Current Affairs The 'incel movement'

[Death]

You seem to be continuing to miss the point, which I suspect is because I triggered you.

I don't get to name the dangerous ones. You, the real feminists, do. Identify them, name them, shame them, and accept that you're going to need to change some attitudes and the legal system to actually weed them out. Help us solve the problems on our side of the fence, and you'll get the support of people like me for your issues. You're going to need people like me, because you're going to need our help solving the problem of the incels.

We're going to have to work together to solve things like sexual violence against women. Uber being let off with a nine million dollar fine by the state of California for covering up sexual assaults by its drivers for two years really ticks me off. I ran the math on that one, and concluded that if that externality alone were internalized to the company the entire company would have collapsed.

That said, as long as you're helping create a world where I can get hit repeatedly by a woman and get flat-out injustice from the legal system in response, I can't help you out on a lot of things. The way I see it, the movement created that problem and you're just going to make things worse for me along other dimensions of injustice, unless you can admit that you've created some injustices and work with my side to find solutions to those problems.

To be fair, the results the feminist movement has produced have not been all bad, from my side of the fence. Custody arrangements for men are much better than they used to be fifty years ago. That counts for a lot. There were a lot of serious injustices perpetrated over the years with respect to that one. I'm all for equal treatment, and catching and locking up the sex offenders no matter who they perpetrate those crimes against.

Those of you that are old enough should recall that Michael Crichton got the same sort of response I've gotten in this thread when he published Disclosure. A lot of people tried to shout down a fairly convincing argument that a sexual harassment case could, under the right circumstances, actually be an abuse of power by a female. He was accused of trivializing the issue of sexual harassment, which was not what he was doing. He was pointing out that it's possible to go too far in any situation where guilt is presumed over innocence.

I just want us both to get to actual equal treatment, which isn't happening in part because stories like mine go unheard. The media doesn't publish them, and we don't generally tell them to you because we get this kind of response.


And yet you all permit her to go around calling herself a feminist, and participate in the movement. To be direct, our society has created a legal system that covers up this sort of misandry, and a social system that shames me for admitting these truths. What I am describing happens more often than you think.

This is the problem that I am pointing out. Again, I'm not equating RAFUH with the individual in question, or saying that all or even most feminists are misandrists. However, it should be obvious that some are. I'm saying that the people flying the flag of feminism include those people among the activists, and that this behavior is tolerated and even covered up by our legal system. This colors the perception of the feminist movement on my side of the fence. If feminists don't want to be tarred with that brush, and I've heard that take a lot from men over the years in various forms, then feminists need to admit the need to identify and excommunicate those people.

There isn't any corresponding men's movement that has any intellectual popularity at the moment. Those of us that advocate for those issues, because we've been through these things, are fortunate enough to have the label 'incel' to discriminate between us, and those people.

The problem is that the incels are the backlash against the feminist movement. As any terrorist group or study of them can tell you, men are easier to radicalize.


We don't agree on much, but we can agree on this. Personally, I think that's a fairly strong signal that there's something to this one.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

You seem to be continuing to miss the point, which I suspect is because I triggered you.

I don't get to name the dangerous ones. You, the real feminists, do. Identify them, name them, shame them, and accept that you're going to need to change some attitudes and the legal system to actually weed them out. Help us solve the problems on our side of the fence, and you'll get the support of people like me for your issues. You're going to need people like me, because you're going to need our help solving the problem of the incels.

We're going to have to work together to solve things like sexual violence against women. Uber being let off with a nine million dollar fine by the state of California for covering up sexual assaults by its drivers for two years really ticks me off. I ran the math on that one, and concluded that if that externality alone were internalized to the company the entire company would have collapsed.

That said, as long as you're helping create a world where I can get hit repeatedly by a woman and get flat-out injustice from the legal system in response, I can't help you out on a lot of things. The way I see it, the movement created that problem and you're just going to make things worse for me along other dimensions of injustice, unless you can admit that you've created some injustices and work with my side to find solutions to those problems.

To be fair, the results the feminist movement has produced have not been all bad, from my side of the fence. Custody arrangements for men are much better than they used to be fifty years ago. That counts for a lot. There were a lot of serious injustices perpetrated over the years with respect to that one. I'm all for equal treatment, and catching and locking up the sex offenders no matter who they perpetrate those crimes against.

