Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:



"Feminazi" - Because thinking women should have the same rights and be paid the same as men for the same work is EXACTLY like invading Poland and murdering more than 6,000,000 Jews.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
^ And he wonders why anyone mistakes him for PN...

---

Quote:

---

EXACTLY like invading Poland and murdering more than 6,000,000 Jews.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Feminists believe, because of their genetics (two X chromosomes) that they are superior and deserve special rights. If someone believes in quality, then sure, they don't deserve the label, but if someone believes in their own genetic superiority as a basis for being granted a superior social position or special rights, then it fits.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Protesting that attitude is immediately silenced by the "It's a harmless compliment"-crowd, going again with the implicit assumption that a woman MUST be pleased to have her sexual attractiveness commented upon, as long as it's done favorably, regardless of context.

---

Quote:

---

What I ask myself: how would I react if Hilary Clinton said of a male AG known for his good looks...

---

Quote:

---

To sweep the entire term off the table because some feminists take it too far

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
"Feminists want special treatment" is an even bigger strawman then "liberals worship Obama." Just another way for RWAs to keep their blinders on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Mike, have you ever known any?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Than why is it called "Feminism"? If it were about egalitarian ideals wouldn't it be called egalitarianism? or some such?

---

Quote:

---

Back to the parallel in question: What if the Nazis had called themselves "aryanists"? Would you have thought that this meant all they wanted was equal rights for Aryans?

---

Quote:

---

I doubt it. Civil rights leaders seeking equal rights for blacks did not call themselves "Africanists"

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

To sweep the entire term off the table because some feminists take it too far

---

The term is intrinsically headed in that direction. I'm not going to condemn people who seek equal rights, but the nature of the idea "feminism" is based on the concept of genetic superiority, exclusion and supremacy.

---

Quote:

---

It's in the name and virtually every text, emanating from most everything self proclaimed "feminist leaders" say. It's an ideology around the idea that women are inherently better than men, and deserve special rights; and the term is most definitely tied to that interpretation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
... or you decided to be willfully blind and ignorant to the point being made.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I think we could go a little easier on DT.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

I think we could go a little easier on DT.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
OK, but ...

Perhaps DT deserves a LITTLE slap upside the head for maligning a whole group of people based on nothing more than his irrational hatred of Margaret Sanger. And maybe he should be called on a LITTLE bit to provide some kind of data to back up his assertions. B/c otherwise, he's just doing the same kind of baseless and generic group hatred/ group elevation that is the hallmark of racism, anti-Semitism, ageism, and other kinds of malignant 'isms'.

---

Quote:

---

Mike

"Feminazis"? No, I have not known any feminazis.

---

Quote:

---

KPO

I think we could go a little easier on DT.

---

Quote:

---

1kiki

Perhaps DT deserves a LITTLE slap upside the head for maligning a whole group of people based on nothing more than his irrational hatred of Margaret Sanger. And maybe he should be called on a LITTLE bit to provide some kind of data to back up his assertions. B/c otherwise, he's just doing the same kind of baseless and generic group hatred/ group elevation that is the hallmark of racism, anti-Semitism, ageism, and other kinds of malignant 'isms'.

---

Quote:

---

Mal
When I was in my 20s I met a hip young computer programmer who asked me if I was one of those "feminists." (He didn't say Feminazi but I'm sure the term wasn't foreign to him.) I replied Ummmm.... I think women are people . He did an eye roll of disgust and dismissal - oh yeah, you are. As if the suggestion that women are human beings was personally offensive to him, and that by making the suggestion I'd revealed myself as something to be given a title and set aside.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Than why is it called "Feminism"? If it were about egalitarian ideals wouldn't it be called egalitarianism? or some such?

I thought I already addressed that. The particular focus is on elevating women to full equality. It expresses the focus of its attention. Reading a superiority assumption into that is your choice and certainly not stated in general feminist goals. The parallel to Nazi Germany is pretty arbitrary.

---

Quote:

---

DT: Back to the parallel in question: What if the Nazis had called themselves "aryanists"? Would you have thought that this meant all they wanted was equal rights for Aryans?

Rouka

Oh, come on. What their intentions were was not even explicit in their actual name. It was explicitly stated in "Mein Kampf" and their rethoric, their laws and ultimately in their actions. Unless you're going to present the feminist tradition of reaching for oppression of men by demanding things like voting, equal rights and a lack of sexual objectification in culture, you're basing this assumption of yours on the fact that the term explicitly states its particular area of focus.

---

Quote:

---

No, they did not. They chose a much more inclusive term for their movement. This doesn't prove your point one bit, though.

---

Quote:

---

Can you, I don't know, prove that?

---

Quote:

---

Mike

If there were a millennia-long tradition of denying Aryans rights, you actually *might* have the kernel of a tiny point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, nope, no specifics to back up his claims. Just tons and tons of BS. As I predicted.

