This is a four part series of videos by some .. man who supports feminist values and actually believes - or at least tries to convince his audience that feminism can be and is good for men.


Yes, yes, stop laughing - I know, I know...

Well, I watched this in reverse order but I haven't as yet got to watching part 1.

This post will deal with video 4 and 3. I will address video 2 and 1 in the 2nd post.

I have commented on the three videos I have had the displeasure of watching and noted that he relies quite heavily on condescending respondents who put forward arguments.



In this video, one of the subjects he addressed that caught my attention was his acknowledgement that men can't always be in the best position to understand women as - quite simply, we're not women - so it makes it rather difficult.

How true! Likewise, that works for women not understanding men's perspectives and experiences.

He goes on to mention that some of his boy friends will see a woman's face on TV and state "deal" or "no deal" based on whether they fancy her or not, and how he, being the strong feminist poodle called them up on it and castigated them for their bad behaviours! I believe one or two slapped wrists were issued to these friends.

Quote from me

equally, a woman can't fully understand a man's position.. so why should men listen to women's input when women refuse to listen to men's input?
How about pointing out misandry when you see it, too? How come you ignore that?
Do you discuss how media constantly attacks male stereotypes in today, like you attacked your friends for 'no deal' issue? Of course not.. because as a feminist you can ignore ALL the issues men face - as long as you focus exclusively on women, you're a 'good boy'.

The video, and indeed the whole series, is about feminism and looking at these things from a feminist perspective, albeit as a man. Explicit statement of A does not imply ignoring, or rejection, of B - anybody with critical thinking skills should know that. Saying "I think the Nazis were bad," for example, doesn't imply that you think the Soviet Union was good. I don't ignore the issues men face, although I happen to think women face MORE issues, so I spend more time on those. Simple!

As I noted earlier he jumps straight in with the condescending assumption that I lack some basic logical functionality - is this based on his observations or is it based on a prejudice that I made the simple point that what he said clearly works both ways for men AND women..? At this time I had not made clear that I was an MRA - I simply stated what he was pointing out worked both ways and that as feminism is alleged to be about equality, he should be able to identify issues affecting both men and women instead of focusing exclusively on women. As he and feminism as a whole does focus exclusively on (supporting) women (any focus men get from feminism is negative, e.g. men rape, men aren't as good parents as women, etc. etc.) this serves well to demonstrate the fraud of feminism's claim for equality.
(e.g. the feminist lies of male-privilege read as follows:
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.) This demonstrates that from the feminist perspective, two parents receiving equal praise of their parenting skills clearly show the man as being considerably less capable as a parent than the woman. If he got 'equal' praise (without it being artificially bumped up from the 'marginal competence') then clearly he is inferior compared to the woman. The only reason they receive 'equal praise' is because his praise is being exaggerated, allegedly. God forbid a man actually be any good as a parent just because he's a good parent. This demonstrates, yet again, the feminist belief that women are innately superior to men - and do not seek for men & women to be classed as equals.


Anyway, here's my reply to him on YT.

Quote from me

Thanks for the condescending tone, implying I lack critical thinking. Personally, I'd suggest the opposite - profeminists tend to be highly selective (as you demonstrate) in what they observe as discrimination or prejudice. I too used to be profeminist, but got sick of claims of 'equality' while ignoring half the issues, anyone with an ounce of logic can see ignoring half the problem will never solve issues of inequality.

I freely admit that feminism spends the majority of its time/effort on women, but that's not really surprising. If you're arguing that Group A and Group B should be in an equal position, and Group A has advantages over Group B, then naturally one spends the majority of one's time discussing ways to improve the situation of Group B. This isn't discrimination, this is effective time-management and really Activism 101.

Quote from me

IF women truly faced excessive amounts of discrimination compared to men in today's western cultures, I'd understand (hence I was pro-feminist in my youth, like you) then I'd agree.. but in today's western culture, men & women face similar numbers.. Now, 'not focusing' on one group isn't discrimination - true.. but to outright deny/justify/marginalize etc. IS ... tell me, are you a father yet? Once you become a dad and start to measure your 'rights' vs the mother's - well..

