>
I just noticed that someone posted a link to this blog on the Men’s Rights subreddit under the title “Male extremist feminists can be even more deluded than female ones…” I would happily respond to this bit of idiocy in the Men’s Rights subreddit itself, but, alas, the moderator there has banned me because I have the subreddit listed in my “Enemies List.” The ban seems a bit silly. I discuss things with people in my “Enemies List” all the time, and they’re free to post here the same as anyone else.
But I have a question for you Men’s Rights Redditors. Since I can’t ask it there, I’ll ask it here, and you can respond here: What have I ever said on this blog (or elsewhere) that is in any way an example of feminist “extremism?” I challenge you to find a single “extremist” statement here, or a single example of misandry. (Note: Saying “oh, the whole blog is extremist” or “it’s obvious you’re an extremist” something along those lines is not an answer; it’s a way of begging the question.)
If I really am some sort of extremist, it should be quite easy to find specific examples of this extremism.
>Jadeand as I've already said, this not being math, we don't deal with "proof", we deal with evidence. proofs only exist in matSo where's the evidence? Besides the small number of men who have lots of power over most of the population in societies like America, how do most men have more power than most women in societies like America?Wow total pariwachy, I see it everywhere, man
>nicko, you have some severe memory issues. the links are a response to your first post, not your second one, which wasn't even up at the time I posted.
>"Besides the small number of men who have lots of power over most of the population in societies like America, how do most men have more power than most women in societies like America?"because they're given more respect, and because they're more likely to be hired and promoted because they're perceived as more competent even if they are not. read the goddamn links.
>I come from Queensland Australia. The Prim minister is a woman. The premier of Queensland is a woman. So two of the most powerful people who run the society I live in are women. Does that mean I can start crying out "matriarchy" and oppression against men?That's about as pathetic as the feminist argument is on patriarchy. It's such a fucking laughable joke. It makes feminists look like morons.
>this is actually an awesome new Catch-22, I haven't encountered before. I started collecting these scientific articles because d00dz were refusing to listen to well-argued essays because "they're just opinion"; now that I give them the science instead of "just my opinion", they whine that I'm not writing them an essay.
>" because they're given more respect, and because they're more likely to be hired and promoted because they're perceived as more competent even if they are not. read the goddamn links."Please provide the evidence by pointing out which parts in the links hold SOLID PROOF that this exists?
>lol, I guess that means there's no more racism in America either.
>"Please provide the evidence by pointing out which parts in the links hold SOLID PROOF that this exists?"for the las time: science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence. the links are the write-ups of that evidence. all of them, in their entirety. that's what scientific papers are.
>"for the las time: science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence"So show me the evidence?Tell me in what exact parts in the links provide *cough* evidence *cough*
>Oh, Yohan, you lovable goof. I'm not "running out of arguments against Western men." I haven't made any arguments against Western men to begin with. I am a Western man. I DO criticize the tiny minority of Western men who have decided that all Western women are evil dirty whores.
>Wait you need solid proof that male privilege exists in order to understand that the world, while vastly changed in the past century, still remains a place full of systems built, over history, to privilege certain voices and experiences over others? It takes more than a few decades to bring an unequal world into parity for all, nicko, and this is true for all inequities. Just because there are more women in the workplace and in positions of power doesn't mean that human society is just hunky dory and all people are equal. And since you mixed me up with Jadehawk: I posted links about where people are coming from with "what about teh menz" and how it in no way means that feminists have no sympathy or time for men's issues; in reality, I, as a feminist, believe that *gender equality* is an important goal, and that means for men too. When feminists use that term its in regard to someone making a comparison between womens unique experiences and mens unique experiences as though there cannot be spaces in which womens experiences, which are often quite different from those of men because of societal structures, cannot be discussed without some unhelpful comparison being drawn.Do you think some mens issues should be discussed without corollary womens experiences *always* being brought into the discussion or the issue whether it truly fits or not? Yes? Same thing.
