Exactly. “Feminism” just refers to people who think women should have the same rights as men. It’s often caricatured in the media, as so many good things are, to only present the absurd and negative extremes.

I have a feeling that you’re an MRA, yes? If so by all means, I wouldn’t mind having some one to discuss these issues with

I didn’t label, I asked. A simple yes or no would suffice. MRA = Men’s Rights Activist/Advocate. I thought you may have been judging by the things that you wrote. Though I am curious of the hostile behavior.

You’re right, whats represented in the media is a caricature of feminism. That being its about equality and such. I’m sure it was at some point. But the reality of the matter is that it isn’t now, nor has it been since the 1900′s. I can produce a plethora of quotes from feminist icons such as Andrea Dworkin, Naomi Wolf and other feminists who have blatantly expressed their hatred of men, to the point of casually talking about committing genocide on the male half of the population or at the very least expressed a want to enact violence on innocent men (see: FemitheistReborn on YT).

Go to radfemhub or look up the Agent Orange Files, that catalogue a long history of bigoted discussion about men, reducing them to nothing more than mindless beasts that love to rape and murder for fun, when the opposite is true. And that’s not touching on the discussion of baby and little boys, such as castrating them, or referring to them as “Rapists in waiting” or “Lil’ future rapists”. Or the fact that the people having thesediscussions are public officials, community organizers, social workers. Its like being a public official back the days right after the civil rights movement and being a racists in private.

Feminism is a dogmatic ideology based on hatred and gender supremacy. It operates on “Patriarchy Theory”, claiming that since the dawn of man, males have been at work conspiring against women to keep them down. If this mode of thinking is applied, that means that anything a woman does is not her decision, that it is the product of men influencing her, so nothing she does is her responsibility, effectively infantilizing her. I personally think that the average woman is as smart as the average man, and to suggest that she is like a fallen leaf, completely subject to the wind (men) I would think would be insulting to a woman.

It certainly insults me, since it implies that my father, myself and the good men who make up my family and friends are violent control freaks who like to subject other human beings to their will, and it certainly insults me when it concerns the women in my family, all of whom don’t subscribe to feminism and its hate speech, since it insults their intelligence and even though some of them have experienced bad relationships with men, the idea of generalizing all men by comparing them to the few bad ones is absurd.

And lets expand on “”Feminism” just refers to people who think women should have the same rights as men”. One of the earliest “feminist” or “feminist-like” groups were the Suffragettes or what they would be come to be known as, the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). In public narrative, such as how it is presented by the BBC, they were a group of women who fought a valiant struggle to secure their right to vote, which they did. History books on the other hand present a very different story though.

The group was headed by Emmeline Pankhurst and her eldest daughter Christabel Pankhurst. Both were upper class women from wealthy families, who advocated not for the right to vote for all women, but for women of their status. See back then, it was true, the right to vote was only held my men. Wealthy, land owning men, which made up the 2% of the population then. The rest however, weren’t. This included both women AND men of the middle and lower class. These “Proto-Feminists” were just as elitist as their male counterparts and received a very large and active opposition against them.

To subdue this opposition they resorted to intimidation, violence (by proxy) and arson. Two of those traits are still present today: intimidation and violence. Arin Prizzy, a self proclaimed feminist and the creator of the world’s first women shelter, began looking into men who have been abused in the same manner and had plans to establish a shelter for them as well as publish a book on the issue. Feminists constantly threatened her with physical violence to her and her family for actually seeking a legitimate egalitarian goal, to the point they called in bomb threats to her house. When it was all said and done, she and her family had to leave their country, England, and go into exile for 15 years, for fear of what might happen them. Last week, Warren Farrell was to speak on the issue of men in our present culture, the problems they face and the solutions that can be implemented to rectify them. Feminists arrived and protested the talk, blocking the entrance and harassing the people who were attending it, calling the men rape supporters and the women gender traitors. They attacked police soon after they arrived and then got angry when they were arrested.

The most damning of all though is Valerie Solanas, a radical feminist and sociopath, author of the S.C.U.M. manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men). She was so ingrained with bigoted hatred that when she stalked Andy Warhaul and demanded that he make a movie about her book. And what did she do when he refused? She shot him and nearly killed him. After it was all said and done he was left both physically and mentally scarred from the Ordeal, which was reflected in his work from their on out.

