Just curious, how do any of you people feel about feminism in America, particularly the US?

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
Just curious, how do any of you people feel about feminism in America, particularly the US?

I'm not entirely sure what feminism is anymore since the meaning gets changed from person to person...

I think the subject has potential to make people angry and cause forum threads to be locked

*watching intensifies*

IDK America, but Middle East needs some urgent equality.

Egalitarianism is the only true way

also this thread's going to get locked as fuck once more people start coming in

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
Egalitarianism is the only true way

Or humanism, never really looked into the difference so I might be talking rubbish.

Chessax said:
Or humanism, never really looked into the difference so I might be talking rubbish.

Humanism is the rejection of any sort of spirituality, apparently. Not so much about equality, unlike egalitarianism (I doubt they're mutually exclusive though), based on what wikipedia has to say about it...

I would say, there are several general areas that feminism relates to.

So, with all that in mind, what do I think of feminism?

I think the most common varieties of feminism are fine. The kinds which look at serious issues, which address actual inequalities, and so on, are beneficial. I think it is okay for people to identify as feminists, and it is possible to identify both as a feminist, and as an egalitarian in general.

I think the extreme varieties don't actually hold all that much sway in reality. I think people put too much stock in them, and that causes them to demonize the label "feminist", when in reality they might generally agree with those people when it came down to an actual discussion to try to understand each others' points of view.

I support female economic equality. I don't support "Men are inferior to women."

Feminism is a good thing, even if it has its crazy elements (just like any advocacy group). But I don't like how so many people act like men don't face any double standards.

A lot of women argue that a many of the double standards against men would be remedied by females being treated equally...

alirezatm said:
IDK America, but Middle East needs some urgent equality.

My kind of basic thoughts, which is why the bre burning extreme of feminism is no longer needed in North America and why egalitarianism has picked up some backing nowadays.

Save the extreme levels for places that still desperately need it

this is literally the longest i've seen a thread about feminism go unlocked

threads like this can only end badly

This thread gave me cancer

Cactus said:
This thread gave me cancer

But you're a cactus. Cactuses can't get cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avu5NT1ZYT8

IDK how it looks with that in the USA, but I would guess that religious fanatics and some very tory people don't like that.

Blazikendude said:
But you're a cactus. Cactuses can't get cancer.

Hmm, I think everything with DNA could get something like cancer

feminism triggers me

I believe in gender equality. I don't really take much notice about Feminism.

ImmortalityZen said:
I believe in gender equality. I don't really take much notice about Feminism.

Exactly. Egalitarianism, yo

Anita Sarkeesian... pure unending HATE of everything single word of hypocritical stupidity she spews in this world.

hey feminists! i'm a gamer so stop trying you're hardest to RUIN and/or destroy the video game industry.

you idiots want male video game protagonists to be female instead then you turn around and say you want good looking female video game characters to look more realistic (as in less attractive).

STOP trying to ruin this world more than so many others already are! we already have people like obama pretty much trying to destroy us from the inside out (oh yes, i'm SO sure that nuclear deal with iran, or wherever that was, would be good for us in the long run. you IDIOT!)

or to sum it up in 2 words: you IDIOTS!

and before anyone tries to give me a neg rep for this post: i'm not talking about any one in particular but rather things in general.

What are genders

treos said:
snip

I call her G'norga, the queen of trolls.

Generally I believe the original Feminism was good as it tried to get equality for women, but modern day/first world feminism is ran and controlled by tumblrinas who think that man looking at them is a rapist.
Feminism is still needed in some countries but not in first world countries. While there is not true equality for Females, there isn't true quality for males either.

Knotty_Curls said:
What are genders

What is life

treos said:
(oh yes, i'm SO sure that nuclear deal with iran, or wherever that was, would be good for us in the long run. you IDIOTS!)

post #666664

This Thread Gonna Get Locked With A Record For Me...

The way the military handles female personnel is completely ass-backwards, and it's entirely because they're trying to look progressive.

I am appalled at the amount of content on this site that degrades women and portrays them as sex objects.

I think e6 should remove all images that show women:
- in a submissive position
- being used for the pleasure of a man
- being degraded
- being used only in a picture because "they look good"
- depicting unrealistic sexulized traits

If your a misogynist douchbag and come back with "we'll I can find images that analogue these features with using men". Then you clearly don't understand that men hold the power, therefore men; by definition cannot be exploited.

alirezatm said:
post #666664

This Thread Gonna Get Locked With A Record For Me...

oops,guess i got a little carried away and forgot the whole "no religious or political discussion" thing when i made that post.

