Posts by silentridge3

I honestly don't get it—and yeah, I’m going to complain about it—but I just can't wrap my head around why, whenever we try to tackle the systemic political dimension of things, like specific laws or how regulations actually play out on the ground, the moderators seem to treat any discussion regarding chauvinism toward men or male discrimination in this way:

- they basically give a free pass to feminist activists to openly troll and insult everyone, and I guess those threads could probably be studied as textbook examples of how to troll a forum

- they allow these discussions to spiral almost immediately into pointless, petty gender wars because of the pressure from those same trolls

- and then, when we talk about chauvinism directed at men, the topic gets swallowed up by some "general" thread created by a moderator with a title that completely misses the point, rather than addressing the actual issue of male chauvinism, opting instead for something like this:

Violence and discrimination against women combined with discrimination against men

So, looking at what happened with this specific topic, the sequence of events went like this, I suppose:

1. I started the thread over in the "Politics" section, mostly because I was pretty fed up with an event that our President attended. I made it very clear that this was a political matter, citing specific Constitutional articles, various laws, and twelve distinct areas where men face sex discrimination here in America. I titled it in a way that suggested we were looking at unconstitutional actions.

2. The moderator very quickly changed the title to "Campaign against violence against women - chauvinism toward men?". Even though I wasn't thrilled about the "unconstitutional" part being stripped away—since the unconstitutionality was clearly laid out via the legal citations in the post—at least that title still touched on the subject somewhat.

3. I appealed to the moderators multiple times, asking them to please tell the feminist activists to stop trolling the thread, but I didn't have any luck there.

4. Then, in the fourth step, the moderator moved the whole thing over to the "close politics" section and renamed it: "Violence and discrimination against women combined with discrimination against men." That title totally severs any connection to the original point; it implies we're discussing discrimination against women—which isn't even the focus of the debate—and it frames the actual issue of male discrimination as just part of some 50/50 trashy gender tug-of-war...

I'm just asking for a fair approach to such a dominant issue. Look, I have nothing against discussing other topics, but I'm asking that we be allowed to have separate threads for the way society and the system treat men, or separate threads whenever it's necessary. This particular problem goes much deeper and affects far more people than, say, debating a historical site or certain cultural signage; it discriminates against an entire gender. The reach of it is honestly terrifying—think about how fathers are demonized in front of their children, or the massive amount of lies and manipulation coming from the highest levels of government—and the implications for our whole society are huge, whether you look at it through a moral, social, or economic lens. This isn't some 19th-century debate about "who's stronger, men or women," but a critique of the actual system we are living in right now.

In my next posts, I'll lay out the specific details that explain all of this.

Benjamin Morales3 said:http://195.29.137.68/prvi-program/ao...drustva/45265/NPR segment on the fractures within our society

I feel the need to weigh in here: any kind of political division within a society is, at the very least, perfectly normal.

Conflicting viewpoints and clashing worldviews are standard features of life. They're expected political moments in any nation and any community.

So why are we constantly cranking up the volume on this supposed "dangerous divide," acting like we're teetering on the edge of an American Civil War?
It’s all mostly manufactured. It's artificial.
Disagreement is natural. All a functioning society actually needs is tolerance and a bit of common sense.

There isn't some magic formula where we can suddenly iron out every single disagreement, but we can certainly reach a high level of understanding from our own respective positions...

People today are politically savvy enough to see the fundamentals. Someone voting for traditional marriage doesn't necessarily mean they're against the LGBT community. Someone opposing certain signage in Memphis isn't automatically against minorities and so on.
These divides are broad and basic.
Smart analysts understand that things aren't just black and white. They don't view them that way, even when questions are framed using those oversimplified premises...

The real issue, I suspect, lies with our "elites." They basically feed off these divisions—mostly because they lack the actual talent to do anything better—and they constantly keep stoking the flames.

Lately, we've seen this top-down push to split us into "Memphis-style" versus "non-Memphis" types, then later into "conservative" versus "liberal" views regarding referendums, and now this latest fake "three-dimensional" division pushed by Nina Raspudić (which, if you look closely, is really just a two-dimensional split rebranded into "unpatriotic [bad] with four sub-types" and "patriotic [good] with four sub-types").

Unfortunately, the media and the general public seem to latch onto these identity splits much more intensely than, say, the absolutely crucial laws being passed at the same time (like family law or labor laws). It almost seems like people here need enemies more than they actually need friends.

