>
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.
>Also, like others have said here, I consider myself first and foremost an "anti-oppressionist." Regardless of what one labels it, the end goals are the same and if you genuinely think privilege is some fantasy that gay rights activists and people or color and feminists are engaging in, I really can't help you. Privilege exists. Thousands of years of human socioeconomic structures don't just change into equality in a generation. There is much work to do on all fronts, and the very real fact that women as a class are situated as "less than" — and things like chivalric "save the women first!" are based in the idea that women are "less than" and must be coddled and "saved" are not "female privilege," they are sexist — must be ended, in concert with ending other forms of "less than" and "other" in this and other societies.
>So what M is saying is that because men are the ones we always force to be turned into Swiss cheese on the battlefields, women are seen as "less" than men.In other news, the Nazis saw Gentiles, straights, and sycophants as "less than" Jews, gays, and dissenters. This is because they coddled and "saved" the former from the death camps and oppression.
>I think it's possible that men like nitwit construe their privilege as a burden.
>IR if you want to come back with something logical I'll engage you. Godwinning the discussion all to hell isn't helpful.The history of warfare is not a history of women as a powerful class forcing men to go out and fight while they stayed home being lazy. Until very recently in the West, women were akin to property. They were hardly the class of people pulling the strings that govern warfare.If you are not aware of the intersecting privileges that govern social relations, you are not paying attention. Nothing is so simple as "men have all the power" vs. "women have all the power", and if you took some time to understand the idea of privilege and intersectionality you might actually learn something about feminists not being your enemies. At the very least you'd stop mounting arguments that make you look ignorant.
>I love how M explains how she's not my enemy, and in the next sentence calls me ignorant.Feminists are such charming, pleasant people – it's a true wonder they come off as spiteful, angry, unlovable harpies who have to maliciously fabricate lies to paint themselves as even remotely attractive.She also thinks that comparing the power structures that force men to fight and die to the similar power structures of Nazism somehow equate to Godwin's law, which is defined as comparing your opponents to Nazis. I wonder how she could have confused feminism with the established power structures? Is it because feminism is taught all the way from kindergarten to graduate school level courses? Is it because the differences between male and female accomplishment are written off as one global multi-millennial conspiracy? Once again, this is a mystery.I also love how our feminist thinks everything, no matter how clearly disenfranchising it is, translates into a colossal "fuck you" to the female sex alone. 9 in 10 inmates are male? Those privileged inmates don't appreciate the power they have to squat behind bars."Women were akin to property." Yeah, feminists are notorious liars, so I'll take anything that drips out out of that gutter-pipe any lying feminist calls a mouth with a grain of salt. After all, with feminism, the ends – no matter how trivial or imaginary – always justify the means.
>Blackwell said… Yohan….As to the idea that there are no organisations that help poor men, I think you'll find that organisations that help the poor don't discriminate: the YMCA, Goodwill, the Salvation Army, Oxfam, and the Red Cross, to name a few. The RED CROSS discriminates in case of any emergency, read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/31/food-distribution-in-hait_n_443619.html According to CNN … Women were the only people allowed to receive a bag… From CNN:….But things didn't sit well with some men."What about me? I didn't get anything. I need food," said Johnny Sanon Stevenson. "Many people could not participate."What you say about the RED CROSS is simply said not true.
>M said… So feminism as a term is in itself sexist? What? A human rights movement seeking to create a more equal world The word "feminism" does not make the movement itself sexist. Something like VAWA? Because that's just a name for a law that is gender neutral. The word 'feminism' is clearly sexist.Feminism favors certain groups of women over men (regardless of age), of any race and even over other women. Not every woman benefits out of feminism for sure.An organization like UNIFEM (related to United Nations) is not gender-neutral, its for women only. Just one example.About VAWA, the name of this law is sexist and the law execution of it is also sexist, if you do not like to hear that, change the name of this law.
