Why don't feminists just admit they hate men?

[Anonymous]

Okay, I'm sorry but Feminists just need to get real, there's a big difference between what they say when they get confronted about their obnoxious hate speech and what they say to each other behind closed doors They don't hate all men..just the ones that act like..well...men.. Here's my feminist translations:

"Feminists Do not hate men at all"

What they really mean: O, you can be a man, but you have to act feminine and rally behind all women's causes and no matter what back feminist views on everything, you can't act overbearing or authoritative, its wrong for you to want your wife to stay home...you can only have so much tester one in your system to be considered an acceptable human being.

"O we support mothers who stay home"

What they really mean: Well we don't want sound like hypocrites but every woman who does this is supporting a stereotype by staying home, and they are not nearly as valuable to society as high power corporate women..we really don't like these women.. having a job and making money is the only way to really be a successful woman..motherhood is slavery.

This (insert commercial, movie, or news report) is anti-woman because (insert reason that implies feminist has way too much time on her hands to over think minuscule details)"

What they really think: Having an ad with a woman cooking is sexist..but that movie about a vagina that bites of men's penises...very empowering.

[wildfire5288]

because if they say that then they lose the support of the women that they already have. I personally can't stand feminists. Equal rights and everything for women is great but it's 2010 not 1920 and now they're just making a lot of noise about nothing and making guys essentially lose their balls by saying everything they do is considered sexual harassment. Feminists have pretty much ruined some of the things that were so great about guys by taking them and twisting it into something wrong and dirty. And the ones that aren't lesbians always date the most passive guys who let them do anything they want whenever they want.

A lot of feminists really aren't any better than men who control their wives and beat them with the way they treat men and women who either don't care about the feminist movement or still like men to do things that are chivalrous (or even the occasional guy whose an ass and just pretty much says he wants to do you which is obnoxious and not helping him but sometimes it's still nice to feel desired by a complete stranger).

What feminists don't realize is that men really just need to be men and part of the way they do that is through being able to take care of a woman and just being dominant. Back in the day that meant going out and killing something for dinner, obviously there's no reason for that any more so men have adapted the ways they show they can take care of you and be dominant by either paying for a date or fixing something or lifting something heavy and they should be able to do that without fear of getting their head bit off.

[Asker]

I don't even think being a man means being "dominant" I just think it means being masculine...and valued as a man,not just some optional "life parnter" whose nice to have around...

[Simple-Simonette]

I have to disagree with you.

You're describing the extreme and with every cause you're going to have the fringe which pretty much steals all the thunder from the true advocates.

I don't think all Christians are uptight over bearing hypocrites. I don't think all men are brutal caveman misogynists who want to dominate everything with a vagina. I don't think all Hispanics are illegal immigrants or all black people are alcoholic thieves. I don't believe that every Caucasian is a racist or all Europeans are snobby rude American hating wimps. As a Liberal, I don't believe all conservatives are assholes who only care about themselves and people like them. And I don't think all feminists are man hating dykes who want to take over the world.

There are a shades of extremism and allowing the worst to represent the whole is pretty damn ignorant in my opinion.

[Asker]

The extremiests usually call the shots....every feminist blog I saw gave good reviews for the movie "teeth" which I find to be very barbaric and disgusting in how it treated men

[sa230e]

Well said

[KillerrMike]

Right, those are just "extreme" feminists. I think the Nazis got a bad rap because of the "extreme" nazis. I don't think all nazis are bad. Allowing the "extreme" nazis that killed jews to represent the whole is pretty damn ignorant in my opinion. Same with the KKK. They're not all bad. Only the "extreme" members of the klan are bad. The "fringe" is pretty much stealing the thunder from all the "true" advocates.

[KillerrMike]

The very definition of feminism completely disregards the welfare of men while concentrating solely on the benefit of women. i.e women's rights, equal rights for women and women only. So while that does not necessarily suggest that they hate men, it does make it blatantly clear that feminists care more about women and consider them more important than men.

[AlekNovy]

Lol, fringe my azz... What the asker described is the mainstream feminism, and the commenter above illustrated it well, That's like saying "only fringe KKK are like that"... Mmm sorry no, mainstream feminism is a hate group, and within its fundamental, core assumptions and concepts there is a ton of hate.

[AuroraRoseat]

Because I don't. I love men and are insanely attracted to them. Why don't you stop generalizing?

I'm not going to parrot the common sense responses that you've received. If you're not wise to heed that advice, there's nothing more to say.

But you don't speak for me.

