Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

This is an anecdote and is not indicative of what normally happens.

Of course, no one wants to be punched, but are you endangered by a punch from a 130 lbs. woman? Are you endangered by one from a 180 lbs. man?

And I didn't say women were weak. I said they are weaker than men on the whole. I'm afraid nothing you've said counters this fact.

Why should anyone be allowed to punch me without any repercussion, no matter their strength level? Why am I obligated to allow myself to be bullied and beaten just because women are stereotypically seen as "weak" or "helpless"? If a person is unable to defend themselves or handle themselves in a physical confrontation, it is their responsibility to avoid physical confrontation. If a person is too weak to take a hit, they shouldn't start a fight in the first place. If anyone feels like attacking me, man or woman, I have every right to defend myself. As grown, responsible adults, women have the same obligation as men to not be total pricks to other people, and if they don't feel like doing this, I have absolutely no sympathy for them. Nobody of any size, shape, or genital configuration has any right to abuse me or anyone else.

…Why don’t women in the UFC don’t fight men? Given that women can cause some nasty damage?

The fact is that men are often far stronger than women. Even if women scratched (women don’t have claws) or bit a man, that man doesn’t usually end up with serious injuries. He’s got scratches and bite marks. Some people call that sex.

OK so yes the majority of men are stronger then most women. There are some biological factors. But even if you are the strongest and toughest man in the world, you can be harmed. Sure a lot of the time the man can prevent the woman from harming because it's likely he's stronger. But anyone can cause a lot of damage to anyone else. Think about it, if you are in a situation where you must fight, you will do your best to harm your opponent and imagine the things you could do to physically harm someone.

Also take into account a couple of things. Firstly, there are a lot of men who are not so disproportionately stronger then most women. Sure when it comes down to a fight, the man may just be better, but this isn't a fight we're talking about. We're talking about someone who wants to harm another.

I agree that physical abuse is the least likely, but it's still entirely possible and women should take the same punishment as men. Just like a woman should not be afraid to speak up against an abusive male partner, the same goes for a man (who has a harder job because it would be difficult for people to believe he is being abused)

P.S Claw can be used a verb, clawing at something doesn't mean you have claws. And a lot of women have long nails.

Going back to the arguing though, I don’t think you’ll find many cases where a man or woman gets arrested for verbally abusing another before they get divorced. Ultimately, they’re both adults, so they can usually leave the relationship if the abuse is emotional or verbal. The cases where this isn’t the case is where the abused is reliant on the abuser. Again, in practice, who tends to be the one that’s reliant upon the other in these heterosexual relationships?

Not necessarily true. A lot of people stay in abusive relationships for a lot of reasons. One of the main ones is fear. What may make a man fear a woman? A lot of things, we live in societies in which a woman can accuse a man of rape even if he didn't and get away with it and he can get jail time at and limit his career options at worst and at best still get a tarnished name and always considered a potential rapist. Or a woman can blackmail a man in other ways like threatening his whole social life by spreading lies about him.

Some abused people won't leave because they become accustomed to it or believe that there is no alternative. Some guys may feel the abusive partner may be the only partner they'll have because their partner made them feel so bad about themselves, or they may say that they'll tell everyone who the man tries to have relationship with lies so that he cannot move on.

And again, you argue what’s possible instead of what happens. Even with weapons, very few people, man or woman, will be attacked to the point where they feel endangered before they fight back or flee (or “faint”). And if you’re absolutely livid at someone when your body goes into the “flight-or-fight” physiological state, you’re not thinking rationally enough to hold back or hold back enough.

No but the case TripleA9000 was talking about was if a woman slaps a man in disgust (not rage) because he called her fat, it is acceptable. If a man slaps the woman for the same thing in the same way, it's almost a crime. It's unlikely that if you are livid and in a "flight-or-fight" mode you would slap someone. It's a different situation.

If I offend a girl for something minor and she slaps me, not only am allowed to do the same even if it's a light slap, I'm also considered a "pussy" because I let a girl slap me.

So ultimately, when a man physically abuses a woman, there’s an obvious concern for the well-being of the woman. The man can be emotionally hurt, but he can defend himself against the full weight of most women’s attacks. His life, for the majority, is not in immediate danger if the woman goes berserk. The woman’s is.

When the abuse is not physical, both parties can, by definition, leave the situation. And the cases where the abused cannot leave, it’s likely due to fear of being physically abused. Again, this is usually where a woman is afraid to leave a relationship or relies on the man

But abusive relationships are not the majority of situations. It isn't really an abusive relationship if one person can leave, as you said. You're forgetting we're not talking about the average relationship. As I said before, a woman can cause a lot of harm.

I am not just arguing what's possible, I am arguing what has happened. Males have been abused physically and they have not been able to do anything about it. Even if they left, their partner does not get punished like they would be. Even if the ratio of men to women abuse is higher (also consider the fact it's even less likely for a man to even admit he's abused so there will be a lot of shit we wont hear about), it does not give an excuse for women to get a free pass.

Why should anyone be allowed to punch me without any repercussion, no matter their strength level?

I don't think I ever said that. I said that you're not likely to be endangered. I'd bet money that you can take most of the women you've come across in a fight, and at the very least defense yourself properly. And if that is the case, then it's likely that they couldn't take you or even defend themselves against you. That's why I don't worry about most men who are abused. They are physically abused, but they aren't in real danger for the most part.

Why am I obligated to allow myself to be bullied and beaten just because women are stereotypically seen as “weak” or “helpless”?

You're not. You leave the situation or relationship. And despite being "beaten" (or as much as you can be beaten by a woman if you don't stop her) and despite the true stereotype of the general trend of physical strength differences between the sexes, you're obligated in the same sense that you can't haul off and beat your child down.

Your child is obviously not capable of injuring you. You can defend yourself without throwing haymakers. You can just hold them and wrestle them to the ground until they've calmed down. At which point, you leave the situation once the person realizes that they cannot harm you.

If a person is unable to defend themselves or handle themselves in a physical confrontation, it is their responsibility to avoid physical confrontation. If a person is too weak to take a hit, they shouldn’t start a fight in the first place.

I'll grant you that as life experience. But if you turn around and tell the judge that you laid a woman out because she started a fight when she wasn't capable of actually harming you, you'd go to jail for a long time in the same sense a person with a black belt in a martial art goes to jail for a long time for using his decidedly different level of skill and athleticism against someone who isn't as capable. Logic goes beyond "If something is done to me, then I can do it to them."

And I'll reiterate that I'm not excusing women. They should be prosecuted for assault or whatever. But I am saying that no man should haul off and knock a woman out if someone decidedly weaker attacks them.

If anyone feels like attacking me, man or woman, I have every right to defend myself.

