165 comments

38
They're a feminist sub, so in consistency with other feminist subs, they'll be a vessel for misandry while simultaneously performing mental gymnastics to make as many claims of misogyny as possible
22
mIsAnDrY iSnT rEeEeEeEaL
13
Yet they'll say in the same breath: "mIsAnDrY iS hOnOuRaBLe"
6
Maybe I'm sexist here, but you know they will huff and puff and suck their teeth before they say that. It's going to be a handful of breaths later.
-2
Yeah most guys on reddit really are out of shape
3
Most women are too. Most people in general are. What's your point.
2
Keep in mind, Gorlock the destroyer exists
1
So does airsoft fatty
1
For at least a few more months maybe years until that heart attack kicks in.
8
Yeah I forgot the post exactly but it was something that was mocking men’s mental health, saying it wasn’t nearly as important as females. I got in an argument with a femcel and I guess they reported my ass lol
-2
Mental health is a feminist concept like "self esteem." The sooner men drop it from our vocabulary, the sooner we get back to the gym, hunting, and drinks with the boys to cope with life.
3
Yes. Mental health is psuedo science and a way for feminists to gaslight men through therapy and hurt them with unnecessary meds
4
A lot of childhood "mental health" is built on pathologizing normal male behavior and instilling destructive values into men. Women need to feel intrinsic self worth. Men need to earn their self worth. Men cannot simply tell themselves that they are worthy, that just doesn't work. Men need to be given the opportunity to demonstrate to themselves and to others that they can live the values that Men instinctively respect in others. So long as Men today stay fat, single, addicted to porn, and wasting their lives on video games, they won't feel esteem.
1
I love how you act like men using coping strategies to ignore problems is new. Yes, video games and the overwhelmingly widespread availability of porn are relatively new, but they’re just being used instead of the tobacco and alcohol that they would have used in previous generations. On top of that a lot more men are now single that would’ve gotten a wife in the past, because in the past women literally had to get a husband if they wanted a house and food. I do think the internet does encourage more anti social behavior which is also a factor but to act like mental health issues and the negative repercussions of them simply didn’t exist is so demonstrably incorrect.
4
Look man, the mental health industry is like the education industry, its extremely left-wing and very feminine. I don't think these work for men. I think that traditional education as constructed by women has been completely disastrous for men's mental health. Feminizing men has not been good for their wellbeing, and continuing to run in that direction is even worse. I don't think most men are doing poorly because they are bottling up their feelings, but because they have to exist in a society that only puts weight on emotionality. I was in HS way over a decade ago and even then my mental health was horrible. It was really a suffocating environment where masculine interest were not valued or entertained, and where young men had to predominatly take their social queues from finger-wagging middle-nannies as opposed to any traditionally male role-models. My mental health improved rapidly when I left and joined Marine Corps and, later, wildland firefighting. Challenge, adversity, risk-taking, adventure, responsibility, these are things that men need to adopt a healthy mental attitude. They aren't going to find mental wellbeing in a shrinks office, they are going to find it in the struggle to accomplish something. I'm back in school now and I'm surrounded by miserable people and they are miserable because they are weak, and they are weak because no one has ever conditioned them. It's like the difference between the runner's high an experienced runner gets during a marathon, and the absolute misery of running your first mile as an untrained couch potato. Except in life we all have to run occasionally in a metaphorical sense. You can be well-trained and thrive on the challenge or you can approach every milestone as a misery that must be slogged through before you can go back to doing nothing.
-2
You're a problem.
3
Losers might think that
-1
Resilience is absolutely important, but abusing people who aren’t resilient doesn’t consistently give a positive result. I think it’s incredibly valuable to be able to deal with getting punched in the face, but just randomly punching people is very often (but not always) going to backfire. For the record, I was raised by a super tough. and highly intelligent ‘everyone who goes to bars is a loser’ Green Beret dad and his colleagues, so I’m familiar with the flaws in this ideology.
1
When did I say we should abuse people? There are enough challenges in life that all we need to do is not baby people along. We see this constantly in the education system where we continually infantalize even adults. We have no definition for what being an adult means today or any expectations for it. And being abused doesn't make you hard either. It often makes people weaker and more fucked up. It's the opposite of raising people to accept challenge and responsibility.
2
I mean I’m two of those things, and I don’t have much self esteem, you may be into something lmao
1
Bingo. Check my account for MRA posts
28
It’s like a new r/FDS - bitter femcels that abhor sexism yet practice it religiously.
