Women are villains, men are saints

boldwalker12 said:Yeah, I think so, though you won't find that happening in the Catholic Church. Honestly, I don't have a huge dog in this fight when it comes to how things work in the States, but hey, good for them.

They certainly aren't Catholics, but if Catholics don't fix a few things, they're in trouble. I recently met some Baptists from Canada, and one of them mentioned how churches—Catholic ones specifically—are sitting empty over there and in the States. For them, the real issue isn't even that women can't become priests.

Ryan Wood98 said:That makes sense, though with the Church, it isn't really a question—everyone knows they can be quite closed-minded and regressive.

I wonder, is it possible for American feminists to advocate for equality while simultaneously practicing discrimination?

Hold up a second. By that logic, are American colleges discriminating too?
Look, I’m personally not about any kind of extremism, but I honestly don't see how Women's Colleges—if we assume they actually discriminate against the tiny handful of guys who might want to attend—impact any other part of the feminist movement. Are you seriously trying to say they lose the moral high ground to help women fleeing abuse just because they're exclusionary in one specific niche?

Andrew Mendoza10 said:They certainly aren't Catholics, but if Catholics don't fix a few things, they're in trouble. I recently met some Baptists from Canada, and one of them mentioned how churches—Catholic ones specifically—are sitting empty over there and in the States. For them, the real issue isn't even that women can't become priests.

Look at it this way—they’ve got much better entertainment. 😁
All those gospel bands and that whole "positive vibes" thing (I actually caught a performance by one of those groups lately) really helps dial down any potential extremism. And trust me, it exists, maybe even more so among Catholics than anyone else.

And what about those folks in the burqas? (Call it cultural discrimination if you want, but I’m talking about the Muslims who always wrap themselves up in those robes.) Over there, women basically have zero rights—and sure enough, the men get all the blame... as if! It’s their own fault for being so submissive.

boldwalker12 said:Hold up a second. By that logic, are American colleges discriminating too?
Look, I’m personally not about any kind of extremism, but I honestly don't see how Women's Colleges—if we assume they actually discriminate against the tiny handful of guys who might want to attend—impact any other part of the feminist movement. Are you seriously trying to say they lose the moral high ground to help women fleeing abuse just because they're exclusionary in one specific niche?

I am not particularly well-versed in the American higher education system, but I suppose that might be the case. However, I don't necessarily see a moral issue there, because American colleges aren't typically organizations that are nominally tasked with fighting AGAINST discrimination.

boldwalker12 said:Hold up a second. By that logic, are American colleges discriminating too?
Look, I’m personally not about any kind of extremism, but I honestly don't see how Women's Colleges—if we assume they actually discriminate against the tiny handful of guys who might want to attend—impact any other part of the feminist movement. Are you seriously trying to say they lose the moral high ground to help women fleeing abuse just because they're exclusionary in one specific niche?

I am certainly not claiming that they do, and especially not that they affect ALL other aspects. I am simply pointing them out as an example of gender discrimination being practiced by a group that is nominally fighting against it. That is what I find problematic. For instance, it doesn't bother me if a wealthy Corporation accumulates wealth, since they are declared as a commercial entity; however, it does bother me when a wealthy Church accumulates wealth, because they declare themselves as an institution that promotes (among other things) modesty as a virtue. Similarly, I find it problematic when someone advocates for equality while simultaneously practicing discrimination.

boldwalker12 said:Hold up a second. By that logic, are American colleges discriminating too?
Look, I’m personally not about any kind of extremism, but I honestly don't see how Women's Colleges—if we assume they actually discriminate against the tiny handful of guys who might want to attend—impact any other part of the feminist movement. Are you seriously trying to say they lose the moral high ground to help women fleeing abuse just because they're exclusionary in one specific niche?

I hope that putting words in my mouth like this is a complete coincidence rather than a common practice? Because if this is how you usually communicate, then I suppose we won't be able to have any meaningful discussion.

In any case, I don't see anything controversial about helping victims of abuse, regardless of the victim's gender, the perpetrator's gender, or whether the violence is physical or emotional.

boldwalker12 said:Look at it this way—they’ve got much better entertainment. 😁
All those gospel bands and that whole "positive vibes" thing (I actually caught a performance by one of those groups lately) really helps dial down any potential extremism. And trust me, it exists, maybe even more so among Catholics than anyone else.

I agree. They’re far more sensible than Catholics when it comes to that. I meet up with them every Friday; even if we don't see eye to eye on everything, it’s good to be around them. As for Sunday mass at a Catholic church? I wouldn't show up there unless it was for a funeral.

boldwalker12 said:Come on, don't be like that—give me something actual to work with! Lay some specifics on me so I can actually dig in.

I will wait patiently until you can provide a single concrete instance of feminist organizations being demonized.

Nora is feeling miserable. As specified by:
It seems being born female is essentially the worst-case scenario. That probably explains why most people jump for joy the second they find out they’re having a son.

I have a theory, but I’m not going to lay it all out right now.

Nora is miserable. As stated by:
Should I feel ashamed just because I'm a woman?

How could anyone possibly fall for such absolute nonsense? I like women.

Steven Johnson3 said:It seems like a bunch of threads have been sparked lately, all centered around these PDFs that basically categorize women as nothing but trash. It looks like being female is being treated as the ultimate misfortune. I suppose that’s why so many people celebrate when they find out they’re having a son. Honestly, this whole mess probably traces back to Adam. But why such sweeping generalizations? Does this criticism apply to older generations, or just the younger ones? Is it meant to be universal? Should I feel ashamed simply because I am a woman? And why are feminists constantly being belittled? Would these critics actually prefer if things hadn't changed—if women were still stuck at home without any rights at all?

It’s simple logic. If you're chasing absolute equality in every single capacity, then by all means, go sign up for heavy labor—digging in quarries, firefighting, construction, or joining the military. I’m not saying those roles don't exist for women, but let’s be realistic: a woman weighing 150 pounds isn't going to perform identically to a rancher weighing 250. To avoid any misunderstanding, I am fully in favor of gender equality; I don't believe for a second that a woman should be excluded... 😉There’s a designated spot in the kitchen, but if we actually achieved total and absolute equality, one group wouldn't be labeled "men" and the other "women," would they?

