My local rag - women's groups forced to close. My response

[Marx]

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".

Why does the 'why' matter? The fact is that men in prison commit suicide at much higher rates than women. Yet, because a report stated that less than 20 women had attempted suicide in prison there was 'obviously' something wrong with the female prison system. So the several hundred men in prisons who kill themselves are just oddities not to be concerned with - but that a handful of women attempted suicide is a clear sign of a need for change?
See the mentality going on there?
When men die - it's tough luck. When a fraction of women die - whoa, things need to change!!! No one cared about why or whether they were attempting suicide for similar reasons as the men in men's prisons... they don't even look at WHY men commit suicide in prison.
I don't think you're thick for one moment, but are you REALLY unable to see the fact that women continually get preferential treatment in just about every single damn sphere of life & society?
This is the same outside of prison - when women cry for help - they get help. When men cry for help, we're ignored. And this whole 'lets look at womens issues only' mentality that feminism pushes for does nothing to help men who need help.
Do you realise that the majority of research on depression has been done from the female perspective to date? It's only in the last couple of years that male depression has been identified and investigated. Percy wrote about this with supporting articles only a year or so back.

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.

So you didn't read about how the UN told men to go away and served only women with food when the Haiti Earthquake happened? Following the feminist mentality that women are better than men, men were ignored while women got ALL the food. Apparently, not one single man could be trusted with food - while every woman, being a male's superior of course, could be trusted... THAT is sickening. And it derives from the feminist mentality of women first, women good, women moral, etc. etc.

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.

Where have you read this? I'd be interested in seeing this for real...

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.

As you yourself said earlier, the loud-mouths get the attention - so why would you want to affiliate yourself with such haters?

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.

So you can understand men's frustrations with feminism when we're told that we are ALL privileged compared to women, while those same feminists deny any existence of female privileges? Yes?

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.

As I said previously - I've been reading feminist sites for nigh-on 10 years and I've yet to come across one. When I have asked directly, the usual answer I get is "you won't find them because feminists don't promote misandry , so there is nothing to speak out against"

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.

Where? And I'm betting the excuses included "blame teh evul menz", yes?

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.

When I spoke about the abuses *I* endured at my ex-wife's hands and those of her so-called mother's, I included the child-abuse that I had witnessed upon my two step-children... Do you know what I got back in response? I was told "I'm sure she's changed" and "well perhaps they needed a slap"

[Douglas]

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

It is in the bulk of feminist literature, the teachings of feminism, the message at feminist meetings.

It would be ridiculous for me to say that I support the Klu Klux Klan but I'm only a moderate Klan member and think all races are equal.
It would be ridiculous for me to say that I support feminism but I'm only a moderate feminist and think the genders are equal.

Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. "...The fact is, it's only 2-year-olds and violent men who use violence to get what they want."

Right there is a quote with more public impression than a silent million women saying they are feminists but don't believe things like that. It took me about 3 minutes to dig that one up.

Don't want to be associated with that anti-social filth? Then don't call yourself a feminist and don't behave like one.

[Marx]

A quick search offers:

http://antimisandry.com/feminist-mis...tes-20106.html

[Douglas]

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.

I'm in agreement. Now, who put those legislators there and why?

Almost everyone able to read this thread, whether English is their primary or an alternate language, lives in a democracy. (As an aside, almost all those democracies have more women voters than men; specifically, this is true of the UK and the USA.) Why do they vote to put legislators in place when those legislators are - we seem to agree - doing harm to men? I say it's because they have been indoctrinated with lies, almost all of which have a feminist origin, about the nature of society and the ills in society. The media and the government have people with feminist agendas, who hire blatantly biased 'consultants' and 'experts' to derive clearly biased legislation and promote the excuse for them based mostly on slanted data, biased conclusions and a disregard of the social harm to men, children and even women.

For example, most people I talk to agree that "men are the traditional protectors of women and children" yet they also agree that "men are the main abusers of women and children" (so long as you don't ask them at the same time). One is based on historic reality and what they have experienced (with very sad exceptions that tend to anger almost every man). The other is based on what the media and people in government tell them is the truth (with a few daring exceptions, typically by a politician not looking to be re-elected).