--

Feminism sends a message that ONLY women's issues are of any importance, we see constantly feminists denying men's issues exists or marginalizing them or worse - justifying them, such as the boys' crisis in academia, longevity, inequality of sentencing for identical crimes & victims of crimes, father's rights, higher suicides (feminists would be going berserk if women outnumbered men in this area), and monetary & awareness of men's/women's health, so on and so on.

I've covered a lot of those issues in this series and offered my thoughts on them, and my position that feminism is up to the task of addressing them. A lot of those issues - longevity, suicides, education, sentencing, etc - have a lot to do with the socialisation of 'masculine identity' and its negative effects on males. Given that feminism is interested in the deconstruction of female AND male gender roles, I see that as an effective panacea for most of those issues.

I took the above as an invitation to watch the rest of his videos in this 'series'. And so I did (well, two of the remaining three - I will watch the final one soon).

Quote from me

see, this is so typical of the feminist mentality - blame men (or 'masculinity' or 'teh patriarchy') for any & all problems, especially those of a gendered type. Feminism itself has heavily promoted much discrimination against men in many of these areas listed. This seems much more the feminist goal than anything resembling equality... to blame men and you demonstrate this quite aptly.

No, I really don't, as a man it would be quite illogical to blame myself, hate myself, etc etc. I'm perfectly comfortable in myself, I'm not self-hating, blah blah blah, so no. There's a difference between being 'male' and 'masculinity' - one is biological, the other is socialised, culturally-reinforced, etc. We can see this in history - basic genetics haven't changed in millenia, but cultural expectations or norms for men change across culture and history relatively quickly.

--

One can talk about the negative effects of our culture's expectations of men, the messages we give young boys, the traditions and orthodoxies of masculinity (eg: "boys will be boys," aggression being explained away as natural for men, "real men don't cry/ask for help," encouraging men to bottle things up instead of talking, etc) without "blaming men" as you say. I think men are victims of the masculinity construct, so I want it gone. Feminism, for me, is the tool for that.

Quote from me

Thanks kindly for the lesson on difference between male biology and masculine construct theory, as a none feminist I obviously had no clue. I didn't say men were victims of masculine stereotypes, I said feminism has discriminated or promoted discrimination against 'men'. Might I remind you also, that given the heavily feminist promoted fatherless 'family' life, it is primarily women pushing these stereotypes into young boys. Blaming men for women's actions won't solve it.

Quote from femmfeministe

It is "male conditioning," not the "condition of being male" that appears to be the problem. It is not men, it is the way they are expected and socialized to behave. Why do you think almost 95% of the world's crime is committed by men? Feminists reject the argument that it is just "natural" for men to be more violent and aggressive.

Quote from me

As I said, let's look at who is doing the conditioning of these young boys into men. Feminism continually blames men and makes such wild claims as "men commit 95% of crimes", when it is untrue for many reasons. e.g. paternity fraud is a crime against men, but it is not recognised by legal standards as such. Women often employ a man to do her crime for her (e.g. hitman to kill husband) and courts routinely hand out harsher sentences (prison) for identical crimes to men.

--

Just look at how feminists portray DV, pretending only women (or the occasional gay man) is a victim and only men are abusers - this sends messages into society that an abused (straight) man is of no consequence. Feminists created the Duluth Wheel which outright blames only men for any power/control issues, completely ignoring anything women engage in (such as financial, physical, sexual, using children, etc. etc.) This is mirrored by women-only laws like VAWA which pretend only women matter.



--

For example tiny.cc/z04ts shows women in USA's toughest state are less likely to see prison for non-violent crimes and do considerably less time compared to men in prison sentencing for violent crimes. Repeatedly we have seen feminist groups attending court in defence of murderous women. Equality is good & bad. When fems start demanding equality in crime sentencing, I might believe it's not just about getting benefits over men, as it currently demonstrates itself to be.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

What I failed to mention is that his last comment also confirms what I said previously, that in feminist eyes masculinity is 'bad', else why feminists only discuss the 'bad' parts of masculinity while ignoring the positives that masculinity brings? How come they don't discuss the negatives of femininity - not just as women, but the negatives it brings to men? Issues like women's propensity to use children as pawns, to incite violence between men, to rely on mental torture, to initiate violence then turn on the water-works when he defends himself or retaliates, etc. etc.

