# The ball busting feminist stereotype



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I have heard anti-feminists make statements about how most feminists are supposedly anti-male, and I assume that is where the stereotype of the ball busting feminist comes from, since sexually harming males would seem like the ultimate expression of hatred for them, the way raping women is a way for misogynists to express their hatred and dominance. 

It is common for the group with the most control to have a fear that the ones they have traditionally oppressed are looking for something more extreme than mere equality, and are going to get revenge on them the moment the oppressed group acquires enough power. Therefore I place the ball busting feminist stereotype in the same category as the ideas of the white pride groups who are afraid that if white people become the new minority, we are going to be oppressed in the same ways we have oppressed non-whites throughout history. 

It is a paranoid idea that is probably rooted in having repressed guilt, where the idea of being punished for past injustices seems to make sense. It is like those country songs about domestic violence where the victim always kills the abuser at the end, even though everyone knows that it is usually the other way around in real life.

So, as much as I understand the reasons why some anti-feminist men might be afraid that all feminist women secretly want to hurt their genitals, I think it is merely a symbol for other worries.

...

Then there is the issue of actual feminists who happen to get aroused by inflicting pain on male genitals for reasons unrelated to our feminism. Where do we fit in? 

In my case, I have had fantasies about such things since I was a small child, but in those fantasies, I was always the person with the male genitals that were being harmed, and I was experiencing the fantasies from the perspective of the male. It has never been about hatred or revenge. 

In fact, during experiences where some people might consider inflicting harm on male genitals justified as self-defense, I have remained a pacifist. For me, it is only acceptable as an expression of deep intimacy, and is not to be engaged in without the partner's consent. 

When I do it, I feel like I am both myself and the other person, one self, completed by his trust. It has nothing at all to do with dominance. In fact, I feel more submissive than usual when I do it. I feel connected, vulnerable and close, but never powerful... never like I have any control over my partner.

I don't laugh at slapstick humor in which male genitals are harmed. I feel no relief knowing that male rapists are likely to be sexually abused in prison, and unlike some women I have known, I think it is disturbing to talk about genital torture as though it could ever be a fitting punishment for any offense, no matter how horrible. 



I am, technically, a ball busting feminist, but am I really what the anti-feminists have in mind when they use that phrase? 

...

Additionally, when I have told other women about my sexual habits, most of them have acted as though what I was doing was something sexy and empowering that they wished they could do. I have received mostly positive responses from other women, and these were _normal women_ with husbands and sons, who love men, and who don't necessarily even consider themselves feminists. 

Is this really so common, and if so, why? Why do good women think it is sexy to hurt men's genitals? 

From my experiences, it seems like it is more likely for non-feminist women to be into ball busting than for feminists to enjoy it. I am making a poll to see if this is the case.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

As a separate question, I would also like to know whether feminist men are more likely to enjoy having their genitals hurt than non-feminist men, but I didn't think to include those options on the poll.


----------



## yankeemofo (Feb 14, 2013)

Ummm...ow? I have to go ice my balls after reading that!


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

How do you feel about the personality traits of aggressiveness and sexual persistence that are often associated with masculinity?

We need a balance of aggressiveness and tenderness in life. And if we value sex, sexual persistence as well as patience.

I don't care if you hurt my genitals though.

That sounds hot. Well, just "lightly" if you please.

haha

Edit: Lmao I just read this:



snail said:


> As a separate question, I would also like to know whether feminist men are more likely to enjoy having their genitals hurt than non-feminist men, but I didn't think to include those options on the poll.


PS @snail 

Is it okay to be a feminist male as a way of protecting women? And wouldn't that be chivalry?

And also, what if it's possible to be protective of women, even "act" superior in terms of "im a knight on a horse" while not actually believing im superior?

*drinkingcoffee


----------



## Sily (Oct 24, 2008)

I don't think I ever hated men. I have had some failed relationships with men in the past, but I don't think I can ever remember wanting to kick them in the balls. I think I'm more of the "Marching for the ERA, through the streets of Washington, DC in the 70s", type of *feminist*.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

I absolutely love men, its hateful misogynists that I dislike. I dislike any type of person who hurts innocent people though.. male or female. Its ridiculous to me, that when I speak out against actual injustices or just a nasty attitude toward women in general, -I'm- then stigmatized as the hata. Its ignorant people who perpetuate it, I find, and they are the ones in the first place who have a mindset that men are merely lesser primates, hellbent on fucking about with no scruples and treating women like slabs of meat. I think that most of them are, or at least can be above the negative stereotypes the few like to believe are a reality. I don't think that makes me the jerk.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Right now Im drunk. BUt when I'm not, I'll make a coherent response.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Master Wolf said:


> How do you feel about the personality traits of aggressiveness and sexual persistence that are often associated with masculinity?
> 
> We need a balance of aggressiveness and tenderness in life. And if we value sex, sexual persistence as well as patience.
> 
> ...


I am not fond of aggressiveness or sexual pushiness, but that is because I have boundary issues and I have always preferred shy guys. I think my preference for sweet sensitive types is a matter of personal taste.

I think wanting to protect women doesn't make you any less of a feminist unless you are using your protectiveness to show dominance. If you don't think you are superior to women, then I don't see a problem with it. My husband is a feminist because he values equality, but I'm sure if I asked him, he would admit to feeling protective toward any group he views as oppressed. 

Likewise, I would protect a man who was being treated unfairly, and I do not hesitate to fight cultural conditions that make life harder for men, such as the tendency to think that emotional expressiveness is a sign of male weakness.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

I think the major difference you would find if you could interview a statistically significant number of people who were honest is

The feminist women who enjoy it will insist on it being consensual whereas the non feminist women will be less likely to care.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

snail said:


> I am not fond of aggressiveness or sexual pushiness, but that is because I have boundary issues and I have always preferred shy guys. I think my preference for sweet sensitive types is a matter of personal taste.
> 
> I think wanting to protect women doesn't make you any less of a feminist unless you are using your protectiveness to show dominance. If you don't think you are superior to women, then I don't see a problem with it. My husband is a feminist because he values equality, but I'm sure if I asked him, he would admit to feeling protective toward any group he views as oppressed.
> 
> Likewise, I would protect a man who was being treated unfairly, and I do not hesitate to fight cultural conditions that make life harder for men, such as the tendency to think that emotional expressiveness is a sign of male weakness.


And this is the second time I realize why you'd make a great friend!


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Anti-feminists: I hate feminists because they want to stereotype all men as rapist pigs who derive sexual enjoyment from the suffering of women. 

Me: ...and aren't you just expressing the precise same sentiment there? :dry: 

Truthfully, there are some awful feminists out there. Just as there are some awful men. And awful Christians. And awful gays. And awful people who put socks on before trousers. So what? 

There is a sense of loss where equality is concerned - simply put, the privileged few feel as though they are giving up their sense of entitlement, so they victimize themselves as a means of justifying this feeling; they may also demonize those 'responsible' as the perpetrators (see: War on marriage). 

---

As for the kink? Uh, it's not something I would personally do, but so long as you have a partner who is willing then I say go for it. No, I don't think it's odd.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

I'm curious, who's the feminist woman who voted that they like hurting male genitals?

They sound kinky. :laughing:

Either that, or I should be scared.


----------



## How Do You KNOW (Jan 9, 2011)

This thread scares me.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

snail said:


> It is common for the group with the most control to have a fear that the ones they have traditionally oppressed are looking for something more extreme than mere equality, and are going to get revenge on them the moment the oppressed group acquires enough power.


Good trolling.

The problem I have with feminism is that as well as affirming women's rights - which I support - they also have an accompanying ideology. An ideology that includes believing in an intentional male ruling class called the patriarchy, and (some) believe that gender behavior differences are purely a social construct - which I don't support.

I've also noticed feminists and feminist supporters (When joining discussions about the problems affecting the male demographic) angrily trivialize the global problem of disproportionate male suicide, and paternity fraud (which is entirely perpetrated by women).

Many feminist supporters try to bring up the US black civil rights movement as a comparison, ignoring that the movement was about equal rights and not an ideology asserting a ruling class. A more accurate comparison would be between feminism and the nation of Islam.
Perhaps this article explains feminist disregard for problems affecting the male demographic. :happy:

Female Monkeys More Dominant In Groups With Relatively More Males


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> Good trolling.
> 
> The problem I have with feminism is that as well as affirming women's rights - which I support - they also have an accompanying ideology. An ideology that includes believing in an intentional male ruling class called the patriarchy, and (some) believe that gender behavior differences are purely a social construct - which I don't support.
> 
> ...


How is snail "trolling" with that statement? 

And just because a person puts an emphasis on a social problem that affects them more directly doesn't mean they are blind to other social problems. I see this false dichotomy a lot, where its assumed that because a person pays more attention to one social problem, they must not care about well, here you have pointed out male suicide rates.

Evolutionary biology is highly speculative, and its not as simple as saying, well monkeys do this, so thats why everything in humanity. It ain't dat simple.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Promethea said:


> How is snail "trolling" with that statement?


You seriously think she isn't being facetious with this thread?


> And just because a person puts an emphasis on a social problem that affects them more directly doesn't mean they are blind to other social problems. I see this false dichotomy a lot, where its assumed that because a person pays more attention to one social problem, they must not care about well, here you have pointed out male suicide rates.


In threads specifically about problems affecting the male demographic - or critiquing the porn industry or media objectification - feminists and their supporters will often trivialize problems affecting other demographics, and claim that female problems are more important. 

An example; In a thread I did on objectification of men here at PerC, I pointed out disproportionate male suicide and a women brought up the counter that women attempt suicide more and it received 5 thank yous. I posted back an article which stated that attempted suicide and a 'no way out' suicide attempt are 2 different things (the author even said that to imply that women are less competent is sexist). It also linked to an article discussion the problem of disproportionate male suicide. I even linked it to some of the thankers - I didn't even receive a comment. 

I witnessed similar problems on another forum, where feminists and supporters angrily stated that problems affecting the male demographic were trivial in comparison to women's problems (despite the thread being about male's issues). And that I hadn't experienced real discrimination (I countered by telling them I was black, and had just finished a 7 month legal battle with an ex employer regarding racial discrimination)



> Evolutionary biology is highly speculative, and its not as simple as saying, well monkeys do this, so thats why everything in humanity. It ain't dat simple.


I was being facetious, I thought that was clear from the smiley.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> You seriously think she isn't being facetious with this thread?
> 
> 
> In threads specifically about problems affecting the male demographic - or critiquing the porn industry or media objectification - feminists and their supporters will often trivialize problems affecting other demographics, and claim that female problems are more important.
> ...


To say someone is being facetious is one thing, but to tell them they're trolling is different. Being facetious can imply a sense of humor, or wanting to get attention for their topic with irony -- trolling however is considered malicious, and I do not consider snail's thread or snail to be in the least bit malicious.

As far as your own personal perception of who pays more attention to what social problem; thats your perception, in your world. I'd say my experience is different, because we have different perceptions. But no, not every individual is going to give every social issue the same amount of attention, because different ones affect different people to varying degrees and no one has the energy to take on all of them. 

And there is no feminist hivemind controlling every woman who stands for equal rights for women. That is a flawed perception. You are in fact dealing with individuals, not some collective. It has been my experience that 'feminists' will also disagree on what feminism means to them, and how to go about it. Oh but its much easier to just toss them all in the same bucket and label it however you want, I suppose.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Promethea said:


> To say someone is being facetious is one thing, but to tell them they're trolling is different. Being facetious can imply a sense of humor, or wanting to get attention for their topic with irony -- trolling however is considered malicious, and I do not consider snail's thread or snail to be in the least bit malicious.


Difference of definition then.



> But no, not every individual is going to give every social issue the same amount of attention, because different ones affect different people to varying degrees and no one has the energy to take on all of them.


I've argued the same thing on this forum to people who ask me why I critique Islam publicly. I never said that, my point was that IME feminists and feminist supporters will *actively go to threads about problems affecting the male demographic* and trivialize with explicit comparisons to female issues.



> And there is no feminist hivemind controlling every woman who stands for equal rights for women. That is a flawed perception.


Never said there was, I was making a generalization based on experience. However the concept of an intentional male ruling class (the patriarchy) is a fundamental part of feminist ideology IME.



> You are in fact dealing with individuals, not some collective. It has been my experience that 'feminists' will also disagree on what feminism means to them, and how to go about it. Oh but its much easier to just toss them all in the same bucket and label it however you want, I suppose.


If they want to be treated as individuals with an individual perspective, why do they self and publicly identify with feminism by calling themselves feminists? You can't assert an affinity with a publicly known ideology, and then ask to be treated as individual with a worldview that can't be generalized.

I call myself a humanist and acknowledge that by doing so there will be generalizations (positive, negative or ignorant) as a result. If I didn't want to accept that then I wouldn't publicly call myself a humanist.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> Difference of definition then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They agree with each other so much, that they had to go and create different sub-types of feminism, it seems:
Different Types of Feminist Theories

And within each, you are still going to find different interpretations.

How about lets have each "feminist" write an entire essay on what feminism means to them as an intro to any post they make about feminism. Then maybe people won't pigeonhole them as being manhating lesbians, or whatever silly idea each individual anti-feminist has about "feminists." 

And why shouldn't "they" expect people to pigeonhole them this way? Well I reckon they know it'll happen and in such stereotyping and demonizing, they still use the term, to let people know that they merely say, believe in equal rights for women? Nowhere in my beliefs personally, for example, about equal rights for women will you find bandannas, a melissa etheridge cd, _or the opinion that males are inferior and deserve to be treated badly_. My belief is merely that those who treat women as inferior, should -not-. And yet people like you will assume that I'm one of these people who doesn't care that men are offing themselves, etc, because you have seen a lack of -thanking- on your posts about it from yanno, "us feminists." Like we all got together and conspired so say fuck men's well-being, collectively. In my thoughts, if anything, I promote the well-being of men, by promoting the idea that they aren't retarded neanderthals, like even a lot of men will claim about themselves.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

That did not take long...


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Promethea said:


> They agree with each other so much, that they had to go and create different sub-types of feminism, it seems:
> Different Types of Feminist Theories
> 
> And within each, you are still going to find different interpretations.


What you are trying to imply is that feminsm can't be generalized. However it obviously can be generalized on fundamental principles otherwise the world feminism would be meaningless.

Marxists differ, however there are fundamental principles that unite them otherwise they wouldn't be self or socially identified as marxists.




> How about lets have each "feminist" write an entire essay on what feminism means to them as an intro to any post they make about feminism. Then maybe people won't pigeonhole them as being manhating lesbians, or whatever silly idea each individual anti-feminist has about "feminists."


So you're saying that the word feminism is meaningless, and doesn't identify an affinity with any fundamental principles? If that's the case then the people who call themselves feminists might as well call themselves lokaofoashg.



> And why shouldn't "they" expect people to pigeonhole them this way? Well I reckon they know it'll happen and in such stereotyping and demonizing, they still use the term, to let people know that they merely say, believe in equal rights for women?


Why don't they just say they are pro-women's rights, and not feminists?


> Nowhere in my beliefs personally, for example, about equal rights for women will you find bandannas, a melissa etheridge cd, _or the opinion that males are inferior and deserve to be treated badly_.


Physical generalization have never crossed my mind. 

No idea who that women is. 

Glad to hear it.



> And yet people like you will assume that I'm one of these people who doesn't care that men are offing themselves, etc, because you have seen a lack of -thanking- on your posts about it from yanno, "us feminists."


You seriously think I'm basing my perspective on one post? 

It's based on other experiences, reading online articles and blogs, and from experiences with other ideologies based around demographics that assert a ruling class (Islamism, Afrocentricism).



> In my thoughts, if anything, I promote the well-being of men, by promoting the idea that they aren't retarded neanderthals, like even a lot of men will claim about themselves.


I disagree, if you identify as a feminist then you probably believe in a patriarchy, an insidious intentional male ruling class. 

The idea is inherently problematic IMO because any male in power is perceived to have a negative bias. It's similar to Afrocentricists who believe in an insidious white ruling class - any white person in power is perceived to have a negative bias. Or Islamists who believes in an insidious jewish ruling class - any jewish person in power is perceived to have a negative bias.

I'm pro-womens rights, I just don't like the accompanying ideology.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

How Do You KNOW said:


> This thread scares me.


Young men often say things like "I'm going to wreck that" or "I would totally destroy that". 

Hey, If some dudes wanna wreck vag, I think it's only a natural counterpoint for some chicks to want to bust balls.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

soya said:


> Young men often say things like "I'm going to wreck that" or "I would totally destroy that".
> 
> Hey, If some dudes wanna wreck vag, I think it's only a natural counterpoint for some chicks to want to bust balls.


If women began using it in that context it would be a turn on. ie. fucking a man until his balls bust.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> What you are trying to imply is that feminsm can't be generalized. However it obviously can be generalized on fundamental principles otherwise the world feminism would be meaningless.
> 
> Marxists differ, however there are fundamental principles that unite them otherwise they wouldn't be self or socially identified as marxists.
> 
> ...


What I'm -actually- saying, is that you can't make all these blanket claims about each individual feminist merely because they identify with "feminism."



> Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.