[Marx]

Well, you know what...

I just read of a new group which I'm going to label myself with.

Sure, they've been to known to make bold statements like "all blacks are criminals, that's all they are" and "it's only 2 year olds and black people who use violence to get what they want" - but so what?

Their mission statement says they want ethnic equality, so surely they're good people? Who can argue against having ethnic equality?

Oh yes, I know, I know - I've heard all about the wage gap that claims blacks outearn whites and that it fails to acknowledge that whites choose to do less hours and different jobs and uses hyperbole to scare people into agreeing with them, and sure I've read about the bomb-scares and death threats they sent out in the 70s & 80s, and yes I know of the assassination plot on a British Prime Minister back in the day, but who cares about these trivial things? I just want to join a group that claims to promote ethnic equality.


OK? Anyone got a problem with that?


Oh yeah, the group's name is White-ism.

Yep, but it's all about equality! And don't you forget it, buster!

[Marx]

Another quote from a respected feminist author...

I thought it is a good piece written by a feminist about the supposed moral superiority of women.

To cite an old, and far from naive, feminist saying: "If you think equality is the goal, your standards are too low." It is not enough to be equal to men, when the men are acting like beasts. It is not enough to assimilate. We need to create a world worth assimilating into.

Clearly we can see, feminism is not about bashing on men, blaming men even for women's own actions & decisions (the article relates to the Iraq photo of Lynndie England (female) posing in a photo while torturing Iraq men.

Another important quote from that, subtle but it's there, is the following which is something I have repeatedly addressed with feminists on other boards:

Even those people we might have thought were impervious to shame, like the secretary of Defense, admit that the photos of abuse in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison turned their stomachs.
The photos did something else to me, as a feminist: They broke my heart. I had no illusions about the U.S. mission in Iraq -- whatever exactly it is -- but it turns out that I did have some illusions about women.

WHY do they think that the simple affiliation with a label of 'feminist' gives them moral superiority over other people? Why do they assume ONLY feminists are in a position to discuss what is and isn't equality?

[Douglas]

In the feminist reading and interactions that I have experienced, ...

Thinking about this issue of "what is a feminist" and "what is wrong with self-labelling as a moderate feminist" I've begun to realise something.

(Now, firstly let me soothe anyone's feelings by pointing out that I am NOT suggesting that feminists are like any other group. I am mentioning other groups as an illustration of the overall point about perception and reality.)

My impression of Somalian pirates has come from the media, sometimes quoting government or non-government bodies. It has never even occurred to me to look up a website for Somalian pirates.
My impression of Taoists has come from what I was taught in school, what I've heard in conversations and the occasional media item. It has never even occurred to me to look up a website or read a book about what Taoism really is about.
My impression of communism has from school, college, discussions with friends, what I've heard about in the media and one book that partially covered communism in a discussion of different governments. I have looked up websites on communism and keep an eye on the Russian communist party web site but that's all.
My impression of Feminism has come from my childhood domestic experiences, teachings at school, discussions with friends, the media, government literature and statements (which I perceive as feminist though they are not usually declared as such), my attendance at feminist meetings in two countries, reading feminist books (well, ok, as much as I could stomach of them), feminist pamphlets, feminist websites and people who say they are feminists.

What I'm trying to get across is that my impression of various groups comes from the outside world and the level of accuracy depends very much on the time available to look into all these things, my personal interest, and my belief in how little I know about them to start with. Of those things I mention, clearly I am most knowledgeable about feminism.

It is MY PERCEPTION. Talking to people around me, my perception seems to be fairly accurate compared to many of theirs, or I would have questioned it more. I think the only reason I have looked into feminism as much as I have is because of the confusion caused by the difference between feminist claims and feminist activities. When considering how I percieve the world, it no more matters about my accuracy in how I percieve feminism than it matters about my accuracy in how I perceive Somali pirates.

