The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Ostroeuropa]

Why do you not identify as an MRA out of interest?

I oppose supremacists, be they gender/sexual, race, religion, whatever.

Could you outline why you believe the MRM to be supremacist?

[Crysuko]

I oppose supremacists, be they gender/sexual, race, religion, whatever.

Could you outline why you believe the MRM to be supremacist?

the tendency for MRAs to be openly and egregiously sexist, their connection to incels who are hostile to women as a whole, and their tendency to be pugnacious towards those outside their movement

[Ostroeuropa]

Could you outline why you believe the MRM to be supremacist?

the tendency for MRAs to be openly and egregiously sexist, their connection to incels who are hostile to women as a whole, and their tendency to be pugnacious towards those outside their movement

I personally don't agree with any of that frankly. But whatever.

[Crysuko]

the tendency for MRAs to be openly and egregiously sexist, their connection to incels who are hostile to women as a whole, and their tendency to be pugnacious towards those outside their movement

I personally don't agree with any of that frankly. But whatever.

what a constructive dialogue we're having.

[Cekoviu]

i'm very glad we seem to agree on this principle; this axiom is in fact an easy (if somewhat contrived) means of demonstrating the ethical problem with the arguments you and other MRAs propagate, party A being {men} as a general unit represented by any arbitrary man to which the relevant conditions apply and party B being {women} as a general unit represented by any arbitrary woman to which the relevant conditions apply; B's support system would of course be all those concerned with the well-being of the women around them. thus:
given men, a party which has consistently and over a long period of time abused women in multiple ways and any arbitrary woman having abused back in at least one relatively incident following a long period of exposure to male-perpetrated abuse, for any arbitrary man to claim women or any arbitrary woman are or is the primary aggressor while omitting details about the overall context of the situation in order to weaken the trust of those concerned with the well-being of the women around them in women and continue the pattern of abuse is in general unethical, though any arbitrary woman's action may or may not have been appropriate.

If i'm understanding you correclty, you're suggestign that men are always the aggressor because women live in a misogynistic society. Tthere is a shift going on here between the individuals involved and a grand social narrative. You're essentially arguing that feminist theory legitimizes violence against men, all men, as a class, while denying it's a hate movement.

Your rationale for why the "man" is the aggressor here even if he individually has not in fact harmed the woman can be moved out of the domestic violence realm and applied to women assaulting any man they happen to come across.

Furthermore, your argument is reliant on suggesting that a womans constant violent abuse of a partner is comparatively minor to the systemic issues women face. If that were the case and not merely feminist delusion indulged in to justify violence, we would expect women, all women, to face psychological consequences in excess of what is faced by male domestic violence survivors. Are you in fact claiming this is the case, and if so, where is your evidence of it? As such, your analogy would be more akin to;

"Woman hits man once a day. Man grabs a knife, locks her in a cupboard, cuts off all her extremities over a period of months, rapes her, and buries her alive. Argues that she was the primary aggressor and what she experienced was comparatively minor.".

The extremely disproportionate response enacted on the individual in question invalidates your argument here, and furthermore, there is a substantially different characterization between an act of violence occurring in a moment, and a sustained campaign of violence.

Finallly, you act as though societal sexism is something women are subjected to by men. This ignores that it is in fact perpetrated by both sexes, and harms both sexes.

blah blah blah Blah blah boring . u need some writing tips because this is pretty short and yet it feels like such a slog to read through. that's not because of the length or the content; gallo's writing is perfectly fine and its about the same in both respects.

i think it's your wanton use of periods and especially line breaks.

it really chops up the flow and makes it hard to read.

do you get the picture?

see how, when you're on the reader's side, this gets annoying? not to mention that it makes the text look way longer than it is. and that's great for if you're writing an essay and you need to pad it to reach the page limit. but we don't have a page limit here.

do you see what i did on that line? i used a lot of periods, but the difference there is that those are for emphasis. they divide the overall sentence into punchy clauses and they turn the periods into something that, instead of boring the reader and damaging the flow, actually draw in the reader and help communicate the significance of the content. that strategy doesn't necessarily have a place in this particular post, but it's something to think of the next time you start feeling like you want to add a bunch of full stops somewhere. in general, i would recommend just Slowing the Stop; remember that semicolons exist, commas exist, and em-dashes exist. there's plenty of punctuation out there for you, no need to let the period hog all your attention! also make sure to Think Before You Hit Enter: is that line break really necessary? do you have a good reason to start a new paragraph right there? if not, just keep on writing in that same paragraph and use some flow words if you feel like it's getting choppy, or maybe rewrite your clause if it doesn't fit in well.

something i also like to do to keep people reading is to reorder the contents of subordinate clauses like i did in the last two paragraphs — a bog-standard boring sentence would usually go "something that actually draw in the reader and help communicate the significant of the content instead of boring the reader and damaging the flow,." this is ugly and clunky and you start to lose the reader's interest, so what you do is you take that extra clause of "instead of boring the reader and damaging the flow" and you push it up to the start of the subordinate clause; what this does is it creates a preview for the reader of what's about to come in the sentence so they stay hooked. this could also improve your flow. you do a little mini version of this with "This ignores that it is in fact perpetrated by both sexes," but that's not quite enough. a couple other places could also benefit from a little attention. for example, you write:

