Talk:Feminism/Archive5

an interesting (opinion)
recent feminist analysis of an American problem, that of: Masculinity and Mass Shootings in the U.S.

http://thesocietypages.org/feminist/2015/07/23/masculinity-and-mass-shootings/

Carptrash (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit I'm having a hard time swallowing that, as a white guy who lives in one of the towns bordering Newtown. The conclusion of the committee that analyzed what happened in Sandy Hook concluded that, in addition to gun control, the other major issue was the country's inability to effectively deal with mental health issues. This is primarily a failing of our healthcare system, and additionally a product of the stigma associated with mental health; at least in my own experience, as an autistic who works in the field, men and women are equal opportunity offenders (and equal opportunity helpers) in that regard. Besides, it's not as if there's a shortage of female mass shooters in the United States either; look up the names Jennifer San Marco and Aileen Wuornos. I can agree obviously some cultural problem at work here, and can even accept the idea that it has more impact on men, so some research into that would be interesting. I draw the line at "because threatened white male privilege and violence" because it 1. doesn't take into account people like the aforementioned women, as well as others like Christopher Dorner and Seung-Hui Cho, and 2. paints the the 99+% of white men who don't shoot up large rooms of people with a rather broad brush. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 04:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "it's not as if there's a shortage of female mass shooters in the United States" = about one per decade, in contrast to several male shooters per year. One of your two examples isn't even a rampage killer at all.  06:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In that article the authors state, "The dataset is composed of 216 separate incidents only 5 of which were committed by lone woman shooters." You can name 3 of those five women, or 60% of them.  Can you also name 60% of the 211 men?  That would be 126 or so.  Start now.  Carptrash (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that the great majority of these people are men (the only names I know off the top of my head are the above plus Columbine and Aurora, you'll understand if I'm just a bit more focused on Adam Lanza when it comes to these discussions). It doesn't follow that there's inherently some toxic form of masculinity to blame, any more than it's inherently some form of toxic masculinity that causes men to have a much higher suicide rate (I could see that in Japan, maybe, but not in the US). To the extent that it may be, I think I made myself clear above what I think underlies it; attacking that problem would take care of both it and the resulting ideas and actions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 01:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You state, “It doesn't follow that there's inherently some toxic form of masculinity to blame, any more than it's inherently some form of toxic masculinity that causes men to have a much higher suicide rate.”  Why not?  You suggest that the causes of these mass shootings are gun control concerns and mental health issues (please correct me if I got it wrong) but it seems to me that both of these effect man and women equally.  Unless you feel that men are more prone to mental illness than women and somehow I doubt that.   I don’t see how the difference between 5 women and 200 men can be coincidence or random or that perhaps the next 200 are all going to be committed by women and even the whole thing out.  No, there is some cultural mechanism involving men at play.  Tho I would not deny that there might also be a genetic component.  And suicide rates?   Well if men are conditioned by either, or both, hereditary and environment to solve their problems with violence it seems logical to me that when men manage to work themselves into a situation which is intolerable to them, violence against themselves is the only solution.  Carptrash (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose I might be thinking about it a bit too literally, as I'm wont to do, I can only say I have yet to see any messages actually encouraging people to go on murderous rampages. If someone gets the idea from news coverage of some event, that's a problem with that person not getting it that people don't want it to keep happening. My experience might be skewed because of my proximity to Sandy Hook, though, as there's been so much emphasis on eliminating violence as much as possible. And the other issue I have is that it seems a bit like saying there's some feminine culture problem because, as of writing, 100% of false accusations of sexual assault are from women; I think that's a quite obviously misogynistic statement, and not any way accurate because people who study such things have said it's mostly (with a very few Treva Throneberry-type exceptions) an issue of mental health. Again, though, I freely acknowledge the incongruities, and I can certainly see the utility of some research along the lines of the above paper.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 15:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say the social psychological and the cultural explanations the article offers up are certainly applicable, but they don't incorporate all the factors. For example, one of the easiest explanations for why this is such a uniquely American phenomenon is because of precedent&mdash;the simple fact that mass shootings has become 'a thing' in the US. And how has it managed to establish such precedent? It might be as simple as the ready availability of the two main resources mass shootings require (guns and people unhinged/crazy/super-assholish enough to wield them so extravagantly), the failure to significantly reduce the availability of either of those resources and things adding up over time. And that failure has a lot to do with the US seemingly being one of the only countries in the world that has qualms about regulating and restricting gun use, but also the constitutionally enshrined values of freedom of expression and freedom of thought making it difficult for the government to effectively condemn and deal with toxic ideologies and hateful individuals before violent acts are committed. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

