Why do people think that attacking men isn't sexist?

[CoffeeWC]

If you look up the definition of sexism in the dictionary, sexism is treating someone differently because of their gender. It really pisses me off when feminists attack men claiming it's not sexist because it's not against women.

Updates

+1 y

According to Merriam Webster:

Definition of sexism

1: prejudice or discrimination based on sexespecially : discrimination against women

2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

[Anonymous]

Some people dont use facts. It's the same with racism some people Think you can't be racist to white people which anybody can. They want an excuse for their behavior. Some people don't think straight sadly. And women can definatly be sexist just as mush as men can. That's a fact because like you said just check the dictionary.

[InTimoreDei]

Damn straight. At least some girls still have brains. This site keeps making me surprised at how a lot of the teen girls are a million times more intelligent than the older ones. A lot of the 20 plus girls are brainwashed by their liberal arts college.

[Opinion Owner]

@InTimoreDei Thanks, and yeah it's sad, I hope they start educate themself because sexism is never okay.

[Staiby]

I identify as a feminist and I think both genders can suffer from sexism. I feel very passionate about gender equality

[sonnysunshine]

If you truly believe in gender equality you are a egalitarian, not a feminist.

[Staiby]

@sonnysunshine egalitarian is pro-feminism

[sonnysunshine]

And many feminists hate that phrase. Why? Because it denotes true equality not superiority. It denotes equal responsibilities along with equal rights. It removes the Latin subroot “fem”. The very phrase feminism itself focuses on females, not males.

I’m egalitarian myself. I’ve met hardworking, smart women who have gained real respect by not playing the victim card. That’s how things should be but for some stupid ass reason radical feminism has managed to grab the spotlight. Their twisted views are getting publicized in the media, taught in public education and fantasized about in Hollywood.

[MlleCake]

@sonnysunshine sounds like you have been bamboozled by right wing pundits to believe mistruths about the nature of feminism.

[sonnysunshine]

@MlleCake no I support classic feminism, but not fucking 3rd wave feminism.

I went to a very liberal university. I was on the fence at the time but the radical liberalism I observed there actually pushed me in the opposite direction. They had a serious debate on “how men are all rapists but most choose morally not to do so”. That wasn’t a comedy or a fringe idea. That was actually supported by the fucking university that is getting funded with tax dollars and inflated tuition fees

Then they had women’s “take back the night marches” where girls chanted “hey hey mister get the fuck off my sister”. The dormitory walls were constantly filled with liberal propaganda that was 100 percent pro female and anti male. I also had to take a required sociology course and I remember them saying that their is “no scientific proof men and women think differently”. They treated their conspiracy theories like a hard science.

This was almost 20 years ago. I can’t imagine how insane it it now. Those people pushed me into becoming a conservative (not that I like everything conservative... I actually dislike trump). But their “education” was based on emotion and feelings with distorted facts. Modern feminism isn’t about “being right” not about what is right.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Feminists taking advantage of the "women are wonderful" effect victimizing themselves every time that the world turns into a "women's issues only" world.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Yep that meaning was made decades ago but feminists these days still think they're living in a patriarchal world. How sad.

[madhatters4]

the same reason why some people believe racism goes one way

people aren't all too smart.

[madhatters4]

thanks for MHO

[MlleCake]

Sexism is supported systemically, or at least partially.

Men do not experience that.

Men can experience misandry, anger, stereotyping, and prejudice based on sex/gender, but not quite the same as sexism. Not that it feels any better. It's just a bit different.

[Juxtapose]

Sexism is judging based on one's sex. Nothing more.

[Spongebob1528]

That's not true sexism is discriminating a gender. So both genders can be sexist that's a fact just check the dictionary. Just like red is red and not green. But if you think its okay to be sexist then thats another thing but then you know it's sexist. However I'm not saying you are and I hope you aren't. Cause being sexist isn't good for anybody.

[InTimoreDei]

Ah the good ol' "systematic" and "power" excuse. The same bloody excuse they use for racism as well to defend their racism against whites. Gad to know women are utilizing the same rhetoric for sexism too now. Glad to know!

[bamesjond0069]

Well it sucks if women can't be sexist. I've noticed the more sexist i am more girls and hotter girls want to fuck me.

[AlexanderBrunnrgaard]

You seriously think Men do not experience sexism? You couldn't be more inaccurate.
You're only arguing emotionally, not factually. You don't WANT men to be experiencing sexism too. It's a victim complex.

[MlleCake]

@AlexanderBrunnrgaard I think they can experience negativity based on being male, but it's not quite the same as sexism. I'm not telling any man that he faces no hardships or struggles.

[Spongebob1528]

But if someone experience negativity or someone is mean towards someone because of their gender then thats sexist. So both men and women experience it. It goes both ways

[MlleCake]

@Bendek38, you have had me blocked for a very long time. Maybe next time you'll have the guts to actually comment on my thread and engae in a civil discussion.

And you didn't read my post carefully. I clearly acknowledged misandry. (I don't think all the things that get labeled as misandry actually are, but it does happen sometimes.)

[MlleCake]

@Spongebob1528 I appreciate that you feel that way, but I disagree. Here is a bit more on why I feel the way I do.

www.bustle.com/.../71400-6-reasons-men-can-literally-never-be-victims-of-sexism-and-those-who-think-they

www.irishexaminer.com/.../...wards-men-440072.html

None of this means I think men's lives are always easy. None of this means I think it is ok to hate all men. None of this means I think it is pleasant to be a man all the time. Men have very real struggles. Just not sexism.

[Spongebob1528]

I have to disagree with you. Cause discrimaination of gender is the definition of being sexist.
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sexist

And power has nothing to do with it. Ofcorse it maybe not affect them as mush or it does but it's what in the dictionary that matters. Otherwise the dictionary would be bias.

And I'm not saying you are sexist. And I except your opinion I just disagree. So if a women hates all men she is not sexist? If she isn't then what is she according to you?

[Spongebob1528]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sexist

[MlleCake]

@Spongebob1528 Actually, the dictionary really isn't the authority of what is and isn't sexism. It simply provides various different definitions people use.

[MlleCake]

Oh and hating men is called misandry.

[Spongebob1528]

Have to disagree again. The dictionary is the fact of what the Word means but then people change it and use it in other ways. Which can be bad but can also make the language develop. Otherwise anything could mean anything. I mean what if I decide to color my hair red and I ask for purple because now I say that's purple. I really dont think you just can change a word like that. But if we could then how do you know what people say is what they mean cause maybe they see it in another way?

[MlleCake]

@Spongebob1528 and as people change the ways a word is used, newer definitions get put into dictionaries. We tend to glean meaning from context.

People use the word literally when they mean figuritively so often that some dictionaries actually carry that definition of the word literally now. It is still technically incorrect.

[Spongebob1528]

Yes but it hasn't change in the dictionary and if it did then it would be bias.

[MlleCake]

@Spongebob1528 uh, it has changed in the dictionary, not because of bias, but because of the publisher's policy of expanding definitions as words gain new ways they are used.

[Spongebob1528]

Well according to the actual dictionary that isn't made by individual it hasen't.

[MlleCake]

@Spongebob1528 you know that there are many different dictionaries in the world and they don't all use the exact same text as one another.

[Spongebob1528]

Yes but only one is real.

[bamesjond0069]

@Spongebob1528 using your definition sexism is bad. We should treat people based on their individual strengths and weaknesses and characteristics. Using her definition sexism is good. If sexism requires power then being sexist is a way to show your power and gain social status. Proud sexist here! I like to be powerful vs weak therefore sexism is great!

[Spongebob1528]

@bamesjond0069 I 100% disagree with you. Being sexist is bad. You can be powerful and not be sexist. I hope you are joking cause thats not good

[bamesjond0069]

@Spongebob1528 its bad according to your definition. I agree. But if sexism means what she says it means then its a really good thing. Im seriously not joking.

[Spongebob1528]

@bamesjond0069 well I go by the dictionary

[bamesjond0069]

@Spongebob1528 me too. :) silly definitions make silly results.

[Spongebob1528]

@bamesjond0069 well then you would think being sexist is being discriminating towards a gender

[bamesjond0069]

@Spongebob1528 yup.

[Spongebob1528]

@bamesjond0069 yes and thats bad

[D_Bone_Steak]

If anything has to be redefined in order to make an argument, then we're reduced to just arguing if a dictionary definition is what it is or is defined correctly at all.

It's why I'm urging others not to confuse female supremacists with feminists just because they're saying they're a feminist. Like some here, if they're pushing for more than just equality of rights... I'm sorry, but they simply don't match what the dictionary defines as a feminist.

Expecially when the people they argue against are matching that definition, and by definition are the real feminists.

Bottom line, the arguments can't even take place if we're trying to redefine anything to make the arguments in the first place.

[bamesjond0069]

@D_Bone_Steak no such thing as a feminist that wants equal rights in the USA anyways. We have had quality under the law for decades already. Only exceptions are discrimination against men. Ie draft, family court, circumcision

So basically anyone who does call themselves a feminist that wants to change a law is attempting to make things unequal and discriminatory and is therefore a feminazi.

[D_Bone_Steak]

@bamesjond0069 I like the term feminazi, it matches my definition of them as female supremacists quite nicely. I just think it's just a shame though that these feminazis are being allowed to redefine what a feminist still is in a dictionary... but has made it into a definition thats different. No longer looking for equality, just more than equal rights, while urging for that power by the use of authoritarian oppression, which they often will claim they're fighting against.

[AlexanderBrunnrgaard]

And that would be incorrect. Males do experience sexism. It's been documented!

[D_Bone_Steak]

Yes, @AlexanderBrunnrgaard has a valid point. I would like to know where the assumption that "men do not experience that" comes from, or exactly why "It's just a bit different?" I mean just as it could be argued that it is 'better' for men, so too could it be argued that it is worse... just trying to get the line of reasoning on that one or... could you respond to him @MlleCake

Or is it just a 'Gotcha' moment...

https://youtu.be/AiAvrb5TEzk

[InTimoreDei]

@D_Bone_Steak These feminist brutes wouldn't stand a chance against Jordan Peterson. They'd look just as ridiculous as that British reporter did. She kept putting words into his mouth, which is exactly what these girls are doing on GAG.

[D_Bone_Steak]

@InTimoreDei Fully aware of it... but with enough reasoning, maybe, just maybe one of these 'feminist brutes' (AKA 'feminazis') will actually question themselves about the beliefs the're parroting from the preachers at CNN or MSN.

If. We. Can. Save. Only! One! ... From being completely retarded and overly emotional... the work will be worth it.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[InTimoreDei]

@D_Bone_Steak That's a HUGE task you're asking of us. lol. May the unknown powers have mercy on us all as we commit to this work.

[D_Bone_Steak]

@InTimoreDei Yes, we are making the utmost sacrifices, so this vile contamination of human souls may spredeth no further. This ideology. This empowerment on the back of claiming 'oppression's' as a claim to some sort of deed...
It.
Must.
Die.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[MlleCake]

Men in this world do not experience gender prejudices from the position of historical oppression. They can experience gender bias, misandry, and anger, none of which are good. But that, to me, is not the same experience as societal sexism.

Much of what I hear men call sexism toward men is actually exploitation by the rich. Some of it is gender stereotyping which feminists are working to dismantle. And some of it is a total mischaracterization/misunderstanding of laws. It's often just a fatuous tool to derail discussions about continuing civil rights violations against women and other gender-marginalized individuals. It's often used as a way to tone police oppressed people.

It is wrong to deny men civil rights because of their gender. It's incorrect to assume all men are the same, and make their lives he'll because of it.

But I simply do not believe that cishet men are experiencing what it is like to be part of a gender-marginalized class.

I appreciate why others disagree, but throwing around terms like feminazi doesn't lead me to believe that person has a well reasoned point of view toward gender politics.

[D_Bone_Steak]

Bwah ha ha ha ha!

Come on... seriously? We really going to claim some power move over the fact that we 'were' oppressed and not 'is' oppressed as a backup plan now? Let us both put in a job application to some place that we both don't want to work at and have no intention of doing so... and see who gets hired over who because of gender quotas... but still whine because back in the day, they wouldn't of done that.

You're not inspiring my white male tears here with this argument despite, in current year, having the shit end of the stick. Because it's just not logical. It has feels over current reals. A narrative with no goal that hasn't been achieved.

[MlleCake]

Jordan Peterson stands no chance against logic and reason. His only tool is taking people through the warped thinking and mischaracterization of facts that lead him to his baffling, sensationalist conclusions.

There are also feminists who don't represent the whole of feminist thought well.

Female supremacy is a sexual paraphilia. Not a significant platform within feminism.

I'm a feminist in the USA and I don't believe that for women to be liberated from oppression it requires increasing oppression of men. I strongly uphold the concept of sex and gender equality to the best we can approximate it. The USA and much of the Western has progressed a great deal, but there is more work to do.

[D_Bone_Steak]

But I'm stuck on this 'exploitation the rich narrative,' and just wondering who's that? The ones that's pulled a used condom out of the garbage can to impregnate themselves or the ones that's claimed rape after consensual sex just because they're not getting what they want... publicize it as rape (mattress girl) and make the sweet sweet dollars off of it. Who are these 'rich' people exploiting men? ... or is it some communist manifesto narrative where us poor plebs are getting fucked by the rich?

Genuinely curious about that factoid.

[D_Bone_Steak]

"A narrative with no goal that hasn't been achieved"

Come back to us... denounce the demons... called 'entitlement.'

In the name of Jesus Christ! I command you evil spirits, to let go of @MlleCake

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[D_Bone_Steak]

There is more work to do... I'm not trolling. But it's not importing men from a world that still values cutting off a woman's clit so they can rape the women here. They have problems that we could influence. That kind of logic in the name of feminism... I would throw myself behind.

But...

I can't get behind stupid dumb bullshit like manspreading. I think you at least agree with me that some of the bullshit being pushed past the point of success here in the west, is doing more damage than good. That when we allow anti-semites (they hate Jews just like the Nazis) lead the woman's march, maybe, just maybe... a great portion of well intentioned individuals are being mislead? Basically the heart is in the right place... but it's shitting on that right place due to other certain issues.

Like, why demonize the group of men that had your back and has enabled you for another group that just thinks you're this or that (slut, bitch, phosphate... you can come up with the names I'm sure) and side with those that actually want to re-oppress?

Not saying that's you in particular. But as a whole, wtf is that movement doing now?

Notice I have more questions than anything else... it's like watching Nazi's become Nazi's but when we ask them, "why are you becoming a Nazi?," they don't have reasonable answers.

[MlleCake]

The first and only people I heard talk of questioning the practice of routine infant circumcision were feminists, until about ten years ago. I have been advocating for legal bans on all unnecessary genital modifications on minor boys, girls and intersex people for 30 years, with many feminists and other activists.

And I support US women serving in the military to the extent of their capacity, including selective service registration, combat positions, and inclusion in drafts should they ever be reinstated. I know women who were conscripted into the Israeli Defense Forces and fought with honor and skill. Feminists have been fighting for fair treatment of women in the military, opening career opportunities within the military that were denied to women on the basis of gender, and gender stereotypes, and eliminating sexual abuse/harassment and barriers to reporting misconduct of this type.

Family courts do tend to assume that a woman is more likely to be the "best" custodial parent, but let's break that down. Women are still more likely to have been taught more about domestic responsibilities and parenting as they grow up, because society still think it's weird or faggy to teach boys these things. Women are still more likely to have been the primary caregiver to the children during the marriage/relationship. But the biggest reason men don't get custody is they don't seek it. As to child support, that is decided based on the child's best interest. The laws about community property and spousal support are gender neutral. They look like they favor women only because they provide for the fair treatment of the economically disadvantaged partner, but when roles are reversed, women do pay alimony and child support. It's just that masculinity is still so associated with economic prowess that it is viewed as ideal. As women continue to experience increasing economic opportunity, fewer divorce settlements include alimony.

[MlleCake]

It's ok with me if people disagree as long as we can continue to dialogue in sensitive and meaningful ways.

I'm not arguing that men should be treated unfairly.

[D_Bone_Steak]

I think that if you come at people with a legitimate problem they will hand you legitimate solutions... but slander, finger pointing, and chest thumping begets the same just as that prior point.

I think that's the main conflict... if you look around the answers here, especially the female ones', there's a sharp divide between those that side with the blame game against men and those that have legitimate reasons that allows them not to become combative against an entire gender (equality of rights vs. Superiority over the other).

In order to stop this plague of side choosing and making it 'us vs. them,' we have to drop the past as a claim to power through past oppressions and actually find some sort of solidarity.

[bamesjond0069]

Divorce laws are set up to advantage women. Its like saying we will give most of the property to the shortest person in the relationship. Some women are taller than men true but this is primarily an advantage to women and it always will be. Same thing how it is now. Some men are biologically wired to work very exceptionally hard and take big risks in order to win. These are almost exclusively men and always will be. Men will always be the taller one in the relationship. Might as well just spell it out by sex in the law instead of pretending income is not tied to gender.

[MlleCake]

@bamesjond0069 that is not how divorce laws are set-up. They appear to favor women because financial prowess is still considered an attractive masculine trait (by men and women) and it is still not as common for women to be the economically more advantaged partner. The laws themselves are gender neutral. As women become more able to have adequate paid employment, they are awarded less alimony and child support. Most divorce settlements in the USA do not include alimony any longer.

Plus people can take the initiative to enter into pre-nuptial agreements to adjust how assets are shared during the marriage and distributed in the case of a divorce. If you don't agree to equal division of community property and marital assets, you have an opportunity to set your marriage up how you wish, so long as the pre-nuptial agreement isn't designed to exploit the economically disadvantaged partner.

I know men who have gotten equal distribution of home equity despite not having paid as much into the house over the time it was owned. I know women who pay alimony and child support.

Plus, not all marriage is between a man and a woman any longer. As more same-sex marriages dissolve, you'll see that it has nothing to do with the gender of the partner, and entirely to do with fair and equitable distribution of assets between two partners who have not contributed equally to the financial pot.

The act of marriage, not divorce, is what creates the financial obligations.

[bamesjond0069]

How can you exploit the financially less off person. If you each come with 1 million you can leave with 1 million so why can't if one person comes with a million and one person with nothing, why should you not be able to leave with what you came with?

Also like i said before. Why not base it off height? Height is chosen in the same way. The law might as well be gender specific.

Do some women pay to men? Yes. But its a very small amount of women paying to men.

Sure prenup but the standard laws slam men almost exclusively. And that is not fair and its sexist.

[MlleCake]

@bamesjond0069 well, because in getting married what you bring with you becomes an asset of the marriage. It becomes community property. But one can adjust this by making a pre-nuptial agreement.

These laws make it so that partners who operated in good faith on the financial promises made to them are not left destitute at the whim of a higher earning partner. It helps keep financially vulnerable people from being trapped in a marriage where they are being abused or harmed. (Not that all marriages that end we're necessarily abusive.)

The only reason the standard laws seem to slam men is because men still tend to be more financially advantaged.

But most divorces do not result in an alimony award to either partner because both partners are much more likely to be earning a living wage in this day and age.

The laws are gender neutral and both partners agree to the terms when they get married without a pre-nuptial.

Other countries and some states may have gender specific laws. My familiarity is California, Washington, and New York law, but my understanding is these taws about community property are common to most of the US.

[MlleCake]

Now, my other take on this is that when people get married they should be explicitly informed by the state about their rights and responsibilities. It's one of the only contracts we allow people to get into without showing them the terms of the contract. I think it should be something the state goes over when a marriage license is requested.

Most marriages end in a division of debt, more than assets.

[bamesjond0069]

Why should assets be split if you dont still have to clean my house or suck my dick? Men typically provided financially in an exchange of services at home and family. If those services do not need to continue why should finances? It makes no sense. I agree prenups can partially solve this but they dont completely nor is the STANDARD fair to people who take a masculine role in a relationship which is typically the man. Its completely sexist. The standard should be nothing. Whatever assets are in whose name is theirs. If a husband and wife want to own a house together they should buy it together. Simple simple simple. Instead people decided women specifically needed to be protected. Which was fine in the era of at FAULT divorce but its completely one sided in the age of no fault divorce.

[MlleCake]

@bamesjond0069 yes, back when women were considered as little more than property and baby receptacles for men who could do anything they wanted because they held all the power and resources, and women weren't allowed control of their bodies, thoughts and lives, couldn't get credit, would be woefully underpaid if we did work, and would never have mobility in our workplaces to advance into positions of power no matter how intelligent, clever, talented, gifted, educated, resourceful, and qualified we were. Same for our lives in society - we were barred from political advancement. We were told if we were virtuous, modest, and chaste and shoved our sexuality deep deep down so we would be content with pleasurless sex and focus only on being cheerfully cooperative in being made pregnant as our husbands desired, to make more soldiers for God's army while we toiled in unimaginably soul crushing drudgery of obsessive housekeeping, judged only by our level of self sacrifice to serve others, while maintaining a wholesome slender attractiveness, eternally youthful and naive, to please our husbands and make them think we were good enough to protect and love for the rest of our lives. While we kept our heads down and loved Jesus, and appreciated we were wicked, worthless and to blame for the human's fall from grace because we didn't have enough sense to say no to Satan. We were promised if we did all these things men would love us, provide us with financial stability, decent dignified housing and modest material possessions, perhaps the occasional use of the family car for grocery shopping at which we were supposed to be impossibly frugal, while producing expert but simple meals including giant tasty satisfying slabs of beef with occasional lamb, pork, chicken, and turkey, potatoes, two vegetables and a scratch made dessert. We were promised placid upstanding lives with moral men to dominate and guide us as we need.

And we did all these things in good faith, and...

[MlleCake]

And tried not to cry while we gave up our own childish and stupid aspirations from our flighty teenage years.

But what many of us got were husbands who drank and beat us, cheated on us and brought home VD. We got raped in childhood by people we were taught to trust, and sworn to shameful secrecy by our own mothers to keep the piece. Some of us mysteriously tuned up pregnant after being coerced or forced into premarital sex by our privileged, demanding boyfriends who insisted we engage in sinful, immoral acts like heavy petting, and not always being in missionary position. They hired whores. They took mistresses. They worked too much and disengaged from their families, becoming strangers to their own children. They pushed us for weirder, kinkier sex that was just as out there and extreme as you see now, but with less consent. While at the same time we weren't even allowed to know the proper names of our own body parts because that was naughty, and we were told we were not allowed to say no to sex in a marriage and if we were stubborn, scared and selfish enough to try to resist advances, our husbands had the right to literally rape us, sometimes at the urging of our pastors and priests.

But the final insult was when our husbands tired of us they could leave us penniless, maybe institutionalized, take the children who they barely knew, and take back all the resources they had vowed, promised and guaranteed they would share, while we had sacrificed having any career at all because they demanded it, so we were actively sabbotaged when we might have chosen to work in our pitiful underpaid, undignified jobs that we had when we were single, at which me might be grabbed, groped, and repeatedly humiliated and told to suck it up by married older men. We might have liked the opportunity to work to make a meaningful financial contribution to our family coffee, but we were told only poor, improper women who married poor men could work, and the only respectable work was...

[bamesjond0069]

Well thats far from how it exists today and therefore the current laws are completely outdated and sexist in practice and need to be changed. Women do not need special protections in marriage because they are equal in those respects today.

[MlleCake]

Nursing and teaching, both poorly paid. If we waitressed we earned less than the waiters, and put in uniforms that tempted creepy patrons to Pat our asses, and no matter how skilled, loyal, hard working and honest we were we never got promotions because those jobs were reserved for men. Even in female dominated industries we had male management who paid us crap. If we had to work in a factory we were paid less than the men, even if we paid our Union dues. We couldn't get loans in our name even if we had more than enough to pay them, we might not be sold a car without husband agreeing we could. Single women and divorcees were still forced to have a man buy things for us, even if we could afford them. Our credit cards were issued in our husband's names, didn't even say our names on the card, just our husband's.

There were constant barriers to our financial independence, and we simply made less money and were not offered any advancement opportunities that would land us in charge of anything and paid equally as a man would be. In no industry did women expect they could ever earn an equal rate as a man in the same position.

None of this is bullshit. It persisted unfettered deep into the 1980s. This was only one generation before me.

But the women's movement/women's libbers got right uppity because women were suffering horrors on the regular because of the assumption that men were superior, and women's work was said to be inferior and valueless. It didn't matter if we stayed home and essentially facilitated our husband's lives, and made every bit of his success possible. It was still not enough to be considered equally valuable in our marriages.

And it turned out this nuclear family, with stay-at-home sexually repressed mother and masculine breadwinner daddy, and perfect children with good teeth from the flouride in the water was mostly A WASPY myth and it ignored that in most of the US women had to work, for an insulting pittance, especially if they were...

[MlleCake]

Brown, black, from poverty, from poor education, from rural areas, from the deep South, one of the wrong kind of whites like Italians, Polish, Irish, Catholic, or Jewish. Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists only existed as exotic background characters in fanciful films starring white people - Americans had only the faintest notions about people in the undeveloped world. Regardless, we did understand they were brown or yellow and therefore needed to be controlled by the white man for their own good. And what about Native Americans in this era? They were considered sub human, and everything was done to make them die, starve and lose their children to boarding schools where they were mercifully made civilized, made to surrender their languages, cultures and religions, and trained to become house servants , farm labor, and low skilled labor. Or sent back to the rez to live in such depressing, impoverished, fractured, starving, broken communities that alcoholism became epidemic and so did rates of infants born with fetal alcoholism, and later huffing noxious brain breaking chemicals took over as the long dwindling death of choice.

And there was no place for queers, cripples, trade unionists, artistic types, actors, sex workers, midgets, sensitive glasses wearing boys with high IQs and no inclination for sports, scrawny women, fat women, hysterical women, syphilitics, sexually abused little girls, thalidamide babies, Polio victims, ladies who dressed up like men so they looked butchy with their femme dates in hidden drinking holes owned by the mob and raided by police on the regular, criminals, agitators, gypsies, intellectuals, anarchists, pinkos, and circus folk - US society could barely acknowledge these people existed until late in the 20th Century and had all manner of ways to make their lives hell including sending them to work camps, hobo life, hiding in the woods, state hospitals for punitive electro-shock and lobotomies...

[MlleCake]

And even all the WASPY folks with the decent middle-class lives were given heavy narcotics, hypnotics, barbiturates, sedatives, amphetamines, diet pills, from infancy to death - this was sooooo common, especially because codeine was in every cough syrup available over the counter even into the 1970s, and your pharmacist had Perigoric behind the counter to rub on teething babie's gums (it was liquid morphine), we even had Benzedrine inhalers marketed as some vague sinus treatment but it was basically equivalent to snorting meth.

***************************

Prejudice, racism, sexism, eugenics, McCarthyism, xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiments, and a culture of post-war repression made this country a very uptight, confining, difficult place for a lot of perfectly decent, normal, hard working people who had failed at being human by not being born white, male, cisgender, heterosexual, Protestant and middle class, bound for a college education at institutions that wouldn't admit women, Jews, blacks, etc.

People were called n**, spick, chink, dago, faggot openly, in the streets, like it was just how you were supposed treat people, no feeling that it was wrong.

There was such unfettered, unimpeded prejudice, discrimination, and disenfranchisement of people who were not of the privileged class. And that lasted all the way into the 70s, even the random lynching of black boys persisted.

The economy was terrible. There was a recession and a gasoline shortage.

But bit by bit through the 60s, 70s, 80s there was so much pressure for civil rights laws to help the marginalized classes achieve some semblance of more fair treatment. There were lawsuits and constitutional challenges, changes to divorce laws, lending laws, employment laws, and public agencies of all types were being transformed to serve marginalized Americans more. Everyone was on coke, quaaludes, DMT and PCP. Saturday Night live has never been so funny since that era.

[MlleCake]

But our leaders wanted to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes for the most elite rich, and biggest corporations. Environmental protections we're relaxed so these companies could dump more chemicals in the water table so poor kids would get brain damage from the tap water, because: greed.

These tax cuts and regressive policies that benefitted only the most elite rich we're supposed to "trickle down" as more jobs, better pay, good benefits packages, etc. But what happened is real wage growth went steadily down, inflation went up, junk bonds sucked up the retirement savings of average joes, companies employing union tradesmen who made a decent living were replaced by illegal immigrant labor, the farm workers union begun by Caesar Chavez and Delores Huerta was essentially blown to smithereens while the feds looked the other way on hiring illegal immigrants, and when Rose Bird implemented protections for them like porta potty and hand washing sinks, requirements that they be given cheap breathing masks for when the crop dusters flew over and doused them with insecticides while they worked and a way to shower the crap off, greedy greedy greedy growers protested and Rose Bird was driven out of office based on completely fatous accusations about something the middle-class and poor white Republicans, especially men, would rally behind, so we literally made it legal to deny the field pickers a place to shit. So these recent immigrants from places where e-coli and other intestinal infections and parasites run rampant had to shit out there with all the flavorless lettuce (flavor was bred out the countrys corporate farmed vegetables and fruits because it's too expensive to grow tasty things), and the illegals with poopy hands at the meat packing plants and chicken processing, and egg processing plants managed to get their infectous caca into several major areas of food processing, and it would cost too much to give them time to wash Doo Doo off their hands after going #2

[MlleCake]

And companies moved jobs overseas to exploit the extreme poverty and lax labor laws in *communist* Asian countries, and Mexico where you can pollute as you please because all these bullshit practices were about one thing - greed so wanton that they were willing to make raw eggs a salmonella carrier everywhere in North America because they were obsessively hoarding money and amassing mega fortunes of never before seen amounts while the real wage growth continued to stagnate for middle-class and poor Americans. Unions were busted, right-to-work laws happened, decent wage jobs disappeared replaced by minimum wage shit work.

Regular white dudes who had always been told they were the top of the heap and could have decent, home owning, lives that supported a family on a single full-time income even if they hadn't gone to college saw the dream slipping away day by day. The cronies at the top kept telling those guys it was the illegals, black and Hispanic citizens, greedy Vietnamese who were invited here as Saigon fell, and the Thai, Laotions and Cambodians, Hmong, Ethiopians, Somalis and uppity fuckin women

[MlleCake]

.. who were fucking you out of the prosperity YOU were entitled to. All the while as deregulation, tax cuts, and mega bailout packages allow the greediest money hoarders to suck the whole well dry right where we can see them doing it.

Meanwhile our public schools have been denied the funds they need to keep class sizes small enough, invest in materials and technologies that could drastically improve the quality of instruction, biased antiscience, anti-reason religious nuts who don't even have a sophisticated understanding of their own religious texts insist on filling big fat fancy expensive text books with total flat out lies, rolled up in pretty graphics and mind numbingly boring, irrelevant, and uninspiring nonsense that demotivates students who might have been able learn a ton of incredible smart shit, how to read and study claims forensically, how to recognize the tell tale signs of factual material as contrasted with the sparkly, shiny, distracting illogic of fake news. So you will accept more clear lies, provably false claims, sensationalist poppycock that gets you believing Hillary Clinton had people killed, Ellen DeGeneres is running a shadow government, Barack Obama is a foreign born Muslim, they're coming for your guns, vaccines are dangerous, global warming is a conspiracy cooked up by literally millions of scientists from all countries publicly and privately funded in universities, labs, think tanks, and in the field, from countries of all political I'll because they want us to halt pollution like - fuck all those guys for telling 'Murica that it's a bad idea to poison the sky, the Earth, the water - were 'Murica and we don't want to take orders from mincing science fags in France because that makes our men feel emasulated.

It was the John Birchers, and Wally George, then Rush Limbaugh, and a whole host of talk radio angry white men, and Alex Jones, Infowars, The American Spectator, Breitbart and it's cadre of discredited flim-flam men...

[MlleCake]

Ann Coulter and Rupert Murdoch's grand experiment in never underestimating the primitive blood lust of angry, desperate, recently disenfranchised voters. Our economy got fucked sideways by the S&L crisis, junk bond merchants, predatory lenders with these ridiculous artificially inflated home values, employers continuing to base their exorbitant profit projections on the expectation that no one from Washington is ever going to make them stop hiring illegal aliens who are so poor and desperate that they will do the worst, most dangerous, unregulated exploitive shit work and never complain and operate just below the radar, and slave labor in China and Vietnam, etc. They will never hire citizens and legal residents for those jobs, never, because they know you have awareness of too many rights for them to do what they do. They have dismantled labor unions and have made it illegal to gather to discuss collective bargaining, and walk off a job in protest while telling you pensions and unions have made all the good jobs go away. They have taught you that teachers are blood sucking leeches who don't care about schools and children who have cushy overpaid jobs. They have convinced you pensions are evil so you won't stop and realize that you wish YOU had a good pension and health insurance like your dad and his dad had from the widget factory that now pays minimum wage.

They want all of you who got knocked out by the recession and an addiction to oxycodone to blame it all on the wrong people. Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Enron are the ones who made you lose your house. But they wanted you to think extending unemployment benefits and creating a pathway to get health coverage to all Americans was a commie, liberal, pinko plot to force you to have the value of your life decided by a death panel - there never was any reference to a death panel in name or function in the Affordable Care Act whatsoever but they counted on none of you reading it to discover that was fake...

[MlleCake]

I am sick slap to death of pointing out complete, utter, obvious lies to those who have renounced the use of reason. Your elected representative of actual Satan tells you something on Monday live on TV televised on 5 channels here, and 30 more channels for the international markets - and two days later claim it never happened. Charlatans have somehow convinced Evangelical Christians the hatred, violence, turning back on the poor, the vulnerable, the meek, racism, intolerance, building mega churches while shuttering homeless shelters is even faintly in keeping with what the Bible actually says for followers of Christ to do.

But the worst is they have convinced you, average American white guy who was surviving 15 years ago, but now starts the day with a steaming turd sandwich are just a temporarily inconvenienced billionaire and that if you go along with them, help them build their empires, they will eventually hand you over your share of the blood money. They aren't ever going to give you any. None for you. Thanks for the vote, now please go lie in the street and die.

The people with the support the troops rhetoric have gutted funding for veterans benefits and the VA.

The people who used to pay miners to get dirty coal out of the mountains of West Virginia failed to offer those guys job retraining to learn how to install solar arrays and wind turbines as all of the energy companies see the writing on the wall and know they have to transition to clean, free, renewable energy sources because there's NO downside to it. It will make them tons of dough, prevent pollution, stop countless cases of black lung disease, stop turning West Virginia's beautiful mountains into blighted slag heaps. AND it will provide new, safer quality long term employment while saving the consumer money. Why do we want to restore coal mining? No idea. The goon is a certified imbecile who doesn't pay his bills, isn't actually very rich, but bilked investors in his Ponzi schemes...

[MlleCake]

The emperor is naked.

The Christians turned their back on Christianity.

They want the now bankrupt WASP guys to keep directing their anger at minorities so we all stay in a perpetual fist fight while they sneak out the back with the nation's prosperity.

You can't pay the rent with a dirty MAGA hat.

Stop vilifying actual smart people because the big guys turned your schools into shit so you wouldn't develop critical thinking schools.

Quit fighting all of us. We're not your enemy. Join us because we still have the momentum to topple this miserable system and reinstall real democracy that is adjusted to the needs of the preponderance of US citizens. No one really wants communism - it looked interesting 50 years ago, and it's a nice sounding ideal, but can't ever work because it incentivises corruption, incompetence, greed, thuggery, graft and crime and robs people of a personal sense of dignity in doing an honest day's work for honest pay and seeing that pay go to fund a decent life. We are probably not going to see rich in this generation again, but if we rejigger and defuckulate the system, our kids might be better off, there will be decent support for us as we get broken, sick and have to retire. (That is, if you weren't already forced out of the workforce permanently ten years ago.)

The wall won't help, and he has some nerve to talk about the gravity of this made-up border crisis while he is refusing to pay the TSA, Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, and US Customs who actually do the work of apprehending people and contraband that's not supposed to cross our borders.

Seriously, we need you. Join us. You have the stockpiles when it's time to stage the coup. /Sarcasm

[Anon-ymous1]

@MlleCake
Well... while you deserve a drink and a medal for ^ the last two comments you left, I have to completely disagree that sexism is only about systemic... I don't even know-- subjugation? "can experience misandry, anger, stereotyping, and prejudice based on sex/gender" ... right. "but not quite the same as sexism." Uhm... what? That is sexism.

Racism similarly does not need to be systemic to be racism. That would be like suggesting (wrongly) that someone black can't be racist against someone Latino, since neither of them rule the system. I've never understood the viewpoint you espoused here about sexism, though I've heard it before elsewhere; the truth is both more nuanced and yet somehow also far, far simpler than that.

[MlleCake]

@Anon-ymous1 Oh. no no no. That is not remotely what it is like to experience actual, real sexism. It's still very unpleasant, and I am not dismissing that in any way.

But because men are in the privileged position in society at this moment in time, they really cannot say they know what it feels like to be treated with pervasive sexism that is a constant pervasive and overall pressure literally every moment of a woman's day. (Many women are so habituated to the pressure that even they can't quite describe the pressure anymore since they are just telling themselves it isn't there, and it doesn't mean what it means. They eventually can't perceive that it is there anymore because they have been told, and been telling themselves that their experience didn't happen.)

Men simply don't have that same experience. Maybe there was time where the roles were reversed, and women were the privileged class and they were sexist towards men. But that time is not now, and not actually something any living man went through because we know it didn't happen in recorded history. And on behalf of these theoretical women of the past, I would like to say, I am very sorry that men had to experience what happens when those in power get a little corrupted and then start trying to justify that it is their right to do hurtful things to other people just because those people are different in some innocuous way that they had not control over, because honestly. We ALL want all the goodies, and when we get into a power position it is necessary to have impeccable integrity to be sure we don't demand something we really aren't entitled to, but we know we can get just by abusing our power a little.

So, that's th

For a man to believe he has experienced sexism he must also believe he is not a member of a privileged class, and possibly believe there isn't any such thing as a privileged class, or that sexism and inequality was already fixed all the way.

[MlleCake]

And, I want you to know that I know this is a very hard pill for men to swallow, not because they are men, but because it may signify a loss of some stuff they liked and that's a bummer, but what's more, the issue about privilege is that it's not always perceptible to people because we all also have ways where we are NOT privileged, and that tends to color our view. Yes, privilege is not absolute for anyone, and we are not saying it is. Everybody has issues in life, and some of them don't have anything to do with privilege at all, and some other issues are evidence that the man is also the bottom bitch to some other people in another privileged group too. Both things can coexist in the life of one man.

What I think I am sensing for a lot of the regular kinds of men out there in the world is there is a class that no one really wants to admit is there.

White men have white priv, and male priv. Black men have male priv, but not white priv (obvs). (Just examples of my point. You don't have to agree with me to be able to understand the point I am making.)

So, wow, how is it that so many white men get beat all to hell even though they are supposedly the privileged class? Hmm. Totally fair question actually.

Here's my stab at an answer.

Our world really just suffered a devastating think with the recession. Lots of great regular dudes got totally hosed in a way that they are usually high enough in status to avoid.

Who caused the crisis? A lot of rich people who are so rich that it's very hard to fathom how much they have, and that they did and do have the capital to actually make this crisis, and other crises happen. Many of them are very obviously playing puppet master, making all the middle class and poor people believe that they don't even exist. Very clever of them.

And they told you that your problems were actually caused by a bunch of people who are in heavily marginalized classes, as if we actually had the power to do something like this without big $$.

[Anon-ymous1]

Well... again, no, I must disagree-- you're basically saying that the sexism females experience is *worse.* And to that I'd say "Yeah, correct."
That doesn't make one "Sexism," and the opposite "oh well, still bad, but mostly in an annoying way, and it's rather that than in a systemic way, so we'll just call it by a different name even though the underlying premise is actually exactly the same rationale." No, all it means is one is worse, and that's backed up by these data or this logic and reasoning or that evidence or whatever, which is why people should recognize that and blah de blah de blah etc.
All the qualifiers you gave for -ism aimed at males are also true *in addition,* not exclusively.

[Anon-ymous1]

"this is a very hard pill for (some) men to swallow, not because they are men, but because it may signify a loss of some stuff they liked and that's a bummer, but what's more, the issue about privilege is that it's not always perceptible to people because we all also have ways where we are NOT privileged, and that tends to color our view. Yes, privilege is not absolute for anyone, and we are not saying it is. Everybody has issues in life, and some of them don't have anything to do with privilege at all, and some other issues are evidence that the man is also the bottom bitch to some other people in another privileged group too. Both things can coexist in the life of one man."

Yes. Correct. And... I'm not sure that's what is being discussed, is it? We're getting pretty far from @CoffeeWC's original question.

[ADFSDF1996]

Because certain groups of people (radical liberals) who tend to distort facts to promote their ideologies to the masses. They don’t take double standards into account and they use many fallacious arguments. Unfortunately many people are too Ignorant to question them and just believe what they are told.

Of course attacking men is sexist but any person who points it out tends to get ridiculed by the ignoramuses because they buy into the notion that men are “privileged”.

[_my_fukking_anarchy]

Because feminists (I was one) believe that men are privileged, and run this world and this whole system. So they think, well they can't be technically discrimated against since they everything (or almost) is in their favor. So they then say that it's actually GOOD (I know right) to objectify men and put them in degrading roles to "get even". It's essentially fighting sexism with sexism. Their theory of feminism makes most men assholes that don't really like women. They think 1/3 of men or more are rapists. All theses beliefs makes them thing that men are sexist, misogynistic pigs. So if you think someone is bad, and has a whole structured system formated for him to benefit from, they think it can't be sexist since it's justified and it won't hurt them, since they are in a dominant position. And since they think women are hated, oppressed, and everything by men, they only think something can be truly sexist it's when it's against women. It's like people saying you can only be racially discriminated against if your a minority, or racist only if your white.

[D_Bone_Steak]

I wished all these identitarians would read and consider what you wrote here.

What stands out to me is 'they believe' is what it is most of the time, and it feels like arguing with the 'believers' 10 years ago that maybe we shouldn't do such and such just because you 'believe' and the bible told you so. It's like a religion, so much so that they're not even noticing the flaws in their talking points. Dualistic thinking, like good vs. evil, us vs. them, and so on. My side is right, you all are wrong... then plugs years and recants the holy word from CNN, instead of thinking about the reasons why CNN may be wrong about a certain point that was laid at their feet.

To be blunt, it feels like arguing with a vegan or flat earther. The reason it's a past tense for you is because, obviously, you started thinking about it. Like seriously thinking about it instead of insulating yourself from anything contrary to the gospel (from their non-theistic religion) that's getting pushed here.

Anyways, good job and that was well said. I agree.

[CoffeeWC]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's still sexism whether or not you think it will hurt them.

[D_Bone_Steak]

@CoffeeWC They 'believe' and therefore (to themselves), it is so. They won't hear anything to the contrary. ... and like you pointed out, even if it doesn't benefit them, the bird is the word... so to speak. lolz

[weasley8]

sexism[sek-siz-uh m]
noun
1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
3. ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.

Which definition are you using?

I'm not saying that attacking men is okay. I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to when you say attacking men, especially with reference to feminism, because that's not what feminism is. But either way, if someone is actually "attacking" men because of their sex, then yes, it's wrong.

I just thought I would look it up though, to see what the technical definition is. And it is not quite so simple as "treating someone differently because of their gender."

In short, I would like to know which definition of the word you are using, and what specific behavior you are referring to when you say that feminists attack men.

[Benedek38]

Perhaps you notices that some of the other definitions:
"1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles."
"3. ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny."
Are all later additions, thanks to feminist influence. I haven't checked it (I will), but I firmly believe that these definitions were added due to pressure from high profile feminists. Roughly 28% of UK women are feminists, no wonder this definition made it into the dictionary.

[weasley8]

@Benedek38 28 percent does not constitute a majority, and is certainly not enough to get the definition of a word changed. So I don't think so.

Also, that did not answer my question.

[Benedek38]

"28 percent does not constitute a majority"
That is not relevant. That wouls only be relevant if the remainins 72% were ANTI-FEMINISTS. Which they aren't. So there is nobody to oppose feminists.

"and is certainly not enough to get the definition of a word changed."

Why not? A single #metoo allegation can ruin a successful businessman's career, don't you think 28% of women, and 18% of men, with power in the right places, can change things?

For example, the American Center for Disease Control is not occupies by feminists. Ever since that happenes, testicular cancer treatment and research gets orders of magnitudes less funding than breast cancer treatment and research. This is well documented.

[weasley8]

@Benedek38 Are you not opposing feminism? Also, definitions reflect what the majority of people believe a word means. Even if most people aren't outright against feminism, unless most people bought into that definition, it wouldn't exist.

And a metoo allegation isn't what ruins careers. What ruins careers is when those allegations are taken seriously and investigated, and prove to be true.

As for the different types of cancer:

An estimated 9,310 men were diagnosed with testicular cancer last year. Compare that with 266,120 women who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, plus 63,960 in site cases. An estimated 2,550 men were diagnosed with breast cancer.

The five year survival rate of testicular cancer is 95%. The five year survival rate of breast cancer is 90%

An estimated 400 men died of testicular cancer last year. An estimated 40,920 women and 480 men died of breast cancer last year.

All of these statistics are from cancer. net.

So no. The fact that breast cancer research is getting more funding than testicular cancer is not a sign of sexism. It's a sign that it effects more people, and has a higher mortality rate. Also, breast cancer is not just something that effect women. More men die of breast cancer than of testicular cancer.

[Benedek38]

"Are you not opposing feminism?"
I am. Most people aren't.

"Also, definitions reflect what the majority of people believe a word means."
No because words are not voted in via referendum - instead a collection of linguistic professionals decide how to define worda. And these individuals can havw biases.

"And a metoo allegation isn't what ruins careers"
Tell that to Aziz Ansari. Tell that to Louis CK. Tell that to Brett Kavanagh. Tell that to a hundred other men unfairly slandered.

"An estimated 9,310 men were diagnosed with testicular cancer last year."
That is is the problem. Men simply aren't diagnosed in time. How do I know that is wrong? This is how:
"Globally testicular cancer resulted in 8,300 deaths in 2013 up from 7,000 deaths in 1990."
In other words - most men are only diagnosed when it is already deadly.
And please tell my great-grandfather it is rare. He died from it. Nobody knew what killed him, because the doctor weren't traines to diagnose jt.

And the REASON statistics are so high for breast cancer, abd so low for testiculr cabcer is EXACTLY because the CDC is ran by feminists. Look up any study before the 2010-s. Testiculae abd breast cancer had similar rates.

"An estimated 400 men died of testicular cancer last year."
Demonstrably untrue.

"So no. The fact that breast cancer research is getting more funding"
Testicuke cancer research doesn't grt ANY funding.

You cn twist it all you like - you're just nother bigot.

[Benedek38]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15298952/
As you can see - the odds if testicular cancer were 6.6%
The odds of breasr cancer were 9.5%.

But SUDDENLY in 2018 it's only 9000 a year. Give me a break.

Also, there are nearly 700000 people living wuth testicular cancer around the world according to Wikipedia. Using youe 9000 reported a year logic... That means there must be a few 1 year olds, as well as 77 year olds every day diagnoses with testicular cancer. That doesn't add up.

[Benedek38]

How about prostate cancer?
http://news.BBC.co.uk/2/hi/health/216226.stm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer
1.1 million new cases a year.
300000 dead a year.
Little to no research.

[weasley8]

@Benedek38 If you don't like the definitions I cited, you are free to find your own. If you recall, that is what I specifically asked for in the original comment.

Asiz Ansari is doing fine. It resulted in a scandal, and now it's over. Celebrities have scandals. That's part of being famous. Louis CK is trying to make a comeback, but he's a creepy sexist pig, and he admitted himself that the stories are all true, so quite frankly, I don't care if his career is damaged. He deserves it. If people don't want to attend his shows knowing what kind of person he is, they should be able to choose that. As for Brett Kavanaugh, he is literally on the Supreme Court. The fact that you would even say his career was ruined could almost be laughable, if it wasn't so disgusting that, as I said, he's currently on the Supreme Court. And that wasn't a me too allegation. That was trial.

If you don't like the statistics I provided about the different types of cancer, then find ones that you do like, and cite them. Mine just came from one google search. It's not that hard.

And I'm sorry that your great-grandfather died. The fact that you know one person with a condition, however, does not mean that it isn't rare. If we're using anecdotal evidence, I can't count on both hands the number of women I know who either have, or have died from breast cancer, including several in my family, while I don't know anyone with testicular cancer. But I won't say that because anecdotal evidence pales in the face of statistics.

Finally, it's nice to know that knowing how to read a dictionary makes me a bigot.

To summarize: If you don't like my sources, present your own. Because your word means very little when it directly contradicts scientific evidence.

[weasley8]

@Benedek38

Your ncbi source just said that there's an increased risk of cancer in people whose relatives have cancer. It doesn't say anything about how common either of those conditions are compared to the general population, or how many cases there are.

Wikipedia isn't a source. Anyone can say anything on there without needing credentials of any kind. Wikipedia holds no more weight than your word.

Your BBC article specifically says that the reason men aren't diagnosed as early on is because men tend to be more private about things like that, and that they hesitate to tell their doctors about problems. I'm not saying that this is referring to all men, I'm simply saying that the article that you provided pointed out that that tends to be the trend.

I would also like to say that while 16,000 diagnoses and 11,000 deaths are not insignificant, and the numbers are greater than those caused by testicular cancer, they are still not nearly as many as those caused by breast cancer. They also do not even come close to the numbers that you said in your comment, which I'm guessing you just made up, because they didn't come from any of your sources.

Finally, your BBC source cites one person as evidence that male cancers are underfunded, and doesn't even have a quote, or how much money he thinks that they should be getting. It just says that he believes it, and that's not even the main point of the article. The main point of the article was to explain the reason why, which as I said before, is, according to your article, that men don't talk about those things as much.

I would also like to say that the five year survival rate for prostate cancer is 99%. That is higher than the survival rate of breast cancer.

And again, in response to your second wikipedia article, wikipedia is not a source.

[Benedek38]

1) Correct, I misinterpreted the study. In my defense, your dismissal. of these issues made me quite angry. If you don't care about testicular cancer patients, I suggest jumping off some really high place.

2) "If you don't like the statistics I provided about the different types of cancer, then find ones that you do like, and cite them. Mine just came from one google search. It's not that hard. "
There isn't, because guess what? It's controled by feminists.

"I would also like to say that while 16,000 diagnoses and 11,000 deaths are not insignificant"
Except that study is from the UK not the US. The UK has a popukation if 65m, not 320m.

"Wikipedia isn't a source."
Ir has sources. It is peer reviewed. If you want to read sources, click on the littke source kink next to it. I have limited time, and I din't want to waste it all in ckose minded people who hate men.

"Your BBC article specifically says that the reason men aren't diagnosed as early on is because men tend to be more private about things like that"
Which is the exact same reason why campaigns for women were made fir decades abiut sexuak assault, breast cancer , etc - awareness. Maybe if people were made aware of the prevalence of the issue, they woukd care more about it. But again, it is sweepes under the rug for female victimhood.

"I would also like to say that the five year survival rate for prostate cancer is 99%. That is higher than the survival rate of breast cancer. "
Men get murdered almost as much as women get raped. The survival rate of rape is magnitudes higher than that of murder, yet rape is seemingly a bigger issue.
Ultimately, men still have several years longer life expectancy, and it is decreasing. Don't you think prostate ans teaticular cancer contributes to that?

[weasley8]

@Benedek38

Please point me to where I said I don’t care about testicular cancer patients. Here’s a hint, I didn’t.

If you’re claiming that google is controlled by feminists, you should know by now that I’m going to expect a source. That is a very broad claim to make, especially unsubstantiated.

The fact that your source is from the UK doesn’t change the fact that none of your sources contain the statistics that you claim exist.

Since we’re comparing how common cancers are, I will tell you how common prostate cancer is in the United States, as it wasn’t in any of your sources. There were an estimated 164,690 men diagnosed with prostate cancer last year. The five year survival rate is 99 percent. An estimated 29,430 deaths occurred from prostate cancer last year.

It effects more people than testicular cancer does, but again, it doesn’t effect nearly as many people as does breast cancer. Also, despite the lack of funding that you claim exists, with no sources to support your claim, the death rate for prostate cancer continue to decline among all men.

I did look at your wikipedia source. It isn’t making an argument, therefore the only thing relevant to the discussion is the statistics. Those statistics are worldwide. It does not do to compare the worldwide rate of one condition, as stated in wikipedia, to the national rate of another. This is especially true when you’re trying to argue about federal funding, as that differs by country.

You haven’t stated specifically which country you are referring to, but most of the arguments that have been made so far have been US centered, as have most of the statistics. I’ve provided the US rate for prostate cancer, which I discussed above.

As for the BBC article, are you trying to argue that feminism is the reason that men don’t tell their own doctors about their health? Because I would need some evidence, but I can tell you now that the argument doesn’t hold.

[weasley8]

@Benedek38 Continuing.

Most feminists are women, so it does not fall on feminists to raise awareness of male cancers. They would not be able to accurately represent it, and to try anyway would take away the autonomy and authority of people who actually have experience with it. If you want to start a movement about awareness of male cancers, then you’re free to do so. It has nothing to do with feminism.

Comparing cancer rates to murder and rape is a false equivalent. The two issues are completely unrelated. If you wish to discuss it though, I will say murder victims don’t tend to be blamed for what happens to them. The vast majority of murders actually result in a criminal trial, and jail time, which is not the case with rape.

Also, men are killed by other men. I’m not saying that it makes it okay, just that you can’t blame feminism for it.

As for the fact that women have a longer life expectancy, that is mostly due to the fact that having two X chromosomes makes people more resistant to biological aging.

www.scientificamerican.com/.../

It also could potentially relate to the fact that men are, as I said before, less likely to tell their doctors about their health problems.

www.webmd.com/.../why-mens-lives-are-shorter-than-women

As for the conditions that end up being the ultimate cause of death, the leading causes of death in men are heart disease and lung cancer. So yes, prostate and testicular cancer may contribute a small amount, but that’s just because cancer kills people. That’s what cancer does. So do all the other kinds of cancer. Funding toward those particular sex specific conditions however, is not the reason that men have a lower life expectancy. Women just happen to have a natural biological advantage.

[MlleCake]

Plus, many feminists are supportive of raising awareness about male cancers. Women saw a problem in breast cancer research and treatment and began with grassroots efforts to raise awareness and funds. Absolutely no one is stopping men from doing the same thing.

Or creating domestic violence shelters and services for men, for that matter.

[MlleCake]

Breast cancer research funding has created medical breakthroughs for many types of cancer, and the awareness campaigns for breast cancer have created an environment where awareness campaigns and fundraising for all other cancers and many other diseases are better received. (Men can get breast cancer as well).

March of Dimes was one of the first such organizations in the modern era. I don't hear you bitching that it served mostly children and ignored adult men, because adult onset polio is rare. (Their mission has also expanded.)

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake F off milecake. You bore everyone.

[MlleCake]

@Benedek38 nope.

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake You block everyone who you have minimal disagreement with, and then still comment on their opinions. Dont be a hypocrite. Get lost.

[MlleCake]

@Benedek38 I have only blocked about 5 people on GAG ever, and two of them were blocked for threatening to hack me because I asked them to quit sending me harassing PMs, so try again.

Remember YOU blocked ME in this equation, and you called me out by name to attack my opinions.

Are you unaware that people can see that in your thread? Are you asking people to deny an observable reaity?

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake
" I have only blocked about 5 people on GAG ever"
Fucking bollocks, mate.

"Remember YOU blocked ME in this equation"
Gaslighting is not my style, so shove it.

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake i just unblocked you, ans I still can't comment on your opinion. Proves that you blocked me. Fucking liae.

[MlleCake]

One was that whiny boy who is sure white women only date black men. HE was a bore.

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake since you still have not unblocked me, I have to assume your hypocrisy is irreparable now.

[MlleCake]

@Benedek38 Sorry, I didn't remember having blocked you back. I do it so rarely. It has to have been 2 years ago. But sure, I'll unblock you.

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake Considering I have been on this site since June, I doubt that, but whatever.

[MlleCake]

@Benedek38 Hmm. Did you use a similar screen name before? I may be mixing you up with someone from way back. That said, I had a few more blocked than I remembered. 9 of them. But it is clear that your characterization is more or less not true. I am not at all a "block happy" type person. I don't do it that often.

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake
You can't change user names.
And you are a radical feminist, so I wager it is only matter of time until you block me again. It won't be becauae of me though, I usually only block people who have already blocked me.

[MlleCake]

@Benedek38 I understand you can't change user names on the same account. I just had you mixed up with someone else. Bottom line, your assertion is not true. In my time here I have blocked few people.

I'm not really a RadFem. I do listen to and talk with RadFems because I think there is value in the discourse, and I seek to at least understand the points they are making, even if I ultimately disagree, or have a much less radical view of the situation. I also listen to men, MRA's, anti-feminists, MGTOWs because I think that discourse can illuminate valuable information.

Of course I get into heated debates, and I am not always nice about it. That's the nature of the beast.

Not sure what we were discussing that I blocked you over, because I honestly don't block people here all that often. Mostly it's weirdos who PM me. I actually make it a point to leave the channel of communication open unless someone has really been a turd sandwich.

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake
"I'm not really a RadFem. I do listen to and talk with RadFems because I think there is value in the discourse"
If someone said the same thing about neo-nazis, you'd flip out and you know it. Radical feminists are female supremacists. They are no better than nazis. Just pointing it out - gather thistles, expect prickles.

"I also listen to men, MRA's, anti-feminists, MGTOWs because I think that discourse can illuminate valuable information."
That's demonstrably false. How can you say that, when you are vehemently against any kind of discussion regarding men's rights?
But let's give it a try. What are the issues you agree on with MRAs or MGTOW?

"Of course I get into heated debates, and I am not always nice about it. That's the nature of the beast."
Typically a person who referst to him/herself as a beast/monster has anger management issues, and aren't reliable. Maybe you can work on that. I tamed my beast. You can tame yours.

"Not sure what we were discussing that I blocked you over, because I honestly don't block people here all that often."
Well, you were literally the first person to block me on this site, over a relatively benign conversation that I can't exactly remember, but I remember I was pretty surprised after writing back a paragraph that I can't send it. So there's that.

"I actually make it a point to leave the channel of communication open"
Well, you f. d up this time for sure. No offense.

But I'll repeat my question again, in chance it got lost in the text - since you claim you discuss things with men's rights activists - what are the things you agree on with MRAs or MGTOW?

[MlleCake]

@Benedek38

1. You are mischaracterizing RadFems and feminism, and you know you are, and I am not going to keep explaining it to you because you actually mean to be telling a lie.
2. No fucking way is RadFem or feminism anywhere comparable to NAZIISM. You also know this. You mean to be telling a lie about these two phenomena to make it seem like they are equally valid. They aren't.
3. How can you demonstrate that is false? You don't actually have insight into all the research and discussions I have. You just assume that because I disagreed on many of the points being made that I didn't listen and I didn't care. Some of the MRA complaints are about real things that men experience, but they are lying about why it happens and blaming it all on people who didn't cause it.
4. You don't know how to read or you are deliberately trying to make it sound like I said something I didn't and then going off on how bad that was. I didn't say I was a beast. I said debating politics is going to include some amount of anger and discord because that's just something that can't always be avoided, and perhaps it shouldn't be avoided, there may be something in the angry discourse that is valid too. A short way of saying all that is a very common idiom used in English - "that's just the nature of the beast."
5. Ok, so yeah, I did block you and I don't really have any memory of why. None of that means I block everyone I disagree with, which is what your original assertion was. You're trying to make 2 + 2 = 5 and it just doesn't, and isn't ever going to. I have blocked about 9 people in two years. 9 does not equal everyone. I know what's true about my blocking habits. You think you do, but you don't. I couldn't care less about giving you proof of what I am saying, and it also wouldn't help, because you're really only harping on the issue because you think it's a way to make me look bad to other people reading this.

[MlleCake]

7. Um, no. I didn't fuck up. Most of the time I choose to keep things open even if I am done really wanting to engage in the debate. Sometimes the rhetoric gets tiring, and irritating to listen to especially because so much of it is just not actually a true account of anything that happened on Earth. Some of it just didn't happen. And some of it is lies about something that did happen. You were on my nerves for whatever reason and I made the choice to give myself the gift of a little peace and quiet. And I think it was a stellar choice, because I did it in enough time that what you were saying didn't really stick with me, so it didn't stick in my craw and make me increasingly upset. Yay me. Good job me! And after that you were just too inconsequential to bother with unblocking. And the other thing is that YOU also had me blocked, for whatever reason you chose too, but you're trying to make it seem like I can't have my own reason for blocking you because blocking is somehow universally bad in your mind and you don't see the obvious cognitive dissonance in the fact that you blocked.
8. I'm going to do you one better. Go look at my posting history if you want to see some of the things I have said about my support for men's rights. I'm going to be honest here - some of what I have said about MGTOWs is that they don't seem to be actually going their own way, they are sticking around and arguing. I say it because it's kind of funny, but also kinda true. I support men's rights. Tons of men's right. Rights that I don't even realize are being infringed on yet. Because I actually genuinely believe that feminism and supporting the rights of women doesn't mean I support taking every good thing men have in their lives away from them. I love men, I have a brother I care for deeply and I want HIM to have a good life that is satisfying, dignified, prosperous enough that he's got his needs covered and has left over for some pure pleasure activities...

[MlleCake]

And I really want him to get a dog soon, because he was really devoted to his two sister dogs but the last one just died and as a solitary man who prefers his solitude and doing whatever it is that fulfills him over having a major girlfriend in his life also deserves to have life affirming things around him that involve a deep love and devotion that is very significant and meaningful. And my actual intention toward all men on the planet or who will ever be on the planet is that they have a life of well-being that is highly satisfying to them. Wouldn't that be fucking awesome? But believing that doesn't mean I have to agree with what two groups say about feminism, and women, or that all their points are valid as they stand. Because I believe that some of their ideas are actually disastrous to the well-being of men. That also doesn't mean I didn't or don't listen for parts of the discussion that ring true, it doesn't mean I gave them no careful consideration, or that I never will. I respect them and their feelings of real pain in their lives. They do matter. Real pain is a thing that I can easily say I don't want anyone to have to endure if they can craft a life that is less painful, so long as it doesn't constitute an infringement of someone else's rights. I'm all in on that, frankly.

But there is also this. Some of their rhetoric is very clearly about them feeling threatened that we will take away their right to do something they really like just because (they think) we want their lives to suck, because they think we all hate them. I appreciate why they feel threatened It's just that the whole of feminism is not characterized by man hating. That premise was never true and in't true now. Yes, there are smatterings of some very angry, radical women, and some women who genuinely hate men. I appreciate why some life experience will make you hate. It happen on the right too. And I think it is ok to feel your hate, get real cozy with it, and then...

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake "You are mischaracterizing RadFems"
Cough... SCUM manifesto. #killallmen. Lesbian feminists. TERFs. "the future is female". Am I really mischaracterizing radfems? Or maybe you are just more lenient with them, because they don't offend you?

"No fucking way is RadFem or feminism anywhere comparable to NAZIISM"
Cough... www.newstatesman.com/.../dog-rape-and-mein-kampf-feminist-text-why-we-hoaxed-journals-terrible
These three individuals literally rewritten Main Kampf with feminist buzzwords as a social experiment to uncover bias in academia, and guess what? Their paper got published and awarded. Main Kampf. Yeah. Totally no parallel between nazis and radfems.

"How can you demonstrate that is false?"
The comments you make around here that are often antagonistic towards men.

"ou were on my nerves for whatever reason and I made the choice to give myself the gift of a little peace and quiet."
In other words - you are easy to block people. You've proven my point.

"I'm going to do you one better. Go look at my posting history if you want to see some of the things I have said about my support for men's rights."
Don't do me one better, answer the question! I won't wade through thousands of answers just to get a better perspective of you, when you can answer me in a few sentences. Don't take me for an idiot.

" I support men's rights. Tons of men's right."
That's a weird way to put it. Do you know where I have head that last time? A muslim saying "Women in Islam have lots of rights".
Rights are not measured by numbers, rights are measured by standards. You can have a thousand useless laws, but if you don't give the peopel what they want, you don't stand for their rights.

"Rights that I don't even realize are being infringed on yet."
In other words, you don't actually advocate for anything, just claim that you support something silently. That's useless, thank you. Do, or do not. There's no try.

[MlleCake]

and then make the personal choices that will allow them to be away from and unaffected by people they really hate, as much as they can manage it. But then when they have to deal with or be around people they hate, they can do the simple polite stuff and not constantly attack every one they meet out in the world. I hope for their own peace they choose that. And I am honest-to-God saying that this is equally valid for women as it is for men, because once again I don't actually think that I have earned all sorts of special extra perks that men don't have access to. Because I don't believe that the choices are only who gets to dominate all the time, and who has to submit all the time. What I believe is that there is a middle ground of neutral where people get to just be on the same level, with all their rights intact, but none of these things that people call rights that aren't actually a right and will also fuck over the other side. No one is entitled to that. Not women, not men, not anybody.
So, what I support is actual men's rights and there are way too many to count. I don't support the premise of "MRAs" though. It's full of holes and it just a thin disguise attempting to make it look like the agenda isn't basically sexist in nature, and also sometimes not even something that is physically possible in the know Universe, because the actual lists of things they created were kind of slap-dash, because it's not the list of rights that actually matter to them. Their agenda turns out the be the agenda of badly overfed infants who are pissing and moaning that someone's going to take their ba ba away. But the fact is, there is no ba ba, you aren't helpless infants who can't survive if a lady doesn't provide you with something you want. You can actually go out and just get the things you want that are available without also infringing on someone else. Do you want a cupcake? Great. They sell them at the market.

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake
"I love men, I have a brother I care for deeply and I want HIM to have a good life that is satisfying, dignified, prosperous enough that he's got his needs covered and has left over for some pure pleasure activities."
Ok, I asked you elsewhere before. I ask you again. Do you support men's right to financial abortions? That is, being exempt from paying child support and having to provide custody if their partner doesn't want an abortion, but they do?

"And I really want him to get a dog soon, because he was really devoted..."
Are you trying to drown me in words? Try to be concise.

"And my actual intention toward all men on the planet or who will ever be on the planet is that they have a life of well-being that is highly satisfying to them."
Sounds great on paper. The question is how you go about it. Need I remind you, most historical leaders in primarily patriarchal systems had the interest of their women and children in mind for the most part.

" I appreciate why they feel threatened It's just that the whole of feminism is not characterized by man hating."
Now THAT I would like a proof for. Because every evidence is to the contrary. Look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxpX6IQ3GY4&t=309s
These women and men probably all identify as feminists on some level. Do you think that is NOT manhatred? Thinking men are inferior to women?

"That premise was never true and in't true now."
And of course the holocaust never happened, it was a social experiment.
Remember when a men's righs activist lit himself on FIRE to protest because feminists ruined his life and slandered him?
Do you think he would agree with you?

"Yes, there are smatterings of some very angry, radical women, and some women who genuinely hate men."
Oh, but those aren't REAL feminists? Was the CCCP REAL communism? Hint: No true scotsman fallacy.

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake "I appreciate why some life experience will make you hate."
Oh, you are understanding. How noble. I feel great empathy for people who irrationally hate certain groups of people too!

ONCE AGAIN. Nazis. Racists. Racists usually hate certain races due to negative experiences. Yet you would condemn a racist in a milisecond.

For the record, I am a misogynist. I mean, a real one. Are you understanding of that too? I despise women. Is that OK too?

"And I think it is ok to feel your hate, get real cozy with it, and then... "
And what?

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake "So, what I support is actual men's rights and there are way too many to count. I don't support the premise of "MRAs" though."
In other words, the only legitimate men's rights movement that was founded by men, independantly, chosen by men to represent them, and has no ties with feminism -you don't support that. What do you support then? Then Men's liberation movement? A feminist puppet movement with zero activity? The good men project? Which doesn't actually do anything, just post radfem articles about toxic masculinity?
WHAT DO YOU SUPPORT THAT MEN ACTUALLY WANT?

"It's full of holes and it just a thin disguise attempting to make it look like the agenda isn't basically sexist in nature, and also sometimes not even something that is physically possible in the know Universe, because the actual lists of things they created were kind of slap-dash"
Literally all of this is true of feminism. At least 2nd and 3rd wave feminism.

"You can actually go out and just get the things you want that are available without also infringing on someone else."
Then why do you need feminism? Surely women can get the stuff they want, right?

[MlleCake]

I actually think it's totally normal to wish you had every good thing you can imagine. Good for you. Enjoy that little fantasy. Heck, sometimes it's ok to just shout your frustration to the universe that something you want in your fantasy didn't happen. Like: I want it to not be true that I knocked my sunglasses on the floor, but that's no possible because it already happened and I don't have a time machine. Because sometimes you just need the relief of telling the world off for not handing you everything you could desire. The difference is feminists are not trying to make laws that allow us to get away with taking all that we want from other people who have every right to keep it themselves and who are not obligated to give it to us just because we want it and we asked or demanded it.

I believe in real, honest-to-God actual fairness.

I get that a lot of guys were raised being told that it was kind of ok to just go out there and take something you want just because men are supposed to be able to do that because they are men an they don't have to get consent or think about being fair. I get it. It's ok to have a fantasy where you just get everything you ever wanted simply because you like the feeling of the fantasy. But in real life, all your rights end at my nose, and they always did. I'm sorry you had other people raise you with a lie that you had rights that you don't actually have. That sucks. That's a bummer. Really, no joke. It's just a bummer that people wouldn't just tell you the truth in the first place.
But the end result of that phenomena can go a couple ways. You learn that you can get to know a woman and figure out the compatibility instead of just hoppin in the saddle. You learn that men's lives don't suck because women demand that you never rape us, or abuse us in any way. What sucks is that he thought he had a right to sexual liberties without the consent of the woman in the equation.

[Benedek38]

@MlleCake You literallt haven't answered a single question I asked.

[Anon-ymous1]

@Benedek38 ... Dude what are you talking about. Are you high?

[Maguel]

""u stating that is sexism". omg do u guys even know what sexism is? u guys r the most sensitive over dramatic men I've ever come across. most women say rape, abuse, genital mutilation, child marriage etc is sexism. but for men its "u stating that is sexism" pathetic."

Sexism = treating a person differently due to their gender.

When you say "men don't go through sexism" is a sexist statement because there you state that men would be different than women in that sense.

Even men can be raped. Genital mutilation happens to men too. Child marriages happen to men too. Abuse happens to men too. These are all sexist statements when you claim that only women suffer from these. Don't get me wrong these are all serious things that should not happen to anybody.

Some may present an immature response when trying to express that you are wrong in your definition of sexism and that does not justify you judge us all as "over sensitive".

True that women statistically suffer more often than men from these "examples" mentioned above but they are all acts of abuse and not actually about sexism. Please do try to notice the difference between these two things.

Currently you are ignoring the fact that even men can face similar hardships in life just because they are men.

[izrose]

I'd consider it sexist to attack a man because of his sex/gender. Sexism goes both ways, like the definition. I feel that way about all the different types of prejudices.

[D_Bone_Steak]

You got my thumbs up, whoever thumbed down mine seems to be the same one that thumbed down yours. I'd bet.

[InTimoreDei]

@D_Bone_Steak it is always the same girls doing that across multiple posts and MyTakes. They are all anti male millennials or aged women that are bitter.

[D_Bone_Steak]

@InTimorDei They are something alright. Good job at being able to pinpoint exactly what they are... that's scientific, whereas I was stuck on the flawed logic.

[D_Bone_Steak]

@InTimoreDei It's true though... across all the answers given to this question... the answers that are reasonable have the same two thumbs down while there is two of them here. Scientifically speaking, that's kinda interesting.

I just wished they'd respond to something that isn't an insult... but that seems to be all they'll respond to. ... Just don't feel like resorting to that just to get a response right now, but I bet an out of touch remark would trigger the sweet fuck out of them and it would be on.

[Randomawkwardness]

Uh said who? It isn't attacking someone when you tell them rape isn't okay. It isn't attacking someone when you say to respect women. And it certainly isn't attacking someone to correct them on something

[InTimoreDei]

He didn't mention any of those things. You're projecting. Something a lot of women on here do it seems.

[ElloElloElloEllo]

men dont go through sexism. any problems they go through is most likely created by other men.

[D_Bone_Steak]

I second the projecting claim, now with 2 examples of it in one spot.

[Maguel]

@ElloElloElloEllo Men most definitely go through sexism you stating that they don't is a good example of it on it's own. It seems like your understanding of sexism is lacking.

[InTimoreDei]

@ElloElloElloEllo You stating that is sexism lol.

[ElloElloElloEllo]

"u stating that is sexism". omg do u guys even know what sexism is? u guys r the most sensitive over dramatic men I've ever come across. most women say rape, abuse, genital mutilation, child marriage etc is sexism. but for men its "u stating that is sexism" pathetic.

[ElloElloElloEllo]

if men go through sexism name it. other then my comment and the gilette ad ffs

[D_Bone_Steak]

@ElloElloElloEllo Oh yeah you tell em gurl. The most sensitive over dramatic...

How the fuck you think you sound?

[D_Bone_Steak]

shit... you might as well be part of the Gillette ad and keep telling them they are nothing but shit...

... which was by the way a stupid ad that addressed what I would say is like 3% of our gender... the exact examples are a little different, but fuck... don't think the female gender has some fuck ups of their own kind at all right? At least 3% of you are just as fucked up too. I'm just saying.

[ElloElloElloEllo]

i can see that ad was a hurdle that many brave men had to overcome

[ElloElloElloEllo]

thoughts and prayers r with u

[D_Bone_Steak]

Ohh geez thanks, it might hold back the male tears some may feel they want to fill their cups with lol. Now if we could only explain man spreading is equivalent to needing to wear a short dress in freezing weather.

[D_Bone_Steak]

I'm just saying... we could find some common ground on how both our genders do dumb shit... I would still say you deserve an equal opportunity to get the same job.

[ElloElloElloEllo]

u honestly make no sense. ur jumping from man tears to man spreading to 'short dress in freezing weather' u vompletely lost me there. 'finding dumb shit in both genders' i doubt me explaining rape, abuse etc isn't "dumb shit" its serious and horrible issues. and then u ended with i deserve "equal pay". im honestly so lost i dont get what ur saying. can u rephrase it somehow?

[D_Bone_Steak]

@ElloElloElloEllo Just drink less coffee and read it calmly without all the emotionality... I'm not trying to trigger any sort of feeling, just look at it rationally and you'll understand it better.

[princessfromjupiter]

The clitoris has 8000 nerve endings and still isn’t as sensitive as a white male on the internet...

[CoffeeWC]

Just so you know I'm not white

[D_Bone_Steak]

Yet here you are being sensitive enough to be triggered by this so called 'white male.' At least enough to snub your nose at his thought, which isn't even a feeling... snubbing it with your feeling.

[princessfromjupiter]

@D_Bone_Steak Thank you for proving my point, white male.

[D_Bone_Steak]

What point... that your clitoris is less sensitive than a white male's thoughts, or that the asker isn't even white but you assumed he was (not even going to own it are you?)

You're shitty as a troll, you should put some work into that or actually fire back with a real point and have a conversation.

[princessfromjupiter]

@D_Bone_Steak Exactly...

[D_Bone_Steak]

Hmmm... yeah, exactly.

[princessfromjupiter]

@D_Bone_Steak Thank you, again.

[boulshyte]

i love this comment so fucking much.

[boulshyte]

im getting it tattooed

[Juxtapose]

Ahaha, nice bait. It's amazing how you can say something profoundly stupid and people believe it, but well.. there is always Poe's Law and you could be serious.

[princessfromjupiter]

@Juxtapose 5 white males were evidently triggered, you obviously included.

[Juxtapose]

Nah, I think you're doin' the lord's work here trolling these poor saps. Keep up the good work, I wanna learn your ways. So far you're doing a great job of staying in character, much like Kaceytron. God I love her trolling, she's an artist xD

[KatanaEmpress]

This question is obviously bias, and has a generalized idea of what sexism is. You are looking for validation to something you believe to be true which is obviously not. That’s like a girl user asking why do men only care about sex? It’s a generalized statement

[Staiby]

I identify as a feminist and I get pretty sick of all the hate and the attacks without sitting down with me and asking me what I actually believe in, since feminists beliefs are very varied

[D_Bone_Steak]

@Staiby I agree with you... just look at how in detail I had to get just to pinpoint exactly 'what kind' of feminist I was talking about. It's one of those definitions that's been hijacked by something else entirely and misrepresented for a stab at some sort of nazi regime... over men. But if you look in a dictionary, there is no mention of superiority, just equality.

@KatanaEmpress I feel like you read too deeply into what he said, as if there was more there. You could be right though and it could come from a sexist place, but... In those plain words it wouldn't be bias if a woman saying it about meninists just as much as a man saying it about feminists, or is it? I'm just not following because I'm lacking a total premise.

[Benedek38]

@Staiby
I don't care what kind if feminist you are. I had WAAAAY too mant bad experienced with crazy feminists, and even if you ARE normal - the name is tainted.

If I told you I am a nazi, you wouldn't ask me "what kind of nazi are you?", just so that I can tell you nazism for me is defending the weak, giving support for the lower classes of society, and Keynesian economics (these were all true of nazis - but they also murdered jews).
No, you would spit me in the eye.
That is why I do not identify as a nazi (and also because I am not one).

So if you know feminism as a name is connected to sexism against men and other disgusting shit - why do you use it? Why don't you say "I have a nuanced view in sex relations, and I do not want to be associated with feminists"?

[D_Bone_Steak]

@Benedek38 such a valid point... if she reads all the way to the end.

[Staiby]

@Benedek38 what has feminism done that is anywhere near as bad as killing 6-12 million jews? What nazi is respected to this day? There are many feminists today that are very much admired. Gloria Allred, Oprah Winfrey and others. Emma Watson said that feminism is about supporting women's choices and not judging them, not oppressing them, not saying "No you can't so that! you're a woman!" whether it's being president or wearing little clothing on the front page of a magazine. What is bad that feminism promotes? and don't just present a feminist who either isn't shown in her best light or is a fuckwit and doesn't promote true feminism

[Gavyn]

@Staiby
1. That was a simile he used to point out the foolishness in using a title that has a bad reputation.
2. That's just it; feminism contradicts itself. "We're not objects of sex, so don't think about us in that way at all or objectify us! However, we can still be paid to dress skimpy and sit/stand in a provocative pose that clearly objectifies us because we want to," is essentially what I get out of modern feminism. Modern Feminism could basically be renamed to "blatant-yet-ignored misandry," smh...

[Staiby]

@Gavyn Feminism is about doing what you want without being judged. If a woman wants to work-part time and spend more time at home with her kids than her husband, she should go for it. If a woman wants to tie her tubes and dedicate her life to her career, she should go for it. If a woman wants to work in the adult industry and perform in adult films than she should go for it. Don't look at women in one way. I don't agree with anti-pornography feminists. As long as people understand that porn is porn and not real life then they should go for it and enjoy it. As a feminist, I'm against denied opportunities and disrespect. I'm for gender equality for men and women.

