/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I know they hate feminism and stuff but I'm unfamiliar with their concrete demands.

What exactly do they want?

>>585190

>I know they hate feminism and stuff but I'm unfamiliar with their concrete demands.

>What exactly do they want?

This

Define your terms OP, you lazy cocksucking faggot

>>585197

What exactly do you mean? Men's right activism is legit term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement

>What exactly do they want?

That's the whole point. They are scumbags.

>>585210

>It's the opposite end of tumblr feminists

Actually no, "it's the exact same thing" is a much better term.

Feminism for conservatives.

>>585190

A return of 19th century social mores, you know, woman back in the kitchen and queers back in the closet. They're also incredibly pathetic.

>>585188

Identity politics garbage.

>>585191

>men = spook

If you are talking about the gender "man" then yes. But if you are talking about "the set of people who have a penis/XY chromosome" then no, that subset of people exist.

>>585201

this is a shit thread and op should be sure to put down a tarp before he hangs himself so that when his mother finds him the mess will be easy to clean up

I used to watch bane666au and I was thinking that he might get interested in anarchism. Maybe we can set up a discussion with him?

A bunch of whiny degenerates who don't understand that arguing for rights on the base of gender is degenerate. A non-degenerate society would have no need for such rights as gender is a matter of harmonious cooperation for the betterment of civilization rather than the petty squabblings of petulant children. They, too, belong in the ovens.

>>585188

I like them

>>585220

>If you are talking about the gender "man" then yes. But if you are talking about "the set of people who have a penis/XY chromosome" then no, that subset of people exist.

Show me Man. Go on. Point to him.

Men, as a genetic sex, exist. Men, as a concept to further, do not. Same principle with Humanity.

>>585235

You belong in a gulag nazi scum.

Silly idpol movement with all the same problems as feminism. Not nearly the boogeymen feminists make them out to be, but their theory is fatally flawed.

If they want to solve male homelessness, job deaths, and conscription, the door to the left is open. :)

Are we talking about "mens rights" or mens rights?

Because like womens rights, i support mens rights, because they are just rights, but i dont support "womens rights".

>>585337

Keynesianism is not about lobbying, and it is working just fine in back here in fenno-scandinavian countries.

>>585386

The US is the richest country on earth, and most of are states are larger than those countries, so that's not surprising.

>>585386

Still we beated you in PISA testing just fine.

So does it matter really how large our GDP is, if our healthcare,education and job market are top notch at this fine year?

Fact that you need to have secondary level education completed to find a job just shows that we are not some developing world economy.

>>585386

>>585396

And despite being wealthy, america is still a horrible shithole where the poor live in third world conditions. I'll think I'll keep my welfare state thanks.

>>585399

>PISA

We have way more niggers and spics than you, so lets do this by race:

http://isteve.blogspot.se/2013/12/overall-pisa-rankings-include-america.html

(Reading, Science, Math, Mean)

Finland: 524 545 519 529

White Americans:519 528 506 518

Sweden:483 485 478 482

Denmark: 496 498 500 498

Norway:504 495 489 496

Only Finland is higher than white Americans. Probably just a coincidence that it has the lowest number of muds.

>Fact that you need to have secondary level education completed to find a job just shows that we are not some developing world economy.

How so?

>>585405

>And despite being wealthy, america is still a horrible shithole where the poor live in third world conditions. I'll think I'll keep my welfare state thanks.

>implying your mudslimes don't live in squalor

>>585188

Dunno, feminists made sure none of the things they are involved in reaches the public.

So I have literally no opinion about them.

>>585210

>They also fall into the trap of evaluating their "liberation" by the goods they consume

I'm sure you're talking about Pick-Up Artists here. From my readings of the Manosphere there's been disputes between them and other branches of it (which includes MRAs) for how to handle sex, dating, and marriage. Both Men Going Their Own Way and MRAs from my readings are more suspcious of dating with marriage than PUAs like Rollo and Traditionalists like Vox Day. I would compare the disputes with the feminist sex wars.

>>585188

Mislead men who suffered patriarchy on their skin (yes, men suffer it too) in the best cases; women haters in the worst cases.

Also this >>585191

>>585412

My old neighbourhood had plenty of muslims and africans, it was a working class area but a pretty decent place on the whole. The only people i had any trouble with were white trash junkies and other lumpen scum.

Then again i live in australia, things might be different here i guess.

>>585429

>muh idpol or it´s a spook

The irony

>>585435

>I was in America once. Your white trash is as dumb as the niggers I met there. Dumb and incredibly rude.

By Finnish standards I imagine that means they said hello to you, but rude or not, poor white Americans are less likely to engage in criminal behavior than poor blacks or hispanics.

>>585442

>By Finnish standards I imagine that means they said hello to you

>poor white Americans are less likely to engage in criminal behavior than poor blacks or hispanics

Ok, I see where this is coming from.

They have some valid points (lack of men's domestic abuse awareness, men's rape awareness, overly protective nature of society towards women and the way feminists use that when it's convenient to them and decry it when it's not) but their overall worldview that Western Society is a "matriarchy" is just downright retarded. Most MRAs I've met are the mirror image of the very radical feminists they hate so much, they believe in the same spooky conspiracy and are just as over-emotional and reliant on bad information as feminists.

>>585442

So whites are more likely to respect property and the rule of law? Are you implying white people are spooked? 'Cause that's what it looks like.

>>585461

Sorry for being ignorant to American culture.

Didn't knew that taking my mobile while I was calling someone was the American way of saying "hello".

>>585487

As long as we're in agreement that genetics play a role.

>>585495

>Didn't knew that taking my mobile while I was calling someone was the American way of saying "hello".

So you got robbed by white trash?

>>585497

Yes, or "pranked" as they call it there.

>>585497

Yes, or "pranked" as they call it there.

I'm pretty sure MRAs don't actually believe the shit they complain about. The whole movement is a rhetorical device to bait feminists into revealing their reactionary sides. Which they always do.

>>585188

>>>/pol/

>>585531

Idpol is reactionary so that's no surprise.

idpol trash

>>585549

/pol/ doesn't like men's rights activist. MRAs view racism is a mainfestation of society's hatred of men. The believe that adolescent boys are the primary vicitms of the war and the middle east and want the west to give sanctuary for the the young men that /pol/ calls rapeuges. They're just bizzaro feminists.

>>585261

good post

>>585563

Please leave, autist

>>585571

Stop being so triggered fam.

>>585579

Men's rights is literally the most autistic thing I can think of.

>>585584

It's no more autistic than women's rights.

>>585586

>Posting Benatar

Love you anon. Marry me. Then we can not have children together.

>>585598

It's a hell of a lot more, actually.

>>585603

This. Pretending that men are somehow oppressed is beyond absurd.

>>585628

What a great way to refute an argument.

>>585623

Neither are women if you're going down that road. Or is Hillary Clinton more oppressed than every homeless man, every male immigrant, every male rural worker?

>>585623

MRAs can at least point to real ways that men are discrimated againsts in modern western society. Retards like you are the reason why they had to from their own movement. Society oppresses men and women in unique ways ,you female chauvinist. If you can look at the way men are treated in schools and the judicial system and think its okay. Then you are genuinely a sexist.

>>585630

You didn't argue anything you just insulted all men's rights acitivst and then screamed with no evidence that men don't face any kinds of problems in society.

>>585636

I wouldn't be surprised if you genuinely had a disorder on the autism spectrum.

>>585638

Calling someone autistic. Why you speg out like an enraged middle schooler really doesn't help your position or support your argument. You're just revealing yourself to be an immature bigot.

>>585638

Tell me how men as a group aren't oppressed but women are. Don't bring up petit-bourgeoisie issues like catcalling or the gender wage gap.

>>585638

Oh and I'm not an MRA. MRAs are usually huge class cucks and idpolers. I also don't think gynocentrism is anymore valid then patriarchy theory.They don't want to attack the base and just try to fix the superstructure. Destroy capitalism and you get rid of the base that causes these issues in the first place. Same opinion I have on feminism.

>>585235

This is probably one of the first times that I'm agreeing with a Nazi.

Fuck MRAs. They're absolute shit. They're a bunch of whiny losers who want a piece of the oppression pie.

>>585966

>on feminism

>/leftypol/: IT'S ABSOLUTE SHIT IDPOL IDPOL ALL OF IT IS IDPOL GET OUT LIBERAL SJWS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>on MRA

>/leftypol/: Well it's sorta IdPol but they make some good points I mean men are oppressed too rite guys

Fucking kill yourself and stop following me around. Your personal vendetta against me is starting to get old and pathetic.

>>585742

If you're agreeing with a Nazi you should really consider reevaluating your position. Its funny that you talk about oppression Olympics assuming you are who I think you are.

>>585974

>If you're agreeing with a Nazi you should really consider reevaluating your position.

But it's okay for /leftypol/ to agree with /pol/ when it's about a particular issue like muh free speech or AntiFa hate, right? :^)

Obviously Nazism has no stance on MRA bullshit to begin with, and is itself identity politics par excellence. But if someone states that MRA is complete fucking shit, I will agree with that position even if the person happens to be a Nazi. Because such a statement is correct.

>>585973

leftypol is not one person. There may be a few people on here who feel that way about feminism but from what Ive seen most people on here don't just write everything feminism has to say. hell, we even have a feminist reading list.

>>585429

"Patriarchy" is far more of a spook than either "men" or "rights".

As a general rule I don't support any organisations in western countries which prioritise one gender over another.

>>586003

Feminism is entirely bullshit in western nations. You have to go back decades to find any notable feminists who weren't authoritarian bigots and gender supremacists.

MRA is bullshit too, but the only time I hear about it is when feminists are using the term as an insult. It's the same reason you hear far fewer complaints about door-to-door Buddhist preachers than you do about door-to-door Mormon preachers. They'd both be annoying as fuck, but I've never had a Buddhist knock on my door and try to convert me.

>>586003

I don't know what board you've been going to, but just try to have a rational discussion about feminism on here and you'll see what I'm talking about.

>>585999

>>585973

It is idpol. I've said in the thread that they don't attack the base and are fixated on the superstructure and that they're too classcucked and I said that gynocentrsm was spooky shit just like patriarchy. Also, I'm not following you around. I don't think I've talked to you in days maybe even a week. I think that maybe you replied to something I said about no fap.I don't think I even bothered to reply back. I don't have a "vendetta" againsts you. I don't even particularly dislike you. Your jimmies rustle so easy it's hard to even take you seriously tbh.Get over yourself. The only thing I know is that you have a huge victim complex.

>>585974

>If a Nazi says the sky is blue, it no longer is.

It's literally SJW activism for men, in practice. AVFM just sucks donation money out of gullible virgins

>>586041

Wait nevermind. I made a comment about gamergate that you replied to yesterday and I replied said I wasn't interested in arguing with you about it or derailing the thread. That's about it I'm pretty sure and you initiated contact both times not me.

>>586049

Fair point I was thinking more of the Nazi in this thread. I shouldn't have been so general.

>>586058

You do know that the nihilist flag is publicly available and that not everyone who uses it is me, right? Because I didn't make either of those posts.

>>586063

Oh okay then we haven't interacted at all in weeks then. Stop being so paranoid /grim/. I'm not the bogeymen that's making people on leftypol dislike you. You should cool down fam . I liked you better when you organized movie nights and posted skeletons.

>>585191

>There's no such thing as Men, just individual men. There's no such thing as rights, either. So the whole thing's idpol shit, just as much as Women's rights.

Yeah, you can generalise because everyone is a super-special ickle individual.

Peak individualism.

Pure ideology.

>>585191

See, everyone, how liberal individualism proceeds nicely into postmodernism.

>>585191

"ZOMG you sinner! Don't generalise that's opwessive!"

>>585973

>>585742

If men as a group aren't oppressed then neither are women.

Name a single capitalist nation where women as a group are oppressed but men aren't. Don't ignore class.

>>585600

Ok, darling, but how about adoption?

