>
 |
| Evil feminists oppressing a fake waterfall |
Follow this simple four-step plan!
1) Find a story in The Daily Mail, that bastion of journalistic excellence, about a dumb, irritating woman saying or doing something dumb and/or irritating.
Oh, here’s one, with the promising title “Why I’d rather my daughter marry a rich man than have a brilliant career.”
Representative dumb and irritating quote:
Younger women have realised that instead of spending the day listening to some bore drone on about sales figures, it might be more fun to go swimming with the children while the cleaner sorts out the house.
2) Decide that this dumb, irritating woman is somehow a “feminist,” even though she actually mocks feminists at one point and, oh yeah, her whole life plan for her daughter is pretty much the exact polar opposite of feminism.
3) Post the article to Men’s Rights on Reddit under the title “Marry a rich man: The new wave of feminism.”
4) Collect upvotes.
>Why are people so stupid? Why? Basic reasoning, please. (Or, he could, you know, read the whole friggin' article!)
>The word feminist has got to be one of the most bastardized, completely misused words in modern culture. Women behaving badly? A woman who "done you wrong" in a marriage or relationship, or even a woman who rejects your advances because she's so hypergamous and wants those bad alpha boys instead of a nice guy like you? Or just a woman you don't agree with or don't like? She's a feminist! – the perfect all purpose slur word for females. It's a word no longer in my vocabulary and I don't apply it to myself because it has become meaningless.
>Important technical nitpick for the article: They're called upboats.BTW Katz, I don't know where you stand on gender equality, but if that's something you care about, why hold on to a decidedly biased phrase like "feminism" to describe gender equality in the first place? Why not identify with something gender neutral like egalitarianism? Feminist is not less bastardized, however, than misogynist is. Probably mirror terms when it comes to bastardization.
>Egalitarianism? Fine by me. I also like "humanist."
>As Dr Deezee was saying; if feminism was truly about gender equality and not only a centred view on women, why not call themselves humanists?Obviously, feminism places women above men. It's basically meaning that women are more important than men and women are better than men.Take domestic violence shelters for an example. Or if a man starts talking about male issues, a very common feminist response from the movement is the sarcastic phrase "what about teh menz"No wonder why so many men have a problem with this movement these days.
>From the way most people act within the feminist movement, I think a better name rather than feminism would be gynocentrism
>'Feminist' is a swear word. For good reason…and yes, women marry (and divorce) for money.You didn't know that David?Interesting to notice that David is now using British sources… DailyMail…
>"or even a woman who rejects your advances because she's so hypergamous and wants those bad alpha boys instead of a nice guy like you?"And that's hypergamous as defined by the MRM, MRAs, Game and PUA Communities, it's not what hypergamous actually means. But let's not let true definitions stand in their way of defining reality.
>"Interesting to notice that David is now using British sources"Whoooosh Either you didn't read the post or you are even dumber than I ever imagined you possibly could be.
>@Lexie – those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You're the one whose ideology has crowded out your basic arithmetic abilities.
>Particularly galling as the Daily Mail is as anti-feminist a mainstream newspaper as possible. English newspapers are extraordinarily ideological and tailored to specific audiences (i.e. the Guardian is left-learning, the Telegraph is Tory), and the Mail is the bastion of middle class bigotry. Just a quick search of Mail stories on feminism (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=feminism)reveals that the movement has 'made women more unhappy', 'destroyed real men', 'could be bad for your health', 'will destroy the family', 'turned men into second-class citizens', and most alarmingly, 'killed the art of home cooking'. Thus this paper is possibly the MRM's best friend, and if one can label its products 'feminist', by the same logic one might label any post from the MRM feminist. As in: "Massacring feminists and their sugar-daddy-enablers: The new wave of feminism". What nonsense.
>That's funny Blackwell. So, by their logic, if a man hires a handyman, he's ruining the 'Art of home gutter cleaning' or the 'Art of home roof repair'. Classic.
>Blackwell said… Particularly galling as the Daily Mail is as anti-feminist a mainstream newspaper as possible. …..Thus this paper is possibly the MRM's best friend… It seems you have problems with DailyMailUK and likely with some other newspapers because they are not afraid to report certain crimes and other 'unpopular' news, which are not politically correct as they are critical of feminism.DailyMailUK is not reporting 'false rape allegations' out of the fantasy of their journalists – these crimes do exist.But feminists do not want us to know… We all know feminists are into censorship of press and internet.Sorry for you, but DailyMailUK exists and the MRAs also do exist. Feminism cannot escape critics.