Yes, you have every right to defend yourself from harm. But there's no reason to whip out a tank against a BB gun.

That is to say that there's no reason to punch a woman if restraining her will suffice.

Now if you're dealing with anyone you need to use your full strength against to defend yourself, then do so. Protect your life and physical well-being. But for the mass majority of women who attack men in brief fits of anger, you shouldn't have to go all out.

As grown, responsible adults, women have the same obligation as men to not be total pricks to other people, and if they don’t feel like doing this, I have absolutely no sympathy for them. Nobody of any size, shape, or genital configuration has any right to abuse me or anyone else.

Again, I never said that women have the right to act differently or to get away with assaulting another person.

I am saying that you can't defend yourself against someone decidedly weaker than you in a way that is likely to harm them if you aren't in danger yourself.
 
Does that make sense? Yes or no?

Now I can work with Spider-byte here and concede or clarify some points.

But even if you are the strongest and toughest man in the world, you can be harmed. Sure a lot of the time the man can prevent the woman from harming because it’s likely he’s stronger. But anyone can cause a lot of damage to anyone else. Think about it, if you are in a situation where you must fight, you will do your best to harm your opponent and imagine the things you could do to physically harm someone.

Agreed for the first bit.

You'll have to weight when you may have to knock someone out. It may be because you're a smaller or physically weaker male. It may be because the woman is simply a natural born fighter. It may be because she has a weapon. It may be because she's a very strong and very angry person.

What I'm saying though is that most cases where a woman attacks a man aren't cases where the man is in danger.

The gif I spoiled is a simple instance where a man (Ray Rice) simply slapped his then fiancee. Prior to this, the woman spat on and I believe hit Ray Rice in the chest. The woman should have faced some punishment, and I don't think she did. I would not have felt bad if she did.

But I'm not really worried about the fact that she did though, because Rice was strong enough to simply slap the wife with enough force to knock her into the elevator wall and knock her out.

In terms of the dynamics of most forms of domestic violence, the man is decidedly stronger than the woman.

As I said before, this isn't always the case. The woman may have a clear upper hand or is on par with the man for whatever reason. In these cases, the man should defend himself to the best of his ability. If it requires more violent means, then so be it.

But given the tendency (strong tendency, mind you) of relationships to have a much smaller, weaker woman dating or being married to a much larger, stronger man, I don't think you'll find that very often. So for the most part, I am not concerned about the well-being of the man. But I am for the woman, especially if men think they have the right to counter with as much force as they want to end the confrontation (not all men do, but the person to whom I made the previous counter seems to imply that should be the case. I'm sure he's not alone.)

Sure when it comes down to a fight, the man may just be better, but this isn’t a fight we’re talking about. We’re talking about someone who wants to harm another.

Granted. If a person has true ill-intent, then they'll wait until a person is asleep to really harm them.

However, if you're talking about abused and not something premeditated, then most situations of abuse come out of in-the-moment anger. And "abuse" can lead into something like murder or manslaughter, but if we say "abuse," we're thinking about something that's systematic and occurs on a regular basis for the most part.

I agree that physical abuse is the least likely, but it’s still entirely possible and women should take the same punishment as men. Just like a woman should not be afraid to speak up against an abusive male partner, the same goes for a man (who has a harder job because it would be difficult for people to believe he is being abused.)

I think women should take the same punishment as well. Although, the law does play different based on outcomes. For example, attempted murder does not get you the same punishment as murder. You could shoot someone in the head and they live, and you could hit a major artery in the leg and they die. Both will yield different prosecutions and punishments.

So legally (man or woman), what actually happens plays into how you can be punished.
 
And more to the point TripleA9000 was making, men are at a huge disadvantage after the fact.

• Men are socially discouraged from reporting abuse of any sort. You can and will be called all sorts of fun names, and people will consider you less of a man for it.
• Because of the unlikely nature of the man being harmed, women aren't as likely to even get more than a "Y'all stop that" from law enforcement at the scene.

That's not right, and that's not the way things should be. It can make things difficult for men when if/they decide to divorce. They need to have those incidents of abuse documented in order to get out the divorce with rights to their children,

Don't get me wrong. I'm aware that there is a double standard and that affects men, and it is also systemic. I'll talk about the causes of that though later.

But despite that frustration and that injustice (I will call men not getting a fair shake in divorce affairs "injustice,") I don't think it's a reason to harm another person if you don't need to.

P.S Claw can be used a verb, clawing at something doesn’t mean you have claws. And a lot of women have long nails.

Granted. I shouldn't play semantics in a debate.

I will say that fake nails aren't what you want to use to fight with though. If they're long and fake, then they're likely to be snap off (best case scenario), break (likely scenario), or bend back (worst case and likely scenario) before you're able to tear into flesh with them. I still expect the injuries to be more scratches than missing flesh.

Can't speak for the eyes. An eye gouge works, nails or not. I'll give you that. Although, I don't think most men leave altercations forever blinded. I figure it's scratches and bruises at worst in most cases.

If you're been in an actual brawl before either in sports (e.g., wrestling, linemen in football, etc.), then you know that you get tired very, very quickly (8-15 seconds) unless you're in stellar shape. And if a person is much "better" at fighting, then there's a very, very slim chance that it doesn't get ugly quick.

One of the main ones is fear. What may make a man fear a woman? A lot of things, we live in societies in which a woman can accuse a man of rape even if he didn’t and get away with it and he can get jail time at and limit his career options at worst and at best still get a tarnished name and always considered a potential rapist. Or a woman can blackmail a man in other ways like threatening his whole social life by spreading lies about him.

Well, rape accusations are something men can fear. But on the other hand, rape is hard to prove, and many accusations (many that are true) aren't able to be proven. It stands to reason (because any stats would be flawed due to the secretive nature of most rapes) that men lying about raping a woman occurs just as women lying that they were raped.

And that certainly is the case for women. Of course, you know a man can sleep around and he's just considered scum at worst. But it doesn't stick in the same way as it does for a woman. People still don't want to bring up the name of Zoe Quinn. I personally believe she just likes to sleep around and it had nothing to do with making her name more well-known, and that's fine (well, except that she cheated on a boyfriend at a time, but sleeping around isn't terrible if you're safe with it.) But the jokes you see about her regarding "Five Guys" hasn't been perpetuated for men in the same mocking way, no?

Some abused people won’t leave because they become accustomed to it or believe that there is no alternative. Some guys may feel the abusive partner may be the only partner they’ll have because their partner made them feel so bad about themselves, or they may say that they’ll tell everyone who the man tries to have relationship with lies so that he cannot move on.

Well, men can and will do that as well. It's unfortunate that it happens at all, but it's not something unique to women.