The primary reason I find feminism laughable is pretty simple: they claim to want equality, yet they spend their time bashing men and insisting they don't need them. It’s a contradiction. If you bother to look at the Bible, it’s clear that men and women are meant to be together—one can't function without the other. From that perspective, modern feminism looks less like a movement for equality and more like pure chauvinism. It is blatant, forced hypocrisy. To me, this version of feminism has nothing to do with true gender equality; it feels more like an Inquisition where a good intention spiraled completely out of control.

Steven Johnson3 said:It seems like a bunch of threads have been sparked lately, all centered around these PDFs that basically categorize women as nothing but trash. It looks like being female is being treated as the ultimate misfortune. I suppose that’s why so many people celebrate when they find out they’re having a son. Honestly, this whole mess probably traces back to Adam. But why such sweeping generalizations? Does this criticism apply to older generations, or just the younger ones? Is it meant to be universal? Should I feel ashamed simply because I am a woman? And why are feminists constantly being belittled? Would these critics actually prefer if things hadn't changed—if women were still stuck at home without any rights at all?

God help us.

I can't say I agree with the title itself, let alone the premise.

Ryan Wood98 said:I am not particularly well-versed in the American higher education system, but I suppose that might be the case. However, I don't necessarily see a moral issue there, because American colleges aren't typically organizations that are nominally tasked with fighting AGAINST discrimination.

I am certainly not claiming that they do, and especially not that they affect ALL other aspects. I am simply pointing them out as an example of gender discrimination being practiced by a group that is nominally fighting against it. That is what I find problematic. For instance, it doesn't bother me if a wealthy Corporation accumulates wealth, since they are declared as a commercial entity; however, it does bother me when a wealthy Church accumulates wealth, because they declare themselves as an institution that promotes (among other things) modesty as a virtue. Similarly, I find it problematic when someone advocates for equality while simultaneously practicing discrimination.

I hope that putting words in my mouth like this is a complete coincidence rather than a common practice? Because if this is how you usually communicate, then I suppose we won't be able to have any meaningful discussion.

In any case, I don't see anything controversial about helping victims of abuse, regardless of the victim's gender, the perpetrator's gender, or whether the violence is physical or emotional.

Yeah, okay, sure, it looks like discrimination. But I'm looking at this from a slightly different angle here. These are specialized programs dealing with specific issues that a lot of women just don't feel comfortable talking about when men are in the room. Between all the baggage attached to feminism and the fact that this kind of activism is still finding its footing here in the States, women find it incredibly hard to even start thinking about these topics, let alone speak out. They end up feeling like they sound discriminatory or overly militant themselves, and they always feel this weird, nagging need to apologize for being feminists. Honestly, I think it's just way easier for them to participate, speak up, and actually get involved if the environment is exclusively female.

There are Men's Studies and organizations dedicated to men's rights out there too, and realistically, I don't see many women sticking around or staying consistently active in those spaces for long. Maybe they'll pop in once or twice out of pure curiosity. Is it discriminatory? Technically, yes. But I don't think it's meant to be a permanent thing; I think things are set up this way until the public becomes more sensitive to the issues and until their work isn't constantly under fire from every direction. Most people approach this whole topic with a ton of suspicion and a pretty provocative attitude, so part of the reason these things still happen within closed female circles is actually somewhat justified.

Ryan Wood98 said:I am not particularly well-versed in the American higher education system, but I suppose that might be the case. However, I don't necessarily see a moral issue there, because American colleges aren't typically organizations that are nominally tasked with fighting AGAINST discrimination.

I am certainly not claiming that they do, and especially not that they affect ALL other aspects. I am simply pointing them out as an example of gender discrimination being practiced by a group that is nominally fighting against it. That is what I find problematic. For instance, it doesn't bother me if a wealthy Corporation accumulates wealth, since they are declared as a commercial entity; however, it does bother me when a wealthy Church accumulates wealth, because they declare themselves as an institution that promotes (among other things) modesty as a virtue. Similarly, I find it problematic when someone advocates for equality while simultaneously practicing discrimination.

I hope that putting words in my mouth like this is a complete coincidence rather than a common practice? Because if this is how you usually communicate, then I suppose we won't be able to have any meaningful discussion.

In any case, I don't see anything controversial about helping victims of abuse, regardless of the victim's gender, the perpetrator's gender, or whether the violence is physical or emotional.

Maybe we just had a massive misunderstanding.

Bradley Taylor24 said:Is the quoted sentence intended to be a statement or a question? 😕

The core issue here is that certain feminist organizations consistently paint fathers in a negative light, pushing for maternal custody as a default. They often do this even when it is clearly detrimental to the child's best interests.

My point is that having a noble cause doesn't grant these feminist groups immunity from making mistakes. Everyone who takes action is prone to error, whether they choose to admit it or not.

You present yourself as an exceptionally brilliant creature. However, you are conflating social services and the courts—which are parts of the institutional system—with feminist organizations, which belong to civil society (where their actual influence on the system remains questionable).

In that sense, my interlocutors are correct: we live within a patriarchal system. It views a woman primarily through the lens of motherhood; consequently, the system struggles to grasp the concept of a "non-mother."

It stands to reason that in an ideal world, the system would make decisions based on arguments in INDIVIDUAL CASES. But do you truly believe the drones that populate our bureaucracy are capable of such nuance? They operate on habit. They may mimic the application of rules, but they essentially function via a formula. In this regard, they are accustomed to the notion that men are, in fewer instances, interested in caregiving. Dealing with exceptions is simply extra work for them.

Nevertheless, this phenomenon isn't evidence of women being non-discriminated against or men being discriminated against; rather, it is merely one of the many distorted manifestations of an inherently patriarchal system.