Christian Taylor3 said:Why make up terms when we already have one? It’s called misandry. And honestly, it’s unconstitutional—though I suppose that goes for misogyny too, especially when you look at folks in executive or legislative positions, regardless of how you slice it. It isn't that the European Court of Human Rights doesn't overturn rulings like the ones you're talking about; once we are fully integrated into those international frameworks, I suspect we'll see even more corrections coming from the American court system.

From Wikipedia: Misandry (from Ancient Greek: μισανδρία) is the hatred (or contempt) of men and/or boys. The word is derived from the Ancient Greek words misos (μῖσος, “hatred”) and anēr, andros (ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός; “man”). Misandry can be compared to misanthropy, which denotes a general hatred of humanity.

I’ll say it again, though—I’m looking for a term that encompasses much more than just simple, raw hatred toward men. I’m talking about a concept that describes a SYSTEM; a sort of cross-section that runs from the internal psyche or heart of a misandrist individual, through the actual actions of those individuals and their groups, all the way down into the anti-male provisions found in documents, regulations, laws, and judicial precedents.

I guess one of the real headaches in this whole mess is that most people involved in this entire cycle probably aren't even aware of their own misandry, or maybe they aren't even misandrists to begin with. For instance, many of those controversial decisions in various official documents are basically passed through sheer inertia, and that even applies to a good portion of the men working within the decision-making hierarchy.

I mean, how are we supposed to describe the operations of something like the "Office of Gender Equality" (which, mind you, is an official body funded by the American government), when its five-point national strategy includes a specific point titled "women's health care" (meaning, care focused solely on the health of just one gender!!!!!)?

Is that a misandrist body? Is the strategy itself misandrist? Or are we actually dealing with a gender-discriminatory (anti-male) system that really ought to be called something else entirely?

Christian Taylor3 said:Just come up with something constructive, maybe, just please stop with those unfortunate Nazi analogies.

I actually started this thread so we could all sort of together brainstorm what that thing actually is. That specific term.

I really don't want to go on a guessing game here, only to have the moderators step in again to lock the whole thing down and hand out penalties.

If you guys happen to know the unwritten rules about what isn't allowed, maybe you could tell me what actually is.

Feminandrizm?

Christian Taylor3 said:Besides, you're equating feminism with Nazism,

That is just completely wrong—actually, it’s diametrically opposed to the truth.

The term "feminacism" and the word "feminism" aren't really the same thing at all; they're distinct concepts. I guess you could say that the existence of a term like "feminacism"—which describes something deviant—actually serves to protect the reputation of the neutral, or even positive, concept of "feminism."

Think about it for a second—if I were to take all these deviant behaviors (things like chauvinism against men, misandry, judicial bias, and so on) and label them all under the umbrella of "feminism," wouldn't I actually be doing more harm to women in the long run?

From where I'm sitting, maybe 99% of women have absolutely nothing to do with this whole mess; they aren't feminists, nor are they anything worse. And within that tiny 1% who call themselves feminists, not all of them are man-haters. But there *are* man-haters out there, and I suppose they deserve their own specific label—one that definitely isn't "feminist."

On the flip side, the issue isn't just about individual women harboring hatred toward men. Beyond just the feeling or attitude of misandry, there’s the actual, tangible way people act toward men—directly, publicly, and systematically—as well as the entire structural framework that makes it possible. It’s kind of like how Nazism wasn't just an individual ideology, but also a full-blown social and legal system; we see that same cross-section here, stretching from an individual's heart or mind straight into unconstitutional national strategy or chauvinistic laws.

I wonder what you think about this: how do those countless American fathers feel when they are effectively stripped away from their children by the actions of women through the SYSTEM (...the ease of divorce, lawyers advising women, the total freedom to make false accusations, "express laws" involving detention, or social workers and judges who seem to just "wash their hands" of the situation while labeling a father as "terrible" regarding child support...)?

Maybe they are looking for a "politically correct" term for the very SYSTEM they are trapped in? A system where they don't even have anyone to turn to, because the only entity they can complain to is the very same system that is orchestrating the whole thing...

Should we call it a "feminist politician" who pushed those laws through Congress, or "feminist judges" and social workers who handed down unfair rulings, or perhaps a so-called "feminist advocate for equality" who doesn't give a damn about fathers or this "feminist divorce system"...

...or would saying any of that actually be an insult to feminism itself? Wouldn't it be better to find a deviant term for deviant behavior?

George Sanders37 said:Backfire equality.

Laws and actions meant to improve women's status in society that actually end up discriminating against men.

