Quote from Kimber

second-class citizens? How does the fact that more men than women choose to take their own life show that they are second-class citizens?

Ok Kim, since you're trampling on some very raw ground for myself and several members here who have had to deal with feeling suicidal as the result of the system and our culture and the ways it views male victims and female perpetrators. So I'll put it bluntly in the form of a gender reversal.

Imagine for one minute that even the police and the courts would generally ridicule women who were rapped by telling them "if you weren't dressed like such a slut it wouldn't have happened." Let's imagine too that when they did the same in cases of domestic violence they were told "well you probably had it coming to you". Let's imagine too that they were told to "stop being such a sooky little girl" when psychological abuse pushed them to the precipice of a breakdown. Let's imagine too that laws were set up where when women called police out for a domestic dispute where they were the victim, they were likely to be arrested by the police. Let's suppose that in a divorce, men could and predominantly did, use children as a weapon against them.

Now with all of that let's suppose that the suicide rate of women was as high as that of men. Would you honestly be saying;

second-class citizens? How does the fact that more women than men choose to take their own life show that they are second-class citizens?

We both know the answer to that is a resounding "no".

On a slightly different note, I suggest you ask BMiracle what's currently happening in his lie and see if he isn't a second class citizen.

Quote from Kimber

In fact, every feminist article that I've read in the past few years, with regards to involvement with the UN, has specifically been about providing aid and education to women in places like the Congo, Rwanda, and several Middle Eastern countries....places where the situation for women is genuinely dire. This is an example of radical feminist activism?

I'll deal specifically with this example because this is the usual fallback for feminists when the way men are now second class citizens in the western world is brought up.

You bring up Africa, but let's be honest, who were the slaves mining diamonds in Sierra Leone? What gender are the child soldiers in Africa? Last I checked the answer to both questions were men and males respectively. Furthermore, slavery of males tends to be far more prevalent than women in that part of the world. I'm not saying that we should ignore the plight of women in that part of the world, however feminism completely ignores slavery and the vile form of child abuse of forcing young boys to fight, simply because the gender of the victims is "inconvenient" for them. So yes, by raising the plight of women in this region while diminishing and dismissing the plight of male victims, this is definitely radical feminism at work. A lie wrapped up in truth is still a lie, no matter how righteous it might seem.

Now I'll deal with the rest of your posts, in general including this supposed vast gap between moderate and radical feminism.

So Kimber, are you saying that you believe that women should be able to abuse their children and partners with absolute impunity? Are you saying that you believe that an agenda of the irradication of all men on this planet purely n the grounds of gender is acceptable?

You claim that radical feminism is needed, yet you would do well to read http://antimisandry.com/introduce-yo...als-37166.html

Now before you claim that she doesn't speak for the movement; it is the sentiments of these types of people that are the basis for women's studies (or gender studies as it's now called) courses in Western universities.

You cannot claim that radical feminism is not the core of feminism, when moderates such as yourself have happily benefitted from the blatant misandry of raqdical feminism.

Furthermore if moderates such as yourself are so against radical feminsim, then why is it that we never see moderate feminist groups publicly lambasting radical feminist groups when they display utter misandry in a public manner?

You cannot claim that feminism is not grounded in misandry when moderates are happy to let feminists speak for them and form the very core of feminist academia.

You may personally be an egalitarian, but when you identify yourself as a feminist, you're like a German citizen during WW2 who claimed they opposed the Holocaust yet did nothing to speak out against the Nazis while actively benefitting from the Nazi regime.

Understand this- I am a victim of decades of abuse (child psychological, underage sexual assault, spousal rape and spousal psychological abuse) which has been sanctioned, perpetuated and condoned by the system as the direct result of feminist propaganda. I hold anyone who defends feminism as a child abuse enabler, because feminism does enable both child abuse and domestic violence along gender lines.