>Correction: as though there cannot be spaces in which womens experiences, which are often quite different from those of men because of societal structures, CAN be discussed without some unhelpful comparison being drawn.
>"I DO criticize the tiny minority of Western men who have decided that all Western women are evil dirty whores." But you fail to criticise the feminist movement who constantly make up false stats about how evil men are. Do you truly think there would be as much illogical paranoia towards men today if feminism didn't go overboard?The totally irony to your post is that feminism is ALL ABOUT!…YES…ALL ABOUT men are evil.It never ceases to amaze me that feminists these days are 100 percent shameless hypocrites.
>I had no idea I thought men were evil. I thought men were people, just like women.
>"I had no idea I thought men were evil. I thought men were people, just like women."ditto. i shall have to inform half my friends and my boyfriend that I think they're evil and that I really hate their guts. Man, such a bummer.
>M"Do you think some men’s issues should be discussed without corollary women’s experiences *always* being brought into the discussion or the issue whether it truly fits or not? Yes? Same thing."You see this is the funny thing that I have acknowledged for years.Let's say a topic on female domestic violence comes up. If a person comes into the topic in the sense "what about male victims?"…that person is likely going to get put in the back seat or even belittled.On the other hand, if a topic started on male domestic violence victims that have nothing to do with female domestic violence victims and a person jumps in with "what about female victims"…people belittling that person or shifting that person to the back seat would be considered as misogyny.I find it funny how feminists still claim to be oppressed when political correctness favours women
>"Political correctness" is not a complex of centuries-old social relationships, practices, structures and beliefs that shapes the world we live in today. It's a belief that dehumanizing language aids the dehumanization of people. You can argue whether or not you think it's true but it is most definitely not a social force on par with things like racism, homophobia, or sexism. Honestly, if men are having an open discussion of domestic violence as it pertains specifically to the ways men experience domestic violence *as men* in a society that diminishes the voices of male victims and a woman showed up demanding that the conversation also include the specific ways women experience domestic violence, I would not consider that *misogynistic* at all, at least as a hypothetical description of such a discussion. It would be disruptive, because it would be *off topic*.
>Pardon, I would not consider men asking her to not derail the discussion misogynistic at all, given the hypothetical situation at least.
>Parental leave is important to feminists, not because they give a rats ass about men, but because they want to limit the advantage men have when they work more hours, gain more experience, and are more dependable over the long haul because of fewer absences. In other words, feminists want men on parental leave to mitigate the advantage in a work environment men gain by being forced to work more. It is analagous to feminist opposition to single sex education. It's not that feminists believe that boys are better educated in co-ed environments, but they want to ensure that boys don't get a leg up. They are afraid that teaching to boys will take the edge of female advantage in education.
>Magdelyn, paternal leave is actually important to me because I think the each individual regardless of gender should be able to choose to be the primary caregiver of a child or should be able to take time off at the beginning of the child's life however he or she sees fit. You are welcome to put words in the mouths of feminists all you want but that does not make those words the actual beliefs of feminists.
>"I hate to tell you, but you guys are not a terribly desirable demographic."Oh, come now Dave, no publicity is bad publicity. Jezebel is doing great things for Roosh.
> David Futrelle said… … I DO criticize the tiny minority of Western men who have decided that all Western women are evil dirty whores. I wonder what makes Western men thinking like that – considering all Western women as whores etc… out of what reason?And this is not such a 'tiny minority' as you call them.Interesting, you NEVER criticize the huge number of women who consider men merely to be violent rapists or ATMs for alimony.
>Forced Paternity Leave in Sweden:"…Yet many Swedish fathers are reluctant to use their “papa months”. Mothers take as much as 85% of all parental leave. This frustrates feminists, who believe that shared responsibility for child care is a key to equality in the labour market…"http://www.economist.com/node/2335623?story_id=2335623
>Forced? Really? Reading comprehension! Also, you might want to quote that whole paragraph unless you're just trying to twist the issue. Just a thought.
>You may quote the whole paragraph yourself, sweet cheeks.