It’s basically a wash. For every thread like this, there’s another one running the exact opposite way. So... what's even the point? ☕ Of course someone who’s pissed off and frustrated is gonna start a massive, sweeping generalization thread like this. I mean, look at me—I’ve started them too. I'll admit it. Look, I love a good provocation... but you can't have a fire without fuel, right? You know what I'm saying?

placidmarlin3 said:I don't think this is just some isolated issue found in specific PDF files or niche forums; rather, it’s a genuine reflection of how little the general public actually understands the precarious position women hold in America.
I have written about this many times, drawing parallels to similar dynamics elsewhere. We could spend all week debating how patriarchy and tradition fuel this environment—one where women often end up being their own worst enemies—but I'm sure there are plenty of people on this subforum more qualified than I am to dissect that. What I can offer, however, is my own perspective based on observing the world around us. In reality, women in the US face discrimination that extends far beyond the domestic sphere. People love to imply it’s just a "family matter," which is usually just a convenient way for them to dodge responsibility for the state of our society, where a staggering percentage of violent crimes involve domestic abuse against women. We all make a show of worrying about starving children in Africa or fighting for LGBTQ+ rights—heaven forbid you say the wrong thing there—yet so few are willing to admit we live in a culture that still views women as inferior or less capable. As mere sexual objects. I’m not quite sure how to articulate it, and I’d welcome some help, but I find the psychological makeup required to justify such things absolutely fascinating:

Take a woman being abused by her husband: instead of the community of men and women feeling a duty to report him, they scramble to manufacture excuses for the man, while either demonizing the woman or blaming her for her own predicament.

Or consider a rape survivor. A significant portion of people will instinctively assume she was asking for it or simply making it up. Even in discussions centered on survivors, you see a lot of participants casting doubt on whether certain accounts are even credible. It’s likely why we face a reality where for every single reported rape, there are fifteen others that go completely unreported.

Ultimately, it feels like people enjoy testing their moral compasses on issues that don't directly threaten them, perhaps because they lack any real awareness of what is actually happening. Or maybe performing this brand of enlightened virtue is just a charade to make themselves feel better. Tomorrow, there will be an uproar over a Black man being beaten, but the fact that in 2010, dozens of women were murdered, raped, harassed, or discriminated against in workplaces and schools across the country is treated as an afterthought. It goes so far that people actually argue, “Well, you have to understand, it’s just domestic violence.” What is that supposed to mean? If a woman is killed by her husband, is society not responsible? Is there no systemic influence at play? Is her death somehow less significant?

The topic you brought up, which ties directly into Politics Weekly, is another perfect example, given the variety of perspectives available from both men and women.

In the first case, you’ve basically got two personalities that are, in a twisted sort of way, perfectly matched in their immaturity. Look, I’m all for saying violence is bad—obviously. But the garbage being pushed through the media lately? It’s got zero basis in logic or actual science. If that's the case, why do we see these women constantly falling back into the same patterns with abusive partners? Nobody is forcing them into these relationships; they’re choosing them. On some subconscious level, they're drawn to that exact type of person. It’s such a massive, complicated issue that trying to sum it up in a few sentences is a lost cause. Fine. Let’s "prevent violence." Easy, right? How exactly? You really think there's a way to stop a deranged husband from killing his wife just because she wants to leave him? Seriously, tell me how. Someone who has made that decision is going to follow through. The only real solution would be if nobody even thought of doing it in the first place. And newsflash: you can't fix that with legislation. Especially not with the kind of mindless nonsense being proposed right now.

When it comes to sexual assault, most cases basically boil down to one person's word against another's. So, what’s the move then? Look, if someone kills the spirit of a woman, that's easy enough to see, but proving everything else? That's a massive uphill battle. This whole new proposal suggesting that a woman saying "no" should be enough on its own is just nonsense. Seriously, what does that even accomplish? It just brings us right back to the same old problem: it's just one person's word against another.

boldwalker12 said:That’s just not how it works. People who discriminate against women are the exact same crowd pushing hate against the LGBTQ+ community, Black Americans, or anyone else who doesn't fit their narrow little worldview. And honestly? There are way more of them than you'd think. Not everyone is out there shouting their bigotry from the rooftops, either—sometimes you really have to read between the lines to see what they're actually thinking. It genuinely blows my mind how many people who act all "progressive" and "chill" on the surface are actually harboring these deep-seated sexist views the second you start digging. In my entire life, I’ve literally only met two guys who didn't have some major issue with feminism: one was gay, and the other was just... fine. That's it. That's the whole list. 😁 Most people operate on this "fine, whatever" logic—like, sure, they’ll accept some things, but man, they take it way too far. The absolute worst part is when they try to play the victim by claiming they’re being oppressed by actual marginalized groups. Or they start hitting you with those tired personal credentials: "Oh, I’m a great partner to my girlfriend," or "I have plenty of gay friends, Black friends, and Mexican friends, so I can't possibly be a bigot." It’s the same script every single time. Honestly, you can count the truly tolerant people on one hand. I bet a huge chunk of this intolerance is just fueled by how messed up everything feels right now. If we actually lived in a functional society, most people would probably lose their minds over all these different groups. Then again, if we hadn't spent the last 50 years aggressively pushing for equality, the situation for women today would be a total nightmare.

The nineties basically dragged us decades back into the dark ages, and now we’re seeing this weird "traditional values" revival that somehow always translates to domestic violence or people making excuses for it. So, they finally pass one decent, sane law, and half the men in the country start screaming like they're about to be sent to a mass lynch mob. Why? Look, every single law has loopholes and can be abused—that’s just how things work—but most of these guys are just losing their minds because someone is finally trying to end the Wild West era. I mean, honestly, who actually thinks a man should be allowed to lay hands on his wife in his own house? It's insane. Even in some parts of rural America today, you still hear people telling pregnant women, "Oh, just have a son." We're still stuck in a system where inheritance flows straight into male hands, and we're being governed by a bunch of chauvinists. There are advocates for this outdated sexism on every street corner, and heaven forbid anyone dares to point it out—you'll immediately get labeled as some sort of aggressive militant just for speaking the truth.