You'll note he returns to using a condescending tone in his last but one comment as well.


Moving down to his third video...



He starts by addressing the fact of socializing cultures, that pink is associated with femininity while blue is associated with masculinity. In 'part ii' of this video he also observes that "children in primary (or elementary) schools, children are at their most susceptible to socialization."

Remember folks, this is coming directly from a .... person who is entirely pro-feminist, sees nothing wrong with women at all and seems to suggest (as is so typical of his sort) that only men and masculine values have anything bad to offer. If you return to my last comment (to date) in the above video I already made this point once in reference to home-life, but now I shall make the same point in terms of academia for minors... Primary/elementary schools are dominated by one gender... female. Men are not the ones enforcing gender stereotypes upon children while 'at their most susceptible to socialization'. Women are. But of course, who is blamed for gender stereotyping? Who is mocked when defending a gender stereotype - that's right... MEN.

Does he observe that it is mostly women or even feminine values? Of course not, he refers to 'teachers' or 'people'...

However, credit where due, he does note that boys are affected negatively in many areas of academia. For example, he observes that more attention is given to 'a little girl crying compared to a little boy crying'. Again, his own words reinforce the fact that women are more prone - or at least in a better position to enforce gender-stereotypes upon our children while they are most susceptible to socializing.

Anyway, on with the discussion.

Quote from me

Do you know these colours were the other way around in years gone by? Which gender demanded they take on the other sexes colour and claim it for themselves? Yep.. once again, women insisted on having men's colour (pink)... now, pink is for girls... who made that? Women - not men. But it's ok, you just keep blaming men for everything that offends your sensitivities.
Again with the wage-gap myth, blaming men for women's choices won't solve any issues. Start working on holding women accountable.

Okay, you've clearly found a hobby - picking/commenting at me - which I'm glad about, but you've missed my point. I said that in Western society, blue/pink are seen as male/female colours. The fact that the colours were historically-different is irrelevant, and actually proves my point that the nature of 'accepted' gender stereotypes changes over time and isn't innate. The wage gap is no myth, raw economic data shows that it exists, misrepresenting it doesn't change the facts.

Quote from me

You're right - misrepresenting it doesn't change facts... so feminists should stop hiding half the information, like different wage = different hours, different jobs, different positions, women take more holidays, etc. etc. etc. but feminists keep pretending that men are literally paid more for identical work - such lies only serve to demonstrate feminism's hatred of men.

--

and further, I would hardly call commenting on 2 videos as 'picking at you'... there's that feminist "i'm a victim" mentality popping up again. You also missed my point. When men have something women don't - feminists get pissy and claim it for themselves. And it's not good enough, because now feminists whine about women having pink as their colour - the colour they took from men. 

--

We see this "it's not good enough" mentality being repeated throughout history. Women now have to work just like men have had to, and they nitpick it apart with constant complaints... put women in war and they demand special privileges and rights in excess to those permitted to men in war... same with various other jobs - businesses now have to bend to women's demands costing everyone in the long-run more money... Don't get me wrong, I've no prob with women working - just observing the whiners

You've no problem with women working... except that you have a problem with women rightly raising issues of discrimination, prejudice, harassment and general mistreatment/inequality when they do so, and if they do they're "whiners." THAT sounds like a progressive attitude. As a man you're not an oppressed class (you may be if you're gay/poor/ethnic etc, but not intrinsically by being a man) so it might be an idea to listen to the people who ARE being oppressed before you spout off.

Quote from me

wrong, as usual. 'whining' is closer to the "wage gap cuz I took more time off and do less hours - waaah" mentality. THAT is what costs companies (and thus, you & I) more money... Men are more likely to: die earlier, lack funds & awareness on their health, 93% of workplace deaths, face prison for crimes that see women go free or only fined, lack support in academia, no support when battered by a woman, skipped for food handouts in emergencies, 4x suicide, etc. etc. Who's oppressed?

