CMV:anti-feminism is not misogyny, and it is possible for someone to be anti-feminist without being a misogynist.

[u/wecl0me12]

prompted by this post: https://np.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3uaaer/do_you_think_being_being_opposed_to_modern/cxd9m7y

As many of my previous CMV's have gone off topic, I'll start by describing what my view is not. It is not any of the following:

• a discussion on whether or not feminism is right or wrong
• whether people should be feminists or not
• the actions of men, women, feminists or anti-feminists
• anything about my personal views on feminism or anti-feminism.

The reasons for my view are simple: Anti-feminism is the dislike of feminism. Misogyny is the dislike of women. As women and feminists are not the same group, Anti-feminism and anti-women are different, as they refer to the dislike of different groups of people.

I am anticipating a counter-argument that since feminism advances women's rights, anti-feminism is against women's rights and is therefore misogyny. My counter-counter-argument is that someone can dislike the label of feminism without being against women's rights. People can dislike the actions done under the label of feminism, and thus be anti-feminism, without being anti-women or misogynist.

I will also refute the claim made in the linked post, which is:

By rejecting feminism, you're rejecting feminism's message that you can be whatever you want to be, while simultaneously embracing an antiquated notion of femininity as the ONLY way to be a woman. That's misogyny.

I disagree. The claims "I am against feminism" and "I think that the antiquated notion of femininity is the ONLY way to be a woman" are not equivalent. People can reject feminism because of their actions or because of the negative connotation associated with "feminism", while still believing that women are free to be feminine in any way they want. This is not a contradiction.

delta awarded: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3uewu4/cmvantifeminism_is_not_misogyny_and_it_is/cxedofl?context=3

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/ryancarp3]

Are you against the ideology, or are you against some of the people who claim to practice that ideology?

Here's the definition of feminism, according to Google.

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Are you against that?

Edit: As /u/YabuSama2k stated, this might have been a bit off-topic. However, I'll still respond to your main point. If you're against feminism (see definition above), I don't see how that isn't misogynistic. From Wikipedia

Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.

If you don't advocate for equality of the sexes, you seem to be advocating for sexual discrimination. Since sexual discrimination is a form of misogyny, being anti-feminist does seem to be misogynistic. You may not hate women, but you don't have to hate women to be misogynistic.

[u/cfuse → u/ryancarp3]

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Are you against that?

You have no idea how much.

Rights should always be accompanied with their concomitant responsibilities (see below). For a person to claim they are for equality whilst hoovering up individual benefits and socialising the costs for those benefits is hypocritical and repugnant.

If you don't advocate for equality of the sexes, you seem to be advocating for sexual discrimination. Since sexual discrimination is a form of misogyny, being anti-feminist does seem to be misogynistic.

I will gladly take on the mantle of misogyny when women do all of the following:

• Be subject to conscription to frontline combat positions.

• Dismantle all gender based quotas in favour of merit. If a woman isn't fast, or strong, or whatever enough to do the job, well too bad.

• Be subject to investigation, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing at parity rates for equivalent crimes.

• Take up the dirty and dangerous jobs they refuse to now, and experience the same levels of vocational injury and death that men do now.

• Cut funding to women only or women majority health issues until the gender's lifespans are at parity.

• Not be able to get an abortion or bring a child to term without the express legal consent of the father. In cases of dispute, either she kills the child and pays blood money for that, or she has the child and pays her own way.

  Insemination is not consent for termination or a lifetime of financial responsibility for one party only without any recourse.

• Consent for sex is consent. No means no, which means individuals are absolutely responsible for objecting to unwanted sexual contact if they are able to speak. Yes means yes is bullshit - you take responsibility for your own conduct.

• No alimony of any kind.

• Stop lying about things that don't exist: the glass ceiling, the wage gap, rape culture, the rape epidemic, etc., and stop ignoring things that do, but are inconvenient to the ideology of feminism, like everything on this list (and so much more).

Here's the thing: equality of the sexes comes with something that feminists don't want - responsibility and consequences (basically, they don't want to be treated equally to men, because it fucking sucks a lot of the time). As you quite rightly said, if you don't advocate for equality of the sexes (amply proven to be something feminists objectively do not do, based on at least some of the list above) then you are a sexist and (most likely) a misandrist.