Your rationale for why the "man" is the aggressor here even if he individually has not in fact harmed the woman can be moved out of the domestic violence realm

and this gets a little bit dull, especially once you get to the latter part of the sentence. what you can do to liven things up and hook the reader in a bit is to say:

Your rationale for why, even if he has not in fact individually harmed the woman, the "man" is the aggressor here can be moved out of the domestic violence realm...

one thing that you did well here was to create a little bit of what i like to call "incredulous emphasis," adding some emotional flair with your "men, all men, as a class" and you do a great callback to this with "women, all women" later on.

here's what i would suggest having written instead:

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that men are always the aggressor because women live in a misogynistic society; slow the stop! there's a shift going on here between the individuals involved and a grand social narrative of some sort you can use phrases like "of some sort" to emphasize your incredulity at concepts here and really make it clear what your view is. You're essentially arguing that feminist theory legitimizes violence against men, all men, as a class, all the while again, just try to use a bit punchier language denying it's a hate movement. Your rationale for why, even if he has not in fact individually harmed the woman, clause move to keep readers hooked the man the scare quotes send a confusing message here, i'd keep them out is the aggressor here can be moved out of the domestic violence realm and applied to women assaulting any man they happen to come across.

Furthermore, your argument is reliant on the idea my argument isn't really reliant on me suggesting anything to you, it's reliant on the underlying idea that a woman's constant violent abuse of a partner is minor in comparison this is more natural than "comparatively minor to" to the systemic issues women face. If that were the case and not merely feminist delusion indulged in to justify violence, we would expect women, all women, to face psychological consequences in excess of what is faced by male domestic violence survivors. Are you in fact claiming this is the case, and if so, where is your evidence of it? Your analogy should really be more like clearer way of stating what you mean:

"Woman hits man once a day. Man grabs a knife, locks her in a cupboard, cuts off all her extremities over a period of months, rapes her, and buries her alive. Argues that she was the primary aggressor and what she experienced was comparatively minor.".

The extremely disproportionate response enacted on the woman "individual in question" is ambiguous, could refer to the man or the woman invalidates your argument here. Also, an act of violence occurring in a moment and a sustained campaign of violence are significantly different, by no means interchangeable, and societal sexism is perpetrated by and harms both sexes; it's not just something women are subjected to by men. just a much better way of phrasing these two ideas

and no i am not responding to any of the arguments here, you specifically cut out the "no point in an argument" clause and i simply will not stand for that. all i will say is that you have badly misunderstood the entire point of the analogy and i will say no more. i'm happy to give you as many writing tips as you'd like, though! i also do chemistry, biology, and math tutoring at variable rates if you're in high school or a college freshman

[Cekoviu]

well and i mean obviously there are other contexts to the word but in the context of gender issues it's pretty universally understood that egalitarians r simply MRA lite. im pretty sure MRAs who self-identify as such would tell u the same. though that's an assumption; i haven't asked any. perhaps we need to get ostro in here?

I am more than happy for egalitarians to be counted as MRAs.

well there we go. thanks, that was perhaps the easiest interaction i've ever had with anyone in this thread !

[Crysuko]

I am more than happy for egalitarians to be counted as MRAs.

well there we go. thanks, that was perhaps the easiest interaction i've ever had with anyone in this thread !

circlejerks do be like that

[Cekoviu]

well there we go. thanks, that was perhaps the easiest interaction i've ever had with anyone in this thread !

circlejerks do be like that

wait i'm sorry are you genuinely implying that the fdt is a circlejerk & follow up question do u like not know what a circlejerk is

[Des-Bal]

I cannot for the life of me understand why feminists have such a beef with egalitarians, trying either to smear or assimilate us, as if you have the monopoly on liberation ideology.

Because feminism isn't about equality. Believing and asserting that people should not be poorly or denied rights or protections just because of their gender is only tangentially related to the things feminists care about. You need to accept theoretical frameworks without question, you must support goals that are not rationally related to equality, you must show contempt for men's problems or at least be willing to frame them as being men's fault.

well and i mean obviously there are other contexts to the word but in the context of gender issues it's pretty universally understood that egalitarians r simply MRA lite. im pretty sure MRAs who self-identify as such would tell u the same. though that's an assumption; i haven't asked any. perhaps we need to get ostro in here?

Yeah you're clearly not an ideologue.

[Ostroeuropa]

If i'm understanding you correclty, you're suggestign that men are always the aggressor because women live in a misogynistic society. Tthere is a shift going on here between the individuals involved and a grand social narrative. You're essentially arguing that feminist theory legitimizes violence against men, all men, as a class, while denying it's a hate movement.

Your rationale for why the "man" is the aggressor here even if he individually has not in fact harmed the woman can be moved out of the domestic violence realm and applied to women assaulting any man they happen to come across.