I recently hit a wall with some truly mind-blowing news: apparently, even when you’re dealing with an "educated intellectual," you still have to sit them down and explain—step by agonizing step—that feminism isn't some grand conspiracy to enslave men or establish a New World Order where we get to settle scores for centuries of historical baggage. But hey, I failed. Naturally, I’ve been branded a man-hater. It’s funny how activists are always dismissed as just a bunch of frustrated old ladies. And honestly? The loudest critics are often the women who swear feminism has done nothing but dump a pile of crap into their lives. They act like they were better off back in the day when they could just sit around and knit all day, but now they’re expected to crochet *and* hold down a career. They completely miss the point. It’s not feminism’s fault that they’re stuck in this awkward collision between the leftover scraps of the patriarchy and a movement trying to actually make progress—all while their husbands refuse to lift a finger for housework. No, blame feminism! Or better yet: "Who does she think she is, telling me how to run my own house?!" Yeah, sure. The irony is thick. These same women wouldn't dream of burning their college diplomas or quitting their jobs, yet they love to tear down the very movements trying to expand their horizons. Then you’ve got the ones who insist that a woman's worst enemy is just another woman. It's a circus, really.

Then you’ve got the people who think feminists look down on stay-at-home moms. They completely miss the point—it was actually those very same women who fought to make sure you have the actual freedom to choose. Whether you want to be a homemaker or an architect, that choice exists because of them. Most people just don't get it. Honestly, it would be such a relief if this was just some uneducated minority, but it's definitely not. I could probably count on one hand the number of people who wouldn't absolutely lose their minds at me for saying this right now.

Why on earth should I be forced to think exactly like feminists? Honestly, that’s just called groupthink—or straight-up totalitarianism if we're being real. Thank God that through college and my current job, I’ve run into plenty of them, whether personally or by reading their papers. I actually collaborate with some of them, and I’ve never once tried to stop anyone from voicing their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. So, I expect the same courtesy in return. No need for the moral outrage here. Seriously though, why am I expected to take these "scientific" papers seriously when their methodology regarding the patriarchy is fundamentally broken? It’s hilarious how they always talk about the patriarchy using these ridiculous, fairy-tale examples—societies living "beyond the seven seas" that supposedly survived on nothing but crusts of bread and slices of cheese, politically crippled because they were constantly being trampled by other cultures until they devolved into mere survivalists. We could go on about that forever. Why don't they ever discuss the patriarchy using actual historical heavyweights like ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece? Or any actual, functioning society? This feminist narrative about male oppression dating back to the Stone Age is honestly so absurdly funny it’s almost pathetic. It has zero connection to any legitimate historical evidence.

Drew Lee7 said:It’s basically a wash. For every thread like this, there’s another one running the exact opposite way. So... what's even the point? ☕ Of course someone who’s pissed off and frustrated is gonna start a massive, sweeping generalization thread like this. I mean, look at me—I’ve started them too. I'll admit it. Look, I love a good provocation... but you can't have a fire without fuel, right? You know what I'm saying?

In the first case, you’ve basically got two personalities that are, in a twisted sort of way, perfectly matched in their immaturity. Look, I’m all for saying violence is bad—obviously. But the garbage being pushed through the media lately? It’s got zero basis in logic or actual science. If that's the case, why do we see these women constantly falling back into the same patterns with abusive partners? Nobody is forcing them into these relationships; they’re choosing them. On some subconscious level, they're drawn to that exact type of person. It’s such a massive, complicated issue that trying to sum it up in a few sentences is a lost cause. Fine. Let’s "prevent violence." Easy, right? How exactly? You really think there's a way to stop a deranged husband from killing his wife just because she wants to leave him? Seriously, tell me how. Someone who has made that decision is going to follow through. The only real solution would be if nobody even thought of doing it in the first place. And newsflash: you can't fix that with legislation. Especially not with the kind of mindless nonsense being proposed right now.

When it comes to sexual assault, most cases basically boil down to one person's word against another's. So, what’s the move then? Look, if someone kills the spirit of a woman, that's easy enough to see, but proving everything else? That's a massive uphill battle. This whole new proposal suggesting that a woman saying "no" should be enough on its own is just nonsense. Seriously, what does that even accomplish? It just brings us right back to the same old problem: it's just one person's word against another.

Why on earth should I be forced to think exactly like feminists? Honestly, that’s just called groupthink—or straight-up totalitarianism if we're being real. Thank God that through college and my current job, I’ve run into plenty of them, whether personally or by reading their papers. I actually collaborate with some of them, and I’ve never once tried to stop anyone from voicing their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. So, I expect the same courtesy in return. No need for the moral outrage here. Seriously though, why am I expected to take these "scientific" papers seriously when their methodology regarding the patriarchy is fundamentally broken? It’s hilarious how they always talk about the patriarchy using these ridiculous, fairy-tale examples—societies living "beyond the seven seas" that supposedly survived on nothing but crusts of bread and slices of cheese, politically crippled because they were constantly being trampled by other cultures until they devolved into mere survivalists. We could go on about that forever. Why don't they ever discuss the patriarchy using actual historical heavyweights like ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece? Or any actual, functioning society? This feminist narrative about male oppression dating back to the Stone Age is honestly so absurdly funny it’s almost pathetic. It has zero connection to any legitimate historical evidence.

The last time I tried explaining to someone—not here, obviously—why that kind of logic is totally flawed, they ended up feeling so empowered that they decided to write a whole damn manifesto on how women have been oppressing men throughout history. 😁
So, yeah, I'm passing on this one. Nothing personal, just protecting my sanity. 😁
And where did you get the idea that anyone is forcing you to adopt a feminist worldview? It sounds like you're just quoting, "We are the Borg, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile."

boldwalker12 said:Yeah, okay, sure, it looks like discrimination. But I'm looking at this from a slightly different angle here. These are specialized programs dealing with specific issues that a lot of women just don't feel comfortable talking about when men are in the room. Between all the baggage attached to feminism and the fact that this kind of activism is still finding its footing here in the States, women find it incredibly hard to even start thinking about these topics, let alone speak out. They end up feeling like they sound discriminatory or overly militant themselves, and they always feel this weird, nagging need to apologize for being feminists. Honestly, I think it's just way easier for them to participate, speak up, and actually get involved if the environment is exclusively female.

