I'm in class right now, fuming with my classmates. Persuasive speeches. Wonderful to hear about solving homelessness, school issues, etc. I'm multitasking and listening with one ear. I pay full attention when I hear "feminism is like a potato, deep and tuberous and can turn to cancer." Obviously, I have to listen to what this man has to say.
He begins his speech prefacing he's out of the house so other women won't hear him. Concerning. He starts talking about family court. Very important topic, I'm wondering how this connects to antifeminism, but I'd like to hear. He starts with the defense, "I am a white man, I fought for my country." His wife won his kids in court. We learn this is because "#yesallwomen is so forced into us that men are always at fault." Huh. "Yes, I physically defended myself from my ex wife when she attacked me after accusing me of sexually assaulting my children." Oh. "Feminism has taught women to accept nothing but complete dominance over men." Yiiiikkkkesss.
"Let's talk about feminism in schools. Women are encouraged to reject men and get degrees, 2/3 of which hold debt because they don't understand debt."
Now, son. This is a speech class ran by a very progressive lesbian woman who constantly advocates for women. Class is mostly filled with women. At this point, I'm looking at the faces of my classmates and professor and laughing.
"Women pursuing an education pushes the fertility window, out the window"
I don't think anyone heard a damn thing else of his speech as the chat blew up. 7 minutes of an abusive anti women speech from this man. The teacher attempts to politely explain that his speech was not persuasive nor appropriate, as chat sends quotes and questions. He's defending himself with "wait I said I love women twice in my speech." There's no saving him. He disconnects.
For weeks we've all had appropriate talks of current issues, progression, solving problems, politics, etc. And this man was smiling as he talked about how much he despised women and how feminism is killing men. He really thought he had something. I and my classmates are distraught and angry. I'm shocked this mindset exists and that someone would be bold enough to speak against women in a room full of women. I understand his initial point, which was supposed to be the difficulty of family court. But we didn't hear any of that.
We heard hatred.
"Feminism is driving men away. They're tired of it. There won't be any men left."
If those men are like y
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Why is there so much hate everywhere. Seriously. Women hating men, men hating women, people fighting over basically nothing at this point. Dont they realize neither of them is right? Hate can’t be defeated by hate and it’s really clear in subs like that. I hope I never end up contributing to a community like that. On both sides, it’s disgusting.
So this was a post I promised a week ago with a few of my members, but I couldn't find the proper time. But looking at the state of the subreddit today, I think there are no better time to speak about this topic of issues within the MRAs than later. There are too many immature state of affair in the movement and to hold this subreddit to a higher standards, I think we should talk about how the MRAs should associate themselves with and how they should proceed as a gender movement for men- and of course, to work with a few feminist here.
So the label, antifeminist, from the many claims by the MRAs, they themselves said that they're simply critical of feminism- not to oppose it entirely as a movement. After all, we're both a gender movement for either gender; feminism for women's right, as MRAs are for men.
So what confuses me here, is that, at times, despite claiming that they're critical of feminism as a movement, the MRAs decides it's best to oppose and criticize the movement as a whole, and refuse to see the good side of feminism, and the said accomplishment. Our prominent feminist have to defend every point the MRAs make about feminism. And how the MRAs refuses to let go of their own biases while criticizes feminists for theirs. Hypocritical.
Now to get back into the main topic at hand. Let's look into r/antifeminists, from the main page, you see post like:
https://www.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/n1nt1m/and_its_so_normalised/
These are the three top post from the current sub, and see, there is nothing inherently wrong with these post, but they are very one-sided and narrows the movement into only its bad point. Biases is unavoidable, yes, every humans has it. But to be critical of a movement by only envisioning the bad side or the negative aspect of it as a whole, seems disingenuous for a movement that claims to be an egalitarian gender movement that wish to improve male issues.