Those of you that are old enough should recall that Michael Crichton got the same sort of response I've gotten in this thread when he published Disclosure. A lot of people tried to shout down a fairly convincing argument that a sexual harassment case could, under the right circumstances, actually be an abuse of power by a female. He was accused of trivializing the issue of sexual harassment, which was not what he was doing. He was pointing out that it's possible to go too far in any situation where guilt is presumed over innocence.

I just want us both to get to actual equal treatment, which isn't happening in part because stories like mine go unheard. The media doesn't publish them, and we don't generally tell them to you because we get this kind of response.


And yet you all permit her to go around calling herself a feminist, and participate in the movement. To be direct, our society has created a legal system that covers up this sort of misandry, and a social system that shames me for admitting these truths. What I am describing happens more often than you think.

This is the problem that I am pointing out. Again, I'm not equating RAFUH with the individual in question, or saying that all or even most feminists are misandrists. However, it should be obvious that some are. I'm saying that the people flying the flag of feminism include those people among the activists, and that this behavior is tolerated and even covered up by our legal system. This colors the perception of the feminist movement on my side of the fence. If feminists don't want to be tarred with that brush, and I've heard that take a lot from men over the years in various forms, then feminists need to admit the need to identify and excommunicate those people.

There isn't any corresponding men's movement that has any intellectual popularity at the moment. Those of us that advocate for those issues, because we've been through these things, are fortunate enough to have the label 'incel' to discriminate between us, and those people.

The problem is that the incels are the backlash against the feminist movement. As any terrorist group or study of them can tell you, men are easier to radicalize.


We don't agree on much, but we can agree on this. Personally, I think that's a fairly strong signal that there's something to this one.

Personally, I think you're identifying something very human. Someone who aligns themselves with a philosophy, religion or movement and uses it to justify their own position, often for less than honourable goals.

I've got a couple of acquaintances. Both claim to be dead left wing socialist types. Both refuse to work in any way shape or form but expect a living off the state. Fair one, object to profit making organisations but work for a charity, or an NGO, the NHS etc. They've no reason not to work, bar they don't want to. Now, socialism relies on folk contributing and doing stuff. Like the paper one used to sell- the socialist worker.

Anyway, I wouldn't for a minute label all socialists as bad. But there are those who'll twist a movement to fit their agenda.

Unfortunately I think you're choice of phrasing may have given the impression you think all feminists are man haters.

 

[RAFUH]

You seem to be continuing to miss the point, which I suspect is because I triggered you.

I don't get to name the dangerous ones. You, the real feminists, do. Identify them, name them, shame them, and accept that you're going to need to change some attitudes and the legal system to actually weed them out. Help us solve the problems on our side of the fence, and you'll get the support of people like me for your issues. You're going to need people like me, because you're going to need our help solving the problem of the incels.

We're going to have to work together to solve things like sexual violence against women. Uber being let off with a nine million dollar fine by the state of California for covering up sexual assaults by its drivers for two years really ticks me off. I ran the math on that one, and concluded that if that externality alone were internalized to the company the entire company would have collapsed.

That said, as long as you're helping create a world where I can get hit repeatedly by a woman and get flat-out injustice from the legal system in response, I can't help you out on a lot of things. The way I see it, the movement created that problem and you're just going to make things worse for me along other dimensions of injustice, unless you can admit that you've created some injustices and work with my side to find solutions to those problems.

To be fair, the results the feminist movement has produced have not been all bad, from my side of the fence. Custody arrangements for men are much better than they used to be fifty years ago. That counts for a lot. There were a lot of serious injustices perpetrated over the years with respect to that one. I'm all for equal treatment, and catching and locking up the sex offenders no matter who they perpetrate those crimes against.

Those of you that are old enough should recall that Michael Crichton got the same sort of response I've gotten in this thread when he published Disclosure. A lot of people tried to shout down a fairly convincing argument that a sexual harassment case could, under the right circumstances, actually be an abuse of power by a female. He was accused of trivializing the issue of sexual harassment, which was not what he was doing. He was pointing out that it's possible to go too far in any situation where guilt is presumed over innocence.

I just want us both to get to actual equal treatment, which isn't happening in part because stories like mine go unheard. The media doesn't publish them, and we don't generally tell them to you because we get this kind of response.


