cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/36418433
With surveys reporting that an increasing number of young men are subscribing to these beliefs, the number of women finding that their partners share the misogynistic views espoused by the likes of Andrew Tate is also on the rise. Research from anti-fascism organisation Hope Not Hate, which polled about 2,000 people across the UK aged 16 to 24, discovered that 41% of young men support Tate versus just 12% of young women.
“Numbers are growing, with wives worried about their husbands and partners becoming radicalised,” says Nigel Bromage, a reformed neo-Nazi who is now the director of Exit Hate Trust, a charity that helps people who want to leave the far right.
“Wives or partners become really worried about the impact on their family, especially those with young children, as they fear they will be influenced by extremism and racism.”
yes there was, like years and years of mysogynist influencers both on youtube and from pickup artists, the signs was all there.
The headline is in reference to the woman having no warning signs that her partner was being influenced.
The bpd behaviour these guys all present with, isn’t something that just hijacks them over night either.
That ‘I hate you, don’t leave me’ pattern is so easy to spot for anyone who’s experienced it before, and I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that most women have experienced cruel and jealous male partners.
It’s darkly ironic that borderline personality disorder has been stereotyped as a female condition as it really seems so much more prevalent and dangerous in men.
I don’t care what excuses you want to pull out of your ass about the absolute horror for young men growing up in a world where women aren’t just sex objects and kitchen appliances. If you support and cling to the words of a known sex trafficker and rapist like Andrew Tate, you are a complete and utter piece of shit. And any pathetic excuse about loneliness or feeling left behind goes right out the window there. It’s like men are on a mission to reinforce and prove all of the negative stereotypes right. Fuck these pieces of shit, I wouldn’t waste my piss on them if they were burning alive.
Yeah, it is that pathetic “boys will be boys” or “let’s talk about mental heatlh” copout whenever this ideology of bigotry and terror is being mentioned. Plenty of people can be lonely and not convert into a psychopathic bigot.
As someone who has always been a good person and yet has never managed to secure a decent relationship, I can say that that view is massively too simplistic. I’m pretty sure I’m not going to be around next month, but other people have massively different reactions to that sort of loneliness. It breaks you down and makes you question every aspect of your personality. At first you try to improve yourself. You study yourself, and you talk with other to try and identify what it is that makes you unlikable. Then you work on those issues. But eventually people stop being able to tell you what is is you’re missing, and thats when you realise it’s not something you’re missing. It’s not that you lack something, it’s that you have something. Something makes you fundamentally different from other people, and you start to accept that you will never have the things that other have.
From here i see two possible solutions: change the world to allow me by force, or give up. Im not the type to force myself on anyone who doesnt want me there, so I’ve pretty much accepted the latter. But for people that have more attatchment to this world, it’s difficult to tell them to have empathy for a world that explicitly hates them.
Edit: also its worth noting that I have never had any compulsion to listen to any of those rapists, but I can feel the draw when it feels like there is some fundamental aspect of being a man that everyone else seems to get but I don’t. These guys offer easy answers which do in fact tend to result in you getting partners: force. And from a lot of the complaints I hear about men online, it almost seems like I am the only person not forcing myself on people. Which, consistency wise, checks out.
Again, obviously I am not considering becoming one of them but our society currently definitely seems to be designed to create more of them.
Hey Scubus, I found your comment and the discussions with others interesting. What caught my eye was your statement that you are probably “not going to be around next month”. It got me worried you are considering hurting yourself!
If that is the case, please reach out to any of your friends that you say do see value in you as a person, or family. There are also organisations that you can contact to help you deal with these feelings, if you would prefer a more anonymous route. I might be able to suggest some resources if you tell me where you live.
I completely agree with one other commenter saying that thinking about yourself as having a fixed, unlikable component is a simplistic view of human nature. The fact that you haven’t been able to find a romantic partner until now does not confirm it. There are so many factors determining whether two people who are compatible with each other come together, of which one commonly missed, but in fact immensely important, is luck!