That said, those could make a man stay in an abusive relationship, and that does have an element that women don't have to deal with. I don't think you can easily say one situation is different or worse than the other, and men are overlooked in that regard when a harm does exist.

No but the case TripleA9000 was talking about was if a woman slaps a man in disgust (not rage) because he called her fat, it is acceptable. If a man slaps the woman for the same thing in the same way, it’s almost a crime. It’s unlikely that if you are livid and in a “flight-or-fight” mode you would slap someone. It’s a different situation.

Well, this goes back to my original post:

If a woman slaps a man, it's not likely that he'll be injured.
If a man slaps a woman, he can inadvertently knock her out or at least cause a bruise.

So even if it's not in a high stakes situation, a slap to the face is as dangerous as a firm slap to the butt of a woman during sex. Neither is dangerous, but a slap to the face from a woman and a slap to the face from a man are not the same thing and cannot be interpreted as such.

Now if it was a light slap, I'll grant that it's still looked at differently than if a woman did it to a man, even if it only stung a little. But if it's a light slap, then it's not a big deal to not play around like that to keep people from thinking you're a little too "rough". Not fair, but not a big deal to not slap a woman lightly either.

If I offend a girl for something minor and she slaps me, not only am allowed to do the same even if it’s a light slap, I’m also considered a “pussy” because I let a girl slap me.

You could just be around the wrong friends. And I wouldn't be too concerned if people think less of you for letting a woman slap you. I guess you could catch the hand if you saw it coming.

…why would anyone want to slap a woman again? I get the point that it's not that you want to slap her and more that you wouldn't want her to slap you either, but it's not coming across that way. You sound a little like you'd like to be able to slap her if she can slap you more than you'd like for her to not slap you at all.

I am not just arguing what’s possible, I am arguing what has happened. Males have been abused physically and they have not been able to do anything about it.

And that's not right.

Most feminists, myself included, don't really focus entire campaigns on stopping female-on-male domestic violence, because that's not how you work a population. In other fields where you're concerned with large groups of people, you spend resources on the largest problem. It may not be fair, but it's not necessarily efficient to focus on stopping men from being abused.

You work on the biggest problem or the most at-risk population in order to have the most impact.

How is that fair women get priority when they are actually doing better in this area? Why can’t you work towards both?

I'm afraid that the physiological differences and the amount of women who die due to domestic violence over men leave this statement wanting.

And then this from the American Bar Association (which should be unbiased) regarding deaths leave that statement severely wanting:

"In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims."

Source

84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.

Source

…where did you get your statistics from?

I'm really curious about that, because I don't think you'll ever see a government source, conservative or liberal, that will support your claim for America.

it’s likely that they couldn’t take you or even defend themselves against you.

Then it's their responsibility not to pick a fight with me. They are grown adults, and I am not responsible for their actions, they are.

That’s why I don’t worry about most men who are abused. They are physically abused, but they aren’t in real danger for the most part.

I shouldn't have to be in danger to defend myself from aggression. If a woman makes the choice to start a fight with me, I see no reason not to respond in kind. I don't care if somebody is weaker than me. If that's the case, it's up to them to make that decision for themselves.

Also, you take for granted the notion that a woman couldn't handle herself in a fight, or that a man could. The fact is, most human beings couldn't handle themselves in a fight, and the ones that can could fight most of the ones that can't pretty easily regardless of the genders involved. I am a man, but I have no experience fighting, and I'm out of shape. If any given woman starts assaulting me, she has a pretty good chance of causing some damage. If the woman in question was physically fit, or had fighting experience, they could probably kill me pretty easily if they wanted to. Why, given this, is it wrong for me to defend myself, just because they are women? Also, if it's just about strength, what if a small, weak man fights a larger, stronger man? Is it also wrong for the large man to respond then too? What if a huge, strong, bodybuilder woman fights a small, scrawny man? Why is it solely a gender issue?

You’re not. You leave the situation or relationship

Why am I obligated to? Why should I have to leave a place I have every right to be, perhaps even my own home, just to appease another grown adult that has decided to assault me? Why isn't the abusive woman that has decided to wrongly attack me held responsible for their aggressive behavior?

you’re obligated in the same sense that you can’t haul off and beat your child down.

Women are not children, they are grown adults. You don't beat a child because they're too young to know better. You don't beat a child because they don't have the mental faculties to make decisions. If adult women can't be trusted to avoid attacking people, or face the consequences of those actions, why can they be trusted to vote, or to own property? If women aren't responsible for their own actions, why are they even considered equal, responsible adults?

It is every grown adult's responsibility to conduct themselves appropriately, and if a woman decides to attack someone violently, as a responsible adult, they should be prepared to face the consequences, as any other responsible adult is. If a woman buys something she can't afford, can you just tell the bill collectors "she's just a woman. She can't make her own decisons."? What if a woman decides to drive drunk? Do you just say "officer, it's not her fault. She isn't responsible for her own actions."? If a woman attacks someone, she should expect the same consequences a man would face for such an action, so long as she is equal in status to a man.

in the same sense a person with a black belt in a martial art goes to jail for a long time for using his decidedly different level of skill and athleticism against someone who isn’t as capable.

But the problem with that analogy is that it doesn't get the same treatment. The fact of the matter is that if I were to assault a man who happened to have a black belt, and who then proceeded to kick the everloving crap out of me, I would not get a modicum of sympathy from anyone whatsoever. Everyone would correctly point out that I was in the wrong for attacking him in the first place, and I deserved whatever I got, and i guarantee he wouldn't face a single day in jail.

Meanwhile, if any woman attacked any man, and the man responded with any force at all beyond the most delicate attempt to restrain her, he would be crucified for it. Even if the woman was a master martial artist and very well could have killed him, she still wouldn't face any repercussions for attacking him, and any response from him would be met with the utmost judgement and scrutiny.

It isn't about use of excessive force; It is based solely on stereotypes, and unequal treatment between genders. Nobody would care if a man beat up a smaller, weaker man, but as soon as a woman is involved, everyone loses their freaking minds. That isn't fair, that isn't equality, and no, it doesn't make sense.

Assuming that the male is bigger than the female. what if the male is smaller or weaker than the female? then the male is in danger.

Just because males CAN be stronger doesn't give them the special powers to just not be hurt.

no one should lay their hands on anyone else regardless of how strong they are.

Just because the average male can take a punch or slap from a woman, that doesn't mean EVERY man can take a punch from a woman.

Most girls could probably kick my ass, but if they attack me, I have a right to fucking defend myself even if they are weaker than me.