There are Men's Studies and organizations dedicated to men's rights out there too, and realistically, I don't see many women sticking around or staying consistently active in those spaces for long. Maybe they'll pop in once or twice out of pure curiosity. Is it discriminatory? Technically, yes. But I don't think it's meant to be a permanent thing; I think things are set up this way until the public becomes more sensitive to the issues and until their work isn't constantly under fire from every direction. Most people approach this whole topic with a ton of suspicion and a pretty provocative attitude, so part of the reason these things still happen within closed female circles is actually somewhat justified.

Maybe we just had a massive misunderstanding.

I just wanted to touch on this briefly...
I think by practicing this—specifically by barring men—American academic programs and their brand of feminism are walking a very thin line. Here's the issue: based on your reasoning, they are essentially trying to achieve equality by eliminating it. Doesn't that strike you as completely absurd and contradictory? If we actually stop to think about the justification you provided—reading between the lines, so to speak—it clearly implies deepening the divide (which, if we're looking at the ultimate goal, hurts both men and women equally). Separating the sexes, in my view, only widens the gap. Just because something is in its infancy isn't an excuse; if you build something on a flawed foundation, it's a nightmare to fix later.
Either way, equality shouldn't just be the destination—it has to be the method, too.

Drew Lee7 said:It’s basically a wash. For every thread like this, there’s another one running the exact opposite way. So... what's even the point? ☕ Of course someone who’s pissed off and frustrated is gonna start a massive, sweeping generalization thread like this. I mean, look at me—I’ve started them too. I'll admit it. Look, I love a good provocation... but you can't have a fire without fuel, right? You know what I'm saying?

In the first case, you’ve basically got two personalities that are, in a twisted sort of way, perfectly matched in their immaturity. Look, I’m all for saying violence is bad—obviously. But the garbage being pushed through the media lately? It’s got zero basis in logic or actual science. If that's the case, why do we see these women constantly falling back into the same patterns with abusive partners? Nobody is forcing them into these relationships; they’re choosing them. On some subconscious level, they're drawn to that exact type of person. It’s such a massive, complicated issue that trying to sum it up in a few sentences is a lost cause. Fine. Let’s "prevent violence." Easy, right? How exactly? You really think there's a way to stop a deranged husband from killing his wife just because she wants to leave him? Seriously, tell me how. Someone who has made that decision is going to follow through. The only real solution would be if nobody even thought of doing it in the first place. And newsflash: you can't fix that with legislation. Especially not with the kind of mindless nonsense being proposed right now.

When it comes to sexual assault, most cases basically boil down to one person's word against another's. So, what’s the move then? Look, if someone kills the spirit of a woman, that's easy enough to see, but proving everything else? That's a massive uphill battle. This whole new proposal suggesting that a woman saying "no" should be enough on its own is just nonsense. Seriously, what does that even accomplish? It just brings us right back to the same old problem: it's just one person's word against another.

Why on earth should I be forced to think exactly like feminists? Honestly, that’s just called groupthink—or straight-up totalitarianism if we're being real. Thank God that through college and my current job, I’ve run into plenty of them, whether personally or by reading their papers. I actually collaborate with some of them, and I’ve never once tried to stop anyone from voicing their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. So, I expect the same courtesy in return. No need for the moral outrage here. Seriously though, why am I expected to take these "scientific" papers seriously when their methodology regarding the patriarchy is fundamentally broken? It’s hilarious how they always talk about the patriarchy using these ridiculous, fairy-tale examples—societies living "beyond the seven seas" that supposedly survived on nothing but crusts of bread and slices of cheese, politically crippled because they were constantly being trampled by other cultures until they devolved into mere survivalists. We could go on about that forever. Why don't they ever discuss the patriarchy using actual historical heavyweights like ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece? Or any actual, functioning society? This feminist narrative about male oppression dating back to the Stone Age is honestly so absurdly funny it’s almost pathetic. It has zero connection to any legitimate historical evidence.

Care to define "functioning"? Because by my standards—which may be skewed, I admit—those three examples were anything but normal.

Drew Lee7 said:It’s basically a wash. For every thread like this, there’s another one running the exact opposite way. So... what's even the point? ☕ Of course someone who’s pissed off and frustrated is gonna start a massive, sweeping generalization thread like this. I mean, look at me—I’ve started them too. I'll admit it. Look, I love a good provocation... but you can't have a fire without fuel, right? You know what I'm saying?

In the first case, you’ve basically got two personalities that are, in a twisted sort of way, perfectly matched in their immaturity. Look, I’m all for saying violence is bad—obviously. But the garbage being pushed through the media lately? It’s got zero basis in logic or actual science. If that's the case, why do we see these women constantly falling back into the same patterns with abusive partners? Nobody is forcing them into these relationships; they’re choosing them. On some subconscious level, they're drawn to that exact type of person. It’s such a massive, complicated issue that trying to sum it up in a few sentences is a lost cause. Fine. Let’s "prevent violence." Easy, right? How exactly? You really think there's a way to stop a deranged husband from killing his wife just because she wants to leave him? Seriously, tell me how. Someone who has made that decision is going to follow through. The only real solution would be if nobody even thought of doing it in the first place. And newsflash: you can't fix that with legislation. Especially not with the kind of mindless nonsense being proposed right now.

When it comes to sexual assault, most cases basically boil down to one person's word against another's. So, what’s the move then? Look, if someone kills the spirit of a woman, that's easy enough to see, but proving everything else? That's a massive uphill battle. This whole new proposal suggesting that a woman saying "no" should be enough on its own is just nonsense. Seriously, what does that even accomplish? It just brings us right back to the same old problem: it's just one person's word against another.

