Why was the thread about militant feminism closed on "Politics"?

Sean Cook2 said:Lately, I’ve noticed that women participating in discussions about feminism or violence against women—even when they aren't saying anything objectively offensive—are being labeled "feminacists" without any real consequence.

Based on what I’ve seen here, it seems like this kind of insulting language is being tolerated—which is interesting, to say the least. I’d actually appreciate an explicit stance from the administration on this matter. At what point does calling someone a "feminacist" become a violation of the rules on this forum?

The feminist state strategy—well, it’s certainly something. It’s nothing more than a slur—plain and simple. Allowing the use of such pejoratives is a mistake. The current feminist state strategy—if you can even call it that—is becoming quite a spectacle. It’s essentially the same as permitting the use of certain terms—though one could argue the distinction is thin at best. A total chauvinistic pig. And even the sheer weight of the words themselves matters—if you catch my drift. Absolute pig. Less impactful than the words themselves—if that makes any sense. racist.

Is it actually permissible to call someone a male chauvinist pig? Or—at the very least—just a male chauvinist.

Sean Cook2 said:Lately, I’ve noticed that women participating in discussions about feminism or violence against women—even when they aren't saying anything objectively offensive—are being labeled "feminacists" without any real consequence.

Based on what I’ve seen here, it seems like this kind of insulting language is being tolerated—which is interesting, to say the least. I’d actually appreciate an explicit stance from the administration on this matter. At what point does calling someone a "feminacist" become a violation of the rules on this forum?

The feminist state strategy—well, it’s certainly something. It’s nothing more than a slur—plain and simple. Allowing the use of such pejoratives is a mistake. The current feminist state strategy—if you can even call it that—is becoming quite a spectacle. It’s essentially the same as permitting the use of certain terms—though one could argue the distinction is thin at best. A total chauvinistic pig. And even the sheer weight of the words themselves matters—if you catch my drift. Absolute pig. Less impactful than the words themselves—if that makes any sense. racist.

Is it actually permissible to call someone a male chauvinist pig? Or—at the very least—just a male chauvinist.

Sean Cook2 said:Lately, I’ve noticed that women participating in discussions about feminism or violence against women—even when they aren't saying anything objectively offensive—are being labeled "feminacists" without any real consequence.

Based on what I’ve seen here, it seems like this kind of insulting language is being tolerated—which is interesting, to say the least. I’d actually appreciate an explicit stance from the administration on this matter. At what point does calling someone a "feminacist" become a violation of the rules on this forum?

The feminist state strategy—well, it’s certainly something. It’s nothing more than a slur—plain and simple. Allowing the use of such pejoratives is a mistake. The current feminist state strategy—if you can even call it that—is becoming quite a spectacle. It’s essentially the same as permitting the use of certain terms—though one could argue the distinction is thin at best. A total chauvinistic pig. And even the sheer weight of the words themselves matters—if you catch my drift. Absolute pig. Less impactful than the words themselves—if that makes any sense. racist.

Is it actually permissible to call someone a male chauvinist pig? Or—at the very least—just a male chauvinist.

hiddeneagle3 said:It's especially frustrating because people use that slur to basically shut down anyone with a different opinion—like, nothing a "femnacist" says matters because they're just dismissed by the label. Then, the whole thread just turns into a venting session about women, emancipation in general, or just complaining about how hard life is for men these days... mostly because of these "femnacists." I guess when someone tries to join a debate like that, they just end up triggering another cycle of insults and self-pity instead of an actual discussion (rip).

It feels a little absurd that potentially interesting conversations are getting killed off by people rushing to apply Godwin's law.

silentridge3 said:You’re spreading the lie that these radicals should be called feminists.

When you look at the struggle for actual systemic and constitutional equality for men (for instance, during divorce proceedings, or under the state strategy, or when dealing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and things like that), it wouldn't make sense to label the deviant behavior of certain women or a deviant system as feminism, since that isn't what feminism is. So, maybe it’s helpful to have a specific term that refers exclusively to that deviant behavior and that deviant system. That term is feminacism, which is a distinct concept from feminism.

hiddeneagle3 said:This kind of reminds me of that old joke about the good and bad Native American.

Your post just reinforces my feeling that "femnacism" is really just a hate term used to provoke and justify hostility during a debate. It feels like the most basic ad hominem attack. Especially since people seem to ignore standard definitions of feminism, choosing instead to interpret everything solely through their own lens regarding men being marginalized in modern society, which seems pretty arbitrary to me. It makes real discussion almost impossible because the terms aren't even clear, and then anything someone says can just be dismissed as "femnacism" if it doesn't fit the argument.

