The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't agree with his wording, but he's talking about a particular thing and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Yes, he's talking about men and women being enemies. Glad we could come to an understanding.

The concept he's expressing is fine and fairly accurate, and if noting reality undermines the MRM according to its critics, that says a lot about its critics.

Noting a nonexistent reality undermining a movement based on the perceptions of its advocates expressing such nonexistent reality says a lot about the critics of said movement?

Well, I suppose it does.

Why don't we wait for him to elaborate and settle this then.

[Torrocca]

Yes, he's talking about men and women being enemies. Glad we could come to an understanding.



Noting a nonexistent reality undermining a movement based on the perceptions of its advocates expressing such nonexistent reality says a lot about the critics of said movement?

Well, I suppose it does.

Why don't we wait for him to elaborate and settle this then.

I think he already elaborated well enough, multiple times in fact.

[Conserative Morality]

I won't dispute that many feminists have pretty reasonable opinions on men's rights, but they are largely in positions of little influence. The more famous and more academically stratified feminists seem to be, ironically, a fair bit more radical, and a fair bit more supremacist. The feminists teaching at colleges, writing articles on popular websites, and appearing on television are often a lot less reasonable than the feminists on Reddit. Although, the whole "men's issues are caused by patriarchy" thing, as shown in one comment, is something banal.

How so? The entire idea of patriarchy is that it's not good for men or women.

I don't see much wrong with the MRA comments you showed except for the rape one. Many feminists to subscribe to something resembling an original sin idea, oppression of a gender isn't the same as oppression of a race, welfare does have some disadvantages for black people, women were the only group to attain suffrage without the draft, and the late stage suffragettes were very militant and caused a lot of property damage.

Then you're part of the problem.

Are you sure it's 60%? I heard somewhere that it's closer to 25%. And what does "in some capacity" mean? Heck, I identify as feminist in some capacity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ject/poll/

[West Leas Oros]

I won't dispute that many feminists have pretty reasonable opinions on men's rights, but they are largely in positions of little influence. The more famous and more academically stratified feminists seem to be, ironically, a fair bit more radical, and a fair bit more supremacist. The feminists teaching at colleges, writing articles on popular websites, and appearing on television are often a lot less reasonable than the feminists on Reddit. Although, the whole "men's issues are caused by patriarchy" thing, as shown in one comment, is something banal.

How so? The entire idea of patriarchy is that it's not good for men or women.

I don't see much wrong with the MRA comments you showed except for the rape one. Many feminists to subscribe to something resembling an original sin idea, oppression of a gender isn't the same as oppression of a race, welfare does have some disadvantages for black people, women were the only group to attain suffrage without the draft, and the late stage suffragettes were very militant and caused a lot of property damage.

Then you're part of the problem.

Are you sure it's 60%? I heard somewhere that it's closer to 25%. And what does "in some capacity" mean? Heck, I identify as feminist in some capacity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ject/poll/

1. I will never understand how men are both in a position of power and privilege, yet also victims of their own supposed privilege. “This system unfairly benefits men! Also, men are victims of the system that benefits them!”
2. It’s this us vs them mentality that is the problem.
3. I’m pretty sure the Washington Post isn’t regarded to highly around here.

[Ostroeuropa]

I will never understand how men are both in a position of power and privilege, yet also victims of their own supposed privilege. “This system unfairly benefits men! Also, men are victims of the system that benefits them!”

He's also ignoring that historically it was argued patriarchy subjugates all women for the benefit of all men.

This recent canard of theirs is to try and ignore and play down their movements historical farcical and ludicrous view of sexism (that still informs much of their ideology) misandry and anti-male attitudes by pretending it's cared about men too, and that mens issues can be solved by feminism. (Despite feminism routinely making them worse, then blaming patriarchy for their own failures and inadequacies.)

For another point, let's put to the side for the moment all the feminists who actively shill for female supremacy and pretend it's equality, and examine the feminists who think it's fine to focus on womens issues without talking about mens at the same time, such as when they go on a talk show to discuss violence against women (Knowing full well the context of mens issues being ignored.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker

Strikebreaking so you get paid more is not progress for workers, it is not progress toward a fairer society. Women have been routinely strikebreaking for decades by now through the feminist movement. There is a complete lack of solidarity and united demands, and so the pretense they care about men too should be done away with. They don't, they lack solidarity, they are bad allies to men and often a detriment.

"Bobby I care about your family too and that's why i'm strikebreaking to keep the factory open for when you get over this demand for fairer wages."