To oppose feminism as a whole, is to oppose
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I couldn’t care less if people think this movement is “SeXiSt” or not, but for us to blow in the political space we need to find ways to show people the disease 3rd wave feminism is. We have a fuck ton of evidence to turn people to the MRA side, yet the delivery is the most important.
the thread: https://archive.is/Q9qA2
about lavender scare:
> The "Lavender Scare" was a moral panic during the mid-20th century about homosexual people in the United States government and their mass dismissal from government service. It contributed to and paralleled the anti communist campaign known as McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare. Gay men and lesbians were said to be national security risks and communist sympathizers, which led to the call to remove them from state employment. It was thought that gay people were more susceptible to being manipulated, which could pose a threat to the country.
Like any movement (including feminism) the MRM has a few assholes in it. That doesn't mean the MRM as a whole is misogynistic. And yes, by misogyny I mean hatred of women. By misogyny I mean saying shit like "False rape accusations are probably 50% of rape cases because women always lie."
Some people accuse feminism of misandry but I don't tell them "Are you sure you're not confusing hatred of men with hatred of the MRM?"
I'm so tired of constantly explaining that by misogyny I MEAN misogyny. I MEAN MISOGNY. I can tell the difference between it and antifeminism. I don't need to be talked down to. Feminists, egalitarians, and MRAs need to respect each other.
I notice that a lot of posts have nothing to do with women's rights OR men's rights. A lot of it is reposting anti feminist memes.
I'm not saying you should be feminists. But the gratuitous antifeminism posts when we could be working out solutions to both men's problems and women's problems is getting old.
We've been duped, instead of standing up to male oppression, liberal feminists think that if we'll become like men, if we watch porn, endorse promiscuity, endorse broey culture, split the bills with them and even 'transition' to being male at times, then we'll get on the same playing field as them. Are they just stupid and naive as fuck or are they actually ill intended? At least regular antifeminism, for all I hate it, is straightforward, whereas liberal feminism is so insidious in its destructiveness.
I find this to be a very a usual occurrence where people conflate anti-feminism with TRP. Let me clarify, yes TRP has been prominent in exposing the hypocrisy, malignant nature, and damage that feminism has cause is causing and will continue to cause.
However I feel most anti-feminists are blue pilled for following reasons:
A) Only blaming the obvious third wave feminism and thinking it was ever a solution to something to begin with.
B) Thinking feminism is “corruption” of female nature when in fact it is the politicisation of female nature.
C) Blaming all of gynocentric exasperation on feminism and giving feminism too much credit for how world has become.
D) They think no gender is privileged when in fact women are privileged, specially first world women and when you tell them this or talk about men’s issues they are quick to show how oblivious they are.Most of them won’t even know the word gynocentric exists.
To expand on point B) I believe that feminism did not corrupt millions of years of mindset in 5 decades. The mindset was always there but It’s just that women were dependant on men , due to advancement of technology and due to capitalism ( even though I am pro-capitalism) and in part also due to feminism, women were able to join the workforce as technology nullified their biological disadvantages such as birth control it also nullified our advantages such as our physical strength mo longer being needed.
I feel anti-feminists make a boogeyman out of feminists and blame everything on it as if :
-women being able to work did not make their hypergamy go on steroids.
-women haven’t ridden on coat tails of men even before feminism and got here just because they have the golden uterus.
-men in power haven’t always made life easy for avg women vs avg men even before feminism.
-women never got preferential treatment when sh*t hits the fan from unemployment to tsunami to collapse to titanic like situations.
The world was always gynocentric even in Traditional society it just gets a little worse in liberal feminist society.
So I believe by talking about things like hypergamy , female nature and Briffault’s Law TRP goes one layer deeper than anti-feminists and addresses the uncomfortable truths about biology, women, gender dynamics etc which most anti-feminists would be uncomfortable talking about specially in presence of their female allies.
These are my thoughts on Crimson Capsule anyway what do you guys think?
