as warped many marriage counselers into having very "Patriarchy" theory views
{Citation Needed}
have a very warped views on how men and women should interact
{Citation Needed}
Look, I'm more than happy to entertain arguments against feminism. But you making things up or repeating vague buzz words is not an argument against feminism. It is an argument against your ability to intelligently speak against or about feminism.
Reality check those women weren't really feminists
Reality check, the different waves of feminism have been defined and decided for a very long time now, I'm sorry if you missed that party. The early disciples of Jesus did not call themselves Christians, nor did the pre-European Native Americans call themselves Native Americans. That does not make them something other than Christians or Native Americans.
Women of the Suffrage era called themselves women's rights advocates and feminism is the position of advocating for women's rights.
Also, your insistence that "omg republicans did the whole suffrage thing" is silly, since, one, I never argued against it and, two, the Democratic and Republican parties were in flux during the Suffrage movement. If you are trying to equate modern Republicans with the Republicans of the early 1900s, you are sorely mistaken. What you might know as a "leftist" movement now had very different boundaries in that era.
Again, your posts here convince me of very little other than that you are unaware of the topic.
I thought we were primarily discussing third-wave feminism here. I don't think there can be much debate over whether or not first-wave and second-wave feminism were successful or not.
No, really it actually does cause many women not all women to have disastrous marriages. Feminism teaches women to be very self centered, have negative views about sexual behavior, has warped many marriage counselers into having very "Patriarchy" theory views(were everything is the man's fault always) and have a very warped views on how men and women should interact. While it's fair to say Feminism isn't the only thing or always the thing that wrecks marriages it's very hard to say it doesn't huge role in it.
Single mothers mostly. "I don't need a man", increasing sex outside of marriage and the welfare state which subsidies poor choices. All part of Feminism.
So feminism is both responsible for teaching women to have very negative views about sexual behavior AND simultaneously teaching women to have lots of sex outside of marriage?
Commons, this has to be an elaborate joke. Not only do you say things that are blatantly moronic. Things such as "third wave feminism teaches women to have negative views towards sex" and "First wave feminism isn't feminism, it was Republicanism." But you also have a clear misunderstand of the subject about which you are talking. You really need to take the red pill.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Echoing Kraken B. Trippin's post: why do I always leave these threads feeling like I'm the arch-nemesis of feminism or something? I don't get it.
I'm guessing it's two-fold.
First of all, the feminists that are absolutely bonkers seem to get the most attention, and I'm experiencing a repulsion to that. Like, for example, when I read on that kook site Jezebel about the need for males to take anal sex from their female partners to make them better "allies" of feminism. There's an element of "how to break your slave" to that. There's of course no shortage of feminist crazies beyond that...
Second, it seems like there's a collectivist aspect to feminism (or certain forms of feminism) which I find internally inconsistent with the individualistic aspect of it. If the core of feminism was statements like this:
-Equality under the law,
-Individuals should be judged purely on their own merits, without respect to their gender,
-We reject statements such as "all men should X" or "all women must not Y", etc.
Then I wouldn't have a problem with that. But it doesn't seem like that at all. Instead, it sounds like it's trying to reconcile those individualistic statements with a worldview that appears to be influenced by Marxism.
Feminism has disintegrated into something viewed as an extremist joke.
What started out as the good fight equal rights for women has turned into an extremist "I hate men" or "I don't need a man in my life to rely on, I'm an independant woman".
There shouldn't exist a need to claim one gender or sex as better than the other. Plain and simple, everyone deserves to be treated equally, women deserve the same rights as men and vice versa. Everyone deserves equal pay, and to be equally as a person.
Good manners extends to both groups, and both sexes are codependant on an equal level.
Extremist approaches to anything are a joke. And studies have shown that the current extremist feminist approach is harming the opinion of feminism in general among the younger female population rather than forwarding the fight for equal rights.
Look, I'm more than happy to entertain arguments against feminism. But you making things up or repeating vague buzz words is not an argument against feminism. It is an argument against your ability to intelligently speak against or about feminism.
I've been posting in this thread for like 30+ pages or something like that. All the info you asked for can be found within them. If you aren't going to read the thread i'm not going to waste my time with your obstructive behavior.
Reality check those women weren't really feminists
Reality check, the different waves of feminism have been defined and decided for a very long time now, I'm sorry if you missed that party. The early disciples of Jesus did not call themselves Christians, nor did the pre-European Native Americans call themselves Native Americans. That does not make them something other than Christians or Native Americans.
Not the same. We got a situation here were you basically wanna call "Odinists" Christians. "First wave Feminism" was a very classic liberal movement. Second and Third have Marxist, Collectivist and other leftist views. First wave is like second and third wave in the way someone getting a paper cut when you hand them a paper is like stabbing someone. To give them similar names is disingenuous and a transparent attempt to foster a false positive perception that 2nd and 3rd wave are clearly undeserving of. So spare me your "defined and decided for a very long time now" because i don't agree.
Women of the Suffrage era called themselves women's rights advocates and feminism is the position of advocating for women's rights.
Yes and they meant and had a very different view of what Rights are. Which is why the current movement is nothing like "first wave" again it's like calling a paper cut stabbing someone because the both cause the other person pierced skin.
Also, your insistence that "omg republicans did the whole suffrage thing" is silly, since, one, I never argued against it and, two, the Democratic and Republican parties were in flux during the Suffrage movement. If you are trying to equate modern Republicans with the Republicans of the early 1900s, you are sorely mistaken. What you might know as a "leftist" movement now had very different boundaries in that era.
First off you did argue against it. You argued that "first wave" feminism was somehow not actually classic liberalism, you tried to take something Republicans did and credit "feminism" for it. To do this you had to call something that clearly isn't anything like 2nd and 3rd wave feminism... feminism. You know kinda like How Odinism is really "First wave Christianity" because they both believe in the supernatural. What you didn't know this? It was decided long ago.