Like many victims out there, I'm willing to give moderate feminism a fair hearing but ONLY after it publicly goes toe-to-toe with radical feminism and not a moment before. The reason for this will be that at that point, moderate feminism will have turned its back on such vile behaviour, and only then will it be an ally and not an enemy to victims of feminism such as myself.

The next time you want to look at feminism as purely a force for good, you might want to look down on the ground at the massive bodycount it's left in its wake.

Quote from far-better-as-a-woman

Women wouldn't need to be the victims is men weren't allowed to victimize them in the first place.

Control men, make life better for women. Pretty simple. Aren't men into "self-sacrifice"?

Ohhh, pleeeeease, Are you having a round of poor little wimmin victims with a "wimmins tears" chaser?
One of these days men collectively are going to tell women to sod off and do things for themselves for once, then we'll see the crying start.
When you have to work things out for yourself, life takes on a whole different perspective.
And don't worry, FBAAW, we'll be there, to tell you you bought it all on yourselves, with our arms folded.

Quote from far-better-as-a-woman

Women wouldn't need to be the victims is men weren't allowed to victimize them in the first place.

Control men, make life better for women. Pretty simple. Aren't men into "self-sacrifice"?

I figured a savage like you would say something like that. After all women like you ARE into abuse, violence, hate and being control freaks.

On a slightly different note, I suggest you ask BMiracle what's currently happening in his lie and see if he isn't a second class citizen.

Lol. Kimber is my girlfriend. Not my "e-girlfriend" but she is sitting next to me right now. She knows and backs me 110% in my endeavors with the state. Now we can all agree that the family court system is bias, and you can make the verdict that men/fathers are treated with bias and disregard as to their rights in said venue.

But, This is the doing of the Court system and it's tendency to play to politically correct ideals that don't hurt anyone's feelings...at the expense of man. As I have stated before, while feminism and women's lib movements have opened the door for themselves to get out of a bad instance, or a bad marriage, or what have you, it was society and the governments hand that empowers and justifies said treatment of women at the expense of man. I focus my efforts on that more so than bashing feminism at every turn.

I have the ability to look at things objectively and to differentiate the feminist who works towards women and their right to not be kept as property, blah, blah and so forth, and those women who deal with women's areas of life that do not affect men and let them go on with what they're doing.

Anyhow, seems I'm in the debate I was so trying to stay out of.

Lets do this.

Quote from Bmiricle

I have the ability to look at things objectively and to differentiate the feminist who works towards women and their right to not be kept as property, blah, blah and so forth, and those women who deal with women's areas of life that do not affect men

As do I. The former are feminists and the later are egalitarians. Methinks Kim needs to learn the difference, but then so does 90%+ of the world's population heh.

Quote from bowspearer

As do I. The former are feminists and the later are egalitarians. Methinks Kim needs to learn the difference, but then so does 90%+ of the world's population heh.

Maybe I didn't write that how I was saying that in my head. Feminists, who work on feminine issues of life that do not effect men. They worry about female things, and female stuff, but, not at the expense of men. Are Feminist. They are not radical, they are not extreme, they are not hate-mongers, they just focus their attentions on that of the woman.

I've commented about this in one of Douglas's blogs and it may get me some bad publicity due the anti-feminist doctrine here, which I don't entirely disagree with, but don't entirely agree with either.

I refuse to tell Kim, or any woman who focuses her attentions on women's issues, who declare themselves feminists, that they are wrong. If it's a female issue that they strive for, that doesn't have the intent of belittling men, then fine, feminist you are. Of a certain degree.

I don't hold the authority to declare them otherwise and I don't feel you do either. By "you" I mean anyone. Feel it's counter productive to take them out of the equation by bashing them left and right for what they choose to call themselves.

Just as there are Misogynists who work in the depths of the Men's Right's Movement, there are Misandrists who run around spewing feminist doctrine. We differentiate our selves from the Misogynists in the MRM, so why can't women declare themselves different from the extremist feminists who come from feminist doctrine that holds the intent of keeping women on par with the rest of the world at the expense of men? It doesn't sit right with me to undermine their ability to use their own thought process to determine what's right and wrong. It's not my place to label anyone as to what they represent and tell them what they focus their intentions on isn't really what they think it is because parts of it don't sit well with me.

