Why do meninists think anyone cares what they have to say?

I just came to say...

Your posts' tone is childish and a bit 'angsty'. It detracts from your point. Work on that a little bit so your opinions carry a little more gravity.

MRAs, *by definition* are about men's rights, just like feminists are about equality
you can't say MRAs are bad while also says feminists are good. that **** don't add up

They're a bunch of self-gratifying losers who only care about putting feminists down, so, you know, just wondering.

Decided to drop in on another post of mine I see. Feminists by definition of seeking equality are fighting on the side of men, there shouldn't be a need for explicit men's rights activists, particularly given the high-level of privilege most men experience. The fact is that MRAs often do not fight for real issues, they merely seek to discredit feminists who are.

Decided to drop in on another post of mine I see. Feminists by definition of seeking equality are fighting on the side of men, there shouldn't be a need for explicit men's rights activists, particularly given the high-level of privilege most men experience. The fact is that MRAs often do not fight for real issues, they merely seek to discredit feminists who are.

key words you mentioned which are wrong btw:

1) 'by definition' : you forget that all manners of definition are open to interpretation by whomever and whoever deems fit; for what ever purpose they do so. that is in kiddie terms (as you want to be a child); every single radfem you see out there spouting ******** like 'kill all men'; are ALL feminists.

2) 'seeking equality'

3) 'side of men': if they really were, there wouldn't be a need for meninism/MRA. think about it

4) 'privilege' this is the ******** i hate most about feminism. you ****ers all think that all men are priviledged. you forget that men both in centuries past and present have died more times that women (wars; suicide rates; e.t.c)

5) 'don't fight for': right. because last time i checked chasing a man who wore a shirt about women, but who accomplished a feat no other human ever has; constitutes 'real issues'

6) 'real issues': your definition of real issues is much more dependant on issues YOU (and by extension feminism) considers to be 'real'. no feminist chases after issues that don't immediately affect them, but rather ones that affect their sex; and IF it affects men then they begrudingly do something about it.

7) 'merely seek to discredit': you forget again, that a movement which started out of eliminating all men on the planet (Research SCUM movement); isn't exactly an established movement to discredit in any case; it's just been caked in makeup to try to decieve the masses.

i reallly could go on and type up a 1000 word essay debunking every myth that has been pumped into that brain of yours; but, frankly, why havn't you ever thought to yourself that these guys who keep popping up on here with threads, might actually be right?

e.g. research christina hoff summers; lauren southern; e.t.c <<< examples of stellar women/feminists who actually have a mind of their own.
as someone else said on a different thread:
"It's beyond me how people can think egalitarianism and feminism are the same thing.
Here are the definitions:
Egalitarianism: a movement which advocates equality for all people.
Feminism: a gender equality movement which advocates equality for all women.

Please note that feminism isn't for 'women and men', 'both sexes' or vice versa. No where in that does it imply that feminism = men + women's rights. The fact that people try to change feminism's meaning simply shows how out of touch it is with our society's problems.

And if in any way feminism brings about equality for 'both sexes', it's by determining equality for males around female problems. A prime example of this is the issue of the majority of rape victims being female. (No matter whether feminist or masculist, there's no use trying to disprove this. The facts are laid out in front of you.)
However, ONLY BECAUSE this is a women-led issue will feminism act upon what you could call the 'male' side of the story. By definition, feminism will only focus on solving women's equality, and thus any other gender's equality will merely follow up from that women-specific issue.
What about the fact that the majority of suicides are done by men? That the jail time for the same crime is 3 times higher for males? What about the woman's privilege of custody over her child, no matter whether she is fit to take care of it? What about the 61% of homeless people being men? That only 2/5 of college graduates are male? All these issues which are male-led, but by definition feminism will have nothing to do with them. And don't forget that these problems are global, and not just reserved for first-world countries...

Egalitarianism will fight for the rights of all sexes, creeds, appearances or sexualities - or in other words, allpeople - equally, and so will be the movement out of the two that'll actually combat these problems.

"So if feminism (in its very essence) will not touch these aspects, what about the feminists who fight for men's rights!??"

Despite it being nice to see that even those in a very polarised movement (feminism) still are just as compassionate towards other sexes, it completely goes against the very definition of feminism. Do people not realise the irony of this? Having your own interpretation of feminism will not change what feminism is, and therefore will not qualify you as a feminist.
What people need to realise with labels like 'feminist' or 'egalitarian' is that you can't change what they are to suit your whims. If you want equality for both sexes, you can call yourself an egalitarian. If you want to then lean towards equality for women than men, then don't call yourself an egalitarian. Call yourself a feminist. You have the choice of labelling yourself, but it's not up to you to decide what they mean if they have a globally established meaning (like feminism or egalitarianism do).