When you ask people what they think might be wrong with you, they will come up with something, mostly out of their wish to help you. The fact that some cannot come up with anything is a further testament of there being nothing fundamentally wrong with you. Rarely do people realise they should actually challenge your frame (some commenters here did): there is nothing wrong with you, you are simply asking a wrong question.
This is not to invalidate your feelings of worthlessness of love which I sensed are sometimes too much for you to handle. It simply means that these feelings and thoughts about yourself, however real and strong, do not represent some objective reality.
Again, please reach out for help if you need it! Just from reading a couple of your comments, I could tell you are a thoughtful person, capable of reflection, which is a very attractive characteristic in my romantic book. I am positive there are many, many more which, I am sure!, are going to lead the right person to you.
I am sending good karma your way and wishing you the best of luck. 🍀
I appreciate it
I know this seems like an unserious response, but it is, and it’s one of the main points of the Barbie movie: you need to learn, perhaps accept, to be enough for yourself.
Ken was looking for validation from Barbie, but when she didn’t, he became angry and all. But the message at the end is right: people should not look to other people for validation. Why? Because you are enough. You don’t need someone else to tell you that. You can tell yourself that. All people are flawed in some way, so what’s it matter what someone else thinks? They’re no better than your to judge you.
And the truth is, the other way is off-putting. I don’t want to be with a person who isn’t enough for themself. If they’re not enough for themself, how can they be good enough for me? I don’t want someone who wants or needs me to be responsible for their emotional management. I want a whole person who is secure in themselves.
One of the problems in society, I think, is the idea that people need to pair up. Women, as a whole, have learned much more quickly than men that romantic relationships may be nice, but they are not essential. We (and maybe our cats) are enough for ourselves. I don’t know how to get men on that same page, too.
I really appreciate that perspective. I’ve heard similar concepts, but I’ve never really heard it quite that eloquently or explored. I think my main issue is just that I don’t see a point. It’s not that I am particularly unhappy with myself beyond this “something” that I’ve convinced myself I must have. In fact I’m reasonably proud of who I’ve become, and reasonably shameful at what continued failings I do have. I’m fully capable of doing everything a normal person would do, I just get little to no fulfilment from doing most of my hobbies without a partner. I’m fine with living by myself but if it were that way forever, i’d prefer to just die now. A life devoid of anyone to share it with just seems like an empty life.
I think this might be the crux of the issue though, is that I don’t know how to get rid of this sense that I’ve before been told is desperation. Like, am I supposed to just not want a relationship? Is that what it takes to get my goal, to give up on it? That’s pretty much where I’m at… but it’s more unfulfilling than ever. I try to just be myself, it’s not like im harassing people. In fact, I have a suspicion that I’m coming off disinterested in women in person because im scared of coming off as overly interested. I don’t know what level of interest is expected of me and there’s no manual. I try to put myself in others shoes and see what I’d want, and I’d desperately love it if someone my age were to approach me in pretty much any manner, but I understand that there’s a gender and cultural dynamic at play here thats seemingly impossible to fully grasp as a male. I also can’t even imagine what social cues could indicate the difference between polite interest and genuine interest. When people compliment me, i generally compliment them back. Should I pursue further personal interaction? I’m having difficulty focusing right now but ill probably return to this later
But also saying that there is this fundamentally unmovable thing in you that just makes you completely unlikable is too a very simplistic view of the human spectrum and adaptability.
I don’t really know what else to say
Interesting comment. So, nobody of either gender likes you and nobody can tell you why they don’t like you?
People like me, but romantic interest seems to be off the table. Im not attracted to guys, but from my talks with multiple therapists and my friends of either gender, no one of either gender seems to be able to actually identify the issue.
Dating in person hasnt worked out, i dont live anywhere where people gather. So I’m left with online dating which is also an abject failure. By all accounts im reasonably attractive, probably moreso than average. Which is why I can only assume the issue lies in my body language. I’m guessing I give off autisitic vibes.
I’m just an anecdote though, my point is that there are a lot of people like me. I’m not an incel or right winger or anything like that. I know what makes someone an asshole and I know what makes someones character top quality, and I generally seek to embody those traits. We aren’t evil, or filled with hate or anything. Society just doesnt seem to want us.
