No Sir I just don't like it

[Sci-Fi]

You are correct, Religious discussion is allowed here, Religious Debate is not allowed. Sadly though discussions often turn into debates.

 

[SofiasMami]

I haven't seen anything on this thread that bashes men or paints "those" men with broad brush strokes, yet this thread seems to be jumping all over women. There are thousands of websites that bash and generalize women, if that's your preference, why don't you go there and comment to your heart's content? You do know there are women on this forum, right?

 

[Paraiyar]

I haven't seen anything on this thread that bashes men or paints "those" men with broad brush strokes, yet this thread seems to be jumping all over women. There are thousands of websites that bash and generalize women, if that's your preference, why don't you go there and comment to your heart's content? You do know there are women on this forum, right?

I disagree, I think there is maybe one post in this entire thread that could possibly be interpretated that way and that was from someone whose consistently been negative about everything.

 

[Sci-Fi]

I haven't seen anything on this thread that bashes men or paints "those" men with broad brush strokes, yet this thread seems to be jumping all over women. There are thousands of websites that bash and generalize women, if that's your preference, why don't you go there and comment to your heart's content? You do know there are women on this forum, right?

I don't know what thread you are reading, but if you are just trying to start something, don't.

 

[reynard_muldrake]

I haven't seen anything on this thread that bashes men or paints "those" men with broad brush strokes, yet this thread seems to be jumping all over women. There are thousands of websites that bash and generalize women, if that's your preference, why don't you go there and comment to your heart's content? You do know there are women on this forum, right?

Op
I don't know what thread you are reading, but if you are just trying to start something, don't.

...did you miss the posts about "bitter feminists"? SofiasMami's comment was not without merit, so it's strange to see her accused of starting something.

 

[VanillaCreme]

...did you miss the posts about "bitter feminists"? SofiasMami's comment was not without merit, so it's strange to see her accused of starting something.

She wasn't accused of it. So if you are trying to start something, don't.

 

[user 115627]

Maybe we shouldn't conflate feminists with all womankind for the remainder of this discussion. A fine distinction bleed_the_freak surely had in mind as well.

 

[AmytheTemperamental]

^ +1

 

[reynard_muldrake]

...did you miss the posts about "bitter feminists"? SofiasMami's comment was not without merit, so it's strange to see her accused of starting something.

She wasn't accused of it. So if you are trying to start something, don't.

Uh, that's on you if you think I was causing trouble. There was nothing in SofiasMami's post that indicated she was looking for an argument. Last time I checked, it was perfectly fine to post an honest opinion on here, which is what she did.

 

[Sci-Fi]

I haven't seen anything on this thread that bashes men or paints "those" men with broad brush strokes, yet this thread seems to be jumping all over women. There are thousands of websites that bash and generalize women, if that's your preference, why don't you go there and comment to your heart's content? You do know there are women on this forum, right?

Op
I don't know what thread you are reading, but if you are just trying to start something, don't.

...did you miss the posts about "bitter feminists"? SofiasMami's comment was not without merit, so it's strange to see her accused of starting something.

I did not miss it, I saw that ONE post. I was responding to her accusations of her claims that the thread is jumping all over women, there was ONE post out of 41 posts that had been made before she made her comment. So yeah, I am suspect of her trying to start something when accusing other posters of jumping all over women when it was ONE person in ONE post. And I did NOT accuse her of anything, if you read my post properly I said IF. There is only suspicion NOT accusation. Read a post properly before you want to launch an attack.
Thanks

 

[Paraiyar]

I haven't seen anything on this thread that bashes men or paints "those" men with broad brush strokes, yet this thread seems to be jumping all over women. There are thousands of websites that bash and generalize women, if that's your preference, why don't you go there and comment to your heart's content? You do know there are women on this forum, right?

Op
I don't know what thread you are reading, but if you are just trying to start something, don't.

...did you miss the posts about "bitter feminists"? SofiasMami's comment was not without merit, so it's strange to see her accused of starting something.

Since when did the word Feminist become synonymous with the word women? The irony of this is that some of the most prominent anti-feminists are women, Karen Straughan, Christina Hoff Sommers, Shoe0nhead and Lauren Southern are examples.

And how does it not come across as bitter to slam an entire gender like Feminists (and a lot of MRAs for that matter) do all the time?

The only post here that might be seen as negative towards women was Menorahman's to be honest.

 

[bleed_the_freak]

The cognitive dissonance around this thread is palpable! Holy guacamole!

 

[dokidoki]

The cognitive dissonance around this thread is palpable! Holy guacamole!

I learnt a new term today!

 

[Restless soul]

Yes. It's good to know we have smart educated people here.
Hopefully he can comment on my threads and give me some insight into my sick and twisted thinking

 

[ardour]

Since when did the word Feminist become synonymous with the word women? The irony of this is that some of the most prominent anti-feminists are women, Karen Straughan, Christina Hoff Sommers, Shoe0nhead and Lauren Southern are examples.