The reason I even jumped into this conversation wasn't to debate social movements on a government agency forum, but rather to point out how certain terms slip past the moderators. It's basically a conversation killer and an insult to an entire social group (even if they are radical feminists). I honestly wonder how your quoted post would have been treated if you were talking about Jews or Black Americans.

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.

silentridge3 said:I mean, I feel like you’ve got it completely backwards, honestly; if anything, the reality of the situation is the exact opposite of what you're claiming.

When...

I was reading the news earlier, and I can’t help but feel a bit weary about how this all plays out, but apparently, Judge Kršul went on the record with the press, claiming that women just make better colleagues in a professional setting. And then, as if that wasn't enough to set the tone, the director of a hospital over in Indianapolis told reporters she prefers hiring women for her staff—which, if you ask me, probably means she actually does it, which feels like a pretty blatant way to discriminate against men, I guess. It’s just one of those things where you see these public statements being made and you wonder where the line is drawn, maybe, between preference and outright bias, though it seems the trend is moving toward making things quite complicated for everyone else.

I mean, I guess there isn't really a better way to describe that kind of blatant segregation than just calling it feminism. It’s honestly pretty wild when you think about it, because those kinds of statements feel just as loaded as saying, "I'd rather hire white people over Black people," or claiming that Americans are somehow better employees than members of the minority communities here. It all feels like the same old pattern, really.

When...

So, this judge basically just went on record admitting that she bypassed the actual law to decide on child custody and a restraining order against the father in what—what, five minutes? And the kicker is that absolutely nothing happens to her afterward, which makes me think we’re looking at a truly broken, feminist state strategy in action. I mean, I don't think the issue is just about one individual person being reckless, though maybe it is, but more likely it’s the entire system itself; it's built in a way that actually allows this kind of thing to happen without any real accountability, and honestly, that’s when you know the whole setup is rigged.

And that’s how the whole system actually looks, I guess... if you want to get into the weeds of it.

Back in 2011, they were actually listed among the partners... I think it was around that time, maybe? It’s hard to pin down exactly, but if I recall correctly, they had already established themselves as part of the partnership group back then. I was looking at some of those old crime statistics recently—you know, the kind of data that just makes you sit back and sigh—and I noticed this weirdly specific breakdown where men were responsible for about 19 major offenses while women accounted for around 14. It’s one of those things that feels like it should mean something profound, I guess, but then you start digging into the context and everything gets so murky and complicated. Maybe it’s just a statistical hiccup, or maybe there’s some deeper sociological shift happening under the surface that we aren't quite catching yet, though I honestly doubt there's a simple answer to any of this. It’s just one of those heavy, lingering thoughts that stays with you, I suppose..

So, I was sitting around thinking about this whole feminist state strategy thing—you know, that so-called "national policy for gender equality" they keep pushing on us—and it just feels like one of those things that's being forced down our throats without much thought, I guess. It’s hard to tell where the actual necessity ends and the bureaucratic overreach begins, maybe, because everything seems to be moving toward this centralized, top-down approach lately. It's all very much part of this broader push by the government agencies to micromanage how we interact, and honestly, it just feels exhausting to watch the way they try to engineer social outcomes through sheer policy force. I don't know, it just feels like we're heading toward a reality where every single aspect of life is filtered through these massive, sweeping mandates, and I can't help but wonder if we're losing something vital in the process of trying to legislate equality into existence.

