Not all feminists are like that

You’ve probably heard that not all feminists are like that.

It’s one of the boilerplate responses, thrown out flippantly whenever anybody points to the difference between what feminism claims to be, and what that ideological gender movement demonstrates it is by its organized actions. For example, when feminists attempted to shut down a 2013 lecture in Toronto by Drs. Nathanson and Young, some of those “protesters” were challenged on the fact that men comprise 80% of suicides. The response? A sarcastic recital of the song “Cry Me a River”. Organized to silence and censor, and sneering at those whose pain drives them to suicide – this is just a recent demonstration of what the gender ideology of feminism really is. But of course, not all feminists are like that.

In fact, although organized, connected and influential feminists including social workers, lawyers, teachers and childcare workers participated in a blog regularly endorsing male exterminating eugenics, and sex-selective child abuse – it’s important to remember that not all feminists are like that. Indeed, those same feminists, whose annual conference lost it’s venue due to the insistence by the organizers that only chromosomal female participants qualified as fully human – we should remember that not all feminists are like that.

Of course, we should also read as typical the examples of feminists in opposing by direct violence any opinions differing from their own. No matter how often feminists may attend, armed with knives or bludgeons, other people’s speaking engagements – we should never forget that all such violent and sociopathic feminists are a tiny minority, and that the vast majority of feminists are not like that.

Obviously, all these examples are recent. When Lorena Bobbitt sexually mutilated her husband, thousands of feminists united to declare that if she were found guilty for this violent crime – they would murder thousands of men in retribution. When, 18 years later, Catherine Kieu Becker did the same thing to her husband, the hosts of The Talk and the all-female audience cheered and giggled over this sexual mutilation. One of the hosts, Sharon Osborne, drew the connection between these two events herself. Osborne claimed in the episode that she maintained a shrine to Lorena Bobbitt in her home. But again, it’s important to remember that not all feminists are like that.

Also, feminist-run domestic violence shelters and grievance organizations promote in their public messaging the idea that all domestic violence is male on female. This is contradicted by practically all the legitimate research on domestic violence, which shows reciprocity of abuse in the vast majority of cases, and in the minority of cases of DV where it really is one-sided, the majority of that small fraction is violence committed against nonreciprocating male partners.


But that appears to not matter. In fact, the phrase “violence against women” is now replacing the term domestic violence in public service messaging on the issue. It’s not even that this one-sided lie seems designed to promote fear and hatred, it’s that by using and promoting a false model, grievance organizations seem determined to prevent anyone with good intent from actually reducing domestic violence. After all, there’s money to be made in the form of grants and donations, as long as there’s ongoing human carnage. But again, we are to be reminded, not all feminists are like that.

We also have the rising trend on university campuses that new male students be required to attend a “she fears you” lecture. These lectures putting them all on notice that rather than students, rather than paying customers of the school, dropping 300 to 500 dollars per course per semester – that these young men are to think of themselves as potential sexual predators. But this campus-wide cultivation of fear and hatred shouldn’t be taken as indicative of the character of feminist ideology, because as we must all remember, not all feminists are like that.

We should also not take the phenomenon of the hate rallies called “slut walks” as a measure of the character of anyone attending such a rally. After all, hundreds of signs reading “teach men to not rape”, implying that without special education men are all sexual predators – that’s something only a tiny insane minority of feminists would support. And while a few prominent, vocal and highly visible feminists really are that insane and hateful, not all feminists are like that. If it seems otherwise, just keep repeating – that not all feminists are like that.

Similarly, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about feminism from public messaging from organizations like Riverview whose public service announcement claimed a 6 month old male toddler was a future rapist, or the Canadian Federation of Women whose PSA depicted a not yet born infant girl being given a rape whistle as for a gift. The deterministic idea that all women are victims and all men are predators – that grotesque hatred and insanity shouldn’t inform what we think of the nature of the gender ideology calling itself feminism, because not all feminists are like that.