A great many people perceive Somali pirates much as I do: a scourge on the earth to be eradicated. Although some poor impoverished and depressed citizen of Somalia trying to keep his family alive by stealing from someone else might gain some sympathy from the world, if he labels himself a Somalian pirate, he could well find himself ostracised and despised.

A great many people perceive feminists much as I do: a scourge on society to be ignored, if not convicted for anti-social behaviour. Although some egalitarian concentrating only on the ways women need assistance might gain some sympathy from the world, if they label themselves a feminist, they could well find themselves ostracised and despised.

[Kimber]

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.

Ok....simple misunderstanding then.

As did you, on the flipside.

No, actually....I didn't. I specifically stated in my original post that I wasn't naive enough to think that none of those groups could be doing what you're afraid they are, but rather just pointing out that assuming that they are isn't fair either.

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...

If I misunderstood, apologies. But with what it sounded like you were saying about it being logical to trash the good support groups, and you saying "Surely as someone hell-bent on egalitarianism you should now be looking at opening similar support", it sounded like a comment aimed at me specifically. That being said, there are plenty of feminist groups that have done the opposite. There is a group called "Feminist Africa" that has been having to fight with surgeons there to get them to see the male victims that the group is trying to get equal care and support to. The Rape Victim Advocacy Program (highly funded/supported by feminist organizations) firmly dispels the myth that men can't be raped, and offers them the same support services. The National Organization for Victims of Crimes (also highly funded/supported by feminist groups) has a section aimed specifically at male victims and the specialized support that they need. Xris is a group that is also directly affiliated with feminist groups, and is specifically aimed at male survivor issues. These are just a few that I can think of. Say we need more. Fine. But accusing us, "in general", of being against such groups or not supporting them when they're proposed/created is unfair. I'm not saying there aren't groups who do. I'm saying that it's clearly untrue that we allow them to dictate what actions we moderates take.

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.

Nope. A chemist in Idaho (I believe) just denied a woman a prescription medication given to her for uterine bleeding, because the chemist thought that it might have had something to do with a previous abortion. Not a morning after pill. Not an abortifacient. Uterine bleeding. Something that could have been caused by a miscarriage, or any other host of "innocent" causes. Instead, this chemist was able to demand that doctor-patient confidentiality laws be broken in order to prove to her the reason that the patient needed the medication. So not only is the law, at heart, one that allows only a woman's ability to fill a legal prescription to be put into question, but their doctor-patient confidentiality rights are also up for grabs now.

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

The truth is, it's you who is letting them speak for us. When the rest of us voice our disapproval, it's not enough. What more are we to do about it? Somehow silence them? Should we take away their constitutional right to free speech? Should we push for a law that only allows pre-approved messages to be voiced in public? We haven't let them pass a law that holds all men responsible when a rape occurs. All we can do is not believe them, or adhere to their ideas. It's illogical to say that because they believe such things and have voiced those opinions, the rest of us must condone it. We say they're crazy all the time. It's pretty much all we can do about it.

But I was attacking a guilty one!!!

But you showed nothing to say that the one you were attacking was guilty. You took quotes from some who have used their services, none of whom gave even a hint at the fact that an anti-male message was what they got there, and accused the centers of being anti-male just because they didn't allow men in their groups. One lady mentioned that they helped her after an abusive relationship. She never said that the center told her that no men are ever victims, yet that's what you accused them of. Another talked about how the center's services were crucial to her after her abuse, after which you ranted about how they obviously think that no man can be an abuse victim. If that center is "a guilty one" in the sense of being anti-male or indoctrinating those women to believe that no men are ever victims, you certainly didn't post evidence of that.

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

Granted, she sounds like a crazy hag.....but that's far from showing how all of us moderates defend such crazy laws. She's one lady. And sorry, but not all of us are aware of, nor can we do anything about, laws that are enacted in every other country.

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?