Chaser said:What is life

many things but often times thoroughly annoying imo.

CuteCoughDeath said:
I am appalled at the amount of content on this site that degrades women and portrays them as sex objects.

I think e6 should remove all images that show women:
- in a submissive position
- being used for the pleasure of a man
- being degraded
- being used only in a picture because "they look good"
- depicting unrealistic sexulized traits

If your a misogynist douchbag and come back with "we'll I can find images that analogue these features with using men". Then you clearly don't understand that men hold the power, therefore men; by definition cannot be exploited.

Oh Jesus fucking Christ, this is the problem I have with feminism in the first place.

No way are we doing that, you asshole. Not now, not later, not ever -- because it's FICTION. Get outta here

What happens when a boy is raised by a feminist

happened across this on youtube while browsing randomly (boy, Kuma's ending in tekken 5 was...love at first sight..the sight of a panda's ass that is. lol)

Everyone is equal, and you're only as competent as you feel.

GameManiac said:
Everyone is equal, and you're only as competent as you feel.

If everyone is equal, then why does egalitarianism exist?

Discussions of equality are a bit problematic.

Is everyone equal? Well... No. Say we compare two people. Each may have abilities the other does not. They are not equal, since that requires all parameters to be the same.

Are they equivalent? That's more difficult to say. That depends on the subjective criteria one holds. But even so, generally, no.

Isn't that an uncomfortable thought? We can't say that people are equal or equivalent in any meaningful way. We're stuck fumbling around for a solution to this. Egalitarianism is an interesting solution, but it's not necessarily implementable in reality. Because rights might conflict. Someone might feel that parents have a right to raise their children as they wish, and most people would agree that seems like an important right, but are we ignoring the rights of the children in that case to be given an equal starting point?

So we can't say people are equal and we can't really effectively treat them equally. Where does that leave us?

Same place we've always been, I guess. Fumbling around, trying to do the best we can in a world that doesn't actually allow ideals.

I don't know. Just my uncomfortable thoughts for the day.

All men ... are NOT created equal! Some are born swifter afoot, some with greater beauty, some are born into poverty and others born sick and feeble. Both in birth and upbringing, in sheer scope of ability every human is inherently different; Yes that is why people discriminate against one another, which is why there is struggle, competition and the unfaltering march of progress.

This being said anyone know the last war fought by women? Or what about the last genocide? or the last mass raping? or any atrocity?

CuteCoughDeath said:
All men ... are NOT created equal! Some are born swifter afoot, some with greater beauty, some are born into poverty and others born sick and feeble. Both in birth and upbringing, in sheer scope of ability every human is inherently different; Yes that is why people discriminate against one another, which is why there is struggle, competition and the unfaltering march of progress.

This being said anyone know the last war fought by women? Or what about the last genocide? or the last mass raping? or any atrocity?

If women would have had the power that men have had throughout history, I doubt things would have turned out much better or worse.

And there are plenty of women fighting wars these days. Of course, not nearly as many as men, but they are just as effective.

CuteCoughDeath said:
All men ... are NOT created equal! Some are born swifter afoot, some with greater beauty, some are born into poverty and others born sick and feeble. Both in birth and upbringing, in sheer scope of ability every human is inherently different; Yes that is why people discriminate against one another, which is why there is struggle, competition and the unfaltering march of progress.

This being said anyone know the last war fought by women? Or what about the last genocide? or the last mass raping? or any atrocity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irma_Grese

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myra_Hindley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilse_Koch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Knight

A history book will give a lot more examples, there was also a pretty prolific female pirate captain having fun a couple hundred years ago, but I can't remember her name well enough to track her down.

NotMeNotYou said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irma_Grese

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myra_Hindley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilse_Koch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Knight

A history book will give a lot more examples, there was also a pretty prolific female pirate captain having fun a couple hundred years ago, but I can't remember her name well enough to track her down.

Probably Anne Bonney.

Thank you for making a tall woman fallacy. By a long margin people who commit atrocities are men. Even some of the women you listed had violent tendencies in them instilled by a man. Men are much much MUCH more likely to commit every form of violent crime with the exception of infanticide.

Bringing up exceptions don't change this fact.

Edit: Please don't ban me for speaking out. I realise that these facts are uncomfortable for some people to accept but they need to be said.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Probably Anne Bonney.

Thank you for making a tall woman fallacy. By a long margin people who commit atrocities are men. Even some of the women you listed had violent tendencies in them instilled by a man. Men are much much MUCH more likely to commit every form of violent crime with the exception of infanticide.