Edit: i mean that in a romantic way, no one actively drives me away from being friends.
The problem is that you’re trying to solve a puzzle that will reward you with a prize. Relationships don’t work like that, people don’t work like that. You just need to be yourself, autistic vibes and all, not be an asshole, and just live your live. There are people who are attracted to you specifically, you just didn’t find them yet because you’re to busy looking for a key to a puzzle of no pussy. Just… interact with people like they’re people, find those who mutually like spending time with you, and that will eventually grow into something.
Thats an interesting part, the pussy is not the interest. It’s other aspects that come with a relationship. Mostly having someone there who is there to pursue common interests with. Admittedly, a relationship is my only true goal however. I’ve never really felt a calling in this world nor a particular attatchment to it, presumably as a result of neurological issues or a difficult childhood.
I appreciate the advice however, it’s largely applicable but it’s also what I’ve been doing for a while after advice I recieved. It’s actually really funny in a dramatic irony kind of way however, I DO attract people. They’re just definitely not what I am looking for. Either they’re exclusively wanting sex, or they are a woman well beyond my age(im not shaming, thats just not for me. They were past my mothers age), or they’re a guy. Either way, thats still fairly rare.
Mostly having someone there who is there to pursue common interests with
Aren’t we all. You kind of summarised the whole human existence.
I know this kind of attitude can feel righteous and satisfying. But, it’s exactly the kind of attitude that drives people towards pieces of shit like Tate. I’m not saying you have to bend over and make assholes feel welcome, but having a little empathy can go a long way. Pushing them away so aggressively just contributes to a bad feedback loop.
Nah, that’s not it. Manosphere assholes offer easy and satisfying answer to all the problem, and the solution they offer doesn’t require anyone to do hard work, but instead gives the sensation of being right and cool.
That’s the reason they attract people, not the uncaring left, not the smugness of righteous comments on the internet, ot the evilness of women.The left is often extremely hostile and bitter towards men. A lot of these people grew up watching men getting portrayed as the source of all that’s bad in the world on social media. An adult may be able to separate themselves from that kind of language, but I doubt that children can.
I’m sorry, but it absolutely does not help that we’ve intentionally created double standards where it’s fine to trash entire groups of people as long as they’re in the majority. It accomplishes nothing except pushing potential allies away into the arms of people who choose to accept them instead of constantly rejecting them.
The left talks a big game about inclusion and fairness, but its online spaces don’t reflect that in the slightest. These spaces are often just an excuse for some traumatized people to bully others who they perceive as having harmed them. We never should have allowed this behavior and it’s incredible how much damage it’s done to the movement over the last 10-15 years.
It’s clearly both. When there is this attitude from some people that men are dangerous and should be feared, while another group welcomes them in, it’s pretty obvious which one has more draw. Valid and reasonable criticism is extremely important, but labeling them as the scum of the earth isn’t that. The worst part is the message it gives to young impressionable boys who are just learning about this stuff.
The whole reason the manosphere is easy to get into is because it is, on the surface, one of the most welcoming and validating spaces for men to be in. Thanks for giving attention to that with your comment.
The manosphere is “welcoming” the same way an abusive partner is “welcoming”, and both are for the same reason.
Abusers are often very charismatic and make you feel really good at first It’s how they can keep people around for years and years.
Yeah, I read this first thing in the morning and replied before even checking what community it is. Probably should’ve deleted this but also, maybe it’s a good discussion to have around here.
I know that you’re right but it just feels hopeless. You say that I should have empathy but honestly what I worry about the most is that the people we’re talking about here have no empathy of their own. Because I can’t help but wonder, don’t these kids have mothers and sisters that they look at and at least feel a little bit bad about the circles they spend time in and the ideology they believe in? It’s a strange mix of disgust and despair that I feel about this. Because I feel like trying to appeal to the good nature of mother’s sons that listen to rapists in the first place is a lost cause.
