559
560
561

Men's RightsDear Moderate Feminists: You Don't Exist (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 2undead_keyboard

This is a letter to all the moderate, armchair feminists out there. You know who you are. You're a feminist because you believe in equality! You believe men and women should have equal rights, that feminists aren't all a bunch of man haters, and you don't understand why some people (like MRAs and Red Pillers) are just so darn angry with feminists all the time. You certainly never did anything to hurt us! You only want for all of us to just get along!

To all you ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to take you through an explanation as to why you, yes you, sitting at your computer or browsing on your mobile, you, who are an actual living, breathing person with a variety of thoughts, feelings, and experiences at your disposal, why you don't actually, for all practical intents and purposes, exist.

(1) You don't make the laws.

Ask yourself this, my moderate feminist reader – when was the last time you, and whatever moderate feminist organization that you're a part of, created or influenced legislation that got passed or policy changes that got enacted? You got women the vote, you say? Come now, I highly doubt it was you and your specific moderate feminist lobbying organization that you're a part of that got women the vote. Nothing? Interesting. Well, since you haven't created any laws that have impacted society, I guess there's no proof there that you exist these days.

Radical feminists, on the other hand, have given us the Duluth Model of domestic violence which was incorporated into the Violence Against Women Act. If you don't know, the Duluth Model is the gold standard for determining who police should blame and arrest in a domestic violence dispute (hint: it's always the man's fault). They've done this despite the fact that the Duluth Model is, through and through, flawed.

They've given us the Dear Colleague letter, handed down by the federal government to colleges, and inciting college campuses to create campus kangaroo courts, to violate the rights to due process of those male students accused of rape.

They've given us the Yes, Means Yes law, which implies that men are rapists unless, during a sexual encounter, they stop and re-affirm consent with the woman regularly. If they forget to re-affirm consent (as consent can be withdrawn non-verbally by the woman at any time), they're a rapist.

They have actively and successfully stood in the way of shared parenting laws, where fathers, by default, would gain 50% custody of their children during a divorce. According to the feminist organization NOW, “Increased father involvement does not necessarily result in positive outcomes for children.” That's funny, couldn't the same thing be said for increased mother involvement? Or...wait a minute?!? Is NOW actually promoting the outdated gender role of women being the best caregivers for children? How neanderthal of them!

So you see, my moderate feminist readers, when it comes to the political landscape and passing laws and policies that actually effect the lives of, well, everyone, your radical feminists friends have proved themselves to exist again and again. Whereas you, with your occasional retweet of #heforshe and a sincere wish for everyone to just get along....well...

(2) You don't get out there and “represent.”

If you exist, my moderate feminist friend...then why do we never see you? Shouldn't you be out there somewhere? Getting petitions signed? Attending protests for or against....uh...whatever it is would concern a moderate feminist (we'll go into that later)?

Your radical feminist brothers and sisters are only all too visible.

Here they are in Toronto at an event for Doctor Warren Farrell, who was talking about a number of dangerous and highly volatile issues that radical feminists apparently hate men to talk about, such as “why are so many men killing themselves?” and “is there anything we can do to stop all these men from killing themselves?” I'm glad these brave feminist men and women were there to literally fight with police officers in an attempt to shut this dangerous talk down.

And then there's Dr. Janice Fiamengo, who regularly talks about how modern radical feminists have gotten a little crazy and cultish, how they go so far as to oppose dissenting opinions and free speech. Well, the radical feminists were only too happy to prove her right when they showed up to blow horns and chant to completely disrupt the event. Way to prove your existence Rad Fems!

And who can forget the radical feminist's fascination with pulling fire alarms, as is demonstrated at this anti-sexism talk hosted by a men's group.

As you can see, not only have radical feminists pushed laws that affect our lives nationwide, they do their best to keep boots on the ground, ready to spring into action at a moment's notice.

Now, my moderate feminist friend, got any video or photographic proof of yourself doing great feminist works? No? Well, that's not helping your case for actually existing, now, is it?

(3) Your leadership is non-existent.

Help me out here, armchair feminists. Is there an armchair feminist queen? Is there a council of elders? Is there any kind of leadership, authority figure, hell, even a published author you can point to as the voice for moderate feminism? And good luck trying to prove Christina Hoff Summers is your leader. By all accounts, the feminist movement seems to have disavowed her existence.

In the meantime, lets see what noted radical feminist leaders and authors are saying:

  • “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
  • “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” - Valerie Solanas
  • “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 paraphrased from a work of fiction. New and improved Dworkin quote below.
  • Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. - Andrea Dworkin
  • “Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller
  • “In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon Misattributed to MacKinnon. New and improved MacKinnon quote below.
  • Perhaps the wrong of rape has proven so difficult to articulate because the unquestionable starting point has been that rape is definable as distinct from intercourse, when for women it is difficult to distinguish them under conditions of male dominance. - Catherine MacKinnon
  • “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart
  • “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins
  • “Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.
  • "Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman." - Mary Koss
  • "Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires, these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim." - Mary Koss

Well, that looks like a strong showing from radical feminist figureheads to me, and certainly more proof of their existence of radical feminists. Moderate feminists...not so much.

(4) No one knows what you actually want to do.

So, oh moderate feminist, you want “everyone to be equal and just get along.” So what, actually, do you mean by that? What do you want the government/society to do to actually make women equal? It's okay, I'll give you a minute. In the meantime...

Radical feminists want to eliminate the burden of proof for rape cases.

Radical feminists are pretty sure that most women should stop going to prison for committing crimes.

Radical feminists want men to stop having sex with women all together, because all penis in vagina sex is rape.

Since all sex is rape, prostitution is flat out, because women can't consent.

Radical feminists also say we'd better just eliminate pornography while we're at it.

They want to sterilize men, unless they get a procreation license.

Which should make it easier to reduce the population of men down to 10%.

Hell, let's start reducing that male population now!

Looks like radical feminists have some pretty strong ideas for where they want the world to go.

Whereas you, dear moderate feminists...well...your battles have been won. Women can vote. Women can own property. Women out number men in colleges. Not only is the wage gap gone, but in some age categories, women now actually out earn men. Women outlive men. Women are in prison less than men. Women are attacked on the street less than men. Women get custody of the kids more than men. "Rape culture" has disappeared out of existence so hard that now a woman can completely make up a story about being raped and be taken seriously by the national media with no proof. Women can now be proud to be sluts! Women can be proud to join the workforce! Women can be completely ashamed of themselves for wanting to be stay-at-home moms. You've won!

