It is mind-boggling how many blathering idiots think they should be squeaking instead of just chewing silently. I opened my blogroll, and here is what I immediately saw:
If feminism were about gender equality and not just about changing women’s positions in society, feminists would have chosen a word for their movement that had no connection to the concept of female or feminine.
The freak who wrote this probably congratulated himself on being super smart when he came up with this idiocy. It doesn’t occur to him that the things he lists are not mutually exclusive. Feminists work to change women’s positions in society in a way that would promote gender equality.
What a tragedy it is when people are so intellectually limited that they can’t make such a basic logical connection.
Clarissa's Blog 
This stupidity does not occur in isolation. This is where it helps to understand the nucleus of the attack. The anti-feminist ideology that is currently gaining strength resides in the notion that women somehow retain their coy, ultra-feminine (read: helpless) natures, whilst demanding to have the privileges and entitlements traditionally due to men. The people, mostly men, who buy into this ideology believe that women don’t change their traditional natures when they become feminists. They just use feminism as a vehicle to get what women traditionally have wanted — that is, male sacrifice, material goods, praise for doing nothing, and children.
The current push is to get feminists to renounce the term, “feminist”, and accept in its place the term, “humanist”. This push also requires them to protest in the streets for men’s rights, in order to prove to disinterested bystanders {/sarcasm} that they are truly egalitarian.
I don’t know why so many have come to believe that feminism is a vehicle for advancing the interests of traditional femininity (helplessness and taking without earning something). That, however, is the substance of the current anti-feminist ideology.
I haven’t read the article yet, but almost all the anti-feminist stuff these days comes from the false construction of feminist ideas I have outlined above. This will be no different.
LikeLike
The current push is to get feminists to renounce the term, “feminist”, and accept in its place the term, “humanist”.
Actually I think some of that push is an extreme reaction to something I’ve experienced from feminists, which is a “If you’re aren’t a feminist you’re against equality.” attitude or even a “oh you be believe in equality? then I will disregard your self identifications and say that you are a feminist anyway”.
When being told stuff like that I can understand wanting to push back, but of course it doesn’t justify extreme pushbacks like this.
LikeLike
Correction.
Instead of that “this” at the end change that to “what you point out here”.
LikeLike
Why they don’t consider themselves feminists if they’re in favor of equality?
LikeLike
And I ask, “Why must they consider themselves feminist even if they are in favor of equality?”
Does one need to the label feminist in order to valid their belief in equality?
LikeLike
People have the right to participate in political movements of their choosing. Such participation has nothing to do with the extremely bizarre concept of “validating beliefs.”
LikeLike
// Does one need to the label feminist in order to valid their belief in equality?
I don’t understand your reasoning. If feminism = equality, and you = equality, then … (continue logically). The only reason to push away the word I can see so far is fearing the stigma of the word “feminist”, which is precisely what anti-feminists want.
LikeLike
“Does one need to the label feminist in order to valid their belief in equality?”
You don’t specifically “need” this label, but you should not negate that an egalitarian is also a feminist.
LikeLike
I don’t understand your reasoning. If feminism = equality, and you = equality, then … (continue logically).
That depends on feminism being the one and only method for equality or the one and only place where equality can be worked on.
3+3= 6
12/2=6
23-17=6
All three of those equations will lead you to 6. Does that mean that we should stop using 12/2 and 23-17 (36/6, 2×3, etc….) and just use only 3+3?
The only reason to push away the word I can see so far is fearing the stigma of the word “feminist”, which is precisely what anti-feminists want.
No the reason I personally push the word away isn’t the fear of the stigma but because of my experiences of dealing with feminists, many of which actually contribute to the stigma.
I’m just as displeased with the “feminism is the only way for equality” talk as I am with the “feminism is all hatred” talk.
The latter is just generalizing and the former is an attempt at pretending that feminism is the only game in town when it comes to equality. Neither of which is true.
Clarissa:
People have the right to participate in political movements of their choosing. Such participation has nothing to do with the extremely bizarre concept of “validating beliefs.”