Feminism has a long history of hatred, bigotry and violence under its belt and to say that its about equality is not only incorrect, its ignorant of its actual motives: Female supremacy. Just like Male supremacy would be wrong, so is this, since it marginalizes and outright demonizes men. And the worst part is that its already become apart of our society. Look on tv or the internet right now. In commercials men, (especially Fathers) are presented as idiotic, mentally inept dumbasses that are completely perplexed by almost anything, from medicine, to food to technology. In shows, men (Especially heterosexual white men) are almost always portrayed as rapists, child molesters, murderers and domestic abusers. Hell you might as well throw on “tries to exterminate the jews” while your at it.

Feminism isn’t about equality. Its about supremacy. Just like the Black Panthers, just like the KKK, just like Al Qaeda. Its fueled by bigotry and masquerades as a human rights movement

Not a problem, I practice debating the topic, not the person. Debating the person leads to people getting angry, throwing around personal attacks, straw man arguments and such. It just gets messy after a bit. The people you speak of would be humanists or egalitarians. All humans, regardless of their gender, should have rights, as it should be. The problem is that we ingrain our gender into almost everything. Like estrogen and testosterone. Both are inanimate chemicals that both sexes possess. But as time has gone on, we’ve assigned them genders. Testosterone is synonymous with being male and aggression, when in all actuality it makes people fair minded, happy and confident. Estrogen is synonymous with being female and nice, when it actually plays a key role in causing anger in the brain. Now is that a dig against women? No, not at all. When anger occurs in the brain it is because of estrogen being released. Testosterone is released to calm things down. Its simple chemistry, which is gender neutral.

I digress. I had the opportunity to join a humanist movement, one that recognized all peoples of varying faiths and ethnicities and gave both genders equal attention to the issues they have, then I’d join it in a heart beat. But there isn’t, so I’m resigned to join the Men’s Rights Movement, since it seeks to reverse the negative image of men that feminism has pushed, have fatherhood recognized as just as valid as motherhood and grant reproductive right s to men, particularly in the form of the male pill, something feminism, or more aptly the N.O.W. has slapped down several times now.

I’m glad that I haven’t come across as hateful, since that’s not what I intended. There is a lot of anger in the MRM, justified anger, but anger all the same and some people have a hard time with tempering that anger and being civil. Please don’t be too harsh on them. The anger you may find is wrong yes, and I don’t condone it, but it comes from a very dark and painful place. Usually involving divorce or a false accusation of some sort. I’m not defending lashing out, just merely explaining it so that their behavior doesn’t come across as something from out of nowhere.

And one last thing. I’m guessing you identify as Feminists? As Driscol said, its called Feminism, not egalitarianism. Even if you are a moderate feminist, please examine that if you identify as one that you subscribe to patriarchy theory, which dictates that all men are bad essentially. Your husband, you siblings, your father, you friends. Anyone you know who is male is bad. If it said the exact same thing about blacks or mexicans or gays (it sort of does concerning gay males) then it would recognized as hateful. I’m for human rights of all people, regardless of race or gender or sexual preference. I can’t think of a time feminism has said the same without somehow saying masculinity is bad.

Also thanks for being civil as well. I’ve run into a fair amount of people who have identified as feminist and have immediately resorted to personal attacks, shaming tactics and outright threats of violence or have called for it, usually involving my genitalia and a sharp object -_- Thank you for your civility in all of this

Essentially, I’m saying that, yes, some feminists may see feminism as beating men down. I consider them feminazis, not true feminists. True feminists want no just equivalency for our gender, but for all people. There are bad apples in every single bunch that take any idea to the Nth degree, just as I’m sure there are men who are MRAs who believe that all women are evil and deserve to die (whether or not you’ve met them), just as there are people who believe all (insert race or religion here) deserve to die. That does not and should not define the group. Just because some terrorists attacked the WTC does not mean all people of their race/religion/country are terrorists and should be treated the same. Overgeneralization is bad.

Any attempt to gain rights is marked by violence. Anywhere. You can literally look it up and find violence and death in almost any struggle for equal rights. It’s not right, mind, but people are violent.

And I agree with you. Most men are portrayed as vapid, dumb, or inattentive fathers, immature, overly sexual, unintelligent fratboy college students, and etc. etc. etc. I agree, these are bad and should not define all men on TV because it is leading to a very negative stereotype for fathers (and it has already done some damage in impressionable young heads).