Conclusion: You don't exist.

And that's just the thing...when your movement has won, well, there's no point in having a movement anymore. When you win the game, you pack up and go home. Your movement ceases to exist. Your identity as a member of that movement ceases to exist. Poof. Gone. Bye bye.

And that, dear feminist is that. Whether it be lawmaking, activism, ideas for going forward, and leadership to guide the way, you just don't seem to exist on any front, whereas radical feminism seems as real as ever.

So the next time you see an MRA, MGTOW, Red Piller, or average Joe/Jane on the street complain about how whacky feminism is, remember what it is that they're actually talking about. They're complaining about the feminism that actually EXISTS in the world. That actually does things, enacts changes, makes policy decisions, writes laws, and maintains an active presence in the universe. They're not talking about the puff of non-existence that is your precious feminism. So maybe you should give them some slack for attacking something real and dangerous instead of a harmless figment of your imagination. And while you're at it, maybe just start calling yourself an egalitarian instead. It'll probably be an equally meaningless title in your hands, but at least people won't mistakenly confuse you for an actual feminist. That'd be terrible.

edit: fixed some mis-attributed quotes.

edit2: added some new feminist quotes.


[–]The_BeardedGentleman 104 points105 points  (40 children)

Karen covered "Feminism, own your shit" pretty thoroughly in

feminism, y'all gotta own this sh*t

as well if anyone hasn't seen it yet, and loves listening to her thoroughly debunk a mountain of bullshit.

She covers the side of "I'm a feminist but not like that!" as well as goes over the history of feminism and how these psychotic traits of wanting to destroy men (literally) have been there from the get go and aren't just the crazies of the group.

[–]newls 64 points65 points  (37 children)

The only outspoken feminists I know are ugly, out of shape, and haven't had proper boyfriends in years. Pretty girls are happy girls.

[–]The_BeardedGentleman 26 points27 points  (31 children)

I know them from all over the visual spectrum. The loudest however, typically fall into your description.

My cousin is a big ole dyke and shes one of the loudest cunts I know in regards to feminism. She was one of the bitches leading a lot of the shit over the last few years at Georgetown. Naturally she blocked me on FB after I gave her a thorough and fact based stomping time and time again, whenever she'd post some feminazi rant on there.

[–]newls 33 points34 points  (21 children)

Feminists are like anger phase guys here, except feminist beliefs are based on false premises.

[–]cariboo_j 14 points15 points  (3 children)

and society encourages it rather than deriding it and calling it dangerous

[–]newls 11 points12 points  (2 children)

Publicly questioning the assumptions of feminism is taboo now. That's pretty crazy.

However in one-on-one interactions with most guys they seem to agree that most parts of modern feminism are crazy. Like girls shouldn't expect all the gentleman/chivalry stuff if they're not going to make any effort themselves, etc.

[–]Cthulu2013 13 points14 points  (1 child)

I was put on academic probation for questioning the rape statistic quoted (the 1 in 5). funny enough i was actually reading new studying disproving that statistic and moving it closer to 1 in 20, which still incorporated sexual ASSAULT in a RAPE statistic.

A creepy guy can be charged with sexual assault for "touching a woman with sexual intent".. A very sexual slap on the shoulder.

[–]newls 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I was put on academic probation for questioning the rape statistic quoted (the 1 in 5).

Are you serious? Damn. That's some 1984 shit.

[–]The_BeardedGentleman 9 points10 points  (13 children)

She quite visibly exploded with outrage when I mentioned once that she should send me 5 dollars to buy condoms with since you can buy birth control for about $4-5 with a lot of insurance plans "but thats too much, it needs to be fully covered".

They're so predictable that its almost painful.

[–]newls 4 points5 points  (12 children)

Haha. I thought doctors gave out condoms like candy? At least in universities. In the NHS they'll happily throw 10 at you.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I was going to buy some water balloons for a prank. I think you just gave me an idea.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

FYI condoms suck as water balloons. They just bounce and don't pop.

[–]DrScientist812 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It'd be a good way to test the durability of your condom though

[–]save_the_rocks 2 points3 points  (7 children)

That's true. It's mostly just a question of brand preference habit. Lifestyle versus Trojan I think sums it up. I once had a girlfriend bring a whole mixer pack of different brands (she worked in public health). Never really had much interest in experimenting... especially with the glow in the dark ones. haha

(And by public health, I mean she worked for one of the same organizations that tried to lynch the Duke Lacrosse team and joked in bed how she could accuse me of rape and nobody would believe me. AWALT- she was just a little louder, bolder I suppose.)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

joked in bed how she could accuse me of rape and nobody would believe me.

Fucking terrifying, even as a joke. I would have hard nexted the bitch without any explanation whatsoever. I'm talking full "block you on all social media and my phone" next. I don't care how good the pussy is, it's not worth my freedom.

[–]save_the_rocks 8 points9 points  (5 children)

So what I did was continue for a couple more weeks while building a couple Megabytes worth of proof demonstrating the... errr super duper consensual nature of our time together via pics and chat logs.

She left the state for work/school shortly thereafter, but came back two months later for an interview. She asked me to lunch as part of her grand networking tour (extremely career minded). Long story short: I ended up bringing her back to my apartment, had her give me a blowjob and such, drove her to the airport where I finger blasted her in the parking lot until her kakhi capris were obviously soaked through, and then I left her wet and dripping at the terminal curb for a 6 hour flight back.

Wish I had a picture of that.

Edit: When she was giving me head on that return trip, she was also cheating on some boyfriend she had been seeing for several months at that point. AWALT. Sadly, she said they talked it out together and he was 'very understanding' about it all.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Yeah, the pics were a smart call. This is why I secretly videotape my encounters with basically every girl I fuck if it's at all possible; it's really hard to get me with an FRA if I've got a video of you moaning and gyrating on my dick.

Doing this literally saved me from an FRA once - it was great watching her face drop when I told her I had a tape of her, shall we say, "enthusiastically consenting." I have to recommend secretly taping sex as a strategy to every man who gets laid regularly. Drop a few hundred on a tiny camera; this is more than worth your freedom, men. Just don't put that shit online unless you feel like inviting a different kind of legal trouble (revenge porn laws, etc).

I will say it's kind of funny/darkly ironic to me that feminism-run-wild has directly lead to men like me secretly taping sexual encounters when we otherwise wouldn't.

[–]The_BeardedGentleman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh I'm sure they would, it was mainly to piss her off. Though I'm sure I could come up with a valid counter argument to that involving freedom of choice of what kind of condoms I want (see birth control and fitting my needs), as well as spending the gas to go to the doctors office and I live in an area without one nearby ( see easy access to clinics that feminists rant about all the time ), and so on. It was really at its heart just a dig at her to go get her own shit and pay for it if she wants to reap the benefits of it.

Although i'm just now realizing how derailed this is, so I'm going to go now haha

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Again with anger phase. You can be angry with the way women are and still get laid. I fucking hate the nature of women and stay continuously pissed off about it. Doesn't stop me from putting on my alpha face and getting pussy from time to time. Only thing my anger phase has hindered me is that I'm picky about the women I'll fuck or date. Sad but when I go out, I assume every bitch there has an std. It's kept me clean for years

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Around here the skinny girls are on meth, those not on meth have multiple kids (some have the same daddy) and all of them, even the fat chicks are flaky as fuck. I assume most have stds as well, so no bareback until I see a test result with a very recent date stamp.

I'm looking at going overseas, not to find a wife, but to enjoy some drug and feminism free time with girls. American girls are mostly a waste of skin and oxygen, not worth any effort, with far too many risks.

[–]Corndog_Enthusiast 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And they never get past the anger stage.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

please tell me you screen caped your stomping

[–]1trpposter 7 points8 points  (6 children)

I know them from all over the visual spectrum.

I've never seen a feminist not be fat, ugly or have her hair died a bright, unsightly color. Where do you find these diverse feminists?

[–]The_BeardedGentleman 10 points11 points  (0 children)

coffee shops. At protests, its typically all fat ugly neon bitches.

[–]Cthulu2013 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I find them in my bed from time to time.

What fucking rock do you live under? Sleep with a girl in an art school and you'll see how the cute subordinate tattooed/pierced girl is a raging feminist.

Every woman I know considers themselves a "feminist" save for a few.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I roll my eyes when I meet meek, regular submissive chicks who claim to be "feminists." If you have an actual conversation with them about a variety of topics you can tell they pretty much agree with TRP concepts, they just have this sort of mild brainwashing effect from all the bullshit that society stuffs into their little heads.

I don't think that's necessarily the kind of feminist we're talking about here. I fuck "feminists" all the time, but I don't know if I could tamp down my disgust long enough to fuck a bullhorn wielding keyboard warrior SJW cunt feminista, no matter how physically attractive she is (hint: they are almost never physically attractive, and the ones that are have usually ruined themselves with really shitty tats, piercings, and enough drugs to prematurely age them.)

[–]BigDiggerNick74 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I've seen it in college, but usually attractive girls only ride the feminist train for a couple months.

They tend to drop the harpy feminist talk when they realize most high valued men don't want a whiny, screeching feminist.

[–]twitarp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This. You can see this everywhere. The mild feminists will speak out, but once they realize nobody cares they'll stop.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Funny, some girl who's convinced she was raped (not even withdrawn consent, she just doesn't remember the encounter and can't believe her male friend would do something like that! because it's obviously all his fault especially being she can't remember it) blocked me after I said UVA and Duke were both false. She still believed the UVA scandal was a rape...

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Unfortunatly I see a few gorgeous women and young girls associating themselves with feminists. It's a shame. These are girls that have a lot going for them including full tides to universities.

[–]phoenix_md 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I generally agree, but did you watch the video? It's actually the exact opposite in this case?

[–]newls -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I should have specified that I meant personally from high school and whatnot.

[–]1whatsazipper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Upper middle class pretty girls in LTRs/marriages with betas (for money) often spout some crazy feminist beliefs on their social media accounts. It's the lack of tingles that fucks with their head. They need a good fucking.

[–]2undead_keyboard[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That video was amazing. For some reason, I'd never gotten around to watching that one. And of course, Karen says what I was trying to say, but says it better.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 48 points49 points  (3 children)

Modern 3rd wave feminism is nothing more than bigotry. It is hypocrisy at its worst.

Nothing more really needs to be said. Nice post, btw.

[–]DimorphisticLies 43 points44 points  (1 child)

Then you don't deserve it at it's best!

[–]through_a_ways 4 points5 points  (0 children)

some comments just need to be published in a cyber scrapbook on pinterest.

[–]Newdist2 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's the natural continuation of feminism. Let's not pretend the feminist agenda was, in balance, good for society.

[–]Dnile1000BC 16 points17 points  (3 children)

I would also add that "moderate feminism" does not exist in the academic world because:

1) The false principles underpinning radical feminism is taught and indoctrinated in college courses (e.g Patriarchy, Sexism = Power + Prejudice, Privilege etc).

2) Any dissent from feminist thought means your career and education is at risk (see Larry Summers and Mattress Girl incidents).

3) Girls are given higher marks for boys in the same tests.

[–]through_a_ways 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I honestly don't think moderate feminism has ever existed.

The obstacles that kept women in check balanced out their strengths. The genders are different, so gender roles are as close as one can come to "equality".

If you accept this to be true (which I'm increasingly doing), then feminism from its very start was inequal, biased toward the side of women.

[–]UGoBoom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is exactly it. Traditional gender roles played to each gender's strengths for the best of the individuals and society.

[–]1whatsazipper 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Of course something called 'feminism' is biased toward the side of women. The only time they try to evade their bias is when you shine light on it and they aren't in the dominant position yet.

[–]Lapidarist 27 points28 points  (3 children)

It is simply impossible for a moderate feminist to exist, seeing as "rape culture", "gender performativity", "institutionalized misogyny" and a very simplistic and uncompromising view of "male privilege" and "the patriarchy" are all central concepts and themes in contemporary feminist theory. Every single one of those ideas is a radical one by all standards of "radical", i.e.;

Advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.[1]

Therefore, if a feminist were to be moderate, he/she would have to reject those very ideas that set feminism apart from other social movements that concern themselves with gender equality. That would be akin to somebody rejecting the very existence of a christian God but nonetheless insisting on calling themselves "christian" because they share a few values with christianity. It makes no sense.

The only reason "moderate" feminists even think they exist is because feminism seems to have accomplished something in terms of equality, so the term must have merit to it. However, these people apparently don't understand that feminism achieved those things by mere virtue of existing. There was no serious contender for gender equality at the time, and so feminism filled the figurative gap in the market that is gender discourse. All the negative baggage that came with it was quickly forgotten or swept under the rug by a whole consortium of political - and even academic - groups.

The bad sides of contemporary feminism aren't new, 3rd wave feminism isn't unique in its ugliness. All feminist movements were like this. In 30 years time, nobody will remember a thing about the college-aged, white, upper middle-class jumped-up schoolgirls that "bravely" rallied behind this movement. They won't recall the cultural extremists and near totalitarian social-engineers that made up this movement. History is written by the victors, and it's a pathetic and sobering realization that feminism has US politics (and most of EU politics) in a firm chokehold. Who knows, in a year's time, Hillary Clinton might become president.

McCharthyism is nothing compared to the toolbox of coercive feminist shaming tactics that is employed every time somebody dare question the status quo of feminism.

[–]2undead_keyboard[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It is simply impossible for a moderate feminist to exist, seeing as "rape culture", "gender performativity", "institutionalized misogyny" and a very simplistic and uncompromising view of "male privilege" and "the patriarchy" are all central concepts and themes in contemporary feminist theory. Every single one of those ideas is a radical one by all standards of "radical"

Wonderfully logical and wonderfully said.

[–]DXGypsy 7 points8 points  (1 child)

McCharthyism is nothing compared to the toolbox of coercive feminist shaming tactics that is employed every time somebody dare question the status quo of feminism.

This is going to be a famous quote someday. Truer words never spoken.

[–]faded_jester 31 points32 points  (5 children)

How many feminists do you think would drop all that bullshit the moment they got a boyfriend who gave them multiple orgasms?

Hint: Almost all of them.

[–]Cthulu2013 20 points21 points  (2 children)

My tumblrina fuckbuddy came 4 times last week.

Purple hair, septum pierced, "polyamory", has an anxiety disorder and is subsequently a cam girl.

Still rages on about male privilege during the 20 minutes it takes to get dressed again, play with her dog and raid her fridge.

You guys. You guys.

[–]JovianTrainWreck 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Purple hair, septum pierced, "polyamory", has an anxiety disorder and is subsequently a cam girl.

All that and she's not a hamplanet? Where the fuck do you guys live, man?

[–]Red_Suppository_Pill 10 points11 points  (5 children)

Most of the folks in here, including myself, could be disparagingly called "armchair masculinists" if you really wanted to go there. Personally, I don't protest legislation, I don't try to spread my beliefs and values to the uninterested masses, and I don't subjugate myself to any of the "leaders" of the Men's Rights movement. Do I exist?

[–]2undead_keyboard[S] 22 points23 points  (4 children)

In the spirit of the post - no, you don't exist. You have no impact on the greater society or the laws that govern us, and your beliefs effect no change in the world beyond yourself. In the spirit of the post, that renders you non-existent as far as your masculinist beliefs are concerned.

But this shouldn't be any great surprise to you. Haven't you heard? You're a man! You have to do to exist.

[–]unassumingusername7 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Would quietly toiling and building your empire, and leading others be enough for you to consider someone to exist? Not that I'm any great masculine leader. I'm just not a fan of protesting and such, because it seems to reinforce the idea that the state has all the power, and you have to ask the state to give you a decent life.

[–]2undead_keyboard[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Would I consider you to exist as far as what? Masculinist or feminist beliefs? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

Are you asking if you exist as an empire builder if you've built an empire? Sure. Why not? In this case, you've actually done something. Per my understanding of red pill tenets, to do is to exist. Men, especially, aren't human beings, they're human doings. The whole point of my post is to illustrate that moderate feminists don't do, and hence, don't exist as feminists. If you built an empire, then as an empire builder, you do exist. If you do nothing as a feminist, then as a feminist, you don't exist.

[–]unassumingusername7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK that clarification makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

[–]TheSelfGoverned 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then anyone who doesn't directly impact legislation is of no value. Another shortfall (or should I say downfall?) Of our unchained hyper- democratic system.

[–]newls 41 points42 points  (7 children)

A not-insignificant number of women were able to vote in the 1800s. Most suffragettes in the early 20th century did not want working class women to have the vote. The hypocrisy is strong in feminists.

Your points are absolutely valid, but women see this and just blank it out. Most don't need to find value in actually achieving things through their beliefs. For women, merely talking and flapping about their equality nonsense is a reward in itself.

[–]cariboo_j 29 points30 points  (1 child)

Yeah I read in Britain voting was a class thing. Only land owners owners could vote. The majority of men in the 19th century couldn't vote either.

However suffragettes only focused on women, they didn't give a second thought to the millions of disenfranchised men.

It's almost like... low value men are invisible to women...

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

However suffragettes only focused on women, they didn't give a second thought to the millions of disenfranchised men.

Well, for fairness' sake, back then there had been movements that worked for securing the voting rights for disenfrachised men as well, so the suffragettes' stance could probably be summed up as "...but what about the women?"

Which is quite different from these days.

[–]sonnesatt 7 points8 points  (0 children)

One of my favourite arguments when I talk to about Feminism in Sociology class. It's a term used for the opposite of what it's really meaning.

[–]malkovic 2 points3 points  (2 children)

A not-insignificant number of women were able to vote in the 1800s.

Do you have a source for that?

[–]redpilltaste 1 points1 points [recovered]

Check out Australia and new Zealand . I think in South Australia land owning women could vote in the 1860s.

[–]WAFC 24 points25 points  (10 children)

This is well written, well researched and well sourced. You should consider cross-posting it to KotakuinAction, MensRights, and the discussion subs to get some circulation going.

[–]2undead_keyboard[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Hey thanks. I'll start cross-posting later today.

[–]2undead_keyboard[S] 9 points10 points  (7 children)

X-posted to MR. The KiA mod says it was a little too off topic for them (which I agree). Any suggestions about which discussion subs it should go to?

[–]WAFC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I thought about that on the KiA, but figured it was worth a shot.

PPD, maybe? I don't hang out in many of the 'in-between' subs, to be honest. Someone else may be able to better guide you on that. Most of the subs that could really stand to read this would immediately remove it.

[–]-SetsunaFSeiei- 0 points1 point  (2 children)

The best discussion sub would be r/FeMRADebates, there are lots of "moderate" feminists there who routinely debate with MRAs.

[–]2undead_keyboard[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

r/FeMRADebates said no. It failed Rule 2 regarding the use of generalizations.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ah, so the mods have institutionalized NAWALT. Generalisations have a valid use when backed by evidence and fact.

[–]cariboo_j 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You should include the "traditional woman" Phyllis Shlafly, who started a successful campaign in the 1970's to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment in America.

Men in America must sign up selective service and be willing to be conscripted into war, risking life and limb to defend their right to vote.

The Equal Rights Amended would have made it mandatory for women to sign up for selective service in exchange for voting rights.

Phyllis Shlafly opposed the Equal Rights Amendment on the grounds that women already have the right to vote. Why should they have have the same obligation to defend their voting rights with force?

Women wanting the privileges of men with none of the responsibilities is not limited to feminism.

I've posted this video before, but it covers the campaign to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment and shows how traditionalism and feminism are two sides of the same coin. Feminism demonizes men and overtly tries to take their resources and devalue them through legislation and shaming language. Traditionalism gives men the outward appearance of respect, but covertly expects them to view themselves as disposable; throw away their lives in things like conscription, and exist to serve and provide for women.

[–]csehszlovakze 6 points7 points  (2 children)

If there was one opportunity when I'd gild something on this site, this post would be it, it's so well written. You should consider cross-posting it on and outside reddit, there might be a chance that some "moderates" would actually leave it behind (even if a few). I even archived it just in case.

[–]2undead_keyboard[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Thanks! Not sure where I could post it outside of reddit. Feel free to spread it around, though.

[–]csehszlovakze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You could send/post it to AVfM, YouTube (as comment), maybe RoK (even after this "feud" I think they'd like it), and r/MGTOW. It also would be fun on tumblr to piss off SJWs. For linking I'd recommend the post from MensRights as it's less controversial than trp.

[–]MrRexels 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ah, the only two things that can completely annihilate a person: Nuclear bombs and logic.

[–]Screambloodyleprosy 11 points12 points  (1 child)

In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.

I just spat out my drink! What a quote to smack down your cause

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Strong independent responsible capable helpless victims unable to consent or be responsible.

[–]Ntrl22 14 points15 points  (4 children)

[–]Endorsed ContributorObio1 9 points10 points  (1 child)

The singular of "women" is "woman".

There is no such thing as "a women".

[–]Lyradex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you. This has been driving me nuts on this sub.

[–]JovianTrainWreck 2 points3 points  (0 children)

[–]CptFizz 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Saying "I'm a moderate feminist" is like saying "I'm the good kind of anti-semite" or "I'm moderate national socialist, I only embrace the good sides of national socialism." or "I'm a very caring pedophile."

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

"If you believe in equality, you're a feminist!"

That's like starting a movement for racial equality and calling it 'white power'.

[–]Solomonceed 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I've always been asking myself just how exactly one argues for the removal of the burden of innocence in a "moderate" way. Or, how exactly you deny one half of the population their right to live in a quest for "equality".

You hit the nail on the head. I wish I was able to articulate my thoughts so profoundly.

[–]warcroft 6 points7 points  (1 child)

In Australia, about 40 women have been killed in domestic violence so far this year. Less than 10 a month.

21 males kill themselves EVERY WEEK in Australia due to custody battles and not being allowed to see their kids. Is that not a form of domestic abuse to? But I guess it doesn't matter because its only males.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well they are weak men because they kill themselves, not a strong empowered woman who is a victim of oppressive men! Those men kill themselves because they can no longer beat their wives and children, so they beat themselves to death! /S

No, we don't matter, and it's always our fault, we're always guilty, and we deserve everything we get because some other man did something some other time and it is irrelevant that we had nothing to do with that. It's original sin in the cult of feminism.

[–]EnterprisingAss 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Shouldn't you fact check those quotes? The McKinnon one, especially, is made-up bullshit.

[–]2undead_keyboard[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I missed that one. And the Dworkin one was paraphrased from a work of fiction. Will update.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Shh stop we're supposed to be an echo chamber remember?

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So, oh moderate feminist, you want “everyone to be equal and just get along.” So what, actually, do you mean by that? What do you want the government/society to do to actually make women equal? It's okay, I'll give you a minute. In the meantime...

You forgot that radical feminists want to make catcalling a legal offense.


Also, a relevant exchange at the askmen subreddit:

An excerpt:

Whenever you ask feminists what they think of a more radical adherent of their ideology, odds are that they'll deny having many sympathies or that much common ground with her (him). Yet when push comes to pull, for some occult reason the hardliners marginalize the moderates.

Or why do you think it was equity feminist Christina Hoff Sommers who wondered "who stole feminism?" and not Gloria Steinem? Why is 3rd wave feminism practically the offline version of tumblrina-feminism, but feminists like Norah Vincent who actually tried to relate to the "other side" instead of wallowing in self-righteousness remained rather obscure overall? The fact that really and truly conciliatory personalities are marginalized fringe figures is quite telling, if you ask me.

Answer to that comment:

CHS is a great example. She's a feminist, but an alternative/non-mainstream feminist. The fact that she does what she does is evidence for why not all feminism is gynocentric or unsympathetic to men, but the fact that she's not really accepted by the mainstream feminist community means that non-gynocentric-feminism is on the margins of the movement.

I think one common reason there's confusion about how common the "bad kinds of feminism" is (and whether it's just extremists, or whether it's mainstream) comes from both sides not being clear what we mean by the "bad kind". One feminist might see the bad kind as "KILL AL MEN!!!"-style feminism, observe that it's not very influential or common (which I agree with), and declare that the bad kind of feminism is not very common.

Someone like you or me on the other hand, we'll obviously see that as the bad kind, but we'll also see "women are oppressed, there's no such thing as sexism against men"-style feminism as the bad kind. This is quite mainstream (despite not being universal) so to us, the bad kind is quite mainstream.

I point this out because there have been numerous instances where I've talked about the "bad kind" of feminism (being more specific than "bad kind" but not as specific as I should have about what I meant), and then I was challenged by a feminist about how common the bad kind is. I gave examples of what I mean and a quick argument for why I think it's common, expecting them to reply back with an argument about that not actually being common, but instead I got an argument back about why those ideas are actually correct. It's at this point that it becomes clear that we weren't on the same page regarding what counts as the bad kind.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"Moderate" feminists simply call themselves that so that they are tolerated among men who aren't lapdogs. When in their own company, they'll still laugh at castration jokes, imagine a world with no men, etc.

[–]garlicextract[🍰] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” - Valerie Solanas

I was a bit intrigued by this bit of nutjobbery, so I searched for her name on Wikipedia. Ah, it's the crazy bitch who shot Andy Worhol. I recommend everyone to just read the "header" section for this woman on Wikipedia. THESE are the mentally ill people leading this movement (literally she was a paranoid schizo)

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (6 children)

Replace feminists with muslims the same darn thing applies

[–]cariboo_j 1 point2 points  (5 children)

No no, that is Islamophobic. We must never criticize the religion of peace (tm).

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children)

No no no, as Ben Affleck said, that's RACIST and Islamophobic FTFY

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Yeah, theres no white muslims, none at all, they never existed..

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It's not about race. Islamophobia is how Muslim apologists conflate racism with religious critique. It is a sinister accusation that needs to be met head on. Criticism against religion is based on logic and does not connote the identity of the believers

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I agree, and you hit on the meaning of what I said. I used to be "muslim" because I was engaged to an Arab girl, a long long time ago, far far away. I've never been very religious, so it didn't stick once I learned another version of the same shit.

[–]asianmasaccount[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

dude moderate feminism is just someone's way of saying "yea i support women being equal and all but don't really give a shit about this topic for the most part."

[–]trp_angry_dwarf[🍰] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

as consent can be withdrawn non-verbally by the woman at any time

You fucking what? That'd better not be for real. How does that even work?

I get the signed (in triplicate) contract specifying acts you are willing/not willing to do, and I understand the whole "post-sex regret" rape allegation (I think it's bullshit, but I understand that it happens)

but checking in every few seconds to make sure it's still not rape? How is that not an instant boner-kill?

Goddam, I'll take a fleshlight and some porn instead. Fuck that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Go look up yes means yes. It was passed during the whole 1 in 4 rape hysteria and it's literally that dumb.

[–]Wehavecrashed 1 point2 points  (6 children)

You can hold beliefs about things such as this and not act on them and still exist. Just because I don't act on my opinions regarding gender equality (for both genders because that's what equality means) doesn't mean I don't have those opinion or don't exist. I don't have an impact on law making, that's true but again, I still have these opinions.

They're complaining about the feminism that actually EXISTS in the world.

That's the feminism you perceive, and you exclusively view it as negative.

[–]2undead_keyboard[S] 4 points5 points  (5 children)

sigh Okay, yes, in the strictest sense, you can hold a belief, not act on it, and still be composed of matter that takes up space in the physical universe. You exist. Congratulations, you totally win that argument. Well done.

But that's 100% not what we're talking about. Let me try to clarify.

Our measurement for existence, in this case, uses the following question as a starting point to determine if you exist in regards to your belief: Do you act upon your belief to create a change in the world around you other than by filling up the internet with arguments, blogs, and tweets?

If the answer to that is yes, then you might, in regards to your belief, exist.

I put forth three criteria of action to help prove that a moderate feminist exists in regards to believing in feminism.

  1. If they act upon their belief by engaging in activism (examples: protests, petitioning, awareness campaigns, grass roots movements, etc.)
  2. If they act upon their belief by setting definite goals of things they want to accomplish (examples: ending rape culture, closing the wage gap, getting women the vote).
  3. If they act upon their belief by actually creating new laws and policy to change society (VAWA, Yes Means Yes, the Dear Colleague letter).

I even threw in a bonus proof of existence, saying that if moderate feminists could point to a leader figure(s), that'd count in their favor of existing.

You see? This goes beyond the mere fact that you believe something and are composed of matter. Any idiot can be composed of matter! This raises the bar of existence, asking you to prove the existence of your belief by acting on the world to create change using your belief as a guide.

In a way, this gets to a core truth of TRP philosophy. According to TRP, men aren't human beings. Men are human doings. Men have to earn the right to existence by going out and achieving. By changing the world around us to suit us in some way. By working our asses off. By lifting. By gettin' paper and raisin' dat SMV, yo. The act of doing is built into men.

If a man doesn't do, is he actually a man?

No, of course he isn't. He doesn't exist as a man because he's not making changes in the world around him as a man.

If a moderate feminist doesn't do, is he/she actually a feminist?

No, of course he/she isn't. They don't exist as a feminist because they're not making changes in the world around them as a feminist.

So yes, while you can say you believe feminist thoughts and still be composed of matter, functionally speaking, according to the three criteria of action above, you don't exist because you bring no change to the world around you. For practical purposes, if you were to fall of the face of the planet tomorrow, moderate feminism would suffer no loss because you brought nothing to it.

Let me put it in mathematical terms.

You as a Feminist = 0

However, if you can show me examples of fulfilling the three criteria above, you might be able to prove to me that a moderate feminist exists, just like radical feminists prove to us they exist every damn day.

[–]Wehavecrashed 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I have a question before we kick things off, Do you believe that society should treat both men and women the same? (Within reason)

Also a Tl;DR for that wall of text. You really need to stop using 'existing' and 'doing' they don't mean what you are saying and most feminist issues don't require active campaigning to create change, change is happening naturally.

Congratulations, you totally win that argument. Well done.

Cool, we are done here right? oh.

Do you act upon your belief to create a change in the world around you other than by filling up the internet with arguments, blogs, and tweets?

Don't have twitter or a blog but whatever although I think you might be underestimating the power of twitter and social media, they are tools for unprecidented social change when a large enough group feels strongly enough about something. Take a look at the arab spring or even ISIS right now. They are using sites like twitter to deliver a message and are changing the world. Now I'm not comparing feminism to ISIS in any manner, there's a massive difference between them, there aren't any HUGE issues for feminism, those battles have been fought, feminists have more smaller issues instead, which means the message is broader less focuses and quieter.

Now for the actual question, sometimes I say things in conversations that are mildly to do with gender equality, which my social circle will mostly agree with but I also don't really think it matters too much for me so I don't do much of that. Most social issues don't affect me but I still support them. I'm not gay but I still think gay marriage should be legal. I don't really voice my opinion on it but I don't really need to.

I put forth three criteria of action to help prove that a moderate feminist exists in regards to believing in feminism.

I think the whole problem with this is that 'moderate' feminists don't really consider most feminist issues big deals or things that will naturally go away without the need for protesting over it.