For those who see this sort of thing as being a uniquely American form of. . . ....expression I suggest a quick look at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok. In regards to the statement, "I have yet to see any messages actually encouraging people to go on murderous rampages.", well there are forms of it everywhere. Not, typically, go out and kill a bunch of people, but rather that violence is the American was y of solving problems and these sorts of mass killings then become a deranged person's version of that/  How many movies have we seen where the guy (almost always a male) has put away his guns, never to use them again, but then circumstances "force" him into digging them out again and putting them to effective use? A lot. Carptrash (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Fallacious Bias in Image and Description
The section about modern feminism has an image about how people view feminist waves. I think it - mostly the description - suffers of a few problems: First of, there is the idea that the people who oppose the 3rd wave, OR AT LEAST Part of the people forming said wave (unfortunately, the image generalizes the jerks of the 3rd wave as the entirety), are by default anti-feminists, while they could simply be anti-misandrist - opposing the jerks in the image not on the criteria that they are fighting for gender equality, but because they are attributing all problems to males. Some may very well be advocators for gender equality. Second, the description may be seen as having a subtle Poisoning the well, by saying that since previous anti-feminists saw due to bigotry the wave of feminism as evil, a person nowadays (not necessarily anti-feminist as stated) who sees SOMETHING bad in the current MOVEMENT (NOT general ideology of gender equality) must be automatically wrong. And 3rd, as already stated, the image seems to convey the idea that Most people who hate the nuisances of the 3rd wave believe that those jerks compose the entirety of modern feminists. Imadmagician (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You would have a point if misandry was at all prevalent in 3rd wave feminism and most critics of it were genuinely egalitarian, but they aren't and it isn't so you don't. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To the poster of this section. may I suggest that you read your posting out loud to your self before publishing it.  It might, hopefully will, lead to a posting that is easier to understand.  I was inclined to respond to the post as if I were an English teacher  which I am not, rather than someone engaged in a exchange of ideas.  Carptrash (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC).

ADoseofBuckley
You may all want to check out the videos of Canadian YouTube star Adam Buckley, known by his series A Dose of Buckley. His tagline is "Angry Humour From An Angry Man." He is a very entertaining individual, and isn't afraid many times to call a spade a spade (or rip apart crappy pop songs), and so on. Of course, not everything he says is right, but he's funny regardless, and you can kind of enjoy it even when he was things to say about feminism, over-PC culture, or says that the Orgeon bakery lost their freedom when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage (though the last one is admittedly just an aside in an overall rant).

His YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9kMnSZQd53hE-1sb1f9sdA/videos?feature=hovercard
 * YouTube pundits generally aren't generally important or relevant ever.
 * Also with regards to that bakery, the owners released the names and home address of the lesbian couple who they denied service, leading to the couple receiving death threats, which is why they were given such a hefty fine.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 01:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * YouTube pundits ain't important, ever? So Anita Sarkeesian... Oops...
 * BTW, TO HELL WITH the owners of this bakery, they're punk-asses and damn well deserved this fine! Denying service because of skin color or sexual orientation is something not to be tolerated! Hope there's gonna be a federal law on that soon!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally important or relevant ever. See? Even I can comprehend that sentence and it's not even my first language. Vulpius (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's my 3rd, after Russian (my 1st, but rather rusty after more than 2 decades in Germany) and German (the language I speak the best (I think)).
 * "Generally" at the beginning and "ever" at the end, that's a nice escape hatch he left himself open for exactly that kind of stuff.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a shit writer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 08:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, who said Anita is all that important? It's not like she said anything groundbreaking that hadn't been said by countless people already. Not that that somehow makes the vitriolic harrassment campaign against her okay, obviously. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In case you're wondering, yes Buckley is very important and one of the biggest people on YouTube that has never monetized. Almost 6 years of doing these videos by this point, and he has quite the fanbase. And much of what he has to say does tend to be very on point, even brutally so. He clearly does have no filter, but that's what works. Of course tell me what you think about the fact that when it comes to LGBT rights, tolerance isn't the best, but apathy (in the sense that no one should ever care about what sexual orientation people are, and that when the announcement by a celebrity comes, the response should be "Whatever"), that nostalgia (particularly among '90s kids) is overrated (especially with sites like Buzzfeed), that when smoking bans are put up, one persons' freedom to breathe clean air means someone loses their freedom to smoke (when someone could just stay at home or go to another place, which basically his argument for the Oregon bakery thing), that people should not use "we" to refer to their favorite sports teams since they're not actually part of the team, and that no one is special and children are being lied to all the time. Not saying I agree with everything of course, just inviting discussion. So please watch videos for yourself.Mmoore29 (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's nice but why are you posting this here? 17:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply wanna get some intelligent debate about him and encouraging people to watch his videos, and post their opinions. Maybe it'll lead to an article.Mmoore29 (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably a better place to post this would be the saloon bar. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we going to get Ray William Johnson's opinions covered next? A lot of people can be on YouTube and make money off of it. That doesn't mean their opinions are useful particularly when you're raising it as "criticism of feminism".—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 20:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Lovely
"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute."