"Honey badgers" ie. women who latch on to the manosphere and ape the rhetoric. Or else they're from libertarian/conservative think tanks.

 

[Paraiyar]

Since when did the word Feminist become synonymous with the word women? The irony of this is that some of the most prominent anti-feminists are women, Karen Straughan, Christina Hoff Sommers, Shoe0nhead and Lauren Southern are examples.

"Honey badgers" ie. women who latch on to the manosphere and ape the rhetoric. Or else they're from libertarian/conservative think tanks.

*Shrugs* I actually think that most of the women I cited are leaders in their own right. Shoe and Sommers are actually quite Left leaning and I wouldn't call them MRA's either.

 

[user 115627]

Since when did the word Feminist become synonymous with the word women? The irony of this is that some of the most prominent anti-feminists are women, Karen Straughan, Christina Hoff Sommers, Shoe0nhead and Lauren Southern are examples.

"Honey badgers" ie. women who latch on to the manosphere and ape the rhetoric. Or else they're from libertarian/conservative think tanks.

*Shrugs* I actually think that most of the women I cited are leaders in their own right. Shoe and Sommers are actually quite Left leaning and I wouldn't call them MRA's either.

Let me unravel this quickly, Paraiyar.

Karen Straughan is the most prominent (female) MRA but she calls herself an anti-feminist foremost.
Christina Hoff Sommers is not an anti-feminist, even if she criticizes third-wave feminism and is not looked upon kindly by contemporary feminists. If I recall it correctly, she does see merit in the first and second wave.
Shoe0nhead is indeed a left-leaning anti-feminist and has some interactions with the MRM...but is not an MRA. I really wouldn't call her a leader for YouTube popularity alone.
Lauren Southern is libertarian (which is by definition actually right, not left-leaning) anti-feminist, but not an MRA.

Thing is, Anti-feminism includes MRAs which advocate for progressive legislation as much as traditional conservatives who want to turn the clock back to the 1950s.

And ardour, did you imply that all of these women are so-called "Honeybadgers" by virtue of opposing feminism and talking about men's rights from time to time? Because only one of them belongs to the actual Honey Badger Brigade.

 

[ardour]

Well you're right, they aren't, but it seems like three of those people I've come across preach to the MRA choir over youtube for the sake of subscribers, attention, or belonging. Members of the opposite *** brought in to give those viewpoints more credibility. I don't know what their exact motivation is but I don't think they're all that sincere. These are blinkered one-sided opinions anyway, and there's already too much of that about.

And the manosphere seems to be getting more extreme; they'd occasionally make some valid sounding criticisms of feminism, or offer some worthwhile analysis of masculinity and disposablity, its affects on men and how women can be complicit; now it's just blanket attacking women and anybody on the left.

 

[user 115627]

Well you're right, they aren't,  but it seems like three of those people I've come across preach to the MRA choir over youtube for the sake of subscribers, attention, or belonging. Members of the opposite *** brought in to give those viewpoints more credibility.  I don't know what their exact motivation is but I don't think they're all that sincere. These are blinkered one-sided opinions anyway, and there's already too much of that about.

And the manosphere seems to be getting more  extreme; they'd occasionally make some valid sounding criticisms  of feminism, or offer some worthwhile analysis of masculinity and disposablity, its affects on men and how women can be complicit; now it's just blanket attacking women and anybody on the left.

I assume the one you think isn't preaching to the "MRA choir" is Christina Hoff Sommers, but feel free to correct me on this. I have no problem with these people spreading their message on YouTube, but I wouldn't call anyone a genuine activist if they don't go beyond Youtube. With that in mind, the audience of these four people is not limited to MRAs and there is little point in preaching to this minority anyway. You will find much more regular anti-feminists or anti-SJWs who have no ties to or interest in the MRM. Or simply think they are exactly the same as feminists. Furthermore, you will find equal or more MGTOWs, PUAs, "Masculinists", redpillers or just frustrated men among the listeners of the actual manosphere people...and they all disagree with one another on certain points. After all, the manosphere is not a monolith either.

I don't profess to know what the motivations of these people are, but it's a simple fact that the livelihood of some of them depends on their audience which is the same on the other side of the debate. I don't think they had to be "brought in" though since they have a mind of their own. I don't think it's their job to present all sides of the debate either. It is very much appreciated if they actually do so, but I look for moderate or opposing viewpoints and sources myself if I want to form my opinion.

I agree that members of the opposite *** do give more credibility to this specific viewpoint - a factor some even point out and are aware of. Hell, they even have an underlying concept for it. I should add though that if they just wanted subscribers, attention and belonging (and money for that matter) they could've and should've chosen something more mainstream and palatable.

PS: I hope this counts as a mere clarification, not hijacking. For further discussion, we could have a seperate thread (...that doesn't end up in a gender war).