Men's Rights Movement

[Athene]

Ok well I'm done taking sides between posters here. Obviously this thread got heated and personal, and the frustrating part is that it didn't have to. It seems we all mostly agree on the principles at hand, and are just getting upset over labels.

Yeah, I should think you would be done NOW.

[Catholic_Lady]

Uh ok

[Shell B]

Hey, I’m not done. I’ll come back and poke the bear when I’m done enjoying my holiday. For now, I’ll just get a rise for funsies, shall I?

For the record, we don’t have to play good cop, bad cop. Not only am I not in any position of authority, I’m IRL quite a lot more abrasive than Tibs. That you stupid assholes even have to stretch to define his meanness as that one time he called the raging cuntosaurus rex a dipshit after she said people who call themselves egalitarian dipshits is proof positive you whiny little shits just want a reason to be mad at him because either A. you dislike him by association to me or B. You mistakenly see him as some incarnation of “the man” and can’t help but rail against the “system” at any given chance. Boofuckinghoo. It’s always the same turd burglars in these things (myself included, I suppose). Circle jerks for everyone. Merry Christmas, assholes.

[Aegon]

My opinion after watching it is that both men and women have certain (different) disadvantages in society, and that many feminist movements are out of line in making themselves the victims all the time and actually being against men.

Interesting thread.

Personally I'm not fond of any group that complains about small societal disadvantages - whenever I find myself disadvantaged I'll do what it takes to actually be competitive, not complain that society's structure doesn't favor me. Obviously there are some fights (like feminism before women could vote) that require institutional change to give people opportunity, but hard work is usually a surprisingly effective remedy at overcoming many inequalities. It also has the side effect of proving people's biases wrong, which effects change in its own right.

Whatever issue specifically you have with how society is trying to slot you - deviate there, and strongly, with enough effort that you actually aren't disadvantaged anymore.

How small is small

[Whateverist]

Ok well I'm done taking sides between posters here. Obviously this thread got heated and personal, and the frustrating part is that it didn't have to. It seems we all mostly agree on the principles at hand, and are just getting upset over labels.

Yeah, get out now before you get shit stained.

[KevinM1]

[Shell B]

That’s the spirit!

[Tiberius]

Which part or my argument do you disagree with exactly? The alt-right is an ideology, it's a collection of multiple political viewpoints, it's not just anti-feminist. They are also pro-capitalist. Are all pro-capitalists therefore supporters of the alt-right, because that's what you are arguing, that supporting part of an ideology means you support the entire ideology. That's bullshit.

Besides, as I've made clear, I'm not an anti-feminist.

Tiberius quoted:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ympathizer

"A person who agrees with or supports a sentiment, opinion, or ideology."

And then wrote:
The alt-right is an ideology. I don't support the ideology of the alt-right, therefore I cannot be an alt-right sympathizer.

To clarify the use of commas in the definition YOU chose to provide:
" A person who agrees with or supports a sentiment OR opinion OR ideology."

I know that you know how to English, man. 
So please stop with the word games.

Additionally, the Alt Right is set of ideologies, AND groups, AND individuals with whom you do share a seemingly rabidly anti-political correctness stance, and a ludicrously unwavering assessment of feminism, which I expect could inform your views on women in general, but not necessarily so. 
I'll discount your claim of being targeted as white male since you're walking it back as a "joke", though I'm fairly certain seen you I've ranting about about white males being under attack in the past; probably in one of the PC discussion threads.

At any rate, you don't have to agree with each and every single component of a given platform to be a sympathizer. I never said that I think you do. 
Being a sympathizer only requires for one to be susceptible to some it's core/fundamental tenets.

I’m not playing word games, you are. You realize that support for a sentiment or opinion doesn’t imply support for an entire ideology right? If you don’t understand that, there’s no helping you here.

If one supports the sentiment that universal healthcare should exist, that doesn't imply that one supports socialism. Universal healthcare is a single socialist idea, but it in no way represents socialism in it’s entirety.

I would argue you do have to support at least the majority of the core tenets, if not all of the core tenets of an ideology to be a sympathizer of the ideology. Anything else is ludicrous. Do you support liberty? That’s a core tenet of libertarianism, so you are a libertarian sympathizer?

Besides, this is all moot as I don’t agree with any of the anti-feminist things the alt right say.

[Tiberius]

Which part or my argument do you disagree with exactly? The alt-right is an ideology, it's a collection of multiple political viewpoints, it's not just anti-feminist. They are also pro-capitalist. Are all pro-capitalists therefore supporters of the alt-right, because that's what you are arguing, that supporting part of an ideology means you support the entire ideology. That's bullshit.

Besides, as I've made clear, I'm not an anti-feminist.

Lol, you just operate with conviently different and flexible definitions of feminism. Yeah, you're a feminst....if it were 1960. But no women's studies professor or well educated feminist today accepts your definition, especially the egalitarian under the law and then that's that approach.  A group is self defined, not defined by someone clearly hostile to it's fringe movement  (whoever they might be, it's not really clear.)

Bullshit. You don’t know my beliefs, don’t suppose to know them for the sake of argument. I don’t believe that equality under the law is all that matters. Clearly laws don’t directly stamp out sexism, attitudes themselves need to change.

As for definitions, were you here earlier in the thread where I linked to a bunch of them? Feminism itself isn’t one thing, it’s fractured into multiple sub-groups, some of which have real disagreements with each other.

So sure, feminists are self defined, but which type is important if you want to have a discussion about it.

[Tiberius]

The two are linked though. Equality under the law doesn't usually come about unless society's views are changing, and at the same time, societal views can be changed by new laws. Gay Marriage is a good example of this.

Being linked and being the same thing are two different things. No one said the one doesn't affect the other. The goalposts are moving here, after the kick is in the air.

I'm pointing out that they cannot reasonably be argued to be the same thing, which is what you wrote originally.

Fair point, I stand corrected. I shouldn’t have used the word “same” when I should have said “similar” / “linked”.