The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Estanglia]

a better way to phrase the question would have been "are misandrists correct and why/why not".

i say no, they're wrong in their dislike/hatred for men. there's nothing inherently wrong with men or being a man. there is something inherently wrong with misandry and being a misandrist.

Misandry is one of the many ideologies I'd love to see the end of. Ideologies built on hating a particular group for a characteristic out of their control are both disgusting and inviting revenge ideologies, and ideologies built on revenge are probably the only ideologies I consider to be worse than ones built on hatred.

[Cekoviu]

Also, this isn't men invading a 'female only' space, because this is a forum thread, not a female only space.

i'm not saying this spot is itself a female-only space, but that the invasion by MRAs represents a mirroring of males' insistence upon inserting themselves in female spaces

[Ostroeuropa]

Also, this isn't men invading a 'female only' space, because this is a forum thread, not a female only space.

i'm not saying this spot is itself a female-only space, but that the invasion by MRAs represents a mirroring of males' insistence upon inserting themselves in female spaces

I don't see why you think we should let a space exist that spreads misinformation and hatred without confronting it and criticizing it. Notably, there's a push to ban and shut down mens spaces where they criticize and oppose feminism rather than entering them to criticize things they disagree with. That's because of the disparity of power in play, but don't pretend it's a matter of everyone should be sticking to their spaces to discuss their issues.

But the same motivations exist for both examples; to prevent the spread of opposing ideas. It's merely that what MRAs do allows rebuttal and relies on equal treatment of participants in a discussion, and what feminists do relies on them having institutional privilege and power to back up their demands to actually shut down these spaces and exclude people from discussion.

Do you have an argument why we should tolerate these spaces existing, spreading misinformation and hatred and so on, without opposition?

Would you feel the same about "White" spaces in an era of escalating white supremacy?

Do you think a thread on white supremacy being good on these forums wouldn't have been in there pointing out how everything they were saying was horseshit? Because we've had that happen countless times.

I think it's notable you attribute this behavior from men and MRAs to "Mens insistence upon inserting themselves in female spaces" rather than recognize it's a behavior common to all opponents of a particular ideology and group they view as hateful, regardless of how that manifests. Rather than recognize that, the motivations, and the tactical reasoning behind it, your feminist outlook convinces you it's about men controlling women, uniquely different when they do it, because that is how you have been trained to view practically everything men do. Feminism has made you paranoid and hateful of men, similar to if someone up and decided every time they heard a muslim criticize the west it was part of some grand plan to legitimize terrorism and openly voiced that opinion constantly. You see it in everything they do not because it's true, but because you have your conclusion and work backwards from there.

And again, the manifestation of this strategy from men and MRAs treats you like an equal, whereas the feminist manifestation of it relies on being in a position of power and privilege over the people whose groups they are actively shutting down.

You don't find MRA spaces that ban feminists. You don't find many feminist spaces that tolerate dissent.

Because one of these ideologies is capable of standing up to outside criticism and scrutiny, and the other isn't. Just look at what it did to you for instance. Eventually, when confronted with reality, many feminists either abandon feminism, or recognize it was hateful and sectarian all along, merely in denial about it, and that they're fine with that and support it anyway.

You chose the second option, and it was because MRAs stripped away the illusions feminist spaces craft around their movement. If it weren't for us doing that, you'd still be going around saying you support equality and care about mens issues too and so on (While parroting false statistics on them, because you spent too much time in feminist spaces not being criticized).

Now, you're free to recognize that what drew you to feminism in the first place is that you hate men and the equality thing was never really what you cared about. You can finally be honest with yourself, you should thank us.

It's like;

"We need to save jobs, end immigration."

"Here is an exhaustive list of reasons why that isn't a reasonable position to hold, and evidence the people who pushed this idea are simply hardcore racists pretending not to be."

Option A: "I was wrong, I guess I don't need to cut immigration to save jobs."