Starting out with some whore-shaming. Lovely. 84.219.150.54 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware sex positive people used "whore". I thought the preferred and reclaimed term was "slut" as in "slut walk". But please provide a better snarky quotation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 10:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What necessitates two quotes at the top of page? 21:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Prostitute" and "slut" are two completely different words, you quasi-literate troglodyte. Explain to me the need for the article on feminism to start out with whorephobia or shut your mouth and breathe through your nose for a change. 83.226.255.216 (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't put it there so your anger is misplaced.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 10:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the quote can be interpreted as painting whores in a bad light, but in a more charitable reading, it's pointing out whores aren't expected to have agency in our sexist society.

Expansion
So I propose we expand the article with the various branches of feminism. This would look similarly to our article on socialism, anarchism, and libertarianism. There seems to be, especially on the internet, a lot of confusion on what the different branches represent and stand for. There tends to be a lot of tokenism with libertarian and individualist feminism. There also tends to be a lot of cherry picking from radical, cultural, and separatist feminism; usually there isn't any mention on black, chicana, and transfeminism. Then there are the more academic post-structural, postmodern, and post-colonial feminism.--Owlman (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Rape Culture Means Men are the Enemy
On the website riversong.worldpress it says...

"All Sex is Rape - All Men are Rapist"

"Patricy = Rape Culture"

"“Rape culture” is a term tossed about with abandon by many, if not most, of the well-meaning rape victim support organizations and their spokespeople, to suggest that rape is too common and not treated with sufficient seriousness, and that this is because there are powerful cultural habits that support male aggression as well as institutional structures which overlook it and which hold women accountable for their own victimization.

"It is true to state that America has a gun culture, given that our nation was carved out of Indian lands by firepower and wrested from the British Empire by force of arms, and that the US is the only democracy with a constitutional right to bear arms (though this right is generally misunderstood and abused – see The Real Second Amendment).

But there is no analogy, either in American history or US jurisprudence, to a culturally- or legally-recognized “right” to rape women (with, perhaps, the sole exception of slavery, in which both female and male slaves were legal property)."

In the 1970’s, a theoretical groundwork was laid that placed rape at the very heart of our culture. Rape became an expression of how the average man viewed the average woman. By the 1980’s, rape had become thoroughly politicized; it was viewed as a major weapon (perhaps the major weapon) by which patriarchy kept women in their place.

"Sex is Rape The opening paragraph of the New York Radical Feminists Manifesto reads:

“The act of rape is the logical expression of the essential relationship now existing between men and women.” (as quoted in Rape: The First Sourcebook for Feminists)

“Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire, and the first crude stone ax. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”

– Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (1975), identified by the New York Public Library as one of 100 most important books of the Twentieth Century

Yet few likely understand the origin and meaning of the term “rape culture”, emanating as it did from the most misandrist (male-hating) wing of the 2nd wave feminist movement of the 1970s – a wing which was also the most influential in changing society’s perceptions and laws."

