Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive9

This is an archive page, last updated 19 June 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

This article is way off base

Hello

I’m an MRA, and I thought I’d send you a message about your articles on the MRA movement and circumcision. I find them grossly misinformed and horrible biased. I’ve made several threads in the talk sections of both pages, and was told that they would be considered for future edits.

For starters, your circumcision article is, quite frankly, awful. Circumcision is a horrible practice, as it constitutes genital mutilation. It causes significant nerve damage and loss of sexual pleasure, and kills thousands of boys every year.

I find that you ignore the many studies that DO conclude circumcision causes a loss of sexual pleasure- I included them in my talk section piece. The foreskin is highly erogenous tissue with thouands of miessners corpuscle and bulbocavernosus nerve endings. It is 100% certain that removing these removes sexual pleasure.

You also ignore male genital mutilation in Africa which IS comparable to FGM in everyway that could possibly apply. Broken bottles and knives are often used, and thousands of boys die every year. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-south-africa-circumcision-ritual-becomes-health-crisis/ http://ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html

Defending circumcision is not in anyway rational. Saying circumcision isn’t bad because FGM is worse is not in anyway rational either- it’s like saying cutting off a finger isn’t bad because cutting off the entire hand is worse. FGM has nothing to do with circumcision, and the article on circumcision should not be about FGM, it should be about circumcision.

For feminists to defend a practice that permanently reduces sexual pleasure is sickening, and the opposite of rational.

Your analysis on the men’s rights movement is also way off base, and completely misleading. You ignore many of the most important issues, such programs for low-income people excluding men, or higher pension ages for men in many countries. I was going to make edits, but I found that I would have had to delete the entire page and start again because it was so biased.

I’d be happy to discuss this further, if you like. ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.159.124.6 / talk / contribs}

No thanks? Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about two different issues here, slow down. I personally don't know too much about circumcision, but I don't think you're correct that the movement have started any programs for low-income men or to improve pension ages. At least, if they do exist, I'm not aware of them. Could you provide some links? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The guy's spamming this text about. He also hit a random comment of mine on Reddit - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt that RationalWiki's articles are not without their shortcomings. Much of the MRA page is written without regard to the MRA policy of gender equality. It's also noticeable that this website lacks a page on gender egalitarianism; the gender struggle isn't a battle between feminists and MRAs, they're both working towards a common goal and shouldn't be treated like opposite ends of a spectrum. MRAs aren't patriarchials and vice versa with feminists. 121.75.83.92 (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem is most current MRAs seem to enjoy hating on women or bemoaning their loss of privilege more than promoting gender equality, which is unfortunate for real issues males face. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 12:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I swear MRAs spend more time telling people online that they are about gender equality or that feminism isn't than actually trying to improve the lives of people of any gender. It is only seems like "a battle between MRAs and feminists" because the men's rights movement acts as a reactionary antifeminist movement --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hilariously, our society's concept of privilege, homophobia and misogyny works against them. When I tell people that MRA's exist, they usually laugh at them and call them "Betas/F*ggots/B*tches/etc". They can't be taken seriously.--BlackProg (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

My favourite thing is when they claim that entire schools of academic thought are "corrupted by feminism" without any sense of irony --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You talk about the GM happening in Africa as if the US and MRA's can control it. While FGM is illegal in the USA, it's still very legal and a common practice in other countries. We can't control what other countries do. Shatto (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Restraining orders

Would restraining orders be considered an MRA issue? See for example http://restrainingorderabuse.com/tag/violence-against-women-act/ Landmartian (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. "Don't prevent me from stalking" has to rank up there with stupid shit that MRAs conjure. Ikanreed (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed quotation marks

Removed quotation marks from around word "goal". They served no purpose. Keep Rationalwiki as unbiased as it is possible. ^{— Unsigned, by: 62.65.221.1 / talk / contribs 08:29, 1 February 2015‎ (UTC)}

Straw men

Even taking the "2% of accusations are false" at face value, which isn't completely clear, it seems a bit unfair to be quite so dismissive of false accusations. They do in fact do an immense amount of damage to everyone involved, not the least of which is the falsely accused person. An administrator at Dartmouth University was seriously applauded for asking "Why can't we expel someone based on an allegation?", and the UVA fiasco should illustrate just how much people are willing to swallow if it aligns with their narrative. For a non-campus example, look at what happened to Connor Oberst; a lot of self-identified feminists seriously criticized him for standing up to an allegation which was complete bullshit. Although views like this aren't altogether the majority, they are out there and someone needs to challenge them. That a lot of MRAs then turn this into the "all women are liars" doesn't negate the legitimate point they may have, so my suggestion would be to take 2-3 sentences to explain that their objections to false accusations has some grounding in reality and then tear them apart for their ridiculous excesses on the matter. I would also support taking a little more space to point out some of the more hysterical MRA ranting about the same subjects (e.g. the aforementioned UVA fiasco, which attracted plenty of misogyny in addition to reasonable criticism), so as to distinguish the valid points from the ranting. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

MRA argument vs Legitimacy

OK, RationalWiki, I need your help here, because from my point of view the artical is as far from being un-biased and rational as a wheelbarrow from being a car. I don't want to start an edit war here, so I would like to dicuss all the issues here first. ^{— Unsigned, by: 37.144.2.110 / talk / contribs} 12:17, 17 July 2015‎

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Circumcision

It is not about how much damage is done, but about men's right to decide whether or not they want this damage to be done to them. So the argument comparing circumcision to clitoris removal is invalid and irrational. You basically say "suck it up, guys, it's not a big deal". You know, this way a rape can also be "not a big deal", since often there is little to none physical damage is done, but we all are very much aware how it is not true. ^{— Unsigned, by: 37.144.2.110 / talk / contribs} 12:17, 17 July 2015‎

Pay gap

When Lisa Maatz, a spokeswoman for the American Association of University Women, was asked how much of the gender-wage gap is due to discrimination, Maatz — whose organization is one of the biggest proponents of the myth — responded: "We're still trying to figure that out." Usually a wage gap appears if you gather statistic without taking into account hours, experience, and job choices. If you take them into account, then, according to the US Department of Labor report the gap is between 93-95%. In fact, "In 2007, women accounted for 51 percent of all workers in the high-paying management, professional, and related occupations. They outnumbered men in such occupations as financial managers, human resource managers, education administrators, medical and health services managers, and accountants and auditors." Yet, in Legitimacy section only lawers are mentioned. A bit selective, isn't it?

There is another false argument from MRM about wage gap though. It's about risky jobs. Men in general has 93% higher chance to die at work due to fatal accidents or violence Bureau of Labor Statistics report), true. But despite that, this risk is not compensated so cannot really contrbiute to the wage gap (here's a good article with links to resourses). But speaking about risks, see the draft section. ^{— Unsigned, by: 37.144.2.110 / talk / contribs} 12:17, 17 July 2015‎

Draft

There is no draft now, but feminism poisoned the army. Males are 5.5 times more likely at risk of dying compared to females. At the same time females have lower standards for physical fitness tests and have the same wages. I do aknowledge that physialogically men and women are different, but this is not Olypmics, this is war were people can die because their fellow soldier cannot cover their back properly. You cannot expect respect from your brothers-in-arms when you are not a helper, but a burden... with equal wages. ^{— Unsigned, by: 37.144.2.110 / talk / contribs} 12:17, 17 July 2015‎

^{[citation needed]} Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 12:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No, forget citation needed, the cause of this is fucking obvious. The US military actively chooses to not deploy women to combat situations. That's pretty much a free pass on the dying part of being in the military, and you can't use that fucking statistic to justify not integrating the military. Jesus. BoN here is being a deceitful ass. If it were just a matter of not understanding something and getting statistics wrong, sure it happens a lot. But it's intellectual dishonesty, where they present a case they know or should know the egregious flaw with the argument, where I get dismissive.

