Comments

1. Posted by: Theodore H Smith on 5/11/2008 8:45 PM
   
   Feminism doesn't just SEEM to have anti-male hate. It is formed out of male-hate.
   
2. Posted by: jay edwards on 5/11/2008 8:45 PM
   
   great stuff man, Just found your site-- i have been fighting the good fight against "feminism" since I read its foundational documents in 1980. Feminism is a hate movement. It is hatred of men. It is anti-male bigotry. No rational and moral person can be a feminist.... These are not radical statements. Just direct anyone to feminists' own writings. They spew irrational hatred of men. Most normal people cannot get more than a few pages without putting the vile filth down....
   Great to see your site. I am a busy fellow, but hope I can drop by. also-- most men know feminism is crap and about 80% of women spout anti-male bigotry shamelessly. Its just not masculine to complain about women's abuse of us. I don't worry about it. I give feminsists the bayonet-- through the chest and out the back whenever they degrade and dehumanize men. You should see their shock when they are confronted with their bogotry. Women are so indulged... etahasgard1986@aol.com
   
3. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 5/11/2008 8:45 PM
   
   You're welcome any time man. Thanks.
4. Posted by: thestudent09 on 5/11/2008 8:46 PM
   
   this is thestudent09 and im a long time fan of your videos argus and i want to thank you for finaly putting out the blatant flaws in modern day feminist ideology argus these are very good videos with very good points but up untill now i feel that you have never stated what was derectly wrong with feminsim but what you did state what the bad byproducts of feminism were and those on their own are bad enough to warent the movements disbandment. this however compleatly solidifys that
   
5. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 5/11/2008 8:46 PM
   
   For anyone that requires further clarification:
   
   1) Leading feminist have a anti-male attitude.
   How do you prove? Examples of misandrist attitudes.
   Did I? Yes, the quotes I gave sufficed. This is the only point that used quotes.
   How would you do a stat for this? You don’t it is an observation. The existence of a man hating attitude (hello? Mary Daley, Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas) proved this. PROVED.
   
   2) Feminist promote misleading statistics in the apparent aim of denigrating men and promoting their agenda.
   How do you prove? Give example of false statistics that feminists have promulgated.
   Did I? Yes, a knock-down solid example is the superbowl myth. An absolute lie by a feminist.
   How would you do a stat for this? You can’t you have to examine on a case by case basis. The existence of one such example proves the point. PROVED.
   
   3) Feminist support sexist laws
   How do you prove? You need to find a law or rule that offers different treatment based on sex, which is supported by popular feminism.
   Did I? Yes, quotas are a knock-down irrefutable proof of sexism.
   How would you do a stat for this? You can’t you have to examine on a case by case basis. The existence of one such example proves the point. PROVED.
   
   4) Feminists oppose laws that will help men.
   How do you prove? You need to find a law or rule that offers different treatment based on sex, which is supported by popular feminism and which is to the detriment of men.
   Did I? Yes, shared parenting is a knock-down example of this. Any person not steeped in socialist much can see the real plight of these fathers.
   How would you do a stat for this? You can’t you have to examine on a case by case basis. The existence of one such example proves the point. PROVED.
   
   5) Feminist make excuses for female wrongs.
   How do you prove? Difficult, what is wrong? Popular opinion decides. Murdering children would commonly be decided as wrong.
   Did I? Yes I have an example of a feminist defence of Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children.
   How would you do a stat for this? You can’t you have to examine on a case by case basis. The existence of one such example proves the point. PROVED.
   
   6) Feminism is gynocentric.
   How do you prove? You can’t really, this is an opinion backed up by logical reasoning.
   What reasoning? It’s called Fem-inism, wage gape, only care about glass ceiling and not glass floor, DV shelters for men, etc. Watch my other videos
   
6. Posted by: spacepickle79 on 5/11/2008 8:46 PM
   
   waaaa, poor men, always insulted and mocked and mistreated! how do you poor men get along in this world! 1. man-hating. not true. do some research on world history and the treatment of women thereof. obviously there's no space in this format to document every single atrocity, but suffice it to say, the history of the oppression of women is vast. 2. misleading statistics. not sure of your sources, but referring to point #1, there's evidence that the stats are actually very conservative and that in reality, MORE women have been raped or victims of domestic violence than is documented. if you weren't a "woman-hater", perhaps you wouldn't have a problem with that. 3. sexist laws. true equality - that's what we want. true equality means that men and women would have the same opportunities without bias. same pay for doing the same job. no one would call us "bitches and whores", no one would tell us what to wear or how to behave or what to do with our bodies. that's true equality. well I hate to break it to you, but that's just not happening. until that day, sadly, the only way to ensure that women will get treated fairly is to enact laws that force people to do so. sorry, I hate to burst your bubble, but take a look at the world around you, but it's true. until it's 100% safe for a woman to walk down the street wearing whatever the hell she wants, without fear of rape or attack, you're damn right there better be laws forcing the men in power to take her seriously. 4. laws that protect men??? again, see point #3 regarding equal treatment by society and equal protection under the law. sorry, but society is just not there yet, hence the laws to ensure we get treated fairly. 5. Andrea Yates. what she did was horrible and at first glance, yes, that bitch should rot in prison for the rest of her life. I suggest you research the entire story about how her weirdo religious beliefs (invented by men to control women and keep us in our places, popping out baby after baby) so warped her mind that she was all alone in her struggle with those kids. even her church did not reach out to her. where was everyone? killing the kids was wrong, but do your research. there are so many other issues going on here that frankly your arguement is slightly offensive, not to mention ignorant. 6. Gynocentrism: "the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing female human beings or the feminine point of view at the center of one's view of the world and its culture and history." well I'm a woman, so of course my world view is from a feminine point of view. how the hell else could I be? and again, without running through the thousands of atrocities commited on women BY MEN - the world needs a little more of a feminine point of view.
   
   and finally, your ramblings smack of insecurity. I have more respect for a man who is secure enough in his own skin to admit that yes, men have treated women absolutely horribly throughout the ages and it's time to stop all that crap. you're so insecure that you are behaving as if women blame you personally for all the wrongs done against them.
   