No, Republicans still believe in the same American Conservatism or Classical Liberalism sprinkled with a Christian flavoring they have since the party was founded in the mid 1800's. The Democratic party has changed a bit since then. The Democratic party was largely against women gaining suffrage. You can try to rewrite history all you want but here are some facts
12 Republicans controlled States gave women full suffrage prior to the 19th
0 Dems controlled states gave women full suffrage prior to the 19th
9 of the 36 states voted against the ratification of the 19th 8 dem controlled ones and 1 Republican controlled one.
Also, I use an objective definition for the right and left and what i would call a leftist movement then i would call it now. More government=Left and Dems has always been the more government party. Less government=Right and Republicans have always been the less government party.
Again, your posts here convince me of very little other than that you are unaware of the topic.
I feel it's the other way around. I am very informed about this topic.
So feminism is both responsible for teaching women to have very negative views about sexual behavior AND simultaneously teaching women to have lots of sex outside of marriage?
Yes, because they often teach that normal sexual behavior is rape or is objectification. While also teaching women they can behave and act as ****ty as the want. It's not my fault some people are stupid enough not to see the hypocrisy of the whole thing.
Commons, this has to be an elaborate joke. Not only do you say things that are blatantly moronic. Things such as "third wave feminism teaches women to have negative views towards sex" and "First wave feminism isn't feminism, it was Republicanism." But you also have a clear misunderstand of the subject about which you are talking. You really need to take the red pill.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
While also teaching women they can behave and act as ****ty as the want.
If you don't want to come off like a misogynist... don't say stuff like this. If at any point in an argument about feminism you feel the need to describe women as "****ty", you have lost the argument.
Feminism analyses the world with an eye towards power structures upheld by a gender divide. It asks the question what it means for a society to prescribe these particular roles for men and women. Marxism does the same thing for economic classes. People who don't like social analysis are of course uncomfortable with this but without it, feminism wouldn't be anything near the intellectual powerhouse it is.
An echo chamber is not an "intellectual powerhouse".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. Instead of accept this fact and accepting the fact we DON'T have an epidemic of unnecessary violence against PEOPLE not just women. You decided to bash all men for the actions of a few violent sociopaths.
I wsan't "bashing" men. Men commit crimes against other men. So to blame FEMINISM!!!!111 for the dude who held a gun to your head and asked for your wallet is just insane. It was the meth.
You're the only one poisoning the well here. You're the only one advocating treating one group of people different then another based up things like Race and Sex.
You use words like "fascist". That's poisoning the well.
Single mothers mostly. "I don't need a man", increasing sex outside of marriage and the welfare state which subsidies poor choices. All part of Feminism.
Not having a man is still better than having certain men. For instance, literally everyone on r/MensRights.
Reality check those women weren't really feminists they were Republicans and were against many things modern Feminism stands for. What we call Feminism didn't really show up until the 60's. "First Wave Feminists" never called themselves Feminists and had very different political views then modern day Feminists. Calling what Republicans did for women in the late 18 early 19th century "feminism" is frankly a joke and an attempt by the left to take credit for what the right did.
Because there's really that much difference between Republicans and Democrats, compared to between political parties in other countries, and platforms are completely immutable.
Also, reality check Feminism is a leftist movement always has been and always will be.
You see, this is just it. You're doing ad hominem all wrong here. You'd have to demonstrate why something being a leftist movement is a bad thing first.
So feminism is both responsible for teaching women to have very negative views about sexual behavior AND simultaneously teaching women to have lots of sex outside of marriage?
Well, prostitutes tend to not enjoy sex, but they do have lots of sex outside of marriage. But I've never heard a feminist say women should become prostitutes. Mostly because of beatings by pimps.
First of all, the feminists that are absolutely bonkers seem to get the most attention, and I'm experiencing a repulsion to that. Like, for example, when I read on that kook site Jezebel about the need for males to take anal sex from their female partners to make them better "allies" of feminism. There's an element of "how to break your slave" to that. There's of course no shortage of feminist crazies beyond that...
And Jezebel is, as you mentioned, a k00k site. They still have guest columns by Hugo Schwyzer, who (among other things) tried to kill his girlfriend, has affairs with his students, and thinks there's nothing more rewarding to a woman than being ejaculated on. Yeah, that's pretty k00k. No one pays them much serious attention anymore.
Commons, this has to be an elaborate joke. Not only do you say things that are blatantly moronic. Things such as "third wave feminism teaches women to have negative views towards sex" and "First wave feminism isn't feminism, it was Republicanism." But you also have a clear misunderstand of the subject about which you are talking. You really need to take the red pill.
Ad Hom. No substance.
It's not an argument. It's a conclusion. Hence, no ad hominem. If you said "All cats are carnivores. A bear is a carnivore. Therefore a bear is a cat.", I would probably say "You know nothing of logic." Then you'd accuse me of ad hominem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
hyalapterouslemur-What feminists claim they are trying to ban and what I have seen targeted for removal are two very different things. Infographics challenging statistics feminists use in their campaigns hardly strikes me as pornographic.
While also teaching women they can behave and act as ****ty as the want.
If you don't want to come off like a misogynist... don't say stuff like this. If at any point in an argument about feminism you feel the need to describe women as "****ty", you have lost the argument.
I didn't call women "****ty" i was actually referring to "**** walk" which is feminists teaching women to be proud of being "****s" their word not mine.
But i like your idea of how Feminists have lost this argument with themselves.
Also, ultimately the idea is to get people to stop falling for appeals to emotion. The reason Feminism works is one big appeal to emotion.
What prompted this was kiddie porn and rape porn. Stay on topic!