Option B: "I was enjoying talking shit about immigration though, so I guess i'll just admit I hate immigrants and keep doing that but without deluding myself over it.".

Like I said, at least you're honest.

[Cekoviu]

ostro can you write the above post again but like 3x shorter please i don't want to read all of that

[Ostroeuropa]

ostro can you write the above post again but like 3x shorter please i don't want to read all of that

Should spaces that spread misinformation and hatred be allowed to:

A. Exist at all
B. Operate without criticism

Or not?

[Sundiata]

tbh this being an MRA thread instead of a feminist thread isn't because of the forum's demographics, because even on less male-dominated, more left-wing websites, female-only spaces are still invaded by men. this is nothing more than that: men being so entitled that they can't possibly picture there being a space that isn't for them; it's just hidden behind a thin mask of pseudo-argumentation here.

It is more likely they are here because there isn't an MRA thread, as opposed to 'being entitled'.

Well, I see what you're saying but I still am not seeing evidence of oppression or a systemic assault on men's rights. Rape has a specific definition depending upon the jurisdiction. It isn't necessarily the same thing as sexual assault. Or even sexual battery, for instance, which can happen regardless of the nature of the persons involved.

Sexual assault, sexual battery, and rape aren't always necessarily the same things as a matter of jurisprudence. I also think you'll be hard pressed to find a feminist who isn't prepared to say that these these crimes are wrong.

There is the concerning trend of some jurisdictions carefully defining 'rape' in such a way that the number of male victims in rape statistics is artificially deflated...

...especially when countries such as Israel and the Phillipines do not appear to legally acknowledge the existence of it at all, with it defined in a gendered way which leaves only male perpetrators and female victims.

*It is possible that these definitions are not what they seem and do allow for male victims of rape to be legally recognized as such, but they unfortunately seem rather straightforward.

Also the strange way that people needlessly gender genital cutting, but that's a separate discussion.

I personally don't think so, while a woman can't be guilty of rape under some jurisdictions in the world, she certainly can be guilty of similar crimes and as a result, meet proportionate outcomes.

[Sundiata]

ostro can you write the above post again but like 3x shorter please i don't want to read all of that

Should spaces that spread misinformation and hatred be allowed to:

A. Exist at all
B. Operate without criticism

Or not?

Women can ask men to leave their spaces and men can ask women to leave their spaces. You're free to criticize these spaces but they should still surely be allowed to exist.

[Cekoviu]

ostro can you write the above post again but like 3x shorter please i don't want to read all of that

Should spaces that spread misinformation and hatred be allowed to:

A. Exist at all
B. Operate without criticism

Or not?

omg this is so much better, you should just write all of your posts like this, it would do us all a massive favor
anyway the answer is: sources that knowingly spread misinformation should not be allowed to exist at all. now, you are specifically referring to sources which spread both misinformation and hatred, which should not exist, but to be clear, that is exclusively due to the first condition. that is, hatred is not a justification for shutting down a place of discussion so long as it is not actively detrimental to public knowledge. for example, an MRA website stating that women are in fact responsible for the vast majority of rapes is actively and knowingly harming public knowledge and therefore should be taken down. on the other hand, a feminist website stating that prostitutes are disproportionately abused and raped compared to non-prostitutes and pimps and johns should be publicly shamed for choosing to enable such an industry may be spreading hatred against johns, but they are doing so on the basis of known statistical correlations, they are therefore not spreading misinformation, and they should be able to continue to operate.

now the problem here is that you are taking as a given that the feminist thread, uninhibited by MRA invasions, would spread misinformation and hatred. let's take a look at the first part, would the feminist thread be spreading misinformation? i would argue that as a public debate space, misinformation can easily be countered when it is presented, and therefore no false ideas would be introduced to the public sphere; additionally, any misinformation that might be presented would likely be unintentional (you must admit this, given that you're so fond of the idea that feminists have warped society's ideas about, say, rape or domestic violence statistics to the point that people tend to have very skewed perceptions without double-checking). unintentional misinformation does not warrant serious public ostracization or ostrocization, and should simply be taken down without fanfare - i don't think that's controversial. so to the first part, i'd say no, the feminist thread would likely not be spreading misinformation, especially intentionally.