How do we know they’re not? Well, that’s obvious: every time some published, tenured or politically-connected feminist individual or major feminist organization demonstrates not by rhetoric, but by action, their agenda of hatred, violence, censorship and profiteering off real human carnage they manoeuvre to maintain the conditions of, some nobody claiming to be a feminist will show up in the commentary and point out that not all feminists are like that. They might even remind everybody that the dictionary definition of feminism is that it’s a movement for equality, and the real world indicators of produced outcomes, lobbying, changes to law, censorship, intimidation and violence are all non-typical, and non-indicative. The dictionary says feminism is equality, thus is must be so.

But this leaves us with just one niggling question. Now, admitting the absolute and irrefutable truth that feminism, the movement and the ideology is nothing more or less than the pursuit of social, political and economic equality, where are the “not like that” feminists? By “not like that”, of course, what I mean is, the ones not advocating eugenics, promoting violence, apologetics for false accusation, child abuse along with censorship and intimidation of any differing view. Where are the rest, indeed, where are the vast majority of feminists, you know, the ones conforming to the dictionary definition that feminism is a movement seeking equality?

For example, it seems obvious admitting that feminism really is about equality, that the workplace death rate, presently 93% male is right at the top of every real feminist’s major problems to solve right away. Bloomberg’s online business journal recently posted an updated list for 2013 of the lowest paying and most dangerous jobs. Unsurprisingly, every single one of them is a field populated almost totally by male workers. Obviously, feminists are lobbying and canvassing to reduce the death rates in these jobs, and to get women into these dangerous and unrewarding professions. After all, feminism is definitionally a movement for equality and for the benefit of all. This is especially pressing because these dangerous and unrewarding jobs – including taxi driving, logging, commercial fishing, construction, and truck driving are the basic work on which the entirety of the rest of our society relies on.

It would be unconscionable if the pre-eminent movement for equality just sat quietly and allowed men to act as disposable utilities, dying at rates as high as 120 per 100,000 workers annually, while women were elevated only into safe, high status, high comfort, and high relative pay, roles within the workforce. So obviously, this is a major feminist issue. The only question is where are the major feminist campaigns on this issue? Are they operating in secret?

Additionally, as it’s obviously true that feminism is a beneficent movement, and seeking nothing except equality, it’s somewhat puzzling that the efforts by feminist organizations to seek equal sentencing outcomes for female criminals are not more prominent in our popular media. After adjusting for severity of criminal offence, a number of studies have shown that on average, men are sentenced as much as 60% more harshly for the same crime for which women receive a sentencing discount. Truly, there could never be even an illusion of equality if feminists did not vigorously demand women receive the same degree of legal and criminal accountability men enjoy. However, since feminism definitionally is THE movement for equality, this is obviously right at the top of the list of problems to be solved. Real feminists are obviously lobbying and raising awareness of this issue. My question is, where are they, as they seem to be pursuing this goal well below the radar of public awareness too.

If women are to be thought of as fully adult, self-owning and empowered citizens, they must obviously enjoy the same justice men do, and I’m thankful that feminism is pushing so hard on this issue. I’m just not sure who, or where, or how it’s being pursued in feminist circles, because it’s also being done, apparently, quietly, and in secret.

However, feminism is a movement seeking equality. We know this because we’ve been told so by feminists, over and over and over. That’s why I know feminist anti-violence organizations are so strong on addressing the violent criminal victimization of our society’s most affected sexual demographic. Almost 75% of criminal violence targets men, obviously, a fact which even the most cursory glance at criminal victimization statistics will reveal. We also know that feminist efforts to reduce or stop violence altogether are powerful, well-funded, and persistent. The Stop Violence against Women campaign is so pervasive that the United Nations have devoted an entire branch of that international organization to stopping violence against women.