Also "weaker" is a pretty fucking general term, lifting weights? yea maybe, punching? yea maybe. but its proven that women have a stronger pain tolerance than males. You punch a man in the dick and no matter how fucking strong he is he will drop to the ground.

point is. I don't care if Every single man was built like a fucking body builder, Or if women were build like one. You shouldn't be punching anyone, and if women want to be equal they need to stop punching and hitting men, and people need to not tolerate violence from anyone.

but when society laughs and treats a woman beating up a guy as "girl power" and a good thing, all its going to do is encourage violent behavior and abuse.

Women are not weak little babies who need to be coddled and protected. If they want to be equal then they can expect people to treat them the same as guys. If a guy would punch a dude for insulting his mother, Equality dictates that BY DEFINITION a woman should be decked in the face just as hard for the same situation.

Male hurting males
Females hurting females
Males hurting females
Females hurting males

and society treating them all Exactly the same is equality. not double standards like "Well a guy and a guy can fight, a woman and a woman fight, and a female beating up a male is okay, but a male should never hurt a lady"

I can tell you why that behavior is there, and why people feel the need to protect women and its NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE WEAKER!

its because when you can only pump out 1 baby at a time, and that baby takes so long to make, you need to protect the females.

1 male can impregnate several females
1 female cannot be impregnated by multiple males.

So when you need to send someone off to do something dangerous, like hunting or fighting other people, you are better off sending the males.

and that probably lead to males needing to be bigger built so they could properly fight and defend the females because without them humanity would die off.

but NOW we have so many females and males, you could lose thousands of both and humanity wouldn't suffer at all as a species.

So since we don't need to protect females anymore they are not fragile little butterflies, they can be treated like equals. and if you want equality, that means a male can punch a female in the face and it would cause the same response as if it was a female punching the male.

Hello; I'm just popping into this thread and I'll admit I don't have any idea really what is going on, but I had some thoughts as a bisexual trans about third wave feminism.

I've seen a lot of third wave feminists claim that gay men were "vaginophobic" and claiming that it was discrimination against women and this stuff got me thinking. Why are third wave feminists afraid of gay men/bisexual men? I've even seen a fair bit of them saying that crossdressing men is wrong and such. Why would they so vehemently be against gay men/bi men and certain forms of sexuality. I was thinking about this for a while and it just outright didn't make any sense cause from my perspective what should it matter what a person is into; why should it matter if a guy/girl is bi/gay/trans or crossdressers or such?

"Why are they so against gay guys and such?" I thought about this and thought about it and thought about why would a group that initially had the beliefs of supporting these groups and such become so adamantly against it? Then I put myself in their mindset for a second; why are they so adamant about anything and everything? Cause they feel threatened by everything. In their minds if there are more open glbt and more gay guys/bi guys/crossdressing guys and such open and actively seeking other people who find them attractive and the social stigma against non-hetero relationships then in their mind that poses a threat to their possibility of meeting someone. Granted it obviously doesn't work like that, but they don't see "woohoo acceptance" they see "oh crap; more competition!"

America Magazine, a national US Catholic publication, has posted an interview with "dissident" feminist and historian Camille Paglia, who has held professorship for multiple decades.

Someone who respects Cristina Sommers might appreciate Paglia; in the interview, Paglia observes, "American and British feminism has amazingly collapsed backward again into whining, narcissistic victimology." At other points, she discusses why she believes the classics are still important and relevant to study: Paglia asserts (correctly in my view) that to ignore the cultural and intellectual contributions of the past, especially the Greco-Roman world, is to blind oneself to the reality of human history.

How does this relate to feminism? Well, among some (I reiterate some) contemporary feminists, there's a false notion that worldwide "women have been oppressed for thousands of years" that comes with little genuine historical backing, and certainly no deep reflection on actual nature of the ideas of worth and dignity in ancient cultures. I wrote about this in an earlier post, so I'd like to keep these remarks brief.

Furthermore, I don't mean to trash feminism; my aim by posting this is to the contrary. Paglia demonstrates a dissidence against contemporary mainstream feminist mores without abandoning the term feminist. What I mean to imply by posting this is that feminism is a broad term and when someone says that they're a feminist, it's unwise at best and ignorantly antagonistic at worst to lambaste them on that basis. I know the forums are better than comments sections, but by bringing up further evidence of the nuances of feminism, by further proving that there is a layering to what feminist thought is, I hope to provide some small counter to the deafening anti-feminist circle-jerking that often bombards this site…

I originally intended this to be its own thread, but decided just to post in this one. Sorry if it broke up any ongoing dialogue…

Looks like discussion here has ceased for now. Here and now's probably the best place and time to drop an issue that's been bugging me.

I absolutely apologize for the out of place pony, but this is the only instance of the issue I could find online right now.

The fictional friend zone. Why has it become synonymous to fedora neckbeard? Sure, the term originated from and was primarily used by straight (white?) men to convey how disappointed they are the women of their affections don't see them the same way they do, but come on it isn't exactly a problem only guys experience, is it? From what I've seen, women can be friend zoned too. Hell, you can call me an asshole all you want even, because I think I've 'friend zoned' a couple of girls myself; I'm sorry but I just don't feel the same way. Thoughts on this? I just don't see why friend zoning has been associated with one gender only.

I think the whole "friend zone" issue became a men accusing women thing because it's almost exclusively men on the internet that started complaining about that sort of thing online. How many women have you seen complain about being friend zoned? That being said, friend zoning can definitely be a thing that men do to women (although it has not personally happened to me). It is kinda weird that people tend to think only men complain about it, but I suppose it's because men "started it" so to speak.

The friend zone is sort of a mixed topic for me. While I definitely believe it exists as a form of rejection and it totally sucks to be friend zoned, it certainly showcased this ugly mindset of the friend-zoned person feeling entitled to a date or sex. Suddenly the one that "friend zoned" is a bitch or a prude or have their expectations too high. I've certainly seen too many examples of women getting harassed online because they were the subject of a friend zone story.

أنا فقط تحديد صديق المنطقة بأنها شكل من أشكال حب بلا مقابل حيث انه الشخص الذي لا يشعر بهذه الطريقة عنك لا يزال يشعر كما لو كان لديهم اتصال لك. أنهم يهتمون لك ، وليس فقط بالطريقة التي تريدها . وبالنسبة لبعض وهذا هو عزاء جيد ، والبعض الآخر أسوأ من ثم لا شيء على الإطلاق.

@Crimson Locks

That's true I suppose. The loudest complainers are men when it comes to the FZ. But yeah, aside from this one girl irl who actually confessed on fb that it sucks to be friend zoned (by me, kinda obvious…) I've seen plenty of generic memes and image macros which I suppose are made by women complaining that they can get friend zoned too.

Here's a rather crude example right now

I don't really know how to feel about the FZ besides the fact that I think either men or women that attempt to befriend someone solely so they can have sex with them is kind of a dick move. Dating has a different ring to it for me I guess. It sounds more… idk civil and decent?