Since this post was made, he has replied but only in the last few moments, so I haven't had the opportunity to respond as yet. I will include my reply as an edit to this post once I've posted the reply to his YT video.

I find it hugely, sadly, tediously depressing that I seem to spend all of my time dispelling and debunking the same tired, circular and one-dimensional arguments from MRAs about things like the wage gap. Looking only at the outcome, and not the causes/context of said outcome, is useless - hmm, I wonder WHY women are more likely to take time off or work less hours? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they're overwhelmingly more likely to be involved in childcare?

Quote from me

Yes, women are more involved in childcare - by their own choice. Blaming men is not the way forward. Making women into eternal victims of "teh evul patriarchy" will not resolve any alleged wage-gap because it isn't "teh evul patriarchy" that is holding women back... it's women holding women back. And please, will you drop your condescending attitude. I'm trying to engage you civilly, why is that so difficult for you to reciprocate? Is it because I'm touching raw nerves?

My assertion that it is primarily women's own choices that they engage with childcare more is evidenced by the fact that women engage in maternal-gatekeeping in order to ensure men have considerably less opportunity to engage with their children than women enjoy.

And that isn't actually the 'wage gap' feminists talk about - it's that in her lifetime, on average, women are less likely to be promoted, less likely to get pay rises, and generally less likely to earn the same or comparable wages as men for the same or comparable work, regardless of time off, hours worked, childcare etc. I also think it's completely fucking outrageous for a society to place these two conflicting pressures on one group of people - "have kids" and "have job"

Quote from me

I agree it's unfortunate that the choice is 'have kids/have a job' - but that is a stark reality we all must deal with. Feminist 'studies' (agenda driven to make women look like victims or men as oppressors as you repeatedly call us) typically skip out the hard-data. Harriet Harman (feminist) is renowned for misrepresenting data to the government and the public in order to skew agendas. We need to compare apples with apples not apples with apples with oranges as feminists continually do.

and only one group of people. Having kids doesn't harm a man's career prospects, and studies have suggested it can actually HELP in many cases, but women are expected to juggle childcare and a job and thus lose out on either income or childcare. It seems self-evident that the way to solve that imbalance is to expect an equal involvement in childcare from fathers (paternity leave, time off, etc...) or to stop punishing women's careers simply because they procreate.

My initial thoughts on this though, are that if we're going to stop the mythical wage-gap, then WOMEN need to stop reinforcing the lace-curtain and maternal gate-keeping that they have been enforcing for millennia upon men.

Let's assume for a moment that I fully agree with him about men's and work-life issues being responsible for the wage-gap... How come feminists systematically ignore the women's involvement in perpetuating this system? Why only attack half the problem?

And let's be realistic here.. since when has feminism pushed for men to have 'equal involvement in childcare'? All I've seen from feminists is them claiming men as inferior parents, promoting wrong things to children, being incapable of parenting, etc. etc.

I have yet to see a feminist genuinely make a call for equal parenting.

If they were making a call for it - why aren't they outside the 'family' courts demanding men be given equality?

Oh that's right... because they don't want men to have equality.

Anyway, I've now replied to his last comment (to date):

Quote from me

Typically speaking when a man has a child in his life he is more likely to dedicate himself to work to ensure his family's survival. Typically speaking when a woman has a child in her life she is more likely to dedicate herself to nurturing the child herself while referring to the man (or teh guvmunt for those who don't know who the father is) for income.
Blaming 'teh evul patriarchy' for women's own choices or a man's increased dedication to ensuring his family's survival is not going to help.

Again, you're only looking at the outcome and not the context, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of choice. It's not surprising that women make such choices when society is set up the way it is - women are given messages from early youth that their role is fundamentally a caregiver, and of course we've displayed how the workplace offers advantages to men over women - so it's unsurprising that parents make those choices - it'd be hard not to given the situation.

--

However, the choices follow the situation, the situation does not follow the choice. What I'm arguing for is a more equitable situation - one which allows either parent to stay at home, or go to work, based purely on their own desires/wishes, and not because one parent will have a far easier time than the other at providing an income. MRAs seem to suggest all of these things are innate and unchanging, so my argument therefore is this - if that is true, why do we need to bother with the...