It's convenient for us to just throw the bulk of feminist into the radical, extreme, sect. When I feel it's society at large that blows it all out of proportion at the expense of man.

It's not feminist doctrine that regulates society. It's feminine doctrine that regulates our discussions here, which in turn gives it more due that it's worth.

Kim:And this isn't "Just about shouting at any feminist who happens to be around"? Really? In this very thread, the only thing about Marx's post that I voiced any objection to was the reasoning that many support groups have for separating the genders for counseling. That's it. Yet look at what it turned into. Look at what I have been accused of supporting (even when I took the time to point out what I certainly didn't support). Look at how, even when it's established that I had a "valid point", instead of just leaving it at that it just turns into 5 more paragraphs of other things to argue with me about. Is that really all that far off from just yelling at a feminist because she's there, even if/when she hasn't said anything objectionable?

Kim, I was not trying to claim it doesn’t happen, quite the opposite, and I’m certainly not trying to claim that it’s not happening in this thread, I was merely pointing out that its not all that ever happens in the manosphere. I was addressing your apparent concern that all that’s ever done is shouting at feminists.

Kim: If you can't focus on exactly who/where to aim your attack, what it is you hope to accomplish will never come to pass.

I judge a movement, such as feminism, on it's action - not it's claims.

I cannot fathom how anyone, man or woman, could try to deny that the last half a Century has seen feminism repeatedly pushing for more anti-male hysteria.

Let's swap it around... let's say men were the protected class, the ones who could literally get away with murder - of children or adults, the ones who could smack a child around and have people turn a blind eye while any woman doing so would be set upon by others near by, the ones who could kick a woman in the groin and applauded instead of condemned, etc. etc.

Let's imagine various grows repeatedly went out screaming that only women do bad, only men can be good, only women hurt others, only men have emotions, only this, only that, only the other. The male vote is their Holy Grail of politics, many politicians cream their undies at the thought of keeping men happy - regardless the cost to others... So, a number of men's groups petition the political world for a VAMA, for C$A - many even stating outright that the intent is not about what's right, but simply 'transferring money from handbag to wallet' (swap that quote around)... Suddenly we see from the biased research that men's groups have pushed forward showing only women do wrong and only men are victims, new laws are being drafted. VAMA takes place and women are arrested without evidence - on men's *feelings* alone, suddenly women being charged for children that aren't theirs when the DNA evidence pops up, women being put in prison for decades for crimes they haven't committed.

Wouldn't you suggest that the bias research from men's groups was having an obvious affect on women?


The laws don't change overnight due to some politician suddenly having a change of heart from nowhere - laws change because feminist groups have done agenda-driven research (i.e. draw a conclusion and work your data until you get that conclusion). We've seen feminist groups pushing for female murderers to be given leniency, for child killers to be let free, etc. They systematically claim when a man kills it's simply hate but when women kill it's xyz-issues and she couldn't help herself. Blah Blah Blah Blah.

You cannot, with any sense of truth, deny that feminism has done all in it's power to promote women over men, to knock men down in order to elevate women, to setup a two-tier system in which women are viewed with sympathy while men are viewed with anger.

Quote from Bmiricle

Maybe I didn't write that how I was saying that in my head. Feminists, who work on feminine issues of life that do not effect men. They worry about female things, and female stuff, but, not at the expense of men.(my emphasis)

But that's not a feminist approach, that's an egalitarian approach. Feminism at its core has taken the old traditional stereotype of the poor little helpless damsel in distress, locked away in a tower and made it the symbolic martyr to the cause. At the very heart of feminism is and has always been, the notion of women as the "perpetual victim" helpless at the hands of the all seeing father, or patriarchy.

It has gotten to the point were like some paranoid psychopath, any calls for accountability are merely oppression (as every women under feminist ideology is of course a "perpetual victim of patriarchy")- even to the point of proposing a Hitleresque "Final Solution" which writings such as the SCUM Manifesto do.

