Drama in /OneY about male feminists (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
43 ups - 26 downs = 17 votes
230 comments submitted at 14:46:18 on Nov 1, 2013 by potato1
Drama in /OneY about male feminists (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
43 ups - 26 downs = 17 votes
230 comments submitted at 14:46:18 on Nov 1, 2013 by potato1
Holy shit there's more drama here than in the actual post.
It's subredditdramadrama.
Anything about any kind of social inequality, or ever mentioning the word "feminism" sends SRD into a total fucking tailspin
Notice how controversial your own comment apparently is :P
And it is glorious.
The comment threads in here are indicative of exactly what is wrong with SRD in its current form.
Fuck off with your agendas and your ideas about what is and what is not social justice. SRD isn't supposed to care who's right and who's wrong, we're supposed to join together and laugh at the people who get worked about internet comments while posting Jimmy Fallon gifs and making jokes about how /u/david-me is always online.
The whole perpetuating the drama and having to sift through threads and threads of MRAs and SJWs is fucking tiresome. I want to laugh, dammit!
IDK I'm getting as much entertainment out of the posters here as I am the linked drama.
Fair enough. It's too serious and defensive for it to be entertaining to me (admittedly, a personal opinion).
I liked it more when the threads were filled with impartial observers, like people at a zoo: it's fun to watch monkeys throw poop at each other, but you don't necessarily want to join in.
Now SRD is like a zoo that ONLY has poop-throwing monkeys, and these monkeys are now flinging their poop between the bars and hitting the poor guys who just wanted to watch monkeys be aggro for a while. Want to go see some tigers, or go visit the snake house (personal fave)? Too bad, your only course of action is to either fling shit back or just stand there and look sad cause all of the other zoos have been bulldozed.
I guess I enjoy the shit flinging still. I'm still pretty new to this sub, so I can understand it getting old.
I don't troll often, but when I do, I save it for people who brigade SRD.
>I'm still pretty new to this sub, so I can understand it getting old.
Man, if you're new, how did you create that shilling schedule so fast? I call lie, an elaborate ruse, if you will. You're obviously a plant from SubredditDramaDrama!
I wish I could take credit for it. I think it was /u/titan413.
That...plambini.
This is the best reason to look at /r/subredditdrama comments.
I love low-hanging fruit. We don't even have to move outside our comfy little enclosure to find it!
And we get to vote and comment, too! I hate being unable to voice my opinion just cause I was linked there (I totally understand why but it makes me feel powerless!), being able to comment/vote here is very...therapeutic.
You have no idea how much we appreciate you not voting or commenting. Thank you. :)
While I think that perhaps SRD has changed some, the 'current form' of SRD also depends on some outside factors that can't be controlled. There isn't always A+++ level drama out there on reddit, so people do what's easiest and pick tired topics like feminism, gun rights, LGBT issues, etc. Unfortunately SRD can't force bizarre mod drama or huge sub fall outs on a whim. We can only pray to the popcorn gods that something hilariously dramatic happens, and given time it always does.
That's a good point too, but regardless of the drama subject, lately it seems like there's a lot more continuation drama in here.
Yeah, it's true... maybe I'm just lying to myself. I want to believe there is light at the end of the tunnel!
Dude /u/David-me is the shit
i blame people like fiddler and demonic i always see them in mra/fem posts plus the fact that other subs can come and stir shit with eachother like some sorta battleground.
we need to be more smug like circlebroke
90 comments and 4 points on a 4 hour old post. Looks like our friends have come to visit.
God fucking dammit.
ITT:
"Feminism is dead, if you want real equality join our Egalitarian movement that doesn't exist outside of the internet and consists of us arguing on forums and posting dubious blogs"
I just saved you some bandwidth.
How dare you make fun of the super-effective, not-at-all made-up movement known as egalitarianism!
The movement that's so important and legit it has 0 lobbyists, 0 organizations and 0 politicians espousing their beliefs!
> The movement that's so important and legit it has 0 lobbyists, 0 organizations and 0 politicians espousing their beliefs!
So . . . like feminism at one point in history?
TIL: feminism began like Men's Rights -- a collection of blogs posting inflammatory hate peaces designed to get pageviews and ad revenue and build a cult of personality around its very own shining stars.
Ignoring your misinterpretation of MR, yeah. Had the internet been around at the time feminism likely would have started as a few individuals on the internet talking about problems women face.
How do you think movements start? One person declares the movement to exist and moments later it has millions of followers and political clout?
If you spend all that energy talking shit about feminism, you should take some time to read up on its history.
First wave feminism and proto-feminism was basically women's workers rights movements as early as the 15th-century, and women like Mary Wollstonecraft, who wrote treaties on the rights of women in the late 18th-century. From there, more women wrote books, even fiction like Woolf's A Room of One's Own, and others began building the momentum of the suffragette movement. But it was mostly build around literature, political philosophy, worker's rights, and voting rights.
So, yeah, exactly like Men's Rights.
Edit: I love the downvote brigade of people who hate history. You can't change the past, but you sure can press buttons on some screen in the present!
> I love the downvote brigade of people who hate history.
Lady, I love history. Doesn't change the fact you're being really rude and condescending. Why come across like this? I just don't understand what you're trying to prove by being really horrible.
Because Men's Rights are horrible. Every time they're written about, the votes flip in this sub, and in every sub they're mentioned. It's like you summon them just by mentioning them. And they say the exact thing time and time again, so it's not exactly like you're having a productive conversation. It's more like masochism. Which really begs the question, why am I doing this? I don't know. I really don't.
I also used to have a blog, until I was stalked and harassed by so-called Men's Rights shitbeasts. They called my work, they called my house, they even called my mom.
So I have a short fuse. They've earned it.
> And they say the exact thing time and time again, so it's not exactly like you're having a productive conversation
I have to ask: Do you address their arguments, or simply take umbrage at the conclusions they draw or the temerity of scrutinizing something you support?
Well, I did address his arguments to begin with, then he did the whole "that's not what I said," because what he said was manifestly absurd. So then he kept bringing up new information and moving the goalposts and I was pretty much done.
Or, maybe people in this thread are being reasonable and simply disagree with you, without being "horrible"?
Also, talking to a whole group of people (or even just people that hold a similar view or opinion) like they're shit because a few did something shitty to you is fucked up. You have to realize that, right?
It's wrong to judge the people in /whiterights just because some of them are racists, guys!
Actually, the guy I had the nastiest conversation with I had tagged as an MRA since forever, I'd had head-bangy conversations with before, and flagged as someone who has dump-pasted the same spammy posts in the mains for as long as I've been on reddit.