Bringing up exceptions don't change this fact.

Edit: Please don't ban me for speaking out. I realise that these facts are uncomfortable for some people to accept but they need to be said.

I can't give you a full list of people because I'm not a scholar for history, that's just a couple examples.

Also, it's not a fact unless you have a source, so feel free to source your studies you based your opinions on.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Thank you for making a tall woman fallacy.

I like how you ask for examples of women committing atrocities and then when someone complies you tell them they are making a fallacy.

Also, it's already been mentioned, but you realize that women have less frequently had the sort of social and political power that men have had in history, right? You would naturally expect fewer atrocities committed by women in history as a result.

NotMeNotYou said:
Also, it's not a fact unless you have a source, so feel free to source your studies you based your opinions on.

Ok lets look at:
"Men commit crimes at higher rates than women, are involved in more serious and violent offending and are subject to a higher recidivism rate" - Larinsten et al 2009

the ABS AIC NHMP 1989-90 to 2006-07 showing men commit homicide at least 5 times times women

or

the US dept of justice report 2010 htus8008 showing men commit 90% of all homicides

Clawdragons said:
I like how you ask for examples of women committing atrocities and then when someone complies you tell them they are making a fallacy.

Apologies, but you do know what I mean. You just choosing to try and achieve a victory by terminally being correct. My point is that men are more violent.

Clawdragons said:
Also, it's already been mentioned, but you realize that women have less frequently had the sort of social and political power that men have had in history, right? You would naturally expect fewer atrocities committed by women in history as a result.

Your assuming that men appear more violent because they have the power to assert? But what stops me saying that the power they have is a result of their voilence? This would be more inline with history. Also minorities are perfectly capable of committing atrocities ie ISIS and hindus.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Probably Anne Bonney.

Thank you for making a tall woman fallacy. By a long margin people who commit atrocities are men.

By a long margin, people who are in a position that allows them to commit atrocities are men.

Fenrick said:
By a long margin, people who are in a position that allows them to commit atrocities are men.

Even in civil crime men kill more then women. women own guns in the US at a similar rate to men (Gallup Inc march 2015) by men by far murder with those guns (BJS 2007 firearms and homicide)

CuteCoughDeath said:
Even in civil crime men kill more then women. women own guns in the US at a similar rate to men (Gallup Inc march 2015) by men by far murder with those guns (BJS 2007 firearms and homicide)

Sure, but crimes and genocide/atrocities are very different things.

Fenrick said:
Sure, but crimes and genocide/atrocities are very different things.

Ok I'll give you that but will you admit that men are much more likely to commit violent crimes. Because even twin studies show the male twin is more likely to commit crime (Lyons MJ 1996).

CuteCoughDeath said:
Apologies, but you do know what I mean. You just choosing to try and achieve a victory by terminally being correct. My point is that men are more violent.

You asked a question. The question was answered. If the answer was in error it was because the question was in error. Your point is legitimately stronger if you stick to current crime statistics, where the social role of men and women is somewhat more equal, compared to the past, where that was very much not the case.

Your assuming that men appear more violent because they have the power to assert? But what stops me saying that the power they have is a result of their voilence? This would be more inline with history. Also minorities are perfectly capable of committing atrocities ie ISIS and hindus.

I haven't assumed anything, I'm pointing out that your conclusion does not follow from your premise. In other words, the idea that men are more violent does not follow from the idea that most past atrocities were conducted by men. There are clearly other reasons for that discrepancy which you didn't even bother to address to begin with.

On the topic of crime, you have a more reasonable point. However, there are still some confounding factors which you haven't really addressed.

First of all, you haven't addressed the extent to which "nurture" plays a role in this issue. To put it more clearly, males and females are raised and socialized differently. The way in which males are socialized is certainly responsible for at least some of the discrepancy in crime.

Furthermore, as far as homicides go, the majority (in America, at least) of homicides are committed as part of gang related violence (a bit over three-fourths of murders are gang-related, according to the FBI in 2010).

Gangs are predominantly male. That said, the existence of gangs is a complicated issue, with racial, economic, cultural factors, as well as strong links to various crimes including the sale of prohibited substances like drugs as well as both violent and non-violent crime. I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that their existence is mainly a result of a male tendency towards violence, but if you think you can, I encourage you to try. But without that, you are left with 78% of homicides mostly taken out of the equation due to gang gender discrepancies.

