Categories
antifeminism MRA reddit Uncategorized

>Hello, Men’s Rights Redditors!

>

I just noticed that someone posted a link to this blog on the Men’s Rights subreddit under the title “Male extremist feminists can be even more deluded than female ones…”  I would happily respond to this bit of idiocy in the Men’s Rights subreddit itself, but, alas, the moderator there has banned me because I have the subreddit listed in my “Enemies List.” The ban seems a bit silly. I discuss things with people in my “Enemies List” all the time, and they’re free to post here the same as anyone else.

But I have a question for you Men’s Rights Redditors. Since I can’t ask it there, I’ll ask it here, and you can respond here: What have I ever said on this blog (or elsewhere) that is in any way an example of feminist “extremism?” I challenge you to find a single “extremist” statement here, or a single example of misandry. (Note: Saying “oh, the whole blog is extremist” or “it’s obvious you’re an extremist” something along those lines is not an answer; it’s a way of begging the question.)

If I really am some sort of extremist, it should be quite easy to find specific examples of this extremism.

199 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
nicko81m
11 years ago

>"A woman who is good at playing her role is playing the role of someone who is dumber than men, who is weaker than men, who is good only as a caregiver and needing protection. These *roles* as they are written favor one class as the superior group."It depends how you look at it. To me, it seems that men had to go out in the real world and put up with the stress and physical labour from the demands of their employers in the work force. While women simply lived far less stressful and physically demanding lives as they only needs to take care of kids and do house work.The man paid for everything to keep the woman living. In other words, it seemed that the man was the woman's financial slave. And to get into this position, the man had get down on his knees and bare gold and jewellery for the woman to approve the marriage.It had nothing to do with women as being perceived as someone dumber than men. If that’s the case, please provide some proof. However, women perceived as someone weaker, yes this is the case as biology doesn’t lie. This is not sexist. And this is why men were put out to do all the hardest task to keep living while women had it easy at home.“he can play weak after assaulting a man and get the police to believe her, but that is not privilege because it is premised on the idea that she is naturally powerless, sweet, and needs protection.”THIS IS PRIVILEGE FFS. If she can manipulate the laws and judgements based on her gender, this is undeniably a privilege placed by gender. In other words, its also called having an incentive which all relates to having privilege.

M
M
11 years ago

>"Patriarchy" is shorthand for "the system" or any other term you want to use to describe a complex system of social relationships that ascribes gender roles and expectations. The idea that men must behave in these limiting ways and should be mocked and dehumanized for not behaving according to gender roles is part of a patriarchal, or kyriarchical, structure according to feminist thought. If you want to narrowly define the world privilege to mean "palpable material perks," go right ahead, but you are ceding the argument by being unable to address it head on. I already discussed intersectionality and privilege as something that is defined by relations.Nick, I just saw your most recent comments and again will ask you to actually put some effort into understanding what is meant by privilege in these contexts if you want me to continue responding openly here. You don't get to define everything from a place of ignorance of what is being discussed. To insist that you can do so is actually kinda…privileged of you.

ruomyesjnick
11 years ago

>MThe Prime Minister of Australia is a woman. The premier of Queensland is a woman. Women like Oprah Winfrey have more money and power than 99 percent of men in America. Women hold most of the jobs.Its funny how these so called societal disadvantages women have, there are still rich and powerful women that exists.I am also sure Margaret Thatcher has these societal disadvantages because she's a woman! Feminists need to stop blaming their own failures on men. It's time to grow up and act like adults instead of little children that want their ice cream handed to them for free on a silver platter.

Yohan
11 years ago

>M: Why do you guys always post stuff from the Daily Mail? That's like linking to Fox News. Grievance-driven yellow journalism is not proof of anything. Link a reputable source on the same subject, please. You want to say, that reports from the DailyMail are untrue?I don't think that reports of daily crimes against men (like the report of false rape allegations) or reports of biased court decisions are fakes.I am not linking always to the DailyMail, I often give links to TheLocal/Sweden and various other news agencies, I also give links to various research institutes.You in return, see this thread, provide links to finallyfeminism and youtube.

