| CollegeHighway.com Login |
| Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name. |
| Trippin? |
 |
| Check Yourself |
 |
| Ephemerids |
One Day like Today...
|
| Welcome |
| You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here. |
 |
|
| Home / College Guide / Victimatus virtus non est - Ban women from public gyms. |
| Posted on Thursday, May 08 @ 00:00:26 PDT |
Ban women from public gyms.
Or just make gyms for only women and only men.
the story of tatsuya ishida is truly tragic because i can believe the guy startd from a genuine place of wanting to engage with feminism
the problem is that the framing of it was inherently conspiratorial and tinged with a heavy dose of guilt and self loathing
and that is just not a good foundation upon which to build a sane ideology and understanding of the world and so inevitably went from that, though this
and it ended up leading to this:
he is like the textbook case of the radfem to fascist pipeline. because the guy has been making comics every day for decades in here we have a perfect, methodical and granular dissection of how the process happens.
it truly is a tragedy
you act like this was some particular mistake he made, to do feminism uniquely wrong, that it was conspiratorial and filled with guilt and self loathing
this is without any doubt the mainstream feminist message and feminist model
i mean,i ascribe to many of those ideas in the very first comic (obviously with a much more nuanced perspective) and as far as im aware i did not end up as a nazi or a terf and the same goes for many of my close friends and relatives irl so clearly that is not the case
obviously its not a universal thing but everything that drove him insane is right there at feminisms ideological core.
people can and do ignore those implications, but those who connect all the dots become TERFs.
the ideological core of there are structural social forces that put people at a disadvantage because of their gender/sexual characteristics and enforces rigid social roles leads inevitably to the jews secretly control the world and the white race is superior?
im guessing you are going to disagree that what i descrived is the ideological core of feminism and if so, fair enough, although im not sure how we are going to determine what the true core of feminism is. you will probably point at specific historical texts, or specific writings of iconic feminist thinkers or perhaps the historical actions of specific feminist groups? am i right in this?
you said you subscribed to the ideas in the first comic, as a feminist
the ideas in the first comic are a paranoid all-encompassing conspiracy of malice wherein a group of powerful people, motivated by the desire to hurt others, have tricked the entire world into reinforcing their scheme. the scheme is infinitely present and infinitely subtle. anyone who does not know about it is its stooge.
yeah, theres not a whole lot of steps in between that and becoming a nazi conspiracy theorist, and thats just the comic you looked at and said you agree with.
no2 youre going to say well when I said I agree with it with some more nuance I really meant I only agreed with the general vibe of not liking sexism and hadnt really thought about the actual specifics of what it said which is how the entire process works
youre right! i did say with more nuance.
the comic, as presented, shows, albeit in a sensationalist and overtly simplified way, a system that impregnates society and in which we are all inadvertedly participants of by virtue of having been raised in said society. this core idea of the comic i dont find super objectionable.
the hyperbolic way in which is shown and the vague gestures at it being a deliberate conspiracy (by driving a direct comparison to the matrix) i do find objectionable.
if you think my original statement of with more nuance didnt properly convey the full breadth of my thoughts on the matter then i hope this clarified it
right so you agreed with the general vibe and not the actual specific things it said. because those were not like minor fringe elements that could be excluded, the intentionality and all-encompassing nature and malice toward women it supposes are absolutely the entire point of what its saying. you saw it said feminist-shaped things and said oh right it must be pretty good and now youre bending over backwards to interpret it, because feminism is always definitionally correct and good and therefore any feminist message must be mostly correct and just theres a couple of exaggerations to it.
i think you are trying to read my mind way more than its warranted. this self assurance that you can tell wether my interpretations are motivated by delusion or by fanatic attachment to an idea makes you no different from tatsuya himself.
i told you already how i read it, disagree with my read if you want and argue your disagreement based on elements on the comic itself, not on some attempt to guess why i read it this or that way.
