Would you date a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

Underplay the significance of these radical groups at your peril. They do have influence has been demonstrated.

Often it not these that understand that their idea violate basic tenets of rights, but that doesn't really matter becuase they do. If something goes against freedom of speech or movement, it is what it is.

Not all of them are obvious as*hole in the same way Melissa Click was. This sort ideology is gets repeated a lot by impressionable people. The main thing is to have learning environment where there is not just one narrative. Some groups tried hard to prevent that.

I have heard people say (including on the forum), that they don't want to acknowledged these groups becuase it give the right ammunition. I think this is silly. Either you are principled or you aren't. Repressiveness exists on both sides.

I quoted the stuff that you said that did not represent what I said. That is enough explanation--I do not stand for those things.

I addressed specific things that were related to what I said. I cannot help it if you've naturally assumed things because you've already boxed me into a category, something which you say you don't do.

I think you thought I used the word 'we' to represent 'feminists' and not 'current society' as I meant it. Why would you assume 'we' meant 'feminists' when the statements, like, don't make any sense at all that way?

Of course I know that both women and men are capable of being both predators and prey. We both, in fact, agree that men are more likely to be seen as predatory. Do you disagree that women are more often seen as prey??

I don't need to cite sexist laws or lack thereof as representations of anything, since the argument I have been making all along is about people's perceptions.

The slave example is an ANALOGY about SEMANTICS as in, why would it be called equalist vs. feminist. Obviously, yes, the bolded statement referred to men. Also quite obviously, to me, was there was not anything in that particular statement about men in this day and age being slave owners.

There WAS also a separate statement of past history of when women WERE actually owned, but that was a separate statement I made.

The only way I think someone will convince me that feminism should absolutely be called equalism or some other such name would be if culture comes to some point where women no longer become the cultural underdog. We're getting there.

@friedmacguffins I would not be happy and there is no need for me to try to be happy solely living a life raising kids and nurturing my husband as my job because that was the position I was born into. Perhaps I am in fact much happier being angry at people who think that that should be my role in life.
I think importantly, we're also at a point technologically speaking where the sheer variety of things one can do with one's life is much more vast than it was throughout most of history. If I were to say, have lived a poor agricultural life in 1100 in Europe, what other options would there really be for to me to do as a career? Local whore? That there is now opportunity for most of the population, it only makes sense that that opportunity be available for both sexes.

What's your point about women being owned? Men were owned too. Free Blacks had more slaves than whites. I'm part Irish, should I start the "Irishest Movement" since the Irish were slaves? Women are not the underdog in Western society. The laws favor women when it comes to self defense, sexual conduct, custody of children and alimony, just to name a few. There was an incident recently were a man and a woman that attend a university both got drunk and decided to have sex. Later the woman decided that since she didn't like how he performed, that she was going to accuse him of rape. He didn't goto jail, but he was kicked out of the university and she was allowed to stay. How is that fair? Furthermore, even the FDA favors women over men. It is almost impossible to find a doctor that will prescribe testosterone to men that have a testosterone deficiency, because of stigma; however doctors will hand out estrogen like candy. So, tell me how are women the underdog in western society?

I invite anyone reading to go to an MRA forum and see for themselves how 'nasty' or inaccurate my generalization is.

Free speech is free speech, but the MRAs *pretend* to be about civil rights when they're really just about bashing women. There are some men's issues that really need to be addressed, and MRAs by-and-large don't do diddly squat.

*snort*
she wouldn't keep getting money if people didn't like her videos. So what if she makes a good living off of it? She's delivering a product that people like, even if the sale is via a non-traditional format.

Eh. Your English is rougher than usual. I think you're saying that I'm underestimating the danger of radical groups, that they're trying to take over universities and turn them into mental monocultures, and that the left can be as repressive as the right. Yes?