And yet you all permit her to go around calling herself a feminist, and participate in the movement. To be direct, our society has created a legal system that covers up this sort of misandry, and a social system that shames me for admitting these truths. What I am describing happens more often than you think.

This is the problem that I am pointing out. Again, I'm not equating RAFUH with the individual in question, or saying that all or even most feminists are misandrists. However, it should be obvious that some are. I'm saying that the people flying the flag of feminism include those people among the activists, and that this behavior is tolerated and even covered up by our legal system. This colors the perception of the feminist movement on my side of the fence. If feminists don't want to be tarred with that brush, and I've heard that take a lot from men over the years in various forms, then feminists need to admit the need to identify and excommunicate those people.

There isn't any corresponding men's movement that has any intellectual popularity at the moment. Those of us that advocate for those issues, because we've been through these things, are fortunate enough to have the label 'incel' to discriminate between us, and those people.

The problem is that the incels are the backlash against the feminist movement. As any terrorist group or study of them can tell you, men are easier to radicalize.


We don't agree on much, but we can agree on this. Personally, I think that's a fairly strong signal that there's something to this one.

Dude I'm not triggered. @Tubey cured me of that.

You obviously had a bad experience with a horrible person and I'm sorry for that.

The people you are describing are not feminists regardless of what they all themselves. There. I've excommunicated them...again.

You want the man haters "out of feminism" then YOU need to excommunicate them. Whole bunch of people in here explaining to you that the persons you describe are not feminist, but you keep putting them right back under the heading.

 

[RAFUH]

 

[Tubey]

And yet you all permit her to go around calling herself a feminist, and participate in the movement.

No we don't though. It's not a card carrying club. You ask any actual feminist whether it's OK to beat men and that they should be subservient, they'll say no.

She's using the term as a corruption. What she actually is is a misandrist.

It's like Aileen Wuornos. She wasn't a feminist because she hated men and killed them, she was a misandrist.

Feminism is pro-women at its core, not anti-men. Until you understand you are mislabelling the issue you describe then you'll continue to be wrong.

Your ex wasn't a feminist. She was a misandrist physical assaulter.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Personally, I think you're identifying something very human. Someone who aligns themselves with a philosophy, religion or movement and uses it to justify their own position, often for less than honourable goals.

I've got a couple of acquaintances. Both claim to be dead left wing socialist types. Both refuse to work in any way shape or form but expect a living off the state. Fair one, object to profit making organisations but work for a charity, or an NGO, the NHS etc. They've no reason not to work, bar they don't want to. Now, socialism relies on folk contributing and doing stuff. Like the paper one used to sell- the socialist worker.

Anyway, I wouldn't for a minute label all socialists as bad. But there are those who'll twist a movement to fit their agenda.

Unfortunately I think you're choice of phrasing may have given the impression you think all feminists are man haters.

That was an intentional choice of phrasing which revealed the problem in a very small package. I knew exactly what I was going to get in response. I saw what happened to Crichton.

I wholeheartedly agree that what I am describing is very human. However, if we recognize these problems then we can work on them together. If we refuse to admit the problems, they persist.

I'm tired of being intimidated into silence. Not by you, obviously, but by our society and our legal system. Your comments, like RAFUH's, were very genuine.

Dude I'm not triggered. @Tubey cured me of that.

You obviously had a bad experience with a horrible person and I'm sorry for that.

The people you are describing are not feminists regardless of what they all themselves. There. I've excommunicated them...again.

You want the man haters "out of feminism" then YOU need to excommunicate them. Whole bunch of people in here explaining to you that the persons you describe are not feminist, but you keep putting them right back under the heading.

You haven't excommunicated them, any more than my side excommunicated Harvey Weinstein during the thirty years he was operating as a predator. Everyone around that company knew what was happening, and turned a blind eye either out of fear or due to the resulting personal gains. The activists for the causes that he worked on, and there were a lot of them, were happy to accept his time and his money until the truth finally came out. The Democratic Party was quite happy to take his money as well.

As long as you continue to encourage the legal system to cover up the sins of the misandrists, there's a lot of men out there that are going to believe that you are just like that woman because both of you call yourselves 'feminists'. They will not trust your statements that you are not like them. They will figure that you are just better at hiding the truth about yourself - as you hinted at in an earlier post. They would take that post seriously. I understand (and devoutly hope) you meant it as a joke. The problem is that there assuredly are women out there for whom that statement is not a joke.