Could you maybe elaborate a bit on this "backfire equality" phrase?

At first glance, I guess it seems totally vague regarding what it’s actually referencing (not that I'm an expert or anything). A fitting term should probably point directly to the subject matter, you know, giving an immediate hint about what we're discussing:

a) "gender-based"
b) "anti-male"

Besides, from this brief description, it feels like so many segments of the issue aren't being covered—it's like most of the actual problems don't fit under that umbrella at all.

For instance, how would you include the fact that in 99% of cases, custody goes to mothers while child support goes to fathers during divorces (in those instances where both parents actually want the kids), especially when the systemic activity of certain judges and social workers—which is basically illegal, de facto and de jure—doesn't actually fix any past inequality women faced in that regard (since women haven't exactly been "losing" children in divorces just to have things "corrected" in reverse now)?

Or, how could you fit someone like Bill Maher into this expression, when he sits there on Anderson Cooper's show at 6:30 PM on ABC and flat-out claims that all men are scumbags and lowlifes, while Anderson Cooper just smiles pleasantly and doesn't react at all, leaving kids watching at home to soak it up, and the Gender Equality Ombudsman stays silent (even though she’ll jump to act if a firefighter at some small ceremony says, "congratulations, you've become a man")? In what way does Bill Maher’s comment on Anderson Cooper's show, combined with the ombudsman's silence, attempt to "improve the status of women in society"?

So, I suppose I'm talking about deviant, harmful, wicked, or even illegal occurrences and behaviors directed toward the male gender, rather than anything about improving the status of women.

Christian Taylor3 said:Everything here is perfectly clear, I suppose; you can go ahead and call Anne Hathaway by her actual name without it being labeled "feminism" again. Before that, though, it was neo-Nazism. Just as a general rule, not a personal jab: you simply can't talk to people on Reddit like that. I’m totally in favor of sanctions for anyone using that word, especially when users are interacting with one another. Godwin's law, regarding pretty much every debate on this site, is essentially an instant death sentence—it’s best to just steer clear of all those Nazi analogies.

Not that I’m trying to disagree with the admins or anything, but it looks like we might get more snow today. 😁

Wonderful. Since you clearly have so much to say about this whole thing, I assume that besides your standard "Godwin's law" bit (which, if you ask me, most people cite quite inaccurately)...

...you might be able to help me find a better way to phrase things.

Thanks in advance. I’m not looking for more lectures on what I’m forbidden from saying; rather, I’m searching for a proper term that I *can* actually use. When I say "proper," I mean something concise and conversational—maybe a single word or a short two-word phrase—something versatile enough to function as a noun, adjective, or adverb depending on how it's used. And, oh, it should probably actually relate to the subject matter too. So, something like "đ" definitely won't work.

So, basically:

What’s the right term for systemic actions (like laws, regulations, or media coverage) as well as individual ones (like a specific person or an organization) that aim to demean men or practice gender-based discrimination against them?

Again, thanks for the help.

Jose White23 said:It’s perfectly legal to lean on unconstitutional decrees, regulations, and systemic maneuvers within government agencies to push for gender inequality against men, alongside the chauvinistic antics of certain women, female-led advocacy groups, and those "special interest" organizations targeting the male gender.

That’s just not how language works, I guess.

I really can't be bothered to type out that whole massive sausage of a sentence every single time.

I mean, why is it that when we talk about racism, we’re actually allowed to just use the word "racism," rather than having to say

"...unconstitutional decrees, regulations, and systemic maneuvers within government agencies aimed at racial inequality for Black Americans, combined with the chauvinistic actions of certain white individuals, white-led groups, and various 'special interest' organizations targeting Black Americans."

?

So, I suppose what I'm wondering is... what would be the actual analogy (in my specific case) for terms like "racist behavior," "a racist," "a racist decision," or "a racist law"?

Thanks in advance for a precise answer, if one even exists.

I actually reached out to the moderators over in the "banned users corner" (which I can't even access right now, if you can believe it) to ask for some guidance on how to keep my posts here constructive, maybe using more appropriate vocabulary so we can actually have a decent conversation. Sadly, I haven't heard a peep back, so the whole thing is just hanging there, unresolved. I’m looking for a CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE RESPONSE.

Look, I have no intention of walking away from this discussion regarding the erosion of male equality here in America. It feels like there are unconstitutional mandates, regulations, and systemic biases baked right into our government institutions, not to mention the chauvinistic attitudes coming from certain women, various women's advocacy groups, and other "special interest" organizations targeting men.

