The following is a response to a piece written by a feminist about Mens Rights Edmonton.
“Dear Edmonton Mens Rights Association”.
…our organization is clearly called “Mens Rights Edmonton”, but…proceed, I’m all ears.
“First of all, as a fellow Edmontonian, hello.”
“A friend and I stumbled across your website this afternoon and we noticed a couple of things in your arguments that led us to believe that you do not understand what feminism is, or why it is important, or why your crusade against it will not solve the genuine problems in society.”
-Oh, please do elaborate.
“I’d like to look at some of the arguments you present on your website. On your homepage, you say welcome to the website and encourage open-minded people to join you. You declare in all caps that you advocate for “FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR ALL”. That’s great! The world needs more open-minded people and more safe spaces for them. Good for you!”
I’m glad you agree, but unfortunately, your side (the pro-feminist side) has a lengthy track record of taking great issue with the concept of “FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR ALL” whenever somebody who disagrees with them tries to express their point of view. Perhaps you’ve noticed our mens rights posters around Edmonton have been systematically torn down (by feminists) who are clearly dreadfully afraid of our message. And gee, I wonder why that is? Seems to me, if our message was so distorted, and our arguments so weak (as feminists continually say they are), feminists wouldn’t try so hard to make sure nobody even has a chance to see them. & by the way, ripping down our posters only broadcasts to the world your fear of our message, so we will happily continue putting more up. But more to my point, it was feminists blocking doorways and doing their best to disrupt lectures on the topic of mens rights at the Toronto University recently.
According to “big red” as she is now affectionately known, we MRAs should just “shut the fuck up” & let feminism solve all our stated grievances.
…Except, feminism has had over 40 years to do something about mens issues, and they have done jack diddly about them. In fact, feminism has been directly responsible for exacerbating existing issues, while brining about new ones. So your pro-feminist camp can CLAIM to covet open-mindedness and open discourse, but you already have a great deal to answer for before you have a hope in hell of being taken seriously. If you call yourself a feminist, you have to own this shit.
“So where’s the issue?
It starts in the anti-feminism tab:
-I love that tab!
“We in the Mens Rights Movement recognize Feminism as a hateful, bigoted, and destructive ideology which undermines the civil society by pitting women against men and against their own interests.”
-That’s absolutely right. We relegate feminism to the same ideological dumpster as nazism & have about as much respect & admiration for them as a rational person has for the KKK. We hope one day soon the greater society will be exposed to enough truth to share our view.
“You tell me that “before you make the argument that feminism is about equality, or women’s rights, take a look at the following statements” so I did. I chose not to address you dismissal of feminism until I went and googled the three quotes you presented as proof that the movement I am a part of is “hateful, bigoted, and destructive”.
The first two seem to belong to radical feminists, but other than on two other MRM websites, I can’t seem to find reference to them anywhere. Where did these quotes come from?”
I’m happy to oblige. These quotes and others were collected by an MRA on a feminist forum. He captured what was said by feminists when they thought nobody was listening, and tied their statements to their real life identities. You can read about that project here:
But really, you don’t need to dig deep at all to uncover the true face of feminism.
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”-Andrea Dworkin.
“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.”-Elizabeth Cady Stanton. From “A feminist dictionary: ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985″
So feminism is about equality you say? Riiiight. We live in a culture where Sharon Osbourne and her co-hosts of a daytime cable TV show can get away with laughing and joking with a studio audience of women about the drugging, torture and sexual mutilation of a man who had the audacity to request a divorce from his wife! You mean to tell me feminism has nothing to do with that?! I got news for you, that’s the real face of feminism right there!
“Additionally, you should understand that there are radical people in any movement. Most feminists are not looking to systematically destroy and kill off the male half of our species.”