Seriously, even 4chan bans kiddie porn. If Facebook can't have better standards than 4chan...
If they only went after what prompted it this would be fine. However they have gone after and will continue to go after political speech.
What prompted it was rape porn. We're talking about literal rape porn. You may not have noticed, but it's been a bit of a photo fad in recent years.
No, You're saying this is about rape and child porn. But it's not limited to that at all. It includes political speech and things like calling your ex-wife a ***** because she is abusing your children. You know because obviously the problem in that scenario is the women being called a *****... or at least that is what feminists will often tell you.
I wsan't "bashing" men. Men commit crimes against other men. So to blame FEMINISM!!!!111 for the dude who held a gun to your head and asked for your wallet is just insane. It was the meth.
I didn't blame feminism for the crime. I blamed them for ignoring male victims of crime because they're male. One way they do this is to say their perpetrator was a man. You know like you did. Bashed men for what some men have done. Kinda like bashing German Americans who fought in WW2 against Hitler, for Hitler being German.
You use words like "fascist". That's poisoning the well.
No, poisoning the well is a form of Ad hom, in which someone says something bad about a speaker in attempt to impugn their character before the speaker has a chance to say anything about a topic. For example this is poisoning the well. My comment was part of a critique of why that particular policy is wrong.
Define "happily married". Also, define why one needs to be married to be happy.
Married and happy about being married.
They don't need to be. But if they're married they should be happy about it.
And less likely to be teenage mothers.
They're actually more likely to be "teenage" mothers. About 4 times more likely actually. Since no fault divorce, the sexual revolution and 2nd wave feminism came about. The divorce rate has more then doubled, out of wedlock birth and teen mothers have quadrupled. All those things played a major role in this happening.
Strawman. Excuse me, "strawperson". Feminism blames society at large.
By society you mean MALE dominated society or their false oversimplified worldview.
Also, I dare you to get some feminist relationship counseling and have fun being told all your relationship problems are your fault.
Also, Oprah isn't feminism. Quite the opposite, really. But she does support the advancement of *puts sunglasses on*
Who said anything about Oprah?
You see, this is just it. You're doing ad hominem all wrong here. You'd have to demonstrate why something being a leftist movement is a bad thing first.
Not an Ad hominem. Nor do i think all leftist movements are bad. I think this particular leftist movement is. This non-individualist ideology will always fall on the left.
It's not an argument. It's a conclusion. Hence, no ad hominem. If you said "All cats are carnivores. A bear is a carnivore. Therefore a bear is a cat.", I would probably say "You know nothing of logic." Then you'd accuse me of ad hominem.
No, it's an argument against me. Not against the things i said.
Also, it's more like this
Me "Republicans did X"
Them "Feminists called X feminism"
Me "But the ideology behind that movement is nothing like Feminism, if they existed today they would likely be called anti-feminists"
Them "But Brawndo got what plants crave"
Me
Again, my girlfriend's a feminist
Oh, so that is why you're so delusional about the topic. You're ***** whipped KK.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Echoing Kraken B. Trippin's post: why do I always leave these threads feeling like I'm the arch-nemesis of feminism or something? I don't get it.
I'm guessing it's two-fold.
First of all, the feminists that are absolutely bonkers seem to get the most attention, and I'm experiencing a repulsion to that. Like, for example, when I read on that kook site Jezebel about the need for males to take anal sex from their female partners to make them better "allies" of feminism. There's an element of "how to break your slave" to that. There's of course no shortage of feminist crazies beyond that...
Second, it seems like there's a collectivist aspect to feminism (or certain forms of feminism) which I find internally inconsistent with the individualistic aspect of it. If the core of feminism was statements like this:
-Equality under the law,
-Individuals should be judged purely on their own merits, without respect to their gender,
-We reject statements such as "all men should X" or "all women must not Y", etc.
Then I wouldn't have a problem with that. But it doesn't seem like that at all. Instead, it sounds like it's trying to reconcile those individualistic statements with a worldview that appears to be influenced by Marxism.
I read one of Nancy Friday's books some years ago, first thing I got out of it was "big on Freud" next was "big on Marx." She was talking about her getting wet and having sex but not wanting her hymen popped and the like, washing around social criticisms. When she moved away from the sex, it was alright when it moved towards the sexual as a building block for her psychological development and analysis of people I questioned it. About the last book I read that talked about that much sex was Reinaldo Arena's memoir, which talked a lot about gay sex and his trysts in Cuba and some of the influences for his books. Short and interesting if you're prepared for the sex, but it talked about AIDS as well and his eventual suicide note. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in gay issues, Cuban issues, or him as a writer.
Read another feminist's biography, she openly had pages about her discussions with her husband and academic friends about Marxism. That is where their intellectual roots are, and you are very much correct. There's more in the intellectual history about Freud and Marx's influence on feminism, but it's something in my own research I never really had much of a point to look at and frankly not worth the time. There's a few choice pieces out there that can be interesting or fun to read, most of it's trite boring **** that is forgettable. The rest of the "good feminism" stuff that can make you think a bit could very well be labeled under social criticism.
In a way, if you read any of the revolutionist ideology ranging from black liberation movements late 1800's and early 19th century had socialism as a part of it that was eventually overtaken by the Social Gospel but culminated into the Post Colonialism global narrative as well as the New Left during the 60's and 70's. Feminism was always a middle class white woman thing, and as they gained access to higher education Marx came naturally into vogue at that time period. Freud was also extremely popular whenever the 20th century Feminism was gaining steam and rigor.
Take the entire point about privilege. It's another take on the class versus class system.
