Feminism is valid
Mostly have rich white ladies complaining about silly stuff discrediting the movement now.
Haven't seen any systematic opression of women where I live, so I don't see the point of those movements in the developed world. But then again, I've been called a "cis male shitlord", so what do I know.
At least reading threads such as these is pretty entertaining.
I think coming from a system of oppression for women (from Pakistan)
I naturally sympathize but also roll my eyes on some 'feminists' I see in the West.
| Jaicee said: Please don't validate his "points". Some of the factoids that Louie provides are true, but here's the catch: none of them (in aggregate) are caused by women and thus they do not count as gender oppression! For example, Louie suggests that males are just as likely to be domestic violence survivors as women. First of all, that's just not true (ESPECIALLY when it comes to sexual violence); women are more likely both to be attacked by an intimate partner and also to be attacked more severely. Secondly though, and more importantly, almost all of that violence is also conducted by men. The perpetrators of domestic violence (indeed of violence in general) tend overwhelmingly to be male. As in more than 90% of the time (and 99% of the time in cases of sexual assault). (It should be understood here that no, I am not counting "verbal abuse" in the domestic violence category.) Likewise, men may die younger, but that is not the fault of women, but rather that of men's own biology and lifestyle choices. The trade-off is that you tend to get more sex. Or, on a less serious note, we could talk about the psychological impact of gendered toys, particularly insofaras toys did not used to be so gendered, believe it or not. That's more of a new thing and the experts say it's causing harm. The larger point here though is that Louie's arguments are logically akin to saying that more men die in war than women. Well yes, but...who tends to control the military and the levers of government (decide when to go to war, how to fight, and who goes to war and who doesn't) and who most likely freely (especially here in the U.S.) signs up and is actually allowed to participate in all branches and roles in the army of any given country? In all cases, the answer tends to be: men. How are WOMEN responsible for this? You see my point? Seriously, look at the demographic composition of America's corporate board rooms or Congress or the White House or the police or your college professors or the Internet (including not least this message board) or the pro sports teams you watch or who the center of the media's attention is (be it movies, video games, TV, comic books, whatever) or who owns that media, etc. Men control basically everything in America, to say nothing of the world writ large. There are marginal exceptions here and there that you can point to, but that's really a matter of reaching, not an honest look at the big picture. The big picture is that women still make 20% less than men overall despite working longer hours (once you take both paid and unpaid labor into account) and being better educated, both. And yet Louie complains of being oppressed by women. You see how that's kind of disingenuous from where I'm standing? Men don't get to blame women for the the actions and choices of other men. That's not fair at all. But let's face it: so-called men's rights activism has nothing to do with fairness. |
You totally mis-interpreted my post ;)
You accuse me of feeling opressed by women or blaming women for men's hardships. That's basically the single argument in your post. Where did I say that? Please point me to the part of my post where I said women are responsible for any of the statistics I cited. I don't feel opressed by women in the slightest. I'm not a victim. I have my life in my own hands, I'm a grown up person and I am responsible for the choices I make in life. What annoys me is when people make up false statistics, make claims that can't be verified or use measures of "inequality" that are simply bogus, like the report you cited in an earlier post. These things have a bad effect on women's lives when all is said and done. Nobody profits from "rape statistics" on campus ("1 in 4 women on campus get raped") when most of the reported cases are drunk sex (where both parties are drunk). Believe me, I know this from personal experience. I was a witness in a case of sexual abuse and the police was extremely critical of the woman (and I knew for a fact that she was telling the truth). When I got angry at the two police-women they apologized and said that false rape accusations are so common for them that they have to be so critical. See? The real victims suffer because the small minority of women who simply have a bad character will abuse this stuff like crazy.
Here's what you say: "Women are opressed."
Here's what I say: "It's a complicated mix of privileges and hardships for both genders."
See the difference? I'm simply pointing out that women are not the opressed class you are making them out to be. At least not in the west. Never in the history of mankind has an opressed class lived longer, committed less suicides, died a lot less at work, had equal rights, worked less, could participate politically at will and had equal medical care.
The domestic violence part is simply not true lol. In another post I linked a collection of over 200 studies that all show the same picture: Women are as violent as men in relationships. The single website you cited posts feminist tweets on twitter! That hardly beats hundreds of studies across dozens of countries that show the same picutre: Women are as violent as men. And I'm also not counting verbal abuse here. At least cite independent studies.
Life expectancy: I totally agree that lifestyle choices are a part of this. It's great that you say that! You know why? Because all your arguments later presented in your post are also caused by personal choices! Women are less interested in sports, less interested in politics (in Germany, 40% of all males but only 20% of all females are "highly interested" in politics), less interested in making a high paying career. As for life expectancy: Again, my argument is not that men are opressed lol. It's that women are not and that they get equal medical treatment! And the numbers prove my point in that they don't show opression of women. Once more, I'm not saying that men are opressed or don't get equal medical treatment. But to suggest that in the west women get treated worse medically is hilarious. And the sex part, oh my god! :P That has nothing to do with life expectancy at all! "Oh yes, you die earlier. But hey, you get more sex!" It's a bit random, huh?
Military: How you can spin having to register for draft (which is what things have been like in most countries for most of the time) into "men are opressing women" is beyond me. The military is not a place you want to go. In most cases, it's a place you have to go to. Also, in most western countries women are free to join the military these days but in case of war only men will have to fight. Equality!
In general: You seem to confuse "men opressing women" with "powerful people opressing powerless ones". Aren't you a communist? Because you (not me) are the one missing the bigger picture: Those 0.1% of men (and women) who own the media, do politics, control the military, are extremely rich, etc. who are powerful are hardly representative of the male population. Do you think the average working man out there has "power" over lots of things? These things are by-products of capitalism, not opression against women. 99.9% of all men do not have these privileges. You are attacking the wrong enemy.