I realize you were joking because I know plenty of feminists, such as my mother, that are in fact good people. My mother is getting to the point of radicalization. We had an interesting conversation about that one earlier. I've told her a lot of things about how your side is currently going about things, and how it's going to backfire. I've told her that "by any means necessary" will only lead to a massive backlash that will cause you to lose much, if not everything you've gained.

I've told her that your side has a messaging problem. AOC and Warren aren't working for you. They're working for Fox News, and the backlash Murdoch is building. Your side desperately needs a face that is more like King, and less like Malcolm X, to do your talking right now.

If you want to prove that you are not like the misandrists to men, you have to do something costly. You have to turn on the misandrists. Many men have turned on some of the traitors in our own ranks. My point is that I don't think you all are getting much further until you turn on yours, and we learn to work together on one another's issues. Right now, a large portion of my side of the fence has a lot of trust issues with yours. They just won't tell you.

I'm glad to hear that @Tubey settled you.

No we don't though. It's not a card carrying club. You ask any actual feminist whether it's OK to beat men and that they should be subservient, they'll say no.

She's using the term as a corruption. What she actually is is a misandrist.

It's like Aileen Wuornos. She wasn't a feminist because she hated men and killed them, she was a misandrist.

Feminism is pro-women at its core, not anti-men. Until you understand you are mislabelling the issue you describe then you'll continue to be wrong.

Your ex wasn't a feminist. She was a misandrist physical assaulter.

You do permit her to use the term 'feminist' by ignoring these issues, permitting men to be shamed for raising them, and putting up with how the legal system operates with respect to them. You can say that she should not be permitted to use the label all you want, but unless you actually make changes that prevent her from getting away with it she will continue to use that label, and hurt other men. This will result in other men learning that feminists are, in fact, misandrists on the basis of experience. That problem, writ large, is part of what the conservative movement in this country utilizes to earn votes.

It doesn't much matter that I get what you're saying, other than the fact that I can explain the problem. I'm just one vote, and I can only support some elements of feminism as a consequence of my experiences. There's a lot of men out there that you need to help see what you're saying, if you're serious about these issues. Otherwise, the men that women have hurt deeply will continue to hear you say 'feminist' and instead hear 'misandrist', which gets in the way of solving the problems.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

You seem to be continuing to miss the point, which I suspect is because I triggered you.

I don't get to name the dangerous ones. You, the real feminists, do. Identify them, name them, shame them, and accept that you're going to need to change some attitudes and the legal system to actually weed them out. Help us solve the problems on our side of the fence, and you'll get the support of people like me for your issues. You're going to need people like me, because you're going to need our help solving the problem of the incels.

We're going to have to work together to solve things like sexual violence against women. Uber being let off with a nine million dollar fine by the state of California for covering up sexual assaults by its drivers for two years really ticks me off. I ran the math on that one, and concluded that if that externality alone were internalized to the company the entire company would have collapsed.

That said, as long as you're helping create a world where I can get hit repeatedly by a woman and get flat-out injustice from the legal system in response, I can't help you out on a lot of things. The way I see it, the movement created that problem and you're just going to make things worse for me along other dimensions of injustice, unless you can admit that you've created some injustices and work with my side to find solutions to those problems.

To be fair, the results the feminist movement has produced have not been all bad, from my side of the fence. Custody arrangements for men are much better than they used to be fifty years ago. That counts for a lot. There were a lot of serious injustices perpetrated over the years with respect to that one. I'm all for equal treatment, and catching and locking up the sex offenders no matter who they perpetrate those crimes against.

Those of you that are old enough should recall that Michael Crichton got the same sort of response I've gotten in this thread when he published Disclosure. A lot of people tried to shout down a fairly convincing argument that a sexual harassment case could, under the right circumstances, actually be an abuse of power by a female. He was accused of trivializing the issue of sexual harassment, which was not what he was doing. He was pointing out that it's possible to go too far in any situation where guilt is presumed over innocence.

I just want us both to get to actual equal treatment, which isn't happening in part because stories like mine go unheard. The media doesn't publish them, and we don't generally tell them to you because we get this kind of response.