"But people will naturally interpret things in their own way - it's called being human!!"

Of course. But the whole point of having ideologies is for them to be defined and followed according to those definitions. It's just as obvious as the fact that you can't be a Christian if you worship Satan. If you have a specific belief, idea or motive that doesn't quite exactly match any other - or, if you want to have your own view of things, then don't label yourself. Don't want to be labelled? DON'T LABEL YOURSELF. Just because you believe in equality doesn't mean you should rush with the hype and start calling yourself something. To believe in equal rights, you don't have to call yourself anything. As an example, if feminists say "if you believe in .... , you're a feminist", that's when you know you should steer clear of them.

"Now you're just contradicting yourself, bawww!!1"
How come? Because I basically said "If you want to ... lean towards equality for women than men, then you can call yourself a feminist"?
Do you notice that subtle little "can call" in there?
That means that I'm not directly telling you to call yourself a feminist - I'm giving you a choice. Like I already said, it's your choice whether you label yourself or not. I'm not telling you that you have to call yourself this the minute you fulfil the requirement, or patronising you if you're not one. However, it is not your choice to determine what feminism means. Feminism has been agreed on by many to be the definition at the very top of my post, as well as by the one who coined it. So no matter whether you call yourself a feminist or not, you won't be a feminist if you go against that definition. You'll be simply making a fool out of the movement and ultimately yourself, and you'll know that deep inside no matter how much you try to justify it.

"So how will people know what you believe in if you can't tell them with a simple definition!?!?!"

Let me tell you of a little quote that encompasses one of the reasons we have movements: Actions speak louder than words.

Actually doing something towards what you fight for would mean that you won't need to explain yourself to people. Call yourself an egalitarian all you want, but if you're not BEING an egalitarian then you're letting your movement down. Spreading awareness doesn't count. Why? Because anyone can do that. When criticising a movement, you're giving it just as much publicity as a radical would. (If anyone wants me to explain further, I will do.) And if someone asks you this despite everything, stop being lazy and just tell them. Being passionate about what you believe in is willing to find a way to explain your motives to people, EVEN IF they didn't have a term. After all, a reason for fighting for things is to get other people to join you."

lol, you are literally the exact kind of person I was hoping to draw out. You fit with my exact definition of a meninist.

If your idea of a "Meninist" is someone who speaks logically, is sensible and can look at facts then I would say many women and men are Meninists

They're a bunch of self-gratifying losers who only care about putting feminists down, so, you know, just wondering.

They're a bunch of self-gratifying losers who only care about putting feminists down, so, you know, just wondering.

key words you mentioned which are wrong btw:

1) 'by definition' : you forget that all manners of definition are open to interpretation by whomever and whoever deems fit; for what ever purpose they do so. that is in kiddie terms (as you want to be a child); every single radfem you see out there spouting ******** like 'kill all men'; are ALL feminists.

2) 'seeking equality'

3) 'side of men': if they really were, there wouldn't be a need for meninism/MRA. think about it

4) 'privilege' this is the ******** i hate most about feminism. you ****ers all think that all men are priviledged. you forget that men both in centuries past and present have died more times that women (wars; suicide rates; e.t.c)

5) 'don't fight for': right. because last time i checked chasing a man who wore a shirt about women, but who accomplished a feat no other human ever has; constitutes 'real issues'

6) 'real issues': your definition of real issues is much more dependant on issues YOU (and by extension feminism) considers to be 'real'. no feminist chases after issues that don't immediately affect them, but rather ones that affect their sex; and IF it affects men then they begrudingly do something about it.

7) 'merely seek to discredit': you forget again, that a movement which started out of eliminating all men on the planet (Research SCUM movement); isn't exactly an established movement to discredit in any case; it's just been caked in makeup to try to decieve the masses.

i reallly could go on and type up a 1000 word essay debunking every myth that has been pumped into that brain of yours; but, frankly, why havn't you ever thought to yourself that these guys who keep popping up on here with threads, might actually be right?

e.g. research christina hoff summers; lauren southern; e.t.c <<< examples of stellar women/feminists who actually have a mind of their own.
as someone else said on a different thread:
"It's beyond me how people can think egalitarianism and feminism are the same thing.
Here are the definitions:
Egalitarianism: a movement which advocates equality for all people.
Feminism: a gender equality movement which advocates equality for all women.