The only reason thus far why we never saw an equal anarchist movement was in part it was quashed. The Austrians and the like are able to proliferate in part better because of the internet and work of places like the Mises Institute culminating into Neo Austrian thinking. But works like Emma Goldman's type of anarchy, which frankly suck, seems to require a persistent lower class narrative against "the man" which was supplanted by the Marxists.As for other kinds of minarchists and anarchists there seems to be a requirement for a relative middle class to create a libertarian movement as well as a hatred for bankers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Not having a man is still better than having certain men. For instance, literally everyone on r/MensRights.
[
Talk about being a hypocrite. It's okay for women to fight for their rights, but if men do they are scum and worse than most men?
I'm not gonna be on the next Men's Rights float or marching in their parade, but my god, they are entitled to the same freedoms as women are...
Yes, they certainly are.
But I think what he means to say is that the men who hang around on that particular board are, well, just a little bit foaming at the mouth.
It's like how the women on Jezebel would be scum even if they called their website "The Women's Rights Forum". Just because it's in the name doesn't mean it's actually what they're all about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
i know it's not relevant per se, but it's not as though r/SRS is any better. in my experience they tend to be a bit more vitriolic whereas the people on r/MensRights tend to be a bit too open to what is considered sexism against men.
You don't need groups to fight for "Men's Rights" in America. We control every part of the government. We dominate Hollywood and popular media. We've created barriers to stop women from joining scientific and political communities. "Men's Rights" is the history of America, if not Western civilization.
You don't need groups to fight for "Men's Rights" in America. We control every part of the government. We dominate Hollywood and popular media. We've created barriers to stop women from joining scientific and political communities. "Men's Rights" is the history of America, if not Western civilization.
So men should ignore the grossly unbalanced laws in areas like... divorce, custody, rape (especially statutory rape), and other sexual crimes (hey 18 year old, your 17 year old gf sent you a sexual text? have fun on the child molester list)
You don't need groups to fight for "Men's Rights" in America. We control every part of the government. We dominate Hollywood and popular media. We've created barriers to stop women from joining scientific and political communities. "Men's Rights" is the history of America, if not Western civilization.
So men should ignore the grossly unbalanced laws in areas like... divorce, custody, rape (especially statutory rape), and other sexual crimes (hey 18 year old, your 17 year old gf sent you a sexual text? have fun on the child molester list)
You're right. These areas are balanced, often, "in favor" of women. Because women are "caregivers," who should "not be working, but taking care of children," women often receive custody of children and childcare payments. Did women cause this? Or do men cause it? And if men are the people causing it (literally often the judge, jury, and executioner), fighting for "Men's Rights" in this area is the silliest thing I've ever heard.
It's hilarious that you mention sexual crimes, because really?REALLY?
If you think men are the ones most often subject to sexual crimes and related incidences, you are beyond, far beyond, reason in these cases.
How often when a man is raped do they treat it like it was because of the clothes he was wearing? Or tell him he shouldn't have been drinking? Or tell him it was his fault for not saying no enough times? Men are treated much differently in rape cases. Much better.
And while it is certainly not beyond reason that a man could be raped by a woman, the overwhelming majority of rapists are... men. Again, your rights here, given and violated by other men? And Men's Rights helps this? How?
Consent laws are there for a reason and the situation you described could occur, and does occur, to someone of any gender or sexuality. Again, these laws were written by men. Enforced by men. And the crimes punished by men. Men have all the power we could possibly ever want to change any of these laws.
And if they need to be, they certainly can be changed. But let's not pretend this is because men lack rights.
Yggy-Thank you for the perfect example of a frontman fallacy.
Society was not set-up by men for men etc. it was created for the benefit of society and if that meant trampling peoples rights no biggy for the last 99% of human history. Men's rights were every bit as disrespected/trampled as womens and mens interests are still put second to women's and childrens because that is how male disposability works. Men in those positions of power were put there to enforce this system and benefit and secure their power by maximizing male disposibility. Leadership was the most dangerous job in a primitive culture and thus fell to the disposable sex.
You don't need groups to fight for "Men's Rights" in America. We control every part of the government. We dominate Hollywood and popular media. We've created barriers to stop women from joining scientific and political communities. "Men's Rights" is the history of America, if not Western civilization.
So men should ignore the grossly unbalanced laws in areas like... divorce, custody, rape (especially statutory rape), and other sexual crimes (hey 18 year old, your 17 year old gf sent you a sexual text? have fun on the child molester list)
You're right. These areas are balanced, often, "in favor" of women. Because women are "caregivers," who should "not be working, but taking care of children," women often receive custody of children and childcare payments. Did women cause this? Or do men cause it? And if men are the people causing it (literally often the judge, jury, and executioner), fighting for "Men's Rights" in this area is the silliest thing I've ever heard.
It's hilarious that you mention sexual crimes, because really?REALLY?
If you think men are the ones most often subject to sexual crimes and related incidences, you are beyond, far beyond, reason in these cases.
How often when a man is raped do they treat it like it was because of the clothes he was wearing? Or tell him he shouldn't have been drinking? Or tell him it was his fault for not saying no enough times? Men are treated much differently in rape cases. Much better.
And while it is certainly not beyond reason that a man could be raped by a woman, the overwhelming majority of rapists are... men. Again, your rights here, given and violated by other men? And Men's Rights helps this? How?
Consent laws are there for a reason and the situation you described could occur, and does occur, to someone of any gender or sexuality. Again, these laws were written by men. Enforced by men. And the crimes punished by men. Men have all the power we could possibly ever want to change any of these laws.
And if they need to be, they certainly can be changed. But let's not pretend this is because men lack rights.
What happens when a male teacher sleeps with a high school student?
What happens when a female teacher sleep with a male high school student?
Just because you want to ignore the problem does not mean that it doesnt exist.
What do you think would happen if an 18 year old girl was caught having cyber sex over a web cam with a 16 year old boy?
I know what would happen if the genders were reversed... the boy's life would be ruined and he would be labeled a sexual predator for the rest of his life.
