Required reading for male feminists

Post Reply New Topic

Again, #killallmen is plainly not a popular hashtag. You do realise all of us are perfectly capable of checking the hashtag and seeing that 1) it isn’t popular, and 2) most of the posts on it are just people saying what a stupid tag it is? You’re not fooling anyone.

I’m very sorry about the unsympathetic way you were treated when you were abused. That was wrong. But it doesn’t justify you repeatedly grossly misrepresenting the nature of contemporary feminism. You are no different to the women who decide that all men are bad because of one or two bad experiences.

The fact that #killallmen exists at all is telling. Try to create #killallwomen and see what happens.

You clearly don't understand the difference between an ideology and a class of people. This is like saying that disliking Nazis is equivalent to hating Jews.

Edit: because I know some of you will doubtlessly attempt to strawman me, I'm clarifying right now that I am not comparing feminists to Nazis. I'm only comparing arguments.

Can you be more specific?
Because first wave feminism was about suffrage.
Second wave feminism was about financial independence and sexual freedoms.
Third wave feminism was about more sexual freedom and more equality, because second wave feminism only made the initial steps in that direction.
And fourth wave feminism, which we are dealing with now, is pretty messy. There's no discernible single demand that all feminists can agree on, since legal equality has largely been reached in most western country.

Each wave had its own radical offshoots, but none so far is remembered for centering around their extreme agendas.
Valerie Solanas was second wave. Yet, the feminists of that generation did not focus on exterminating men. Just the crazy ones.

I'm sorry to hear that you came in contact with some of the crazy ones, but you're asking of us to lump them together with women who demand better access to medical care in developing countries, for example- and that's just not a useful way to see feminism.

No, it is not telling. It isn't even evidence.

You have a mackerel argument. Because all mackerel are fish, then all fish are mackerel. You are selecting (cherry-picking) a small sample of individual that are feminists, and then say all feminists are them.

I am really sorry for your experience. There is no justification for it and your anger is understandable.

Toxic jerks like that do not represent the vast majority of feminists, but yes there are some extremist fringe ones that have some pretty skewed views. I cannot say I care much for them, they even hate women who they feel aren't living independently enough or whatever. But to paint the majority of feminists with that brush would be inaccurate.

And considering feminism is not about misandry, people are going to tell you that...maybe read up on some of the history like how the feminist movement started and you'll find it wasn't about misandry at all.

Also I have never even seen that hashtag, let alone heard of it being 'popular' popular among who? specifically people with extremist views? cause yeah most people wouldn't like that hashtag.

This. Feminists have run out of actual problems in the Western World, so now they're make up reasons to hate men.



I wholeheartedly support better access to medical care for people in developing countries. But I've come across very few feminists that make that they're focus. I've seen significantly more attacks on men from modern feminists than concern for developing countries. In fact, people who criticize the treatment of women in developing countries are often accused of racism by prominent feminists like Linda Sarsour. Sarsour, who often claims that women are oppressed in America, wants to implement Shariya law in the US, and frequently labels critics of Islam as racists.

I'm not talking about feminism as it existed back then. I'm talking about right now.

Btw, I just checked #killallmen. This is the very first post at the top of the page:

"My girl is pregnant! Having a scan soon to find out if it's a girl or an abortion."

I am aware, but roots of things do matter.

And the vast majority of feminists right now also don't believe in genocide against males, the ones that do are crazy ones on the fringe not the majority.

Also the top of what page on what website? Just a general page with most popular posts from all categories on the website, or a specific page dedicated to 'killallmen'? That person sounds like a troll to me not someone who should be taken to represent the whole of feminism.

I'm not sure what you think I'm excusing. The statement would be equally unacceptable whether referring to blacks, jews, gays, or men. My point was, that's the chain of logic that people use to justify "getting rid" of those groups of people. I'm not excusing it - I'm explaining it. People who have been hurt badly enough, often continue to have irrational fears towards that which hurt them - or what they believe can hurt them. Since they can't overcome the internal source of the fear, they switch to eliminating the external perceived source of the fear.

In that same vein, you've apparently been hurt by a few women with distorted views, and have internalized these views and assume them to be more ubiquitous than they actually are. Yes, feminists like that exist - but all kinds of nutters exist - is their existence proof of the nutty thing they believe, or simply proof that people believe nutty things?

I know a guy that thinks all women are evil cos every woman he dated hurt him in some way. All 4 of them. Now he's rude to all women, and when they react to his rudeness, he sees that as "proof" of their hostility. In his mind, he's technically not wrong - "every" girl he dated was mean to him, and now "all" women are hostile towards him - even though realistically, that's really really weak proof, and not an acceptable way to go about things.

I knew a girl who was hurt by a few men, so she turned lesbian - then was hurt in the exact same way by one woman, and decided that all humans are evil.

Irrational risk avoidance.

The Republican Party was founded to abolish slavery. If you didn't vote for Trump, you must be pro-slavery.



Just because feminists aren't plotting a male genocide doesn't mean they don't hate men.



Then I assume it would be equally acceptable to create a page titled KillAllWomen and post in it about aborting girls so long as its just a joke.