Tell me 37, did you intend to be honest here? If so, what excuses this kinda flagrantly misleading bullshit? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 12:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. MRM is not conservative, they are not against women in the army. In fact, they support it, especially in the countries where there draft still exists. (MRM draws a link between the draft and the voting rights. Men paid for their right to vote (alongside with other benefits) with the agreement to die for their country in case of war. Now women have all those benefits too, but don't have to put their life at risk.) What MRM criticises is this very attitude when the US military actively chooses to not deploy women to combat situations, but giving them the same wages because of "equality". This is obviously not an equal treatment. Set the same standards for everyone and then put in the front line those who proved themselves good enough, no matter what sex they are.37.144.26.2 (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

And was the MRM behind the currently increasing roles of women in the military, or feminism? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 13:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Men paid for their right to vote ... with the agreement to die for their country in case of war. - so pacifists shouldn't get the vote? I don't think democracy works that way. Actually, then more I read this statement, the stupider it looks. Really, this ranks along side 'we hunted the mammoth' in terms of crassness. Get real. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Violence Against Women Act

"It has been suggested that as society becomes more egalitarian, more focus will be placed on male domestic abuse." Well, feminists are definitely not working in that direction. There are about 600 shelters for abused women operating across Canada. There are 0 shelters like that for men, and not only in Canada, but probably in the whole world. When Earl Silverman tried to organize one, he was not only refused any governmental support, but was attacked by feminists for being "rape appologist" and such. Even more, in Canada any report on any gender issue moving from one ministry to another (say, from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Justice) must first be vetted and approved by the Ministry for the Status of Women. If that minister feels (they don't have even to prove anything) that said report would be detrimental to the treatment or status of women in society the report stops at the minister's desk.

"Where the MRAs lose traction is when they neglect the fact that these attitudes, while certainly problematic, are only those of said individuals and not representative of feminism as a whole." This "Not All Feminist Are Like That" (aka NAFALT) is invalid, because this small but very active part of women acting under the feminist banner was influential enough to lobby that law. And other feminist have some sort of collective guild. Not only they didn't stop them from that, but they passively support them, still calling themselves feminists and supporting that small but influential group of their comrades. If not all feminists are like that, show me those feminists who fight for equality in this issue. Actually, I can show you one. Her name is Erin Pizzey. She is the woman who started one of the first women's shelters for abused women. Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts from other feminists because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally capable of violence as men. She had to move from canada to US to New Mexico to Italy to UK because those theats were very real. You say NAFALT, but why truely egalitarian women like Erin Pizzey can't do much, while those radical militant feminists are not presecuted, but even thrive, lobbying one ridiculous law after another? ^{— Unsigned, by: 37.144.2.110 / talk / contribs} 12:17, 17 July 2015‎

^{[citation needed]} Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Procreation rights

In case of unwanted pregnancy:

1. If a woman wants to abort the child, man has no right to stop her, despite of his "religious or social reasons" and the fact that the child was still the product of two persons.

2. If a woman wants to keep the child, man has no right to force her into abortion and will have to pay 18 years of alimony. Despite the fact that they had equal responsibility in avoiding the unwanted pregnancy, a woman has an option to opt out as well as force the man into 18 years of slavery, whileas the man has no options whatsoever.

And there is a touchy issue of pregnancy frauds. Women's birth control methods are invisible to men. I don't have the exact statistics, but I have plenty of women forums on the Internet, where women say that lying to boyfriend about taking pills is a valid method of forcing him into marriage.

And in divorce, women are rewarded child custody in 80% of the time. Feminists do nothing to fight it. ^{— Unsigned, by: 37.144.2.110 / talk / contribs} 12:17, 17 July 2015‎

"I have plenty of women forums on the Internet, where women say that lying to boyfriend about taking pills is a valid method of forcing him into marriage." Come on then, let's see them. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Health care

As an example:

One in 7 men will have prostate cancer. One in 8 women will get breast cancer. Yet breast cancer recieves twice the funding. Some people say it's beacuse it's different and more people recieve breast cancer. there are to ways to look at it: which one you are more likely to get and which one is most likely to kill you. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer, but lung cancer is the most likely to kill you. Breast cancer in each case is more funded. This is because of feminist's campaigns of breast awareness and this is why feminism is not about equatlity.

You are very pro-feminist here. You say that women need more care because of their nature (reproductivity). While at the same time the very men's nature results into lower life expectancy, and what is your argument there? "Well, it's just natural, whether your are in Iran or Iceland, so deal with it" instead of paying more attention to it. Instead of paying more attention to this gender gap, feminists spend more time bitching about how unfair are the prices for tampons are. I am serious here, they are pushing the law that will force the government to pay for their hygienic needs thus saving them 20 bucks a year. "Fight for equality", right. ^{— Unsigned, by: 37.144.2.110 / talk / contribs} 12:17, 17 July 2015‎

The key difference between breast and prostate cancer is that the latter 1. doesn't always require treatment and 2. when it does frequently needs it on a fairly low level (i.e. finasteride). The extent to which medicine spending slants in favor of men is exaggerated, that's true, but there's already a link in the article which says as much. If you want to expand on it then read the link and see what you find. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Insurance

I don't see the reason to raise this issue, but could you please provide the link on those feminists who figth against that? ^{— Unsigned, by: 37.144.2.110 / talk / contribs} 12:17, 17 July 2015‎

Support of women's business

Why should there be such a program at all? Running buisness is a risky thing, and as an enterpreneur you have to deal with that by default. The government support should be based on economic basis, because how basing that on gender will benefit to society? ^{— Unsigned, by: 37.144.2.110 / talk / contribs} 12:17, 17 July 2015‎

criminal charges

No, lets look at the same crimes. Men spend about 60% more time in jail for the same crime. Here is the article. Here is the original survey.

Look in wikipedia's "Sex differences in crime" article: men in US are 9 times more likely to be incarcerated. Unfortunately I don't have the exact statistis about how much likely a man is trialed for a crime, but that I am sure that would be a juicy number for MRM.

And there is also this gem where judges ordered to show more mercy on women criminals when deciding sentences. The argument is "women are opressed and there is a pay gap and they are underrepresented in the judiciary". Well, that same argument won't work for illegal immigrants, or of some black/mexican guy from ghetto, will it? Why make in about gender? And this is in the section of "gender equality". "It is now well recognised that a misplaced conception of equality has resulted in some very unequal treatment for women and girls." feminists say. This is the general issue with feminism. Feminists want equality but only in the areas which are beneficial to them. When they face the real equality, they claim, that it's unfair, because women are weak and have special needs. Egalitarian feminists were silience, while pro-women feminists made this rule passed into UK courts. ^{— Unsigned, by: 37.144.2.110 / talk / contribs} 12:17, 17 July 2015‎

Marital rape

First, look at the feminist's definition of rape, which is close to "any sex when a woman felt vilated". So, basically, when a wife doesn't want it. Even if she won't want to have sex with his husband at all, till the end of time. Which is fine, if it works for men the way it works for women. But the man cannot have a ground for divorse because of that. However, if he will try to seek sex somewhere else, his wife will have the valid reason because of infidelity. What is more, impotency is a valid ground for divorce, because women are entitled to have sex with their husbands.

You know, the more interesing fact is omitted here. The fact that the definition of rape assumes that women cannot be rapists (therefore, the whole statistics on rape is skewed). In fact, if she was drunk and that time, then she was not in the state when she could concent to sex and therefore the man she tied and had sex with will technically be a rapist. And if she gets pregnant, he will have to pay alimony. ^{— Unsigned, by: 37.144.2.110 / talk / contribs} 12:17, 17 July 2015‎

This entire collections of PRATTs falls into two categories:

• Genuine problems that feminists are trying to tackle in the name of equality, but that MRAs only seem to even think about when casting about for cudgel with which to beat straw feminists (circumcision, sentencing, custody for example).
• Pitiful whining about practical measures already taken to help redress existing problems. (VAWA, employment and other business incentives, for example).

