The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Ostroeuropa]

None of you seem to be grasping the point here. Try addressing what I said specifically. I also note this fashion of dismissal is only levied when mens issues are discussed. You don't really see it done when feminists are waffling about women being oppressed.

[Celritannia]

Other points:

Ridiculed joining "traditional masculine jobs", such as the Armed Forces, Police and Fire Services, Engineers, mechanics, construction workers, etc.

Ridiculed having a baby too young or too old.

Ridiculed being married, still single, or being a single parent.

Ridiculed for being fat, thin, or not having an attractive physique.

Less likely to see job promotions in management.

Relating to the above point, being passed on a promotion if they take time out to give birth and look after a baby.

Female action heroes are still less likely to be seen as heroes but more of eye-candy.

Diet products tailored more towards woman.

---

I mean some of those you could also attribute to men, such as men should be seen as muscular in their body appearance, or men are not likely to be hired for child minding jobs or care giving jobs. Not to mention the idea of a house husband is still shunned.

But still, most of these points are reasonable to say what women face as set-backs.

*Sigh*

1. Women are not judged for this on a systemic level. They are celebrated for it while claiming they are judged for it. Individual sexists existing does not oppression make, and is an insoluble issue.

2. Men are judged for this also.

3. Men are judged for this also.

4. Men are judged for this also.

5. This is a result of women having greater freedom and more work-life balance, it is rooted in a mens issue. Again, this is a consequence of female privilege.

6. Same as 5.

7. Congratulations, you got one.

8. Self-care is seen as feminine. Men who care about their appearance or health are demonized and ridiculed unless it's in specific ways. This does not strike me as a womens issue. Again, it is a consequence of female privilege.

1. Eh, not really.

2 through 4. More so than men.

5. And what if the woman in question wants a promotion but also has a child? Management are always more likely to pass them over. It's the "glass ceiling" concept.

7. Don't patronise.

8. Again, dieting ads are targeted at women mainly.

You really have a thing for "female privilege" rhetoric.

Some issues women face are worse than men, and some issues men face are worse than women.

Trying to say "But it's same as men here, here, and here" does not help either sex with the overall situation.

[Pruthuania]

Both ideologies are equally worthless. Saying one is better than the other is like saying that that one is evil, one is not! all humans are equal, regardless of race or gender. Worth is decided by who does what, how its done, and the effort they put in.

[Ostroeuropa]

*Sigh*

1. Women are not judged for this on a systemic level. They are celebrated for it while claiming they are judged for it. Individual sexists existing does not oppression make, and is an insoluble issue.

2. Men are judged for this also.

3. Men are judged for this also.

4. Men are judged for this also.

5. This is a result of women having greater freedom and more work-life balance, it is rooted in a mens issue. Again, this is a consequence of female privilege.

6. Same as 5.

7. Congratulations, you got one.

8. Self-care is seen as feminine. Men who care about their appearance or health are demonized and ridiculed unless it's in specific ways. This does not strike me as a womens issue. Again, it is a consequence of female privilege.

1. Eh, not really.

2 through 4. More so than men.

5. And what if the woman in question wants a promotion but also has a child? Management or more likely to pass them over.

7. Don't patronise.

8. Again, dieting ads are targeted at women mainly.

You really have a thing for "female privilege" rhetoric.

Some issues women face are worse than men, and some issues men face are worse than women.

Trying to say "But it's same as men her, here, and here" does not help either sex with the overall situation.

1. There's studies showing as much dude. The media celebrates women and demonizes men, or patronizingly calls them "feminine" when they do things outside their gender role in a way women aren't called "Masculine" for doing the same.

2 through 4. I disagree it's moreso than men. Do you have any proof of it?

5. Men aren't afforded the same freedoms as women in the workplace in regards to parental leave, part time and so on. They're punished more severely for taking them. Fixing that fixes this issue. Focusing on women merely derails the discussion to throw them a pity party about how hard it is to be privileged, or worse yet, push for equal promotions and equal pay with men despite having more work-life balance and career flexibility (Which seems to be the approach feminist lobbies are adamant on taking.). It's also a result of them resisting the MRM for decades. We were trying to fix this back in the 80s when they went off the deep end and started rambling about patriarchal domestic violence meaning women should have presumed custody of children. If you tell lies and demonize a demographic to steal their children from them, you can't then complain how hard it is to raise them and expect to be taken seriously. Unless you're a woman I suppose. What discussion of women is relevant to this point? For what do they need to organize that wouldn't be sexist and anti-male? Nothing. They have no problem here that needs fixing. Instead, if they actually care about this, they need to back the MRM and lobby for it. Lobbying "for women" on this issue is meaningless and can produce no results that are positive, only negative and anti-male ones. What could be done to "help women" here? What policies? Do you want them paid as much and promoted as much despite working less?