Please note that feminism isn't for 'women and men', 'both sexes' or vice versa. No where in that does it imply that feminism = men + women's rights. The fact that people try to change feminism's meaning simply shows how out of touch it is with our society's problems.

And if in any way feminism brings about equality for 'both sexes', it's by determining equality for males around female problems. A prime example of this is the issue of the majority of rape victims being female. (No matter whether feminist or masculist, there's no use trying to disprove this. The facts are laid out in front of you.)
However, ONLY BECAUSE this is a women-led issue will feminism act upon what you could call the 'male' side of the story. By definition, feminism will only focus on solving women's equality, and thus any other gender's equality will merely follow up from that women-specific issue.
What about the fact that the majority of suicides are done by men? That the jail time for the same crime is 3 times higher for males? What about the woman's privilege of custody over her child, no matter whether she is fit to take care of it? What about the 61% of homeless people being men? That only 2/5 of college graduates are male? All these issues which are male-led, but by definition feminism will have nothing to do with them. And don't forget that these problems are global, and not just reserved for first-world countries...

Egalitarianism will fight for the rights of all sexes, creeds, appearances or sexualities - or in other words, allpeople - equally, and so will be the movement out of the two that'll actually combat these problems.

"So if feminism (in its very essence) will not touch these aspects, what about the feminists who fight for men's rights!??"

Despite it being nice to see that even those in a very polarised movement (feminism) still are just as compassionate towards other sexes, it completely goes against the very definition of feminism. Do people not realise the irony of this? Having your own interpretation of feminism will not change what feminism is, and therefore will not qualify you as a feminist.
What people need to realise with labels like 'feminist' or 'egalitarian' is that you can't change what they are to suit your whims. If you want equality for both sexes, you can call yourself an egalitarian. If you want to then lean towards equality for women than men, then don't call yourself an egalitarian. Call yourself a feminist. You have the choice of labelling yourself, but it's not up to you to decide what they mean if they have a globally established meaning (like feminism or egalitarianism do).

"But people will naturally interpret things in their own way - it's called being human!!"

Of course. But the whole point of having ideologies is for them to be defined and followed according to those definitions. It's just as obvious as the fact that you can't be a Christian if you worship Satan. If you have a specific belief, idea or motive that doesn't quite exactly match any other - or, if you want to have your own view of things, then don't label yourself. Don't want to be labelled? DON'T LABEL YOURSELF. Just because you believe in equality doesn't mean you should rush with the hype and start calling yourself something. To believe in equal rights, you don't have to call yourself anything. As an example, if feminists say "if you believe in .... , you're a feminist", that's when you know you should steer clear of them.

"Now you're just contradicting yourself, bawww!!1"
How come? Because I basically said "If you want to ... lean towards equality for women than men, then you can call yourself a feminist"?
Do you notice that subtle little "can call" in there?
That means that I'm not directly telling you to call yourself a feminist - I'm giving you a choice. Like I already said, it's your choice whether you label yourself or not. I'm not telling you that you have to call yourself this the minute you fulfil the requirement, or patronising you if you're not one. However, it is not your choice to determine what feminism means. Feminism has been agreed on by many to be the definition at the very top of my post, as well as by the one who coined it. So no matter whether you call yourself a feminist or not, you won't be a feminist if you go against that definition. You'll be simply making a fool out of the movement and ultimately yourself, and you'll know that deep inside no matter how much you try to justify it.

"So how will people know what you believe in if you can't tell them with a simple definition!?!?!"

Let me tell you of a little quote that encompasses one of the reasons we have movements: Actions speak louder than words.

Actually doing something towards what you fight for would mean that you won't need to explain yourself to people. Call yourself an egalitarian all you want, but if you're not BEING an egalitarian then you're letting your movement down. Spreading awareness doesn't count. Why? Because anyone can do that. When criticising a movement, you're giving it just as much publicity as a radical would. (If anyone wants me to explain further, I will do.) And if someone asks you this despite everything, stop being lazy and just tell them. Being passionate about what you believe in is willing to find a way to explain your motives to people, EVEN IF they didn't have a term. After all, a reason for fighting for things is to get other people to join you."

Menimism isn't a real movement. It's a troll reactionary movement that parodies feminism.

They're a bunch of self-gratifying losers who only care about putting feminists down, so, you know, just wondering.