This is a bit off topic, but I am curious as to your point of view... It is worth noting that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by blacks in America, compared to whites. If your argument is that a disproportionate amount of crime committed by males shows their inherent violent tendencies, would you also argue that the disproportionate amount of violent crime committed by blacks shows the same? Or are you more willing to admit the role of culture and socialization in that circumstance?

I guess, if you want a summary of my various points - social issues are incredibly complicated, and a correlation does not imply a causation. I freely admit there is a correlation, but I think proving causation would be far more difficult.

Furthermore, I would warn you, very strongly, against stereotyping. For instance, in your quote "men are more violent" is to me, problematic. A better phrasing - and I'm not being nitpicky here, there is an extremely huge distinction - would be "men tend to be more violent".

aurel said:
Odd of you to quote that, implicates that war is progress (and oil industry knows that war is good business <_<). Soo... men are violent! hooray men!

I don't know about you, but if women are joining the fight against ISIL, I'd say that's progress.

Clawdragons said:
Gangs are predominantly male. But without that, you are left with 78% of homicides mostly taken out of the equation due to gang gender discrepancies.

Your argument against me is "well males are gang members"... not helping your argument. Also we are not arguing the cause of male aggression we are arguing it's existence. Even if you discount 78% of all homicides and assume they are all male (I don't see why you would but anyway) you are still left with a several fold increase.

Clawdragons said:
This is a bit off topic, but I am curious as to your point of view... It is worth noting that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by blacks in America, compared to whites. If your argument is that a disproportionate amount of crime committed by males shows their inherent violent tendencies, would you also argue that the disproportionate amount of violent crime committed by blacks shows the same? Or are you more willing to admit the role of culture and socialization in that circumstance?

Of course nurture plays a role. However the crime gap between male/female is much larger than that of white/black. Also the male/female crime gaps is mirrored throughout the entire world indicating that this is independent of upbringing.

Clawdragons said:
Furthermore, I would warn you, very strongly, against stereotyping. For instance, in your quote "men are more violent" is to me, problematic. A better phrasing - and I'm not being nitpicky here, there is an extremely huge distinction - would be "men tend to be more violent".

My apologies. Individual men are statistically more likely to exhibit violent actions.

CuteCoughDeath said:
However the crime gap between male/female is much larger than that of white/black. Also the male/female crime gaps is mirrored throughout the entire world indicating that this is independent of upbringing.

So is the tendency for men to be in power, so...

Maybe men tend to be more violent, but they also tend to make up most of our engineers and scientists. Sure that may be in part due to the patriarchy, but the disparity seems too great for that to be the sole determining factor.

Fenrick said:
So is the tendency for men to be in power, so...

Maybe men tend to be more violent, but they also tend to make up most of our engineers and scientists. Sure that may be in part due to the patriarchy, but the disparity seems too great for that to be the sole determining factor.

I'm glad we agree somewhere.

Also men have higher levels of testosterone. Clinical trials show testosterone causes causes people to take more risks.... so either the unknown fruit over there is delicious or contains a horrible toxin.

CuteCoughDeath, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm done with this conversation.

Not in the sense that I'm frustrated or you've been rude, mind you. While we disagree, quite strongly, you've been fairly polite, and I hope the same can be said for me.

However, generally speaking, there are other topics I prefer to discuss over this one. And as long as I'm spending my time arguing, I'd rather argue about something I'm actually passionate about.

I'll leave you all with this though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#Aggressivity_and_gender

Clawdragons said:
CuteCoughDeath, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm done with this conversation.

Not in the sense that I'm frustrated or you've been rude, mind you. While we disagree, quite strongly, you've been fairly polite, and I hope the same can be said for me.

However, generally speaking, there are other topics I prefer to discuss over this one. And as long as I'm spending my time arguing, I'd rather argue about something I'm actually passionate about.

I'll leave you all with this though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#Aggressivity_and_gender

Thankyou, I enjoyed chating with you.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
Just curious, how do any of you people feel about feminism in America, particularly the US?

The orginal textbook definition of feminism was equal treatment of men and women. TREATMENT, not end results. I'm for that, because it's fair.

The modern social definition of feminism is to prop women up artificially to where they could not possibly fail to have a cushy, successful life regardless of how little effort they put into anything while simultaneously blaming anything and everyone (but women) for any resulting failures or poor performance while simultaneously actively and maliciously attacking anyone who isn't a woman. Obviously, I'm against that.

...However the crime gap between male/female is much larger than that of white/black. Also the male/female crime gaps is mirrored throughout the entire world indicating that this is independent of upbringing.