Furthermore, your argument is reliant on suggesting that a womans constant violent abuse of a partner is comparatively minor to the systemic issues women face. If that were the case and not merely feminist delusion indulged in to justify violence, we would expect women, all women, to face psychological consequences in excess of what is faced by male domestic violence survivors. Are you in fact claiming this is the case, and if so, where is your evidence of it? As such, your analogy would be more akin to;

"Woman hits man once a day. Man grabs a knife, locks her in a cupboard, cuts off all her extremities over a period of months, rapes her, and buries her alive. Argues that she was the primary aggressor and what she experienced was comparatively minor.".

The extremely disproportionate response enacted on the individual in question invalidates your argument here, and furthermore, there is a substantially different characterization between an act of violence occurring in a moment, and a sustained campaign of violence.

Finallly, you act as though societal sexism is something women are subjected to by men. This ignores that it is in fact perpetrated by both sexes, and harms both sexes.

blah blah blah Blah blah boring . u need some writing tips because this is pretty short and yet it feels like such a slog to read through. that's not because of the length or the content; gallo's writing is perfectly fine and its about the same in both respects.

i think it's your wanton use of periods and especially line breaks.

it really chops up the flow and makes it hard to read.

do you get the picture?

see how, when you're on the reader's side, this gets annoying? not to mention that it makes the text look way longer than it is. and that's great for if you're writing an essay and you need to pad it to reach the page limit. but we don't have a page limit here.

do you see what i did on that line? i used a lot of periods, but the difference there is that those are for emphasis. they divide the overall sentence into punchy clauses and they turn the periods into something that, instead of boring the reader and damaging the flow, actually draw in the reader and help communicate the significance of the content. that strategy doesn't necessarily have a place in this particular post, but it's something to think of the next time you start feeling like you want to add a bunch of full stops somewhere. in general, i would recommend just Slowing the Stop; remember that semicolons exist, commas exist, and em-dashes exist. there's plenty of punctuation out there for you, no need to let the period hog all your attention! also make sure to Think Before You Hit Enter: is that line break really necessary? do you have a good reason to start a new paragraph right there? if not, just keep on writing in that same paragraph and use some flow words if you feel like it's getting choppy, or maybe rewrite your clause if it doesn't fit in well.

something i also like to do to keep people reading is to reorder the contents of subordinate clauses like i did in the last two paragraphs — a bog-standard boring sentence would usually go "something that actually draw in the reader and help communicate the significant of the content instead of boring the reader and damaging the flow,." this is ugly and clunky and you start to lose the reader's interest, so what you do is you take that extra clause of "instead of boring the reader and damaging the flow" and you push it up to the start of the subordinate clause; what this does is it creates a preview for the reader of what's about to come in the sentence so they stay hooked. this could also improve your flow. you do a little mini version of this with "This ignores that it is in fact perpetrated by both sexes," but that's not quite enough. a couple other places could also benefit from a little attention. for example, you write:

Your rationale for why the "man" is the aggressor here even if he individually has not in fact harmed the woman can be moved out of the domestic violence realm

and this gets a little bit dull, especially once you get to the latter part of the sentence. what you can do to liven things up and hook the reader in a bit is to say:

Your rationale for why, even if he has not in fact individually harmed the woman, the "man" is the aggressor here can be moved out of the domestic violence realm...

one thing that you did well here was to create a little bit of what i like to call "incredulous emphasis," adding some emotional flair with your "men, all men, as a class" and you do a great callback to this with "women, all women" later on.

here's what i would suggest having written instead:

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that men are always the aggressor because women live in a misogynistic society; slow the stop! there's a shift going on here between the individuals involved and a grand social narrative of some sort you can use phrases like "of some sort" to emphasize your incredulity at concepts here and really make it clear what your view is. You're essentially arguing that feminist theory legitimizes violence against men, all men, as a class, all the while again, just try to use a bit punchier language denying it's a hate movement. Your rationale for why, even if he has not in fact individually harmed the woman, clause move to keep readers hooked the man the scare quotes send a confusing message here, i'd keep them out is the aggressor here can be moved out of the domestic violence realm and applied to women assaulting any man they happen to come across.

Furthermore, your argument is reliant on the idea my argument isn't really reliant on me suggesting anything to you, it's reliant on the underlying idea that a woman's constant violent abuse of a partner is minor in comparison this is more natural than "comparatively minor to" to the systemic issues women face. If that were the case and not merely feminist delusion indulged in to justify violence, we would expect women, all women, to face psychological consequences in excess of what is faced by male domestic violence survivors. Are you in fact claiming this is the case, and if so, where is your evidence of it? Your analogy should really be more like clearer way of stating what you mean:

"Woman hits man once a day. Man grabs a knife, locks her in a cupboard, cuts off all her extremities over a period of months, rapes her, and buries her alive. Argues that she was the primary aggressor and what she experienced was comparatively minor.".

