created by Forgetaboutthelonely on 31/01/2025 at 01:00 UTC
77 upvotes, 6 top-level comments (showing 6)
being against feminism is necessary for gender equality. This is a pretty long post. So I'm going to divide it into four main categories. Also this is a patchwork of various comments I've saved across reddit. Thanks to the original creators I have lost some of your names but if you see something you wrote and want to be credited. leave a comment and I'll edit it in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feminist theory and underlying beliefs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misleading feminist statistics to reinforce said beliefs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innate human biases that feminist advocacy weaponizes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
addressing the "true scotsman"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To get into the first section. To quote a popular post on the subject
Because the foundational views of feminism and it's most influential advocates are anti-male in their nature.
All forms of Feminism hold the following premises as self-evident:
This could be described as "class warfare between men and women, with men winning".
If these are true, then society is this way because men want it to be so. Since society is (supposedly) male dominated and serves to benefit mens' needs drives and interests, the subjugation of women must be in-keeping with mens' inclinations.
Therefore, it is in-keeping with mens inclinations to oppress, subjugate, beat, rape, and violate women, including their own mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, girlfriends, and every other women they claim to "love". If a man does not do these things to the women in his life, he is complicit and tacitly supporting the system that allows other men to do this to the women in his life.
Women, being the subjugated class, cannot be held accountable for this, in the same way one cannot hold slaves accountable for their own slavery, even if they perpetuate the system through their actions and personal beliefs.
Further, even the immense influence a mother has over her child - one that shapes and moulds the child's adult personality, values, and sense of belonging - has been unable to raise men that won't oppress them. Women are singularly incompetent in the face of male monstrosity. And men are foolish too, because they leave their offspring in the care of those who are seen as lessers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information needed to confirm this belief of male monstrosity is often brought out by feminist academics injecting their bias into their methodology. and creating and disseminating inaccurate statistics.
Two such excellent examples of where this has happened are in the areas of rape and domestic violence. On the topic of the feminist approach to domestic violence. We have the Duluth model.
the Duluth Model is the most common batterer intervention program used in the United States. (it's also the basis for a number of other programs across the world)
The **feminist theory** underlying the Duluth Model is that men use violence within relationships to exercise power and control.
However, Ellen Pence (the creator) herself has written,
"By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."[22]
This is further debunked by Professor Murray A. Straus. who is best known for creating the conflict tactics scale, the "most widely used instrument in research on family violence"
In the following study
It summarizes results from more than 200 studies that have found gender symmetry in perpetration and in risk factors and motives for physical violence in martial and dating relationships. It also summarizes research that has found that most partner violence is mutual and that self-defense explains only a small percentage of partner violence by either men or women. The second part of the article documents seven methods that have been used to deny, conceal, and distort the evidence on gender symmetry (Often by feminist groups) Now. On top of this being more recent evidence.
We have also known about this as far back as the first domestic violence shelter. founded in 1971. By Erin Pizzey.
Who had the same findings as Straus and all of the studies he cites. But she was chased out of her home and country with bomb threats from feminists when she expressed interest in opening a similar shelter for men
Now. Let's move on to rape.
Feminists are also responsible for stopping male victims of female rapists from being recognized in India[1], Israel[2], [Nepal] (https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/12/11/ordinance-amends-law-on-rape-but-fails-to-recognise-rape-of-boy-child-and-sexual-minorities[3]) and the USA[4]
2: https://m.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
Now, Let's focus on that last one.
For statistical reporting, rape has been carefully defined as forced penetration of the victim in most of the world. You should listen to this feminist professor Mary P Koss explain that a woman raping a man isn't rape. Hear her explain in her own voice just a few years ago - https://clyp.it/uckbtczn[5]. I encourage you to listen to what she is saying. (Really. Listen to it! Think about it from a man's perspective.)
She is considered the foremost expert on sexual violence in the US. And is an advisor to the CDC, FBI, Congress, and researchers around the world and promoting the idea that men cannot be raped by women.
That is where most people get the idea rape is just a man on woman crime. Men are fairly rarely penetrated and it is almost always by another man. This also means that all of those stories you hear about a female teacher raping their underage students, according to the official government rape statistics, are not rape.
When you actually do the work to include male victims. The idea of "patriarchy" and male monstrosity towards women evaporates.
So why is it that the idea still endures? Well aside from the notion that feminist academics are building their entire careers on the backs of these beliefs and as such have a vested interest in continuing to propagate them. there's
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feminist advocacy also weaponizes a number of innate and studied human biases that subconsciously push us to promote women's protection and their issues over men. Human beings are a gynocentric species – this means that we prioritize the needs and wellbeing of women over men. This is an evolved instinct that came about as a result of women being the limiting factor in reproduction – ie. women have a much lower ceiling on how many offspring they can physically produce – and in small communities that are subsisting this makes them highly important because they potentially hold the key to whether or not the collective will survive at all. This is why we traditionally send only men to war, this is why we have the “women and children first” Birkenhead Drill, this is why people are more likely to put themselves at risk to save a woman in danger than a man – and it’s why we have feminism. Feminism has taken our gynocentrism and weaponized it.