That terrible allies who lack solidarity can rationalize their behavior to themselves doesn't change the facts. Feminism has been mens enemy, and even at the best of times, a terrible ally.

Practically every modern media campaign by feminists has been to parade scabs as heroes and laud them for their contributions.

[West Leas Oros]

I will never understand how men are both in a position of power and privilege, yet also victims of their own supposed privilege. “This system unfairly benefits men! Also, men are victims of the system that benefits them!”

He's also ignoring that historically it was argued patriarchy subjugates all women for the benefit of all men.

This recent canard of theirs is to try and ignore and play down their movements historical farcical and ludicrous view of sexism (that still informs much of their ideology) misandry and anti-male attitudes by pretending it's cared about men too.

It’s as though men are always the root of the problem, regardless of who is being treated unfairly. Makes you think...

[Conserative Morality]

1. I will never understand how men are both in a position of power and privilege, yet also victims of their own supposed privilege. “This system unfairly benefits men! Also, men are victims of the system that benefits them!”

I'm sorry that the complexities of human society are too much for you to understand?

It's not that hard, really.

2. It’s this us vs them mentality that is the problem.

No, not really.

3. I’m pretty sure the Washington Post isn’t regarded to highly around here.

... what

[Conserative Morality]

He's also ignoring that historically it was argued patriarchy subjugates all women for the benefit of all men.

[West Leas Oros]

1. I will never understand how men are both in a position of power and privilege, yet also victims of their own supposed privilege. “This system unfairly benefits men! Also, men are victims of the system that benefits them!”

I'm sorry that the complexities of human society are too much for you to understand?

It's not that hard, really.

2. It’s this us vs them mentality that is the problem.

No, not really.

3. I’m pretty sure the Washington Post isn’t regarded to highly around here.

... what

1. It’s not a complexity. It’s a non-sequitur. It’s akin to doublethink.
2. Yes it is. Men and women are fundamentally the same. It is not a battle between people, but between ideals. The ideals of moderation vs extremism, equality vs supremacy, etc. this is a conflict between ideologies, not between two biological categories.
3. Most people on this thread don’t trust a media source that openly shares the opinion of those who find it morally correct to hate men. I don’t blame them.

[Conserative Morality]

1. It’s not a complexity. It’s a non-sequitur. It’s akin to doublethink.

I forgot who I was talking to for a moment. My apologies.

2. Yes it is. Men and women are fundamentally the same. It is not a battle between people, but between ideals. The ideals of moderation vs extremism, equality vs supremacy, etc. this is a conflict between ideologies, not between two biological categories.

Yes, because that's what I meant by "Us v. them", men and women, bravo, you are truly the hero the MRA needs.

3. Most people on this thread don’t trust a media source that openly shares the opinion of those who find it morally correct to hate men. I don’t blame them.

RIP opinion sections of newspapers

[Ostroeuropa]

1. It’s not a complexity. It’s a non-sequitur. It’s akin to doublethink.

I forgot who I was talking to for a moment. My apologies.

2. Yes it is. Men and women are fundamentally the same. It is not a battle between people, but between ideals. The ideals of moderation vs extremism, equality vs supremacy, etc. this is a conflict between ideologies, not between two biological categories.

Yes, because that's what I meant by "Us v. them", men and women, bravo, you are truly the hero the MRA needs.

3. Most people on this thread don’t trust a media source that openly shares the opinion of those who find it morally correct to hate men. I don’t blame them.

RIP opinion sections of newspapers

That's a lazy dodge and you know it. Open advocacy for hatred for another demographic of race or sex would not be tolerated in other circumstances, even in the opinion section.

[West Leas Oros]

1. It’s not a complexity. It’s a non-sequitur. It’s akin to doublethink.

I forgot who I was talking to for a moment. My apologies.

2. Yes it is. Men and women are fundamentally the same. It is not a battle between people, but between ideals. The ideals of moderation vs extremism, equality vs supremacy, etc. this is a conflict between ideologies, not between two biological categories.

Yes, because that's what I meant by "Us v. them", men and women, bravo, you are truly the hero the MRA needs.

3. Most people on this thread don’t trust a media source that openly shares the opinion of those who find it morally correct to hate men. I don’t blame them.

RIP opinion sections of newspapers

1. So you’re going to be an asshole about it now? Perfect. Attacking your opponent gets you nowhere. It is a non-sequitur. It makes no sense that one is oppressed by a system that gives them power and privilege. “Monarchism oppresses the kings!” It doesn’t make sense. Power and privilege would imply benefit.
2. Given that you believe that a self-professed egalitarian is part of the problem, I’m inclined to believe that you meant equality vs supremacy. This inability to see those who disagree with you as anything other than an enemy is overtly harmful. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game.
3. The newspaper in question decided to both allow and support such opinions, so they likely aren’t all too opposed to such opinions, if they are willing to give that opinion a platform.