Which come as no surprise as the central dogma of MRAville seems to be that any amount of complaining about problems is fine (particularly if you can blame other people), but actually practical measures to fix problems are strictly off-limits.

If you really want to discuss any of these points, why not search out an article on them on RW? Or are you afraid that those articles might contradict the weird-ass facsimile of feminism you work from? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Without commenting just yet on the issues, I will say that linking to feminists who are actively combating said issues would head this off at the pass. I don't doubt it's relatively easy to find said links, and I'm happy to find a few myself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Random comments

Just passing through. This article seems extremely irrational, and I think it and the people maintaining it should be reviewed. 122.60.128.121 (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how the movement is misogynist

None of the sources particularly outline the movement teaching, endorsing or being filled with misogyny. Most of it is wishy-washy and fails to argue any points while coming off as whiny and, DARE SOMEONE SAY, misandrist. Perhaps someone can provide evidence for the movement being misogynist but it looks to me like it's just groupthink encouraging Two Minutes' Hate. CaptainCaptain (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't say.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy: [1]. Let us know when you've read enough of these to realise that the evidence is overwhelming. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 09:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Said it before, will say it again: Using 'we hunted the mammoth' for source material is like using Mein Kampf for justifying why the Jews should die. CaptainCaptain (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Why? You assert, warrantless. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So, which of the purported facts on whtm do you think are wrong, then? Even if you dislike the commentary, the actions of the MRAs featured speak for themselves. What actual factual basis do you think is wrong, or are you just trying to dismiss it by waving a hand because it completely undermines your weird little narrative? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You can like WHTM or not, it doesn't matter. To see what the MRM is like you don't even need to read the WHTM posting themselves, just follow the links into the depths of the manosphere. If you do that for a while and still claim that the MRM is not misogynist, then you are either lying or have simply chosen to be blind to the obvious. --Irian (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how your head could've gotten stuck so far deep down your ass, yet it still seems to be the case. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:36, 10 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

SocJus: We can't refute, so we will insult! HAVE YOU SURRENDERED YET, OPPONENT? WHY AREN'T MY INSULTS WORKING?CaptainCaptain (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What the flying fuck is a "SocJus" supposed to be? A word trim?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like WHTM then maybe you could name 3 men's rights activists who have done something other than complain about women oppressing them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Earl Silverman, ran the only male shelter in Canada before the government denied funding and he lost it, committing suicide later. Edward M. Stevens, founder of the Foundation for Male Studies, an academic group. Glenn Sacks, was the executive director of the US national parents organization and was also involved in the promotion of LGBT rights and father's rights. None of them talked about an imaginary matriarchy, unlike feminism and its godly patriarchy.CaptainCaptain (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well those certainly are men's rights activists that aren't of the Paul Elam variety. But your tone with that last sentence more or less proves the "misogyny" bit. That is why the article presently says that there's a men's rights movement that generally agrees with feminism or doesn't exist to diametricaly oppose it and one that has decided women are the oppressors and spend most of their time fomenting hatred against women and feminists. You seem to fall into that second camp while simultaneously praising people from the first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Silverman believed anti-feminist talking points when it came to domestic violence. Dr. Stephens also repeats anti-feminist shit and is buddy buddy with Paul Elam. Sacks was also involved in this debacle and he seems to rail against women regularly with his radio show. So thanks for showing that even these paragons still meet the misogyny threshhold (even if 2 out of 3 have done some good things).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Lemme get this straight, if feminists rail agains all men it's fine, but if MRAs talk about women, MEE SOH JEE NEE! As I have stated in the forum, assuming you're talking about the illustrious 'men's liberation movement', it is a puppet with feminism so far up its rectum half of what is says is fecal matter. The rest has been ripped from the MRM and then had a NEW label slapped onto it. You want your heroes ripped down? Anita is pretty damn misandrist, as is Laci Green, and Jessica Valenti, and Bahar Mustafa. In fact, it's far easier to say they have a hatred of men than the men I mentioned having a hatred of women. But, y'know, facts and that. I know they're pretty darn hard to fathom.CaptainCaptain (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I pointed out already how patriarchy is a sociological concept, to which he rejected my citation and basically all of reality, instead insisting it's a religious one. It's been my experience the ones quickest to dismiss social justice work have never engaged in activism itself when it's not centered around their personal identity (usually the cis white male kind). Withoutaname (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Aah good, a bit of old fashioned SocJus racism. 'Someone says this, they must be a white straight male!' Sooo progressive. Now, going back to the illustrious patriarchy: what exactly does the patriarchy consist of? A bunch of men putting on black and gold robes with vaguely phallic symbols drawn on them, meeting around a table shaped like the male symbol and discussing how best to oppress women and help men? If that is so, they're doing a terrible job, seeing as this system, built supposedly to benefit men, incarcerates men for double the sentence length (or gives women half the length) enjoys making them commit suicide, revels in making sure they make up the vast majority of war deaths and never drafting women into war in the first place. This is the worst patriarchy ever and my boyfriend demands a refund. He went to the Privilege station to cash in his privilege, but they denied the request! And then we he asked the police to arrest the female teller, they laughed in his face and refused! Utterly crap patriarchy.CaptainCaptain (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well you get brownie points for being topical by referencing Bahar Msutafa. Good on you for that. Usually people name drop Valerie Solanas.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I think our guest dog whistled with the argumentum ad Nazium of We Hunted the Mammoth of all things. The guest's focus against SocJus is just short of a W and we have a full whistler. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The finest bit is that anyone using the term "socjus" earnestly is someone who has chosen to fail at life in every possible regard. They could have achieved anything ever, but nooooo there's important failing to be done! It's their fallback term after "social justice warrior" and "SJW" were wholeheartedly reclaimed by non-shitheads, which is why it's so clunky and terrible - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't refute you being racist, nor can you refute the stupidity of a patriarchy, nor can you refute the fact that the MRM isn't full of bigots like you so wish it to be. No, you can't refute anything I say, and so all you have is "WAH HE CALLED US SOCJUS" How does it feel to be so harmed by words and so ineffectual against arguments that all you have is whining? All you have is cheap ad hominem, 'someone uses a certain term, they must be a straight white male who hasn't do e anything in life!' Which, amusingly, is an argument I hear when someone's been destroyed in refutations, and one gets similar things said when arguing against other groups. 'You're a poopoo head!' Is all I hear. CaptainCaptain (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You're supposed to say, "Did I trigger you?" in order to fill your card.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right, silly me. Though this place is not as far down the rabbit hole as SJWiki. They actually have trigger warnings on their pages. So somehow I think you'll all survive without mentions of triggering. Would have been amusing though. CaptainCaptain (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No the point is that your feeble brain cannot think of any actual insults to sling at people so that when they call you out on your garbage attempts at being "edgy" or what have you, most of the time people like yourself go for the hackneyed and banal "TRIGGERED" joke. But the point is that you don't know anything about feminist theory to remotely come close to attacking it as you've been trying for the past week that it took you to come back to RationalWiki and be a run of the mill MRA of the anti-feminism variety. I'm also surprised you didn't use "muh soggy knees" as well, but that may be because I convinced John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt to blacklist it in an attempt to prevent the mouthbreathing Gamergate-affiliated weirdos, again like yourself, from being able to post it because of how fucking stupid it is.