7. Posted by: Callie on 5/11/2008 8:46 PM
   
   I'm not going to outright call you wrong, but I am going to propose a feminine viewpoint on the subject for your consideration. You can choose to consider it, or you can choose to ignore it, and prove that you do not have the open mind I think you have.
   
   1. Feminism isn't about hating men, but rather the actions that men have taken that have been undesirable toward an equal world. For instance, if you have ever read The Feminine Mistique, you'll know that when women began feeling discontent in their daily, housewife-lives, they were not only ignored, but told that it was their own fault that they felt that way, and that they were either making things up, or were crazy, by the men whom they discussed the sensation with. Feminists, especially modern day feminists, do not hate men for such things, but rather the fact that they did such things. It's the same as having a sibling who destroys something precious to you; you don't hate them, but you hate that they broke it.
   
   2. I'll use the rape example you gave above. While it seems outrageous, studies have shown that 50% of the men interviewed (college students, working class, and middle class men alike) claim that if they knew they could get away with it, they would commit a rape. At the same time, rape issues focus on women more because of the fact that men are least likely to report a rape. As far as statistics go, any group of people can use statistics to their advantage, no matter who they are. This point isn't a fair one to wield against feminists unless you plan to wield it against every other group that wants to make a point as well. Here is a good source for information on rape statistics, for women AND men: http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html?gclid=CN6Qqt76y48CFSthIgodDRlPyg
   
   3. Quotas and positive discrimination aren't just sexist, they're prejudiced against everyone, for everyone. For example, most colleges must admit a certain amount of individuals from certain minority groups, and many work places must do the same. To say that this is purely a feminist approach would be a lie, because it has been used by nearly every group that has fought for equality over the years. At the same time, support for the tactic is as large as it is because it is a step toward true equality, when a woman will be hired for a job not because she's a woman, but because she truly is the most capable for the job. Quotas and positive discrimination aren't the best way to go about things, but at the same time, open the door for groups who would otherwise be discriminated against in a negative fashion.
   
   4. In the video, it is stated that there are many reasons why certain laws would benefit women as much as men, yet none are stated in detail other than that as a whole, they exist. That's a bit unprofessional, I think, because if you're going to make a point, you may as well go through fully with it. This returns to the previous statement from the video about how feminists use data to their advantage without giving a source; to say there's reasons and not states them can be seen as a form of hipocracy on this point, can it not? Aside from that, the major reason in my mind for laws supporting equal time with children between mother and father is that it would interfere with the child's schooling, especially if the parents lived towns apart and the child(ren) had to attend two schools in one year. It also, then, would limit the parents' right to be able to move from one town to another if they were to find a better job, because then things get even more difficult for the child in question. Of course, some kids are more resilient than others, but that depends on age and maturity.
   
   5. I have never heard this statement in my life. I believe that the statement by Patricia Ireland could be interpreted in multiple ways, such as that Yates revealed that women are imprisoned at home with their children, by being driven completely out of her mind. Her 'imprisonment' at home with her children could have been as simple as her being unable to leave to blow off some steam, as people usually do when angry, because perhaps she was the only caregiver for them, or her husband was not home at the time? There is no excuse for what she did, mind you. NO ONE supported Yates in her actions, because no parent, or even women who wish to be parents someday, would support the drowning of an innocent child.
   
   6. The word opposite gynocentric is misogynistic, which means, a deep hatred or fear of women. For the longest time, America was misogynistic, keeping women in the home and not even allowing them to work until WWII, in which case they were immediately sent back home once the men arrived. As a species, humans have always put men first in the larger cultures (though in some African tribes, the gender roles are completely reversed, and the women are in charge), and so is it really terrible to think that the tables are turning? Most feminists don't want to rule the world or do to men what they've done to us. Most feminists wish for EVERYONE to be happy, just as most Civil Rights leaders do.
   
   This video makes feminists seem like an army of man-hating, bullshit-spewing lesbians, when really, I'm willing to bet the gentleman in the video has never attended a rally, nor read any texts central to the feminist cause (I recommend Women: Images and Reality, a Multicultural Anthology, as it has been a major text in most Intro to Women's and Gender Studies courses).
   
   With every group of people, there are extremists, from the Islamic people to the East, to the Christians here at home. Yet, why should an entire group suffer because of a few individuals' actions? Not every feminist is a bra-burning, hairy-legged lunatic. In fact, most of them are happily married (to the men you claim they detest), with children, just doing what they can to survive in the world, just like everyone else.
   
   I hope that I've been enlightening, and that you might open your eyes enough to see what it is that I'm saying. People constantly make feminism out to be some sort of terrible, unnecessary thing, but as long as people think that, there's still need for it.
   
   Women are strong, beautiful human beings, just like men, but treated so differently from them that it's sickening; THAT is why feminism is necessary. THAT is why we fight for equality, and THAT is why feminism is not just some stupid little game. Women are discriminated against more now than ever because of feminism, yet without feminism, many would lose their strength, because there would be no more reason to deal with the shit they catch from people every day.
   
   I am a feminist, and I want you to know that we're not some insane group of women who just needed a hobby, and that your own sources are questionable as much as you claim ours to be.
   
8. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 5/11/2008 8:47 PM
   
   Callie. Could you email me please? I think that's the best way to reply to what you wrote.
   info@sus-shib.co.uk
   
9. Posted by: johnymo on 5/11/2008 8:47 PM
   
   spacepickle79, you are the problem. You are sexist and in denial. Man-hating exists, and that is incontrovertable. To call him a "woman hater" just because he's pointing out discrimination in the feminist movement is utterly ignorant and one-sided. Yes, men have mistreated women throughout the ages, but to assume that women aren't capable of discrimination as well is completely idiotic. Sexism by women against men exists in feminism, and even among many non-feminists, so stop spouting your biased and sexist delusions of men as the only ones who can be at fault.
   