An egalitarian on the other hand believes in all people being equal and in the elimination of all forms of injustice to all. Now that doesn't mean you have to be all things to everyone. You can be an egalitarian women's rights activist, where you're focused on specific issues affecting women. However the difference between an egalitarian women's rights activist and a feminist is this.

Let's take Africa for example. Yes women are treated horribly in many parts of the region, however boys are also often kidnapped as young as 3 and forced to be soliders, while men are regularly kidnapped and used for slave labour- provided they aren't simply butchered to begin with.

Now an egalitarian women's rights activist would acknowledge the issues of men in the region when asked while pushing the issues of women still and encouraging the person to also contact any groups dealing with that side of things, presumably with reciprocity happening between both groups. In short, they focus on one small part of things to be effective, but care about the whole puzzle when asked about it.

A feminist on the other hand would diminish the plight of male slaves and child soldiers by citing one or more heavily slanted studdies and even blaming the slaves and child soldiers for being there (after all, under feminism, all men are violent oppressors), and verbalise anyone who pointed out the legitimacy of those two issues as being a misogynist.

Are their women who fit the description of egalitarian women's rights activists who class themselves as feminists? Sure, but I'd also argue that they also haven't given much thought to what feminism really entails in terms of going back to at least the 1950s and 60s when you had things coming out like the SCUM manifesto, which have been so greatly endorsed by the movement that they're now required reading for women's studies classes. The trap they fall into of course is the "femin" component of feminism, combined with the propaganda of feminist apologists- mistaking the respecting of the feminine in society with the femafacism which is truly is.

So again, I would put it to kim- just how much do you agree with the notions of the SCUM Manifesto and the radical feminists which effectively control the movement these days, virtually unchallenged by the "moderates"? If you do disaree with them, then perhaps it is time to seriously ponder the differences between feminism and egalitarianist women's rights activism.

Quote from Marx

It makes sense.

How? What logic leads you to say that the support groups that act responsibly should be trashed because of what an unaffiliated, separate support group does.

Quote from Marx

Likewise, given feminism's history of anti-male hate-mongering... we shouldn't assume that it isn't an anti-male sentiment either. Despite knowing what iconic and/or influential feminists are like, you want to see the good in the movement.

Sure, no assumptions either way. But that's exactly what you did. You very much did assume that they are anti-male.

Quote from Marx

You're taking it completely the wrong way, and I think you're well aware of that. At no point did I even hint that you were too thick to pick up on anything. I simply said that those working on certain methods aren't going to be blunt about it. Well, some will, but most wouldn't.

Well, Marx....I've posted enough times on your site for you to know by now where I'm coming from, yet you so quickly digressed into accusing me of having an attitude towards you that you should have been well aware that I wasn't (ie. the "high n' mighty" crap).

Quote from Marx

Super! So, instead of defending the need for them, while acknowledging there's a lack of counselling for men - why not promote counselling to include or specifically for? Why only defend the 'need' for half those in need of support services? It's obvious by now that women get a thousand-fold the support that is offered to men... so why the need to continue pushing for me or defending those already in existence? Surely as someone hell-bent on egalitarianism you should now be looking at opening similar support other half of those in need of counselling or support services rather than turning a blind eye?

I should be looking at opening one? Are you under the impression that I have access to the kind of finances required to do such a thing? What is it that you expect me to do? What are you doing about the fact that it's legal for a chemist in America to deny a woman's prescription because he/she doesn't personally agree with what the medication is for (something that they've not been given the legal right to do over any medication that a man takes)? I/we haven't held you or other men like you responsible/accountable for such things. We assume that that fight is ours, and though it's obviously advantageous to let people know that it's going on, hoping to gain their support, we don't berate men like yourself for not personally doing something about it.

And I'm not pushing you to defend the ones in existence that are operating fairly. I was asking you not to attack the ones that aren't guilty. Defending is quite different from deciding not to attack.

