The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Aillyria]

My question is, as a female myself, what oppression do we in the west face that makes Feminism still relevant? I'm aware that the fringe extremist elements of the 3rd wave aren't representative of mainstream feminists, so what issues do moderate one advocate against?

'Oppression' is a loaded term; it makes more sense to thing about things in terms of advantages and disadvanatages to being a woman or a man. In general, we tend to think that people shouldn't have advantages or disadvantages placed on them from birth, and thus it makes sense to fight against them. Feminism is one such framework of fighting against those things.

Yes, I understand that. However, what are the perceived disadvantages women face in the west?

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, I understand that. However, what are the perceived disadvantages women face in the west?

Increased rate of sexual harassment and assault, disrespect and stereotyping of femininity and female gender roles, continuing disparity in positions of power.

Those are the three big ones that remain here in Glorious West. They're bad, but the rhetoric of some is... overblown, to say the least.

[Jello Biafra]

Two things here interest me, Biafra.

"women tend to wait until they are more qualified than men to run for the same office"

Needing to be more qualified in order to have an equal shot is not equality. Knowing that one needs to be more qualified in order to have an equal shot is going to make a person risk-averse.

The fact that people tend to wait until they're more qualified doesn't mean it's necessary. If I'm not mistaken, many studies have shown that, on average, women are more risk-averse than men, and, especially important to politics, that while men under stress take more risks, women under stress take fewer risks. The jury is still out on whether the perception of women as risk-averse causes what is recorded and observed, if it's biological, or a mixture of both; I personally think it's the latter.

Wanting to be more qualified because you want to make the odds fall more in your favor is irrelevant to equality.

It's not that women wanted to be more qualified in order to increase their odds, it's that actually being more qualified only results in an equal result that is relevant to equality. Certainly, it's possible that qualification has little effect on political decision-making, but in general, one would except that the more qualified group would see an advantage, rather than a level playing field.

I believe the idea is that we (generally) want women to be feminine and men to be masculine; especially the latter, when it comes to politicians. A man being feminine is bad, a female being feminine is good.

The people in the experiment responded more strongly to the woman taking on the 'Trump' role, suggesting just the opposite - that a female being feminine is not good. Alternatively it could suggest that a female being feminine is good, but a female being masculine is better.

[Wysten]

Yes, I understand that. However, what are the perceived disadvantages women face in the west?

Increased rate of sexual harassment and assault, disrespect and stereotyping of femininity and female gender roles, continuing disparity in positions of power.

Those are the three big ones that remain here in Glorious West. They're bad, but the rhetoric of some is... overblown, to say the least.

While I do believe rape and sexual assault are all terrible things the rhetoric is way to overblown and we should try to calm that down first before we move on.
Male stereotypes are also negative as well we have the redneck the dumb jock the weak geek and though I do agree that if you are in a family that the husband should be the breadwinner and the woman should take care of the children in an ideal situation but I get it if you want dual income.
The positions of power thing I think should balance with more and more women being ahead with collage degrees and graduation.

[Galloism]

Nope, just unironic sexist feminism. There have been elements of feminism that have been deeply sexist largely since the beginning, and they are only getting louder in recent times. It shows up quite often, as we've demonstrated here frequently. People are deserting the movement over it. The sex negative feminists, in particular, are deeply sexist against women - treating them as children who can't make their own decisions.

So sexists who weren't really feminists at all are abandoning the movement and this is a problem because...

No, sexists are staying. The egalitarians are leaving.

As noted:

In a yes/no question on "are you a feminist" - only 18% of Americans self-identify as feminists. However, 78% believe in total economic, social, and political equality. The vast majority of those who believe in equality are NOT feminist.

Again, people are deserting the movement BECAUSE they want to be for equality.

No they just want an echo chamber and they left when it got too uncomfortable for them.

Hell of an assertion, given we're here - NOT in an echo chamber.

If you want an echo chamber, head to r/2xchromosomes

Sargon IS a garbage person. So is Anita. They deserve each other so much it's not even funny.