I didn't say that all feminists are absolved. But I've read enough posts here to see that feminists are the target for the blame, not just held to their accountability. While there are posts that talk about the work being done to change laws that are flawed, when it comes time to rant about who is to blame, feminists are the only ones mentioned. You say you're expected to give them credit for what they did not do, but you guys don't even give them credit for what they DID do. According to you guys, feminism is nothing BUT a force for evil. And even the moderate anti-feminists who claims that they really are for equality (just not misandry) somehow seems to think that everything was equal until the evil force of feminism entered the picture, which is an incredible joke.

Lastly, I never said I didn't want responsibility taken. What I want is for the right people to be held responsible. You say why shouldn't you be able to attack the feminists who spread the hate, but you're attacking ALL feminists, not just the ones who spread hateful messages. Women like me aren't the enemy, yet it seems you'd like to make us out to be. At the same time that you admit that I don't adhere to their beliefs, you try to lay blame and guilt at my feet too.

[Douglas]

The truth is, it's you who is letting [extremist feminists] speak for us. When the rest of us voice our disapproval, it's not enough. What more are we to do about it? Somehow silence them?

Such things are possible. In the UK, for example, there is a law against inciting racial hatred. Although some men's groups have campaigned (not very well, frankly) to have a law against gender hatred, it was turned down as a mandate for election on the protest of the feminists in the last government. Arguably such laws restrict the rights of free speech but that right is not all-encompassing in either the USA nor the UK.

[Bmiricle]

Such things are possible. In the UK, for example, there is a law against inciting racial hatred. Although some men's groups have campaigned (not very well, frankly) to have a law against gender hatred, it was turned down as a mandate for election on the protest of the feminists in the last government. Arguably such laws restrict the rights of free speech but that right is not all-encompassing in either the USA nor the UK.

This is very true. Freedom of speech only works when it serves someone in the upper echelon's political agenda. At least that's the way I see it.

The Constitution here in the US has been amended so many times that the original document serves no purpose any longer. If something that was 'constitutional' doesn't sit with the newest movement fad, then it's amended to secure the vote.

[Marx]

That being said, there are plenty of feminist groups that have done the opposite. There is a group called "Feminist Africa" that has been having to fight with surgeons there to get them to see the male victims that the group is trying to get equal care and support to. The Rape Victim Advocacy Program (highly funded/supported by feminist organizations) firmly dispels the myth that men can't be raped, and offers them the same support services. The National Organization for Victims of Crimes (also highly funded/supported by feminist groups) has a section aimed specifically at male victims and the specialized support that they need. Xris is a group that is also directly affiliated with feminist groups, and is specifically aimed at male survivor issues. These are just a few that I can think of...

Great! One thing I have noted in the past, and I'll give a short example from memory to demonstrate, is that when a feminist group does acknowledge male suffering in some way - they go on to blame men for it. Do these groups blame men? (thus promoting misandry/zero accountability for women)
I recall one time looking in early 2001 at a site about domestic violence. I read two sites, one was an MRA site saying that DV was roughly 50/50 while the feminist site claimed that 95% of victims were women and that of the 5% men who were victims, most came from gay relationships - thus continuing to marginalize female accountability. I wrote to both groups asking for evidence. I did NOT state I was male or female nor did I state any opinion/persuasion. In fact, at that point in time I still considered myself mostly pro-feminist and was only JUST starting to open my eyes to the reality of their hate campaigns. If my persuasion was a sliding rule, I would have been closer to 'pro-feminist' than 'pro-MRA'. The men's group wrote back within a day pointing to a government study (in pdf) and directed me to the page number where it stated that violence was reported at 54% men and 46% women (as aggressors). The feminist site didn't reply. A week later I wrote back and asked why they hadn't responded. The replied saying they would pass my question on to their manager... I never did get any proof from them for any of their claims. THAT is what set my mind up who was being honest in their approach.