ill state it once again, i believe this comic came from a potentially genuine place of wanting to engage with the ideology of feminism but it ended up being a childish and oversimplistic understanding of it. i believe it was tinged by his natural predisposition towards conspiratory thinking, i said this in my first post. im not even making a statement about feminism qua feminism here, im making a statement about the author. about what i believe he intended to put in the comic, and with the parts of it that i agree and the parts of it i disagree.
my read of the comic came from a tendency i have towards charitability and to try to see the best in people, not to some mindless attachment towards feminism which is not even that strong to begin with. you can believe me or you can believe im still trying to deny the truth of why i read it this or that way to protect my ego or whatever.
is not like i can prove it to you one way or the other.
I believe you are being extremely, extremely overcharitable to feminism in a way that matches an observed pattern of how people treat feminism. The only thing that the comic says thats unobjectionable is some kind of sexism exists, and every other part of it is a deeply paranoid conspiracy fantasy. Theres no additional paranoia layered on top of it; Patriarchy theory is a deeply paranoid conspiracy fantasy, yet is uncontroversially accepted among feminists. At the time this was released, feminists praised this as being an accurate portrayal of reality, and gloated about how upset it made men.
You looked at this deeply paranoid conspiracy fantasy and said I mostly agree with this, and this matches the observed tendency of feminists to look at deeply paranoid or deeply hateful or deeply sexist feminist thought, and then say Well, it says sexism is real, so its mostly accurate, theres just a bit more nuance. Feminism is good at its core. I surmised you were doing this; I suppose it could be for another reason, but those would be less charitable of me to assume.
Its normally good to be charitable, and good to believe in an abstract idea of equality, but the behavior I have observed with feminism is that charity is wildly, ludicroudly overextended and the abstract concept of equality is given priority over the actual things feminists believe, say, and do.
I see that feminists are allowed to get away with so much more than anyone else because of this observed tendency to see feminists being monstrous, and people to mentally discount well feminism is good at its core so this doesnt really count. Since feminists dont see the actual insanity there, they dont see how feminism lays out a radfem to fash pipeline with helpful directional arrows and a map and those people-treadmills like at the airport.
People often say the bad feminists are the ones who take it too far. I dont know if this includes you, but it is a very common viewpoint. From where Im sitting, this means the precepts and worldview of feminism lead you to be an absolute monster if you follow them to their conclusion, and most of us just make unprincipled exceptions and assume everyone else is doing the same. That is the thing Im gesturing to. The paranoia in that patriarchy comic is not something Ishida added in, it is what feminist theory says.
Sorry, are you seriously saying that TERF feminism is a pure, undiluted version of modern ideas of feminism and that TERFs and modern intersectional feminists are cut from the same cloth, one’s just more consistent?
That is not the mic drop you think it is
Yes, I do.
The core ideas of feminism, about how threatening men are to women and about how precious womanhood is, just cant accommodate trans women. TERFs see trans women as men, and despise men and see them as innately threatening.
And TERFs are named for their trans exclusionary stance and not their absolutely vile hatred of men, because feminism cannot notice hatred of men, much less object. Every intersectional feminist response to TERFism is about how trans women are women and thus deserve to be protected by the sacredness of womanhood, and not what the fuck, why do you think that men are so threatening that the only reason theyd be women is to threaten women or why the fuck do you think womanhood can be stolen or symbolically harmed because feminism doesnt disagree with those things. It can only attempt to legislate whether trans women should count as women based on an unknowable internal state, instead of the far more sane why the fuck should you care, how does this affect anyone.
Feminism also has to view womanhood as sacred and virtuous despite the fact that gender is a thing men inflict upon women in order to harm women. The idea that someone could want to become a woman cant fit this world-model.