>>585631

>>586200

>>585212

As I understand it most actually aren't conservative.

>men

>rights

OP I think you have some unchecked muh privilege

>>586255

I've lurked in MRA forums for a while now and this is correct, most are not conservatives. "Liberal", in economic and social terms, is what I'd use to describe the majority there.

Most MRAs and people who follow the movement are just average, working class men who are sick of being screwed (and women who are sick of being treated like glass and of seeing their male loved ones fucked over). Many have particular, personal experiences in the family courts or with other government/corporate organs which seem to have a bias toward females. These form the core. But many more others have a more general feeling that SOMETHING is wrong but don't really know what and it just happened that some froth-mouthed feminist or SJW was the one who told them to sit down and shut their male patriarchal oppressor mouth and let some wealthy, pampered white woman talk.

Lolberts have recognised this and are there very actively and successfully recruiting. This has been dialed way up for the US elections. They are capitalising hugely on the fact that most of the crazy shit that these guys are rejecting comes from groups that are ostensibly on "the left".

But the rightward shift going on there at the moment is a huge opportunity for exactly the kind of material based leftism that /leftypol/ espouses. The people there who vaguely consider themselves "left-leaning" or "liberals" in the burgerland sense are increasingly becoming dissatisfied with the rightward shift and uptick in lolbert propaganda.

I was one of these people - hanging around MRAs pushed me back leftward after a decade of liberal apathy because I started to see the problems as part of a bigger picture of a broken economic system. There is a whole subset there who recognise that feminism is a commercial industry now and that it is all about building wealth for the "leaders" and keeping people divided over trivialities to sell them shit.

These people are SO CLOSE to class consciousness and they are being abandoned by the movement at large in favour of right-libertarian garbage, it would be a waste to just let them fall in line because "the left" has nothing to offer but bourgeois college kids pissing on about Holocausts and sexist air conditioning.

>>586573

Good post. The "left" will have to get used to people who favor real gender equality, and that starts with us calling out feminists who only want to advance their own causes at the expense of men. (I can not but recommend this book again >>585586 )

What attracted you to MRAs in the first place? What was the point where you got disenchanted?

>>586725

What posts are you talking about? Point to them! Seriously.

>>586738

Which ones?

These are some that actually attempt to discuss the topic.

>>585261

>>585586

Especially this one >>586573

>These people are SO CLOSE to class consciousness

I'm starting to think I should try to bridge the gap between leftism and the MRM because their ability to see through idpol bullshit (that frankly a lot of /leftypol/ still needs to get over, see the massive amount of shit ITT) makes them great targets for a good redpilling.

>>586763

I've read your posts 3-4 times and I honestly don't understand what you are saying.

>>586573

Part of the problem with the MRM is that there are too few "thought leaders" and most of them have spent more time examining politics as it exists rather than theory. This is why the most prominent MRAs have given up on the left and will spout lolbert garbage. If it can be fixed, the way is probably for the movement to get actual leftists involved who can start putting MRA content (which by now is pretty extensive) into the context of class.

>>586770

I have only made this post and these two, anon.

>>586725

>>586763

I have no idea what you don't understand. I was annoyed that most of the thread was "MRAs are ebul woman hater neckbears, *tips m'fedora*" and some shit about race. MRAs raise a lot of important points but are limited by perspective.

>>586640

>What attracted you to MRAs in the first place? What was the point where you got disenchanted?

Keeping in mind that I never considered myself an "activist", just an interested and sympathetic observer, it was pretty much IRL feminists who pushed me to investigate them.

Some mainstream feminist statistics and concepts like "1 in 5" or "rape culture"/"patriarchy" stink to high heaven straight off the bat. When I (who still considered himself a feminist at that time) questioned it, among all the other insults hurled my way was "you sound like an MRA". So off I went to see what the fuck an MRA is.

That's it really, I checked them out, found they were nothing like their most strident critics described - the vast majority are not traditionalists or chauvinists - many are more radical about dismantling prescribed gender roles than are their feminist counterparts. They can be abrasive but their data is usually solid and well researched.

No single thing disillusioned me, but it was really the just the steady pace at which it was all being gobbled up into a contrived "culture war" which all feels very porky. The same shit that presumably happened with feminism and the same shit I actively observed in the gay rights movement (since I'm a huge homo, but became totally alienated from the movement that claimed to speak for me).

lel sorry for the blog post

>>586763

>I'm starting to think I should try to bridge the gap between leftism and the MRM because their ability to see through idpol bullshit (that frankly a lot of /leftypol/ still needs to get over, see the massive amount of shit ITT) makes them great targets for a good redpilling

Do it. Like I said, some of these guys are already 90% there, they hate idpol but see no other option to resist it than to fight fire with fire. And Comrade Sanders has helped make "socialism" much less of a dirty word. They just need someone to help them join the dots and show them that Leftist politics is not all tumblr-tier identity shit and muh privilege checking. That's all I needed.

I try where I can but I'm not much of a propagandist and I am a only single voice right now in a sea of lolbert vomit.

>>586883

>Do it.

Alright. I already wanted to put out youtube videos, but I was thinking more along the lines of rationalism/skepticism in general. This is a much better angle though. I already know I can stomach Stefan Molyneux so I can probably handle the lolbert shit.

>Keeping in mind that I never considered myself an "activist", just an interested and sympathetic observer, it was pretty much IRL feminists who pushed me to investigate them.

That's funny. I'm the same (although the A can also mean "advocate" which then covers a lot more people). A feminist mentioned MRAs to me and I was like "lol what? what do they want?" and she started spouting fedora memes, which I immediately saw through having been an atheist for a while at the time.

>>586883

>lel sorry for the blog post

No, you did good. There's a difference in sharing useful experience and gobbling your own cock on public display.

Anyway…

One of the problems I see with MRA off the bat is that the name indicates that it's rights based, that is it would try modifying legislation and institutions in their own favor. This is OK as long as they are trying to undo the sexist agenda pushed by some feminists (Swedish rape laws, for example, hurting everybody regardless of gender, or the ridiculous court practices around divorce globally) but on the long run there'd be no guarantee for it not turning into another strictly reformist group, and eventually another idpol sect, caring only for the betterment of treatment for the group even at the cost of other.

idk, I might be wrong because history isn't going that way, but the main problem with gender, imo, is that you can never "get it right," so I see this chance of endless politicization around gender, back and forth MRA vs feminist battles, instead of its abolishment. If it is true that somehow MRAs are not (or not yet) full-blown idpol this could be a critical point of intervention.

Even in this rights-based framework gender neutral proposals could be more "progressive" than male/female agendas. One example would be a law (forgot which country) that put a minimum 30% limit on any genders being represented in parliament.

(I'm brainstorming, mostly.)

>>585426

It's basically the same thing: make young men with sexual hangups feel abnormal and repressed by some agenda, get them on board an imaginary "movement", and when they're in deep enough, whip out the PayPal donation button.

It's exactly the same as Tumblr wymyn demanding money to get past their "hardships".

It's also just as shamelessly repugnant, i.e. when they tried to hijack a domestic violence charity's website with a similar domain and pocketed the donations.

>>585426

Aren't you confusing RPT (Red Pill Theory) with MRA?

Eeeehh…

The perspective as a basis of political action and understanding is fundamentally flawed. Radfems vs MRAs is an idpol clusterfuck that will get us nowhere.

But as someone from the area, this video really bugged me, and I'd be lying if I said it didn't make me more sympathetic.

Its some academic (apparently the former leader of a woman's rights group for years) speaking at the Uof T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

After watching it, I sought out the a video of the lecture taking place inside and I simply cannot understand how it could have garnered such hostility.

Overall, (at least in this case) it just seems like energies could be better spent fighting actual injustice.

>>587004

That's Warren Farrell, who is one of the most softly spoken, reasonable people involved in the whole thing.

His book 'The Myth of Male Power' is actually a really good read. He outlines the broad history of gender relations, what he thinks feminism got/is getting right and where he thinks it's going wrong and outlines his vision for a men's movement. It largely focuses on breaking down barriers, demystifying stereotypes and advocating for men to abandon their gender roles as women have done over the last 50 years in the West.

It's a great read, even quite apart from what you may or may not think of the modern men's movement.

>>585742

>They're a bunch of whiny losers who want a piece of the oppression pie.

And first world feminists aren't?

>>586094

>>586096

Newfags need to lurk more before they spread their shit all over our nice board.>>586096

>>585742

>This is probably one of the first times that I'm agreeing with a Nazi.

Would you agree with him if he said the same about feminism? Because everything you and him said about MRAs applies just as much to feminists.

>>585220

This is why when I say he or she, I refer to their sex based on the genitalia they are likely to have, rather than their "gender" which from what I can tell, is one's relationship to their junk.

Reactionary idpol toward femninism combined with liberal bullshit. Seems to fit in well with the internet.

>>585188

For me it was more depressing to see how much damage had been wrought by a lot of the extremist branches of feminism.

Seeing even self-described moderate feminists who nominally talk gender equality and promoting both men and women descend into tirades of "Man up, woman hater" to MGTOW (who are sometimes in that movement because of past experiences) is rather disheartening.

>>585261

This post right here. The issues at hand are often conflated with the people who claim to be activists for them.

In any push for gender equality, the rights for both Women and Men have to be given a fair shake equally. I don't understand where modern feminists believe that they have the monopoly on gender equality issues and act like it's about the people, not the policy.

This all however being greatly eclipsed by matters of class and wealth disparity.

>>585261

>>585586

Most of these issues are a byproduct of the imaginary gender roles that Western capitalism ass-pulled for us when it was convenient. Treating social inequalities as hiccups in an otherwise ideal social order is the utter bullshit that we're trying to fight to begin with. Teaching bias, for example, is because most teachers are women, which has obvious implications in cognitive bias, with teaching being a gender-stereotyped profession regulated by the capitalist market.

Plus, it's not like it doesn't make some sense sometimes. In the case of workplace deaths, men just have more upper body strength. It's not the same thing as race or sexual orientation, sexual dimorphism in humans does have some meaningful aspects. The only way we'll ever solve this is with propagation of mechanized labor. Similarly, male genital mutilation is just way less invasive than in females. Being circumcised is an inconvenience; if you're female, it's gruesome. It should not be done regardless, but the point still stands.

Ultimately, societal double standards are consciously enforced by the people who own the means of production, and people in general do not really disapprove of them, as they do not disapprove of capitalist society. Men call each other beta faggots and women call each other sluts.

So try to recruit the MRA crowd if you like, but these people are hardcore lolbertards for a reason: even people who oppose gender biases tend to believe them as well. Look at the feminazis, they fucking love the idea of women being frail idiots that need to be pampered. They just want to be told they're not frail while they get it. Chances are, well get a mutation of the SJW virus where we need to have a "serious talk" about more idpol bullshit every time we try to organize.

>>587318

> Being circumcised is an inconvenience

Educate yourself

>>587318

>Similarly, male genital mutilation is just way less invasive than in females. Being circumcised is an inconvenience; if you're female, it's gruesome. It should not be done regardless, but the point still stands.

That depends on where it's done, in some places fgm is a symbolic nick of the clitoris or hood which makes that version even less invasive than the male circumcision

>>586786

> I was annoyed that most of the thread was "MRAs are ebul woman hater neckbears, *tips m'fedora*" and some shit about race. MRAs raise a lot of important points but are limited by perspective.

it's almost like it's a bait thread or something

>>587318

>it's okay to fuck up people's bodies without their consent because it's just "an inconvenience"

Nigger if I fucking chop off one of your little toes it won't really affect your balance or how well you can walk, it's just an inconvenience.

You okay with me doing that to you?

>>587322

Can you masturbate without lubrication?

>>587422

Not him, but it's definitely not advised.

Not all male circumcisions are performed qualitatively. Depending how and when you've had your foreskin lopped off, you can experience painful erections, orgasms and have a hugely subtracted sensitivity threshold. Imagine sex where you never manage to climax.

Not that this is the fucking point though.