Oh really? Well isn’t that nice. Then I have a question for you. Where are these feminists and why aren’t they speaking out against the ONLY feminist voice we EVER hear in this culture which is openly hostile to men, & frankly, the free & civilized society?! They seemed pretty damn quiet and invisible when people claiming to be feminists made complete asses of themselves in Toronto earlier this year. Why no damage control by these good feminists you claim make up the majority? You would think they would be the most vocal about denouncing the minority of bigoted individuals who tarnish the good name of feminism by advocating statism and violence against men under the feminist label. Where are these “nice feminists” every-time a stupid statement is uttered. such as:
“Women can do anything men can do, & do it better, & do it in heels”-Barak Obama, on his 2008 presidential election bid.
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, fathers, & their sons in combat:.-Hilary Clinton.
Nowhere, that’s where.
But even if we assumed for a moment, that these nice feminists of which you speak, do in fact make up the majority and are just simply…extremely lazy…allow me to explain why it just doesn’t matter. Actually, no. I’ll let GirlWritesWhat do that, she’s already explained this before.
Okay, so if you want to be a career focused woman, Simone de Beauvoir takes no issue with you. However, if you’re a woman who would much rather be a mother and housewife to your husband & children whom you love, then that choice must be due to social conditioning >and you should not be permitted to live that lifestyle<, so saith Simone de Beauvoir. Sounds like a piss poor definition of choice to me. Her “social conditioning” theory is garbage. You see, much to Simone de Beauvoir & other feminists chagrin, most women simply don’t covet careers over motherhood. Simone de Beauvoir admits she’s aware of this when she says “if women were given that choice, too many would make that one”. So feminists like her set out to dupe society into believing this motherly instinct was due to social conditioning rather than biology. Social conditioning theory would have us believe that both boys & girls are essentially blank slates at birth with absolutely no inherent genetic differences between them aside from the physical, & it is solely social influences (conditioning) which makes them want to be architects/CEOs/protectors & providers, and secretaries/nurturers/care givers respectively. This “theory”, and I hesitate to dignify it with the title, does not take into account eons of human procreation which has instilled in each sex a preponderance to be protectors & providers in the case of males and nurturers/care-givers in the case of females to better meet the needs of survival. There is nothing wrong with this hard wiring and none of it is simply going to go away in the span of a few decades simply because willfully ignorant feminists wish it to. We’re better off to embrace it for the good of humanity. Men and women have MASSIVE innate differences. That’s not a bad thing. Next!
“I don’t know, I think that seems like a pretty fair argument to me. Why should we be expected to keep preforming within restrictive gender roles? How is it against a woman’s own interest to fight for this? How is it against a man’s to fight for this?”
Feminism doesn’t seem to take issue with restrictive male gender roles, does it? In fact, it has institutionalized chivalry & male disposability at every level of society, from family law, to education, to the workplace, to the military, etc, etc… If feminist truly wanted to let men choose their own lifestyles, why do they use the state to take away mens opportunities & cheapen women’s achievements via affirmative action laws? The USA alone extends over 160 race & sex based affirmative action policies (Hollander Paul, Discontents: Postmodern & Postcommunist. p59). So much for feminism being about choices! Or equality of opportunity for that matter.
“This is essentially saying that all people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to be parents, and more importantly, what their roles should be in society. Isn’t that similar to what you yourself say under the heading of reproductive rights?”
Oh, feminism is about providing people with the freedom of choosing whether or not they want to be parents, eh? What reproductive rights do men have exactly? Why do feminists constantly protest and kibosh any attempts to develop a “male pill”? If a woman opts to kill her (& his) baby simply because she finds it inconvenient, what choices does the man have in that instance? If a woman gets pregnant without a man’s consent, can he opt out of all obligations to that child like a woman can?
What we in the mens rights movement are saying is-each man & woman should be able to make their own lifestyle choices according to wherever they find the most fulfillment. And if that means in the long run we end up with a radically disproportionate number of career minded men and family oriented women, then so be it! Because we recognize that equality of outcome does NOT equal equality of opportunity. Feminism has been shaming women out of their homes for decades. They have lied to women, promising them they would find true happiness and fulfillment by going against their biological programming. I personally believe that (generally speaking) the further one gets from their biological predispositions, the more miserable they become. & isn’t it a coincidence that after several decades of feminism, marriages are on the decline, the female participation rate in the workplace is at an all time high, and women’s happiness on aggregate is lower than ever? This was the finding of 6 major studies surveying more than 1.3 million men and women over the last 40 years, both in the U.S. and in developed countries around the world. Wherever researchers have been able to collect reliable data on happiness, the finding is always the same: greater educational, political, and employment opportunities have corresponded to decreases in life happiness for women, as compared to men.”
Thanks Feminism! Say, would you mind F-ing off now for a little while?
“Let’s go look at that tab.
”If a woman gets an unwanted pregnancy, she can opt out of motherhood by having an abortion. If a man gets a woman pregnant and is not ready or willing to be a father, he has two options; he can be financially locked into fatherhood or he can run away and be labeled a “deadbeat dad” and possibly hunted down by the authorities and forced to pay for the child he did not want.”
“as soon as he learns he has impregnated a woman, a man should be allowed to have a choice regarding whether or not he is a dad.”
Okay, we’re going to have to disagree a bit here. To me, if a man and a woman decide to engage in sexual intercourse, they should be at the very least aware of the fact that potentially, there will be babies. Even the most thorough amount of protection can still leave cause for potential children. These things happen. And if a woman decides to keep the child, then that is her prerogative. If she has to carry the thing for nine months while it mutates inside her, changes her body chemistry, and potentially affects every choice she will make for the rest of her life just by carrying it to term, then it should be 100% her decision. Not her partner’s. Not her parents’. Not her friends or family or society’s. Hers. You present an either/or scenario when in reality, there are other options for men. It’s not necessarily a matter of: I’m trapped paying for a kid I don’t want or I have to run away and deal with the shame of leaving. It’s a much more complex issue than that.
A man’s choice to engage in sexual intercourse is NOT him choosing to be a father. Obviously both parties have an obligation to be aware of the risks of STDs and unwanted pregnancies and take proper precautions, but only women have been afforded the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies before, during, & immediately after sex. Men do not have this equal control over their fertility. Moreover, statistics show that a demonstrable 30% of children are being raised by men who are not the child’s real father, and these men are totally unaware of it. This is paternity fraud, and no legal system in a land where feminism reigns even recognizes it as a crime, let alone dishes out punishment to the women who commit it.
“…if a woman decides to keep the child”
You mean, if she decides not to kill it. Seems like you’re advocating a standard wherein a woman can choose to keep or discard her obligations to a child & impose or take away a man’s if she chooses. Is that equality?
“Additionally, I think you’ll find that feminists don’t want women to have to financially rely on men to support their children in the first place.”
Oh, we are keenly aware of feminism’s intent to replace fathers with the state. Feminism did start out as a marxist ideology and it hasn’t changed much. It is partly the reason feminists continually protest the depiction of the traditional father-mother-children family unit. Nowhere in Obama’s “Life of Julia” ad, was a man even mentioned. The left has recognized that replacing fathers with a monthly government cheque breeds an electorate of single mothers who vote in the party that is guaranteeing them either more and more taxpayer funded benefits or uniformed thugs who will make damn sure money is transferred from the man of her choosing to her. Unfortunately, this doesn’t play out well for the children as the single greatest indicator of whether or not a child becomes a criminal, an addict, homeless, suicidal, or successful, (more than race), is whether or not they had a father in their life. Additionally, this new family model places children at greater risk when you consider the fact murdered children are most frequently killed at the hands of their mothers. But what do feminists care what happens to individual eggs if it means their ideological omelet gets cooked?
“On that note, let’s move to False Allegations.
Yes, lets. I’m having a ball.
“You say that:
“This rush to judgement undermines the presumption of innocence; that fundamental right within western law guaranteeing that the accused be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Rather, men accused of hitting women, raping women or even raising their voice to women are assumed guilty (and a particularly heinous guilt at that) until they prove their innocence. With public attitude so stacked against men, false allegations of rape or assault are bound to become more frequent, since nobody really cares about getting the facts straight when it comes to protecting women.”
I’m glad that you brought this up, actually, because the belief that women actively pull the “rape card” and falsely accuse men of raping them is an inaccuracy and one of the many reasons that we still need feminism today. Here are some facts for you:
“The FBI finds that only one in four rapes are published in the Uniform Crime Reports. The Uniform Crime Reports do not include rapes that end in death, since those are reported as homicides.” (Anderson 276)”
Didn’t the FBI re-define rape to include women who have sex while intoxicated? Yeah they did.
This struck me as messed up, since this essentially insists that only the man is the accountable adult in the equation. The woman’s decision to get drunk or high and have sex does not factor into it at all. According to the FBI, women are just hopeless objects along for the ride. Misogyny?
Without touching on the fact it is the FBI’s job to investigate crimes rather than define the laws, what the FBI did was change the definition of rape to a ridiculously loose interpretation designed to increase rape statistics. Excluded from their definition is oral or anal penetration as well as the rape of men by women. Which would lead one to wonder…why would they intentionally cook the books on rape statistics? If you read that article, you’ll get multi-millions of reasons why.
BUT anyways, as Im sure you’re aware, rape is the rarest of all crimes tracked by the US department of Justice statistics. The reality is, real genuine rape is NOT a common crime. & contrary to what feminists say, …repeatedly, …ad nauseum, rape is NOT a gendered issue. Ready for the truth? Rape is committed by a minority of mentally unstable men & WOMEN on women & MEN & children. Rape is committed by women as well as men, in nearly equal numbers according to the 2010 CDC.
“1.27 million women reported “forced penetration” (including attempted), compared to 1.27 million men who were “forced to penetrate”.
We don’t need feminism spreading lies and fraudulent statistics (such as their ¼ women stat) setting us back on addressing this issue. It takes a genuine psychopath to commit actual rape. Meanwhile, thanks in large part to feminism’s rape hysteria campaigns & lobbying, women have been granted a slew of social, legal, & financial incentives to make a false allegation of rape. Victim status, money, jealousy, revenge, a “badge of honour” (supporting the sisterhood), society’s preponderance to make a good faith judgment in favor of women over men, virtually zero threat of punishment if caught,…are just a few motivations for a women today to make a false accusation. With all of those incentives, wouldn’t there be far more women willing to make a false accusation of rape than there are psychopathic men that commit actual rape? I think so. But don’t get us wrong, we don’t believe for one second that if the tables were reversed, & it was men who had such an advantage over women, that we wouldn’t see many men coming forward to take advantage of this either. They most certainly would.
“According to most estimates, 80 – 90% of rapes are not reported to police.”
This argument is absolutely moronic. How in the hell could you possibly even begin to speculate on how many rapes are NOT reported to police?! That goes for both male & female victims. & given the incentives I listed above, how many women would hesitate to come forward if they were actually raped? How many men would be hesitant to come forward? Would it be more or less than the number of women? I assembled a playlist of videos refuting the feminist so-called arguments regarding rape some time ago. If you need more clarification on where men’s rights activists stand on the issue, watch these:
“Current trends project that 1 in 3 American women will be sexually assaulted at some point during their lives.” (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001955.htm)
First, the overwhelming majority of rape victims are male. Male rape has been called “The most closely guarded secret of American prisons.” (Weiss & Friar 1974). There are estimated to be over 300,000 male rapes per year in American prisons & jails. A United Nations statistical report compiled from government sources showed that more than 250,000 cases of male on female rape or attempted rape were recorded by police annually. The reported data covered 65 countries.
Second, many sources on rape statistics outside of prison do not consider male on female rape as rape, which means their statistics will be obviously one sided. This culture still cheers on young boys who become sexually involved with women much much older than them. It isn’t hard to imagine that some of these “oversights” are very likely to be deliberate.
“Number of rape kits untested by the Houston police force: 6,000-7,000 (Texas ranked second in nation for “forcible rape”)”
“Number of rape kits left untested in Detroit, listed by Forbes as one of two the most dangerous places for woman to live in the US: 11,303”
Where is the most dangerous place for men? Did they do that study? I’m betting the safest place for women is still far more dangerous a place for men. Look into the disproportionate number of assault and murder rates according to gender. I believe the stats are men are 4 times more likely to be murdered and 8 times more likely to be assaulted.
“Percentage of rapists who are never incarcerated: 97 percent”
Ah yes, but we’ve seen how feminists view rape trials. They’re usually just a TAD…well, biased.
If somebody is acquitted of a crime, are they not innocent & clear of their charges? Seems like when a man accused of rape is acquitted, feminists then see them as rapists who got away with their crime. Feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte declared on her blog that people who defended the wrongly accused Duke students were “rape-loving scum”. She went on to say “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?” This was after they were proven to be innocent. Their accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, later went on to commit arson and murder by the way. So should we listen to feminist estimations on how many “rapists” get away with their sexual assaults? I’m thinking….nah!
But, how many false rape accusers are never incarcerated? Do you have that figure? What’s the over-under on that percentage being in the high 90’s?! Go check Salon.com or Huffington Post & get back to me on that.
“Percentage of rapes that studies find are false claims: 2-8 percent” (the above 4 stats taken from huffingtonpost.com)
First, here is a refutation of that meaningless 2% figure.
Second, as mentioned in that study, false accusations are much too complicated to estimate and sum up accurately into a figure as exact as 2% . Plea bargains are one reason why and a majority of rape cases end that way. False Rape Society estimates false accusations of rape to be somewhere in between 40-60%.
Third, Huffington post is an ass-wipe publication. Established deceivers need not be continually refuted. Credibility, once lost cannot be easily re-acquired. & they’ve lost theirs long ago. I would more accurately refer to these “facts” as “factoids” which bear no relation to reality and only serve the feminist ideological agenda by gaining credibility solely through repetition.
While false accusation is a thing that happens, it happens far less regularly than you and society seem to believe. It is much more important that we protect both women and men from sexual assault and make sure that they have a safe place to come forward and do so than it is to protect that 2% of men who may have been falsely accused.
A longitudinal study conducted by Professor Eugene Kanin concluded that over a period of nine years, 41% of rape allegations studied were fraudulent, concocted by the alleged victim to either create an alibi, seek attention and sympathy, or to seek revenge.
205 (& growing) wrongly convicted people have been exonerated by DNA evidence since the beginning of the Innocence Project. 204 of the wrongly convicted were men. Most of them were falsely imprisoned for rape. http://www.innocenceproject.org/
*Former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman once opined, “For sixteen years I was a kick ass prosecutor who made the most of my reputation [by] vigorously prosecuting rapists. I was amazed to see all the false rape allegationsmade to the Denver Police Department. A command officer in the Denver Police Sex Assault Unity recently told me he put the false rape numbers at approximately 45%.”
Here are some of the numbers coming out of England and Wales:
Out of 159 suspected cases referred to the CPS, 35 ended in a prosecution.
-Almost half of the accusers were aged under 21, some were under 16.
-92% of those prosecuted were women.
-98% of those accused of rape were men, and the majority were aged over 21.
-84% of those making false claims identified their “attacker”. One case saw a woman randomly accuse a man she saw on Facebook.
-18% of those making false claims had “a mental health problem”.
& of coarse, let us not forget, ghost rape: http://seattlest.com/2008/04/23/federal_way_wom.php
Your second last issue I’ve chosen to look at is Inactivism
“While female circumcision is known as FGM (female genital mutilation) and condemned by the UN and illegal in most first-world countries, male circumcision is perfectly legal. People who oppose this double standard are known as ‘intactivists’” Intactivists want it to be illegal to unnecessarily surgically alter the genitals of ANY infant”.
Male and female circumcision are two very different things. Male circumcision is mostly harmless. Female circumcision is done deliberately as a way to cause pain and take away sexual pleasure. Please do not say one is equal to the other. Otherwise, I don’t think you’d find too many feminists who would disagree with you here, at least not for feminist reasons. Not surgically altering anyone’s genitals unnecessarily sounds fine to me!