>M said… You guys are absolutely not understanding what privilege is …Feminism does not focus on the upper class …Privilege is an idea that does not just exist in feminism. It is the idea that various classes of people have advantages within a system of social relationships. I gave you a clear list of my disadvantages and asked you to explain MY privileges and I see you cannot.Of course feminism focus on the upper class, to get more influence, like quota for CEO.But where are the quotas for 'ordinary jobs'?And yes, privileges exist not only in feminism.For example to be a rich man means enjoying advantages compared to a poor man, like to be able to buy better food, live in better housing, have better medical care, and to be rich and male means to have always a young woman next to you regardless your looks, age and even criminal records.Nobody will doubt, that to be rich is better than to be poor. This privilege can be seen easily by everybody.The problem with feminism is that it claims ALL males have privileges solely because of their gender. Feminism in this sense is nothing but gender discrimination for itself.Well, I cannot say, that I see any advantage at all for me solely because I am a male.Longer working hours is not a privilege, forced military services is not a privilege, late retirement is not a privilege, less medical care by specialists is not a privilege…—–A good question is now what can you do AS A MAN against being FORCED TO RECEIVE such 'privileges' you don't need and you do not want to receive? Are privileges for men the same as discriminating restrictions?The men's rights movement is offering an answer to these questions and offers various solutions. Of course feminist do not want to hear that…
>witman:i am not belittled and harassed on a daily basis. maybe you live in a place where you do experience this; if so, i feel for you. if you are a white man living in the us, i must say…ur doin it rong
>Raul Groom said… witman:i am not belittled and harassed on a daily basis. maybe you live in a place where you do experience this; if so, i feel for you. if you are a white man living in the us, i must say… Well, some people are lucky and some are not.So you belong to the lucky ones. Good for you.Something what you have to learn and it seems you do not understand:Not all white men are in the same lucky position as you are. If you are living in 2010 and you're a white man (as I am) and you can't see that you are one of the most privileged people in the history of planet earth … What a BS-talk is this? What has this all to do with your color of your face? White or whatever…I belong to these white men, who were not lucky. Born in deep poverty after WWII on the loser side near the former iron curtain area, the former communist borderline.And yes, I was belittled and harassed on a daily basis by feminist women and their manginas. And I never noticed any 'privilege' for me. And when I was packing my bag and left, I was the asshole and the loser. Now I am living among non-white people since 35 years. I will never go back to my 'equals'.MRAs in Western countries have my full support.
>Raul,So if I am belittled and harassed, I am doing it wrong but if it happens to a woman it is a case of systemic discrimination? I see! You have opened my eyes! I am have the privilege of being responsible for what happens to me but if it happens to M, it is a clear cut case of her being an unprivileged woman. I do believe you are either a liar or are deluding yourself if you think society doesn't expect you to act a certain way simply because you are a man.Feminism is a movement to advance the interests of women. Any ideology that takes gender into account is clear cut sexist and just because you can cover your ears and yell LALALALALALA does not make it a humanist movement.
>Sorry about the bad grammar, I should have proof read that.
>"I do believe you are either a liar or are deluding yourself if you think society doesn't expect you to act a certain way simply because you are a man."As it happens, this weekend I am going to interview a fight trainer who once trained Muhammad Ali. One of my favorite Ali quotes applies here, quite perfectly""I don't have to be what you want me to be. I'm free to be what I want to be."You assume I believe a lot of things that I don't believe. What I'm trying to do is open your eyes to the fact that your happiness is your own responsibility. That's true of women, men, black people, white people, everyone.But if you're a member of an entrenched overclass, and you think society is holding you back… you are in need of a new outlook. What you don't need is to surround yourself with an echo chamber of others who think as you do – it will only help you to continue in misery.
>Raul Groom: What I'm trying to do is open your eyes to the fact that your happiness is your own responsibility. "I don't have to be what you want me to be. I'm free to be what I want to be."This statement is only true in case of very rich men, but otherwise?It still makes sense for a single totally independent thinking young man who never had any private relationship with a woman.But believe me, such young men are really rare due to a brainwashing feminist education system.Your statement is for sure not true with a man, who is already trapped in poverty over decades, due to divorce and follow-up alimony and child-support to his ex-wife.If he cannot pay out of what reason, he will be moved to a jail. He is not free to be what he wants to be. That's for sure.Your statement is worthless for old men, sick men, jobless men, men in military etc. etc.Unfortunately most men are not rich and therefore are NOT free to be what they want to be.