>>587424

I can't wait to hear how circumcision is porky's fault. It's literally a practice invented by kikes.

>>587458

Circumcision pre-dates porky.

>>587508

>>587458

Most circumcision in the US is thanks to this utter faggot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention

>>587740

>>587744

>Porky literally caused sexuality to be fucked up in US

Fuck this gay earth.

>>587322

kek, of course every reply is about the circumcision

>>587330

It varies, but in men it's usually the exact same thing, and in rare cases is even opted for by adults if they have extreme phimosis. The exception is that fucked up Jewish thing that's drastically gone down in popularity among the Jewish community because sanitation.

>>587420

>It should not be done regardless, but the point still stands.

Does castration anxiety give you a learning disability?

When I started at university I became a liberal. But I always felt uncomfortable with the feminist orthodoxy being taught in my classes (politics major).

I looked into gender studies too see if there were alternative views. I found a mixture of alternative feminist views and people who claimed to want equality of the sexes from a male perspective. At first that seemed pretty good. Then I saw that so many calling themselves mens right activists were really just anti-female. Not just anti-feminist, but straight up woman hater. For this reason I despise these people. Not only do I oppose hatred of women, I'm also bothered that they make anyone who is opposed to mainstream modern feminism look like some bitter neckbeard who hates women. Good fucking job.

>>587893

Body mutilation is never okay. I can't believe anyone can try to use mental gymnastics to justify the barbaric practice of chopping off a piece of a child's sec organ when he's unable to make decisions for himself. Its inhumane and iredeemable.

>>587919

You're talking about PUA and redpillers not MRAs. MRAs don't hate women read the book Freud poster uploaded >>585586 and read this post >>585261.

>>587941

>It should not be done regardless, but the point still stands.

>Men's rights activists

Scumbags all of them

>>587944

Most people calling themselves MRAs seem to be the same thing, like how most modern self-described feminists are just general SJWs.

At most I've seen AVFM posts about how the feminazis are literally Hitler and ruin everything, especially from that Erin Pizzey woman that started a sexist organization and seemingly thinks it's not her fault.

>>587948

You didn't refute that guy. You just insulted him. And you're doing the samething again. You just look like a disingenuous asshole really doesn't help you in anyway.

>>587953

What exactly do you think MRAs are?

>>587955

A voice for men was taken over by powerful libertarian lobby groups. The founder and most of the original writers have left along time ago. There isn't really a central hub for men's rights anymore is far is I'm aware.

>>587948

>>587893

>It should not be done regardless, but the point still stands.

Your "point" that you're claiming still stands is that you consider involuntary bodily mutilation an "inconvenience" and nothing more.

>>587961

Overpivileged class cucks who can't get laid.

>>587961

What the fuck do you want me to say? I already fucking said kids shouldn't get circumcised. I don't know what you want from me.

>>587953

Unlike feminists who are totally not idpol reactionaries.

>>587961

>>587964

Maybe even young lover class porkies.

>>587966

Maybe try talking about it using words that properly convey the potentially life-altering violation of someone's body it is and not words that would be more appropriate to describing someone's poor driving habits.

>>587979

So you're saying I should be politically correct. On Leftist Politically Incorrect.

>>587961

>A voice for men was taken over by powerful libertarian lobby groups. The founder and most of the original writers have left along time ago. There isn't really a central hub for men's rights anymore is far is I'm aware.

The last part is probably true, but doesn't Elam still run the site? He personally asked for donations all the time while doing nothing with the site (or his life).

>>587964

Classcuck is fair assessment but the other part of your post is immature and ignorant. MRAs aren't PUAs or redpillers. They have no interst in policing women's lived and the majority of them are opposed to traditionalism and conservatism. They're only looking to help men in areas they're disadvantaged like education and the legal system.

>>587966

Nothing. I misread your post.

>>587981

You have no clue what that term means do you?

>>587985

>disadvantaged

>like education

>>587984

I should have said co-founder. The other founder of a voice for men was left leaning and tried to stop the spread of right wing elements on the site but was forced out.

>>587990

Yes like education sounds like you're remarkably ignorant. I invite you to go look at the book Freud poster uploaded that I linked to in my previous post. I understand being opposed to MRAs for being classcucks and faling to attack the base but they bring up plenty of legitimate points.

>>585217

no they don't you fucking retard. >>>/tumblr/

>>585261

this

>>585388

you serious? SocDem is stagnant as fuck. One of the main reasons medical costs are so high in the US is because they do most of the research.

>>585405

>I'll think I'll keep my welfare state thanks

I'm afraid I can't let you do that.

Both MRAs and Feminists are a product of Capitalist Individualism and they both are contributing for the end of the nuclear family and as a consequence, media promoted education. Porky's behind it all.

There was a Vsauce video about how we have much fewer friends and spend much less time with them than we did before, I can't find it.

>>587984

Elam is just an opportunist. He saw the lolberts as an easy market to grab for more advertising dosh so he took a hard right turn with the site.

I support mens rights

>>588056

u musoggynist

>Similarly, male genital mutilation is just way less invasive than in females. Being circumcised is an inconvenience; if you're female, it's gruesome.

You have been lied to by feminist idpol, m8.

There's many different types of FGM. The kind people like to mention is just the worst and is not that common. Many forms of FGM are inarguably less severe than standard MGM. Some are arguably harmless in the long run. [1] There's also a category that's not even listed here because it's not really mutilation. Call it type 0. In type 0, it's just a cut or pinprick made on or near the genitals - enough to draw blood.

On top of this, the foreskin is basically the male equivalent of the clitoris when it comes to nervous tissue. People like to compare the glans to the clitoris, but it's only a physical analog. The nerves are in the foreskin. [2] This has been known for a very long time; it is often cited as the purpose of the procedure. The whole point is to reduce sexual function/pleasure as much as possible without stopping the man from being fertile. [3]

On top of all of the above, the foreskin has many functions that most people don't even know about because sexual education is shit especially in the US. Some of these functions relate directly to female pleasure during sex. [4]

[1] http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/

[2] http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/

[3]http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=32

[4] http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

>>587986

You're literally getting offended by my choice of language.

It's not like it being less bad makes it less unethical.

>>587984

Never mind the cofounder thing I said here >>587991. I looked it up and I was actually thinking of the editor and chief that was kicked off for not towing the neocon agenda that Elam starting shilling for thanks to his libertarian buddies. Here's an example of the libertarian influence one former writer noticed. www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH8JCcqz1jE

some of their demands make sense, but all the idpol makes me cringe.

>>588127

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Type_of_FGM

Most affected women experience one of the "cut, some fleshed removed" procedures, which embrace WHO Types I and II.[42] Types I and II are both performed in Egypt.[n 14] Mackie wrote in 2003 that Type II was more common there,[112] while a 2011 study identified Type I as more common.[113] In Nigeria Type I is usually found in the south and the more severe forms in the north.[114]

Yes, FGM is just worse. There is nothing sexist against men about this fact. There is nothing that justifies circumcision in this fact. There is no reason to pretend apples are oranges. If anything an SJW would defend the act because muh precious PoC culture even though said "PoC" women don't seem to like it.

There is also the fact that circumcised men don't exactly seem to take no pleasure from sexual activity. If anything, the fact that uncut men are more sensitive is something they need to be told to know there is a difference. Everyone knows that the foreskin has functions, but like circumcision used to have, the medical differences have become much less in modern times. A lot of the problems related to circumcision can be fixed by not letting your cock get all dry, just like being uncut requires some diligence to keep dick cheese out.

The function of reducing sexual pleasure is also a secondary effect that retarded puritans tried to exploit, not the original intent, which was for hygiene in ancient times. It was a quick and convenient hack that didn't actually keep males from enjoying sexual pleasure, because retarded puritans.

If it bugs you too much, you can also get a male circumcision fixed with foreskin restoration. Reversing FGM is not so cut and dry (lel).

One could argue from a purely Western standpoint here, but it is not uncommon for culturally reactionary types to visit non-Western nations to have the procedures done: http://abcnews.go.com/US/fullpage/underground-america-female-genital-mutilation-undergroundfgm-31808869

Though judging by your formatting you probably assume anyone who doesn't care as much as you do is a moron that doesn't know basic human biology so I'm probably typing at a brick wall

>>588165

Yes ear piercings without permission are invasion of privacy. There is no justification for performing none life saving procedures on a human being that isn't mentally capable of consenting too. Especially circumision that is both unnessecary and can have terrible effects on a man's sexual health. There is absolutely no way to support such an awful procedure.

I'll point out that FGM isn't strictly an issue of men abusing women. Looking at Somalia, which has the highest global prevalence of FGM a significant amount of them are arranged by women. One example being Ayaan Hirsi Ali's grandmother.

>>588176

>Invasion of privacy

>by parents

>sexual heath

>Implying people can't be celibate and healthy.

I remember several threads on 4/b/ where cutfags would go on about how whole dicks look like moles and girls didn't like them, if it had such terrible effects it wouldn't be a common practice.

It's an unnecessary procedure but not a harmful one, who the fuck are you to tell others how to raise their kids?

>>588176

>my 7 year old daughter needs braces for some early correction

>YOU MONSTER THIS IS JUST LIKE DESTROYING HER UNDEVELOPED REPRODUCTIVE PARTS

>>588181

This may shock you, but not everyone who thinks FGM is abhorrent is a feminazi.

>>588195

correction is a procedure meant to adjust the child to aesthetic standards, same as circumcision.

>>588175

>If it bugs you too much, you can also get a male circumcision fixed with foreskin restoration.

Do you miss the part were nerves were mentioned? Those don't grow back. My guess is you're a typical cut yank who has no idea about the sensation he's lost.

Also to "keep dick cheese out": Retract foreskin while washing. That's it.

>>588195

Braces are used to correct an issue that can lead to problems later in life genital mutilation is the exact opposite. Its unnessary unhealthy procedure that can lead to problems later in life.

>>588191

It is a harmful procedure. It removes nervess and drys out the glands and can lead to a variety of negative issues relating to dryness and lack of lubrication. Its why the practice is banned in some many countires outside of back water shit holes like the U.S by your same logic neoliberalism is fine because no one bothers to do anything about it. I mean free markets can't be that bad why would all these people support them? The exact kind of awful logic you'd expect from a tankie.

>>588223

I'm not your average tankie.

Comparing a political position to a social practice makes no sense.

You can't simply ban something that's been part of culture and religion for thousands of years.

muh progress has as much value as muh tradition.

>>588135

>choice of language is now political correctness

>>588260

>we need to keep pointlessly mutilating people because muh cultur n heridage

>>588260

> What are you talking about slavery has been part of our society for generations.

Stop being so spooked tankie. Fuck tradition. That's just a spook porky uses to have us fuck each other over.

>>588191

>if it had such terrible effects it wouldn't be a common practice

Oh so FGM is fine by you? Because it's a common practice.

>>588175

There are no good stats (that I'm aware of) on the prevalence of FGM because there are so many groups with conflicting interests involved in getting that information. It's so bad that there was a case in Britain where a study counted women with genital piercings as victims of FGM.

>There is also the fact that circumcised men don't exactly seem to take no pleasure from sexual activity.

This also applies to mutilated women at some degrees, including types I and II which don't make sex outright painful. The clitoris is part of a larger internal sensory structure [1] (which you would know if you knew anything at all about sexual anatomy). Women benefit greatly from clitoral stimulation when it comes to sexual pleasure but the entire vagina provides sexual stimulation as well. The G spot is also on the inside, possibly part of the structure that includes the clitoris. [2]

>Though judging by your formatting

Meaning what exactly? That I made sure the information was well organized?

>you probably assume anyone who doesn't care as much as you do is a moron that doesn't know basic human biology

Most people who understand the biology involved here come to similar conclusions. You have demonstrated a lack of anatomical understanding as I explained above.