10
FDS was in the running for the most toxic subreddit in existence. The admins let it exist far longer than reasonable.
9
What are you talking about? The admins did nothing to sanction it. The sub is still up. They self-censored and moved the community off-site.
1
Femcels do not exist. The dirtiest ugliest oldest woman can still find a guy to sleep with her.
2
Femcels believe they deserve 7s-10s like the hot girls, so they would never 'degrade themselves by sleeping with a low worth man'
2
I had some questionable standards back in my earlier years, and even then there were girls I’d say no to.
2
Some guy will
1
Thats not true I don't know how many women are lonely, but there are definitely some lonely women out there
1
Ohh they most certainly do.
1
You are a lying fool. The ugliest, oldest and fattest woman can get laid. There are several "couples" channel accounts across the internet to demostrate this. And you can also simply just log into pornhub to see your lie debunked. You're dishonesty about this subject is to deceive people into thinking women have it as bad as men. Women who "can't get laid", are withholding sex from men who don't fit their criteria. How long have you been a man-hater?
1
LoL nice try. 😁
1
Your account has negative upvote count and you care about fake things like the "election". Only a developmentally disabled person would take you seriously
1
Eh, they do but real femcels are exceedingly rare, even most incels have themselves to blame. ”You need to be at least 6 feet tall with a 6 inch cock and earn 6 figures.” ”Have you tried showering daily and actually talking to women?”
11
Damn straight to muted, didn’t even get a snarky reply
14
Most mods have figured out that their chats can be reported to admins, which often results in them losing their precious power, so the vast majority resort to muting nowadays because they’re scared.
3
no sadder, less worthless pile of semi-sapient waste than an ex-reddit mod. Turbo cancer would be a kinder fate.
3
How do you report things to the admin?
2
If you report mod chat it goes to admins.
1
Any time I’ve been banned somewhere, especially a big default sub, and I ask why or what I did, they just immediately mute you. Reddit janitors are such petty little cunts 
7
This is just more proof that most modern ‘feminists’ have forgotten that ‘feminism’ isn’t and never was ‘man hating’ but always about equality. You log on to tik tok nowadays, and all ‘feminists’ seem to be wishing men dead and it’s disgusting. And making the gender divide wider through hatred and sour feelings, rather than ever fixing any of the problems.
15
Feminism has been thinly veiled misandry since nearly the beginning.
4
Whilst I disagree with that, and feel it’s been a more recent switch, I’ll respect your view 👍
3
I mean yeah, it’s hard to be sure of what peoples intentions are. That said, one of my masters is in Fine Art (which is a subject heavily laden with feminist theory) so I feel like I have a decent grip on what the motives have been from the beginning. It’s quite difficult for anyone who suffered oppression to not foster resentment and anger, which inevitably manifests into a revenge mindset.
3
They ramped it up
-3
*“Let woman share the rights and she will emulate the virtues of man.”* - Mary Wollstonecraft, 1792, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.
2
Well, yeah.
-3
What do you mean "well, yeah"? Mary Wollstonecraft was a pioneer of women's rights and was not the least bit misandrous. “I do not wish [women] to have power over men, but over themselves.” - Mary Wollstonecraft.
2
>What do you mean "well, yeah"? The quote you posted is the feminist version of Nietzsche’s famous “Into the Darkness” quote. I was agreeing with it. >Mary Wollstonecraft was a pioneer of women's rights and was not the least bit misandrous. She’s one person, and one that has had many claims of internalized misogyny throughout the years. So, while not necessarily misandrist, she definitely has some misogynistic traits. >”I do not wish [women] to have power over men, but over themselves.” - Mary Wollstonecraft. Sure, Mary, sure.
1
>Sure, Mary, sure. I guess you haven't read A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. More people should.
2
Lmfao honey you don’t want to play that game, trust me. I’ve read more feminist theory than you’re aware of.
1
Sure, Reddit expert, sure.
1
I have a MFA in fine art, a subject that is heavily laden with critical and feminist theory. You’re welcome to believe whatever you want.
1
And yet you haven't provided any evidence to support your claims up until this point. That's weird for someone with a master's degree, in my experience at least. I bet I wouldn't need to look too far into your comment history to find you demanding someone provide you with evidence of their claims though. Also, the 'FA' in MFA stands for fine arts. It's especially weird that you don't even know that much. Based on the evidence I've seen... I choose to believe you are full of it.