For anyone who is interested in understanding antifeminism and ideas of masculinity in right wing extremism, check out this fascinating webinar tomorrow
https://www.diis.dk/en/event/gender-security-and-right-wing-extremism
(For European, African, Australian and Asian residents, unless you're an American who stays up very late).
As in the case in the previous entry of this series, I wasn't planning on translating this either, but then I ran across a pair of quotes that makes you do one of those Edgar Allan Poe "What The Fuck Am I Reading?" meme doubletakes because you'd absolutely swear that no one would say something like that except with their inner voice. I'm specifically referring to the following statements by "No Pixels For Fascists" co-founder Aurelia Brandenburg, whom some of you may remember from the time she immortalized her neuroses as masturbatory prose in a "Gamers Are Dead 2.0" article:
>[Aurelia] Brandenburg explained to Dlf why gaming platforms in particular are susceptible to right-wing extremist ideas as follows: "There's a great deal that's considered sayable. That's an ideal breeding ground for radical right-wing currents." Laws do not always offer protection against right-wing attacks: "A great deal of what's problematic is not automatically punishable." That is why engagement from civil society is needed.
Wait Lunar, some of you might be saying right now, maybe she was misquoted. Well, how fortunate we are, then, to have an audio recording of the full interview available online so we can listen to what she said in context. And here are the relevant excerpts:
>Kolja Unger: And why do you think that gaming platforms in particular often have so many, well, sexist or right-wing statements... uh... why are there so many statements there? Is this a space that is particularly suitable for this? What do you think, why gaming platforms? > >Aurelia Brandenburg: Well, from a feminist perspective, there's... um... very or it's a very, very big factor... um... that antifeminism in gaming spaces is simply very socially acceptable. It is... there's a great, great deal that's considered sayable. Um... it is... and, alternatively, people also very, very often act, for example, as if feminists who criticize specific things simply should not raise such a fuss. And this... this climate of... um... antifeminism, for example, in that case, however, it's more about discrimination. Um...it's that...it's a... a... a quasi ... an ideal breeding ground, an ideal starting point precisely for right... uh... radical right-wing currents.
>Kolja Unger: Hmm ... now, of course, I'm also ask
... keep reading on reddit ➡Someone argued recently that antifeminists are predominately right wing and Trump supporters. I doubt this is true. Does anyone here know of any evidence to refute this claim?
There's a lot of books out there about feminism and intersectionality, but its hard to find thorough defences of antifeminism and more traditional societal views, Julius Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World and Eros and the Mysteries of Love are examples but are there any more people would recommend? Maybe some more modern stuff?
I just finished watching Sex Education on Netflix episodes 6 and 7 of season two and they're totally disgusting.
On one hand they are trying to make every single woman in the show a victim of sexual harassment.
On the other hand Otis (the protagonist) gets drunk to the point of unconsciousness, and wakes up the next morning to find out he had sex with Ruby (the popular girl in school), something he can't remember at all. Ruby even suggests he is responsible for whatever the consequences of having unprotected sex are.
If the roles had been inverted, everybody would be yelling "rape" and we wouldn't hear the end of it, but since it happened to a man, nobody gives a damn.
Sex Education not only promotes rape, but according to them, if it happens to a man it has no consequences and it's totally OK. More than that, it even suggests that Otis should be proud he was raped by the popular girl in school.
[I've rewritten this a lot so I've simplified it to just the base points and might post more later. this is just a throwaway]
my school is very antifeminist and transphobic as it is an all-boys school in an upper-middle class area. most of them get their talking points from conservative you-tube including Shapiro and Peterson including some of the teachers.
I've been listening to it for ages but I've never been able to stand up and defend my beliefs and it's starting to get to me. i want to debate them and hopefully change their minds but i have no idea how to do this.
I am pretty new to feminism as i used to agree with them on basically everything except LGBT issues and i think i still have some internalised misogyny. because of this i don't know enough about feminism to really explain it to others.
