You will be no better than the people you’ll fight against. I’ve seen it happen on every pro-men subreddit, and if this place isn’t aggressively moderated to dispel hopelessness, negativity, and prejudice, it’ll just turn into hate.
Incel, mens-rights activist, red-pill, black-pill, MGTOW, etc. don’t let the haters join otherwise this community will end up just like the aforementioned.
Egalitarian from a male perspective is what we should be, not pro-male (I say male because of sex and gender).
Be excellent to each other.
Everyone can pretend to be feminist, there’s no law against that. Just as everyone can pretend to be egalitarian. It’s just a label with no worth, if no actions follow the word.
No ‘real’ feminist would disagree, that there currently is a lack of focus on disadvantaged men in shitty living situations. An example of this being domestic violence. But had it not been for the efforts of feminists who initially brought attention to this issue affecting women, there would not be a helpline in Germany today that caters to men in similar situations. They paved the way.
Imo your comment is too black and white, leaving no space for how greyish reality truly is. In real life the feminists aware of these problems outnumber the ones who are ignorant of them. And you make it sound like they are taking away from us ‘men’, when we are all victims of the same powers of oppression.
So what you’re saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists… they are not “real feminists”.
That’s not just “no true Scotsman”. That’s delusional self deception.
Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don’t care. I’ve been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they’ve done under the banner of feminism, maybe you’d stop calling yourself one.
But I want you to know. You don’t matter. You’re not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: “Well, that’s just a clean-up word for wife-beating,” and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, “we know it’s not girls beating up boys, it’s boys beating up girls.”
You’re not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta’s Network of Women’s Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.
You’re not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were “ambivalent about their sexual desires” (if you don’t know what that means, it’s that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC’s research because it’s inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.
You’re not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.
You’re not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.
You’re not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.
You’re not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.
You’re not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.
You’re not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman’s history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it’s “part of her sexual history.”
You’re not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman’s mouth is “not a crime” in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You’re not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there’s a “legal” way to rape them.
And you’re none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.
You’re the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.
—-
Credit to Karen Straughn
I don’t even define myself as feminist? So the comment you put so much work in, was kinda pointless. I can align myself with most ideas of liberal feminism and I agree with some radical points as well. But that’s about it. My identity is not based on an ideology. And your comment just screams: I read and know a lot of one-sided facts about how I am being mistreated by the evil feminist agenda, but I never had an open discussion with a single feminist irl to get their actual points. You’re just a pawn in a game for attention and outrage. I’m not gonna get in on that game.
The facts (showing a myriad of sides) are out there, if you care enough. A normal sane person would not be stupid enough to believe most women have it generally easier on this planet than men. And would also understand why fighting for their rights simply means survival in some situations.
The comment you clearly didn’t read as i credited the original author at the end?
Also, you may not call yourself a feminist, but there’s feminist bullshit spilling from your mouth so i’ma go ahead and treat you like one.
Yes they are, you should try caring instead of defending a sexist supremacist hate group.
This is blatantly false, because a sane informed person would obviously see that men literally bleed and die making women’s lives easier, and no one does the same for men, so you’d have to be stupid enough to completely ignore reality to believe women have harder lives than men, basically across the board.
Men die more frequently in basically every category except pregnancy death. Your bullshit is getting boring, go troll elsewhere.
Jeez you’re too toxic to discuss with. Sad to see people like you found there way on here. Got better ways to waste my time.
Removed for personal attack.
From a feminist? How shocking.
Feminism is a political ideology, and in order to understand what a political ideology entails, you need to look at how it is applied to the real world. ‘Real’ communism is supposed to bring about a utopia in which resources are fairly distributed and everyone works as best they can to aid one another. In reality, communism has resulted in mass murder, famine and some of the most cruel dictatorships the modern world has seen.
‘Real’ capitalism is supposed to ensure that everyone produces what they are best at producing, and market forces should ensure that we get the best quality and cheapest products we can have while also making everyone richer. In reality, capitalism results in the aggregation of wealth and power, misleading advertising, horrible working conditions for the poor, and rising inequality.
In the same vein, ‘real’ feminism might be supposed to create equality by tearing down the societal structures that keeps people down, ultimately helping everyone. But in reality, it simply empowers women at any cost, resulting in the marginalization and silencing of men.
A communist might genuinely want the best for the world and envision a utopia, but that doesn’t change how the ideology is applied. And ultimately, that is the measure of what the ideology truly is. The actions of the leaders are the determinant, not the opinions of random followers.
As it stands, right now feminism is applied in a way that either ignores or silences men. and thus, it is anti-male.
I mean yeah, not much I can say to that. Almost every ideology poses some sort of danger/benefit. But what can we make of it? Take the ‘good’ things and discard the ‘bad’ things. That’s why I don’t see why we should not take out the good things coming with feminism.
Also no society ever only entailed one single ideology. It’s always been a mix of different influences. At least if we are walking about it on a bigger level.
That’s not a fact, but an interpretation. So yeah, I disagree. I feel empowered by feminism as a man to be who I wanna be. E.g. to be emotional, caring without the fear being called a ‘pussy’.
It’s so funny how the things you say are “facts” and the things others say (if you disagree with it, that is) are “interpretations”, despite you not having a source for a damn thing.
Objection! Many men have the lived experience of our issues not being taken seriously, but rather them being dismissed. Men are often silenced, because “what about the women? Don’t they have it worse?” And the dismissive “patriarchy hurts men too.”
You’re just phrasing it differently. Where is your proof if you argue for it to be a scientific fact? Anecdotal ‘evidence’ ≠ scientic fact.
Every critique has its place. Whataboutism never helps.
And yeah it’s true, patriarchy hurts men as well. I experienced enough of that in my life.
For example, feminist Mary P. Koss is instrumental in the sexual assault statistics published by the CDC. She redefines rape as something that cannot be done by women to men, thus burying the evidence that rape is not a gendered crime. See https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
That is a systemic silencing of male issues.
Where is the quote by Mary P. Koss? And how would the quote of one presumably feminist author provide evidence for a systematic issue?
All I see is an article discussing how the CDC’s definition of rape should be rethought as it might lead to misinterpretation.
Also, what do you mean by rape is not a gendered crime? No matter the definition, the numbers from NIPSVS show more men are raping women, than women raping men… by a large margin. Even when accounting for ‘made to penetrate’ to be rape. And there’s no country on earth were this statistic will be reversed.
It’s easy to find on her Wikipedia page:
Because her work and her definitions are used by the APA, the CDC, the US Department of Justice, and the WHO.
Did you gloss over this part of the article in Time?
Hidden in the statistics is the finding that women rape men as often as men rape women.
Let’s stop hiding male victims.
And yet your argument still lacks.
From the CDC website:
This is the proof that I see. The CDC actively acknowledges rape by women. I don’t see the connection to Koss, aside from the controversial definition of rape, which I wrote about earlier.
Wrong again. It’s the TIME author’s stylistic interpretation to make fun of sensationalist, cherrypicking headlines and not actual scientific evidence. That’s also how the article started.
Once again if you look at the original NISVS data below, you can see that ‘made to penetrate’ is just one aspect of sexual violence. That’s what the TIME author based his statement on. Even if you count it as rape, there would still be double the amount of female rape victims. Additionally many of the male victims were also victims of other men.
To summarize, no scientific evidence for systematic silencing of male voices through feminism.
Are you familiar with the story of Erin Pizzey?
They very clearly do not care