'Men's Rights' et al communities becoming more extreme

Feminists haven't forgotten it all all.

In fact, if you bother to get a better understanding of feminism beyond the your straw man feminism, you'll realise that many feminist writers have been arguing for decades that the patriarchy is damage to men. Great to see that you have finally caught up.

toxic masculinity

What's so toxic about me having laddish friends, reading men's magazines, watching the football and doing traditionally masculine things?
The idea that masculine things are ”toxic” is misandristic in the same way that saying that wearing make-up and skirts is ”toxic” would be misogynistc.

You are just proving my point about your double standards here with regards to religious ideology vs feminism. You go so far as to claim that Christianity and Islam were formed on the foundation of human rights but deny that feminism is formed on the foundation of women's rights

And yes, really, radicals like de Beauvoir do not own the concept of patriarchy just as SJWs don't own the concept of social justice. The notion predates her and a basic dictionary definition is much more common sensical and universally applicable than one person's interpretation of it.

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them."

You couldn't get more patriarchal than this.

Criticism of radical and cultural/postmodern feminism is in no short supply but for my point you quoted, Martha Nussbaum might be the most prominent modern advocate of both liberal feminism as well as a universalist approach that does not shy away from addressing sexism outside of Western cultures. Attached is a good (ove)review of her two books, Sex and Social Justice and Women and Human Development.

For a more focused attack on postmodern feminism in favour of liberal feminism, see Enlightened Women: Modernist Feminism in a Postmodern Age by Alison Assiter written at the peak of postmodernism.

radical feminists do not own feminism.

I am claiming she is not a feminist and that she is therefore a flawed example of feminism having existed prior to the advent of communism and marxism. You are claiming she is. To support that she is not a feminist I argued that she has never once in her life mentioned the word feminism. I argued that this was further evidence that feminism did not exist in her time.

Do any of these activities involve demeaning, oppressing or hating on the opposite sex in any way? If not then it's not "toxic". And, no, I don't consider things like appreciating the physical beauty of people to be demeaning. Quite the opposite, in fact. This applies to both sides.

In the age of vocal radicals, we can call out toxicity of both masculine and feminine proponents without needing to paint either feminists or conservatives/traditionalists/the right with the same brush.

What's so toxic about me having laddish friends, reading men's magazines, watching the football and doing traditionally masculine things?
The idea that masculine things are ”toxic” is misandristic in the same way that saying that wearing make-up and skirts is ”toxic” would be misogynistc.

It will not be easy for you to give up on mockery and vitriol. These are two traits integral to partisans to an ideology about which they know nothing, stubborn individuals often born or led into their beliefs. It is more so difficult to refrain from mockery and vitriol when you subscribe to an ideology that lacks reason, an ideology such as feminism, based on deception, bias, manipulation, distortion and exaggeration.

You cannot practice my brand of civility, because you are not Jewish and I doubt you know anything about Judaism and the way in which it teaches its followers to debate its critics and its opponents.

You can, however, respond to my request to refrain from mockery and vitriol. You have responded to the latter, but you still seem to be struggling with the former. I ask you to try adhering to the former as well.

Mockery and vitriol do nothing but build barriers between people. Let's try and bring those barriers down. Let's try to come to a mutual understanding if not an agreement. If we cannot do this then we go our separate ways, each keeping their own beliefs without carrying hate born of having suffered abuse.



I did not claim that Hitler was analogous to the suffragettes. That was not my argument. Your argument was that it is OK to support murderers if they do good, that its OK to take them as leaders and espouse them as heroes. I gave you an example of a mass murderer and I asked you would you support such a man and take him as leader? The point of argument here is not about hitler but the underlying argument, which you have yet to refute. Is it OK to support, idolise and celebrate mass murderers as heroes and leaders of a movement because they did something good? No. It is not. Through this support you empower them. You empower and trivialise their evil.



I have not done it once. You clearly do not understand Godwin's law. Godwin's law is calling someone a Nazi because they disagree with you. Godwins Law is providing a argument that rests entirely on name calling and zero reason or logic. This reply of yours and of some of the others is wrong. You cannot call anyone that brings up Nazism Godwin's. ...otherwise every historian would be suffering from Godwin's law.