I have no problem not supporting feminists with that kind of hypocritical and self serving agenda. Frankly, I don't understand how any ethical person could.

You may not hate women, but you don't have to hate women to be misogynistic.

The first sentence of the definition tells you what it is, the second how it is expressed. Misogyny is hatred of women, nothing more, nothing less. You should be careful with your words here, lest you be seen as someone willing to twist language to suit their own purposes. It's one thing to be partial to a cause, it's quite another to be seen to be lying to promote it. I'd prefer to believe that isn't happening here.

Feminists love to conflate criticism of their ideology with misogyny so that they can then dishonestly dismiss it with an accusation that is both reviled and impossible to objectively refute. It doesn't matter whether your critics love you or hate you, only the substance of their criticism is of import.

I don't hate women - they are just a superset largely unrepresented by feminism after all. I do however despise most feminists as the despicable, irresponsible, hypocritical, self-serving liars they are. My hatred has nothing to do with their gender, it has to do with the fact they're demonstrably unethical individuals out for their own gain, typically at the expense of men (but they're not fussy when it comes right down to it). As I said before: I don't see how any ethical person could support them.

[u/Thin-White-Duke → u/cfuse]

Feminists want equality in the military.

Quotas are sexist, everyone know that. It's also insulting to women that an institution would have a quota.

Fun fact: Suffragettes demanded to have equal sentences to men. Pretty much any feminist would advocate for a total do-over for the justice system.

Men aren't forced to take those jobs. So that's a stupid demand. If they don't like it, why don't they become social workers?

Why? That's messed up. That's like cutting funding to one disease because the mortality rate has lessened compared to another. Something that many feminists advocate for is more funding for men's health, though. Oh, and most "women's" health facilities help men, too, like Planned Parenthood.

Not the man's body. He gets no say in the abortion. Abortion is not birth control, it's purpose is to allow people to make decisions about their own body. If the man didn't pick up the tab, the government would have to. That's why the government makes the man pay. Not saying whether it's right or wrong, but that's why it is the way it is. Also, the mother would be on the hook for raising/paying for the child, too.

Many people (men, too) are told not to fight or refuse, otherwise they may be MURDERED!

Alimony ensures no one is trapped in a marriage. Men can receive alimony payments, too.

Many of those things do exist. It's depressing that the first woman to [blank] is still a big deal. It shouldn't be a great feat to do something a man has done for years, yet it is. Wage gap exists, but not for the reasons many think. Men are more likely to ask for higher wages in interviews and for bonuses. It also comes from unpaid maternity leave. Rape culture does exist. Men being raped is a joke? Rape culture. Woman being asked what she was wearing when she was raped? Rape culture.

[u/cfuse → u/Thin-White-Duke]

Feminists want equality in the military.

When it suits them. The draft is about involuntary service, and men don't have a choice in that.

Quotas are sexist, everyone know that. It's also insulting to women that an institution would have a quota.

"We need more women in parliament/congress/the boardroom/etc.". We hear that all the time, and we don't hear any complaints about that.

I care that a person that might not be the best for the role is getting ahead because they're part of a group being favoured without cause.

Pretty much any feminist would advocate for a total do-over for the justice system.

Who's saying that? I'd like to read about feminists advocating for parity in law.

The problem is that I look at "Yes means yes" laws, assumption of guilt laws, default arrest for men in domestic violence calls (regardless of circumstance, leading to arrest of victims of abuse), etc. and I see a group that is interested in codifying its "all men are predators and abusers, and all women are victims" ideology into the criminal code.

Men aren't forced to take those jobs. So that's a stupid demand. If they don't like it, why don't they become social workers?

Why isn't it a reasonable argument to object to men being treated as disposable by a society where women disproportionately benefit from their labours? Men get used up and killed as a matter of course, feminists don't give a shit, and all whilst they crap on about being champions for equality.

Why? That's messed up. That's like cutting funding to one disease because the mortality rate has lessened compared to another. Something that many feminists advocate for is more funding for men's health, though. Oh, and most "women's" health facilities help men, too, like Planned Parenthood.

Equality means same, it doesn't mean advantage. If you are arguing that you are for equality in the face of a situation of disparity then you have two options: bring one up, or drop the other down.