Quote from Marx

Not quite... They're the loudest yes, and most influential, and most powerful, and being taught in women's studies classes to young minds, and so on and so on... The radical feminists are praised by WS professors, given 'equality minister' jobs who go on to persistently fuck men over and often children too, write in glossy magazines sold in the multiple thousands.... They're not just loud - they're affecting society.

Admittedly, I never took a WS class.....and I don't know many women who ever actually did either. Additionally, I know of no WS professors in America who have ever been given a position in office to affect society.

Quote from Marx

The problem is that the MAJORITY of feminist places, even those claiming to be 'moderates' continue to promote - at least elements of - radical feminism. I've seen 'moderate' feminists defending laws that make rape of men legal but a man who 'nags' for sex can be thrown in prison. According to this self-proclaimed 'moderate feminist', it's a 'cultural' issue... so you see, when culture affects women in some way - things have to change, but when men can be legally raped (or face prison if he denies his wife sex) or be thrown in jail for simply asking more than twice a month for sex... well, that's fine & dandy. That's culture and nothing needs to be done about that.

I am not aware of any law in America that has made it legal to rape a man. Nor have I seen a case where a man has been thrown in jail for nagging for sex. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen where you are, or that it's alright by me. But how ridiculous is it to expect a group of American feminists to somehow affect UK law, or have any power to stop a group of women in another country from doing what they want to do. Do you, as a UK citizen have the ability to control what other men's groups in America end up doing?

Quote from Marx

Hilary remains an influential individual and while she may not be passing laws, she as done a lot of bigoted talk about men in general over the last few years. It never ceases to amaze me how feminists complain about stereotyping... then go on to blame 'men' as a class with such ease, and get an applause from their audience for it.

In the feminist reading and interactions that I have experienced, men as a class don't really come into the picture. We don't blame men for abortion rights issues. We don't blame men for our body-image issues (though we may comment on how men's expectations have also been affected by media images, that's not "blaming" them). The same goes for the concept of "slut-shaming". We don't blame men for the American sex-education issues in our public schools. We don't blame men for all of the stories about the TSA crossing the line with some female passengers. Sure, you can reasonably point out comments made, or articles posted that are clearly objectionable. I can point out comments and articles that have absolutely nothing to do with any of that as well though.

Quote from Marx

It's both. The feminists hold a lot of political clout, they argue to politicians against our points - they carry a lot more clout than we do, and the politicians are 10x more scared of upsetting a bunch of grouchy of bags with cold shoulders than they are a handful of grumpy old farts.

I don't think that you're wrong in saying that, but it sounds like the real complaint is about the spinelessness of the politicians.

after all, under feminism, all men are violent oppressors

Where is the feminist bible of how to conduct feminist activity? I feel as if these types of statements are perspective opinion. It's how YOU view radical feminism and place it on the heads of all those who claim feminist. All black people are gangsters and crack dealers. All white people are Ku Klux Klan. All Mexicans are worthless immigrants, etc, etc.

Why not instead let these feminists use reason and fariness to change the way radical feminism influences policies put in place for the benefit of women to not ruin the lives of men.

I still stand by the fact that it's pussy-fied legislators who use women's rights to get the vote at the expense of the male gender, maybe not always intentionally but it's the way it tends to work.

Your points are valid, and I don't deny that it makes sense, but it's still opinion stated as fact.

I'm still on the fence, but I try not to generalize or run to stereotypes. I don't give a flying shit what Kim calls herself in ways of politics or views on life. I know what her politics and views are and they're quite brilliant. So the label doesn't interest me as much as the substance.

That doesn't just go for her for obvious reasons as I'm sitting next to her now and it's beneficial to me to not bash her for what she calls her self. (*wink) My opinion on it all runs across the board.

I feel as it's more positive to recruit as apposed to demean.

Quote from Bmiricle

Where is the feminist bible of how to conduct feminist activity?