1
You can get a MFA in studio art, art history, fine art, etc… tell me you don’t have any post-grad degrees without telling me, doofus. Evidence for what? That feminism is rooted in misandry? Yeah sure let me write up a 5000 word essay just for you to stick your fingers in your ears and say “nuh uh!” Why would I bother? You posted a quote from the 1700s! As if that is, in any way, relevant to modern day feminism. You are woefully equipped for this conversation but your floundering is at least entertaining.
1
Calm down captain insecurity, before you miss out on your promotion to major. I am responding to your claim that: "Feminism has been thinly veiled misandry **since nearly the beginning."** Mary Wollstonecraft is basically the beginning. If you don't know how to cite reputable sources to back up your claims, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's time for you to get another MFA in fine arts, from the ATM machine, using your PIN number.
1
Literally nobody serious considers the 1700s or Mary Wollstonecraft to be the beginning of feminism. Feminism, as a movement, began in 1848. It helps if you read more than one book.
1
Hmmmm... She predates the official beginning of the movement and published a book which is considered the earliest and most important treatise advocating equality for women. I'd call that basically at the beginning of feminism. I'd encourage you to just read this book and stop trying to let google fight your battles. Maybe think for yourself?
1
Google? Homie I didn’t need to Google when Feminism started. I knew that off the top of my head because that is when the Women’s Convention was held, the **literal** start of the feminist movement. You can go back to 100 AD and find women advocating for other women, but that doesn’t mean the **movement** started then. It is a commonly accepted fact that first wave feminism started in 1848. Like I said, read more than one book. You’re sitting here telling me to read one book when it’s clearly the only book you’ve read on the topic while I’ve read close to a hundred and written multiple thesis’ on feminism. You. Are. Woefully. Ill-equipped. For. This. Conversation.
1
"I've read close to a hundred and written multiple thesis' on feminism" is perhaps the most insecure thing I've seen anyone say on Reddit. None of this is about who is the authority on the matter, it's about who constructs the most solid argument based or verifiable information. You've provided exactly zero in that department. Tell me more about how awesome you are though, I think you're about to convince me. Just out of curiosity, how passionately do you support the women's rights movement after reading so much on the subject? You must be a mega fan of feminism or something.
1
Insecure? What? I’m sensing some projection after you realized reading one book doesn’t make you an expert on a subject. I suppose I’d have to cope as well if I was so uneducated I thought Feminism started in the 1700s lmfao. >Just out of curiosity, how passionately do you support the women's rights movement after reading so much on the subject? You must be a mega fan of feminism or something. Stop arguing in bad faith and I’ll indulge your curiosities.
1
Nah, I'm not so insecure that I feel the need to spout off my credentials at every turn. But I am curious, that much is true. I also like to read, Soni took some time out last night to read your comment history going back over the last month. What a ride. Turns out, you're constantly making busted arguments all day on Reddit and getting called out for it. [Okay Edgelord “two degrees” Jackson](https://www.reddit.com/r/CreationNtheUniverse/comments/1aevxug/comment/koogab8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) was a personal highlight. [Here,](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeclineIntoCensorship/comments/1ajyyzy/comment/kpe1tit/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [here,](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnythingGoesNews/comments/1ah60d8/comment/kp52dq9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [here,](https://www.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/comments/1acojof/comment/kk254kj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [and here](https://www.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/comments/19b4num/comment/kir1tbb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) are comments that can be applied to any and all of the arguments I read through in your history. There's a very clear pattern of your insecurities on display and consistency in the way other users see through your nonsense. Just on that topic, I thought I had seen you make the most insecure comment on Reddit until I read this gem: [Eh, every metric that has ever measured my intelligence has said otherwise.](https://www.