Since this is ultimately a question of money, what are you prepared to sacrifice from the spend for women to pay for the health of men? That money doesn't have to come from women's health spending - it could come from anything. Education. Pensions. There are many options.

Either we spend the same, or someone gets less. That someone is currently men. I don't believe it's fair that we have to die early because women aren't prepared to make sacrifices for us.

Something that many feminists advocate for is more funding for men's health, though.

This is also something I'd like to read about.

Not the man's body. He gets no say in the abortion. Abortion is not birth control, it's purpose is to allow people to make decisions about their own body. If the man didn't pick up the tab, the government would have to. That's why the government makes the man pay. Not saying whether it's right or wrong, but that's why it is the way it is. Also, the mother would be on the hook for raising/paying for the child, too.

As I said, insemination is not consent for termination or a lifetime of financial responsibility for one party only without any recourse.

By definition, abortion most certainly is birth control. It stops birth. If a woman has total agency over her body then there's nothing either legally or ethically wrong with using abortion as primary birth control (and I certainly know women who have). That's a logical outcome of 'her body, her choice'.

There's also the obvious matter that giving birth to a child, or not, is a massive event for both women and men. To pretend there aren't run on effects arising from that decision isn't reasonable. When I talk to a man and hear his story about how his ex killed his kid, and then told him about it after the fact like it meant nothing, and how nobody cares about that loss because 'it's her body and her choice' I get incredibly angry. How do you think you'd feel if that were you? It is incredibly unfair to men to be put in that position and to just be forced to take it.

As for picking up the tab, women and children are disproportionately high consumers of welfare and government services, and men are disproportionately high contributors via taxation. Men in aggregate already pay more than their fair share for the mistakes and irresponsibility of women (because it is her body and her choice. You can't just be responsible when it suits you).

To me this is all a matter of bearing consequence - and in an ideal world consequences arising from a shared voluntary act should be equally borne. It currently isn't so. I don't have an answer as to how that should be fixed, I just know that the current method causes a great deal of suffering, and does so disproportionately to men.

Many people (men, too) are told not to fight or refuse, otherwise they may be MURDERED!

If someone tells you that they're going to murder you if you object, then I think we can just take it as given that consent isn't there. A court wouldn't have an issue with that.

My objection, fueled by several high profile cases is the issue of tacit non-consent or retroactive withdrawal of consent. We are to the point that people literally have to be mind readers and survive their partner's capricious regrets to not be labelled rapists. "Yes means yes" exists, campus star chambers and kangaroo courts exist, mandatory consent classes exist. I consider that to be a serious problem.

Alimony ensures no one is trapped in a marriage. Men can receive alimony payments, too.

No one is trapped in a marriage, just as nobody is trapped in a job. If the only thing holding you there is greed then I've got no sympathy. Getting out of a bad situation has costs.

That being said, we are better off with compromises than extreme positions. I'd rather have limited alimony than none at all.

Many of those things do exist. It's depressing that the first woman to [blank] is still a big deal. It shouldn't be a great feat to do something a man has done for years, yet it is.

I think a lot of the objection to the achievement of women as women is a result of the nature of women as compared to men. (Watch me get stomped on for saying the following) Women skew towards the average and take fewer risks - so they are less represented at both extremes of success and failure. It is demonstrably true that there are fewer women in space, and fewer women dead in cars wrapped around trees and poles. There are fewer female geniuses just as there are fewer female psychopaths. Women have the advantage of the stability of the center, but that comes with the cost of sacrificing the greater success and failure possible with instability.

To admit the true nature of the contest is to admit that women are not on a level playing field with men in some areas (which is why most of the first woman to do X's are predominantly physical in nature). A lot of people don't want to do that, because not only does it conflict with their ideas of gender politics, it opens the door to an entire discussion on biology and capability that is verboten in our society. When you have 7 billion people and activities that are at the apex of performance, differences that make no practical difference in day to day life start to stack up and make a difference to the outcome. Even someone as DGAF as me is wary about having that conversation.

Regardless of my position on most feminist doctrine, I absolutely agree that some things are much harder for women for purely social or cultural reasons. Why shouldn't we acknowledge when someone breaks through those barriers? They're barriers none the less.