But I could just be bitter. And facing my own gender wars internally and projecting that. I’ve actually been trying to stay away from these conversations because I’m not sure if I can be anything but angry at this point.
Exactly. It’s easy to treat an asshole like an asshole, but that literally just makes them feel all the more justified.
Anything will make them feel justified. That is why they are assholes. Even if they had no reason at all, they will concoct one.
Pretty sure a lot of that guy’s audience is teenage boys.
There’s something he is speaking towards that resonates. This needs to be addressed with open mind and open heart. Calling them all pieces of shit and the other flavorful language you are using only serves to further entrench them in their beliefs.
Men and boys have real and genuine problems that need to be acknowledged and addressed. Some of these problems are perceived problems, others are factual and documented and proven.
I don’t think your strategy will be very successful.
Still can’t fucking belive those pieces of shit were set free
Unfortunately, “the man-o-sphere” also lumps in those men who just want to be left alone to their own devices, who - for whatever reason - have gone their own way and don’t want to participate in what they see as a negative-sum game that is tilted - almost hilariously so - against men. Many to most of them aren’t misogynistic in the least, they just don’t want anything to do with women. As is their right.
Because just as a man don’t deserve a woman purely because he’s a man, the same also works in reverse: a woman don’t deserve a man just because they are a woman. There are many women who demand that men leave them alone, but then get all offended AF if a man turns down her attentions. That it is somehow misogynistic for any man to refuse the needs and attentions of a woman.
Sorry, but “equality” doesn’t work like that - it only works equally in both directions.
for whatever reason - have gone their own way and don’t want to participate in what they see as a negative-sum game that is tilted - almost hilariously so - against men.
Lol, my dude. The only way you could possibly think this is if you already subscribe to the alternative facts explained to you by the “man-o-sphere”.
The vast majority of power is still being held by men. Most law makers are men, most of the wealth is held by men, most of the police, the judges, the prosecutors…all mostly men.
There are many women who demand that men leave them alone, but then get all offended AF if a man turns down her attentions.
It’s almost like being attracted to someone is contextual…
That it is somehow misogynistic for any man to refuse the needs and attentions of a woman.
Who is claiming this?
Nobody cares if your want to go your own direction. It’s only an issue to anyone if you’re a dick about it.
For reals. No one gives a shit about my doings. If I climb on a soapbox with a megaphone and scream at passers-by the editorial of my doings, and condemn then for not having a like mind or interests, I’d expect a more hostile reception to my doings. There’s a pretty easy line to see, there is a pretty easy choice to make, and for those who’ve chosen otherwise, we’ve gone beyond “man-o-sphere” and out into the oort cloud of “quasi similar simian”. Not feeling a whole lot of kinship to that.
This article is disgenuous.
Firstly it conflates “anti femists views” with far right and homophobic views, which is complete rubbish and reminds me of Israel claiming all it’s criticism is antisemitic.
Secondly it contains things like:
Commonly held views in the manosphere, says Sugiura, include being anti-feminist, thinking that misandry is equivalent to misogyny and believing society is systemically sexist against men. “They want to go back to this time where women had no rights in society at all and were completely owned by their father and then their husband.”
There is a lot here. Let’s split into component parts:
thinking that misandry is equivalent to misogyny
Well, it is, by definition.
believing society is systemically sexist against men
It is not, but that doesn’t mean men and women position is the same or that men are somehow always advantaged.
Men have advantages in some areas (especially around positions of power) and women have in others (especially when it comes to family law).
They want to go back to this time where women had no rights in society at all and were completely owned by their father and then their husband.
Eh? Where is this one coming from?
include being anti-feminist
It is difficult to define since everyone seems to define term “femist” differently. I believe men and women should have equal rights and duties. It means women shouldn’t be disadvantaged but shouldn’t be privileged either. Examples: it may mean gender parity in public companies boards, government or membership of Parliament but also fair outcomes of judicial processes when it comes to custody of children and splitting of assets, identical army service where it is compulsory, the same retirement age etc.
Am I femist or anti-femist, as I always considered myself the former but I have a feeling that the author of this piece would consider me the latter.