Nope. A chemist in Idaho (I believe) just denied a woman a prescription medication given to her for uterine bleeding, because the chemist thought that it might have had something to do with a previous abortion. Not a morning after pill. Not an abortifacient. Uterine bleeding. Something that could have been caused by a miscarriage, or any other host of "innocent" causes. Instead, this chemist was able to demand that doctor-patient confidentiality laws be broken in order to prove to her the reason that the patient needed the medication. So not only is the law, at heart, one that allows only a woman's ability to fill a legal prescription to be put into question, but their doctor-patient confidentiality rights are also up for grabs now.

Out of curiosity though, do you know whether it is female only chemists who can do this? Regardless of the answer, that it happens at all is wrong, imho.

The truth is, it's you who is letting them speak for us. When the rest of us voice our disapproval, it's not enough.

Where is all this 'voice of disapproval' you speak of? Where is it??? When I see comments on youtube, those who identify as feminists are supportive - those who identify as MRA's are not supportive. If we could SEE that moderate feminists were voicing disapproval - we could believe it... but simply being told that there are voices of disapproval within the feminist community doesn't actually counter the fact that we see 1,000x more support from feminist voices.

What more are we to do about it?

You could try speaking out against them, in a public arena where the rest of the world can SEE with their own eyes that the moderates are not aligned with the radicals. I know a few Muslims and they are geuinely disgusted by those radicals of their religion.. they display this disgust on their sleeve. I don't see feminists displaying anything aside from support or silence on the matter - but whatever they display, it certainly does not merit the title of 'disapproval'.

We say they're crazy all the time.

Where???

But you showed nothing to say that the one you were attacking was guilty. ...

I didn't 'rant' about anything, I made a few sarcastic comments... stop over-dramatizing. That they know there are zero support services for men and continue to deny men any assistance speaks volumes.
Imagine if I were a millionaire - Imagine I told people and the media that I help 'people' with loans and support services, but I continually turned women-only away and only helped men. What would that suggest about my character?

She's one lady.

But she isn't... She is a typical feminist who claims to be a moderate. Another so-called moderate feminist from the same site stalked me for several months. Eventually, she was banned from there. She got to using my real name, my relative location, references to my kid, mocked that my mother had died, knew where I'd lived in the past, my rough age, etc. She went on to twist everything around to make me sound evil. Whereas I had stated that I didn't like using the C$A to deal money, I told my ex if she wanted money she only need ask and I'd willingly give it to her personally - because I will not line the government pockets. Her version went that I was forcing my ex to talk with me under the threat that she'd never get any support (money) for our child.

And sorry, but not all of us are aware of, nor can we do anything about, laws that are enacted in every other country.

Yet, we so commonly see feminists pushing to change laws in third world countries...

I didn't say that all feminists are absolved. But I've read enough posts here to see that feminists are the target for the blame, not just held to their accountability.

If the shoe fits. Feminism is the root of most misandry in our culture. Why deny it? Be proud of your sister's achievements... No other group in history has demanded men be blamed endlessly for everything wrong in the world. But feminism has succeeded - and laughs in our faces about it.

While there are posts that talk about the work being done to change laws that are flawed, when it comes time to rant about who is to blame, feminists are the only ones mentioned.

You ignore the disgust we've shown for politicians like Biden, who arm in arm with feminists pushed for VAWA... you know, that law that pretends men can't be victims of a woman's violence, pretends only men are violent, tells us that women are more important than men & children... remember that one?

You say you're expected to give them credit for what they did not do, but you guys don't even give them credit for what they DID do. According to you guys, feminism is nothing BUT a force for evil. And even the moderate anti-feminists who claims that they really are for equality (just not misandry) somehow seems to think that everything was equal until the evil force of feminism entered the picture, which is an incredible joke.

I don't think for a moment the world was 'equal' prior to feminism... I think it certainly had it's faults - which screwed both men AND women over in different ways. Feminism, however, systematically screws only men over. At least the old model screwed everyone equally...

Lastly, I never said I didn't want responsibility taken. What I want is for the right people to be held responsible. You say why shouldn't you be able to attack the feminists who spread the hate, but you're attacking ALL feminists, not just the ones who spread hateful messages. Women like me aren't the enemy, yet it seems you'd like to make us out to be. At the same time that you admit that I don't adhere to their beliefs, you try to lay blame and guilt at my feet too.