If they act upon their belief by engaging in activism (examples: protests, petitioning, awareness campaigns, grass roots movements, etc.)

If they act upon their belief by setting definite goals of things they want to accomplish (examples: ending rape culture, closing the wage gap, getting women the vote).

If they act upon their belief by actually creating new laws and policy to change society (VAWA, Yes Means Yes, the Dear Colleague letter).

Ending rape culture for instance If I'm reading this data correctly the number of rapes per person has been goign down in the US since the 90s. From 42.8 in 1992 to 25.2 in 2013 per 100,000 people. Now I don't know why the number of rapes went down, but if that trend continues, despite a lack of large scale protests, rape levels will be very low in the near future.

I even threw in a bonus proof of existence, saying that if moderate feminists could point to a leader figure(s), that'd count in their favor of existing.

Ok how about this, John and Hank Green both describe themselves as feminists do they exist? They don't go to feminist rallies or protests they don't have goals as far as I'm aware and they haven't created change, as far as I'm aware they occasionally mention issues in their videos.

You see? This goes beyond the mere fact that you believe something and are composed of matter. Any idiot can be composed of matter! This raises the bar of existence, asking you to prove the existence of your belief by acting on the world to create change using your belief as a guide.

Existing is not the right word to describe what you mean, you can't raise the bar of existence.

In a way, this gets to a core truth of TRP philosophy. According to TRP, men aren't human beings. Men are human doings. Men have to earn the right to existence by going out and achieving. By changing the world around us to suit us in some way. By working our asses off. By lifting. By gettin' paper and raisin' dat SMV, yo. The act of doing is built into men.

I think the act of doing is built into most people naturally. All the examples you cited are doing something regardless of gender.

If a man doesn't do, is he actually a man? No, of course he isn't. He doesn't exist as a man because he's not making changes in the world around him as a man.

Again, i think at this point you need to look up the definitions of the words doing and existing. If a woman is doing the same things as a man does that make her a man? this whole Paragraph doesn't make much sense, at least the way you are describing it right now.

If a moderate feminist doesn't do, is he/she actually a feminist?

Yes. It's a belief, an idea, not an action.

No, of course he/she isn't. They don't exist as a feminist because they're not making changes in the world around them as a feminist.

So if everyone in the world believed that there shouldn't be a gender pay gap, what would happen?

For practical purposes, if you were to fall of the face of the planet tomorrow, moderate feminism would suffer no loss because you brought nothing to it.

Yep pretty much, but you can say that about the vast majority of people in any group wanting social change, it's not one person that makes a group. It's called a group for a reason.

You as a Feminist = 0

Your whole argument is flawed, you rely on physically doing things that you believe make a difference, look at feminist issues and tell me which one desperately needs change right now? Which ones aren't changing at all? I recognise change is coming because people like myself are thinking differently.

moderate feminist exists, just like radical feminists prove to us they exist every damn day.

This is your problem, you only see what you want to see. You want to see crazy morons as the face of feminism, because they are the loudest.

Here's my advice, ignore these feminists you hate so much. It's actually amazing, if you stop paying attention to them or looking for them, they don't actually matter to you anymore.

[–]2undead_keyboard[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Do you believe that society should treat both men and women the same?

I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Is that what you mean?

Existing is not the right word to describe what you mean, you can't raise the bar of existence.

You're not a big fan of abstract thought, are you? Let's move on.

Again, i think at this point you need to look up the definitions of the words doing and existing. If a woman is doing the same things as a man does that make her a man? this whole Paragraph doesn't make much sense, at least the way you are describing it right now.

And I'm also getting the impression you're not really well versed in red pill theory, which is causing some bumps in our communication. Let's just move past this part too.

So if everyone in the world believed that there shouldn't be a gender pay gap, what would happen?

Well...I guess what would happen is happening right now, since there isn't a gender pay gap (at least, not in the U.S.). Did you not read my original post?

Yep pretty much, but you can say that about the vast majority of people in any group wanting social change, it's not one person that makes a group. It's called a group for a reason.

Fair enough, but I would expand that and say that every moderate feminist could drop off the face of the planet tomorrow and it wouldn't make a difference to feminism, since moderate feminists don't matter in today's feminist movement and the radical feminists are the ones running the show.

Your whole argument is flawed,

Maybe I just haven't made my argument clear. Let me try one more time. Here it is:

Radical feminists are fucking crazy and are ruining shit by being active. Moderate feminists are only actively doing one thing in the feminist movement - proclaiming how not all feminists are bad.

look at feminist issues and tell me which one desperately needs change right now?

None of them! Did you not read my original post??? All the big moderate feminist issues are pretty much in hand. I want radical feminists to stop changing things, to stop doing what they're doing!

This is your problem, you only see what you want to see.

Looking at what's happening in the world around me is a problem?

You want to see crazy morons as the face of feminism, because they are the loudest.

Well, that, and the fact that they're the ones getting legislation passed that is bonkers level insane. Seriously, did you not read the original post? Do you not see the crazy laws and policies that are being passed that are based on radical feminist dogma?

Here's my advice, ignore these feminists you hate so much. It's actually amazing, if you stop paying attention to them or looking for them, they don't actually matter to you anymore.

Will the laws and policies that they helped write and push to get passed disappear too?

[–]Wehavecrashed -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Is that what you mean?

What exactly does that mean? How can you support equal opportunities for both genders but not equal outcomes for both genders? Are you saying if a man and a woman do the exact same thing they shouldn't have the same outcome?

You're not a big fan of abstract thought, are you? Let's move on.

Well there's abstract thought, and their making up your own definition to a word.

.I guess what would happen is happening right now, since there isn't a gender pay gap

Right, Obama and pretty much every media outlet in america is wrong. K.

Radical feminists are fucking crazy and are ruining shit by being active.

This applies to almost every social change movement/group/whatever.

I want radical feminists to stop changing things, to stop doing what they're doing!

The laws you cited are insanely specific, the “Yes means yes” law requires colleges and universities (in California) to evaluate disciplinary charges of sexual assault under an “affirmative consent”

What other laws were passed that you mention in your OP? What's wrong with the violence against women act?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're so fucking dumb. The study Obama was citing was full of shit and the Obama administration has stopped using that quotation. Yes, he was wrong. Yes, the mainstream media was wtong. Your unshakeable faith in the system only proves how moronic you are.