Which is why I would never have to worry about you going around and telling people that they are feminists and just don’t know it or that if they are for equality they must be feminist or that if they are not feminist they are against equality.
LikeLike
@Danny
“The latter is just generalizing and the former is an attempt at pretending that feminism is the only game in town when it comes to equality. ”
So I ask you to name/define those non-feminist games that would result in equality. Personally, I don’t know any of those non-feminist egalitarian games because I am a fucktard ignorant.
You seem to have some legitimate issues with misandrists and what I call “femi-favoritists” (some state positive discrimination against men resulting of a belief in the Patriarchy). Misandry in no way a feminist concept and femi-favoritism, since this is a result of a belief in the Patriarchy, is not ideologically feminist.
LikeLike
“Misandry in no way a feminist concept and femi-favoritism, since this is a result of a belief in the Patriarchy, is not ideologically feminist.”
– Exactly.
LikeLike
Also, Yanks should be aware that it doesn’t make sense to foreigners. It just makes them look like asses.
LikeLike
LikeLike
What do you think about this article?
http://nymag.com/news/features/high-school-2013-1/
– el
LikeLike
People who don’t realize that whatever happens to one in high school is a direct result of everything that took place before the age of 3 should avoid saying the word “psychology.” There are two moments when a person discovers for the first time how good or bad their parenting has been: going to school for the first time and adolescence. The more traumatic these stages, the more problematic the early childhood had been.
The author’s surprise at discovering that researchers prefer to study the cause and not simply the symptoms is very funny.
LikeLike
My money says that man is an abusive type whose girlfriend left him and who is now trying to patronize the public.
LikeLike
I think I spent enough time being silent following the abuse I suffered. So while it is unfortunate that you are bothered by a male survivor voicing his opinion, I regret to inform you that I will not shut up. Of course, if you do not wish to read what I write you have the option of removing me from your blogroll.
Where did I congratulate myself on being super smart? I simply stated that if feminists intended “The Patriarchy” not to refer to men and “feminism” to refer to gender equality they would have picked words that immediately conveyed that intent. Instead, we are to believe that feminists meant for “feminism” to mean gender equality… except you have to ask them to find that out, and even then they still say things like:
That does not promote gender equality unless one assumes that only women face unequal situations. There are a host of things that only happen to men that improving women’s positions in society would not fix or would instead make worse. Only helping women or focusing specifically on women simply does not promote gender equality; it promotes concern for women.
I agree that it is a tragedy when people are so intellectually limited that they cannot make such a basic logical connection, and it is unfortunate that you made yourself an example of that.
LikeLike
“I think I spent enough time being silent following the abuse I suffered. So while it is unfortunate that you are bothered by a male survivor voicing his opinion, I regret to inform you that I will not shut up.”
– Buddy, are you on drugs? The quote for which you are being ridiculed says nothing about any abuse. It simply shows your non-existent logical skills.
‘I simply stated that if feminists intended “The Patriarchy” not to refer to men and “feminism” to refer to gender equality they would have picked words that immediately conveyed that intent. Instead, we are to believe that feminists meant for “feminism” to mean gender equality”
– And that was a stupid statement, as I explained very clearly. How are your reading skills? As poor as your logical reasoning skills?
“That does not promote gender equality unless one assumes that only women face unequal situations. ”
– You are so incapable of drawing logical connections that it is really sad.
“There are a host of things that only happen to men that improving women’s positions in society would not fix or would instead make worse. ”
– Ah, here is your true position finally coming out. For you, inequality is something positive when you gain from it. That makes you a stupid, useless misogynist. Bye-bye, freak.
LikeLike
“I regret to inform you that I will not shut up.”
No, please continue to speak, this is a good thing to know that woman-hating assholes like you still exist.
Feminism is simply the philosophy stating that women are humans. Why this is bothering you? Why this stupid semantic game?
“That does not promote gender equality unless one assumes that only women face unequal situations.”
This is not what feminism is about. Women (as a class) face generally an unequal situation compared to men. Do you have a problem with that??