And also to address your earlier point, the reason why I've dismissed Silverman, Stephens, and Sacks is because of the anti-feminist and misogynistic nature of their form of men's rights activism because they're all anti-women stances rather than addressing problems placed upon men by the societal norms attributed to men and women. Men aren't seen as victims of domestic abuse because for seveal centuries women were stereotypically seen as feeble and men's property and incapable of being the aggressor. Fathers are denied full custody of their children because women are stereotypically seen as the better suited parent. And the list goes on and on about how western society has made certain traits desirable in men because of their association with masculinity and others undesirable because of their association with femininity. But I don't hear Paul "My mother forced me to take a bitter medicine and that's why I hate feminism" Elam do anything about that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If anything you sound pretty offended people called the MRM misogynistic. Why are you so concerned with such a group anyway? For all the whining you accuse us of, I don't think you've seen the whining and non-activism from the MRM that WHTM frequently points out. Withoutaname (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh my god is WHTM another god to you people, though this time a positive one? What, are they saints? Who have they saved? Did they solve the acid-throwing crises? Have they eliminated the deaths of women in war entirely? Or have they done something for men? Torn down Selective Service? Discussed and aided the suicide rates of men? If we want to talk about the fact there are people in movements who do little real-world work, I'm afraid feminism and social justice have a monopoly on being trash. The MRM has done such things as funded groups that talk about men's issues, when they aren't being shut down by feminists as in the CAFE talk in Canada where feminists pulled the fire alarm to clear a hall of MRAs talking. Additionally, according to you people, raising awareness is important, and I think the MRM does a bloody ton of raising awareness about men's issues that are often overlooked. CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old MRA "fix things in other countries" standby. David Futrelle is showing how fucking childish and misogynistic the Manosphere is. Meanwhile feminists do care about acid throwing and you and I aren't going to be drafted into military service any time soon, buddy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Raising awareness of the actual problems men face in society (often due to the effects of the patriarchy) is not the same thing as whining about how Society is anti-man and thus we need a menisnism movement. There are issues that need to be addressed, they aren't in any form or shape the same as what the actual equality movements are about. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have anything resembling an argument? Are you capable of refuting points? Selective Service means the government is always a step away from drafting, and women are not made to sign up for SS. But hey, don't talk about it! WE MUSN'T TALK ABOUT IT! And it's not like society doesn't see men as highly disposable, what with the fact the war, workplace and suicide deaths have been lingering under the rug like a trapdoor to an unpleasant truth. CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well there is the fact that we need far less men to continue society than we do women, by a nature standpoint men actually are expendable. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to second person, THE PATE WEE ARR KEE ATTACKS AGAIN!The system built to help men, enjoys hurting and killing men! THE PATRIARCHY WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS! We can never grasp the full machinations of the patriarchy! The patriarchy is omniscient, omnipotent, all-consuming! Also, meninism? Really? Are you one of those people who are too stupid to know that the meninism movement was a joke twitter account? Too good to be true. CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It means, that some countries think, that women are second-rate and therefore not fit to defend the country. Many countries do think otherwise and allow women into the military (some countries, e.g. Israel, have compulsory conscription for women, albeit for a shorter service period of 2 years then men, who serve 3 years). Claiming the non-acceptance of women into the military being a sign of a society being concerned for the welfare of women is as retarded as claiming, that women are forced to wear burkas (or, a softer variant, sheytls or snoods) out of concern for the so-called "dignity" or "modesty" of women.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought a snood was a freeware game that ripped off bust-a-move.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I had to look up the stuff to know the name of it (I saw a ton of Orthodox Jewish women wearing this thing, but I either never know, what the think is called or forgot the name of it).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So, staying home is worse than being forced to die in a war? Mhm. Mhm. Mhm mhm mhm. CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, having a worse reading comprehension then a guy having learned English as his 3rd language is.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wanna know how we can solve the men only draft? Either by abolishing it, which does away with the issue entirely, or letting feminism dispel the notion of women being unfit for combat duty which the male-only draft is founded on. The solution to the actual issue of a male only draft is thus solved by supporting womens rights, not whining about how we need mens rights.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

hahahahaha oh my god, you have no idea how funny that is. THERE MUST BE A NEED FOR FEMINISM HERE! THERE JUST HAS TO BE! We cannot be obsolete! We must have control over ALL the problems! Clearly, the system installed to draft men is simply anti-women! We must make the government believe that the sex that is generally worse at building upper body strength, is now equally good at building upper body strength! We must make the draft available to ALL people, so as many can die as possible!CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Amusing. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As one who dropped a Women's Studies minor in the 80s because too much of it was bullshit, and as one who thinks the "trigger warning" thing is also mostly bullshit, let me say, CaptainCaptain, that you are singularly unpersuasive. That patriarchy exists and lingers today is a sociological reality is not disputed by reasonable people. Nor do reasonable people doubt that macho bullshit and patriarchy impose demands on men that are also harmful to them. You are largely attacking straw men. (sic) ---Mona- (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

Triggers are an actual thing that people with post-traumatic stress disorder have. In feminist discourse, the use of the trigger warning is mostly in discussions about various forms of sexual assault because readers may or may not have been victims and it provides them fair warning that the discussion will concern this. In other ways, and speaking anecdotally of course, I have an online friend who was living in Fukushima during the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. She found scenes in Pacific Rim triggering because of how similar some of the monster attacks were to her experiences in the aftermath (particularly Mako Mori's flashback scene) but now she just despises the film because of Del Toro's hamfisted attempts at using PTSD as a theme at all. However, she still is viscerally affected by earthquakes and similar subjects.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘My history includes severe PTSD related to the violent, accidental death of my child. I do understand it's use in the mental health context. (And had some Gamergate asshole go after me for using the word "trigger" in that way on Twitter.) Nevertheless, bad things happen to people, and I do not expect, say, novels to "warn" me that someone loses a child therein. The whole notion of such warnings on literature or in university classrooms strikes me as affirming the Victorian notion of women as fragile flowers reaching for the fainting couch. That all said, it's absurd to deny the existence of patriarchal structures. That some feminists carry such analysis to extremes does not render patriarchy unreal. Captain is simply one loud shriek.---Mona- (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

My condolences.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well if it's in the same manner as how you lost your child and you had not received treatment, such a warning might be worth mentioning. And it's worth mentioning in case of panic attacks, etc.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Mmmm, look at all the evidence for the patriarchy you have. Oh wait, you have none. In the words of JC Denton, what a shame. CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying there is a group of men that puts on black and gold robes with penises on them, that sits around a male symbol table and discusses how to oppress women, AND men? Uhuh, very logical. Also, not disputed by reasonable people? So people such as Richard Dawkins, Sargon of Akkad (youtuber, not the ancient leader), multiple actRESSES, of which I could give you at least thirteen, and I bet the majority of society? Give it up, your patriarchy is a religious person's god, your arguers cannot disprove its existence because you cannot prove a negative, yet you have no evidence for the Phallus Palace Conglomerate Meetings. CaptainCaptain (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The strawmanning is strong with this one.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that does not constitute evidence for Phallus Palace meetings. Try again. CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck is a "Phallus Palace"? A dildo shop?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess metaphors really aren't your thing. If you had bothered reading my recent post, you would know I have coined the term as being related to where your imagined patriarchy gathers, in their black and gold robes covered in penises. CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No-one here claimed the existence of such a gathering. You strawmanning again.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hehehe, you're gonna have to provide evidence as to how the patriarchy works then, if it isn't a presumably weekly meeting at a Phallus Palace. So go on, 'reeducate' me, how do the machinations of your hated god work? Or does it work in mysterious ways, unfathomable by us mere mortals? CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Through a bunch of cultural ideas about Men and women that have seen actual effect via Political action, religious theology and cultural mores. Women are not drafted because they "have other places in society", not because they aren't good soldiers. Men shoulder the burden of child payment because "it's a mans job to do that". Men get higher and harsher prison sentences because of cultural attitudes about men and women, not because society is actually hatin' on dem mens.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Or they shoulder child support because the woman wants it and the court system doesn't want the man having the child. Way to turn EVERYTHING into feminism. Also, it's completely because women are not usually suited to the soldiering world. No woman has ever passed the Navy Seal Selection Course, nor has one passed the second phase of the Marine Corp Officer Course. It's completely biological. I imagine there are a few women that could pass those courses, but none of them have bothered. So, in the eyes of the govt, men make the perfect disposable person, as they can be strong but aren't really required. In the case of prison sentences, it's obvious that the systems are favoring women. Additionally, there have been several articles by feminists saying female prisons should be abolished. No similar articles regarding male prisons. CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Women do soldering in Israel and did there even before Israel became independent, as they did in some other countries. It ain't biological, it is cultural.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you actually believe the things you say?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, poe's Law in action.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So you say that women are absolutely physically equal to men? That millions of years of evolution did not favor one sex over the other when it came to strength? That all women are perfectly capable of hauling ass with 50kg strapped across their body? And you believe that the only reason no women have passed the Navy Seal SC and Marine Officer SC is simply 'cause of PATE WEE ARR KEE, even though the women who have attempted would be insulted by your belittling? Bravo. CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Evolution is not a person, who can "favor" or "disfavor" anyone (they're not physically equal. Men can't have babies (as of now, science may march on and we have something like the stuff in Arnie's film)) and I (nor anyone else) didn't claim the other stuff you claim I claimed.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Women are different from men yes, and evolution has selected fr stronger men. This does no preclude women from hauling ass with 50kg strapped across their body. I think they'd be more insulted by you saying it's physically impossible for them to match a man than by me saying that the patriarchy is working against them. --"Paravant" ^{Talk &}