But I am reminded of a quote I read somewhere. I do not think that this is what your doing, but it makes a good point, so I ask that you excuse the inflammatory style that it was written in and look past to its ideas:

“if a guy starts saying what you are doing is reverse sexist, he is obviously threatened by what you are doing. he’s threatened because he thinks there are only two ways to be: powerful or powerless. he assumes you asserting you rights is a way to take power away from him. he assumes you wanna “switch places” with him. he knows you get treated like shit & he knows he gets advantages from your imposed inferiority. he’s fearing REVENGE, girlfriend. his fear of “reverse sexism” is basically an admitation on his part that he knows you get treated like shit & does not want to switch places with you.”

I have talked with many of my guyfriends about this and for some reason this is always what their idea of feminism is– that we want to “switch places” and become the powerful while they become the powerless. When I ask, “Do you think women should have equal rights?” They say yes, but when I ask “Are you a feminist” they say no. According to the state of (rational) feminists right now, feminism just means wanting women to have equal rights, so technically they ARE feminists. But because the media (and probably many overzealous but not-actually-paying-attention-to-what-is-happening-within-the-group feminists in the past) have painted this rabid, man-hating, women-supremacist idea of feminist, many people do not want to associate themselves with the label (myself included, until I actually took a class from an actual feminist and saw how fairly and equally and non-blamingly, from both sides, they addressed the issue).

As the other girl said, thank you for being very civil. It is interesting to talk about the topic in a complete fashion without having someone cut you off or assume they know what you are saying in advance. (or cuss you out.)

(Before you start– this is a long post. I’M SORRY! I got a bit carried away…)

Thank you very much for your reply. It was very in-depth, and you didn’t come off as angry at all. I agree with you about almost everything that you said, with only one exception.

It occurs to me that maybe, what you say is feminism is feminism, or at least was feminism. In thinking about the class I have taken at University, I realized that perhaps feminism is attempting to undergo a transformation. I definitely believe at one time it was about all men being bad and oppressing women and women should rise up against them and all that jazz. However, I wonder if the current feminists aren’t trying to change that. All the classes I have taken took a huge emphasis on the entire struggle, focusing on double standards of both types (we did discuss the double-standard regarding rape towards men, how it’s mostly played for comedy especially in the media (no one has ever heard of a show/movie/book taking it seriously and treating it as they would treat it if it were a woman)). My class never taught the message that men are bad, or that women are terribly, terribly victimized and no one respects us or anything like that. Perhaps it was just my teacher, but she provided an extremely level-headed approach that was also incredibly balanced, and included a bunch of different angles on the issues, including not just a male or female view but also a homosexual and transsexual view.

Is it possible for a concept to transform over time? I believe so. While feminism may have been based on oppression (and may still be based on oppression) I think it’s moving to a more intelligent and balanced position. Hence why I consider myself a true feminist. If that doesn’t work, then a “new” feminist. Just as libertarians in America generally, when trying to go for policies, stray from the true definition of libertarianism, I believe feminism is separating from its hate-all-men roots.

I definitely agree with you with everything you said about rape. I also believe the reason rape is focused more on women as victims is because it’s much more safe to do so in this society. Men being victims of rape is an idea that makes people uncomfortable, because it doesn’t agree with our idea of men as “strong” and “masculine” and “dominant.” Hence why it’s often used for humor, and why men who actually stand up and say they are raped are often made to feel ashamed. People just don’t know how to feel about it, which leads to a lot of them looking another way or telling them to just deal with it because they’re men. (Anyways, it’s clear you understand all of the double standards about male rape so I need not continue talking about it.) I agree that we should target both demographics in both cases. Although statistically more men rape than women rape, I also believe that number is likely incredibly skewed. If all men reported when they were raped, it would probably be more equal.