When I was taking a social and political philosophy course, my professor said during one of the first sessions that he would be talking about a lot of things that sounded like they were conspiracy theories, but that he doesn't believe in those really; things just turned out in some way, where others will benefit more, others less. It wasn't about some insidious group working to oppress everyone, underneath the current state of things (and who knows maybe thats the case sometimes); but no, you are wrong in thinking that every feminist believes that some insidious male conspiracy has been going on to keep women oppressed. I don't see how it could -possibly- be that organized. I think that things fall into place, in imbalanced ways sometimes.

Oh, but I have to believe in the insidious male conspiracy, I suppose. (I don't; and I'm likely not the only one..)

Anyway, we aren't going to agree on this. Thats clear. 

And by the way, I doubt males are committing suicide at a higher rate because they are more depressed in general than women. They are just more likely to act on those urges. They are socialized to feel like they need to be less cautious, and I have read that their hormones can make them a little more impulsive. Its not over women out there making them all depressed over denying them sex or whateverthehell.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> If women began using it in that context it would be a turn on. ie. fucking a man until his balls bust.


My point wasn't intended to be serious...

Anyway, I personally don't think violent language about anybody's genitals would be a turn on. Your username isn't helping normalize it for me either


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

soya said:


> My point wasn't intended to be serious...
> 
> Anyway, I personally don't think violent language about anybody's genitals would be a turn on. Your username isn't helping normalize it for me either


That specific phrase is a turn on for _me_...

I really wouldn't mind if a woman I was seeing told me that she'd fuck me so hard that my dick would break (not literally, obviously). As long as it's consensual and all.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Promethea said:


> What I'm -actually- saying, is that you can't make all these blanket claims about each individual feminist merely because they identify with "feminism."


*gen·er·al·i·za·tion **n.**1. The act or an instance of generalizing.*

*2. A principle, statement, or idea having general application.*






> I don't see how it could -possibly- be that organized. I think that things fall into place, in imbalanced ways sometimes.


Glad you don't believe in the patriarchy.



> And by the way, I doubt males are committing suicide at a higher rate because they are more depressed in general than women. They are just more likely to act on those urges. They are socialized to feel like they need to be less cautious, and I have read that their hormones can make them a little more impulsive. Its not over women out there making them all depressed over denying them sex or whateverthehell.


Right, let's just put disproportionate males suicide down to 'male impulsiveness' and forget about it. Do you dismiss the problem of female mental health issues as due to 'female emotionalism'?

*You've just displayed exactly the kind of attitude I was complaining about.*

Some articles you might find interesting;

UK

Suicide is a gender issue that can no longer be ignored | Jane Powell | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Male Suicide Rate in UK Highest In Nearly a Decade: Jane Powell Responds | Campaign Against Living Miserably

US

Male suicide a growing concern in tough times - Health - Mental health | NBC News


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

soya said:


> My point wasn't intended to be serious...


I know you were being faceitious, I was fucking with you back.

But it would actually turn me on.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> *gen·er·al·i·za·tion **n.**1. The act or an instance of generalizing.*
> 
> *2. A principle, statement, or idea having general application.*
> 
> ...


It would be silly to deny things like socialization and how different hormones affect brain chemistry. I guess that makes me just the type of crazy feminist you want to believe that I am, and that all feminists are. More of that black and white thinking.. problem with that is, most things are somewhere in those many shades of grey that you ignore. You are just seeking to confirm your own biases here and no matter what I say, you will find a way to twist it because its what you -want- to see, just like you want to paint all feminists as evil. I don't have respect for that way of thinking, and I see no point in saying anything to you just so you can try to twist it into what you want to believe it means. It does not, and I doubt that I have been understood by you yet. And this is where we will go our separate ways -- but I do hope someday you start to see that there are truths outside of your very limited perceptions and biases.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> *gen·er·al·i·za·tion **n.**1. The act or an instance of generalizing.*
> 
> *2. A principle, statement, or idea having general application.*
> 
> ...


Suicide is always a sad thing regardless of the gender of the person who feels so much hopelessness that they believe they have no other choice. 

But why are you trying to turn a thread about feminism and ball busting into a thread about guys committing suicide and how you think feminism somehow does not work on that issue enough? 

Wouldn't that be better suited for another thread?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Promethea said:


> but I do hope someday you start to see that there are truths outside of your very limited perceptions and biases.


I hope one day you have more compassion for suicidal men, and don't dismiss the disproportionate suicide rate it as simply due to 'male impulsiveness'.

I hope one day you are as disgusted by that sentiment as much as dismissing female body dysmorphic disorder as due to 'female emotionalism'.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Uviteru said:


> But why are you trying to turn a thread about feminism and ball busting into a thread about guys committing suicide and how you think feminism somehow does not work on that issue enough?


I'm not. @Promethea was displaying the exact attitude that I complained about in my first post in this thread. She dismissed the *disproportionate* male suicide figures due to 'male impulsiveness'.

If I made a similar comment about an issue affecting women and put it down to 'female emotionalism', I'd be lynched by feminists and their supporters.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> I hope one day you have more compassion for suicidal men, and don't dismiss the disproportionate suicide rate it as simply due to 'male impulsiveness'.
> 
> I hope one day you are as disgusted by that sentiment as someone who says female body dysmorphic disorder is due to 'female emotionalism'


There is no integrity in misrepresenting what I said this way. -That- disgusts me. Deeply.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

i'll just leave this here.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> I'm not. @Promethea was displaying the exact attitude that I complained about in my first post in this thread. She dismissed the *disproportionate* male suicide figures due to 'male impulsiveness'.
> 
> If I made a similar comment about an issue affecting women and put it down to 'female emotionalism', I'd be lynched by feminists and their supporters.


Now you're trying to keep starting it back up with me. That is actually not what I said. I said that men are more likely to act on it, then I gave two possible reasons for that fact. Its not that men are more depressed than women, but you want to believe that women are making men depressed for some completely warped reason.

I also brought up socialization as the key reason but you are just shitting all over my post trying to demonize me by harping on your own misunderstanding of it. 

You didn't understand what I meant, you are just looking for excuses to rail at someone, and I suggest you stop.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

strangestdude said:


> You seriously think she isn't being facetious with this thread?
> 
> 
> In threads specifically about problems affecting the male demographic - or critiquing the porn industry or media objectification - feminists and their supporters will often trivialize problems affecting other demographics, and claim that female problems are more important.
> ...


I believe that the male suicide issue is caused by inequality and gender-based expectations, which are the very things feminism is trying to combat. Emotional invalidation is one of the main reasons men commit suicide, because men are expected not to show their feelings, not to ask for help, and are taught that if they do these things, they are being feminine, which makes them inferior and weak. 

Men are taught that they have to keep proving themselves, actively, in order to be seen as real men, and that if they ever fail, they are unworthy. They are valued according to their ability to succeed and provide. Feminism is trying to change this problem by making it so women are less dependent on men for material sustenance, and so objectification (of both men and women) is seen as wrong. What this means is that we are against the idea of people using each other as means to someone else's selfish ends. I think men's issues and women's issues are interconnected. If feminism is successful, we will make the world fair for everyone, regardless of gender.

Don't blame feminism for problems that are being caused by the patriarchy, even if you don't believe the patriarchy exists.

Also, please stop derailing my thread.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

Love her.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Promethea said:


> I said that men are more likely to act on it, then I gave two possible reasons for that fact. Its not that men are more depressed than women, *but you want to believe that women are making men depressed* for some completely warped reason.


*
Please quote me here or anywhere where I've stated that women are primarily to blame for disproportionate male suicide figures.*



> You didn't understand what I meant, you are just looking for excuses to rail at someone, and I suggest you stop.


*No, I genuinely disagree with you.* I found your post callous and overly simplistic regarding the problem of disproportionate male suicide. 

You put it down to 'male impulsiveness' (nature and nuture) but neglected other contributing factors like; male representation in the media negatively affecting male identity, cultural male identity built around economic prosperity and being in positions of power, stigma against men expressing male self esteem, social or emotional issues (I've seen many men shot down on this forum for that), paternity fraud, etc. 

And I personally doubt you put disproportionate problems affecting the female demographic down to a single factor.

Women do play a role in contributing to the social pressure leading to psychological issues in males IMO and IME. But so do men of course, but women's role can be different (objectification of men with a lot money - the psychological trauma of loneliness shouldn't be trivialized IMO and IME).


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

snail said:


> Don't blame feminism for problems that are being caused by the patriarchy, even if you don't believe the patriarchy exists.


*Please quote me where I blamed feminism for disproportionate male suicide, here or anywhere else.*

Not once have I come across anywhere on a forum a feminist or supporter try to show how the patriarchy exists. Despite the burden of proof being on them, they simply assert it's existence.



> Also, please stop derailing my thread.


Fine, I won't respond seriously to your thread.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> *
> Please quote me here or anywhere where I've stated that women are primarily to blame for disproportionate male suicide figures.*
> 
> 
> ...


That fact that I disagree didn't validate your own little victim complex, so you tried to twist my words and point out that I'm a prime example of what you're talking about, to try to crucify me. You seriously have some things you need to work on emotionally, for doing all of this in merely some thread on the internet about feminism.

You are also doing exactly to me what you claim evil feminists do -- the whole witch-hunting thing here. Its vile.

I stand by my point that men are more likely to act on suicidal urges than women are. I'm never going to agree that there are just more depressed men than women. Everyones fucked up and depressed because society is unnatural, fucked, and people don't know what to do with themselves.

Are you aware of the fact that men statistically have more brutal suicide methods than women i.e. taking a gun to their heads instead of overdosing on pills.. are you actually going to tell me that has nothing to do with socialization and testosterone? I guess its emotional issues that make them choose more violent methods of suicide too? No.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Ball busting feminists destroyed by Bill Burr...


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Promethea said:


> That fact that I disagree didn't validate your own little victim complex, so you tried to twist my words and point out that I'm a prime example of what you're talking about, to try to crucify me. You seriously have some things you need to work on emotionally, for doing all of this in merely some thread on the internet about feminism.
> 
> You are also doing exactly to me what you claim evil feminists do -- the whole witch-hunting thing here. Its vile.
> 
> ...


OP has asked me not to respond anymore, until another time.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Not oncehave I come across anywhere on a forum a feminist or supporter try toshow how the patriarchy exists. .



Patriarchy is a society ruled by men.To provide proof that the patriarchy exists we must show that men tend to predominantly occupy positions of social power in society such that they can be said to "rule". 


So let's prove patriarchy: In the united states the highest office in the land is arguably the position of president of the united states. Out of 44 presidents ZERO have been women and all 44 have been men, 100% of presidents in the united states have been male.


Perhaps the second most powerful office in the united states is the senate. Woman have increasingly made progress in the area of being elected to this body but still, only 20 out of 100 senators are female and we currently have the highest percent of female senators we have ever had in the history of the united states. 


But still, 80% are male thus we can say the senate is effectively ruled my men.


The house of representatives is another rule making political body. It currently has 79 women (the highest ever (yay feminism!)) but still that only comes out to 17.7% of all seats held by women. Meaning men are effectively making the rules. 


But "rulers" are not just the people at the highest offices in the land. Arguably these are distant rulers who we don't have to interact with daily. 

Let's see about these rulers we interact with the most. About 3% of the CEO's of publicly traded companies are female. This means 97% of publicly traded companies are ruled by men (This alone would be enough evidence that we live in a patriarchy) 

However, we currently have the highest percent of female CEO's in the history of the united states (at around 3% depending on how you measure it). Yay feminism!

Who else are you likely to be ruled by? The police? Well only 13% of law enforcement positions are held by women. 

The percent of women in supervisory roles within law enforcement is 7%.

These statistics go on and on. Everywhere you look, with almost no exceptions, you'll find that men, as a class, are making the rules and enforcing the rules and we are thus a society ruled by men.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Every fucking thread where gender issues are even peripherally mentioned...

Please, guys. Show some class and start talking about men getting hit in the balls.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

Snail likes whipping, spanking, squeezing, hitting, and lightly kneeing my genitals and sometimes tying them up. She also wants to experiment with applying electric shocks to them. But it's really done in a very loving and intimate way and both of us get very excited by it. 

She would never, for example, slap my testicles because she's angry at me and we have the best, most loving and wonderful relationship I've ever even heard of. Our relationship is also very equal and supportive. 

So sometimes we joke that she's a ball busting feminist. But really of course feminism has nothing to do with that. Which I think is one of the points of this thread.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@snail, it sounds like you are primarily talking about a dominatrix


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_snail_, it sounds like you are primarily talking about a dominatrix


A person doesn't have to be a dominatrix to enjoy causing mild pain to a consenting partner's genitals. It can be done from a position of equality, or even from a position of mutual submission. It doesn't have to be about power.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

snail said:


> A person doesn't have to be a dominatrix to enjoy causing mild pain to a consenting partner's genitals. It can be done from a position of equality, or even from a position of mutual submission. It doesn't have to be about power.


I suppose you're right, I just think that 90%+ of the time it is


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

The thought of purposely inflicting pain on another person's genitals for sexual satisfaction kind of bothers me. I don't know. It gives me the same kind of negative feelings that I get about sexual mutilation (or mutilation in general actually ). At the same time, I suppose that if such things are done by mutual consent, then more power to the couple that is engaging in it. Personally I would prefer a good spanking, or even having my hair pulled while being penetrated roughly from behind roud:.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> Not once have I come across anywhere on a forum a feminist or supporter try to show how the patriarchy exists.


Then you're not looking hard enough, because there are several feminist threads on Perc alone in which the existence of patriarchal ideologies, and the hierarchal gender constructs that society has built based upon these patriarchal ideologies, have been thoroughly explored and firmly established.

*Edit*: Btw, you wrote this to @_Promethea_: "_You put it down to 'male impulsiveness' (nature and nuture) but neglected other contributing factors like; _*male representation in the media negatively affecting male identity, cultural male identity built around economic prosperity and being in positions of power, stigma against men expressing male self esteem, social or emotional issues*" (http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...usting-feminist-stereotype-4.html#post3508358)

Every issue you mentioned that I have bolded above, can be seen as a negative effect of patriarchal ideology. Especially the part about male identity being built around economic prosperity. These are the guidelines of _manhood_ that only a *patriarchal society *(a society that is built around the notion of male superiority and power) could place on the shoulders of only those members that are capable of representing this status of power: Men.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

I'm for feminism that defends equal rights, but not for the feminism that thinks that women are superior. I don't really like gender wars and I believe that compassion and acknowledge both genders as equal is what can truly make it possible to achieve truthful relationships.
And to answer the question, no, personally I find the idea of hurting someone's genitals uncomfortable... Maybe coz I see it as a very sensitive place, and then I'm not really into pain. Guess it's ok for others to do it, as long as there is consent and there is no damage. I find it hard to associate pain infliction with submission thought.


----------



## hauntology (Feb 12, 2012)

I'm not against men at all. They're amazing, and I would have never been born without a male human.

All that aside though, pretending to kick guys in the genetalia is pretty damn fun. It's even more threatening with heels.
But make sure they know you're joking. Or else that won't end well.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I've never kicked a guy in the balls, even when girls in middle or high school thought it was funny, I was just like "what?"

It's human abuse.

I often get referred to as this (but only on-line!!!) because of my strong opinions, but I think physically harming ANYONE, male or female, is wrong, and I've never fantasized about hurting male genitals.

I admit to thinking it was funny when a woman tied up and raped a man who violently tried to rob her store, but I think it amused me because of my interest in personal vengeance, not because I think it's universally funny to rape men, but that I feel some sick delight in seeing people get retribution on narcissistic predatory sociopathic assholes of all kinds, and either gender.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I admit to thinking it was funny when a woman tied up and raped a man who violently tried to rob her store, but I think it amused me because of my interest in personal vengeance, not because I think it's universally funny to rape men, but that I feel some sick delight in seeing people get retribution on narcissistic predatory sociopathic assholes of all kinds, and either gender.


Please tell me you don't think it's funny anymore.

I don't want to have to explain to you why it's not:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/karate-expert-keeps-shop-burglar-141233


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

So far, contrary to the stereotype, it would appear that *most feminists are not into ball busting*, even as a form of mutually enjoyable sexual expression. 


In fact, of the women here who are not into ball busting, most appear to be feminists.



I would need a larger sample size to be sure, but I think this is evidence that the stereotype of the ball busting feminist is not based on the actual habits of the average feminist.


We are clearly the exception, as I suspected.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Torai said:


> Please tell me you don't think it's funny anymore.
> 
> I don't want to have to explain to you why it's not:
> 
> Karate expert keeps shop burglar as sex slave for three days - Mirror Online


No, I don't think it's perma-hilarity or anything.

But that was my initial response.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

What exactly is the point of feminism anyway?


----------



## Doll (Sep 6, 2012)

I guess I'm a feminist? People tend to assume I'm a feminist because I'm a lesbian, as if the two can't be mutually exclusive. I don't have anything against guys, though, tbh. I think women can sometimes be even more sexist than men, actually.