The larger, and more pervasive problem of violence against men is therefore bigger, better funded and even better organized. So well-organized that they don’t even need public messaging on the topic. In fact, under the influence of feminist public rhetoric the phrase “violence against women” has come to mean all domestic violence, including the HALF of domestic violent committed against men. My only serious question on this issue is how can I help feminists in their activism. I want to help stop violence too, but their obviously highly effective, well-funded and organized campaigns to end violence against the most affected victims (men) appear also to operate below any threshold of public detection. But those efforts obviously exist, and billions of dollars are spent on them, because feminism is in its own self-definition, a movement seeking equality.

But I’m just the slightest bit puzzled, because when we talk about the feminists pursuing violence, lying about domestic abuse, employing censorship and intimidation, and mocking male homeless or male suicides, it’s obvious that the overwhelming vast majority of feminists “aren’t like that”. Indeed, those who self-identify as feminists, but whose behaviour is openly sociopathic, psychotic, insane, violent and totalitarian – they are NOT REAL FEMINISTS. But I still have my slightly puzzled question. The (majority of) feminists who are, um, not like that – where are they?

  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • Kimski

    The chances of finding a feminist who is ‘not like that’, are equal to opening a box of cereal and discovering a rare gem, instead of some cheap piece of plastic toy. Basically below slim to none.

    Push them a little verbally or disagree, and they all show their true colours, without exception. You’re either gay, have a small penis, live in your mom’s basement, or they just plain resort to violence.
    Preferably by proxy, of course, ’cause that’s how the ‘strong and empowered’ deals with any kind of dissent.

    • Theseus

      Exactly. Yes. Yes.

      Whenever they are cornered (usually after repeating that they “care about men too” ad naseum), the male bashing flood gates open wide.

      This insanity and paranoia of focusing on any little (real or imagined) slight or problem as equaling “oppression” could only come from the most privileged, entitled, and spoiled humans on the face of the earth.

      These “good feminists” will actually look at you with a straight face and float the bizarre idea that since there are bad people out there (rapists), and since they cannot feel 100% secure of going into dark lonely places at night, then they are an “oppressed group”; apparently the world must be perfect and completely cater to all their emotional needs for them to feel “equal”.

      The only people that I have talked to that compare with this persecution complex and complete lack of proportionality are religious fundies.

      • Bewildered

        ….. and schizophrenics

  • Mark Trueblood

    Feminism, as practiced by most, is far less a set of principles then it is a shapeshifting blob called “what benefits me the most.”

    That’s why a Feminist can swear up and down they are a diehard gender egalitarian, and then 15 minutes later freak out because some man didn’t pay due deference to her out of chivalry.

    That’s why a Feminist can insist they support men, but then ignore pages of data and facts showing that men are more disadvantaged then women on many metrics.

    That’s why Feminists are strong and independent (when doing so is convenient) and a damsel in distress (when she feels like it.)

    And that’s why the NAFALTs are so hard to find. Because it is easy to claim one stands for equality and men’s rights, without ever actually lifting a finger to ensure it or challenge the hatemongers that inundate the movement. Intuitively, they know it is more advantageous to keep their mouths shut and silently support the radicals doing the dirty work.

    • Theseus


      “We’re strong and independent” or “A woman can do anything a man can do” all the way to “Oh ,the reason why women spend so much more money on clothes and cosmetics than men is because of the ‘male gaze’…”

      So we went from “strong and independent” to weak willed little robots that can’t make their own decisions in the blink of an eye: “You’re MAKING us buy all these clothes with your mind control you stupid men…oh, help us”!

  • Robert St. Estephe

    ALMOST ALL feminists promote censorship of history and the fabrication of fake statistics.

    I know of one exception (see Patricia Pearson, “When She Was Bad,” book on female violence) and maybe there are more, but they are a miniscule minority (well under 1%). And they are not really good “gender feminists,” they are more like “equity feminists” (despite unfortunate parroting of some of the social constructionist dogma, which corrupts interpretation of the evidence).

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      Patricia Pearson’s book “When She Was Bad” is a classic, and must-reading.

      By all accounts she was pilloried by the establishment for having the audacity to publish it.