Yes, how dare Atita crtisise video game sexism! She clearly is as bad as a man who harasses women on twitter for a living.

Anita is a professional victim. She's not the only one.

That being said, when Anita literally verbally attacked a silently and respectfully sitting Sargon from the stage where she had the microphone...

Well, the event apologized to her.

You think it's acceptable to tweet rape threats at a woman who was a rape survivor?

He said he wouldn't rape her. That's literally the opposite of a rape threat.

What he said was terrible, although not as terrible as the time the feminist on nationstates suggested that if my rapist had offered me coffee the whole thing would have been smoothed over, and he deserves to be rebuked for that. That being said, I wouldn't call out Chessmistress in a public forum and start harassing her from the stage while I had the microphone either.

[Galloism]

That's an absolutely ridiculous way to define privilege. Next time you see a black man sentenced to ten years because he sold an ounce of weed, I want you to tell him about his black privilege and how he's more likely to be an NBA star so he shouldn't complain due to his black privilege.

Being an NBA star is not a right or immunity enjoyed beyond the advantages of most. It could perhaps be a benefit.

Neither is being a politician or a judge. Are you admitting that's not an example of male privilege?

It is not. Men do not work in men's best interests.

They wouldn't need to in order for male privilege to exist.

It would need to be true in order for a majority of men existing in positions of power to be indicative of male privilege. If they don't work to better men, then it's not a privilege that men enjoy.

Women also are also just as likely as men to win. They just have to decide to run. If women are empowered people, then they can make their own decisions.

Yet:



The problem isn't people not being willing to vote for women. It's that women are choosing not to run. This may have to do with women statistically being more risk averse than men in general principle, and politics being a very risky endeavor.

From the NYTimes article:

"women tend to wait until they are more qualified than men to run for the same office"

Needing to be more qualified in order to have an equal shot is not equality. Knowing that one needs to be more qualified in order to have an equal shot is going to make a person risk-averse.

I don't think they do. The vast majority of people do not take gender into account when choosing candidates. It's mostly party.

However, it seems likely that women actually get a bonus when running. When the Hillary/Trump debates were gender reversed, Trump came off as likeable, simple, and a better candidate, while Hillary came off much much worse.

In fact, it's likely that gender helped Clinton more than hurt her, which the poll data seems to indicate.

The poll data did not seem to indicate this:

"I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy. People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad."

If being feminine is bad, then how is being a woman a benefit?

A man being feminine is bad. A woman being feminine is not bad. A man being masculine is good. A woman being masculine is also good (in this context, but probably not other contexts).

There's a restriction here, and it's not on women.

Not in of itself no. If that were the case, but you could not find any discriminatory action anywhere in the justice system, then it's probably that it's a statistical anomaly or there's another factor. Fortunately that's never been my argument. I've pointed out studies pointing out that men are disproportionately charged, convicted, imprisoned, and receive 60% more time for the same crimes compared with women. That's evidence of discrimination.

The other is a cause to go looking for evidence. That's all.

A cause to go looking for (further) evidence is evidence in itself. It's not as if these things are investigated randomly.

I mean, by that logic, literally everything is evidence of God, up to and including existence.

[Mattopilos II]

'Oppression' is a loaded term; it makes more sense to thing about things in terms of advantages and disadvanatages to being a woman or a man. In general, we tend to think that people shouldn't have advantages or disadvantages placed on them from birth, and thus it makes sense to fight against them. Feminism is one such framework of fighting against those things.

Yes, I understand that. However, what are the perceived disadvantages women face in the west?

This just reeks of relative privation. Please don't make that argument.

The hypocrisy and lack of self awareness in your posting is almost impressive.

How many warnings and nations have you gone through for bad faith flamebaiting and flaming? Pretty sure it's upwards of three already.

This view, that either you are a feminist or a misogynist, is taught commonly and the views are encouraged in much of popular media.

