Ask an Anti-Feminist!

[TheMessiah]

What is your opinion about women in the PKK fighting against ISIS? Around 40% of this group are women. Although not labelled as a feminist group (actually labelled as a terrorist group) this is ultimately the aim of feminism. Equal treatment and chances regardless of gender.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/photo-gal.../women-pkk

That's pretty cool - as I said, Feminism in Islamic countries makes sense because legal equality has not been achieved

[Dystopia]

Being an Anti-Feminist doesn't mean that I hate women because only 20% of women are Feminists, hence insignificant.

I don't see how what women prefer to call themselves is really relevant to prove your point. Do you use other people's opinions to prove your claims all the time or do you have brains to think for yourself? What difference would it make if 99% of women identified as feminists? Would that change your mind? It seems an argumento ad populum. Do you realize that a significant portion of women were against first-wave and second-wave feminism because they were brainwashed to think they had to fulfil feminine roles, right? Do you proceed to call a "religious cultist" to anyone who doesn't agree? You keep screaming the same rhetoric reply after reply, thread after thread - Why should I treat you any different than my local Catholic preacher?

That's because I do not have to dispel the ''opinion'' - you made the claim that I fear changing gender roles, now it is your job to prove your accusation. i don't have to defend myself against a baseless accusation, it's you who has to provide evidence for it.

You are against a movement that openly said one of its primary goals is to erase gender roles and now you claim you are ok with changing them - That's a massive contradiction.

You did not just ''express'' your opinion - you used anecdotal evidence in an attempt to express your fallacy.

Anyway, I do label myself anti-Feminist, but if you'd do a bit of research, you'd find that the modern Feminist movement is a religious man-hating cult; the radicals took over. Feminists who tried to stick to true equality don't even use the term Feminist.



If you, an Atheist, dislikes religion, then I would presume that you should judge Feminism as a religion, before it's too late.


Ban Bossy was a Feminist campaign with support from celebrities and Feminist scholars, so yeah, it was pretty significant.

You have provided zero convincing proof until now. If modern feminism is a religious man-hating cult, why is it that every feminist I meet fits exactly the opposite definition, contrary to what websites like reddit, 9gag and returnofkings say?


Funny fact - I don't really dislike religion, I find religion fascinating because it tells a lot about one's own culture, it's just when religion says to kill gays or stone adulterers that I dislike it, but I don't support New Atheism and I find the movement overly narrow minded. Someone like Tim O'Neil (Like you posted in the other topic) seems to be the kind of atheist I am.

Is "ban bossy" the best you can do? How should that be relevant? Do you think a campaign that happened in (presumably) America represents the rest of the world? Why should our definitions of feminism even be anglo-saxon centric? You know there are other countries in the world b sides America, England and Australia, right?

There you go again; accusing me of being a misogynist (which is a very loaded term, by the way) without any evidence. Most women aren't even Feminists, so I fail to see how I'm a misogynist.

"I don't support the KKK, therefore I can't be racist".

My evidence for Feminist jumping the rails is that every Feminist campaign we see relies on bullshit; Ban Bossy, Mansplaining, complaining about the wage gap while leaving out the fact that men work longer hours, etc.

I actually agree that banning words is completely stupid, but do you know that the word bossy in the English language can have a sexist connotation under some circumstances, right?

As for other issues - First, you are merely posting and explaining the ones that interest to you, because there's hundreds of other issues movements like feminism care about. Second, the wage cap actually exists and if you did the research you'd know that, unlike what MRA's like to claim, the wage gap accounts variables of if I conclude there's a difference of, for example, 0.10, that is the difference, on average, between peopel with the same occupation and productivity. It isn't comparing male surgeons with female maids, or male teachers with female secretaries - That would be ridiculous - It is the average salary gap after considering important variables and reasonably equal circumstances. Of course, people like you probably have no interest in actually researching and you dismissed my source as unreliable when it had links unlike videos you post.

Mansplaining is an ugly word but it's essentially when men try to tell women that what they perceive as sexism isn't really sexism, dismiss women's experiences, tell women they should smile to catcallers, that grouping and sex abuse isn't that bad, that their issues targeting specifically the female gender don't matter. I've done it. It's wrong. Why should it be irrelevant just because you say so? Who appointed you as a judge to tell women what is a worthy goal? Are you running for president or prime minister'

If modern Feminism was about equality, there would be an organised movement; but it's fractured into different factions fighting each other.