Why on earth should I be forced to think exactly like feminists? Honestly, that’s just called groupthink—or straight-up totalitarianism if we're being real. Thank God that through college and my current job, I’ve run into plenty of them, whether personally or by reading their papers. I actually collaborate with some of them, and I’ve never once tried to stop anyone from voicing their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. So, I expect the same courtesy in return. No need for the moral outrage here. Seriously though, why am I expected to take these "scientific" papers seriously when their methodology regarding the patriarchy is fundamentally broken? It’s hilarious how they always talk about the patriarchy using these ridiculous, fairy-tale examples—societies living "beyond the seven seas" that supposedly survived on nothing but crusts of bread and slices of cheese, politically crippled because they were constantly being trampled by other cultures until they devolved into mere survivalists. We could go on about that forever. Why don't they ever discuss the patriarchy using actual historical heavyweights like ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece? Or any actual, functioning society? This feminist narrative about male oppression dating back to the Stone Age is honestly so absurdly funny it’s almost pathetic. It has zero connection to any legitimate historical evidence.

If you don't mind me asking—and I genuinely am curious here—what exactly is your connection to this?

wiredmoose3 said:I just wanted to touch on this briefly...
I think by practicing this—specifically by barring men—American academic programs and their brand of feminism are walking a very thin line. Here's the issue: based on your reasoning, they are essentially trying to achieve equality by eliminating it. Doesn't that strike you as completely absurd and contradictory? If we actually stop to think about the justification you provided—reading between the lines, so to speak—it clearly implies deepening the divide (which, if we're looking at the ultimate goal, hurts both men and women equally). Separating the sexes, in my view, only widens the gap. Just because something is in its infancy isn't an excuse; if you build something on a flawed foundation, it's a nightmare to fix later.
Either way, equality shouldn't just be the destination—it has to be the method, too.

Look, I’m not claiming this is 100% okay. I explicitly said that, to some extent, it *is* discrimination. It’s all about the balance of power. You could argue it’s also discriminatory when a company like a major tech firm in Silicon Valley decides to focus exclusively on hiring women for a while because they have a massive shortage of female talent. There are plenty of examples of that happening, and it’s precisely because there are still so many male-dominated industries where men hold all the cards. So, I don't see it being quite as controversial when women need a dedicated space where they can focus on
issues specifically affecting women. I’m not out here defending anyone; it’s entirely possible that this mindset turns out to be a huge mistake in the long run. Personally, I think men desperately need to be educated on these issues, and isolating them just fuels more misunderstanding. Bottom line: it’s not "good," but I was just trying to find some logical reasoning for why it happens this way.

boldwalker12 said:The last time I tried explaining to someone—not here, obviously—why that kind of logic is totally flawed, they ended up feeling so empowered that they decided to write a whole damn manifesto on how women have been oppressing men throughout history. 😁
So, yeah, I'm passing on this one. Nothing personal, just protecting my sanity. 😁
And where did you get the idea that anyone is forcing you to adopt a feminist worldview? It sounds like you're just quoting, "We are the Borg, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile."

Look, I never asked you to explain anything to me. I laid out my reasoning for why I think those points don't work, and you can do whatever you want with that. If you want to counter my argument, provide actual evidence or a link that disproves me—otherwise, don't bother. 🤷

Any activist is going to claim that any view they don't personally deem "normal" is unacceptable. For me, certain feminist stances aren't necessarily "unacceptable"—they're just ridiculous. See the difference? If they actually held any power, they’d probably try to cancel me or tell me I need "re-education," but all I'd do is roll my eyes or change the subject. Just because I disagree with a feminist doesn't mean we can't talk about other stuff and actually have a good time. But most feminists? They lose their minds over anything they don't find acceptable.

placidmarlin3 said:Exactly, and that’s precisely the point I was making in my original post—they aren't being overt because they don't dare voice their actual positions; they know such views are considered unacceptable (if not out of sheer self-preservation), assuming they haven't already realized just how dangerous those attitudes can be. On the flip side, women can be discriminated against through a million different channels, whether it's via the media or in everyday life by literally everyone—including those who claim to be "fighting" discrimination, simply because nobody has been taught to recognize when certain statements or actions are problematic, let alone developed an awareness of the systemic position of women in American society. If she’s a fool, she's the one 👍to blame, right?

Well, I'm daring to say it. So what? Should I be thrown in jail because my opinion is "dangerous" to you? What should happen to me? Got any bright ideas?

boldwalker12 said:I honestly don't see how awarding custody to mothers clashes with patriarchy. It's pretty clear that a woman's primary role—and ideally her *only* one—is motherhood. They brainwash us with those "declining birth rate" headlines just to remind us where a woman belongs, which by extension dictates where children belong. Also, it was only super recently that we started actually punishing those deadbeat dads who refuse to pay support. Generally speaking, the amounts most guys shell out for their kids are straight-up pathetic. And it's equally shameful how they treat kids from previous relationships, to the point where an ex-partner often ends up becoming an ex-parent too. Honestly, I’m genuinely shocked whenever I run into a good, dedicated father who doesn't patronize his kid or neglect them—someone who can actually change a diaper and deal with a kid screaming in the middle of the night instead of just being some decorative figure sitting in front of the TV acting like a big authority. It sounds ridiculous, but I automatically give those guys a gold star. And it's sad, because that shouldn't be a "plus"; it should be the bare minimum. There are way more irresponsible fathers than there are irresponsible mothers.

In a country that actively pushes the idea of women as housewives and mothers, talking about specific child support amounts is kind of a joke, considering most women don't even leave their husbands because they lack the financial means to do so. When women apply for jobs, they're still judged based on their plans for a private life, potential pregnancies, and so on. They’re still facing an insane amount of sexism. And all those ideas about "safe houses" or escaping? Those don't exist because those institutions are mostly useless; women could leave if they wanted to, but they can't. It's not true. They simply don't have the money. Plus, men still get hired for responsible positions most of the time; if an employer has to choose between a man and a woman with identical qualifications, they’re picking the guy every single time.
Forget child support and all that nonsense; we aren't in Sweden. Women here are lucky if they even get decent maternity leave and a chance to actually return to work.