Who was the one who started spurting random crap about Marxism in a conversation again? I am not sure if you are unintentionally not self-aware, or if you think it is funny.

[Wysten]

Yes, I understand that. However, what are the perceived disadvantages women face in the west?

This just reeks of relative privation. Please don't make that argument.

This view, that either you are a feminist or a misogynist, is taught commonly and the views are encouraged in much of popular media.

Who was the one who started spurting random crap about Marxism in a conversation again? I am not sure if you are unintentionally not self-aware, or if you think it is funny.

Because Marxism and Feminism are now both in the same camp as they judge people based on the collective than by the individual.

[Mattopilos II]

This just reeks of relative privation. Please don't make that argument.





Who was the one who started spurting random crap about Marxism in a conversation again? I am not sure if you are unintentionally not self-aware, or if you think it is funny.

Because Marxism and Feminism are now both in the same camp as they judge people based on the collective than by the individual.

I have a feeling you don't know much about the history and types of feminism if you make that kind of argument. There is a type of feminism termed Marxist Feminism, but the idea feminism and Marxism, ALL OF IT, share a common "collective over the individual" is pretty stupid.

[Wysten]

Because Marxism and Feminism are now both in the same camp as they judge people based on the collective than by the individual.

I have a feeling you don't know much about the history and types of feminism if you make that kind of argument. There is a type of feminism termed Marxist Feminism, but the idea feminism and Marxism, ALL OF IT, share a common "collective over the individual" is pretty stupid.

Modern 3rd wave does judge people via collective "you are a man oh you oppress people". 1st and 2nd have both fought for the rights of the individual woman.

[Mattopilos II]

I have a feeling you don't know much about the history and types of feminism if you make that kind of argument. There is a type of feminism termed Marxist Feminism, but the idea feminism and Marxism, ALL OF IT, share a common "collective over the individual" is pretty stupid.

Modern 3rd wave does judge people via collective "you are a man oh you oppress people". 1st and 2nd have both fought for the rights of the individual woman.

Who in the modern 3rd wave? Who in the collective? The 1st and 2nd waves are responsible for TERFs and SWERFs - does that make them more or less for individual women? Do you know of the ideas of 1st and second wavers? Would you say they are more or less progressive?

[Galloism]

Modern 3rd wave does judge people via collective "you are a man oh you oppress people". 1st and 2nd have both fought for the rights of the individual woman.

Who in the modern 3rd wave? Who in the collective? The 1st and 2nd waves are responsible for TERFs and SWERFs - does that make them more or less for individual women? Do you know of the ideas of 1st and second wavers? Would you say they are more or less progressive?

Honestly, I'm pretty sure 3rd wave is Schrodinger's wave. I can't seem to find anyone who is a major figure in "third wave" that's agreed upon. I can't even find a third wave feminist that everyone agrees is feminist.

[Mattopilos II]

Who in the modern 3rd wave? Who in the collective? The 1st and 2nd waves are responsible for TERFs and SWERFs - does that make them more or less for individual women? Do you know of the ideas of 1st and second wavers? Would you say they are more or less progressive?

Honestly, I'm pretty sure 3rd wave is Schrodinger's wave. I can't seem to find anyone who is a major figure in "third wave" that's agreed upon. I can't even find a third wave feminist that everyone agrees is feminist.

Exactly, hence I can't understand why 1. people support the 3rd wave yet can't seem to agree what it stands for, or 2. attack it yet can't understand what it stands for.

[Proctopeo]

Two things here interest me, Biafra.


The fact that people tend to wait until they're more qualified doesn't mean it's necessary. If I'm not mistaken, many studies have shown that, on average, women are more risk-averse than men, and, especially important to politics, that while men under stress take more risks, women under stress take fewer risks. The jury is still out on whether the perception of women as risk-averse causes what is recorded and observed, if it's biological, or a mixture of both; I personally think it's the latter.

Wanting to be more qualified because you want to make the odds fall more in your favor is irrelevant to equality.