First, this short video will explain the differences between male & female circumcision & why it just doesn’t matter.
Second, you say cutting flesh away from a male’s genitals at infancy is harmless?! Why doesn’t “his body, his choice” apply here?! Who are you or anybody to mutilate the genitals of children! This is a barbaric, morally & scientifically unjustifiable practice. & here’s where it becomes a massive human rights concern. The W.H.O. in concert with the U.N., the World Bank, the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and several other very well funded and influential N.G.Os are funding, supporting and administering a multinational effort to circumcise over 28 million men in Sub Saharan Africa by 2015. This initiative has gained the overwhelming support of the State Department as well as the U.N. in spite of mounting evidence that the RCTs (randomized controlled trials) performed in 2005 in Africa, which concluded that men who underwent circumcision were 60% less likely to contract HIV, were seriously flawed and administered largely by unqualified individuals with both financial and ideological conflicts of interest.
What these high & mighty bastards did, was flat out LIE to Africans, telling them circumcision will prevent them from contracting aids and other STDs. We know this to be absurd, but these Africans do not know any better. As a result, men in Africa have lined up to be circumcised on false presences and some are even taking to HOLDING UNWILLING MEN DOWN IN STREETS AND PERFORMING FORCED CIRCUMCISIONS ON THEM WITHOUT ANY ANESTHETIC OR PROPER MEDICAL PROCEDURES under the belief that they are acting in the best interests of their society.
Moreover, compelling evidence is surfacing that the trauma of being circumcised at such a young age can have permanent psychological affects.
“Harmless” she says! Only a morally bankrupt individual would deny that infant, forced, & coerced circumcision is genital mutilation. It should ALL be outlawed. Period.
And finally, there is misandry
“Misandry is the hatred of men. Comments like “men are pigs” or “men are dogs” or “men are scum” are misandric. Most people take these statements as jokes or good-natured ribbing. Honestly, sometimes they are. Sometimes it’s all in good fun to say “Blacks are pigs” or “homosexuals are dogs” or “jews are scum”, too. Still, reading those words probably made your blood boil, right?”
“There is no justification for society to be hypersensitive to degrading comments about every single group EXCEPT men. No justification, that is, unless you consider how oppressive and privileged men have always been, right? Men deserve it, right? After all, men have always sat around, smoked cigars, drank brandy and lived in luxury while women fought the wars, mined the coal and gave up their seats on lifeboats for their tyrannic male overlords.
Okay. First of all, equating slurs of oppressed groups to slurs about unoppressed groups doesn’t fly. Let’s make that really, really obvious. Men are not an oppressed group. Let me repeat that. MEN ARE NOT AN OPPRESSED GROUP.
Who said men were an oppressed group?! Certainly there are laws and attitudes that are oppressive to men, but nobody is saying all men are oppressed. What we are pointing out in this opening paragraph, is that isolating one group of people based on their sex, their race, their religion, (or whatever) and referring to all of those people as “dogs, scum, or pigs” is a form of bigotry and it is wrong. In the case of men, it is called misandry, just like in the case of women it is called misogyny. Does that fly?! Most rational people need not have this explained to them. They intuit right away that bigotry is not a virtue. (…you didn’t)?
The patriarchy caused some men to live in luxury while others fought and died. This is not the fault of women. It is not our fault that we were not allowed to enlist. That we were not allowed to do hard labor. That we were expected to stay at home while all of this went on. That we are still discriminated against in positions which belong traditionally to men. Men kept these things from happening. They kept women from working and fighting and they still do; there is still a glass ceiling. This is the very definition of being an oppressive group.
Oh, the patriarchy again. There is no patriarchy! Got it? The patriarchy is a bullshit feminist construct invented to excuse finger pointing and female favoring legislation. & who said we blamed women for restrictive gender roles? I think this is another instance of feminists conflating the demographic of women with the ideology of feminism. Run BY MEN has never in human history translated into run FOR men, & as they say, behind every powerful man, there is a powerful woman, who, in some instances is really the one calling all the shots or pulling all the strings. It was meeting the needs of survival in the pre-industrialized world which pigeon holed men and women into the respective gender rolls. Not evil conspiratorial men twirling their mustaches like feminists would have the world believe. You say the very definition of being an oppressed group, is being forcefully excluded from sucking coal dust, or dodging bullets on a battlefield?!