Contribs 23:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What was that about strawmanning? I never said no woman can do it, I said that no women have passed certain courses, and that biology does not favor them. But hey, can't have a religion without HYPOCRISY!CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

They did not pass them... Yet. Give it time.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Well i'm wrong, so i'll just try using their own language against them!" is not a good position to be in. also jesus christ learn to format on this wiki. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they will, they are certainly free to try, seeing as the patriarchy hasn't bothered to stop them trying. Maybe it was an oversight, a slipup in paperwork. Perhaps the patriarchy will slam the door shut on them! Oh no! NEED MORE FEMINISM! Also second poster, what's the matter, CAN'T REFUTE YET ANOTHER POINT? This is becoming a regular story! Also not my fault your wiki is stuck in the 90s, I prefer to keep the posts resetting about five colons. Additionally, really Paravant? A vandal ban? A few posts back you replied with one word, which on most forums would be considered spam. Thus, I can only conclude you cannot tolerate dissent! And some of you call the MRM an echo chamber. Quaint.CaptainCaptain (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Echo chamber? We let you talk here despite it being somewhat off topic. The only person you've been talking to have been mostly yourself. Have you heard of the backfire effect? It seems you are less concerned with learning our answer to your original question than you are concerned with asking a loaded question and attempting to disprove us (and perhaps amaze your friends with your "logical" argumentation in the process). Withoutaname (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Captain, that women in the aggregate do not have the same upper body strength as men does not deny the reality of patriarchal structures in societies, especially in religion. Moreover, socialization alone cannot explain why serial killers are almost always male, so I am persuaded that in the aggregate men and women are physically and psychologically different in ways that makes men more naturally fit for direct combat killing. (And the Israeli military is not in reality much of a counter-example to this position I find persuasive.) Additionally, I am persuaded that women, in the aggregate, are more naturally nurturing of children than are men. All of that said, and nevertheless, patriarchy -- i.e., a male sense of ownership entitling them to control over women -- is not justified because of those physical and psychological differences. ---Mona- (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Cause Israel is an evel Zioooooonist "entity", imirite (who took accepted gays into all positions in the military since 1993)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh? ---Mona- (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Protip: don't try to "humorously" strawman your opponent's position every second post

CaptainCaptain, why don't we try this: what are the most prominent MRA leaders to have supported feminism (meaning, here, the view that women suffer some injustice that should be remedied)? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Men feel entitled to women? Where? How? Citation needed! You can't say something and not back it up with evidence, especially such an outlandish claim! You think the majority of men in western society are just rape machines, when they see a woman they can just take her? There are no laws preventing them? CITATION NEEDED!

Also, I don't support feminism, so I'm not exactly chasing MRA leaders who do. Why do you think I want MRM leaders who support feminism? Should I look for Jewish leaders who like the Nazis?CaptainCaptain (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If you wanna insert ^{[Citation needed]}, use {{fact}}.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A: Men feel entitled to women? Where? How? Citation needed! You can't say something and not back it up with evidence

Good thing I didn't. I don't fucking care about that, as it's irrelevant to the misogyny of the MRM.

B: I don't support feminism, so I'm not exactly chasing MRA leaders who do.

See "the view that women suffer some injustice that should be remedied". What MRA leaders have spoken out against some plight faced by women? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Earlier one of you said "why should feminism deal with men's issues" so why should the MRM deal with women's?CaptainCaptain (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is that there are men's rights advocates who do not exist solely to attack women and feminism in some form whereas you and everyone you listed do seem to fall under that umbrella. So it seems MRM is steeped in misogyny.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

one of you said "why should feminism deal with men's issues"

A: Feminism does deal with men's issues. For example, I know no feminist who thinks that gender roles for women are shit but fine for men.

B: This is, again, a red herring. Discussing what feminism cares about is irrelevant to whether or not the MRM is misogynist. So please: how does the MRM help women? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So your reasoning is, if it doesn't help women, it's against women? YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US! Great false dichotomy you built there. Just because a movement, BUILT FOR MEN, does not help women, does not make it misogynist. Also, in the case of feminism 'helping' men, saying something occasionally amidst saying the opposite things most of the time does not count as 'helping' in my book. But I guess my book is tainted with misogyny and was written by the patriarchy. CaptainCaptain (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A: if it doesn't help women, it's against women? YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US!

1: Stop. Your attempts to mock our ideology are pitiful and ahumorous. Notice how this type of argumentation hasn't convinced anyone? It won't.

2: In this case, there *is* a dichotomy of action. Either you (a) attempt to improve equality of women in areas of unfairness (and thus tacitly accept that this inequality is bad) or (b) do nothing to improve the inequality of women in areas of unfairness (and thus tacitly accept that the status quo is not worth fixing). While it is possible to be a feminist in ideas (here your "false dichotomy" truly does exist) and not in action, not being a feminist in action is essentially the same as being a misogynist, because of the way it impacts women.

B: If you can't find any MRM supports of feminism, but we have offered ample instances of MRAs being dicks to women, it suggests to me that the MRM is more misogynist than "neutral" towards women.

C: saying something occasionally amidst saying the opposite things most of the time

What to feminists say that "most of the time" that is anti-men? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So, you want evidence of feminists being anti-men?

[mercy removal]