“There are a host of things that only happen to men that improving women’s positions in society would not fix or would instead make worse. ”
What do you talking about? Feminism is not only about improving women positions, it’s about abolishing the patriarchy. How can improving women’s posititions would be detrimental to men in a non-patriarcal society?
LikeLike
“How can improving women’s posititions would be detrimental to men in a non-patriarcal society?”
– It will be detrimental to men who can only exist within a system where they dominate and have unfair advantages conferred onto them. They need huge parts of population to be kept down artificially or they won’t be able to compete.
LikeLike
Hm, from the sound of it you must be what an MRA is. I did actually look at your post itself and it is full of misconceptions, manipulative logic and oddly, condescension to both your topic and your audience. It is actually the manipulativeness of all of this that tipped me off to the possibility you were an abusive type. Based on what you write here I am tending to think I am right. I also got an unusual comment from a strange IP around the time you wrote this comment, and this comment would kind of explain it although of course it could be a coincidence and not have been you. If so, I can see you are in mega-pain. I think you should get a Shiatsu massage.
LikeLike
I didn’t even read the post to the end. Why waste time on somebody with such poor cognitive skills?
LikeLike
O, one must read the whole text, even if quickly, if one is going to opine, I feel.
LikeLike
I’ve been reading his posts for over a year. They always say the exact same thing in exact same words.
LikeLike
Z said: “It is actually the manipulativeness of all of this that tipped me off to the possibility you were an abusive type.”
They are all manipulative because they are following a script that is loaded with false assumptions and trying to make women follow it too. There are some instigators and they are on YouTube. Here are my notes on one particular video I saw, which was really manipulative. Some guy who is otherwise quite liberal posted it on Facebook. He was in a relationship with an abusive woman at the time.
Click to access MRA.pdf
LikeLike
Toysoldier, is this your IP address and e-mail? Figusta3223@hsmcc.com
37.5.65.227 Because those are the IP and e-mail that sent me abusive commentary today, which I do not normally get.
LikeLike
I’m absolutely sure you are right.
LikeLike
What a macho faggot idiot!
LikeLike
Some MRA faggots didn’t like it…
LikeLike
MRAs? Where?
LikeLike
Reading here.
LikeLike
“macho faggot”
yeah, you sure are an enlightened feminist there pal.
LikeLike
“It will be detrimental to men who can only exist within a system where they dominate and have unfair advantages conferred onto them. They need huge parts of population to be kept down artificially or they won’t be able to compete”.
I agree.
LikeLike
You are disappointing, Clarrisa. A shame, really, I expected something more from you.
And “MRA faggot” ? Really ?
LikeLike
Try to follow who said what, at least. The names of commenters accompany each comment.
LikeLike
The vast majority of MRAs are macho dicktards who express their repressed faggotry by their woman-hating ideology.
LikeLike
Feminism means literally “pro-female,” and it does make sense that if feminists meant “pro-equality” they would have called their movement egalitarianism or humanism. The term implies that fixing the differences between men and women only involve lifting women up or fixing their disadvantages.
According to the CDC’s NiSVS, men and women experience being the victim of domestic violence at the same rate (lesbian couples even have higher rates than gay male couples or straights). Other studies show women are more likely to initiate violence and compensate for smaller size by using a weapon and the element of surprise. Why then have feminists, concerned about equality, always portrayed this issue as one-sided? Why, in the name of equal, have they accused men of patriarchal terrorism and ignored violent women? Why have they pushed for VAWA, which is a ridiculously sexist law that has and will continue to erase male victims while it helps female ones?
You may think feminism = equality, and call anyone stupid or illogical that you wish. I’ll just watch what feminists actually do and make up my own mind.
LikeLike
“The term implies that fixing the differences between men and women only involve lifting women up or fixing their disadvantages.”
– No, it doesn’t. Get a dictionary, or whatever.
” Why then have feminists, concerned about equality, always portrayed this issue as one-sided? Why, in the name of equal, have they accused men of patriarchal terrorism and ignored violent women?”
– Buddy, try to get acquainted with the writings of the feminist bloggers on whose blogs you dare to emit your impotent squealing. You have to be a completely brainless twat to accuse ME of all people not to denounce violence against men when I’ve been doing that for years.