Since, for some reason that I honestly can't quite wrap my head around, I'm apparently forbidden from grouping all of this under the umbrella term "feminism," I’d like the moderators to step up and provide me with an acceptable alternative.

What specific term am I permitted to use to describe these unconstitutional policies and institutional actions that drive gender inequality against men, as well as the chauvinistic behavior of certain women and their associated interest groups?

Thanks in advance for providing that terminology.

So, I suppose we should probably circle back to where this all started. Back on Tuesday, December 4th, 2012, I kicked off this thread by putting a very direct question to the moderators here:

silentridge3 said:I can't help but wonder why such an important and genuinely engaging topic was just shut down instead of the moderators actually doing their jobs—you know, by penalizing the people breaking the rules and scrubbing the offensive posts from the board. It feels like the thread wasn't closed because of the trolls, but rather because of all of us who were actually invested in the discussion.

I really hope I haven't offended anyone by bringing this up.

Anyway, it's now Friday, December 7th, 2012.

Not a single moderator has bothered to give me a straight answer to that specific question. Honestly, nobody has even made an appearance, yet they seem perfectly content to let the radical feminists in here continue insulting me right under their noses.

What am I supposed to take away from this? I guess the (unspoken) conclusion is pretty obvious:

hollowtrucker77 said:People have pleaded with everyone here more times than I can count to stop the trolling and actually stick to the facts and arguments instead of just shouting
but honestly, it’s pretty obvious certain people had an agenda from the start, and the moderators basically sat on their hands and let this whole thread go up in flames; they just ignored the reports until it was too late, letting everyone descend into total toxicity once the conversation was already dead in the water anyway

In my book, it’s completely unacceptable to let a discussion fall apart like this just because some activists decided to stage a hit job, and frankly, it says everything you need to know about the quality and the supposed "democratic" nature of this forum's leadership
I get that people have strong feelings and deep-seated disagreements, but this level of moderation is nothing short of a total disgrace
and I find it hard to believe any of this happened by accident

I guess this is what they call feminism:

I don't know, I guess you could call it being violently happy, if that’s even a thing, though maybe it’s just that sort of aggressive, overwhelming sort of joy that feels almost like an assault on the senses, which is kind of strange when you think about it, because usually happiness is supposed to be this quiet, gentle little thing, isn't it? But sometimes it hits you with this weirdly intense, almost jarring force, like a sudden burst of sunlight in a dark room that actually makes you wince for a second before you can even process how good it feels, and honestly, I find myself wondering if we’re all just waiting for that kind of impact, or if we’re just too exhausted by everything else to notice when it finally happens. I can't quite make out what was being said there, though I suppose it doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things, does it? It feels like we're always just circling the same drain, waiting for someone to say something that actually shifts the needle, but maybe I'm just being overly cynical about the whole situation. Anyway, if you were trying to get a point across, I guess I missed it.
I mean, someone really ought to buy some diapers for that silentridge3 outfit, honestly.

I don't know, I guess there’s this strange, almost aggressive sort of joy that just hits you out of nowhere, isn't there? It’s like being violently happy—not in a way that actually hurts, but in a way that feels a bit too loud for the room, if that makes any sense. You’re sitting there, maybe sipping a coffee in a quiet corner of a Starbucks in Seattle, minding your own business, and suddenly everything just feels... overwhelming. It’s almost unsettling, really, because you start wondering if it’s sustainable, or if the universe is just building up some kind of cosmic debt that you’ll have to pay back later with interest. I mean, I’ve always been a bit skeptical of those people who seem to be perpetually walking on sunshine, and maybe that’s just my own cynicism talking, but when happiness comes at you with that much intensity, it feels less like a blessing and more like a sudden, uninvited guest who refuses to leave. It’s a heavy sort of lightness, I suppose. kaže:
I mean, honestly, comments like mine... they're just pretty standard stuff from a guy's perspective, I guess, if that makes any sense at all.
Honestly, I don't even care if I get handed a red card right this second or not. It really doesn't matter to me, I guess.

Susan Price30 said:I don't really care about that either.

The bigger issue is that the topics shouldn't be spread thin across two different subforums—like having World News and Politics cover the exact same thing—only for this guy to come crawling back here complaining because his thread got shut down after he spent all day trolling and being toxic... unbelievable.