Not per capita. Blacks, not even just US blacks but worldwide, commit approximately 20x (not 20% more, 2000%)more murders and nearly 45x (4500%) more aggravated assaults than whites.

Blacks make up roughly 19% of the US population. They committed 68% of all murders 2000-2014 and 79% of all aggravated assaults (and 94% of all rapes). Conversely whites make up about 45% of the US population (Hispanic latinos are up to ~32% with all other races making up the remainder) but committed only 11% of the murders and 14% of the aggravated assaults (East Asians were the least violent with <1% in each category both in total and per capita).

Moreover black females are nearly 30x more likely to commit a murder than white females and almost 80x more likely to commit an aggravated assault.

Again, this stands globally, not just in the US (though the US has the most accurately reported crime statistics). Is this in part due to the fact that outside of the US, the only countries that have a significant black population also suffer from nearly constant civil strife and pandemic disease/starvation? Probably. But not so in the US, and the numbers are nearly identical between Missouri and the Congo (which has been in a civil war for over a decade and has suffered at least 7 ethnic-cleansing genocides severe enough to get both the UN and WHO involved).

great so we went from feminism to racism

gg guys

Clawdragons said:
I would say, there are several general areas that feminism relates to.

feminism categories

One is the sort that the vast majority of people support. The idea that men and women should be treated equally, and issues which are noticed which cause a significant inequality between the sexes should be addressed. An obvious example of an issue in this category would be the right to vote - at one point denied to women, and we thankfully fixed that issue. A more modern issue would be, is there a gender-wage gap, and if there is, is it due to choice of occupation or unequal pay for equal work?

Another broad stripe of feminism deals with issues which women frequently deal with, that men do not. For instance, the right to have an abortion. While men may have significant reasons to care about, and want to effect, a certain decision on this matter, the fact of the matter is that women are much more affected by that right, as it directly concerns what they can and can't do with their bodies. Another example might be prostitution. There are male prostitutes, but generally, that issue is framed as a women's issue. Many of the issues in this category are often treated on their own, though they are still important to mention in this sort of discussion, I think.

There is also societal attitudes, which feminism may deal with. For instance, in some instances, a man who sleeps around is considered a "player", and is seen positively, whereas a woman who does the same is seen as a "slut" and seen negatively. Generally, people don't like double-standards, so many of the things in this general category are pretty well supported. But, I would say, there are also the "nitpick" varieties of feminism located in this category. That is, there are some people who can look at just about anything and explain how it is anti-women. As an example, I've heard some argue that school meetings held in the evenings are sexist, on the basis that women are more likely to be at home, dealing with children, at that time. I could argue that their argument is sexist, as it assumes the mother's role is to be the primary caretaker. This "everything is sexist" attitude is generally mocked, as I've seen, because what value is there in the term "sexist" when everything, including everything's converse, is sexist?

Finally, there is what could generally be called "radical feminism". There is some overlap between this and the "everything is sexist" attitude, but more generally, this is the category that argues for female superiority in the eyes of the law or the eyes of society. For instance, the idea that accusations of rape should be treated as "guilty until proven innocent", or claims that penis-in-vagina intercourse is always non-consensual against the woman. Despite it's status as a popular "boogey-man" on the Internet, this sort of feminism doesn't actually hold much sway, and generally those sorts of radical feminists only manage to thrive so long as the majority of people don't actually recognize what views they hold (as said views are extremely unpopular).

So, with all that in mind, what do I think of feminism?

I think the most common varieties of feminism are fine. The kinds which look at serious issues, which address actual inequalities, and so on, are beneficial. I think it is okay for people to identify as feminists, and it is possible to identify both as a feminist, and as an egalitarian in general.

I think the extreme varieties don't actually hold all that much sway in reality. I think people put too much stock in them, and that causes them to demonize the label "feminist", when in reality they might generally agree with those people when it came down to an actual discussion to try to understand each others' points of view.

Feminism is advocacy of women's rights, however, and egalitarianism is advocacy of complete equal rights around the board, from women to asians to bisexuals, everyone really.

Lucred said:
The orginal textbook definition of feminism was equal treatment of men and women. TREATMENT, not end results. I'm for that, because it's fair.

The modern social definition of feminism is to prop women up artificially to where they could not possibly fail to have a cushy, successful life regardless of how little effort they put into anything while simultaneously blaming anything and everyone (but women) for any resulting failures or poor performance while simultaneously actively and maliciously attacking anyone who isn't a woman. Obviously, I'm against that.