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/comments/1acojof/comment/kk1hzez/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) But then, you hit me with: [I am smart. Aced my ASVAB with a 99, got a 1450 on my SAT, a 30 on my ACT, finished both masters magna cum laude.](https://www.reddit.com/r/the_everything_bubble/comments/195yye8/comment/ki6oazp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) I literally had to stop for a moment at that point because I was laughing so hard. Perhaps my favourite thread for the schadenfreude entertainment was the one that ended with: [I’m convinced you don’t even comprehend the words you’re using.](https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments/19fahus/comment/kjukx2y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) That particular thread was a massive disaster for you. Did you get banned from the Austrian economics sub after that? I hope not, I would love for you to go back to tell those very clearly educated people just how clever you are. Maybe you can tell them about your two masters degrees, while sounding like someone struggling to pass high school. I will give an honourable mention to [Maybe you do have degrees. If so, I would agree it was a waste of your time. You seem to have come out of University the same dullard who went in. I'm incredulous as to your education level, not because of a schoolyard envy as you maintain, but because you share the misguided notions of a backwater welfare case.](https://www.reddit.com/r/the_everything_bubble/comments/195yye8/comment/ki3whsx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) That while comment was pretty spot on and the best you could muster was to call it an unhinged rant. Says everything about you really. But maybe another Redditor put it best when they said: [Buddy, there is no point in answering you. Whatever answer I provide, your response will be the same. Combative, assumptive, derogatory, imperious. And angry. So very, very angry. This is, seemingly, the tone you use whenever anyone triggers you, and you sir are quite easily triggered. So that will be a hard pass from me. I'm not here to indulge whatever mental demons are tormenting you. You're not interested in an exchange of ideas and we both know it. Honestly, I'm not sure how someone who is so full of venom can even function. I imagine that in real life, you probably don't. I feel sorry for you. That's not fake- I truly do. Take care of yourself, bud. I suspect that if you were left to your own devices you would probably keep screaming at my comments indefinitely, but this will be my last interaction with you. I sincerely hope that you find more constructive outlets. Be well.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnythingGoesNews/comments/1ah60d8/comment/kp8remx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) It seems clear to me and everyone else you try to flex on here that your output does not live up to your claimed level of education. Simply by drawing the conclusion that I've only read one book on a subject is pretty telling about the way you think. But more telling is the overwhelming lack of citation for any of your claims. The first thing I was taught at university was how to determine the validity of a source. And you, as a reliable source of information, suck. With all that out of the way, did you want to talk about modern feminism or it's beginnings? Because you've been a little bit inconsistent... To say the least.
1
When you have no substantial argument and have egg on your face, simply rifle through your opponents profile for ammunition you can use to derail the argument into personal attacks. Right out of the Incel Redditor 101 playbook.
1
The evidence I provided shows a pattern of you making assumptions and not being able to back them up, you really don't have to keep doing it with me. The evidence I provided pushes back against your original claim. The evidence you provided has yet to be provided. Your comment history speaks for itself, I just put a couple of the greatest hits from the past month in a comment. Well, I say a couple but it was more like a dozen or so from memory... From the past month. As in, you are constantly doing this. But you know what? You could have sailed right past all of that and simply addressed my question about feminism at the end. But your precious little ego couldn't let you. Because deep down you want this argument derailed, because that's all you've got. Every argument you've had for the past month, which is way too many to be healthy, proves that. Turns out you don't display many outward signs of being a feminist in any way, that was a shocker.
1
I’m the one who wants the conversation derailed yet you’re the one who started talking about my post history when you realized you were academically outclassed. Right. What evidence did you provide? A single quote from a random woman in the 1700s that nobody considers to be a part of the feminist movement, all because you’re ignorant on the subject and have nothing else of substance to say? You’re the only person in the world who thinks feminism started before 1848, so congrats on being a dunce I guess.
1
Ok zero citations.
1
A worthless citation is the same as no citations so I guess we’re in the same boat.
1
So did they ban you from the Austrian economics sub? You should totally go back to tell them how immigration is making them unhappy. It's so odd that they wouldn't accept you as an authority on what makes them happy. We're not in the same boat, I've seen your game. Low effort and lazy.
1
I absolutely love that you’re so bitter about getting dunked on that your only response is to bring up past comments you found while spending hours obsessing over me 😂
1
You would think someone with two masters degrees would realise when someone is laughing at them. But you didn't answer my question, are you banned from the Austrian economics sub? If you won't answer that, then let me ask another. Out of the 2-4 other people you're presumably arguing with right now... Have you tried telling them you have two masters degrees yet? It might sway them, it's pretty convincing.
1
More coping and seething from someone who thought reading one book made them a subject matter expert. Oof. Also, your jealousy is showing. It’s not my fault you don’t have postgrad degrees, maybe try harder?