I don't know, I guess you could call it being violently happy, if that’s even a thing people say, though maybe it’s more like a sort of aggressive, overwhelming sort of cheerfulness that feels almost intrusive, like someone coming at you with a smile that’s just a little too bright for the hour of the day or the general mood of the room. It’s a strange sensation, really, this sudden, jarring burst of positivity that hits you out of nowhere—almost like a physical impact—and you find yourself wondering if it’s actually genuine or if it’s just some frantic, desperate attempt to drown out the usual grayness of everything else, which, let’s face it, happens more often than we care to admit. It’s a bit much, I suppose, this intensity, this feeling of being pushed into a state of joy that feels less like a gentle wave and more like a tidal wave hitting a coastal town, leaving you a bit breathless and unsure of where to stand. Maybe it's just how things go sometimes, an unpredictable surge of light in a world that usually prefers its shadows, but it always feels a little unsettling, doesn't it? kaže:
I mean, honestly, just go head to some bakery or a cupcake shop somewhere and just gorge yourself on sweets, I guess.

Grace I guess I should probably mention what Sean Cook2 was saying about this...
And then, of course, he actually had the nerve to show up here and complain that his thread got shut down, as if he hadn't spent the entire time just trolling and being an absolute menace to everyone involved... I mean, honestly, it’s just unbelievable.

Susan Price30 said:So now the government is considered "femi-nacist" simply because it specifies the rights of any group that was historically viewed as vulnerable? (Especially in societies that weren't exactly pioneers in protecting human rights or believing in democracy). Perhaps this code should emphasize protecting the rights of heterosexuals, since they were also "vulnerable and persecuted" throughout history by homosexuals.

Please, don't even talk to me anymore 🙏...thankfully, I've never had the chance to encounter someone this extreme in real life.

The point is, it seems you don't even grasp (or perhaps you just refuse to accept) that this article—just as the headline states—supports gender equality by ensuring certain legal protections for women, who, let's face it, have been continuously disenfranchised throughout history.

And really, what else is there to discuss? Nothing.

Susan Price30 said:So now the government is considered "femi-nacist" simply because it specifies the rights of any group that was historically viewed as vulnerable? (Especially in societies that weren't exactly pioneers in protecting human rights or believing in democracy). Perhaps this code should emphasize protecting the rights of heterosexuals, since they were also "vulnerable and persecuted" throughout history by homosexuals.

Please, don't even talk to me anymore 🙏...thankfully, I've never had the chance to encounter someone this extreme in real life.

The point is, it seems you don't even grasp (or perhaps you just refuse to accept) that this article—just as the headline states—supports gender equality by ensuring certain legal protections for women, who, let's face it, have been continuously disenfranchised throughout history.

And really, what else is there to discuss? Nothing.

Susan Price30 said:So now the government is considered "femi-nacist" simply because it specifies the rights of any group that was historically viewed as vulnerable? (Especially in societies that weren't exactly pioneers in protecting human rights or believing in democracy). Perhaps this code should emphasize protecting the rights of heterosexuals, since they were also "vulnerable and persecuted" throughout history by homosexuals.

Please, don't even talk to me anymore 🙏...thankfully, I've never had the chance to encounter someone this extreme in real life.

The point is, it seems you don't even grasp (or perhaps you just refuse to accept) that this article—just as the headline states—supports gender equality by ensuring certain legal protections for women, who, let's face it, have been continuously disenfranchised throughout history.

And really, what else is there to discuss? Nothing.

Susan Price30 said:So now the government is considered "femi-nacist" simply because it specifies the rights of any group that was historically viewed as vulnerable? (Especially in societies that weren't exactly pioneers in protecting human rights or believing in democracy). Perhaps this code should emphasize protecting the rights of heterosexuals, since they were also "vulnerable and persecuted" throughout history by homosexuals.

Please, don't even talk to me anymore 🙏...thankfully, I've never had the chance to encounter someone this extreme in real life.

The point is, it seems you don't even grasp (or perhaps you just refuse to accept) that this article—just as the headline states—supports gender equality by ensuring certain legal protections for women, who, let's face it, have been continuously disenfranchised throughout history.

And really, what else is there to discuss? Nothing.

That last point is probably the most interesting one, if you ask me. Looking back at history, certain groups were treated unfairly, so now the state claims it "has the right," in this day and age, to essentially discriminate against men... 🙄 I mean, what's the logical next step then? Are we just going to start killing off every white person today because some other white people oppressed Black Americans centuries ago?

Sean Cook2 said:The figure being waved around here refers to attempted murder rates in the US back in 2011 (broken down by men and women)—and even that number is questionable. It doesn't account for actual homicides.