I've reported you to the proper authorities.

With regards to the friend zone, I think it partially has to do with the dynamics of being online. Most people who comment and talk online tend to be men in general. So it follows that any sort of complaint about being rejected would come from men as well.

But another is in the dynamics of how people end up in relationships and go out on dates. For the most part, it is expected that men ask the woman out. So women may end up complaining about people not having any interest in them or never asking them out whereas men complain about getting turned down a lot.
 
As for the friend zone existing or not, I think there are a couple of takes.

1. I would like to believe that most men who befriend women don't do so in an effort to date them or have sex with them. But many relationships begin from friendships anyway, which is why the "Friend Zone" is entirely different from just being rejected in general. The frustration comes from not understanding why a person can be a great friend or "best guy friend" or even best friend overall but not even be considered to be an object of romantic interest.

After many instances of this (i.e., where the same guy(s) get to be friends with a woman, they fall for the women, and the women never return romantic interest,) the guys gets to be bitter with women, especially if those women end up dating people they ultimately end up in an awful relationship with. It's frustrating enough when it's women you happen to ask out or are just acquaintances with. But it becomes nearly unbearable when your close friends who you've had interest in at one point end up in such relationships. You might think that they don't really know "What's good for them" not completely out of arrogance, but because their relationships fall flat so often (of course, not all will be wildly successful, but most shouldn't end up with bad breakups either.) So you end up thinking "I'm right here." I don't think of it as a matter of feeling entitled so much as if "feels" like the already established intimate compatibility is objectively a better path.

2. Looks and maturity.

I think a lot of men and women are interested in people looking a certain way. You'll hear men and women not dating some people, because of very small things that you think wouldn't matter in a relationship such as being obese. And not everyone can be friends with someone, feel like those other superficial things don't matter, and date them anyway (but that happens a lot). You always feel or even hear from your friends that "you could do 'better.'" I've dated a couple of women where I've felt that pressure to "do better" regarding looks, and maybe it made me focus too much on other small incompatibilities to sort rationalize me eventually breaking up with them or not pursuing a more romantic relationship.

But I think not entertaining the thought of dating someone for slight imperfections or stuff that won't really matter in a relationship is a much quicker and more dismissive matter. Unless you're unhappy (in or out of a relationship) several years down the road and they're happy and happily married, you might not even think "Huh, I guess I should have given them a shot." You just think you're happy with who you're with now or that you're happy with your single life. But for that person who was turned down and they don't really know why beyond "I don't think it would have worked out" or "I don't think we're compatible" when you're somehow very compatible as friends is hard to let go, especially if they're unhappy and/or single. Granted, a romantic relationship is different from a friendship, but they aren't entirely different either. I think many men/women are looking for attributes in significant others they don't really need such as someone to protect in order to feel more like a man or someone to be protected by in order to feel more feminine in the context of their relationship or simply overall.
 
Which is where I think maturity comes into play. As I've gotten older, I've noticed that friends of mine have begun to consider and date people they didn't years before.

Of course, if you want to be cynical, you could just say that once people around you start to get married and engaged, you begin to realize that there's a point in life where your "choices" begin to become limited, and those people who are "maturing" are actually acting partially out of that feeling of a shrinking "pond" with all of the good "fish" being taken up and you don't want to be left at age 40 and 50 with people who are completely undesirable in looks, mind, and personality.

I'm okay with the idea of feminism. Heck I agree with some of the goals (equal rights, equal pay, abortion, for example), I think there are some good people in the movement. I haven't met very many in real-life, but they seemed okay. I've also met some pretty cool feminists over the internet.

That said, there are some bad ones, of course, and I certainly don't like them. I'm not very fond of those who get really offended over sex or sexy characters (usually), or those that went all crazy over Matt Taylor's shirt months ago, or those who can't take slightly edgy jokes. I simply don't like those that strike me as "hyper-sensitive", or those who populate Jezebel's userbase (I hate that site).

I'm not a feminist because gender equality simply isn't a big deal to me. It just isn't. I'm not going to spend parts of my life discussing topics like gender inequality, probably because I'm a male who grew up in an environment that didn't have very many feminists at all (I don't believe there are any in my family).

When I think of someone being a feminist, I imagine they don't just believe in equality between the sexes, but that they spend a serious portion of their time fighting for equality where I can plainly tell that this means a lot to them. It's not a bad thing, of course. They just have a passion for it. Once again, I am not a feminist and will likely never become one, and this should explain why.

This coming from a person who used to dislike feminists and make fun of them sometimes.

Found more "Friend Zone = Males" kind of thing going on.

Well, you know, vengeful ex-girlfriends and the like are completely non-existent. Women do not suffer from mental health issues, etc.

Friend zoning is going to happen, both parties are both wrong and right at the same time.

The chaser is wrong for trying to get with someone who is clearly uninterested, and right for thinking it might work out.

The denier is wrong for not at least giving the relationship a chance, but right for being afraid of ruining something else with a person if the relationship doesn't work out.

Its going to happen, and you can't fault either person or participant.

what is wrong is if either person hurts another.

As I said, its wrong to hurt another person regardless of gender.

sexual frustration can be difficult and hard especially for teenagers. I think misconceptions about relationships and sex in both society and in personal experience cause it. Most of America doesn't handle sex and relationship advice very well. Some schools don't offer sexual education classes. some don't teach it properly. Some parents believe exposing their child to sexual things will lead them to becoming sexual deviants, when actually it could provide and escape. Of course everyone is different, and when you should introduce them to sex depends on the person. Giving someone an alternative can help them a lot, Probably seems unrelated but sex toys can help teach and give an escape for people. A male and female could both figure out how to put on a condom, what to do with the opposite gender's genitals, and increase understanding of the partner safely, possibly more. For example, in Japan where lolicon is allowed, sexual assaults on children decreased, as people who felt those urges had an escape they could retreat too safely. I think sexual violence and frustrations could be decreased if we give people a safe legal retreat.

I think a lot of problems in society could be fixed if we didn't spend so much time sexually shaming, or denying knowledge of sex from people.

which can be looped back not just from the Friendzone but too feminism. They are right about not sex shaming, but in the end a few seem to fall into the extreme of the other side. They don't want a girl sex shamed, but they end up not wanting sexual depictions of girls to be shown because they feel it demeans them.

I'm not sure how completely this is on topic, but I'll give my two pence:

I think the distinction between "okay" and "bad" versions of the friend zone theory is when it's extended from a noun to a verb. Feeling upset that you love someone and it's unrequited is perfectly natural, and while for me personally continuing to have a good friendship is a lot more important than if I get to date the person, I can appreciate not everyone feels that way.