What I meant by bringing up that advertisement was that it’s important to target people who actually do the thing. The advertisements weren’t saying things like “don’t chase down that woman and rape her.” They were saying things like “she was drunk, and I chose not to do anything” and stuff such as that. On my campus, this is a HUGE deal, because our frats here purposefully throw parties to get freshman girls drunk and have sex with them at the beginning of the years. And because it happens to almost every girl (several that I know, one being my sister), the girls don’t report it because it doesn’t seem like a big deal, and the guys don’t think of it as rape just because she was drunk. Now, this is likely not how it happens elsewhere in the world. But on my campus, out in the middle of nowhere Kansas, it’s typical for a lot of guys and girls who come from small towns where ideas don’t get circulated very often to consider this type of treatment as normal. There’s also a great degree of racism for the same reason. A guy in my class was talking about why he was late to class and said that someone double-parked. Despite not seeing the person, he described them as a “fucking asian” who double-parked because “asians can’t drive.” (I don’t even want to go into how wrong that is.)

The reason the advertisements I think are great is because they don’t say “all men are animals” but they actually were positive things that said “I don’t do this because I care about my girl” and “She said no, so I stopped” and stuff such as that. A lot of the guys on my campus aren’t aware of things like the fact that just because you have sex with a girl once doesn’t mean you can continue to do so even if she doesn’t want it. That’s not a comment about men, but more of a comment about the culture that I live in and where these guys grew up. Hence why the ads are important. They don’t say things like “Don’t rape, you uncontrollable beast!” Essentially the ads portrayed men as very noble, caring individuals who took care of those that they loved. Those types of ads would make the guys on my campus who weren’t aware that what they were doing could be considered as rape stop and rethink their ideas about it. (We could go into how that in itself is troubling because the fact that the guys were portrayed well and is an anomaly means that they’re generally always considered rapists in ads about rape, but let’s not.)

I do understand what you’re saying about male sexuality and how it is so frequently– or actually almost always– shameful. My boyfriend has a kind of complex about it, partially because he was raised by the church and his family never spoke to him about sex, so he cannot disconnect the idea of sin and shamefulness from it. Everything he sees confirms the fact that men are these lustful, lascivious beings who just want to have sex with everything on legs and that male sexuality is almost inherently harmful to women. It has taken him a long time to come to terms with his sexuality is a healthy, normal, good thing, and he still isn’t there yet. So I completely understand what you’re talking about with that. That’s part of the reason shows where women are portrayed as sexual objects disgusts me. It’s because it also assumes that men only view women as sexual objects, and it implies that they cannot view women as anything other than that, which implies that men are defined by their sexuality, and that that sexuality is uncontrollable and lustful and nondiscriminatory, among a host of other things. I think we need to work on both sides of the argument, but I think most people feel that they can only do one thing at a time. It’s much easier to focus on one side at a time. Hence feminists and MRAs. I agree that feminism may paint a bad picture of men (although as I’ve said I believe it’s moving in a better direction), and I hope I’m not assuming anything when I say that MRAs can paint a bad picture of women as well (such as that all feminists hate men, or those MGTOW you were talking about who think women… well… inherently suck). It’s true that feminism does, and it may be true that a lot of feminists do hate or have hated men, but that does not justify a blanket statement such as all men are bad or all feminists hate men and want them to be unequal.

If MRAs are here to repair the damage done by the misrepresentation of men by feminists and feminists are here to repair the damage done by how women were allowed to be treated in the past because of our society, then I can see no reason why they shouldn’t be able to work together.

The reason I say most feminists probably aren’t the feminists you have met is that anyone who goes onto a website and says “But what about teh menzzz?!” Is someone who hasn’t taken a goddamn class about feminism in their lives. The idea of feminism in the popular culture is that men are bad and oppress us. The idea of feminism I have encountered by learning from people who actually believe in the ideology is that society kind of screws everyone over (men, women, members of the LGBT) and that that needs to be fixed.

We’re all in this society together, and any shit that we have to deal with now in regards to stigmas and stereotypes about our different genders and sexes are all of our faults. A man is not an island. No one person or thing caused what we’re facing today.

Furthermore, about your talking of women who claim to be raped but aren’t. I wholeheartedly and 100% agree with you. Women who do this are absolutely despicable. I hate that women do this. I cannot believe that women do this. I do not think there is ever any type of circumstance that could ever even give a woman even a tenth of a reason to do this.