8. You didn't address the point. "Medicine is more targetted at white people, while black people are pressured into not taking any" wouldn't be "White oppression" now would it.

[Nevertopia]

None of you seem to be grasping the point here. Try addressing what I said specifically. I also note this fashion of dismissal is only levied when mens issues are discussed. You don't really see it done when feminists are waffling about women being oppressed.

No I hold both sides accountable as I hold you accountable. I understand where youre coming from, as a dude I know what it means to not be allowed to show vulnerability and how being vulnerable is threatening to people's identity as victims. My critique here is you're overly identifying as a victim as a main contention towards feminism. And I say that knowing how feminism sometimes demonizes men to validate their political ideology, I'm saying don't play their game. Make it a point to hold distinctions in their generalizations of us, don't take the bait of "all men are X" and instead focus on the real issues of how they were treated instead of what they think of us.

[Ostroeuropa]

None of you seem to be grasping the point here. Try addressing what I said specifically. I also note this fashion of dismissal is only levied when mens issues are discussed. You don't really see it done when feminists are waffling about women being oppressed.

No I hold both sides accountable as I hold you accountable. I understand where youre coming from, as a dude I know what it means to not be allowed to show vulnerability and how being vulnerable is threatening to people's identity as victims. My critique here is you're overly identifying as a victim as a main contention towards feminism. And I say that knowing how feminism sometimes demonizes men to validate their political ideology, I'm saying don't play their game. Make it a point to hold distinctions in their generalizations of us, don't take the bait of "all men are X" and instead focus on the real issues of how they were treated instead of what they think of us.

I'm talking about specific issues and specific policy dynamics and what causes them. Why don't you address those specifics.

[Nevertopia]

This is why I hate gender-based politics. Its a victim olympics on whose oppressed more and there always ALWAYS has to be a bad guy. If youre not a victim exactly like me then you're the bad guy I'm being oppressed by. At no point can we just address these issues without first needing to point the other sex as an unrepenting victimizer.

Look at the arguments youve all participated in, back and forth you stack on the suffering that men and women both go through but at no point do either side just agree and say "yes, these things happen to you too! Like it happens to me! This should bring us together, we can understand each other because we've both been through crap!"

But no, someone has to win the "who has it worse" award. And part of winning that means the other side has to be the bad guy and cant be a victim too.

[Nevertopia]

No I hold both sides accountable as I hold you accountable. I understand where youre coming from, as a dude I know what it means to not be allowed to show vulnerability and how being vulnerable is threatening to people's identity as victims. My critique here is you're overly identifying as a victim as a main contention towards feminism. And I say that knowing how feminism sometimes demonizes men to validate their political ideology, I'm saying don't play their game. Make it a point to hold distinctions in their generalizations of us, don't take the bait of "all men are X" and instead focus on the real issues of how they were treated instead of what they think of us.

I'm talking about specific issues and specific policy dynamics and what causes them. Why don't you address those specifics.

to what end? You guys have already dont it for me. I acknowledge the suffering men and women both go through and hold neither as the ultimate perpetrator while holding accountable those who would generalize the other side as such.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is why I hate gender-based politics. Its a victim olympics on whose oppressed more and there always ALWAYS has to be a bad guy. If youre not a victim exactly like me then you're the bad guy I'm being oppressed by. At no point can we just address these issues without first needing to point the other sex as an unrepenting victimizer.

Look at the arguments youve all participated in, back and forth you stack on the suffering that men and women both go through but at no point do either side just agree and say "yes, these things happen to you too! Like it happens to me! This should bring us together, we can understand each other because we've both been through crap!"

But no, someone has to win the "who has it worse" award. And part of winning that means the other side has to be the bad guy and cant be a victim too.

