When will we acknowledge sexism and violence against men is just as real?

[Debater Slayer]

Your post lacked the "pseudo" prefix, thereby attacking the entire movement. But even now you're unclear...do you say that MRA are predominantly "pseudo"? I respect the desire of anyone to advocate for one's own group. Feminists & MRA should both be seen as legitimate in their pursuits. The existence of extreme & offensive elements might repel us, but the focused advocacy for civil liberties & justice is nonetheless right.

I very strongly suspect that misogyny among MRAs is more common—probably far more common—than misandry among feminists. A lot of MRAs strike me as reactionaries and insecure people who just want to "counter" what they perceive as female supremacy in feminism.

And yet, some feminists here insist upon implying & directly stating that. Such people strike me as angry thoughtless bigots. Oddly, feminists I know IRL see me as their ally. The internet is a much more polarizing place, eh?

You will notice that I only comment on people's statements. Not once have I called you a misogynist, rape apologist, or any of the labels you have mentioned in this thread. I'm mainly noting observations like your silence on a lot of misogynistic posts and criticism of feminism instead in the same threads where the misogynistic posts were made.

The Internet is not representative of all members of any given movement, certainly, but I think it is usually interesting to see how people's opinions sound when they express them in words only without any other factors affecting people's perception of those opinions. How often have you met rape apologists in public? And if you have, did you defend them as people who merely have a "different opinion"?

I see what I see. You too enjoy some unsavory company in your shrill accusations. Perhaps you imply that I secretly think men are superior to men, but I scoff at that notion.

There's no implication; I've been direct throughout this thread. But if you say that my company (whoever you mean by that) are being misandrist, I think that is pretty inconsistent given that you have defended particular people who not only hold misogynistic views but also unequivocally and clearly attempt to blame female rape victims for being "irresponsible."

Then we are both comfortable with our own views, & feel no shame. Is it also fair to say that like me, you too favor gender equality? If so, then why such hostility over criticizing a part of feminism which is less than progressive?

I don't intend any hostility. Perhaps my wording comes across that way because of its bluntness, which I acknowledge.

I only take issue with the perceived inconsistencies I mentioned above as well as the attempts to defend people who hold repulsive and hateful views.

 

[dust1n]

It might also mean that the violence might also be met with more violence.

Well, that's exactly what it is hinting... presumably that if you trying to rape me, I will physically attack you.

 

[dust1n]

The thing is, it is hard to feel sorry for someone who thinks you're better off dead.

Like I said, if the "Dead Men Don't Rape" implies anything other to you than if you attempt to rape me I'm going to physically, than you are desperately grasping at straws trying to imagine a malice that isn't actually there.

 

[Revoltingest]

I very strongly suspect that misogyny among MRAs is more common—probably far more common—than misandry among feminists. A lot of MRAs strike me as reactionaries and insecure people who just want to "counter" what they perceive as female supremacy in feminism.

That is a very popular stereotype of MRAs among RF's feminists. (How dare those privileged men whine & want gender equality for themselves too!) Let's say you had evidence....does showing MRAs to be somewhat less noble somehow delegitimize advocacy for their own?

No doubt, you support men's rights just as you do women's, but you have personal reasons for identifying as a feminist instead of a MRA. I support both also, but I identify as neither because I've a more general focus on all people simultaneously. Is there any philosophical aspect about gender equality where we disagree?

You will notice that I only comment on people's statements.

True....most of the time.
But lately I haven't been get'n much sugar.

Not once have I called you a misogynist, rape apologist, or any of the labels you have mentioned in this thread. I'm mainly noting observations like your silence on a lot of misogynistic posts and criticism of feminism instead in the same threads where the misogynistic posts were made.

I too I make observations based upon your (& other feminists') silence in the face of fellow feminists making misandrist comments (eg, "Dead men don't rape") & ad hom attacks on men's rights advocacy.
I wonder....have you ever seen me make a post favoring or defending feminism?

How often have you met rape apologists in public? And if you have, did you defend them as people who merely have a "different opinion"?

I've never knowingly met a "rape apologist" in public.
This is a vapid term because it's so often applied to any male who broaches the subject of advising people to take practical measures to avoid assault, thereby "blaming the victim". (I notice that after calling me a "rape apologist", feminists in their DIR espoused the same opinions with nary a peep of objection.) Feminist culture should rise above the penchant to fling thoughtlekss insults & buzzwords at the first sign of any criticism or disagreement from men.

There's no implication; I've been direct throughout this thread. But if you say that my company (whoever you mean by that) are being misandrist, I think that is pretty inconsistent given that you have defended particular people who not only hold misogynistic views but also unequivocally and clearly attempt to blame female rape victims for being "irresponsible."