And yet you all permit her to go around calling herself a feminist, and participate in the movement. To be direct, our society has created a legal system that covers up this sort of misandry, and a social system that shames me for admitting these truths. What I am describing happens more often than you think.

This is the problem that I am pointing out. Again, I'm not equating RAFUH with the individual in question, or saying that all or even most feminists are misandrists. However, it should be obvious that some are. I'm saying that the people flying the flag of feminism include those people among the activists, and that this behavior is tolerated and even covered up by our legal system. This colors the perception of the feminist movement on my side of the fence. If feminists don't want to be tarred with that brush, and I've heard that take a lot from men over the years in various forms, then feminists need to admit the need to identify and excommunicate those people.

There isn't any corresponding men's movement that has any intellectual popularity at the moment. Those of us that advocate for those issues, because we've been through these things, are fortunate enough to have the label 'incel' to discriminate between us, and those people.

The problem is that the incels are the backlash against the feminist movement. As any terrorist group or study of them can tell you, men are easier to radicalize.


We don't agree on much, but we can agree on this. Personally, I think that's a fairly strong signal that there's something to this one.

How many FREE IQ TESTs do you do a day mate?

 

[JimmyJeffers]

That was an intentional choice of phrasing which revealed the problem in a very small package. I knew exactly what I was going to get in response. I saw what happened to Crichton.

I wholeheartedly agree that what I am describing is very human. However, if we recognize these problems then we can work on them together. If we refuse to admit the problems, they persist.

I'm tired of being intimidated into silence. Not by you, obviously, but by our society and our legal system. Your comments, like RAFUH's, were very genuine.



You haven't excommunicated them, any more than my side excommunicated Harvey Weinstein during the thirty years he was operating as a predator. Everyone around that company knew what was happening, and turned a blind eye either out of fear or due to the resulting personal gains. The activists for the causes that he worked on, and there were a lot of them, were happy to accept his time and his money until the truth finally came out. The Democratic Party was quite happy to take his money as well.

As long as you continue to encourage the legal system to cover up the sins of the misandrists, there's a lot of men out there that are going to believe that you are just like that woman because both of you call yourselves 'feminists'. They will not trust your statements that you are not like them. They will figure that you are just better at hiding the truth about yourself - as you hinted at in an earlier post. They would take that post seriously. I understand (and devoutly hope) you meant it as a joke. The problem is that there assuredly are women out there for whom that statement is not a joke.

I realize you were joking because I know plenty of feminists, such as my mother, that are in fact good people. My mother is getting to the point of radicalization. We had an interesting conversation about that one earlier. I've told her a lot of things about how your side is currently going about things, and how it's going to backfire. I've told her that "by any means necessary" will only lead to a massive backlash that will cause you to lose much, if not everything you've gained.

I've told her that your side has a messaging problem. AOC and Warren aren't working for you. They're working for Fox News, and the backlash Murdoch is building. Your side desperately needs a face that is more like King, and less like Malcolm X, to do your talking right now.

If you want to prove that you are not like the misandrists to men, you have to do something costly. You have to turn on the misandrists. Many men have turned on some of the traitors in our own ranks. My point is that I don't think you all are getting much further until you turn on yours, and we learn to work together on one another's issues. Right now, a large portion of my side of the fence has a lot of trust issues with yours. They just won't tell you.

I'm glad to hear that @Tubey settled you.



You do permit her to use the term 'feminist' by ignoring these issues, permitting men to be shamed for raising them, and putting up with how the legal system operates with respect to them. You can say that she should not be permitted to use the label all you want, but unless you actually make changes that prevent her from getting away with it she will continue to use that label, and hurt other men. This will result in other men learning that feminists are, in fact, misandrists on the basis of experience. That problem, writ large, is part of what the conservative movement in this country utilizes to earn votes.

It doesn't much matter that I get what you're saying, other than the fact that I can explain the problem. I'm just one vote, and I can only support some elements of feminism as a consequence of my experiences. There's a lot of men out there that you need to help see what you're saying, if you're serious about these issues. Otherwise, the men that women have hurt deeply will continue to hear you say 'feminist' and instead hear 'misandrist', which gets in the way of solving the problems.

Wait a sec.... Are you Joey Barton?