The extremely disproportionate response enacted on the woman "individual in question" is ambiguous, could refer to the man or the woman invalidates your argument here. Also, an act of violence occurring in a moment and a sustained campaign of violence are significantly different, by no means interchangeable, and societal sexism is perpetrated by and harms both sexes; it's not just something women are subjected to by men. just a much better way of phrasing these two ideas

and no i am not responding to any of the arguments here, you specifically cut out the "no point in an argument" clause and i simply will not stand for that. all i will say is that you have badly misunderstood the entire point of the analogy and i will say no more. i'm happy to give you as many writing tips as you'd like, though! i also do chemistry, biology, and math tutoring at variable rates if you're in high school or a college freshman

On the previous page you ignored someone who pointed out you use contractions, do I really need to point out to you that I don't bother with grammar hygiene specifically because this is an internet forum and not an essay?

[Crysuko]

circlejerks do be like that

wait i'm sorry are you genuinely implying that the fdt is a circlejerk & follow up question do u like not know what a circlejerk is

"I'm right"
"I too am right"
"glad we agree!"
was the summation of that interaction

[Ostroeuropa]

I personally don't agree with any of that frankly. But whatever.

what a constructive dialogue we're having.

Alright. What evidence do you have for these claims?

[Crysuko]

what a constructive dialogue we're having.

Alright. What evidence do you have for these claims?

https://fstdt.com/F656
https://fstdt.com/W5L5
https://fstdt.com/RH65
https://fstdt.com/V9T5

[Ostroeuropa]

Alright. What evidence do you have for these claims?

https://fstdt.com/F656
https://fstdt.com/W5L5
https://fstdt.com/RH65
https://fstdt.com/V9T5

Okay so your argument that the group has "Tendencies" this way is some posts by members of that group. If I found you some posts from self-identified egalitarians saying silly shit, would you stop identifying as one?
If you want to argue that this is simply how you perceive them, that's fine. It's a form of cognitive bias, but it ultimately doesn't actually matter provided you accept it as much and just say "I don't identify as an MRA because I personally associate them with a particular set of people I don't identify with, even though I know this isn't actually true, it is emotionally true for me." and then work on mens issues anyway.

You haven't actually provided evidence of any "tendencies" or associations and so on. I note as well these all come from the same forum, do you think maybe "I am an MRA, but I'm not a member of this forum because it is supremacist, has a connection to incels-" etc might be a more sensible position?

[Crysuko]

https://fstdt.com/F656
https://fstdt.com/W5L5
https://fstdt.com/RH65
https://fstdt.com/V9T5

Okay so your argument that the group has "Tendencies" this way is some posts by members of that group. If I found you some posts from self-identified egalitarians saying silly shit, would you stop identifying as one?
If you want to argue that this is simply how you perceive them, that's fine. It's a form of cognitive bias, but it ultimately doesn't actually matter provided you accept it as much and just say "I don't identify as an MRA because I personally associate them with a particular set of people I don't identify with, even though I know this isn't actually true, it is emotionally true for me." and then work on mens issues anyway.

You haven't actually provided evidence of any "tendencies" or associations and so on.

That's 21 carat from you, seeing as how you start needling me the moment I prod you about equating egalitarians and MRAs, to the point you're willing to defend them in order to spite me. Don't talk to me about cognitive dissonance when your own position is built on vitriol.

[Ostroeuropa]

Okay so your argument that the group has "Tendencies" this way is some posts by members of that group. If I found you some posts from self-identified egalitarians saying silly shit, would you stop identifying as one?
If you want to argue that this is simply how you perceive them, that's fine. It's a form of cognitive bias, but it ultimately doesn't actually matter provided you accept it as much and just say "I don't identify as an MRA because I personally associate them with a particular set of people I don't identify with, even though I know this isn't actually true, it is emotionally true for me." and then work on mens issues anyway.

You haven't actually provided evidence of any "tendencies" or associations and so on.

That's 21 carat from you, seeing as how you start needling me the moment I prod you about equating egalitarians and MRAs, to the point you're willing to defend them in order to spite me. Don't talk to me about cognitive dissonance when your own position is built on vitriol.

It's not my intention to needle you, I'm just asking your reasoning. I even dropped the matter rather than proceed before you called that unproductive, signaling at least to me that you wanted to continue the discussion further. I'm also not defending them in order to spite you, I am in fact an MRA, and it might be more sensible to conclude i'm defending them on that basis rather than out of my opinion of you at all. You may as well be a chat bot for all I care frankly, this is simply a form of tetris to me. It's actually kind of baffling to assume I even know who you are at all mate. I know we've interacted, but to me, it was tuesday.

You haven't addressed the point, and lashed out instead, all while accusing me of having a position built on vitriol. That is something I don't even feel needs addressing more explicitly than that frankly, except perhaps to question why you think my position is based on vitriol rather than concern for men.

As I pointed out to you, I do not actually care if you identify as an egalitarian. I only care if you say things about MRAs that are questionable.

[Crysuko]

That's 21 carat from you, seeing as how you start needling me the moment I prod you about equating egalitarians and MRAs, to the point you're willing to defend them in order to spite me. Don't talk to me about cognitive dissonance when your own position is built on vitriol.