At times, I'll defend the scum of the Earth when there's an unjust attack, & such defense serves the purpose of civil discourse. I've defended Obama, feminists, commies, cops, anti-abortion types, felons & even lawyers. But this doesn't mean that I belong to their group or support their agenda. Do you never defend anyone on the other side of an issue? Do you never find common ground with the enemy?

I don't intend any hostility.

Acknowledged.

I only take issue with the perceived inconsistencies I mentioned above as well as the attempts to defend people who hold repulsive and hateful views.

There are many posts here by many people....too many for me to personally address. (I can't even keep up with all the alerts I receive.) So I prioritize.
- Some I don't ever see, hence, no response.
- Some are so bizarre, no response is needed.
- Some objectionable posts are dealt with by others. I've no desire to dogpile.
- In some few cases, I feel the calling to wade in.

If one reads an agenda into my countering a small percentage of vile posts, then I'll be guilty of misogyny, misanthropy, racism, sexism, ageism, lookism, Islamophobia, Anti-semitism, etc, etc. What would we find if we apply this standard of judgement to your posts?

 

[Revoltingest]

Like I said, if the "Dead Men Don't Rape" implies anything other to you than if you attempt to rape me I'm going to physically, than you are desperately grasping at straws trying to imagine a malice that isn't actually there.

So far on the feminist side of RF, we have defense of "Dead men don't rape" as a reasonable & just slogan, & not a single objection to it. (If I missed one, please correct me.) I don't buy the tortured rationalization that it's about self defense. It bespeaks a tacit & even active approval of misandry within feminist culture.

But it doesn't end there....consider that this is a thread about recognizing sexism & violence towards men. What ill irony it is that instead of this, we find feminists actually tolerating the advocacy of violence towards men because of the sexist presumption that they're rapists. In a thread about difficulties faced by men in particular, feminists have steered the thread to make it about them & their victimhood.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Are you boys and girls done fighting yet? I wanna go watch some cartoons!

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you boys and girls done fighting yet? I wanna go watch some cartoons!

This is a cartoon...just look at our avatars!
We have Groundskeeper Willie, Henchman #21, Popeye, Calvin, etc.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That is a very popular stereotype of MRAs among RF's feminists. (How dare those privileged men whine & want gender equality for themselves too!) Let's say you had evidence....does showing MRAs to be somewhat less noble somehow delegitimize advocacy for their own?

No doubt, you support men's rights just as you do women's, but you have personal reasons for identifying as a feminist instead of a MRA. I support both also, but I identify as neither because I've a more general focus on all people simultaneously. Is there any philosophical aspect about gender equality where we disagree?

I don't think a lot of MRAs are just "somewhat less noble"; I think many of them have ideas that are outright dangerous to society. It doesn't delegitimize the cause of men's rights, but I think it exposes what a lot of those movements really hope to achieve with their so-called activism.

The beliefs you yourself have professed in the posts I've read from you about this issue don't seem to indicate that you are against gender equality; however, certain things I've observed, like what I mentioned earlier about defending misogynistic posts as a mere difference of opinion as well as defending rape apologists (which doesn't automatically make you one, just to avoid any misunderstandings), give the impression of too much tolerance of such views.

I too I make observations based upon your (& other feminists') silence in the face of fellow feminists making misandrist comments (eg, "Dead men don't rape") & ad hom attacks on men's rights advocacy.
I wonder....have you ever seen me make a post favoring or defending feminism?

"Dead men don't rape" strikes me as a rather tasteless sentence, albeit a factual one. Dead men also don't steal. Dead women don't steal. Dead men and women don't [insert anything here]. The lyrics of the song with that title describe a specific situation talking about a rapist. I don't get how that is supposed to be a generalization about all men in that context.

I've never knowingly met a "rape apologist" in public.
This is a vapid term because it's so often applied to any male who broaches the subject of advising people to take practical measures to avoid assault, thereby "blaming the victim". (I notice that after calling me a "rape apologist", feminists in their DIR espoused the same opinions with nary a peep of objection.) Feminist culture should rise above the penchant to fling thoughtlekss insults & buzzwords at the first sign of any criticism or disagreement from men.

Or maybe whatever posts you are talking about weren't specifically aimed at you and you took them personally. Just saying, because I've seen that happen way too often here.

I do think a lot of people who bring up supposed measures to avoid sexual assault do so with the ulterior motive of promoting certain beliefs about perceived standards of modesty (both in behavior and dress) and why people of both genders should abide by those standards. When the number of arguments shifting the focus to those "protective measures" is an order of magnitude more than the number of arguments addressing cultural attitudes that shield and justify rapists' actions, I think it is obvious that there's a problem.