I've had plenty of cordial disagreements with people. Just not with people who imply and say one thing and then lie about it when they're called out on it... especially the same people that spend their entire online existence saying the same thing over and over again.
Some people pay attention to usernames. I'm one of them, sometimes.
And yeah, it got nastier than it should have, but I still hold fast to the jist of what I was saying: he says the same thing in all his posts, lies about saying it, and then comments the same shit everywhere, no matter how many people call him out on it.
> If you spend all that energy talking shit about feminism, you should take some time to read up on its history.
If you're going to claim the suffragettes as one of the foundations of feminism, then yes, let's have a look at the history of the movement.
Some of the more prominent suffragettes were demanding that men be forced to go to war against their will for the express reason that it was men's duty to protect women. This was at a time when a lot of those men didn't have the vote either.
Some methods the suffragettes used were terrorism in the true sense of the word, not just the watered down way it is used in politics today. They bombed public buildings, burned down houses, and physically attacked politicians. There was even a plot to assassinate the prime minister.
Who'd have thought it? A movement that steps on the rights of men, reinforces harmful male gender roles, and has a violent undercurrent is a foundation of feminism.
Nobody's claiming here that women, even suffragettes, were immune to the stereotypes and bullshit of the times. Fuck, we don't require that sort of ideological purity from our Founding Fathers, many of whom owned slaves and violently rebelled against the British, or people we named entire holidays after, who were kinda gross racist colonizing shitheads, or people we build entire philosophic movements after, who thought pedastry was cool beans.
And for the record, some of the shit Elam and your shining stars of Men's Rights do right now is not okay by even the most mediocre of today's standards. But let's judge Susan B. Anthony by the most strident of today's standards, find her lacking, and throw out today's feminism, all of it, because reasons.
Doesn't that seem, I don't know, a bit hypocritical?
Look, when people in my movement, people that are alive in and it right now, fail to meet the minimal standards of human decency by today's standards, that's my problem. Cool, I'll own that. But you want to judge an entire movement lacking because of what some people did back two hundred years ago. Which is funny, because by two-hundred-years-ago standards, shit wasn't all that bad.
In the meantime, you should really clean up the messes of the alive people in your own movement before you go pointing out the faults of the dead people in mine.
So individuals talking about problems they see to a very small population without broad public support? You're right, that's totally different.
EDIT: DOWNVOTES [LE]TERALLY GUYS?
Do you think your little club will gain the same traction as feminism? Oh, you are adorable. I love listening to MRAs talk about their sad little dreams.
Yes the MRM is still getting started and grew slowly at first. It's really only been around a few years. It is still mostly a online movement and is only staring to to make forays about into the real world. However mensrights is growing while feminism is shrinking as more people figure out what your group is really about. Just look on reddit,r/mensrights has over 81,000 memebers while r/feminism has around 26,000 r/feminisms has 20,000 with overlap between the two and the difference in memebers is growing.
> Do you think your little club will gain the same traction as feminism?
I don't claim to predict the future.
I know for a fact that the MRM is addressing legitimate issues that others are ignoring. So perhaps it will gain traction.
For now it's really pissing off people like you, which is better than nothing.
/what are your thoughts on the rapidly declining number of people who identify as feminists?
No. That's some bullshit equivocation right there. It's also like NAMBLA at one point in its history, and the KKK at one point in its history, and the Nazi party at one point in its history. Doesn't mean it's anything like, has anything to do with, or will ever achieve the popularity of any of those groups.
So feminism is like the Nazi party? If you say so...
Anyway I never said starting in obscurity conferred legitimacy to any group. Merely that that factor doesn't make it necessarily illegitimate.
>So feminism is like the Nazi party? If you say so...
That is just...so insufferably douchey. I wish there was a masculinized version of the word "catty", because that's what that was. You know what, gender-neutrally, that was just catty. Ohhh, I know you are but what am I? What are you, four? I'm done talking to you, I think, gonna go ahead and tag as MRA and leave.
As fry would say "you sure proved me..."
I just hope all you guys understand as you upvote this MRA moron that you're just becoming SRS on the other end of the scale. Enjoy yourselves.
> I just hope all you guys understand as you upvote this MRA moron that you're just becoming SRS on the other end of the scale.
Indeed. Because this open forum where people debate rationally and no one is banned for disagreeing is exactly like SRS.
Because REASONS!
>That is just...so insufferably douchey. I wish there was a masculinized version of the word "catty", because that's what that was. You know what, gender-neutrally, that was just catty. Ohhh, I know you are but what am I? What are you, four? I'm done talking to you, I think, gonna go ahead and tag as MRA and leave.
u mad
"Snarky" might be a more gender-neutral term. Or maybe "smug".
Catty is gender neutral, or at least has been in my circle.
> So . . . like feminism ~~at one point in history~~ today?
FTFY.
I'm not sure what I expected from a sub called /r/OneY
Please, teenage and mid-20s males of reddit, tell me what 'feminism' means.
that....kind of sounds like you're saying men aren't allowed to talk about feminism...
I know there are probably nice male feminists, but they make me cringe. Just because the ones I've met have always talked down to me, told me I wasn't being a good woman, or have explained to me why I wasn't really molested as a child.
Kinda sucky behavior, but I am sure there are good ones.
By all means. But they weren't talking about "feminism" per say, more about the SJW/tumblr version of radical feminism.
I'm still not getting the point of
> I'm not sure what I expected from a sub called /r/OneY
Seems to be a pretty clear jab at men's ability to discuss the topic.
No no no, it's a jab at the ability of a male-focused subreddit to discuss the topic. I'm a male and I discuss it just fine.
So would a female focused sub be more acceptable to you?
Hell no, they are crazier than the male focused ones.
Then...then who exactly discusses feminism? The genderqueers?
Oh anyone can discuss it. I'm just not going to take it seriously.
per se. For fuck's sake, per se.
Doesn't anyone speak any fucking Latin any more?
[deleted]
Except I don't post on SRS you massive bellend.
>bellend
I just learned a new word.
You need to watch more Top Gear my friend.
Everyone needs to watch more Top Gear.
Just not the American one.
Shh, you disagree with them and don't think feminism is Satan. So you're from SRS.
I'm also from SRS. Don't let my complete lack of posting history fool you.
i don't think that's a very objective position. perhaps you should try understanding the world through a perspectivist lens?
cocks his gun, spits out his chew
Never been to OneY, but it sounds like an MRA hotbed. That's pretty sad.
Also this thread is being bregaded hard.
>Also this thread is being bregaded hard.
Maybe you meant "brogaded."