The short short answer- the political leadership and history of feminism. The fact is that the more radical elements of feminism have lead the movement and dictated policy on women's issues.

Why for example did we wind up with abortion on tap after Roe vs Wade and not research into making the artificial womb a reality (not as fantastic a notion as that might seem, but that's something for a whole other discussion)?

Why did we wind up with things like primary aggressor laws or VAWA?

Why did we wind up with the wage gap myth, when in unionised countries such as Australia there are awards which do not discriminate on the grounds of gender?

Why is it that things like the SCUM manifesto and equally radical and in some cases, genocidal works have formed the basis of women's studies?

Why is it that we constantly claim that women are not getting opportunities in education, when there is a crisis with boys and education? In fact a recent "Generation for change" ad in Australia, place university entrance levels at about 57% for non-indigenous girls and 31% for indigenous girls. However the figures for boys were at 18% for non-indigenous boy and 3% for indigenous boys.

Why is it that the family courts are entirely based in feminist propaganda where in the majority of cases, women can even psychologically abuse their children through parental alienation with absolute impunity?

These are just some examples of what radical feminism has done in a role of leadership on womens' issues.

Now for the moderates. It really is quite simple- if the moderates really were that heavily opposed to the radicals, then they'd have risen up and taken them on head on. If the moderates outnumber the radicals as much as the NAFALTs claim, then surely this should have been and easy task and done a long time ago.

However the moderates have been all too happy to reap the rewards of the radical feminists without taking them on in any serious manner.

However when you have the radicals carrying on as they do, and the "moderates" not doing anything much of significance to stop them, then you have a leader/follower dynamic at play.

The day this proves to be false will be the day that the so called "moderate" womens' groups, rise up en masse against the radical womens' groups and effectively put the movement's house in order.

Call me a skeptic, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

Quote from Kimber

How? What logic leads you to say that the support groups that act responsibly should be trashed because of what an unaffiliated, separate support group does.

I think I misunderstood/misread... That wasn't what I was saying made sense. I meant it made sense that those who act irresponsibly should be trashed.

Quote from Kimber

Sure, no assumptions either way. But that's exactly what you did. You very much did assume that they are anti-male.

As did you, on the flipside. My experienes through life demonstrate that feminism is largely based on anti-male rhetoric. This is what I grew up on, and for so many years ignored it, thinking all their lies were true (not to suggest everything they say IS a lie - I'm simply cautious of believing everything without solid evidence nowadays).

Quote from Kimber

I should be looking at opening one?

Dramatizing much? Of course you don't need to open one, nor did I suggest anything even close. I'm simply saying that you could have a more egalitarian view, and thus support the opening of groups for men - but feminism *in general* has been very much against support groups for men as I demonstrated earlier in this thread...

Quote from Kimber

Are you under the impression that I have access to the kind of finances required to do such a thing? What is it that you expect me to do?

Huh? Talk about blowing things out of proportion... I'm simply saying that an egalitarian would look at both sides, feminists don't. They look on it through gendered spectacles and promote women only groups, giving defence for them.

Quote from Kimber

What are you doing about the fact that it's legal for a chemist in America to deny a woman's prescription because he/she doesn't personally agree with what the medication is for (something that they've not been given the legal right to do over any medication that a man takes)?

Whoa - hold on... the only thing I've read of similar is that a female chemist can deny a woman the morning-after pill... this is largely based on religious beliefs of the female chemist. Or, are you suggesting that the morning after pill is now a medication, no different to a cough mixture? I may have got that wrong, but it was a feminist on another forum who told me that. You may want to check up on it.

Quote from Kimber

I/we haven't held you or other men like you responsible/accountable for such things. We assume that that fight is ours, and though it's obviously advantageous to let people know that it's going on, hoping to gain their support, we don't berate men like yourself for not personally doing something about it.

But feminists HAVE held 'all men' responsible for things like 'rape'...

Actually, allow me to rephrase - she states outright her message is "to every man who doesn't call himself a feminist..." - talk about shaming tactics of the highest order!

