LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
Male feminists, by nature, sign onto a cause that says only the suffering of women are worthy of sympathy and political activism. In the twisted world of male feminists, any help given to men who are the victims of sexist behavior automatically takes away from resources that could go to women. In fact, in the sick mind of the radical feminist and male feminists in general, there is no such thing as sexism against men. In their Orwellian world of Newspeak, sexism is discrimination plus institutional power - a re-definition designed to bury male victims.
Even this twisted Newspeak doesn't hold its own water, however,when you look at what happens to women who rape boys. The boys get punished with child support - something that female rape victims never get slapped with. This is institutional sexism against men, and feminists argue that underaged boys can't be raped because they consent to sex with adult women. Feminists wrap it up by arguing that women who rape boys shouldn't go to jail for it. And the feminist courts agree - and as cited above, feminists cheer those court decisions. Institutional discrimination against men, folks - fully endorsed by feminists. Male feminists, of course, usually respond that they wish their teacher had done this to them as kids - if they have the guts to respond at all. After all, the male feminist says, boys can't be raped. Only women can be raped.
But, see, that mindset is to be expected. Because to the male feminist, only women are victims of sexism, not men. If backed into a corner they will assert that men are only ever victims of anything because PATRIARCHY - and they always say this even when PREVIOUSLY confronted with citations showing that feminists endorse and defend discrimination against men.
Furthermore, feminists also influence laws that result in discrimination against men. For instance, domestic violence. The Duluth Model of Domestic Violence, written by feminists, is the de facto law of the land, due to many years of radical feminist activism. It basically says that only men are abusers, not women. This is why police tend to arrest men when they report being battered by women. It has also been shown that feminists in particular will walk right by a man being abused by a woman and even cheer her on. (Another link here.) What does the male feminist say to this example of institutionalized discrimination against men? "He had it coming" "good for her" "it's because of patriarchy." (Never mind, of course, that the Duluth Model, which falsely asserts that only men commit violence, is a purely FEMINIST concept.)
Even if a male feminist risks his social standing among his peers and admits that there is institutionalized sexism against men, what he will then do is save face by saying that men deserve this as payback for eons of oppression of women. Equality, obviously, is achieved by revenge against men who have done nothing to anyone. Or he might argue that men beat women more often than women beat men. He certainly will in no way attempt to address the fact that women assault men even though studies show Reciprocal partner violence does not appear to be only comprised of self-defensive acts of violence. Several studies have found that men and women initiate violence against an intimate partner at approximately the same rate. Oh and - wait for it - lesbian women are equally as violent to their female partners and, to the detriment of these female victims of women, some feminists say that feminist groups want to keep these facts out of the limelight. (That, folks, is what's called misandry hurting women - but what feminist have you ever met that even acknowledges misandry even exists?) On a side note: consider this a Life Hack, folks: to make a radical feminist go away, male or otherwise, cite both of the above facts together, as an opening salvo of a domestic violence debate.
Aside from the embarrassment of having their misinformation debunked into oblivion, these facts don't matter to the male feminist. He doesn't really give a damn about battered men, which is the REAL reason why male feminists tap out of debates when their "men are the violent gender" nonsense is refuted. Male feminists have a deep-seated prejudice that says their own gender is the lesser more brutish gender and that males just need to be punished. They will come up with words like "man up", "you sissy", and "you probably had it coming." And of course "you must hate women", "you can't get laid", "you roly poly fat neckbeard", etc.
Also note that male feminists are the most virulent and hostile type of feminist. It is they who, in a face to face argument, pose the greatest risk of a fight breaking out. This is partially because their self hate runs just that deep. However, the biggest motivation for their frothing rage fits is their chivalry instincts: facts endanger the radical feminist agenda, which means a damsel is in distress, so don their armor and mount their horse they must. They have been indoctrinated by endless generations of male expendability so they see women as the pinnacle of humanity and they see men as disposable pawns.
It's no surprise that male feminists do not report women who abuse them, and in fact justify why they receive the abuse they get. They even threaten to kill other men who've done nothing wrong, just because they're male. (See this example, too.) Male feminists drink up all kinds of explicit expressions of hatred of men - especially when women try to justify it. Although they really don't feel they have to justify it.
So there's little reason to wonder why they especially hate men's rights activists. It's not so much that they believe the lies spoken about MRAs - it's because MRAs will actually stand up for battered men and fathers' rights and we've won major court and legislative battles, and we stand up for men. Male feminists, on the other hand, don't like their own gender, and they don't like themselves. Male feminism is a culture of self-flagellation - and in their pathetic minds, damned is every man who doesn't flog himself like they do.