10. Posted by: unknown on 5/11/2008 8:47 PM
    
    i found your side while looking for statistics on Feminism. while some points are valid and i appreciate you sometimes look at other views (eg Ifeminism) i feel you are far too focused on the radical element of Feminism which of course is the most popularized as it makes good copy and soundbites for Newspapers etc. about your above comment on rape statistics, i work with rape victims and write a lot about rape for my degree, therefore all arguments must be backed up etc etc. therefore i suggest you look at the official goverment and police statistics, asked using neutral non-leading questions- the true extent of sexual violence is shown there. personally i hate Dworkin-her radical views have their place provoking debate, unfortuently people like you utilize her soundbites to show an unequal representation of feminist liturature. i suggest you stop looking at outdated writings and read Knockback or F-word. FEMINISTS WRITING TODAY. majority of the articles critique how women present other women, media representations and feminism itself NOT MEN. really we have better things to do with our time then slag off men. on that note i am going to go write an article. Bit about me:i was raped when i was 14 again when was 21.so more reason then most to hate men. yet i am engaged to a fantastic man, have many male and female friends and have never attacked anyone due to there gender.like most feminists no i have never felt the need to burn my bra and yes i am women enough to need one.
    
11. Posted by: Gloria S. on 5/11/2008 8:47 PM
    
    Wow-great post! I am a woman and a staunch anti-feminist so I applaud your video and your bravery in speaking out against this serious issue. Oh, and I read in the comments that someone called men who speak out against feminism insecure. That's silly-it's the insecure men who let feminism get a foothold to begin with. Anyways, great job!
    
12. Posted by: Pam on 5/11/2008 8:48 PM
    
    I don't know where you get your information from, but you lump 'feminists' under one homogenous group - that's like me saying every man with a beard and glasses thinks like you do. Feminsts are not man haters, but just want a square deal (equal pay, etc). I would do some more research if I were you (that's if it wouldn't conflict with your small-minded views!
    
13. Posted by: David Hughes on 8/12/2008 11:17 PM
    
    Feminism was never about equality for women, it was about obtaining for women a place in society with special privileges. In the UK for instance, eight ninths of the National Health budget is spent on women's health leaving very little left for children and men. Is this illustrative of women's "caring" side?
    75% of all divorces in the UK are initiated by women because they know the courts will be on their side and they will probably end up with the children and the family home plus a generous child allowance imposed on the father who might seldom be allowed to see his children.
    Feminists try to infer - they even say it outright - that domestic violence is only committed by men. This is one of their biggest lies as official figures show that approximately half of domestic violence is committed by women.
    Feminists further imply that most child abuse is by men. This is an even worse lie as the National Society for the Protection of Children (NSPCC) has published figures which clearly show that most child abuse is by women - mostly mothers. They perpetrate four times as much child abuse as biological fathers.
    The British Home Office has admitted that women are favoured in our law courts to the extent that men receive one third longer sentences than women for committing the same crime.
    I could go on - the list is endless. If you want the truth about the effects of feminism and the harm it has done to society then visit the ManKind website: www.mankind.org.uk
14. Posted by: David Hill on 8/22/2008 8:14 PM
    
    Hi Chris great stuff. I was just wanting to get your take on the sexist laws supported by many women in other cultures. We all hear about the laws of the middle east and how they oppress women and they do! However, what about the sexist laws of Malaysia and Singapore that allow corporal punishment only to male violators of the law. These cultures are quite progressive especially compared to the Middle East. Women are judges, lawyers, and members of the military sentencing men to a cruel and degrading punishment that the accident of their birth prevented from ever happening to them regardless of what crime they committed! Clear gender discrimination why does NOW not protest these sexist laws since they only want equality?
15. Posted by: Ivan on 8/25/2008 7:57 PM
    
    Hey Space Pickle, that 1 course you took on Feminism proves nothing. You see what you want to see. Feminism is a Luceriferian ideal because it degrades marriage, children, and family. A successful marriage is possible if the woman allows the man to have the respect he deserves. Woman and children first. Right. Just because a few witches at Pendal hill were burnt in the 17th century does not mean there is a global conspiracy to subjugate women. Men are not as bad as you think. Remember, we were created first and it was the woman who was to be the companion. Furthermore Eve ate the apple causing 'man' to leave the garden and she was punished with the task of birth. If you do not believe in the bible than I can consider you a satanist. Repent for your will is much different from god's. All these facts were taken from NOW
    
16. Posted by: GamingGeek on 6/2/2009 7:00 AM
    
    FINALLY! Someone who see's the big picture!
    
    I always felt there was something very odd with feminism, like it was setup to take away equal rights (from men). With this being said, your article has just awakened me.
    
    Feminism is evil & created through hate. In lamest terms, its a big waste of time cause modern women have all the rights they wanted from the 60s & 70s. Any feminist today is bound to be a radical man-hating bitch, literally.
    
    Good to know I'm not the only one fighting the good fight against these hateful, evil, ugly women!
    
    Great vid too
17. Posted by: GamingGeek on 6/2/2009 7:07 AM
    
    spacepickle79, I hope you rot in hell for your feminist ways. I really hope your greed & ignorance gets the best of you so you ruin it for your fellow feminists. WAKE UP!!! This is 2009, not 1964!
    
    MODERN FEMINISM IS A PROBLEM!!!!!!!
18. Posted by: Mith on 6/2/2009 7:05 PM
    
    -waaaa, poor men, always insulted and mocked and mistreated! how do you poor men get along in this world!-
    
    By the fact that we're less likely to lie down like dogs and take whatever is dished out to us. Of course, this just really shows the lack of compassion that you have for anyone. I suppose you're one of those misunderstood souls who can't get one of those asshole men to like you?
    
    Personal attacks are fun.
    
    -1. man-hating. not true. do some research on world history and the treatment of women thereof. obviously there's no space in this format to document every single atrocity, but suffice it to say, the history of the oppression of women is vast.-
    
    Vast? Prove it. You lack basic logic. Gender roles were about survival you twit. It wasn't about who was better than the other. Men had the power because men were out building, fighting against other tribes (and animals), working the fields, and just about everything else that started early human societies. What did women do? They stayed at home and took care of the children. And most of them were probably more than happy to. The rest had to go along with it because if they didn't, everyone else, INCLUDING other women would see her as someone trying to tear apart their fragile society.
    