The part where it becomes a problem, IMO, is when instead of people saying they're in the friend zone, they start saying they've been "friend zoned", suggesting that this has been done to them by the person they desire a relationship with. This is problematic for several reasons – first it implies that the person had any real choice in the matter. Most people can't just choose who they're attracted to, and if the attraction isn't there then a relationship isn't going to work. I really disagree with Basilius on this point – the person who doesn't want to start a relationship is not wrong for not giving that relationship a chance. People shouldn't be judged for not wanting to start a relationship with someone they have no romantic feelings for in the vague hope they might have some someday – that puts both parties in an extremely awkward position and is likely to make things worse rather than better. No one's obligated to be romantically interested in someone.

Secondly, it shifts responsibility away from being attractive, to finding someone attractive. Again, making yourself feel attracted to someone you're not is generally impossible. It is possible, though, to make yourself more attractive to others, be that through personal improvement or simply meeting more people that you're compatible with. Placing the blame on others may be comforting in the short term, but it's ultimately self destructive, because you're not going to introspectively look at yourself and work on things that will make you attractive to others in the future. Instead, you're expecting other people to change for you, and that's very unlikely to work (if anything, being bitter and blaming others for things they can't control is going to make you less attractive, particularly if you start generalizing it to whole varied genders of people).

In my experience (and I have no data to back this up, so take it with a grain of salt), men, especially on the internet, seem more likely to blunder into the latter category, which is why it's become associated with them. I expect women generally experience the situation to a similar degree men do, but they're probably less likely to complain about it and blame the person involved. Why there's this difference, I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with how you tend to see male heroes doing something good and then "getting the girl" as part of their reward. So when a guy who sees himself as the hero of the story (something everyone is inclined to do), does a lot of good deeds, and then "the girl" still isn't romantically interested in him, he feels cheated out of what he's been led to believe he's entitled to, instead of just accepting that's how things go in human relationships sometimes. IDK, just a thought.

tl;dr The friend zone is okay as long as you're not allocating blame, and it seems like men on the internet do that more, hence why it's associated with them.

Does that mean you're advocating for people to blame themselves for not being attractive to the people they are attracted to?
I hope not.

Human attraction isn't generally a white and black thing too. I agree with the "Again, making yourself feel attracted to someone you’re not is generally impossible" part but, if we are talking about personal experiences, there is a lot of people, men and women, who like romances to be "adventurous" (i.e they won't show their attraction and want the people who show signs of attraction to them to… well… make efforts to gain their relationship). So, there is people who feel they are entitled to having someone do all/most of the work in their vision of a seduction game.
There are also people who don't know what feelings they have and it's not uncommon to have someone kiss you and show some signs of being attracted to you but then refuses to let things go any further. In addition, let's not forget about people who don't mind having a sexual relationship with others with no feelings involved.
The world is overwhelmed with variety. The people who say they have been friend-zoned have the same way of thinking and feeling as any other: preferences. Like every individual, they have their own preferences. It's great and all to tell them that there are other people around that they can meet and find attractive but, generally-speaking, it was THAT person who friend-zoned them that they wanted to seduce, not another.

I've always been told (and I think it's kinda right) that mankind is a "masochist" kind of species, meaning that we are more likely to go after things that are nearly impossible to get or will rather hurt us in the end. An asston of people believe that they can change others through time, being more present to them even if they start being annoying and obnoxious (downright harassing them). Deceptions will happen often in those cases so yeah, as you said, it's not wrong to express this through rants and whatnot, the same way there will always be people who can't let things go easily.

However, I don't believe that those people necessarily think that they are entitled to some kind of reward when they say they have been friend-zoned. I'm more on the fence that this is just anger and bitterness.

I find it amusing to see how the term 'friendzoned' mutated from a story about a teenager kept trying to make his romantic intentions to a friend obvious while the friend kept finding new ways to be completely oblivious about the situation.

Beyond that, the whole concept seems quite whiny. Baaaaaaaaaaaaw my friend rejected me now I'm gonna go bitch about it on the internet.

^ I never actually seen people whine about it, just use the term to describe the scenario, I don't know what all the fuss is about

Feminism is complete bull, pretty much every claim they make is a lie, especially the claim that women are discriminated against in society, women get preferential treatment at every turn and men are the ones expected to work and die with minimal family rights and a society that takes men for granted. For the record

Men are 97% of combat fatalities.
Men pay 97% of Alimony
Men make 94% of work suicides.
Men make up 93% of work fatalities.
Men make up 81% of all war deaths.
Men lose custody in 84% of divorces.
80% of all suicides are men.
77% of homicide victims are men.
89% of men will be the victim of at least one violent crime.
Men are over twice as victimised by strangers as women.
Men are 165% more likely to be convicted than women.
Men get 63% longer sentences than women for the same crime.
Court bias against men is at least 6 times bigger than racial bias.
Males are discriminated against in school and University.
Boys face vastly more corporal punishment than girls.
60-80% of the homeless are men.
Women's Cancers receive 15 times more funding than men's
At least 10% of fathers are victims of paternity fraud.
One third of all fathers in the USA have lost custody of children, most are expected to pay for this.
40-70% of domestic violence is against men however less than 1% of domestic violence shelter spaces are for men.
Male fatality rates are vastly higher than women's
Women consume 2/3rds of public spending despite the fact that for equal increases in health spending a man's life expectancy rate increases nearly twice as much as a woman's.

And pretty much every single claim feminists have made has been debunked.
Here have about 200 examples of how men are discriminated against and how all of feminists claims are false. Read REALSEXISM.COM

@Realsexism
Yea don't advertise your stupid site and de-rail the thread, its not clever and you just sound like an idiot.

What, a site with over 200 sources listed highlighting all the ways men are getting screwed and debunking every claim feminism has ever made is de-railing a topic on feminism. Yeah right.

Read the bit on gynocentricism and cut the umbilical cord, if your mum spent more time conditioning you to give preferential treatment to women she never met than warning you about women who would use you as a cash machine you may be brainwashed and should go and seriously re-examine your childhood teachings. Just because it challenges the ideas of the person you maternally imprinted on in no way makes it false.

Come up with ONE example of legal discrimination against women in the western world that is not debunked on that site or its facebook. Excuse me from pointing out that men are the ones dying earlier, killing themselves 3 times more and being forced to pay for having children taken from them.

I think like a lot of people you have a sexist attitude towards sexism, wake up.

@realsexism

ugh, dude we already been over this, if you wanna see our rebuttals to your argument go back to the first page.

Also your little "wake up" part at the end there, this aint youtube buddy, if you wanna be a condescending tool go somewhere else.