If so: I don't know. I haven't been on campus for a while. I do agree that the left is growing increasingly irrational; at some extremes, it's just as deeply in denial of the real world as the religious right. I agree that universities should have many streams of differing thought; I would actually take that further, that universities should be places where ideas duke it out bare-fisted in the classroom and on most of campus. I think it's ok to have safe 'sanctuaries,' like clubhouses or such, but it's asinine to try to make the entire university a 'safe space.'

Throughout most of my life the right has been more repressive than the left, but I see the pendulum swinging. The left won, and power corrupts.

My point had nothing to do with free speech. For example, it appears to be common that MRAs are victims of abuse by women - a problem, incidentally, that I rarely see brought up by feminists (or worse still, hand-waved away with some nonsense about oppressed can't be oppressors). But let's visit an MRA forum and test your assertion.

I've chosen AVfM, for several reasons. They're associated with some rather controversial figures and, to my knowledge, are the largest. They have a large number of sub-forums, including a general chat thread, a "post your rants" section and a multi-national activism and volunteer section.

I took the liberty of reading through the "rants", assuming that it would be the most likely place to find MRAs "bashing women".

The front page, in order:

1- A rant about a single woman driver who flipped the OP off, slammed on her brakes and attempted to cause an accident, along with the apparent epiphany that a minority of poorly-behaved women might taint his perspective on women in general.

2- A comparison between the "I win" card scene in Big Daddy and the way government, the legal system and economy function.

3- A (badly written) criticism of gender roles in fiction.

4- A self-titled "single mama" complaining about other mothers with no desire for a career of their own, and the men she dates.

5- A complaint about feminists of both genders who inhabit a sci-fi forum the OP frequents.

6- Speculation on the "Yes Means Yes" law potentially leading to more marriages.

7- A suggestion that people "stuck in the friend zone" are "egocentric douche-bags".

8- A rant inspired by a Salon article on male suicide and how feminists don't appear to care about either men or women.

9- An apologetic plea from someone with mental health problems who is feeling suicidal.

10- A link to a blog examining gender roles in TV advertisements.

etc.

This trend continues until the very bottom of the page we find a thread titles "On Bit**es (a rant)", wherein the OP complains that "I think manipulative, catty, conniving, calculating females are pure evil.".

Far from being all about "bashing women", as you claim, it appears these MRA forumites are no different to the denizens of a multitude of other site forums; seeking and offering support, sharing information and links, etc. Those threads which are focused on women seem to be largely discerning in nature, dealing with women as individuals rather than on the basis of their sex.

But I'm sure, of course, that you're far more familiar with MRA forums than the rest of us and can provide a plethora of evidence to support your position, yes?



They've provided a space for men's issues to be discussed and which seems to be being used for exactly that purpose. They've included a section for those who wish to take part in activism across the world, which contains threads about meet-ups and local events. What more do you expect from a forum? It seems to me that your criticism is petty, biased and unfounded.

You do not stand for the things you stated? Your category is a category of one. How I perceive you is based entirely on your own presentation of self. My assumption is that you are expressing yourself honestly. Are you now informing me that I should consider you to be dishonest instead?



You believe that I, a non-feminist, used the word "we" (inclusive of myself) to mean feminists? Which one of us is supposed to be making assumptions again? My use of "we" derived from the same common wisdom as your own. It's rather preposterous that you would assume that I might use it differently in the same context.



No, I disagree that generalised perceptions are relevant, especially when we're discussing equality. I thought I'd made that perfectly clear. Do I need to go over it again?



Apparently that's a yes. Very well, then.

How people perceive other people has nothing to do with equality. Equality is something society grants us regardless of how we are perceived. It's rather the point of equality under (and before) the law. Those laws reflect the ethics of society as a whole, regardless of those elements who perceive others as inferior/superior/more honest/etc. Recognising the differences between men and women is not inequality, neither is treating individuals differently based on your relationship with them (and yes, that relationship includes your perception of them).