This is where the problem started yes, but after almost 70 years of feminists doing that to men to derail discussion of their issues, deny misandry existed at all until very recently, mock the notion of mens issues or anti-male sexism or oppression, opposition, slander, and so on, alongside their manipulation of statistics and relentless anti-male propoganda, it is not a "Both sides" issue.

One side here is very much victimized by the other and has been consistently.

Do you accept that there is a reality in which that can be true, and do you have an argument for why it isn't this one?

If I get everything my way constantly, eventually, it reaches the point where there is only one direction of travel to take for equality to be reached.

And *again*, you're not addressing the point of the problem of "Womens activism" being anti-male in practice through how it is conducted, like the rape example, or the domestic violence example. You seem to write off axiomatically the notion that men could be victims of this dynamic in a way women are not, but don't actually address it substantively.

[Nevertopia]

This is why I hate gender-based politics. Its a victim olympics on whose oppressed more and there always ALWAYS has to be a bad guy. If youre not a victim exactly like me then you're the bad guy I'm being oppressed by. At no point can we just address these issues without first needing to point the other sex as an unrepenting victimizer.

Look at the arguments youve all participated in, back and forth you stack on the suffering that men and women both go through but at no point do either side just agree and say "yes, these things happen to you too! Like it happens to me! This should bring us together, we can understand each other because we've both been through crap!"

But no, someone has to win the "who has it worse" award. And part of winning that means the other side has to be the bad guy and cant be a victim too.

This is where the problem started yes, but after almost 70 years of feminists doing that to men to derail discussion of their issues, deny misandry existed at all until very recently, mock the notion of mens issues or anti-male sexism or oppression, opposition, slander, and so on, alongside their manipulation of statistics and relentless anti-male propoganda, it is not a "Both sides" issue.

One side here is very much victimized by the other and has been consistently.

Do you accept that there is a reality in which that can be true, and do you have an argument for why it isn't this one?

If I get everything my way constantly, eventually, it reaches the point where there is only one direction of travel to take for equality to be reached.

And *again*, you're not addressing the point of the problem of "Womens activism" being anti-male in practice through how it is conducted, like the rape example, or the domestic violence example. You seem to write off axiomatically the notion that men could be victims of this dynamic in a way women are not, but don't actually address it substantively.

I agree with you, but I choose not to be the same as them.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm talking about specific issues and specific policy dynamics and what causes them. Why don't you address those specifics.

to what end? You guys have already dont it for me. I acknowledge the suffering men and women both go through and hold neither as the ultimate perpetrator while holding accountable those who would generalize the other side as such.

But the problem is, in acknowledging "the suffering women go through", quite a lot of that is appropriated mens issues. The result of it is anti-male propoganda and sexism as i've explained to you.

For example, if it's a "Womens issue" that women are paid less, then we see constant demands and pressure to pay them more. This, despite them having overall better work-life balance. The result of that campaigning is to *overvalue womens work relative to mens*, not to reach equality.

To reach equality, you need to dismiss the notion it's a womens issue, rightly acknowledge it's rooted in female privilege, and expand more work-life balance to men. Then the value of mens work will drop to be equal to womens, but we'll have more work-life balance, something the overwhelming majority would prefer.

[Nevertopia]

to what end? You guys have already dont it for me. I acknowledge the suffering men and women both go through and hold neither as the ultimate perpetrator while holding accountable those who would generalize the other side as such.

But the problem is, in acknowledging "the suffering women go through", quite a lot of that is appropriated mens issues. The result of it is anti-male propoganda and sexism as i've explained to you.

For example, if it's a "Womens issue" that women are paid less, then we see constant demands and pressure to pay them more. This, despite them having overall better work-life balance. The result of that campaigning is to *overvalue womens work relative to mens*, not to reach equality.

To reach equality, you need to dismiss the notion it's a womens issue, rightly acknowledge it's rooted in female privilege, and expand more work-life balance to men. Then the value of mens work will drop to be equal to womens, but we'll have more work-life balance, something the overwhelming majority would prefer.

and this is where you fail. Its not an us or them issue, its both. Men should have better work-life balance, women should be paid the same amount for the same work. Its not mutually exclusive.

[Celritannia]

1. Eh, not really.

2 through 4. More so than men.

5. And what if the woman in question wants a promotion but also has a child? Management or more likely to pass them over.

7. Don't patronise.

8. Again, dieting ads are targeted at women mainly.

You really have a thing for "female privilege" rhetoric.