I think I'm actually "measuring" things using the exact same numbers you laid out. In fact, if I recall correctly, even you established there were at least seven male victims—which would mean seven female perpetrators.

Is that not quite how you wanted it to look, either?

Just a little something to chew on... I guess you could say the presumption of innocence for men is basically being phased out:

Prangia77 said:http://www.congress.gov/legislation/examples/sexual-offense-statutes.html

CHAPTER XVI
CRIMES AGAINST SEXUAL LIBERTY

Sexual intercourse without consent

Section 152.

(1) Any individual who engages in sexual intercourse, or any sexual act equivalent thereto, with another person without their consent—or induces another person to engage in such acts with a third party or themselves without consent—

shall be punished by imprisonment from six months up to five years.

(2) An offender who acted under a remediable mistake regarding the existence of consent as defined in paragraph 1 of this section,

shall be punished by imprisonment of up to three years.

(3) Consent as defined in paragraph 1 exists if the person decided of their own free will to engage in sexual intercourse or an equivalent sexual act and was capable of making and expressing such a decision. It is deemed that no such consent exists, particularly if the sexual act was committed through the use of force or threats, deception, abuse of a position of authority over a dependent person, exploitation of a state that rendered the person incapable of expressing refusal, or against a person who has been unlawfully deprived of their liberty.

Supreme Court Interpretation:

– It should be emphasized that any application of force or threat implies a lack of consent, and it isn't necessary for the victim to have physically resisted. An accused person may attempt to prove that consent existed, but the burden of proof lies entirely upon them. The prosecutor only needs to prove that a sexual encounter occurred, whereupon the defendant then carries the weight of proving there was consent. – This is how a Supreme Court justice went out of his way to explain this new development.

Basically, anything can fall under this third clause; it feels like there’s almost nothing a woman can’t sue a man for. And then you just have to prove you didn't do it!

Feminists—enjoy yourselves, I suppose. You can pretty much do whatever you want to men within this system, or keep blaming them for some ancient patriarchy from 4,000 years ago (which they aren't even responsible for).

Just a little something...

Prangia77 said:Just imagine how this is going to be used during divorce proceedings😲

http://www.nationalnews.com/article/54908/...rights-you-dont-have

At the Municipal Civil Court in Los Angeles, there are only six judges handling family law cases, and all six of them happen to be women. It's also worth noting that their director, Sandra Artuković Kunšt, is constantly heading off to various presentations organized by the B.a.B.e. association, which is led by Sanja Sarnavka. Then you have Lidija Budimović, the chief legal counsel at the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, who is also a member of that same B.a.B.e. group.

And apparently, that very same organization is the one responsible for running this website: http://www.rape-prevention.org/

I mean, just think about it—if the man in that photo were Black, it would imply that all Black men are rapists. That would be blatant racism, the authors would face massive legal repercussions, and the site would be shut down immediately. But since it's this way? No problem.
Anyway, if the people behind these sites are actually advising family court judges, I can only begin to wonder what kind of advice they're giving or what those presentations are really about: is it just "all men are pigs" or "all men are rapists" over and over again???
What on earth are these women advising during divorce trials???

If you ask me, we're looking at an epidemic of legalized hatred.

Susan Price30 said:

Equality either exists or it doesn't.

In America, it simply doesn't. Under our current system, men are treated like second-class citizens...

By making such exclusive generalizations, you're just echoing what everyone else has already said 😁—trying to pass off a subjective feeling as absolute truth and be it all.

And again: it isn't that society or the law is "wrong," rather, perhaps your own interpretation is falling short...😉

Not at all, actually quite the opposite. There isn't any "subjective impression" here (or whatever "what others have commented" refers to), because there is a National Strategy written down in black and white, an official government document:

The Feminist National Strategy, also known as the "National Policy for Gender Equality".

1) Promotion of Women's Human Rights and Gender Equality 2 and gender equality
2) Creating equal opportunities within the labor market
3) Improving the implementation of gender-sensitive upbringing and education
4) Balancing the participation of women and men in political and public decision-making processes
5) Eliminating all forms of violence against women
6) Promoting international cooperation and gender equality outside of the US
7) Further strengthening institutional mechanisms and implementation methods

This strategy contains two clearly unconstitutional points (1 and 5), so there really isn't any room for "subjectivity or interpretation" here. Point 1 explicitly focuses on promoting the rights of only one gender (which is, by definition, gender discrimination against the other), and Point 5 basically cements this whole feminist idea that women are exclusively and solely the victims.