One last time: I'm not saying men are opressed. I think you've been reading a lot into my post if you came to that conclusion because feminists always argue that women are opressed. It's a complicated mix of privileges and hardships for both genders. What I'm saying is that to see the full picture we have to look at the male side, too.
| SpokenTruth said: 1. When your list of things to make better are already too long to handle, adding things to the list that work in the opposite direction don't make any sense. That's a Men's Rights stance that is logically flawed. 2. Fathers are actually now gaining custody at a rate at an equal rate. "There are now 2.2 million divorced women in the United States who do not have primary physical custody of their children, and an estimated 50 percent of fathers who seek such custody in a disputed divorce are granted it." https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/more-fathers-getting-custody-in-divorce/ Also:
"In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html "between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases, in just that decade, doubled from 15.8 to 30.5. And a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers shows a rapid increase in mothers paying child support." |
What can I say? Awesome! The statistics you cite seem to be valid, so I back off and will look deeper into the matter before arguing any further. I'm not intimately familiar with the US here. I only know about Germany. Thanks for providing the data!
SpokenTruth said:
1. When your list of things to make better are already too long to handle, adding things to the list that work in the opposite direction don't make any sense. That's a Men's Rights stance that is logically flawed. 2. Fathers are actually now gaining custody at a rate at an equal rate. "There are now 2.2 million divorced women in the United States who do not have primary physical custody of their children, and an estimated 50 percent of fathers who seek such custody in a disputed divorce are granted it." https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/more-fathers-getting-custody-in-divorce/ Also:
"In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html "between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases, in just that decade, doubled from 15.8 to 30.5. And a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers shows a rapid increase in mothers paying child support." |
The huffington post does not say what percentage of the cases that went to court has the mom get custody. HuffPost's source is also non-existent.
And your slate article shows that women get sole custody 45.7% of the time vs. 23.8% for men. That's still a big gap. So no, fathers are not gaining custody at an equal rate.
On a side note, Australia's national women soccer team were fighting for equal pay. They just got beaten 7-0 by an under-15 boys team...
Unless you're a gay dude who loves cock, you're just going to have to accept that women today by and large don't accept being treated the way they were in the past.
That's just how it goes.
You can huff and puff about all this "feminist shit", but odds are if you view everything through that prisim, you're not getting 10 feet near any vagina you'd actually like to be. From my experience these guys who harp on this stuff are the ones always stuck at home, miserable, and their "girlfriend" is their hand and online porn.
| Soundwave said: Unless you're a gay dude who loves cock, you're just going to have to accept that women today by and large don't accept being treated the way they were in the past. You can huff and puff about all this "feminist shit", but odds are if you view everything through that prisim, you're not getting 10 feet near any vagina you'd actually like to be. From my experience these guys who harp on this stuff are the ones always stuck at home, miserable, and their "girlfriend" is their hand and online porn. |
Just out of interest: Is anyone in this thread actually against equality? As in, I'm really curious if someone really thinks "women should go back to the kitchen" or something. Would be funny to argue with them. I think people are arguing whether or not women are opressed but I don't think anyone actually wants to opress women as in taking their rights away (but maybe I'm wrong?).
As for your last paragraph: I guess it depends on a lot of things. For some men, being "anti-feminist" (as in they are really bitter and angry) is a way to escape reality (that they are a mediocre guy with no drive or charisma and are too lazy to work on themselves). For others, "swallowing the red pill" is the gateway to self-improvement and not being a pushover anymore. My personal grudge, for instance, is strictly related to spreading false statistics because I've seen so many in my time at university (studied political science). I would never want to take away women's rights, have them have a worse life or talk them out of becoming an engineer. So I wouldn't generalize things in that way. I strongly agree that you shouldn't adopt political views out of anger though or use any of this discussion as an excuse to live an isolated life and to blame women for your life situation. That's victim mentality and nothing is worse for yourself than that.
Louie said:
Just out of interest: Is anyone in this thread actually against equality? As in, I'm really curious if someone really thinks "women should go back to the kitchen" or something. Would be funny to argue with them. I think people are arguing whether or not women are opressed but I don't think anyone actually wants to opress women as in taking their rights away (but maybe I'm wrong?). As for your last paragraph: I guess it depends on a lot of things. For some men, being "anti-feminist" (as in they are really bitter and angry) is a way to escape reality (that they are a mediocre guy with no drive or charisma and are too lazy to work on themselves). For others, "swallowing the red pill" is the gateway to self-improvement and not being a pushover anymore. My personal grudge, for instance, is strictly related to spreading false statistics because I've seen so many in my time at university (studied political science). I would never want to take away women's rights, have them have a worse life or talk them out of becoming an engineer. So I wouldn't generalize things in that way. I strongly agree that you shouldn't adopt political views out of anger though or use any of this discussion as an excuse to live an isolated life and to blame women for your life situation. That's victim mentality and nothing is worse for yourself than that. |
The victim menality, you might as well bathe in horse piss before going outside, because it basically kills any chance you have with any kind of even semi-attractive woman.
She has 5 dudes likely at any point just dying to hook up with her, and the odds are extremely high that 1, 2, 3 or even all 5 of them are less socially retarded than you are.
I mean yeah, you can sit around and whine as a man about stuff ... but then what? Do you think you're actually going to get anywhere in life with that attitude?
That's just my general consensus from meeting people like "men's rights activists" ... these dude's coudn't get laid if their life depended on it. Ditto for "feminazis" ... a lot of them are not getting laid, lol. A lot of this shit I think stems from sexual frustration. But instead of trying improve themselves they fall into the trap of complaining and whining and no one else gives a shit.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