Brograde - v.
ex: Oh man, this thread has been brograded hard.
ex. Fuck, apparently the brograde has arrived.
An SRS brigader complaining about some mythical brigade.
Wow.
That is pathological projection.
You have literally one post not on the talking points of /r/mensrights and /srssucks in the past week. I don't think there's anything mythical about the brigade you're a part of.
> You have literally one post not on the talking points of /r/mensrights[1] and /srssucks in the past week.
That isn't true.
And I found this thread because SRSD is one of my subscribed sub. Was it even posted in MR? And don't pretend SRS isn't a well known troll/brigade sub.
>That isn't true.
I exaggerated, my apologies. However, it doesn't detract from the fact that something like 90% of your posts over the past 48 hours are precisely what I've said.
>And don't pretend SRS isn't a well known troll/brigade sub.
You just love imaginary arguments, don't you? Who said anything about SRS?
>Yes, we as men derive a lot of advantage in our lives simply because we are men.
As you're dying on the streets, or young of a preventable disease, or by self inflicted injury, or drug use, or on a foreign battlefield for a war you don't support, or in prison you can always cheer yourself up by thinking that the guy in charge of everything also pees standing up.
So that's pretty sweet.
Let's ignore the fact men are more likely to end up on a board of executives, or in management, or in positions of power in government (44/44). Let's ignore the fact that most modern culture is catered to men, like how the top 10 paid TV actors are men or that the same applies for movies, never mind that the reason women don't fight wars is that the army will not let them, never mind that men commit more crime to end up in jail more, it's so difficult being a guy in the developed world in 2013 isn't it.
This is not a competition. The fact there are some issues that negatively effect men does not mean that every issue affecting women is nullified. Grow the fuck up and accept that yes, your life is easier and freer because you have the right junk.
brigade as hard as you want /r/oneY, it's not going to bring the 50s back.
> Let's ignore the fact men are more likely to end up on a board of executives, or in management, or in positions of power in government (44/44).
Let's play a lottery shall we?
If you win you get billions of dollars.
If you lose you are forced to die in drudgery.
The odds of winning are 1 in a thousand. The odds of losing are 1 in ten.
Sounds like a pretty sweet deal huh?
Feminists notice the men on the top. They are blind to the (far more numerous) men at the bottom.
>Let's ignore the fact that most modern culture is catered to men
I guess that explains why women are dominating in education, health, longevity, and justice.
> never mind that men commit more crime to end up in jail more
What is your theory for why there are more blacks in jail than would be expected? Blacks are naturally inclined to criminality, right?
>This is not a competition. The fact there are some issues that negatively effect men does not mean that every issue affecting women is nullified
A very good point.
It also doesn't mean the earth is the center of the Universe.
Or that god created all animals in their current form 6,000 years ago.
Or that 2+2 = blue.
Or any other nonsensical claim I never made.
I'm glad we could reach common ground on this: things that are wrong that I never said are not disproven by the fact that men also face real issues.
Kinda a silly point to make but whatever.
> Grow the fuck up and accept that yes, your life is easier and freer because you have the right junk.
In what way? Am I going to live longer than a comparable woman? If I face a jail sentence will it be shorter than hers? If I am the victim of DV or other abuse will I have access to greater resources than her? Am I less likely to be the victim of violence in general than she is?
At birth was I more likely to go to college, or avoid jail, or not kill myself?
>brigade as hard as you want /r/oneY[4] , it's not going to bring the 50s back.
I don't know if I've ever posted there, maybe once but not regularly for sure. And I don't want to bring back the 1950s.
Actually your insistence that nothing really affects men would be right at home in the 1950s, except they'd brag about it while you hate men for it. Bringing up that men can be victims of rape or DV (as I do) would be seen as very odd in the 1950s and would not have gained any traction.
I wanted to thank you for how you responded to /u/oddspace. I always see people like him/her, who attack anybody who brings up men's issues with "more executives are men", "grow up you stupid privileged idiot", "women have it bad, so men don't matter", "bringing up the problems men face hurts women", bla bla bla. It's always all the same meaningless derailing.
I am a woman, I have suffered some awful shit for being a woman, and I try to fight sexism however I can as a result. However I am mature enough and capable of enough basic human empathy to admit that men have issues. In truth, I know men who have been raped by women and who have been in horribly abusive relationships. It is so hard for them to talk about it, because when they try, someone like /u/oddspace shouts them down. Shitty attitudes like that have real world consequences that are very hurtful to many people who won't even let themselves show it.
It makes me so angry and sad to know that they go through that. It doesn't detract from women who have had really awful life experiences (myself and other women I've dated included) to admit that men have them too. Also to admit that being male could exacerbate the awfulness. I get sad and angry because these people think they are so great for being hateful and stupid. They think they have promoted women somehow. That's only true if you think stormfront promotes white people legitimately.
What I'm trying to say is thank you for shutting him/her down with basic reason and an appeal to decency. It is so goo to see people willing to hold their ground on this. I wanted to tell you this because I don't know how the thread is going and sometimes it gets hateful. I've gotten some really bad "kill yourself" PMs (when I tried to make a point on the matter) that aren't great because I already have emotional problems and some mental health issues :/ . Reading a detailed description of how I should kill myself isn't fun. So thanks for shutting down a hateful, dumb bigot. It made my day better to see it.
> I always see people like him/her, who attack anybody who brings up men's issues with "more executives are men", "grow up you stupid privileged idiot", "women have it bad, so men don't matter", "bringing up the problems men face hurts women", bla bla bla. It's always all the same meaningless derailing.
Don't forget being called a "whining manchild", "fedorable", or "neckbeard" for even daring to suggest that men might face legitimate problems.
Thank you and sorry for what you've gone through. : (
I've gotten some messed up messages too. Though not that bad. The internet makes some people in to assholes. Likely if you ever confronted them in real life they'd apologize meekly.
Yeah... it helps to know that.
>The odds of winning are 1 in a thousand. The odds of losing are 1 in ten.
the odds of ending up with more than someone who doesn't play are about 8/10. Yeah, I'd probably play.
>I guess that explains why women are dominating
here goes!
>in education,
you mean there are more women in higher education, or more women teaching?
for the former: big fucking deal, it doesn't matter if you can't get work anyway. For the latter: teaching is not a good thing. The reason there are a disproportionately large number of STEM graduates in teaching is that there are a disproportionately low number of jobs for women in research and business.
> health, longevity,
LE MATRIARCHY IS LITERALLE KILLING MEN and it's definitely nothing to do with genes, or physical makeup.