CaptainCaptain (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The link dump removed before is nutpicking at its finest and a shitload of disingenuity. FFS, the first one you said was "Feminists don't want women to be prosecuted for false rape allegations" when the article doesn't use the word feminist at all and is about a women's charity in the UK seeking to change the criminal punishment that women who made false rape allegations were convicted under because these women were sentenced for life when shorter and more lenient sentences exist in UK law. Another link was to a fucking Roosh V site and it was about Shanley Kane publicizing Milo Yiannopoulos's phone number after he threatened to write a hitpiece on her. So many of these links never mention feminism or feminists. You're praising infamous anti-feminist women and MRAs, and linking to various Tumblrs that are either troll blogs or referencing other troll blogs that they can't decipher as such because Poe's law doesn't exist according to MRAs. And really the worst of it all is that one of your examples was the /pol/ OP #EndFathersDay. Don't post anymore CaptainCaptain.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So they were right. If you bring up conflicting opinions, they silence you. If you bring up evidence, they burn it. So what, you disliked some of the links? There were fifty links there. So let's recap: You all hate dissenters, you hate evidence even more, you burn all attempts at disagreement and cite cutsie 'laws' as an appeal to statutes like it somehow saves your racism and sexism from criticism. Any blog that disagrees is a troll blog, when a non-feminist reporter writes about someone else, it is a violent hitpiece. Reddit is a horrible source but feminist propaganda sites are better than academia. All evidence of feminists doing horrible things must be swept under the rug and then a flash-blitz must be engaged against other links in order to dissuade argument. Evidence must be hidden so no one can see you as wrong. Rational wiki indeed. Congratulations, you have passed your initiation rites. You are fully fledged SocJus. Ignorance is Strength, Listen and Believe. CaptainCaptain (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not conflicting opinions. It's all shit you've taken out of context or shit that was taken out of context before you ever found it. You linked us to a fucking compilation of "Kill All Men" tweets and you seriously believed that #EndFathersDay was made up by feminists rather than the neo-nazi idiots on /pol/. And really, shut the fuck up. This isn't "silencing you". It's calling you a fucking idiot who can't tell sarcasm from sincerity and who literally fucking fell for a 4chan op. Stop wasting two pages worth of people's time you boring fucking concern troll idiot.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we're definitely silencing you by allowing you to post here. It's not because you've dismissed every single link and piece of evidence we've given you. It's not because you've spluttered with a disturbing orgasmic zeal of whatever YouTube link you could find once you had someone ask you evidence of feminists being anti-men. It's definitely not because we've already disproven one of the links you've posted in your nonsensical rant and we don't have time for your stupid Gish Gallop.

We've answered the question about why the MRM is misogynistic. If you refuse to accept the numerous answers we've give you countless times, you can fuck off. Withoutaname (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Special:VandalBin also helps. But that's less a silencer and more a throttler.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"Shut the fuck up" where have I heard that before. It's been fun, SocJus. In fact, it's been a learning experience. Even a place calling itself the 'Rational Wiki' is not free from the extreme stupidity that features in This Week In Stupid videos. I thought that perhaps the stereotypes were wrong, that y'all didn't have your fingers in your ears. But I should have listened to the logical. Food for thought! Also, calling me a troll doesn't dismiss evidence, though I'm sure in your eyes it does. Your links have been propaganda sites and your 'refutations' would make Richard Dawkins cry, with laughter or sorrow I can't decide. Keep patting yourselves on the back though, keep telling yourselves you're fighting the good fight, even as civil liberties are lost in favor of 'security' and corporations buy their way into control. But hey, you can at least say you gave the imagined patriarchy a good licking, and you showed those damned MRAs what for! Lying to oneself is great for morale, so I've heard. Have fun, kiddos!CaptainCaptain (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Telling you to shut the fuck up because you're only embarassing yourself isn't silencing you. It's telling you you're a fucking idiot. We listened to what you had to say, which is more than what we can say about you seeing as you've spent the past several weeks going on and on about this subject on this page and on that forum page. You're still a concern troll. Go screencap this/archive it and post it on Reddit like you were planning to all along.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, Captain, you really don't seem to understand that (claimed) misandry of feminism is unrelated to whether the MRM is misogynist, as I have noted many times. Even if feminism is shit, the MRM isn't necessarily good. Please, please fucking post some links in which MRAs care about women in some positive way. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's evidence that the MRM is not misogynist. Try not to delete it, you cretins:

-Karen Straughan's YT channel. Karen is a very famous ally of the MRM and talks about it often, and she will tell you personally that MEE SOH JEE NEE is pretty rare. Also, in case you can't read or see, she's a woman. And people usually don't join movements that hate them (I take it back, there's you white knights and feminism)

-https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat?&ab_channel=karenstraughan

-An article written by a woman in the MRM about women in the MRM. This article furthers the cognitive dissonance:

-http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/mens-rights-movement-women-who-love-it

-Diana Davison's YT channel, she's a lesser-known figure but still prominent in the MRM:

-https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVRQqUgDRBevsDGOeE1DL3A?&ab_channel=FeminismLOL

-Female journalist goes to an MRA conference expecting YOUR bigoted ideas of what will be there, finds totally opposite:

-http://time.com/2949435/what-i-learned-as-a-woman-at-a-mens-rights-conference/

Once again I stress that the large amount of women in the MRM smashes your goalposts before the builders are finished. The males in the MRM highly value their female allies. Additionally, in case you've not been paying attention, I too am a woman and consider myself an ally of the MRM or perhaps in it. I've commented on lots of YT vids and MRM forums and guess what, haven't experienced misogyny. You're gonna be stupid and say ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, DISMISS so that you can breeze over the links provided. Don't worry. I'm used to it. CaptainCaptain (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't imagine anyone here is surprised that you are "used to" anecdotal evidence.---Mona- (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Uh, not sure if you're trolling or just stupid, but I'm used to you people blitzing one or two links or certain pieces of evidence so that you can ignore all the rest.CaptainCaptain (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So this Captain proclaims the MRM is not misogynist echo chamber it is, while godwinning feminism (which the Oxford dictionary defines as "The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes")and feeling threatened by We Hunted the Mammoth (a site that deals exclusively with mocking misogynists), while failing to provide debate like material, in addition to actually believing /pol stuff? I guess we have yet another fool to amuse ourselves with.

BTW Captain: using "the MRM have women" as evidence a movement is not toxic against women is a misleading consideration: there are women who proclaim patriarchal ideologies, such as Phyllis Schlafly. Just as there were women against universal suffrage so there are female MRM members. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh noes he listed one of a voice for men's main feMRA contributors clearly our insistence that MRAs of the anti-feminist variety are all misogynist assholes is clearly BTFO. It's not like the only reason MRAs highly value female allies is just to trot them out in "debates" like this one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you blitz one topic and this time you don't even understand what you're blitzing. Once again, why would women side with a misogynist movement? White knights side with feminism because they want to get laid or look better to women, but female supporters don't get such things from supporting the MRM. Karen Straughan is considered a leader in the MRM. But you prefer to say WAH THEY BRING UP WOMEN WAH. Shall I call the wambulance?CaptainCaptain (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"White knights side with feminism because they want to get laid or look better to women" First of all, what the fuck? We want no such thing, nor do we get such things in the first place. We just think feminism is a good movement to get behind for supporting disadvantaged women. If you want to assert the mythical existence of these white knights, you're going to have to provide evidence. Also make sure not to conflate them with nice guys, who are part of the manosphere and the MRM.

Second, a movement can have women and be misogynistic. I don't see how the former precludes the latter. Just look at Anti-suffragism. Withoutaname (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It is less than charitable to keep plucking the wings off of Captain. Remember, animal cruelty can be a hallmark of sociopathy.---Mona- (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A spew of shit

Haha nice guys belong to the manosphere? Do the Jews serve the Nazis? Also, mythical existence? Ever heard of Steve Shives? Yeah, he belongs to you. His shield is so clean that Dettol wants to use it for an ad. Also, using anti-suffregism is so ironic. You wanna know why those women were in that movement? They were scared shitless that they'd be forced to be drafted and die in wars just like their male counterparts. They were proved wrong when the suffragettes gave women the vote without the little clause selling their bodies to the service of the government. I wouldn't call anti-suffragism mispgynist so much as illicitly fearful. But hey, history is hard, isn't it? So now that your example is trash, my point still stands that women would be unlikely to join a movement that hated them. Who would? CaptainCaptain (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, mythical existence? Ever heard of Steve Shives? Yeah, he belongs to you. His shield is so clean that Dettol wants to use it for an ad.

Anecdotal evidence

Also, using anti-suffregism is so ironic. You wanna know why those women were in that movement? They were scared shitless that they'd be forced to be drafted and die in wars just like their male counterparts. They were proved wrong when the suffragettes gave women the vote without the little clause selling their bodies to the service of the government. I wouldn't call anti-suffragism mispgynist so much as illicitly fearful. But hey, history is hard, isn't it?

^{[citation needed]}

my point still stands that women would be unlikely to join a movement that hated them.