1
[I literally cited a source in my previous comment. You pretending like you don’t see it because you don’t want to address the irrefutable evidence it presents is hilarious.](https://www.reddit.com/kr5mwk7?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2) Is that you, in another comment thread, citing one book and pretending to be an expert? I suppose it's a good thing you aren't a hypocrite, that way we can all safely conclude you are projecting. What would I have to be angry about? I have pretty clearly stated and demonstrated that you are all talk and no substance. For example, you're still at zero citations for any of the claims you've made in this exchange with me. The really strange thing is, I never claimed to be an expert. You did that about yourself. You're the one supposedly with the masters degrees, who has read nearly 100 papers on feminism... Yet somehow you think Mary Wollstonecraft's book is a "shit source" when it comes to the subject of feminism. By the way, if I spent a couple of hours reading your comment history and you see that as proof that I am obsessed with you... What does it say about you that you have spent 100s of hours reading feminism literature, but don't defend women's rights? I know you can't answer that, not even with the benefit of having two imaginary masters degrees.
1
Nope, that was me providing what is considered the paramount source of evidence on the subject we were discussing. Everything else you could find would say the same thing as that book. The difference is that I actually know what I’m talking about and you don’t. You didn’t even know feminism started in 1848. That alone shows how uneducated you are,
1
And my source is foundational. You seriously want to keep dismissing Mary Wollstonecraft and her book A Vindication of the Rights of Women? Google who the mother of feminism is. Better yet, don't take my or Google's word for it. Meet [Dr Bridget Cotter.](https://www.westminster.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/directory/cotter-bridget) As you can see Dr Cotter is verified as having a PhD, which bury even your imaginary credentials, and is a a lecturer at the University of Westminster. She leads units on subjects such as Western Political Thought; Questioning Rights; Gender, Politics and the State. Dr. Cotter's specialisms for postgraduate and undergraduate dissertation supervision include: political theory; feminist theory; and gender equality. Let's see what she has to say: [In this article she published in The Conversation](https://theconversation.com/mary-wollstonecraft-an-introduction-to-the-mother-of-first-wave-feminism-201046#:~:text=Mary%20Wollstonecraft%20has%20had%20something,refusing%20to%20take%20her%20seriously.) Dr Cotter says: *"As the author of an impassioned plea for human rights, and one of the earliest and most-read statements of feminism, Wollstonecraft today has a well-deserved status as a feminist icon."* *"Wollstonecraft’s most famous text, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, is largely a treatise on the edifying effects of the right kind of education on virtue."* *"Wollstonecraft did not mean sexual purity when she spoke of virtue, however. Virtue was indicative of moral character and primarily expressed in the ability to make sound, informed and rational judgements."* *"Wollstonecraft argued that women are equally capable of acquiring these virtues and of benefiting from a full education if only given the chance to develop their capacities in the same way as men.*" *"Rational qualities, argues Wollstonecraft, are not naturally gendered. They are learned and shaped by environment, especially by upbringing, education and culture. If education is narrow and confined, it will produce narrow and confined thinking. This is what she meant when she wrote of women: “Make them free and they will quickly become wise and virtuous.”*" You see, the thing is... you haven't refuted the legitimacy of my source in any way. So there hasn't been any need for additional sources. I made my point and cited it in my very first reply to you, for anyone else who was educated enough to understand it. The rest of this was me curious about how committed you are to this bit. So go on, show anyone reading this just how clever you really are. Build your argument, make your case, and provide clear and reliable citation. Looking forward to it!
1
All of that is irrelevant, as I expected. Posthumous consideration has absolutely nothing to do with the undeniable fact that Feminism, the movement, didn’t start until 1848. Your floundering *is* funny though, so please continue.
1
Sure thing. You: [Feminism has been thinly veiled misandry since nearly the beginning.](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/1ask527/comment/kqr7twm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Me: [“Let woman share the rights and she will emulate the virtues of man.” Mary Wollstonecraft, 1792, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/1ask527/comment/kqravh5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) You: That's where we are up to. You made a claim... Could not, have not, and are unable to validate the claim with any reputable source. I refuted your claim, with a reputable source, that you cannot discredit. All you keep trying to do is hold on to your little googled fact and not address the argument being made. But hey, as long as you think it's funny; I guess I'm laughing with you and not at you.
1
You still can’t wrap your head around the fact that Feminism is a movement that started in 1848 and that your source is irrelevant because the ideas it contains were posthumously adopted. You’re so mad your source is shit that you keep clinging to it in desperation instead of moving past the fact that you fumbled your initial argument. You haven’t refuted anything, rather made yourself look like an uneducated fool, and are now attempting to double and triple down instead of arguing against my main point, which was: that Feminism has been about thinly veiled misandry since nearly the beginning (the beginning being 1848).