You called me a KKK supporter who wants to kill black people. This is not a rational argument. It is just an insult. Hence, it is fit to be ascribed to Godwin's law. I gave you nationalist socialism as a rational rebuttal to your claim that its ok to support bad groups if they do good things. I did not call you a nationalist socialist. Neither did I call you a Nazi. Clearly you have made a mistake ascribing my comment to Godwin's law. Lets not turn this discussion into one were whatever I say you throw it back at me without rhyme or reason. This is extremely childish.



This is nothing but an opinion. It does not provide a rational rebuttal of my statement. I gave you a definition for the patriarchy. Your reply was that this definition is wrong....OK. Great. Provide evidence to substantiate this claim, because at this moment all we have is your opinion, which according to you is worth nothing because feminism, according to you, is not defined but its followers but by its doctrine right? ...

Let me help you because you clearly not only not know about the suffragettes but you clearly also do not know what the patriarchy is. This is why you claim that my definition, which is universally accepted by feminists, is one that is wrong. This is the first time that i have been told its wrong by a feminist and by one who did not know, at the start of this thread, what the Suffragettes were, which is unbelievable for someone so ardent in their defence of this ideology. How could you be so defensive towards an ideology about which you do not even know the basics.

Now to the definition of the patriarchy plus an explanation to help you understand the origins of this concept.

The patriarchy is the fundamental concept on which all forms of feminism are based. It was first adopted into feminism in the 1940s by an individual named Simone De Beauvoir. She was a lifelong marxist, communist philosopher who borrowed much if not all her ideas from her lifelong partner, marxist, communist icon Jean Paul Sartre.

Sartre claimed, that people in this world relate to each other in one of two ways, either through mutual respect, or by means of a relationship in which one is the oppressed Object and the other the oppressor, the Subject. According to Sartre the Subject, the dominating oppressor, was the bourgeois (the wealthy class). He saw the oppressed, the Object, as the proletariat (the working class). According to his interpretations of life, we lived in a world run by system created by the wealthy to objectify the working class to benefit the wealthy. Simone took this marxist, communist idea and replaced the bourgeois with men and the proletariat with women. In The Second Sex she argued that we live in a world where the root cause of all evil was not the bourgeois but men. She claimed that we live in a world run by a system created by men (the Subjects) that oppresses women (the Objects) for the benefit of men by way of a marxist concept called Othering a phenomenological concept adapted and adopted by marxist philosophers like Sartre to describe the relationship between the bourgeois and the proletariat, which was applied for the first time to men and women by De Beauvoir in the 1940s in the Ethics of Ambiguity and The Second Sex. These marxist ideas became the foundations of feminist theory. Feminists today use othering, this marxist, communist concept to explain men's victimisation of women in society. Othering inspired feminist ideas like mansplaining and manspreading.

Now to the definition of the patriarchy in The Second Sex:

“Man put himself forward as the Subject and considered the woman as the Object…She is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential...
…He is the Absolute. Woman has always been man’s dependent, if not his slave.”

You have a problem. This problem is that you strongly believe in an ideology about which you know little if anything at all. I strongly believe you subscribe to feminism as it has been presented to you by the mainstream i.e. "feminism is an ideology that wants equality for all". This is why you are rejecting all of this information that I am giving you. You are rejecting it because it does not conform with the picture drawn of feminism drawn inside your head by the mainstream. I am presenting the reality of feminism to you, from its most seminal books, which you are rejecting. You are rejecting real feminism.



All types of feminism are radical feminism. You will come to learn this truth if you carry on debating me.



I am a medical student and in the world of medicine we do not consider the foetus to be a part of the woman's body. Hell, they could both have different blood types and if the mother's immune system is not weakened during pregnancy the body's immune system would destroy the foetus as a foreign body. Nowhere in biology or in law does anyone consider the foetus a part of the woman's body. This is one fatal flaw in your logic...

Mothers are given the right of say in abortion. Fathers should have the same right in regard to the foetus which nobody in this world considers a part of the woman's body except for majors in woman's studies whose opinions in this matter do not hold any weight neither in law nor in biology. This is equality.

Again you avoid addressing the matter of equity feminists. Is this the second or third time you avoid answering this question?