And here are some studies to reaffirm that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-amp0000494.pdf
10: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020583425623
11: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19746441/
12: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597820303630
13: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5112287/
14: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103118304633
15: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325033477_Equalitarianism_A_Source_of_Liberal_Bias
16: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103101915112
17: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13552600.2016.1159343
18: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666518220300061?via%3Dihub
19: https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/asap.12236?campaign=wolearlyview
20: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mar.21480
As feminists, many feminists harm others because of their feminism. In fact, the worldview and belief system that drives the most powerful and influential members of the feminist movement is a worldview and a belief system that thrives on pedestalizing women as a group and demonizing men as a group. Your support for the harm they do derives simply from you describing yourself as feminist and therefore projecting an impression of unity of purpose with them.
There is no way for a lawmaker or public policy maker to know that you, as an individual feminist, disagree with a specific change demanded by a feminist group or organization. Because you call yourself the same thing they do, the unity of purpose is implicit. Your voice is added, with that of every other feminist, in support of what those people, speaking from their intellectual authority as feminists, wish to enact or change. That lawmaker or policy maker is not interested in getting to know every feminist as an individual. Even if he/she was, they wouldn't have the time to do so.
There is very little of what I would call "policing the movement" coming from within feminism itself. NOW and other groups get up to some seriously fucked up shit, with very little criticism directed their way from other feminists. That silence, combined with your entirely voluntary labeling of yourself as a feminist means that you, in effect, are supporting them in their efforts to, say, erode father's rights even more, or to block the establishment of domestic violence shelters for men, or whatever bigotry they're up to this week. While you may adamantly oppose them in these efforts, within the privacy of your own thoughts, or within the context of who you are as an individual speaking to other individuals, you are still, in a very practical sense, supporting them. Unless you are there in the room with them saying, "Wait an effing minute! I don't agree with these people! This is wrongheaded and harmful!" it is only natural for lawmakers and policy makers to assume that the feminists in front of them who are speaking as feminists are also speaking for you.
And although it is your luxury to define what feminism means to you, it is the most active, powerful and visible members of feminism that get to define what feminism means to the rest of the world. You can't revoke their membership (it's a self-applied label), and they hold the political reins of your movement. There is no way for you to kick them out. The only way to unequivocally dissociate yourself and your beliefs from them and their beliefs (and the harm they do) is by calling yourself something different.
Comment by Langland88 at 31/01/2025 at 03:15 UTC
33 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Thank you very much for posting this. I am glad you are addressing this especially after all the commotion that happened here last week. Although I have my doubts if any Feminists are willing to have a discussion about anything you addressed. Even that "No True Scotsman" fallacy is something they struggle to even address when it's brought up elsewhere like in the various Male Advocacy Subreddits. I would also argue that in a lot of ways, the Feminist movement even harms women and women's rights without many Feminists actually realizing it too.
Comment by Sleeksnail at 01/02/2025 at 03:27 UTC
9 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Feminist critique has proven itself to be unable to contend with reality. At best it's cartoonish, at worst it's outright fascist.
Judith Butler > Sally Gearhart
Comment by silverionmox at 31/01/2025 at 12:59 UTC
10 upvotes, 0 direct replies
As an aside, part of the underlying beliefs is that all gender differences are caused by gender roles, which are imposed by the patriarchy. This explains the position of TERFs: the existence of people who *want* to live a gender role based on their biology disproves this idea of strictly ideology-based gender roles.
Comment by theoscribe at 02/02/2025 at 11:04 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I agree with you. It's just hard on my heart.
Many self proclaimed feminists I was familiar with in the past took feminism to literally mean gender equality, and acted accordingly with these beliefs including being against misandry, and I still want to believe that this is true feminism, but then I'd be falling for the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.
Feminism is a name, that people can use to do good or bad things with, including advocating for or against true gender equality.
Comment by DontFuckWithMyMoney at 31/01/2025 at 22:50 UTC
-16 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Lol this is straight loser shit. You're pathetic.
Comment by Soulcontusion at 01/02/2025 at 08:57 UTC
-8 upvotes, 1 direct replies
While I agree that modern feminism is toxic and regressive. Many of your gripes are issues that long preceded feminism formed within the institutions of men. Feminism didn't cause many of these things but can exasperate them. I will approach my egalitarianism like I always have, by calling out inequities and double standards as well as encouraging any movement that strives to do the same.