The slave analogy was a response to people alive today who suggest that you prefer equalist over feminist. You referred to those people thusly:

"just because the once slave owners demanded it be called that because they have to also work equally as hard as their slaves once did"

Clearly "they" and "their" refers to the same subject of the sentence, which you have admitted refers to those men who "demand" you call it equalism. As I would strongly urge feminists to instead pursue egalitarianism, I can safely be placed into that category.

Amusing as it is that you've doubled down on your denial, the reality is that you did, indeed, say exactly what you have been quoted as saying. As I previously suggested, I'm quite open to the possibility that you inadvertently misrepresented yourself. In light of this recent post, I would be dubious were you to now make such a claim.



And also completely irrelevant to the conversation. Men and women have both endured slavery throughout history, yet I and the overwhelming majority of men and women in the west have neither advocated for, nor are guilty of slavery. If you wish to demonstrate inequality between men and women in the western world, please present the laws which are unequal.



Explain how women are a "cultural underdog". Further, explain what this has to do with equality.

Feminism should absolutely not be labelled "equalism", as it is demonstrably different to egalitarianism. Rather, those feminists who are genuinely interested in equality should distance themselves from feminism and pursue an egalitarian goal.



If only you had been born with the correct genitalia, you could have instead died prematurely and painfully in the name of your local lord. What a privilege that would have been, right?



Which opportunities are being denied on the basis of sex (other than the opportunity to die for your nation in exchange for the right to vote in America - how far we've come!)?

^Thank you, adifferentname!

I'm very out of my league here, and you've managed to produce some powerful arguments in support of the MRA.

I support them myself, just as I support Feminist's as well, as neither has more priority than the other.

The movement for 'equality' is jeopardized when only the oppressed or minorities feel they have a say in the matter.

I'm personally tired of being a minority in my views as I am a total of four minorities but hold views they typically consider controversial.

Much appreciated, Outrider.

Though I don't have a great deal of free time, I try my best to challenge those positions that I deem unreasonable whenever I'm able to post here.

My support is on a case-by-case basis. I'm completely opposed to the all-too-common trend of drawing conclusions about individuals based on demographics, and will judge people based on their own words and deeds, not those associated with their 'type'. It's my contention that anyone who does other than this and then makes noises about equality is anything but an egalitarian.



We're all in a minority of one unless we choose to allow others to do our thinking for us.

Perhaps a better question is, would a feminist, or any woman with a modicum of self-respect, date you?

Person, surely?

QFT

Wrt. 'A Voice for Men,' here is the forum:
http://forums.avoiceformen.com
First thread on the first subforum of the 'Lounge' forum, 'rants.' Starts off ok, but quickly goes downhill:
http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthre ... T-Bullshit
First thread on the second forum:
http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthre ... ew-husband
First thread on the 3rd forum:
http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthre ... rm-America

etc
If you really want to see a cesspit, here's the 'Red Pill' of Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/?

Sorry I have executive issues, so I don't always write perfect prose.

Yes you got it about right.

You mentioned clubs and societies.

In UK universities they have to get signatures to get one. Not sure if this is governed by the NUS or the unversity.

People will sign anything though. A radical leftist group was soliciting signatures. people were signing with little explanation. I asked them,
and it turned out they were militant.

In my first year a hallmate was approached by Islamists. I interrupted them, not knowing. This guy later thanked me, and told me they were extreme. This was before 9/11. A couple of this group have since been convicted of terrorism offences.

The NUS has just elected Malia Bouattia. She is a polarising figure. She refused to support a motion in solidarity with Kurds condemning ISIS on the basis that she deemed it Islamaphobic to do so.

Several unversity unions have left the NUS or in the process of reviewing their membership. I think this is unpresented far as I'm aware.

If this was intended to be a rebuttal of my reply to you, it's a catastrophically poor one. Feeling under the weather? Or was this an apathetic token response in defence of a position that you're not all that attached to?



I don't use Reddit on the grounds that the entire thing appears to be a cesspit. It stands to reason that adopting Redditers as the stereotypical default of any demographic would give you a skewed view of said demographic.