Quote from Kimber

And I'm not pushing you to defend the ones in existence that are operating fairly. I was asking you not to attack the ones that aren't guilty. Defending is quite different from deciding not to attack.

But I was attacking a guilty one!!!

Quote from Kimber

I am not aware of any law in America that has made it legal to rape a man. Nor have I seen a case where a man has been thrown in jail for nagging for sex. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen where you are, or that it's alright by me. But how ridiculous is it to expect a group of American feminists to somehow affect UK law, or have any power to stop a group of women in another country from doing what they want to do. Do you, as a UK citizen have the ability to control what other men's groups in America end up doing?

It's Mexico. I asked the feminist (known as 'professor c') if she would call it 'cultural' or 'sexism' if we swapped the sexes, and men could have their wife imprisoned for not giving it up on demand and if she 'nagged' him for sex. She blocked me a closing message that I was "browbeating" her... LOL

Quote from Kimber

I don't think that you're wrong in saying that, but it sounds like the real complaint is about the spinelessness of the politicians.

Sure, the spinelessness of some politicians might be the issue... but that absolves the feminists of any responsibility for initiating the issues we men face. Why are we expected to give feminism credit for work they did not do (the vote for example) but told - just now by you - that we should attack those who act on behalf of feminists instead of attacking the feminists who spread the hate? Why don't you want feminists taking responsibility for their actions?

Quote from bowspearer

Now with all of that let's suppose that the suicide rate of women was as high as that of men. Would you honestly be saying..

Just because your personal experience with suicide was due to such circumstances doesn't make it true that all the male suicides are due to the same. How many of those suicides are due to chemical depression? How many are due to substance abuse? How many are due to mental illnesses such as bi-polar disorder? How many are cases of gay boys/men who commit suicide due to bullying? How many are due to pressures within the workplace that have nothing to do with women or being passed-over for promotion due to feminist-rooted policies? How many of those suicides are military war veterans' severe PTSD? It's an incredible stretch to say that a post that lists the total numbers is evidence of such a particular situation as being tired of being "second class citizens".

Quote from bowspearer

I'll deal specifically with this example because this is the usual fallback for feminists when the way men are now second class citizens in the western world is brought up.

Really? Is that what happened? Or is it more like "that this was my response to the idea that a feminist coalition within the UN is using their power to spread radical ideas"? Your reading of what the points really were is entirely off.

Quote from bowspearer

You bring up Africa, but let's be honest, who were the slaves mining diamonds in Sierra Leone? What gender are the child soldiers in Africa? Last I checked the answer to both questions were men and males respectively. Furthermore, slavery of males tends to be far more prevalent than women in that part of the world. I'm not saying that we should ignore the plight of women in that part of the world, however feminism completely ignores slavery and the vile form of child abuse of forcing young boys to fight, simply because the gender of the victims is "inconvenient" for them. So yes, by raising the plight of women in this region while diminishing and dismissing the plight of male victims, this is definitely radical feminism at work. A lie wrapped up in truth is still a lie, no matter how righteous it might seem.

This is interesting, since I've read more about child slavery on the feminist sites that I frequent than I have on any other kind of site. I've read petitions for funding to help child sex slaves in Africa, funding for rehabilitation centers for the boys used as child soldiers, etc. So your claim that we feminists ignore, diminish or demean their plight is just plain false. We are fully capable of supporting and pushing for more than one program at a time.

Quote from bowspearer

So Kimber, are you saying that you believe that women should be able to abuse their children and partners with absolute impunity? Are you saying that you believe that an agenda of the irradication of all men on this planet purely n the grounds of gender is acceptable?

What inflammatory statements you aim at me. Not only are your questions ridiculous when one can easily see that I am not a raving radical who doesn't give a shit about children or boys or men, but the implication that anyone who is a feminist must support these things is just plain childish.

Quote from bowspearer

You claim that radical feminism is needed, yet you would do well to read http://antimisandry.com/introduce-yo...als-37166.html

Really? Show me where I EVER said that radical feminism is needed.