It's not my intention to needle you, I'm just asking your reasoning. I even dropped the matter rather than proceed before you called that unproductive, signaling at least to me that you wanted to continue the discussion further. I'm also not defending them in order to spite you, I am in fact an MRA, and it might be more sensible to conclude i'm defending them on that basis rather than out of my opinion of you at all. You may as well be a chat bot for all I care frankly, this is simply a form of tetris to me. It's actually kind of baffling to assume I even know who you are at all mate. I know we've interacted, but to me, it was tuesday.

You haven't addressed the point, and lashed out instead, all while accusing me of having a position built on vitriol. That is something I don't even feel needs addressing more explicitly than that frankly, except perhaps to question why you think my position is based on vitriol rather than concern for men.

You quite openly dismiss my calling them sexist and otherwise reprehensible, and don't even fully respond to the quotes provided, and now you play the "lol i'm so cool, nothing personnel, kid" game. so much hot air, so little substance.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not my intention to needle you, I'm just asking your reasoning. I even dropped the matter rather than proceed before you called that unproductive, signaling at least to me that you wanted to continue the discussion further. I'm also not defending them in order to spite you, I am in fact an MRA, and it might be more sensible to conclude i'm defending them on that basis rather than out of my opinion of you at all. You may as well be a chat bot for all I care frankly, this is simply a form of tetris to me. It's actually kind of baffling to assume I even know who you are at all mate. I know we've interacted, but to me, it was tuesday.

You haven't addressed the point, and lashed out instead, all while accusing me of having a position built on vitriol. That is something I don't even feel needs addressing more explicitly than that frankly, except perhaps to question why you think my position is based on vitriol rather than concern for men.

You quite openly dismiss my calling them sexist and otherwise reprehensible, and don't even fully respond to the quotes provided, and now you play the "lol i'm so cool, nothing personnel, kid" game. so much hot air, so little substance.

It's an admissibility problem, the form of evidence you are demanding I rebut is frankly not up to standard. It's posts from some random people online. As I pointed out to you, I can in fact find similar quotes from egalitarians. It proves nothing. They don't require responding to beyond noting "Yes, this is a sexist individual. What relevance does this have?". I'm not playing a game with you.

You accused me of doing this out of spite or out of something to do with you personally. It isn't. I can assure you I would respond to basically anybody who makes similar claims, and if you think about this, you know this about me. As for "hot air' and no substance, I'm quite calm here dude, and pointing out your evidence has no substance to the claim you made is not an insubstantial claim. We have now drifted into you lashing out because I won't accept your evidence of "Some guys on the internet somewhere made a post" as indicative of what MRAs are like and have pointed out to you why this is not a great metric to use.

For example, you are a socialist. Do you honestly think it would be all that difficult for me to find a socialist forum full of fucknuts saying delusional and violent things? And yet, this has not dissuaded you from identifying with the left. As such, I am prompting you to consider that this form of evidence isn't actually any good and inviting you to consider why you *really* don't identify as an MRA, because this isn't it bud. I even gave you a charitable option, just admit you don't identify with them for personal reasons and that it would make you uncomfortable to do so because you associate MRAs with these things, rather than MRAs actually being these things as a rule. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to say and way to behave, as I said, I do not care if you identify as an egalitarian.

EDIT:

For the record, we've interacted 49 times, often one line comments. You can review our entire history together in under three minutes. I may be moody and occasionally spiteful to people, but do you honestly believe I have managed to dislike you in under three minutes of interaction spread out over several years? I'm actually positively inclined towards you as a fellow syndicalist and an opponent of feminism.

[Crysuko]

You quite openly dismiss my calling them sexist and otherwise reprehensible, and don't even fully respond to the quotes provided, and now you play the "lol i'm so cool, nothing personnel, kid" game. so much hot air, so little substance.

It's an admissibility problem, the form of evidence you are demanding I rebut is frankly not up to standard. It's posts from some random people online. As I pointed out to you, I can in fact find similar quotes from egalitarians. It proves nothing. They don't require responding to beyond noting "Yes, this is a sexist individual. What relevance does this have?". I'm not playing a game with you.

You accused me of doing this out of spite or out of something to do with you personally. It isn't. I can assure you I would respond to basically anybody who makes similar claims, and if you think about this, you know this about me. As for "hot air' and no substance, I'm quite calm here dude, and pointing out your evidence has no substance to the claim you made is not an insubstantial claim. We have now drifted into you lashing out because I won't accept your evidence of "Some guys on the internet somewhere made a post" as indicative of what MRAs are like and have pointed out to you why this is not a great metric to use.

For example, you are a socialist. Do you honestly think it would be all that difficult for me to find a socialist forum full of fucknuts saying delusional and violent things? And yet, this has not dissuaded you from identifying with the left. As such, I am prompting you to consider that this form of evidence isn't actually any good and inviting you to consider why you *really* don't identify as an MRA, because this isn't it bud. I even gave you a charitable option, just admit you don't identify with them for personal reasons and that it would make you uncomfortable to do so because you associate MRAs with these things, rather than MRAs actually being these things as a rule. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to say and way to behave, as I said, I do not care if you identify as an egalitarian.