It's not that women wanted to be more qualified in order to increase their odds, it's that actually being more qualified only results in an equal result that is relevant to equality. Certainly, it's possible that qualification has little effect on political decision-making, but in general, one would except that the more qualified group would see an advantage, rather than a level playing field.

That's a tall claim. Any evidence?

I believe the idea is that we (generally) want women to be feminine and men to be masculine; especially the latter, when it comes to politicians. A man being feminine is bad, a female being feminine is good.

The people in the experiment responded more strongly to the woman taking on the 'Trump' role, suggesting just the opposite - that a female being feminine is not good. Alternatively it could suggest that a female being feminine is good, but a female being masculine is better.

The latter is more likely. Of course, "masculine" and "feminine" are subjective measures; it's likely because many of the traits often associated with the concept of "masculine", specifically courage, independence, and assertiveness, are considered positive traits for politicians. I call this "serendipity".

[New Edom]

Yes, I understand that. However, what are the perceived disadvantages women face in the west?

This just reeks of relative privation. Please don't make that argument.

This view, that either you are a feminist or a misogynist, is taught commonly and the views are encouraged in much of popular media.

Who was the one who started spurting random crap about Marxism in a conversation again? I am not sure if you are unintentionally not self-aware, or if you think it is funny.

It was not random. It was historically accurate. If you wish to discuss it, please do.

Anyway, prove to me that what I said is NOT true. That the standard rebuttal to anyone questioning a feminist approach to policy is not "either you support feminism or you are a misogyninst" The #Metoo movement recently spurred a number of articles that not only said it was about women, citing the usual popular but questionable facts and figures, but also articles intended to demand male support. As usual these demands stress that men don't do enough for women and that the fight against sexual misconduct is waged by braves feminists, alone. These articles were launched from popular media and were supported by modern feminist activist leaders.

[Aillyria]

Yes, I understand that. However, what are the perceived disadvantages women face in the west?

This just reeks of relative privation. Please don't make that argument.

This view, that either you are a feminist or a misogynist, is taught commonly and the views are encouraged in much of popular media.

Who was the one who started spurting random crap about Marxism in a conversation again? I am not sure if you are unintentionally not self-aware, or if you think it is funny.

How does my post "reek of privation"?

[Hirota]

The hypocrisy and lack of self awareness in your posting is almost impressive.

How many warnings and nations have you gone through for bad faith flamebaiting and flaming? Pretty sure it's upwards of three already.

And we have more attacks on my character. My being sanctioned by the mods doesn't make my arguments less valid.

Your arguements are only based on attacking other people's character. And yet here you are bleating on and playing the victim because apparently we attack your character and you are always the victim.

That's why you are a hypocrite. That's why you lack self awareness.

I point out your warning and deletion history because it does not seem to have sunk into that skull of yours that this kind of behaviour does not work.

[Sernarbia]

So sexists who weren't really feminists at all are abandoning the movement and this is a problem because...

No, sexists are staying. The egalitarians are leaving.

No, sexists who call themselves egalitarians are leaving.

No they just want an echo chamber and they left when it got too uncomfortable for them.

Hell of an assertion, given we're here - NOT in an echo chamber.

Yes, and look how agitated you are getting just because someone disagrees with you.

Yes, how dare Atita crtisise video game sexism! She clearly is as bad as a man who harasses women on twitter for a living.

Anita is a professional victim. She's not the only one.

Sorry, I forgot only men can be victims.

You think it's acceptable to tweet rape threats at a woman who was a rape survivor?

He said he wouldn't rape her. That's literally the opposite of a rape threat.

So you condone harassing rape victims on twitter? Lovely.

What he said was terrible, although not as terrible as the time the feminist on nationstates suggested that if my rapist had offered me coffee the whole thing would have been smoothed over, and he deserves to be rebuked for that. That being said, I wouldn't call out Chessmistress in a public forum and start harassing her from the stage while I had the microphone either.

Because god forbid anyone criticise Sargon.