M
M
11 years ago

>See, as a feminist who regularly reads the work of, communicates with, and is friends with lots of other feminists I can say with authority that I know of no feminist who blames her failures on men. Not one. Again, if you want to use a school of thought or a multifaceted human rights movement as your foil you must know something about it to win your argument, and if you are truly ignorant of that which you're criticizing you have ceded the argument before you've even begun it."Its funny how these so called societal disadvantages women have, there are still rich and powerful women that exists."This is why I have been discussing privilege in an intersectionality context. If you want to ignore all that to pretend that I'm saying something highly simplistic, again, that's your prerogative, but you are ceding the argument by moving the goal posts here. Things are not this simple, and feminism does not insist that they are. *You* are insisting that it does, and you are reducing a school of thought you are apparently not all that familiar with to something facile here. Yohan, the Daily Mail's sensationalist reporting on individual incidents add nothing to a discussion of socioeconomic realities. And yes, I would suggest that their reporting is suspect. I provided links to Finally Feminism and YouTube to give examples of the kinds of ideas I'm talking about in order to define concepts like "privilege" and "benevolent sexism." That Finally Feminism blog exists specifically because it's tiring to explain these things again and again and again. It does not *prove* anything I'm saying, only provides definitions. Anyway, I have to get back to work now. Later.

ruomyesjnick
11 years ago

>MPatriarchy means men having dominance over women. Your example of patriarchy with the "grow a pair" opinion doesn't make sense. More than anything, it's male disadvantage. How on earth can male disadvantage be placed in the patriarchy category?This is another ploy feminists play when they play the blame game. In a feminist perspective, most or all problems women have are the fault of men. Most or all the problems men have are the fault of men. In other words, everything seems to be the fault of the evil menz.Your opinions on male privilege are unsubstantial and really don't make much sense. Like the typical feminist, you just pull things out of your ass and claim female oppression/male privilege under a faulty premise.

witman
11 years ago

>finallyfeminism!Finally! I am the MAN! THE MAN! Not only am I am man, I am a white man. I am THE MAN bow before me!!!God! That thing you feel, it is the quickening. There can only be one!!

witman
11 years ago

>Non-whites and women alike must bow before me for I AM THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

witman
11 years ago

>I'm not just a father/husband/son/uncle/etc I am THE MAN!!

witman
11 years ago

>Screw you guys not only am I THE MAN, I am taking my ball and going home!

witman
11 years ago

>Sorry, I'll take my ball home after this repost from AntZ@http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/01/01/staring-out-from-the-abyss/#comment-11389If you do not believe me, post this request on any feminist site — it does not matter which one, you can choose at random:“The sexist policy of commercial airlines prohibiting men, but not women, from sitting next to unaccompanied minors to prevent child abuse hurts both men and women. I ask for your help by writing protest letters to commissioner Gillian Calvert.As a fellow feminist, Commissioner Calvert is likely to listen to your request that she cease her support of this hateful policy. Suggested reasons that you might forward to Commissioner Calvert:1) There has never been a case of in -flight child abuse, so the sexist policy addresses a non-existent problem.2) Collective guilt is utterly immoral for any group of people, including men. Requiring all Muslims to sit at the back of the aircraft for security reasons would be equally morally repulsive.3) Even if the policy was needed and moral, selecting men, rather than women, for presumption of guilt makes no sense in light of the much higher incidence of female child abuse:1.1) Women are 34 % more likely than men to abuse children in general (p 65, US Dept Health & Human services “Child Maltreatment Report 2008)1.2) Women are 111% more likely than men to abuse their own children (272,000 mothers and 128,000 fathers (p. 51 of the same report).1.3) Women are 110% more likely than men to murder their own children (358 mothers and 170 fathers, p. 62 of the same report)Misguided collective presumption of guilt for all men hurts both men and women:Men are hurt for obvious reasons by a sickening sexist policy that shames and degrades all men for crimes that are primarily perpetuated by women.Women are hurt also, since the wide-spread perception of men as ‘depraved predators’ who are untrustworthy around vulnerable people makes it extremely difficult for any man to choose nurturing careers such as father, home-maker, or caretaker. Consequently, the majority of this (mostly unpaid) work ends up on the shoulders of women.”

witman
11 years ago

>David, this would be a great time for a new topic.Kirk out!

Raul Groom
11 years ago

>"Now I understand…I have the privilege to become a heavyweight boxing champion.Thank you for enlightening me."Do you want to become the heavyweight boxing champion? If so, you could give it a shot. Of course most people will fail at that. But no one is stopping you from trying.Probably you have other goals. You seem to see women and feminism as standing in the way of those goals. I, personally, have never experienced that. I've pursued chemical engineering (failed, but not because of women) filmmaking (jury's out, but lots of women have supported me and helped me on my way), fatherhood (WIN, big assist to the womenfolk especially my lovely wife), computer support (now retired, but it sustained and supported me for ten years – my best boss was a woman), and many other pursuits, successful and not.I just don't really understand what is it about feminism and, frankly, femininity itself that is repressing you. Women think you're creepy and don't want to fuck you? Reading between the lines, it sounds like you moved somewhere else where cultural expectations of men are different and now women don't think you're creepy. Good idea! That worked for a friend of mine and he's happily married to a Japanese woman.So what's the problem?