I have given you my reasons in two different forms, and you still refuse to acknowledge them, and have now thrown in some whataboutism for good measure. So, third time's the charm. They are broadly sexist and seek to curtail civil and political rights, that is *really* why, in it's distilled form. and perhaps you could find socialists who are bad actors, I won't deny that. it's a very broad group filled with all sorts, but in interacting with self identified socialists, I find that their motives and morals tend to be in the right place, specifically to increase civil, political and economic freedom, while reducing the burden for the most amount of people. I will not say that "I don't personally identify" because that's not the case. All signs i've seen point to them for the most part being a negative influence, there are some MRAs who are earnest, if callow about their politics, but they seem to be in the minority. I am not calling you a bad person, but question why a good person would throw in with a bad system.

[Ostroeuropa]

I have given you my reasons in two different forms, and you still refuse to acknowledge them, and have now thrown in some whataboutism for good measure. So, third time's the charm. They are broadly sexist and seek to curtail civil and political rights, that is *really* why, in it's distilled form. and perhaps you could find socialists who are bad actors, I won't deny that. it's a very broad group filled with all sorts, but in interacting with self identified socialists, I find that their motives and morals tend to be in the right place, specifically to increase civil, political and economic freedom, while reducing the burden for the most amount of people. I will not say that "I don't personally identify" because that's not the case. All signs i've seen point to them for the most part being a negative influence, there are some MRAs who are earnest, if callow about their politics, but they seem to be in the minority. I am not calling you a bad person, but question why a good person would throw in with a bad system.

There is an issue here in that you're making objective claims based on your subjective experience. "I don't identify as an MRA because in my experience, all the MRAs I have met" is substantially less objectionable than "I don't identify as an MRA because MRAs are". Ofcourse i'm not going to acknowledge your reasons for making objective claims like that based on people you have met. I expect statistical data to back up such a claim. I can acknowledge the validity of what you say as *personal reasons*, but not as statements of political realities. In part because I have precisely the opposite experience with MRAs, and if we are to use this as a valid form of evidence then we're stuck believing two contradictory positions are equally objectively valid and supported by evidence. Conversely, if we accept that this is simply your personal experience and preferences rather than some objective statement about MRAs then there is a very straightforward answer to the disagreement, and as I've said, I am not going to try and disabuse you of the notion that your personal experience isn't a valid reason not to identify as an MRA. I'm simply trying to point out to you that it doesn't actually measure up to a standard where you can make definitive claims about MRAs as a group rather than your experience of them.

This is in fact one reason I find feminists claiming anyone who doesn't identify as a feminist is bad so distasteful, because it leaves no room for considerations of individual experience with feminists and why that might make it difficult or impossible for some to do so.

[Celritannia]

I have given you my reasons in two different forms, and you still refuse to acknowledge them, and have now thrown in some whataboutism for good measure. So, third time's the charm. They are broadly sexist and seek to curtail civil and political rights, that is *really* why, in it's distilled form. and perhaps you could find socialists who are bad actors, I won't deny that. it's a very broad group filled with all sorts, but in interacting with self identified socialists, I find that their motives and morals tend to be in the right place, specifically to increase civil, political and economic freedom, while reducing the burden for the most amount of people. I will not say that "I don't personally identify" because that's not the case. All signs i've seen point to them for the most part being a negative influence, there are some MRAs who are earnest, if callow about their politics, but they seem to be in the minority. I am not calling you a bad person, but question why a good person would throw in with a bad system.

There is an issue here in that you're making objective claims based on your subjective experience. "I don't identify as an MRA because in my experience, all the MRAs I have met" is substantially less objectionable than "I don't identify as an MRA because MRAs are". Ofcourse i'm not going to acknowledge your reasons for making objective claims like that based on people you have met. I expect statistical data to back up such a claim. I can acknowledge the validity of what you say as *personal reasons*, but not as statements of political realities. In part because I have precisely the opposite experience with MRAs, and if we are to use this as a valid form of evidence then we're stuck believing two contradictory positions are equally objectively valid and supported by evidence. Conversely, if we accept that this is simply your personal experience and preferences rather than some objective statement about MRAs then there is a very straightforward answer to the disagreement, and as I've said, I am not going to try and disabuse you of the notion that your personal experience isn't a valid reason not to identify as an MRA. I'm simply trying to point out to you that it doesn't actually measure up to a standard where you can make definitive claims about MRAs as a group rather than your experience of them.

This is in fact one reason I find feminists claiming anyone who doesn't identify as a feminist is bad so distasteful, because it leaves no room for considerations of individual experience with feminists and why that might make it difficult or impossible for some to do so.

This is ironic though.
You are using an "all x are y" argument for feminists while trying to steer away from an "all x are y" argument against MRAs.

Not all feminists are what you keep perpetuating. Just as MRAs are not all violent. No group is fully x or fully y. Groups are fickle.