[–]2undead_keyboard[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, Obama and pretty much every media outlet in america is wrong. K.

Yup, that's right, he and every media outlet were wrong. Check with Politifact if you don't believe us.

What exactly does that mean? How can you support equal opportunities for both genders but not equal outcomes for both genders? Are you saying if a man and a woman do the exact same thing they shouldn't have the same outcome?

I was talking about two different political philosophies that I highly recommend you read up on if you're going to have conversations like this in the future. Equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. People support one philosophy or the other. And to help you out, radical feminists tend to support equality of outcome and moderate feminists tend to support equality of opportunity.

What other laws were passed that you mention in your OP? What's wrong with the violence against women act?

The Duluth Model of domestic violence is what's wrong with VAWA. I provided two links in the OP that go into further discussion on it. You're welcome to read them.

[–]PlayerXz 1 point2 points  (1 child)

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”

This gave me chills. How can you be so fucking cruel?

[–]snakehayter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

a "moderate feminist" is a paradox, theyre basically just mentally old fashion feminists who distance themselves from the actual feminists of today's world who have more power. It doesnt make sense because old feminists are irrelevent now, so the only way to be a true feminist today is to be a delusional psycho.

[–]KenArokStoleMyBitch 3 points3 points [recovered]

Just realized how this also applies to moderate muslims in Indonesia who want to disassociate Islam with the radicals, islamists, and terrorists. Great piece.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Apply it to every religion, there are always radicals shouting for death to unbelievers and such. Feminism is a religion, with dogma, tenets, the smiley we love everyone and are peaceful bullshit line that hides or obscures their true intentions. They want dominance, supremacy, and everyone to bow to their whims and arbitrary bullshit rules that benefit them personally. Feminists use the same tactics that the religious use, silencing the opposition, disrupting any firm of dissent, and shaming everyone with their idea of original sin and moral supremacy.

The biggest thing in common is neither feminism or any religion is based on empirical fact, only hearsay, conjecture, and how they wish it was so they'd benefit at your expense.

[–]michael6795 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interestingly, we are evolved to maintain an even 50/50 male/female population, even when uneven. It has been noted for hundreds of years that nations in wartime with males in combat will have a surge of male children. I'm not sure if it has been explained, but perhaps evolution is driving us toward an even male to female population. This means that, in order to have a "10% male population," there would have to be mass murders of male babies.

[–]brothernate76 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is....f**king awesome

[–]TruckerJohn 2 points3 points  (2 children)

The angriest red pillers are the ones who are still bea. The angriest feminists are the landwhales. The difference is one group starts radically and encourages pragmatic change, and the other starts under the facade of equality and grows into a mob mentality full of cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and circle jerking.

Moderate feminists are just called "normal people" now, as nobody in their right mind actually encourages women being legally inferior to men or is in favor of violence against women. Feminism now is past observable equality of the internal logic of a legal system. Now they want some kind of social equality. Well, it's the same shit that "every child is special" is failing to realize. Not even getting into metaphysics or logic here, but on a strictly biological and social level: There is no equality. It's what made the Christian nations fail in favor of the despots, it's the central flaw of Marxist/Soviet theory, and boom here it is in radical feminism. They're so "equal" that they flipped the (non-existent) greater than symbol to be facing a group of their own creation. Using te vague moral justification of equality WITHOUT taking time to proove that equality is either possible, or desirable, they've moved on to radical ideas that can't stop escalating in intensity of violence TOWARD out group members BECAUSE they never fucking decided to define the term "equality" properly. Literally a mistake that you're told not to make in DAY ONE of any philosophy course. And a third of our country, I'd say, is on board. 3rd wave feminism is hijacking the democratic party in the same way the Tea Party ruined the Republican party post W. Bush.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would compare them to the Tea Party as well, at least in their effect on the Dems and the rash of pseudo legal policy they've enacted. They're so close to each other in time I almost suspect conspiracy to create a power vacuum in the "moderate middle".

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The GOP has been whack since they went full religitard. You never go full religitard. That happened before Bush, but yes they've gotten worse since W.

[–]spork_fiend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree there is no such thing as a moderate feminist. The correct term would then be "egalitarian", not moderate feminist.

[–]IronMeltsinmyHands 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This has gone on long enough. It's time we get our children away from the Internet and these crazy wrinkled bats. L

Shit thing is, this indoctrination happens in schools. Teach your children of the evil of feminists and they'll naturally avoid it.

Don't lie to them, you don't want them to lose faith in you.

[–]OneTrueChaika 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That one chick saying that he's, "Fucking scum" Jesus Christ. He's a bitch for not being able to take it, but in the same sense its probably the same shit he has to hear every day with society trying to crap all over men.

She is what I view as an example of what I don't like about women, and why I just can't bother myself to actively date them, they all just seem to end up like her.

[–]just_noob_things 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Solanas isn't a feminist, she's a lunatic and views feminism as a whole with sneering contempt. Well, she did, anyway.

[–]DxHuman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My friend, moderate feminists don't exist anymore because equality between the genders is already here in the west. What you're left with are "feminists" with pseudo-oppessions created in their minds self victimizing themselves.

[–]ioncloud9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd like to see the outrage if a public figure man said a single thing about women that these cows are saying about men.

[–]JamesK1973 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would actually like to see any of the aforementioned feminazis raise a hand to me in anger.

I would relish, relish sharing equality with them in the arena of physical combat.

[–]LithiumEnergy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But you have nothing against feminism itself?

[–]Falc0n7 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Feminists are disgusting, I just got banned from creepypms for calling out a feminist -_-

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Wear reddit bans like a badge of honor. Why? Because in the big scheme of things, they don't matter. An alt or throwaway is close at hand, and karma means shit. Also, the ban hammer is the only power many will ever wield, they're pitiful little fucks that cant withstand even the most mundane and moderate criticism. Partly because they're weak, but also because they're arguments are weak due to not being based in reality or even close to facts. Break the echo chamber and they can't stand it, so they do the only thing in their power, a useless ban on a bunch of characters lined up on a webpage.

In real life, one on one, with no police or mob to protect them, they will meekly skulk away to talk trash about how they defeated you or were nearly raped and sent death threats. Such is the world where anonymity prevents any sort of physical backlash and serves to embolden the weak and meek to act tough, but still resort to silencing rather than confrontation where they know they'll surely lose.