Someone who has male privilege cannot know what womanhood is, feminism has to hold that the experience of womanhood is completely unknowable to men. TERFs are consistent in saying that someone who was born a man and lived as a man cannot have womanhood, while intersectional feminists have to come up with nonsensical statements like trans women never had a male upbringing and never were treated as men despite the world misgendering them. A trans woman, born as a male and subject to circumcision, is a victim of female genital mutilation and shows how our society disregards the bodily integrity of women. They cant let go of this sacred symbolic concept of womanhood as victimhood.
Yes, I know youre going to say Feminists dont believe those things! Those people Arent Real Feminists! because every feminist who gets revealed to be hateful suddenly Arent Real Feminists. Except A: isnt a massive and load-bearing part of feminism the idea that people can hold hateful beliefs without being aware of them, and B: why should I look to you for the definition of Real Feminism, as opposed to looking at the people who command all of the social and political power of feminism and face no opposition from the social and political power of feminism?
Feminism as a whole doesn’t believe that all men are inherently dangerous
Only the worst TERFs genuinely believe that
And open man hating does get called out and disavowed in mainstream feminism, a lot actually
Tell me you haven’t read theory without telling me you haven’t read theory
Pardon me, but the only reason terfs were allowed to get that bad is because their rampant man hatred, or outright misandry was ignored, even when it directed policy at the higher levels of the movement.
They got like that because you heard them saying insanely hateful shit about men and nodded your head.
Or you simply didnt know they existed because your engagement with feminism was actually alot smaller than some of us.
We remember Schrodingers rapist, and the m&m comparison, and we even have it now with the man in the woods or the bear in the woods. The trend has been consistent since the 70s. At a certain point when you are reading theory dont hide the conclusions from yourself. Simply look at them logically and ask yourself is this conclusion justified by what I have read. For example patriarchy theory, a theory that men have conspired to control women since the beginning of time and throughout all of history have use their power and influence either through strength or eventually through traditional systems to control women for the sake of men. Furthermore claiming that all of the evils of this world are caused by this patriarch from war, corruption, rape, genocide, violence, and oppression.
At a certain point one cannot conclude anything other than misandry as a necessary and righteous reaction to patriarchy. This is why your movement allowed it to fester so much that it created terfs.
Each and every last of them justify their transphobia through misandry.
And all of this btw overlaps rather nicely with ideas of an internationalist jewish conspiracy. Because men in patriarchy are described like jews in that conspiracy theory, as are the bourgeoisie by marxist theories. Because the conspiracy theory has more commonality than you might expect.
A singular root that produces the same variation of bitter fruit.
I think you are missing the point of all three thought experiments, which was to make men think about why they would fear all men even though they fundamentally shouldn’t, to the point of preferring to die at the hands (paws?) of a bear attack, because at least then a bear would ONLY kill them, they’d be believed if they survived and the bear would be punished without a second thought
Also, the international Jewish conspiracy comparison? Really? Pretty sure that’s a form of Holocaust inversion
But this is still man hate. This is still you saying men are inherently evil and it is perfectly fine for women to see them as vicious animals. As a man I thought about these thought experiments and realised feminists are bullshit misogynists.
Also side note but remember the bowl of skittles? Remember when someone made the same argument but with immigrants? And feminists called it a bullshit test?
As for the bear I have 2 questions.
1. If death is preferable to all the things that a man can cause then kill yourself. If youd rather be dead then deal with trauma then do it. Or are you lieing?
2. Women are so believed about rape accusations that even when its proven by a corrupt court, in her favor, it didnt happen Feminists will give her an award for her bravery. Or does no one remember Matress Girl?
1. Well you definitely failed the empathy test if your first response to women telling you “we’d rather be mauled to death by a bear than run the risk of much worse being done by a man” is to accuse us of lying or misandry, or to tell us to kill ourselves. Well done on proving the need for feminism by doing that as it is yet more male denial of how their actions or words might legitimise rape culture
2. Those cases of corrupt courts believing women to the very end regardless of the truth are massively publicised exceptions that prove the rule, these things are so fucking rare that I’d be unironically surprised if anyone REMEMBERS Mattress Girl
So... @brazenautomaton says TERFs are named for their trans exclusion. They are! That is true!