Some issues women face are worse than men, and some issues men face are worse than women.

Trying to say "But it's same as men her, here, and here" does not help either sex with the overall situation.

1. There's studies showing as much dude. The media celebrates women and demonizes men, or patronizingly calls them "feminine" when they do things outside their gender role in a way women aren't called "Masculine" for doing the same.

2 through 4. I disagree it's moreso than men. Do you have any proof of it?

5. Men aren't afforded the same freedoms as women in the workplace in regards to parental leave, part time and so on. They're punished more severely for taking them. Fixing that fixes this issue. Focusing on women merely derails the discussion to throw them a pity party about how hard it is to be privileged, or worse yet, push for equal promotions and equal pay with men despite having more work-life balance and career flexibility (Which seems to be the approach feminist lobbies are adamant on taking.). It's also a result of them resisting the MRM for decades. We were trying to fix this back in the 80s when they went off the deep end and started rambling about patriarchal domestic violence meaning women should have presumed custody of children. If you tell lies and demonize a demographic to steal their children from them, you can't then complain how hard it is to raise them and expect to be taken seriously. Unless you're a woman I suppose.

8. You didn't address the point. "Medicine is more targetted at white people, while black people are pressured into not taking any" wouldn't be "White oppression" now would it.

1. "celebrated" objectively, sure, but subjectively, they are ridiculed by their work colleagues.

2 through 4, Well, biological men can't have babies so no evidence is required for that.

Single women: https://psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/2 ... 12377.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 110057.htm

Body image: https://www.bradley.edu/sites/bodyproje ... eln%202014)

5. And Women are not afforded the same freedoms as men. We can either go back and fourth of this ridiculous and stupid concept, or we can stop blaming one sex for the problems of the other. It's the concept of society that has these problems occur, for women and men. All you do is say "look, men have the exact same problem as women," which is not accurate, as some situations do affect one sex more than the other.
Yes, certain child custody problems do demonise men more than woman, but not many of them.

8. That's a bad analogy. How come most adverts advertise dieting for women over men? It's a targeted audience for a successful business model. Woman do have more body appearance issues than men, so these companies use that as a means to get more targeted buyers.

But again, as I stated in point 5, complaining about men having a similar problems with women in certain areas is not always true.
Not all problems between men and women are equal, some do affect one more than the other. But instead of blaming one over the other or using "female privilege", we should focus on how we better the individuals involved.

[Ostroeuropa]

But the problem is, in acknowledging "the suffering women go through", quite a lot of that is appropriated mens issues. The result of it is anti-male propoganda and sexism as i've explained to you.

For example, if it's a "Womens issue" that women are paid less, then we see constant demands and pressure to pay them more. This, despite them having overall better work-life balance. The result of that campaigning is to *overvalue womens work relative to mens*, not to reach equality.

To reach equality, you need to dismiss the notion it's a womens issue, rightly acknowledge it's rooted in female privilege, and expand more work-life balance to men. Then the value of mens work will drop to be equal to womens, but we'll have more work-life balance, something the overwhelming majority would prefer.

and this is where you fail. Its not an us or them issue, its both. Men should have better work-life balance, women should be paid the same amount for the same work. Its not mutually exclusive.

That's not a failure. It's correctly identifying the source of the disparity.

*Nothing needs to be done on womens behalf here to reach equality on this issue.*. Meanwhile, womens activism can be, and is, destructive to equality on this issue. If it provides no benefit and only downsides, why tolerate it?

Here, let me show you.

Scenario 1. Feminism is marginalized, the MRM is ascendant and gets its way.
Men receive work-life balance. As a result, the value of their work drops while they receive more free time. As a consequence, male and female employees are now of equal value and provide equal workhours, with equal chances of promotion.

Scenario 2: Feminism remains.
Feminists push for women to receive the same pay and promotion prospects as men. Women are paid equally and promoted equally for less work. (Ignoring that female CEOs already out-earn male counterparts, so it's more likely to be that women earn more for less work.).

Scenario 3: Both have their influence.
Men receive work-life balance and the value of their work drops to be equal to womens. However, constant propoganda and campaigning to champion women and warp societies view of their contributions to overvalue them means that women now get promoted more than men, get paid more than men, and so on, as their work has been overvalued as a result of feminist propoganda influencing society.