Thank you. Please maintain it and improve on it by refraining from mockery as well as to help break down barriers instead of erecting more.

"Nowhere in biology or in law does anyone consider the foetus a part of the woman's body. This is one fatal flaw in your logic..."
this isn't true actually- under european law in fact, the foetus is regarded as the utero part of the mother, and so rights are held by the mother.

Suspect in Arizona shooting wanted to target couples, prosecutor says

The 20-year-old suspect in a shooting at a Glendale, Arizona, entertainment district considered himself an involuntary celibate, or "incel," and was targeting couples, a prosecutor said Thursday.

Armando Hernandez Jr. "had the purpose of taking out his expressed anger at society, the feeling that he has been bullied, the feeling that women didn't want him," Maricopa County prosecutor Edward Leiter said at Hernandez's first court appearance.

At what point do we proscribe these incel forums under the Terrorism Act? We've already blocked far-right and radical Islamic websites so why not block these ones too. I remember reading an article about there being a real risk of a similar attack in the UK and we should work on preventing that.

i'm not a sjw and i'm actually quite racist but i do think men need to have less rights (especially if they are white men)

Canada already has.

At what point do we proscribe these incel forums under the Terrorism Act? We've already blocked far-right and radical Islamic websites so why not block these ones too. I remember reading an article about there being a real risk of a similar attack in the UK and we should work on preventing that.

Have they? I definitely prefer this part of Canadian law to the bits concerning pronouns or the anti-hurty words laws.

Anti-men rhetoric is acceptable and warranted you bigot

You mean a bloke killing a woman for being a woman? What does the Incel man say, can't see it.

So can you tell us what they are? But first, a reminder of what Incels have done in the span of about 5 years:

Elliot Rodger - killed 6 people
Chris Harper-Mercer - killed 9 people
Sheldon Bentley - stomped a security guard to death
William Atchison - Killed 2
Nikolas Cruz - killed 17 people
Alek Minassian - killed 10 people
Scott Beierle - killed 3 people
And most recently Tobias Rathjen - killed 10 people

So far you've mentioned Valerie Sonas, who killed nobody and was diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic; The Angry Group, whose actions led to a single person being 'slightly injured'; and a snippet from an obscure feminist mag from about a million years ago that mostly details incidents of women acting in self-defence. "Thousands of examples". ****ing sure, mate.

Un-****ing-believable the number of people in this thread eating your nonsense up.

Blocking them is not the right or practical approach in the long run. It certainly hasn't worked against the Islamists and the far right. Keep prosecuting their criminal acts but also keep their channels of open communication running, visible and accessible.

The labeling of the Hanau attacker as ‘incel’ is problematic in several regards. First, as we have shown, not all violent misogynists are ‘incels’. The misattribution of the attack to one particularly known sub-group of the manosphere risks feeding into the incel narrative of unjustified societal victimization and at the same time provides them with a new wave of curious potential followers. Moreover, it can harm proper analysis. To avoid overly simplistic (or plain inaccurate) labelling, we therefore suggest ‘male supremacism’ as the more fitting label for the misogynist motivation of attacks like Hanau.

Second, and potentially more harmful is the media framing of inceldom as simultaneously exotic and ‘weird’ as well as potentially dangerous. The focus on incels as strange outcasts of ‘normal’ society tends to obscure that misogyny and male supremacism do not originate in and are not exclusive to obscure corners of the internet. Misogyny—like racism—has always been a part of our societies. It has always been violent, with misogynist terrorism, rape, and intimate partner violence as just the tip of an iceberg of persistent male entitlement. It goes much deeper into the realms of sexual harassment, gender pay gaps, and daily life practices that still put child rearing, un(der)paid care labor, and household work squarely as the responsibilities of women.

Accurate labelling of the ideologies at stake is one element required for a deeper understanding of the societal dynamics and issues on which the success of extremist groups of all couleur are built. In order to avoid trivializing how deeply misogyny, male entitlement, and white supremacy remain entrenched in our societies, we have to go past any simplistic use of the incel-label. Instead we must continue to ask the hard questions: how and why it seems so intuitive to some young men to connect anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny into a worldview that—in their view—demands violent activism?