now, for whether it would promote hate - also a resolute no. even the (at least nominal) feminists here are strongly opposed to misandry, as evidence by the fact that they have created an "alliance" (lol) against me for having an opinion on the male sex that is less positive than "well not all men do bad things most of them are good haha!" so i also think that any hatred would likely be drowned out.

let's take a look at the thread's state now, on the other hand. there is a constant barrage of MRA propaganda misinformation and your advocacy for hatred of feminists is by no means a simple egalitarianism. curious. i wonder what the solution to that might be?

[Ostroeuropa]

Should spaces that spread misinformation and hatred be allowed to:

A. Exist at all
B. Operate without criticism

Or not?

Women can ask men to leave their spaces and men can ask women to leave their spaces. You're free to criticize these spaces but they should still surely be allowed to exist.

Mens spaces get actively shut down, so no, doesn't quite work that way.

As for "Allowed to exist", sure. I'm not calling for the feminist thread to be deleted. I'm merely here pointing out when misinformation is being spread.

[Cekoviu]

Mens spaces get actively shut down, so no, doesn't quite work that way.

when y'all can only apparently come up with (effectively) male spaces like 8chan, a voice for men, and porn sites then yeah no shit that's gonna happen.

As for "Allowed to exist", sure. I'm not calling for the feminist thread to be deleted. I'm merely here pointing out when misinformation is being spread.

with the notable exception of when you are spreading the misinformation (i.e. most of the time)

[Sundiata]

Women can ask men to leave their spaces and men can ask women to leave their spaces. You're free to criticize these spaces but they should still surely be allowed to exist.

Mens spaces get actively shut down, so no, doesn't quite work that way.

As for "Allowed to exist", sure. I'm not calling for the feminist thread to be deleted. I'm merely here pointing out when misinformation is being spread.

No they don't.

Opus Dei, for example, has a men's space and a women's space. The Catholic Church has not been shut down.

[Ostroeuropa]

Should spaces that spread misinformation and hatred be allowed to:

A. Exist at all
B. Operate without criticism

Or not?

omg this is so much better, you should just write all of your posts like this, it would do us all a massive favor
anyway the answer is: sources that knowingly spread misinformation should not be allowed to exist at all. now, you are specifically referring to sources which spread both misinformation and hatred, which should not exist, but to be clear, that is exclusively due to the first condition. that is, hatred is not a justification for shutting down a place of discussion so long as it is not actively detrimental to public knowledge. for example, an MRA website stating that women are in fact responsible for the vast majority of rapes is actively and knowingly harming public knowledge and therefore should be taken down. on the other hand, a feminist website stating that prostitutes are disproportionately abused and raped compared to non-prostitutes and pimps and johns should be publicly shamed for choosing to enable such an industry may be spreading hatred against johns, but they are doing so on the basis of known statistical correlations, they are therefore not spreading misinformation, and they should be able to continue to operate.

now the problem here is that you are taking as a given that the feminist thread, uninhibited by MRA invasions, would spread misinformation and hatred. let's take a look at the first part, would the feminist thread be spreading misinformation? i would argue that as a public debate space, misinformation can easily be countered when it is presented, and therefore no false ideas would be introduced to the public sphere; additionally, any misinformation that might be presented would likely be unintentional (you must admit this, given that you're so fond of the idea that feminists have warped society's ideas about, say, rape or domestic violence statistics to the point that people tend to have very skewed perceptions without double-checking). unintentional misinformation does not warrant serious public ostracization or ostrocization, and should simply be taken down without fanfare - i don't think that's controversial. so to the first part, i'd say no, the feminist thread would likely not be spreading misinformation, especially intentionally.

