? I get that things you like being outed as exclusive and misogynistic can be triggering but you should at least try to engage with what the other side is saying if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously.

There's nothing to engage with, just baseless accusations and assertions of dogma without any actual backing or evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I was deliberately using the same language you used to make similarly baseless accusations and assertions of dogma. See ‘we can both do this.’

I’m not here to get bogged down in an argument about gamergate with you mate, I could not give less of a shit about a bunch of nerds reeeeing because people finally called them out for being misogynistic, sorry. I’ll continue to be here for actual good-faith discussion of issues that actually matter.

So you're backing down from offering that as a piece of evidence. You're not here to get bogged down in rebuttals to your claims, but you're totes here in good faith.

I’m not backing down, no, I’m just saying that gamergate was/is a minor culture war affecting a small amount of people in an insular community who happen to be overrepresented on the interent. I think anti-gamergaters have more legitimate and pressing concerns than gamergaters; I accept that that’s not your view and it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on because it’s pretty irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.

So you can’t think of any actual counterargument to what I said and think saying ‘debate doesn’t matter here’ and posting some irrelevant excerpts will suffice?

It doesn't matter how much anti-abortionists debate a fertilized egg is a human person, because their premise is still faulty. Even if it was a fully conscious human being the woman has a right to abort because of bodily autonomy.

Similarly your "Hisotrically" crap is based on a faulty premise, even if it's a load of bollocks, and that should be clear from the posts I quoted.

And I think your view of history is based on the faulty premise that men and women were oppressed to similar levels on the basis of their gender, which has not been the case. Don’t make assumptions and wild generalisations and then get mad when I do the same.

Nope, sorry. Engage with what I said or don’t, but don’t act as though this is because of any ‘faulty logic’ on the part of eeeevil feminism a/o to your inability to disprove what I said.

I did engage with what you said, it's just that in addition to that i'm pointing out why it doesn't matter.

Here it is again. Hold yourself to the same standards you hold other people to, it’s common courtesy.

This example would only be relevant if following the switch to feminism from the patriarchal system you now admit existed,

Not particularly, no, I accept traditionalism is a thing.

So you do think we are living under a patriarchal system that you claimed didn’t exist?

we suffered through centuries of men being burnt alive for being men, being denied the vast majority of economic and political opportunities for being men, being culturally persecuted en masse for being men, being the targets of violence for being men, being forced into seclusion for being men etc. As it is, we haven’t, and men are still more powerful than women no matter how much oppression envy you have, so the analogy falls apart.

You're deliberately avoiding the point. Feminism has victimized men in multitudes of ways and we can go over them, merely because it doesn't victimize them in exactly and precisely the same way protestantism did doesn't discredit the main point of the analogy.

The main point of the analogy is discredited because there can be no comparison between the way men are treated by today’s society and the way Catholics were treated in Protestant nations (and Protestants in Catholic nations.) None at all. This would be like comparing social attitudes around ginger people today to social attitudes around Jewish people in the 1930s. Sure, there’s a point in there somewhere about persecution and discrimination, but the scale, extent and awfulness could not be more off, and it means the analogy doesn’t work because the disparity is so egregious.

Saying shit like ‘feminism is a hate movement’ and that it’s ‘abusive’ is just pathetic, sorry. You clearly can’t find substantive issues with it and so resort to meaningless emotive language. I've personally encountered much more evidence that the MRM is an abusive hate movement.

Oh I can find you issues. Let's start with the duluth model of domestic violence. Or hey, how about the fact that the woman who founded the first domestic violence shelter is an MRA now (And comes to our conferences) because she got death threats and bomb threats against her from feminist terrorists right at the beginning of society taking this issue seriously for noting that women were just as violent as men in relationships because it went against their sexist and gynocentric ideological framing of the issue?

Something they still do, by the way:

7. Harrass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs

See this;

http://menaregood.com/wordpress/straus- ... -research/

Oh, by the way, this right here is the climate the feminist movement has created on this topic, if you needed more proof it is based in dogmatism and delusions rather than science and facts, they have their own frequent galileo moments.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... quency_of/

(The CDC chickened out and published the results in a less important scientific outlet because they contradicted feminist narratives.)

I don’t agree that feminism is causing any of this shit that you keep going on about, and I’m sorry to have to tell you that linking to propaganda pages for what is still your weird religion as sources is not helping your case with me.

I should note the following: Mark Rosenthal on Facbook says: "I spoke to Whitaker (the study's lead author) shortly after this study first came out. He told me that all the researchers worked for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and that a paper like this would ordinarily be published in the CDC's own publication "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report". But in this case, the higher-ups at the CDC were terrified of the political backlash from publishing a report that challenged the myth that most cases of domestic violence involve a violent man beating up his helpless wife and kids. So they weren't allowed to publish in MMWR, and had to publish in an outside journal. That's why it was published in the American Journal of Public Health. He told me I could not cite the study as "a CDC study". I should only cite it as "a study by CDC researchers".

Remind me again how this is feminism’s fault? ‘US govt body revealed as unethical and pr risk-averse’ isn’t a shocking story.

By the way, this shit:

The data for ‘Americans say society places a higher premium on masculinity than femininity is from this page. I thought I linked to it directly, my mistake.
53% of Americans say most people look up to masculine men, 32% of Americans say most people look up to feminine women. There are wide differences in these attitudes based on partisan alignment, race, education etc.

Is disingenuous. That proves precisely nothing except that most Americans buy into the feminist narrative. It does not actually demonstrate misogyny by measuring if people actually DO look up to masculine men more than feminine women.

Which i've actually already provided you evidence isn't actually the case.
(The studies showing women like women more than men like men, and the studies showing high in group bias among women and no in-group bias among men.)

‘Looking up to’ is not the same as ‘liking,’ so these surveys/studies don’t actually measure the same thing.

[Thanatttynia]

Imma keep it real with yous chiefs and tell you that as interesting and thought provoking as this debate is it's getting to be pretty time consuming and boring. I respect that you have a different opinion to me and you want to convince me but I don't feel as though my complaints or I are being taken as seriously as I am taking yours. Feel free to reply to the above but be aware that I may take a while to get back and might not be fully engaged if I do choose to. (: