When will Masculism grow?

Post Reply New Topic

Surely not! Isn't it a requirement that before you become a feminist you must spend a year in a war-torn, Sharia run country holding a sign with "Ban the Burqa" written upon it?

I mean, you can't possibly be suggesting that modern feminism is an extremist hate group who wouldn't know oppression if it snuck up behind them, hit them over the head with a blackjack and put them to work in the bilge, can you?

NEWSFLASH: There is no patriarchy. At least not in the western world to speak of. My most recent ex-gf admitted herself that women are more selfish than men. And from what I see that is entirely true. This talk of the "patriarchy" is nothing more than feminist guilt tripping. If you fall for it, be my guest! I'm not buying it myself as there is not one iota of evidence that it exists today in western countries.


P.S., don't pretend to care about women just so you can get laid. It ain't gonna work, kid.

Claiming something to be true doesn't make it so.



Throwing a reactionary temper tantrum doesn't make a valid argument either. You can talk about feminist guilt tripping all you like, but to pretend that feminists don't make valid critiques of the current state of society is mindless.

We still view many sex-related social issues through a patriarchal lens. When a woman gets raped people still immediately bring up the possibility she's lying or what she could have done to prevent it instead of taking it seriously. We still view promiscuity differently depending on the gender of the person in question.

There's hundreds of relatively little issues that when taken together make it clear we're still a 'masculinist' society, even if we're not quite as patriarchal as before. We're overcoming the illness, we're not in good health yet.

Correct. The appalling behaviour of feminists (and adherents of other hate groups) is the proof in this particular pudding.



Dismissing a written argument as a "reactionary temper tantrum" when you have no possible context for the emotional state of the author goes beyond ad hominem. You are, in fact, attempting to shame the author into agreeing with your viewpoint. Lazar_Kaganovich's viewpoint is validated by your response. I'd call it ironic, but it's really just a behaviour common to proponents of feminism.

Patriarchy 'theory' is the lunatic proposal that one can simultaneously be an oppressor whilst being oppressed. Its purpose is to blame all men everywhere for the fact that some people have higher social status than others. It is espoused primarily by privileged, white, middle-class women in developed countries.



When a woman makes allegations that a man has raped her, we apply the same legal standard to the accused as we do with every other crime. When a woman has been proven to have actually been raped, we put her rapist behind bars. Any argument that we should believe any woman's claim of rape by default is an argument against equality.

While we're on the subject, how seriously do we treat claims by men who are forced to perform sexual acts with women?



In what way does someone else's opinion affect your right to have sex with whomever you want? Men and women are judged by their peers on a wide range of behaviours that are nobodies business but their own - so what? It's not as if having sex with multiple partners affects your statutory rights.



And yet you've failed to mention even one. Strange that.

All that I asked for is some actual EVIDENCE that this patriarchy Fnord speaks of actually exist. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. As far as rape is concerned, in the United States when a woman is raped, she files a police report, the DA takes the case, charges are filed and it goes to trial, the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The American criminal justice system is wildly inconsistent about prosecuting rape. It really depends more on who the alleged rapist is as well as the plaintiff. And furthermore, the family court system strongly favors mothers over fathers even when there's evidence the mother is incompetent and irresponsible.

adifferentname really said it better than I could. And FYI, this idea that women are "oppressed" by slut shaming for choosing to be non-monogamous is also another whiny feminist false flag. If you don't want people judging and criticizing you for your sexual exploits, then keep them private.

Attempting to label feminists as a hate group to delegitimize them really makes it difficult to take you seriously at all, especially since you provide no evidence to support such claims. Your definition of 'feminism' seems to be at odds with the standard definition, but I guess it's easier to attack a strawman of feminism than to legitimately debate the idea.



Funny, you've both engaged in similarly dismissive rhetoric. You can call your opponents 'lunatics' and members of 'hate groups' but when your own nonsense is dismissed out of hand as emotional fluff you get real butthurt. Funny that.



Recognizing male privilege exists isn't the same as believing men inherently are of higher social status. There's many categories of privilege, male privilege is just one. Of course, you'd need to understand what is meant by the term in order to actually have a valid critique of it.




Not nearly seriously enough, but the fact that one injustice exists doesn't mean others don't as well.

I'm not really discussing how the legal system treats rape though, more how society in general treats it. We shame victims of it and tend to assume that it wasn't really rape if no charges were filed or if no conviction was received. Rape is a very difficult charge to prove in a court of law, not everyone wishes to subject themselves to process of pursuing a criminal conviction. Police have massive backlogs of rape kits that have yet to be tested. If a mugging victim doesn't bother to pursue charges we don't assume they were lying, why would a rape victim be treated differently?

Perhaps some form of recourse should exist for those wrongfully accused of rape. If you can demonstrate that the accuser was maliciously and intentionally filing false charges they should be punished. But, the burden would remain on the 'victim' to prove this was the case, simply failing to convict the alleged rapist wouldn't be evidence of the alleged rapee's guilt.




So, effectively what you're saying is 'yes this inequality exists, but who cares'?



Except the two that you're pretending weren't mentioned or weren't valid.



Funny, both of your arguments are entirely made of whiny MRA false flags, but you still expect them to be taken as valid and legitimate.

Ahhhhh....another strawwoman from you. Color me shocked!

I don't think you know what a false flag is. And when it comes to being whiny, you are projecting. The only evidence you've presented for the existence of patriarchy are unsubstantiated claims that the refusal of the court system to take a woman who accuses a man of rape at her word and presume the innocence of the male defendant. As adifferentname pointed out, there are other factors and the outcome of such cases, while often unjust, depend on additional factors besides gender. Many states have *rape shield* laws that disallow defense attorneys from openly inquiring about the plaintiff's sexual history during cross examination and/or introducing such information during rape trials. I can come up with many counterexamples of where a woman accused a man of rape and got a conviction despite contradicting evidence that her claims were false.

Rape aside, being called a bad name by people when you openly disclose your sexual exploits assumes that women should have special protection from the social consequences of their actions. Which violates the principle of equality and I do not recognize anyone's sense of entitlement when it comes to stuff like that. Guys are sluts, too.


Don't pretend to care about women just so you can get laid, kiddo. It just don't work.

@funeralxempire: Name me one law that gives benefits to males only other than conscription? As I can name many laws that give females unfair privilege. For example, family courts favours the females to such an ironic level one would think it as some cruel joke.

Oh, go on...



Apparently you're unaware of your overall tone.



It seems you never actually bothered to read what I wrote or your reading comprehension is severely lacking. I never specifically commented on how the court system deals with rape, I commented on how society treats rape victims. Your entire attempt at a rebuttal isn't relevant to anything I've said.

This article has some information related to patriarchy, feel free to try to read it:
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/numbers-do ... nd-kicking



OMG EDGY DUDE ALERT!
The fact that you believe I advocate equality in hopes of getting my dick wet speaks volumes about how you see women. It wasn't original the first time you used that snarky little dig, it's just embarrassing you'd bring it out again.




Our country doesn't have conscription, I really hope that wasn't your big attempt at making a point.

You're aware that male privilige doesn't exclusively refer to legal rights and benefits? You might want to understand the concept before you attack it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_privilege

Of course you don't take my viewpoint seriously, you belong to the hate group and so must twist reality in on itself in order to justify your views. I (and others) have provided plenty of evidence on these boards to support the fact that feminism is a female-entitlement hate group. As I pointed out in another thread, it's usually either explained away on the grounds that "those aren't real feminists" or completely ignored - presumably on the grounds of their inconvenience. For example, if you navigate just one page back:



I could have listed examples of far more radical feminists and been entirely justified in doing so.



My definition of feminism is at odds with a dictionary definition that is unfit for purpose. You can hide behind that dictionary definition all you like, it doesn't make feminism any less bigoted.



I direct my ire towards a toxic ideology, you attacked his character. I referred to a proposal as lunatic, not an individual. Engaging in calumniation when there is a record of what the other party said almost directly above is a foolish practice. When you take it a step further, and actually quote the other party directly, it goes much deeper than foolishness.



Oh dear.



Adhering to feminist dogma, which only feminists do, is exactly the same as believing that men are inherently of a higher social status. One cannot oppress those who are equal to or above ones own station.



Take your pick from non sequitur, argument from authority and ad hominem - they all apply here.



Yet you chose to focus only on female victims of rape.



Our legal system (which feminists would argue was created exclusively by the patriarchy) is how society treats rape.



Try 'alleged victims' - the label 'victim' implies the rape has been proven. Doubting the veracity of unfounded claims is perfectly reasonable and does not constitute 'shaming'.



That's the choice of the individual, not evidence of oppression or of rights being denied.



Loaded question that isn't actually relevant. Allow me to demonstrate:

If someone is accused of mugging, we're less inclined to stir up a witch hunt, demand justice be served and demand contrition prior to a conviction. If alleged muggers are allowed to remain virtually anonymous, why would an alleged rapist be treated differently?

If anything, society views rape as a worse crime than murder. Aside from the fact this is in stark contradiction to the feminist concept that rape is both pervasive and normalised, it explains why the simple answer to both of our questions is that mugging and rape are not equivalent.



That's how things already work in most legal systems.



What I'm actually saying is that this is not an example of inequality in the first place. There is no actual penalty for illicit sexual behaviour.

For an interesting read on the subject of stud vs slut, visit this blog.



Correction - the two that you have failed to demonstrate validity of.



Funny, I see both modern Feminism and the Men's Right's Movement as equally flawed reflections of each other, populated by dogmatic drones who are incapable of independent thought. I fly the flag of critical thinking - you can recognise it by its non-existence.

A-MEN mah brotha! Feminists and MRAs totally deserve each other.

http://i.imgur.com/Lfp5deF.jpg

This is what 3rd wave feminism leads to. Justifying prejudice.

The last thing we need in this world is more masuclism.

Just look at the Middle East.

The point about jail time is fair but it's a direct result of patriarchy - this idea that women are vulnerable and not capable of doing harm.

The part about pedophilia is perhaps fair but I don't think it has anything to do with feminism.

Men do face some problems. The good men I'm talking about. The nerdy men. But so do women. It's not fair to say that one sex has it worse than the other. We need to learn to respect one another as people and not resort to blanket generalizations.

d

Um, that is showing prejudice, how?