----------



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

let me put it this way. 
THIS type of feminist = i hate. 




they laugh. the situation isn't funny in any sort of way.
now, the type of feminist i do like is one that actually wants gender equality, and who would be more rightly classified as an equal rights activist. i believe this has always been talked about though, so i digress. (just pointing out my opinions)
onto the actual thread, i really only care if they literally punch guys in the balls, or kick them in the balls.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Doll said:


> I guess I'm a feminist? People tend to assume I'm a feminist because I'm a lesbian, as if the two can't be mutually exclusive. I don't have anything against guys, though, tbh. I think women can sometimes be even more sexist than men, actually.


That's what mainstream society needs to understand. The point of feminism is not to assert that men are inherently sexist, or that they are the natural enemies of women. Rather, the point of feminism is to make society consciously aware of the dangers of "hierarchal supremacy", and to establish an awareness of the gender hierarchy that society operates on. The specific gender feudalism that exists within our society is called "_patriarchy_", because the way society is structured is based upon the notion that *men* are entitled to hegemonic forms of power that women are not. A "_manifest destiny_" of male power, if you will. And it's this patriarchal system that feminism seeks to destroy. We do not seek the destruction of men.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I've never kicked a guy in the balls, even when girls in middle or high school thought it was funny, I was just like "what?"
> 
> It's human abuse.
> 
> ...


Thank you.

I'm not sure how healthy it is to have a discussion based around how much (or even how little) you enjoy inflicting terrible physical cruelty on other human beings, to be honest.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 10, 2013)

Women are attracted to masculinity and men are attracted to femininity. Feminism is completely stupid because it encourages women to be more assertive and men to be more submissive, which in turn causes women to not feel attraction to the man anyway. Seriously, wtf is this? _*Women WANT to be dominated. They want a man to LEAD them into his world. They want someone who does his OWN thing, not some submissive pussy who will do anything to please them. *_If you are a male today, your grandfather was probably more masculine at your age than you are. That's because of all the feminist brainwashing that makes society think that feminine men are attractive.

Brb giving flowers to girl, pouring out "feelings", calling nonstop. <- Guys do this never end up getting the girl. It's because they are acting like girls.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Journeyman said:


> Women are attracted to masculinity and men are attracted to femininity. Feminism is completely stupid because it encourages women to be more assertive and men to be more submissive, which in turn causes women to not feel attraction to the man anyway. Seriously, wtf is this? _*Women WANT to be dominated. They want a man to LEAD them into his world. They want someone who does his OWN thing, not some submissive pussy who will do anything to please them. *_If you are a male today, your grandfather was probably more masculine at your age than you are. That's because of all the feminist brainwashing that makes society think that feminine men are attractive.
> 
> Brb giving flowers to girl, pouring out "feelings", calling nonstop. <- Guys do this never end up getting the girl. It's because they are acting like girls.


 Hmm.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Journeyman said:


> Women are attracted to masculinity and men are attracted to femininity. Feminism is completely stupid because it encourages women to be more assertive and men to be more submissive, which in turn causes women to not feel attraction to the man anyway. Seriously, wtf is this? _*Women WANT to be dominated. They want a man to LEAD them into his world. They want someone who does his OWN thing, not some submissive pussy who will do anything to please them. *_If you are a male today, your grandfather was probably more masculine at your age than you are. That's because of all the feminist brainwashing that makes society think that feminine men are attractive.
> 
> Brb giving flowers to girl, pouring out "feelings", calling nonstop. <- Guys do this never end up getting the girl. It's because they are acting like girls.


No! Women are not all attracted to the same things, and I always found people who fit into the macho stereotype boring, unattractive, arrogant, pushy, and hard to connect with. I married a softspoken, gentle-natured, shy, sensitive man who isn't afraid to cry. He is also extremely strong-willed and dislikes the very idea of authority. I chose him for being someone I can relate to, who understands me deeply. I know from my own experiences that dominance and submission don't have to be part of the relationship, and are usually destructive to it. 

Believe it or not, there is such a thing as thinking of each other as equals. I don't like controlling or being controlled by my partner, and I don't want to lead or be led. Independence is overrated, because nobody is ever completely self-sufficient. We need each other, to love and be loved, to strengthen each other in times of difficulty. I strongly believe that cooperation is always better than competition, and that needing other people doesn't make me inferior. 

The idea that wanting to please someone makes you a "submissive pussy" is ridiculous and offensive. If you are a male today, you probably have greater freedom to be authentic than your grandfather had, because feminism has made it easier for men to be real people with feelings of their own, a little bit more comfortable being honest about the fact that they are vulnerable and need other people, without being mistreated quite as badly for it. We still have a long way to go. As I mentioned in a previous post, I believe that feminism saves lives, because gender roles are the reason for most of the problems that lead to male suicide. 

When guys who make themselves subservient in order to "get a girl" fail at acquiring her, it is not because they are feminine, but because they are often manipulative and see women as prizes to be won instead of as human beings. If they thought of us as equals, they would have a better chance at connecting with us. Guys who are domineering and sexually pushy fail for similar reasons, because like the manipulative subservient men, the manipulative domineering men are more interested in controlling us than in connecting with us.

Feminism is about being real, being fair, and expecting everyone else to do the same. It isn't just about getting laid, even though most of us do have plenty of great sex with the men or women who love and respect us.


----------



## Bat (Jul 21, 2012)

Journeyman said:


> If you are a male today, your grandfather was probably more masculine at your age than you are.


I'm pretty sure he was a hell of a lot less whiny. Whining was considering extremely unmasculine in my grandfather's day.

I adore men - although I've never had any need for them to lead me into their worlds - and have known a good many throughout the years and whether "alpha" or "beta", those who were secure in their own manhood never worried about whether or not the women around them were too strong or too feminist or blah. That's because truly strong people don't need someone else to be weaker for them to feel stronger.

If a person needs someone else to be less so they can feel - as opposed to be - more, that's a person who needs to start dealing with his own shit instead of expecting everyone else to make him feel better. I've seen complaints that essentially boil down to "You women need to be more passive and feminine so I can feel like a big, strong man!" That's not a good place to come from. If I walk around on my knees so some short person's head is above mine, that doesn't really make the short person taller.

In spite of what one might read online, the reality is that the majority of men are out there every day getting along with the women in their lives just fine.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Journeyman said:


> Women are attracted to masculinity and men are attracted to femininity. Feminism is completely stupid because it encourages women to be more assertive and men to be more submissive, which in turn causes women to not feel attraction to the man anyway. Seriously, wtf is this? _*Women WANT to be dominated. They want a man to LEAD them into his world. They want someone who does his OWN thing, not some submissive pussy who will do anything to please them. *_If you are a male today, your grandfather was probably more masculine at your age than you are. That's because of all the feminist brainwashing that makes society think that feminine men are attractive.
> 
> Brb giving flowers to girl, pouring out "feelings", calling nonstop. <- Guys do this never end up getting the girl. It's because they are acting like girls.


I think my girlfriend might be a dude. I should go check down there.

And by the way, what if I _want_ to be more ladylike? This is how I was born. My parents didn't pressure me into doing anything, and I chose whatever I felt like out of my own accord.

If feminists engaged in this "brainwashing", I think it's good. I get to do whatever makes me happy as a person. So, what if I'm a little emotional and sappy? What if I like to express myself in ways that are feminine? So, if you honestly think that I should give up my individuality for the sake of pussy, then you got another thing coming. Who the fuck needs women who don't want me to be myself?

I choose what I want to do, I choose how I treat someone I like, and nobody's going to dictate how manly I need to be.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@snail I notice you haven't asked others to 'stop derailing your thread.' Only me... I wonder why?


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

strangestdude said:


> @_snail_ I notice you haven't asked others to 'stop derailing your thread.' Only me... I wonder why?


You can come back now, if you promise to behave. 

You were bickering with the other members, and the argument didn't seem to be going anywhere. It was getting repetitive.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 10, 2013)

Torai said:


> Who the fuck needs women who don't want me to be myself?


Even though you say you want to be ladylike, that statement actually puts you ahead of 80% of males today. Most guys put women above themselves, and that makes them unattractive. Like I said, women like guys who have their own world, and they want to be apart of it.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

"Being yourself" is not helpful at all if "yourself" is a deeply unattractive character. Being yourself is not always good; few people would say to Saddam Hussein "Oh, just be yourself."


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Journeyman said:


> Even though you say you want to be ladylike, that statement actually puts you ahead of 80% of males today. Most guys put women above themselves, and that makes them unattractive. Like I said, women like guys who have their own world, and they want to be apart of it.


It's called self-respect. I implore people of all genders to get some.

I can't be with a lady who simply wants to please me. Half of the time, I don't even know what I want until it's shoved in my face.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still the sub in my relationship. She's initiated nearly everything, mainly because I'm shy. In fact, she really loves to assert her dominance, and I love being dominated. Nothing turns me on more than the thought of that. I even like it when she's really affectionate with me and shamelessly gropes me in public.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Diphenhydramine said:


> "Being yourself" is not helpful at all if "yourself" is a deeply unattractive character. Being yourself is not always good; few people would say to Saddam Hussein "Oh, just be yourself."


This is true to a certain point, but the qualities that have been considered traditionally acceptable in males are not necessarily the most attractive. Instead of forcing nonconformists to lie about who they are, we can encourage them to express their positive qualities honestly without regard for whether those positive qualities are traditionally thought of as masculine or feminine. 

The problem with allowing the patriarchy to dictate acceptable male behavior is that those who buy into the system end up only respecting qualities associated with dominance, whether it comes in the form of tyranny or positive leadership, and they end up disrespecting qualities that are not associated with dominance, whether those qualities indicate cowardice or kindness. Instead of drawing the line of acceptability between masculine and feminine, perhaps we could draw it between pro-social and anti-social, or somewhere more meaningful.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

snail said:


> This is true to a certain point, but the qualities that have been considered traditionally acceptable in males are not necessarily the most attractive. Instead of forcing nonconformists to lie about who they are, we can encourage them to express their positive qualities honestly without regard for whether those positive qualities are traditionally thought of as masculine or feminine.
> 
> The problem with allowing the patriarchy to dictate acceptable male behavior is that those who buy into the system end up only respecting qualities associated with dominance, whether it comes in the form of tyranny or positive leadership, and they end up disrespecting qualities that are not associated with dominance, whether those qualities indicate cowardice or kindness. Instead of drawing the line of acceptability between masculine and feminine, perhaps we could draw it between pro-social and anti-social, or somewhere more meaningful.


I'm not sure. There is nothing wrong with power, religion, etc... if the person using it is altruistic.

Dominance, I think is great, if it is out of love and helping.

Dominance, if relies upon putting people down to build ourselves up, out of some either neurotic or hedonistic way of maintaining self esteem, then that's bullshit.

But so is the quiet person that says nothing because they are afraid because they have no SES and might end up in jail.

I mean, I'd rather lose my freedom than lose my soul. So who has it worse, really?

I see what you mean, but it's not equality that's important. FUCK Equality. Caring about people and this world. That's what matters.

I realize this was a tangent.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

snail said:


> You can come back now, if you promise to behave.


Not sure why you are talking to me like a child?

What do you mean by 'behave'?

Still interesting why you didn't say anything to those who were responding to me, after they knew that I said I wouldn't respond.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Uviteru said:


> Patriarchy is a society ruled by men.


I fail to see how that's a problem in and of itself unless you think that men are inherently prejudiced against women.

If the definition of the patriarchy is simply more men in positions of power, I fail to see how it's problematic. Most feminists I've come across don't just assert that the patriarchy is a prevalence of men in positions of power, but also a concerted effort to put women in an inferior position in society.



> To provide proof that the patriarchy exists we must show that men tend to predominantly occupy positions of social power in society such that they can be said to "rule".


I agree that there is a prevalence of men. However when most feminists talk about the patriarchy they are normally referring to a male ruling class that also oppresses or denies women rights. 



> So let's prove patriarchy:


Prove why the patriarchy is a problem, because I again fail to see why the prevalence of men in positions of power is a problem in and of itself. Unless you believe that men are inherently sexist, which you probably do.



> In the united states the highest office in the land is arguably the position of president of the united states. Out of 44 presidents ZERO have been women and all 44 have been men, 100% of presidents in the united states have been male.


We've had a female prime minister in the UK, and other countries around the world have had female heads of state in the 20th century. Seems like the US is backwards in comparison to other countries in that context.

Women Prime Ministers and Presidents: 20th Century



> These statistics go on and on. Everywhere you look, with almost no exceptions, you'll find that men, as a class, are making the rules and enforcing the rules and we are thus a society ruled by men.


Why is that a problem *in and of itself*? 

Perhaps you also fail to realize that it was also men in positions of power who responded to the complaints of the female demographic and began to grant them equal opportunities and rights? So again I fail to see why men being in positions of power is a problem *in and of itself. *

Unless you would also like to make the claim that there is a concerted effort to subjugate women in society by these men in power?


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

snail said:


> This is true to a certain point, but the qualities that have been considered traditionally acceptable in males are not necessarily the most attractive. Instead of forcing nonconformists to lie about who they are, we can encourage them to express their positive qualities honestly without regard for whether those positive qualities are traditionally thought of as masculine or feminine.
> 
> The problem with allowing the patriarchy to dictate acceptable male behavior is that those who buy into the system end up only respecting qualities associated with dominance, whether it comes in the form of tyranny or positive leadership, and they end up disrespecting qualities that are not associated with dominance, whether those qualities indicate cowardice or kindness. Instead of drawing the line of acceptability between masculine and feminine, perhaps we could draw it between pro-social and anti-social, or somewhere more meaningful.


 Yes, funnily enough, I agree with this post in its totality. What I mean is that to "be yourself" isn't good if your personal qualities are bad. Sadly a lot of males attempt to be "alpha male" when it isn't really in their personality, and end up becoming, as you say, their own kind of tyrants who are deeply unattractive to anyone with a healthy mentality.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

strangestdude said:


> Not sure why you are talking to me like a child?
> 
> What do you mean by 'behave'?
> 
> Still interesting why you didn't say anything to those who were responding to me, after they knew that I said I wouldn't respond.


I had no intention of belittling you, and I am sorry if the careless way I stated things caused you to interpret my statement as condescending when you read my last post.

By behave, I mean that this isn't a good place to make random rants about how you think feminists don't care enough about men, or to tell women that being ruled by men isn't such a terrible thing. It is obvious to most feminists that men's issues are closely related to women's issues and stem from the same negative cultural attitudes, which we are working on eliminating. Excluding women from positions of power isn't something to celebrate, as it merely perpetuates the existing imbalance.

I don't have a problem with the fact that people were discussing your posts after you left the thread, because it seemed only fair to allow them to defend their position after you came in making wild accusations against feminists. 

I wasn't the one who told you to leave. I merely asked you to stop derailing because, from my perspective, it seemed like you were starting irrelevant fights with the other posters. You can respond whenever you want, but please respond respectfully.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Rinying said:


> THIS type of feminist = i hate.


She is not by definition a feminist but a female chauvinist.


----------



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

mushr00m said:


> She is not by definition a feminist but a female chauvinist.


which definition of feminism are we going by?


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Rinying said:


> which definition of feminism are we going by?


I just said she isn't a feminist but a female chauvinist!
And im talking about the feminism from the most contemporary form. Where women DO NOT have to shit on men to prove they are worthy, thats the kind of feminism im talking.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> Then you're not looking hard enough,


You don't understand the burden of proof. The feminists assert the existence of the patriarchy and that it's a problem so they have to provide evidence for their assertion. 

It's not up to me to try to provide evidence for their own conclusions.



> Every issue you mentioned that I have bolded above, can be seen as a negative effect of patriarchal ideology.
> 
> Especially the part about male identity being built around economic prosperity. These are the guidelines of _manhood_ that only a *patriarchal society *(a society that is built around the notion of male superiority and power) could place on the shoulders of only those members that are capable of representing this status of power: Men.


Or here's another perspective... 

*Traditional gender roles have been created not because of 'notion of male superiority' but based on a (negative) notion of gender difference.*

'Traditional gender roles' haven't been created by 'the patriarchy' but are a result of primitive man's hunter-gather society, and the physicality of labor in agriculture and industrial societies. Gender roles of 'men are protectors and providers' and women are 'nurturers and caretakers' developed from hunter gather societies, and continued throughout the agriculture and industrial ages due to many jobs being physically strenuous and male physiology being naturally suited for strenuous physical labor. 

So due to jobs being suited for male physiology - due to a lack of technological advancement making jobs in the economy less physically strenuous - the gender roles of 'men are protectors and providers' flourished, and 'women are nurturers and caretakers' flourished.

(I recall a female anti-feminist youtuber girlwriteswhat say that it was interesting that feminists in the 20th century were campaigning to be given the opportunity to be doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc, but rarely asserted the desire to be given the opportunity to work for 12 hours down a mine like her great grandfather did.)

Taken to it's extreme - and IMO this clearly demonstrates that the traditional theory of gender was not done based on the 'notion of male superiority' - men were legally drafted to join the army and fight in wars in the 20th century and *died by the millions, whilst women were exempt*. And when choosing between adults *females were the first to be rescued* in emergency or life threatening situations in western culture over men (women and children first). 

If the 'notion of male superiority' - rather than a (negative) notion of gender difference - was the motivation behind gender roles, then men simply would have sent women to fight and die in wars and made men exempt, and save men first over women in emergency situations IMO.