 

[Tubey]

You do permit her to do these things by ignoring these issues, permitting men to be shamed for raising them, and putting up with how the legal system operates with respect to them. You can say that she should not be permitted to use the label all you want, but unless you actually make changes that prevent her from getting away with it she will continue to use that label, and hurt other men. This will result in other men learning that feminists are, in fact, misandrists on the basis of experience. That problem, writ large, is part of what the conservative movement in this country utilizes to earn votes.

It doesn't much matter that I get what you're saying, other than the fact that I can explain it. I'm just one vote, and I can only support some elements of feminism as a consequence of my experiences. There's a lot of men out there that you need to help see what you're saying, if you're serious about these issues. Otherwise, the men that women have hurt deeply will continue to hear you say 'feminist' and instead hear 'misandrist', which gets in the way of solving the problems.

I am absolutely baffled why you keep equating what you're saying to feminism.

Nobody ignores physical assault, battery, domestic abuse etc. but that's not feminism. There's no test or entry requirement to be a feminist - I'm a feminist - all that exists is that you adhere to the tenets that underpin it, and that is quite simply the advocacy of women's rights.

This is your problem, an issue with your mindset - you see feminism as anti-men instead of pro-women. It isn't. You'll get the odd oddball using it as a cape to hide behind, but that's not a real societal issue because nobody will defend their violence "because they are feminists". It doesn't happen. Even radical feminism doesn't justify that, despite being a bunch of fruit loops in my opinion. Nobody does.

No, what's happened here is you've had a bad experience with a woman who happened to use the term 'feminist' to hide their crimes, and you've then associated that with feminism more widely.

 

[Death]

View attachment 136417

 

[Death]

That was an intentional choice of phrasing which revealed the problem in a very small package. I knew exactly what I was going to get in response. I saw what happened to Crichton.

I wholeheartedly agree that what I am describing is very human. However, if we recognize these problems then we can work on them together. If we refuse to admit the problems, they persist.

I'm tired of being intimidated into silence. Not by you, obviously, but by our society and our legal system. Your comments, like RAFUH's, were very genuine.



You haven't excommunicated them, any more than my side excommunicated Harvey Weinstein during the thirty years he was operating as a predator. Everyone around that company knew what was happening, and turned a blind eye either out of fear or due to the resulting personal gains. The activists for the causes that he worked on, and there were a lot of them, were happy to accept his time and his money until the truth finally came out. The Democratic Party was quite happy to take his money as well.

As long as you continue to encourage the legal system to cover up the sins of the misandrists, there's a lot of men out there that are going to believe that you are just like that woman because both of you call yourselves 'feminists'. They will not trust your statements that you are not like them. They will figure that you are just better at hiding the truth about yourself - as you hinted at in an earlier post. They would take that post seriously. I understand (and devoutly hope) you meant it as a joke. The problem is that there assuredly are women out there for whom that statement is not a joke.

I realize you were joking because I know plenty of feminists, such as my mother, that are in fact good people. My mother is getting to the point of radicalization. We had an interesting conversation about that one earlier. I've told her a lot of things about how your side is currently going about things, and how it's going to backfire. I've told her that "by any means necessary" will only lead to a massive backlash that will cause you to lose much, if not everything you've gained.

I've told her that your side has a messaging problem. AOC and Warren aren't working for you. They're working for Fox News, and the backlash Murdoch is building. Your side desperately needs a face that is more like King, and less like Malcolm X, to do your talking right now.

If you want to prove that you are not like the misandrists to men, you have to do something costly. You have to turn on the misandrists. Many men have turned on some of the traitors in our own ranks. My point is that I don't think you all are getting much further until you turn on yours, and we learn to work together on one another's issues. Right now, a large portion of my side of the fence has a lot of trust issues with yours. They just won't tell you.

I'm glad to hear that @Tubey settled you.



You do permit her to use the term 'feminist' by ignoring these issues, permitting men to be shamed for raising them, and putting up with how the legal system operates with respect to them. You can say that she should not be permitted to use the label all you want, but unless you actually make changes that prevent her from getting away with it she will continue to use that label, and hurt other men. This will result in other men learning that feminists are, in fact, misandrists on the basis of experience. That problem, writ large, is part of what the conservative movement in this country utilizes to earn votes.