[Sernarbia]

And we have more attacks on my character. My being sanctioned by the mods doesn't make my arguments less valid.

Your arguements are only based on attacking other people's character. And yet here you are bleating on and playing the victim because apparently we attack your character and you are always the victim.

I have simply presented views that are contrary to that of antifeminism. Sorry is that makes me evil.

That's why you are a hypocrite. That's why you lack self awareness.

I point out your warning and deletion history because it does not seem to have sunk into that skull of yours that this kind of behaviour does not work.

We are all very familiar with this site's over-zealous moderators. Doesn't make my points less valid.

[Ostroeuropa]

Your arguements are only based on attacking other people's character. And yet here you are bleating on and playing the victim because apparently we attack your character and you are always the victim.

I have simply presented views that are contrary to that of antifeminism. Sorry is that makes me evil.

That's why you are a hypocrite. That's why you lack self awareness.

I point out your warning and deletion history because it does not seem to have sunk into that skull of yours that this kind of behaviour does not work.

We are all very familiar with this site's over-zealous moderators. Doesn't make my points less valid.

"Rape victims are being forced to give their rapists money by the govrernment for about 18 years, here's some examples and a study on it."
->
"You're an MRA though so i don't care that that is happening."

Notice how feminists haven't brought it up. This is the problem. You think feminism = good, and things from outside the movement are evil, so you're ignoring all the suffering that feminists simply don't talk about because it's to do with men. It's like a horse wearing blinders adamantly insisting there is no left or right only forward, and using that to justify refusing to remove the blinders because there's "Nothing else to see".

But on top of that, you have this impulse to call everyone who knows more than you and is more informed than you about sexism because they "read more than one book" so to speak, bad people.

Whose the bad person here.
The person bringing up that rape victims are being forced to pay money to rapists?
Or the person who wants to shut down that conversation because it's sourced in a movement that criticizes yours, and criticizes yours because it;

1. Doesn't talk about this stuff
2. Shuts conversations about it down
3. Actively lobbied to create this problem in the first place due to a lack of care or empathy with men or their perspectives, and that's the charitable interpretation, the other is that they're actively malevolent. Either feminism is inadequate and unfit for purpose, or evil. There are no other options, and this pattern repeats itself wherever the mindset and framework is applied.

You say i'm engaging in bad faith.

1.
intent to deceive.
2. refusal to confront facts or choices.


Which of these do you think i'm falling afoul of?
Because like hirota said, that's some astounding lack of self-awareness when it comes to definition 2, as you've literally refused to confront evidence based on the source.

You think my intent is to deceive? Based on what, that it goes against your divinely revealed scriptures, that definitionally aren't ever wrong?

Lots of Feminists seem to have a terrible case of Vorbisism.

"Truth lies within, not without. In the words of the Great God Om, as delivered through his chosen prophets. Our eyes may deceive us, but our God never will."

(Said by Vorbis in Small Gods to explain why he is rejecting the existence of a thing his religion says doesn't exist, despite it being right in front of him.)

Swap out for feminist ideology and you're set. It's why it's so utterly failing to make accurate predictions, you know, the hallmark of a legitimate ideology.

[Sernarbia]

I have simply presented views that are contrary to that of antifeminism. Sorry is that makes me evil.



We are all very familiar with this site's over-zealous moderators. Doesn't make my points less valid.

"Rape victims are being forced to give their rapists money by the govrernment for about 18 years, here's some examples and a study on it."
->
"You're an MRA though so i don't care that that is happening."

No, you're an MRA and I don't trust you enough to take your words as gospel.

Notice how feminists haven't brought it up. This is the problem. You think feminism = good, and things from outside the movement are evil, so you're ignoring all the suffering that feminists simply don't talk about because it's to do with men.

1. You don't know they haven't brought it up.

2. I think anti feminists are mostly misguided rather than evil. You on the other hand...

It's like a horse wearing blinders adamantly insisting there is no left or right only forward, and using that to justify refusing to remove the blinders because there's "Nothing else to see".