  • GQuan

    What we’re seeing from feminists is typical tribalist behaviour. The members close ranks against anyone who threatens the tribe’s power, uniting against anyone who’s seen to compete against it or undermine its influence, seeking the authority and justification that comes with inclusion under the big umbrella, in this case the sisterhood. But lo and behold, they disperse into a crowd of individuals with no responsibility to one another the moment you call them to task for their ideology’s damaging and hateful belief system. This is the general hypocrisy of any tribalist system; whether they are a unity or a group of unrelated individuals depends entirely on what best serves their purpose at any given time, and the cardinal rule is that you *never* turn against the tribe. Hence, you will never see a condemnation of the tribe from its members, no matter what it’s done; the best you can hope for, if they really can’t get away with waving the whole thing off, or if it truly discomforts them, is a few individuals being sacrificed to preserve the power and influence of the group: “those are the bad apples, we’re not like them! They bring disrepute to the good name of (insert here)”. Hence “No true Scotsman” arguments or the insistence that “it’s wrong to judge us all by the actions of some (even though we clearly and unambiguously support and silently condone those actions, and at other times insist upon being seen as a unified whole)”. What matters is that the tribe goes on, the tribe is good, the tribe is powerful. Under this system of ethics, there is no universality, no objectivity. If it benefits the tribe it is good, because the tribe is good. If it harms the tribe, it is bad. You doing something to me and me doing the same thing to you are not equal acts; the first is an outrage, the second justified.

    Feminism sets itself up as “the tribe of women”, in competition against the supposed (and non-existent) tribe of men. As ever in tribalist conflicts, the other tribe (here, males) is simultaneously powerful/threatening and yet inferior. I honestly believe we need to understand feminism in this way; it’s that natural in-built group preference that females (and only females) have, stoked by a quasi-Marxist perceptual structure that casts that ingroup in eternal conflict with another tribe, which has supposedly been oppressing and exploiting them. Why do feminists not see a problem with any of the obvious and blatant disadvantages suffered by males, e.g. those mentioned in the article? Because to tribalist ethics, that truly *isn’t* the same thing as females being somehow disadvantaged. If it hurts women – those of the tribe, so to speak – then it’s bad. If it hurts men – those not of the tribe – it doesn’t merit response. Added to this mindset the ongoing tribal conflict (because feminism is not merely female tribalism, it’s the harnessing of female tribalism to an ever-lasting lopsided tribal feud with the supposed Tribe of Males (AKA “The Patriarchy”)), and you have it taken as given that if members of the tribe are disadvantaged, it’s the malicious actions of the other tribe to blame. If the other tribe’s members are disadvantaged, that either means nothing or is a *good thing*. Some people say that feminist attitudes to male disadvantage is part of some misguided desire for “revenge” – as in, they believe that women were an oppressed class treated maliciously, so they now want to treat men in the same way. I’m not convinced. I see it as something more primal – the misfortunes of the rival tribe are simply not something you’re going to care about, other than perhaps to smirk in satisfaction and then go on increasing your own security and status.

    I’d suggest this be kept in mind: feminism is a one-way tribal feud being waged on a tribe that doesn’t exist. They insist that they don’t hate men, they hate Patriarchy. They don’t hate the individuals, they just want to destroy the competing tribe, to break the power of that tribe. The tribe which isn’t there and never was. And the supposed members of which have not fought back because they didn’t even know they’d been cast as players in a tribal feud.

    Most coffee-shop feminist women defend feminism out of reflex, because for all their half-hearted ill-thought-out mumblings about “equality”, they know and relate to feminism as the tribe of women, and they claim membership in that tribe, however loosely. Even if they never actually shelter under the umbrella of feminism, they know it’s there and will react negatively to seeing it threatened. Hence the wishy-washy assertions of “we’re not all like that” or “well, I consider myself a feminist because I believe in equality” (with the implicit argument that *therefore* feminism is simply about equality). More women have little or nothing to do with feminism than it might seem, but they won’t turn around and fire into the heart of it, because however loosely the tribe still has its grip on them; they are part of it.