>and justice.
yeah, look at all those female chief justices. All 4 out of 12, so over-represented. Or you could look at all those lawyers- did you know, a whole third of lawyers are women!? 33% is clearly more than 50% so they're over-represented there, I totally agree.
>What is your theory for why there are more blacks in jail than would be expected?
all those feeemales in the police are clearly racist and it's definitely nothing to do with the fact black people are generally less well off in the US.
>In what way?
in pretty much every way you just avoided mentioning.
You want to start a business? go for it, you're better off. You want to work in law, or math, or physics, or biology, or computing, or chemistry? go for it! you want a job in IT with better career prospects than womens'? it's all yours. You want to fight for your country? go right ahead. You want to work your way up any company in existence? just keep being a guy. You want to enter a relationship and have a much lower chance of being abused by your spouse, you want to have a lower chance of being raped, you want to have a lower chance of being kidnapped, you want to have a lower chance of being sexually harassed, you want to generally be treated like a normal person 99% of the time and not have your gender used against you? welcome to being male.
run along and fetch some statistics on how the manly men's advocacy man's movement believe 300% of all men are raped by radfems every day, at the moment the only hard claims you've made are all turning out to be bullshit so you need something hard to disprove up in here.
What has actually happened to you to make you so bitter?
>you want to generally be treated like a normal person 99% of the time and not have your gender used against you
I am a woman! And my gender is not used against me. Nor is used against any of my peers or mentors. I get there are some issues women deal with today, I get it. But, don't pretend that life is a jail and women have no chance of getting out. Want to work in law, math, physics, biology, computing, or chemistry? Go for it. There are no laws or company policies prohibiting you.
We might have to deal with sexist assholes, but there are plenty of assholes in general in the world. I deal with xenophobia almost weekly and when I first moved to America, I was heavily mocked for my accent. Yeah, it hurts, but I have to just keep moving forwards regardless. I've dealt more with bullying for my origin than my sex, and honestly pretending either one is going to prohibit my life in any serious way is just being dramatic.
> the odds of ending up with more than someone who doesn't play are about 8/10. Yeah, I'd probably play.
You ignored the part about being forced to live a terrible life if you didn't win?
Women are overrepresented in the middle. Women are less likely to be a CEO . . . but also far less likely to be a prisoner, homeless, or desperately poor. Perhaps we can fix both simultaneously? And yet I've never heard a feminist lament the lack of female homeless, or prisoners, or janitors, or . . .
>you mean there are more women in higher education, or more women teaching?
I was referring to higher education, but yes to both.
>for the former: big fucking deal
Aha. So if blacks are underrepresented in college that's no concern right? I mean, it's not like education is a huge indicator of future success or anything, right?
Also if being a teacher is so terrible feminists, who advocate for women, should be fighting to get women out of teaching and men in to it. For some reason they aren't.
And there are plenty of jobs for women in STEM. There just aren't as many women applying for those jobs.
>LE MATRIARCHY IS LITERALLE KILLING MEN and it's definitely nothing to do with genes, or physical makeup.
We spend more on healthcare for women (even removing pregnancy costs) and place a greater significance on women dying (400 killed in terrorist attack, including 4 women!).
So yeah.
Is it biology that blacks die younger than whites on average? Is it their fault?
There are some biological differences that contribute to this sure, but that isn't the whole picture and if you were honest you'd acknowledge this.
>yeah, look at all those female chief justices. All 4 out of 12, so over-represented. Or you could look at all those lawyers- did you know, a whole third of lawyers are women!?[1] 33% is clearly more than 50% so they're over-represented there, I totally agree.
Or the fact that men, for being men, receive 60% longer sentences. Are you ok with that? Possession of a penis makes your theft/assault/murder on average 60% worse even if it's identical to the same crime committed by a woman. Why don't you see that as a problem?
>all those feeemales in the police are clearly racist and it's definitely nothing to do with the fact black people are generally less well off in the US.
Interesting. So you can see discrimination when it hits other groups. Just not men.
So to be clear you believe men are in jail because men are privileged criminals. Whereas blacks are in jail because they're discriminated against?
>You want to start a business? go for it, you're better off
Maybe I should apply for some of those special grants put in place to help male business owners.
>You want to work in law, or math, or physics, or biology, or computing, or chemistry? go for it!
I remember my first job, right out of highschool, as a computer lawyer physicist. Just flashed my junk and I was hired.
>You want to fight for your country? go right ahead.
Draftees being the rockstars of their era.
>You want to work your way up any company in existence? just keep being a guy.
Yep, I made it to the top of that company I referenced by repeated dick flashing. That's all it takes. Once they see you have a penis you're given a great career and money and a patriarchal privilege card.
> You want to enter a relationship and have a much lower chance of being abused by your spouse,
Not according to statistics, but that's awfully STEMy.
>you want to have a lower chance of being raped
Legally men couldn't be raped until 2012. I'm sure that has no influence on these stats.
> you want to have a lower chance of being kidnapped
Same deal: I was almost kidnapped on the way to that job I described, flashed my dick and the guy let me go free. He grabbed some chick later. But wait, if women are less valued why would kidnappers prefer them? I mean women are viewed as essentially property under the Patriarchy, yet kidnappers wouldn't steal your coffee table and hold it for ransom. That's puzzling.
>you want to generally be treated like a normal person 99% of the time and not have your gender used against you?
You define normal as male? Ok.
>run along and fetch some statistics on how the manly men's advocacy man's movement believe 300% of all men are raped by radfems every day
I'll leave the lying about rape stats to feminists thanks. I actually take that too seriously to make deliberately false claims about it.
>at the moment the only hard claims you've made are all turning out to be bullshit so you need something hard to disprove up in here.
No they haven't. You just called them bullshit because you didn't like them. That's a different thing.
you got buttfucked here, just give it up.
>This is not a competition.
Followed by
>your life is easier and freer because you have the right junk
Feminism is fundamentally a competition, the oppression Olympics. It's base assumption is that women have it worse than men and it build from there.
If you really want to see how much this is "not a competition" bring up circumcision.
Without even referencing women you'll get dozens of responses from feminists stating that this is not at all comparable to FGM so don't even talk about it dammit!
> It's base assumption is that women have it worse than men and it build from there.
No, it's a base assumption that there are some things women have worse than men. Pure, basic feminism would be solving those problems then ensuring they stayed solved. Right now yes, women do have it worse and frankly you're delusional if you think otherwise, which is why feminism is sensible.
>No, it's a base assumption that there are some things women have worse than men.