--


barriers, the cultural messages/education, and the continual pressure on women to be mothers and not have full-time careers after childbirth if they wish? Surely if this is biologically-determined, then we're wasting our time (and money!) with all of this stuff?! My position has always been that equality of opportunity is the basis of equality, and it's self-evident that mothers/fathers don't have equal opportunities when it comes to work/childcare after childbirth.

Quote from me

I have to be real short as I'm leaving for work.. MRA's follow the 'equality' line - but we want _true_ equality, not this selective equality where only women seem to benefit and only men seem to lose out.. We don't pretend everything is innate as you suggest, we observe that men & women are different & tend to compliment one another while feminism promotes intergender battles. Feminism ignores things like maternal-gatkeeping so blaming men alone & ignoring women's contributions to these things.

Well, if one group has a privilege over another group (which I believe is an unfairly-gained/protected privilege) then it would follow that equality would improve one group's position and unfortunately stop privileging the other. It's unfortunate, but fairness isn't about keeping everything you have - if you've stolen something, for example, it's not fair you get to keep it.

Quote from me

Again with the pretending privilege is a oneway street when it's far, far from. Posts like this demonstrate the hatred feminism has for men as a whole when it pretends only men have privileges and excuses, justifies, ignores, denies or minimizes privileges women have... and on the rare occasion a feminist does acknowledge any level of female privilege, they blame men - oh how unusual... It must be such an easy life when you can answer every problem with "it's men's fault... but i don't hate men"

These "privileges" you speak of... name some, please, and we'll discuss them. Don't just toss assertions around without justifying them.

Quote from me

"Don't just toss assertions around without justifying them." You mean like feminists have done with men's alleged privileges? Oh right, well you're the boss, eh!
ok, take a gander:
tiny.cc /2ocjd (please note there are several lists of dozens listed) and tiny.cc/7w415 - that's just one site with a couple of posts... googling such terms reveals men are opening their eyes and seeing a LOT of female privilege that feminists pretend don't exist, like you're trying to do...

--

One question.. when you say "name some, please and *we'll* discuss them" will this simply translate to "name some, please, and I will blame men endlessly and absolve women of any and all accountability or responsibility" - as has been the case with all of your replies to date?

No, not at all. I'm actually in the process of researching a video on the MRM and some men's issues (from a feminist perspective, to an extent) and that's some interesting data there, so I'll definitely include that in the video. I hope you'll stick around and watch it, and we can chat about those issues.

Quote from me

From where I'm stood, It's women doing their own pressuring to be mothers. Ever heard the term 'brooding'? That's when a woman gets itchy for a baby. Do you hear of men getting broody? Heh.. well, we both know that answer to that. But it's fine, you just keep blaming men for women's own behaviours & actions. So much easier isn't it? I agree equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, is a good thing - shame feminists seem to keep promoting equality of the latter over the former isn't it...

I do know the answer to that. The biological clock is an observed phenomena in men as well as women.

Quote from me

As I've told you, women themselves partake in this - not just men like you pretend and it's not 'teh evul patriarchy's fault either.. Look around at stay at home men and the kinds of lives they live. I lived it a while. I moved country and due to immigration could not work so stayed home to bring up our daughter... she hated it. My case is not unique. Women *want* the man to work and *want* to be the SAH parents, and will manipulate until they get their way. Blaming men is not the answer.

Your experience, while certainly valid from a qualitative point of view, doesn't tally with the huge amount of statistical data on the subject, so it might be best not to generalise from your own life to the wider issue.

Quote from me

What advantages are offered to men over women in the workplace? Your ideology blinds you to the fact that women engage in such problematic behaviours as maternal-gatekeeping for a reason, and it isn't 'just' to discriminate against men as nurturers... If, as you pretend, "women would happily choose a career over a child if only 'teh evul patriarchy' wasn't forcing her using mystical Jedi mind-tricks", then how do we explain the volumes of women who actively seek to bring a child up alone?

Strawman, and again failing to engage.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.