Anti-feminist views are far right views and they go hand in hand with other conservative views like homophobia. There’s no conflation required.
It’s a pretty core part of the right’s ideology/fantasy about traditional roles and structures in society. Racism as well, trans rights… It’s all part of the bundle.
Anti-feminist views are far right views and they go hand in hand with other conservative views like homophobia.
I do disagree with this. I’ve already pointed out about family courts and the experience men face. Some aspect of feminism do push to make this worse for men, and objecting to radical feminism doesn’t necessarily mean that person has homophobic and transphobic views. For example, TERF’s claim to be feminists but their views on trans are far right. I think maybe the distinction here is that while feminism is a good and positive thing, objections to radical forms of feminism should not be taken as right wing, as it that line of logic reads as anyone opposed to any form of feminism (extreme in particular) is unacceptable. I don’t think pushing folks who have genuine grievances to feeling their only reasonable political home is right wing is healthy.
To really clarify this point, there are people within the family courts service and social services that actively look to block a fathers access to their children. Risk is often used to create a situation that prevents a fathers access to their children, and more importantly, a child’s access to both parents. In the UK for example, feminists are pushing for the mere suggestion of domestic abuse (proven or not) to seriously affect court proceedings. While it is an important factor, and cannot be ignored, there are some mothers that will use this as part of a strategy to carry out revenge for feeling they have been wronged. For example, as victims of adultery, which while horrible, should not impact on a child’s contact with their father. There are voices within that to reject that parental alienation is even a real possibility and unfortunately it is dangerously widespread and very effective.
That depends how you define them, thus my example with Israel and antisemitism.
Yes, in the past “anti femism” meant “traditional roles” and all that shit. But I am pretty sure person I quoted from the article wouldn’t just define these this way since for her if someone thinks mysogyny and mysandry are both equally bad, this person is an anti-feminist - which is ridiculous.
I’d like to address your comment about misogyny and misandry being equally bad.
If you mean “it is bad to be prejudiced against a man because he is a man, and it is bad to be prejudiced against a woman because she is a woman” then yes, these two things are equivalent.
But misogyny and misandry are not equal in terms of impact.
I take it you have not been through the family courts then?
Most men in that situation would trade 10-15% of their income for fair access to their kids. They also could come out with £30k debt which would be like 10% of their income for 20 years. This isn’t including the mental damage that can be inflicted.
Ask any parent is money or access to their kids more important. Very few would say money.
Most men aren’t CEOs holding women down. Most don’t feel that theoretical privilege.
The funny thing is that folk are so fixated on dogma around feminism they end up losing their audience in a debate. You see “shut up, man child. Acknowledge your privilege” attitudes followed by “why are men listening to Andrew Tate and not feminists”. The first should be locked up (edit: Andrew Tate this refers to) for a long time. The latter (edit: referring to those divisive posters) do contribute to pushing men away to the manosphere.
Did I misread? People who say “shut up manchild. Acknowledge your privilege.” Should go to jail?
But Andrew Tate’s hate platform “contributes to pushing men away to the Manosphere.”
Wut.
I meant it the other way around. Feel free to block me for a mistake as you suggest in your follow up post.
Why would I block you if it was an error? That makes no sense.
I get the feeling they meant to put it the other way around, as yeah it doesn’t really make any sense otherwise.
I sadly just don’t know anymore, and was ready to block and move on when this guy came back with some reasonable reason that doesn’t makes any sense at all…
I take it you have not been through the family courts then?
I have not. I also did not say that this aspect of famiy law is not unfair to men. It is grossly unfair! It also has a complex history that isn’t easy to boil down to “men are bad, women are better”. It comes from patriarchal structures than enforce gendered roles that disadvantage both men and women.
But acknowledging is is unfair to men isn’t the same as saying misandry and misogyny are the same, because they have different effects and require different approaches to counteract them.
For example, misogyny accounts for violence against women at a greater extent than misandry accounts for violence against men. And to be clear: I am not saying that one of these situations is not as bad as the other. But they require different resources to manage the consequence and different approaches to tackle them.