[Staiby]

Men can pose nude or sexually for magazine covers, when women do it do, don't judge them for it differently than you would treat a man for doing it. Enjoy their bodies but understand that they deserve respect. their still people. and there's a time and a place for getting sexual gratification from another person

[Gavyn]

@Staiby I don’t. I think it’s bad taste for either gender. There’s no bias here, Ms. Assumption.

[Benedek38]

@Staiby I don't feel like convincing you that feminism is horrible and toxic. Watch The Red Pill, a movie directed by Cassie Jay, a former feminist. Watch that, and then come back to me.

[Staiby]

@Benedek38 that woman is a fuck witt before taking the pill and after taking the pill. the problem was she was biased against men and now she's not a feminist at all as if those 2 things go hand in hand. I'm a feminist without making it a competition. I'm for the Men's Liberation Movement but fuck the Men's Rights Movement. You called feminism toxic? Well I'm gonna say FUCK the Men's Rights Movement. THAT'S fucken toxic

[Benedek38]

@Staiby
See, that is the problem.

I give you arguments, you tell me to fuck off.
I mention a feminist, you use a "no true scotsman" fallacy.

"I'm for the Men's Liberation Movement but fuck the Men's Rights Movement."
Why? Because the MRM is not a feminist pawn, but an independant organisation?

"You called feminism toxic? Well I'm gonna say FUCK the Men's Rights Movement. THAT'S fucken toxic"
How so? Anything to prove this claim? I have provided proof that feminism is toxic.

[Staiby]

@Benedek38 lol no you fucken haven't.

A Men's Right Activist was in the middle of an event and was public speaking and he said that if he was a judge in a rape case he would let the man off because "women get away with enough". THAT'S why fuck the men's rights movements. you give feminism shit for our extremists while forgetting proponents of the MRM like that guy. I condemn feminists who will tweet shit like "all men should just fucken die". Will you condemn that man for saying he would let a man off in a rape case for the sole reason that "women get away with enough" whatever the fuck that means

[Benedek38]

@Staiby
"A Men's Right Activist was in the middle of an event and was public speaking and he said that if he was a judge in a rape case he would let the man off because "women get away with enough"."
I know plenty if feminists who said society should neuter all men. There. Anecdotal evidence. I can give you that too.

The fact is that I provided you with a documentary that details the evil of feminist LEADERS, not random people, and you refused to acknowledge that.

Also, I don't agree with MRAs in everything either. That is why I am not an MRA. i asked you to denounce feminism, you instead blamed MRAs. You are essentially defending yourself with whataboutery. Don't attack MRAs, take account for feminism's bullshit!

"I condemn feminists who will tweet shit like "all men should just fucken die". "
No you fucking don't. By identifying as a feminist, you are fueling their agenda, whether you like it or not. Again, nazi example.
"I am a nazi, but I don't support Himmler experimenting with Zyclon B on jews" that' not how this works.

Either you are a feminist, with all its shortcomings and batshit crazy ideas, or you jump that sinking ship of misandry. Last chance.

[Staiby]

@Benedek38 All feminists obviously do not have to agree on everything. And yes I did condemn feminists who attack men. I condemn it by saying that's wrong. I don't defend it. I already knew about that woman and that doco. she was a fuckwitt when she was a feminist and a fuckwitt after she wasn't.

By identifying as a feminist I'm fueling their agenda? The definition of feminism is about social equality. "Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements, that share the common goal to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes." anything that attacks men is outside of the definition and does not belong.

Who the fuck are you to tell me it's all or nothing and then giving me "one last chance". FU

[KatanaEmpress]

@D_Bone_Steak well I’m not a feminist

[Tyliah]

People are hypocrites.
Many people think it's okay to attack a sex or a race then loses it when someone from another race or sex does the same.

[Lish89]

I agree. Attacking anyone because of gender is sexist. Simple enough.

[ElloElloElloEllo]

men think telling them not to be abusers, rapists, harrassers r attacking them. men think telling them to treat women with the same respect they freely give other men is attacking them. theyre so privileged that they think equality is attacking and oppressive. get over yourself.

[D_Bone_Steak]

Hold on so you just see a 'us vs. them' as if men don't attack men and women don't attack women?

I'd at least agree that men have greater tendencies towards it... but the way it was worded, as if no woman has ever attacked a man despite the question itself being there for a reason.

[englisc]

I'm pretty sure women react in the same way when men negatively generalise them too.

[D_Bone_Steak]

I wouldn't disagree with that.

[Staiby]

@D_Bone_Steak I believe that it's not about what gender or race you. It's about whether you're for equality or not

[D_Bone_Steak]

@Staiby yeah but equality is what I'm pushing... not this blame game like it is here or this 'but our equal outcome' stuff that tries to claim inequality elsewhere. I mean, hell yeah it don't exist in bumfuck arabia, but if you're some rich kid in the States like California... wtf are they talking about?

[Staiby]

@D_Bone_Steak I don't play the blame game based on gender at least. As i said it matters whether your for equality or not. you can be a woman but self-oppressing af and completely blind to the inequalities she faces. Those women make me sad

[D_Bone_Steak]

@Staiby So what are you saying exactly? If X and Y are entitled to do the same thing, but Y is deciding on their own to not do that certain thing... what is wrong with that?

It kinda reminds me of all the propaganda that women need to be sluts because men supposedly are, otherwise if you're not being a slut... you're oppressing yourself. Besides the fact that all men are sluts themselves is a false premise, but maybe she just doesn't want to fuck randoms every week or wants to be in a relationship... she shouldn't be ostracized because she refuses to be equal with a stereotype of men.

So allow the equality, we seem to be on the same page with that... but I think I differ in the thinking that we should do what we don't choose to do on our own or otherwise we are self oppressing as fuck. I just differ on that... I'm a dude that don't like wearing makeup, you going to say I'm self oppressing myself for choosing not to make myself wear makeup because it's more socially acceptable for women to? Hellz naw, I just would rather play video games and don't seek social attention, either negative or positive.

[BigRob420]

Those people are stupid following anyone who tells them they're special. In America the amout of people who think they're special above everyone else has risen to 70% of college students. All you have to do is tell them they're special for some reason and you've got an angry mob at your disposal.

[Brokenheartedx]

shouldn’t attack anyone at all, feminists are liberals and liberals are killing our nations off

[D_Bone_Steak]

I would go further and say they are identitarians, because I'm liberal, but I'm not authoritarian as they are combined with liberalism. Authoritarianism is what makes them similar, but the identitarianism is what makes them exactly what Nazis where... despite the title of being liberal. They're just holding on to the idea that it can only exist on the right, not the left, but here it is. They're doing it... at least a small 8% of it anyhow.

[D_Bone_Steak]

They use the title of feminist, but are actually female supremacists...

[D_Bone_Steak]

Judging by my pink thumbs down, I guess I need to clarify that I'm not talking about the type of 'feminist,' that actually matches what you'd find if you look up feminism in a dictionary.

And with that said also not people that would read that definition and for some reason confuses equal opportunity with equal outcome... or that one is a measure of the other.

[D_Bone_Steak]

But... then again, what I'm not talking about wouldn't have that need to justify attacking men.

[izrose]

Yeah gender-equality-seeking feminists vs. the male-hating radical "feminazis". Economic and judicial equality would be nice but you won't find me complaining about wearing a dress or having a man hold the door for me. It's unfortunate chivalry is discouraged nowadays. And hey women get to have pierced ears and keep their hair in the military! That's an example of gender inequality that's in women's favor.

[D_Bone_Steak]

That classic question that I'm sure is memorized by the right and much of the left except that far 8% left, "Name one right a man has that a female doesn't?," seems to stop the feminazis in their tracks. Because for them it isn't female to male equality they're seeking, but superiority. It's just as chauvinist as me trying to be better than a woman... it's as if the idea of appreciating differences went down the drain for that 8%, and got replaced with dominating anything different. And the equal outcome arguments get dropped when it comes to prison rape, death on the job, or anything that doesn't benefit. Kinda like we shouldn't be stay-at-home-mothers, but still maintaining that a stay-at-home-father is less than he should be and not acceptable. It makes no damn sense, at least as far as equality goes.

[izrose]

I agree

[D_Bone_Steak]

We do, but take note of how none of the feminazis amongst these questions want to engage in dialog. They are insulating themselves for their religion/ideology. They will only respond to an insult or something that can be taken as one.

[izrose]

Yeah. Another's opinion only warrants my respect and regard when they can back it up or carry a discussion or debate. If they can't then it's like they just adopted someone else's opinion rather than forming an opinion for themselves.

[D_Bone_Steak]

@izrose Exactly, as if they're parroting. It's like the NPC meme, where they are just parroting whatever CNN tells them is so... reminds me of 10 years ago where we were dealing mostly with the 'bible tells me so' individuals with the same insolation where they wouldn't listen. Not listen to any sort of reason.

[D_Bone_Steak]

Awwee @Princessfromdumbster, I just wanted to say "You're very welcome, the pleasure was all mine" but didn't get the chance to before you blocked me.

[D_Bone_Steak]

@boulshyte

https://youtu.be/juQLifY4l_0

[bamesjond0069]

How can anyone take women who aren't in the kitchen seriously? I mean read the girls comments, they aren't even worth a response. Women are not capable of logic so they are best for emotional and caring tasks, not much else and certainly not academic discussions. Men should quit being vaginas and just be honest.

[Dionigi]

Troll?
If not:
Have you actually read female comments? Like @my_fukking_anarchy one?

[bamesjond0069]

@Dionigi Not all not all not all. Occasionally one girl here or there has a brain. The vast majority do not. For example i know a few women who get it. Some think women shouldn't be able to vote because the vast majority of women aren't capable to make such decisions. Some are but they are the exception to the rule.

[Dionigi]

I've counted 2 brainless answers, 2 debatable answers, and 6 anti sexism answers from women.
I'd say the vast majority of women here have a brain (and use it lovely) and sexist girls are a minority.
So... come on be a bit more optimistic 💪

[Dionigi]

Recounted
6 feminists vs 8 anti sexism and a troll. But I haven't read in full depths, so those 4 more are just debatable.
Worse, but still good. Certainly no need to abolish universal suffrage.

[worldscolide]

The vast majority of feminists have this idiotic us vs them mentality, it's basically if you have a penis you're automatically evil, and if you posses a vagina you can do no evil...

Thankfully most women aren't feminists..

[boulshyte]

men felt "attacked" by a gilette ad saying men can be better. how can anyone take men seriously?

[chris_987]

Never saw the add but men have been attacked by society everywhere

[boulshyte]

attacked how? by who? name something.

[InTimoreDei]

@boulshyte If you don't even know then you are probably part of the problem due to being too blind.

[bamesjond0069]

How can anyone take women who aren't in the kitchen seriously? I mean your comment isn't even worth a response. Women are not capable of logic so they are best for emotional and caring tasks, not much else and certainly not academic discussions.

[chris_987]

Anyways I was gonna say that men are attacked because you have an image in you heard of man that’s no good to society, either he’s unemployed lives at home with is mom or other stuff, but put those same stereotypes to women and there not negative! Men have to prove themselves a lot more to show that where worthy more than women do and that makes a lot guys feel less than

[Dchrls78104]

The opinion that attacking men is not sexist is evidence of hypocrisy and of absence of intellect.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

They're almost proving the point of feminists having double standards for men.

[ChiTown33]

The majority, the people in power, the establishment if you will never be thought of as that way. let it go my man no sense getting angry over nothing.