You opt in to a hate movement. If you were in the war-days, would you have opted for a Jewish badge or the Nazi badge? You have made a conscious decision to stand by a movement you know full well has repeatedly promoted hatred for men. Why wouldn't you want to be associated with the bad parts as well as the good?

If I joined a white-ism group that I knew damn well was constantly sending out propaganda hate material against black folk, while also doing a few good jobs here n' there, I'd have little choice but take responsibility for my own decisions. This is one area where feminism is so wishy-washy because you think you can chop n' change as you like and everyone has to say "Ohh but this isn't that, that is this instead... you're mixed up - that's the other one who do it, under the same name, but we're different - we just have the same name..." it's damn pathetic if you ask me. Either 'man up' and accept the shit or take the offending label off so you don't' get targeted by the shit-shooter.

[bowspearer]

I was wondering how to approach this reply, but this quote I think is the best place to start:

Ah, the good ol' retort that compares women like me to Nazi's. Hyperbolic and childish.

Just one problem with that response kimber and it's a pretty big one- the SCUM manifesto. It's to misandry what Mein Kampf is to eugenics and antisemitism. Furthermore, when you look at the fact that it's required reading for the vast bulk of gender studies classes, who train many of the women who go on to work in govt jobs, advertising & the media, it really does have to be regarded as a core manifesto for feminism.

The upshot of it is that the argument of "look at what the good groups of feminism do" is akin to the argument of "hey look at all the lives the Nazis saved from starvation and destitution in the 1930s". Let's be honest, they saved tens of millions of people from literally dying of starvation at the hands of the Treaty of Versailles. However that doesn't justify the ideologies of Mein Kampf or eugenics movement & the Holocaust which came out of it that represent Nazil, just as the the good in feminism doesn't justify the SCUM manifesto and all that has come from it.

It's like trying to claim that the system is still good and that the radicals are the problem, when as it has been for the past few decades, the radicals ARE the system.
Marx has already done a fantastic job of a responding to most of this, so I'll only add a few things on a couple of points.

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

For starters, it is radical feminism which is at the core of contemporary mainstream feminist ideology. Therefore by considering that you consider the womens' rights activism groups that you are affiliated with as being a part of feminism, the logical argument would be that you consider them a force for good and therefore necessary.

Also in regards to what you say here-

I'll say this.....your experiences in the UK are not being disrespected or denied by me. From what I can tell, radicalized feminist groups within your country are very politically active. This is no longer the case where I live. There is no law requiring that half of an executive board must consist of women (or other similar legislation found in other countries) in America. The most influential female politician that can be dubbed feminist is Hillary Clinton, and I cannot find a single law or proposal that she's made that is designed to benefit any single gender. I can't think of a single anti-male columnist in a high-name newspaper in the States (of course, our newspapers are obsolete anyway, with the internet having taken over).

I would argue that you don't see it active because most things are already in place and it's merely a case of maintaining the status quo.

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".

Marx has already covered this fantastically, but I wanted to add something to it. A study done in South Australia found that only 7.5% of men report abuse as compared to 22% of women. Now certainly if just under 2/11 women are reporting being abused there's a serious problem. However I'm sure you'll also agree that when just over 1/50 of all men ever report being abused to the authorities, then we have a crisis on our hands of men suffering in silence. This should raise alarm bells considering that suicidal feelings are regarded by abuse experts as a common side effect of abuse and that the most common cause of deaths for all men under the age of 44 is suicide.

However I have some more direct evidence for you. man.org.au wrote an article on a recent qualitative study in WA on the experiences of battered men which had to be stopped after 15 people because they'd reached saturation on the sample. The funny thing was that everything listed that these men went though, where possible (my relationship was long distance so some things weren't applicable) was exactly what I had experienced!