now, for whether it would promote hate - also a resolute no. even the (at least nominal) feminists here are strongly opposed to misandry, as evidence by the fact that they have created an "alliance" (lol) against me for having an opinion on the male sex that is less positive than "well not all men do bad things most of them are good haha!" so i also think that any hatred would likely be drowned out.

let's take a look at the thread's state now, on the other hand. there is a constant barrage of MRA propaganda misinformation and your advocacy for hatred of feminists is by no means a simple egalitarianism. curious. i wonder what the solution to that might be?

I'll respond to the parts I see as relevant for critique, the rest you can assume I agree with.

misinformation can easily be countered when it is presented,

This is precisely what we're doing, but you call it an invasion.

and therefore no false ideas would be introduced to the public sphere;

We routinely see that this is not the case when it comes to feminists being allowed to participate in public discourse, precisely because the misinformed womens spaces become enclosed spaces that then lobby for their misunderstanding of reality to become the basis of policy, often seperate from public debate and instead behind closed doors through lobbying.

additionally, any misinformation that might be presented would likely be unintentional

I think the people who craft the misinformation are doing so either because they hate men and are prejudiced against them and suffer from confirmation bias, or are deliberately engaged in misinformation. Those who spread it are slightly different, but also fall under those two categories as well as the third category of; "Hasn't paid attention to men repeatedly noting feminists tell frequent misandrist lies", which in itself inclines me to put them in the first category as if you hear a community saying "Those people are fucking is over" and go around for tea and to listen to their wacky shit and internalize it, you probably don't have much respect for that community.

So intent doesn't really factor into it in most cases, but that's also entirely irrelevant. Prejudice is rarely about intent, it is about bias, and that bias needs to be confronted.

(you must admit this, given that you're so fond of the idea that feminists have warped society's ideas about, say, rape or domestic violence statistics to the point that people tend to have very skewed perceptions without double-checking).

See above. Partially intentional, partially unintentional but nonetheless an expression of their bias and prejudice which they should be called out on before they become co-dependent on eachother validating that warped perspective as valid.

unintentional misinformation does not warrant serious public ostracization or ostrocization, and should simply be taken down without fanfare - i don't think that's controversial.

Disagree for the reason laid out here;
"Hasn't paid attention to men repeatedly noting feminists tell frequent misandrist lies", which in itself inclines me to put them in the first category as if you hear a community saying "Those people are fucking is over and telling lies" and go around for tea and to listen to their wacky shit and internalize it, you probably don't have much respect for that community.

In itself, that warrants condemnation and judgement. That judgement and ostracization can abate if they recognize they were wrong and learn to listen in future. If you go to a neo-nazi website and earnestly believe the shit you hear, then come outside and parrot it, people have a right to view you negatively first for ignoring everyones warnings about nazis, and second, for so easily believing the lies they told about the jews. Even if you admit you were wrong afterward, it is an insight into your character.

If you ever believed shit like "Most rape of males is done by males, not women" (Which as I recall, you did, until the MRAs in this thread educated on the topic) it speaks to something nasty about you. Especially as you picked it up from entering a space men repeatedly warned you about. It prompts the question; What is it about you that made you so readily believe Jews were poisoning the wells?

That's why "intent" doesn't matter here. You can intentionally ignore this observation and continue thinking you don't have a bias that needs examining, or you can intentionally confront your bias and admit you should have listened to men and not engaged with feminist spaces as well as be critical of yourself for why you believed those lies feminists told you.

The warning label was on the packet, you have nobody to blame but yourself if people view you negatively as a result of you willfully entering a den of prejudice and misinformation.

i'd say no, the feminist thread would likely not be spreading misinformation, especially intentionally.