"I know of gay Republicans. Ergo, the Republican party is not anti-gay. QED." Do you see the flawed logic? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"my point still stands that women would be unlikely to join a movement that hated them." Uh-huh. Women convert to Roman Catholicism.---Mona- (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, how many republicans are gay? Versus, why would the MRM mostly view Karen as a leader if they hate women? Hm? Oh let me guess, they have INTERNALIZED MEE SOH JEE NEE!CaptainCaptain (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Captain, 13% of LGBT voters are Republican. And, again, it's possible to join a movement that hates women without hating a particular women -- MRAs seem to spend a lot of time hating on pro-women policies or supporting anti-women policies in addition to merely hating those with vaginas. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Supporting anti-women policies? What the fuck does that even mean? I spend far more time in MRM talking boards than you do, and I fail to see what section of your ass you pulled that from. What 'policies' do you speak of? Has the MRM supported removing the vote? No? Ok, have they suggested pushing women into camps, like a feminist did about men? Or did they propose killing men, like thousands of twitter hash taggers? Hm? Any of these? Oh let me guess. None of these.CaptainCaptain (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No feminist group has ever (seriously) advocated for putting men in internment camps or instigating male genocide. Stop reading TumblrInAction.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You failed to refute the point that the MRM hasn't said to do the same but to women, thus refuting the 'anti women' policy idea. CaptainCaptain (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

failed to refute [....] thus refuting

Argument from silence

Supporting anti-women policies?

MRAs oppose resolving the gender pay gap (which I'm sure you'll have a fit over), oppose improving female representation in media, often oppose female sexual rights (or at least demonize females having sex), and often oppose improving female representation in STEM fields. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're gonna need evidence to prove the MRM widely criticizes HAVING women in the media, and that they demonize sex. Also, the idea of demonizing females having sex conflicts with your statement that there are nice guys in the movement, who, going by traditional definition, want sex. Do you want to hold your cake, or eat it?

And now, the wage gap. You people do realize the wage gap is just the average earnings of men compared to women, right? You realize it is not that a woman in the job will be paid less than a man, right? You're probably gonna squeal about this, so have some links. Don't delete them now!

http://www.examiner.com/article/gender-pay-gap-is-not-what-activists-claim

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-R

CaptainCaptain (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to all this; I will post just one link, however. http://www.aauw.org/files/2015/09/The-Simple-Truth-Fall-2015.pdf Read through it and notice how many factors don't resolve the pay gap. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

[Is told that the average earnings of genders is a shitty way to find wage gap stats, cites source that does the same fucking thing] bravo, SocJus. Here's a more bite-size video for you, made by a feminist no less, disputing the arguments in that source such as "even when controlling for variables, there's still a gap!": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w&ab_channel=AmericanEnterpriseInstitute

Additionally, why don't you just grab some random fucking people in the same bloody jobs, waged, salaried, whatever, and ask them what their pays are. Assuming they're the same rank and haven't asked for raises, LO AND BEHOLD, NO GAP!

CaptainCaptain (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop dumping 40 links.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck, you fucking cretin, you can't tolerate evidence that hard? Here, have the three best links in the original post. Try not to delete them again so you can feel like a hero who burned all the evidence. CaptainCaptain (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you not understand how the MediaWiki software even works? Also one of your pieces of evidence is by Christina Hoff Sommers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

How to do dah argooment: post links about people on your own biased website! But here, have some more if you hate Christina:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for-gender-wage-gap

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html

Additionally, complaining about your 90's site doesn't excuse evidence deletion. It's still cretinous. CaptainCaptain (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No. All of your links are still available, but just not on this live copy of the website because none of us needs to go through and debunk and point out that each and every one of your links is biased to the right and appear to be either disingenous descriptions on your part, complete fabrications on another part, or contrarian anti-feminist garbage by that female Koch brothers mouthpiece. Even in these two links you've just posted now it's by people from conservative news organizations somehow getting the abiliyt to get whatever conservative bullshit they believe published on the websites of liberal newspapers. A bunch of conservatives ranting and raving about how they think the wage gap doesn't exist doesn't really prove shit, considering someone went through all the trouble to refute wage gap denial already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha! "I can't disprove the mountains of evidence against the wage gap, I have no evidence supporting the wage gap apart from one link that can be smashed in a vid, so I will say vague things about sources to sound smart while not being able to refute anything!" Also, you still can't refute the fact that young women have higher average earnings, are favored in tech and academia (former in one of the links, latter in a source I can bring up if the 90s means you can't use Google) and you can't disprove the fact that when I worked in a couple waged jobs, I had the same hourly wage as my male counterparts, and you will find the same across jobs if you grab actual people of the same job. But hey, if the evidence disagrees with you, TIS FALSE! Additionally, nearly all countries have Equal Pay laws that make it so that if you are being paid less on false grounds i.e. gender or race, you can take the employer to court! Damn! How did the patriarchy miss that! CaptainCaptain (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm disproving it by pointing out that the authors of every single fucking link you posted has a conservative bias and agenda to keep the status quo and ignore every and all refutation like you're doing right now. And the reason I'm linking to a page on this website is because someone already went through the trouble of providing the refutations needed for your ancient bullshit arguments because they're so cliche amongst MRAs ranting and raving against feminism. The only reason women are now favored in any industry is because for the past several decades they have been excluded due to discriminatory practices. And the wage gap doesn't mean a male employee is paid more than a female employee working the same job in the same company. It's that men are paid more on average than women in similar positions in the same profession.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What? "It's not that employers pay women less than men, it's that on average men earn more" Yeah, bravo. No shit. What are you even trying to say here? Do you think by hiding your ideas you'll disprove? Also, I fail to see how all my sources were 'conservative' unless you're so fucking far left that EVERYTHING is right! But here, have some more links. Huffington Post, no less Article already based on Washington Post data, with added stuff Even feminists disagree with you Stanford also disagrees CaptainCaptain (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You see to be saying that the wage gap is within a single company with your whole "Equal Pay laws" line. Now for your links. Anything Christina Hoff Sommers says is utter garbage, even if it's on Huffpo. The Washington Examiner is utter garbage (particularly if it's something written by Ashe Schow, yet another conservative anti-feminist). Joanna Williams is another biased feMRA who writes for a conservative newspaper so she's not a feminist and I doubt anything she cites is from feminists. And your link from Stanford is a chapter in a book and not any research anyone at Stanford has even done themselves, and even without reading the whole thing the intro seems to suggest it's evidence against your claim rather than for it (it's about how the wage gap is slowly narrowing and reasons as to why it exists). Also learn how to fucking use MediaWiki.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

And really stop gish galloping because I am tired of opening links to obviously right wing garbage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

And one last thought, go back to posting on Forum:Why is the Men's Right's movement misogynist? instead of here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

All I hear is the crying of a stupid child who can't admit they're wrong. There is so much evidence against you. But hey, I'm used to dealing with the religious. ANYTHING THIS WOMAN SAYS IS GARBAGE BECAUSE I SAY SO, EVEN THOUGH SHE USES LOGIC AND RATIONALE WHEN ALL I HAVE US SUBJECTIVITY, WEASEL WORDS AND PROPAGANDA. If you think the Huffington Post is right wing, you make Soviet Russia seem far-capitalist. Additionally, want to know how your arguments fall apart in the corporate world? Corporations will do anything to cut costs, they even hire immigrants who can't speak the language and who they have to use an interpreter just to order around, so that they can cut costs. If they can get away with paying 23% to employees less or whatever you morons say it is now, they will totally do it and hire all women. Hating women would be part of a weird CEO's 'morality', just like their decisions to let toxic products go or justify using mercenaries to make ends meet. If you seriously think that morals will stop a corporate leader doing things to cut costs and makes things better, you are utterly retarded. But you know what? You'll probably call this 'childish' because you have little credibility, but I'm not going to bother responding to you again unless you bring up real, credible evidence (that does not include weasel words or propaganda) Call one of your cronies, maybe they'll be better and less cretinous than you. But that's not my problem, is it? Go on and pray to feminism to banish the demons of patriarchy and wage gap.CaptainCaptain (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Projection.