Not only have feminist demonised men but have also also weakened women, as opposed to disencouraging men to violate women and inform women when a man to about to penetrate, since its enougth to force kiss a women to be considered rape. Therefore it is painfully biased that there is no middle ground because feminist and men's rights activist can agree on naught.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, BoN, shut the fuck up. Stop using 40 year old essays as proof of feminism's failings.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 20:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Its age is irrelevant because feminist believe sexism is on the rise. The third wave is even worse then the second because their not only hatfull of men and boys but have also introduced misandric laws and deemed it offencive enough to offend groups of people for just being alive.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 07:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 106 is so sweet in the way he will do search oh so hard to reinforce his beliefs. It's rather like when my cat brings in a dead mouse - "Look, look, look what I found!" Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, dude, stop forcing those kisses. Carptrash (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The example of forced kissing being equal to to rape is responsible for the exaggeration that 1 in 5 women will be raped. The number of actual rapes (on average) is closer to 1 in 40, while still high, it is nowhere near as high as what feminist say it is. By the way, I've never been with a women in my life and there for I have never forced kissed.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. —Ryūlóng (<font color="Orchid">琉竜 ) 07:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The 1 in 5 statistic is based on a survey called The Campus Sextual Assult that was misrepresented as rape and the 22-35% of female patients in the United States being victims of domestic abuse equal to Hattie and Uganda, is a misunderstanding of a 1997 feminist study by the justice department, when it's actually less than 1% of female injuries.--106.69.213.0 (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Citation needed, considering MRAs and anti-feminists like to discredit that study frequently.—<font color="Orange">Ryūlóng (<font color="SaddleBrown">琉竜 ) 10:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP's horrendous spelling aside, here is a detailed explanation of why the "1 in 5" number is hot air. The actual number is still way too high, but it's nowhere near 1 in 5; even Kirsten Gillibrand, who seems to believe due process doesn't apply to people accused of crimes on campus (can provide links as necessary), has stopped squawking "1 in 5". The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 21:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I based it on the vedio from the American Enterprise Institute series who identifies herself as a "factual feminist" and like I said, if 20% of women will be raped, that means feminist have achieved nothing in the past several decades and men are the enemy.--106.69.213.0 (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that's your problem. Christina Hoff Sommers isn't a feminist and nothing she says is indicative of feminism but rather contrarian anti-feminism funded by the neoconservative Koch brothers by way of the American Enterprise Institute. Glad we could clear that up.—<font color="MediumVioletRed">Ryūlóng (<font color="RebeccaPurple">琉竜 ) 17:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That would take care of his argument, what about the link above? Emily Yoffe is hardly known, excepting the Jezebel lunatics, as an antifeminist. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 21:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know what to say. I only know that the BoN's argument is shit because he believes Christina Hoff Sommers is a valid voice in feminist discourse.—<font color="DarkKhaki">Ryūlóng (<font color="SteelBlue">琉竜 ) 23:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 100% agreed, Hoff Summers' writing is nothing but a sheer waste of electrons. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 23:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, women are at risk of being raped everywhere equally because all men are rapist. In the past Hoff Summers was a feminist but after finding out that it composes of largely misandrist, she left the sect, like anyone who has lost faith in their religion.--106.69.213.0 (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * She is not a feminist. Feminism isn't a religion. Feminism is not misandry. I think we're done here now.—<font color="Peru">Ryūlóng (<font color="Black">琉竜 ) 21:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I said Feminism is like a religion not a religion in itself, but if sexism is on the rise, then men must be the enemy, unless if your blaming the New Sextual Revolution that began in 1995.--106.69.213.0 (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Feminism is not like a religion. No one has ever said sexism is on the rise. You seem to be extremely misinformed about what feminism is. Perhaps you should read the article here, again, and more intently this time. Until then, you're really just wasting everyone's time.—<font color="DarkSeaGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="SlateGray">琉竜 ) 11:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This particular BoN is completely blind to anything that doesn't support his worldview. There is no point in engaging. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't the point to engage until they have no valid rebuttal and we've shown them for the fool they are?—<font color="DarkSlateGray">Ryūlóng (<font color="Orchid">琉竜 ) 13:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What feminist doesn't believe that men and boys are raised to not only see women as less then human but also as disposable?--106.69.219.127 (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What feminist doesn't believe that men and boys are raised to not only see women as less then human but also as disposable? That's an over-simplification of the problem of patriarchy. It's not that they are raised as such de jure but, rather, that the male-dominated culture of the last 2000+ years has created a society where men do not view women as equals. Take, in its simplest form, the old phrase "You do like a girl." So ingrained into our culture is this idea that women are inferior to men somehow. "You hit like a girl" is thrown around as an insult. But, you know what? I'm a damn blackbelt in Kenpō, and a female. So if I were to hit you, it wouldn't be inferior to any man. Hell, if I really had to use my skills, I'd be able to make every beer-guzzling, macho pickup truck driver run in terror. So, let's again return to the topic at hand. It is true that men, in a society dominated by men (patriarchy), view women as inferior. Does it mean they see us as disposable? Not necessarily (unless you believe in men's rights drivel). But they are inherently taught by the bulk of our society and, indeed, by the media to view women as their inferiors. 09:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did mommy take away your internet privileges for a month or something?—<font color="DodgerBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="Lime">琉竜 ) 11:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm just taking it personally.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly you should stop believing what you read on Reddit and TV Tropes.—<font color="DarkGoldenrod">Ryūlóng (<font color="Yellow">琉竜 ) 12:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * TV Tropes doesn't agree with how I view feminism. Yes it has tropes about Double Standards, but there is an equal number of tropes that are biased against men as they are against women. Just to point out, no one has stated the source of the rape culture but like criticism of any religion, it's likely that someone will take offence and point out that their not all in favour of human rights violations. It's the same with sects like feminism, its natural to feel like you're being criticised.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean like how you feel you as a man are being criticized by the existence of feminism? Please, educate yourself on these subjects instead of believing the shit you're fed by toxic communities and places where you obviously cannot detect satire.—<font color="OrangeRed">Ryūlóng (<font color="Tomato">琉竜 ) 13:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Tv Tropes is not satire, it says what is and what isn't truth in television. My copy and past of the TV Tropes page to the Wikipedia discussion for standardised test being designed for suiciders states in fiction (and in real life) is an example that the site takes itself seriously.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * TV Tropes is a giant trivia site. Their "real life" examples sections are one of the biggest fucking jokes on the Internet (in that people make fun of people who try to apply tropes to real life). You don't know a single fucking thing about feminism to repeatedly come here and say it's like a religion in whatever garbage you're insisting upon. Feminists don't believe anything you think they do. You're wrong on every aspect of this topic and it's laughable as to how ignorant you are. Please just stop wasting everyone's time.—<font color="MediumAquamarine">Ryūlóng (<font color="SaddleBrown">琉竜 ) 14:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The real life information of TV Tropes are no more jokes than the information of Wikipedia or Rational Wiki and as I said before TV Tropes does not hold a grudge against feminism.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. People outside of TV Tropes consider people who think "Real Life" entries under tropes big jokes, as it is literally impossible for a story telling element to exist in real life. And your highly ignorant views on feminism came from somewhere and they should go away. Also learn to fucking indent your posts.—<font color="Red">Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">琉竜 ) 22:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Impossible to write real stories? Non fiction exist for a reason.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not understand. The "Real Life" sections on TV Tropes pages are so fucking ridiculous to even come up with. They list living people and actual events in them. Real life does not have tropes and neither would non-fiction media.—<font color="Purple">Ryūlóng (<font color="Yellow">琉竜 ) 04:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Real Life has no tropes? You are not making any sense. Are you a nihilist or are you implying that only when a story is scripted can it have any tropes?--106.69.219.127 (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actual historical events cannot be representative of tropes—<font color="Chocolate">Ryūlóng (<font color="Black">琉竜 ) 16:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything better to do than be a contrarian concern troll, Arisboch? It's getting tiring.—<font color="Navy">Ryūlóng (<font color="MediumSpringGreen">琉竜 ) 20:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not an answer, that is ad hom whining. Asking again, why "Actual historical events cannot be representative of tropes"??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Might I politely suggest that you ask your dictionary what the word "trope" means before you embarass yourself even more? Because the definition of this word answers your question. To make it short: A trope is, per definition, something that can only happen in a story. If it happens in real life, it's not a trope. Simple enough. --Irian (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is marginally better than just screeching "I don't wanna talk to you anyoar, cause you ain't my holy opinion" like Dragondragon did, but according to, say, dictionary.com that's not (always) true.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because you, like the BoN here, are a lost cause.—<font color="DarkSeaGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkSlateBlue">琉竜 ) 21:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a cause? What cause?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Having a decent discussion about anything.—<font color="Gold">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkKhaki">琉竜 ) 22:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * [[File:Question smiley.gif]]--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's try a simple example: If, in a story, the president of the USA suddenly appears and declares Himijo the new headmaster of the school, we would call that a Deus Ex Machina. If the same thing were actually to happen in real life, it would not be a Deus Ex Machina, because that's a PLOT element and real life doesn't have one. It would a a strange occurance and something that would be a DEM if it happened in a story, but not a DEM itself and also not a reference to a DEM. To become a reference to a trope it would have to be deliberately introduced, which in turn would real life more or less in a story. Of course people could try to introduce "plot" into real life (to allow tropes), but than it wouldn't be a real life anymore, just some form of "live action theater". --Irian (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here, BoN. Crack open a fucking book. Withoutaname (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have read the Wikipedia article of Rape culture and have concluded that is how feminist see society and therefore believe boys are raised to see women as sex objects.