Like 90% of the posts from MRAs here are discussing feminists spreading misinformation.

feminists here are strongly opposed to misandry, as evidence by the fact that they have created an "alliance" (lol) against me for having an opinion on the male sex that is less positive than "well not all men do bad things most of them are good haha!" so i also think that any hatred would likely be drowned out.

"I don't support viewing black people as inferior, I just think all lives matter and police shooting stats are overblown, what about black on black crime?"

I mean. I can concede hatred may be overplaying it. Prejudice though, certainly fits the bill.

let's take a look at the thread's state now, on the other hand. there is a constant barrage of MRA propaganda misinformation and your advocacy for hatred of feminists is by no means a simple egalitarianism. curious. i wonder what the solution to that might be?

Misinformation? By all means, go ahead and elaborate. What misinformation.

[Ostroeuropa]

Mens spaces get actively shut down, so no, doesn't quite work that way.

when y'all can only apparently come up with (effectively) male spaces like 8chan, a voice for men, and porn sites then yeah no shit that's gonna happen.

As for "Allowed to exist", sure. I'm not calling for the feminist thread to be deleted. I'm merely here pointing out when misinformation is being spread.

with the notable exception of when you are spreading the misinformation (i.e. most of the time)

Mhmm...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMUC9u0nAaQ


Which misinformation? Quote it.

[The Blaatschapen]

Mens spaces get actively shut down, so no, doesn't quite work that way.

As for "Allowed to exist", sure. I'm not calling for the feminist thread to be deleted. I'm merely here pointing out when misinformation is being spread.

No they don't.

Opus Dei, for example, has a men's space and a women's space. The Catholic Church has not been shut down.

Of course, that's why it's called the vatican. And not the vaticannot

[Cekoviu]

misinformation can easily be countered when it is presented,

This is precisely what we're doing, but you call it an invasion.

it doesn't have to be done by men or MRAs. communities can self-police when given the opportunity, you're just too self-obsessed to understand that you are not an important part of this process and it can easily be done without you or people like you (this goes back to the male entitlement problem i was discussing previously, plus your debilitating misogyny certainly has something to do with it)

and therefore no false ideas would be introduced to the public sphere;

We routinely see that this is not the case when it comes to feminists being allowed to participate in public discourse, precisely because the misinformed womens spaces become enclosed spaces that then lobby for their misunderstanding of reality to become the basis of policy, often seperate from public debate and instead behind closed doors through lobbying.

and you think a forum thread would become an effective lobbyist organization?

additionally, any misinformation that might be presented would likely be unintentional

I think the people who craft the misinformation are doing so either because they hate men and are prejudiced against them and suffer from confirmation bias, or are deliberately engaged in misinformation. Those who spread it are slightly different, but also fall under those two categories as well as the third category of; "Hasn't paid attention to men repeatedly noting feminists tell frequent misandrist lies", which in itself inclines me to put them in the first category as if you hear a community saying "Those people are fucking is over" and go around for tea and to listen to their wacky shit and internalize it, you probably don't have much respect for that community.

i'm not talking about people who create misinformation, people who spread it. and maybe feminists are tired of listening to men like you spout misogynistic condescending gish gallops at them. boy who cried wolf problem - if you lie to people enough, they won't listen when you tell the truth and you're ultimately doing more harm.

So intent doesn't really factor into it in most cases, but that's also entirely irrelevant. Prejudice is rarely about intent, it is about bias, and that bias needs to be confronted.

we're not talking about prejudice, we are talking about spreading misinformation as a wholly separate phenomenon.

(you must admit this, given that you're so fond of the idea that feminists have warped society's ideas about, say, rape or domestic violence statistics to the point that people tend to have very skewed perceptions without double-checking).

See above. Partially intentional, partially unintentional but nonetheless an expression of their bias and prejudice which they should be called out on before they become co-dependent on eachother validating that warped perspective as valid.

ignoring the fact that you definitely do not understand how codependency works well enough to be using that term - do you think your constant need to feel validated by correcting women is not reflective of any sort of underlying prejudice, and if so, why are you applying differing standards to others vs. yourself if you're such a paragon of logic and fairness?

unintentional misinformation does not warrant serious public ostracization or ostrocization, and should simply be taken down without fanfare - i don't think that's controversial.