At times, I'll defend the scum of the Earth when there's an unjust attack, & such defense serves the purpose of civil discourse. I've defended Obama, feminists, commies, cops, anti-abortion types, felons & even lawyers. But this doesn't mean that I belong to their group or support their agenda. Do you never defend anyone on the other side of an issue? Do you never find common ground with the enemy?

I find it interesting that you placed feminists along with those other groups that you apparently think rather lowly of. Hopefully that was just an oversight on your part.

Nevertheless, I also think it's indicative of a larger problem when most of someone's efforts are directed toward defending people with harmful views on the grounds of defending someone on the other side of the issue, especially when such defense distracts from the actual issues one is supposed to address.

There are many posts here by many people....too many for me to personally address. (I can't even keep up with all the alerts I receive.) So I prioritize.
- Some I don't ever see, hence, no response.
- Some are so bizarre, no response is needed.
- Some objectionable posts are dealt with by others. I've no desire to dogpile.
- In some few cases, I feel the calling to wade in.

If one reads an agenda into my countering a small percentage of vile posts, then I'll be guilty of misogyny, misanthropy, racism, sexism, ageism, lookism, Islamophobia, Anti-semitism, etc, etc. What would we find if we apply this standard of judgement to your posts?

Well, from what I've seen, they are certainly not "few cases." I also think it is very bizarre logic to stay silent on statements that one is supposedly against while only voicing disapproval when said statements and those who made them are called out.

It's less an issue of staying silent on vile posts and more an issue of actively defending people who make such posts.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think a lot of MRAs are just "somewhat less noble"; I think many of them have ideas that are outright dangerous to society. It doesn't delegitimize the cause of men's rights, but I think it exposes what a lot of those movements really hope to achieve with their so-called activism.

You dwell upon malevolence & subterfuge so strongly regarding men trying to fight for their side of gender equality. You characterize it as "many" in "a lot of those movements". This seems mere guilt by vague association.

The beliefs you yourself have professed in the posts I've read from you about this issue don't seem to indicate that you are against gender equality....

Alas, no matter how often & clearly I advocate gender equality & bodily autonomy (more so than even most feminists), I get only lame underlined admission? Must've left the post cloaking device on....or enemies of some social justice warriors cannot possibly have merit, eh?

....however, certain things I've observed, like what I mentioned earlier about defending misogynistic posts as a mere difference of opinion as well as defending rape apologists (which doesn't automatically make you one, just to avoid any misunderstandings), give the impression of too much tolerance of such views.

In RF we have a fundamental assumption that there will be strong differences of opinion about very contentious issues. We observe the polite fiction that opposing views are also valid cuz it's better than the "I have the truth! You're an evil poopy head!" dialog. Thus, we let people speak, & we address the issues.
But some posters get mean when one denies their truth. Some here advocate that this is good. I disagree, & might police things when no one else steps up. You don't like it....tough noogies. (Yeah, I said it!)

You might believe it's wrong to defend the right of....let's say....a Catholic to oppose abortion. Should they endure rhetorical abuse? In such cases I will defend not their position, but their right to opine without abuse by posters who abandon civility & our rules.
If you have a specific post of mine you'd like to discuss, then cite it. We'll explore your objections. Otherwise, I request no more comments which smell of insinuation that I support misogyny.

"Dead men don't rape" strikes me as a rather tasteless sentence, albeit a factual one. Dead men also don't steal. Dead women don't steal. Dead men and women don't [insert anything here]. The lyrics of the song with that title describe a specific situation talking about a rapist. I don't get how that is supposed to be a generalization about all men in that context.

I find the claim of "factual" to be inadequate rationalization for using the phrase "dead men". A flag is a context conveying more than mere cold facts. They're about agendas & values. Perhaps analogies might help. Let's consider other factual statements, & whether they're acceptable on flags....
DEAD DOCTORS DON'T KILL BABIES
DEAD WOMEN DON'T NAG
DEAD JEWS DON'T STEAL
If you saw any of these on flags, would you think they're benign statements of fact....no other meaning?

What might it mean that in a thread about the reality of violence & sexism against men, you offer only opposition to men's rights advocates, & even defend a flag which appears to advocate killing men?
You'd say this isn't misandry. But what would be? Is it solely overt declaration of hatred, or does it include subtle insults or tolerating abuse of men's rights & dignity?

Or maybe whatever posts you are talking about weren't specifically aimed at you and you took them personally. Just saying, because I've seen that happen way too often here.

They were specific. I noticed only a single feminist, Shadow Wolf, take exception to such feminist fusillades. The rest of the group all seem quite comfortable with abuse. One approved, claiming solidarity with one's "sister".