    Eventually, it was just made into an almost unsaid law that men were the ones in charge...because in a family, they basically are. It isn't because men stole it or beat women for it, it was because women didn't have any business in that field due to the way marriage and mating in general works.
    
    Try flipping on the Discovery Channel, rather than screaming at someone for pointing out that your group is delusional.
    
    -2. misleading statistics. not sure of your sources, but referring to point #1, there's evidence that the stats are actually very conservative and that in reality, MORE women have been raped or victims of domestic violence than is documented.if you weren't a "woman-hater", perhaps you wouldn't have a problem with that.-
    
    1) First, you will back up this claim that there are statistics to support this claim...oh, and they can't be from a biased source. Chances are, there went your ace in the hole.
    
    2) Pointing out the failures of a group does not indicate one as a "woman-hater" or any sort of "hater" in general. The fact that you can't argue this without resorting to ad haminem is an indication that you have an irrational paranoia of men.
    
    -3. sexist laws. true equality - that's what we want. true equality means that men and women would have the same opportunities without bias. same pay for doing the same job.-
    
    No it isn't. The fact that businesses are being forced to have at least one woman on their staff is a sexist law. A law shouldn't force me to hire anyone for a job unless I think they're suited. But companies are forced to take it in the ass to pay for some person to hold a position that another is more qualified to get...because she's a woman. That's sexist. It is not equality.
    
    -no one would call us "bitches and whores",-
    
    Ahhh, poor little girl is upset at freedom of speech? That's so sad! How do women ever survive? WAAAAAAAAA!
    
    Hey, very similar to what your opening argument is, isn't it? Oh, and yeah, bitches and whoes, bitches and whoes! One takes it, the other's a pain! Bitchs and whoes! Bitches and whoes!
    
    Sorry, just because someone makes a rude or even disgusting comment (such as the horrible rip off of Pinky and the Brain above) does not mean you have a right to stop them from saying it. It's disgusting, but freedom of speech is there to protect us from having our opinions silenced.
    
    -no one would tell us what to wear or how to behave or what to do with our bodies.-
    
    That doesn't happen now. The major debate about what women should be allowed to do with their bodies steam from children and being allowed to kill them.
    
    And that is a major issue, I'm of the opinion that no one -man or woman, should have a right to kill their baby because they had unprotected sex and decided they don't want to take care of it.
    
    -that's true equality.-
    
    No it isn't. If I'm not allowed to say bad things about you, but you're allowed to say bad things about me, how is that equal?
    
    
    -well I hate to break it to you, but that's just not happening.-
    
    Oh, that view of equality is happening, slowly but surely. And that's why people here oppose it; because it isn't fair. Equality already exists are far as is nessicary, but it's tipped to the point that women had an unfair advantage.
    
    
    -until that day, sadly, the only way to ensure that women will get treated fairly is to enact laws that force people to do so. sorry, I hate to burst your bubble, but take a look at the world around you, but it's true.-
    
    No it isn't. Women are treated with more rights than men are. The fact is, you just get your panties in a twist whenever something bad happens to women.
    
    
    -until it's 100% safe for a woman to walk down the street wearing whatever the hell she wants, without fear of rape or attack, you're damn right there better be laws forcing the men in power to take her seriously.-
    
    Oh, this is just precious.
    
    1) First of all, no. A woman can not go out dressed like a slut and then be expected to be treated otherwise. It's as logical as expecting someone to go out dressed as a cop and then not expected to be treated like one. Visual aid is how we discern what is and what is not. After all, are you going to treat a pit viper differently than you would a fuzzy kitten? That's specisim.
    
    2) This is even more amusing. There is no law and no practical method of security that doesn't horribly violate human rights that will allow for women to walk down the streets without fear of assault. The same goes for men...we know that we risk going out just as much as women know.
    
    -4. laws that protect men??? again, see point #3 regarding equal treatment by society and equal protection under the law. sorry, but society is just not there yet, hence the laws to ensure we get treated fairly.-
    
    Oh, so we're equal, it's just that some of us are more equal, am I right?
    
    -5. Andrea Yates. what she did was horrible and at first glance, yes, that bitch should rot in prison for the rest of her life. I suggest you research the entire story about how her weirdo religious beliefs (invented by men to control women and keep us in our places, popping out baby after baby) so warped her mind that she was all alone in her struggle with those kids. even her church did not reach out to her. where was everyone? killing the kids was wrong, but do your research. there are so many other issues going on here that frankly your arguement is slightly offensive, not to mention ignorant.-
    
    And see, here is how we go. The moment a man does something wrong, he's wrong, no matter what it is or why he did it. He can not be justified. And that's fine, but when a women does it, suddenly it's not really her fault. She was just reacting to how any "sane" person would react and killed her kid. And of course, it was the man's fault.
    
    Of course, Andrea was mentally damaged through her religious group...which was of course, not a typical religious group. One that in fact, claims that all other Christian churces are evil. What's more, she left her former faith to join that one. As in, she willingly believed what she was being told. And because she, SHE allowed herself to be twisted into that sort of thinking, she ended up believing that her kids were evil and that she had failed them a sa parent. So she killed them. Hence, she was deemed insane.
    
    -6. Gynocentrism: "the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing female human beings or the feminine point of view at the center of one's view of the world and its culture and history." well I'm a woman, so of course my world view is from a feminine point of view. how the hell else could I be? and again, without running through the thousands of atrocities commited on women BY MEN - the world needs a little more of a feminine point of view.-
    
    Um, no. Just because a person commits a crime and is a man, does not immediately mean that all men are evil. Crime (including rape) is not typical male behavior and just because males succumb to it more, does not mean that men are evil because of it.
    
    -and finally, your ramblings smack of insecurity. I have more respect for a man who is secure enough in his own skin to admit that yes, men have treated women absolutely horribly throughout the ages and it's time to stop all that crap. you're so insecure that you are behaving as if women blame you personally for all the wrongs done against them.-
    
    And you're again, avoiding the issue. Instead of actually challenging him on his view of the feminist movement, which he claims is bad, you instead shift the argument to saying that he should be pointing out men as bad.
    