Most men aren’t CEOs holding women down. Most don’t feel that theoretical privilege.
Most CEOs aren’t women. While the average man might not feel that theoretical privilege, they are still represented in a way women are not. The discourse around privilege is not about making someone feel bad for having it, it’s about empowering people to recognise when others don’t have it.
The funny thing is that folk are so fixated on dogma around feminism they end up losing their audience in a debate. You see “shut up, man child. Acknowledge your privilege” attitudes followed by “why are men listening to Andrew Tate and not feminists”. The first should be locked up for a long time. The latter do contribute to pushing men away to the monosphere
Here’s a good example of male privilege: for decades, automobile safety systems were designed and tested with dummies that advantaged average males over females. For a man stepping into a vehicle, who had nothing to do with the design and testing of the safety systems, he probably won’t feel any more privileged than a woman in the same vehicle. But if the vehicle is in a serious accident, the woman is less protected.
Acknowledging that isn’t saying “shut up, you have no right to complain about the dangers of cars because someone else has it worse than you”. But it’s a reminder that there are other people with different experiences and needs to yours, because of the privileges not afforded to them.
Also, to address your final point: there is a long and storied history of chauvenists derailing conversations about misogyny by centering the dialogue on their complaints and injustices. This is why some men are told “shut up, man child”. I’m not a woman but I can imagine women are exhausted by this.
I take it you have not been through the family courts then?I have not. I also did not say that this aspect of famiy law is not unfair to men. It is grossly unfair! It also has a complex history that isn’t easy to boil down to “men are bad, women are better”. It comes from patriarchal structures than enforce gendered roles that disadvantage both men and women.
But acknowledging is is unfair to men isn’t the same as saying misandry and misogyny are the same, because they have different effects and require different approaches to counteract them.
For example, misogyny accounts for violence against women at a greater extent than misandry accounts for violence against men. And to be clear: I am not saying that one of these situations is not as bad as the other. But they require different resources to manage the consequence and different approaches to tackle them.
I agree with this, and don’t think they should be compared. They are separate problems that both need to be solved, not compared. I think problematically, the wealthy would rather pit men against women and vice versa because it diverts anger from the wealthy which are the real priviledged folk. Working class women, and men do not have a good shake of it. People with access to wealth will also get better legal outcomes and suffer less of the same challenges that most would.
Most men aren’t CEOs holding women down. Most don’t feel that theoretical privilege.Most CEOs aren’t women. While the average man might not feel that theoretical privilege, they are still represented in a way women are not. The discourse around privilege is not about making someone feel bad for having it, it’s about empowering people to recognise when others don’t have it.
What is the value of the representation though. It doesn’t bring in material benefit for most, just suppresses women’s income, and more specifically parents with the lion share of the responsibility for raising offspring as men raising children as single fathers also have an income penalty. It’s less a gender penalty and more of a childrearing penalty. Yes, women will generally be more adversely affected by this, but to treat it as a gendered issue and only solve it for women will not address the issue or make it go away.
The funny thing is that folk are so fixated on dogma around feminism they end up losing their audience in a debate. You see “shut up, man child. Acknowledge your privilege” attitudes followed by “why are men listening to Andrew Tate and not feminists”. The first should be locked up for a long time. The latter do contribute to pushing men away to the monosphereHere’s a good example of male privilege: for decades, automobile safety systems were designed and tested with dummies that advantaged average males over females. For a man stepping into a vehicle, who had nothing to do with the design and testing of the safety systems, he probably won’t feel any more privileged than a woman in the same vehicle. But if the vehicle is in a serious accident, the woman is less protected.
Acknowledging that isn’t saying “shut up, you have no right to complain about the dangers of cars because someone else has it worse than you”. But it’s a reminder that there are other people with different experiences and needs to yours, because of the privileges not afforded to them.
I think any reasonable person would acknowledge that and want to fix that. It isn’t acceptable.