I have dived into Contrapoints and some other feminist youtubers but i want to be able to use my own words.
how can i debate them with integrity and what should i do to understand feminism better?
https://youtu.be/rc24YtUslCU
Info, /de/ is the general discussion subreddit for german speakers. It is usually not that shitty but you can see that Reddit is really poisoning the mind of some people.
First we have this hilarious joke post linking to a google autofill formular.
> Translation: feminism is....cancer, fascism for cowards, nonsense and, last but not least, "the attempt to integrate ugly women into society".
Top comment tries to point out how inflammatory these kind of statements are (and that they in fact validate the need for feminism) but gets further down in the thread shot down with the argument that he/she uses circular logic. I mean, what?
This "humorous" screenshot is discussed with the usual reddit cliches, you have some "Ausgelöst!" (triggered)-comments and rants how radical feminist are the worst. You can find the discussion [here] (https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/5au4qs/feminismus_ist/).
So, if you are german, it is a wise idea to invest your shitposts into antifeminism-stuff, looking at the recent top posts of the day. Here we have a rant about how todays Man's day is ruined by shrill Twitter feminists and that nobody cares about men's struggle. Again, this discussion serves the usual reddit MRA tropes and the aforementioned twitter feminist quotes ("Kill all men", "Oppressorday"), which by the way were unsourced by OP, are all written by trolls (yes, I actually went on Twitter to look for the origins). Which doesn't hinder /de/ to start yet again a massive circlejerk.
As a non-mouthbreather, I am quite disappointed with the general intelligence level of the antifeminist position on reddit.
Jordan Peterson, Sargon of Akkad, Thunderf00t, James Damore and yours truly prove that it's possible for antifeminists to be intellectually curious. But all the nonfeminist-leaning subs that I've seen are dominated by very simple-minded redditors, who tend to understand complicated phenomena at a very rudimentary level.
So far, I haven't seen any kind of subreddit form which requires people to have a higher understanding, say undergraduate level and structure hypotheses at a reasonable quality level.
Why can't reddit's smarter antifeminists get it together and form a high-quality sub?
Edit: I never said I'm smart, but I am motivated to try and understand things better. Unfortunately most of the antifeminist posters I see on reddit get important facts badly wrong and obviously just don't care about fact-checking. Especially for facts that are easily found with a Google search.
Edit: if such a high-quality sub existed, would you post and read it?
Edit 2: Guess I got an answer.
http://reappropriate.co/2017/08/eating-our-own-deconstructing-the-misogynistic-myths-of-asian-american-antifeminism/
So feminists like Jenn Fang and Hermit_Hwarang published an article on Reappropriate today trying to dissect the “evil” misogyny of cis-gendered Asian men. The disturbing antifeminist wave that has swept through Asian American digital spaces in recent years is just another aspect of identity politics in an ailing American society. Asian American females with white men contribute to white supremacy whether they believe it or not because the image of them being together has been solidify and lionize in American society.
Instead of having a feminist gay Asian American male try to figure out why straight Asian American act the way they do, I am pretty sure I understand things better than Hermit_Hwarang.
First of all, Asian American males aren’t going on the Internet and becoming trolls and trying to destroy what Asian feminists built. Asian American males seek the Internet for answers, meaning the problem lies before they even learn what a feminist even is. Asian American males have dating problems. It’s crystal clear, there aren’t enough Asian American females for Asian American males. We know that we are losing out, heck we just hope we end up as unwanted bachelors, which will happen to 20-25% of the Asian American male population. That is pretty damn high, ¼ to 1/5 of Asian guys will end up alone. And we know the problem is WMAF. The dearth of Asian American females is due to them defecting to get a better social standing in a white society. And we are suppose to be pretend everything is okay and even smile at WMAF couples and white guys when they infiltrate our community, our social circles, our families while talking shit about us and demeaning us as a whole. We never asked to be in this situation, we just tolerate it because apparently people get outraged whenever we speak up.