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you should read it again and actually understand what is meant by "rape culture" and read all of the academic work that Withoutaname actually meant for you to read. Seriously, grow the fuck up.—<font color="Lime">Ryūlóng (<font color="MediumBlue">琉竜 ) 08:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Gender studies teaches women that they will be raped and that so called male feminist are disposable. There is no guarantee that the rape culture won't be applied to all men or a group of men, whether religion, race, occupation, age, education whatever. Why is it acceptable to say on RationalWiki, that all Muslims are radical extremist but not acceptable to say that feminist are doing more harm than good? --106.69.219.127 (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fascinating that the people who heve never spoken with someone who has done gender studies or much less ever visited such a course always think they know best what's happening there. Well, why not? We all know that random guys on the internet are also the best experts for "real" conspiracies, "alternative" medicin, etc., so why shouldn't they know more about "gender studies" than people who actually do them?
 * And you are saying it. People just don't think you are actually correct, which should be quite obvious to someone who knows what "feminism" actually did and does instead of just believing some vague prejudices about it. --Irian (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Anita Sarkeesian clearly stated that everything is sexist, racist and homophobic and that video games create sexism as opposed to merely perpetuate sexism. From her point of view, gamers can't tell fantasy from reality and according to Wikipedia, all who disagree with her are potential rapist, even thougth they are a very small minority of players.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This post couldn't be any more wrong than it already is.—<font color="GreenYellow">Ryūlóng (<font color="DodgerBlue">琉竜 ) 05:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Come on, people like him would believe that Anita eats babies for breakfast without knowing more of her than her name. Not really a surprise. --Irian (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've watched her videos and read the Wikipedia article, she flat out says what I claim she says in those words and there is no mention of non harasment critisism (sextual or otherwise) on either RationalWiki or Wikipedia, she is not part of the solution she is part of the problem.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing on any of those pages even comes remotely close to addressing any of the claims you've made. Stop being an idiot.—<font color="Orchid">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkSlateGray">琉竜 ) 11:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear BoN, your problem has very little to do with Ms Sarkusian. You'd just like to think it has so that you can blame someone. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know anyone who attends gender studies or has visited a feminist academic class?--106.69.219.127 (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a better question. Have you ever done either of those?—<font color="Crimson">Ryūlóng (<font color="Red">琉竜 ) 13:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking no but I have met female students who think women are better than men and believe men discriminate against them for their gender but they weren't feminist classes. However I can assume it's from either past discrimination or being misinformed about gender politics from gender studies. One time when I was riding home in a bus, the woman driver was talking to the female passanger of how far society has fallen and that men are to blame. I assume that's from either generationism or gender studies. So now have you?--106.69.219.127 (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So your answer is no and yet you think you know everything about feminist discourse. Good job on that one bub.—<font color="Navy">Ryūlóng (<font color="Orange">琉竜 ) 13:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I may not have been in gender studies but the videos "Vicious Feminism at Schools", "How to Spot a Feminist", "All Men are Pedophiles", "White Men see Black Women as Sextual Objects" and "Potty Mouth Princesses" are enough to know the nature of feminist.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. Stop posting.—<font color="DarkOrchid">Ryūlóng (<font color="Purple">琉竜 ) 04:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How am I wrong? The videos are all from different forms of feminism, sometimes they are racist or homophobic/heterophobic. Sure they may be fighting for women's rights, but the multiple groups of feminism are just different kinds of misandrist.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Wrong. None of those are by feminists. "Vicious Feminism at Schools" is by an anti-Semite MRA who believes in the Cultural Marxism shit. "How to Spot a Feminist" is by conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson who works for Alex Jones. There is no video "All MEn Are Pedophiles" but there is a film Are All Men Pedophiles? which was made by a man and seems to be problematic at best. I can't find anything titled "White Men see Black Women as Sexual Objects" written by any woman. And "Potty Mouth Princesses" is a video by FCKH8 which is a T-shirt store that the feminist, gay rights, and black rights communities all hate for their behavior. So you're wrong as usual. Stop posting this garbage. Stop believing in the idiot conspiracy theorists who believe feminism is a Jewish plot to convert the whole world to communism.—<font color="LawnGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="Turquoise">琉竜 ) 10:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe feminist are jewish or communist. I believe feminist can be of any religion, political type or ethnicity, I just believe they abuse their power like everyone else with authority.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Read what I said again and understand why you are such a complete fucking idiot.—<font color="Teal">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkRed">琉竜 ) 14:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is it on this site, that we can agree that all muslims are radical extremist, but we can't dispute feminism? Is it because RationalWiki is entirely feminist driven?--106.69.219.127 (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No-one here will take such kinda Sippenhaft sirius, either. Fuck off to /pol/ or Stormfront.