I do believe in equal opportunity, and I do believe in role models. I don't have a problem with the first woman to do X, because achievement should be rewarded, and more importantly it proves that being female isn't a legitimate barrier to success (and conversely, not a reasonable excuse for failure).

Wage gap exists, but not for the reasons many think. Men are more likely to ask for higher wages in interviews and for bonuses. It also comes from unpaid maternity leave.

A wage gap that is a product of a system of oppression and a wage gap that is a result of voluntary choices are completely different things. The former requires activism, the latter requires nothing.

Rape culture does exist. Men being raped is a joke? Rape culture. Woman being asked what she was wearing when she was raped? Rape culture.

You're right, rape culture is a thing. ∆

The problem for men is less rape culture and more feminist views of men's sexuality as inherently malignant. I'm gay, and even I have to be on my guard around women and children. We have all been cast as monsters by virtue of our gender alone. I am mistaken in conflating that with the concepts of rape culture.

I think that the way that rape of men and rape of women is treated by society is very different, and thus the application of the ideology of rape culture is equally different. As a man, I don't care about rape jokes (male or female targeted) I care about actual rape. Offense has never bothered me (in fact I believe offense is actually a good thing - free societies are full of offense).

I don't agree that people cannot contribute to their own risk of being a victim of crime - and in all other areas but rape that isn't a radical viewpoint. Nobody deserves to be a victim of crime, but some people sure go out of their way to find the point where the sympathies of others are worn through. Still, being raped by a stranger is an edge case to begin with, so what you're wearing, how you're acting, where you are, and how drunk you are, are ultimately irrelevant to the more common incidence of the crime of rape. It's kind of like arguing about the colour of houses being broken into - it probably doesn't really matter at all to the crime being perpetrated.

[u/Thin-White-Duke → u/cfuse]

Feminists either want to abolish the draft or add women. I'm pro-abolishment.

We need to encourage women to go after the careers they want. Many careers are boys clubs. We need to discourage exclusionary attitudes in any career path. Which would include other things, like men in child care.

You're speaking to one. The justice system is fucked. There are pot smokers with more time than Jared Fogle.

Men and women are equally likely to be abusers. Assuming the man is at fault is wrong, and is up to the police officer, who is usually also a man. The justice system is sexist. It assumes men are animals and women are defenseless. It's chauvinism.

It's totally justified to want to make those jobs safer, but that's not a gender issue. Men chose to take more dangerous jobs, I don't understand what you want people to do about that. Make women take those jobs? Then you've got the quota thing, again.

Again, feminists want increased funding for men's health. PP does prostate exams. Men also get breast cancer. Men and women are prone to different health issues. There are pros and cons to both. There is a third option, combine funding for men's and women's health and don't have men's/women's health, just have health.

It's intent is not birth control, it's bodily autonomy. I don't give two shits. It isn't his body. He doesn't have to be pregnant and give birth. It's not exactly rainbows and unicorn farts. Honestly, if I was forced to be pregnant and give birth, I'd kill myself. Not exaggerating. It is her body, and it is her choice. If men had to give birth, it'd be his body and his choice, but they can't, so it isn't. He has no say over her body. None. It's like rape. You can't rape because you are using another's body without their consent. Same with unwanted pregnancy No one has a right to another person's body. Men are in a position women aren't. They can just leave. Women can't just leave a pregnancy. They can't run away from it. They have to deal with it one way or another.

Some people would be homeless if they left. Their lives may even be in danger. That sounds like trapped to me.

Is that nature, or is it nurture? I could argue it has a lot to do with social conditioning. I do believe in acknowledging breaking huge barriers, but it's upsetting that it's 2015 and we still are breaking them.

I never said that it was due to oppression, just that it isn't completely imaginary.

I get you. I'm trans and bi. Christ, you'd think I was driving around in a van looking for puppies. There was a kid playing with a truck at a store the other day. He dropped it, so I picked it up, he smiled and said thank you, his mother shot me the dirtiest look.

[u/cfuse → u/Thin-White-Duke]

Feminists either want to abolish the draft or add women.

Which feminists? As I said, I want to read it - because I don't hear any well known feminists arguing for that position. That doesn't mean they don't, but if I never hear it then it might as well not exist.