1
Naww... Sounds like you stopped laughing. I guess I should let you in on the joke. A piece of context your little googled fact didn't help you realise is that the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 is only considered the beginning of the women's rights movement in America. The term that describes the beginnings of feminism across the world is First-wave Feminism. And guess what? Mary Wollstonecraft is known as the mother of First-wave Feminism. It is so strange that you, with your 2 masters degrees and having read nearly 100 papers on feminism, haven't shown any sign of knowing that. Or any of the facts on the subject. Please do continue on about how the mother of feminism is irrelevant to feminism. It sure makes me look uneducated.
6
Sweet summer child, bless your heart.
-3
Couldn't rebut, so you tried to condescend instead?
7
Find me a feminist that has advocates to draft women
-2
Why, wouldn't it just be easier to show you feminist against the draft in general? Feminists want progress, not inclusion in unjust systems.
5
Opposing the existence of the draft isn't a realistic policy, it's a half assed pipe dream used as an excuse to avoid campaigning for the downsides of equality. Plenty of feminists were running around handing out white feathers as an act of public shaming for cowardice to men not in a military uniform during both world wars.....including to soldiers on leave after a stint at the front AND SIXTEEN YEAR OLD BOYS WHO WEREN'T EVEN OLD ENOUGH TO FIGHT. And that's before we get into how it
1
When you say feminism has ALWAYS been a cesspit of misandry, you must have missed that Wollstonecraft argued women are entitled to an equal education. One which aligns with their position among society, as mothers, housewives, and laborers. She discusses the idea of “woman’s place” within society and reasoned that, instead of simply being regarded as domesticated housewives living in the shadow of their husbands, women could become “companions” to their male counterparts through the means of equal education prove beneficial for all of society. Is that the cesspit of misandry you believe feminism has ALWAYS been?
2
That does literally nothing to rebut what I pointed out.
0
>*Feminism has ALWAYS been a cesspit of misandry.* Wollstonecraft's position was for the education of women for the betterment of society, where's the misandry in that?
2
Cherry picking one feminist who wasn't a rabid misandrist does literally nothing to disprove that the wider movement has always been a breeding ground for misandry.
-1
*The pioneering feminist whose book essentially started the movement. Fixed that for you. You may want to look into what the word ALWAYS means. It is an absolute, with no room for grey areas. It's the word you used, you even capitalised it for emphasis. Simply providing one example rebuts your assertion.
2
That's not how anything works, nor how "always" applies in this context.
0
I love to learn new things. What did you mean when you said ALWAYS?
3
>unjust systems. Oh you just admitted to female privilege and male oppression. You still have time to delete this.
2
No. Instead of forcing anyone into military service, the draft should be done away with all together. Conscription violates freedoms such as personal choice and bodily autonomy.
1
I got it
2
The first suffragettes were willing to give up the vote because the price was conscription and these bitches did want to die in trenches. And then they got it anyway. Biggest mistake. To make one group pay a price the the other group will never pay.
1
100% western women would demand men be drafted if they thought they were threatened. Do you think Ukrainian feminist are complaining about the draft?
1
Speaking on behalf 100% of western women certainly says a lot about who you are. Let me introduce you to [Eleanor Smeal.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Smeal?wprov=sfla1) She is a modern day feminist who believes women should be included equally when it comes to conscription. [Here](https://feminist.org/resources/feminist-chronicles/part-iii-the-early-documents/women-and-the-military/) is an article she wrote advocating for women to be included in the draft. In it she asserts: "omission from the registration and draft ultimately robs women of the right to first class citizenship" Ultimately though, she is against the draft in general.
1
She said this from a position of absolute safety and confidence. My point is that women are always for equality when equality is easy, but none of these feminist were begging to join the infantry in Nam'.
1
[Find me a feminist that advocates for the conscription of women](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/s/WpPlP75MjD)
1
So women are only conditionally virtuous? Ok.
-5
You are a dolt
3
Whatever you say, 14 day old account with nothing but inflammatory comments. Surely you’re not the alt account for a lonely troll that has already been banned for atrociously stupid comments in the past, right?
1
Ok two year old! I'm on your side. I am old, so I had to throw some shade.