But overall, taking a holistic view feminists view women as an oppressed class. As you just said "women do have it worse" - that is the basis of feminism, regardless of how many "Patriarchy hurts men too" caveats you throw in.
>Right now yes, women do have it worse and frankly you're delusional if you think otherwise, which is why feminism is sensible.
If you have proof of the social issues of women as a class in modern western society back it up with meta analysis that compares it to the social issues of men.
Have a look at the OECD BeterLifeIndex, click "gender differences". You'll note that on studies measuring the quality of life women are routinely rated ever so slightly higher. Being a stay at home parent is not a cornerstone of societal oppression.
>Right now yes, women do have it worse and frankly you're delusional if you think otherwise, which is why feminism is sensible.
That completely depends on how you weigh things.
Is it worse to be raped or murdered? Suicide or attempts? Depression or substance abuse? And so.
If you're going to say one group has it worse, you must show categorically how you weighed these things and why.
> never mind that men commit more crime to end up in jail more
And that's the main reason why women get shorter sentences than men. Women are more likely to be first time offenders, and men are more likely to be repeat offenders.
EDIT: Brigaded by r/TheRedPill or naw? lol
> Women are more likely to be first time offenders, and men are more likely to be repeat offenders.
Certainly that's not due to the fact that women are far less likely to receive any sort of jail term.
That's not true.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002
>This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418820902926197#.UnQsgRBjKU5
>We find that Hispanics and blacks, males, and younger defendants receive harsher sentences than whites, females, and older defendants after controlling for important legal and contextual factors.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/320276
>This paper examines 77,236 federal offenders sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and concludes the following. First, after controlling for extensive criminological, demographic, and socioeconomic variables, I found that blacks, males, and offenders with low levels of education and income receive substantially longer sentences.
Feminism: starting wars, pushing drugs, making you commit suicide, and building prisons since 5000 BCE.
I never blamed feminism for all that. I blame feminism for observing all that and calling it privilege.
Jesus, when did this sub turn into Mensrights? Fuck this, I'm out, you guys are just as pathetic here as you are on your own sub.
Your absence will be a great loss we will likely never recover from.
A moment of silence is in order.
Mensrights is growing, feminism is shrinking. I know you are probably used to a circlejerk where dissenting opinions are censored and banned but MRAs love to have open debates. If you can't handle a debate where you have to actually try and not use a snarky meme and ban the person who challenged your views then you better just leave.
> I never blamed feminism for all that.I blame feminism for observing all that and calling it privilege.
You blame feminism for explicitly stating that war, famine, disease, and death are "male privilege?"
Anybody who says that war, famine, disease, and death are any kind of privilege is deluded.
Suffering can happen to anyone. Some kinds happen more commonly to one group than another. It doesn't make it a privilege.
I've been told longer sentences and the draft, among other things, are examples of male privilege.
But the draft is a male privilege. Privilege isn't about one person always getting the better end of the deal over another person. It can be about respecting one person/group of people over another. In being entrusted with the defense of our nation only the men were considered, not women. This isn't because the people in charge were trying to screw over men. It's because they did not respect the wartime abilities of women on the same level as men.
>But the draft is a male privilege.
It's almost pointless to discuss gender with people like you. When you've already decided all gendered acts are oppressive to women, anything can be twisted to portray that. Anyone can do it in reverse for men.
"Being raped is a female privilege. It's based on the idea women are more sexually valuable than men."
Pretty fucking repulsive, right? I feel the same way about you claiming this is privilege.
Everything that happens to men is privilege.
Everything that happens to women is oppression.
Amazing how with these two simple assumptions it's possible to prove men are universally privileged and women are universally oppressed.
>Everything that happens to men is privilege.
>Everything that happens to women is oppression.
Haha wow you are absolutely beating the SHIT out of those straw men that you set up. You totally aren't displaying your ignorance or anything. Fucking top lel.
I mean seriously, how badly do you have to misunderstand feminism to spout that kind of bullshit? Read something other than SRSSucks forums and AVFM
> Haha wow you are absolutely beating the SHIT out of those straw men that you set up.
Not a strawman. That is how this works. Men are drafted, privilege. Men are considered disposable, privilege. Women are not drafted, male privilege. Women are not considered disposable, male privilege. It's pretty blatant.
>You totally aren't displaying your ignorance or anything. Fucking top lel.
Oh, great. SRS is here.
>I mean seriously, how badly do you have to misunderstand feminism to spout that kind of bullshit?
So what female privileges has feminism identified and fought against? Don't hurt yourself there.
>Read something other than SRSSucks forums and AVFM
If I want a real debate and education I'll go to SRS and . . . circlejerk over how awful whites and men are.
So how come feminists generally support women in the military, and men's rights activists seem split on the issue?
Feminists hypothetically support all effort towards equality, but generally only work towards those that benefit women. There is no "draft walk".
Some MRAs are partly just a reaction to feminism so while they all agree "fair must mean fair", lines on biological pragmatism are individual. MRAs are not the mirror image of feminists, few (although some exist) espouse a gender abolitionist view.
From what I've seen the oppositions are that women use more resources by ending deployments from sickness more often, the requirements of carrying packs are too much, or that women are not meeting the same physical requirements as men but men's lives are also on the line because of that. I've previously written about support for women in the military, a report here in NZ found concerted effort was needed to attract women to but results in positive ideas about women in the community.
>Feminists hypothetically support all effort towards equality, but generally only work towards those that benefit women. There is no "draft walk".
Well, the draft itself is pretty far back on any list of things to march for. This is for two big and obvious reasons.
The draft hasn't been used in 40 years and doesn't look like it will be used again any time soon.
Many people, MRAs and feminists alike, do not support a draft at all.
>From what I've seen the oppositions are that women use more resources by ending deployments from sickness more often, the requirements of carrying packs are too much, or that women are not meeting the same physical requirements as men but men's lives are also on the line because of that.
Sounds like these people making these arguments do not support drafting women!
They're not split on the issue. They're split on the appropriate metrics by which to measure entrance qualifications such as fitness.
You're right, it is pointless to discuss gender with activists such as yourself. The massive emotional overreaction you presented after only reading the first sentence of my post is indicative of a person who is not open to rational discourse.
Well I'm calling it as I see it. To the vast majority of people, even to the average feminist, calling the draft male privilege is bizarre and can only be done relying heavily on a theoretical feminist framework that gendered actions are signs of the Patriarchy and therefore oppressive to women. If are countering attacks on this framework with a circular reference to it then there isn't much further to be said.
I said "almost" because I'm always open to the idea that someone has something new to say, and I assure you that I read all of your post but it was entirely unconvincing because it relies on unspoken "outer" knowledge on the privileges of men being greater than their sufferings and vice versa for women.
I find the horrors of war ghastly, I am not ashamed of that.
> Well I'm calling it as I see it. To the vast majority of people, even to the average feminist, calling the draft male privilege is bizarre and can only be done relying heavily on a theoretical feminist framework that gendered actions are signs of the Patriarchy and therefore oppressive to women. If are countering attacks on this framework with a circular reference to it then there isn't much further to be said.
I can assure you that nothing I have said centers around frameworks or patriarchies of any kind.
"privilege" is defined as a right or duty mandated to an individual, often to the exclusion of other individuals. During the time the draft was put in to law, certain duties(such as military) were afforded to men and not to women. The draft has not been updated to reflect the change in policy regarding female enlistment.
If the draft mandates a duty to men at the exclusion of women, then for the purpose of military enlistment, the draft privileges men over women.
> But the draft is a male privilege.
Next time you see a disabled Vietnam vet begging on the streets be sure to remind him to check his privilege.
He got to go on this free vacation at 18, paid for by the Patriarchy. While his female peers were forced to stay home and live their lives as they saw fit (a nightmare).
>It can be about respecting one person/group of people over another.
Interesting. So if men are viewed as more respectable in some way that proves men are privileged?
Hypothetically if women were viewed as more honest, trustworthy, empathetic, and generally "wonderful" would that be an example of female privilege?
>This isn't because the people in charge were trying to screw over men.
It's because they needed to screw over someone for their own goals and men were disposable.
Were slaves privileged because they were trusted with important tasks like picking cotton? Or were they a disposable source of labor being used by the person in charge for his own benefit?
Stop misrepresenting my arguments or I really will start arguing some of those ridiculous points you attempted to put in my mouth.
> Stop misrepresenting my arguments or I really will start arguing some of those ridiculous points you attempted to put in my mouth.
Stop replying to what you said or you will continue to say what you've been saying? Huh?
Also what are your thoughts on the women are wonderful effect. Why, if the Patriarchy values and respects men more than women, are women in fact valued and respected more than men by both genders?
> In being entrusted with the defense of our nation only the men were considered, not women.
It's not that simple though.
Saying it was privilege men "got to" defend the nation in response to justifying the draft is similar to saying "okay group A, you get to have sex if you want, but it's also legal to rape you; group B? it's illegal to rape you, but you can't consent to sex either."
Wait, you're saying that men's lives where literally nothing but that, and that women's lives were spared all suffering because men did all the nasty things like suicide, dying in wars, dying of disease, and using drugs?
Do you know what happens to women in occupied cities? Do you know what they did to women that they thought were mentally ill? How many housewives were addicted to drugs? How many were abused by their husbands? Do you know what rights women had as mothers, wives, and daughters? How silly it was to say that they had rights at all?
You're precious.
Who are you meaning to respond to? I literally said none of those things.
Nah, you just implied that men did a history's worth of suffering, and we ladies sat home and darned socks in well-fed warmth and comfort.
No I didn't. Where are you getting this?
Because otherwise, why the fuck did you comment?
You're like, "wow, look at how shitty these things are that men suffered" and I wrote back "wow, that shit happened to women too, and worse, because sexism is terrible and not having rights is kinda shitty too."
And then you backpeddled like "lol, I posted words that mean nothing that implied nothing because I hate feminism. BECAUSE REASONS."
Where's your logic now? HUH, WHERE IS IT?
Wow.
You have read in to my comments entire novels worth of stuff I never wrote.
I'll spell it out for you as I would for a child. Men and women have their own unique problems. Men face some advantages and some disadvantages unique to them, or at least more common for that gender (5x the suicide rate, 95% of the prison population, the only gender that is legally enslaved by governments in modern times, disproportionately long sentences for the same crimes, etc).
Feminists have looked at this and declared men are overwhelmingly privileged in every area of society. And of course that women are overwhelmingly disadvantaged in every way.
In fact that is not the case. "Male privilege" as a universal concept is nonsense. Men suffer in some ways that women do not. That is a fact. So going on and on about male privilege is pretty blatant sexism.
>You're like, "wow, look at how shitty these things are that men suffered" and I wrote back "wow, that shit happened to women too,
Yes I remember that time when women were drafted and told to stay on the boat till it sank to save men and the elderly. That was the 20s right?
Why the fuck would you write that if you weren't imply it in some way "proved" that men were disadvantaged in some way that feminism says they weren't? I mean, you could have just mashed your face into your keyboard and rolled it around a bit, if you didn't mean to imply what you actually meant to imply, for all the good it did you.
I merely pointed out that all the ways you pointed out that men were disadvantaged, (a) women didn't cause, (b) weren't so great for women either, (c) had hidden cool things for women [like your drug addicted husband spending all your money on his drugs, and you not being able to leave, since you have no property rights and no right to a divorce or what happens to women in occupied territories or what doctors did to suicidal women], and (d) isn't shit that feminism is crowing from the rooftops "doesn't exist! Doesn't exist! Shut the fuck up, everyone! Doesn't exist!" Since, you know, feminists more than any other group (besides LGBTQ groups) are the most interested in tearing down gender roles. Which you'd know if you knew shit about feminism. But you don't.
Nobody's saying here that sexism isn't a double-edged sword. Actually, no, I lied. The person who implied that is you. You implied that sexism is awesome for women, terrible for men. Meanwhile, most people are like "yeah, sexism sucks. Universally."
But I like that you brought up the Titanic. It happens all the time, you know, massive boats sinking without enough lifeboats, and gallant young upper class men giving their lives to save rich young heiresses. Totally undoes millennia of oppression. Because if I was on a very specific boat at a very specific time and I was a very specific kind of rich, white girl, I'd get to get in a boat before a very specific kind of man.
Really, you're precious. You need to stop while you're ahead. Which was before you commented; so really, you're just kind of fucked.
> Where's your logic now? HUH, WHERE IS IT?
Please be nice to everyone. I'm one of those silly male feminists even! This is just a bit over the top :)
Sorry, I was being a bit silly.
^(P.S. I hate you and you're Hitler)
I don't think you, like many self-professed feminists, really understand the concept of privilege. At least you're pretending not to. The theory is that being male does not automatically give you above 0 amounts of privilege, but it makes you more privileged than you would have been if everything about you was the same except you were female. Hence your life can be utter shit, but if you were female it would've been worse. Certainly in the past this would've been undeniably true, whether it's still the case is very much up for debate. I personally think it's at least one of the weakest forms of privilege, white privilege and rich privilege especially are far more relevant in today's society.
And then of course there's the whole self-awareness of your own privilege debate, but I'm not going to be the one to start that. At least not any more than I already have.
So no matter what men have it better than a woman in the same situation? So like a poor man being accused of rape has it bad, but a poor woman accused of rape would have it worse?
What about a young unemployed man not in college in the sixties, does he have it better than a comparable woman who would not be enslaved by the government to die in Asia?
That's essentially the theory, except for this. It doesn't make specific situations better, proving such a thing would actually take forever, it just makes your life generally better. Moving away from gender/sex for a second, if you're a millionaire and you're raped, it undoubtedly sucks just as much as if a homeless person was raped in the instant, but the rest of your life is just undeniably better.
The success of feminism in bringing legal equality for women has moved gender privilege from the realms of undeniable to highly debatable. I would personally say we're now at the point where women have it easier in some situations and men in others. Something surely you could agree with, the difference between us, I suspect, is that I see feminism as the vehicle to address the problems both modern genders now face (I don't really see feminism as being about women's rights anymore, at least not my feminism, and in that I do see one of the largest problems with the movement at the moment) via either the dissolution of gender roles, or at the very least convincing us to stop being so damn shitty to men and women who don't behave or fit our view of how they should behave. Given it's part of the human condition to be so innately discriminatory, I actually see attacking gender roles to be the easier, though still extremely difficult, route.
> That's essentially the theory, except for this. It doesn't make specific situations better, proving such a thing would actually take forever, it just makes your life generally better.
If it doesn't apply to specific situations it doesn't apply to anything.
>Moving away from gender/sex for a second, if you're a millionaire and you're raped, it undoubtedly sucks just as much as if a homeless person was raped in the instant, but the rest of your life is just undeniably better.
Ok. So a man who is raped is better off than a woman who is raped because . . . male rape victims are given so much more empathy than female victims and aren't a punchline ("don't drop the soap" being a joke about women being raped in prison naturally).
Male privilege sure sucks. I am so ashamed knowing that if I, as a male, were raped I would get treated a certain way by society. We should eliminate that by treating female rape victims the same as male victims.
>The success of feminism in bringing legal equality for women has moved gender privilege from the realms of undeniable to highly debatable.
It has never been as black/white as feminists have claimed.
I wouldn't call being drafted to die in a war you don't care for as privilege. Sure men had advantages in some ways. And I have no problem acknowledging that. What bothers me is how feminists refuse to acknowledge that women also had advantages in other ways.
And I do not see feminism today fighting gender roles. I see them opposing those gender roles that harm women, but keeping the ones that help women. For instance: in a totally egalitarian society hitting a man and hitting a woman would be the same thing. Feminists have fought for, and won, the codification of violence against women as significantly worse than violence against men (hence their "violence against women" act).
If you want to eliminate gender roles start there: domestic violence should be punished exactly the same regardless of the genders of those involved.
Fair?
>If it doesn't apply to specific situations it doesn't apply to anything.
I should've said, it doesn't make every specific situation better. There are many unique and horrific situations where an aspect of your being is not relevant, these are the situations you keep picking out, it doesn't disprove the existence of other situations where those aspects are relevant.
>Ok. So a man who is raped is better off than a woman who is raped because . . . male rape victims are given so much more empathy than female victims and aren't a punchline ("don't drop the soap" being a joke about women being raped in prison naturally).
This is exactly why I used a non-gendered analogy; I agree with you. Female rape victims do not have it worse than men, in fact, I believe, it's quite the opposite. Men are seen as too physically strong to actually be raped and emotionally strong for it matter if they were. I see chauvinists and gender traditionalists such as /r/theredpill and socially conservative religious morality types as the cause, whereas I suspect you, as ever, blame feminism.
>What bothers me is how feminists refuse to acknowledge that women also had advantages in other ways.
Consider yourself to have now met a feminist that acknowledges such. (Still think until the last few decades us men had it overall better though, not that that even matters anymore; it's 2013 for Christ's sake!).
> And I do not see feminism today fighting gender roles. I see them opposing those gender roles that harm women, but keeping the ones that help women.
Well, obviously, that's why you're a rabid anti-feminist. I don't think feminist theory encourages that, that's why I'm a feminist. That was fun.
> If you want to eliminate gender roles start there: domestic violence should be punished exactly the same regardless of the genders of those involved.
Absolutely agree. Except, this is where I have one of my problems with the men's rights movement. It seems to be so small in its considerations. Implementation of feminist gender theory would help to solve domestic abuse and many other serious issues simultaneuosly, rather than tackling them on a 'this thing is bad, we shouldn't do this' individual basis. But then, I'm not interested in being a frontline activist, I just find theory interesting.
I imagine this is what it feels like for an MRA to have a discussion with an SRSer, utterly pointless and unpleasant. There's a reason folks like /r/OneY aren't saying 'ew, feminists suck, I'm going to be an MRA', but 'ew, feminists and MRAs suck, I'm going to just be for equal rights', it's people such as yourself. It doesn't have to be and absolutely shouldn't be men vs women, but that's what you and your feminist counterparts are making it. Something like the men's rights could've ended up looking pretty classy, but instead you turned into inverse SRS. You're both equal parts laughably ridiculous and morally repugnant.
> I should've said, it doesn't make every specific situation better. There are many unique and horrific situations where an aspect of your being is not relevant, these are the situations you keep picking out, it doesn't disprove the existence of other situations where those aspects are relevant.
Any theory can be made legitimate if you only count those data points that support it and write off every data point that negates it.
So the Patriarchy is easily proven if you take every thing in support of it as legitimate, and everything that negates it as "meh, doesn't really apply".
Give me a thousand random points on a graph and I can draw a line that perfectly fits them with no exceptions. . . if you let me delete 998 of them.
>This is exactly why I used a non-gendered analogy; I agree with you. Female rape victims do not have it worse than men,
Almost like in some ways there is a female privilege at work.
Why is it when men do better it's male privilege, when women do better it's . . . male privilege that has somehow backfired on men?
>I see chauvinists and gender traditionalists such as /r/theredpill[1] and socially conservative religious morality types as the cause, whereas I suspect you, as ever, blame feminism.
I forgot that the red pill pushed laws like VAWA in to effect and have fought a gender neutral interpretation of rape laws.
My bad.
>Consider yourself to have now met a feminist that acknowledges such.
Cool. Now make yourself a prominent leader in the movement.
>Still think until the last few decades us men had it overall better though, not that that even matters anymore; it's 2013 for Christ's sake
Women surpassed men in higher education in the 1980s. Feminists continue pushing for more advantages in education. It's 2013 for Christ's sake! Only one year ago did the FBI acknowledge that men could be raped.
I suspect that if rape were defined as something that happened to men and female victims were counted as lesser until 2012 that that would not have been indicative of female privilege. Right?
>Well, obviously, that's why you're a rabid anti-feminist. I don't think feminist theory encourages that, that's why I'm a feminist. That was fun.
In what concrete ways has feminism as a political movement opposed gender roles that help women?
Have they demanded the right to be included in the draft? Have they insisted that violence against women is nothing special (or at least no more special than violence against women)? Have they fought to ensure that more resources be shifted to help boys in school as they are suffering now?
>Absolutely agree
So you oppose VAWA and the general feminist consensus on this? Excellent.
> Except, this is where I have one of my problems with the men's rights movement. It seems to be so small in its considerations. Implementation of feminist gender theory would help to solve domestic abuse and many other serious issues simultaneuosly
No, it wouldn't.
You know how I know that? Because feminism has implemented it's theories in to law and it hasn't done any of that.
Feminism gave us VAWA. How is that gender neutral?
>I imagine this is what it feels like for an MRA to have a discussion with an SRSer, utterly pointless and unpleasant
Except I won't try to censor you or call in dozens of my buddies/alts to downvote you to oblivion.
Also I won't simply call you a shitlord then tell you your opinion doesn't matter because you're of the wrong gender/color.
>it's people such as yourself.
And what horrible thing have I done to delegitimatize the fact that men face significant issues?
Apparently we're only able to talk about men's issues if we do it as feminists, which is to say not talk about men's issues.
> It doesn't have to be and absolutely shouldn't be men vs women,
I never said it was. Please don't play that tired old card that criticizing feminism equals hating women.
>but that's what you and your feminist counterparts are making it
I've never told women to shut up for being women. Feminists have silenced men for being men. Not really comparable huh?
> Something like the men's rights could've ended up looking pretty classy, but instead you turned into inverse SRS.
Except it's based on open debate and facts, not censorship and feelz. So yeah, it's like SRS in the way the US and North Korea are the same thing.
>You're both equal parts laughably ridiculous and morally repugnant.
Sorry for talking about male victims of rape and abuse. I never realized that made me a terrible person. My bad.
>Male privilege sure sucks. I am so ashamed knowing that if I, as a male, were raped I would get treated a certain way by society. We should eliminate that by treating female rape victims the same as male victims.
Or, we can do what the evil feminists that you hate are trying to do. Treat them all the same, which is to not shame either one.
> Or, we can do what the evil feminists that you hate are trying to do. Treat them all the same, which is to not shame either one.
I've never heard a feminist address an issue that only harms men.
Just bring up false rape accusations if you want to see how much feminists care about male victims.
/also "don't be that guy" campaigns which clearly indicate that feminism views rapists as men and victims as women. Thanks.
> I've never heard a feminist address an issue that only harms men.
I do this. Allllll the time.
Funny how the you talk about "male victims" in the context of false accusations and not actual rape victims, of which the numbers are far more troubling. Shows how absolutely little you actually care about men.
It's clear from this 'false rape" bullshit that all you want to do is shit on rape victims and foster more suspicion of them then there already is. I've seen far too much nastiness from MRAs directed at rape victims to indicate otherwise
So you haven't been listening to the people in this thread trying to tell you how the issues you're describing are the result of the patriarchy you don't believe in?
> I would personally say we're now at the point where women have it easier in some situations and men in others
That was the case before as well.
What's the name of the logical fallacy where someone completely misses the point?
I got the point, I just didn't agree with it. That's different.
So you reimagined it into something else. That's awfully straw-mannish.
Huh? No not at all.
What else would you call it?
"I got the point, but instead of addressing it, I'm going to bring up how guys die in wars, and are homeless, etc, and provide that as my example of how male privilege isn't a thing."
If that's not straw-manning, it at the very least smacks of bad faith.
I get what point he was trying to make but it's wrong. How is that a difficult concept?
Because you didn't actually address what was wrong with it. You simple pointed out how things can be crappy for guys... which ignores the original point. How is that a difficult concept?
Because there aren't a whole lot of advantages to being male and there are plenty of counter-balancing disadvantages that were completely removed from the equation.
Look man, I didn't really want to get into an argument in the first place, given how I agreed pretty strongly with your stance against /u/beanfiddler's nonsense against egalitarianism, but I seriously suggest you step out of your bubble of /r/srssucks and /r/mensrights and look at the big picture. There are obviously institutional advantages to being a man, and no amount of societal "payment" actually counter-balances that. Do these institutional advantages make life super easy for men? No, not at all, but I haven't heard too many serious arguments saying that, which is what it seems you are arguing against.
I'm not sure what you expected, it's a pretty silly statement from the guy 5th quoted.
Silly according to whom? The people brigading this thread?
Or have you just not noticed or accepted that men in general have had institutional advantages for centuries?
>Silly according to whom?
I think it's a pretty silly thing to discuss/even consider. Women have advantages I don't have, and I'm alright with that, so I personally think it's a pretty worthless conversation.
>institutional
Why'd you include that modifier? I can't really respond to what you're saying because it doesn't make sense. What is an institutional advantage, and how are men benefiting from it?
> Women have advantages I don't have, and I'm alright with that, so I personally think it's a pretty worthless conversation.
So you get to make judgement calls for entire swaths of people, based entirely on your personal feelings?
>Why'd you include that modifier?
Because it's appropriate, because it takes place on an institutional level. Side note, and I'm not trying to be snarky here, you should google terms you're unfamiliar with.
The username is so appropriate for reddit logicks.
this post has 40 total votes and triple that number of comments
/r/subredditdramadrama
I sense a /r/oney brigade incoming. Off to /r/SubredditDramaDrama
Jesus, the article in question is about the worst pro-feminist pamphlet I've ever read.
> In a world that pays women far less than men for the same work
I don't know about anywhere else, but here in the UK that's been specifically prohibited by law since the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975. I'm so tired of pointing out legislation that's almost as old as I am.
And who do they trot out as the 'male feminists' men are supposed to emulate? David fucking Cameron and the Dalai Lama. An Eton-educated tory toff and the leader of one of the most arcane religions in the world. Whoop de doo.
SnapShots: 1, 2, 3, ^Readability
SnapShot
(Mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
>10 Net votes
>200 comments
sweatingfrog.jpg
And most of those comments are children from only three comments...
My MRA and SRSS tags are paying off in this thread.
eeeeeerhhhhhhh Post like these just annoy me more than anything.
> more ubiquitous
Dumbshit