It doesn't much matter that I get what you're saying, other than the fact that I can explain the problem. I'm just one vote, and I can only support some elements of feminism as a consequence of my experiences. There's a lot of men out there that you need to help see what you're saying, if you're serious about these issues. Otherwise, the men that women have hurt deeply will continue to hear you say 'feminist' and instead hear 'misandrist', which gets in the way of solving the problems.

Amen.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I am absolutely baffled why you keep equating what you're saying to feminism.

Nobody ignores physical assault, battery, domestic abuse etc. but that's not feminism. There's no test or entry requirement to be a feminist - I'm a feminist - all that exists is that you adhere to the tenets that underpin it, and that is quite simply the advocacy of women's rights.

This is your problem, an issue with your mindset - you see feminism as anti-men instead of pro-women. It isn't. You'll get the odd oddball using it as a cape to hide behind, but that's not a real societal issue because nobody will defend their violence "because they are feminists". It doesn't happen. Even radical feminism doesn't justify that, despite being a bunch of fruit loops in my opinion. Nobody does.

No, what's happened here is you've had a bad experience with a woman who happened to use the term 'feminist' to hide their crimes, and you've then associated that with feminism more widely.

You continue to misread what I am saying. I don't believe that all feminists are misandrists, and never did. As I pointed out, I phrased things that way because it illustrates the problem. Normally, when you hear someone say that, you are hearing someone equate all feminists to misandrists.

My point is that misandrists are permitted to hide behind the label of 'feminist' in our society, and that our society and legal system let this happen and shield the misandrists from the consequences of emotional and physical abuse perpetrated against men. This, in turn, leads to men learning that feminists are misandrists. I happen to have enough personal experience to know that this is not the case for all feminists, and probably is not the case for most of them. I'm also telling you that what happened to me is not an oddball happening, because I've heard the same thing come back to me enough times to know better.

I don't see why you think that I believe that what happened took place because this person was a feminist. It happened because there is a widespread bias to believe what women say with respect to domestic violence and disbelieve men. I've seen the police report from when I called the cops. It bears no resemblance to reality. It's full of her lies, and virtually everything I said was ignored. I got a paragraph. She got tons of them. Two hundred years ago, the reverse would have happened. Feminism created the present problem. What I'm saying is that the pendulum can't rest at one end or the other. It needs to be in the center.

 

[Tubey]

You continue to misread what I am saying. I don't believe that all feminists are misandrists, and never did. As I pointed out, I phrased things that way because it illustrates the problem. Normally, when you hear someone say that, you are hearing someone equate all feminists to misandrists.

My point is that misandrists are permitted to hide behind the label of 'feminist' in our society, and that our society and legal system let this happen and shield the misandrists from the consequences of emotional and physical abuse perpetrated against men. This, in turn, leads to men learning that feminists are misandrists. I happen to have enough personal experience to know that this is not the case for all feminists, and probably is not the case for most of them. I'm also telling you that what happened to me is not an oddball happening, because I've heard the same thing come back to me enough times to know better.

I don't see why you think that I believe that what happened took place because this person was a feminist. It happened because there is a widespread bias to believe what women say with respect to domestic violence and disbelieve men. I've seen the police report from when I called the cops. It bears no resemblance to reality. It's full of her lies, and virtually everything I said was ignored. I got a paragraph. She got tons of them. Two hundred years ago, the reverse would have happened. Feminism created the present problem. What I'm saying is that the pendulum can't rest at one end or the other. It needs to be in the center.

That's not bias, that's reality - 97% of domestic abuse cases are men towards women. Is what it is. So for the pendulum to be "in the centre", it has to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Yes, it's crap that it's harder for male victims to be heard, but no system is perfect and one that caters to the 97% is obviously going to be the aim.

"Feminism" didn't "create the present problem". Women being societally oppressed since time began did. It's not being a soy boy or creating a "problem" to simply acknowledge that society is masculine. Does that mean it should be ripped up and done over to have society feminine instead? No.

You said the female equivalent of an incel - a person who loathes women - is a feminist. Here is your exact words.

The equivalent female term for what you describe is 'feminist'.

You are therefore equating feminism and misandry as one and the same. You are wrong; flat out, 100% wrong, yet you feel you're a victim and being "silenced" for simply being told you're wrong when you are indeed wrong.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

lol

 

[Death]

@ForeverBlue92 get a load of these faux feminists getting nuked by Alvito.