-4
Bro you don't know shit about feminism why are you acting like you know it's roots
4
I’m sorry for having an opinion you disagree with. I didn’t realise your petty paper thin patience would crack immediately at me daring to have a different opinion, and that you would be so overly emotional about it. Go eat your feelings in a tub of ice cream or something, instead of bitching to me about it though, because I honestly don’t care if you want to whinge and moan as if only you can discern the truth. Save it for someone that will pander to your childish tantrum.
-6
No reason to throw a fit because you got called out for not knowing anything about what you're talking about
-2
> No reason to throw a fit Can I buy you a mirror?
2
I'm good
1
Feminism is a hate movement
1
Oh damn I never thought about it that way. I'm an anti-feminist now
1
No, you don't understand. He's got a decent grasp of things! he said it himself!
4
This is why I always make the distinction between feminism and neo-feminism. Bonus points because it offends them to be called neo-feminists.
1
Read the Declaration of Sentiments from the Seneca Falls Conference in the mid-1800s. Then define "modern".
2
Feminism was never about equality
7
I got banned from there because I posted the statistics for domestic violence which showed that women instigated the violence at about the same rate as men. Their reason for banning was "no bigotry".
1
Another option for reviewing removed content is your ***Rev***eddit [user page](https://www.reveddit.com/y/O!n!i!-!o!j!i?all=true). The [real-time extension](https://www.reveddit.com/add-ons/direct/) alerts you when a moderator removes your content, and the [linker extension](https://www.reveddit.com/add-ons/linker) provides [buttons](https://i.imgur.com/0BAImPq.png) for viewing removed content. There's also a [shortcut for iOS](https://www.icloud.com/shortcuts/62bc7570613c42cb8b851fad264136df). The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to remove this comment. This bot only operates in authorized subreddits. To support this tool, [post it on your profile](https://old.reddit.com/user/me/submit?title=See+which+comments+of+yours+have+been+removed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reveddit.com%2Fabout%2F) and select ['pin to profile'](https://i.imgur.com/uq9AGMV.png).   [^(F.A.Q.)](https://www.reveddit.com/about/f.a.q./) ^| [^(v/reveddit)](https://www.reveddit.com/v/reveddit/-redirect) ^| [^(support me)](https://www.reveddit.com/about/donate) ^| [^(share)](https://old.reddit.com/user/me/submit?title=See+which+comments+of+yours+have+been+removed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reveddit.com%2Fabout%2F) ^& [^('pin to profile')](https://i.imgur.com/uq9AGMV.png)
1
Did you also post statistics about the severity of injury from women vs men or did you leave that out
1
Of course severity will differ because of strength and size.
1
Why? It wasn't relevant. I was responding to a claim that men are the primary source of domestic violence.
1
Oh it's obviously relevant, though. If something causes something at the same rate, but to less of an extent, that's obviously relevant.
1
No it does not. The claim was men cause the most domestic violence. Statistics show that men and women are about equal in instigating domestic violence. The debate was not about who causes the most injuries. Your argument is equivalent to "men cause the most car accidents" and responding with "drunks cause the most". That might be true, but it has nothing to do with the original claim.
1
But that claim on its own is without meaning. My argument is not equivalent to that at all. My argument would be equivalent to saying (if it were true) that men might cause more accidents, but the accidents are less severe. You need to measure severity as well as incidence when you're measuring stuff or you're not really measuring anything.
1
Severity was not being discussed at all. You debate like a high school freshman. You drag in irrelevant claims and then spend the time arguing that your irrelevant claim means something instead of arguing about the original point.
1
But it's not irrelevant. Can you explain why severity is not relevant?
1
Because we weren't fucking discussing severity, idiot.
1
But you always should be discussing severity. Like, if you're talking about incidence of an illness, the severity matters, right?
1
You just won't let it go. Despite it not having a fucking thing to do with the original discussion, you just keep going on about it. Severity never came up at all until YOU mentioned it months later. It had nothing to do with the discussion. Get that through your pea sized adolescent brain of yours. It had nothing to do with the discussion. How many fucking times does this need to be said? It had nothing to do with the discussion. You are going on my permanent ignore list because you are too fucking stupid to listen to.
1
Not if you're talking about how many infections there are in all and who is more likely to be infected. Then it's about incidence. Your argument is also undermining the entire push against domestic violence because the point isn't severity, the point is that it's crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed, whether with a toe or with the whole body.
1
Here we are again, another femcel screetching that it's their right to physically attack and abuse men.