[Canoro]

Because the reason that feminism exist is to counter the violent oppression that men have put into women.
through history women have been killed, tortured, crushed, for the only reason of being born female. By who you ask? You guess it: men.
They have been forced to marry someone they don't like, raped, taken away the rights to own property, their children taken away, denied the right to study, to drive cars, to own money, they have been classified as second grade citizen without opportunities to improve, put into slavery, or simply killed just because. Who has done that to them? You guess it: Men.
Don't you think that looking back they won't feel any negative feelings towards their attackers?
Because the violence towards women, men entitled to claim superiority over women, disrespect towards women, that's why the feminist movement is needed, a counter force to the oppression that men want to push against women, because if feminism wouldn't exist, men would go wild with the attacks against women.
Now, what is the purpose of feminism? To revenge against men? No. The purpose is to stop the attacks, live in a society where men and women could live in harmony without harming each other because of the way they were born, a safe society for all.

[KillerrMike]

First, I would honestly like to say good for you. It's great to see another man who hasn't sucked up to women in an attempt to please them or gain their approval. I'm happy to see that you haven't willingly swallowed the spoonful of bullsh*t fed to you by this movement.

Now, to answer your question. They already have said that they hate men. Look up famous feminists such as Valerie Solanas, who wrote the scum manifesto, Andrea Dworkin, etc.

Go here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36nd1PwP17c

I'm glad you've acknowledged the toxicity of this pathetic cause called "feminism"

[Asker]

I don't think enough men realize how destructive it really is

[KillerrMike]

I know. Imagine how young boys from ages 7 through 12 feel when they read sh*t like that. It's astounding to see that some of these vermin are actually allowed entrance into academia, i.e. Mary Daly. Take a Women's Studies course at any university and you'll see just how destructive it can be.

[gravygirl]

Seriously? I'm a feminist. I'm all for women's rights. I hate misogyny. I don't hate men. I have a long-term boyfriend who isn't feminine at all, and I love him. Hell, I love his brothers too. What about this is at all hard to believe?

[Asker]

Well it depends on what kidn of feminsit you are...what if ur boyfriend or one of his bros get accused of rape...how much evidence should any needed to convict him? I feminists want rape convicitons to be very easy to get...what would yout think?

[KillerrMike]

It's not that the fact that you have a boyfriend. It's that you are for women's rights only. I doubt you give a sh*t about men's rights. That's the point he's trying to make.

[Asker]

The word itself is woman-centric...if my opinion you can't be a feminist and a humanist at the same time...one excludes the other...and in this case...when you take the side of only one gender...you are inevitably going to demonize the other to a degree

[gravygirl]

I don't know specifics about the rape conviction thing. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to pretend that I can find fault with the law given how little I know about it. I want rapists to go to jail and non-rapists not to.

"Feminist" is woman-centric, sure, but so what? It's picking the side of the oppressed gender. How is that damning? And of course I can be a humanist too. Not every issue is gender-specific. I think you've really made this an us against them thing without reason.

[Asker]

But don't you see how pushign for the rights of women and not men is not a na effective plan? You kno I can show you some MRA sites and show you that the mdia depicts men ina engative way too and men are alsovictims of injustice in the courtrooms....here one of my issues..I know a fmeinist blog that wrote about how awful those Duke lacrosse palyers were to rape that girl..but twhen the case fell apart and it was found she was lying...not a word from them.

[KillerrMike]

The point is that you care about women and only women. You show nowhere near the amount of compassion for men that you show towards women. What man would ever take you seriously when he knows you show nothing but disdain for his gender? You've also made it clear that you've bought into the lie that women are or somehow have been oppressed by men.

[gravygirl]

Ok, so there was some blog that wrote some stuff and didn't admit they were wrong?? So?? Seriously, this is an absolute joke if you think this is a serious issue or somehow makes it wrong to be feminist. It's one blog!!! Who cares? This isn't some sort of authority or power.

[KillerrMike]

""Feminist" is woman-centric, sure, but so what? It's picking the side of the oppressed gender"

Even if women were oppressed, which they were not, that still does not justify putting women's issues above men's issues. An eye for an eye doesn't cut it here. That doesn't give you the right to treat one gender better than the other. When you care about one gender more than the other, that implies discrimination. You said you hate misogyny. Well, men hate misandry.

[gravygirl]

Ok, "KillerrMike," your post wasn't there when I was writing mine. Where the hell in anything I've written does it show that I care only about women?

Also, plenty of men take me seriously every day, but thanks so much for the condescension. I work in a male-dominated field and am better at what I do than most of my male co-workers.

And one more thing, of course I believe that women have been oppressed by men. I didn't think that was even a point of debate. Who doesn't think that?

[gravygirl]

How in the hell do you think women weren't oppressed? My grandmother is still alive. When she was born almost no women in the world had the right to vote. How is that not oppression?

[Asker]

Well that was when your grandmother was born..rite now...women are more eomployed than men..for every 2 men that graduate college 3 women do and you have the right to vote..men are being discrimianted agaisnt in many ways but its funny that when you hear teh words "gender studies" its always about women and women's problems

[Asker]

I also cahlle nge you to find one self described feminist that has ever said anything about how good men are...or praising anything men have accomplished..you won't find much

[KillerrMike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMzcMATRGmE

[KillerrMike]

It was implied that no man would ever take you seriously when discussing the topic of gender equality because you would not even entertain the idea that men face more inequalities than women.

[KillerrMike]

"Where the hell in anything I've written does it show that I care only about women?"

It's not what you wrote, it's what you didn't write. My point is not that you said "I hate men", because you didn't actually say that. My point is that you did not say that you care about men's rights at all anywhere. You had ample opportunity to, but you didn't. You harped about how important women's rights are the first chance you got, but you haven't even mentioned any of the inequalities men face today.

[gravygirl]

This seems like a waste of time. You've got a lot of anger built up against feminism and maybe women in general. And this isn't because I'm overwhelmed by your argument or something. In fact, I'm really curious where that 3 to 2 college graduates thing came from or why more women being employed is important, but them making less money than men isn't. Despite that, I can't see how continuing this is worth it. I really think your anger is harming your ability to be rational.

[Asker]

The "Wage gap" is a myth jsut google Warren Farrel sometime...men earn more because of the oiccupations they choose and they work more hours and are more devoted on average..a woman who does the same things usually ends up in the same place as a man

[KillerrMike]

You're right. This isn't worth continuing with someone who can't refute arguments. If ad hominems are all you can respond with after being proven wrong, then that suggests that you are the one who is angry, not me.

Also, it's ironic how you say that I'm incapable of rational thought while you are the one who can not even apply elementary scrutinization upon your arguments.

[KillerrMike]

Women do not earn less than men for the same work. If they did, every employer would hire women because women would be more cost-efficient. Women would be an extremely valuable commodity because they would be able to produce the same as men but would cost less money.

I hope you know that there are women who work the same jobs as men but get paid more. You have to look at things from both sides. Get rid of your "women are victims" mentality and then you'll be capable of rational thought.

[gravygirl]

So where was the 3 to 2 college graduate thing from? Still waiting on that.

And Killer, your assumption that women would be valued for doing the same work for less pay might actually be happening. You were the one who noted that more men were unemployed than women. Do you really think salary has nothing to do with who gets laid off?

[KillerrMike]

Firstly, no I didn't. The question asker brought that up. And secondly, it is well documented that more women are graduating from university than men. You can find these statistics on university websites, almanacs, news reports, etc. Have you been living under a rock?

Anyways, my point is that if there actually was a wage gape based solely on gender and not productivity, then no one would hire men if they had a choice. There would be a zero percent unemployment rate among women.

[KillerrMike]

And no, that's not actually happening. If this imaginary wage gap existed, many businesses would go under due to inefficiency. Everyone would hire only women to maximize their profit. It doesn't make sense to pay two people differently if they have the exact same output.

An example of this is Nike, whose hq are in indonesia. They hire child workers

Men may be earning more, but if they do it is because they are more competent than their female counterparts, not because they are men

[KillerrMike]

Dr. Warren Farrell actually wrote a book on this. He was a feminist.

Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb_6v-JQ13Q

Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIo-EHQqSFo

Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1rRiRj81s0

Part 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx4z2Z6yE3g

Part 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsuiMqgX-4I

Part 6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAW29B6yOLU

Part 7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8qSS2hlu0M

Part 8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmxP6fxQTtI

[Asker]

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html

[gravygirl]

That NY Times article is fluff. It gives numbers for a couple schools, and doesn't come anywhere near claiming that there's a 3-2 graduation ratio.

And "Killer," just so I have this straight, men earn more because they are better workers, but more of them are unemployed for no fair reason at all. Is that what you're saying? The marketplace is fair and perfect and equal and just except when it doesn't favor men? Really?

[Asker]

https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1647452,00.html

just search "boys Crisis" on google there's plenty of articels

[KillerrMike]

No, you don't have anything straight. You're making up sh*t and putting words in my mouth. I never said that men are unemployed for no reason at all. I honestly don't think you're capable of an intelligent discussion.

Even a child could reason that if more women are earning degrees, more women are qualified to work. If a degree is a prerequisite to a job, and women compose the majority of the selection pool, more women will be hired. I think you need to act like a big girl.

[gravygirl]

Fine guys. It looks like I mixed up who was saying what there a little bit. My bad. Other than that I don't think I have anything to apologize for and am dropping it. I should have just let my first answer stand.

[KillerrMike]

Well, that's fine. I don't think you need to apologize for anything else.

Just acknowledge that stupid myths have been debunked for you, like women being oppressed or women being paid less for the same work.

If you looked at things from an objective perspective, stopped thinking of women as victims all the time, got rid of your gullibility and applied even a basic gradeschool analysis to arguments, you would see that almost anything that feminists tell you is bullsh*t.

[gravygirl]

I'm not acknowledging any of that. I don't think you're right. And p*ss off with the "grade school" crap. Do you really think the stuff you're saying is deep?

BTW, 441 members of Congress are male (83%) and 92 are female (17%). There has never been a woman president, or even a nominee from a serious party. I didn't see solid numbers on this, but there are way more male CEOs. We are nowhere near equality on any of these leadership positions.

[KillerrMike]

No it's not deep. It's horrificly simple. The point is that you couldn't even think of something so simple and you're supposed to be an adult. You make astoundly ignoratn statements like "There has never been a woman president, or even a nominee from a serious party"

HILLARY CLINTON.

Do you have a brain? Can you think before you talk?

So now, apparently we have someone who thinks that equality means equal outcome, not equal opportunity. Oh, boy. Half the voting population is women.

[KillerrMike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBnmmN7_xQA

[gravygirl]

Hillary Clinton was the nominee?? Really? You're going to call me out on this?

Hillary ran in the primaries. She lost. She was not the nominee. As you so kindly said, "Do you have a brain? Can you think before you talk?"

[KillerrMike]

She nearly became the nominee. The fact that she even reached that stage completely refutes your "women are held back" bullcrap.

[gravygirl]

My god, really? You can't even admit how wrong you were. Let's bring it out again, your lovely quote here:

"Do you have a brain? Can you think before you talk?"

[KillerrMike]

I just re-read my comments and realized I types in the wrong woman's name. I originally mean to say Sarah Palin, not Hillary Clinton. My apologies.

Anyways, you were wrong, as Sarah Palin was a female vice-presidential nominee for the republican party.

[KillerrMike]

Now that that's out of the way, let me address the more important thing here, which was your fallacious argument that because there are few women in politics, there is not equality between the sexes.

Both men and women have equal opportunity to become politicians. Men don't get any special rights or privileges. When you become a politician, you have to compete with other politicians to get votes. If more men are elected, it means that those particular men are better at convincing the public.

[KillerrMike]

To vote for them.

"We are nowhere near equality on any of these leadership positions".

When determining who is fit to lead, gender should not play a factor. Feminism may have distorted you idea of equality. If women are not allowed to become politicians, then that is unfair. Everyone has agreed on that and it is no longer an issue.

However, the moment you say that women are entitled to leadership positions just because they are women, you had better expect backlash from decent people

[KillerrMike]

In the 2008 summer olympics, all of the sprinters in the 100m men's final were black. This does not mean that there is racial inequality in sports or that racism is present in the olympics, nor does it mean that white men were oppressedThe fact the women's achievements pale in comparison to men's in politics or in any other arena does not mean that women are being oppressed by men or that there's an inequality between the sexes Everyone gets the same start and men end up producing better results

[KillerrMike]

A lot of feminist propaganda has been debunked for you. If you want to stay in denial, that's up to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbucM_vyxw8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpQsLxUwXcY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RscKyvgw-Y4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61tbL3yD_AI

[gravygirl]

Do you really not know that Vice President is not the same as President? I said this "There has never been a woman president, or even a nominee from a serious party." Do you really think a female VP nominee somehow makes my statement wrong? So one more time then:

"Do you have a brain? Can you think before you talk?"

[KillerrMike]

"There has never been...a nominee from a serious party." If you want to get technical, you left out two crucial adjectives, which were female and presidential. You did not specify, nor can you use occamm's razor in this situation to say that you were implying a presidential nominee.

Furthermore, there have been plenty of female presidential nominees, if that's what you're looking for. However, a "serious party" is an extremely subjective term that you would

[KillerrMike]

..only use to describe political parties which have not nominated a female as their presidential candidate.

The truth is, people have had the choice to vote for women as presidents since the late 1800's. Republican and Democrat are not the only two options on the ballot. Now, I would suggest that you explain why you haven't acknowledged any of the counterarguments I've made pertaining to feminism, as I've yet to hear any rebuttal from you.

[gravygirl]

This was my quote "There has never been a woman president, or even a nominee from a serious party." You can't put ellipses over the "president" part and just pretend it wasn't there. Are you really that ashamed to admit you were wrong and totally out of line to insult me?