Quote from bowspearer

You cannot claim that radical feminism is not the core of feminism, when moderates such as yourself have happily benefitted from the blatant misandry of raqdical feminism.

You have no idea what my life has been like. Your claim that I have happily benefited from it is unfounded and again inflammatory. You have no idea whether or not I took advantage of any particular programs for women that you object to, you have no idea if I ever took advantage of affirmative action programs, you have no idea who I am to say that I have done anything of the sort.

Quote from bowspearer

Furthermore if moderates such as yourself are so against radical feminsim, then why is it that we never see moderate feminist groups publicly lambasting radical feminist groups when they display utter misandry in a public manner....You cannot claim that feminism is not grounded in misandry when moderates are happy to let feminists speak for them and form the very core of feminist academia.

Do you visit each and every feminist site in order to know for a fact that we don't lambaste radicals? Because you haven't come across it, it must not exist? Are you American? I ask this because, if you were and were conscious of the political atmosphere, you'd know that the media has NO interest in airing stories of moderate anything. And feminists don't get to tell Rupert Murdoch what he has to air on his television channels.

Quote from bowspearer

You may personally be an egalitarian, but when you identify yourself as a feminist, you're like a German citizen during WW2 who claimed they opposed the Holocaust yet did nothing to speak out against the Nazis while actively benefitting from the Nazi regime.

Ah, the good ol' retort that compares women like me to Nazi's. Hyperbolic and childish. Here's where the hole is: I don't have to identify as a feminist to have benefited from what came of feminism. Being born a female in this country does that. It's not something that I can choose to opt-out of. This is akin to asking men a couple of generations before me to apologize for the fact that, as males, they benefited from the fact that society gave men opportunities that were kept from women, even though they never acted against us with purpose. Is it a man the age of my grandfather's fault that universities did not allow women to attend back then? Should I berate him for having dared to attend university when that was the case? For having succeeded in his career in a way that no woman could with that education, because it was all the fruit of legal misogyny? Should I accuse him of being a misogynist because he benefited from policies that were rooted in misogyny? Of course not.

Quote from bowspearer

Understand this- I am a victim of decades of abuse (child psychological, underage sexual assault, spousal rape and spousal psychological abuse) which has been sanctioned, perpetuated and condoned by the system as the direct result of feminist propaganda. I hold anyone who defends feminism as a child abuse enabler, because feminism does enable both child abuse and domestic violence along gender lines.

Calling me an enabler of something so horrible is frankly pretty out-of-line. And it's interesting that you claim this is what we're up to, when just yesterday a story came out on a feminist policy aimed at protecting a male child abuse victim. Just last week, the story from the UK about the child-molestation ring was eviscerated by American feminists for having dared to try to find excuses for the women involved in the ring. Another one, talking about a woman jailed for child abuse for not having done anything when she knew her boyfriend was abusing her child. Just because you claim we are all complacent, it doesn't void the fact that we actually ARE trying to get these things done.

Quote from bowspearer

Like many victims out there, I'm willing to give moderate feminism a fair hearing but ONLY after it publicly goes toe-to-toe with radical feminism and not a moment before. The reason for this will be that at that point, moderate feminism will have turned its back on such vile behaviour, and only then will it be an ally and not an enemy to victims of feminism such as myself.

To be honest, you've been far from reasonable with me, resorting to condescending statements, claims about what you know I have done in my life though you've never met me, and judgments on my character. So I'm not all that concerned with whether or not someone who is coming at me from that angle is willing to give me "a fair hearing" or not. I won't scramble to gain the approval of someone who has behaved the way you have towards me. Who are you to demand that I do as you wish or you will continue to attack me that way? What a sense of entitlement. As a victim of assault myself, I don't walk around demanding that every man prove himself to me before I am willing to be civil, nor do I assume that they are aggressors themselves until they prove otherwise, nor do I call them enablers unless & until they do something about the system that did nothing for me in my time of need.