    Of course, this argument is just absurd. Men are a gender. A gender can not be held responsible for the actions of a few men, nor can the same be held accountable for women. The truth is that you're a paranoid woman who wants to be treated superior to men because you think you have it bad.
    
    Sorry, life is hard. Men and women can be horrible people. Women aren't rainbows and sunshine.
    
19. Posted by: Unknown on 12/12/2009 2:16 AM
    
    The problem is the way the world was made. Through our entire life spans we are positively reinforcing (positive feedback loop) all of the laws, ideas and ideologies as to what men and women are suppose to behave like. No wonder some people recognize this, but not to the full extent. Unable to change the that, organizations(communities) are formed that express hate because of their inability to change the world. It is natural to focus the hate, especially if there is someone out there to receive it.
    
    P.S. (very much the same problem with black/white; got abused, then reintegrated/liberated, now they want revenge, can't do anything about it...)
20. Posted by: HAHAH on 2/18/2010 6:35 PM
    
    This has got to be a joke, really. You don't even use proper grammar when you write, yet you expect people to take you seriously. If Feminism has no relevance to today's society at all, try to defend the men who are fighting a war by infecting the Democratic Republic of Congolise women by rape with HIV in front of their own families. Look it up. You'd be surprised. You only see what you want to see, because like your bio says, you are a male rights activist. You think that the Feminist movement is gynocentric, but that's just kind of funny considering the Feminist movement does more than just protect women, like how they help children and other minorities.
21. Posted by: Mith on 2/19/2010 4:35 AM
    
    "This has got to be a joke, really. You don't even use proper grammar when you write, yet you expect people to take you seriously."
    
    Given that you seem to be refering to a bio, I suspect you're talking to Argus. In which case, are you by chance from Britian? I suspect that our grammar may not exactly match up. You may wish to take into account before making a personal attack.
    
    After all, it really doesn't matter if he's using poor grammar if you can't even tackle his argument.
    
    " If Feminism has no relevance to today's society at all, try to defend the men who are fighting a war by infecting the Democratic Republic of Congolise women by rape with HIV in front of their own families. Look it up. You'd be surprised."
    
    Which if true (please provide a link rather than make us do your research), is disgusting and horrible--but men as a sexual group are not responsible for that nor would I know of any decent men who would go out of their way to do it. Of course, I've also heard of women who go out of their way to infect men, but that was hersay I think, though I don't doubt there are sick fucks who do it.
    
    "You only see what you want to see, because like your bio says, you are a male rights activist. You think that the Feminist movement is gynocentric, but that's just kind of funny considering the Feminist movement does more than just protect women, like how they help children and other minorities."
    
    Like protecting those poor, poor rich white girls in low rape areas rather than going to the shitty part of town and helping the women who get raped, beaten, and cheated by their pimps because prostitution is against the law and they have no means of defending themselves legally or physically?
    
    Oh right. Fuck them, am I right? Let's sink some money into anti-rape projects that use decietful methods to obtain their results and then deprive the people who really need it.
    
    Nor of course, does this actually address anything. It's nothing but a smear campaign against Argus, rather than actually addressing what's wrong. Guess what dear? I can toss out horrible atrocities too. It's a simple google search away.
    
    Please grow up.
22. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 2/19/2010 7:23 AM
    
    Man, I don’t need to say much since Mith has it covered. However, this should be fun.
    
    “This has got to be a joke, really. You don't even use proper grammar when you write, yet you expect people to take you seriously.”
    
    You’re right. My grammar is not the best and I don’t care enough to fix it. That aside, my writings are far from those that would be produced by a blithering fool so why not point out what was so egregious eh?
    
    “If Feminism has no relevance to today's society at all, try to defend the men who are fighting a war by infecting the Democratic Republic of Congolise women by rape with HIV in front of their own families. Look it up. You'd be surprised.”
    
    You don’t have to be a feminist to care about such things. You only have to be sane. Also, see how the scoundrels scurry to places like the congo but make their arguments from the west?
    
    “You only see what you want to see, because like your bio says, you are a male rights activist.”
    
    I no longer go by the term “Men’s Rights Activist”. Mainly because I see so often where activism leads and I don’t want to be shackled by adherence to a movement.
    
    “You think that the Feminist movement is gynocentric,”
    
    It is. Any claims to the contrary is avoidance of reality.
    
    “but that's just kind of funny considering the Feminist movement does more than just protect women, like how they help children and other minorities.”
    
    Like rejecting male children from DV shelters? Also, the “helping” of children is done through a feminist worldview model. Which is gynocentric. The lambasting of fathers does not help their children.
23. Posted by: HAHAH on 2/19/2010 7:23 PM
    
    You guys immediatly assumed i was some rich white girl. Bravo, you were wrong. I'm a cancer survivor and don't have too much money, but hey I probably shouldn't have said that because now you are going to make fun of it. Do you really have nothing better to do but to waste your time? Life is only so short, and you could actually be out there bettering yourself instead of trying to claim that Feminism does absolutly no good for any one. You can not make an argument if you don't see the other side as well. As for "please provide a link instead of making us do your research" how do you not know about that issue? are you completely blind? it isn't research, it's common knowledge, but hey you'd know that if you'd actually give two shits about what's going on in the world, rather than sit back and make judgements like snobby englishmen who try to make themselves feel important by posting their outlandish thoughts on the internet.
    
    As for growing up, you started in with your "fucks and shits", and i can tell both of you are probably in your thirties, though i my first guess was you were about sixteen.
    
    you tell me to do my research, and i have. i know why you find it irrelevant, but i also know why i do.
    
    Have a nice day, and try to stop being so rude.
24. Posted by: Mith on 2/19/2010 9:00 PM
    
    "You guys immediatly assumed i was some rich white girl."
    
    1) No "we" didn't. The only one who said anything about white girl was me.
    
    2) I did not assume you were white, black, or anything. I really don't care. The point, to which I was making had nothing to do with you, but rather the absurd and unfair projects that only reach out to the groups who don't need it, rather than the ones who do. Ie, it was a counter point to your claim that feminists are helping society.
    