Granted this has yet to be followed up by a quantitative study. However when combining this with stereotypes in Australia that are so warped that an underage boy can be groomed and then statutorily raped by an older women in a position of authority over them and its reported on prime time news as "an affair" and noone bats an eye; it suggests that a large portion of those suicides are going to have abuse scars as an underlying cause.

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.

Along with Marx, I too would be very interested in seeing this. However I would also ask what of raising the plight of male slavery in these regions too if such a universally egalitarian approach is as taken as you claim it is.

When the rest of us voice our disapproval, it's not enough. What more are we to do about it? Somehow silence them? Should we take away their constitutional right to free speech? Should we push for a law that only allows pre-approved messages to be voiced in public? We haven't let them pass a law that holds all men responsible when a rape occurs. All we can do is not believe them, or adhere to their ideas. It's illogical to say that because they believe such things and have voiced those opinions, the rest of us must condone it. We say they're crazy all the time. It's pretty much all we can do about it.

To answer your question kimber, what moderates need to do is discredit them publicly. You say you don't let them speak for you but as long as they have the general public believing that this is what those who affiliate themselves as feminists believe themselves. What good is a disassociation in the minds of the general public, if it's so quiet that they simply cannot hear it and therefore know it is there?

You bring up the need to legally silence that as a possibility, but I'd argue that is unnecessary. Once people can see radical feminists as the mental institution escapees they are and that the SCUM manifesto is regarded publicly in the same light as Mein Kampf- in turn making the vast bulk of Gender Studies lecturers unemployable; then and only then can the moderates be considered to be dictating what feminism as a political movement is. Once this happens, then feminism stops being an enemy of those against misandry.

You say why shouldn't you be able to attack the feminists who spread the hate, but you're attacking ALL feminists, not just the ones who spread hateful messages. Women like me aren't the enemy, yet it seems you'd like to make us out to be. At the same time that you admit that I don't adhere to their beliefs, you try to lay blame and guilt at my feet too.

But that's just it kimber, you're the one who linked yourself with those radicals. As hard as it might be to accept, the radicals are the ones in control and the SCUM manifesto is the ideology of feminism presently and has been for decades. That is what feminism is today and so by identifying yourself as feminist, you link yourself to all of that, even though it is not what you personally believe- and give support to it through association.

Noone here is blaming you; what they're doing is showing you just what you associate yourself with even though you claim to side against it (and no I am not disputing the legitimacy of those claims).

The only way that will change is if the movement is taken back by the moderates and the SCUM manifesto is completely rejected. This is a gender ideology war, and wars were never won just by conscientious objecting, they were won by winning decisive battles. As I said, and to tie it back to the Nazi analogy, when I see the equivalent of "Operation Valkyrie" ("assassinating" the credibility of the radical heads of the movement), then I'll give it a fair hearing. Until then, it's incredibly difficult not to see this as groups of good people in denial about what the ideology they associate themselves with and the horrors it has inflicted upon the world, or what must need to be done to counter it.

[byslexic_danana]

Kimber: why do you feel the need to identify as 'feminist'? What are you fighting for?

[Marx]

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.

Then they need to stop lying and claiming they're for 'equality'.

Equality does not mean women-only. Equality does not mean demanding women receive superior treatment to men & children.

By your own words - feminism IS a supremacist movement.


The way it looks to me, is Kimber has done what I did when I was young. She's flicked through the dictionary, read the dictionary definition of 'feminist' (i.e. equality) and thought to herself, "Oh, that's me... I like equality, it's a good thing - so I *must* be a feminist..."
However, I observe the group by it's actions which have systematically lied about men, blamed us for everything, demanded privileged status for women - often at the expense of men and children, tried desperately to defend female child-abusers/husband killers (etc.), and so on. That is hardly 'equality' from where I'm stood.

I realised soemthing was desperately wrong with the dictionary's definition - and I stopped calling myself a (male) feminist because I will not be part of a hate group like that. Equality means the good with the bad, it means sharing things out so everyone has an equal *opportunity*, it does not mean bashing one group in order to elevate the other group.

Feminism falls largely under the 'not equality' umbrella.