Like you do with feminism.

But on top of that, you have this impulse to call everyone who knows more than you and is more informed than you about sexism because they "read more than one book" so to speak, bad people.

No, I call people who condone harassment or excuse it for ideological reasons bad people.

Whose the bad person here.
The person bringing up that rape victims are being forced to pay money to rapists?
Or the person who wants to shut down that conversation because it's sourced in a movement that criticizes yours, and criticizes yours because it;

1. Doesn't talk about this stuff

Says you.

2. Shuts conversations about it down

Really? Where?

3. Actively lobbied to create this problem in the first place due to a lack of care or empathy with men or their perspectives, and that's the charitable interpretation, the other is that they're actively malevolent. Either feminism is inadequate and unfit for purpose, or evil. There are no other options, and this pattern repeats itself wherever the mindset and framework is applied.

So you MRAs make up a problem, then you blame feminists for not dealing with it. Why should they deal with an inane conspiracy that has no proof outside a wordpress blog written by an MRA?

You say i'm engaging in bad faith.

1.
intent to deceive.
2. refusal to confront facts or choices.


Which of these do you think i'm falling afoul of?
Because like hirota said, that's some astounding lack of self-awareness when it comes to definition 2, as you've literally refused to confront evidence based on the source.

It's a fucking wordpress blog! It's one step below a geocities page!

You think my intent is to deceive? Based on what, that it goes against your divinely revealed scriptures, that definitionally aren't ever wrong?

Based on it being a FUCKING BLOG WRITTEN BY AN MRA!

[Ostroeuropa]

"Rape victims are being forced to give their rapists money by the govrernment for about 18 years, here's some examples and a study on it."
->
"You're an MRA though so i don't care that that is happening."

No, you're an MRA and I don't trust you enough to take your words as gospel.

Notice how feminists haven't brought it up. This is the problem. You think feminism = good, and things from outside the movement are evil, so you're ignoring all the suffering that feminists simply don't talk about because it's to do with men.

1. You don't know they haven't brought it up.

2. I think anti feminists are mostly misguided rather than evil. You on the other hand...

It's like a horse wearing blinders adamantly insisting there is no left or right only forward, and using that to justify refusing to remove the blinders because there's "Nothing else to see".

Like you do with feminism.

But on top of that, you have this impulse to call everyone who knows more than you and is more informed than you about sexism because they "read more than one book" so to speak, bad people.

No, I call people who condone harassment or excuse it for ideological reasons bad people.

Whose the bad person here.
The person bringing up that rape victims are being forced to pay money to rapists?
Or the person who wants to shut down that conversation because it's sourced in a movement that criticizes yours, and criticizes yours because it;

1. Doesn't talk about this stuff

Says you.

2. Shuts conversations about it down

Really? Where?

3. Actively lobbied to create this problem in the first place due to a lack of care or empathy with men or their perspectives, and that's the charitable interpretation, the other is that they're actively malevolent. Either feminism is inadequate and unfit for purpose, or evil. There are no other options, and this pattern repeats itself wherever the mindset and framework is applied.

So you MRAs make up a problem, then you blame feminists for not dealing with it. Why should they deal with an inane conspiracy that has no proof outside a wordpress blog written by an MRA?

You say i'm engaging in bad faith.

1.
intent to deceive.
2. refusal to confront facts or choices.


Which of these do you think i'm falling afoul of?
Because like hirota said, that's some astounding lack of self-awareness when it comes to definition 2, as you've literally refused to confront evidence based on the source.

It's a fucking wordpress blog! It's one step below a geocities page!

You think my intent is to deceive? Based on what, that it goes against your divinely revealed scriptures, that definitionally aren't ever wrong?

Based on it being a FUCKING BLOG WRITTEN BY AN MRA!

1. Right, you're outright ignoring evidence that doesn't come from your preachers. "You're scientist, not a priest, I don't need to take your stuff on evolution seriously."