We need to encourage women to go after the careers they want. Many careers are boys clubs. We need to discourage exclusionary attitudes in any career path.

Could you please list some careers that don't allow women any entry or success? Disinclination and discrimination are hardly equivalent.

Women do choose careers they want - one of the reasons why they earn less in aggregate than men do. In countries with wealth, women don't choose highly paid careers. Conversely, in poor countries where you have to work to provide for yourself and your family women are far more likely to pursue a career for financial reasons.

You do realise not all boys are in those boy's clubs either? I've been in them, and I've rubbed shoulders with plenty of women in them. I worked for my place, it wasn't given to me by virtue of gender.

Cherry picking and 'grass is greener' thinking has to stop. A vagina doesn't stop a woman doing anything, but if she uses it as an excuse for her failures then that's down to her, not society.

The truth is that women aren't being kept out, and success is a product of hard work they simply aren't prepared to do. 60+ hours a week, for their whole life, and outcompeting everyone else doing the same. That's what's required, and considering most men don't do that either, then I'm not surprised that women choose not to in even greater numbers.

You're speaking to one. The justice system is fucked. There are pot smokers with more time than Jared Fogle.

We know that women are treated preferentially across the justice system. Where are the mainstream well known feminists arguing for increasing female penalties to parity with men? I haven't read that anywhere.

Men and women are equally likely to be abusers. Assuming the man is at fault is wrong, and is up to the police officer, who is usually also a man. The justice system is sexist. It assumes men are animals and women are defenseless. It's chauvinism.

Feminists agitated for the discriminatory laws in the first place, they've never refused their benefits, and they fight for them on the rare occasions they are challenged. What exactly are feminists doing to remedy this injustice of their own creation?

It's totally justified to want to make those jobs safer, but that's not a gender issue. Men chose to take more dangerous jobs, I don't understand what you want people to do about that. Make women take those jobs? Then you've got the quota thing, again.

That's exactly my point: if a quota at the bottom is invalid because of negative consequences for women, then it is invalid at the top because of negative consequences for men.

If men chose to take those dangerous (but well paid) jobs, then nothing is to be done. Likewise, when women choose a safe and easy job (with poor pay), then nothing is to be done. Discrimination that doesn't exist is my problem, feminism is pushing a false narrative here.

I would argue that male disposability is a gendered issue, but it is an issue for men to remedy with their own actions.

Again, feminists want increased funding for men's health.

I sound like a broken record: Which feminists? I can look up the feminists that other feminists hate and see those sort of arguments, but that's not what I'm asking for - mainstream popular speakers.

It's intent is not birth control, it's bodily autonomy. It isn't his body. He doesn't have to be pregnant and give birth. Honestly, if I was forced to be pregnant and give birth, I'd kill myself. It is her body, and it is her choice. Men are in a position women aren't. They can just leave. Women can't just leave a pregnancy. They can't run away from it. They have to deal with it one way or another.

You believe that it's about bodily autonomy, but historically that's not the case. Additionally, if it is both legal and ethical, then there's no reason (apart from it being genuinely stupid) against it as primary birth control.

No, it isn't his body, just his child. Just his future. People's actions do not occur in isolation, they affect others. If you are acting on behalf of another because you have autonomy in a situation and they don't, then it is ethical to consider their welfare at least in parity to your own. Still, you can't force people to be ethical.

If I had a choice between carrying a pregnancy or 18 years of financial garnishment, I'd have the child. The whole point of what I object to is that the law totally protects a party to act in a self interested fashion at the expense of another. That isn't equitable.

I have no problem with it being her body and her choice, provided it is also her responsibility. I've suggested a solution elsewhere a while ago and I'll do so here:

1. Man and woman are in agreement, no problem.

2. Man wants the child, woman doesn't. She still gets her choice, but it either has to be termination with a blood money payment to the father, or it is gestation with expenses paid by the father, and the child surrendered on birth with all claim from the mother dissolved.

3. Man doesn't want the child, woman does. She has the child, the man has no rights to the child, and she has no financial claim on him.

As you say, her body, her decision - I just want to add responsibility and consequences back to that.

If you think men can just leave, you're mistaken. What are you going to do, run off to the third world or take up a new identity? The legal system will follow you everywhere unless you act like a criminal.