I dislike feminists, not women. They're not synonymous. In fact I've experienced as much grief from male feminists as I have from female ones.



I think she's on to something...

I googled and could not find a source for this other than the facebook page of FOX news.
And Fox is a right wing hysteria machinery, I don't expect to find enlightenment there.
According to her tweets, Shariah law means not drinking alcohol, not eating pork and wearing s hijab, and she's following those rules. So, she's just not using the word Shariah law in the common understanding of ... What exactly? I never read up on Shariah law. Maybe she's totally right that that's all there is to it, and the rest is whatever FOX news told everyone.

@ dorkseid

I am sorry if you have been abused by people who call themselves feminists. I am sorry if you have been abused by your ex, and felt like no one on the feminist side believed you. The sort of people that act as feminists to mostly be able to doll out misandry are trash, not to invoke a sort of No True Scotsman, but I don't think they are real feminists. They are essentially the inverse of the men who tell women to make them a sandwich, and maybe you don't believe it, but there are a greater or even worse level of misogynists out there. Not that lessens your experience.

Although I did say something along the lines of calling inherent misandrists trash, I also want to avoid in using broad strokes, because I do understand that everyone has their own experiences, some who might say stupid things could have a similar experience to you where they were abused by man and are hitting out by their perception. I could say some sort of line about feminism being like a flipped coin of something like a Men's Rights Association, but this is something that is dangerous in terms of political history, and your rhetoric sounds a little bit down that path, although I am not prescribing an maliciousness.

It should be a plain fact that feminism was a required movement for equality, and although things like MRAs sound good on the tin, the people who often follow that do so really to just push back against anything feminism stands for, which might be some well intentioned people or those who have been victims they are toxic. Even those who seemingly stand for egalitarianism are often just anti-feminist, where they can say that they are not really MRA, but are mostly just anti-feminist. But this does mean nothing if one believes feminism does not have a place in today's political climate.

A label that has become very big in recent years is TERF (Tran Exclusive Radical Feminist), they are used against feminists that are the most extreme, and as it says in the name are anti-trans, this is used by most feminists against the ones we don't think represent us. Which I think goes to show that feminism itself has adopted views of being gender critical, that is that one's "biological sex" should not even define if one is even a woman or not, which I would say removes a lot of the essentialism that you are thinking is at the heart feminism. How can feminists be okay with things like #killallmen when many of us don't even think one's sex makes them a man or not? Feminism is propping up women in a world where they are still treated like a minority, they don't hold the same systematic powers, and are more likely to not be taken seriously. But feminism also wants to break the system where men are held to some ridiculous standard of being emotionless tough guys who can't be victims or something stupid.

Being against the patriarchy is not being against all men, it is about being against a system that said men had to be the head of a household, business or government. The patriarchy is a big problem to men as it is to women, where men are told to toughen up, not cry, and other toxic beliefs. If we want to be real it is same sort of s**t that makes people believe that a woman could not be the abuser in a relationship, and it has to be the man. And modern feminism is against that sort of thing.

FOX News' conspiracy theories of an agenda to impose Shariya in the US are total bunk. Radical Christianity is a far greater threat to American society than radical Islam is. That said, in parts of the world where Islam does hold dominance, many unjust laws are imposed on women, homosexuals, and religious minorities. And yes, in some parts of the world Christians actually are an oppressed minority.

Linda Sarsour has always been open about her support and defense of Islam and Shariya, and she has stated that she would like to see Shariya implemented in America. But one person's personal agenda does not a political movement make. And I'm sure that like most Muslims, she does not actually understands what all Shariya entails and has a somewhat romanticized view of it. But I also suspect that her views are highly homophobic and antiemetic.

Shariya refers to the implementation of Islamic rulings as the law of the land. This includes cutting off the hands of thieves. Execution of adulterers, homosexuals, and apostates. Jews and Christians are given three options: convert to Islam, pay a tax known as "Jizya" to the Islamic state, or face violent retribution. The capturing of non-Muslims to be taken or traded as slaves is permissible. POWs can be taken and sold as slaves. Men are permitted have sex with their female slaves. If a man accidently kills a free man, his life may be taken as retribution. But if he kills a woman, a woman of his own kin is killed. And if he kills a slave, one of his slaves is killed. All of these rulings can be found in either the Quran or the Hadeeth. But I do want to clarify that these rulings are according to Islamic, but do not reflect the opinions of Muslims as people.

And I want to clarify that the SCUM manifesto is feminism according to Valerie Solanas, but does not reflect the opinions of feminists as a movement.

Not only does #killallwomen exist, it seems to have greater unironic use.

The issue with comparing the arguments that way is that “I hate Nazis” is only an acceptable statement because Nazi ideology is a bad ideology that advocates for genocide. Contrastingly, feminism is an ideology that advocates for gender equality and women’s rights. Saying “I hate genocide” is a very different statement to “I hate gender equality”. Genocide is bad, and hating it is good. Contrastingly, you have decided that you hate gender equality because some people were not sympathetic towards you once. That is illogical in the extreme.

Indeed, another way of phrasing “I hate feminists” is “I hate women’s rights”. This frankly is the same statement as “I hate women”. So, yes, if an individual is opposed to feminism then they are a misogynist.