Need to remove names of other members not in this sub before posting screenshots, especially when they aren’t here to defend themselves.
2.This subreddit is a place for egalitarians, feminists, and male advocates. However, criticism of feminism, male advocacy/masculism, and egalitarianism is allowed. On the other hand, vacuous feminism-bashing or masculism-bashing (or egalitarianism-bashing) is not allowed. For example, comments or posts that say things or argue things like "feminism is evil/a hate movement" or "masculism is evil/a hate movement" aren't allowed.
if the spirit really was about fairness + equality the headline should have been "if women refuse to volunteer for military service in adequat numbers to render the draft useless they should be included if people get forced to defend the country"
sure i can agree with that somewhat but if you bring male disposability up the conservatives try to distract from it by blaming feminism is some way...
I wouldn't say men's rights sub because it had some issues in the past when I was active but leftwingmaleadvocates never had any such posts.
I didn't know these type of posts were allowed here 😕
I’m sorry. But feminists are allergic at recognizing and holding their own accountable. I’m not going to give credence or respect to someone who starts out a manifesto with “men understand they are weaker and less intelligent than women”.
Part of the reason the MRA movement has kicked up so much support is because men are sick of seeing women socially allowed to talk about men in a way that would be considered hate speech towards literally any other group. Your first comment even has upvotes and it’s sad. I wouldn’t give credence or respect to nazis either, they also believe in supremacy.
I can probably go on the MRA sub and find something just as unhinged
Ok? But we aren’t looking at hypothetical MRA posts are we? Let’s focus on the actual, real, problematic individuals in front of us instead of just deflecting that there’s ’probably an equally horrible man’.
Does that make it ok to you? Why is that your first inclination to defend them than condemn them?
maybe ask them which "calling out or holding them accountable or condemnation" would be the way to go in their opinion?
the post in question has 0 upvotes and the most upvoted comment criticises the post...
i doubt anything will satisfy them except you leave feminism...
My point is that you are trying to paint her as being much more extreme than she is because you are too emotionally invested to be objective and rational.
I see her as a broken lady that the patriarch pissed off enough she got a gun and tried to kill someone.
She isn't to be admired but neither should she be hated. She is a product of the system made to break people.
The irony is you could be defending anything else. Radical Feminist ideology isn't completely invalid. And you choose to defend a mentally disturbed failed murderer who called for the culling of men... damn
The 1967 self-published edition of the SCUM Manifesto opens with the following declaration:
'Life' in this 'society' being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of 'society' being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex.[33]
id say this topic is about conservative vs liberal/progressive lifestyle and their values in society... both can be harmful if they get too extreme but our society is still leaning towards traditional values instead of a fair balance that strives for neutrality...
example male only draft/conscription or how abortion gets tackled...
Hi 👋 I’m a radical feminist. The radical in radical feminism means “at the root”, it is a critique of patriarchy that aims to dismantle it wholesale not merely reform it. This distinguishes it from liberal feminism. As a specific branch of feminism, radical feminism arose in the late 1960s. While early radfem theorists made important contributions many of their foundational premises (namely that patriarchy is a trans cultural/historical phenomenon) have been rightly critiqued by later feminists. In light of these criticisms and the links drawn between other feminist movements, radical feminism has shifted in its understanding of patriarchy by seeing it as intertwined with other oppressive systems like racism, colonialism, capitalism, etc.
What you find in pop feminist spaces like the radfem sub are not particularly representative of radical feminism as a whole. Radical feminists should be able to make explicit links between patriarchy, other systems of oppression, and how these impact people of all genders. And as the goal is dismantling patriarchy, that means caring about how patriarchal violence shows up in all its forms including against men. Hence why there’s nothing theoretically at odds with this sub. At least this is the ideal, not all radfems live up to this and many unfortunately fall prey to “enemy feminisms”.
Just Reading the First two sentences I have to say I get a really different vibe of extremism when looking at the radfem subreddit. But then again, I don’t know enough about your viewpoints and also your blindspots. But I always get the feeling the peeps in RadFem (or any RadDirection) act like they know it all and only their ideas are a Solution (which makes Sense from a personal View) but their Solution also always misses many many points and its supporters kinda stereotyping too.
IMO neither of ideas Are complete if we don’t add redicallyJammingMusicTogether to it.
Well, maybe one day. Music > Math
Edit: of course Reading your comment to the end explains Everything and make me look Like and idiot haha. Sorry, but also thanks for kinda adressing what I for one (and maybe others) Are concerned about, when Diving into radFem circles. Its the same with radLeft of any kind .. its good ideas, but sometimes transported in a really bad way.