[The Blaatschapen]

There is an issue here in that you're making objective claims based on your subjective experience. "I don't identify as an MRA because in my experience, all the MRAs I have met" is substantially less objectionable than "I don't identify as an MRA because MRAs are". Ofcourse i'm not going to acknowledge your reasons for making objective claims like that based on people you have met. I expect statistical data to back up such a claim. I can acknowledge the validity of what you say as *personal reasons*, but not as statements of political realities. In part because I have precisely the opposite experience with MRAs, and if we are to use this as a valid form of evidence then we're stuck believing two contradictory positions are equally objectively valid and supported by evidence. Conversely, if we accept that this is simply your personal experience and preferences rather than some objective statement about MRAs then there is a very straightforward answer to the disagreement, and as I've said, I am not going to try and disabuse you of the notion that your personal experience isn't a valid reason not to identify as an MRA. I'm simply trying to point out to you that it doesn't actually measure up to a standard where you can make definitive claims about MRAs as a group rather than your experience of them.

This is in fact one reason I find feminists claiming anyone who doesn't identify as a feminist is bad so distasteful, because it leaves no room for considerations of individual experience with feminists and why that might make it difficult or impossible for some to do so.

This is ironic though.
You are using an "all x are y" argument for feminists while trying to steer away from an "all x are y" argument against MRAs.

Not all feminists are what you keep perpetuating. Just as MRAs are not all violent. No group is fully x or fully y. Groups are fickle.

All groups are in some way heterogeneous.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is ironic though.
You are using an "all x are y" argument for feminists while trying to steer away from an "all x are y" argument against MRAs.

Not all feminists are what you keep perpetuating. Just as MRAs are not all violent. No group is fully x or fully y. Groups are fickle.

Firstly, I didn't make an argument about all feminists in the post you're quoting. The only mention of them was disliking when an argument is used by them, not that all of them make such an argument.

Secondly, if you're referring to other times, there is a difference between "All black people are violent" and "All people who commit assault are violent.". My arguments about the inherent character of feminism as an ideology are distinct from arguing all feminists exhibit certain behaviours or traits without substantiating such a claim. If someone says "MRAs are sexist" and then points to individuals doing sexist things, that can be dismissed for the reasons you lay out. If they say "MRAs are sexist" and then points to how the *ideology itself* is fundamentally and intrinsically sexist, that is not the same thing.

It's akin to "All capitalists support the exploitation of workers" then showing you some arsehole CEO, VS "All capitalists support the exploitation of workers" and then handing you a copy of Das Kapital. These are not equivalent arguments or observations. I find that people who object to my characterization of feminism tend towards being adamant in their refusal to consider the second perspective and actually engage in the conversation being had, instead trying to frame it as individuals.

They're Liberals in other words. I'm sure Cek will share my disdain for "Libfem" mindsets. Waffling about how the problem with people having their banks forclosed is "greedy bankers, and if we just had the right bankers, it would all be fine" rather than "The problem is the entire concept of capitalist banking, and every single capitalist banker is inherently part of that problem. It is not a matter of personal failing. It is a systemic ideological one.".

How many left wingers do you know who argue against capitalism by saying "My boss was bad uwu" rather than pointing to the structural and systemic nature of the ideology in practice? And, conversely, how many right wingers and liberals do you know who simply cannot parse this information and waffle about how "The only solution to bad CEOs is good CEOs". Because that is fundamentally what you're doing here in pretending these are equivalent. Another example is ACAB and defund the police and so on. "Well there's just bad apples" is not actually engaging with the criticism being made, that the ideology and structure of the police force produces these outcomes regardless of the individuals who occupy positions within them. That in fact yes, all cops are bastards, and here is why.

There is nothing "Ironic" here. As I pointed out to Cry, if you're going to make a claim like that, I expect statistical analysis, or ideological critique. Not just "Some people I know were bad". I didn't outright say "You can never make this claim about a group" because that would obviously be silly. You can say "All Nazis are racists" and you don't point to individual nazis being racist to do it. You simply lay out how the ideology is intrinsically racist. It is akin to "All people who commit assault are violent". Conversely, "All nazis are racists" followed by showing me some blog posts is an extremely weak argument where you could argue "You haven't actually shown me anything. Because groups are fickle and diverse.".

So please, explain the irony for me celrit. Perhaps you can show me a time I relied on "This feminist said something mean, therefore feminism bad" as an argument rather than pointing to the impact of feminism on society in terms of policy and outcomes.

[Celritannia]

This is ironic though.
You are using an "all x are y" argument for feminists while trying to steer away from an "all x are y" argument against MRAs.

Not all feminists are what you keep perpetuating. Just as MRAs are not all violent. No group is fully x or fully y. Groups are fickle.

Firstly, I didn't make an argument about all feminists in the post you're quoting. The only mention of them was disliking when an argument is used by them, not that all of them make such an argument.

Secondly, if you're referring to other times, there is a difference between "All black people are violent" and "All people who commit assault are violent.". My arguments about the inherent character of feminism as an ideology are distinct from arguing all feminists exhibit certain behaviours or traits without substantiating such a claim. If someone says "MRAs are sexist" and then points to individuals doing sexist things, that can be dismissed for the reasons you lay out. If they say "MRAs are sexist" and then points to how the *ideology itself* is fundamentally and intrinsically sexist, that is not the same thing.