>Yohan:You have a lot of excuses for your unhappiness. I'm not trying to convince you they aren't valid. Indeed, I don't see the point of trying to convince you of anything.As for young men who might think of emulating your outlook: note that what you are emulating is the approach of someone who suffers from crippling unhappiness, and believes that the path to happiness is closed to him. Perhaps choose someone else to be like.
>@Raul GroomI am not unhappy now, why should I? What a nonsense talk from you. – I merely told you that your statementI don't have to be what you want me to be. I'm free to be what I want to be is only possible for men, if they have the financial resources to go ahead with it.Most men however, worldwide, do NOT have enough money to do so.Hope this is now clear to you.
>That statement is not mine, but the statement of a child born to a middle class black family in Louisville, Kentucky during segregation.
>Haha, Raul prances from saying that he's only what he wants to be to very clearly labeling Yohan as "miserable".Only a feminist could be so stupid. Don't bother with the long-winded rationalizations about how calling someone "miserable" is right but drawing inferences on someone's views from their statements is wrong. I know, I know, feminism is never wrong, all hail feminism, etc etc etc. There, I did it for you, now you can get back to taking strolls in drag, or whatever it is you self-loathing male feminists do to get your jollies.And they wonder why they're seen as stupid.
>"That statement is not mine[…]"Of course not, when has a feminist come up with anything original? Even feminist theory is plagiarized from Marxism, which blames all of the problems of one people on a different group of people, while eschewing such oppressive notions as personal responsibility or initiative.Is it any wonder they have to resort to bomb threats and professional sabotage when their rickety philosophy is threatened?Your precious feminism will continue to phase out, whether by the MRM and father's rights or, I'll admit more likely, by your own indoctrination and stupidity. After all, when a feminist has to run every thought through a few filters and conform it to some moldy paradigm, she isn't exactly an intellectual powerhouse.
>By the way, Raul, I hope you had a happy new year. I also hope whatever poor woman you shamefully lusted after did not scurry away from you after your ruthless inquiries as to whether you were "making her uncomfortable" or "moving too fast." I also hope she was able to stomach the interspersed tearful and verbose atonement for the "sins of your wicked gender" without laughing or retching, and was not creeped out when you asked to borrow her shoes for "the march."Male feminists. Where would we be without them?
>I never said I was unhappy. I never once indicated that I was miserable. I am stating what I believe and hold dear. I am responsible for my own happiness and have always taken the bull by the horns and forged my own life without groveling that I was born poor, raised by a single mother on welfare and generally disadvantaged. Thank God I was born with a penis or I'd have never gotten out of that mess.
>Yohan said:"I gave you a clear list of my disadvantages and asked you to explain MY privileges and I see you cannot."^ And this is what I always find funny. I have asked many feminists many times about proving to me how I as the average middle class male is privileged. Every single time I have asked this question, I have never got a straight logical answer. All I get is cockeyed laughable crap such as pointing out rich men I don't even know.It's friggin hilarious to claim that I am privileged over the next woman I walk past on the street or the next female shop assistant I come across.Most crap that feminists spew out these days is comedy to me. They are truly that fucking stupid or if not that, highly delusional.
>"I know, I know, feminism is never wrong, all hail feminism, etc etc etc."That's because today's feminists are malignant narcissists
>IR, a comment of yours was caught by the spam filter; it's up now. It was an incredibly idiotic comment that suggested you hadn't bothered to actually read the comments you were responding to, but it is up now.
>I love how David does not even bother to tell he how it's idiotic or how it implies I haven't read the original comment (which I did, twice). I suppose he takes this idiom to heart. Given the typical feminist's aversion to debate or even basic conversation (snarky insults and brain-dead chants do not count as conversation) outside of her insular groups, this is unsurprising.