Also, to address your final point: there is a long and storied history of chauvenists derailing conversations about misogyny by centering the dialogue on their complaints and injustices. This is why some men are told “shut up, man child”. I’m not a woman but I can imagine women are exhausted by this.
I think the response is also exhausting and does contribute to the division that is happening now. Unfortunately vast swaths of positive changes for inclusivity and diversity are getting wiped out because people didn’t want to have fair debates and pushed folk to toxic content creators. The fact society for a long time made talking about men’s issues taboo has created an unfortunate widespread rejection of this which is going to be hard to put back in the box. It is quite disturbing and those negative toxic folks are likely to damage the causes of men fighting against the injustices faced. Ultimately, the goal isn’t division, but solidarity. Solidarity and understanding are hard. It’s very easy to take the carrots and the rage bait and harden our positions rather than push ourselves to find that common ground.
I don’t feel penalising folk or invalidating experiences is fair response to misogynists hijacking men’s issues for their own political goals.
They are both sides of the same coin and have similarly detrimental impact on victims.
No. See, feminism just means that women and men should be equal.
Misogyny, hating women… and misandry, hating men… are not the same at all!
No, wait…
Saying that one half of the population’s problems are more important than the the other half of the population’s problems is by definition misandry and or misogyny….
It should be obvious that women have problems and issues that impact them more than others, and that if women are discriminated against it hurts all of us…
It should also be obvious that men have problems and issues that impact them more than others, and that if men are discriminated against it hurts all of us…
Acknowledging that both men and women have issues and problems is something that some of us find difficult to do. I personally think that arguing over who has it worse is counter productive and does more harm than good.
I personally don’t think feminism is the answer to inequity of the sexes. But it has been successful in getting society to acknowledge a lot of the systemic barriers women have faced. I also dont think we really would like the way “equality” would actually look like. “Equity” I believe would feel a lot better.
See, feminism just means that women and men should be equal.
Agree it should mean that.
Misogyny, hating women… and misandry, hating men… are not the same at all!
These are EXACTLY the same thing and equally inexcusable.
Yes, I was being facetious… that’s what the “no, wait” was meant to convey
(I was agreeing with you I should have used the /s thing but I assumed it was obvious for everything before the “no, wait”)
I’m not arguing that neither are wrong. But misogyny has very different outcomes to misandry, and I think it’a disingenuous to argue otherwise. They are not the same in terms of repercussion.
They are exactly the same in the terms of the impact - they are ruining victims lives.
The conversation around this is almost always disingenuous. Older people have the views they were raised in, and they think reality is the same for the younger generation.
Meanwhile, there are practices like the progressive stack that send white or male people to the back of the line (literally) in the name of equity. I imagine opposing that would also be “anti-feminist”.
There’s now a generation of young men who were told “shut up, it’s our turn now” and surprise surprise, young men are tuning out those people.
Funny enough, if the gender gap in early teaching were taken more seriously it would be less of a problem.
They want to go back to this time where women had no rights in society at all and were completely owned by their father and then their husband.
Eh? Where is this one coming from?
Right? Especially when some of the Red Pill’s most fundamental teachings say almost the exact opposite: that marriage was a transactional arrangement that women managed to Welch out of over the last two centuries, while continuing to nail men to the wall over if they failed to hold their end of the bargain.
Because when you really look at that transactional arrangement as it was used for centuries, almost all of women’s obligations to the contract have been rescinded, yet almost all of men’s obligations to the contract continue to be enforced. And violently so, by “daddy state”.
Now, how is this in any way fair? It isn’t. If this were any normal contract, a judge would throw it out in a heartbeat for being grossly biased in women’s favour.
And yet, women continue to scream “misogyny” every time men try to re-establish balance/equality in that arrangement, either by restoring women’s obligations, or by reducing their own obligations.
And that isn’t “equality” in any shape or form.
include being anti-feminist
Any man dedicated to true equality should now consider that term to be a pejorative, as it has become a thin veneer of legitimacy over an ocean of anti-male gender bigotry.
I am the true threat to feminism: I am an egalitarianist. because if there is one thing that throws feminists into frothing rages, it’s true equality.