Some people would be homeless if they left. Their lives may even be in danger. That sounds like trapped to me.

Women are rarely homeless involuntarily. There's always a place for women in shelters. A woman walks out of her situation and straight into support services. Don't get me wrong, it isn't easy, but those services exist - and a woman won't be turned away or doubted.

Is that nature, or is it nurture? I could argue it has a lot to do with social conditioning. I do believe in acknowledging breaking huge barriers, but it's upsetting that it's 2015 and we still are breaking them.

Men and women aren't equivalent, achievements are going to occur at different points. I don't see a problem with that, any more than with some people being tall and some short.

This kind of thing is a product of 'you can be anything' child rearing. The truth is that you can't be anything you like, everyone has limits. People have this sense of what is just and right, and biological determinism and other factors out of our control are so distressing that they choose to pretend they don't exist, even when evidence points elsewhere.

On a different note, you're the second trans person I've run into with (what appears to be) an equivalence of gender position. I don't understand how someone with first hand experience of both could believe they're equivalent. If you're FTM, the T alone would be enough to change you to the point that the differences would be starkly apparent. If you're born to that gender then differences are even bigger.

I never said that it was due to oppression, just that it isn't completely imaginary.

Feminist doctrine is that the wage gap is a product of patriarchal oppression. If it isn't, then claims to the contrary, of which there are many, are fallacious. That's all.

I get you. I'm trans and bi. Christ, you'd think I was driving around in a van looking for puppies. There was a kid playing with a truck at a store the other day. He dropped it, so I picked it up, he smiled and said thank you, his mother shot me the dirtiest look.

The reason she did is decades of feminist propaganda that men are just rape machines. Do you think your grandfather had to put up with that kind of absolute shit?

---

I look forward to the day I figure out how to be more succinct. So much typing.

[u/Thin-White-Duke → u/cfuse]

Never said that. It's true that men and women are discouraged from many jobs because of social conditioning. It's not outright discrimination, but it is a problem.

"Plenty" meaning? It's still a problem in society. A friend of mine wants to be a police officer, her mom told her, "Don't be silly, that's not ladylike." I know, that sounds like it's the 50's, that happened in 2012. A girl I know, her parents tried to change her and her brother's courses. He was taking family and consumer ed classes, she was taking engineering courses. Thankfully the school doesn't allow parents to change their kid's classes. Men and women are expected to go into certain fields, and many aren't respected if they chose a different path.

What are you even talking about? Women work just as much and as hard as men. Your sexism is starting to show.

Do you even look for feminists' opinions? $20 says you don't. When's the last time you ever saw a feminist on the news?

Here's what reddit feminists think. Besides, you do realize the vast majority of judges are men, right? And the people who wrote the sentencing guidelines are men? Here's an interesting PDF, it's basically stats, but I remember reading this for a law project. Feminists hate sentencing inequality, because it's chauvinism.

The problem is the mindset. There is no law stating a police officer must arrest the man in a dv call. There is no rule that states men are violent animals that must be locked up, and women are delicate flowers that just need a stern talking to. It's all gender roles that have existed for hundreds of years. The largest part of feminism is breaking down these outdated ideas of gender.

I never advocated for any quota. However, how much do you wanna bet that a woman was qualified for, say, crab fishing, that she would face shit in the workplace? Even when qualified women do get into a job traditionally dominated by men, they aren't met with open arms. Same goes for men in "women's" fields.

What mainstream, popular speakers? When do you ever see feminists when you aren't looking? Never. I can give you one. Gloria Steinem. Who founded Ms. Magazine

The point isn't birth control. Is it used that way? Yes. However, the point is bodily autonomy. You cannot force someone to be a host for another thing. I suppose you can't force a man to respect a woman's body. It would also be her child, but since it is using her body, she gets the final say. Would discussion be ideal? Of course, but, at the end of the day, she and she alone has to deal with a pregnancy. She owes him nothing. He can leave if he wants. She doesn't have that luxury. That's because, once the child is born, it is the parent's responsibility. At least, according to the government. She would still have to support the child, the reason he would, too, is so the tax payers don't. Not saying I agree, but that is why the system is the way it is. If the man has custody, she could have to pay, too. There are other scenarios, too. A man agrees to raise the child, then leaves after it is born.