>so I'm probably typing at a brick wall

No, you're talking to someone who's swayed by empirical evidence, of which you have provided none, aside from a wikipedia article on a subject that has notoriously bad data. None of what you posted provided a counterpoint to my main argument - that the idea of FGM being inherently worse or "apples and oranges," as you say, is unreasonable. Go ahead and tell yourself that talking to me was an exercise in futility if it makes you feel better. I'm here to bring my understanding and listen to others' in the hopes that we both might learn something.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris#Glans_and_body

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-spot#Vagina_and_clitoris

They want men's rights, that should be obvious.

It's just more bourg idpol, harmful to the workers and ultimately reactionary

My experience with MRA's is that they are mostly anti-feminists who pay lip service too Male Rights issues but in reality don't actually give really any fucks about it and will just use it to bash feminists while pretending Feminists don't care about male rights issues (which they do btw).

I've posted on and lurked pretty on MRA communities, 99% of the discussions are about bitching about women and feminists.

There are real male gender activists, (Fathers rights movement etc), but they generally wouldn't be caught dead with the MRA movement and actually are more closely tied too Feminists.

In fact, Feminists and Fathers Rights made huge headway in the UK a few months back and I thought MRA's would be interested in it… on the several boards I viewed, not a single mention of it at all.

Also the male rights gender theory (Gynocentrism) is so fucking ahistorical and reactionary it's laughable anybody is actually deluded enough too believe it.

>>588191

>if it had such terrible effects it wouldn't be a common practice.

Shit-tier argument.

Kill yourself, tankie.

>>585487

>Finns

>not Asiatic

top kek

>>589086

Except they do, in fact the only people I've seriously heard speak about male rights issues in the media are Feminists.

I remember one debate on the radio they had with a female MRA vs a Feminist and the female MRA basically just spouted Redpill reactionary bullshit non-stop.

Feminists care about male issues because it all comes under Patriarchy. Males are hurt by Patriarchy because of the ideals of masculinity hurt men that fall outside those ideals. This is why for example, fathers are discriminated against because in our social structure it's assumed women will look after kids while males will work. It wasn't women who made this system, it's a system that was made by men, for men who hold power.

David Benatar believes in patriarchy and believes MRA's are a bunch of pieces of shit in his interviews.

>>589114

>Feminists care about male issues because it all comes under Patriarchy.

Not the ones I've encountered.

Everything you've written is just a complete distortion of reality where you try to blame everything bad in the world on men. If you swap male and female in your post, you'd fit right into those redpill groups you so despise.

Both MRAs and feminists almost universally misunderstand basic facts about the world. Just look at how you talk about "men" and "women" as if they were monolithic entities not comprised of individuals. For all that I hear feminists describe gender as a social construct, they fundamentally fail to draw the most obvious and important conclusion from that statement: The fact that it is more important to increase average human happiness than it is to try to equalise suffering between genders.

I cannot honestly describe feminism as progressive because it is entirely constructed around one of the oldest flaws in human reasoning - the tendency to categorise things and then treat those categories as objects just as real as the components they are comprised of. It's precisely the same flawed reasoning which leads to racism and sexism. "The entire category must be bad because my experiences with an individual member of that category have been bad."

In short, you represent a large proportion of things that are wrong with the human species, and I hope that as soon as we develop sufficiently sophisticated genetic engineering technology we fix the psychological flaws in our species which warp your view of the world.

>>589114

The majority of feminist don't treat men's rights issues as serious issues look at the ignorant mongs that are referring to anyone that cares about men's rights as scumbags that can't get laid. Gynocentrsm is ahistorical is patriarchy theory is. They both spooky is fuck. Men's rights and feminist groups both face the same problem. The people that actually care about helping gender relations and that aren't just women/man haters are forced out or ridiculed. Most of these idpolers have zero interest in solving the issues they talk about. I don't know why you think the majority of Femnisit work with fathers rights groups. Erin pizzey started some of the first domestic abuse shelters in Europe but was violently threatened by feminists when she tried to start a male one. Unlike MRAs , feminist have a large record of deliberately sabotaging and undermining efforts to helpen in areas where they're disadvantaged.

>>589370

>Don't you see the answer to idpol that divides the working class is more idpol

Kill yourself classcuck. No one in this thread even hinted to anything remotely related to Jews. Not a single post in this thread outside of the ones by the actual Nazi and the proto-nazi tankies could ever be used to reach that illogical conclusion.

>>589390

jews have been hoarding wealth since forever because of Usury, also they weren't allowed to own land so they became bankers and merchants.

"The Jewish Conspiracy" is a product of Capitalism. Capital has no loyalty but to itself.

>>589404

THE WYTE MAN DIN DU NIFFUN HE A GUD BOI

>>589163

>one of the oldest flaws in human reasoning - the tendency to categorise things and then treat those categories as objects just as real as the components they are comprised of

So I guess the entire field of Statistics is flawed, then.

>>588191

>Implying people can't be celibate and healthy

>implying people can

Just see wizchan and pedophilia cases among catholic priests, two great examples of why celibacy isn't healthy.

>>589390

> Anyone that doesn't buy into my inane conspiracy theory must be a Jewish shill.

Get the fuck out of here snownigger. You aren't dealing with the edgy economically illiterate 15 year olds your kind often likes to target. No one here is gonna buy the bullshit you're selling classcuck. Why don't you go suck off a job creator or look for cuck memes in a child's TV show. The adults are trying to have a conversation here.

>>589404

> It's not rich people. Its just the Jews. Capitalism is amazing. The free market is never wrong.

You're the literal embodiment of a useful idiot

They're idpol faggots, but they're useful because they keep other idpol faggots somewhat in check.

>>589439

Their goal is the same, individualism. read

>>588035

Mens rights activists/Womens rights activists: They both seem to be seeking actual legislative changes and improvement in the conditions of each sex.

Feminist/MGTOW: Some kind of sexual supremacy cult.

>>589048

>Also the male rights gender theory (Gynocentrism) is so fucking ahistorical and reactionary it's laughable anybody is actually deluded enough too believe it.

Unlike Patriarchy.

>>589406

No, but your understanding of statistics is obviously flawed.

MRAs share the problem feminists have in that they mix structuralism with individualism. They both have noticeable currents of bourgeoisie ideology (look up liberalism).

Both are spearheaded by petit-bourgeoisie (look at the academics). Both ultimately should be kept at a distance.

>>587993

Women face endless barriers to access education, especially in war-torn countries. In fact, they are 90% more likely to be out of school compared to men (UNESCO). One of the most common reasons for this inequality is that women's contribution to household is more valued than their education. We cannot allow this to continue! It would only sustain poverty and self-dependence on men. We launched the EDUCA campaign to raise awareness and call on the European Union to double its support to education programmes, from 2 to 4% of all EU international aid. Let's

https://www.facebook.com/socialistsanddemocrats/photos/a.131284393615639.32281.127925800618165/978755618868508/?type=3

>>589568

Why do you keep posting these retarded tu quoque arguments every day to bump the thread?

>y-yeah but feminazis

We're on a fucking chan. You know damn well that this pretense doesn't exist.

>>591361

You seem to be lost comrade, this is not your revleft shithole.

>>585188

Obviously Men's rights is a laughable pathetic attempt by emasculated neckbeards who hate themselves needing to project that hatred unto other (for instance on /pol/ it's hatred of foreign people instead of women)

People and I stress use of this word; People, all people, women, men, brown, white, no matter, all suffer. The issues and the suffering experienced varies from group to group. Anyone who tries to just promote "rights" for a specific group completely fail to see the big picture, however a group highlighting a specific issue faced by a certain group (eg. Black lives matter, who want awareness about racial profiling) have potential to do something good, but ultimately it's all futile exercises unless there's systemic change in a society.

>>591374

>muh imaginary idpol war

No one cares at all. Straw manning people as feminazis will not change that.

>>585190

They want what feminists only *claim* to want; equality.

>>591356

Boys are discriminated against by teachers, have lower graduation rates and they're rapidly falling behind in literacy. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-gap-boys-lagging/

And I will not go to your Facebook page or donate to raise "awareness". What do you think I am a liberal? Go peddle that "nonprofit" shit somewhere else. "International aid" is a shame and just imperialism in sheeps clothing.

>>>/reddit/

>>591382

>Obviously Men's rights is a laughable pathetic attempt by emasculated neckbeards who hate themselves needing to project that hatred unto other.

Yeah men's rights activist don't hate women. Like the other guys you're thinking of redpillers or PUA. MRAs aren't interested in controlling women. They just want equality when it comes to certain areas that men are disadvantaged in like education and the legal system. Go check out the book Freud poster uploaded for info on that. They don't support traditionalism and they're anti-marriage. They're aren't neocon reactionaries looking to bring back some false vision of the 50s.Those are PUA groups like Return of the Kings and they don't get along with MRAs. You should stop relying on bulshit spread by feminists and liberals. The same group of people refer to us as Brocalists that hate women. Go on r/anarchy or r/socialism and mention us.

The second part of your post is correct. They're aren't going to get far trying to attack the superstructure without acknowledging the basis and focusing on a single identity groups problems.

>>588878

So let me get this straight: there's no reliablr data on this except that there is, which is totes some red pilled reality that I'm willfully ignoring and citing Wikipedia instead, which an unreliable source, which you proved by citing Wikipedia as a source. Also, repeating ad verbatim that you are right actually isn't autistic.

I already clarified that I am not arguing from a Western perspective–only SJW think the West is all that matters and that foreign civil rights abuse is not relevant to us.

Your argument boils down to psychological projection of me as a feminist that hates men.

>>591428

No, you fuck off back to the fucking mens right's subbreddit. This is a discussion board for leftist politics.

>>591428

Goddamnit I am myself male, no we are not fucking discriminated by teachers and it's persons individual fault if he is lagging behind. Women aren't fucking alloweed to study in perhabs like half the world.

If you're a rabid feminist kill yourself

If you're a rabid anti-feminist kill yourself

/thread

>>591435

There is actually evidence of boys being graded because of gender but this is just because most teachers happen to be female. Teachers that are male do the same thing. There are similar claims about women in higher education that are caused by professors being much more likely to be male. It's accidental cognitive bias.

>>591435

Talk for yourself, I had a teacher in high school who outright did not like men as much.

>>587105

That's his point, MRAs also want to participate in the oppression olympics

>>591431

I'm not a men's rights activist. I don't believe in gynocentrism or many of the other key Tennants. You'd fit in on reddit a lot more than I would. Acknowledging that men face some discrimination in society doesn't make me an MRA. Just as acknowledging female discrimination doesn't make me a feminist. I think both groups have no chance of solving the often legitimate issues they bring up.

>>591435

That isn't true. I don't care about your gender. I posted a source and I can post more sources. I'm sure if its minorities lagging behind you wouldn't think it was their fault for not "working hard enough" . Do you think the same thing about homeless people not having jobs and houses? The problems boys have do not undermine the problems women in the third world face when it comes to education. Women are not a monolithic group. What effects one group of women doesn't mean that all the women in the world are effected by that problem. You're just being inflexible.

>>591429

Is oxford a good enough source for you ?http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard/.

Not that poster by the way

>>591456

Well most of the founders were liberal feminists. It makes sense that they'd have the same problems.

>>591431

>This is a discussion board for leftist politics.

This thread is about the MRA, which is a reaction to bad left-wing politics (progressivism & feminism). So it is relevant.

>>591467

Why? In what way?

>>591475

Those political charts are extremely inaccurate. The vast majority of people score as "left leaning libertarian" unless they're complete edge lords.

>>591475

>liberals are anarchists

>socialists are authoritarians

>the authoritarian right is just flat out broken

>economic freedom is not economic equality

it's literally a "rights for me and none for thee". The only way it can be economic freedom is if it's the freedom to step on other people's toes.

>>591477

>The vast majority of people score as "left leaning libertarian"

Why is that inaccurate? Did it not occur to you that we, as a species, might be mostly lefty-libs? We are individuals that band together to form societies.

>>591461

I already found that link, and it's a blog post. A contrived one at that, which falsely compares circumcision, a specific medical procedure, to all other forms of male genital mutilation. These are as bad as FGM. Circumcision is not.