    They aren't. They're helping the people with voices so everyone can hear the praise of how "amazing" the feminist movement is. And of course, those without a voice are tossed to the side with subpar funding because they're not a miracle story.
    
    "Bravo, you were wrong."
    
    I suggest you reread both posts.
    
    "I'm a cancer survivor and don't have too much money, but hey I probably shouldn't have said that because now you are going to make fun of it."
    
    I care...why?
    
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to sound heartless, but why should this matter at all? Even under the belief that this response was against you being a "rich white girl", why would your status as a cancer survivor tell me anything? The money part I get, but going back to above, you're mistaken on our assumptions.
    
    Good for you for surviving cancer, but I don't understand what you think that has to do with anything here--or why you'd seem to think that anyone would get a kick out of making fun of you for it.
    
    "Do you really have nothing better to do but to waste your time?"
    
    Umm...no? Yes? Does it matter? What does this have to do with the debate?
    
    You: Argus is a horrible demonic bastard! Feminisim has helped the world over!
    Me: This is just a bad smear campaign. And feminisim has done nothing to help the people who really need it.
    You: Don't you have anything better to do?
    Me:...
    
    "Life is only so short, and you could actually be out there bettering yourself instead of trying to claim that Feminism does absolutly no good for any one."
    
    Ma'am, Picard said it better when he said it in Generations and that was a horrible movie to begin with.
    
    "You can not make an argument if you don't see the other side as well."
    
    Um...what?
    
    "As for "please provide a link instead of making us do your research" how do you not know about that issue?"
    
    Because I sit at this computer, on this site, just waiting for people to come on by so I can troll them. Obviously.
    
    But really, I'm just not into interntional incidents. Most rarely reach me.
    
    "are you completely blind?"
    
    ...Because I don't know about some sort of rape case in another country?
    
    " it isn't research, it's common knowledge, but hey you'd know that if you'd actually give two shits about what's going on in the world, rather than sit back and make judgements like snobby englishmen who try to make themselves feel important by posting their outlandish thoughts on the internet."
    
    First off, under what concept do you claim it to be common knowledge? Clearly, you don't understand that common knowledge is a limiting factor when you bring people of great difference together or those from large distances apart. For example, to you and me, that the Earth orbits the sun is a common knowledge sort of thing, but in a country where they have pointy sticks and think that metal planes are gods, that's not true.
    
    So the claim that this news, the one out of hundreds of thousands that come out each week, if not each day, is an indication that I have no concept of the outside world and that I'm a little prick just looking for kicks is a rather ambitious claim to say the least. Nor in fact, do I think that most people I ask would instantly know what I'm talking about because even if they had heard about it, they'd probably say "that's horrible!" and go on with their lives among the other dozens of things they have going.
    
    You want to know what is common knowledge? President Obama is president of America. Why? Because America holds a great deal of international spotlight so most countries know about him one way or the other and everyone in America surely knows who he is.
    
    Of course, even that's a limiting factor as the name of Britian's Prime Minister is common knowledge there. And I have no idea if it's a he or a she or what they're name is. So obviously, your idea of common knowledge not as wide spread as you think it is, nor were it true that I didn't know about something that would be considered common knowledge, would it mean that I am a selfish prick.
    
    Of course, I still have yet to get an idea how this has to do with anything of our arguments or standing as far as feminisim is concerned, nor does it really make much sense for you to start flamming when I agree that said action was horrible. Almost makes me wonder that you just started concentrating on my lack of knowledge of the event as a means to make a personal attack, ignoring the fact that I agreed that it was horrible.
    
    "As for growing up, you started in with your "fucks and shits", and i can tell both of you are probably in your thirties, though i my first guess was you were about sixteen."
    
    I'm not in my thirties. Or my forties. Or fifties. Sixties. Seventies. Eighties. Or ninties.
    
    I'm twenty-one.
    
    Nor does using curse words make one childish by nature--it is how one uses them and when uses them that determines their maturity. Many mature and intelligent people curse or use harsh language. This isn't a PG13 movie where the hero curses when the shit has hit the fan. This isn't Star Trek where people curse maybe once or twice in their lives (unless your Sisko apparently).
    
    All in all, nitpicking a few curses here and there is not going to be a sufficient basis for you to claim me to be immature nor does it in any way mean that my argument is wrong or that I'm a horrible person.
    
    "you tell me to do my research, and i have."
    
    No, I didn't. I just asked that you share it so we don't have to do the work for your claims. It's common courtesy and a standard staple of debating in general.
    
    "i know why you find it irrelevant,"
    
    Despite the fact that I said it was a horrible and disgusting event? I in no way indicated that I found the event to be irrelevant.
    
    
    "but i also know why i do."
    
    ...what?
    
    "Have a nice day, and try to stop being so rude."
    
    Says the person who popped in just to launch a personal attack at someone. Why should I at all be kind and considerate when you come in here acting like a troll? The fact is, you don't deserve my kindness to any extent. Those who do put forth actual effort in debate do. Perhaps you should think of that next time you decide to flame someone.
25. Posted by: R on 2/26/2010 10:08 AM
    
    I think you'll find there is a big difference between the view that you have presented here, which is that of a RADICAL feminist and other types. There are a number of different types of feminism and we certainly do not all worship our gender and hate men - this doesnt make sense as men can just as easily be feminists as women? I think of myself as a feminist because I believe in equal rights for women AND MEN. You might want to look into all the different types of feminism, rather than judging by the sterotype.
26. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/27/2010 1:09 AM
    
    "You might want to look into all the different types of feminism, rather than judging by the sterotype."
    
    I have spent significant amount of my time doing just that. All differences are superficial - its all the same underneath. Feminism is nothing other than a gimme for goodies, nada for work and responsibility.
    Whats more is that hardworking women that mistakenly identify with feminism - and who are willing to argue rational and historical evidence often admit that their knowledge of feminism is superficial and its more of a feeling than knowledge that caused them to call themselves feminists. If they had the knowledge, they would never associate with feminism.
27. Posted by: R on 3/1/2010 12:57 PM
    
    This is the view I associate with...
    