That is an injustice. I am not saying that there are not also injustices for females. Hell it doesnt even matter whose are "worse". Fighting for male rights does not somehow make fighting for female rights invalid. I support both male and female rights. The way to achieve balance is not making some areas unbalanced for one group and the other areas unbalanced for the other... everyone should be fighting for fair treatment in all situations.
Edit:
Also on your point about who caused an imbalance in child custody... who gives a ****? Even if we state that the sole cause of the problem is because a bunch of men made the laws around it 50 years ago, why does that invalidate the effort to try to correct the issue now? The group "men" is much to broad to try to blame for actions. This isnt a case where you can say "well your own group is responsible for it". This isnt the tea party lobbying for a law only to lobby to have it removed a year later or something. Some men may have created the problem but now some different men are fighting to correct it.
Fluff Bunny makes several good points...which raises the question for me of just how many fallacies are in Yggy's argument. I already identified the frontman fallacy. It seems like his being pro-male equals anti-female argument is some sort of fallacy. Perhaps a false dilema fallacy? I don't know fallacies that well, but it interests me.
You don't need groups to fight for "Men's Rights" in America. We control every part of the government. We dominate Hollywood and popular media. We've created barriers to stop women from joining scientific and political communities. "Men's Rights" is the history of America, if not Western civilization.
So men should ignore the grossly unbalanced laws in areas like... divorce, custody, rape (especially statutory rape), and other sexual crimes (hey 18 year old, your 17 year old gf sent you a sexual text? have fun on the child molester list)
You're right. These areas are balanced, often, "in favor" of women. Because women are "caregivers," who should "not be working, but taking care of children," women often receive custody of children and childcare payments. Did women cause this? Or do men cause it? And if men are the people causing it (literally often the judge, jury, and executioner), fighting for "Men's Rights" in this area is the silliest thing I've ever heard.
They're actually because of Feminists. The original child custody laws in the US always gave custody to the man, because the man was expected to be financially responsible. Later the tender years doctrine was created because it viewed as the best interest of the child. 1970s-currently we have the Feminist version of the "best interest of the child" which really translates into the giving women the children regardless of if the man is a better parent. Really the only time men get the child is if the woman is a drug addict, in jail or doesn't want the child.
So to answer your question did woman cause it? No, pro-feminist males and female Feminists caused it. But a question to you, why do you think males fighting for a fair shake in divorce courts is wrong? Why are you siding with feminists who actively prevent change to these things you view as unfair? When you say this is silly you come off as either ignorant or man hating. I'm gonna assume you're ignorant, in which case you need to undoctrinate yourself and stop listening to and spreading the lies you have been told.
How often when a man is raped do they treat it like it was because of the clothes he was wearing? Or tell him he shouldn't have been drinking? Or tell him it was his fault for not saying no enough times? Men are treated much differently in rape cases. Much better.
And while it is certainly not beyond reason that a man could be raped by a woman, the overwhelming majority of rapists are... men. Again, your rights here, given and violated by other men? And Men's Rights helps this? How?
Teenage boys who are statutory raped are told they should feel luck they were raped.
Not really. See the thing is when you defining rape by the legal definition of "rape" nearly 99% of rapists are male. But this because Statutory rape isn't defined as rape but rather sexual assault. Many of the other forms of rape against a man are considered sexual assault and not rape. When you add all the forms of sexual assault together women commit roughly 1/3 of sexual assaults... not exactly and overwhelming majority. Also, MRA's are mostly concerned with due process when it comes to being accused of rape. More info on this in the channel of the video i linked below. Read what MRA's have to say about the "dear colleague letter"
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Izuki-Somewhat yes but look at the fact that kings on average only lived half as long as peasants. Then remember I said "primitive" and think of the desperaty in power and wealth between a king and a peasant. Nonetheless leadership is still pretty dangerous thus secret service etc.
Yggy-Actually men are the victims of sexual crimes far more often then feminists would ever admit (as has been discussed they intentionally omit large numbers of male victims using one excuse or another) and women are victimized far less often the feminists claim as well. Whether that creates symetry is beside the point. Figures like 1 in 4 women and 97% of female victims don't come forward are the result of survey methods clearly engineered to produce enormous numbers of false positives. Vague questions like in DV "Has your partner ever critiqued what your wearing?" which is a common thing to do in a non-abusive way think "Yah know, I like the blue dress better sweety" then the feminist surveyer counts that as violent abuse and defends it by arguing that the "victim" can't make that decision for themselves as to whether or not that is abuse. Many times (as in more often the not) when the "victims" are asked if they were abused or raped they say HELL NO, THAT'S ABSURD!
"The Frontman Fallacy?" A Google search only reveals this "fallacy" to be associated with Men's Rights Activists (perhaps you'll consider this poisoning the well). Made up by Men's Rights Activists for Men's Rights Activists to go "Hurr durr, Frontman." Okay. Proud. Of. You.
Men certainly did make laws considering what would be the "best for society." And what they considered the "best for society" was women not participating in the political environment.
Men are not lacking for rights.
Teenage boys who are statutory raped are told they should feel luck they were raped.
I'm sorry, what? You don't think women (of all ages) are told that?
Izuki-Somewhat yes but look at the fact that kings on average only lived half as long as peasants.
The only good source I've been able to find for historical cultures involve the Romans, where males of the lower classes lived on average to 25 years, and females died slightly earlier. Patricians lived much longer.
(also lulz page 32)
Feel free to post your sources.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
{Citation Needed}
{Citation Needed}
{Citation Needed}
{Citation Needed}
Look, I'm more than happy to entertain arguments against feminism. But you making things up or repeating vague buzz words is not an argument against feminism. It is an argument against your ability to intelligently speak against or about feminism.