I do think a lot of people who bring up supposed measures to avoid sexual assault do so with the ulterior motive of promoting certain beliefs about perceived standards of modesty (both in behavior and dress) and why people of both genders should abide by those standards. When the number of arguments shifting the focus to those "protective measures" is an order of magnitude more than the number of arguments addressing cultural attitudes that shield and justify rapists' actions, I think it is obvious that there's a problem.

When feminists here paint males with the broad brush of "rape apologetics" & the presumption of "victim blaming", they engage in the worst of sexist bigotry, ie, viewing a poster not as an individual, but as a mere negative stereotype.
But I note that feminists all bristle at being characterized by stereotypes of them, or by very real examples of misandrists & racists in their midst. You apply a standard of judgment which you would never allow for your own.

I find it interesting that you placed feminists along with those other groups that you apparently think rather lowly of. Hopefully that was just an oversight on your part.

I chose actual examples to show defense of both some you like, & some you don't. But alas, you're committed...I defend some malefactor, it's cuz I support the group. Of course, my defenses of feminism go unnoticed.

Nevertheless, I also think it's indicative of a larger problem when most of someone's efforts are directed toward defending people with harmful views on the grounds of defending someone on the other side of the issue, especially when such defense distracts from the actual issues one is supposed to address.

I see a larger problem when one won't defend another against injustice unless they're within one's group. This is cowardice....nay, downright evil because it grants permission for evil to thrive.
I've never seen you defend or support Xians or Muslims when they've suffered bigoted attacks on RF. Why stand idly by....because they're believers & you're not?
Some will call them "troll" repeatedly. But so as long as they're members here, I say such insults are wrong, no matter how "true" you might think them.

Well, from what I've seen, they are certainly not "few cases." I also think it is very bizarre logic to stay silent on statements that one is supposedly against while only voicing disapproval when said statements and those who made them are called out.
It's less an issue of staying silent on vile posts and more an issue of actively defending people who make such posts.

This is unclear, but I grok that you're committed seeing me as a foe no matter what I believe. It reflects poorly on feminism to wring hostile polarization from an issue on which we should be allies.

 

[suncowiam]

A friend of mine from college was an early feminist. She was very sure that she would hit a glass ceiling trying to be lawyer because of all the statistics that she studied. She was arguing about all the struggles that women have endured and then in turn, she would struggle the same way. I was honestly frustrated because she never had a job and she is arguing about something that she might never have to truly endure in her life time. Maybe the numbers are true but seeding that thought in your head without actually seeing the reality for yourself, I found to be more harmful. She was debating on her career because of these statistics. My response to her was simply ignore the statistics and go do what interests her. Then deal with whatever problems as they come up. Well, I got tired of the same debate so our relationship, unfortunately, deteriorated.

I just feel with all this defensive posturing it just makes everyone overly sensitive. They start seeing threats and shadows where there really is none.

Not saying to ingore real hate, bigotry or discrimination but just saying that maybe some incidents are possibly just being overly sensitive to differences in cultures, environments or the ways sexes are hard wired.

 

[Revoltingest]

A friend of mine from college was an early feminist. She was very sure that she would hit a glass ceiling trying to be lawyer because of all the statistics that she studied. She was arguing about all the struggles that women have endured and then in turn, she would struggle the same way. I was honestly frustrated because she never had a job and she is arguing about something that she might never have to truly endure in her life time. Maybe the numbers are true but seeding that thought in your head without actually seeing the reality for yourself, I found to be more harmful. She was debating on her career because of these statistics. My response to her was simply ignore the statistics and go do what interests her. Then deal with whatever problems as they come up. Well, I got tired of the same debate so our relationship, unfortunately, deteriorated.

I just feel with all this defensive posturing it just makes everyone overly sensitive. They start seeing threats and shadows where there really is none.

Not saying to ingore real hate, bigotry or discrimination but just saying that maybe some incidents are possibly just being overly sensitive to differences in cultures, environments or the ways sexes are hard wired.

It reminds me of a gal I once car pooled with to work. Carla complained about how minorities didn't advance at Black & Decker, & how white people had it so easy. (She said she didn't understand why we weren't all millionaires. This was before "privilege" was the ubiquitous buzzword.) But after nearly a year of carpooling, only twice did she show up early enuf to actually share a ride. Typically, she was an hour or more late for work every day.

Ever carpool with a German? Carpool stories.....I have more, but I'll save'm for another day.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

A friend of mine from college was an early feminist. She was very sure that she would hit a glass ceiling trying to be lawyer because of all the statistics that she studied. She was arguing about all the struggles that women have endured and then in turn, she would struggle the same way. I was honestly frustrated because she never had a job and she is arguing about something that she might never have to truly endure in her life time. Maybe the numbers are true but seeding that thought in your head without actually seeing the reality for yourself, I found to be more harmful. She was debating on her career because of these statistics. My response to her was simply ignore the statistics and go do what interests her. Then deal with whatever problems as they come up. Well, I got tired of the same debate so our relationship, unfortunately, deteriorated.