---

Quote:

---

Glad to know someone is aware recent events.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, nope, no specifics to back up his claims. Just tons and tons of BS. As I predicted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

The man's response is completely understandable when looked at in the context of what was implied. It's not that women aren't people, it's that the answer "women are people" to the question "do you consider yourself a feminist?" (however he worded it) is one of attitude, not one of substance. The attitude your response projected was "Yes, I am a feminist and I think that men who are not pro-feminist view women as sub-human." When you consider that to his ears, this is de facto what you said, his eye roll reaction was entirely fitting.

---

Quote:

---

Feminists believe, because of their genetics (two X chromosomes) that they are superior and deserve special rights.

---

Quote:

---

The belief that women are superior to men is at the core of their belief system.

---

Quote:

---

... the nature of the idea "feminism" is based on the concept of genetic superiority, exclusion and supremacy.

---

Quote:

---

It's an ideology around the idea that women are inherently better than men, and deserve special rights.

---

Quote:

---

... "woman are great, men suck" as a mantra can be heard at any college feminist group or in any womens studies class ...

---

Quote:

---

... that statement was (an) attempt to reframe the question to make him into a male-supremacist by his refusal to accept (the) female-supremacist position.

---

Quote:

---

But any look into feminist literature and rhetoric reveals a much, much darker ideology, and that ideology is only in part female supremacy.

---

Quote:

---

Their ideology was based on hate ... and assertion of their own supremacy. And all of this was laced with some really sinister and manipulative agendas.

---

Quote:

---

So, I feel the proof is already inked in the writings of the early self styled "feminists" like sanger, stokes and steinem, and many others since. It's dripping with a sense of female superiority ...

---

Quote:

---

Part One: Why Feminism Has "Fem" in the Name, or, Why Can't We All Just Be Humanists?

I wish, more than anything, that I could just be a "humanist." Oh, man, that would be amazing! Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something. Humanism is a gorgeous dream, and something to strive for. In fact, it is the exact thing that feminism is striving for right now (and has been working on for decades)! Yay, feminism!

Unfortunately, the reason that "fem" is a part of the word "feminism" is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as well—in its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can't make problems disappear just by changing "feminism" to "humanism" and declaring the world healed. That won't work.

Think of it like this. Imagine you're reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. They hold the majority of political positions, they make the most money (beast-bucks!), they dominate the beast media, they enact all kinds of laws infringing on the bodily autonomy of Flootches. Individually, most of them are perfectly nice beasts, but collectively they benefit comfortably from inequalities that are historically entrenched in the power structure of Beast Island. So, from birth, even the most unfortunate Fleetches encounter fewer institutional roadblocks and greater opportunity than almost all Flootches, regardless of individual merit. One day, a group of Flootches (the ones who have not internalized their inferiority) get together and decide to agitate to change that system. They call their movement "Flootchism," because it is specifically intended to address problems that disproportionately disadvantage Flootches while benefiting Fleetches. That makes sense, right?

Now imagine that, in response, a bunch of Fleetches begin complaining that Flootchism doesn't address their needs, and they have problems too, and therefore the movement should really be renamed Beastism. To be fair. The problem with that name change is that it that undermines the basic mission of the movement, because it obscures (deliberately, I'd warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches. It implies that all problems are just beast problems, and that all beasts suffer comparably, which cripples the very necessary effort to prioritize and repair problems that are Flootch-specific. Those problems are a priority because they harm all Flootches, systematically, whereas Fleetch problems merely harm individual Fleetches. To argue that all problems are just "beast problems" is to discredit the idea of inequality altogether. It is, in fact, insulting.

Or, if you didn't like that one, here's another ridiculous metaphor: When women say things like "misandry isn't real," we mean it the same way you might say, "Freddy Krueger isn't real." The idea of Freddy Krueger is real, Freddy Krueger absolutely has the power to scare you, and if you suspend your disbelief it's almost plausible to blame all of the unsolved knife-crime in the world on Freddy Krueger. Additionally, it is totally possible for some rando to dress up like Freddy Krueger and start murdering teens all over the place. But that doesn't meant that Freddy-Krueger-the-dude is literally real. He is never going to creep into your dreams at night and murder you. He has the power to frighten, there are isolated forces in the world that resemble him, but he is ultimately a manufactured menace.

Part Two: Why Claiming that Sexism Isn't Real Is a Sexist Thing to Say

We live in a world of measurable, glaring inequalities. Look at politicians, CEOs, film directors, law enforcement officers, comedians, tech professionals, executive chefs, mathematicians, and on and on and on—these fields are dominated by men. (And, in many cases, white men.) To claim that there is no systemic inequality keeping women and minorities out of those jobs is to claim that men (people like you) are just naturally better. If there is no social structure favoring men, then it stands to reason that men simply work harder and/or are more skilled in nearly every high-level specialized field.

It's fine (though discouraging) if you legitimately believe that, but you need to own up to the fact that that is a self-serving and bigoted point of view. If you do not consider yourself a bigot, then kindly get on board with those of us who are trying to proactively correct inequalities. It is not enough to be neutral and tacitly benefit from inequality while others are left behind through no fault of their own. Anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia—that's where we're at now. Catch up or own your prejudice.