Reality check, the different waves of feminism have been defined and decided for a very long time now, I'm sorry if you missed that party. The early disciples of Jesus did not call themselves Christians, nor did the pre-European Native Americans call themselves Native Americans. That does not make them something other than Christians or Native Americans.
Women of the Suffrage era called themselves women's rights advocates and feminism is the position of advocating for women's rights.
Also, your insistence that "omg republicans did the whole suffrage thing" is silly, since, one, I never argued against it and, two, the Democratic and Republican parties were in flux during the Suffrage movement. If you are trying to equate modern Republicans with the Republicans of the early 1900s, you are sorely mistaken. What you might know as a "leftist" movement now had very different boundaries in that era.
Again, your posts here convince me of very little other than that you are unaware of the topic.
So feminism is both responsible for teaching women to have very negative views about sexual behavior AND simultaneously teaching women to have lots of sex outside of marriage?
Commons, this has to be an elaborate joke. Not only do you say things that are blatantly moronic. Things such as "third wave feminism teaches women to have negative views towards sex" and "First wave feminism isn't feminism, it was Republicanism." But you also have a clear misunderstand of the subject about which you are talking. You really need to take the red pill.
I'm guessing it's two-fold.
First of all, the feminists that are absolutely bonkers seem to get the most attention, and I'm experiencing a repulsion to that. Like, for example, when I read on that kook site Jezebel about the need for males to take anal sex from their female partners to make them better "allies" of feminism. There's an element of "how to break your slave" to that. There's of course no shortage of feminist crazies beyond that...
Second, it seems like there's a collectivist aspect to feminism (or certain forms of feminism) which I find internally inconsistent with the individualistic aspect of it. If the core of feminism was statements like this:
-Equality under the law,
-Individuals should be judged purely on their own merits, without respect to their gender,
-We reject statements such as "all men should X" or "all women must not Y", etc.
Then I wouldn't have a problem with that. But it doesn't seem like that at all. Instead, it sounds like it's trying to reconcile those individualistic statements with a worldview that appears to be influenced by Marxism.
What started out as the good fight equal rights for women has turned into an extremist "I hate men" or "I don't need a man in my life to rely on, I'm an independant woman".
There shouldn't exist a need to claim one gender or sex as better than the other. Plain and simple, everyone deserves to be treated equally, women deserve the same rights as men and vice versa. Everyone deserves equal pay, and to be equally as a person.
Good manners extends to both groups, and both sexes are codependant on an equal level.
Extremist approaches to anything are a joke. And studies have shown that the current extremist feminist approach is harming the opinion of feminism in general among the younger female population rather than forwarding the fight for equal rights.
I've been posting in this thread for like 30+ pages or something like that. All the info you asked for can be found within them. If you aren't going to read the thread i'm not going to waste my time with your obstructive behavior.
Not the same. We got a situation here were you basically wanna call "Odinists" Christians. "First wave Feminism" was a very classic liberal movement. Second and Third have Marxist, Collectivist and other leftist views. First wave is like second and third wave in the way someone getting a paper cut when you hand them a paper is like stabbing someone. To give them similar names is disingenuous and a transparent attempt to foster a false positive perception that 2nd and 3rd wave are clearly undeserving of. So spare me your "defined and decided for a very long time now" because i don't agree.
Yes and they meant and had a very different view of what Rights are. Which is why the current movement is nothing like "first wave" again it's like calling a paper cut stabbing someone because the both cause the other person pierced skin.
First off you did argue against it. You argued that "first wave" feminism was somehow not actually classic liberalism, you tried to take something Republicans did and credit "feminism" for it. To do this you had to call something that clearly isn't anything like 2nd and 3rd wave feminism... feminism. You know kinda like How Odinism is really "First wave Christianity" because they both believe in the supernatural. What you didn't know this? It was decided long ago.
No, Republicans still believe in the same American Conservatism or Classical Liberalism sprinkled with a Christian flavoring they have since the party was founded in the mid 1800's. The Democratic party has changed a bit since then. The Democratic party was largely against women gaining suffrage. You can try to rewrite history all you want but here are some facts
12 Republicans controlled States gave women full suffrage prior to the 19th
0 Dems controlled states gave women full suffrage prior to the 19th
9 of the 36 states voted against the ratification of the 19th 8 dem controlled ones and 1 Republican controlled one.
Also, I use an objective definition for the right and left and what i would call a leftist movement then i would call it now. More government=Left and Dems has always been the more government party. Less government=Right and Republicans have always been the less government party.
I feel it's the other way around. I am very informed about this topic.
Yes, because they often teach that normal sexual behavior is rape or is objectification. While also teaching women they can behave and act as ****ty as the want. It's not my fault some people are stupid enough not to see the hypocrisy of the whole thing.
Ad Hom. No substance.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
An echo chamber is not an "intellectual powerhouse".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What prompted this was kiddie porn and rape porn. Stay on topic!
Seriously, even 4chan bans kiddie porn. If Facebook can't have better standards than 4chan...
Don't worry. I'm a firm believer in free speech. I have to get my lulz from somewhere.
You keep using that word.
What prompted it was rape porn. We're talking about literal rape porn. You may not have noticed, but it's been a bit of a photo fad in recent years.
Who the **** cares about Alyce Laviolette? I never heard of her until you just mentioned her because I don't follow D-list trials like this.
I wsan't "bashing" men. Men commit crimes against other men. So to blame FEMINISM!!!!111 for the dude who held a gun to your head and asked for your wallet is just insane. It was the meth.
You use words like "fascist". That's poisoning the well.
Define "happily married". Also, define why one needs to be married to be happy.
And less likely to be teenage mothers.
Again, my girlfriend's a feminist, and we have sex every night. I'd share more details, but this isn't really the place.