“You may think feminism = equality, and call anyone stupid or illogical that you wish.”
– I don’t need your permission to call you and idiots like you stupid and brainless.
” I’ll just watch what feminists actually do and make up my own mind.”
– For that, you’d actually have to possess a mind. And this is something you are obviously lacking.
LikeLike
Note how the MRAs move in packs and downvote anything that supports feminism. I’ve even had my videos that mention the word downvoted by them. And my videos are full of nuance, intellectually complex and have an African, rather than Western orientation to gender issues. These guys overestimate what they know.
You can speak very gently to them and they will still express themselves violently.I had one message today saying that I should feel the brutality of the male. That’s because I expressed an extremely moderate and inoffensive opinion.
LikeLike
I’ve had so many of them visit the blog over the years and they all have the same characteristics : an incapacity to understand and respond to an argument that is being made instead of what voices in their heads tell them, the need to repeat the same idiotic statement endlessly, and the capacity to throw tantrums.
LikeLike
They’re locked into the madness of their own minds. It’s part of Western patriarchy, to make authoritative-sounding assertions and never to back down. It’s like a compulsion to lift a giant weight above one’s head.
LikeLike
I think if they were part of Eastern patriarchy, things wouldn’t be much better. 🙂
LikeLike
I actually wasn’t implying a binary moral distinction between Western patriarchy and Eastern patriarchy, funnily enough. I make functional analyses. I don’t think in dichotomies very much.
LikeLike
This is characteristic of most ideologues, from what I have seen. If something is not about their ideology, then they will certainly find a way to make it so, and if you point out how silly this is, you become their enemy.
LikeLike
I wonder why the MRAs voted down this statement that I made:
“I actually wasn’t implying a binary moral distinction between Western patriarchy and Eastern patriarchy, funnily enough. I make functional analyses. I don’t think in dichotomies very much.”
I thought the original argument by the MRA that visited here was that there should be no moral dichotomies — that men and women should both be rendered free to enjoy reality.
Or perhaps the three down-voters are against functional analyses? That would make sense if they don’t want to get to the bottom of anything or to find out how any system of ideas really works.
Or is it a desire, on the part of these three to embrace morality in some way? Perhaps Christian fundamentalism?
I guess we’ll never know as they are an inarticulate bunch.
LikeLike
“I thought the original argument by the MRA that visited here was that there should be no moral dichotomies — that men and women should both be rendered free to enjoy reality.”
– No, this is not their argument at all. They believe that if women are not oppressed, they – pathetic little creatures who are sore losers already – will lose out even more. The quote I used in this post demonstrates that very clearly.
“Or is it a desire, on the part of these three to embrace morality in some way? Perhaps Christian fundamentalism?”
– Definitely.
LikeLike
The style of language used by both sides in this argument is exactly what I would have expected it to be.
One side is collected and calm in it’s logical progression of it’s argument, whilst the other is aggressively dismissive, and resorts to name calling and slurs.
The surprise for me is that both styles are coming from the exact opposite sides of where I would have anticipated them coming from.
Hypocrisy at it’s finest. Today I change my name from Feminist to Egalitarian.
Hate and Anger is not the way friends.
LikeLike
“Today I change my name from Feminist to Egalitarian.”
– Yay! We, the feminists, don’t need illiterate sore losers like yourself among us. Buddy, if nobody told you this before, I will out of the kindness of my heart: your writing is atrocious. Take some writing classes because you sound very very stupid.
LikeLike
Indeed. I couldn’t understand what that person was trying to say — and not for the normal reasons that people proclaim they can’t understand something (political purposes and an unsound education.) It just sounds like dramatic flip-flopping.
LikeLike
Note how often they make this completely idiotic argument about being oppressed by the name of the feminist movement. This is obviously a sign that they are too afraid to say what actually bothers them about feminism. So they pick on the word.
LikeLike
Well, it is quite a ferocious word, prancing all over the page. I’m sure there are words that the MRAs can tolerate like “clouds, doves, pansies, feathers, happiness”.
LikeLike