2. Go ahead. Find a feminist publication who has brought it up and prove me wrong. I'm alleging a thing doesn't exist, you're alleging it does. The positive burden of proof is on you.

3. No, see, i'm well aware of the things feminist bring up and their studies. It's just that i'm also aware of the flaws in those studies. I never ignore what they say.
I know feminism inside and out. It's just I also know more than feminism. Much like knowing creationism and also evolutionary biology, as opposed to knowing creationism and thinking evolutionary biology is alligators coming from ducks.

4. Sort of like these feminists? https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... /?sort=top
(Note, patriarchy theory being used explicitly to excuse sexual assault. Much like it is used to excuse or shut down attempts to help male victims of rape, DV, etc.)

5. Find the evidence for your assertion.

6. Pretty much any MRM meeting or lobbying will end up having feminists protesting it. Feminist who think like you do are also all over institutions of power, and refuse outright to consider evidence sources outside of their movement and will refuse to engage with it, thus shutting down the conversation. Like if cops just outright refused to believe black people could be victims of crimes and kept that up constantly while doing their jobs.

7. You say it's made up. This is an example of you excusing/rationalizing it. It's not made up. The evidence for it is right there.
http://www.businessinsider.com/male-sta ... 014-9?IR=T

This is an example of you, again, refusing to believe things that go against your dogma. Creationists being adamantly opposed to recognizing facts isn't a conspiracy, and nor is feminist refusal to engage with facts. You call it a conspiracy theory because you have a faulty line of code in your thinking somewhere and cannot conceive of feminism simply being an inaccurate was to view the world.

Child support being an inherently anti-male rape victim idea is not something made up, it's an obvious consequence of it when you bother to actually consider mens view, perspective, and problems, something feminists failed to do when they lobbied for it, because the feminist worldview necessarily prevents them doing that well. The reason all the policies they advocate for end up hurting men is that there's a constant rejection of mens issues due to the feminists indoctrination. Like you did just now. "Made up problem." that's the toxic mindset that caused this sytem to be put in place. Your continuing adherence to a world view that victimizes rape victims, domestic violence victims, etc, also shows you don't ACTUALLY hold principles against rape or domestic violence, you just dislike men or are overbearingly obsessed with women.

8. The blog contains other links to studies and such. You're essentially arguing you refuse to take MRM sources seriously because feminists control most of the actual institutions. "This isn't a paper run by the aristocrats who own all the papers, so I don't need to read it." You also refuse to engage with the MRM because feminists have told you they are possessed by demons or some shit, much like the ultrareligious tell their people about atheists or whatever. You view them as necessarily inherently wrong and bad, because you've been told the well comes pre-poisoned. You aren't willing to take an actual step back and analyze the evidence from a materialist, skeptical, and scientific mindset, because your religion is so ingrained into your view of being a good person you are scared of doing that.
Like all those religious fundamentalists who think all morality stems from the 10 commandments and it's not possible to be good without god, you are that, but a feminist.

[Ostroeuropa]

In Switzerland, all male citizens are involuntarily conscripted into the military. Officers serve longer times are also chosen involuntarily. Men who are exempt pay 3% higher income tax, and even those handicapped must pay at tax.
This tax does not applied to disabled women, or women at all.
Women can voluntarily join the army.

"Made up issue."

Note that the 3% tax reveals the line that this is a type of misogyny to be a lie. If it were, women would also be subjected to the tax. Rather, the tax is levied against males who fail to fulfill their role, whereas women are allowed to choose to do what they like. This shows that it isn't about women being lesser, it is about men being obligated.

Another example of feminism failing to give an accurate model for understanding sexism.

Beyond that, the Swiss vote on conscription saw a majority of women vote for the continuation of the practice.

[Sernarbia]

1. Right, you're outright ignoring evidence that doesn't come from your preachers. "You're scientist, not a priest, I don't need to take your stuff on evolution seriously."

Give me a source less biased that a mens rights blog then we'll talk.