Strawman. Excuse me, "strawperson". Feminism blames society at large.
Also, Oprah isn't feminism. Quite the opposite, really. But she does support the advancement of *puts sunglasses on* woo men!
Not having a man is still better than having certain men. For instance, literally everyone on r/MensRights.
Because there's really that much difference between Republicans and Democrats, compared to between political parties in other countries, and platforms are completely immutable.
You see, this is just it. You're doing ad hominem all wrong here. You'd have to demonstrate why something being a leftist movement is a bad thing first.
Well, prostitutes tend to not enjoy sex, but they do have lots of sex outside of marriage. But I've never heard a feminist say women should become prostitutes. Mostly because of beatings by pimps.
And Jezebel is, as you mentioned, a k00k site. They still have guest columns by Hugo Schwyzer, who (among other things) tried to kill his girlfriend, has affairs with his students, and thinks there's nothing more rewarding to a woman than being ejaculated on. Yeah, that's pretty k00k. No one pays them much serious attention anymore.
It's not an argument. It's a conclusion. Hence, no ad hominem. If you said "All cats are carnivores. A bear is a carnivore. Therefore a bear is a cat.", I would probably say "You know nothing of logic." Then you'd accuse me of ad hominem.
On phasing:
I didn't call women "****ty" i was actually referring to "**** walk" which is feminists teaching women to be proud of being "****s" their word not mine.
But i like your idea of how Feminists have lost this argument with themselves.
Also, ultimately the idea is to get people to stop falling for appeals to emotion. The reason Feminism works is one big appeal to emotion.
If they only went after what prompted it this would be fine. However they have gone after and will continue to go after political speech.
No, You're saying this is about rape and child porn. But it's not limited to that at all. It includes political speech and things like calling your ex-wife a ***** because she is abusing your children. You know because obviously the problem in that scenario is the women being called a *****... or at least that is what feminists will often tell you.
I didn't blame feminism for the crime. I blamed them for ignoring male victims of crime because they're male. One way they do this is to say their perpetrator was a man. You know like you did. Bashed men for what some men have done. Kinda like bashing German Americans who fought in WW2 against Hitler, for Hitler being German.
No, poisoning the well is a form of Ad hom, in which someone says something bad about a speaker in attempt to impugn their character before the speaker has a chance to say anything about a topic. For example this is poisoning the well. My comment was part of a critique of why that particular policy is wrong.
Married and happy about being married.
They don't need to be. But if they're married they should be happy about it.
They're actually more likely to be "teenage" mothers. About 4 times more likely actually. Since no fault divorce, the sexual revolution and 2nd wave feminism came about. The divorce rate has more then doubled, out of wedlock birth and teen mothers have quadrupled. All those things played a major role in this happening.
By society you mean MALE dominated society or their false oversimplified worldview.
Also, I dare you to get some feminist relationship counseling and have fun being told all your relationship problems are your fault.
Who said anything about Oprah?
Not an Ad hominem. Nor do i think all leftist movements are bad. I think this particular leftist movement is. This non-individualist ideology will always fall on the left.
No, it's an argument against me. Not against the things i said.
Also, it's more like this
Me "Republicans did X"
Them "Feminists called X feminism"
Me "But the ideology behind that movement is nothing like Feminism, if they existed today they would likely be called anti-feminists"
Them "But Brawndo got what plants crave"
Me
Oh, so that is why you're so delusional about the topic. You're ***** whipped KK.
Infraction for flaming.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
I read one of Nancy Friday's books some years ago, first thing I got out of it was "big on Freud" next was "big on Marx." She was talking about her getting wet and having sex but not wanting her hymen popped and the like, washing around social criticisms. When she moved away from the sex, it was alright when it moved towards the sexual as a building block for her psychological development and analysis of people I questioned it. About the last book I read that talked about that much sex was Reinaldo Arena's memoir, which talked a lot about gay sex and his trysts in Cuba and some of the influences for his books. Short and interesting if you're prepared for the sex, but it talked about AIDS as well and his eventual suicide note. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in gay issues, Cuban issues, or him as a writer.
Read another feminist's biography, she openly had pages about her discussions with her husband and academic friends about Marxism. That is where their intellectual roots are, and you are very much correct. There's more in the intellectual history about Freud and Marx's influence on feminism, but it's something in my own research I never really had much of a point to look at and frankly not worth the time. There's a few choice pieces out there that can be interesting or fun to read, most of it's trite boring **** that is forgettable. The rest of the "good feminism" stuff that can make you think a bit could very well be labeled under social criticism.
In a way, if you read any of the revolutionist ideology ranging from black liberation movements late 1800's and early 19th century had socialism as a part of it that was eventually overtaken by the Social Gospel but culminated into the Post Colonialism global narrative as well as the New Left during the 60's and 70's. Feminism was always a middle class white woman thing, and as they gained access to higher education Marx came naturally into vogue at that time period. Freud was also extremely popular whenever the 20th century Feminism was gaining steam and rigor.
Take the entire point about privilege. It's another take on the class versus class system.
The only reason thus far why we never saw an equal anarchist movement was in part it was quashed. The Austrians and the like are able to proliferate in part better because of the internet and work of places like the Mises Institute culminating into Neo Austrian thinking. But works like Emma Goldman's type of anarchy, which frankly suck, seems to require a persistent lower class narrative against "the man" which was supplanted by the Marxists.As for other kinds of minarchists and anarchists there seems to be a requirement for a relative middle class to create a libertarian movement as well as a hatred for bankers.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Talk about being a hypocrite. It's okay for women to fight for their rights, but if men do they are scum and worse than most men?
I'm not gonna be on the next Men's Rights float or marching in their parade, but my god, they are entitled to the same freedoms as women are...
But I think what he means to say is that the men who hang around on that particular board are, well, just a little bit foaming at the mouth.