The important point is that both men and women have supported (and continue to support) traditional gender roles, the culture of 'traditional gender roles' isn't just a product of the 'male ruling class'. But feminists blame men (the patriarchy) for the formation and propagation of traditional gender identity like you do, ignoring economic factors (like the prevalence of physically intensive jobs) and blame traditional gender roles primarily on the 'notion of male superiority'. 

*I think that's less to do with a 'notion of male superiority' and more to do with the notion that 'men are protectors and providers' - meaning not a notion of superiority but a (negative) notion of gender difference.* 

I get the impression when feminists blame the patriarchy for problems that genders face in society that they believe that women are always the victims and never contributors. If a women affirms traditional gender roles it's because they are 'brainwashed by the patriarchy' and it's still men's fault - I get the impression that female cognitive agency isn't respected. 

I believe that women also contributed to negative gender theory. *A case in point is women who publicly shamed men into becoming soldiers during world war one*;

*World War I
*

*In August 1914, at the start of the First World War, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather with support from the prominent author Mrs Humphrey Ward. The organization aimed to shame men into enlisting in the British Army by persuading women to present them with a white feather if they were not wearing a uniform.[SUP][2][/SUP]*

*This was joined by prominent feminists and suffragettes of the time, such as Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel Pankhurst. They, in addition to handing out the feathers, also lobbied to institute an involuntary draft of men, including those who lacked votes due to being too young or not owning property.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]*

*The campaign was very effective, and spread throughout several other nations in the Empire, so much so that it started to cause problems for the government when public servants came under pressure to enlist. This prompted the Home Secretary, Reginald McKenna, to issue employees in state industries with lapel badges reading "King and Country" to indicate that they too were serving the war effort. Likewise, the Silver War Badge, given to service personnel who had been honourably discharged due to wounds or sickness, was first issued in September 1916 to prevent veterans from being challenged for not wearing uniform. The poetry from the period indicates that the campaign was not popular amongst soldiers (e.g. Wilfred Owen's Dulce et Decorum Est[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]) - not least because soldiers who were home on leave could find themselves presented with the feathers.* - White feather - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(feel free to disprove that from reputable sources). 

Like that excerpt from wikipedia (that links to sources) I've just presented shows, women played an integral role in traditional gender theory it's not simply due to 'the patriarchy'.


I doubt you'll take into consideration what I've written and will continue to blame the 'notion of male superiority' for the existence negative gender theory. 

IMO traditional gender roles are negative notion of gender difference contributed to by men and women throughout history, that negatively affects all genders and sexualities. 
_
And let's not forget the major contributions of religion to negative notions of gender difference throughout history. And please don't forget that religion has been propagated vehemently by men and women throughout history._


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> "Being yourself" is not helpful at all if "yourself" is a deeply unattractive character.


Exactly.


----------



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

mushr00m said:


> I just said she isn't a feminist but a female chauvinist!
> And im talking about the feminism from the most contemporary form. Where women DO NOT have to shit on men to prove they are worthy, thats the kind of feminism im talking.


then we are referring to 2 separate feminism's. 
and yes, she probably is a female chauvinist.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Promethea said:


> You seriously have some things you need to work on emotionally, for doing all of this in merely some thread on the internet about feminism.


Thanks for your concern about my emotional health... I doubt you care really... I'm a man.



> Are you aware of the fact that men statistically have more brutal suicide methods than women i.e. taking a gun to their heads instead of overdosing on pills.. are you actually going to tell me that has nothing to do with socialization and testosterone? I guess its emotional issues that make them choose more violent methods of suicide too? No.


You originally put it down to (nature and nuture) 'male impulsiveness'.

You might find these excerpts interesting;

_Although suicide rates are lower among women, women lead men two to one in suicide attempts. So, Murphy says at least 200,000 women are involved in suicide attempts annually. But he points out that attempted suicide most often is not an attempt to actually end one's life. Its purpose, he says, is to survive with changed circumstances.

"An attempted suicide is not really an attempt at suicide in about 95 percent of cases. It is a different phenomenon. It's most often an effort to bring someone's attention, dramatically, to a problem that the individual feels needs to be solved. Suicide contains a solution in itself," he says.

In attempted suicide, both men and women tend to use methods that allow for second thoughts or rescue. Murphy says that when people intend to survive, they choose a slowly effective, or ineffective, means such as an overdose of sleeping pills. That contrasts to the all-or-nothing means like gunshots or hanging used by actual suicides.

*In the past, researchers who looked at the high rate of attempted suicide in women concluded that women were just not as efficient as men at taking their own lives. Murphy calls that "sexist baloney" and points to statistics that show that like men, women who commit suicide most often use guns. *However, even as the number of women using the most lethal means increases, the suicide rate in women has slowly declined.

"So it really goes back to the same thing -- that women, when they intend to do it, can be just as effective as men in committing suicide. But they aren't so inclined," Murphy says.

Why Women Are Less Likely Than Men To Commit Suicide

__Societal pressures on men

What might those 'social expectations' be? Experts suggest that men feel pressure to appear strong in the face of adversity, and eschew weakness or vulnerability. The Hollywood vision of manhood is that of the strong, silent hero. Men don't moan or complain, and they certainly don't go to the doctor when they're feeling a bit down in the mouth.

That's backed up by statistics, which show that three-quarters of men who commit suicide have no contact with mental health specialists in the 12 months prior to their deaths.

And many men won't even talk about their problems to their friends. Men facing relationship problems, unemployment or family breakdown hit the bottle and slide slowly into depression without opening up to anyone.

As Dr Blumenthal states: "Women are more likely than men to have stronger social supports, to feel that their relationships are deterrents to committing suicide, and to seek psychiatric and medical intervention - these protective factors may contribute to their lower rate of completed suicide."

'Social expectations' also have men down as the main breadwinners, even in a jobs market where both partners are likely to work. That means unemployment may be easier to take for women, who can bolster their sense of self-worth by becoming housewives or homemakers.

On the other hand, men feel humiliated when they can't provide for their families, feeling they have nothing left to give. And instead of talking about it, they keep that sense of humiliation to themselves, with tragic consequences._

Why do men commit suicide? - MSN Him UK


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> I fail to see how that's a problem in and of itself unless you think that men are inherently prejudiced against women.
> 
> If the definition of the patriarchy is simply more men in positions of power, I fail to see how it's problematic. Most feminists I've come across don't just assert that the patriarchy is a prevalence of men in positions of power, but also a concerted effort to put women in an inferior position in society.
> 
> ...



You asked for proof that patriarchy exists. I provided it using the most simple and classical definition. I did not go into detail about all aspects of the patriarchy or explain it in detail. 

I simply provided proof that it exists, proof you seem to accept since instead of rejecting the existence of the patriarchy you now want us to show why patriarchy is such a bad thing. 

Perhaps later I'll post about why patriarchy is bad but I again wonder if that may be better suited to a thread entitled "Why is patriarchy such a bad thing anyway?" Instead of a thread titled "Do feminist women like ball busting more than non-feminist women?"

You have admitted that men are, as a class in leadership roles more than women, that men as a class are "ruling" and making the rules, this is all that is necessary to call a society a patriarchy according to the definition of patriarchy. I would appreciate it if for now on you never again claim feminists have never proven that patriarchy exists.

To answer the personal accusation against me: No I don't believe all men are sexist.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

strangestdude said:


> Thanks for your concern about my emotional health... I doubt you care really... I'm a man.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, I would like to emphasize that the reasons men kill themselves are directly linked to problems feminism is trying to change.

They feel like they have to avoid showing any signs of emotional vulnerability (because it is considered feminine and weak to show too much emotion.)

They are socially punished for seeking cooperative solutions or asking for help when they are overwhelmed/hurting (because independence is glorified as a dominant, masculine quality.)

They feel burdened with the responsibility of being providers (because of sexist notions about the family structure.)

These are all problems caused by the patriarchy. If you were to eliminate feminism (in its current form), you would be putting men at greater risk.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Uviteru said:


> You asked for proof that patriarchy exists. I provided it using the most simple and classical definition.


So the classical definition is simply the prevalence of men in positions of power? 

If that is honesty the classical definition then you've confirmed that it's a waste of time for me to give it any further thought. And it was a waste of time me asking for evidence, and it was also a waste of time for feminist to assign that observation a new name.



> Perhaps later I'll post about why patriarchy is bad but I again wonder if that may be better suited to a thread entitled "Why is patriarchy such a bad thing anyway?" Instead of a thread titled "Do feminist women like ball busting more than non-feminist women?"


Then why did you post off topic in the first place?



> I would appreciate it if for now on you never again claim feminists have never proven that patriarchy exists.


I will now say that a feminist has explained to me that the classical definition of the word patriarchy is another word for the observation that more men are in positions of power than women. 

And I will also tell people that I see assigning a new name to this observation and incredible waste of time, and that I'm actually annoyed that I wasted energy reading understanding that the word patriarchy is simply an observation that people with male genitalia are in more positions of power than female genitalia.

If you are going to try to show why the existence of the prevalence of men in power is a bad thing, but admit that the value judgement regarding the patriarchy isn't part of the classical definition then I simply don't care. I wanted to know what the patriarchy is, I'm not interested in your own additions to the classical definition.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

snail said:


> *These are all problems caused by the patriarchy*. If you were to eliminate feminism (in its current form), you would be putting men at greater risk.


Please read my post to @_KINGoftheAMAZONS_ for why I disagree that the patriarchy ie. the prevalence of men in power (as @Uviteru has defined it as) is solely responsible for traditional gender roles.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> Thanks for your concern about my emotional health... I doubt you care really... *I'm a man*.


Not by the way you're acting. Leave me alone on this forum after your petty attacks. Seriously.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Please read my post to @_KINGoftheAMAZONS_ for why I disagree that the patriarchy ie. the prevalence of men in power (as @_Uviteru_ has defined it as) is solely responsible for traditional gender roles.


There is a large amount of feminist theory showing why a society ruled by men has created this value system. Again my post was simply to show that a patriarchy exists, not to expound on feminist theory. To act as though my post was a complete introduction to feminism is a gross misrepresentation of it. I suggest you do some introductory reading. This would be a good place to start: Patriarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But trying to learn about what feminism is before you demonize it would be a good idea.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Not by the way you're acting. Leave me alone on this forum after your petty attacks. Seriously.


You were the one who tried to insinuate that my criticism of your opinions and feminism was due to emotional problems. You've been just as petty.

If you voice opinions that I think are wrong and I desire to challenge them I will. I have an aggressive manner when I debate so I'd advise you to put me on your ignore list.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> You were the one who tried to insinuate that my criticism of your opinions and feminism was due to emotional problems. You've been just as petty.
> 
> If you voice opinions that I think are wrong and I desire to challenge them I will. I have an aggressive manner when I debate so I'd advise you to put me on your ignore list.


"Aggressive" isn't the word for it - I have a few others that would fit better, and they are all the reasons I have no interest in your method of "debating."

My ego doesn't need a senseless pissing contest, and I'm never going to agree with the way you twist information around to try to make it suit some misguided thoughts you have on feminism. You don't even interpret the articles you read correctly, you just look for ways to fit it into your own little world-view and it makes no sense. And simply badgering people isn't going to make them see it your way.

Now since your ego obviously needs it, get the last word in, and show me what a big man you are by harassing me on the internet after I have told you more than once to stop barking up my tree.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Uviteru said:


> To act as though my post was a complete introduction to feminism is a gross misrepresentation of it


I wanted someone to explain to what the patriarchy is, and based on your definition I fail to see the problem.



> This would be a good place to start: Patriarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Feminists are lazy, I guess.

And from reading that link your definition is very different from the perspective that I got. 

Based on the wiki link; The patriarchy is a theory of gender that believes in male spiritual, cognitive and physical superiority.

Your definition is that the patriarchy is the observation that men are prevalent in positions of power.

I can see why the first definition is clearly bad and why it would bring problems in society, but I failed to see why your definition was bad.



> But trying to learn about what feminism is before you demonize it would be a good idea.


I base it primarily on experiences and observations of feminist writings online. I tell anyone that - I've even said it in this thread. I openly admit my ignorance, and people are free to dismiss my criticisms on that basis. 

However if feminism is true then presenting counter arguments with anyone who opposes from my position of ignorance should be easy, _and what I would expect_. It took facetious remarks from me to get someone (you) to step up and provide a *definition* of a feminist buzzword.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Promethea said:


> "Aggressive" isn't the word for it - I have a few others that would fit better









> My ego doesn't need a senseless pissing contest, and I'm never going to agree with the way you twist information around to try to make it suit some misguided thoughts you have on feminism. You don't even interpret the articles you read correctly, you just look for ways to fit it into your own little world-view and it makes no sense. And simply badgering people isn't going to make them see it your way.


Ad hominem.



> Now since your ego obviously needs it, get the last word in, and show me what a big man you are by harassing me on the internet after I have told you more than once to stop barking up my tree.


Thank you.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Journeyman said:


> Women are attracted to masculinity and men are attracted to femininity.


I'm a woman and I'm attracted to femininity, masculinity, androgyny, and everything in between. Yes, there are many men who are attracted to femininity, and many women who are attracted to masculinity. But the fallacy is in arbitrarily lumping masculinity with _maleness_, and lumping femininity with _femaleness_. These terms, and these attractions are all socially constructed, and we can see evidence of this when we look at how negatively society treats men who are attracted to masculinity, and women who are attracted to femininity. 



> Feminism is completely stupid because it encourages women to be more assertive and men to be more submissive, which in turn causes women to not feel attraction to the man anyway.


Feminism doesn't teach men to be more submissive, but it does teach women to be more assertive (which is a good thing). Heterosexual relations have a lot of contention because instead of both parties just being _*themselves*_, both the man and the woman instead try to perform masculinity and femininity, and rely on traditional gender "games" whilst trying to court each other. And that's the problem. Relationships have been turned into a game based on false and oppressive gender constructions.



> _*Women WANT to be dominated. They want a man to LEAD them into his world.*_


Again, I'm a woman and I don't want to be dominated, and I don't want anyone leading me anywhere. I'm an adult, not a child, and therefore I can lead myself. And many other women feel the same way. Are there women who do want to be dominated? Sure. But because society continuously teaches little girls that because they are females they naturally want to be dominated, it tends to socially condition these same little girls into believing the myth that _womanhood_ = submissiveness (this myth was most likely built off of a primitive male interpretation of the purpose of the vagina: Which in their view, was that its purpose was to be dominated by a penis). 

And of course as girls get older they start to subconsciously emulate the lessons that they have been taught throughout their entire life. So it's not that women naturally want to be dominated, but that they've been psychologically conditioned into believing that _*real woman*_ always posses the desire to be dominated. Because society discriminates against females who do not perform traditional notions of femininity, women are most likely to conform to this brand of femininity in order to not be treated as a pariah by their communities. Gender constructions are based on coercion, and no one will ever convince me that forced behavior is biologically innate.



> If you are a male today, your grandfather was probably more masculine at your age than you are.


My grandfather also lived during a time period where it was okay for men to rape their wives without having to face any legal consequences. Just because certain behaviors were more prevalent in the past does not mean that they are automatically "good" or "correct" things that people should emulate in the present. Your logic is flawed.



> That's because of all the feminist brainwashing that makes society think that feminine men are attractive.


Can you point us to any instances in which feminist can be shown brainwashing society into thinking that "feminine" men are attractive? Can you start by defining what a "_feminine man_" is?


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

A hetero, cis male saying he doesn't see patriarchy is like when a white guy says he doesn't see white privilege. 

It's easy to overlook a mechanism that benefits you... but the people who don't enjoy the benefits of it are apt to point it out to you.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> You don't understand the burden of proof.


Um no. You don't understand that feminists have shown proof, not only on this website, but also in other academic spheres, in which they meticulously detail the ways in which society is structured around patriarchal ideology. I have a feeling that you going on and on about the burden of proof being on feminists, is really just a euphemism for the fact that you're too intellectually stubborn to actually look up feministic critiques and theories about the gender structures that exist within society. Again, there are several threads dedicated to feminism on Perc alone. Go read them. My job is to lead you to water, not force you to drink it. When you're done reading the feminism threads throughout personalitycafe, please come back so we can discuss your critiques of them.



> The feminists assert the existence of the patriarchy and that it's a problem so they have to provide evidence for their assertion.


Please read above. 



> *Traditional gender roles have been created not because of 'notion of male superiority' but based on a (negative) notion of gender difference.*


Lol, you just said the exact same thing only with different wording. The "notion of male superiority" *IS* a "negative notion of gender difference". I mean honestly, what will you tell me next? That Jim crow laws were not created because of the notion of white supremacy but rather on the negative notion of racial differences? Well what is the notion of white supremacy but a negative notion of racial differences? I assure you, sir, that this kind of sophistry you seek to present will not work with me :wink:.



> 'Traditional gender roles' haven't been created by 'the patriarchy' but are a result of primitive man's hunter-gather society, and the physicality of labor in agriculture and industrial societies. Gender roles of 'men are protectors and providers' and women are 'nurturers and caretakers' developed from hunter gather societies, and continued throughout the agriculture and industrial ages due to many jobs being physically strenuous and male physiology being naturally suited for strenuous physical labor.