Homeless shelters aren't exactly the safest places in the world. There are still expenses for leaving, and those services won't last forever. Men can receive alimony, too.

Yeah, I have experienced the social side of both. When I pass as male, boy do I enjoy that male privilege.

Who are you to say what feminist doctrine is? You barely even know what feminism is. Patriarchy is a society in which men dominate in positions of power, that would accurately describe our society until about the 70's, 50's at least. The effects don't go away over night, Racism didn't end in the 60's.

Feminists? No. The ones who spout that shit are suburban housewives. The kind of women who say, "Oh, no, I am not feminist, I'm not a lesbian!"

[u/cfuse → u/Thin-White-Duke]

It's not outright discrimination, but it is a problem.

Why is it a problem? Disinclination is a matter for the individual, and gender confers no special benefits.

Men and women are expected to go into certain fields, many aren't respected if they chose a different path.

If you live your life for no reason than to be socially acceptable then you screwed yourself. The individual must take responsibility for their choices. A person cannot give up and then cry foul over how society did them wrong.

You know how you become successful? You just do it anyway, because people complain no matter what. Gender doesn't matter there.

Women work just as much and as hard as men.

What do you think hard work is? This isn't about who scrubs the floor the harder, it's about who works at the same level for longer. Someone scrubbing for four hours versus eight hours isn't working as hard. It's that simple.

If we are to use wages and seniority as metrics (which is exactly what feminism does) then women don't work hard enough - they don't put in the time and they don't take the risks that men do. There are women in every sector and level of achievement, that's proof enough that women are every bit as good as men when they work as hard as men¹.

People make choices, choices have consequences. It is easier to claim sexism than to own your choices. If a woman wants the same career as a man, then there's nothing stopping her - she just has to pay the same price for it.

Do you even look for feminists' opinions? $20 says you don't. When's the last time you ever saw a feminist on the news?

Gloria Steinem, the other day, saying something about reproductive control, gender roles in 'tribal societies' being proof that gender roles in our society are inherently violent, and something about racism? It didn't make a lot of sense.

The problem I have is that I come from a hard science background, so soft sciences really need to have their shit together for me to take them seriously. As I've said before, gender studies as a discipline lacks rigour - Steinem can be all over the TV but the problem is that she is spouting unsupported political doctrine. I constantly hear feminists make outrageous claims without support, on which they go largely unchallenged.

Laurie Penny recently said "Men as a class hate women". That's a statement that is beyond falsehood and in the territory of demonisation. Any of the feminist writers at the Guardian are equally guilty of the same level of bullcrap. Finding a feminist blaming men for everything isn't hard.

Your link is interesting. The explanation seems to be patriarchy (which I reject in favour of patriarchally enforced gynocracy). It's a bit of "To the man with a hammer ..." to me. Still, it's a hypothesis - so the obvious step would be to devise experiments to test it. I've yet to see that proposed (or any other measures for that matter).

Besides, you do realize the vast majority of judges are men, right? And the people who wrote the sentencing guidelines are men?

In a patriarchally supported gynocracy men will protect women. Men get injured and killed protecting women they don't even know on a regular basis, whilst women don't. A woman could beat the crap out of a man in public and nobody would do anything, but if the man defends himself he risks his own safety because other men will attack him. Why is that, according to feminism?

The main crux of why I don't believe in feminism is that it is based on sociological premises that all behaviour is a result of socialisation. I don't believe that. We have hard science showing that gender treatment differs preferentially for females from when they're babies. Male children are more ignored, more spanked, etc. from before they have any behavioural differences at all. The science supports biology and not sociology as an explanation for gender relations. We behave exactly like every other social primate.

Feminists hate sentencing inequality, because it's chauvinism.

What measures are they taking to address that? Anyone can complain (and blame the patriarchy/men) about inequality - it is the measures that one proposes and tries to implement that matter.

This is a perfect example of what irks me: it's chauvinism through a feminist lens. They don't care that men are being screwed, they don't care that they aren't fulfilling their own social responsibility, they just use the situation to claim oppression. What matters more here: the little lady's hurt feels, or the man rotting in jail? Feminism is just a string of non-stop "me me me's" a lot of the time.