Part Three: Why People Being Shitty to You Is Not the Same as You Being Systematically Disenfranchised

There might be a lot of women in your life who are mean to you, but that's just women not liking you personally. Women are allowed to not like you personally, just like you are allowed to not like us personally. It's not misandry, it's mis-Kevin-dry. Or, you know, whoever you are. It is not built into our culture or codified into law, and you can rest assured that most women you encounter are not harboring secret, latent, gendered prejudices against Kevins that could cost you a job or an apartment or your physical sanctity. That doesn't mean that there aren't isolated incidents wherein mean women hurt men on purpose. But it is not a systemic problem that results in the mass disenfranchisement of men.

There are some really shitty things about being a man. You are 100% right on that. You are held up to unreasonable expectations about your body and your career and your ability/desire to conform to traditional modes of masculinity (just like women are with traditional femininity), and that is absolutely oppressive. There are radical feminists and deeply wounded women and women who just don't have the patience for diplomacy anymore who absolutely hate you because of your gender. (However, for whatever it's worth, I do not personally know a single woman like that.) That is an unpleasant situation to be in—especially when you also feel like you're being blamed for the seemingly distant problems of people you've never met and towards whom you feel no particular animus.

The difference is, though, that the radfem community on Tumblr does not currently hold the reins of power in every country on earth (even in nations with female heads of state, the political and economic power structures are still dominated by men). You do, abstractly. No, you don't have the ability or the responsibility to fix those imbalances single-handedly, but refusing to acknowledge that power structure is a slap in the face to people actively disadvantaged by it every day of their lives. You might not benefit from patriarchy in any measurable way—on an individual level your life might actually be much, much worse than mine—but the fact is that certain disadvantages are absent from your experience (and, likely, invisible to you) because of your gender.

Maybe you're saying, "Hey, but my life wasn't fair either. I've had to struggle." I know it wasn't. I know you have. But that's not how fairness works. If you present fairness as the goal—that some day everything will be "fair" for everyone—you're slipping into an unrealistic fantasy land. Life already isn't fair, because of coincidence and circumstance and the DNA you were born with, and we all have to accept the hands we're dealt and live within that reality. But life doesn't have to be additionally unfair because of imposed systems of disenfranchisement that only affect certain groups. We can fight against that.

Feminism isn't about striving for individual fairness, on a life-by-life basis—it's about fighting against a systematic removal of opportunity that infringes on women's basic freedoms. If a woman and a man have equal potential in a field, they should have an equal opportunity to achieve success in that field. It's not that we want the least qualified women to be handed everything just because they're women. It's that we want all women to have the same opportunities as all men to fulfill (or fail to fulfill, on their own inherent merits) their potential. If a particular woman is underqualified for a particular job, fine. That isn't sexism. But she shouldn't have to be systematically set up, from birth, to be underqualified for all jobs (except for jobs that reinforce traditional femininity, obv).

Part Four: A List of "Men's Rights" Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn't nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

---

Quote:

---

That's not how my black friends put it.

---

Quote:

---

Mike
Oh, spare me.

---

Quote:

---

DT, if "feminist" denotes someone who puts women above everyone else, and if "Africanist" would imply that one puts Africans above others, as you've implied, then what, pray tell, would a "globalist" believe?

And in your view, should we all be globalists?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

The man's response is completely understandable when looked at in the context of what was implied. It's not that women aren't people, it's that the answer "women are people" to the question "do you consider yourself a feminist?" (however he worded it) is one of attitude, not one of substance. The attitude your response projected was "Yes, I am a feminist and I think that men who are not pro-feminist view women as sub-human." When you consider that to his ears, this is de facto what you said, his eye roll reaction was entirely fitting.

---

And this would be a further example of a person who cannot hear what someone is saying, but merely projects their own biases and blames others for it, by calling it "implied" meaning.

Which is you. To a T.

Pull your head out of your ass, DT. You'll be able to hear better.

Yeah, I agree with Kiki. DT kicks down with the long long posts, as if using more words makes nonsense sensible.

Nope. It's still just nothing but hot air.

---

Quote:

---

Good to know you're still an asshole.
Also, are you saying these numbskulls ranting at me have a right to spout gibberish?

---

Quote:

---

DT wrote:

Flattery from men to women, men who become feminists, either the way I did, by being raised in an all female environment and never hearing a counter point to the position, or men who learn it to curry favor with women because they want somewhere to stick their dick.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Oh, I have every intention of quitting.

Yes, I've known a lot of men, too. Men jump at the chance to demonize men in hopes that girls will notice that they exist. Or boys, rather, because they are not men when they do it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Oh, I have every intention of quitting.

Yes, I've known a lot of men, too. Men jump at the chance to demonize men in hopes that girls will notice that they exist. Or boys, rather, because they are not men when they do it.

---

Wow again. Just a lot of hate and bitterness in you. I'm sorry for whatever gave you this idea of men and women and how they interact. It's sad that that is how you see the world.

---

Quote:

---

I assure you, though I doubt you'll be able to hear or believe me, I am not like that and a majority of the men and women I know don't treat each other like that. We are different, but we are equal. Equally smart, equally stupid. Equally right, equally wrong.

And we live for more than impressing or destroying the other gender.

---