misogynists on this forum.

Post Reply New Topic

Discussion of the locked threads is against the rules, therefore posts mentioning it have been removed.

The thread title, even after editing is incorrect.

"SO Many" is an exaggeration, and an insulting one. "A few" Misogynists is less provocative, but accurate.

This is the same consistent point that I have made since this thread started, there are a few misogynists on WP, like anywhere else.
Being able to have a discussion and seek peer advice without having a thread derailed by people with their own agenda would be great; or particularly if people consistently fanning the gender fire, making reductionist comparisons between the genders, just stopped, that would also be great. Realistically if those type of posts could actually be treated as off topic in the report format, then that to me would be a step forward.

An environment for female topics, though not exclusionary has a certain climate, and the pick a fight, bar room brawl etiquette is better suited to the PPR climate.

The ethos of each sub forum is different

i.e.

Is distinctly different to this:


Perhaps the picking a fight ethos could be taken outside to PPR?

It's true:

Each subgroup DOES have a different ethos. I think it's fair, actually. The Haven should be a Haven. A Woman's Discussion subforum should be a sort of a sanctuary for women.

Or maybe there could be a forum devoted exclusively to picking fights.

People can pick a fight in any sub forum, even The Haven.

I agree that a more accurate title for this thread would be "A few misogynists on this forum," but they are a vocal few.

I think some guys have agendas regarding women to the point that it is their special interest. They seem to enjoy derailing thread to make them conform to their agendas, but unfortunately this is often at the expense of marginalized members. That's the way things go though, irl too. WP is not a haven and it's not surprising that grievance bearers sometimes dominate exchanges.

I couldn't agree more. It's making me want to hit my head against a wall. I feel as if women here are being treated as inferior, especially on the Women's and Love and Dating discussions. I don't understand why this is allowed. It really confuses me. If someone can explain why, then please do.

Feminism is not a Human Rights Movement. Small parts of it may fit that description, but feminism as a whole is a collection of political ideologies, many of which contradict each other. And even if all the MRM was was a backlash against feminism, that would not make it misogynistic. Feminist and woman are not synonyms. And considering some of the really questionable things done by feminists, it's no wonder there's a backlash.

I'm curious how you square this in your heads; Men's Rights Advocates do not advocate for human rights. Unless your position is that men aren't human.

I don't like religion, and related to that is my position that we shouldn't mutilate baby genitals on that or any basis. I see it a as a human rights violation, and in the west in only affects males. I have just advocated for the rights of males, by definition making me an MRA. Do you see the problem with your reasoning?


I'll stop derailing the thread now.

About time, after 22 pages someone of the "other camp" finally felt that the title is hyperbolic and provocative.

Jeez.

And for that reason, you win a lemon cupcake.

Please define these two camps.
Amity's camp believes what?
Your camp believes what?

Decepticons (us) and Autobots (yours).

Just back temporarily I did say that I was finished contributing to this thread, however have been still following the debate.

I am interested in the suggestion of hyperbole perhaps not helping debate/ just to remind that the original title was actually "Horrible Misogynists". The horrible was removed (correctly in my opinion) to reduce this a bit.
I agree there are misogynists here but also agree that there are a few (perhaps extra vocal) but not lots, definitely no more than the general populace.

I`m off again

You can "define" MRA's to be anything you want but that doesn't mean that your definition reflects what they are in reality. Feminists were at least responsible for the changing roles of women in society, including getting the right to vote and to be able to obtain higher education and to work. Name one thing that MRA's have done that's a positive influence. They have hardly done anything for men at all, they are mostly reactionary.

Your husband got influenced by MRA sites? Well, that would certainly explain a lot. It's interesting that you blame AS for that because plenty of NT men get influenced by them for exactly the same reason. The problems that we have social interaction apply to all NT's, so it's illogical to just apply it to women.



This is kind of odd because you were on a Cassandra forum, ASPartners, which are exactly the same as MRA forums except they save their vitriol for aspies rather than targeting women. Both kinds of groups complain about how horrible their target group is, both regard themselves victims etc. There are a lot of similarities there. I would feel exactly the same way about having an SO or partner frequenting a forum like ASPartners as you do about your husband frequenting an MRA forum. Even if claims of abuse by an aspie partner legitimate, forums like that are no different MRA forums in that regard either, where there are men who frequent MRA forums, claiming to be abused their wives but then the MRA's use this as a guise for misogynistic attacks on women. In the meantime, MRA's have never done anything positive to actually to actually help male victims of domestic violence (like raising money). It's just purely used as front to attack women, those Cassandra groups who want to "raise awareness" about aspies and potential aspie partners are no different.

If you insist.

If language is to be of any use at all, you can't mishandle it quite that frivolously. We are not talking about a nebulous, vaguely defined umbrella-term, like "feminism" or "christianity", we are talking about the noun form of a verb. If one does X, one is an X-doer.


A rather blanket statement that is probably true in some regard.




The first women who voted in the USA did so in the 1700's. Voting was tied to property ownership back then, and women could fill that role. Later, the law changed and the vote was tied to the draft, which only affected men. The principal opponents of women getting the vote were rich women afraid that they would get the draft along with it. The history of the vote makes a lot more sense if you view it as a class struggle, rather than a gender struggle.




Women-only universities have existed since the 1700s.



Right, women have been historically denied the right to work and to own a business. That's why law manuscripts dating from the middle ages deal with women working and owning their own businesses.




Well, domestic abuse victim Earl Silverman tried to open a shelter for men with the same experience, but was met with a bureaucratic catch 22 because domestic violence is written into law as something men do to women. Wonder who's behind that? Let's ask Erin Pizzey: Link




Considering the number of assertions you just presented me without critical examination, I'd say simply polluting the prevailing oppression narrative with facts counts as doing at least a little something for men.

I think it's fair to settle on the fact that there are extremes of every type, there are some MRAs and feminists that hold ridiculous positions and some that have valid, more balanced views.

I wouldn't equate MRA's with feminists---maybe MRA's with "femiNazis."

Think: Mennonite Christian vis a vis mainstream Jew

Versus: Mennonite Christian via a vis Hasidic Jew.