    • Mark Trueblood

      Indeed. This is why a growing MGTOW movement is an absolute necessity. We can in no way depend on people to listen to the better angels of their nature on these issues.

    • Kimski

      That comment was pure gold, and I’d really like to see you expand on your observations in an article.

      As I see it, you’ll never get an unbiased and objective attitude towards, and presentation of, feminism, from someone who basically benefits from it themselves.

      That would be just like funding a district attorney in rape cases, based on the numbers she can produce.

      And we’ve all seen how that plays out, when the tribe member on the other side of the table happens to be male.

  • http://themrmglossary.blogspot.com/ dhanu

    The alternating levels of sarcasm in the article might confuse some of the new readers (Poe’s law). So here’s a heads up for them: The NAFALT variety of feminists do not exist or matter. All feminists are hateful and feminism is a hate movement seeking female supremacy.

  • markis1

    ive been debating with two feminists who Claim to not be like that.



    im quickly growing tired of it. :(

    and i see a honey badger has joined the fray :)

    she has the feminist ” furious” :)

  • Michael

    Seeing as ‘Feminists’ have turned ‘Feminism’ into a dirty word.

    Why don’t these ‘Feminists that are not like that’ just throw the feminism title to the wayside and just call themselves Equalitists instead?

    Cause ya know, they’re so for equality…

    • Fredrik

      Which reminds me, has anyone tried using the 1923 ERA as a litmus test? Later versions apparently turned into an “Equal or Greater Than” Rights Amendment, but the first one was just about equality. Has anyone ever encountered a self-professed feminist who, after considering the consequences, would still vote for the original ERA?

  • externalangst

    In public broadcasting in Oz, it’s not right to say all feminists are like that. All staff are like that… or should that be… all staff are feminists like that (or at least pretend to be).

    The usual generational cycle of depravity is not letting up in the case of femofascism. The cultural and biological stars have aligned for another truly terrible episode in inhumanity.

    The women’s movement has been an awful lesson in history. Almost all of the worst atrocities in the history of the world have been committed by the ‘legitimate authorities’. So it is again. Confected moral panic leads to moral depravity.

    There is a problem with Power. It attracts the worst and corrupts the best of women and men. It is the powerful people in society that require constant supervision. this is something societies seem to need to constantly re-learn. The powerful have the capacity for great harm. Instead we have immense security apparatus dedicated to supervising the multitude of those without the power to commit atrocities. We have it backwards.

    Feminism is both powerful and secretive. So who will be held responsible this time. That’s right. In the future, not all feminists were like that.

    This time, all true Scotsmen have a duty to document the actions and personalities of the official offenders. JtO has done just that. In the future, we will eventually find the feminists who weren’t like that. They will be the ones who were like that.

  • Political Cynic

    I just love the NAFALT argument. I find that if you simply ask them if they would accept “Not all KKK members are like that” as a rational argument, you can reduce them to complete hysteria (or at least more complete than is their normal state).

  • Sanguifer

    I actually do know a feminist like that. A colleague of mine at my university is a self-declared feminist, and when we got around to actually discuss some of the issues, we found out that we agree on quite a lot of things.

    Of course, when I asked her: “Then why are You a feminist?”, I got the reply: “Well, why aren’t You?”. And why wouldn’t I get a reply like that. After all, dictionary feminism is supposed to be about equality, and the professed beliefs of said self-identifying feminist match the dictionary definition.

    People can be quite touchy when others try to define who they are, and I find it sort of understandable. Just think of how pissed You can get if someone tries to label You a misogynist when You, in Your own perception, are sure You aren’t one. Hell, I even got it on this very site every now and again. When I criticize a particular article or paragraph, I sometimes actually get the “don’t tell me I’m an ideologue” defense. Even if the content of said article or paragraph indicates it.

    Or, for another anecdotal example: My partner vehemently denies being an atheist, even though, to me, she quite clearly is one (what with lacking belief in a personal – or concious – god or gods). Am I right? I dunno. I think I am, clearly. But it’s obviously possible to actually be “not that kind of feminist”, in one’s own perception.

    • http://themrmglossary.blogspot.com/ dhanu

      “Of course, when I asked her: “Then why are You a feminist?”, I got the reply: “Well, why aren’t You?”. And why wouldn’t I get a reply like that. After all, dictionary feminism is supposed to be about equality, and the professed beliefs of said self-identifying feminist match the dictionary definition. “

      Did you even read the article or just the title?

      • Sanguifer

        I read the article.

        You know. As indicated by the part of my comment You quoted being a reply to this particular part of the article:

        “Where are the rest, indeed, where are the vast majority of feminists, you know, the ones conforming to the dictionary definition that feminism is a movement seeking equality?”

        Though, apparently, You didn’t.

        • http://themrmglossary.blogspot.com/ dhanu

          Oh, that was meant to be a rhetorical question, the author was not really seeking an answer. The underlying message is, why if such feminists exist, then are they not coming forward and trying to seek equality and stop the mainstream feminists from hijacking their brand of feminism.

          • Sanguifer

            Laziness is always a good bet. I know it works for me. I’m not out there on the streets campaigning for Men’s Rights, either.

            Misinformation is another. It is an obvious problem that feminist sources have statistcs that support their narrative, while the MRAs have differing statistics that support theirs. It is not easy to quickly see through who is right and who is wrong, and naturally, one tends to trust the sources of the movement one identifies with. To put it simple, many feminists don’t even know what mainstream feminism is doing.

            A certin insensitivity to those issues is yet another. I tend to identify myself with the MRA movement ideologically, so to speak, even if the level of my involvement is very low, and I maintain a rather huge dose of scepticism – and I must say, I often read articles here twice or thrice, thinking “Okay, so WHAT is the outrage, again?”. If it works like that for someone who is generally sympathetic and somewhat sensitive to the issues, I am not at all surprised if the “good feminists” simply don’t notice a lot of things.

            That is not to say that those arguments are, well, good ones. It’s an explaination, not a justification – a phrase I can’t stress enough.

          • http://themrmglossary.blogspot.com/ dhanu

            Yeah, I get that. So what happens when people claim to support an ideology but are too lazy to defend it from the hijackers? Winners write the history, hijackers (re-)define the ideology. Suppose you have a pistol. Suppose someone steals or snatches it away from you and you’re either too ignorant to even know that it’s been stolen or too lazy to do anything even after knowing that someone has taken it. However, the pistol was so dear to you that you keep claiming that it’s yours even though you cannot show it in your possession anymore. You’re just not ready to accept that you’ve lost it. Now suppose the person who took your pistol away uses it to murder someone. And the police is enquiring. Would you still claim that the pistol belongs to you alone and nobody has taken it away? Or is it better to forget about it and buy a new one?

            The movement of feminism has been hijacked by the ideological bigots. It’s someone’s choice to keep claiming that it still stands for equality and all, but you’ll notice that those people are always unknown inconsequential nobodies. The ‘real’ or visible feminists who are making any changes are the hateful ones. They can’t seek equality because there’s almost no area remaining where equality has not been surpassed. The future of feminism is female supremacy, otherwise it has no future. As such, it’s no longer a movement for equality. And therefore, the so-called equality feminists are neither effective nor informed, or in other words, are fools.

            If you (anyone) believe in an ideology and follow it, love it, and cherish it, then either come forward to defend it when it’s being hijacked or, once it has been hijacked, stop associating yourself with it because it no longer stands for your ideals. Otherwise, don’t complain when people burnt by the hijackers criticize it and hold it responsible for the evil it’s brought upon them. How come these garden variety feminists always remain hidden when the real feminists are carrying out the atrocities but suddenly come alive and start defending the ideology when people burnt by them complain? If you’re not gatekeeping the ideology, you have no control of it. You’re only making yourself look like a fool by defending something you were too lazy to protect.

          • Sanguifer

            Well spoken. Thank You for that.

            One thing I’d like to note regarding this part, and I’m sorry if it comes off as me wanting to have the last word (I really appretiate Your response and have otherwise nothing to add):

            “How come these garden variety feminists always remain hidden when the real feminists are carrying out the atrocities but suddenly come alive and start defending the ideology when people burnt by them complain?”

            I really expect that is partly because the artrocities carried out by feminists largely go by unnoticed, or are explained away by movement authorities (femsplained, if You will). When mainstream media is too politically correct to report, and even non-mainstream media fails to provide adequate coverage, AND the sources that do are continuously being villified… no wonder.

            In addition to that, there seems to be a sort of tribalism involved, so to speak – You begin caring passionately about something for whatever reason, and then at some point adopting the stance becomes a sort of habit – You don’t even care that much anymore, but if someone asks, of course You are an “X”-ist, and when someone (aggressively) challanges X, a kind of habitual pride kicks in.

            I experience it a lot regarding catholicism in poland. The catholic church in poland is funded partly by taxpayer money (well, by law, at least, and double that in shady deals, but I digress), and the amount of grants is determined by the amount of official members. As such, it baffles me every time that I constantly meet people who are outraged at the church scandals AND also admit to not really believe the doctrine, and yet they won’t even think of quitting the club to stop financing it – because of the social implications, because of tradition, because they still believe in god even if they don’t respect the church, etc.

            Possibly it’s also a bit of a defense mechanism – an ideology can quickly become part of one’s identity, and sudden and “violent” attacks shake that, so it’s not surprising to see defense mechanisms go up in order to prevent an identity crisis.

            At least it appears logical to me – and I still remember having similar reactions when confronted with MRA articles for the first time. My good nice liberal feminist self was looking through my eyes at damning facts and screaming: This just GOT to be a mistake! Hell, I still sometimes get the feeling that some issues discussed reek of conspiracy theories, and I’m having a hard time deciding whether that feeling is justified or not. Maybe that’s why I have a bit more sympathy for the NAFALT variety of feminists.

  • Anonguy

    I consider my self a feminist who is not like that. I also like to test my arguments and try to understand the counter argument.
    With that said I have a pretty impressive list of feminists sites that have banned me or censored me. I have been dismissed with a hand wave and a proclamation I was just a MRA.
    Feminism has a issue with censorship and I have no idea how to address that without just getting memory holed.

    • GQuan

      With respect, Anonguy – why do you seek acceptance and membership among a collective that by your own word is constantly discarding and blocking you for failure to tow a particular line? Why do you consider yourself a feminist when the behaviour of the ideologues known as feminists is so blatantly hostile to you, even when you seem committed to identifying with them?

      When the door keeps getting slammed in your face by those who are sitting in the room, why do you continue to want to get in? What’s in there that so attracts you? All that’s in the room is the very people who keep slamming the door in your face, after all.

  • Anonguy

    I like the abuse? In all reality however I still call myself a feminist because there is power in it.

    You see the word feminism means almost nothing anymore. Its just like the word christian. Its a empty word used to help foster a in group. However the group has power.

    As a MRA I would be lucky to even see the door. As a feminist I get in on the party get to look around a bit, point out the elephant in the room and then get tossed out.

    I call myself a feminist because I am a honerless bastard who wants to win, who wants to see real change.

  • henryalex

    Could I get sources/articles describing these events? I’m sorry if they’re here and I’ve missed them, but it really helps to actually have something to point to. Quite honestly, I can’t find a good chunk of the specific things mentioned here.

  • http://antimisandry.com/ Douglas

    Qualified feminism. (“moderate feminism” “ifeminism” NAFALT “feminist but..” etc.)

    In conclusion, unless you really are suffering from having feminist beliefs, don’t call yourself any kind of a feminist. If you’re not sure, or you think that maybe you are suffering from feminism and are seeking help, then places like [avoiceformen.com or] the Anti-Misandry web site can be a good place to help you understand about feminism and may be a first step to the cure. In the meantime, if you call yourself a feminist of any colour, you’ll have to accept the natural and automatic “anti” levelled on any kind of feminist.