>IR:Don't worry, IR, I understand that you're jealous and intimidated by my intelligence.
>Yohan:Really? "We ALL know feminists are into censorship"?Someone forgot to tell me.P.S.- I'm a feminist.
>Really? "We ALL know feminists are into censorship"?Someone forgot to tell me.Let's see, rabid political correctness filters on whatever is said by the media, the president of Harvard being fired not for job performance but for questioning feminist ideology, the anti-pornography feminists trying to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, the feminists trying to impose lower BMI limits on fashion models, feminists effectively blacklisting anyone in academia who opposes feminist ideology, and one researcher's claim that she received death and bomb threats after claiming women and men committed domestic violence equally – that's to name a few off the top of my head. That seems like censorship directly or by intimidation.
>"Whoa, manboobz, why you wasting your time posting this junk, when you could legitimately be talking about the fact that Julian Assange's rape accuser's contact information is now making its way around the web?"I know. It's appalling. I don't know what more to say.
>(Note: My previous comment was a reply to a comment by magdelyn — the quote is her whole comment. I deleted her actual comment because it had a link to the contact info and I don't want that on this blog.)
>@Yohan, it isn't 'censorship' to criticize a newpaper's content. "Feminism cannot escape critics. " So, when Blackwell criticizes something, it is a sign that all feminists promote censorship, but when you criticize,your right to do so is beyond repute? Two words you might want to learn the meaning of, Yohan, 'censor' and 'irony'.
>Yohan,Not to be a pedant about it, but it seems to me that when responding to someone's specific post, you probably shouldn't put quotation marks around anything that isn't a direct quote from the post in question. At best, it's a little confusing and at worst it robs you of credibility. Just a thought.
>Yohan,To give you the benefit of the doubt, I think you misunderstood the sources of my complaint. In David's original post, he discussed how a member of the MRM labeled an article from the Daily Mail as an expression of the feminist movement and used it to criticise feminism. As I pointed out, the Daily Mail is not a feminist newspaper, but has decidedly anti-feminist overtones, and thus it's absurd to label its products as feminist. It would be akin to taking a story from America's very right-wing Fox News, and then erroneously describing it as socialist in order to criticise the left-wing perspective. Can't you see that it fundamentally misrepresents the nature of the beast?The Daily Mail is a very popular newspaper with one of the largest circulations in the UK–no one has censored its commentary, and I certainly don't advocate doing so. I happen not to like the paper because I think it's disingenuous, but that's something else entirely. Moreover, I didn't say a word about censoring stories about false rape allegations in my post, so I have no idea why you're assigning opinions about them to me. As it happens, I think false allegations are a serious issue, and should be reported upon in the press. No arguments there.
>IR:First of all, threats are never okay, but you can't judge a whole group on what a few have done wrong (if those threats were actually issued by feminists in the first place).On to other stuff!Lots of what you say are the opposite of what feminists (at least the ones I know, myself included) stand for.See, I'm a feminist, but I'm also a fat acceptance activist. So, lowering BMI limits is, really, not what is wanted. Unless you mean wanting more size, diversity in fashion. Then you'd be correct. That doesn't mean, however, that we want thin women out of the scene. It's about diversity, not pushing one down to glorify another.Another huge part of feminism is allowing women to do what they want, dress how they want to dress and act the way they want to act. In fact, many feminist hate "slut shaming" and women having sex when they want to, in porn or on their own is just fine. We just want people to be aware of objectification, and remember to be themselves, not what people think they should be.If you mean feminists or just women in general questioning what someone said is "backlash" then, you're kind of biased. (I'm sure you are, actually.) Questioning someone's words, and offering counterpoint isn't "backlash" it's being an intelligent human being.
>At David: I have no problem with the delete.
>Lexie,I'd pose to you the same question I posed to Katz. If your end goal was truly gender equality, why do you insist upon a gender-biased label like "feminist?"
>Blackwell — your post from this morning responding to Yohan on the Daily Mail was caught in the spam folder, and it's up now.