Actually the definition was never for equal treatment, only equal rights for women.

Also, I'm glad that we can all have a reasonable discussion, guys. The internet's been gettin' funky on meh with arguements and I needed a good debate. Continue.

I believe that the general message of feminism is admirable and that it's a worthy pursuit, but the feminism movement has been inextricably hijacked by people who are, well, not smart enough or far too emotional to conduct level-headed and open-minded discussions on the matter. Those are the kinds of serious discussions one must have with a person in power who's willing to listen in order to effect change. It's a travesty of good intentions that the message of feminism gets so rampantly misappropriated as fuel for small, petty, and irrelevant arguments. It's like playing with fire, except the burns aren't usually tangible.

Feminism is no longer needed in the western world. It is however needed in the middle east.

I support equal female rights. I do not support 'femnazis'.

I support social justice. I do not support SJWs or the mindset of Tumblr's culture.

Chaser said:
Generally I believe the original Feminism was good as it tried to get equality for women, but modern day/first world feminism is ran and controlled by tumblrinas who think that man looking at them is a rapist.
Feminism is still needed in some countries but not in first world countries. While there is not true equality for Females, there isn't true quality for males either.

I still don't understand why it is called first/second/third world when all said worlds are on one world known as earth.

What is life

What is love?

Procione said:
What is love?

Baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more.

Sharp_Coyote said:
Baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more.

that reminds me... i haven't watched this in quite some time.

Robinebra said:
Feminism is no longer needed in the western world. It is however needed in the middle east.

Statistics on rapes
intimate partner violence
the wage gap
absence in any power structures (government, Cooperate boards)

..all seem to disagree with you.

Chaser said:
I still don't understand why it is called first/second/third world

Because money

CuteCoughDeath said:
Statistics on rapes
intimate partner violence
the wage gap
absence in any power structures (government, Cooperate boards)

..all seem to disagree with you.

I completely agree with this. Feminism still has a purpose.
But I also disagree with the constant ridicule that MRAs face...

I don't support any movement or -ism dividing humans in more groups than one. Hence I will never believe in feminism. Much of this is because these movements seem to either stray from their admirable goals in some way or be abused by people in exchange for power where it is not deserved. I do however believe in egalitarianism. A bit contradicting, I know, but that's my stance.

Fenrick said:
I completely agree with this. Feminism still has a purpose.
But I also disagree with the constant ridicule that MRAs face...

why do you disagree with it

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
why do you disagree with it

Because there is discrimination against men. Sure, it's usually not as much as women face, but there is still plenty.

Big issues in the US:
Men almost never get custody of their children after divorce, regardless of their ability to take care of the child.
Male rape victims often still have to pay child support, sometimes even if they were raped as minors and or if they had no idea the child existed for years.
Men are almost never defended against domestic abuse, especially by women, whether she is a parent or spouse.
Women usually face lower penalties for committing the same crimes.
And don't even think about locking up a woman for raping a man.
Then there's conscription.

The list of injustices women face is far longer, but it does tend to get more attention, at least in my experience.

Though some of these are caused by male pride. Admitting to being raped or abused (by a man or a woman), even as a boy, leads to ridicule.

Fenrick said:
Because there is discrimination against men. Sure, it's usually not as much as women face, but there is still plenty.

Big issues in the US:
Men almost never get custody of their children after divorce, regardless of their ability to take care of the child.
Male rape victims often still have to pay child support, sometimes even if they were raped as minors and or if they had no idea the child existed for years.
Men are almost never defended against domestic abuse, especially by women, whether she is a parent or spouse.
Women usually face lower penalties for committing the same crimes.
And don't even think about locking up a woman for raping a man.
Then there's conscription.

The list of injustices women face is far longer, but it does tend to get more attention, at least in my experience.

Though some of these are caused by male pride. Admitting to being raped or abused (by a man or a woman), even as a boy, leads to ridicule.

the men's issues are covered by feminism. those issues you listed are caused by patriarchy and feminism is a lot about dealing with the issues caused by patriarchy.

also what i have gathered, MRAs often seem to spend more time trying to put down women and destroy feminism than actually trying to deal with the actual men's right issues.

Mutisija said:
the men's issues are covered by feminism. those issues you listed are caused by patriarchy and feminism is a lot about dealing with the issues caused by patriarchy.

also what i have gathered, MRAs often seem to spend more time trying to put down women and destroy feminism than actually trying to deal with the actual men's right issues.

plus they're fat and gross and obsessed with fedoras for some fucking reason