The author also acknowledges that modern circumcision isn't just pointless mutilation if you're a consenting adult.

>>591493

Yes it isn't pointless in the same way is an amputation isn't pointless if you have a flesh eating virus. Circumsison on children is unnessecary procedure that can cause problems later in life. I myself have issues during sex and masturbation without lubricant as a result of my circumsion as a child. I really don't understand why anyone would defend such a disgusting barbaric practice.

>>591486

It puts economic issues on one axis and social issues on another. "Left leaning libertarians" on that chart can support free market capitalism. Its too simplistic.

>>591502

Defending it is one thing, it's another to think it trivial compared to having your testes crushed.

It is barbaric, but that's no reason to lry of ruin your life. I can live with buying some wank jelly now and then and rubbing lotion after a shower

I understood why this cropped up, but it is getting a little cringy after I read up on one of their conferences.

>>591435

>Goddamnit I am myself male, no we are not fucking discriminated by teachers and it's persons individual fault if he is lagging behind.

Do you say that about Blacks and/or the Homeless? Go away you damn white knight.

Anyway, neither men or women as a group are privileged over the other.

>>585261

>but most MRAs are far too classcucked to see the real reasons behind their oppression

what are the real reasons about this kind of oppression?

>>592146

From a marxist perspective, division of labor based on sex and hierarchy used to reinforce capitalism.

>>591429

> there's no reliablr data on this

I'm basing this on what feminists have said about the subject. If you look at the research on the subject you will see numbers all over the place. Maybe I didn't make this explicit enough, but there is also the issue where people explain FGM as the most severe version so when people start looking at stats they think of that type of mutilation.

>except that there is

Where do I claim this?

> which is totes some red pilled reality that I'm willfully ignoring and citing Wikipedia instead

Did you even read the post? None of the sources are about stats. They're on basic anatomy which you should have realized if you had actually read the links.

>, which an unreliable source

Where did I say this? I used Wikipedia as a source on genital anatomy, which is relevant to this issue but has nothing to do with stats on genital mutilation.

>which you proved by citing Wikipedia as a source

The only thing I cited Wikipedia for is anatomy.

>Also, repeating ad verbatim that you are right actually isn't autistic.

I didn't repeat myself; I elaborated on points responding directly to your counterpoints.

>I already clarified that I am not arguing from a Western perspective–only SJW think the West is all that matters and that foreign civil rights abuse is not relevant to us.

What does this have to do with anything?

>Your argument boils down to psychological projection of me as a feminist that hates men.

My argument boils down to "we have plenty of evidence that the foreskin is the male equivalent of the clitoris, which makes its excision as severe as the lower classes of FGM when it comes to loss of sensation." I didn't even get to the question of prevalence, where circumcision is far more common than FGM globally. The number of males circumcised globally is somewhere between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3. This "women have it worse" is just rhetoric that plays on "protect the women" instincts, and mostly when it comes up I see people using it to try and shut down attempts to discuss men's issues.

>projection

That's not what that word means, by the way. Projection is when you project traits about yourself onto other people. I clearly do not hate men, and I'm not a feminist. My only opinion of you is that you don't want to think about this subject in much depth and aren't even willing to actually read my posts.

>>591455

>politics isn't a spectrum

>it's multiple spectra

You are making this same mistake.

>>587123

>>587124

>>593622

If that is socialism, then I am not a socialist.

Read this:

http://linkis.com/ox.ac.uk/MF2c1

Paula Wright sorts through the spin on genital mutilation.

>>585631

>Or is Hillary Clinton more oppressed than every homeless man, every male immigrant, every male rural worker?

Yes because women are physically, mentally and emotionally inferior to men.

>>596255

This is a really good read but also fucking depressing to realize how spooked people can be and how much damage that can facilitate.

>>596296

>Yes because women are physically, mentally and emotionally inferior to men.

Is Hillary Clinton more oppressed than an Iraq veteran who suffered massive brain damage and can no longer function as a normal adult?

>Men's right activism

Literal feces, cry babies, garbage and rapists

>>588059

Whays wrong with hatred of women?

>>591469

Patriarchy is 100% proven historical and sociological fact.

You would completely have to ignore all mass media studies, all history and all sociology too argue that the dominating narrative in society isn't a masculine, racist classism.

You guys are just little cutie pies when you get worked up about feminism.

>>599098

Stop making things about you. We're talking about men's issues in this space, darling.

>>599098

Most users here are literally indistinguishable from /pol/ when it comes to feminist theory.

>Being reactionaries is 100% A-OK when the issues don't effect us directly personally.

>>599085

Agree

>>599122

Agree and it's very sad

>>600000

shit get

>>600008

HAHAHAHA

FEMINISM WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>599085

No it isn't. The patriarchy hasn't existed for at least a hundred year in the west as a formal instution. It's just a style of socal organization . It also wasn't peaches and creme for men even if in some ways it was worse for women. My grandfather actually lived in a patriarchy. He couldn't marry who he wanted. He couldn't live where he wanted. He couldn't work where he wanted. The patriarch decided his entire life and took all the money him and my grandmother earned that's how actually patriarchy works. Its not sexist air conditioners or men spreading their legs on the bus.The feminist concept of patriarchy is ahistorical, divise, and idiotic. I don't know how anyone could ever support something so completely inane.

FEMINISM IS A FUNDAMENTALLY BOURGEOIS MOVEMENT

IT STARTED IN THE LATE 19th CENTURY AS A HOBBY FOR ARISTOCRATIC WOMEN

>>599999

>>599122

Feminist theory is pretty dumb, comrade. How did women manage to get subjugated for basically all time when for most of history they significantly outnumbered the men? I thought women were supposed to be men's equals. It's almost exactly the same line of thinking as "The Jews control the world, even though we're better than them."

>>599085

>Jews controlling the world is 100% proven historical and sociological fact.

>>600075

>the way a movement started matters

T O P K E K

>>600289

Yeah but it's only gotten worse sense then.

>>600571

>>600008

Its not a get. They're just using TOR.

>>600626

six hundred thousandth post you noob

>>600646

Are you sure? TOR posts always look like that.

>>600069

>The patriarchy hasn't existed for at least a hundred year in the west as a formal instution.

It does in households, it still essentially does throughout corporations and government. How come females make up the majority of the population in western countries, yet only hold 17% of leadership roles? Why is it that over a course of a career, when all factors are taken into account, women still only earn 70 cents too the dollar of men?

>My grandfather actually lived in a patriarchy. He couldn't marry who he wanted. He couldn't live where he wanted. He couldn't work where he wanted.

How is this worse than women?

Women not only had too do this, but had to be raped by a man, weren't allowed to talk when a man was speaking, had no voting rights etc.

Women were for all intents and puposes slaves in society even in western countries until the 1960s.

The Feminsit concept of patriarchy is 100% true and proven historical fact. Men getting shit on by Patriarchy is still a part of Patriarchy because Patriarchy serves only men who adhere too certain masculine traits so they can hold power.

Patriarchy is simply another sub-form of class politics.

>>601033

>It does in households, it still essentially does throughout corporations and government.

No it doesn't. In anyway. I don't know how anyone can look at neoliberalism and think it's patriarchal. Single women do not face systematic discrimination based on their status. They can hold jobs , property and do not have to give up their wages to the "patriarch" of their family. last I checked the government isn't lead by a patriarch. Men are not required to stay on family homes and marry women decided by their families. Younger siblings and women can inherit property and assets from their parents. We don't live in a patriarchy .

>Why is it that over a course of a career, when all factors are taken into account, women still only earn 70 cents too the dollar of men?

That isn't true. It's a complete myth and it's simply a manipulation of data. Once factors are controlled for the difference between men and women in the same positions is within a few cents. No one brings that shit up anymore its complete bullshit. It's about is true is those bullshit on "rape culture" on college campuses.

>How is this worse than women?

it isn't that wasn't my point. It was simply that patriarchy and traditionalism are repressive for both genders. It isn't a zero sum game. One gender wasn't more oppressed than other one. The system had its draw backs and benefits.

>Patriarchy is simply another sub-form of class politics.

Yes it was but it doesn't exist anymore. Capitalists discarded it when they no longer needed it. Hence when feminism like all idpol is inflexible and ahisotrical. The patriarchy is about is relevant today is feudalism is in modern western society. Remnants of it still exist but we certainly don't live in feudalistic or patriarchal society.

>>601161

It's no more autistic then feminism is.

>>601168

Enough with that fucking meme. It's literally 10 times more autistic then feminism.

>>601161

>>601171

What do you even mean by this? I get the whole neckbeard fedora thing being an attempt at shaming, but what's the point of disparaging disabled people?

>>601171

Nope its about the same.

>>601179

Oh because if they're autistic that means they have trouble with women and dating. Which you know basically means they have no value as human beings. It's your mind on idpol comrade.

>>601205

>I value myself based on my productivity

Good worker, keep earner me profit.

>>601205

>I value myself based on my productivity

Good worker, keep earner me profit.

>>601171

>It's literally 10 times more autistic then feminism.

Then you don't know shit about feminism and it's history. Look up some Andrea Dworkin and tell me that's not /r9k/ for old white women.

I mean just look at both movements followers: landwhales and neckbeards.

>>601268

>productivity means capital labor productivity

>>601268

>>601280

I'm self-employed.

>men's rights activists

Literally they're shit.

>>601394

>landwhales and legbeards

>>601156

>Holy shit your math is terrible. See this video.

Oh yes, thousands of PhD scientists and statiticians just have bad math and are totally debunked by a right wing online reactionary youtube video. WAGE GAP DEBUNKED!

Fuck off, Sociologists, statiticians, The fucking Government take into account all possible reasons for a wage gap (maternity leave, different skill sets etc) and still find flat out discrimination based on pay. The wage gap is real, it's proven 100%, it's fact, no fucking internet youtube video is going too debunk fucking PhD scientists who collect data on this shit every day of their lives.

>So were men. So were all the peasants. You are an awful communist, m8. Everyone back then (and still now tbh) was owned by the ruling class. Men could be sent to die in a war any time, and had all kinds of other social responsibilities, including taking care of their wives.

Oh wow, women had it so much better then, they didn't have the burden of being a sub class with no agency or rights! Today I learned from /leftypol/ slaves were better off than slave owners, because slaves didn't have too think or have responsibility, they got free housing, free work, food, what else could they ask for!?

>Wow that sounds really great for men unilaterally

It's better for men than it is women who are still in society still relegated too a sub-class.

FFS, how can you people claim you're communists, then argue directly against fucking Engels who acknowledges that Patriarchy is a real thing and another manifestation of class politics between sexes?

Again, /leftypol/ is as bad as /pol/ when it comes too social theory. For some reason you get ultra-triggered by feminists because they criticized video games or some shit while throwing out over a century of Socialist writings and theory so you can justify shitty reactionary elements of chan culture and bring it in line with your own socialist beliefs.

Also too the MRA mod faggot that gets so triggered by "patriarchy" that he thinks it's a justifiable bannable offence, what the fuck about this

>>601156

post is worth of a ban apart from it hurt your oh so precious sensibilities? Why in fuck are /pol/fags and MRA's allowed to spout reactionary bullshit all over the board yet a debate on social theory isn't allowed?

This post I mean

>>601033

Seriously? Why is this post a bannable offence? Explain.

>>603606

>Fuck off, Sociologists, statiticians, The fucking Government take into account all possible reasons for a wage gap (maternity leave, different skill sets etc) and still find flat out discrimination based on pay.

Mate, you said that after all of that is taken into account the gap is 30%. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody makes that claim.

>Maddox is a right wing reactionary

kek

>Oh wow, women had it so much better then, they didn't have the burden of being a sub class with no agency or rights!

That directly contradicts what I said (and what you quoted).

>So were all the peasants.

>It's better for men than it is women who are still in society still relegated too a sub-class.

No they are not. What rights and muh privileges do men have access to that women do not?