    Liberal feminism probably enjoys greater support than the other perspectives. This is largely because its aims are more moderate and its views pose less of a challenge to existing values. Liberal feminists aim for gradual change in the political, economic and social systems of Western society. To the liberal feminist, nobody benefits from the existing gender inequalities; both men and women are harmed because the potential of both females and males alike is suppressed. For example many women with the potential to be successful and skilled members of the workforce do not get the opportunity to develop their talents, while men are denied some of the pleasures of having a close relationship with their children. Taken from Sociology: Themes and Perspectives by Haralambos and Holborn.
28. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/1/2010 5:45 PM
    
    R,
    
    Do you really think men here have not encountered liberal feminism? Seriously.. I have been all over the place, there is nothing you can say or do that is new to me - seen it all. At the fundamental level, feminists and women do not want to listen to men. And what they do to "sympathize" with men (ironically) is so demeaning as to throwing them a dogbone and hoping that it will shut them up.
    
    Even liberal feminism does not speak for men.. you don't know the half of it and there can be no reconciliation between feminism and the survival of men in the long run. If anything, liberal feminism is like telling a man who is being stabbed, don't worry we will get you to the hospital once we are done stabbing you here. You don't understand the problem, nor is there any sincere effort to actually help any men.. unless they are gay that is.
29. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/2/2010 5:48 AM
    
    "some of the pleasures of having a close relationship with their children"
    
    There is something quite sinister about that phrasing. Men are denied "some pleasures"? The fundamental right to be a parent to your child is just "some pleasure" that is denied??
    
    See.. like I said before - even liberal feminists don't get it. If you have a child, and you are prevented from seeing him/her - would you phrase that as "denied some pleasures"? But when your view of men and masculinity is so laden with hatred.. such things happen, even when you are trying to be nice.
30. Posted by: R on 3/2/2010 10:34 PM
    
    In response to Pankaj - that quote was aimed at late-teenage students, i think it's unlikely that it had that much meaning that you put to it. What I took it to mean is 'some pleasures' - not all of looking after your child is pleasure. And it didnt seem to me to suggest that it was about men not being allowed to see their children, more that men go out to work, thereby spending less time with their children than the wives who stay at home to raise the children, in the traditional roles that liberal feminism is trying to break away from. My view of men/masculinity isnt laden with hatred from my point of view, in what way do you think it is? I do definately agree with you that men should never be denied the right to be a parent to their child, regardless of the relationship between the parents, in the same way as i do not believe, for example women should be victims of domestic violence (or men).
31. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/3/2010 12:40 AM
    
    "My view of men/masculinity isnt laden with hatred from my point of view, in what way do you think it is?"
    
    Its not your view.. you quoted someone else.. My comment was about that view and your blindness to it. Another aspect of your response seems to be that denial of right to parent (which is enforced literally at a point of a gun.. by the state) is similar to the unfortunate and already criminal actions of a violent person - who can be avoided or resisted effectively by a person willing to do so. I wont go into the penalties states impose on men if they try to defend themselves in cases of DV.
    
    Feminists think they "fought" for their rights or that is what they teach young gullible girls.. while they do not have the faintest idea of what "fighting" means. If you want to see a person fight - just watch the fathers that fight till they have lost everything they possibly can expend - just to see their children.
    
    Then there is the aspect of thinking that "more that men go out to work" .. as if that is a choice! What women do not get is that it is not that men LOVE to go out to work.. they would rather stay at home and enjoy a nice meal and being around their kids - except that income does not fall out of the sky. Someone must go out and earn it. What is even more evident is that women - early on make it quite clear the type of man they will grace with their affections.. the type that has money or can earn it by going to work. In evolutionary psychology - those men that wanted to raise their kids by being home equally have already been weeded out - made genetically extinct - by women's choice pattern in men. Don't complain that you don't like the work of your foremothers (which arguably wasn't a bad idea given the hardships of their times).
    
    And now that the times of hardship are gone, women still will not marry down at least by choice - not even those "equality" feminists! So its not really that hard to see who is playing both sides here. You may not know this - and if you persist in listening to feminists, you will never find out the man's side.
    
    In short - either you don't know enough .. in which case you should read glennsacks.com and angryharry.com regularly - read the horror stories that individual men have lived thru - all thanks to feminist-state alliance.
    
    There is a reason feminism is seen as a hate ideology - that's because those that have examined it - know exactly what it is. This is why even (former?) feminists like Warren Farrell and Daphne Patai are excommunicated and vilified by feminists for speaking on men's side.
32. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/3/2010 6:22 AM
    
    R,
    
    Note that most feminists - although harboring leftist-marxist-communitarian sympathies (i.e. working class are exploited, and non-working capitalists are empowered to exploit), also comfortably hold a contradictory view that (non-working but provided-for class is exploited and working men are empowered, even exploiters) when it comes to men. It is perfect ideological - having your cake and eating it too.
    
    Why is it that the issue that men are denied are "pleasures", while what women are denied are "opportunities" in this piece? It has a quite interesting veiled psychological juxtaposition to portray men as quite fulfilled, while women don't have a chance(!) to "develop their talents". Apparently, men have it so good, their problem is limited to not having more pleasures (Marie Antoinette?) while women are DENIED opportunity (oh poor peasant women!).
    
    Note that the piece says nothing as to who is denying the opportunity to women and who is requiring men to choose work over "some pleasures of raising children". Almost all research on gender related economics and choice reveals that it is women's own choice to work fewer hours, pick jobs that are not high-paying-high-stress-high-risk jobs (which is smart, if someone else is going to help pay your bills). On the other hand, men choose to work longer hours because they are paying the bills of women incur. If they don't make that choice, the bills don't get paid - a proposition that their women folks will not find acceptable. The choice for men isn't "enjoy some pleasures of parenting" or "go to work" - it is "enjoy some pleasures of parenting AND lower standard of living for your children" OR "go to work AND keep it constant, make life better for your children". Quite conveniently feminists drop out the alternative part of the choice they face. That all good loving fathers pick the second choice shouldn't surprise anyone.
    