Thats two letters. What do the other two stand for?
Radical Feminists. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, thats the whole acronym.
If youre arguing that radfems have lost the plot, no argument here. But like. You (and @khorneschosen and @mylibertarianblog2) do understand that there is much more to feminism, and many more strains of feminism, than the particular group called radical feminism... right?
R-right??
Like, if youre going out in public and speaking this confidently about what feminism is and isnt, arguing with actual feminists about it, SURELY youve read enough theory to distinguish between radical feminism, liberal feminism, intersectional feminism, lipstick feminism, third-wave feminism, etc... right? Because otherwise you wouldnt be out here claiming so boldly that you can definitively explain what feminism is and isnt?
You know, for instance, that the idea of women as pure and innocent angels who can do no wrong, while men are always the evil predators who hurt women... you know thats specifically a radfem concept, right? That MOST schools of feminism reject that idea? You understand that while yes, just about all schools of feminism believe in the concept of the patriarchy, most non-radfems understand it as a societal system that hurts everyone, men included? That we welcome men as allies, that we believe that dismantling a system that holds one specific ideal of masculinity up as the ideal everyone should aspire to, and which claims that anyone who doesnt meet that standard is less valuable, would benefit everyone?
You understand that intersectional feminism and other Black and post-colonial schools of feminism have extensively explored the concept of how factors other than sex/gender affect privilege and oppression? How, for instance, a Black mans gender privilege and a white womans racial privilege can interact in complicated and not-easily-categorized ways, and yet as feminists we MUST grapple with it and try to understand all those intersections, lest we do more harm than good?
You understand the difficulties and tensions deriving from lipstick or choice feminism? The paradox that some women, when given a choice, will choose to conform to societal expectations, to wear makeup and skirts and be mothers and housewives? The debate that rages to this day over whether such a choice, in the society we live in, can ever truly be freely made? If we are being pressured and manipulated by the expectations around us, would we even know? And yet, if we dont let women choose to conform, arent we also denying them agency and infantilizing them, acting as if they cant make their own choices? Its a debate with no easy answer, and it continues to this day.
Youve seen, presumably, the deep scrutiny things like the bear question and the m&m scenario have been subjected to in feminist circles? The arguments? You were there for the Not All Men/Yes All Women movement? The furious arguments as we tried to strike a balance that encompassed both a) that every one of us has had at least one experience that gives us cause for fear or at least caution, but also b) that one man does not and should not carry the blame for what another man did? You were there for the discussions of where the line was drawn between protecting yourself vs demonizing a stranger?
Because if not, if any of this, ANY of it, is news to you... you may not have the requisite background knowledge to be talking about what feminism is or isnt.
Imma close with an anecdote. 12 years ago, I gave birth. Now, if youve never done this or been a partner to someone who has, you may not know this, but: even today, even with all the advances of modern medicine, there is still a question that must be asked before each birth.
The question is: if everything goes wrong, if its a worst-case-scenario, if the doctors can save only one... who should they save? The mother or the child?
My husband had a conversation with his mother and grandmother, and this question came up.
Both women were feminists. They disageed, vehemently, on the answer.
His grandmother, you see, grew up in an age where doctors wouldnt even ask. They would save the child and let the mother die. Feminists of her era were quite literally fighting for their lives, among other things; for the right to be seen as full human beings worth saving, not just vessels to bring a new life into the world. To her, the answer was obvious: save the mother. An existing, established life is worth more than a potential life. To even ask, to even doubt that that was the correct answer, was a hideous disregard for the lives of women. If he truly cared about me, if he saw me as an equal worthy of respect, he would tell the doctors that my life came first, period.