>argue directly against fucking Engels

Engels isn't god, and he's been dead for a while. The world isn't the same as it was when he wrote what he wrote.

>Also too the MRA mod faggot that gets so triggered by "patriarchy" that he thinks it's a justifiable bannable offence, what the fuck about this

Maybe he thinks you should take your ramblings about Satan to /christian/.

>>603609

Because it's anti-empirical idpol shit.

Part 2

>>603653

>rape still not taken very seriously

What exactly counts as "very seriously" to you? The MSM runs wild with big rape stories, getting accused of rape will ruin someone's reputation, and getting convicted of rape puts people in prison for years.

>sexual assault still not taken very seriously

Yeah, same question as the last.

>domestic violence still not taken very seriously

I agree. I think domestic violence should be taken more seriously. Oh wait you were talking about when women are the victims, weren't you? That's funny because there are tons of initiatives out there for stopping violence against women, not to mention shelters all over the place. Then when the CDC comes out with new data that men are actually the majority of domestic violence victims, we just hear crickets. I guess the CDC is just a reactionary group, huh?

>It's why studies show that women are usually overqualified and overexperienced for positions and less qualified males are far more easily able too get ahead.

>studies show

Like what? Got an example?

>Racism and Sexism are sub-forms of class politics, they are how class manifests itself between race and gender.

No, they're not. They're biases that come from instinct and are two very separate things. Racism targets an out-group while sexism targets roughly half of your in-group. Class is not responsible for every problem in the world. These biases would exist without classes, but people with power aren't stupid so they exploit these biases. You also sound like you're confusing racism/sexism with discrimination.

>Why is it that so many Socialists here find it so easy too accept subclasses like the Precariat and Lumpenproles, yet find it so hard too accept other much more obvious sub classes based on race and especially gender… I wonder why.

> I wonder why.

No you don't. It's painfully obvious that you're jumping to conclusions about why instead of wondering and trying to find the answer. I would say that you're saying "I wonder why" sarcastically but I don't think you're even aware that when people sat it in that context that it's sarcastic.

>And yet all social theory should be thrown out of the window

Einstein was wrong about a lot of things but relativity is still crucial to modern communications technology

>And yet /leftypol/ complains about FULLCOMMUNISM banning anyone for criticizing idPol, how is this board not hypocritically exactly the same just from the other side?

Because idpol is a tool used to manufacture "class" conflict between proles. It's anti-communist to dwell on fictitious conflicts that Porky dreamed up to distract us from class consciousness.

>>603741

The MRM has been around for a long time and doesn't blame women for men having problems. If anything it blames feminism for downplaying said problems.

>manufactured oppression

Nobody claimed oppression of men last I checked, and how are genital mutilation, bias in the courts, or education gaps "manufactured"?

if they weren't such collossal fuckups in life they might actually be able to get rights for men.

>>603747

>The MRM has been around for a long time and doesn't blame women for men having problems. If anything it blames feminism for downplaying said problems.

It's been around in it's current form for about 10 years, realistically. And yes, the more politically aware look at feminism the political movement (and industry) as the culprit for being complicit in the dismissal of their problems. I'm not some outsider here, I've personally interacted with some of the leading personalities a number of times and I'm intimately familiar with the rhetoric. I agree with a lot of it in principle.

That is also why I'm familiar with the way it's changed in the last 2 years or so as it's started to gain media attention. The MRM is fast becoming an alt-right colony now - just as feminism is a liberal project - and the language HAS changed. There is shit ton more "female nature" garbage floating around that wasn't there before. There is a ton more "men are now the oppressed sex". They are being played and manipulated so that "left" feminism has a "right" counterpart and the whole discussion can be easily brought into the tent of the traditional two-party political system and managed accordingly.

>>603786

>second paragraph

There's a confluence of 3 factors here from what I can tell. One, some people realized that the alt-right likes the anti-feminism angle and has lumped general anti-feminism in with men's rights to make more money off a bigger audience. Two, a lot of major voices in the movement are classcucked or worse, lolberts. Three, Porky sees a lot of energy and wants to capitalize on it.

> I agree with a lot of it in principle.

If people who agree with the general principles bail when the movement takes a direction they don't like, they make it all the easier for the shift to take place. When people who disagree with the alt-right leave, they tilt the movement even more toward the alt-right. Just something to consider.

>>603818

>There's a confluence of 3 factors here from what I can tell.

Can't dispute any of that.

>If people who agree with the general principles bail when the movement takes a direction they don't like, they make it all the easier for the shift to take place.

>>586573 is me btw fam, I'm still there and I'm still doing what I can, where I can but it really is like trying to dam a river with tissue paper and especially as the US election cycle spins up, it's getting more and more frustrating.

And if the prevailing narrative does become the feminist masturbation fantasy they keep insisting it is, then sticking around and legitimising it won't be an option anymore, just like it became untenable for me to continue to support feminism.

>>603845

I agree with you, except it's possible to try to make things better without being part of a particular movement. I don't plan to shut up about any of this until the problems are gone. My reply was because I wasn't sure based on that post how much you agreed with these sentiments >>603741

>>603852

You're just getting to watch someone in real time realise why people here say idpol is cancer. It's infuriating watching working class people turning on each other because their unlubed fucking has different packaging instead of attacking the system that is making them bend over.

I'd worry about being tracked by some kind of anti-radicalisation org, but they only seem to give a shit if your name is Mohammed.

>>603869

Is it idpol when you acknowledge that particular demographics have problems unique to them? Is it really a problem to work on problems like that while also trying to disrupt class? Not everything is a product of class and class alone. Even if class were abolished some of these problems would likely still exist, if in different forms.

>>585461

>nazi

>stirner

read a book faggot

>>603740

>What exactly counts as "very seriously" to you?

They'll still be complaining rape isn't being taken seriously enough even after women are given the right to summarily execute men in public for rape accusations without even needing to go to the police.

>>603882

Again, I don't disagree with you. And hell, maybe I'm just being defeatist.

Maybe it'll be possible to keep it from becoming just a mirror of feminism - subsumed into one of the two mass bases of liberal democratic politics with no fate other to be a tool to maintain power for capital. Maybe.

>>603910

The funny/infuriating part is that that's how it used to work back when we had lynch mobs.

>>603913

One good strategy I've seen is to define the movement by what it does, rather than what it believes. I.e. "Do you advocate for men's rights? Then you're a men's rights advocate." I think this is a vastly understated advantage the MRM has over feminism. "Feminism" is a new word made up to describe a belief system and movement. What it describes can change a lot with the time. When you name a group using plain English words, that's harder to twist into something else (although people still try).

>>603920

You might be onto something there, I think.

In fact, just recently I have been noticing a very small but growing number of women in the periphery of the discussion starting to label themselves as "women's rights activists/advocates" to distinguish themselves from "feminists". Might be worth pursuing the line that there is absolutely no reason a single person cannot be an advocate for the rights of both women and men and that it absolutely need not be partisan.

>>603927

I've heard plenty of MRAs also say that they're women's rights advocates as well, but that they focus on men's rights because there's so little focus on those issues. I have seen people who don't affiliate themselves with any movement say that they advocate for everyone's rights as well, specifically naming both men's and women's rights.

>>603738

>That image you posted is biased nonsense

It's from a academic textbook you retard.

>it's bias because it contradicts muh MRA youtube videos!

>That image you posted is biased nonsense. For fuck's sake it refers to the percentage that women make compared to men as the gap. It also contradicts your claim of 70% earlier and asserts that a discrepancy in earnings exists uniformly across professions.

Ranges from around 70-80 based on what country you are in

>That couldn't be any more divorced from reality. There are industries where women earn more than men.

Please tell us these industries where the top professionals are women.

>No, the ~77% figure is arrived at by just taking average earnings over lifetime. When as many factors are taken into account as possible the number ends up in the low nineties. That doesn't mean the remaining gap is necessarily sexism though. It means it's not accounted for.

Lol no, again you've never even read the studies, I have, you literally have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You're probably a 16 year old who's watched some youtube video of some reactionary who got their information from fucking Mises.org, why would I trust you or some snarky MRA youtuber over PhD holding scientists?

>How do you read that from what I wrote? My point was that women were/are slave like everyone else in the peasant class. Everyone had restrictions on what they could do and responsibilities they were expected to fulfill.

Using your retarded logic, then slaves were no worse than slave owners! Everyone was slaves too the king! Actually most bourgeiousie are no better off then proles then since unless you are running a super conglomerate you still will have little say in society, what about all those poor responsibilities porkie has?

Stop being an obtuse retard.

>OK, so you go from "unable" to "if they do" so they're not unable by your admission. What do you mean by "extra-criticized"? People in positions of power are under scrutiny and high pressure all the time. What makes you think such criticism is "usually based on gender"?

>Such As?

Oh so you are being an obtuse retard who probably isn't even out of school yet and has never worked in a corporate or bureaucratic environment.

Most organizations are nepotistic boys clubs where men are promoted based on how much they are "part of the boys", I've worked in Government organizations where the department heads all go too the strippers every month and do coke off the ass off hookers and people are promoted based entirely on fitting in with this culture. How in fuck are women supposed too fit in with this? in fact, this is where "Corporate feminism" comes in like Sheryl Sanderberg who says retarded shit like "Don't criticize sexism, boys will be boys, too get powerful, you just need too learn too play that game and be a cool girl!"

Women wouldn't be getting told "Boys will just be boys" if there was no widespread sexist culture throughout the workforce.

Also as the image states, jobs that are "female jobs" are paid like dogshit for no reason, why in fuck are Nurses paid near minimum wage? Oh wait, because the vast majority are women. Why is Service industry paid below… oh women.

>How do sexual preferences have anything to do with rights or muh muh privilege? Besides, beauty standards are largely enforced by women competing with each other in a way that mirrors male competition.

….. Yes, it's women who control the media, all those women like Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner, Kevin Tsujihara. Yep, those women, in control of mass media.

>How is this related to rights or muh muh privilege, even assuming it's true? Do you not understand what art is or do you think free expression is bad?

How is widespread sexism and double standards through the media about discrimination in society, I fucking wonder.

>>603738

>That image you posted is biased nonsense

It's from a academic textbook you retard.

>it's bias because it contradicts muh MRA youtube videos!

> For fuck's sake it refers to the percentage that women make compared to men as the gap. It also contradicts your claim of 70% earlier and asserts that a discrepancy in earnings exists uniformly across professions.

Ranges from around 70-80 based on what country you are in

>That couldn't be any more divorced from reality. There are industries where women earn more than men.

Please tell us these industries where the top professionals are women.

>No, the ~77% figure is arrived at by just taking average earnings over lifetime. When as many factors are taken into account as possible the number ends up in the low nineties. That doesn't mean the remaining gap is necessarily sexism though. It means it's not accounted for.

Lol no, again you've never even read the studies, I have, you literally have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You're probably a 16 year old who's watched some youtube video of some reactionary who got their information from fucking Mises.org, why would I trust you or some snarky MRA youtuber over PhD holding scientists?

>How do you read that from what I wrote? My point was that women were/are slave like everyone else in the peasant class. Everyone had restrictions on what they could do and responsibilities they were expected to fulfill.

Using your retarded logic, then slaves were no worse than slave owners! Everyone was slaves too the king! Actually most bourgeiousie are no better off then proles then since unless you are running a super conglomerate you still will have little say in society, what about all those poor responsibilities porkie has?

Stop being an obtuse retard.

>OK, so you go from "unable" to "if they do" so they're not unable by your admission. What do you mean by "extra-criticized"? People in positions of power are under scrutiny and high pressure all the time. What makes you think such criticism is "usually based on gender"?

>Such As?

Oh so you are being an obtuse retard who probably isn't even out of school yet and has never worked in a corporate or bureaucratic environment.

Most organizations are nepotistic boys clubs where men are promoted based on how much they are "part of the boys", I've worked in Government organizations where the department heads all go too the strippers every month and do coke off the ass off hookers and people are promoted based entirely on fitting in with this culture. How in fuck are women supposed too fit in with this? in fact, this is where "Corporate feminism" comes in like Sheryl Sanderberg who says retarded shit like "Don't criticize sexism, boys will be boys, too get powerful, you just need too learn too play that game and be a cool girl!"