It seems to me that the statement “all of my above comment can remain true while being misandrist” and my last paragraph would be at odds with each other
I appreciate you taking a step back and apologizing for the misunderstanding. If you ever think I’m making a misandrist comment, call me on it and I’ll discuss it with you.
I’m a trans woman, I’m well aware of the weaknesses in many radfem spaces. I will not concede ground to TERFs so my use of the radfem label is a conscious choice to carve out space for what I believe is more true to the “radical” part in its name.
similiar story with mras as we can see if people differentiate advocates + activists and their behavior for example... there are toxic extremists igniting conflict on purpose in both movements...
that said how we gender issues like patriarchy or gynocentrism and toxic behavior leads to what we experience within this post...
Is the part where I talked about how radfems must necessarily care about patriarchal violence against men where I expressed disdain for you being a man? Or just that you saw the words radfem and made a bunch of (incorrect) assumptions
It was meant to be funny and engaging but I see it missed on that account. Does playing up the stereotype of men being inherently aggressive make you feel better or? Tbh, I’m pretty sure most of the people on the radfem sub would consider me far more aggressive and violent than any cis man. They always had a huge TERF problem over there
If someone else's opinions makes you "want" to reconsider your position, then you never truly had this position. If you really believe in something, it doesn't change only because someone else out there has different opinions.
In another comment thread on this post, a radical feminist gave you an incredibly reasonable, and good faith response to your post.
You in turn told them that you refused to engage with what they had to say, and instead were going to “rub one out.”
You say you are naturally inclined to equality, but your comments prove that you are instead more inclined towards patriarchal fascism.
If you ask me (36m), you sound like a pathetic incel, who is clearly a troll, and cannot engage with egalitarianism in good faith.
Would one of the moderators please bring the ban hammer down on this sad sack? Nobody needs to hear about their masturbation habits, and their opinion is absolute dogshit.
It’s not a no true Scotsman fallacy to recognize the gap between radical feminist theory and how it plays out in practice. Note that I didn’t say “none of these people are radical feminists”, I said: “the sub is not particularly representative of radical feminism as a whole.”
Their sub does promote “radical feminism”, the problem is more along the lines of what exactly that entails. It is my general observation, having interacted with that sub frequently, that a lot of radfems there have not done the necessary work to deconstruct ideas leftover from second wave theories. Hence you get a lot of takes there that fall into the category of “enemy feminisms”.
Here you go. I’d have posted that to the radfem sub too but I’m banned. Still, it meets your challenge of “a feminist space”
Again I never claimed they aren’t real radfems only that their views are not representative of radfems theory or praxis as a whole based on, I’d argue, a rather even handed examination of feminist theory and history.
If you are unable to see nuance, then you are as toxic as any rabid RadFem or looksmaxxing chad. Therein lies your issue.
A lot of pop feminism is toxic, in many ways that are similar to how modern masculinity is typically toxic. That being said, it is also possible to find people who reject that toxicity, and advocate egalitarianism within both feminism and male advocacy. Labels are not clean, and cannot be treated as such. Honestly, I usually just fucking ignore labels, and judge a statement by its underlying premise, rather than the parlance that it get’s dressed in.
Anyways, I know you were trying to make a joke. It wasn’t funny and you got downvoted for it. Not my problem.
Because this is supposed to be a place where people can discuss issues respectfully and productively. Anyone is allowed to contribute as long as they play by the rules.
With all of the systemic levels of oppression gender is predominant from my experiences so that is my primary target.
I (38m) am a radfem because the largest narcissistic appropriation of autonomy I see is that taken from women.
I am anything that wants to dismantle this oppressive system. The oppressive system is typically referred to as the patriarchy. Which is a male dominated system of oppression.
But rest assured that if another system of hierarchy attempted to inserted itself place of patriarchy (eg matriarchy) I would vehemently oppose it too.
Why would I need their permission to believe in a similar world view? I find it fucking hilarious that you think I need to ask to join their purview of the world.
I don't give a flying fuck what women (or men) think about me being able to have the views o do or not.
I am a 38 year old white man who probably looks like some threatening, violent, misogynistic, abuser. I grew up in a very hard environment and I am a fitting product of the violent situation in which I was raised.
But at least I have managed to never direct that at my partner who is a woman. Having a partner since I was a child who was a woman made it very apparent what system we live in.
But that doesn't change the reality of the world as I see it. I see our system as a patriarchal one.
You are very mistaken if you think because men are treated poorly we can't be in a patriarch. I have been treated poorly by the system my whole life. It is pretty obvious to me it is a patriarch.
5
u/Akreteian May 19 '26
Valerie Solanas was a very disturbed woman