Think about that a for a moment!
Additionally, there is no glass ceiling. Just ask Hilary cankles Clinton, or Nancy Pig-lousy. It’s funny how we need to constantly hear about this supposed “glass ceiling” from these feminist wind-bags who have more power & wealth than most human beings ON THE PLANET! Yet we never hear these same blow-hards speaking about the glass cellar which metaphorically describes the bottom of society that is mostly male as well. Women have been historically exempt from having to do hard labour, & frankly, for the most part, they still don’t. Workplace fatalities are still 95% male and war casualties are 99% male. What is preventing women today from choosing to work an oil rig or inventing the next facebook? Not a damn thing.
I began by saying I don’t think you understand feminism, and that is where I’d like to end.You say in your about more section that “What we want is for everybody to be treated equally. We want equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.” This is what feminism is. The strange part is, your poster is technically correct. Feminism is not about women, not entirely. It is not about bringing men down to the level of oppression women experience. It is not about brushing off the real suffering men face due to the system. It is about abolishing the gender binary. It is about destroying the rampant sexism, the gender rules that say men must act like this, women must act like this.
Feminism is NOT about equally at all. It is about special privileges for women, often at the expense of men & children (and non-feminist women’s) civil rights and best interests. All feminism has done is seek to increase benefits for women without taking on commensurate responsibilities and expectations, and eliminating responsibilities and expectations without sacrificing commensurate benefits. I will remind you of the over 160 race & sex based affirmative action programs in the united states and the fact the Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally-regulated industries give preferential treatment to women, people with disabilities, aboriginal people, and visible minorities. You call this “equality of opportunity”?! I call it discrimination, because that is precisely what it is. These policies and others like them exist because of feminism. Feminisms ridiculous definition of equality is certainly not appreciated by non-feminist women either, who want to make their own way without special treatment or consideration simply because of their genitals. Dongle-gate demonstrated to men in the tech industry that they do not have any free speech rights whenever they are in the presence of the >few< women in their field. Because of feminist imposed standards of sexual harassment, men in professional environments must be constantly vigilant about not saying or doing anything that could be remotely misinterpreted as “harassment”. Hell, men can even be accused of shit they didn’t do, and their personal & professional lives will go down the tubes regardless. For the few men in teaching positions, it’s not a question of IF but WHEN they are going to have to face an accusation by a young woman who intuits the ill-gotten power she has been granted over him.
Women has a group are not oppressed and never have been. Whenever gender roles mandate a man bear the weight of a woman’s poor choices or circumstances, feminists not only embrace them, they demand such obligations be legally enforced such as in the case of alimony or child support. & as I proved earlier with Simone de Bouvoir’s quote, feminists are quick to castigate & ridicule those women who don’t fall in line with feminism’s ideals.
It is about giving men the ability to come forward with instances of sexual assault without fear of ridicule. It is about creating a world where people can freely express themselves under any version of gender that they choose to identify with. It is about defeating the patriarchy. It is about equality.
Do you think that gay man & bisexual woman felt free to express themselves during the university of Toronto lecture where feminists banged bludgeons, screamed at the top of their lungs through megaphones and pulled fire alarms?
I’m curious, why do feminists hate homosexuals so much?
Judging by your last sentence, it is clear YOU are the one who does not understand what feminism is. Either that or you’re in willful denial of it. Either way, it’s pretty much inconsequential what you choose to believe at the end of the day. Feminism’s time is OVER. Sooner rather than later, and much sooner than you think, feminism’s underserved control over societal policies and attitudes will be wrenched from it’s fat, spoiled hands and usurped by the true egalitarians-US!, and there is nothing stubborn feminists will be able to do about it but sit and mope and wax nostalgic about the days when they had all the power and control at every level of society and nobody dared challenge them.