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

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.

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.

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.

Exactly.

Twisting objective and legitimate terms is one thing, but the blatant insults are another—calling anyone "femi-nazis" certainly doesn't sound like a compliment to me.

I can only imagine how this topic will go if he's the one opening it... someone who uses that kind of terminology and logic. Honestly, I'm surprised he didn't get a perfect score for insisting on his points so hard, both in the original thread and here, regardless of how much he complains about the rules regarding certain things.

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.

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 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?

🍿
this is such an interesting political debate

it’s a shame it ended up in the wrong subforum though😢

The topic is excellent, and some of these comments are truly phenomenal.

Yeah, that's why Primitive locked her down right from the start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...erm=feminazism

http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-ma...#axzz2EH1XI2tn

Even though my posts on here tend to vanish into thin air instantly—instead of getting an actual response or even just someone correcting the nonsense being peddled—I’m holding out hope that this one might actually stick around long enough for us to stop playing dumb and pretending that the term doesn't exist or isn't used in common conversation
And honestly, if anyone recognizes themselves in that description, well, they know it

silentridge3 said: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?

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.

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.

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...😉

hollowtrucker77 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...erm=feminazism

http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-ma...#axzz2EH1XI2tn

Even though my posts on here tend to vanish into thin air instantly—instead of getting an actual response or even just someone correcting the nonsense being peddled—I’m holding out hope that this one might actually stick around long enough for us to stop playing dumb and pretending that the term doesn't exist or isn't used in common conversation
And honestly, if anyone recognizes themselves in that description, well, they know it

Thanks for the links. So, I guess silentridge3 is actively using and defending a term popularized by Rush Limbaugh. And all three links pretty much confirm the term is used as a slur.

hiddeneagle3 said:Thanks for the links. So, I guess silentridge3 is actively using and defending a term popularized by Rush Limbaugh. And all three links pretty much confirm the term is used as a slur.

True, but after he publicly mocked and insulted AIDS victims he apologized and stopped using that offensive label for feminists in the USA too.

And right before that, after calling Gloria Steinem, Susan Sarandon, Christine LaHood, and several others "famous femi-nacists," his "loyal audience" just stopped taking him seriously.

hiddeneagle3 said:Thanks for the links. So, I guess silentridge3 is actively using and defending a term popularized by Rush Limbaugh. And all three links pretty much confirm the term is used as a slur.

Actually, the second link even illustrates how someone who might use that slur would react.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...erm=feminazism

What? Naomi Wolf says that women don't have true equality with men? >

That stupid feminazi bitch! She should shut up before they notice...

😁

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.

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.

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).

silentridge3 said: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.

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.

silentridge3 said: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.

I wouldn't look at it quite as strictly as you are, or call this a state-run feminist campaign. This is different from those cases where feminism goes overboard and people say or do things that just end up hurting themselves.
What you highlighted is something else entirely, and we shouldn't ignore the fact that, whether intentionally or not, women are treated differently in certain parts of society. What the government wants through this law is to align these rights across all levels of society and make sure everyone hears the message. The reality is that many women face various forms of discrimination.

Point 5 is also pretty clear. In this country—and it’s not just happening here—it’s a fact that every second or third woman will encounter this during her life (usually within the family). They deal with it because there are so many people who use their power or status to lash out at women, and often these incidents are reported but met with zero response from society or the state. I've seen examples of this personally among people close to me. It usually ends with someone being taken away for a few hours to cool off, only to go home and start the cycle all over again.
What you're pointing out is actually a message to institutions to step up and do their jobs, which is sadly a major issue in our society. Of course, men experience violence too. But there are countless more instances where the victim is a woman because we have a million wrongdoers exerting that kind of pressure on them.

silentridge3 said: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.

Sure, we all have equal rights. But we can't turn a blind eye to the fact that women's rights aren't respected in certain areas (to varying degrees) and that so many women have faced violence. The state isn't talking about general human rights here; it's addressing a specific segment that needs to be fixed so that everyone can eventually enjoy the same human rights, regardless of age or gender.

Of course, we all share the same fundamental rights. But we can't just turn a blind eye to the fact that women's rights aren't being fully respected in certain areas—to varying degrees, depending on the situation—nor can we ignore how many women have faced violence. The government isn't talking about general human rights here; they are focusing specifically on this one area that needs fixing so that everyone in life can actually enjoy equal human rights, regardless of their age or gender.

Honestly, I’d go as far as saying this was just someone "grasping at straws"—or maybe it was just trolling, one or the other. It’s hard to believe an adult wouldn't find something like this to be completely self-explanatory.

Someone really needs to buy some pads for silentridge3.