It's as clear as day. Over the next five years, the government is implementing a gender-discriminatory strategy under the cynical title of "National Policy for Gender Equality."

By the way: there is no such thing as "women's human rights"; there are only and exclusively "human rights," which exist independently of gender, age, religion, nationality, and so on.

Susan Price30 said:The mods and everyone else on this thread have already agreed that such a thing isn't allowed. lol.

But hey, you clearly know best... just like how you've so masterfully studied and interpreted all those gender equality laws and everything else.

1. That is an incredibly cynical thing to say, really, basically dismissing the struggles of anyone who isn't your gender.
2. It’s not about me "interpreting" things; I am simply pointing out specific instances where the law is being applied unconstitutionally against men.

When it comes to gender equality, there isn't really much room for "interpretation," if you think about it. Equality either exists, or it doesn't.

In America, it just doesn't exist. In our current system, men are treated almost like second-class citizens—and I don't just mean when you hear feminist rhetoric on some news program, but actually within official government documents, federal agencies, various "initiatives," strategic plans, and even the actual letter of the law and how it's practiced in court. There's a mountain of evidence, plenty of examples, already laid out in that locked thread.

Susan Price30 said:Sure, but you don't have the right to label anyone a "feminacist," nor is such a term legitimate (or even makes sense), much like how the bolded claim of "female fascism=Nazism (given how extreme that concept is, and how the word 'fascism' is used as a trendy way to shame people on certain subreddits—wow, what a miracle) is intended to discriminate based on gender (men, lol). If that were the case, I assume it would have been legally prohibited long ago.🤣

To me, this whole topic seemed pretty foolishly (illogically) framed from the start, filled with pretty stupid comments that probably should have been locked ages ago. Instead of moving it to a different subforum, we're stuck with this illogical thread and moderation actions everywhere... for example, the OP has spent more time banned than actually participating in the thread.

Well, I guess I do have the right, and I’d argue the term actually makes perfect sense.

I mean, how else would you even categorize an ideology or a specific drive that insists on the "superiority of women"—which, if you look at how they handle everything from child custody disputes to those totally nonsensical quotas—or this whole idea regarding the "inherent value of women," like the notion that women are exclusively victims while men are just inherently violent?

Susan Price30 said:Sure, but you don't have the right to label anyone a "feminacist," nor is such a term legitimate (or even makes sense), much like how the bolded claim of "female fascism=Nazism (given how extreme that concept is, and how the word 'fascism' is used as a trendy way to shame people on certain subreddits—wow, what a miracle) is intended to discriminate based on gender (men, lol). If that were the case, I assume it would have been legally prohibited long ago.🤣

To me, this whole topic seemed pretty foolishly (illogically) framed from the start, filled with pretty stupid comments that probably should have been locked ages ago. Instead of moving it to a different subforum, we're stuck with this illogical thread and moderation actions everywhere... for example, the OP has spent more time banned than actually participating in the thread.

This whole topic is just fantastic, really, and I mean some of the comments here have been absolutely phenomenal, though I suppose the real win—if you can even call it that—was all that raw, unfiltered data being tossed around, which I think was the first time a lot of people actually laid eyes on those kinds of hard numbers.

It’s funny, I guess, how there’s this total omertà surrounding the whole issue of violence against men and the systemic fascism baked into our institutions—you know, like the way divorce courts operate or that constant media chauvinism we see everywhere—it’s just never discussed, really. It’s like everyone collectively agrees to look the other way, which is pretty exhausting if you think about it too much. This corner of the internet has honestly been one of the few places where people could actually talk openly about the shameful ways the system works against men, and maybe that's why it feels so different here.

It just didn't fit that whole feminist narrative they try to push, you know? That specific desire to maintain this public image where women are always the victims and men are just the villains, and that domestic violence is somehow exclusively one-sided—as if it only ever happens to women in a household. So, I guess they just started trolling and tearing the whole discussion apart until there was nothing left of the topic at all.

Susan Price30 I guess what they’re saying is...
Exactly right. I mean, that’s pretty much the whole point, isn't it? It really is.

It’s just this constant twisting of objective terms and actual definitions, you know? They take a concept that has a clear, measurable meaning and they just bend it until it's unrecognizable, which I guess is just how things work now. And then, on top of all that, there’s the blatant, crude insults thrown around whenever someone feels like it—because, honestly, calling someone a "feminazi" doesn't exactly strike me as a glowing compliment, if you catch my drift.