Let's try this: imagine some sort of utopia where everyone's basic needs are totally met. Now, picture a woman between the ages of 20 and 35 who wants to have children. In your eyes, what would her primary role be during that stage of her life?

It's honestly sad that most women today don't have the freedom to choose everything they want.

boldwalker12 said:It was a rhetorical question.
Feminist groups aren't out here painting all dads as villains; they're just pointing out facts that everyone else would rather ignore. Look, it's obvious that any institution or organization is going to make mistakes. But what does that mean? Does it mean we have to demonize them at every single turn? Because that’s exactly what happens, day in and day out. It's honestly exhausting trying to argue within that framework—like, "Oh, why don't kids get assigned to men?" Well, let me break it down for you: it's because in a patriarchal society, the stereotype is that the mom is the caregiver while the dad is the provider, the authority figure, the one who brings home the paycheck and hands out the discipline. If you follow that outdated logic, it's not hard to see why mothers end up with custody. Feminism isn't about fighting for bad moms who abuse their kids while some caring father is blocked from seeing them—that's total bullshit. And why are domestic violence shelters filled with women instead of men? That's a different conversation entirely. Why are efforts to help women who have absolutely nobody to turn to—women who are literally struggling just to survive without being terrified for their lives—constantly being sabotaged? Why do we read about murdered women every single day and just treat it like it's normal? Why do something like, what is it, 60% of high school girls think it's okay if their partner hits them? Why, why... goddammit.

Honestly, if neither parent is actually an authority figure, God help that kid. And honestly? God help everyone else once they grow up, too. But if the dad isn't the authority and the mom is, that kid is basically doomed from the start; and trying to get both parents to be authoritative at the same time? Good luck, because that’s pretty much impossible.

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I never asked you to explain anything to me. I laid out my reasoning for why I think those points don't work, and you can do whatever you want with that. If you want to counter my argument, provide actual evidence or a link that disproves me—otherwise, don't bother. 🤷

Any activist is going to claim that any view they don't personally deem "normal" is unacceptable. For me, certain feminist stances aren't necessarily "unacceptable"—they're just ridiculous. See the difference? If they actually held any power, they’d probably try to cancel me or tell me I need "re-education," but all I'd do is roll my eyes or change the subject. Just because I disagree with a feminist doesn't mean we can't talk about other stuff and actually have a good time. But most feminists? They lose their minds over anything they don't find acceptable.

Well, I'm daring to say it. So what? Should I be thrown in jail because my opinion is "dangerous" to you? What should happen to me? Got any bright ideas?

Let's try this: imagine some sort of utopia where everyone's basic needs are totally met. Now, picture a woman between the ages of 20 and 35 who wants to have children. In your eyes, what would her primary role be during that stage of her life?

It's honestly sad that most women today don't have the freedom to choose everything they want.

Honestly, if neither parent is actually an authority figure, God help that kid. And honestly? God help everyone else once they grow up, too. But if the dad isn't the authority and the mom is, that kid is basically doomed from the start; and trying to get both parents to be authoritative at the same time? Good luck, because that’s pretty much impossible.

And why exactly do you find that literature so hilarious? We could honestly sit here and bang our heads against the wall forever, everyone sticking to their own lane, but we’re never going to meet in the middle. It's totally pointless.

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I never asked you to explain anything to me. I laid out my reasoning for why I think those points don't work, and you can do whatever you want with that. If you want to counter my argument, provide actual evidence or a link that disproves me—otherwise, don't bother. 🤷

Any activist is going to claim that any view they don't personally deem "normal" is unacceptable. For me, certain feminist stances aren't necessarily "unacceptable"—they're just ridiculous. See the difference? If they actually held any power, they’d probably try to cancel me or tell me I need "re-education," but all I'd do is roll my eyes or change the subject. Just because I disagree with a feminist doesn't mean we can't talk about other stuff and actually have a good time. But most feminists? They lose their minds over anything they don't find acceptable.

Well, I'm daring to say it. So what? Should I be thrown in jail because my opinion is "dangerous" to you? What should happen to me? Got any bright ideas?

Let's try this: imagine some sort of utopia where everyone's basic needs are totally met. Now, picture a woman between the ages of 20 and 35 who wants to have children. In your eyes, what would her primary role be during that stage of her life?

It's honestly sad that most women today don't have the freedom to choose everything they want.

Honestly, if neither parent is actually an authority figure, God help that kid. And honestly? God help everyone else once they grow up, too. But if the dad isn't the authority and the mom is, that kid is basically doomed from the start; and trying to get both parents to be authoritative at the same time? Good luck, because that’s pretty much impossible.

I have no idea why you think anyone would actually sanction you. People don't just get penalized out of thin air, and that's honestly just another one of those stereotypes about feminists that makes "threatened men" feel like victims. I'm not an activist myself, but I share plenty of feminist views—which, let's face it, almost every woman does, even if they don't realize it or call it that. That's the whole point: choice. In America today, women have options. They didn't used to. They aren't forced into marriages with some jerk you couldn't even land in a free, democratic society without a wingman. Not to sound cliché or oversimplify things, but feminism doesn't threaten anyone. Sure, there are radical fringes, but those aren't "feminism"—they're just tiny sub-groups. You also can't lump everyone under one giant label just because they share a few ideas. The goal of feminism was never to enslave men; anyone who thinks that is either completely uninformed or just choosing to stay that way.

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I never asked you to explain anything to me. I laid out my reasoning for why I think those points don't work, and you can do whatever you want with that. If you want to counter my argument, provide actual evidence or a link that disproves me—otherwise, don't bother. 🤷

Any activist is going to claim that any view they don't personally deem "normal" is unacceptable. For me, certain feminist stances aren't necessarily "unacceptable"—they're just ridiculous. See the difference? If they actually held any power, they’d probably try to cancel me or tell me I need "re-education," but all I'd do is roll my eyes or change the subject. Just because I disagree with a feminist doesn't mean we can't talk about other stuff and actually have a good time. But most feminists? They lose their minds over anything they don't find acceptable.