Doesn't this contradict your notion that feminism is a man-hating cult - How can a movement be homogeneous if it is fractioned?

There's no such thing as ''reverse racism'' - racism is discrimination on the basis of race; there aren't any exceptions to any one race. If someone is racist towards any race, you call it out - that does not notmake you a racist.

i don't disagree, but there is no doubt that under some racial identities the probability of racism is close to zero while others it is very high. Reverse-racism is basically when whites think they have it worse than every other race just because of affirmative action or because they can't have white pride.

I've provided you of evidence relating to modern Feminist campaigns which have received huge levels of publicity - if modern Feminism was about equality, such campaigns would not have gained ground.

I have never received publicity for these campaigns.

So, provide evidence that I'm a misogynist, because it seems to me that your reasoning levels are bordering on those of a religious person

Because basically every youtube and internet anti-feminism (Including groups like returnofkings that want women to lose the right to vote) group or person has some kind of sexist behaviour I think it's you that need to prove you are the exception. If it's bad to be a feminist because some people are crazy, then it must be equally bad to be an anti-feminist because of groups like returnofkings or the red pill.

That's pretty cool - as I said, Feminism in Islamic countries makes sense because legal equality has not been achieved

It's funny you think your culture is superior but you have investigated little. Did you know Turkey (a more secular Islamic state) has appointed 5-7 chiefs of State (females)? Do women get raped often in Turkey? Yes, but apparently it's the same case in Sweden, so it isn't exclusive to one religion.

Why do you believe that legal equality is enough?

[TheMessiah]

Well the entire argument becomes moot once parthenogenesis becomes the dominant form of reproduction and us blokes become obselete, so...eh.

This is some good, solid info.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxAljFlb-c

[Dystopia]

You accuse me of posting rationalwiki but continue to post Thunderf00t... How ethical...

[Homeless Nutter]

This is some good, solid info.

[...]

No, it really isn't...

[TheMessiah]

You accuse me of posting rationalwiki but continue to post Thunderf00t... How ethical...

Thunderfo00t is a respected Atheist.

Rational Wiki on the other hand is an SJW shithole

[Dystopia]

Respected by whom? By some people who subscribe to his videos? Why should I respect him? And why should I approve a source that clearly is going to be biased towards an anti-feminist stance? Did Thunderf00t contribute significantly to humanity for me to respect him and take him into consideration? Should I respect thunderf00t's opinion as much as I respect Plato's? And why shouldn't rationalwiki be respected? There's sources at the bottom of the page, in case you haven't noticed - Unlike thunderf00t who appears to be a scientist but barely makes science videos and rarely quotes sources to support his claims. Do you have any proof that rationalwiki is run by SJW - Or do you simply call SJW to anyone who doesn't agree with you and assumes a feminist stance? Am I a SJW because I support feminism?

[TheMessiah]

Respected by whom? By some people who subscribe to his videos? Why should I respect him? And why should I approve a source that clearly is going to be biased towards an anti-feminist stance? Did Thunderf00t contribute significantly to humanity for me to respect him and take him into consideration? Should I respect thunderf00t's opinion as much as I respect Plato's? And why shouldn't rationalwiki be respected? There's sources at the bottom of the page, in case you haven't noticed - Unlike thunderf00t who appears to be a scientist but barely makes science videos and rarely quotes sources to support his claims. Do you have any proof that rationalwiki is run by SJW - Or do you simply call SJW to anyone who doesn't agree with you and assumes a feminist stance? Am I a SJW because I support feminism?

''Rational''-Wiki is a sham; the sources they cite for articles are not reliable but opinion pieces - it's not that ''Rational''-Wiki can't be reliable, it's just that it isn't. It's agenda driven; they've banned people for disagreeing --- it's a problem with wiki's, they cite sources which are more often than note, opinion pieces and unethically making assertions, which is terribly misleading once you cite it in a database. I'm fully aware there are ''sources at the bottom of the page'' --- but if you know that, then you should be skeptical of the sources they cite.

Moreover, any wiki which feels the need to put ''Rational'' in it's title, as if it is some arbiter of truth needs skepticism; it's attempting to assert some false credibility, so nothing I've really seen suggests the wiki is reliable, especially considering some of the articles are horribly biased.

Thunderf00t presents himself as a man with an opinion; ''Rational'' Wiki doesn't, it presents itself as a data, but is terribly misleading once you examine the sources they cite.