His mother, however, told him: the choice isnt yours. Ask your wife. See what SHE wants. Because in HER day, the fight had changed. Women werent expected to martyr themselves for their families as a matter of course, but they absolutely were talked over and treated like children as their husbands and fathers and brothers made important decisions for them. To her, acknowledging a womans agency was key. It was my life at stake, after all; the choice should be mine.
No one else had a right to make it for me.
Two different eras, two different schools of thought, two different answers. Both feminist. Both steeped in the ideals of feminism.
If you are trying to say, definitively, this is what feminism is, youre almost certainly going to be wrong. Yes, all feminism STARTS with the radical notion that women are people, but then branches in many different directions. Mistaking one branch for the whole will have you throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
He does realise it, @brazenautomaton’s argument is that TERFism isn’t a niche brand of man hating feminism, it’s all feminism
*nods* theyre still trying to explain feminism to me. Like yes please explain to me more about the movement Ive been part of for decades and you havent, Im sure your thoughts are insightful and true and so so useful *eyeroll*
How can you observe that feminism is hypocritical and has a worldview thats hopelessly mired in bias? Im a feminist, I think I would know if I had a bias that kept me from seeing things accurately! Feminism is definitionally good, obviously anyone observing feminisms behavior cant possibly have seen anything worthwhile!
how pathetic are you guys really?
You do realize that this kind of shit is a non-issue, right?
No one gives a fuck.
No one outside of tumblr anyway.
The only arguments about this happen here or some other pathetic corner of the Internet. Not in real life. Unless someone from tumblr goes out into society and can’t discern the difference between real and make believe and starts some shit.
Who gives a fuck if guys sit with their legs open? If it’s rude, it’s rude. But people need to get over it and stop having ridiculous debates over it that goes on for months.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/02/war-on-men-first-arrests-for-manspreading-on-new-york-subway/
http://www.askmen.com/news/entertainment/san-francisco-passes-100-fine-for-manspreading-and-seat-hogging.html
this has leaked into real peoples lives and its literally hurting men because some stupid bitches on tumblr needed something to complain about and it went way too far outta hand. this is some class A bullshit. This needs to be addressed and it needs to be stopped.
Don’t forget about the $80k NYC campaign lobbied by feminist groups and paid for by the government aka your tax dollars at work because some women are uncomfortable with a man’s natural sitting position.
Tax dollars that could go towards…idk free public college? Health care? homelessness? starvation? I mean seriously lmao
How entitled does someone have to be to tell men how to sit and demand the government foot the bill?
You’d have to be a feminist
The question of whether feminism is a “hate movement”… It would be an exaggeration to say that feminism is based on hate, although that element does exist and is not insignificant.
I would say, however, that a large majority of feminist thought, rhetoric and activism is based on prejudice against men – just about every feminist explanation for male behaviour assumes the worst imaginable motivation, and as recent spree shootings demonstrate, feminists leap first to maleness as an explanation of evil. As a man, supporting feminism is rather like staying in an abusive relationship, where you’re constantly in the doghouse and in the wrong whatever you do (from the Good Men Project to mainstream feminism), and occasionally she’ll go at you with a kitchen knife (Marcotte to the radfems).
Well knock my socks off, I was browsing “feminism” in Google News to see if there was anything worth talking about not called The Golden Globes or Manslamming,
and hey! I found a really good article!
It’s called “6 Things that Don’t Make You a Bad Feminist (No Matter What Anyone Says)”, by Kat George,
and it is really, really on point! It’s completely true that letting a man pay for you once in a while doesn’t necessarily make you a bad feminist. It is completely true that if you enjoy doing domestic chores, that doesn’t necessarily make you a bad feminist. And most importantly, it is completely true that disagreeing with other feminists on certain points actually makes you a better feminist.
I applaud Kat George for writing that article, and Bustle for running it. I hope we can see more articles like it in 2015.
Unfortunately, not everybody agrees with me on that point. Take the founder of Feminist Current, Meghan Murphy, for example.