Women wouldn't be getting told "Boys will just be boys" if there was no widespread sexist culture throughout the workforce.

Also as the image states, jobs that are "female jobs" are paid like dogshit for no reason, why in fuck are Nurses paid near minimum wage? Oh wait, because the vast majority are women. Why is Service industry paid below… oh women.

>How do sexual preferences have anything to do with rights or muh muh privilege? Besides, beauty standards are largely enforced by women competing with each other in a way that mirrors male competition.

….. Yes, it's women who control the media, all those women like Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner, Kevin Tsujihara. Yep, those women, in control of mass media.

>How is this related to rights or muh muh privilege, even assuming it's true? Do you not understand what art is or do you think free expression is bad?

How is widespread sexism and double standards through the media about discrimination in society, I fucking wonder.

>>603740

>What exactly counts as "very seriously" to you? The MSM runs wild with big rape stories, getting accused of rape will ruin someone's reputation, and getting convicted of rape puts people in prison for years.

Oh boo hoo, rapists go too prison. How about how the vast majority don't, how about how the media often turns instantly against victims "Oh those poor boys who raped these girls, they had bright futures ahead of them".

.I agree. I think domestic violence should be taken more seriously. Oh wait you were talking about when women are the victims, weren't you? That's funny because there are tons of initiatives out there for stopping violence against women, not to mention shelters all over the place. Then when the CDC comes out with new data that men are actually the majority of domestic violence victims, we just hear crickets. I guess the CDC is just a reactionary group, huh?

Oh look, MRA talking points, how original.

Too bad feminists aren't actually against male help moron, unless you want too cherry pick evidence from a handful of extreme feminists over literally decades. Most of the events you MRA's cry about are from the fucking 70s ffs.

>Like what? Got an example?

Oh, I thought you've read studies on the gender gap!

>No, they're not. They're biases that come from instinct and are two very separate things. Racism targets an out-group while sexism targets roughly half of your in-group. Class is not responsible for every problem in the world. These biases would exist without classes, but people with power aren't stupid so they exploit these biases. You also sound like you're confusing racism/sexism with discrimination.

And out come the literal /pol/ arguments. Literally most of the shit you're saying is absolutely reactionary bullshit that any porkie would use against the working classes.

This is why everyone calls /leftypol/ Brocialists, because you are not only criticizing "idpol" as a movement, you're flat out reactionary and side with literal fucking alt-right on issues of sex and often on race and regurgitate their arguments because you don't want to engage in any fucking self criticism or realize that you yourself can be an exploiter by regurgitating social norms that subjugate others.

Feminism was literally born out of the Socialist movement. Fucking Engels is one of the founding fathers of Feminism and his arguments still hold true till this very day, all you have is a bunch of appeal too traditions and being an obtuse reactionary as your arguments, you refuse too see sexism where it exists and you make completely bizarre, bullshit arguments like "Everyones subjugated, sexism isn't any more of an issue" really? Black people then shouldn't worry about being shot in the head by police? Women shouldn't worry about never getting equal pay for equal work? Okay apparently that will all be sort out after the revolution! oh wait, Catalonia was still sexist as fuck, Cuba was and is famously sexist as fuck, the USSR was sexist as fuck. Ooops, looks like the revolution didn't solve shit when the only division of labour contradiction that was solved was between capitalist and worker, it's almost like those societies kept divisions of labour based on race and sex on purpose…. again.. I wonder why.

Again, the only anti-Marxists here are you MRA faggots who literally put down women and minorities because their issues aren't important too you.

There is plenty of worthwhile criticism of idpol as a movement, too bad /leftypol/ is mostly made up of teens who care more about "muh ethics in vidya journalism" than actually reading Socialist theory.

>>603937

>It's from a academic textbook you retard.

The information there is presented without any details on its specifics. Here is an excellent discussion on the problems with that statistic:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/02/the-equal-pay-day-factoid-that-women-make-78-cents-for-every-dollar-earned-by-men/

The 79 cents statistic is what you get when you just compare yearly earnings without correcting for things like hours worked or years of experience. Depending on how you correct for various factors, the wage gap shrinks entirely, and can even reverse itself (as in women make more than men):

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds

The trouble is factoring in every single thing that might result in a higher yearly income is a difficult thing, and not something people bother doing when they can spend that time complaining about discrimination instead.

>>603939

>Also as the image states, jobs that are "female jobs" are paid like dogshit for no reason, why in fuck are Nurses paid near minimum wage? Oh wait, because the vast majority are women. Why is Service industry paid below… oh women.

>The market doesn't determine anything, it's all a patriarchal conspiracy

>>603959

>>603939

Holy crap. This pure concentrated autism. No ones buying this fucking bullshit. I have literally never hard anyone use the term "boys will be boys" besides feminist in my entire life. Why are you so trigged about men's rights? Just let the topic float to the bottom of the catalog you fucking weirdo. No one wants to join your crazy cult. No matter how much you whine and stop your feet like a child.

>>>/reddit/

>>>/out/

Part 1

>>603939

>It's from a academic textbook you retard.

That doesn't stop it from being biased nonsense. Have you ever heard of the American South? They have an entire industry that revolves around putting bullshit in textbooks that was in the news for a few years.

>it's bias because it contradicts muh MRA youtube videos!

No, it's because it blatantly misrepresents the data it uses. Also, Maddox isn't an MRA.

>Please tell us these industries where the top professionals are women.

That's not the same thing as an earnings gap favoring women. Quit moving goalposts. Women tend to earn more at jobs that are female-dominated like nursing, early education, and pornography.

>Lol no, again you've never even read the studies, I have

Did you read the parts about how the data was collected? Did you look at the data itself? The only reason I posted the video Maddox did is because it's the most succinct presentation I've found on the subject.

>Using your retarded logic, then slaves were no worse than slave owners! Everyone was slaves too the king! Actually most bourgeiousie are no better off then proles then since unless you are running a super conglomerate you still will have little say in society, what about all those poor responsibilities porkie has?

Being a woman and being a slave isn't the same thing you woman hater. God, learn some respect for women. :^) Seriously, though, petit bourges do have little say but they're also better off than the proles. I think the larger pattern here is that you can't see shades of gray.

>OK, so you go from "unable" to "if they do" so they're not unable by your admission. What do you mean by "extra-criticized"? People in positions of power are under scrutiny and high pressure all the time. What makes you think such criticism is "usually based on gender"?

>

Wew lad, did you forget to delete this when you couldn't come up with a reply?

>Most organizations are nepotistic boys clubs where men are promoted based on how much they are "part of the boys", I've worked in Government organizations where the department heads all go too the strippers every month and do coke off the ass off hookers and people are promoted based entirely on fitting in with this culture.

Wow, this must mean that it's this way literally everywhere. Your personal experience with a sample size that's almost certainly in the single digits is representative of workplaces and government generally.

>How in fuck are women supposed too fit in with this?

Learn to have fun. :^)

>Women wouldn't be getting told "Boys will just be boys" if there was no widespread sexist culture throughout the workforce.

What? Why not? This is a complete non-sequitur as far as I can tell. Men doing things women don't particularly like is not the same thing as sexism. The only times I've even heard this line used IRL was in reference to actual boys (i.e. children) roughhousing with each other, no girls involved, and a mother or other older female relative was disapproving of it.

Part 2

>>603939

>Also as the image states, jobs that are "female jobs" are paid like dogshit for no reason, why in fuck are Nurses paid near minimum wage? Oh wait, because the vast majority are women. Why is Service industry paid below… oh women.

No, the reason is supply and demand. If you want to be a communist you should probably understand basic economics. Nurses and maids would earn less than doctors and chefs in a market economy regardless of the genders involved.

>….. Yes, it's women who control the media, all those women like Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner, Kevin Tsujihara. Yep, those women, in control of mass media.

Women watch more TV than men and buy more consumer goods than men. These companies sell what sells well.

>How is widespread sexism and double standards through the media about discrimination in society, I fucking wonder.

How does fiction affect the real world? It's fiction.

>>603959

>How about how the vast majority don't

Does due process mean something to you? How is rape different from other crimes, like murder?

>how about how the media often turns instantly against victims "Oh those poor boys who raped these girls, they had bright futures ahead of them".

Are you talking about the Duke lacrosse case? Because that was a false accusation.

>Too bad feminists aren't actually against male help moron

Oh, like when Earl Silverman killed himself after he tried to run a men's DV shelter and kept running into barriers?

>Oh, I thought you've read studies on the gender gap!

I'm not gonna research your argument for you. I've read studies supporting the opposite. And since you brought it up first, I won't enact the labor or digging up counterpoint studies until you actually bother to source your claims.

>This is why everyone calls /leftypol/ Brocialists

kek you have a very distorted idea of what "everyone" is.

>There is plenty of worthwhile criticism of idpol as a movement, too bad /leftypol/ is mostly made up of teens who care more about "muh ethics in vidya journalism" than actually reading Socialist theory.

Man, this was an epic of autism, but the gamergate reference is an orgasmic crescendo.

>>603961

Oh look, once again, ignoring the point that female jobs earn less, that females are overqualified and overexperienced for positions that it's almost impossible for women too move up in the workforce.

Oh look assuming that women are just "only accepting low paid work" is simply due too women being stupid and want flexability, it couldn't be due too women hitting glass ceiling based on sex and discrimination despite literally thousands of studies show this and that female dominated jobs are all underpaid as fuck despite the work, no, none of that, it's because of a pathetic appeal too tradition that women just choose too be underpaid because they're fucking morons and female jobs are all easy as shit, because fuck working 80 hour weeks as a nurse on minimum wage must be suuuuuuch a breezey job compared too being an accountant.

Oh also lets look at the ACTUAL STUDY that the Guardian is reporting on.

>Women earn more in cities with an abundance of knowledge-based jobs, which are magnets for the college-educated; where minorities are a majority share of the total population; and in areas with a decimated manufacturing base, which makes it harder for men with less education to earn a decent wage.

Oh wait, The Guardian left that part out didn't it.

College educated women 8% more than poorly educated men. EIGHT FUCKING PERCENT, A COLLEGE EDUCATION FOR WOMEN IS WORTH A 8% PAY RISE FROM MOSTLY LOW-EDUCATED MINORITY MALES

Perhaps the Guardian shouldn't repost an article from the fucking Wall Street Journal without actually reading the original.

FUCKING LOL. Keep posting reactionary bullshit from right wingers though, so Socialist of you!

>>603979

>patriarchal conspiracy

fuck it, why can't we just use all this patriarchal power and force women to study and work in those lucrative fields. they must be going into nursing and other low paying wage jobs because they're too dumb to know whats good for them

am i doing this right?

>>604000

No, you don't sound desperate for sex enough.

>>603995

>College educated women 8% more than poorly educated men. EIGHT FUCKING PERCENT, A COLLEGE EDUCATION FOR WOMEN IS WORTH A 8% PAY RISE FROM MOSTLY LOW-EDUCATED MINORITY MALES

And how much do college-educated men receive?

>>604002

hey there girl

you're a ho

show me your tits

or GTFO

tbh pretending i'm interested in women is tiresome af

>>603991

>That doesn't stop it from being biased nonsense

Yeah textbooks, so more bias than youtubers of angry 20 somethings who hate feminists or right wing think tank shills like Christina Hoff Sommers!

>No, it's because it blatantly misrepresents the data it uses. Also, Maddox isn't an MRA.

Yes Maddox, that guy that just constantly rants against feminists and the progressive left, not an MRA.

Also "Bias" again, lol, taking fucking MADDOX over academic texts. Fuck off.

>That's not the same thing as an earnings gap favoring women. Quit moving goalposts. Women tend to earn more at jobs that are female-dominated like nursing, early education, and pornography.