[Dystopia]

''Rational''-Wiki is a sham; the sources they cite for articles are not reliable but opinion pieces - it's not that ''Rational''-Wiki can't be reliable, it's just that it isn't. It's agenda driven; they've banned people for disagreeing --- it's a problem with wiki's, they cite sources which are more often than note, opinion pieces and unethically making assertions, which is terribly misleading once you cite it in a database. I'm fully aware there are ''sources at the bottom of the page'' --- but if you know that, then you should be skeptical of the sources they cite.

Moreover, any wiki which feels the need to put ''Rational'' in it's title, as if it is some arbiter of truth needs skepticism; it's attempting to assert some false credibility, so nothing I've really seen suggests the wiki is reliable, especially considering some of the articles are horribly biased.

Thunderf00t presents himself as a man with an opinion; ''Rational'' Wiki doesn't, it presents itself as a data, but is terribly misleading once you examine the sources they cite.

Because? Which sources are wrong? How many articles have you read? Are the sources really wrong or do you just label them as wrong because they don't corroborate your preconceived opinion about reality? Of course one should be skeptical, but for the most part I've read sources with opinions that also cite other studies and make compelling arguments - I'll admit that rationalwiki has a problem with ridiculing its opponents, but that's about it. Is there anything that isn't agenda driven? Is any position ideologically neutral by 100%? So what if they have banned people? If I formed a group with X goal I would happily ban people who directly oppose the group's core principles.
Anyone can be a man with an opinion, but many times opinions are biased and filled with prejudices. Tunderf00t rarely cites sources and just uses his definition on what he thinks feminism is and dismisses any women's issue as being imaginary. That's not a reasonable debate position, it's an ideologically biased one.

[TheMessiah]

''Rational''-Wiki is a sham; the sources they cite for articles are not reliable but opinion pieces - it's not that ''Rational''-Wiki can't be reliable, it's just that it isn't. It's agenda driven; they've banned people for disagreeing --- it's a problem with wiki's, they cite sources which are more often than note, opinion pieces and unethically making assertions, which is terribly misleading once you cite it in a database. I'm fully aware there are ''sources at the bottom of the page'' --- but if you know that, then you should be skeptical of the sources they cite.

Moreover, any wiki which feels the need to put ''Rational'' in it's title, as if it is some arbiter of truth needs skepticism; it's attempting to assert some false credibility, so nothing I've really seen suggests the wiki is reliable, especially considering some of the articles are horribly biased.

Thunderf00t presents himself as a man with an opinion; ''Rational'' Wiki doesn't, it presents itself as a data, but is terribly misleading once you examine the sources they cite.

Because? Which sources are wrong? How many articles have you read? Are the sources really wrong or do you just label them as wrong because they don't corroborate your preconceived opinion about reality? Of course one should be skeptical, but for the most part I've read sources with opinions that also cite other studies and make compelling arguments - I'll admit that rationalwiki has a problem with ridiculing its opponents, but that's about it. Is there anything that isn't agenda driven? Is any position ideologically neutral by 100%? So what if they have banned people? If I formed a group with X goal I would happily ban people who directly oppose the group's core principles.
Anyone can be a man with an opinion, but many times opinions are biased and filled with prejudices. Tunderf00t rarely cites sources and just uses his definition on what he thinks feminism is and dismisses any women's issue as being imaginary. That's not a reasonable debate position, it's an ideologically biased one.

It's not that the sources aren't ''wrong'' - it's more so the fact that they can't be proven ''right'' - they link to biased opinion pieces which make assertions and put forward a specific political ideology, and then cite those sources as proof, despite the fact that they clearly can't be used as ''proof'' - they're just subjective opinion pieces, which lack academic rigor or a set of facts.

Creating a wiki called ''Rational'' (in a clear attempt to boost people's perception of the data-base they use) is pathetic - I also believe this is the same wiki which was heavily in favor of Atheism Plus, a movement which failed horribly and acted like a religious cult.

A database shouldn't pretend to be what it isn't, this is precisely what ''Rational'' Wiki does; they write articles about Feminism and then link pro-Feminist pieces to them. That's propaganda.

Same with Wikipedia's Conservative and Liberal pages; they have people trying to change them for propaganda; it's no wonder why even schools nationwide are acknowledging that Wiki is not reliable. It can be manipulated by a few agenda driven admins who want to assert their own ideology.

Thunderf00t is a commentator; all of his videos on Feminism are linked to modern, recent Feminist campaigns which have the backing of the media - he's not deceptive like ''Rational'' Wiki.