I disagree with this assessment, and here's why. Hunter-gatherer societies, in general, did not (and do not as far as modern hunter gatherer societies go) cling to "traditional gender roles". There is no pride associated with men being so called providers and hunters, and the concept of womanhood is not based on a woman bearing and raising children. Yes, in these societies men are most likely to go hunting, and women are most likely to gather vegetables and stay close to the encampments. But there is no oppressive gender roles within these societies for the most part (a better explanation can be found here: How Hunter-Gatherers Maintained Their Egalitarian Ways: Three Complementary Theories | Psychology Today).

Curiously, patriarchal ideology, or the notion of male power, did not start to rise within humanity until agricultural/agrarian societies came into existence. I spoke previously in other posts about gender constructions and social constructions. Well these concepts must be based off of a stable and purposeful "human _structure_". This human structure is called civilization. And with civilization came a more steady supply of food (due to the planting of crops, and the implementation of irrigation systems from which crops could be more easily cultivated in abundance). 

But before we continue, it is important to establish what kind of gender roles we speak of when referring to the patriarchy. There seems to be this pervasive thought that men are natural leaders, and therefore by process of elimination, that women are natural followers. This stems from the presupposition that men are naturally inclined to be dominant and powerful, whilst women are naturally inclined to be submissive and weak. Dominance/power has been associated with superiority, while submissiveness/weakness has been associated with inferiority. So if men are naturally dominant, then that must mean by their very definition that they are also naturally superior. And if women are naturally submissive, then by the very definition of their gender, they are also naturally inferior. And this isn't some new concept that was created in modern times, and it's not something that was created during the times of Moses (3500 years ago). It goes back even further than that.

For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh (which was written in single poems in 2600 BC, and edited for later versions around 1300 BC), the main character, Gilgamesh, is shown as the perfect representation of "_manhood_". I will give some quotations from the book that detail his characteristics:

*"Who is like Gilgamesh? What other king has inspired such awe? Who else can say, ‘I alone rule, Supreme among mankind’? The goddess Aruru, mother of creation, had designed his body, had made him the strongest of men; huge, handsome, radiant, perfect." 

"The city is his possession, he struts through it, arrogant, his head raised high, trampling its citizens like a wild bull. He is king, he does whatever he wants, takes the son from his father and crushes him, takes the girl from her mother and uses her, the warrior’s daughter, the young man’s bride, he uses her, no one dares to oppose him" *


And when the gods come up with a scheme to fashion a human being that equals Gilgamesh in all of his strengths and glory, they create another man named, Enkidu. Let us see how the book describes this man that also depicts a perfect representation of manhood.

*"Anu heard them, he nodded his head, then to the goddess, mother of creation, he called out: “Aruru, you are the one who created humans. Now go and create a double for Gilgamesh, his second self, a man who equals his stormy heart. Create a new hero, let them balance each other perfectly, so that Uruk has peace.... When Aruru heard this, she closed her eyes… and fashioned a man, a warrior, a hero: Enkidu the brave, as powerful and fierce as the war god Ninurta." (pg 74)

"A human trapper had discovered Enkidu drinking waters at the waterhole with other animals. He then said to his father “Father, I have seen a savage man at the waterhole. He must be the strongest man in the world, with muscles like rock. I have seen him outrun the swiftest of animals."

"Enkidu proclaims, “I am the mightiest! I am the man who can make the world tremble! I am supreme!”

"Gilgamesh truly has met his match. This wild man *[Enkidu]* can rival the mightiest of kings."

*
We can see here that even in one of the earliest agrarian societies, that of Ancient Sumer, that manhood was defined by the characteristics of strength, dominance, and power. Gilgamesh was the ultimate man because he was the supreme ruler of all men; stronger than all men; the owner of all men (as King); and the sexual dominator of all women. Enkidu too is described as the strongest of men. He is as powerful and fierce as a wargod. He proclaims himself to be the mightiest of men, and the most supreme.

My point in bringing up these passages, is to show that gender constructions have existed since the beginning of human civilization, but that such representations of gender/power dynamics differed greatly from the social relations that existed within hunter-gatherer societies. Even in modern hunter-gatherer societies, such behavior is actively rooted out. In the link I provided above, when interviewing an elder from a modern-day hunter gatherer society about the ways in which the tribe keeps people from assuming power over others, the elder responded: "_*When a young man kills much meat, he comes to think of himself as a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his inferiors. We can't accept this. We refuse one who boasts, for someday his pride will make him kill somebody. So we always speak of his meat as worthless. In this way we cool his heart and make him gentle*._"

So while our hunter-gatherer past explains certain things like why men are expected to work outside of the home, and why women are expected to rear children and cook dinner, it doesn't explain the gender constructions that have been in existence since the beginning of human *civilization* that promotes "power inequalities" between the sexes. Why? Because such power inequalities were largely absent from hunter-gatherer societies, and it would appear that power imbalances of any kind were (and are) actively eradicated to ensure egalitarianism amongst everyone in the tribe (even children). Being a hunter did not entitle men to be the leaders of women, and being a gatherer did not force women into being subservient or submissive to the will of men. So I reject your assertion that the gender division of labor within hunter-gatherer societies led to the traditional gender roles that feminists recognize as patriarchal; the type of gender roles that define a man as the _*head of woman*_.



> I recall a female anti-feminist youtuber girlwriteswhat say that it was interesting that feminists in the 20th century were campaigning to be given the opportunity to be doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc, but rarely asserted the desire to be given the opportunity to work for 12 hours down a mine like her great grandfather did.


I don't recall seeing any newly freed slaves campaigning to be given the opportunity to work 12 hours of extremely hard labor either during the post-civil war era. But of course, not wanting to engage in extremely strenuous labor (that's basically slave labor anyways) doesn't invalidate a subjugated group's protest for equal rights. The fallacy here is in attacking the fact that women have fought for their right to have autonomy over her own economic and social stability (by being allowed to work), whilst ignoring the fact that the poor are routinely exploited for hard labor, and given shitty pay in return. Again, I reject your sophistry (and girlwriteswhat's sophistry), because it is fallacious and fundamentally myopic. And it basically boils down to a fear of change, the resistance to such change, and the apologia of class exploitation. 



> Taken to it's extreme - and IMO this clearly demonstrates that the traditional theory of gender was not done based on the 'notion of male superiority' - men were legally drafted to join the army and fight in wars in the 20th century and *died by the millions, whilst women were exempt**.*


And this is how I know you haven't read the other feminism threads on Perc. I've written extensively about how patriarchal ideology affects men negatively. Namely that underneath a patriarchal society, men (especially poor-lower middle class men) became "cannon fodder". They merely become bodies to be used by more powerful and wealthy men. 

This is because of the pervasive fallacy of "manhood" that perpetuates the stereotype that men are tough, strong, natural warriors who can take any amount of pain thrown at them. Not only that, but because they are "masculine" and "real men" they will naturally find honor in shedding their own blood in defense of King and country. And women are excluded from war because their worth lies only in their wombs and their ability to provide sex and a clean house to their husbands. They are not as "superior" as men when it comes to combat, and thus, are not fit for war. That _honor_ is for men only! But if manhood is tied to bravery, strength, and courage in battle, then what other choice do men have but to become cannon fodder in order to prove to society that they are real men? Patriarchal notions of gender oppresses men (especially non-wealthy men), just like it oppresses women.



> The important point is that both men and women have supported (and continue to support) traditional gender roles


They don't support it out of free will. Rather 1. they are taught to see such roles as the "only way" men and women should relate to one another, and 2. they know full well of the penalties that one would suffer should he/she fail to conform to these fictitious gender roles, which only coerces men and women into championing the status quo for fear of being punished should they refuse.



> But feminists blame men (the patriarchy)


Wrong. The patriarchy does *NOT* equal men, and men do *NOT* equal the patriarchy. Patriarchy simply denotes a social system in which men hold or maintain most of the power; in which this power is held as a natural consequence of gender essentialism: Meaning that men hold the power because it is their natural right to do so as _males_. Patriarchy is an ideology and a system, not an entire subgroup of human persons. Your lack of understanding of feminist theory is most illuminating. 



> for the formation and propagation of traditional gender identity like you do, ignoring economic factors (like the prevalence of physically intensive jobs) and blame traditional gender roles primarily on the 'notion of male superiority'.


The simple fact that you assert that feminists ignore "economic factors" proves to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. Most feminists hold that economic inequality is the basis for ALL OPPRESSION. Misogyny, racism, etc. There's no point in arguing further if you can't even get the basic tenets of feminism correct.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

I have a thing or two left to learn about male genitals, because I have a really hard time being "rough" as I don't want to damage them cojones. My hypochondria is definitely getting projected here, and I am sure my partner would love it if I went at him harder and rougher than I do. I am a feminist, and I'd like to bust some serious balls some day.

Generally speaking, as long as it's consensual, I have no objections, feminist or otherwise.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)




----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

snail said:


> As a separate question, I would also like to know whether feminist men are more likely to enjoy having their genitals hurt than non-feminist men, but I didn't think to include those options on the poll.


Hmmm ... I don't think anyone responded to this post

I suppose I'm technically a feminist, although I prefer to call myself a feminist supporter because I feel that I only have very "obvious" knowledge about the inequities of sex and gender roles and perceptions (Observation, talking to feminist friends and finding myself agree with them ... one of which some people thought was seem as domineering which she was to an extent but it was obvious that it came from a source of deep caring and you could really tell once she broke those walls around her and opened up with some private information and feelings, and wanting equality for all and questioning all these gender roles that we have since young children and noticing the individual diversity in men and woman and wondering why women don't make as much and are not in more positions of power, seeing commercials create and prey on women's insecurities, ...) and I don't campaign ... So, I feel I should just say I'm a feminist supporter

Now, I also have to say that "man" is an ambiguous word for me as I identify as agendered, but my sex is male.

Okay, now that I got the technicalities out of the way, I can respond to your post lol

So, I'm fairly passive, but I like having equality in a relationship, except where sex is concerned. ... It really turns me on to take on the submissive role. I usually like to be told that I have to do whatever she wants (not that I would actually do anything, I have boundaries, but I find it sexy to hear) and, for that reason, I really need to trust my partner (I need to trust my partner emotionally for intimacy and I need her to also care about me because I'm adding to my vulnerability by being submissive).
That all being said, I'm not into pain, but, I have recently been fantasizing about having my balls gently squeezed and being handle a roughly, such as grabbing me down there and kissing me and pushing me onto a bed or something while squeezing me down there.
Now, I'm going to feel embarrassed for saying this and I would never-ever do this, but I once heard a confession about wanting to put out a lit cigarette on some guy's balls and, well, it sounded kind of hot to me. I don't like cigarettes, I don't like the idea of being hit down there, and I don't want pain ... but for some reason it sounded hot too me ... I'm thinking it was because I was imagining a calm woman doing it as a show of dominance. ... Again, I don't think I would actually like that experience, so I would not do it ... but my answer feels very complicated lol.
Idk, maybe a tiny bit of pain I might like, but maybe I would not ... It is hard to say lol
And now I feel a little embarrassed lol (but this is the interwebs, so you can't see me so )


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Shahada said:


> You're free to not spend time or money on learning more about feminism if you don't like, but at the same time, if you're not willing to take the time to educate yourself you kind of lose the right to be taken seriously on the subject.


HI was upfront about my level of knowledge. Other people chose to engage me off their own judgment. Your not in control.



> Yeah, see what I said about "flat out lying about what other people say." I'm sure other people of color appreciate you cynically bringing up your race for no reason in a misguided attempt to win an argument.


Like you've done *repeatedly* in other threads you mean? Or you're exempt from your own criticism?



> Nobody who talks like this on the internet is "hitting" shit, you're not fooling anyone.


You took that seriously?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Uviteru said:


> True. I wonder if strangestdude likes ball busting? We know he does not like feminism.


Looks like I've made another enemy.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> HI was upfront about my level of knowledge. Other people chose to engage me off their own judgment. Your not in control.


Yeah, people "engaged" you by telling you you were wrong and need to do your homework and you continued to argue with them despite being a self-professed ignoramus about the subject matter.


strangestdude said:


> Like you've done repeatedly in other threads you mean?


Nope.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Hmmm ... I don't think anyone responded to this post
> 
> I suppose I'm technically a feminist, although I prefer to call myself a feminist supporter because I feel that I only have very "obvious" knowledge about the inequities of sex and gender roles and perceptions (Observation, talking to feminist friends and finding myself agree with them ... one of which some people thought was seem as domineering which she was to an extent but it was obvious that it came from a source of deep caring and you could really tell once she broke those walls around her and opened up with some private information and feelings, and wanting equality for all and questioning all these gender roles that we have since young children and noticing the individual diversity in men and woman and wondering why women don't make as much and are not in more positions of power, seeing commercials create and prey on women's insecurities, ...) and I don't campaign ... So, I feel I should just say I'm a feminist supporter
> 
> ...


That's a hot fantasy huh? Snail has done that with me several times (minus the cigarette part because we would not do that). It's amazing and so very intimate for my soulmate to have a tight grip on my scrotum and lead me by my genitals to wherever she pleases. 

The parts that are a bit painful (such as spanking or whipping of my testicles) feel so intense that a powerful orgasm is sure to follow every time. It turns both of us on. 

The way we do it there is no dominance play but instead mutual trust and vulnerability where we both fully emotionally and physically surrender to the other in the most loving beautiful way.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Well, I will say that no one should tell you to commit suicide as that is a horrible thing to say and you, as a person, are very valuable ^__^


The person didn't tell me to commit suicide, they said 'people who hate women like me can often go on to commit suicide or commit violent crimes against women'. 

I found it incredibly bizarre. 



> That being said, you took a thread that was meant to be just a poll and about any correlation between a specific behaviour and feminism


The thread was a poking fun at a feminist stereotype that I think the OP had witnessed on the forum. I decided to use it as an opportunity to criticism feminism based on my experiences. People didn't have to engage me.



> Now, you have decided to talk about the validity of feminism instead which not only has nothing to do with this thread, but there are many of those threads here ... And, sure, one post is fine, but you really derailed the thread.


It take more than one person to have a conversation. People responded to me, they could have put me on their ignore list or simply not reply to my posts.



> Not only that, but you ignore and twist what people are saying to fit your own world view and characterization of them.


If I'm wrong then they can attempt to show me why. I stand by my assessment, even if you disagree.



> But you are the one who is focusing on men's issues, while the feminists in this thread are talking about issues for men, women, intersexed, trans-gendered, non-heterosexuals,


In this thread. In another thread I debated @_Shahada_ and vehemently critisized him for only focusing on the problems affecting the female demographic in pornography. He ignored the problems facing other demographics.



> Not to mention the feminists here seem to care about men's issues as well


Some do.



> Probably because they see them as people first and they are not trying to feel like the victim or show their "victim status" is greater.


Not based on my experience. As I've already explained. 



> You seem to choose to demonize all/most feminists and then wonder why they are mad when you clearly don't know anything about it and are misrepresenting what their posts are saying.


To be honest I know my debating style rubs people the wrong way, I'm facetious and aggressive. And I do need to tone it down. But...

If I'm misrepresenting them then they should be able to show how, especially seeing as I'm basing my critiques on interactions. Instead many have simply focused on my character, which I've observed seems to be the norm when the topic of feminism comes up IME.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Shahada said:


> Nope.


Liar.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Uviteru said:


> It's amazing and so very intimate for my soulmate to have a tight grip on my scrotum and lead me by my genitals to wherever she pleases.


That is all.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> That is all.


So you're into neither ball busting nor feminism. Why are you in this thread? 

Your attention seeking behavior is getting old. If you're not going to talk about feminists and ball busting (or non feminists and ball busting) can you please stop polluting the thread with your off topic posts?


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> If I'm wrong then they can attempt to show me why. I stand by my assessment, even if you disagree.


"If I'm wrong, then it should be easy for all of you people to to penetrate my confirmation biases and provide incontrovertible proof that I'm wrong that will force me to change my mind despite not being interested in doing so and being predisposed to finding the alternative to my deeply held beliefs wrong and distasteful. Your failure to do so just proves I'm correct."


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I am taking careful observations of number of sexual deviants in this thread so I can have them arrested when I become President-for-life.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

@_strangestdude_

It's plenty clear by now that you have derailed this thread, out of a desire to troll and 'provoke' reactions to your 'factitious' posts. Your puerile butthurt trolling has taken up well over half the thread discussion. This thread is not about critiquing feminism, and if that were your goal, you should have started a separate thread for that purpose alone or just gone on to bump one of the million threads on the same. 


Ever since you started twisting and misconstruing @_Promethea_'s posts, to suit your own warped conception of feminism, and her own position on mental health concerns among men, it became obvious that your aim was to steer the thread in some obscure self-victimizing direction to bitch about ( your limited and biased perception of) feminism. You can cry "burden of proof" all you want, but the onus of researching the very subject you're railing against, enough to be able to have an educated discussion on it, lies on you. You walk into feminist threads throwing around your flagrantly ignorant comments, acting as though you were entitled to a "lesson" on the topic. No, you're not owed shit, if you can't even be bothered to get a half-decent grip on the fundamental tenets of Feminism and equally basic terms like "patriarchy" and "male privilege". On that note, cut back on the strawmen, red herrings and comical ad hominems; while you're at it, take this off-topic spiel of yours to another thread.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Shahada said:


> "If I'm wrong, then it should be easy for all of you people to to penetrate my confirmation biases and provide incontrovertible proof that I'm wrong that will force me to change my mind


A) You always ignore a person's agency. (I've complained about that tendency with you before) I don't force people to engage me, they choose to.