And any fool would know what "serious party" means. A party with a chance to win. Cmon.

[KillerrMike]

I didn't just pretend "it wasn't there", you left it out in the second half of the sentence. The words "There has never been a woman president" form a sentence on their own and you resumed that sentence later on after the second comma, similar to this sentence:

"My best friend who comes from Egypt is a very nice guy" can be rewritten as "My best friend, who comes from Egypt, is a very nice guy." In the second statement, the "who comes from Egypt" is superfluous and can be removed.

[KillerrMike]

Like so "My best friend...is a very nice guy." Notice how it's not "my Egyptian friend"

The difference between this sentence and yours is that you only included "woman" and "president" in your initial sentence. You then began a new sentence after the "or even". I suggest you google how to use commas. This isn't some pride or shame thing. I've already admitted that I made one mistake and I apologized.

Also, the word definition of the word serious does not include "has a chance to win"

[gravygirl]

Your concept of grammar and sentence structure is awful. The way you say it "nominee" could refer to a nominee for anything. No one would read that sentence and think that. You didn't. You were completely wrong and totally out of line. Admit it.

[KillerrMike]

"The way you say it nominee could refer to a nominee for anything" Exactly. It's not my fault you didn't specify in your sentence Like I said before, you left out the adjectives "female" and "presidential"

So that's what I thought? Really? I'm so glad there's someone out there who knows what I think better than I do

Just to clarify, the above three sentences were facetious

[KillerrMike]

I am capable of recognizing and correcting my own mistakes and have already done so.

Even if I concede to your arbitrary meaning of your sentence, your original statement is still incorrect as there have been several female presidential nominees representing multiple parties who all had an equal opportunity to win the presidential election. The parties they represented were all just as "serious" as the others. They had a legitimate chance, the voters just didn't vote for them.

[KillerrMike]

Either way, I honestly think you are going to drag this on as long as possible since you don't have any refutations to what I said.

What I want to see from you is any evidence you can provide which counters what I've said in any way so far.

[gravygirl]

This isn't arbitrary. I wrote a perfectly clear sentence. You knew what it meant, because you were clearly referring to a Presidential nomination. You were flat-out wrong and won't admit it. What's the problem here? Too much ego to admit how wrong you are? I'm not addressing anything else you say unless you admit you were way wrong and apologize for insulting me.

[KillerrMike]

"This isn't arbitrary"

"I'm not addressing anything else you say unless you admit you were way wrong and apologize for insulting me"

The only thing that I should have to apologize for was typing in the wrong woman's name. Once again, even if I play along with your little "you knew what I meant" game, you're still wrong. There have been multiple female presidential nominees.

Let me say that again. THERE HAVE BEEN FEMALE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES from parties that were "serious"

[gravygirl]

Your defense is something that only a fool would think is true.

"Do you have a brain? Can you think before you talk?"

[KillerrMike]

Even if I were to apologize for nothing, you still wouldn't have anything to add here. Your insults are useless unless you can provide reasoning for why only a fool would use my arguments.

There have been female presidential nominees for serious parties. One more time, there have been female nominees for serious parties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates

Your foolish beliefs have been debuked and you've got nothing

[gravygirl]

Right, and that was what you meant by "Hillary Clinton!" No wait, I mean "Sarah Palin!" You're special.

[iamranga]

What an epic battle.

[KillerrMike]

Whether that's what I meant or not still does not change the truth. There were female presidential nominees in the past. I'm not suprised that you're changing the subject every time I point out to you that you have zero evidence that counters the links I've shown you so far.

[AlekNovy]

"""When she was born almost no women in the world had the right to vote. How is that not oppression?"""

My grandfather couldn't vote either. You see, feminism is based on HALF-truths. For 99.99999999999% if human history, 99.9999999999999999% of people could not vote (male or female).

In most countries in the world, men and women got the right to vote at the exact same time. What feminism does is compare poor women, to aristocratic men, and declaring it oppression of men vs. women.

[soulfulleyes]

hahaha I don't think feminist hate men.. I think they hate everything.. theyr probably going to hate me for saying they hate everything.. but hey what can you do

[Asker]

Im sure they would lol...ur just some dumb girl who doesn't appreaciate all the wonderful things feminists are doing for you

[dwiller943]

1. That is NOTHING to do with "feminism".

2. They don't hate ALL men, they only hate CERTAIN men. SHITTY men to be exact.

3. Sadly, the vast majority of men in general are that way. And usually for no reason.

[BlackDawn]

I don’t hate men.

[Anonymous]

I fucking hate feminists