1
Wow look at what you just made up, pretty fucking weird.
6
boys a quirky-3rd wave feminists are an STD waiting to happen.
5
I think Elon Musk should buy Reddit and the publish all the account information for all the mods. Like if you are a reddit mod I think you should be in some kind of registry so the rest if us know how much of a loser you are.
4
So many butthurt mods and their simps in the comment section.
4
"No reactionaries" - translation: Nobody with opinions I don't like!!!!!! I will ban you for any reason or no reason if you don't agree with all my sexist opinions you sexist homophobic transphobic racist bigot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!! What a cowardly snake of a mod!
2
Wrong. "Reactionary" is a dog whistle for "man expressing his grievances"
3
It's a terrible sub. Just don't go there.
2
Everyone knows about misogyny against women but barely anyone talks about misandry against men
1
Misogyny does not exist. Society is not hostile towards women
1
Have you heard of the Middle East?
2
Sorry but mate guarding is not misogyny and your "whatta bout da middle east" rebuttal is old and useless. Men have it worse than women in every part of the world throughout history. Even children have less rights then women, globally, since they are considered property of women.
2
Welcome to modern sexism. Blatent af, but socially accepted and praised...as long as it's to a man.
1
Has the world collectively lost the information on the difference between woman and women? I swear its more common than they're/there/their misspells.
1
That place is becoming Female Dating Strategy all over again. I had to hide the sub, it got so annoying
1
mods actually respond to those? Been ignored for about a week for a bullshit ban
1
They ban everyone who is opposed to their abusive psychosis? How do I get in on this?
1
Is this the comment that got you banned? I assume it was in reply to someone replying to your alt account (which just commented "shut the fuck up") about your drug use? "Looking at post history is a low blow, even for someone who unironically participates in this subreddit, so please, shut the fuck up bitch"
1
They do understand it , they just don't care / bad faith
1
Just came across the sub for the first time today and found a pretty upvoted comment saying that "guys today would downplay rape cases, or say 'she was asking for it!'" I thought it was pretty jarring, since the wording made it sound like they were trying to say men in general, or all/most men which is obviously sexist. Their following (also pretty upvoted) post talked about how they thought that guys have created a culture that would end society, and how men cheat more than women statistically. They then later (rather aggressively) stated that they had obviously not meant all women, but it could have been worded better IMO. Overall the whole thing just seemed kinda skirting the line of sexism, but aggressively denying it? It was weird.
1
They don't understand very many things
1
Mods love to mute after being questioned lol
1
“No reactionaries” what sort of commie gibberish is that?
1
That’s a way bigger problem than just Reddit.
0
“Equal rights equal fights” is what someone waiting for their chance to hit a woman says. Wack shit.
1
Uh no, it’s a euphemism, of course someone who hasn’t graduated high school wouldn’t know what that is, but I digress If a woman insults a man, a man should be able to insult a woman was my argument. I don’t think words cause physical damage… like at all.
1
You don't think verbal abuse ever escalates to physical abuse? That’s a weird thing to think.
1
But than it wouldn’t be equal, it would be a boy hitting a chick who didn’t throw a punch back, which again; isn’t equal
1
You use “man” like a title, same for “woman.” like the lowly woman dares insult me?! You're clutching pearls right now, grandma. You have the option of being the bigger person, and you're arguing for the vibration to make the more toxic decision to verbally abuse someone. It’s a stupid argument to make. Two wrongs don't make a right.
1
Uhh no not really, i’m saying if someone insults you, you have the right to insult them back, regardless of gender or race. I understand it’s not the bigger thing to do, but it should be something you are allowed to do. Not all of us can be self-sacrificing heroes like yourself.
1
The right? Given by who? Why exercise the right? It makes you petty.
-3
I'd ban you too tbh
7
I probably would also ban myself honestly, but the context was them mocking mentally ill men which pissed me off, so I said some… less than nice things to the degenerates of that sub
-4
>no reactionaries I don’t think you understand what that means based off your reactions.
-6
*"So you imbeciles are allowed to wait for a man with a good job, huge dick, and over 6 feet tall, but men can’t have preferences as well? Nice hypocrisy there"* Is this the comment you were banned over? Because that comment makes it pretty clear you were there in bad faith and in breach of a few of that community's rules. Fucked around, found out.
1
Weird that he never bought up what he said
7
For misandrists, "bad faith" is when someone accurately describes their behavior. 😊
-6
Laughably stupid post