>
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.
>"Interesting, you NEVER criticize the huge number of women who consider men merely to be violent rapists or ATMs for alimony."To add on to that, men are GENERALLY deemed guilty until proven innocent of such things.But of course, that’s all fine and dandy. That's not sexism. That's not misandry. That's the typical political correct notion.It's only sexism when women are painted to the same severity when it comes to gender.Women the second class citizens? huh give me a break.If any group such as blacks were painted as someone guilty until proven innocent, it would be classified as a form of hatred. The only time it's not classed as such a form is when men as a gender are targeted as such.That's the very definition of second class citizenship. Men as a gender are the lease favoured when it comes to political correctness.
>and another Catch-22.feminists don't let men be SAHD's because they don't care about men; except when they do, and then they're clearly forcing them to do it, because they don't care about men.Amazing, how feminists are against men both when they are for and when they're against paternal leave.
>"magdelyn said… You may quote the whole paragraph yourself, sweet cheeks."So the point of that paragraph was that women participate in the labor force at very high numbers while also shouldering the majority of the child care and that feminists would like to see more men take on some of that burden. That has nothing to do with your contentions about feminists seeking to limit male advantage, which is based on your *beliefs* about feminism and not on feminist thought.
>"and another Catch-22.feminists don't let men be SAHD's because they don't care about men; except when they do, and then they're clearly forcing them to do it, because they don't care about men.Amazing, how feminists are against men both when they are for and when they're against paternal leave."Hahaha exactly. Logic, can u haz it?
>You could show them ample amounts of proof or evidence, it will never be enough or good enough. But have a man provide, in an opinion piece, evidence based only on partial findings, and call it conclusive proof of something, and you'll have the bobbleheads come out in full force, "Yep, yep, just as we thought!!" No further evidence required.See On Herpes and Hypergamy
>Amazing, how feminists are against men both when they are for and when they're against paternal leave."Hahaha exactly. Logic, can u haz it? The feminist logic conclusion is very simple: Feminists do not need men, but sperm-donors.My conclusion is also simple: The best is to have nothing to do with a feminist.No marriage, no children, no paternity leave,And of course, no alimony and no child-support.Problem solved.Do you agree?
>Yohan, what you just said does not make any sense unless you see the world as "us" versus "them." Of course any one woman who does not want to get married or have children should not, and any one man who does not want to get married or have children should not. That has nothing to do with the discussion.
>I agree that Yohan should have nothing to do with feminists. In general, I think people who hate feminists, who attribute made-up conspiracy theories to them, and who think they're vindictive, psychotic bitches out to destroy mankind—I think that those people would be well advised not to marry and have children with feminists.You know what my biggest beef with feminists is? That they didn't send me the memo saying that we're done with men and are relying on sperm donors now. Very inconsiderate.
>"Yohan, what you just said does not make any sense unless you see the world as "us" versus "them." Ummm isn't that what feminism is all about? It's about women versus men? It's about trying to stop evil men from being privileged?Do feminists only have a licence to have the us versus them mentality?
>"Forced Paternity Leave in Sweden"Um, speaking as an Englishman living in Sweden I can attest it is not forced. And yes, different couples split their joint maternity leave in different ways. I've had two colleagues recently take long leaves of absence up to eight months. I wish I'd had that for the birth of my son in the UK. But not all take the benefit, nor are they forced to. Another colleague took a mere week's leave after the birth of his kid.Drifting into anecdata for a moment, one of the other interesting things I have noticed it the very large number of men on childcare duty here in Sweden. Certainly far greater than I experienced in the UK. The number of men attending the open preschools with their kids is encouragingly high.
>Sandy said… Yohan, what you just said does not make any sense unless you see the world as "us" versus "them." …..and any one man who does not want to get married or have children should not… You misunderstand my statement.MRAs are teaching men to look one step forward.It's about divorce. For a Western woman, it does not matter, if the marriage is long or short, as she is almost always the winner, under any circumstances.For a man, there is nothing to gain in case of marriage and in case of divorce, he is almost always on the loser-side.It's not about marriage, it's about future divorce. You have to consider that as a man and especially as a father.
>Yohan, feminists don't give a flying fuck about male problems. What you are saying will just go in one ear and out the other. You will get nothing but a blank stare.It's misogyny to even express female privilege. It should all get pulled under the rug and never allowed to be exposed.