I know I said after my previous encounter with Feminist Current that I was going to leave them alone, because they were so radical that they were clearly beyond all reason,
but Murphy expresses an idea in her article that is so damaging, so toxic to modern feminism, that I just had to bring it to everybody’s attention.
You can read Meghan Murphy’s rebuttal here.
6 things you don’t understand about feminism that you should probably learn before writing about feminism
Here we go again…
Hang on.
1) There is no such thing as a “good” or “bad” feminist. That’s not how it works.
So, she’s saying it’s impossible for anyone to do feminism wrong. Which explains why this same website said a feminist publicly laughing and singing about how she doesn’t care about male suicide at the same protest where she was claiming feminism helps men was just taken out of context.
Please note that they don’t actually say what the context was.
They just handwave it as an “edited video” and move on.
Everyone, please read General’s post. And here’s a backup, just in case something happens.
Pssh… considering the radical Feminists are the voice for the Feminist platform; TOO many Feminists say shit like this ALL THE TIME!
I’m sorry, “radical feminist?” There’s no such thing. some people think that men can’t be victims of sexual assault or…
Sir, you are being mocked: Male victims of sexual assault and domestic violence shouldnt get any prevention funding, and also men should have no...
You’ve brought up a lot of valid points that I completely agree with, and but the problem I have with this is that you have misinterpreted what feminism is.
Do tell.
1) feminism is not a dominant part of our society,
I’m sorry, did you not notice me pointing out feminists basically created and passed a law? Not that any of the points I made rely on feminism being dominant, which is a bit of a goalpost move.
if it was then there wouldn’t be so many misconceptions about it.
There’s also the possibility they weren’t misconceptions. Interesting circular logic you’ve got there.
There are lots of dominant parts of society people have completely wrong ideas about.
For example, George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree, Napoleon wasn’t particularly short, and there’s strong evidence as many men are raped as women.
Feminism started off being about equality between men and women,
No. Nope. Nuh-uh.
First-wave through second-wave feminism were extremely misandric and radical, and worked for the benefit of women. Third wave somewhat less so, fourth wave even less. Pop quiz; if feminism was always about equality for the genders, why does it almost never talk about men’s problems?
http://permutationofninjas.tumblr.com/post/21540906215/ten-reasons-to-oppose-feminism
http://permutationofninjas.tumblr.com/post/28585388413/why-i-am-not-a-feminist
and has grown into being about equality FOR EVERYONE, which brings me to 2) anyone that says that men can’t get raped or that women can’t rape IS NOT A FEMINIST, they’re the complete opposite.
You remember Animal Farm? You remember how the pigs screwed over everyone who wasn’t a pig, even Snowball, while claiming all the while that it was for the benefit of all the animals?
It’s not what people say they are that matters. It’s what they do.
Feminism and feminists in general are misandrist.
Many feminists actively say that men shouldn’t talk about their problems in feminist spaces.
Do you really think that if feminism was properly serving men, that MRAs (which have their own problems) would need a seperate movement? Because many of the points MRAs commonly make are the exact same ones I just did.
The reason that some assholes think that men can’t get raped or beaten by women is because we live in a patriarchal society that says women are the weaker sex, which isn’t true.
Physically, women are generally weaker then men. Thing is, there’s been an increase in date rape” over the past few years, which doesn’t really require physical strength. This should’ve led to awareness of increased rape risk for everyone, yet it did pretty much only for women.
In fact, there was a feminist campaign, called “Rape is Rape”, to make the FBI change their rape definition from “forcible sex with a woman”. They did, and said men can be raped. By penetration, not envelopment. Feminists hailed this as a victory for women and men, and said barely a peep about the envelopment thing. And, gosh, isn’t it odd how the crimes feminists talk about the most are the same ones that women predominantly suffer?
As for the lack of male rape and abuse shelters, I completely agree with you.