The feminist solution of "Value womens work more" is destructive and sexist. It has no positive influence on the situation in relation to equality. It is needless. If instead, women got a grip and admitted "This is not a womens issue" and threw their lot in behind the MRM and men, the situation would be fixed more rapidly and without the downsides.

And the kind of feminists in denial of reality who think "We can solve both womens and mens issues" merely end up endorsing scenario 3. "Just a little bit of arsenic is fine to have with my chips." is no less ridiculous than "I should eat arsenic and throw away the chips.". The solution is to recognize that the bulk of "Womens issues" are non-existant, a result of a victim complex almost a century in the making and the routine gynocentric framing of issues, appropriation of mens issues, cooking statistics and so on as a result of the relentless pursuit of validation for womens identity as a victim of society.

[Nevertopia]

and this is where you fail. Its not an us or them issue, its both. Men should have better work-life balance, women should be paid the same amount for the same work. Its not mutually exclusive.

That's not a failure. It's correctly identifying the source of the disparity.

*Nothing needs to be done on womens behalf here to reach equality on this issue.*. Meanwhile, womens activism can be, and is, destructive to equality on this issue. If it provides no benefit and only downsides, why tolerate it?

Here, let me show you.

Scenario 1. Feminism is marginalized, the MRM is ascendant and gets its way.
Men receive work-life balance. As a result, the value of their work drops while they receive more free time. As a consequence, male and female employees are now of equal value and provide equal workhours, with equal chances of promotion.

Scenario 2: Feminism remains.
Feminists push for women to receive the same pay and promotion prospects as men. Women are paid equally and promoted equally for less work. (Ignoring that female CEOs already out-earn male counterparts, so it's more likely to be that women earn more for less work.).

Scenario 3: Both have their influence.
Men receive work-life balance and the value of their work drops to be equal to womens. However, constant propoganda and campaigning to champion women and warp societies view of their contributions to overvalue them means that women now get promoted more than men, get paid more than men, and so on, as their work has been overvalued as a result of feminist propoganda influencing society.


The feminist solution of "Value womens work more" is destructive and sexist. It has no positive influence on the situation in relation to equality. It is needless. If instead, women got a grip and admitted "This is not a womens issue" and threw their lot in behind the MRM and men, the situation would be fixed more rapidly and without the downsides.

this is why i hate gender politics. Issues can only ever be seen through the lense of ideology instead of causal links and unilateral solutions. If only you could understand your position is as entrenched as theirs is.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's not a failure. It's correctly identifying the source of the disparity.

*Nothing needs to be done on womens behalf here to reach equality on this issue.*. Meanwhile, womens activism can be, and is, destructive to equality on this issue. If it provides no benefit and only downsides, why tolerate it?

Here, let me show you.

Scenario 1. Feminism is marginalized, the MRM is ascendant and gets its way.
Men receive work-life balance. As a result, the value of their work drops while they receive more free time. As a consequence, male and female employees are now of equal value and provide equal workhours, with equal chances of promotion.

Scenario 2: Feminism remains.
Feminists push for women to receive the same pay and promotion prospects as men. Women are paid equally and promoted equally for less work. (Ignoring that female CEOs already out-earn male counterparts, so it's more likely to be that women earn more for less work.).

Scenario 3: Both have their influence.
Men receive work-life balance and the value of their work drops to be equal to womens. However, constant propoganda and campaigning to champion women and warp societies view of their contributions to overvalue them means that women now get promoted more than men, get paid more than men, and so on, as their work has been overvalued as a result of feminist propoganda influencing society.


The feminist solution of "Value womens work more" is destructive and sexist. It has no positive influence on the situation in relation to equality. It is needless. If instead, women got a grip and admitted "This is not a womens issue" and threw their lot in behind the MRM and men, the situation would be fixed more rapidly and without the downsides.

this is why i hate gender politics. Issues can only ever be seen through the lense of ideology instead of causal links and unilateral solutions.

That was a discussion of causal links and solutions. Let me ask you directly, what help exactly in policy terms do women need on this issue?

[Nevertopia]

this is why i hate gender politics. Issues can only ever be seen through the lense of ideology instead of causal links and unilateral solutions.

That was a discussion of causal links and solutions. Let me ask you directly, what help exactly in policy terms do women need on this issue?

idk Im not a woman.

[Ostroeuropa]

That was a discussion of causal links and solutions. Let me ask you directly, what help exactly in policy terms do women need on this issue?

idk Im not a woman.