>Ummm isn't that what feminism is all about? It's about women versus men?No, that's the MRA version of what feminism is all about. Blackwell described the MRA version of what feminism is all about quite succinctly within the comments section here:"Since I started reading this blog a few weeks ago, I've come to the realisation that MRAs hate feminism because they think it's a female version of their own ideology. Because these men promote male superiority (not equality), have contempt for the opposite sex, and want to restore all laws to privilege themselves, they believe that's what feminists are after for women. They literally don't understand how a women's movement can have anything other than control of men as an ultimate goal, because they've molded a men's group with the exact opposite goal. Every time I read bizarre claims about feminists considering women superior and wanting to dominate the world, I have to forcibly remind myself that they're approaching feminism as a parallel ideology to their own brand of sexist bigotry."
>"The feminist logic conclusion is very simple: Feminists do not need men, but sperm-donors."indeed, we don't "need" men. but we like them, because despite the rather bad sample presented here, most men are nice and fascinating and caring people worth spending time with and caring for.and if you don't like marriage, then you have something in common with many feminists, as many feminists are against marriage, as well.
>Jadehawk"because despite the rather bad sample presented here"Translation: The feminist definition of a bad sample of men is a man with a spine who won't be a pawn to feminism. We are expected to agree with anything feminists say or else we are bad.“most men are nice and fascinating and caring people worth spending time with and caring for.”Ha! Unlike feminists who appear far from being nice or caring as they will likely put male issues to the back seat while prioritising any female issue. The men who you are complaining about is a reflection in the mirror of yourself and the majority of the obsessed feminists.
>John…you will not make headway disputing Jadehawk's contention that a boy name on a piece of work gets the work a higher evaluation than a girl name. This is established social science, consistently supported over time and demographics by methodologically sound studies. Complaining that you are unable to access the studies is…well…a trifle chickenshit.(Jadehawk-a "Fuckton?")John, there is an ORGY of research. Do some.
>yes, a fuckton. a metric fuckton even. it's a perfectly cromulent unit of measurement 😉
>" John…you will not make headway disputing Jadehawk's contention that a boy name on a piece of work gets the work a higher evaluation than a girl name"Wow that's funny, considering that more women are getting passed to go into uni than men these days.
>Uh Nick…what part of "over time" are you missing?Jadehawk….Cromulent? You are bone evil. 😎
>nick, once again you are confusing some factoid you've simply made up with the truth.Far more women than men apply to college, and in order to keep the ratio of men and women students closer to even, many college actually give male applicants a leg up in the admissions process:"In recent years, several college leaders have admitted that their institutions give a boost to male applicants to maintain gender balance on campus"http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/gender-gap-college-admissions
>Nick is so funny, he just keeps blasting an ideology that exists in his imagination as though he's really *getting* us by brutally ripping apart something none of us believe.
>"The totally irony to your post is that feminism is ALL ABOUT!…YES…ALL ABOUT men are evil."No, not at all.Certainly, there is within feminism discussion about the evils that some men do. There's certainly a conversation of how male privilege oppresses women. But you will find few feminists who paint men as inherently evil. There may be odd individuals somewhere out on the crazy fringes, but so far as I can see there are none in the mainstream. You will find many more feminists who will view this train of thought as unhelpful and counterproductive.Your view of feminism is of a phantom movement that simply does not exist except in your own imagination and fears. What a pity that you cannot see this and actually engage with real feminists.
>Ummm isn't that what feminism is all about? It's about women versus men?It's hard to better what Pam writes. But no. The adversarial relationship exists only in your mind. Though it might seem that way because acceptance of feminism might require you to give up some of that precious privilege you enjoy.
>Percyprune: ….. acceptance of feminism might require you to give up some of that precious privilege you enjoySo far no feminist could explain me what privileges these might be for the average male.Jadehawk: most men are nice and fascinating and caring people worth spending time with and caring for Yes, because marriage and divorce are almost always a lucrative business for the woman, hardly for the man.See report below:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/camille-grammer-demands-5_n_802896.html Camille Grammer cried over her first post-divorce Christmas without Kelsey, but she may have reason to smile once the divorce settlement comes through. According to the New York Post, Camille balked at Kelsey's initial offer of $30 million and expects a much larger sum. He wasn't offering child support or alimony, …… He wants to give me only 30 million dollar, and no child support and no alimony, waaahhh…..waaaaaahhhhh….
>Yes, and "privilege" is all about something that is bestowed upon people by a system of social relationships, not about something any one individual knowingly takes from another. The idea that discussing this cultural relationship means anyone is talking about how one group within it is *evil* is just ludicrous.