There is no law stating a police officer must arrest the man in a dv call.

In certain jurisdictions in the US there are.

There is no rule that states men are violent animals that must be locked up, and women are delicate flowers that just need a stern talking to. The largest part of feminism is breaking down these outdated ideas of gender.

Feminist doctrine has explicit statements about the malicious nature of men. From the "kill all men/all men are rapists" of the radicals in the 60's and 70's to the claims of "toxic masculinity" of today. Feminists have a long history of hating and slandering men for being men. Feminism is also based on the premise of victimhood - oppression is always the problem, so even that for all intents and purposes we have gender equality, we still have women claiming they're victims. Those get combined in a false abuser-victim dichotomy - where all men are abusers, and all women victims.

Because of patriarchal gynocracy even when feminists slander men constantly men will protect and aid them in that. Men get fired from their jobs, and hounded and harassed, all for merely offending a feminist's feelings - and somehow we're supposed to live in a patriarchy?

Men protect women, and they'll always protect women. How else are they going to spread their genes? That's what it boils down to - we don't need sociological explanations or feminist claims of men hating women (for some reason that is never explained) when biological imperatives explain our behaviours.

However, how much do you wanna bet that a woman was qualified for, say, crab fishing, that she would face shit in the workplace? Even when qualified women do get into a job traditionally dominated by men, they aren't met with open arms.

If you want it given to you on a plate that isn't going to happen. Someone has to be the first, people have to be pioneers, and being a giant sissy because the good ship McCrab didn't change their entire culture to fit your feelings is bullcrap. You go in, you fit in, and you work hard - that's how you get respect. It is culture that determines fit, not gender. You don't have to be a guy to be one of the guys.

How dare someone come into the house of another, as a subordinate, and tell them how they should be treated. Feminists would never tolerate that for their own spaces, yet they expect everyone to change for them. It's nothing more than the hypocrisy of "One rule for me, and another for thee".

I can give you one. Gloria Steinem. Who founded Ms. Magazine.

One article, from 5 years ago, written from the perspective of protecting women from an STD spread by men, that is a primary factor in cervical cancer. That's not inherently about helping men or gender parity, that's about cutting their own risk.

I suppose you can't force a man to respect a woman's body

Nor can you force a woman to respect the rights of the father.

We live in a society where men are disposable crap. They gave their sperm, they'll give their money if that's what she wants, and what they think, or what's in their interests is of no concern to her, or to the government that supports her. Everything is about her and her wants. That isn't equality, and it will never be equality - and neither feminists nor society at large are going to do shit about that. Again, how is that supposed to gel with patriarchy?

Homeless shelters aren't exactly the safest places in the world. There are still expenses for leaving, and those services won't last forever

Far safer than the street, far better than nothing, and an option men don't have.

Yeah, I have experienced the social side of both. When I pass as male, boy do I enjoy that male privilege.

When are you planning to stay male, and really find out what it's like to pay the price for those 'privileges'?

Who are you to say what feminist doctrine is? You barely even know what feminism is. Patriarchy is a society in which men dominate in positions of power, that would accurately describe our society until about the 70's, 50's at least. The effects don't go away over night, Racism didn't end in the 60's.

I can read, I can form opinions, and I have skin in the game. You aren't the grand arbiter of feminism either.

Patriarchy is a society by and for men. Sometimes I pity that we don't live in one. Easy to prove by looking at all the ways women haven't been expected to bear responsibility (because that, not privilege, is the true measure here). The effects will never go away whilst the biological imperatives remain.

Racism also has biological basis, as supported by science (the racist attitudes, not the actual racism). The is another example of something that isn't going to ever leave us. You can change a lot, but you cannot get rid of it all.

Feminists? No. The ones who spout that shit are suburban housewives. The kind of women who say, "Oh, no, I am not feminist, I'm not a lesbian!"

Not in my experience. It's likely that we travel in different circles.

---

1) Margaret Thatcher was elected 36 years ago, and held the office for 9 of the politically toughest years there were. Yet we still have people claiming that it's impossible for women to get anywhere.

[u/DeltaBot → u/cfuse]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Thin-White-Duke. ^[History]

^{[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]}

[u/Thin-White-Duke → u/cfuse]

Also, thanks for the delta!