2. Go ahead. Find a feminist publication who has brought it up and prove me wrong. I'm alleging a thing doesn't exist, you're alleging it does. The positive burden of proof is on you.

[Han Solo] That's not how burden of proof works![/Han Solo]

3. No, see, i'm well aware of the things feminist bring up and their studies. It's just that i'm also aware of the flaws in those studies. I never ignore what they say.
I know feminism inside and out. It's just I also know more than feminism. Much like knowing creationism and also evolutionary biology, as opposed to knowing creationism and thinking evolutionary biology is alligators coming from ducks.

Nah, you guys are more like climate change deniers. Except with you it's rape culture and wage gaps.

4. Sort of like these feminists? https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... /?sort=top
(Note, patriarchy theory being used explicitly to excuse sexual assault. Much like it is used to excuse or shut down attempts to help male victims of rape, DV, etc.)

>Men's Rights subreddit. Right.

5. Find the evidence for your assertion.

You first.

6. Pretty much any MRM meeting or lobbying will end up having feminists protesting it. Feminist who think like you do are also all over institutions of power, and refuse outright to consider evidence sources outside of their movement and will refuse to engage with it, thus shutting down the conversation.

Are feminists the new Jews?

Like if cops just outright refused to believe black people could be victims of crimes and kept that up constantly while doing their jobs.

So...like it is right now?

7. You say it's made up. This is an example of you excusing/rationalizing it. It's not made up. The evidence for it is right there.
http://www.businessinsider.com/male-sta ... 014-9?IR=T

If it's rue then it's fucked up. Doesn't mean feminists are all evil though.

This is an example of you, again, refusing to believe things that go against your dogma. Creationists being adamantly opposed to recognizing facts isn't a conspiracy, and nor is feminist refusal to engage with facts. You call it a conspiracy theory because you have a faulty line of code in your thinking somewhere and cannot conceive of feminism simply being an inaccurate way to view the world.

And you don't have 'faulty code' when it comes to feminism?

Child support being an inherently anti-male rape victim idea is not something made up, it's an obvious consequence of it when you bother to actually consider mens view, perspective, and problems, something feminists failed to do when they lobbied for it, because the feminist worldview necessarily prevents them doing that well. The reason all the policies they advocate for end up hurting men is that there's a constant rejection of mens issues due to the feminists indoctrination. Like you did just now. "Made up problem." that's the toxic mindset that caused this sytem to be put in place. Your continuing adherence to a world view that victimizes rape victims, domestic violence victims, etc, also shows you don't ACTUALLY hold principles against rape or domestic violence, you just dislike men or are overbearingly obsessed with women.

So many assumptions in that paragraph...

8. The blog contains other links to studies and such. You're essentially arguing you refuse to take MRM sources seriously because feminists control most of the actual institutions. "This isn't a paper run by the aristocrats who own all the papers, so I don't need to read it." You also refuse to engage with the MRM because feminists have told you they are possessed by demons or some shit, much like the ultrareligious tell their people about atheists or whatever. You view them as necessarily inherently wrong and bad, because you've been told the well comes pre-poisoned.

Yes I've been brainwashed by the evil feminazis! It can't be that I say how you behaved during Gamergate!

You aren't willing to take an actual step back and analyze the evidence from a materialist, skeptical, and scientific mindset, because your religion is so ingrained into your view of being a good person you are scared of doing that.
Like all those religious fundamentalists who think all morality stems from the 10 commandments and it's not possible to be good without god, you are that, but a feminist.

The only one around here whos acting like a creationist is you.

[Knask]

Damned Swiss feminists, working to keep men down. And for the third time this century too - even though not all Swiss cantons allowed women to vote during the first vote in 1989, but that's no excuse!

Recently, when the all-female Swiss parliament recently introduced a mandatory information day about military service for women, the feminists spit in the eyes of all men everywhere by saying this:

Kathrin Bertschy, vice-president of feminist umbrella group Alliance F, welcomed the move, saying the principle of military service should apply to all.

Still trying to keep men down!