There isn't an answer that doesn't imply the erasure of mens issues in order to misframe expansion of female privilege as equality dude.

Do you think women should be paid more? Do you think they should be promoted more? How about, they should have less freedom and less flexibility and so on? That one at least would also be equality. The other two would not be.

When you look at the situation in its totality, it is clearly a mens issue and the solution is to expand mens rights. Women need nothing on this issue, the policy environment is already perfectly suited to their needs and nothing needs to change for them. And given that that is the case, why exactly are there so many womens lobbies working on the issue, and why is there such a push to "fix" the policy environment for women?

because the ideology of feminism results in anti-male sexism and female privilege.

They don't want the same pay and so on as men, at least that's not their primary concern. They want to continue validating their ridiculous concept of womanhood and identity. If they wanted equality, they'd back the MRM and resolve the problem, but to do that they'd have to reconsider what it means to be a woman and abandon victimhood. So instead we get the current farce of demanding womens work be valued equally to mens despite them doing less of it. Because the acknowledgement they do less of it undermines their identity and core concern, it would risk admitting it's not a womens issue, it's a mens issue.


They don't want equality. They want to pretend they face systemic sexism because their identity is built on it. Given the choice between fixing sexism, and misframing an issue in order to validate their identity and thus make it insoluble, the latter is taken every time. This ofcourse does not apply to women who are MRAs

[Celritannia]

idk Im not a woman.

There isn't an answer that doesn't imply the erasure of mens issues in order to misframe expansion of female privilege as equality dude.

Do you think women should be paid more? Do you think they should be promoted more? How about, they should have less freedom and less flexibility and so on? That one at least would also be equality. The other two would not be.

When you look at the situation in its totality, it is clearly a mens issue and the solution is to expand mens rights. Women need nothing on this issue, the policy environment is already perfectly suited to their needs and nothing needs to change for them. And given that that is the case, why exactly are there so many womens lobbies working on the issue, and why is there such a push to "fix" the policy environment for women?

because the ideology of feminism results in anti-male sexism and female privilege.

They don't want the same pay and so on as men, at least that's not their primary concern. They want to continue validating their ridiculous concept of womanhood and identity. If they wanted equality, they'd back the MRM and resolve the problem, but to do that they'd have to reconsider what it means to be a woman and abandon victimhood. So instead we get the current farce of demanding womens work be valued equally to mens despite them doing less of it. Because the acknowledgement they do less of it undermines their identity and core concern, it would risk admitting it's not a womens issue, it's a mens issue.


They don't want equality. They want to pretend they face systemic sexism because their identity is built on it. Given the choice between fixing sexism, and misframing in order to validate their identity, the latter is taken every time. This ofcourse does not apply to women who are MRAs

This sounds like one big generalisation.

[Ostroeuropa]

There isn't an answer that doesn't imply the erasure of mens issues in order to misframe expansion of female privilege as equality dude.

Do you think women should be paid more? Do you think they should be promoted more? How about, they should have less freedom and less flexibility and so on? That one at least would also be equality. The other two would not be.

When you look at the situation in its totality, it is clearly a mens issue and the solution is to expand mens rights. Women need nothing on this issue, the policy environment is already perfectly suited to their needs and nothing needs to change for them. And given that that is the case, why exactly are there so many womens lobbies working on the issue, and why is there such a push to "fix" the policy environment for women?

because the ideology of feminism results in anti-male sexism and female privilege.

They don't want the same pay and so on as men, at least that's not their primary concern. They want to continue validating their ridiculous concept of womanhood and identity. If they wanted equality, they'd back the MRM and resolve the problem, but to do that they'd have to reconsider what it means to be a woman and abandon victimhood. So instead we get the current farce of demanding womens work be valued equally to mens despite them doing less of it. Because the acknowledgement they do less of it undermines their identity and core concern, it would risk admitting it's not a womens issue, it's a mens issue.


They don't want equality. They want to pretend they face systemic sexism because their identity is built on it. Given the choice between fixing sexism, and misframing in order to validate their identity, the latter is taken every time. This ofcourse does not apply to women who are MRAs

This sounds like one big generalisation.