It's akin to "All capitalists support the exploitation of workers" then showing you some arsehole CEO, VS "All capitalists support the exploitation of workers" and then handing you a copy of Das Kapital. These are not equivalent arguments or observations. I find that people who object to my characterization of feminism tend towards being adamant in their refusal to consider the second perspective and actually engage in the conversation being had, instead trying to frame it as individuals.

They're Liberals in other words. I'm sure Cek will share my disdain for "Libfem" mindsets. Waffling about how the problem with people having their banks forclosed is "greedy bankers, and if we just had the right bankers, it would all be fine" rather than "The problem is the entire concept of capitalist banking, and every single capitalist banker is inherently part of that problem. It is not a matter of personal failing. It is a systemic ideological one.".

How many left wingers do you know who argue against capitalism by saying "My boss was bad uwu" rather than pointing to the structural and systemic nature of the ideology in practice? And, conversely, how many right wingers and liberals do you know who simply cannot parse this information and waffle about how "The only solution to bad CEOs is good CEOs". Because that is fundamentally what you're doing here in pretending these are equivalent. Another example is ACAB and defund the police and so on. "Well there's just bad apples" is not actually engaging with the criticism being made, that the ideology and structure of the police force produces these outcomes regardless of the individuals who occupy positions within them. That in fact yes, all cops are indeed bastards.

There is nothing "Ironic" here.

Depends on what you mean by feminism as an ideology. There will be differences between what people think about feminism, just as there will be people who think there are differences with what people mean by MRAs, or liberals, or communist or (insert group here).

There are things feminism does well, and there are things feminism doesn't do well. Same with MRAs.
But the bother causes of any group tend to be the loudest and put the rest of the group in a sour look.

[Ostroeuropa]

Firstly, I didn't make an argument about all feminists in the post you're quoting. The only mention of them was disliking when an argument is used by them, not that all of them make such an argument.

Secondly, if you're referring to other times, there is a difference between "All black people are violent" and "All people who commit assault are violent.". My arguments about the inherent character of feminism as an ideology are distinct from arguing all feminists exhibit certain behaviours or traits without substantiating such a claim. If someone says "MRAs are sexist" and then points to individuals doing sexist things, that can be dismissed for the reasons you lay out. If they say "MRAs are sexist" and then points to how the *ideology itself* is fundamentally and intrinsically sexist, that is not the same thing.

It's akin to "All capitalists support the exploitation of workers" then showing you some arsehole CEO, VS "All capitalists support the exploitation of workers" and then handing you a copy of Das Kapital. These are not equivalent arguments or observations. I find that people who object to my characterization of feminism tend towards being adamant in their refusal to consider the second perspective and actually engage in the conversation being had, instead trying to frame it as individuals.

They're Liberals in other words. I'm sure Cek will share my disdain for "Libfem" mindsets. Waffling about how the problem with people having their banks forclosed is "greedy bankers, and if we just had the right bankers, it would all be fine" rather than "The problem is the entire concept of capitalist banking, and every single capitalist banker is inherently part of that problem. It is not a matter of personal failing. It is a systemic ideological one.".

How many left wingers do you know who argue against capitalism by saying "My boss was bad uwu" rather than pointing to the structural and systemic nature of the ideology in practice? And, conversely, how many right wingers and liberals do you know who simply cannot parse this information and waffle about how "The only solution to bad CEOs is good CEOs". Because that is fundamentally what you're doing here in pretending these are equivalent. Another example is ACAB and defund the police and so on. "Well there's just bad apples" is not actually engaging with the criticism being made, that the ideology and structure of the police force produces these outcomes regardless of the individuals who occupy positions within them. That in fact yes, all cops are indeed bastards.

There is nothing "Ironic" here.

Depends on what you mean by feminism as an ideology. There will be differences between what people think about feminism, just as there will be people who think there are differences with what people mean by MRAs, or liberals, or communist or (insert group here).

There are things feminism does well, and there are things feminism doesn't do well. Same with MRAs.
But the bother causes of any group tend to be the loudest and put the rest of the group in a sour look.

As a governing ideology currently practiced in society and actually imposed, rather than purely imaginary.

You know. Real feminism. That feminism. Sig comes in handy:

The feminism that only exists in feminists heads is real, and the feminism that impacts society isn't real.

I'm not interested in capitalists waffling to me about how "real capitalism" works either and going glassy eyed about trickle down economics, no matter how much theory entirely divorced from reality they use to justify their predictions. Likewise i'm not interested in the platonic-essence interpretation of feminism plenty of feminists believe in rather than accept the reality of their ideology and how it actually works. You may as well tell me Saddam Hussein isn't a bad guy, because you have an imaginary friend called Saddam Hussein.

It's drivel. I'd prefer people live in the real world with the rest of us if you want to take part in conversations about it. And, in the real world, rather than imaginationland, feminism is a very identifiable thing with negative outcomes.