Male feminists are not at all different from blacks who fought for the Confederacy.
Even this twisted Newspeak doesn't hold its own water, however,when you look at what happens to women who rape boys. The boys get punished with child support - something that female rape victims never get slapped with. This is institutional sexism against men, and feminists argue that underaged boys can't be raped because they consent to sex with adult women. Feminists wrap it up by arguing that women who rape boys shouldn't go to jail for it. And the feminist courts agree - and as cited above, feminists cheer those court decisions. Institutional discrimination against men, folks - fully endorsed by feminists. Male feminists, of course, usually respond that they wish their teacher had done this to them as kids - if they have the guts to respond at all. After all, the male feminist says, boys can't be raped. Only women can be raped.
But, see, that mindset is to be expected. Because to the male feminist, only women are victims of sexism, not men. If backed into a corner they will assert that men are only ever victims of anything because PATRIARCHY - and they always say this even when PREVIOUSLY confronted with citations showing that feminists endorse and defend discrimination against men.
Furthermore, feminists also influence laws that result in discrimination against men. For instance, domestic violence. The Duluth Model of Domestic Violence, written by feminists, is the de facto law of the land, due to many years of radical feminist activism. It basically says that only men are abusers, not women. This is why police tend to arrest men when they report being battered by women. It has also been shown that feminists in particular will walk right by a man being abused by a woman and even cheer her on. (Another link here.) What does the male feminist say to this example of institutionalized discrimination against men? "He had it coming" "good for her" "it's because of patriarchy." (Never mind, of course, that the Duluth Model, which falsely asserts that only men commit violence, is a purely FEMINIST concept.)
Even if a male feminist risks his social standing among his peers and admits that there is institutionalized sexism against men, what he will then do is save face by saying that men deserve this as payback for eons of oppression of women. Equality, obviously, is achieved by revenge against men who have done nothing to anyone. Or he might argue that men beat women more often than women beat men. He certainly will in no way attempt to address the fact that women assault men even though studies show Reciprocal partner violence does not appear to be only comprised of self-defensive acts of violence. Several studies have found that men and women initiate violence against an intimate partner at approximately the same rate. Oh and - wait for it - lesbian women are equally as violent to their female partners and, to the detriment of these female victims of women, some feminists say that feminist groups want to keep these facts out of the limelight. (That, folks, is what's called misandry hurting women - but what feminist have you ever met that even acknowledges misandry even exists?) On a side note: consider this a Life Hack, folks: to make a radical feminist go away, male or otherwise, cite both of the above facts together, as an opening salvo of a domestic violence debate.
Aside from the embarrassment of having their misinformation debunked into oblivion, these facts don't matter to the male feminist. He doesn't really give a damn about battered men, which is the REAL reason why male feminists tap out of debates when their "men are the violent gender" nonsense is refuted. Male feminists have a deep-seated prejudice that says their own gender is the lesser more brutish gender and that males just need to be punished. They will come up with words like "man up", "you sissy", and "you probably had it coming." And of course "you must hate women", "you can't get laid", "you roly poly fat neckbeard", etc.
Also note that male feminists are the most virulent and hostile type of feminist. It is they who, in a face to face argument, pose the greatest risk of a fight breaking out. This is partially because their self hate runs just that deep. However, the biggest motivation for their frothing rage fits is their chivalry instincts: facts endanger the radical feminist agenda, which means a damsel is in distress, so don their armor and mount their horse they must. They have been indoctrinated by endless generations of male expendability so they see women as the pinnacle of humanity and they see men as disposable pawns.
It's no surprise that male feminists do not report women who abuse them, and in fact justify why they receive the abuse they get. They even threaten to kill other men who've done nothing wrong, just because they're male. (See this example, too.) Male feminists drink up all kinds of explicit expressions of hatred of men - especially when women try to justify it. Although they really don't feel they have to justify it.
So there's little reason to wonder why they especially hate men's rights activists. It's not so much that they believe the lies spoken about MRAs - it's because MRAs will actually stand up for battered men and fathers' rights and we've won major court and legislative battles, and we stand up for men. Male feminists, on the other hand, don't like their own gender, and they don't like themselves. Male feminism is a culture of self-flagellation - and in their pathetic minds, damned is every man who doesn't flog himself like they do.
Male feminists are not at all different from blacks who fought for the Confederacy.