That doesn't merely sound like, but actually is, a thought terminating cliche. I've reached these conclusions as a result of observing their actions and the incoherency of their demands. In the same way as you can with people who ramble about "protecting our jobs" on the topic of immigrants don't really care about jobs deep down, but like to think they do because it suits their ego and the alternative is to confront something nasty about themselves.

So it goes here.

[Celritannia]

This sounds like one big generalisation.

That doesn't merely sound like, but actually is, a thought terminating cliche.

When you generalise all feminism as "hating men" then yes, it is.

When you have no evidence to support your claim that they "pretend to face systamatic sexism" then yes it is generalising.

When you deny the truth that woman do want the same pay for the same job men do, then that is, well not generalising, but a stupid claim.

You will never know what a woman goes through in the work place, as a woman will not know what a man goes through in the work place. But generalising feminism, or believing it to be something that it is not does not help the problems that occur for both men and women.

Perhaps you should stop pouring these problems men go through on feminism, and actually criticise the society that established these concepts in the first place.

[Nevertopia]

idk Im not a woman.

There isn't an answer that doesn't imply the erasure of mens issues in order to misframe expansion of female privilege as equality dude.

Do you think women should be paid more? Do you think they should be promoted more? How about, they should have less freedom and less flexibility and so on? That one at least would also be equality. The other two would not be.

When you look at the situation in its totality, it is clearly a mens issue and the solution is to expand mens rights. Women need nothing on this issue, the policy environment is already perfectly suited to their needs and nothing needs to change for them. And given that that is the case, why exactly are there so many womens lobbies working on the issue, and why is there such a push to "fix" the policy environment for women?

because the ideology of feminism results in anti-male sexism and female privilege.

They don't want the same pay and so on as men, at least that's not their primary concern. They want to continue validating their ridiculous concept of womanhood and identity. If they wanted equality, they'd back the MRM and resolve the problem, but to do that they'd have to reconsider what it means to be a woman and abandon victimhood. So instead we get the current farce of demanding womens work be valued equally to mens despite them doing less of it.

Yes I too have read harrison bergeron like everybody does in highschool.

I believe in equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. While the topics you touched upon are valid concerns that is not what women's rights is about. Though I sense we're in agreement on that topic. I dont agree with radical feminism at all the same I dont agree with radical manosphere politics as mentioned in this thread. But the more I talk to you the clearer it becomes that you can only view it in such terms. Its tragic. You simply cant differentiate between those elements.

I can disagree with radical gender politics while supporting the rights of men and women. I acknowledge that the elements of feminism you mentioned do exist, but you can't seem to acknowledge theres more to feminism than its radical permutations.

[Ostroeuropa]

That doesn't merely sound like, but actually is, a thought terminating cliche.

When you generalise all feminism as "hating men" then yes, it is.

When you have no evidence to support your claim that they "pretend to face systamatic sexism" then yes it is generalising.

When you deny the truth that woman do want the same pay for the same job men do, then that is, well not generalising, but a stupid claim.

You will never know what a woman goes through in the work place, as a woman will not know what a man goes through in the work place. But generalising feminism, or believing it to be something that it is not does not help the problems that occur for both men and women.

Perhaps you should stop pouring these problems men go through on feminism, and actually criticise the society that established these concepts in the first place.

Concluding that feminism inevitably results in anti-male sexism is not the same as claiming all feminism is hating men. It's an analysis of the outcomes.

I have provided the evidence; the inconsistency of their views and how they line up far better with the explanation I provided than the one they provide. Similar to the "Protect our jobs from immigrants" crowd don't really care about jobs deep down, even if they like to think they do, because when shown evidence that their going about that topic the wrong way, they double down instead and lash out. They don't want to protect jobs, they want to pretend immigrants are stealing their jobs.

I have explained why it's not their core concern. I'm sure they do want the same pay for the same job as men do. But the priority seems to be to back something else. Similarly, i'm sure the protect our jobs crowd really do want more jobs and higher pay. But it's not their core concern. With this issue, if women wanted the same pay and promotion prospects, the solution has been articulated for decades by the MRM. But since it conflicts with their primary goal of pretending to be oppressed, that is unacceptable to them in much the same way as a solution to protect jobs that didn't demonize immigrants wouldn't be acceptable to the other group discussed.

I'm not claiming feminism is something it's not. I'm drawing conclusions based on the outcomes. Try addressing them.