Oh yes, those highly paid female dominated industries… except they pay like complete shit. Oh and porn, such a feminist industry there! kek.

>Being a woman and being a slave isn't the same thing you woman hater. God, learn some respect for women. :^) Seriously, though, petit bourges do have little say but they're also better off than the proles. I think the larger pattern here is that you can't see shades of gray.

Oh yes, those women, who had to stay in the kitchen, had no self agency, were married against their will, had no right too divorce, had no voting rights in many western countries until the 1970s, 1980s, totally not subjugated in any way.

>Wew lad, did you forget to delete this when you couldn't come up with a reply?

No, the fact you are being so fucking obtuse it's fucking unbelievable you honestly can't see the crazy levels of sexism thrown at women in power. One of the major points against our female prime minister was that she didn't have any kids and thus was constantly called a "barren witch" by the media and in Parliament. How in FUCK is that not sexism? This is replicated right throughout the media and those in positions of power, how the other day Teresa may was criticized heavily right throughout british media for wearing a dress that had cleveage and all the front pages were like "TERESA MAY ABREAST IN PARLIAMENT!"

Also

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12088246

>Wow, this must mean that it's this way literally everywhere. Your personal experience with a sample size that's almost certainly in the single digits is representative of workplaces and government generally.

Or how about I actually look at statistics and studies and not just right wing reactionary bullshit like yourself?

How about the experiences of thousands of people across many industries who complain about sexism and boys cultures.

>What? Why not? This is a complete non-sequitur as far as I can tell. Men doing things women don't particularly like is not the same thing as sexism

…

>No, the reason is supply and demand.

You are fucking kidding right? Many of these female dominated industries are the most in demand industries like nurses and childcare yet pay like complete and utter shit.

Fuck off, you're literally repeating porkie talking points now.

Oh and the rest of your points "YOUR JUST AUTISTIC LOL, FUCK YOU'RE AUTISTIC, POST YOUR SOURCES LOL"

Why should I even fucking bother when you would rather take fucking Wall Street Journal articles over fucking academic texts you moron.

>>604000

No you have to imply that anyone that opposes your world view is a virgin loser that just hates strong womyn.

>>604052

Are you going to stay up all night posting this dumb shit? Get some sleep kiddo. You can fight the Illuminati patriarchy in the morning.

>>603995

>Oh look, once again, ignoring the point that female jobs earn less

why should elementary school teachers earn more than engineers?

that females are overqualified and overexperienced for positions that it's almost impossible for women too move up in the workforce.

[citation needed in the form of a study]

>want flexability

Yes, actually, women do. Women are more likely to take time off for family stuff than men, leading to fewer spending their entire life in the career path, which is another explanation for this phenomena. Please, though, continue your assertions of "literally thousands of studies."

>College educated women 8% more than poorly educated men. EIGHT FUCKING PERCENT, A COLLEGE EDUCATION FOR WOMEN IS WORTH A 8% PAY RISE FROM MOSTLY LOW-EDUCATED MINORITY MALES

Your reading comprehension is terrible. Just because the cities have large minority populations doesn't mean that all the men in the studies are minorities, nor does it mean that all the women are white and college educated. Unsurprisingly, you're filling in blanks so they fit your narrative.

>reactionary bullshit

>everything that disagrees with my opinion is reactionary

>FUCKING LOL

indeed.

>>603995

>Yes Maddox, that guy that just constantly rants against feminists and the progressive left, not an MRA.

kek yeah everyone who disagrees is an MRA

>Oh yes, those women, who had to stay in the kitchen, had no self agency, were married against their will, had no right too divorce, had no voting rights in many western countries until the 1970s, 1980s, totally not subjugated in any way.

Nigga please. Women ran everything at home while men were away working in order to survive. And that's only for the upper-class. Working class women had jobs too, and on top of that they were seen as the proper authorities in the home and were usually given the household's spending money to go buy things.

> How in FUCK is that not sexism?

Sounds like you live in a shit country if your media cares that much about fashion, tbh fam.

>How about the experiences of thousands of people across many industries who complain about sexism and boys cultures.

Why even bring this up if there are oh so many studies proving this?

>>What? Why not? This is a complete non-sequitur as far as I can tell. Men doing things women don't particularly like is not the same thing as sexism

>…

Haha you actually think women should be able to dictate male behavior.

>>No, the reason is supply and demand.

>You are fucking kidding right? Many of these female dominated industries are the most in demand industries like nurses and childcare yet pay like complete and utter shit.

You forgot the supply part, moron. There's tons of people doing those jobs.

>Fuck off, you're literally repeating porkie talking points now.

Realities of market capitalism are not Porkie talking points, you mong.

>>603991

Either way I did it anyway:

http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1110.0691

http://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/d0435.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216.htm

http://www.aauw.org/resource/why-so-few-women-in-science-technology-engineering-mathematics/

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4166284

http://www.nber.org/papers/w10853

econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:103:y:2007:i:1:p:84-103

www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/01443330910965750

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Occupational_Ghettos.html?id=5ZLMIuJA6kMC&redir_esc=y

https://cew.georgetown.edu/report/the-college-payoff/

http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/motherhoodpenalty.pdf

http://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/cpsaat39.pdf

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/myth-ideal-worker-does-doing-all-right-things-really-get-women-ahead

Go ahead and show me how Maddox debunks all of that then I might take you a bit seriously.

>>604077

>Sounds like you live in a shit country if your media cares that much about fashion, tbh fam.

sounds like they mean Julia Gillard in Australia. It's true, there was a really bizarre obsession with her attire (which was awful, but come on) - mostly in women's mags and female breakfast show hosts giggling with each other over her unflattering suits. I couldn't believe how fucking dumb it was.

For the sexist remarks in parliament, also true and it was really fucking cringeworthy. It was nasty and tailored to her gender, but not really any worse than the usual slop that passes for politics in this country. You can't use gender against a man like that because they'll laugh it off - but the women in our parliament take the bait every time and sperg out massively.

And this was the local conservative party we're talking about, led at the time by a religious traditionalist. They don't exactly have that many tools in the shed and pointing out over and over that she was a childless woman (and also a FILTHY ATHEIST living in sin with a male HAIRDRESSER WHO IS PROBABLY A FAG) is about all they had on her.

>>604100

I don't think you actually read the text of those studies. Some of them refute claims that you make, for instance: the PNAS one found that male and female faculty members were equally likely to discriminate against female applicants. That hardly sounds like a boys' club to me. That aside, not all of the articles are even on topic. The College Payoff one isn't about gender. It's common knowledge that college degrees tend to get people higher pay, but maybe you should consider that more women graduate from college than men. None of those articles I saw make the claim of ~70% after adjusting for all relevant variables.

>Go ahead and show me how Maddox debunks all of that then I might take you a bit seriously.

Mate, I don't care about your opinion. I'm arguing with you for fun, to expand my knowledge, and in case anyone else has the patience to read this shit. Also, Maddox was just an efficient package for basic information that can be found in many places. It's funny and telling that you stipulate Maddox has to be the one to debunk this tl;dr pile. I'm not about to review several books right now for the sake of this argument.

>>585188

Everyone should have equal rights. That's pretty obvious.

The MGTOW movement is basically filled with basement dwellers and divorcees. Similarly with the neo feminist movement.

>men's rights activists

Some of the biggest scumbags on earth. Deserves to be purged.

>The MGTOW movement

Oh God, then there's also these bastards.

>>587955

lol. SJW is a bullshit term invented by MRAs, so…

>>588035

>nuclear family

like the concept of the nuclear family doesn't oppress people.

>>588165

at least when kids get earings they can talk…

>>589458

I think you got MGTOW and WRA mixed up..

>>591455

>implying all feminists are authoritarians.

>>591473

>implying all feminism is bad

>>593622

nice memes

but so are most religions and capitalism.

>>596751

the irony.

>>600036

last one is hilarious

>>604105

such fucknuttery. then considering TGAP, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by Aussie fucknuttery.

>>605984

given the low report rate for rape cases…

>>587955

lol what, Erin Pizzey was literally bombed for suggesting females could commit domestic violence, why wouldn't they like her?

>>587955

>AVFM

Complete shit. Paul Elam is an opportunist. Also, Erin Pizzey is very popular with MRAs. She is an MRA. She spoke at the last MRA conference.

>>607225

>Erin Pizzey

Her activism predates the MRA movement as such

>>607241

She's an activist for men's rights. That's literally what the acronym stands for: men's rights activist.

>the MRA movement

It's called the "men's rights movement" or "men's human rights movement." If you're going to be anal about terminology you should at least get the basics right.

>>607244

>semantic quibbling

My point was that many of her studies about domestic violence being reciprocal predate the modern movement whose members go by the acronym "MRA". They were released in the 70s and 80s, whereas the MRA thing only got semi-big (it really isn't large at all outside the internet) in the late 00s.

>>607259

OK… she's still affiliated with the movement.

>>587944

PUA and redpillers are MRAs.

like how ht BNP is just the NF.

MRAs are just PUA and redpillers.

>>607284

>all feminists are Dworkinites

>>607285

MRA's generally overlap with ggers.

what does that tell you?

>>607292

The fact that both of them probably realize that the feminist movement is full of bullshit and is basically an idpol movement used to keep people suppressed (even if they're not actually sure who's using them or why)

>>607295

but MRAs and ggers are reactionary, woman hateric movements.

testing text filter: woman hateric

m i s o g y n i s t i c

post put here because Tor users aren't allowed to make threads

please dissect this shitty video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_2svKFkE4

>>607300

tl;dw

Host tries not to offend.

Feminists wring hands.

Milo makes people mad.

>>607303

yep.

>>607296

>>607298

/pol/ pls go

>>607300

>7:37

>feminist/comedian says she wants police to be trained to handle online harassment

>and she wants people like Milo in prison

but then

>8:08

>random audience member gets to speak

>calls out everyone complaining about cyberbullying

>calls out class bullshit where middle class women appropriate working class women's problems

>"The internet shouldn't be a safe space. Women should be able to experience everything about public life. We fought for that throughout history, and here's somebody who wants to shut us away from it."

B A S E D

A E

S S

E A

D E S A B

>>607311

you gotta admit, it would solve the problem of gg harrassment </devil's avocado>

>>607303

>keep interrupting milo, call him out on shit while he's trying to talk, he lets the host let them interrupt

>they start talking slander and he interrupts, host jumps on him for interrupting

What the fuck, he shouldn't have bothered with this show, it's clearly mental. Reminds me of the Australian one about fat acceptance.

>>607323

it's Milo

chances are him and the mysterious journalist had a feud long before that program.

>>607300

>https://youtu.be/m3_2svKFkE4?t=11m48s

>'Journalist': "This country is just as racist, just as… [pauses to think] white-male-privileged as it's always been.

Oh so you are a slave?

>whole room applauds

WHY

>https://youtu.be/m3_2svKFkE4?t=12m00s

>"These are some people"

>"They'd never say it to your face"

That's really fucking funny, then. There was a time when they would say it to your face, and when it was most people who would make racially inflammatory remarks. Would you say such a time was more racist, less racist, or about the same?

>https://youtu.be/m3_2svKFkE4?t=12m11s

>Host: "It's a minority of men, isn't it?"

You know, that's funny because she was talking about racist remarks, not sexist remarks. I don't think "go back to the jungle" is about her as a woman.

>'Journalist': "It's hundreds and thousands of men."

Wow I guess there aren't hundreds and thousands of black people, because they're a minority.

>'Host': "But there are millions of men."

He actually stood up to the bullshit. Damn. Credit where it's due.

>>607325

If you're talking about the shouting abuse part, no that was very clearly about the exchange they just had. She said he shouted abuse at her across the room.

>>607296

Anita pls go

>>>/tumblr/

>>607754

did you come here from pol?

>>607805

No what would ever give you that impression? Do you think we support Antia Sarkasseian around here dumb shit? Fuck off

>>>/out/

>>607814

>assuming I'd suppor AS in any way other than

>a GG vs AS debate

retard.