Disagree for the reason laid out here;
"Hasn't paid attention to men repeatedly noting feminists tell frequent misandrist lies", which in itself inclines me to put them in the first category as if you hear a community saying "Those people are fucking is over and telling lies" and go around for tea and to listen to their wacky shit and internalize it, you probably don't have much respect for that community.

In itself, that warrants condemnation and judgement. That judgement and ostracization can abate if they recognize they were wrong and learn to listen in future.

gotta be honest, the wording in the first paragraph here is too confusing for me to figure out what you're saying, so i can't really argue against or accept this point

i'd say no, the feminist thread would likely not be spreading misinformation, especially intentionally.

Like 90% of the posts from MRAs here are discussing feminists spreading misinformation.

oh, do you want me to run through and do a statistical analysis to check you on this? because i will unironically bust out rstudio and prove you wrong with the power of fax & logick. i've done it before, so i'm not bluffing!

feminists here are strongly opposed to misandry, as evidence by the fact that they have created an "alliance" (lol) against me for having an opinion on the male sex that is less positive than "well not all men do bad things most of them are good haha!" so i also think that any hatred would likely be drowned out.

"I don't support viewing black people as inferior, I just think all lives matter and police shooting stats are overblown, what about black on black crime?"

yeah, that's retarded but a space where that is the consensus should not be shut down just for that

I mean. I can concede hatred may be overplaying it. Prejudice though, certainly fits the bill.

mm not really but it is a hypothetical so it's possible

let's take a look at the thread's state now, on the other hand. there is a constant barrage of MRA propaganda misinformation and your advocacy for hatred of feminists is by no means a simple egalitarianism. curious. i wonder what the solution to that might be?

Misinformation? By all means, go ahead and elaborate. What misinformation.

y'know, stuff like society being gynocentric (which is a stupid word btw and you should stop using it) and feminists having a massive amount of lobbying power while the majority of the population somehow deeply hates em

when y'all can only apparently come up with (effectively) male spaces like 8chan, a voice for men, and porn sites then yeah no shit that's gonna happen.

with the notable exception of when you are spreading the misinformation (i.e. most of the time)

Mhmm...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMUC9u0nAaQ

dude i'm not watching a 40 minute youtube video lmao, summarize it

Which misinformation? Quote it.

[Celritannia]

Using a race issue to justify an argument that involves legal marital issues is terrible.
The two are not the same and you should stop.
It does not help your argument.

Also, there was a big civil war to say why the confederacy is bad, and the general consensus is that confederate ideals are terrible, especially those who hold racist thoughts.
So comparing this to why fathers should be able to see their children after a custodial battle is even more terrible.

You really should have been clearer what exactly you were replying to.

Presumed Joint Custody sets joint custody as the default that has to be moved away from if you have case-by-case evidence it should be. Feminists have opposed it for decades.

So if you're saying it should be case-by-case you either agree with the MRA agenda, or you think that we should default to the primary caregiver doctrine like feminist organizations demand and only deviate from it if there is evidence the primary caregiver is unfit.

Presumably you think the first, which makes your post pointless. It's "Presumed joint custody", not "Enforced joint custody".

Perhaps you should not go off on a tangent and a rant with long posts.

I am not for either.

I just think joint custody or no joint custody should be based on the parents involved.

What I went through as a 4 year old child whose parents went through a divorce will be different from another child and their parents.
What did the father and/or mother do?
Do either of them place the child in any danger at all?
Do either of them maintain a steady relationship with their child and have good contact?

We cannot simply say "all men deserve access to their children", just as we cannot say "all women must have custody of their children".