I often do criticize where the problems came from in the first place, and that place is often feminism. Sometimes not, but very often it is. Also; "The last labour government" Feminism is hegemonic, it has to take responsibility for society. If the Tories were in power for 70 years and uplifted white people only, you'd realize how absurd this kind of denial of responsibility is. You already do, when it comes to "The last labour government" I would wager.

[Ostroeuropa]

There isn't an answer that doesn't imply the erasure of mens issues in order to misframe expansion of female privilege as equality dude.

Do you think women should be paid more? Do you think they should be promoted more? How about, they should have less freedom and less flexibility and so on? That one at least would also be equality. The other two would not be.

When you look at the situation in its totality, it is clearly a mens issue and the solution is to expand mens rights. Women need nothing on this issue, the policy environment is already perfectly suited to their needs and nothing needs to change for them. And given that that is the case, why exactly are there so many womens lobbies working on the issue, and why is there such a push to "fix" the policy environment for women?

because the ideology of feminism results in anti-male sexism and female privilege.

They don't want the same pay and so on as men, at least that's not their primary concern. They want to continue validating their ridiculous concept of womanhood and identity. If they wanted equality, they'd back the MRM and resolve the problem, but to do that they'd have to reconsider what it means to be a woman and abandon victimhood. So instead we get the current farce of demanding womens work be valued equally to mens despite them doing less of it.

Yes I too have read harrison bergeron like everybody does in highschool.

I believe in equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. While the topics you touched upon are valid concerns that is not what women's rights is about. Though I sense we're in agreement on that topic. I dont agree with radical feminism at all the same I dont agree with radical manosphere politics as mentioned in this thread. But the more I talk to you the clearer it becomes that you can only view it in such terms. Its tragic. You simply cant differentiate between those elements.

I can disagree with radical gender politics while supporting the rights of men and women. I acknowledge that the elements of feminism you mentioned do exist, but you can't seem to acknowledge theres more to feminism than its radical permutations.

I've yet to be provided with any evidence for their existence, no. Lot's of people claiming that dead hobo's isn't what stabbing hobo's is about and that's the radical murderers who cause that, and a lot of lack of self-awareness or awareness of the consequences of their behavior, denial of the outcomes inevitable from it and so on, but no actual evidence of moderates.

Just a lot of feminists in denial.

"But that's bad, so that can't be a consequence of stabbing this hobo. It must be some other process that caused that."

[Nevertopia]

When you generalise all feminism as "hating men" then yes, it is.

When you have no evidence to support your claim that they "pretend to face systamatic sexism" then yes it is generalising.

When you deny the truth that woman do want the same pay for the same job men do, then that is, well not generalising, but a stupid claim.

You will never know what a woman goes through in the work place, as a woman will not know what a man goes through in the work place. But generalising feminism, or believing it to be something that it is not does not help the problems that occur for both men and women.

Perhaps you should stop pouring these problems men go through on feminism, and actually criticise the society that established these concepts in the first place.

Concluding that feminism inevitably results in anti-male sexism is not the same as claiming all feminism is hating men. It's an analysis of the outcomes.

I have provided the evidence; the inconsistency of their views and how they line up far better with the explanation I provided than the one they provide. Similar to the "Protect our jobs from immigrants" crowd don't really care about jobs deep down, even if they like to think they do, because when shown evidence that their going about that topic the wrong way, they double down instead and lash out. They don't want to protect jobs, they want to pretend immigrants are stealing their jobs.

I have explained why it's not their core concern. I'm sure they do want the same pay for the same job as men do. But the priority seems to be to back something else. Similarly, i'm sure the protect our jobs crowd really do want more jobs and higher pay. But it's not their core concern. With this issue, if women wanted the same pay and promotion prospects, the solution has been articulated for decades by the MRM. But since it conflicts with their primary goal of pretending to be oppressed, that is unacceptable to them in much the same way as a solution to protect jobs that didn't demonize immigrants wouldn't be acceptable to the other group discussed.

I'm not claiming feminism is something it's not. I'm drawing conclusions based on the outcomes. Try addressing them.

I often do criticize where the problems came from in the first place, and that place is often feminism. Sometimes not, but very often it is. Also; "The last labour government" Feminism is hegemonic, it has to take responsibility for society. If the Tories were in power for 70 years and uplifted white people only, you'd realize how absurd this kind of denial of responsibility is. You already do, when it comes to "The last labour government" I would wager.

so close yet so far.