One of the rules i listed at the beginning

"Don’t be an asshole. Be respectful"

Everything she's says in this video legit makes my blood boil.

speaking of blood boiling…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im25MN5AwIc

Feminism is a very wide umbrella of philosophy and scholarship and I don't get a rage boner whenever somebody utters the word. What feminism did to develop the sociology of science was very important, and there are parts of feminism that I really do agree with. There are also some parts that I find ridiculous, like strong ecofeminism. I do support the basic principles of second and third-wave feminism, although I don't think that every argument made with those principles is sound (e=mc^2 isn't sexist).

It's basically: "society limits womens' choices (exactly how is not specified), therefore feminism needs to limit womens' choices even further (exactly how is not specified )."

do any of you think catcalling is a major issue. Or a minor one?

No one I know has been catcalled, neither my mother or sisters said anyone did. I have never overheard it on the street and didn't realize it was a thing to a couple of years ago.

I'm not sure if its a local or regional thing but it just doesn't happen here.

Also it doesn't seem like the worst thing, you can just tell the guy to fuck off and move on in life. Everyone knows the people who do it are sad, they are always making tons of videos about it, which knid of annoys me that they are quick to be confident and make a joke about the people who catcall but don't ever do it when they are actuallly catcalled.

It also becomes hard to support fully when there are some women who claim saying hello to them is catcalling.

This piece of crap called "feminism" nowadays is just a lame and sad "movement" that denies woman history, therefore human history. If you disagree with them you're against them like Islamic Extremists except that they don't kill (yet)

Are you being sarcastic? Please say yes.

It really must be a regional thing, because I know plenty of people online that say they have never experienced it nor seen it happen. It seems to be something most prevalent in america, especially in urban areas like cities. I live in a pretty small city but every girl I know including myself as has been catcalled on numerous occasions and I know some boys that have been catcalled too. Is it the worst thing? No, it's just about as bad as any other form of your personal space being unnecessarily invaded in public. For the most part you can decide to ignore it and move on, but with how frequently it happens it's not hard to see why some people on the internet have started loudly complaining about it and starting campaigns to spread the message that it's not ok and people should stop doing it. Seriously, it's pretty grating that some people don't understand the concept that others don't want random strangers talking to them, especially in some sort of sexual manner. My favorite excuse is "You should take the complement".

I've probably been written off as anti-feminist by now, but I was talking to a buddy and he brought up a excellent point: in order for a society/country/etc to remain stable there has to be a form of the opposites counteracting each other. I know it's going a bit into my personal religious beliefs, but I totally agree cause when you get down to it a society is composed of groups of people and often has different ideological beliefs, economic beliefs or such. What causes societies to downfall? Easy; whenever the situation changes and a society is incapable of evolving to adapt to the new paradigm. This can be either political, economic, religious or something as simple as cultural. To use an analogy let's say a country is heavily reliant on say oil exports; what would happen to the country's economic outlook if say the price of oil was to drop suddenly.

I'm not talking about moderate feminism or such, but hypothetically speaking let's say that EVERYTHING that the feminist movement wants, even the fringe groups, was suddenly poof into reality and that was the norm. . . . quick question: how would the human race reproduce? IVF is far too expensive to afford for every woman on the planet and you can't have that large of a reduction of reproduction without the economy crashing. Don't believe me? Look at Japan; their population isn't reproducing enough to offset depopulation and as a result they're economically stagnating and their long term economic outlook is looking bleak cause they're not ever going to bounce back.

In a hypothetical situation let's say that you got everything you desired or wished for and the country you lived in was your paradise and everyone believed the things you wanted them to believe. . . how would you offset the population crash from that? Right now in the usa and europe immigration is massively offsetting lower birth rates. The only solution to a population crash would be to offset it with even larger amounts of immigration, but there's a problem to this: immigrants don't necessarily share the same ideological beliefs as yourself so therefore in said hypothetical situation your "paradise" would be undone within a generation or two from cultural shift due to immigration and immigrants' different ideologies meshing into the country's culture. So if say you found a magic lamp and wished your country to be what you consider "paradise" it would have a large scale population crash and then your "paradise" be undone within a generation due to large scale immigration undoing all your beliefs on the national level.

Before you go, "well your ideology would cause the same thing" I totally agree, rather the difference is that I believe my ideological beliefs should only be implemented in moderation and in areas that would benefit the area and if they proof to be false I'll willingly admit that they were wrong and that there are better systems. Why do I admit that my own beliefs might be fallible? Cause simply put I'm not a doctorate in economics, politics or such therefore claiming that I'm infallible or even claiming that I'm the "smartest person on the planet™" would be incredibly stupid.

Call me a jerk, hell you can call me misanthropic, but considering how many times I've seen people go essentially "I've read this at <rationalwiki/wikipedia/saw it on the news/etc> therefore it's a absolute truth and word of god therefore my beliefs are infallible" gives me little hope in people. Personally I think how people claim to be experts in everything is incredibly stupid or how people jump on you the second you admit that you don't know everything and go "you admitted that you don't know everything therefore you're wrong about everything" to be incredibly stupid.

How is this relevant to feminism? Simply put a lot of the things put forth by the movement are incredibly self destructive and even if they know it's self destructive they put it forth anyhow for the sake of the movement.

TL:DR; moderation in all things cause lack of control is self destructive and chances are hypothetically if feminists were to get everything they wanted it would probably massively backfire hilariously.

@realsexism

A lot of the claims mentioned is irrelevant (what's the issue? The statements are jumping from this topic to that topic.) and regardless if they're factual, they sound biased (realsexism.com, seriously?) and cherry-picked.

@UzrNeihme

Right… I hope you aren't basing your claim on people that make fools out of themselves on the internet; I could go around the internet and find 'evidence' incriminating GG as ISIS all the same and it's too easy. How much academic material and recent events have you read regarding acts of modern feminism?

@Catcalling

I believed this was already brought up in the thread with this video

To which I raised this video

Time difference between the two videos isn't what I want to bring up. I want to emphasize that both genders can be catcalled. I'm a dude, but I've been catcalled by men and women a handful of times. Women like to keep it between themselves though so the loud and obnoxious ones are normally guys. I've even been followed once like that girl in the video. Personally, it's pretty disturbing, especially if they, well, do look like creeps. But, like Spider-Byte said, you can just tell them fuck off and move on with life. I also have a couple of stories where my sister was approached by a group of boys her age once (not really catcalling, but it's kinda scary,) and I'm acquainted with a girl who was definitely catcalled. She told them fuck off.

Is it an issue though? Not really… I don't think it's a 'gender equality' issue. Basically, some people just need to learn some manners. The streets never were a friendly place to begin with so shouldn't we expect to find some scum there?

I have a hard time taking it seriously as a feminist issue until feminists offer a solution to it beyond making youtube videos about it.