I just feel with all this defensive posturing it just makes everyone overly sensitive. They start seeing threats and shadows where there really is none.

Not saying to ingore real hate, bigotry or discrimination but just saying that maybe some incidents are possibly just being overly sensitive to differences in cultures, environments or the ways sexes are hard wired.

Is this a suggestion that your friend never saw any discrimination until after college? That little girls are just fine and can handle life by listening to the advice of male friends of hers how life actually is unless the big bad hairy feminists start planting scary stories in their heads?

C'mon. I saw this kind of stuff back when I was 12. Boys on the playground told me they didn't want me to play football because I was a girl. In spite of the fact that I played football, kickball, and basketball with them for years....then one day they all decided that being a girl was unacceptable.

It's just one example. But it suggests that girls and young women are insulated from sexism until they either see statistics and get frightened by the big bad hairy feminists telling them fairy tales, or they should just listen and do what their male friends tell them about how life actually is and women should stop listening to other women about sexism.

Or...here's a couple of questions....this is a thread about sexism and violence against men.

Do you tell these men in this thread the same thing?

And...What is real sexism?

 

[Debater Slayer]

You dwell upon malevolence & subterfuge so strongly regarding men trying to fight for their side of gender equality. You characterize it as "many" in "a lot of those movements". This seems mere guilt by vague association.

Alas, no matter how often & clearly I advocate gender equality & bodily autonomy (more so than even most feminists), I get only lame underlined admission? Must've left the post cloaking device on....or enemies of some social justice warriors cannot possibly have merit, eh?

I don't really need to "dwell upon" anything when the sexism is so noticeable among those movements.

Regarding your stance on gender equality, what did you expect me to say? Considering that I can only go by your posts to judge whether or not you support gender equality, I stated that they don't seem to me to suggest that you are against it. Why would you take issue with that?

So far not a single feminist here has called you an "enemy" of feminism. You are the only one who has been making that characterization and attributing it to feminists here.

In RF we have a fundamental assumption that there will be strong differences of opinion about very contentious issues. We observe the polite fiction that opposing views are also valid cuz it's better than the "I have the truth! You're an evil poopy head!" dialog. Thus, we let people speak, & we address the issues.
But some posters get mean when one denies their truth. Some here advocate that this is good. I disagree, & might police things when no one else steps up. You don't like it....tough noogies. (Yeah, I said it!)

You might believe it's wrong to defend the right of....let's say....a Catholic to oppose abortion. Should they endure rhetorical abuse? In such cases I will defend not their position, but their right to opine without abuse by posters who abandon civility & our rules.
If you have a specific post of mine you'd like to discuss, then cite it. We'll explore your objections. Otherwise, I request no more comments which smell of insinuation that I support misogyny.

I think that the highlighted part is exactly the kind of attitude that is not only unduly politically correct but also quite possibly harmful. When you can argue in favor of certain views using scientific facts and logic, I think it is perfectly justified to claim that one has the correct views on matters that have to do with objective facts (such as when a fetus becomes viable, whether or not homosexuality is natural, how living organisms reached their current state, etc.).

Now, I know that some people like appearing neutral even if it means hesitating or even refusing to vocally speak out against harmful views. This is where the undue political correctness comes in. Some people let blatant homophobia slide without any harsh criticism under the banner of "tolerance." They also treat religious fundamentalism and misogyny as mere differences of opinion despite the fact that those forms of bigotry have adversely affected the lives of millions of people. I think one of the main failures of today's liberalism is its tendency to placate toxic beliefs to protect "diversity" and "tolerance," in case you think I'm singling anyone out for criticism.

If you consider harsh criticism of such vile views abusive, then my response is to strongly assert that such views are far more abusive and harmful than anything I could ever say about them.

I don't really care to quote posts and have a meta-debate about them; I think pointing out stances you have taken in these discussions is enough.

I find the claim of "factual" to be inadequate rationalization for using the phrase "dead men". A flag is a context conveying more than mere cold facts. They're about agendas & values. Perhaps analogies might help. Let's consider other factual statements, & whether they're acceptable on flags....
DEAD DOCTORS DON'T KILL BABIES
DEAD WOMEN DON'T NAG
DEAD JEWS DON'T STEAL
If you saw any of these on flags, would you think they're benign statements of fact....no other meaning?