Yet the whole “guilty until proven innocent” thing is both true and false. I know women who were raped and went to court, had evidence, and yet the guy still walked free. (This is, however, as I pointed out, in the middle of the country where I live. The ideas here are still very old-fashioned, and lots of types of rape aren’t considered actually rape. Of course, the situation is even worse for men because of this.) Yet I know for a fact that men who are accused of rape are immediately suspected and tarnished because of it. A friend of mine was accused of rape in high school and almost all of his friends backed off from him. I admit, even I had to take a long time to talk myself out of doubting him, and I couldn’t entirely do it. He was innocent and the girl was lying. Thankfully, he didn’t go to jail, but the stigma never entirely left. Even after he graduated I heard people say that he had sexually assaulted this girl, despite the fact that he never did so. I think it’s a situation that is a lose-lose from either angle. The whole thing needs to be reevaluated and approached extremely logically, like any other crime, and one must assess the evidence and judge from that whether one is or isn’t guilty. Unfortunately, our law system doesn’t generally work like that.

As for domestic violence and the fact that women are consistently thought of as victims and not as people who helped instigate, this is also extremely valid. And of course, the idea that women can’t contribute comes from the idea that women are always victims, or that women aren’t actually strong enough to cause any type of harm to men, or that men are strong enough to handle all types of conflict, or that men are inherently violent beasts constantly on the verge of violence. Probably a combination of all of them. You see how the bad ideas about women contribute and help along the bad ideas about men, and vice versa? Hence why I believe feminists and MRAs are probably after the same thing. But moving on from that, I know 100% what you’re talking about with this double-standard. I knew one girl in high school who turned every guy she dated into a possessive monster. I don’t know why or how. One of those guys was a friend of mine. Not a close friend, but a friend. He’s one of the nicest guys I know– he still is. She did something to him, but I don’t know what, and he was horrible. He went back to normal when they broke up. I didn’t understand how that was possible, and I admit, I judged him for it. I bought into the idea that some men are only acceptable in company and once in a relationship try to possess and abuse the girl. (There are men like this out there, of course, but not all men who are in abusive relationships are like this, and definitely not ALL men are like this). A few years later I began to understand how she could have had that effect on him when my boyfriend was in an abusive relationship (before our relationship, back when I was his best friend). He and she both contributed to the abuse. Their ways of arguing did not flow well. She would manipulate him emotionally (telling him she would commit suicide if they broke up, and one time pretending she actually had attempted it, another time lying about being pregnant despite them having had no sexual contact, and since he knows nothing about the cause and effects of sex because his parents didn’t talk to him, he believed her) and dug into his self-worth, telling him how much of a monster he was and how she was the only girl who would put up with him. She would hit him. She would sexually molest him even when he told her he didn’t want it and he didn’t like it– but of course, because he learned about sex from the church he didn’t really know what was going on and that it was wrong and that what she was doing could be considered a crime. And because he is a man, even to this day, he is extremely reluctant to call it sexual molestation because he sees it as “weak.” She did all this to him, and he was no better. He also hit her. He also verbally abused her. He didn’t sexually abuse her, but he did just as much harm to her as she did to him. I know for a fact that he is not a monster. I know for a fact it was all circumstantial, and that she pushed him and he pushed her in return, causing the eventual abuse. I know for a fact that anyone she tells this story to automatically hates him (we had some friends that overlapped). I know for a fact that they change their opinion once they get to know him. I know for a fact that if she were to go for charges, he would be in a lot of trouble despite the fact that she was equally as abusive to him, despite the fact that she too bit his cheek hard enough to break skin and hurt him and molested him and abused him. I know this. I had to watch this stuff happening. Of course, as a guy, he believed that he was a monster. She told him he was the evil, abusive man, and she was the innocent victim, and he believed her because that double-standard is what we are taught is true by our society. He wouldn’t go for help because going for help is seen as weak. I didn’t find out about the extent of the abuse until years later, even though I was there and saw it all happening at the time. Even now it fills me with an almost indescribable rage and regret, a sort of feeling of wanting to tear open the time continuum and go into the past to try and help more than I know I would have ever been able to. Even now it fills me with dread for what could have happened, and would could possibly still happen if she should choose to pursue some type of legal action. So I understand these double-standards, more than most would guess. That is why they are wrong and deserve to be fixed and abolished. We corrected the fact that abuse against woman wasn’t seen as wrong, but we overcorrected to the point that we’ve forgotten that women, too, can abuse. We must correct it. As a feminist, I want equality for women, not favoritism.