    This is why I call feminist literature propaganda - it is designed to tell half-truths (and hide the other half), obfuscate the real choices, conditions people face and make things seem as they are not.
33. Posted by: Tali on 5/12/2010 12:11 AM
    
    I fully acknowledge that some of these things are true but it is completely illogical and unfair to put all feminists into the same category of anti-male. I consider myself a feminist and I am NOT anti-male; I am for gender equality, as well as equality for all people. I think you should just take into consideration that just because the most outspoken feminists tend to be anti-male and prejudice that the majority of people that consider themselves feminists are not sexist or anti-male.
34. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 5/12/2010 1:49 AM
    
    @Tali
    "I think you should just take into consideration that just because the most outspoken feminists tend to be anti-male and prejudice that the majority of people that consider themselves feminists are not sexist or anti-male."
    
    Sorry. What was I thinking? Just because the most outspoken feminists and the ones who have the most effect on society and law and the ones who write the feminist literature and the ones who teach in universities are radicals.. that doesn't mean I shouldn't waste my time continually mentioning that there are perfectly nice people out who really don't hate men. Tell me Tali. Are you a prominent figure in the feminist movement?
35. Posted by: Pankaj on 5/12/2010 2:16 AM
    
    Tali,
    
    If you are not a prominent figure, if folks like you are not prominent figures, and if the folks who are prominent figures are unlike you - what makes you think that feminism is YOUR movement? If Mother Teresa started calling herself a genocidal maniac, will that put a hurdle in your path of calling all genocidal maniacs as evil people?
    
    For sake of honesty, please stop providing yourself as a human shield for those that hold, lead and shape the ideology called feminism. Folks like you should stick to the term egalitarian, if you really want to.
36. Posted by: Dawn on 7/15/2010 2:04 AM
    
    I am a feminist in the truest sense of the word (as in I love men, and actually prefer to be around men) but there are problems with your argument.
    
    One is that Feminism is a large overarching category and you can't lump all the types together. Ecofeminism is very different from radical feminism (scary women there) and etc. Each has it's own proponents and researchers, so each has to be taken separately and there is nothing wrong with saying "Oh, I don't agree with _ feminism, but I do agree with _ feminism!".
    
    Unfortunately there is a lot of man-hate out there and a lot of media portraying men as idiots that would not survive were it not for women. The funny thing is if you take away the social context and the gender socialization women and men are the same. There is no huge mental difference between the sexes. The problem with feminism is that some feminists approach the topic with the thought that women are oppressed because we are different. Thinking someone is different is the first step towards judging their worth compared to another group, which can lead to a ton of false assumptions such as "men aren't nurturers". Other societies have shown that our assumptions about behaviors are wrong. We are all humans, and we should all remember that.
37. Posted by: RICK on 7/24/2010 3:46 PM
    
    Men and women are equal, and that is the core belief of feminism. Buy a dictionary.
    
    There are extremists in every group. Yes, some "feminists" are actually anything but - some of them do hate men. It's for the same reason that ethnic minority groups might hate white people for enslaving them or destroying their culture or treating them as inherently inferior. And it's people like that who give feminists and others a bad name, and it's those people whom you're complaining about.
    
    But not all feminists are like that. If you truly did some research, especially on modern feminism, you'd see that all they really want is to be paid equally for equal work and to fight rape and violence against women. It's true that many feminists have given (and continue to give) themselves a bad rap, but that kind of radicalism is diminishing now.
    
    Listen, I used to live in the backwoods of Jacksonville, FL, where the common saying is "CDC: Cunts Don't Count." Granted, the men saying that were complete rednecks and surely don't represent all of mankind, but I'm sure that goes on in other places, too. And what about the girl in Somalia, an eight-year-old who was raped by married men and then stoned to death for committing adultery when it obviously wasn't her choice? You might argue that that was in Somalia, not America or anywhere in the west; but that's the kind of thing that feminists care about. If you want an example of something extreme that men in America do, what about those who kidnap white girls from suburban neighborhoods, drag them across the country, and lock them in discreet houses to pimp them out?
    
    The fact is that feminists still have rights to fight for as well as a reputation to fight for. Though you clearly haven't done any research (and one article plus a dictionary does NOT count as research), feminists can't rely on men researching their shit like I do to fully understand them. They need to find better ways of saying things that don't get them branded as man-hating lunatics.
    
    So as long as there are misogynistic, unintelligent men like you and those who comment on here (some of whom can't form a complete sentence), feminism will continue.
    
    On the plus side, if you read the Atlantic's last issue featuring the article "The End of Men," you'll see that women are really advancing in the economic world. And social customs always reflect economic ones.
38. Posted by: Derrick on 7/24/2010 3:53 PM
    
    Wow, you're an idiot. I'm surprised you can read and write.
    
    And in case you couldn't tell from the name, this is a man typing. And it's other men like you who make me want to be a man-hating feminist, too.
39. Posted by: RICK on 7/24/2010 3:57 PM
    
    And by the way, you should check out the documentary I Was a Teenage Feminist. You'll learn a lot.
    
    Another point: I don't understand why any man would oppose feminism (real feminism). Wouldn't you prefer a woman who pays for her own shit? I know I would!
40. Posted by: anon on 7/24/2010 4:03 PM
    
    For feminism that isn't completely outdated, try Feministing.
41. Posted by: a feminist on 7/29/2010 9:16 AM
    
    
    While some feminist have been explicitly anti-male, they are clearly in the minority. I am a radical feminist (a woman, no less) who is vehemently pro-male (one is my best-friend and partner!) I see feminism as a paradigm for changing the traditional, socially defined gender roles.
    
    Most feminist do not have a problem with "men" but the system of patriarchy. Which is also one reason I feel the Dworkin quote is taken out of context. When she qualifies her statement with "under patriarchy," she is not talking about individual men; she is talking about a social system. Thus, equating that statement to be anti-male is a misrepresentation of her beliefs.
    
    I might suggest a quick and easy reading which is a more accurate representation of the modern feminist movement: http://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Everybody-Passionate-bell-hooks/dp/0896086283
    Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks.
    
    hooks is a leading, modern feminist, and she is clearly not anti-male.

Post your comment