"Jews" and "doctors" are a lot more specific than just "men." In a context where a male rapist attempts to violently assault a woman, I don't think "dead men don't rape" is nearly as offensive as some people seem to perceive it to be, although I think it is a tad tasteless.

What might it mean that in a thread about the reality of violence & sexism against men, you offer only opposition to men's rights advocates, & even defend a flag which appears to advocate killing men?
You'd say this isn't misandry. But what would be? Is it solely overt declaration of hatred, or does it include subtle insults or tolerating abuse of men's rights & dignity?

This is a misrepresentation of my stance. At no point did I state that I'm opposed to all men's rights advocates; I'm only opposed to the misogynistic and sexist elements among movements that claim to advocate men's rights. Pointing out the negative elements among MRAs is not misandry, just like criticizing the negative aspects among feminists is not misogyny.

They were specific. I noticed only a single feminist, Shadow Wolf, take exception to such feminist fusillades. The rest of the group all seem quite comfortable with abuse. One approved, claiming solidarity with one's "sister".

You took huge issue with "dead men don't rape" because you felt like the sentence unnecessarily included the word "men." Now I have to ask why you qualified "fusillades" with "feminist," thereby making a generalization about feminism rather than just a subset of it.

When feminists here paint males with the broad brush of "rape apologetics" & the presumption of "victim blaming", they engage in the worst of sexist bigotry, ie, viewing a poster not as an individual, but as a mere negative stereotype.
But I note that feminists all bristle at being characterized by stereotypes of them, or by very real examples of misandrists & racists in their midst. You apply a standard of judgment which you would never allow for your own.

Or perhaps no feminists here have used the alleged broad brush and only some people believe think they have. Do you deny that many posts in threads about women's rights issues did contain rape apologetics and victim-blaming?

I chose actual examples to show defense of both some you like, & some you don't. But alas, you're committed...I defend some malefactor, it's cuz I support the group. Of course, my defenses of feminism go unnoticed.

Not quite. It's more like this: you defend some malefactor from perceived "abuse" and then bash feminism in the next breath.

I see a larger problem when one won't defend another against injustice unless they're within one's group. This is cowardice....nay, downright evil because it grants permission for evil to thrive.
I've never seen you defend or support Xians or Muslims when they've suffered bigoted attacks on RF. Why stand idly by....because they're believers & you're not?
Some will call them "troll" repeatedly. But so as long as they're members here, I say such insults are wrong, no matter how "true" you might think them.

I'm too busy moderating personal attacks on members to defend anyone in public threads.

This is unclear, but I grok that you're committed seeing me as a foe no matter what I believe. It reflects poorly on feminism to wring hostile polarization from an issue on which we should be allies.

See above for the answer to your claim that I just want to see you as an "enemy."

By the way, I'm not feminism; I'm a feminist. I think it is poor reasoning to regard the statements from just one individual as a representation of an entire movement consisting of millions of people, regardless of whether you perceive such representation as good or bad.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't really need to "dwell upon" anything when the sexism is so noticeable among those movements.

To those seeking bias confirmation it will be ubiquitous. I'm reminded of racists who notice black everywhere too. There is danger in making writ large the results of a tendentious gaze.

Regarding your stance on gender equality, what did you expect me to say?

Actually, I expected no affirmative acknowledgment, so no surprise there.

So far not a single feminist here has called you an "enemy" of feminism. You are the only one who has been making that characterization and attributing it to feminists here.

Placing "enemy" in quotes is artful. I spoke more broadly than of a singular word in this one thread. In other threads, feminists have called me "misogynist" & "rape apologist". I object to thoughtless & abusive ad hom attacks, which have both tacit & overt support from RF feminists.

I think that the highlighted part is exactly the kind of attitude that is not only unduly politically correct but also quite possibly harmful. When you can argue in favor of certain views using scientific facts and logic, I think it is perfectly justified to claim that one has the correct views on matters that have to do with objective facts (such as when a fetus becomes viable, whether or not homosexuality is natural, how living organisms reached their current state, etc.).

Certainly, some positions are more objectively defendable than others, but you avoid the point surrounding the portion you highlighted, ie, that discussing the issues rather than attacking the posters is the goal. To believe one has THE TRUTH is no excuse for ditching the rules.

Now, I know that some people like appearing neutral even if it means hesitating or even refusing to vocally speak out against harmful views. This is where the undue political correctness comes in. Some people let blatant homophobia slide without any harsh criticism under the banner of "tolerance." They also treat religious fundamentalism and misogyny as mere differences of opinion despite the fact that those forms of bigotry have adversely affected the lives of millions of people. I think one of the main failures of today's liberalism is its tendency to placate toxic beliefs to protect "diversity" and "tolerance," in case you think I'm singling anyone out for criticism.