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 09:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Go on the discussion page of Islam.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to tell you these things. You are so incredibly wrong on all of these subjects. You do not have any idea what feminism is about and you don't know what this website thinks about Islam. Go back to Reddit.—<font color="Maroon">Ryūlóng (<font color="Blue">琉竜 ) 21:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm from Youtube, not Reddit.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Splitting hairs. Stop being an ignorant tool on RationalWiki when we have gone above and beyond in explaining everything to you to show how your assertions about feminism, and now the ideas of Islam on this website in particular, are laughably wrong.—<font color="Navy">Ryūlóng (<font color="MediumBlue">琉竜 ) 09:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I won't argue about feminism anymore but it's safe to say that they are haters and non haters in both feminist and Men's Right's Activist. Both sides have villains and the fact that radicals and liberals aren't that different, hasn't exactly helped to know who are in the vocal minority and who's in the silent majority.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, MRAs are pretty much all anti-feminist internet trolls like yourself. You're just too far gone down the red pill rabbit hole to understand anything rational when it comes to this subject. You've done nothing but spout lies told to you by people who only want you to watch their 30 minute videos so they get paid by Google for it. Also, none of them are really all that intelligent. If you actually read anything on this website instead of the shit you've spewed over it for the past two months you might actually learn something that isn't idiotic propaganda made to make you think feminists are all man hating harpies out to take your scrotum away.—<font color="SteelBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="Coral">琉竜 ) 13:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because only feminist believe in gender equality, not humanist or egalitarians and all who disagree agree with anything feminist say, are obviously straw misogynist.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fighting for equal rights for men is like fighting for more money for rich white people. Yes, these people also have problems of their own - but these problems are dwarfed by the problems of the poor. And in the case of the problems of men, most of these problems have the same basic reasons that feminism fights against, for example stupid stereotypes of men and women and discrimination against those who don't want to be like those stereotypes. But yes, not all people who don't call themselves feminists are misogynistic, true. But it tends to be a red flag if someone actively denounces feminism for something like "fighting for equality for all". Sounds good? Well, unfortunately it's like proclaiming that fighting only for the rights of the colored slaves is wrong and that we should fight for the rights of rich white slaveowners, too. --Irian (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Egalitarian" and "humanist" are code words for "MRA". Particularly if someone says "I'm not a feminist I'm a humanist/egalitarian". Women have had the short end of the stick in most western cultures for the past several hundred years. And as Irian points out, most of the actual problems that men's rights activists stand for are also rooted in feminist activism. They recognize issues with men being victims of rape and unfair treatment in family court when it comes to child custody. But I don't see you raising any of those issues. You've just been railing against feminism for the past two months. And now you've been vandalizing articles and spreading your frankly idiotic ideas on the standardized test to this website as you have others. Go away, BoN. You're an idiot and we're tired of telling you why.—<font color="Yellow">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkRed">琉竜 ) 21:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're still reinforcing my belief that feminist focus on fighting for exclusively for women and girls and demonising men and boys as the oppressor. I have already said how feminist hurt men and boys. As you said the rich never help anyone because that is how history has been, most men until the last couple of centuries had little authority, it was the peasants fighting for the kings and how much power did the average peasant have? So fighting against sexism, you're either a feminist or a Men's Rights Activist?--106.69.219.127 (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. You're just an idiot. Feminism is a philosophy to try to correct the years of women being second class citizens. Men's rights activism is a reactionary movement with regards to feminism that mostly takes the form of being anti-feminist rather than actually advocating for issues regarding sexism against men.—<font color="GreenYellow">Ryūlóng (<font color="Yellow">琉竜 ) 04:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't guarantee that feminist won't hate men anymore then you can guarantee that men's rights activist won't hate women.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I can because feminism isn't actually about hating men despite what idiotic ideas you have about it while men's rights activism is certainly about hating feminists. Now shut up.—<font color="MediumVioletRed">Ryūlóng (<font color="Lime">琉竜 ) 07:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your saying women can choose what they want to be but only radical feminism is the appropriate choice? Spoiler alert! The MRA, think the exact same thing about themselves and feminist. I think that is a bit hypocritical of you to say that. There is a reason why I don't identify myself as a men's rights activist either and that's because not once have I slut shamed, not once have I belittled women, not once have I used any derogatory and not once have I blamed any victim or believed that feminism is some left wing conspiracy.--106.69.219.127 (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are only defending those who do. Much better, really. You don't even listen or try to understand, you only flee deeper into your imaginary world. I don't knwo why and honestly, I couldn't care less. --Irian (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't fucking said anything about "radical feminism" once this whole time. You've done nothing but repeat idiotic MRA talking points and refusing to acknowledge anything anyone else has said. Seriously, 106.69.219.127, shut the fuck up.—<font color="DarkMagenta">Ryūlóng (<font color="Blue">琉竜 ) 08:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