I am for neither, because I find both MRA and feminism in this context stupid and tribalistic which does not help the child.

It's amazing, people do not have to force themselves into 2 pre-existing concepts (like political parties) and make their own minds up based on the evidence.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

Mens spaces get actively shut down, so no, doesn't quite work that way.

when y'all can only apparently come up with (effectively) male spaces like 8chan, a voice for men, and porn sites then yeah no shit that's gonna happen.

one of these things is not like the others

[Cekoviu]

when y'all can only apparently come up with (effectively) male spaces like 8chan, a voice for men, and porn sites then yeah no shit that's gonna happen.

one of these things is not like the others

i'm actually not sure which one you're referring to because they're all rather unique entries lol

[Cekoviu]

celrit, 5 edits? pull it together man lol

[Celritannia]

celrit, 5 edits? pull it together man lol

I'm sorry, I saved all my spelling and grammar points this morning for University.
I ran out of those credits in one morning

[Ostroeuropa]

it doesn't have to be done by men or MRAs. communities can self-police when given the opportunity, you're just too self-obsessed to understand that you are not an important part of this process and it can easily be done without you or people like you (this goes back to the male entitlement problem i was discussing previously, plus your debilitating misogyny certainly has something to do with it)

You can't self-police though. We see it routinely when examining feminist spaces that are not open to outsiders criticism. Because the spaces are not about discussing reality, but validating eachothers prejudices.

and you think a forum thread would become an effective lobbyist organization?

Eh. They could alter forum culture and perceptions, as well as those of moderators and their interpretation of the rules. As an example, the trans thread was pretty instrumental in the rule on misgendering coming about.

iand maybe feminists are tired of listening to men like you spout misogynistic condescending gish gallops at them.

Does it occur to you that this applies to men being tired of feminists too? It's also difficult to know how to address the feminsit world view without providing a wide range of examples, because of how you conceive of the world.

If I focus in specifically on an example of anti-male discrimination you excuse it away by saying "But the rest of society is anti-woman, so it proves nothing". Your entire worldview is *based* on a gish gallop you perform basically all the time in that fashion. To counter it, a mountain of evidence showing a wide range of anti-male discrimination, misandry and so is necessary.

But then you just cry "Gish gallop" and don't engage with it.

So what do you expect exactly?

I'd be fine with debating the topic if we go case by case without gish galloping, but if you break out your foundational gish gallop belief then that becomes impossible, and that is what feminists routinely do.

boy who cried wolf problem - if you lie to people enough, they won't listen when you tell the truth and you're ultimately doing more harm.

Does it occur to you that this applies to men ignoring feminists too?

And in what sense have we lied about you? Be specific. I'm always very specific about the lies feminists have told and given exhaustive information and evidence for it.

we're not talking about prejudice, we are talking about spreading misinformation as a wholly separate phenomenon.

No, it isn't. If you believe Jews are poisoning the wells based on spurious evidence and spread that misinformation, it's not simply a matter of being misinformed. It's that you're the type of person to so easily believe such an outrageous claim without examining it closely and from multiple perspectives. The misinformation feminists spread, they do so because it conforms to their negative and hateful view of men. That's why so many of them so readily believe the things they do about rape and DV dynamics.

ignoring the fact that you definitely do not understand how codependency works well enough to be using that term - do you think your constant need to feel validated by correcting women is not reflective of any sort of underlying prejudice, and if so, why are you applying differing standards to others vs. yourself if you're such a paragon of logic and fairness?

It's absolutely a form of co-dependence.

I don't feel a need to feel validated by it, I feel a need to assist other men and prevent bad things happening to them as a result of feminists behavior and activism.

I also don't prejudicially dismiss the things feminists say with "That's a lie". I go research the matter.

gotta be honest, the wording in the first paragraph here is too confusing for me to figure out what you're saying, so i can't really argue against or accept this point

I'm saying that if you go to a neo-nazi website and pick up the stats therein and start using them, people have a right to judge you negatively for not listening to their warnings about neo-nazis, and for believing those stats were true even when they say things like "Black people do 90% of rapes". If you believed that so easily, it says something nasty about you.