[Galloism]

I won't dispute that many feminists have pretty reasonable opinions on men's rights, but they are largely in positions of little influence. The more famous and more academically stratified feminists seem to be, ironically, a fair bit more radical, and a fair bit more supremacist. The feminists teaching at colleges, writing articles on popular websites, and appearing on television are often a lot less reasonable than the feminists on Reddit. Although, the whole "men's issues are caused by patriarchy" thing, as shown in one comment, is something banal.

How so? The entire idea of patriarchy is that it's not good for men or women.

That's a modern affectation to an older theory in an effort to make it appear less sexist. Patriarchy a system by which all men oppress all women for the benefit of men. And just like "capitalism is a system by which all jews oppress all aryans", it's horribly bigoted.

Hell, even today, feminists frequently assert all men are benefitted by patriarchy - even though they then try to use mealy mouthed words to try and soften the blow.

Although patriarchy benefits all men in one way or another, it doesn’t support all men in the same ways. This is one of the illusions that patriarchy tries to pull though: You’re a man, you’re better than women, and definitely better than non-binary people.

But what if you’re a black man as opposed to a white man? Or a poor man as opposed to a rich man? A trans man, a disabled man, an undocumented immigrant man, or an uneducated man as opposed to a cis man, an able-bodied man, a male citizen, or an educated man?

What the patriarchy wants men to believe is that these other factors of race, ability, class, and so on, don’t matter – that all men are equal – while it also supports the systems that oppress people who aren’t white, rich, able-bodied, cisgender, or any combination of traits that are considered the “norm.”

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/11/pa ... d-for-men/

It's just putting lipstick on a pig.

Are you sure it's 60%? I heard somewhere that it's closer to 25%. And what does "in some capacity" mean? Heck, I identify as feminist in some capacity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ject/poll/

This is an interesting study, by the way, for a couple of reasons.

One, they used a bunch of pre-screened people for it, although they don't do much to describe the screening process other than they knew the person's age and gender. They oversampled women compared with men, but then used census data to equalize it (I've seen this in a lot of studies - I wonder if more women are home and therefore the answer the phone more). Another interesting thing is they asked to talk to the youngest adult in the household (which would skew the data toward the younger crowd). They specifically sampled young instead of older.

And, the part that was most interesting to me, although 94% of men and 93% of women sampled stated women should be treated as equals to men, only 33% of men and 60% of women called themselves feminist. 26% of men and 24% of women had an unfavorable view of feminism (which would be mostly made of those who support of equality), and 54% of women and 56% of men (accurately) state that feminism has a bad reputation.

[Galloism]

3. Most people on this thread don’t trust a media source that openly shares the opinion of those who find it morally correct to hate men. I don’t blame them.

RIP opinion sections of newspapers

I would be interested to see if you could find an opinion in Washington Post, or hell, any other major left-leaning newspaper for that matter, that it's ok to hate the Jews.

[West Leas Oros]

RIP opinion sections of newspapers

I would be interested to see if you could find an opinion in Washington Post, or hell, any other major left-leaning newspaper for that matter, that it's ok to hate the Jews.

I’d argue plenty of right-leaning newspapers wouldn’t put an opinion like that in their news. Not exactly good publicity. But hating on men apparently doesn’t raise many objections in the public eye.

[Costa Fierro]

Do you know what's really easy? Deliberately not quoting sections "calling you out" for not responding to arguments already made in order to make a post calling out for those arguments.

Nah, that's not easy. That's transparent, hilarious and extraordinarily sad.

Please provide an actual argument.

[Costa Fierro]

viewtopic.php?p=34196780#p34196780

He elaborates on his point and notes their interests.

And in said elaboration, he makes the even crazier statement of men and women being enemies. If that exact post said, "Men's rights groups and Feminist groups are enemies," that would've been fine.

And therein lies one of the main issues on NSG: people ignore the point being made and instead focus on the easier method of attack. Focusing on one part of the sentence doesn't actually attack the argument, it just attacks some words.

[Costa Fierro]

Why don't we wait for him to elaborate and settle this then.