1) I suppose we should probably talk about the whole push for promoting women's rights, though I’m never quite sure if we're actually moving toward anything meaningful or just spinning our wheels in a very loud, very public way. It feels like one of those things where everyone agrees on the basic idea—because, honestly, who wouldn't?—but then you look at how the actual state strategy unfolds, and it all gets so incredibly complicated and messy. Maybe it's just me being cynical, but I often wonder if these massive pushes for a national policy for gender equality end up becoming more about bureaucracy than actual, tangible change for people on the ground. You see these big announcements from the government agencies, and they sound wonderful on paper, almost too perfect, but then you have to deal with the reality of how things actually function in cities like Indianapolis or anywhere else in the country. I guess it’s just that constant tension between the lofty ideals we all claim to hold and the slow, grinding gears of the system that seems to struggle with any real progress. It's a lot to wrap one's head around, really. And then there's that whole thing about gender equality, too... I guess you could say it's just one more layer in this massive, complicated mess we're all navigating, though I'm never quite sure if anyone actually knows what they're aiming for anymore. It feels like every time you turn around, there’s some new push for a national policy for gender equality or some other sweeping mandate, and honestly, it just makes me wonder if we're all just spinning our wheels in the sand while trying to balance everything. Maybe it's necessary, maybe it isn't, but it certainly adds another heavy weight to an already exhausting conversation.
2) Creating equal opportunities within the labor market
So, I was thinking about this whole push to improve how we handle gender-sensitive upbringing and education within our schools, and honestly, it’s one of those things that feels like it could go a dozen different ways depending on who you ask. I guess if the government agencies actually get their act together, maybe there's a way to refine the state strategy to make sure kids aren't being boxed into these rigid, outdated roles from the moment they walk into a classroom, though I suspect the bureaucracy will just find a way to overcomplicate it. It’s a massive undertaking, really, trying to weave this kind of nuance into the entire educational framework without it becoming some sort of performative lecture, if you know what I mean? I don't know, maybe it's possible to strike a balance where we're promoting equality through the national policy for gender equality without making everything feel forced or artificial, but then again, history suggests that whenever the State gets involved in "improving" social dynamics, things tend to get messy and bogged down in red tape. It's a complicated mess, I suppose.
I guess we’re back to talking about the whole balancing act regarding men and women in political and public decision-making processes again. It’s one of those things that feels like it’s constantly being debated in Washington, isn't it? You have this whole push for a national policy for gender equality, which I suppose is meant to ensure that everyone has a seat at the table, though whether that actually leads to better outcomes or just more bureaucracy is something I can't quite wrap my head around. Maybe it’s necessary, maybe it’s just another layer of oversight from some government agency, but there's definitely an ongoing effort to make sure representation isn't just lopsided in our leadership roles. It’s a complicated mess, honestly.
5) I suppose we could all sit around and dream about a world where we finally manage to strip away every single form of violence, though I don't know if that’s even a realistic goal for us as a species, maybe. It feels like such an overwhelming, massive undertaking—just completely eliminating all kinds of aggression and force from our society—but then again, I guess you have to wonder if humanity is even capable of that kind of restraint. It’s a heavy thought, really, just imagining a life without any of that friction, but I suppose it's worth pondering, even if it feels a bit like chasing a ghost. I guess I’ve been sitting here thinking about the whole thing—the way everything seems to be shifting lately regarding women and how society is trying to reshape things—and it just feels like we're caught in this endless, swirling cycle of constant adjustment. It’s hard to pin down exactly where the needle is moving, but you can feel the tension, I suppose, especially when you look at how various government agencies are pushing these massive shifts in social dynamics. Everything feels so heavy and complicated, almost like we're constantly being told that the old ways were fundamentally broken, which might be true in some sense, but then you look at the sheer scale of the new initiatives being rolled out by the state, and it just feels... overwhelming, if that makes any sense. I don't know, maybe I'm just being cynical, but there's this sense that we're perpetually in the middle of a massive, unceasing reorganization of how men and women interact in public life, and it leaves me feeling a bit weary, honestly. It’s like we’re all just drifting through these sweeping changes, trying to figure out what the new rules are while the goalposts seem to move every single week.
I suppose we should probably talk about how we might push for more international cooperation and a real commitment to gender equality outside our own borders here in the States, though I honestly don't know if anyone is actually listening anymore. It feels like one of those things that sounds great on paper—you know, all that lofty talk about global partnerships and making sure everyone gets a fair shake regardless of gender—but when you look at how messy things are globally, it just seems like such an uphill battle, maybe even a bit futile if you ask me. We could try to influence how other countries handle their social policies, perhaps by pushing for a more cohesive international approach to women's rights, but then again, trying to get the whole world on the same page regarding a national policy for gender equality is like trying to herd cats in a thunderstorm. It’s a massive undertaking, I guess, and quite frankly, I’m not sure if the current state strategy of most major powers is even headed in that direction, let alone capable of fostering true global equity.
7) Strengthening our institutional frameworks and how we actually get things done.