What would you consider to be a solution? Like, could you give any examples?

Feminists do have a strategy, and that strategy is shaming. Shaming leads to stigma, stigma leads to a decrease in the shamed behavior. Youtube is the best way to spread a message, it's accessible and universal. Painting the behavior negatively is the only possible strategy short of wacky theoretical approaches that don't even deserve mention.

Some kind of law or legal presidence against it, or increased enforcement of such a law. Or, a determined campaign by groups of people to stand against such harassment when they see it.

Secondly, there's no real guarantee that making videos about such behavior will result in people either choosing to stand up against that behavior when they see it, or the perpetrators of the behavior having a change of heart. It stands to reason that people who don't see a problem with acting in such a manner would not go looking out for videos that would make them seem bad for doing so, much like smokers have been shown to avoid looking at evidence of the damage caused by smoking to people. Furthermore, I don't see how these videos could consist of anything more than 'preaching to the choir' to people who don't approve of such behavior, since all they do is show it in a negative light.

To me, it just seems like slacktivism.

Here's my opinion on feminism in general:

I pretty much have mixed feelings on feminism. I like those feminist who use the term exactly as it is about: Equality for women and men. However, I don't like those feminist who misuse the term for their own personal gain and agenda. When it comes those kinds of feminist, I personally stay as far away as possible from them so I don't have to put up with their shit.

I'll certainly agree that it's not a difficult approach, and that there's no guarantee that it will work, but an imperfect and easy solution canstill be the best one. There's a reason why very few people are trying to make catcalling illegal: it's subjective (which is huge because now you're dealing with speech), it's unenforcable, it would punish only a random few and it would have severe opposition to passage. There are already a lot of guys out there who are convinced that they will be the next victim of a false-rape accusation. If this idea gained momentum they would probably suffer a collective heart attack. I am really not going to disagree with anything else that you said because yes, every piece of criticism is warranted, but I really can't blame the producers of these videos for resorting to this method.

Everyone's going to insert their personal thoughts and feelings into what they do, regardless of what they do. There's no clear line of when that's too far, and no "misuse;" there's just extra-personal dissonance.

Who decides misuse, and how are the deciders decided?

…end result is pretty much the same, though.

The problem is that there are a lot of young people who learn nuanced social justice concepts then begin to act in an extremist fashion such as bullying people or harassment e.g chanty morris (not sure if she's young though). These are the stories that get media attention and are the most wide spread stories on the internet.

On tumblr, one feminist even said that one of the problems with tumblr social justice is it's defence of bullies. The thing is, most feminists are perfectly normal people who wouldn't resort to violence to prove their point but we never hear their exploits as much. In a way, the anti-feminist sentiment tends to rely on a kind of propaganda as the best propaganda tells you the truth without showing you the full picture. I fell a lot of feminists have tried to distance themselves from the extremists (it's quite common to see posts on youtube of feminists trying to distance themselves from bad people)

Now I tend to hold a minority opinion on KYM. I do believe in the wage gap, the 1 in 5 thing, and most feminist concepts but the thing is these ideas are very nuanced and I feel most people tend to have a knee jerk reaction to these ideas because their so counterintuitive also most of the male tears picture are supposed to be satirical but many people are so critical of feminism, I feel it does more harm than good

I still don't consider myself a feminist personally though I am sympathetic to a lot of it's ideas. At the same time, I get just as annoyed with all their "jokes" and the twitter in-fighting (I was so mad at the shirtgate incident, that I didn't even want to click on the entry about it.)

I feel there's a lot of anger on both sides because people fell their experiences are being erased. I believe men also face numerous problems as well especially in terms of domestic violence, the sentencing gap, and sexaul violence. Many societies tend to respect femininity less than masculinity so when a boy is born, he has to fulfill all these expectations and when something bad happens to him "LOL TOUGH SHIT NIGGA!! :^DDDDD" dur hurrrr!!!1!! man up laddy no domestic violence shelters for you!!!!!11!! men don't get raped rofl! uwu go die in this war for me plz and thank u v

Look, everyone gets fucked over in society and these problems are still here. Though I still feel hopeless about the whole thing TBH :/

I will respect feminism as long as it is not causing problems to others. Because our opinions should not harm others.

I want to say this again, even though I say it enough.

The easiest way to distance yourself from feminists that have the wrong ideas, is to call yourself something like an egalitarian. There is nothing wrong with calling yourself that.

And here's the thing, from what you even said, you have inherit benefits from being a woman from birth. Girls can have it so they aren't taught about responsibility and are not really ever expected to take responsibility for their actions. My sisters grew up way before me when my parents were poorer, and were never pressured into a job or expected to have one in their youth. My parents often would give them money without question, I have to do jobs and help around the house to earn mine. If they stole from my parents they'd be shouted at, not much else. I was suspected of stealing and I was banned from my stuff until I proved my innocence.

They have had an advantage over me and they have never been catcalled, sexually abused in any way and pretty much everything else. The only advantage I have is that I have more qualifications, which is what I earned.

I just never got the victim complex of feminists. Its hard to argue that women really are the less privileged sex, to the point where men are only allowed in the conversations if they agree with them and only focus on women.

The easiest way to distance yourself from feminists that have the wrong ideas, is to call yourself something like an egalitarian. There is nothing wrong with calling yourself that.

And I, as a feminist, will always answer that you can't be further from the truth. Supporting a movement doesn't mean you blindly decide to forget every "bad" stuff that movement is promoting. It's just easier to remind people every once in a while that your cause is not necessarily "theirs" (the extremist ones). I think it's kind of pedantic, even a bit arrogant, to suggest that there is nothing wrong in calling yourself another word in order to "distance yourself". I mean, seriously, it's like suggesting that Muslims or GamerGators should have a new name because of their extremist activists.
I do know very well that this kind of argument has been used against these groups too. Doesn't mean it's a valid one.

But the difference is that the other terms for a lot of people in the movement actually represent what they want.

Now that you mention Muslims and religion, you could compare it too something like the protestant separation from Catholic beliefs. There are fundamental things here that are way too different.

A GamerGators no matter their means want the same thing. They all pretty much want, games journalism to be more ethical and/or to kick social justice out of video games. But you could be feminist and advocate for the castration of most men on the earth and some sort of female supremacy or you could want to just discuss what wrong with gender/sex in society. These ideas clearly aren't the same. Even a lot of what many famous feminists want conflicts with the idea that the movement is for gender equality.

It's not distancing yourself because your better or anything, it's distancing yourself because your beliefs conflict and are not the same as many other people. It could be distancing yourself so that your part of a movement with a much more clear motive that aligns more with yours.

Anything extreme is not good. Everybody should respect each other. Man needs and woman needs a man. When both are together happily then only beautiful society will be formed.