Christina Hoff Sommers is paid to be an anti-feminist mouthpiece for a conservative organization (the American Enterprise Institute). My dismissal of her arguments as conservative and contrarian anti-feminist propaganda does not mean I am extending that dismissal to the entirety of Huffington Post.

I have no idea where you're goint with this cost cutting rant.

And I have no idea where you're going with this "you're a religious fundamentalist" analogy either.

Your sources have universally been crap and biased so far right that it's almost laughable that you think they're viable.

Please stop wasting so much time and energy being an edgelord.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"If they can get away with paying 23% to employees less or whatever you morons say it is now, they will totally do it and hire all women."

"If A or B or D, not E. If C, E. Not E. Therefore B." No matter how many options you add, it's still wrong. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 10:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on null hypothesis. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 10:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: "female viagra"

The mention of "where is the female Viagra?" in the health concerns for healthcare equity is a non-issue. The purpose of Viagra is non-homologous for women and it has been done and tried, it simply feels like "a head cold down there"(quoted from Dr.Peggy Kleinplatz, sexology PhD). Engorging the labia and surrounding tissue with blood doesn't actually acknowledge the social aspects of non-arousal, and what men often overlook (ironic on this page) is that boner != wanting it. Pushing the idea that viagra = boner = horny is perpetuating the issue of biological essentialism in sexual relations. Interpersonal 'play' or more foreplay or even conversation might very well solve many physiological constraints in sexual relations instead of medicalizing every bump in the road.

Just curiously....

Are Aileen Wuornos and Valerie Solanas included on the "Women's Rights Movement" and "Feminism" pages? ^{— Unsigned, by: 111.83.96.32 / talk / contribs} 07:20, 23 October 2015‎

Ah yes. A serial killer and the MRA standby of "look at this feminist who wrote something advocating for murder of all men" namedrop.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You'd be bawling your eyes out if there was someone like Valerie but male who wrote a book advocating the murder of all women and who also tried to kill a random female artist. Bringing her up isn't exactly a stupid point. CaptainCaptain (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a tired and hackneyed technique by MRAs to bring her up considering her attempted murder and stalking of Warhol was not related to her radical feminist stances. Also the RationalWiki page on Valerie Solanas seems to cover all this fairly well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I know the assault wasn't linked to her political sentiments but I can bet money that should a male version arise, there'd be certain types who would link HIS attempted killing of a female artist to 'misogyny'. Additionally her little Mein Kampf is not gone from feminist sectors. When I worked at the city library for a time a group of girls approached me asking if we could acquire the SCUM Manifesto. Being a rational public library we did not stock insane propaganda like Mein Kampf or the manifesto. Why they didn't just find the book online is beyond me. CaptainCaptain (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You complain about hypotheticals a lot. How boring. Besides, it turns out a large number of manifestos written by MRAs (or rather the incels) are uncovered after they go on shooting sprees because no one would fuck them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha you complain about name dropping and then step shy of it yourself. Elliot Rodger went to an MRA conference and as I remember either his manifesto or his messages showed that he didn't actually like what they discussed. Additionally he did not mention the plight of men, only his own perceived plight. Also, you use plural yet I know of only Rodger. Unless you have evidence for another murderer your stance is weak, seeing as both halves are wrong. Additionally, don't think that I've forgotten how you tiptoed around my point that you people would break down if there was a male version of Valerie. Call it boring all you want, only children don't work at things because they're 'boring'. CaptainCaptain (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Umpqua Community College. And the difference is that their actions were actually fueled by misogyny and MRA ideals (or at least because they personally feel they can't get laid) whereas Solanas was paranoid schizophrenic and had as much access to a gun as everyone else in the US. Aileen Wuornos, who BON OP mentioned, also has no real ties to feminism other than being a woman. But please, keep your MRA concern trolling to one page. I'm sure there's plenty of other people to talk to you at Forum:Why is the Men's Right's movement misogynist?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I only read the Wikipedia page but investigators did not find evidence of Harper-Mercer being an MRA, though he was a racist. Dunno where you've been but I've been to a fair few MRM places and racism is not a driving factor. At all. I once saw a racist post in a thread but later when I went to post another reply the moderators had deleted it. Additionally, Harper-Mercer was mentally unstable like Valerie, it is reported that he tried to kill himself and did check in to a program for assisting students with emotional issues. Come on, these points are so easy to refute. Also there haven't been replies to my post on the forum thread, you might be being sarcastic in which case shame on me, but that's why I haven't been there. CaptainCaptain (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

He (allegedly) posted on /r9k/ which is MRA central on 4chan. Also aren't all murderers somehow deemed mentally ill in the end?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So you have an 'alleged' posting on the MRM board of 4chan, a posting/s that did not qualify into the Wikipedia article. Uhuh. And according to Wikipedia, he had log term mental issues and Aspergers. He failed Army boot camp entrance despite being gung-ho, and honestly, if you're willing but fail Army boot camp there is something wrong with you. It is thus safe to assume that he was quite insane, whether or not he posted to MRA boards it is clear he wasn't into the MRM as much as he was into guns and racism. CaptainCaptain (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't going to cite a deleted 4chan post (they did for a while IIRC but someone probably fixed it). But blah blah mental illness blah blah no gun control. Reactionaries is the same. Also despite your anecdote, most feminists don't agree with Solanas's writings and most people can't agree if she was serious or not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

and most people can't agree if she was serious or not.- Ryulong ^{[citation needed]} and it also sounds too much like an escape hatch.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a large section on Wikipedia concerning whether or not the manifesto was satire.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's just the typical 'extreme stances cannot be discerned from satire or reality'. Mein Kampf is pretty extremist, we can be sure it wasn't satire. CaptainCaptain (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The body of work, history of activism and mainstream organizations in the feminism movement disagree with Solanas' solitary manifesto. The "body of work" of Nazism, as it were, mostly agrees with the ideas contained in Mein Kampf.179.222.133.47 (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't disprove the idea that it probably isn't satire. Additionally it isn't like there aren't camps within feminism that do appear to wish for a world similar to one that Valerie wanted. As evidenced in this post, which is also pretty popular: https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/utopia-what-would-a-womens-society-look-like/ CaptainCaptain (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The debate over whether or not the SCUM Manifesto is satire has nothing to do with the fact that mainstream feminism doesn't take it seriously. Your ability to pull radfem blogs out your asshole doesn't prove anything either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

#notallfeminists Cause I can play that game with pulling hashtags out of my ass without any intelligent reason, too!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Feminism has actual structure to it to say Valerie Solanas was batshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Depends on whom you ask (if you ask most of the feminsts, they'd most likely hate her more than the so-called MRA, but if you come upon one of the unhinged ones, they're gonna claim, that her writing are the only way of feminism and that anyone disagreeing is a ... well, whatever term they have for feminism-related "Uncle Toms"), but any movement has their fanatical fringe and discounting them is not part of the movement is sorta bullshit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Radfems don't make up a majority of feminists AFAIK. Some radfems praise Solanas. Non-radfems don't. Everyone's assured she was batshit at least.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And that contradicts my words how exactly??

if you ask most of the feminsts, they'd most likely hate her more than the so-called MRA- Arisboch--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. Maybe I could actually follow what you're saying if you didn't spend so much time just being a contrarian asshole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're not wanting being contradicted, stay off the fucking net.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop making it your personal mission to contradict me personally on these social justice topics.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Fuck off. If I see bullshit, I call bullshit, no matter, if it's from you or anyone else.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's such a pity you're observably terrible at it. Please stop talking around people - David Gerard (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking right now, I'm writing #rekt --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)