What is it we actually want? I mean, really think about it for a second. It feels like we’re all just drifting through these endless cycles, chasing after things that probably don't even matter in the grand scheme of things, though I suppose that's a bit cynical of me to say, isn't it? Maybe we're all just looking for some kind of stability or maybe just a sense of purpose that doesn't feel so manufactured by the constant noise of everything around us. It's hard to pin down, I guess. We spend so much time debating what should be done or how things ought to work, yet when you sit back and actually look at the core of it, the fundamental desire remains this vague, shifting target that seems to move every time we get close to grasping it. It's a bit exhausting, honestly, trying to figure out the collective aim when everyone seems to be pulling in a slightly different direction.

I mean, I guess we should probably just decide if point five needs to be wiped out entirely or if we’re looking at a total overhaul... maybe? It feels like one of those situations where you're stuck between deleting it or just rewriting the whole thing from scratch, though I'm honestly not sure which path leads to less of a headache in the long run.
I guess we’re finally at the point where this whole massive scandal regarding the state strategy has to be dragged out into the light, because honestly, seeing that chauvinistic fifth point they've cooked up... it's just exhausting. Maybe it's too much to hope for transparency, but it feels like everything is being swept under the rug lately, and I can't help but feel a bit weary watching how these things play out.
I mean, if they’re actually going to move forward with this, I guess they should probably just come clean and publicly announce who the actual authors of that whole strategy are, you know? It feels like there's a lot being hidden behind the scenes, and honestly, it would be better if we just knew whose names were actually on those documents instead of all this vague maneuvering. Maybe it's too much to ask for transparency, but it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to demand at this point.
I mean, honestly, maybe it’s time we just cleared out all those so-called "gender equality offices" and the entire Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, because, let’s be real, they haven't actually done anything. It feels like they just sit there, and I guess when you look at the track record—not just in this instance, but in so many other cases where the rights of one gender, specifically men, were being stepped on—they just stay completely silent. It's almost like they aren't even looking, if that makes any sense.

Otherwise, it’s pretty obvious that we’re looking at a broken system here, rather than just a few bad actors, I guess. The term "feminacism" actually feels somewhat appropriate in this context, since the way the system is set up leads to people being unfairly discriminated against—in this specific case, based on gender. It’s all laid out right there, plain as day, in a document that is officially labeled as the state strategy. It feels like there’s this underlying implication everywhere you look lately, almost as if it’s been written into the social contract that men are exclusively the villains and women are nothing more than perpetual victims, which I guess is just how things are being framed now. It’s all very black and white, isn't it? One side gets the hammer and the other gets the shield, and honestly, it just seems like such a wearying way to view the whole human experience, though maybe that's just my cynical take on the current state of things.And that’s just a flat-out lie, if you ask me.

silentridge3 said:Personally, I’m curious about where they get off calling "women who don't express any objectively unacceptable views" feminacists.

To me, the term "feminacist" should only apply to public figures—or anyone else, really—who openly display chauvinism toward men and act through media or systemic channels to promote gender discrimination against males.

There are plenty of examples out there, and I think some of the forum members have described them quite calmly and accurately. I mean, I’ve probably pointed out at least ten different instances myself.

hiddeneagle3 said:silentridge3, I guess your arguments about why something is "feminism" don't really mean much to me until people actually accept that term as a legitimate social science concept and define what it actually entails. Until then, it just feels like a cheap insult. In the context of a debate, using it is basically an application of Goodwin's Law. People throw that word around just to discredit whoever they're talking to and shut down the conversation, regardless of how valid the actual points are. Even some of the folks on this forum seem aware of that, since they write "fem(in)ism" as if there's even a difference. Honestly, it's kind of embarrassing to see people trying to justify that kind of rhetoric. Besides, you can argue against patriarchal discrimination against men in family law without needing to resort to those labels.

Nico, I'm actually glad the thread about the Politics section was closed. Hopefully, it stayed shut before the whole "fem(in)ism" thing turned into some huge trend.

Sean Cook2 said:Well, for what it's worth, I've been labeled that way myself—though I haven't the slightest clue which of my six posts on this thread were supposedly "objectively unacceptable" enough to earn the feminist label, unless apparently failing to mention violence against men every single time I bring up violence against women counts as a crime.

Sean Cook2 said:Well, for what it's worth, I've been labeled that way myself—though I haven't the slightest clue which of my six posts on this thread were supposedly "objectively unacceptable" enough to earn the feminist label, unless apparently failing to mention violence against men every single time I bring up violence against women counts as a crime.

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.

silentridge3 said: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.