About those pictures on the college campus– those are disgusting. Those women claim to be feminists? Is this the feminism you speak of? No wonder you think the way you do. This is what I’m talking about when I say “true” feminists and “fake” ones. These people aren’t true feminists. True feminists would never say to kill your rapist or that thing about cat calling. It’s true that nice guys rape (if considered from the angle that I’ve been talking about, about guys who just do not consider some things to be rape despite the fact that it is) but such a sign is incredibly accusatory and misleading and not the way to bring up that idea. It honestly makes me sick.

About that video that you posted– might I suggest using a different one next time? That one was so patronizing and borderline hateful that I had a hard time listening to it with an open mind. It treats me, as a “true feminist,” as a child who does not know better. Just because she does not agree with me, does not mean that she has the right to disrespect me and others of my thinking. Moving on.

She argues that the “humanistic feminism” I know is not taught in university classes– yet that is where I learned my “humanistic feminism.” That is where I learned feminism is, as I’ve been saying, changing. I have said before and I will say again, I agree that a lot of “feminism” is messed up. However, I will say that people are trying to change that idea. Telling one to give up and call myself something else just because my ideas don’t mesh with the idea of feminism as it is currently perceived is not okay. What is a feminist? A feminism is, by definition, “a social movement whose goal is to eliminate the oppression of women in all forms.” That is what I am, no? You would argue I am not a feminist, and I can understand why you argue that, but you cannot say that I am not a person who wants to eliminate the oppression of women in all forms, as that is what I am and what I intend to do. I am also a person who wants to eliminate the oppression of men in all forms, and races and religions in all forms. But that does not exclude me from being a feminist. To say that I am stupid and am not an actual feminist just because I’m not a bigot like some other feminists are is ignorant. If I am a person who wants to eliminate the oppression of all women, I am a feminist. The end.

Now. About her arguments of people wanting to use eugenics and the horrible, horrible things being postulated and the idea that if I go with the idea of feminism, I am supporting those ideas– no. No, that is not correct.

As a feminist, I do not have to prescribe to everything that people who call themselves feminists do. I do not have to support the legislation and the double-standards that many so-called feminists put though. I do not have to and I will never support feminist measures that harm men. I am a feminist, which by definition means I am for the equality of the sexes, or at the very least for the equal rights of women. “Feminist” does not mean “person who blindly follows others of the same label.” “Feminist” does not mean “person who hates all men and wants them dead.” Feminist does not mean someone whose ideas are reflective of the whole.

If there can be democrats and republicans whose ideas differ from those of their collective– if there can be Tea Party republicans who other republicans deem crazy– if there can be Westboro Baptist Churches who nigh all other Churches condemn– if there can be democrats who believe in pro-life and democrats who believe in pro-choice, republicans who believe in removing all forms of Medicare and Medicaid and food stamps and governmental forms of assistance and republicans who do not– then by the Gods, there can be a feminist who believes that women and men deserve equality and rights and fights on behalf of both of them while still being a feminist.

By believing this group of “humanistic feminists” to not be feminists, you are doing nothing but destroying the validity of what anyone who considers themselves a feminist has to offer to the table. No wonder you believe that feminism is all evil, with all the women hating and wanting to kill men, if you automatically assume that any person who calls themselves a feminist and is actually reasonable isn’t a feminist! That does nothing but inherently make feminism a lower from of social movement, a lower form of an idea, one that does not deserve to be heard because “all of those people are crazy.” That is prejudice and discrimination. I’m not trying accusing you of doing this, mind, but following the logic to its conclusion. Do you see what I’m saying? That’s like all the people I’ve met in my life who think that all black people are gangstas and talk about that in front of me, and when I say, “Actually, I am black, and I do not act like that,” they tell me, “Oh, but you’re not actually BLACK.” I’m sorry, but I AM actually black, and I do not inherently act like a gansta because I am human. Just because I am part of this category called “black people” and “feminist” does not mean I inherently operate like your stereotype of “black people” or “feminist” does. The solution to that is NOT to tell me that I am not a “black person” or a “feminist.” The solution to that is to ADJUST your ideas of what a black person and a feminist can be. The solution to that is to open your mind and accept that people can be different. Black people can be different. Feminists can be different. Just because I’m not crazy doesn’t make me any less of a feminist.