Well, I'm daring to say it. So what? Should I be thrown in jail because my opinion is "dangerous" to you? What should happen to me? Got any bright ideas?

Let's try this: imagine some sort of utopia where everyone's basic needs are totally met. Now, picture a woman between the ages of 20 and 35 who wants to have children. In your eyes, what would her primary role be during that stage of her life?

It's honestly sad that most women today don't have the freedom to choose everything they want.

Honestly, if neither parent is actually an authority figure, God help that kid. And honestly? God help everyone else once they grow up, too. But if the dad isn't the authority and the mom is, that kid is basically doomed from the start; and trying to get both parents to be authoritative at the same time? Good luck, because that’s pretty much impossible.

Why the panic? ☕

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I never asked you to explain anything to me. I laid out my reasoning for why I think those points don't work, and you can do whatever you want with that. If you want to counter my argument, provide actual evidence or a link that disproves me—otherwise, don't bother. 🤷

Any activist is going to claim that any view they don't personally deem "normal" is unacceptable. For me, certain feminist stances aren't necessarily "unacceptable"—they're just ridiculous. See the difference? If they actually held any power, they’d probably try to cancel me or tell me I need "re-education," but all I'd do is roll my eyes or change the subject. Just because I disagree with a feminist doesn't mean we can't talk about other stuff and actually have a good time. But most feminists? They lose their minds over anything they don't find acceptable.

Well, I'm daring to say it. So what? Should I be thrown in jail because my opinion is "dangerous" to you? What should happen to me? Got any bright ideas?

Let's try this: imagine some sort of utopia where everyone's basic needs are totally met. Now, picture a woman between the ages of 20 and 35 who wants to have children. In your eyes, what would her primary role be during that stage of her life?

It's honestly sad that most women today don't have the freedom to choose everything they want.

Honestly, if neither parent is actually an authority figure, God help that kid. And honestly? God help everyone else once they grow up, too. But if the dad isn't the authority and the mom is, that kid is basically doomed from the start; and trying to get both parents to be authoritative at the same time? Good luck, because that’s pretty much impossible.

I'm gonna say it again: it's all about the right to choose. That golden rule of choice. Being able to be a mother if she feels like it, rather than having that forced on her as her one and only socially mandated role. The ability to be whatever she wants, provided it’s her own call—and hers alone. Having the absolute right to decide what her primary role is at any given moment.

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I never asked you to explain anything to me. I laid out my reasoning for why I think those points don't work, and you can do whatever you want with that. If you want to counter my argument, provide actual evidence or a link that disproves me—otherwise, don't bother. 🤷

Any activist is going to claim that any view they don't personally deem "normal" is unacceptable. For me, certain feminist stances aren't necessarily "unacceptable"—they're just ridiculous. See the difference? If they actually held any power, they’d probably try to cancel me or tell me I need "re-education," but all I'd do is roll my eyes or change the subject. Just because I disagree with a feminist doesn't mean we can't talk about other stuff and actually have a good time. But most feminists? They lose their minds over anything they don't find acceptable.

Well, I'm daring to say it. So what? Should I be thrown in jail because my opinion is "dangerous" to you? What should happen to me? Got any bright ideas?

Let's try this: imagine some sort of utopia where everyone's basic needs are totally met. Now, picture a woman between the ages of 20 and 35 who wants to have children. In your eyes, what would her primary role be during that stage of her life?

It's honestly sad that most women today don't have the freedom to choose everything they want.

Honestly, if neither parent is actually an authority figure, God help that kid. And honestly? God help everyone else once they grow up, too. But if the dad isn't the authority and the mom is, that kid is basically doomed from the start; and trying to get both parents to be authoritative at the same time? Good luck, because that’s pretty much impossible.

Do you seriously think punishment is the only way there is to raise a child?

wiredmoose3 said:Care to define "functioning"? Because by my standards—which may be skewed, I admit—those three examples were anything but normal.

If you don't mind me asking—and I genuinely am curious here—what exactly is your connection to this?

Let's swap out the word "normal." The real issue is that they're just using terrible methodology. I've looked at dozens of papers like this in my time. I've read them. Their basic goal isn't even to study a phenomenon and draw conclusions; the conclusions are already baked in from the start. The whole paper is just a desperate attempt to cherry-pick facts to support a predetermined opinion.

What's the connection? Sadly, it's tied to family dynamics, identity crises, and all those past disappointments people project onto the entire male gender... yeah, it goes on and on.

Drew Lee7 said:Let's swap out the word "normal." The real issue is that they're just using terrible methodology. I've looked at dozens of papers like this in my time. I've read them. Their basic goal isn't even to study a phenomenon and draw conclusions; the conclusions are already baked in from the start. The whole paper is just a desperate attempt to cherry-pick facts to support a predetermined opinion.

What's the connection? Sadly, it's tied to family dynamics, identity crises, and all those past disappointments people project onto the entire male gender... yeah, it goes on and on.

Look, sure, you can have one woman venting that all guys are jerks—that happens on an individual level. But that’s not feminism. Do you actually know how or why the fight for equality even started? Do you have any clue what life was actually like for women before the movement kicked off?

I honestly think this kind of literature is just trash and lacks any real substance.

Look, I feel like there could be plenty of middle ground here, even if they don't end up agreeing on everything. But hey, whatever...

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against feminists, but when someone calls something "unacceptable" and it isn't actual violence—just a different opinion or viewpoint—it basically proves my point: it implies that person feels primitive or backward just for thinking that way. And it’s not just talk anymore; we're seeing more and more legal stuff (or at least proposals that border on being totally absurd) popping up. One example is how you could practically end up behind bars just for sending a suggestive message. 🙄

The right to choose? Sure, absolutely. But look at how things actually work today. Does every woman really have that choice in practice? Let's say she wants to be both a scientist and a mother. She has to grind through undergrad, then grad school, then her PhD, all while fighting to keep her job... if she decides to have kids, she simply isn't playing on the same level as a woman who chooses not to.