Oncefa2 #sexist #crackpot

Oncefa2 #sexist #crackpot reddit.com

By definition, "non-radical feminists" are MRAs. If they actually cared about gender equality, they would support the MRM.

Feminists like to go on and on about how there are "true feminists" and "radical feminists". Well I've come up with a pretty good litmus test to distinguish between the two.

You can tell if a feminist is a "true feminist" who "supports gender equality" by whether or not they also support the men's rights movement.

If you take their words at face value, this is what it means. People like Warren Farrell and Karen DeCrow are "non radical feminists". People like Bell Hooks and organizations like NOW represent the "radical man-hating" brand of feminism.

Hold them to their own standards is what I'm getting at here. If they advocate for double standards and disagree with MRA ideas like equal child custody laws and legal paternal surrender, then they do not support gender equality. Which makes them "radical feminists", per their own definition.

Whether or not that means that most feminists are "radical feminists" is their own problem to sort out among themselves. I say go ahead and welcome the rational ones into our ranks though. After all, they're the ones who said it. So let's hold them to it. The number of feminists who become MRAs should demonstrate pretty clearly if they actually mean what they say.

7 comments

No, that’s the inverse of the truth: Sane feminism is the real Man’s Right movement.

Meanwhile, the self-declared MRAs are nothing but misogynistic macho losers who use the pretense of advocating for man’s issues as an excuse to insult women and non-sexist men and to fantasise about violence against said groups (including, of course, the obligatory “you made me do it!”, like the domestic abusers they are), while actually vehemently opposed to actually performing any actual activisism.

Oh, we don't need to. Not when Douch V essentially gave up when he got religion: and the most prominent figure in the whole 'MRA' shebang Chuck 'The Cuck' Gellman was so destroyed by Kiwi Farms, that he Deleted More Than Fucking Everything: to the extent that his beloved 'Manhood 101' forum/cult no longer exists.

When Crushed Invalidated was in thrall to his mother: and probably still is, and Cucky Chucky was forced to, otherwise his entire operation would have been exposed to his boss at Wolters Kluwer Healthcare: a woman, by definition we do care.

About the Schadenfreude generated by you impotent little manbabies with your pathetic so-called 'Cause' that is an embarrassment to those like you.

Re: legal paternal surrender had been the norm for centuries as men can just not acknowledge their children and not have anything to do with them. Deadbeat dad's are still a thing; they're just rightfully despised. Don't want kids? Don't have sex.

Legal paternal surrender is already a thing; you just have to go through the courts to get it done.
I have a child who was born when their mother & I were very young. I was thrown out of my home & forced into homelessness over it.
In order to prevent my mother from trying to seize custody as the nearest blood relative, my partner & I agreed that I would not be on the birth certificate, but that - barring me losing my mind & becoming dangerous to either of them - I would still get to see my kid regularly.

I’ve never had to pay child support, alimony doesn’t come into play since we weren’t married, and if I had wanted nothing to do with the child, all I’d have to do is stop calling their mother.

But that actually took communication, effort, and reason - things that the MRA crowd are allergic to.

As for the rest: the MRM isn’t even about “men’s rights.” It’s about making women second-class citizens again, and fighting or whinging against absolutely everything feminists do.
Feminists have been trying for decades to have Selective Service either also apply to women, or be abolished altogether.
Feminists have been raising awareness & funds for men’s health issues, especially mental health.
Feminists have been trying to get men’s domestic-abuse shelters built.
Feminists have actually been succeeding in getting custody bias overturned, state by state.

What have MRAs done, as far as actual activism & fundraising? Not a damned thing.
In fact, the people who have been opposing the efforts I listed above are people the MRM counts as allies & members, primarily conservatives who believe in upholding patriarchy & “traditional gender roles” (which you folks also do, in between complaining about how efforts at gender equality are just reinforcing the mythical matriarchy you say has ruled all of Western society since long before women had rights…).

Maybe if you grew up, got therapy, and actually bothered fighting for real causes that affect men instead of spending all your time complaining about “the femoids,” you’d actually help get something done.
But I won’t hold my breath; the martyr complex is central to the MRM at this point.

I’m a non-radical feminist, and I’m DEFINITELY not a Men’s Rights Activist. I’m all for gender equality, but that means equal rights for all genders.

MRM? Modified Radical Mastectomy? Mechanically Recovered Meat? Marketing Resource Management? More Retarded than Most? Perhaps Men’s Rights Movement.

I’ve never gone on and on about true and radical feminists. Radical feminists, to me, would be women who think women should have MORE rights than men. That would not be equality.

You can’t have gender equality without equal rights for men AND women. So yes, men should have the same rights as women do. For example, to have paid parental leave with their kids.

I don’t hate men, I hate when it’s called hatred to want to have equal rights. MRA’s and PUA’s and MGTOW’s usually show a hatred of women. It’s mostly women that are raped, and abused and murdered by partners and ex-partners.

What double standard? It’s very easy; men and women ought to have the SAME rights, the SAME opportunities and the SAME responsibilities.

We have equal child custody laws in Sweden. Almost all have joint custody, and if one parents has the kid more than the other, the other parent compensates the first one. I have a colleague who has his children most of the time, the mothers only have them every other weekend.

What’s legal paternal surrender? Is that when the father says he doesn’t want to be a father to his child? In almost all cases, the couple is in agreement to have a kid, or to have an abortion. The reason the woman has last vote is that it’s HER body it’s growing in. There are quite a lot of Deadbeat Dads who refuse to be part of their kids’ lives. That is, if not legal paternal surrender, so moral paternal surrender.

It's a tough question, all my arguments against it sounds very similar to common arguments against abortion. So well, I can’t say NO to it, but it still feels wrong, and I won’t fight for it. There are way too many other things to fight for, which I bet this dodo never fights for, so I’m not morally obligated to fight for his particular issue. When HE has helped make sure that abortion is both legal and available in all the world, THEN I will help him with his little cause. As that will never happen during my lifetime, it’s an easy promise. If he has ever used a common argument against abortion, then my promise is null and void. Right back at ya; if you don’t want to have a child, don’t have sex.

@Bastethotep #38372

Time for Pro-Feminist men to reclaim the “Men’s Right’s Movement” label and call the machosphere the “Male Privilege Morons”.

And Sex-Negative, TERF/SWERF Hyper-Rad-Fems need to take a nap on the railroad tracks.

Or at least get a vasectomy or wear a condom while simultaneously doing “pull-out” (but not one OR the other, especially ‘pull-out’ alone, which barely works).