B) Not change my mind, but inspire me to invest more time researching, yes. I have no desire to research into Catholicism, however is someone was to write something that compelled me then I would - however nothing I've come across has compelled that. But inspiration for me to look into other subjects has happened countless times in interactions with others.



> despite not being interested in doing so


I don't mind being proved wrong. I was a devout muslim for 5 years, built my social life around Islam and was married to a muslim, and yet I deconverted and turned my life upside down because I was proved wrong via being inspired by someone's critique to do personal research. 

(I've explained all this to you personally before so...) If you think admitting that my perspective on feminism is wrong to people in an internet forum who I will never meet, is more difficult than deconverting from a religion that I had built my life around then you are mistaken. This is nothing in comparison dude, trust me.

I was open about being ignorant, I didn't hide anything. Not sure what your problem is with honesty Shahada?

KINGoftheAMAZONS was the only one who stepped up and wrote anything of substance that challenged me... You should take a leaf out of her book when you are trying to spread your marxist propaganda.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Boss said:


> On that note, cut back on the strawmen, red herrings and comical ad hominems; while you're at it, take this off-topic spiel of yours to another thread.


If you don't like me report me, or put me on ignore. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. 

Same goes for anyone else.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I am taking careful observations of number of sexual deviants in this thread so I can have them arrested when I become President-for-life.


I admire your commitment to biopolitical conformity but I think it may be a better strategy to embrace them and subsequently channel their deviancy into a highly regimented and sexually disciplined social movement aimed at the eventual seizure of political power, preferably one headed by a commanding and charismatic individual (perhaps yourself, or a more charismatic person you can easily influence) who's leadership is absolute, unquestioned, and incorruptible as a tautology. The movement should be egalitarian but what with some privileges reserved for the leader and his or her close comrades, this is simply a practicality of effective management. Fidelity to the values of the movement should be framed as commitment to a transcendental, mystical cause and purpose rather than mere ideological struggle. Some may call such tactics "cult-like," but that is merely a bourgeois pejorative for effective organization and leadership. The main problem holding back modern revolutionary movements is their distaste for organizational methods with proven track records of success, such as personality cults and communal, ritualistic sexual practice.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Well, since few people are going to show class and talk about men getting hit in the balls, I figure I should start that conversation. I personally do not find it arousing, but I do not judge anyone who does.

Although, I must say that I believe any sexually tinted hitting of men in the balls without consent is a form of sexual assault, as it should be.

Also, it's grounds for your partner to break up with you if you hit them in the balls without their consent. Not even once, ladies. It's domestic violence to do so to your partner. I don't think I have to tell the men, because we know how sensitive our balls are.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> I don't mind being proved wrong. I was a devout muslim for 5 years, built my social life around Islam and was married to a muslim, and yet I deconverted and turned my life upside down because I was proved wrong via being inspired by someone's critique to do personal research.


 One wonders if you really changed all that much


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Just because they're feminists, doesn't mean they're not morons or even disgusting. The "straw feminist" in the video a few posts back exists as a Hollywood trope because people like this exist, not because of some Hollywood conspiracy to discredit feminism. The woman who committed the crime was obviously mentally disturbed and should be evaluated and incarcerated, not held up as some sort of feminist anti-hero. I can't imagine them laughing about a woman who had her breasts treated in the same manner -- the tone of -that- program would have been very different. We all, men and women, have a lot of growing up to do if we want a true egalitarian society.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

That last post was a response to "the view" video posted several pages back.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

Torai said:


> Well, since few people are going to show class and talk about men getting hit in the balls, I figure I should start that conversation. I personally do not find it arousing, but I do not judge anyone who does.
> 
> Although, I must say that I believe any sexually tinted hitting of men in the balls without consent is a form of sexual assault, as it should be.
> 
> Also, it's grounds for your partner to break up with you if you hit them in the balls without their consent. Not even once, ladies. It's domestic violence to do so to your partner. I don't think I have to tell the men, because we know how sensitive our balls are.


It's definitely sexual assault in that case when not consensual. And of course, all domestic violence is grounds for breaking up. 

When done consensually it's not done to actually cause serious physical harm. Actually fear of harming their partner is one of the major reasons women tend to be very careful and even fearful of touching that area even when a man wants her to.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> One wonders if you really changed all that much


LOL. Why because I don't support feminism?


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> LOL. Why because I don't support feminism?


 Well, I think you are more of an anti-feminist (I am a non-feminist, for example.)


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Uviteru said:


> It's definitely sexual assault in that case when not consensual. And of course, all domestic violence is grounds for breaking up.
> 
> When done consensually it's not done to actually cause serious physical harm. Actually fear of harming their partner is one of the major reasons women tend to be very careful and even fearful of touching that area even when a man wants her to.


To be honest, I really don't blame those women. I don't want to take that chance with my balls, either. If I get hit too hard, they'll shift out of place and godfuckingdammit that hurts.

I think the idea of getting spanked hard near the perineal area is pretty hot, though. I think that's because it would send surges up my prostate.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Uviteru said:


> That's a hot fantasy huh? Snail has done that with me several times (minus the cigarette part because we would not do that). It's amazing and so very intimate for my soulmate to have a tight grip on my scrotum and lead me by my genitals to wherever she pleases.
> 
> The parts that are a bit painful (such as spanking or whipping of my testicles) feel so intense that a powerful orgasm is sure to follow every time. It turns both of us on.
> 
> The way we do it there is no dominance play but instead mutual trust and vulnerability where we both fully emotionally and physically surrender to the other in the most loving beautiful way.


Haha Yup, I find it very hot (yay, we are having posts on topic )

You probably go much further than I would, but I agree that it can be an experience with sharing more vulnerability and trust making it feel much more intimate  ^__^



Diphenhydramine said:


> I am taking careful observations of number of sexual deviants in this thread so I can have them arrested when I become President-for-life.


What is your policy on bribes? :tongue:




azdahak said:


> Just because they're feminists, doesn't mean they're not morons or even disgusting. The "straw feminist" in the video a few posts back exists as a Hollywood trope because people like this exist, not because of some Hollywood conspiracy to discredit feminism. The woman who committed the crime was obviously mentally disturbed and should be evaluated and incarcerated, not held up as some sort of feminist anti-hero. I can't imagine them laughing about a woman who had her breasts treated in the same manner -- the tone of -that- program would have been very different. We all, men and women, have a lot of growing up to do if we want a true egalitarian society.


Okay, they're are all types of people in the world, so yes, there are are people who are like that straw feminist, but I think you missed some points. .... One being the world isn't as fair as it is shown on those programs and, two, the media portrays most feminists that way, when that is not the case. Many feminists are very loving people who also care about men as well ... and the movement is about equality (and there are many feminists here on PerC that will talk about how things can be unfair for men as well) ... Now, are some feminists jerks? Yeah, they are human and no one says jerks are not allowed in ... but most feminists, ime, are nothing like the media portrayal.
That being said, I agree that Hollywood probably really does not care about feminism, but I think Hollywood does care about money, and if they can make more money by falsely portraying them and eventually the American public gets used to those false portrayals that discredit feminism and it is like a reward system for hollywood and people start to believe the myth


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Well, I think you are more of an anti-feminist (I am a non-feminist, for example.)


Ok dude. 

Just so we are clear I like women (and rating women's looks was a joke), but I don't like the *attitude* of most of the feminists (or supporters) I've met online. (In the youtube new atheist community I prefer the anti-feminist and non-feminist guys and gals) But this is text based communication which is a very different context to other forms of communication IME. And to be fair I doubt many of them like me.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> (In the youtube new atheist community I prefer the anti-feminist and non-feminist guys and gals)


Jeez...it gets harder and harder to believe your entire persona on here isn't some kind of methodically orchestrated long-form meta-troll with every post.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Shahada said:


> Jeez...it gets harder and harder to believe your entire persona on here isn't some kind of methodically orchestrated long-form meta-troll with every post.


Repeated attacks on my character, why are you bullying me?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

I'd like to hear a few things from men who like getting hit in the balls. What's the appeal? Is there any unique sensation or is it just plain masochism?

I'm really curious what their take on it is.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> I'm the guy with the glasses. U mad?
> 
> I liked Nick. He grew on me.


So does cancer. Stop the trolling, it's getting old.

@OP

If this is the way to go for you and your partner, then have fun.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Mr. Meepers said:


> That being said, I agree that Hollywood probably really does not care about feminism, but I think Hollywood does care about money, and if they can make more money by falsely portraying them and eventually the American public gets used to those false portrayals that discredit feminism and it is like a reward system for hollywood and people start to believe the myth



I'm not disagreeing. Hollywood makes what sells. Most people want black hats and white hats in a movie, not nuance. But by your logic any stereotypes or even negative portrayals shouldn't be allowed for fear that people will start to believe them. That would pretty much ban a lot of comedy. I think most people realize that TV/movies are exaggerations and simplifications. 

I personally find it more distressing that whole talk-show audiences can justify or laugh at the very real story of someone's penis going down a garbage disposal, rather than being horrified. The talk show audience was made up of real people. There was an implicit assumption that the guy did something wrong, and hence deserved his fate. That's a pretty warped sense of justice.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

snail said:


> Again, I would like to emphasize that the reasons men kill themselves are directly linked to problems feminism is trying to change.
> 
> They feel like they have to avoid showing any signs of emotional vulnerability (because it is considered feminine and weak to show too much emotion.)
> 
> ...


Which is exactly why male suicide rates have declined since the rise of feminism. Oh wait, I think I have that backwards.










So either the patriarchy became much more prominent beginning in the 1960s (coincidentally when the feminist movement began with full force), or you're making things up out of thin air to rationalize your dogmatic beliefs. Hmm.


----------



## Tea Path (Sep 5, 2012)

SuburbanLurker said:


> Which is exactly why male suicide rates have declined since the rise of feminism. Oh wait, I think I have that backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correlation does not equal causation. That, there is a false equivalency. Since that time, there have been other events. You can correlate male suicide with antibiotics, vaccines, global warming, rock and roll music, generation X. 

Anyways: feminist, but not man hater. Certainly never ever hit any man in the genitals on purpose.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Tea Path said:


> Correlation does not equal causation. That, there is a false equivalency. Since that time, there have been other events. You can correlate male suicide with antibiotics, vaccines, global warming, rock and roll music, generation X.
> 
> Anyways: feminist, but not man hater. Certainly never ever hit any man in the genitals on purpose.


I'm not asserting a correlation. I'm simply pointing out that _if_ feminism has influenced male suicide rates, it's been a negative influence, rather than a positive influence as snail suggests.

I don't believe feminism is correlated to suicide rates very much at all personally. If you look at other countries, conservative and liberal alike, suicide rates seem to skyrocket as a country modernizes and urbanizes regardless of the level of gender equality (see: Former USSR, Japan, South Korea, China). All I'm saying is that to use male suicide as a feminist propaganda tool is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

azdahak said:


> I'm not disagreeing. Hollywood makes what sells. Most people want black hats and white hats in a movie, not nuance. But by your logic any stereotypes or even negative portrayals shouldn't be allowed for fear that people will start to believe them. That would pretty much ban a lot of comedy. I think most people realize that TV/movies are exaggerations and simplifications.


What? How is that by my logic? I never talked about bans ... personally I am not pro censorship ... I just merely said that the media constantly portraying feminists as bat-shit crazy people and rarely show one as a normal everyday person, will lead the public to think mosts feminists are bat-shit crazy, when that is not the case and such media portrayals hurt feminism ... I could say the same thing about hollywood constantly showing the overweight woman as unattractive/undesirable and lazy ... Hollywood like creating and/or using stereotypes. ... If anything, I would advocate breaking that mold from time to time and start showing these groups of people we like to look down on as normal, respectable people ... and to stop overusing stereotypes and be more creative. ... I'm not advocating any bans. 



> I personally find it more distressing that whole talk-show audiences can justify or laugh at the very real story of someone's penis going down a garbage disposal, rather than being horrified. The talk show audience was made up of real people. There was an implicit assumption that the guy did something wrong, and hence deserved his fate. That's a pretty warped sense of justice.


I agree with that ... It is disgusting ... But I think we (society) find men getting kicked in the groin funny or male genital mutilation funny because we have these social roles of stating that men must be strong and they must protect the delicate (pure?) woman who could never hurt them ... and them men are told to suppress their emotions which takes away much of the appearance of humanity. ... I am pretty confident in saying that at least most of the feminist I know would not laugh at that and be disturbed by people laughing at that ... and those feminist and I believe that breaking down these unnecessary gender roles will make lives better for men as well and that people might be less likely to find male genital mutilation funny.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> @_KINGoftheAMAZONS_
> 
> _(facetious mode off)_
> 
> ...


Please listen to this entire voice recording that I made for you: Vocaroo | Voice message

As for the lectures you posted, I'm watching them now, and I'll post a response to them in a little bit.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Mr. Meepers said:


> ... I am pretty confident in saying that at least most of the feminist I know would not laugh at that and be disturbed by people laughing at that ... and those feminist and I believe that breaking down these unnecessary gender roles will make lives better for men as well and that people might be less likely to find male genital mutilation funny.


Look, I'm not criticizing anyone. I'm just wondering how that situation can be conceived of as laughable, and moreover, to have that laughing be considered acceptable. I'm trying to understand what motivates the almost gleeful vindictiveness. Why wasn't Sharon Osborne called out? Does this represent a failure of the ideals of feminism?


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

azdahak said:


> Look, I'm not criticizing anyone. I'm just wondering how that situation can be conceived of as laughable, and moreover, to have that laughing be considered acceptable. I'm trying to understand what motivates the almost gleeful vindictiveness. Why wasn't Sharon Osborne called out? Does this represent a failure of the ideals of feminism?


Our conversation is off topic, so it may be better to move this to visitor messages lol ... but as I said before I think it has to do with gender roles and how we view men as strong and unemotional and how we view women as weak.
I think Sharon Osbourn did have to apologize, which probably means she was called out at some point, but why was she not called out there? Idk, but my guess is that "The View" is a daytime talk show for woman (I think, I never watched the show) and daytime talk shows are known to showcase people finding the pain or others entertaining (cough cough Jerry Springer cough cough) ... idk ... Does it represent a failure of feminism? I would say no. I believe feminism is actively trying to fight mentalities like her's by trying to tear down our strong gender roles and, if anything, I think it represents that feminism is not complete yet as we are seeing double standards based on how we view men and women. Feminism is about trying to get society to stop judging people based on sex and/or gender and to give people the same opportunities regardless of gender

Here is a video that you may find interesting:


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> Good trolling.
> 
> The problem I have with feminism is that as well as affirming women's rights - which I support - they also have an accompanying ideology. An ideology that includes believing in an intentional male ruling class called the patriarchy, and (some) believe that gender behavior differences are purely a social construct - which I don't support.
> 
> ...


You're ignoring the Civil Rights Movement after 1965. I just got back from seeing Amiri Baraka down at the Bohemian Caverns on U Street Cardoza. A historic Black district. Baraka was instrumental in the Black Arts Movement, which brought black, brown, gay and lesbian, voices to literature, which up to that point had been dominated by straight white men. BAM ended around 1975. BAM, was the artistic wing of the Black Power Movement. When people speak of the Civil Rights Movement accomplished this and that, they mean it started with the death of Emmitt Till, and the refusal of Rosa Parks to give up her seat on the bus. It includes the Freedom Riders, they were beaten, it includes the deaths of four little girls, it includes the I Have A Dream Speech, and Selma, and Dr. King. It does not include the Nation of Islam, or Malcolm X, or Black Power. Black Power was really about Black Power. It was about creating your own community, it was about rents that were too high, see King Chicago Movement, it was about blacks getting involved in politics, like when they became mayors of DC as in Mayor Walter Washington, or Gary Indiana, Richard Hatcher. Oh yeah the Civil Rights Movement has many beliefs. And I'm sure the women on this board may disagree with me, or have areas where they retool what I'm saying,that's okay, I'm not an expert, but the 50th anniversary of the _Feminine Mystiqu_e is upon us, and it's argued, that while that book, and the movement it spawned was important, it neglected Blacks and Lesbians, and Gloria Steinman was not appreciated within the wider community, because she looked telegenic, which was an paradox. A Movement that wanted to be taken seriously, of people with skills, and not relying on their good looks, their spokesperson was all looks, and it fit in with a media narrative.

But the women's Rights Movent is the same thing, you have the image of the male hating, bra buring feminist, and then you have a more accurate image of Title IX. I think.


----------



## Tea Path (Sep 5, 2012)

SuburbanLurker said:


> I'm not asserting a correlation. I'm simply pointing out that _if_ feminism has influenced male suicide rates, it's been a negative influence, rather than a positive influence as snail suggests.
> 
> I don't believe feminism is correlated to suicide rates very much at all personally. If you look at other countries, conservative and liberal alike, suicide rates seem to skyrocket as a country modernizes and urbanizes regardless of the level of gender equality (see: Former USSR, Japan, South Korea, China). All I'm saying is that to use male suicide as a feminist propaganda tool is intellectually dishonest.