It's like how the women on Jezebel would be scum even if they called their website "The Women's Rights Forum". Just because it's in the name doesn't mean it's actually what they're all about.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So men should ignore the grossly unbalanced laws in areas like... divorce, custody, rape (especially statutory rape), and other sexual crimes (hey 18 year old, your 17 year old gf sent you a sexual text? have fun on the child molester list)
You're right. These areas are balanced, often, "in favor" of women. Because women are "caregivers," who should "not be working, but taking care of children," women often receive custody of children and childcare payments. Did women cause this? Or do men cause it? And if men are the people causing it (literally often the judge, jury, and executioner), fighting for "Men's Rights" in this area is the silliest thing I've ever heard.
It's hilarious that you mention sexual crimes, because really? REALLY?
If you think men are the ones most often subject to sexual crimes and related incidences, you are beyond, far beyond, reason in these cases.
How often when a man is raped do they treat it like it was because of the clothes he was wearing? Or tell him he shouldn't have been drinking? Or tell him it was his fault for not saying no enough times? Men are treated much differently in rape cases. Much better.
And while it is certainly not beyond reason that a man could be raped by a woman, the overwhelming majority of rapists are... men. Again, your rights here, given and violated by other men? And Men's Rights helps this? How?
Consent laws are there for a reason and the situation you described could occur, and does occur, to someone of any gender or sexuality. Again, these laws were written by men. Enforced by men. And the crimes punished by men. Men have all the power we could possibly ever want to change any of these laws.
And if they need to be, they certainly can be changed. But let's not pretend this is because men lack rights.
Society was not set-up by men for men etc. it was created for the benefit of society and if that meant trampling peoples rights no biggy for the last 99% of human history. Men's rights were every bit as disrespected/trampled as womens and mens interests are still put second to women's and childrens because that is how male disposability works. Men in those positions of power were put there to enforce this system and benefit and secure their power by maximizing male disposibility. Leadership was the most dangerous job in a primitive culture and thus fell to the disposable sex.
What happens when a male teacher sleeps with a high school student?
What happens when a female teacher sleep with a male high school student?
Just because you want to ignore the problem does not mean that it doesnt exist.
What do you think would happen if an 18 year old girl was caught having cyber sex over a web cam with a 16 year old boy?
I know what would happen if the genders were reversed... the boy's life would be ruined and he would be labeled a sexual predator for the rest of his life.
That is an injustice. I am not saying that there are not also injustices for females. Hell it doesnt even matter whose are "worse". Fighting for male rights does not somehow make fighting for female rights invalid. I support both male and female rights. The way to achieve balance is not making some areas unbalanced for one group and the other areas unbalanced for the other... everyone should be fighting for fair treatment in all situations.
Edit:
Also on your point about who caused an imbalance in child custody... who gives a ****? Even if we state that the sole cause of the problem is because a bunch of men made the laws around it 50 years ago, why does that invalidate the effort to try to correct the issue now? The group "men" is much to broad to try to blame for actions. This isnt a case where you can say "well your own group is responsible for it". This isnt the tea party lobbying for a law only to lobby to have it removed a year later or something. Some men may have created the problem but now some different men are fighting to correct it.
They're actually because of Feminists. The original child custody laws in the US always gave custody to the man, because the man was expected to be financially responsible. Later the tender years doctrine was created because it viewed as the best interest of the child. 1970s-currently we have the Feminist version of the "best interest of the child" which really translates into the giving women the children regardless of if the man is a better parent. Really the only time men get the child is if the woman is a drug addict, in jail or doesn't want the child.
So to answer your question did woman cause it? No, pro-feminist males and female Feminists caused it. But a question to you, why do you think males fighting for a fair shake in divorce courts is wrong? Why are you siding with feminists who actively prevent change to these things you view as unfair? When you say this is silly you come off as either ignorant or man hating. I'm gonna assume you're ignorant, in which case you need to undoctrinate yourself and stop listening to and spreading the lies you have been told.
Teenage boys who are statutory raped are told they should feel luck they were raped.
Not really. See the thing is when you defining rape by the legal definition of "rape" nearly 99% of rapists are male. But this because Statutory rape isn't defined as rape but rather sexual assault. Many of the other forms of rape against a man are considered sexual assault and not rape. When you add all the forms of sexual assault together women commit roughly 1/3 of sexual assaults... not exactly and overwhelming majority. Also, MRA's are mostly concerned with due process when it comes to being accused of rape. More info on this in the channel of the video i linked below. Read what MRA's have to say about the "dear colleague letter"
Also a video that covers the whole Facebook thing. and other Feminists internet speech suppression.
Here are some of the pics that got banned. One and Two.
Those don't look like child porn to me.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Art is life itself.
Yggy-Actually men are the victims of sexual crimes far more often then feminists would ever admit (as has been discussed they intentionally omit large numbers of male victims using one excuse or another) and women are victimized far less often the feminists claim as well. Whether that creates symetry is beside the point. Figures like 1 in 4 women and 97% of female victims don't come forward are the result of survey methods clearly engineered to produce enormous numbers of false positives. Vague questions like in DV "Has your partner ever critiqued what your wearing?" which is a common thing to do in a non-abusive way think "Yah know, I like the blue dress better sweety" then the feminist surveyer counts that as violent abuse and defends it by arguing that the "victim" can't make that decision for themselves as to whether or not that is abuse. Many times (as in more often the not) when the "victims" are asked if they were abused or raped they say HELL NO, THAT'S ABSURD!
Men certainly did make laws considering what would be the "best for society." And what they considered the "best for society" was women not participating in the political environment.
Men are not lacking for rights.
I'm sorry, what? You don't think women (of all ages) are told that?
(also lulz page 32)
Feel free to post your sources.
Art is life itself.