I think the way we go about the wrong way treating rape victims of all genders, women are blamed for their rapes and male rape has always been ridiculed and seen as a joke, which is wrong. Anyone that argues against that isn’t a feminist. And while I do agree that the Violence Against Women Act should be more gender neutral, saying that we should have the one the GOP suggested is a bit ridiculous, considering that it would still be discriminating and putting people in danger simply because they’re undocumented citizens (who have the right to be here as much as we do)
The question of immigrant rights is a separate question. You’ll note that none of the negative criticism of the GOP version mentioned the gender-neutral language, at least none I found.
Also, you didn’t address my point about the definition of rape culture. The vast majority of the time, it defines rape as something that only men do to women. This isn’t a few isolated feminists, or even just radfem hub. This is one of feminism’s most dearly held beliefs. One of the most popular concepts in feminism, possibly second only to the idea that The Patriarchy necessarily oppresses women, is misandrist.
You can’t keep crying NAFALT.
If these people say they’re feminists, and they’re not working for equality, then feminism is not working for equality, no matter what it claims to represent. In fact, just go on any mainstream feminist website and try to talk about men. Then go back and do it again with a masculine username, and look how the treatment of you changes. Your No True Feminist would eliminate the vast majority of people calling themselves feminists. VAWA was openly sexist, and was widely supported by both feminists and “the Patriarchy”. You can major in Women’s and Gender Studies.
In fact, don’t waste time talking to me. Check out the [#male tears](https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/male+tears) and [#misandry](https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/misandry) and [#kill all men tags](https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/kill%20all%20men), and start telling anyone who mocks the pain of men and says that they’re a feminist that they’re wrong. There is a popular tumblr for mocking the idea that misandry is real, [in haiku](http://misandryinhaiku.tumblr.com/). Or you could take a gander at Jennifer Swag, who has explicitly said, on multiple occasions, [that her misandry and that of other feminists](http://jenniferswag.
tumblr.com/tagged/misandry) is [“just a joke” and real misandrists have no power](http://jenniferswag.tumblr.com/post/36872819050/when-i-see-the-term-misandrist-i-dont-know-whether). Oddly enough, she kept saying that even after[ learning that her Gender Studies class was being taught by a woman who literally wanted to kill all men](http://jenniferswag.tumblr.com/post/37251788675/i-met-an-actual-feminazi). The administration knew about it, but they couldn’t fire her. Tenure. Oddly enough, she didn’t seem much concerned with how the teacher’s bias would affect the course. [Here’s an actual feminist](http://sugarspill.tumblr.com/post/30523288887/on-domestic-violence) saying that she assumed, as a feminist, that the abusive noises she was hearing from her downstairs neighbours was the man abusing a woman. Tell her that she’s not a feminist. Tell her that she doesn’t understand what feminism is.
Please, I dare you to put your money where your mouth is and tell them they aren’t real feminists, [otherwise you lose any moral right to complain when people think they are](http://permutationofninjas.tumblr.com/post/39800212440/why-we-cant-judge-feminism-by-its-radicals-or-can).
Heck, [PON even supplied a list of suggestions for expelling radicals](http://permutationofninjas.tumblr.com/post/38503693707/expelling-radicals-a-guide-for-feminists).
[Here are some feminists protesting a speaker about men’s problems, based on the incorrect assumption that he’s a rape and incest apologist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0). Find any feminists at all who called their behaviour out, on their own, not in a response to someone else. [Here’s the actual speech he made, by the way](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P6w1S8yrFz4#t=3270s). I advise you to look up Dr. Warren Farrell if you want to know more about challenges men face. Incidentally, he was on the board of NOW, and they didn’t have any problem with him whatsoever until he wanted to start addressing men’s problems as well as women’s. [NOW has also opposed joint custody, for reason including, but not limited to, cutting off child support](http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/enews/cv/enews-20120614.html). Good luck finding feminists calling them out for not mentioning how men suffer in the current, biased system of custody.
|
|
| |
|
|