Ditto, that original statement suffers from that too.

besides this awful dichotomy that intimates that feminists like causing men pain, sexism is alive and well.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.full.pdf


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Tea Path said:


> Ditto, that original statement suffers from that too.
> 
> besides this awful dichotomy that intimates that feminists like causing men pain, sexism is alive and well.
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.full.pdf


It goes both ways. And in this case, it affects all boys and hence the entirety of society, not just those who study a particular field in university.

I'd suggest feminists listen to what a former radical feminist/women's studies professor has to say about why modern feminism is harming society.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> It goes both ways. And in this case, it affects all boys and hence the entirety of society, not just those who study a particular field in university.


Interesting website, do you read it often? Didn't realize you were an ardent Catholic. Anyway it'd be cool if there was a link to the actual study cited, since the guy you were responding to linked to an actual study instead of a right-wing pro-life website commenting on and selectively quoting a study in the service of combating "the global reach of American left-wing feminism." I'm sure a scientifically inclined person such as yourself can see the qualitative difference between the source he provided and the one that you did.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Shahada said:


> Interesting website, do you read it often? Didn't realize you were an ardent Catholic. Anyway it'd be cool if there was a link to the actual study cited, since the guy you were responding to linked to an actual study instead of a right-wing pro-life website commenting on and selectively quoting a study in the service of combating "the global reach of American left-wing feminism." I'm sure a scientifically inclined person such as yourself can see the qualitative difference between the source he provided and the one that you did.


Attacking the source? I don't see any evidence indicating what you say is true about this site, but regardless, a simple google search could have found you the full study.

Here's a related article. I hope the University of Georgia website is up to your standards.



> _The study, co-authored by Cornwell and David Mustard at UGA and Jessica Van Parys at Columbia, analyzed data on more than 5,800 students from kindergarten through fifth grade. It examined students' performance on standardized tests in three categories¬¬-reading, math and science-linking test scores to teachers' assessments of their students' progress, both academically and more broadly.
> 
> *The data show, for the first time, that gender disparities in teacher grades start early and uniformly favor girls. In every subject area, boys are represented in grade distributions below where their test scores would predict.*_


One would think that feminists should be concerned over such startling findings...


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

Torai said:


> I'd like to hear a few things from men who like getting hit in the balls. What's the appeal? Is there any unique sensation or is it just plain masochism?
> 
> I'm really curious what their take on it is.


For me it's not masochism at all. You ask about being "hit" but it's not just "hitting", spanking, whipping, squeezing, rubbing, and applying different levels of pressure all feel different.

The testicles are full of nerve endings and can be made to feel very pleasurable with a small amount of pressure and massage. 

When Snail whips my testicles it arouses me mostly because it arouses her by way of her fetish (Although it's close enough to mine that I get aroused by it too)

When snail spanks or squeezes my testicles it's different and arouses me because of the emotions, the feelings, and the memories it evokes. 

It is also interesting that the testicles are the center of male strength, sexuality, and virility but at the same time one of the most fragile and vulnerable parts of the body, just dangling there waiting to be seized.

When she has a tight grip on my scrotum I become incredibly aroused feeling wanted, loved, and like we are sharing an intimate and special moment. It also fills me with other emotions that are difficult to describe. It's a special moment between us where I communicate great trust, vulnerability and love and she communicates love and desire for me.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> Attacking the source?


Yeah dude, that's what you do when someone posts a "bad source," and by "bad source" I don't mean one that disagrees with my views, I mean one that talks about a "study" but doesn't actually link to it and instead selectively quotes a study to make a certain ideological point. Also, try reading their "About" page and just looking at the stories they're covering and the language used, if you're not an idiot you should be able to figure out that site's agenda. Someone as concerned with proper scientific process as you claim to be should know better. Thanks for linking to a legitimate source, though I'm not too terribly sure what its supposed to prove. I doubt any feminist would say its not a matter of concern that a large portion of the population (in Northern Ireland, anyway) is testing below expectations. It really just seems like another strawman where phantom feminists are just accused of not caring enough about something. For the record I don't really doubt the conclusions, I find them plausible, what's weird is how they're supposedly some kind of indictment of feminism or something. No one's ever claimed men and boys don't have their own issues compared to women and girls.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Shahada said:


> No one's ever claimed men and boys don't have their own issues compared to women and girls.


This is implied when feminists consistently combat, ignore or downplay the idea of male discrimination, as you're doing right now. How do you think feminists would react if the genders were reversed in this case? Certainly not the way you are. This is why the word feminist puts a bad taste in people's mouths. Not because of the idea, but because of the hypocritical and hostile way in which its proponents act. 

What I was trying to prove is completely clear if you'd read the thread in context instead of replying with knee jerk hostility: Gender disparities in the educational system exist for both boys and girls. Hence the "it goes both ways" and has nothing to do with systematic discrimination against women or "the patriarchy".



> what's weird is how they're supposedly some kind of indictment of feminism or something.


No more than how all gender disparities that favour men are an indictment of the big evil patriarchy. See how that works?

And had you actually taken the time to glance at the second article I posted, as someone who was really concerned about gender issues rather than sucking up to girls on a message board would do, you would see that the study was conducted in America, not Ireland.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Brian1 said:


> You're ignoring the Civil Rights Movement after 1965.


OK then, simply replace where I used the US black civil rights movement with US black civil rights movement before 1965.



> you have the image of the male hating, bra buring feminist.


No, I think they are more often indifferent or insensitive to problems affecting the male demographic, rather than actively hostile.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

SuburbanLurker said:


> This is implied when feminists consistently combat, ignore or downplay the idea of male discrimination, as you're doing right now. How do you think feminists would react if the genders were reversed in this case? Certainly not the way you are. This is why the word feminist puts a bad taste in people's mouths. Not because of the idea, but because of the hypocritical and hostile way in which its proponents act.


Bingo.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

@SuburbanLurker

I never claimed that feminism had succeeded in reducing male suicide rates. I only said that the main causes of male suicide, according to the article I was responding to, were some of the very things feminists tend to be concerned with fixing. All of those problems still exist despite our best efforts. If I had claimed that we were already fully successful, your chart might have been more relevant. 

I watched the video you posted. I disagree with it for a number of reasons. The speaker misrepresents what feminists are about, despite the fact that she used to think of herself as one, by saying we have an imbalanced approach that neglects men's issues. Many of us care deeply about the problems men routinely face, which are often rooted in the same cultural attitudes that lead to the oppression of women. The two cannot be separated, and we simply choose to evaluate the problem from a feminine perspective, because feminine people have traditionally been at the greatest disadvantage. Even if we didn't care about men's issues, I don't see how it would be wrong to care about unfairness against women. You wouldn't hate a charity designed to feed starving children for not doing enough to help cancer patients. Causes can be specialized.

Eliminating feminism would only be right in a world where feminism was actually no longer necessary, or had never been necessary. We aren't demonizing all males when we talk about the crimes men are more likely to commit, and in fact, if we were more successful at eliminating negative gender roles, men would also be victimized less frequently by other men. (I also think the violence of mothers against children should be an actual recognized issue if it is as serious as she claims, as should any crime committed by people who are in a position of power over others.) 

When she mentions that the positive masculinity we promote is actually femininity, she is missing the point. The qualities traditionally associated with masculinity are mostly destructive. Men are taught that in order to be valued, they must be bullies. They are taught by society that they aren't real men unless they are violent, insensitive, domineering and ruthless. I don't think those should be considered "masculine" qualities at all. They are negative qualities that are wrongly being encouraged as socially acceptable ways of maintaining male dominance. While male dominance might seem desirable to some men, the ones who don't want it must still pay a terrible price for it, which comes in the form of nearly every inequality suffered by men. It isn't right that those problems should be blamed on feminism when they are actually caused by the same system that keeps men in power. If there is ever going to be a cure for inequalities suffered by men, it will depend on the success of feminism.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> This is implied when feminists consistently combat, ignore or downplay the idea of male discrimination, as you're doing right now.


I'm not sure how I'm downplaying it when I said I don't dismiss the conclusions of the study and that I find them plausible and a cause for concern.


SuburbanLurker said:


> How do you think feminists would react if the genders were reversed in this case? Certainly not the way you are. This is why the word feminist puts a bad taste in people's mouths. Not because of the idea, but because of the hypocritical and hostile way in which its proponents act.


Well, I don't call myself a feminist really, just because I think its sort of pretentious personally for a man to call himself a feminist, like a white guy trying to be a Black Panther or something, but I do generally agree with feminist ideas and support feminist goals (I guess this would make me "an ally," though I also find that term a bit pretentious) and I clearly did not react in the way you speculate I should, going by my belief system.


SuburbanLurker said:


> What I was trying to prove is completely clear if you'd read the thread in context instead of replying with knee jerk hostility: Gender disparities in the educational system exist for both boys and girls. Hence the "it goes both ways" and has nothing to do with systematic discrimination against women or "the patriarchy".


Well what you referred to is a difference in exam performance in response to a study about placement in academic programs--the two are rather different in the degree to which human decisions (discrimination) plays a role in those outcomes, with the latter situation having more direct human decision making. Of course, this doesn't rule out some kind of systemic inequality that results in male students not performing well (at the elementary school level at least--am curious if there are other studies at different grade levels with similar conclusions). More importantly, if you're trying to argue there is no significant systemic discrimination of women, the fact that some men face systemic or institutional obstacles does not mean systemic or institutional obstacles do not also exist for women, perhaps even in greater numbers and to a greater degree than those faced by men.


SuburbanLurker said:


> No more than how all gender disparities that favour men are an indictment of the big evil patriarchy. See how that works?


Well first I'm not sure what you're talking about--"big evil patriarchy" sounds like a strawman argument. Secondly I would point to the fact that, again, some institutional obstacles existing for men does not mean institutional obstacles do not exist for women as well, perhaps to an even greater degree. I might be at a disadvantage being a middle-class white person in certain situations, like if I am in a high crime area and come off as an attractive target, but this fact does not mean that non-white poor people don't face a greater amount of institutional discrimination than I do when the entire social picture is taken into account.


SuburbanLurker said:


> And had you actually taken the time to glance at the second article I posted, as someone who was really concerned about gender issues rather than sucking up to girls on a message board would do, you would see that the study was conducted in America, not Ireland.


lol...way to reveal your own insecurity dude, I haven't personally attacked you once but here's this shit. You obviously have issues with women if you have to assume I'm putting on a show here. I was referring to the first study because that's the one that was being referred to in the right wing pro-life Catholic website you idiotically linked to in the first place (because you probably just linked the first thing you could find on Google that seemed to back up your point) and the one that I was asking for a legitimate link to. And then you actually defended the source when called out on it. Sorry I embarrassed you but next time maybe just don't be such an idiot in the first place and then maybe you won't feel compelled to lash out with your obvious bitterness.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> Please listen to this entire voice recording that I made for you: Vocaroo | Voice message


First, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I'll reply to a few things;

Regarding criticizing feminism from ignorance;

I'm puzzled why you guys have a problem with me stating that my problems with feminism are based on my personal experiences with 'practice' rather than theory. And I'll also admit that the little theory I have been exposed to was mainly in the context of reading porn industry critiques (which I actually supported for a period). I took the opportunity in this thread to voice some of my rudimentary criticisms of feminism - and yours was the most thoughtful response that I received IMO. 

(Sidenote; I critique Islam publicly and have debated with people who voiced criticism of humanist values from ignorance, but I have no problem engaging with them if they are honest about it. What pisses me off is bluffing.)

Regarding not believing that there have been feminists (and supporters) who weren't forthcoming with their reasoning; 

One example; Last week someone who told me they studied feminism in an undergraduate course (they were well known on the forum, and I've no reason to doubt the claim) ignored my respectful request for them to concisely explain terms and reasoning to me. After reflecting on the disregard for problems affecting other demographics that I encountered I got pissed off, and I began facetiously poking feminists in the same way that I poke religious people who do the same. 

_Not saying I was right in the way I handled my frustration, just explaining why. _

Regarding educating myself on feminism;

Personally I've gone to great lengths to educate myself on various subjects, if I'm interested (though I'm not an expert on anything, and will openly admit where I've got my understanding from). I'm not someone where discipline comes easy, so I need internal motivation to educate myself by reading extensively. Based on my experience with activists, and my exposure to feminist influenced critiques of the porn industry, I had little motivation to spend time researching into feminism. I'm personally not interested in learning about ideologies that are primarily concerned about a particular demographic. But I am now interested (because of yourself and some others online) about learning more about women's studies, *but* *in the wider context of gender studies*. 

And TBH I like learning and gaining inspiration through debates, often debates expose me to perspectives and ideas that I wouldn't have encountered in personal study IME. (I've personally encountered this a lot when debating religion - often topics from neurology, to meta-ethics, to geopolitics will arise.)

Regarding me claiming that feminism is invalidated;

I'm not saying that feminism is invalidated based on feminist practice. Just to make that clear. But I will say that I don't value or like feminism based on what I've experienced.

Also, I differentiate feminism from the black civil rights movement (pre-1965) because it was about claiming human rights for black people whereas feminism (as well as doing campaigning for equal rights) is an ideology. It wasn't an ideology built on a specific sociological theory - like I said (though I was being facetious) a more apt comparison would be with the nation of islam. I have no problem with the female demographic asserting their desires for equal rights and equal opportunities, but I do have a problem with the trivialization of the problems affecting other demographics that the ideology of feminism seems to facilitate.

The most prominent example of asserting human rights without a specific sociological theory is probably amnesty international. They have campaigns and departments of the organization specifically devoted to promoting human rights for specific demographics - however they do it on the foundation of egalitarianism without the notion of a ruling class, or any specific sociological theory. 

Again thanks for your thoughtful response. And though I've brought a lot of trolling responses on myself with my aggressive manner, you've been a welcome change. Being black, and slowly coming out about my pansexuality since 27, I genuinely hope that the social problems that motivate feminists like yourself are eradicated. But I don't like the foundation that you guys are attempting to do it from - though that perspective may change with looking into gender studies.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Shahada said:


> I'm not sure how I'm downplaying it when I said I don't dismiss the conclusions of the study and that I find them plausible and a cause for concern.


Calling a peer reviewed study by a prominent university "plausible" is in of itself dismissive, not to mention the immediate hostility you displayed because you didn't like my source, regardless of the fact that the study itself is undeniably legitimate and my focus was on said study; not anyone's commentary.



> More importantly, if you're trying to argue there is no significant systemic discrimination of women, the fact that some men face systemic or institutional obstacles does not mean systemic or institutional obstacles do not also exist for women, perhaps even in greater numbers and to a greater degree than those faced by men.


Where on Earth would you get that idea? This isn't a contest. I'm concerned about _all_ types of discrimination, be it gender based, racial based or otherwise.



> Well first I'm not sure what you're talking about--"big evil patriarchy" sounds like a strawman argument.


How could it possibly be a straw man argument when it's the basis for much of the discussion in this thread, as well as for feminism itself? Do you even know what a straw man argument is?



> Secondly I would point to the fact that, again, some institutional obstacles existing for men does not mean institutional obstacles do not exist for women as well, perhaps to an even greater degree.


Who/what are you referencing here? I've certainly never stated or implied otherwise.



> lol...way to reveal your own insecurity dude, I haven't personally attacked you once but here's this shit.


You haven't personally attacked me once? Your posts are filled with condescension and down talking. Don't dish it if you can't take it.



> You obviously have issues with women if you have to assume I'm putting on a show here.


Flawless logic.



> I was referring to the first study because that's the one that was being referred to in the right wing pro-life Catholic website you idiotically linked to in the first place


Actually that article was referring to both studies. Again, had you actually taken the time to _read_, you would know that. Oops!



> (because you probably just linked the first thing you could find on Google that seemed to back up your point)


Sounds like you're projecting. I had that link on hand from a debate in another forum. I don't engage in debates when I'm not already sufficiently informed about the subject because my views are empirically based; not emotionally.



> Sorry I embarrassed you but next time maybe just don't be such an idiot in the first place and then maybe you won't feel compelled to lash out with your obvious bitterness.


Name calling and more obvious projecting, the true mark of an intellect who's secure in their position! *takes notes*


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

For all of the anti-feminists derailing my thread, I would like to point out that being a feminist doesn't make us anti-male, despite how long that idea has been around.

Vintage Anti-Suffrage Postcards » Sociological Images

When women were fighting to have their right to vote honored, anti-feminists made postcards implying that if women were given equal power to men, 

women would stop caring about their families and would force their husbands to raise the children alone, 

women would become men, 

women would oppress their husbands (in the same ways they were being oppressed), 

and women would strategically vote other women into positions of power over men (the way men had traditionally been in positions of power over women.) 

*So, how accurate were their predictions?*

Families still exist, and most mothers still care about their children as much as fathers do. (Divorce and single-parenthood are now more socially acceptable, which allows an easier way out of abusive or unhappy marriages.)