Imagine equality of the sexes as a tug of war with a rope. You have women on one side, men on another. The women are being lead by feminists, with the majority of women who support feminism behind them. On the other side, you have men. Not just MRA's, not just other groups leading the way, but men. Slowly over time we have been giving women more and more rope because we thought it was unfair that we had most of it. Then all of a sudden, men lost most of their rope, and are now desperately clinging onto what they have left. There's no more rope to give. There's no more room for compromise. Men and women are enemies in the context of this tug of war, because they are on opposing sides and both want to win.

[Forsher]

Do you know what's really easy? Deliberately not quoting sections "calling you out" for not responding to arguments already made in order to make a post calling out for those arguments.

Nah, that's not easy. That's transparent, hilarious and extraordinarily sad.

Please provide an actual argument.

I have, you haven't. In fact, if you think I haven't, you have added to your earlier post's reliance on assertion.

You don't know what an argument looks like, do you?

And in said elaboration, he makes the even crazier statement of men and women being enemies. If that exact post said, "Men's rights groups and Feminist groups are enemies," that would've been fine.

And therein lies one of the main issues on NSG: people ignore the point being made and instead focus on the easier method of attack. Focusing on one part of the sentence doesn't actually attack the argument, it just attacks some words.

Observe how Costa always accuses people of ignoring the argument without EVER saying what exactly the argument is. I wonder why. Actually, I don't. The reason is because his argument is exactly what it appears to be.

And even if we should trust Ostro's dodgy reading and say it's something else (we should not, as I previously explained) Costa still said some very dumb things that still require challenging...

Costa... the only person taking the easy route here is you. You're the new Choronzon. Except at least he had the balls to admit when he was dodging arguments.

[Forsher]

Why don't we wait for him to elaborate and settle this then.

Imagine equality of the sexes as a tug of war with a rope. You have women on one side, men on another. The women are being lead by feminists, with the majority of women who support feminism behind them. On the other side, you have men. Not just MRA's, not just other groups leading the way, but men. Slowly over time we have been giving women more and more rope because we thought it was unfair that we had most of it. Then all of a sudden, men lost most of their rope, and are now desperately clinging onto what they have left. There's no more rope to give. There's no more room for compromise. Men and women are enemies in the context of this tug of war, because they are on opposing sides and both want to win.

Great analogy. Sadly it's a great analogy for what we already understand... you think men and women are enemies... it doesn't clarify anything else (what counts as divergent interests... and now they appear more opposed), it doesn't justify why men and women are enemies and it certainly doesn't validate Ostro's reading... it actually rejects it.

[West Leas Oros]

As I’m sure many people have stated, this battle should not be considered a battle of men and women, but a battle between ideologies. A battle of “equality vs supremacy” as everyone says, a battle of ideas.

[Torrocca]

And in said elaboration, he makes the even crazier statement of men and women being enemies. If that exact post said, "Men's rights groups and Feminist groups are enemies," that would've been fine.

And therein lies one of the main issues on NSG: people ignore the point being made and instead focus on the easier method of attack.

Then state the fucking point directly instead of making half-assed arguments such as, "men and women are enemies!" or, "men and women cannot compromise!" You don't make yourself look clever by doing this disingenuous bullshit.

Focusing on one part of the sentence doesn't actually attack the argument, it just attacks some words.

Okay, explain how I only focused on one part of the sentence when addressing this specific sentence written by you?:

Compromise between whom?

Men and women.

[Costa Fierro]

I have

Please provide an actual argument. Attacking the poster is not an argument.

Then state the fucking point directly instead of making half-assed arguments such as, "men and women are enemies!" or, "men and women cannot compromise!" You don't make yourself look clever by doing this disingenuous bullshit.

I did state the point. It was easier for you to go after the controversial statement rather than address the point.

Okay, explain how I only focused on one part of the sentence when addressing this specific sentence written by you?

You ignored other responses when I provided further explanation and instead focused on the easy pickings. Men and women being on opposing sides of the fight for equality isn't an argument in of itself, it's part of the wider argument which has been completely ignored.

[Torrocca]

I have

Please provide an actual argument. Attacking the poster is not an argument.

Then state the fucking point directly instead of making half-assed arguments such as, "men and women are enemies!" or, "men and women cannot compromise!" You don't make yourself look clever by doing this disingenuous bullshit.

I did state the point. It was easier for you to go after the controversial statement rather than address the point.

Okay, explain how I only focused on one part of the sentence when addressing this specific sentence written by you?

You ignored other responses when I provided further explanation and instead focused on the easy pickings. Men and women being on opposing sides of the fight for equality isn't an argument in of itself, it's part of the wider argument which has been completely ignored.

What is your wider argument that you're so keen on saying is being missed here?

[American Unionn State]

E