Seeing that I favor countering wongful views, we can agree this is worthwhile.
Do we agree that it is the view which should be countered, rather than the poster?

If you consider harsh criticism of such vile views abusive, then my response is to strongly assert that such views are far more abusive and harmful than anything I could ever say about them.

You miss my distinction between criticizing views vs people holding them.

I don't really care to quote posts and have a meta-debate about them; I think pointing out stances you have taken in these discussions is enough.

I've been clear that you misrepresent my views, so I asked you to address actual posts instead of allusions & impressions. This wouldn be the opposite of "meta-debate", ie, discussing specific posts to which you object. Worried that you might have made an oopsie?

"Jews" and "doctors" are a lot more specific than just "men."

Really....how is one less specific than another?
"Jews" refers to people who are Jews.
"Doctors" refers to people who are doctors.
"Men" refers to people who are men.

In a context where a male rapist attempts to violently assault a woman, I don't think "dead men don't rape" is nearly as offensive as some people seem to perceive it to be, although I think it is a tad tasteless.

The context was a flag. The message says "Men"....not "Men who rape women". That feminists find this at worst merely tasteless is indicative of pervasive misandry throughout feminism.

This is a misrepresentation of my stance. At no point did I state that I'm opposed to all men's rights advocates; I'm only opposed to the misogynistic and sexist elements among movements that claim to advocate men's rights. Pointing out the negative elements among MRAs is not misandry, just like criticizing the negative aspects among feminists is not misogyny.

Backing off now, eh? At the beginning of post #321 you had a much stronger characterization of MRAs as misogynistic. But I agree with your post here...bigotry should be pointed out in both MRA & feminism.

You took huge issue with "dead men don't rape" because you felt like the sentence unnecessarily included the word "men."

You misstate my message. The problem isn't that "men" was "unnecessarily included". It's that the slogan is directed at men. Lacking any qualifier about which men, & just why or how they'd become dead, it sends a message about indiscriminate violence against men.

Now I have to ask why you qualified "fusillades" with "feminist," thereby making a generalization about feminism rather than just a subset of it.

But the fusillades to which I refer were made by feminists in the thread at issue. Context would make it clear that this was about those particular feminists, not all. Did you know that I've even posted links on RF to feminists with views I respect?

Do you deny that many posts in threads about women's rights issues did contain rape apologetics and victim-blaming?

No. Where we will disagree is about how many, ie, which ones were actual rape apologetics & which were imagined.

Not quite. It's more like this: you defend some malefactor from perceived "abuse" and then bash feminism in the next breath.

Objective criticism of elements of within a large & multi-faceted movement is not the same as "bashing". Do you see the difference now?

I'm too busy moderating personal attacks on members to defend anyone in public threads.

You find time to defend those you side with, but have no time to defend anyone else? I wouldn't blame time.....tis personal choice to never defend pariahs from abuse. At least I devote some time to helping lesser folk....cuz I'm so charitable.

See above for the answer to your claim that I just want to see you as an "enemy."

By "enemy", I mean that you see me as a non-feminist....the outsider...the rape meta-apologist who bashes feminism (as you said). My diagnosis: This antipathy is the motivation behind: to avoid recognition of common ground between us, to ignore my feminist positive posts, to notice only bias confirming posts, & to build straw men from inferences of uncited posts.

By the way, I'm not feminism; I'm a feminist. I think it is poor reasoning to regard the statements from just one individual as a representation of an entire movement consisting of millions of people, regardless of whether you perceive such representation as good or bad.

You are a single feminist, true. I've tried to be clear that the actions of any single self-described feminist affect perception of feminism as a whole. I've also been very clear that feminism is a diverse collection of movements, with members varying greatly in individual beliefs. Some segments I find to be kindred spirits. Others are....well....philosophically incompatible.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ever carpool with a German? Carpool stories.....I have more, but I'll save'm for another day.

LOL! How many people got left for being late?

When feminists here paint males with the broad brush of "rape apologetics" & the presumption of "victim blaming", they engage in the worst of sexist bigotry, ie, viewing a poster not as an individual, but as a mere negative stereotype.

Who are the feminists here who do that? Paint with such broad of a brush? We have called "boys will be boys" when the high school's top football players are accused to be an apologetic mentality, but we have not placed the blame or guilt on all men as a whole.

 

[Revoltingest]

LOL! How many people got left for being late?

Who are the feminists here who do that? Paint with such broad of a brush? We have called "boys will be boys" when the high school's top football players are accused to be an apologetic mentality, but we have not placed the blame or guilt on all men as a whole.

To name names would be against the rule prohibiting "calling out". (Oh, am I chomping at the bit to be more candid! But I behave myself.) In this context it refers to only a few of the many feminists.