Hence, yes, believing misinformation can be a valid reason to condemn and ostracize people, even if they do so sincerely.

oh, do you want me to run through and do a statistical analysis to check you on this? because i will unironically bust out rstudio and prove you wrong with the power of fax & logick. i've done it before, so i'm not bluffing!

I mean if you're willing, sure.

yeah, that's retarded but a space where that is the consensus should not be shut down just for that

Right. But it was addressing your point that misandry wouldn't flourish here merely because they reject an extreme form of it.

y'know, stuff like society being gynocentric (which is a stupid word btw and you should stop using it) and feminists having a massive amount of lobbying power while the majority of the population somehow deeply hates em

People hate corporations too, doesn't stop them. None of those things are lies, and gynocentrism is a lens for examining society that produces results consistent with it. Is that really all you have? See, I was thinking more incontrovertible examples of telling lies like say, 99% of rapes are done by men. You know, that kind of shit. Something you can prove demonstrably and materially false, rather than merely something that doesn't fit in with your worldview. I don't call feminism as a whole a lie. I say it's *based* on lies, like the 99% example.

dude i'm not watching a 40 minute youtube video lmao, summarize it

It's one of countless examples of feminists protesting and shutting down an MRA event, in that example, a screening of the red pill documentary.

Which misinformation? Quote it.

[/quote]

A single example would do and we can discuss it.

[Cekoviu]

It's absolutely a form of co-dependence.

i suggest reading Codependent No More, it's a great introduction to the topic that'll help you better understand what you are saying right now

oh, do you want me to run through and do a statistical analysis to check you on this? because i will unironically bust out rstudio and prove you wrong with the power of fax & logick. i've done it before, so i'm not bluffing!

I mean if you're willing, sure.

k i will be working on it

i'm going to ignore the rest of this post because it is very stupid and makes me irrationally angry and there's no real point to wasting my time on it

[Ostroeuropa]

It's absolutely a form of co-dependence.

i suggest reading Codependent No More, it's a great introduction to the topic that'll help you better understand what you are saying right now

I mean if you're willing, sure.

k i will be working on it

i'm going to ignore the rest of this post because it is very stupid and makes me irrationally angry and there's no real point to wasting my time on it

Cool. Hopefully some of the posts get through to you.

Specifically these aspects:
immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement.
Feminist ideology cultivates these things in women, and women enable this in eachother by validating the perspectives and prejudices at the root of these flaws and affirming the feminist identity as a positive one. Feminism also gives its adherents a sense of identity and feminists are co-dependent on eachother for this identity.

I mean sure, you don't have to respond.

[Celritannia]

i suggest reading Codependent No More, it's a great introduction to the topic that'll help you better understand what you are saying right now

k i will be working on it

i'm going to ignore the rest of this post because it is very stupid and makes me irrationally angry and there's no real point to wasting my time on it

Cool. Hopefully some of the posts get through to you.

Specifically these aspects:
immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement.
Feminist ideology cultivates these things in women, and women enable this in eachother by validating the perspectives and prejudices at the root of these flaws and affirming the feminist identity as a positive one. Feminism also gives its adherents a sense of identity and feminists are co-dependent on eachother for this identity.

I mean sure, you don't have to respond.

This post does seem like an "all X are Y".
Perhaps be a tad more tactile?

[Cekoviu]

just to provide an update of my general first impressions upon taking some samples from recent history, only 20% of ostro's posts analyzed so far can be considered to even arguably disprove feminist misinformation on this thread from a factual standpoint, 10% are outright objective misinformation/propaganda, and so far nobody (MRA or feminist) has actually unarguably disproved an argument from the opposing group. it's still a small sample size right now, so stay tuned!