Okay. I did get a little bit heated there. None of that is your fault. Most of that is because of the infuriatingly disrespectful way the woman in the video spoke. It is very nice of her to tell us beforehand that if we get upset we need to put our “big girl panties” on, because that just allows her to dismiss any of our qualms to what she says that is actually disrespectful under an umbrella of “well I’m right, you’re wrong, and you’re just too immature to accept it.” It seems somewhat… well, plain dumb for her to be talking about feminists who are against equality and to then patronize any feminists who are FOR equality. To me it seems to be hitting yourself in the foot to decry that feminists hate all men and don’t want to like them and then to tell feminists that don’t think that way that they must not be real feminists and are, in fact, dumb children for believing they are. What was her goal? Was it to actually help men by teaching about the ways that feminism hasn’t been good for equality and helping feminists become aware of this so they can rectify it, or was it for her to further prove that she is right and smarter than everyone else and all feminists deserve to be hated, judged, and ignored by driving a huge wedge between feminists and all reasonable forms of a logical human being?

Feminism CAN change for the better and for equality, but you will never see it or notice it if all of the people who are making attempts to change the way it currently operates aren’t feminists to you. If we are for the non-oppression of women (by women, by men, by society, oppression by whom doesn’t matter) then we are feminists. If wanting to eliminate the oppression of men makes me an MRA, then I am an MRA as well as a feminist.

The definition of feminism is not “someone who wants to stop the oppression of women by a patriarchal society/by men.” It’s just “someone who wants to stop the oppression of women.” Period.

Hence why those friends of mine are technically feminists.

I looked online, in my textbooks. I have found no official source that defines feminism as what you said, as an organization against patriarchal oppression/men. In fact, that #1 thing that pops up now is not even about social equality for women. The VERY FIRST definition of feminism, and I quote, is “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”. Not women, but the sexes.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/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. A feminist is “an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women”.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

3. feminine character.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism

http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/whatisfem.htm

Equality of the sexes.

I, again, am sorry this was so long. I understand what you went through in being emotional about discussing rape, and about having things in my post that upset you. I, too, was overcome with indignation at that woman’s video and a combination of emotions while discussing my boyfriend’s past.

This whole discussion is amusing to me, a little. You and I clearly believe in the same things. We believe in equality for all, am I correct? Yet we’re discussing– some might even say arguing– about… what? We’re arguing about the definition of feminist. We’re not arguing about whether women are oppressed, or men are oppressed, whether some of the methods are good our bad. We’re in agreement on almost every single thing we’ve talked about– except a definition. Except a label.

This is probably where humanity goes wrong. If I had never said I was a feminist, if you had never said anything about MRAs and feminism, would we be talking about this? Or would we have tipped our hats to each other and gone on our separate ways? Would we have, in some alternate universe, worked together on the goals we share?

You are also clearly intelligent, caring, well-read, well-informed, and are aiming for a “humanistic” goal of equality for all and caring for all. We agree with all of the same goals about non-oppression for men and women– people, really. So what exactly are we doing, arguing about something so stupid as what label it falls under?

I say, my friend, you and I are both idiots. xD

Also, I would like to again say thank you for being willing to participate in this discussion. I have only ever heard of an MRA and have never before met one or gotten to talk about the ideas behing it. This has been very educational, and I have learned a lot both about your ideas and points and things about myself, including reevaluating certain beliefs I had that were too general and seeing that I have been a bit slacking on my usual intent to approach a situation from every perspective. I have a great respect for you and your ideas. I agree– women and men are meant to complement each other, work together and be happy with each other. Just like the rest of humanity. Thank you for talking with me. At least for once, a discussion on the internet did not go to waste. I have learned from this. Thank you for that.

According to urban dictionary, that was not really applicable. I think I will back out with this pathetic attempt at having the last word. I am in no mood for this.

First I should have stated this before but I used the word conventionally because these were books I don’t know what a character looks like and also because everyone has something that is attractive about them but I’m very upbeat about these things and also do a lot of live drawing so I notice a lot about people’s looks.

Wicker is a before twilight but similar book (same sort of 12 year old fantasy) . You’re not offending me by pointing it out. It has those elements yes but the guy who’s basically Edward they point out he’s creepy and they develop past that (the series stayed more for early teens but did develop some interesting things). I skimmed over a lot of the character development just to point it out but unlike Bella the main character messes up a lot, that said I always liked one of the side books more the character in that one (I think she is called Alice) is similarly ordinary looking character dealing with the choice of ignore your abilities and go insane or learn to control magic (which when you read the books and knew how much she was terrified of the magic users you understood why this choice was hard). She’s also dealing with the loss of her mother who chose to go insane.