To be clear, I never left Carla stranded. She'd drive to my place, & seeing that I'd already left, she'd just drive to work.....an hour or 2 late. I presume she got away with it because she was in a marketing department. (Marketing is never as important as engineering!)

 

[suncowiam]

Is this a suggestion that your friend never saw any discrimination until after college? That little girls are just fine and can handle life by listening to the advice of male friends of hers how life actually is unless the big bad hairy feminists start planting scary stories in their heads?

C'mon. I saw this kind of stuff back when I was 12. Boys on the playground told me they didn't want me to play football because I was a girl. In spite of the fact that I played football, kickball, and basketball with them for years....then one day they all decided that being a girl was unacceptable.

It's just one example. But it suggests that girls and young women are insulated from sexism until they either see statistics and get frightened by the big bad hairy feminists telling them fairy tales, or they should just listen and do what their male friends tell them about how life actually is and women should stop listening to other women about sexism.

Or...here's a couple of questions....this is a thread about sexism and violence against men.

Do you tell these men in this thread the same thing?

And...What is real sexism?

You're so defensive, already...

Actually, my point was the same to the sexism about men or discrimination towards minorities and age groups. I didn't verbally state it but it applied to all other ISMs.

My point, in a nutshell, is don't get stuck on a thought. Do whatever, you need to do to get where you want to be. If that was my daughter in your position at 12 years of age, I would tell her to keep on finding a way to play. Don't let what anyone tell her to conclude that she can not play. Don't get stuck in the race, sex, age debate. Don't be the victim by playing the "fill in the blank" card.

Yes, there are some situations where the victims have absolutely no power to go beyond. I don't mean to belittle those people but I am asking to continue to think outside the box and pursue a solution. Life is not fair. Some people need to do more than others to get to the same spot.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You're so defensive, already...

Heh. Cute. You were quick to point out the "feminist" label, so I chose to act the #notallfeminist trope just as quickly. It's all tongue-in-cheek, dearest.

Actually, my point was the same to the sexism about men or discrimination towards minorities and age groups. I didn't verbally state it but it applied to all other ISMs.

My point, in a nutshell, is don't get stuck on a thought. Do whatever, you need to do to get where you want to be. If that was my daughter in your position at 12 years of age, I would tell her to keep on finding a way to play. Don't let what anyone tell to her to conclude that she can not play. Don't get stuck in the race, sex, age debate. Don't be the victim by playing the "fill in the blank" card.

Sure. It is a great theory and worthy of attempting. I still act in the same way to this day. The reality?....tends to sway more toward "real". What happened was: I kept trying, I kept asking, I stated my case of our history playing together, and then I was branded as a whiner. Eventually it wasn't worth the time or the stomach acid or the tears to keep trying at a group of 10 boys or so who just wanted to play football in limited timed recess. And at 12? Perspective is far different and the ego is far less developed than somebody at your age or my age.

So, I found myself going my own way. I wound up doing all right enough in the end, but it doesn't have to be that way, and as far as I'm concerned I've always been quite the athlete. The boys who went along with denying me an invitation to play were missing out on a valuable asset, IMHO. Should they continue in thinking that girls playing football is just simply wrong? Period?

Yes, there are some situations where there victims have absolutely no power to go beyond. I don't mean to belittle those people but I am asking to continue to think outside the box and pursue a solution. Life is not fair. Some people need to do more than others to get ot the same spot.

Entrepreneur right here. I'm all about solutions after recognizing problems in our midst. One of them is pointing out and challenging the status quo if said status quo is not lining up to our promise of "liberty and justice for all." That's just one of them, though. And though life isn't fair due to genetics, zip codes, and health deterioration, we can at the very least find ways to make citizenship and equal rights, liberties, opportunities, and protections as fair as possible.

And, in the spirit of the thread of sexism and violence against men, I stand for men's rights as well.

 

[Akivah]

I recently watched some material on YouTube about feminists and men's right advocates (MRA). It seems to me that they agree on some things. Feminists say they don't need men and MRA say they don't want women. So both groups will go happily about their own business without the other sex.

 

[Revoltingest]

I recently watched some material on YouTube about feminists and men's right advocates (MRA). It seems to me that they agree on some things. Feminists say they don't need men and MRA say they don't want women. So both groups will go happily about their own business without the other sex.

Call me an inveterate skeptic, but it's just possible....remotely possible....that some of the things on youtube don't fully illustrate all that's out there in the real world.

But there does seem to be an excess of what you say. Those of us on seemingly opposite sides but share the same values might work on being friendlier with each other.
To my loyal opposition, I offer....

Btw, I thoroughly washed me hands before I made'm.