I wouldn't say that’s exactly right, I really wouldn't. If you actually look at the quote you're leaning on—you know, that Pomona piece—it's pretty clear that these kinds of inter-partner crimes are happening 24/7, or at least it feels that way most days.

I mean, I guess you could look at it that way, if you really wanted to dive down that particular rabbit hole, but honestly, it feels like seven men have just been completely undone by women. It’s one of those things where you start questioning everything, I suppose, because it seems like such a pattern lately, though maybe I'm just being cynical, which, let's face it, is kind of my default setting at this point. I guess if you look at what Pomonin was saying... though I don't know if we can really take those numbers to the bank, maybe, but it seems like there’s some truth buried in there somewhere, I suppose.So, if you look at the numbers, that accounts for about 23% of the total casualties, which I guess works out to roughly a 3:1 ratio in terms of victims.

I guess if you really sit down and look at the statistics—and I mean actually dig through the data rather than just listening to the noise on the news—it seems like there’s this pattern emerging where, for every three women who end up being the victim in a relationship, there’s at least one man who is essentially a casualty of his own partner. It’s a heavy thought, maybe a bit grim, but it feels like we're ignoring a massive part of the equation, and honestly, it makes me wonder how much of this is just left unsaid because people are too afraid of the optics.

That would basically mean that if we were actually living in some kind of fair world—one that isn't just driven by this whole modern feminist agenda, I guess—things might look a little different.

I mean, I guess if you look at how things are going on television lately, it feels like for every three shows that go out of their way to highlight domestic violence against women, there really ought to be at least one dedicated program focusing on the violence women inflict on men within the home. It seems like a bit of an imbalance, maybe, but I can't help but feel like we aren't seeing the full picture when it comes to what actually happens behind closed doors in American households.

I mean, I guess if you really look at how much Barack Obama talks about violence against women, it feels like for every three times he brings that up, there probably should have been one instance where he addressed the violence women commit against men, too. Maybe it’s just my way of looking at things, but it feels like a bit of an imbalance, I suppose.

I mean, I guess if you really look at how things are playing out lately, it feels like for every three rallies or seminars organized by those "Gender Equality Advocates" focusing on violence against women, there probably ought to be at least one dedicated session or forum addressing the reality of violence against men. It just seems like a bit of an imbalance, maybe, if we're actually trying to look at the whole picture instead of just one side of it.

I mean, honestly, that just isn't happening. It's simply not on the table. There are like a thousand different shows out there focusing on violence against women, yet I can't find a single TV show that addresses violence against men—not one, zero, zilch. It feels like this total omerta, honestly, and I suspect it’s actually baked right into the federal government's entire strategic playbook. Maybe it's just my cynical view, but it really seems like they've just collectively decided to look the other way.I mean, looking through that document, it’s almost like they completely ignored the whole issue of violence against men, which I guess is just how things go sometimes, but it really doesn't even account for the need to actually raise awareness about it, let alone the importance of reporting these incidents or finding ways to actually stop them from happening in the first place.

I guess if you really sit down and look at how we categorize all this stuff, it’s kind of funny how the labels shift depending on who's being targeted, isn't it? I mean, obviously, racial discrimination against Black Americans is racism—that's a given—and when you have people targeting Jews based on their religion or heritage, that’s antisemitism, which is its own heavy thing. But then, if you follow that same logic to where we are now, I suppose you could argue that discriminating against men just because of their gender would be what people call feminism. It's all just different ways of slicing the same pie, I guess, though the terminology gets a bit messy when you try to apply them all at once.

Sean Cook2 said:silentridge3's numbers are just as arbitrary and subjective as his definitions—he knows they're wrong, yet he keeps recycling them.

I mean, part of the whole feminist hypocrisy thing is definitely this manipulation of statistics.

It seems like the usual tactic is to have the media constantly churning out these "statistical estimates," you know, like saying "every single second in America, a million women are being beaten"...

...but honestly, what you're doing here, this constant "nitpicking," feels even more shameful to me, if that makes sense. Because, look, even if we actually sit down and go through your specific calculations and assumptions—and let's say we give you the absolute best-case scenario for women—out of those 31 crimes, 7 were actually committed by women against their male partners.

Is that a small amount, or are 7 male victims somehow unworthy of being mentioned? Does a 24:7 ratio really feel sufficient enough to you to push this whole narrative that "women are exclusively victims and men are exclusively criminals"?

And where is even one solitary instance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stepping in to address men as victims? Not one article, not one TV show, not one single seminar, action, or petition...?

Maybe it's the feminism itself that has manufactured this kind of omertà, I guess.