Women are allowed greater freedom to be authentic, which sometimes involves behaving in ways that had been previously reserved for men. Now women are less likely to be unnaturally limited by gender roles. (Men haven't completely caught up, and are still limited because they tend to associate their artificial gender limitations with power, which makes many of them afraid of doing anything they interpret as feminine/weak. The people, regardless of gender, who believe in maintaining artificial gender roles usually keep men in line using social ostracism and humiliation as a punishment for nonconformity, making it difficult to resist.) 

It is possible for women and men to form relationships based on equality, where neither partner is dominant. (However, there are still some outdated gender-based rules about dating which are sometimes upheld despite being sexist, particularly those that favor assertive men who feel they must establish their roles as providers by paying for everything, and those which favor submissive women who are pursued instead of doing the pursuing and feel that they must use their looks/sexuality as a lure.)

Women occasionally end up in positions of power (considerably less often than men do) and generally cause no more harm than their male counterparts. 

...


I don't think the world ended up a worse place because of empowered women. In fact, I believe that it hasn't gone far enough in this positive direction.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> OK then, simply replace where I used the US black civil rights movement with US black civil rights movement before 1965.


Well that would include the Harlem Race Riot of 1964. They don't cover these things in school, but, the issue here is police brutality. Harlem was the intellectual home of Malcolm X. Oh did you know, President Johnson had this big signing ceremony,of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was the crowning achievement of his presidency, millions of African-Americans could now vote, the hard work of Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma had paid off...then, a few days after it blew apart with the Watts Riots of 1965?





strangestdude said:


> No, I think they are more often indifferent or insensitive to problems affecting the male demographic, rather than actively hostile.


Fair enough.


----------



## Dope Amine (Feb 16, 2012)

*castrate the patriarchy!*


----------



## Selene (Aug 2, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> Again thanks for your thoughtful response. And though I've brought a lot of trolling responses on myself with my aggressive manner, you've been a welcome change. Being black, and slowly coming out about my pansexuality since 27, I genuinely hope that the social problems that motivate feminists like yourself are eradicated. But I don't like the foundation that you guys are attempting to do it from - though that perspective may change with looking into gender studies.


Honestly, I'm scared of you--well, actually this thread as a whole (haha). It's like a boxing match--I don't mind watching and admiring other people's abilities, but I'd rather not be the one in the middle of the ring. Because I know I'm going to get my ass kicked. After reading through this whole business, I get a sort of visceral reaction now from seeing certain people's names and avatars. It reminds me of when I used to play first-person shooters and a certain person who was way better than me would keep killing me over and over again. It's like "oh shit...the guy in the bunny suit! [gets sniped] fuck...not again." I feel like now every time I see the name @_Shahada_ with all of its greenish glitter, I'm going to have visions of Voldemort speaking in parseltongue and causing murderous mummies to rise out of crypts or something. (strangestdude's image in my head is more like the grim reaper in pitch-black robes in a graveyard at midnight.)

So cheers to all of you for being absolutely intimidating and brutally powerful and mighty beyond all measure. I wouldn't want to come across you in a dark alley with unsubstantiated opinions.  Kudos for me being able to watch the titanic gods clash from a safe distance until I was stupid enough to draw their attention. I was careless though, and now the eye of Sauron and the Nazgul are looking in my direction. ^^

***

Anyhow, what I came to say...my general feeling so far has been that you [strangestdude] have had an aggressive (but also somewhat removed/detached) demeanor throughout the thread. And I haven't really felt like I was on your side for a while, regardless of the strength of your logical refutations. But, I had a feeling of sympathy after reading this latest post, or a feeling that you were not just out to crush other people for bloodsport (or a fastidious sense of wanting the whole world to be intellectually flawless, like a spell-checking Nazi casting his wrath upon all things not spelled correctly).

In all seriousness, I feel like you care a lot about people, and about yourself as someone affected by these things. And the intense aversion to what you see as flawed arguments (that manifests as aggression) is due to a distrust of perspectives you have seen before that you feel do not offer the solutions that they promise. "these false views have failed people...they have not given support where it was promised. those things that cannot be relied upon must be cast away, for they are useless idols that mislead the unseeing to their death. we really need a world that can give respect, love, support, and care to all orientations/identities/backgrounds...and we need a foundation that can serve as a true base for that kind of goal...and I have only sadness and anger to see something masquerading as the true way when it has so many ill effects, so many divisions, so many uncorrected imbalances. i can't stand to see something like that, that would inadvertently hurt people, becoming the way that everyone is to follow or stand behind. can't you see that this is incorrect--can't you see the errors of what you are pledging?"

My feeling is...it is unfortunate, because I feel like if things were not so heated, and not so focused now on what is essentially mathematical equations floating in an overworld suspended above the emotional wreckage...it would have been discovered that on a rough level, everyone here has similar wants, similar pains, similar affections, and similar aims (albeit very different ones when put into exact, rigorous, breath-taking language.) But what I mean is...is it really meant to be that the world's best and brightest who care about inequality and what-not will pummel each other to death in a barfight and all exit never wanting to set foot near that fatal subject ever again?  (Or I guess that's not a feeling of misfortune so much as me spitting my self-superiority...don't I feel silly for being a hypocrite.)

Are (not-so-innocent) bystanders like me destined to think, "I don't want to have anything to do with this gender-political nonsense if it means getting my throat cut out. I have more than enough self-contempt and insecurity on my own without every genius-level debater on the planet telling me what an infantile, loathsome, worthless piece of shit I am because of some intellectual bog I picked up on the streets--hoping it would allow people to understand my feelings, of all things! Oh, the humiliation--no matter what I say, I'm always wrong."

I like you all in some sick and deceitful way when you're looking at me thinking poorly of me, lol.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> Calling a peer reviewed study by a prominent university "plausible" is in of itself dismissive,


I'm sorry, I guess I should have said "this study is absolutely 100% true with no flaw whatsoever and represents the final word on the death of feminism" instead of just acknowledging that I find the conclusions plausible. God forbid I talk about a scientific study like a scientific study and not a Bible.


SuburbanLurker said:


> not to mention the immediate hostility you displayed because you didn't like my source, regardless of the fact that the study itself is undeniably legitimate and my focus was on said study; not anyone's commentary.


Your source had no link to any actual study and cherry picked quotes from it to make an ideological argument about "global left-wing feminism." It was a bad source. The study was not "undeniably legitimate" when you posted that link, because the link was simply a far-right pro-life website selectively quoting a study with no link to the actual study or any citations for its various facts whatsoever. That's why I asked for a link to a real study. If your focus was on the study and not the commentary then _link the fucking study instead of a commentary on the study._


SuburbanLurker said:


> Where on Earth would you get that idea? This isn't a contest. I'm concerned about all types of discrimination, be it gender based, racial based or otherwise.


I got that idea from you saying "Hence the "it goes both ways" and has nothing to do with systematic discrimination against women." That seems like a pretty clear statement of belief that this study disproves systemic discrimination against women. If that's not what you meant then be clearer next time.


SuburbanLurker said:


> How could it possibly be a straw man argument when it's the basis for much of the discussion in this thread, as well as for feminism itself? Do you even know what a straw man argument is?


I said it "sounds like" because you're ascribing hyperbolic moral qualities to a system of oppression ("evil") when that doesn't really have much to do with a feminist conception of what "patriarchy" means. If you would like to find out for sure if it is a straw man you are welcome to explain what the word "patriarchy" means to you.


SuburbanLurker said:


> You haven't personally attacked me once? Your posts are filled with condescension and down talking. Don't dish it if you can't take it.


Bit of a difference between poking a little fun at your ridiculous source and speculating about weird personal stuff. But if you want to be a bitter weirdo have at it.


SuburbanLurker said:


> Actually that article was referring to both studies. Again, had you actually taken the time to read, you would know that. Oops!


Yeah I sorta stopped reading that article seriously when I saw there were no citations, no link to any actual study, was full of a bunch of invective against "global left wing feminism," and all the related news stories were weird anti-abortion crap. If you don't want to get treated like a joke don't link to joke sources.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Selene said:


> Are (not-so-innocent) bystanders like me destined to think, "I don't want to have anything to do with this gender-political nonsense if it means getting my throat cut out. I have more than enough self-contempt and insecurity on my own without every genius-level debater on the planet telling me what an infantile, loathsome, worthless piece of shit I am because of some intellectual bog I picked up on the streets--hoping it would allow people to understand my feelings, of all things! Oh, the humiliation--no matter what I say, I'm always wrong."


I just wanted to say I sort of understand where you're coming from and I don't want to "intimidate" you or others from sharing opinions or trying to learn about things, since you name dropped me in your post. I get kinda abrasive with some people on here but I generally limit that to people who are bringing it on themselves--people who are dishonest, aggressive and angry, personally attacking people, etc. I can usually tell when someone's just trying to talk or discuss a subject and learn something in good faith and when that's the case I at least am not going to call you an idiot or anything, for whatever that's worth. I can't look down or be mad at someone who genuinely wants to learn something. I'm not sure if the image of me as some kind of lord of the dark arts was a compliment or not but thanks anyway, I laughed


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@Selene

Man that was a superbly written post. Funny as hell! You're a skilled wordsmith IMO - very diplomatic.

Yeah, you have eloquently articulated the softer sentiment underneath my hostility towards feminism. And sorry if my manner has contributed to a sense of intimidation - I'm toning it down from now on.


----------



## EmileeArsenic (Jun 8, 2012)

I'm female and a feminist, and there are lots of things I enjoy doing to a guy's balls, and as those who have experienced this can attest, none are painful.


I'm sure there are a few feminists somewhere who hate men and would enjoy causing them harm. I don't know any of them, so far as I know, they're mostly a stereotype, and probably a trope. I would have to imagine that they're in the same vein as "bra burning feminists," which was originally meant hyperbolically, and there's no record of groups of women getting together, taking off their bras and burning them (sorry, lads), and, to my understanding, was pretty much created as a slight against feminists, much like calling Tea Party members "teabaggers" is today (that one's going to be fun to explain to the grandchildren...). I won't deny there are, in fact, militant members of most causes, though. Any turbulent cause will attract crazies. If you want to use these women as an example of the majority, I would say that first, you must identify a cause you support and show that it is free of lunatics on the fringe. 


I don't hate men. I never have. I did go through a patch in life in which I was terrified of them (meaning it would make me shaky and weak to have to speak to a guy who wasn't related to me, and having to be alone with a boy or man was an extremely anxiety ridden experience that would reduce me to mumbling and stuttering, and trying to find a way out of it), but that had more to do with my having been around a lot of women who had been dragged through hell by men and attempted to instill in me from a young age that men were evil. I can see their points in their cases. Yes, the men they had in their lives had done horrible things. It took me a good few years to be able to look a man that I wasn't related to in the eyes, and much more time after that to be comfortable around one. But that's, I'm sure, a natural consequence of being raised by a man-hating single mother who had friends who had been raped by their boyfriends/husbands, and beaten within an inch of their lives, been abused in numerous ways including stalking and years, sometimes decades of any form of mental, physical or sexual abuse that these men could think of. Obviously, when these women had been treated poorly by men their entire lives, often beginning with abusive fathers and ending with horror stories of various traumas inflicted over the years, they're not going to have a glowing opinion of males.

Another part of my former fear of men is that I have been stalked and followed, myself, on numerous occasions. Between the ages of 11 and 20, I had quite a few men follow me home, one attempted to follow me to school, and when a police officer slowed down to ask me if I was alright, he ran away and hopped the fence into someone's back yard. When I was 13 or 14, I had a man I had never seen before follow me home and attempt to break my door down while screaming obscenities and giving me a detailed run-down of what he intended to do to me once he got past my door. He almost succeeded in breaking my front door down. I cannot tell you how glad I was that he didn't think to throw the barbecue that was on the front porch through the sliding glass door. I might not be typing this right now. Much of my early life involved a menagerie of reasons to be fearful and distrustful of men. I still have a few trust issues, but I no longer fear men as a group. It's unfair to judge the many by the actions of the few, and when I was in my teens, I forced myself to spend my time almost solely in the company of guys because I had a feeling that the lot of them couldn't be all that bad, and I was tired of being terrified all the time. I was right. The vast majority of guys are pretty cool people, and, in fact, by and large, I prefer the company of men to women. 



So far as causing bodily harm to another, the only time I am willing to hurt someone else is when they are first attacking me in the same manner. Rape is an intensely violent act. There's often bruising and tearing of the sensitive tissues in the vaginal area as a result of it, which cannot be in any way pleasant. I'm going to avoid that in any way I can, and, if I were about to be raped, in my opinion, that negates my pacificity towards the individual, and, yes, makes my injuring him in any way I can manage, including causing harm to his nether-region is completely fair game. He could've easily avoided this by... I don't know... not raping me? Sounds like a fairly simple concept to me. It's his decision, not mine, and he'll have to accept the consequences, because I can kick really, really hard. However, this is extended to any situation in which someone is being violent towards me, and applies to everyone, regardless of sex/gender/what-have-you. You attack me and I will defend myself in any way I can. It really is that simple. Has nothing to do with what chromosomal makeup the other has, it's simply that they have put me in a situation in which I must choose between them and me, and I choose me.

Do I derive any joy from this what-so-ever? No. None. I don't enjoy any part of being attacked.


My being a feminist has nothing to do with wanting to put men down. It has to do with wanting to be able to be a functioning member of society without expectations being placed on me based on something over which I have no control. I did not ask to be born female. It has very little to do with who I am as a person. There is much more to me than the fact that I have a uterus and breasts. I acknowledge the progress we've even made since the 80's, when stalking wasn't even considered a crime in the United States, and sexual harassment was scoffed at, and my mother, at 15, after being pinned against the wall of the freezer at her after-school job by her 40+ year old boss and felt up above and below the waist, was told that she was overreacting and that she shouldn't let herself get hysterical over a compliment by a police officer. Yes, we have come very far. That shit wouldn't fly today, but we're still not done.


----------



## Dope Amine (Feb 16, 2012)

^ Word...


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Selene said:


> Are (not-so-innocent) bystanders like me destined to think, "I don't want to have anything to do with this gender-political nonsense if it means getting my throat cut out. I have more than enough self-contempt and insecurity on my own without every genius-level debater on the planet telling me what an infantile, loathsome, worthless piece of shit I am because of some intellectual bog I picked up on the streets--hoping it would allow people to understand my feelings, of all things! Oh, the humiliation--no matter what I say, I'm always wrong."


Well, to be honest, you're debating someone who doesn't respect your opinion or the fact that you even have one. They're really not in the debate to learn anything, they just want to argue to show how big their dick or clit is. Very often, when someone starts acting condescending or insults you (very often, this is subtle), they're trying to weather you down to either A) get you to leave out of frustration, B) get you to emotionally react to them and then pretend they've won, or C) lower your self-esteem enough that you'll stop arguing as well.

It took me a while to distinguish between simply an aggressive and intelligent debater and a dirty one. The simply aggressive and intelligent debater would tire me, but never make me feel bad for having a different opinion. The dirty ones did make me feel bad, sometimes to the verge of tears.

So I've simply learned to disengage. Sometimes I make an initial post that expresses my opinion, but then I get out of the fray as soon as possible.

Honestly, I'm a Nine, and if I let out all my aggressive energy in a debate in the real world, I would probably win (not necessarily be right). Although, in a forum, 200,000 people can join in the fray, which makes asserting a statement really hard. And that's the scary thing. I don't want to win. Winning means I stopped the flow of discourse.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

@Shahada My point was proven a long time ago and all you've done is taken the discussion far off track, misrepresenting my position and focusing on irrelevancies. Your constant personal attacks/condescending remarks, inability (or unwillingness) to comprehend simple logic, admittance of ignorance on the material being discussed, and excessive mouth-foaming, anger-filled ranting discredits you more than anything I could say. I'm not going to pursue this any further.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Torai said:


> It took me a while to distinguish between simply an aggressive and intelligent debater and a dirty one. The simply aggressive and intelligent debater would tire me, but never make me feel bad for having a different opinion. The dirty ones did make me feel bad, sometimes to the verge of tears.
> 
> So I've simply learned to disengage. Sometimes I make an initial post that expresses my opinion, but then I get out of the fray as soon as possible.


I'm sure your post had myself in mind (as well as others) when you wrote it but...

I agree, I said to my ex wife who wanted to put vids on youtube about overcoming an eating disorder that she'd get abusive message/comments. So I advised her (gently) that if she wasn't prepared to deal with that emotionally, not to post express yourself on the internet.

Non-spontaneous communication tends to create 'personas' IME (ever had the experience of having a flowing convo on facebook and then seeing the person face to face, and them being almost mute?), so I don't take flame wars seriously. Once I step away from the keyboard I rarely take it with me.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I find the very existence of this thread to be an offensive stereotype. Where are the male options?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> I'm sure your post had myself in mind (as well as others) when you wrote it but...
> 
> I agree, I said to my ex wife who wanted to put vids on youtube about overcoming an eating disorder that she'd get abusive message/comments. So I advised her (gently) that if she wasn't prepared to deal with that emotionally, not to post express yourself on the internet.
> 
> Non-spontaneous communication tends to create 'personas' IME (ever had the experience of having a flowing convo on facebook and then seeing the person face to face, and them being almost mute?), so I don't take flame wars seriously. Once I step away from the keyboard I rarely take it with me.


It was more this retired poster I had in mind.

I don't remember us really clashing too much.


----------