Though thing is… I didn’t say this because I wasn’t really thinking about it (I was more pointing out characters that aren’t pretty) but Morgan the character I was talking about… The book is from memory less about “woe is me I am not pretty! Watch me be awesome without it and have fifty guys love me” and more about identity. Morgan’s adopted and comes from a very dark line of magic family (which she discovered later). She’s also raised to be very religious and as she starts to discover her blood relatives she uses magic to get close to them and find a place she belongs (while she isn’t hated by her family for it they don’t understand and fear it). The fact she’s not attractive in the conventional sense (this could be over analysis on my part though but with how the book points out that she’s called the family’s “Nightingale”) seemed more a way to show her isolation. Also it’s interesting that you mention the blond because her friend is the rich, blond character who on a later read when I discovered the early books in a library again (and have never found them since) is almost feeding of her friend’s low self esteem for her own selfish reasons. Then again I could just be over analysing the book and looking at it from things that did happen to me and things that happened to those around me.

Also I feel a bit like you put words in my mouth about the scarred character. I didn’t say it was cool what I got from how the book portrayed it… well that it was horrific (referred to as a broken mirror at one point since it’s a book for younger ages I don’t think they wanted to be to graphic) and since she had to then fend for herself (it’s a post apocalypse story) she became a very bitter person.

Nah it’s cool

Also I know star driver my reaction was basically…. “that happened”

I briefly covered that men and women are more than biological wiring

“Add in the human element (human emotion and desires) and love takes place, bonding the two”

That is why Hypergamy theory is just that, a theory. It doesn’t take into account the individual’s decision making process, from both the male and female perspective. Male disposability is an entire conversation unto itself, one for another day I’d wager. As to a woman’s relevance to a plot based on her appearance…eh, I’d say its hit and miss to be frank. It is true that this is something that has taken place in stories, at the same time I have read stories where the woman’s looks played no part what so ever.

Take Shotgun-Susy from the night-side series. This woman is kind of attractive, but she’s more average than anything. Any physical beauty that she has is further diminished by the fact that, as a bounty hunter, she has sustained extensive physical damage to her body, being heavily scarred all over with half of her face being torn off and her eye being lost in the process at one point. She recovers, but the eye is gone completely and hes left with a fair amount of scar-tissue after wards.

And even still she’s a well respected character and the main love interest for the main character, to the point that she’s a main character in her own right. As for men being attracted only to attractive women, that’s partially true. There are men out there that look for more than just looks, that look for personality above all, looking for women who are significantly older than them and some that are gold diggers in their own right as well. Its hard to believe but its true. But at the end of the day though, the rule proves over the exception, since they are in the very small minority of men.

Here’s is an interesting thought for you to chew on though: The issue of physical beauty that may women have a problem with, specifically what your worth is equivalent to you attractiveness, is something that is reinforced by other WOMEN more than men. In my experience, as well as the experiences of other men that I have talked to about this issue, a woman’s attractiveness stays fairly the same in the course of knowing her, and only increases as time goes on. Even in old age, men still love their wives and believe to be beautiful, wrinkles and all. This attitude is something that I feel myself and something that many of the men in my life as well as men I have talked to in passing feel.

More over, I have observed that it is women that judge each other’s worth based on their appearance, since a woman’s apparent worth to a man seems to be dictated by how attractive she is to him, which at the end of the day is subjective to his preferences, which could be anything. but women seem to be the culprits when it comes to dictating what a woman should and shouldn’t look like. Could it be possible that the issue of what a woman SHOULD look like be learned behavior from women? For me, that seems to be the case, since the women that do subject other women to this are very shallow and generally unpleasant people, the men who do this as well are mirror image: very shallow and unpleasant people.

Its just something to think about, since I believe that this problem shouldn’t be level on men alone. Almost anything in life is a two way street, and this is no different

At the end of the day its generalization in general. The minorities of society exhibit bad behavior and instead of handling it like you would a child trying to sneak past you with a cookie after you told them no, their behavior is put on display for all to see. The problem is that when that is done, people start to think their behavior is good. Also, I apologize, I must have misread what you wrote.