How am I defending 4chan, when I stated on Wikipedia that it needs to be deleted for being the rape capital of the internet? Just because I think feminist are bias and hatfull (both to men and to each other), doesn't mean I'm a misogynist.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Just because I think feminist are bias and hatfull (both to men and to each other), doesn't mean I'm a misogynist." - Actually, it kind of does. At the very least, you have a faulty perception of reality that is shared by and promoted by misogynists. So, you are both looking and quacking like a misogynist... Queexchthonic murmurings 13:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I know I'm a christian and I believe in god but not a muslim (who believes in the same god), so I'm going to hell. By the way I have never identified myself as a Men's rights activist either.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "so I'm going to hell" How do you get to that? Do you think you're talking to Muslims? "By the way I have never identified myself as a Men's rights activist either." So what? You're saying the same things that they say, the same things that are laughably at odds with reality, so it doesn't matter what you call yourself, nor how much you protest that you aren't a misogynist, it seem a pretty safe bet that you are. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't speaking against muslims, I was saying that you believe only feminist believe in gender equality and anyone who is not a feminist must be a misogynist.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's certainly possible to believe in gender equality without being a feminist. It's certainly possible to be neither a feminist nor a misogynist. However, the arguments you are using against feminism are the same make-believe nonsense that unquestionable misogynists use. If you don't want to be considered a misogynist, you should get different arguments. It's as simple as that. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a reason why many believe feminist are not part of the solution but part of the problem and that is they think only women are heart by sexism and all men support the patriarchy, because some how all men have authority and all treat women with violence. Even if they don't hate men, they are still guaranteed to be bitter harpies. So obviously the solution is that both feminism and the men's rights activist need to be taken down.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No.—Ryulong (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Go on the Useful Notes page of Feminism on TV Tropes, it clearly says that men are the oppressor and are cyberbullies.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No.—Ryulong (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Lacigreen says all countries abuse all women equally so there is no such thing a first or third world feminism.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't get much more false of a statement. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? 1 in 4 women are raped in Saudi Arabia, it is the same when it's 1 in 4 rapes in the United States.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "There is a reason why many believe feminist are not part of the solution but part of the problem" -- because they have a warped view of what feminists believe based almost entirely on what their political enemies say about them, and from one or two literally criminally insane people who happened to model their insanity around feminist ideas. Like, most of your claims about what feminists believe, I've never met an actual feminist who espouses them. I certainly don't fall for the "AllMen/NotAllMen" trap.KrytenKoro (talk)
 * The simple answer is this person did not state that, so it is untrue. Going down the rabbit hole as they move the goalposts seems like a waste of time.  Specifically, 6 months have been wasted trying to convince a stump.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said earlier women are raped equally everywhere and thus there is no line between First World and Third World Feminist and so it would make no difference if ISIL conquers the whole world or not.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like a commentary on all countries are the same and for the record violence against women is giving me anxiety and more recently sorrow and so I have distanced myself from Reddit and 4chan but unfortunately feminist don't believe men are capable of such fellings or sympathying with women.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)