M
M
11 years ago

>Witman I hope all that gleeful posting after someone seemingly managed to get into my account, access my Google info and delete my most recent comment (which showed up at first, so I imagine someone deleted it) isn't you gloating! Cause whoever did that is the biggest baby the world has ever known. I wouldn't be proud of being a baby, but to each their own I guess.Anyway ruomyesjnick and Yohan, I responded to you but the comment was deleted by someone other than me.

Yohan
11 years ago

>This is strange, change your password and choose a very complicated one.Nobody else, except the owner of this blog (David) and you, log-in with your account can delete your postings.Spamfilter?

Yohan
11 years ago

>Raul Groom: I just don't really understand ….Reading between the lines, it sounds like you moved somewhere else where cultural expectations of men are different That worked for a friend of mine and he's happily married to a Japanese woman.So what's the problem? Yes, I did the same, moving 3 decades ago into Japan and never back.I do not have any problems now. – However I share my experience and help as MRA other men to avoid some serious mistakes in their life.I try to calm down angry Western men and advice them not to do something which might be illegal.For sure, all what I can say out of my experience, any contact with a Western female in a Western country is a high risk and might turn out as a financial disaster for the man, even he did nothing wrong and had the best intention.In countries outside of US/UK/EU – away from feminist laws – the situation for the man as husband or father is clearly better.Women might be the same, but laws are not the same everywhere.

Pam
Pam
11 years ago

>Spamfilter?That's what I'm thinking, too.

Raul Groom
11 years ago

>"For sure, all what I can say out of my experience, any contact with a Western female in a Western country is a high risk and might turn out as a financial disaster for the man, even he did nothing wrong and had the best intention."There is a certain specific type of man for whom that seems to be the case. There may be some value in encouraging those types of men to leave the West, or to avoid women.What you also seem to understand is that there is another type of man who does not have this problem. You have lots of derogatory terms for these men. But can't you see that it is in fact better to be a mangina, to enjoy the company of women and not risk disaster?

Yohan
11 years ago

>I said, any contact with a Western female in a Western country is a high risk.It's like a lottery, some woman might be good, some woman might be bad. Prenups are worthless.How do you know, who is who?It's the woman who decides. She needs you, she keeps you. Laws are against you, because you are a man.If she does not need you anymore, she goes with somebody else, gets pregnant from him, kicks you out and you still have to pay child support for her child and she is living with her boyfriend in your former house – and you are living in a van, as there is not even a shelter for you.As divorce rates are often 50+ percent, so you can imagine how risky a marriage is for a man and why many young men in Europe are not interested anymore in family and children.Alimony in UK to the ex-wife might be as long as for 40 years after divorce, did you know that?

Raul Groom
11 years ago

>"If she does not need you anymore, she goes with somebody else, gets pregnant from him, kicks you out and you still have to pay child support for her child and she is living with her boyfriend in your former house – and you are living in a van, as there is not even a shelter for you."If this is the norm somewhere, I agree that legal system is in need of reform. It's not the norm where I live, or anywhere I ever have lived. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that we're talking about a single specific case. It might be illuminating if you provided more detail about what actually happened.

nicko81m
11 years ago

>"Laws are against you, because you are a man."And yet, it's laughable how the nutty feminists keep claiming that males are a more privileged gender than women. The evidence can be right at their face such as the obvious anti-male laws in America, and yet they are dumb enough to still say men are privileged. Here is an interesting and memorable article on female privilege. This one is a few years old but it’s a very good speech.Guilt by genitaliahttp://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1007/1007thomasguilt.htm

M
M
11 years ago

>"Pam said… Spamfilter? That's what I'm thinking, too."Nope, it wasn't the spamfilter because my post showed up and then disappeared. I then got a warning from Google that there was suspicious activity on my account. Definitely strange, but probably just a hiccup.

David Futrelle
11 years ago

>M's post wasn't spam filtered. (Nor did I delete it.) I'm as baffled as she is; hopefully it was just some weird glitch.

Pam
Pam
11 years ago

>I hope it was just some weird glitch, too!M, I've had a few of my posts get caught in the spam filter, and sometimes they did appear and then vanish a short time later, that's why I didn't find that suspicious in and of itself.In any event, I hope that you created a new account with different username and password, just to be on the safe side.

1 6 7 8
%d bloggers like this: