truestfeminist:

Ill never understand how men can be against feminism.

Like, feminism fights hard for your rights, too.

Men, much of the time, are against feminism for the same reasons that many women are: feminism is responsible for a slew of problematic things like the Tender Years Doctrine, primary aggressor policies, the Duluth Model, and the erasure of millions of male victims of rape and abuse.  While feminism can be credited with many advancements toward gender equality it is not without its flaws, and because its flaws have a bad habit of negatively impacting men it’s hardly a surprise that they’re less than enamored with it.

Feminists quite frequently assert that feminism is “hard at work” on behalf of men, yet we’ve never actually seen a feminist provide any concrete and substantive evidence to back such a claim.  Are you interested in being the first?

todrownindarkness:

onemv:

todrownindarkness:

What the hell are MRAs even trying to do?

Raising awareness of male victims of violence, rape, and abuse.  Trying to get the definition of rape expanded to more than just men.  Right now in many places it is not considered rape for a woman to coerce, use force, or use other tactics to force a man into sex, it’s a lesser charge of “other sexual assault”  When a 16 year old girl rapes an 8 year old boy it isn’t called rape, every media outlet calls it “had sex with” rather than raped.

They’ve actually done a fair amount of fund raising for shelters. AVFM was raising money to open an shelter for men called “The Earl Silverman Center” in honor of a man who ran Canada’s only shelter for men out of his own pocket for decades, repeatedly petitioned the government for funding and was refused because they refused to acknowledge men can be abused and might need a place to escape to.  I don’t know how much more “institutional” erasure of male victims can get than that.  They also recently hit a fund raising goal working with Canadian Association For Equality to open the Canadian Centre for Men and Families.

They work to raise awareness of men’s health issues like prostate cancer, colon cancer, etc.  This is done via Movemeber or No Shave November.  I’m sure you’ve heard of that right? Mostly Feminists complaining how it’s sexist?

There are also multiple other goals. Like establishing reproductive rights for all persons who can provide sperm. Because as it sits now it does not matter how you acquire someones sperm in order to get pregnant-Lie, Fraud, Theft, Rape- They are 100% accountable for the child they had literally 0% consent in making.

Ending routine infant circumcision. This is something that doing some proper research into you’ll find is absolutely no benefit, and completely barbaric in practice.

Now there is are some areas where the MRM butts heads with Feminism. Things like the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. Lobbying in the UK to close all women’s prisons because vagina. Lobbying to block a gender neutral rape definition in India.  I happen to agree that things are pretty much bullshit, and will argue against feminists on them.

But this question wasn’t asked in even the most remote sincerity was it?

What the hell are MRAs trying to do that feminists aren’t already trying to help with/fix?

“Feminists” represent a very big group; so big, in fact, that we can almost guarantee that if you look hard enough you can find a feminist trying to help with/fix pretty much every issue.  We can also almost guarantee that every position held by a feminist is opposed by another feminist somewhere.

What you are overlooking is the general tendencies shown by the movement as a whole, the sum of all those individual feminists.  The trends are obvious: feminism tends not to focus on or consider male victims of violence, rape, abuse and assault; in fact, feminist activism tends to actively erase them.  Feminism also tends to push against such things as equal treatment within the legal system, gender-neutral application of equal protection policies, and a slew of other similar things.

This aside, just because one group focuses on something doesn’t mean that other groups can’t.  Are you really so focused on making sure feminism remains relevant (and the MRM remains marginalized) that you regard fighting for gender equality as a bad thing?

whirlhol:

permutationofninjas:

ifyoucarewhatithink:

With the recent trending of #WomenAgainstFeminism, I have heard many arguments against feminism that just plainly don’t make enough sense. Before I begin, I must preface this breakdown with the actual definition of feminism. The English language is a beautiful and unique beast whose strength is based on permanence. Part of this permanence lies in the fact that the definition of words rarely change, even if the masses largely ignore its meaning.

Actually, as anyone that knew anything about linguistics would tell you, the most beautiful thing about all languages (including English) is the way they constantly evolve and change: nothing is permanent or set in stone.  Definitions, rather than being prescribed for use, are described by use.  The masses decide upon the meanings of words, and while dictionaries often disagree with each other or fail to keep up with common usage, it’s generally quite clear what people mean by how they use the word.

[snipped]

In conclusion, if you decided not to read this, what she/he (I don’t know who wrote this) is trying to say is that feminists often get a bad rap for not supporting people who ARENT feminists, which is why some people aren’t. But if you truly believe in what the definition of feminism is, try and be the best feminist you can be by supporting people who are misinformed of what feminism is, instead of bashing them for not knowing certain things.

Did you read our response?  What do you think of our points?

askdinkeldash:

permutationofninjas:

ifyoucarewhatithink:

With the recent trending of #WomenAgainstFeminism, I have heard many arguments against feminism that just plainly don’t make enough sense. Before I begin, I must preface this breakdown with the actual definition of feminism. The English language is a beautiful and unique beast whose strength is based on permanence. Part of this permanence lies in the fact that the definition of words rarely change, even if the masses largely ignore its meaning.

Actually, as anyone that knew anything about linguistics would tell you, the most beautiful thing about all languages (including English) is the way they constantly evolve and change: nothing is permanent or set in stone.  Definitions, rather than being prescribed for use, are described by use.  The masses decide upon the meanings of words, and while dictionaries often disagree with each other or fail to keep up with common usage, it’s generally quite clear what people mean by how they use the word.

[snipped]

The idea that Sarah Palin, a very successful state governor, is somehow less qualified to be Vice President than Joe Biden just because she is a Christian is similar to the suggestion that Barack Obama Is less qualified to be President than John McCain because he is black. To suggest either is bigotry. To suggest she’s not qualified because she is not smart enough, but Joe Biden is smart enough… Really?

The word “Christian” appears only once in that post, in reference to the Westboro Baptist Church.  There is no discussion whatsoever of Palin’s religious affiliation or religiosity, and none was intended.

Please refrain from pulling words out of thin air and attributing them to us.

Your Arguments Against Feminism: Debunked

ifyoucarewhatithink:

With the recent trending of #WomenAgainstFeminism, I have heard many arguments against feminism that just plainly don’t make enough sense. Before I begin, I must preface this breakdown with the actual definition of feminism. The English language is a beautiful and unique beast whose strength is based on permanence. Part of this permanence lies in the fact that the definition of words rarely change, even if the masses largely ignore its meaning.

Actually, as anyone that knew anything about linguistics would tell you, the most beautiful thing about all languages (including English) is the way they constantly evolve and change: nothing is permanent or set in stone.  Definitions, rather than being prescribed for use, are described by use.  The masses decide upon the meanings of words, and while dictionaries often disagree with each other or fail to keep up with common usage, it’s generally quite clear what people mean by how they use the word.

Take a moment to learn a bit about how words actually work before trying to educate others on the topic.  Otherwise, you might come off as ignorant and presumptuous.

So, lo and behold, the TRUE (and simple) definition of feminism:

Fem·i·nism: the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. 

“Wow, that doesn’t sound all that bad.” No, intelligent reader, it doesn’t.  Many of the arguments below are based on a false definition of feminism; and if ignoring these arguments that made little sense actually made them disappear, I would gladly do so.

Quite the contrary; you’re the one using a nonstandard definition, and you’re the one whose argument falls apart when it’s noticed that you’re doing nothing more than arguing by definition.  The arguments below arise from people who use descriptive linguistics and define feminism in terms of what it actually does rather than what feminists like to say it does.

Because a movement has never previously succeeded that way, I will proceed in countering these arguments anyway.

“We don’t need feminism anymore”

Oh, wouldn’t it be nice if this statement were actually true? Apparently, if we can vote in a system that ideally allows us to run for public office – “Sarah Palin almost won the Vice Presidency” (yes, someone actually used that as an argument against feminism to me before) - we can celebrate with a huge pink cake and shovel it into the mouths we so desperately need to shut. “We’re all done now, right?” WRONG!

Sarah Palin was a horribly unqualified candidate who still came incredibly close to the second highest public office in the United States.  She was taken entirely seriously as a candidate, and there is no evidence that her loss had anything to do with her gender.

            The wage gap still exists. Many arguments have surfaced that claim the gap only exists because women usually choose careers that pay less, but this argument does not debunk the phenomenon. Even in the few fields where the wage gap has narrowed the most (pharmacy and computer programming) women still earn only approximately 90 percent of what their male-counterparts make. It’s important to note that that is the smallest wage gap and not the norm. In 2012, the average women’s wage was 80 percent of an average males’.

We have some thoughts about the wage gap here.  While the actual wage gap does indeed represent a problem, we most likely disagree on the causes and potential solutions.  Your own comment shows that the average gap of 20% can be cut literally in half simply by choosing the right field, so what do you think would happen if we started compensating for countless other factors like education, certifications, relocation, hours worked, continuous years with the employer, sabbaticals/leaves?  The gap keeps right on shrinking.

            According to the 2013 U.S. Census, women make up 50.8 percent of the population, however the representation of women in the U.S. government is currently under 20 percent. While some may claim that not enough qualified women have run, I still constantly hear people say things like, “I would never vote for a woman for President.” When searching “woman president” on Google, one of the top 8 related searches is “woman president jokes”, because, although 77 percent of Americans believe the U.S. will have a woman president in the next 10 years, the idea of having a woman president is still considered a joke. With this kind of – very public- attitude about female representation in government, it’s hard to argue that discrimination is not a part of the cause.

It’s hard to argue, but also turns out to be true: the current body of evidence firmly suggests female candidates for political office have very similar outcomes to similarly-situated male candidates.  You can produce all the anecdotal evidence you want, but it doesn’t stand up to the ongoing work of legitimate political scientists.  At the very least, the number of people who won’t vote for a candidate because she is a woman is counterbalanced by the number who will vote for a candidate purely because she is a woman.

Politics won’t provide your justification.

Regardless, none of this is really relevant to the argument at hand.  We definitely agree that a push for gender equality is necessary.  However, we do not think that feminism has to be the only one pushing, and while we think feminism has the potential to be a strong ally it is no more necessary than any of the other possible gender equality movements.

“Feminists are….”

You can go ahead and fill that blank with any horrible name or adjective you can think of. Yes, we’ve all heard stories of bra-burning radicals and a few rallying cries of women who obviously have a vendetta. I never thought those viewpoints were all that boisterous and was often very thrown when other people thought those were average feminists. Unfortunately, I’ve recently discovered that there is another extremely scary movement with a bold stance growing on Tumblr. #Killallmen is a hashtag created by misandrous radicals claiming to be feminists. A quick view of related posts makes their deluded message quite clear: these women hate men and do not want equality. The problem is, those who are not educated on the true definition of feminism are letting these ladies redefine it.

Again, you still don’t understand how definitions or labels work.  For you, what you’re saying may seem to be the case, because you view your prescriptive definition as both self-evident and unquestionable.  For those of us who define things based on what they are, however, those people still influence what “feminism” means because they represent a portion of what people calling themselves feminists do.  If you don’t want their behavior to reflect poorly on you, you have two choices: either drown them out effectively enough that they become a footnote, or directly oppose them and throw them out.  Instead, you resolutely demand that the rest of us ignore the elephant in the room while you continue to feel it peanuts under the table.

You may catch more flies with honey but you get more attention if you’re wielding a knife - and these ladies know it. Since when do a few radical people become the sole representation of an entire movement? That’s like saying Al Qaida represents all Arabs or the Westborough Baptist Church-goers are a serious example of modern-day Christians. Just because these radical women exist, does not mean that they really represent all who are actually pushing for equality.

If your only excuse for not supporting feminism is that there are other people who support the cause you don’t like, then your arguments are flimsy at best. There’s no reason that a minority of crazy individuals should curb an entire movement. You can’t change the definition of feminism or those who affiliate themselves with it, but you can change YOUR attitude about it.

We’re not just judging feminism by its radicals, though; we’re judging it by its overall actions. Feminism has consistently failed to be intersectional, and has consistently made the problem of restrictive gender roles worse.  Those radicals are just one small symptom of an enormous underlying problem.

This is the most important point.  It’s not that people are using a minority of crazy individuals as an excuse for not supporting feminism - as if anyone needs an excuse - it’s that the movement does a great deal of harm, and people often do not want to identify with a movement that does a great deal of harm.  Feminism is guilty of erasing male victims of violence and rape, supporting legal biases against men, hurting millions of people, and refuses to so much as admit to any wrongdoing even when it gets caught red-handed.

Want people to like your movement more?  Fine. Fix it.  Stop blaming others for disliking feminism, and work to make feminism more likable.  It’s not their fault that your movement is so incredibly flawed, nor is it their responsibility to compensate for those flaws.

“Why aren’t we all just “humanists” or “egalitarians”?

That’s a beautiful suggestion and I FULLY SUPPORT IT! I think we should all support the equality and fairness for people of all shapes, sizes, creeds, colors, genders, orientations, religions, and lack-there-of. It’s none of my business what you identify as if you don’t want to share, but if you exist, you deserve to same right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as anyone else.

The problem with this argument is that it is used AGAINST feminism. Over time it’s proven difficult to win the empathy of a group of people who have trouble connecting with you. Our society is built to divide us by the things that make us different. It’s too easy to ignore and misunderstand those we don’t align with.

The problem comes in when feminism actively attacks people for not being feminist, as you’re doing in this very post.  Feminism constantly browbeats egalitarians, men’s rights activists, and others for not being feminists, even when those other groups are doing much to fight for gender equality.  This is a problem, one that you seem entirely unwilling to acknowledge.

The importance of using words like “feminism”, “racialism”, and “LGBTQ rights” is the fact that they identify those being marginalized the most and the issues they face. With a specific movement that clearly identifies the problems at hand- the wage gap, the lack of representation of women in government, and the glass ceiling- we are more aptly able to show how women in today’s society still struggle in a patriarchal society. If we just lobby alone for “all people to be equal” the individual problems that each disenfranchised group struggles with get more clouded and our fight unfortunately becomes a stab in the dark. Focusing on the problems each marginalized group faces helps to enlighten those who haven’t experienced the struggle themselves.

If you agree that men and women should be given equal opportunities, then there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be proud to support feminism. The biggest hurdle is teaching others. So, go out there and be the feminist you want to see in the world!

There’s no reason why anyone should be ashamed to be a feminist, as long as they understand exactly what feminism means.  There’s no reason anyone should be ashamed of not being a feminist, either, which is the part you seem to be having trouble with.

Feminism has consistently failed at intersectionality, and often does more harm than good.  By attempting to co-opt others and force them into your movement, you’re just making the problem worse.  If you actually care about making the world better, stop being so single-minded about supporting your one movement and start looking at the bigger picture.

crispyhare:

Wow no guys this is funny.

Does anybody realize that their defensive responses to my post about men’s rights activists are proving me right? They’re not even saying why they’re not stupid, they’re just repeating everything I said.

"Women can’t logic". Like wow that sure shows me. No really, that’s a spot on argument. That doesn’t make you look like a misogynist or anything.

You are most likely talking about your previous post:

crispyhare:

Men’s rights activists are so spoiled and whiny.

Like, there are people who live without even a roof over their heads, and you’re getting worked up because no one will stroke your dick.

As we can see in the notes, there are four replies calling you out.  They can be sorted into two groups.  First, people pointed out that homelessness is a men’s issue:

ultrajohnbaltimoretheseventh:

Even though there is more homeless men but gg

 and

joeboco:

90% of homeless people are men, you literally just shit yourself in the face.

As these individuals pointed out, men are a majority of the homeless.  While homelessness might not be the main focus of MRAs, it definitely is a focus.  By pointing out the existence of homeless people as if they somehow negated the importance or efficacy of MRAs, you simply highlighted your own ignorance of the issue.

The two other responses revealed a different reason why your post was stupid:

deansthrobbingmember5:

Feminists are so spoiled and whiny. I mean there are literally women beaten and hung in the Middle East for simply speaking, and you’re getting worked up because someone told you have a nice ass.

 and

orange-soda-conspiracy:

Feminists are so spoiled and whiny.

Like, there are people who live without even a roof over their heads and get acid thrown in their face for trying to get a education and you’re getting worked up because will stroke your cunt.

If you took the time to actually think for a moment, you’d realize what they were doing by repeating and inverting what you said.  They were showing that your line of thought simply did not work.  You’re “appealing to worse problems,” but in this case the “worse problem” you chose was one of the same problems you were trying to draw attention away from.

If you can recognize how silly those two posts are, you should be able to recognize how silly your own post was, and that’s what orange-soda-conspiracy and deansthrobbingmember5 were trying to get you to do.

Men face significant issues in today’s society: they’re erased when they’re victims of abuse and violence, they’re discriminated against in the legal system, they make up a vast majority of the prison population, they make up a vast majority of violence victims and so on.  These issues must be rectified.  Perhaps you should consider taking some time to learn more about MRAs instead of blindly attacking them?

Re: RAINN Campaigns!

Hello.  It’s DJ once again.

As you probably remember, on March 15th and July 15th of 2014, I attempted mass e-mailing campaigns toward RAINN.  I wished to gain their attention and get them to take a more intersectional stance; as they are one of the larger and more powerful anti-rape activist groups, I thought that we could win a great victory by swaying them.

We had two main areas of focus.  First, we wished for them to acknowledge the problematic nature of their statement that only a tenth of rape victims are male, and perhaps change their statistic to more accurately reflect the truth.  Second, we wished for them to realize that their page on how “men can help” with rape was problematic and erased male victims, furthering the gender binary.

In a way, our most recent campaign was a success.  RAINN noticed us, at the very least; as they said in their response e-mail to me, they changed their definition of rape to the FBI one, and they did indeed change their “men can help” page to a more intersectional “bystanders can help page” and changed the old page to redirect to the new one.  On that page, RAINN changed any references to a possibly helpful man to a possibly helpful man or woman, and changed any references to a possibly victimized woman to a possibly victimized man or woman.

Nonetheless, they also did not change a number of things they could have, and some of their changes were not necessarily for the best.

This was my fault; I misread some of the text on RAINN’s websites, and I wrote the e-mails poorly and did not provide enough detail in terms of the changes we were requesting.

RAINN did not change their statistics page; their figures on males being only 10% of rape victims were not based on the study I thought they were based on.  I feel incredibly guilty about this.  I apologize for wasting everyone’s time, and I will be sure to try and be more careful about this in the future.  I simply got lazy; I did not double-check the study names, and so I did not provide the proper information and arguments in the e-mails.  Again, I apologize, and I will make sure to reread things more carefully from now on.

RAINN changed their definition to the FBI’s definition.  While it’s possible that the FBI definition can be interpreted to be intersectional, the most common reading of it results in the message that forced envelopment is not rape.  If that change was related to our campaigns, as RAINN implied that it was, this was my fault; I was not clear enough about the FBI definition being problematic and RAINN’s original definition being relatively good.  I’m always working on my phrasing; if you look back just a year or two on PoN, you can see for yourself how much I’ve already grown.  However, as this incident has shown, I’m still sub-par and have much more to learn.

Finally, RAINN used the the words “men and women” in their new “bystanders can help” page.  This is in many ways a step up from “men can help”.  However, it could have been better.  By using gender-neutral pronouns like “they” instead of “he and she” or words like “people” instead of “men and women”, RAINN could have made their page far less wordy and also more intersectional.  I should have gone into more detail on what exact changes they should have made, and perhaps gave them formatted text to copy-paste into their page.  This was due to my own inexperience, laziness, and wish to make the e-mail as short and simple as possible.  I will try to avoid making this mistake in the future.

RAINN sent me an e-mail response on the 16th of July explaining their changes.  I sent an e-mail response apologizing for the trouble I’ve caused and asking for further changes (including text to copy into their “bystander’s can hep” page) on the 18th of July, although I have yet to receive a response and honestly I do not expect one.

While I’d definitely love to try for further changes soon, considering how amazing, active, and effective you all have been, I’m quite sure that I’ve used up your enthusiasm for this sort of stuff and should give you a break.  I’d really like to push this issue more in September or October, but there’s definitely more pressing issues at hand anyway.

Would you be willing to attempt yet another e-mail campaign towards RAINN to get more issues settled?  If so, what month do you think you’d be ready?  Would you like to try and contact some other organization in order to effect change from them?  If so, what organizations would you suggest?

And in the meantime, do you think you’d have the will and the means to help produce materials to distribute?  Do you think you’d have the will and the means to distribute gender-egalitarian materials and literature, preferably in college campuses?  Maybe you could start up a club in college or high school focused on gender equality?  If you’d be interested, please contact me!  I’d really like your help.

Finally, I’d like to plan and carry out smaller US-centric campaigns focused on contacting lawmakers and institutional figures in order to bring about policy change directly, especially pertaining to selective service, the prison/courts system, circumcision, sex education, and trans rights, in that order (prioritizing mainly by practicality).  However, I will need a small group of active and focused individuals in each state.  If you’d be willing to help me, or if you think you could organize a group that can help, please contact me!  I’d love to hear from you.

Again, thank you for everything, and again, I must apologize for my mistakes.  I can’t express enough how amazing you have been; against great odds, you’ve brought about organizational change for gender equality.  While the changes themselves might not have been massive, you managed to effect them with insignificant numbers and very little time or material to work with.  Thank you for being so wonderful.  Thank you for being you.  Hopefully, we can work together to achieve ever greater things in the future.

Respectfully and gratefully,

-DJ

drugs-love-and-music:

If feminists and MRA’s are both fighting for gender equality why don’t they work together? Stuff would get done faster. I just don’t get it why can’t we all get along and, be equal and happy.

Often, MRAs and feminists do not agree on the root causes or best solutions to gender inequality issues.  Feminism has a history of supporting gender inequality in law; it hardly takes a genius to find a veritable slew of examples.  The MRM also has its fair share of radicals, and the fact that radicals tend to be the most visible members of any given group makes cooperation even more difficult.

Nonetheless, feminists and MRAs often do work together.  The problem is that those instances of cooperation simply aren’t all that visible.  The groups in question, especially feminism, are so big (and in the case of the MRM, diffuse) that large organizational cooperation is pretty much a pipe dream.  Coordinating such large groups on a movement-wide scale would be nearly impossible, especially with so much inter-movement disagreement and distaste.

Do you think we need the Men’s Rights Movement? And why?

not-a-teenage-girl:

I really don’t see the purpose of the men’s rights activists. Don’t men already have all the rights because this country [america] is run by men?
What rights are you fighting for and who are you fighting against?

The fact that a majority of government figures are men doesn’t mean that men as a group are in power, nor does it mean that men “have all the rights.”  It certainly doesn’t mean that men are let off easy by the government, especially when you consider that women make up a majority of voters and men, unlike women, display relatively little in-group bias.

Male victims of rape and violence are erased by society, a pattern that runs as high as government policy.  Men are also discriminated against in legal system; a vast majority of prisoners are men, and it didn’t get that way naturally; in statistical terms, being a man hurts you more than being black if you end up in court.  Men also get the short end of the stick in family law, particularly when it comes to divorce and child custody arrangements.

This is hardly and exhaustive list of issues, but it does include some of the most flagrant and easily identifiable ones.  Do you really not agree that these problems must be fixed?

To everyone who read my feminism/antifeminism post

th0mforke:

Soo, this has got really out of hand. 

This most likely refers to your previous post:

th0mforke:

Anti-feminism in females is like that girl in high school who would shamelessly flirt with all the boys and you’d feel embarrassed for her because she had no self respect.

Your post got a number of notes, many of them from people who found it problematic.  They viewed it as sex-shaming, and found that your analogy didn’t make very much sense.

I would like to state that I was using “that girl in high school” etc. as a metaphor. I wasn’t saying anti feminists shamelessly flirt. I just don’t understand why antifeminists ARE anti feminists.

People understood that you were using metaphor.  The fact that it was metaphor doesn’t excuse the fact that you presented being flirty or promiscuous as something that implied a lack of self-respect.

The main demographic I was speaking about was antifeminists who don’t believe in feminism because literally they crave male attention to dictate their lives, they don’t have goals for themselves and don’t believe in themselves. These are the antifeminists I have met. They are the women who feel liberated because they believe we already have equality, and that feminists are just silly women wanting to be more than equal (which isn’t true!). These are the antifeminists I have come across. So I don’t understand why antifeminists are antifeminist just because they believe that feminists are bigots, and plainly don’t like feminists. This is WHY feminism is a thing, because women who want to be liberated keep fighting against one another, why can’t we all just fight for the same thing? EQUALITY. 

It’s amusing that you state you don’t understand why antifeminists choose the label of antifeminist, then follow it up by immediately speculating about how they crave male attention, have low self-esteem, and aren’t ambitious.  That’s not just ignorant, it’s outright misogynist.  

If you do run into antifeminists that are antifeminists for the wrong reasons, you’re welcome to send them our way.  However, we can pretty much guarantee that a large majority have very good reasons for opposing the feminist movement.  Feminism may be wonderful in theory, but it’s also responsible for erasing literally millions of male victims of rape and violence, skewing the legal system against men, and supporting the gender binary that it claims to fight.

Antifeminists, by and large, are fighting for the exact same thing you say you’re fighting for: gender equality.  Why, then, are you attacking them?  You say nothing about their methods, nothing about their beliefs, nothing about their results, just a bunch of ad hominem that basically boils down to labeling it as “daddy issues.”

I don’t care if you flirt, do it as much as you want, but I do care when women are putting themselves down, just to lift men up.

Apparently it’s okay to put women down just for the sake of putting them down, though.  If you really don’t care if others flirt, don’t present it as a bad thing.  It’s really that simple.

This is not okay, and like I said these are the antifeminists that I have met. They put mens lives in front of their own. They don’t have the self respect that they deserve. So no, this is not slut shaming, if they have the self respect they deserve then go for it, do what you want. But everyone deserves to be equal and to love and respect themselves. This is literally all I was trying to say. So anyway, haters going to hate, but at least try to understand that this was the point I was trying to get across. 

We understand that, and we also understand why your message is so problematic and wrong.  Hopefully, you will take the time to understand that too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for equal rights and all but what I don't get from your blog is that you seem to be focusing more on responding to feminists post on how feminism is wrong rather than pointing out faults in our system (without hijacking feminist posts not always totally relatable to your replies). I know you put a lot of weight on how feminists are attacking or looking over mensright problems so I don't understand why you would do this to feminists posts? — Anonymous

Could you try and point out some of our replies that didn’t totally relate to the original posts?  When we respond to posts, it’s usually because the posts in question are problematic in some way; generally, these posts ignore men’s issues or erase feminism’s flaws.  These sort of posts make the problem of gender inequality worse, and so we try and educate individuals who make them.  Why do you think this is a problem?

activeheart:

permutationofninjas:

activeheart:

i get so pissed off when women don’t identify as feminists like you owe SO MUCH to the suffrage movements of the past and the work being done by the feminists in our modern era and other women still campaign for equality despite you being TOTALLY UNGRATEFUL for all the things that have been done and continue to be done and like…….. i don’t understand why you refuse to support them. why. 

Look at feminist gender violence activism.  Pick a campaign, any campaign, and what you’ll find is the erasure of male victims, the erasure of female perpetrators, and general failures at intersectionality.  Look at the 1 in 4 campaign.  Look at “Men can Stop Rape.”  Look at feminist influences on rape laws in countries like India and Israel.  Look at the behavior of feminist academics like Mary Koss and Hugo Schwyzer.  Take a long, hard, honest look, and you might find you’ve answered your own question.

It’s not that people aren’t grateful to past feminist activists their actions, it’s that they see so many flaws in the modern movement that linking the two seems almost insulting.

if you see the flaws in modern feminism then that is even more reason not to remain passive about it. not sure why people consistently think that disassociating themselves from it will magically make the situation any better when it does nothing.

Deciding that you don’t identify with the movement isn’t “remaining passive about it,” especially when you take a public stance to that effect.  Many of those who decide not to identify with feminism actively work to address the bigotry they see within the movement, and directly address the problems caused by the movement.

Dissociating from the movement is a statement in itself.  Stepping away from the movement doesn’t just weaken its capacity to cause harm, it makes an overt statement about its credibility and standing.  Not only does this influence public opinion regarding feminism (essential for such movements), it also speaks to those within the movement who may themselves have doubts about it.  This might force feminism to change for the better, or it might cause it to die out and be replaced by a more enlightened alternative, but it most certainly would not do nothing.

If many people took notice of people leaving feminism, at least some would begin to question why.  By refusing to associate with feminism and speaking about the movement’s flaws, individuals can do more than you might think.  They’re doing more than you, at the very least.