Second of all, why is this guy keep equating Asian American males with domestic violence. There are flaws in first generation Asian American parents, and to assume we have no agency but to follow exactly in the footsteps as abusive Asian parents is something Hermit_Hwarang wants to happen. Asian American males who grew up respecting women are somehow abusive because the old-world mentality of Asian fathers somehow carry over to the child. This is putting the crime on a person when the person didn’t commit a crime under the guise of he will commit the crime eve
... keep reading on reddit ➡This is something I've been thinking about a while, because I see people ocationally bring up the idea that the MRM is THE movement for men's issues, that your automatically an MRA for supporting men's issues or similar. But, there's also a couple of other movements which also are in support of men's right. My knowledge of those are very limited, but I would like to put them in 3 somewhat distinct categorizations.
- Antifeminist movements.
- Movements that disagrees with feminism, but doesn't really care much about them otherwise (the feminist movement isn't really the cause for any men's issues or is hurting men).
- Feminist friendly movements that are using a lot of feminist framework to explain men's issues.
I would like to put the MRM in category 1 (if I had to choose 1), even if I recognize there's many MRA's who defintely fit better in number 2 and a few even in 3. Basically, I think the unique things about the MRM is anti-feminism and perhaps false rape accussations, when comparing to other men's right movements. If you disagree with those issues I personally see little reason to identify as a MRA, as opposed to something like masculist/masculism. Maybe it's simply because the MRM is much bigger in comparison to the other? Or am I just completely off?
Thoughts?
Edit: thanks for all replies, I'll try give my opinion on some of them once I have more time.
For anyone who is interested in understanding antifeminism and ideas of masculinity in right wing extremism, check out this fascinating webinar tomorrow
https://www.diis.dk/en/event/gender-security-and-right-wing-extremism
(For European, African, Australian and Asian residents, unless you're an American who stays up very late).
I find this to be a very a usual occurrence where people conflate anti-feminism with TRP. Let me clarify, yes TRP has been prominent in exposing the hypocrisy, malignant nature, and damage that feminism has cause is causing and will continue to cause.
However I feel most anti-feminists are blue pilled for following reasons:
A) Only blaming the obvious third wave feminism and thinking it was ever a solution to something to begin with.
B) Thinking feminism is “corruption” of female nature when in fact it is the politicisation of female nature.
C) Blaming all of gynocentric exasperation on feminism and giving feminism too much credit for how world has become.
D) They think no gender is privileged when in fact women are privileged, specially first world women and when you tell them this or talk about men’s issues they are quick to show how oblivious they are.Most of them won’t even know the word gynocentric exists.
To expand on point B) I believe that feminism did not corrupt millions of years of mindset in 5 decades. The mindset was always there but It’s just that women were dependant on men , due to advancement of technology and due to capitalism ( even though I am pro-capitalism) and in part also due to feminism, women were able to join the workforce as technology nullified their biological disadvantages such as birth control it also nullified our advantages such as our physical strength mo longer being needed.
I feel anti-feminists make a boogeyman out of feminists and blame everything on it as if :
-women being able to work did not make their hypergamy go on steroids.
-women haven’t ridden on coat tails of men even before feminism and got here just because they have the golden uterus.
-men in power haven’t always made life easy for avg women vs avg men even before feminism.
-women never got preferential treatment when shit hits the fan from unemployment to tsunami to collapse to titanic like situations.
The world was always gynocentric even in Traditional society it just gets a little worse in liberal feminist society.
So I believe by talking about things like hypergamy , female nature and Briffault’s Law TRP goes one layer deeper than anti-feminists and addresses the uncomfortable truths about biology, women, gender dynamics etc which most anti-feminists would be uncomfortable talking about specially in presence of their female allies.
These are my thoughts on Crimson Capsule anyway what do you guys think?