[Bmiricle]

Then they need to stop lying and claiming they're for 'equality'.

Yes.

Equality does not mean women-only. Equality does not mean demanding women receive superior treatment to men & children.

Yes.

By your own words - feminism IS a supremacist movement.

No, that's not what I'm saying, or what I've said at all. Don't take what I've said out of context and then proceed to put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by 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. 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 don't believe I ever made my case about feminism being about equality. Nor did I ever make this about a fucking supremicist movement. Girls have girls shit to deal with. So they do. It isn't always at the expense of men as it seems to be portrayed throughout the board.

It isn't because this is the way ALL feminists operate. It's because this is all we look for when we search for information. When you google the words evil, feminist, scum, etc. That's exactly what you get.

And then we proceed to insist that every women group that deals with issues of women are misandrist and out for cutting off dicks and slicing ball sacks open for the sake of the 'empowered' woman.

Here you go..."from a quick search on google"...I used the word feminism.

Organizing Younger Women by the Younger Women's Task Force (YWTF)

Female Bullies…as Children and Adults
By Erika Kelley

Lets face it, we’ve all had our encounter with the female bully, whether your role was that of the victim, aggressor, or bystander. I experienced female bullying for the first time in elementary school…

I walked into the lavatory (I haven’t used that word since elementary school!) and witnessed four girls applying make-up on another girl: different color eye shadows, blush, and lipstick…the makings of a hideous clown. The girls kept eyeing one another, giggling, and saying, “You look really beautiful. The boys will love you.” The clown-faced girl was beaming from ear to ear. I didn’t understand how she didn’t know that these girls were ridiculing her. I also didn’t understand why the so-called aggressors would want to do such a thing.

So, whatever happens to the mean school girls? Well…they typically grow up to be mean women.

Dawn Olsen, writer for an online magazine, Blogcritics, has some vivid (and disturbing) depictions of female bullies...

Women are territorial with teeth, passionately protective, fiercely jealous and deeply mistrustful due to strong instinctual drives.

Women like wolves, attack in packs, rarely ever confronting without some back up from their peers. Knowing the full value in the power of numbers they encircle their victim and take little chunks from all sides, whittling away at the self-esteem of the victim, and their desire to be included, a drive most women so feverishly have.

Some women are extremely adept at "silent aggression" and derive the most perverse pleasure watching their object of ridicule squirm, cry, and otherwise become unhinged. The more signs of weakness from the victim, the more vicious the attack, making the alternatives for the "odd girl out" less and less apparent.

What I have found is that these individuals…bullies…are easier to deal with when you understand them.

According to Professional Life Coach Heidi Costas, despite the façade that such people put up, bullies have low self-confidence and low self-esteem, and thus feel insecure. Low self-esteem is a factor highlighted by all studies of bullying. Bullies are seething with resentment, bitterness, hatred and anger, and often have wide-ranging prejudices as a vehicle for dumping their anger onto others. Bullies are driven by jealousy and envy.

As a child, I wasn’t equipped to deal with the toxic behaviors of female bullies. As an adult, however, things have changed. With guidance from wise female friends, family, and professionals (and as a result of past experiences!), when dealing with female bullies, my approach has been to…

1. Maintain my confidence. I refuse to let anyone intimidate me.

2. Ignore the gossip or confront the individual(s) responsible for starting the rumor in the first place, depending on the situation. (If the rumor affects my family or career, I can’t afford to ignore it!)

3. Do not pledge allegiance to backstabbing cliques or groups.

4. Aim to embrace a spirit of cooperation in my interactions with others.

And I must say, in most instances, I have been successful…yet the fight to end relational aggression continues!

So just because this is about girls growing up then it must be misandrist and because it's written by a feminist on a feminist site and doesn't worry about boys growing up. It must relate to the gendercide of men. This is because they call themselves feminists and all feminists are radical and they're really not feminists because it's not that radical..blah, blah, fucking blah.

I'm tired of this argument so I'm bowing out of it. Don't ever put words in my mouth again.