That's Right: We Just Want to Attack Feminism!
"Why work to end feminism instead of men's human rights violations? The former engenders those violations and organizes to frustrate our efforts to end them."
The female-supremacist hate movement called 'feminism' must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze and held to a stern accounting for its grievous transgressions.
@KristalDGarcia Let's not forget that w/out MEN giving them power, they would likewise b nothing. The people giveth,&the people taketh away.
— Fidelbogen (@fidelbogen) August 22, 2014
@misogyny_online It was shameful and disgusting how feminists exploited the ER tragedy as a way of smearing their political enemies.
— Fidelbogen (@fidelbogen) August 21, 2014
Chris Loving-Life - @Victor Zen:
What is a "non-feminist" and how does that differ from a "chauvinist", and is the end result to combat the "mysogynists"?
Victor Zen - @Chris Loving-Life:
Non-feminists are just those that look at gender issues in an alternative lens. Humanists that don't identity as feminist classify as non-feminists. So as you can tell, it's actually pretty broad. We mention them because they don't have many places to share their views.
But we're against hatred, period. Misogyny, misandry, racism, etc have no place in KSU Men.
Fidelbogen - @Chris Loving-Life:
How does "non-feminist" differ from "chauvinist"?
Look at the words. "Non-feminist" simply means that one is not a feminist.
"Chauvinist" has an entirely different meaning.
Merriam - Webster's online dictionary defines 'Chauvinism" as follows:
" an attitude that the members of your own sex are always better than those of the opposite sex
: the belief that your country, race, etc., is better than any other"
Hence, a "chauvinist" would be one who displays "chauvinism".
So on this basis, if you compare the two terms, there is no reason to suppose that "non-feminist" means the same thing as "chauvinist".
Chris Loving-Life - @Fidelbogen:
I agree. I originally asked this question an effort to better understand what this group represents. As with my other post, this question seeks to better clarify the meaning and purpose of this group in the face of accusations from others, especially on the Internet. I personally believe in Human rights, not just the rights of one gender or/over the other.
Fidelbogen - @Chris Loving-Life:
It is important to remember that "this group" is part of a much larger social trend that is cropping up worldwide - for convenience, call this trend the "non-feminist revolution".
The grist of this non-feminist revolution is that the authority to define feminism itself, is no longer entirely in feminist hands. The decision as to what feminism "IS", can as well be made by those who do not identify as feminist. Such persons are more likely to be honest and objective about the phenomenological reality of the world.
So, to pose the question "how does non-feminist differ from chauvinist" seems to imply a framework of feminist semantics as a starting point. It is as if one had already defined feminism in an authoritative manner, and held all conversants accountable to that standard.
Hence, if one had INITIALLY defined feminism as "the opposite of chauvinism", then it would follow merely by rule that to be "non" feminist would mean that one was a "chauvinist".
Thus, it becomes difficult to take any stand in opposition to feminism, or (critically!), even to take a non-oppostional stand *independent* of feminism, without suffering the imputation of "chauvinism" or some other unsavory thing.
In this manner, feminism *controls the language*, and to a great extent likewise the mind of the masses, when said masses take said language on board without giving it any thought.
So among other things, the non-feminist revolution seeks to regain control of the language such that principled opposition to feminism becomes possible, and in a manner that is unfettered by feminist discourse.
I'd like to hear a feminist address, very thoughtfully and seriously, what is being said here. I don't expect any such thing to happen, however."On the whole outrage surrounding "Bash A Violent Bitch", and why the offensive presentation serves a purpose.
" "Bash A Violent Bitch" describes an abused boyfriend/husband retaliating and severely hurting his attacker. The mental image disgusted me no end.
"Whereas my instinctive reaction to the mental image of an abused girlfriend/wife retaliating and severely hurting her (male) attacker was to cheer for her - even highlighted in the article with "You GO, boy."
"This showed me part of my anti-male sexism. By inducing me into a state of outrage, I realised that I was more upset by the image of a man fighting back than I was by the thought of a woman attacking a man in the full knowledge that he is unwilling to hurt her: in my mind, for a man to hit back was worse than for a woman to intentionally torture someone. The offensiveness of the message used my outrage to expose my own prejudices against men.
"Then the article specifically says not to hit back (something that keeps getting missed out when commenting on it), which made me feel better about the whole article, then finishes up by pointing out that fighting back is what equality would look like... and I didn't like it. This said a lot about my perceptions. Equal treatment appeared extremely misogynistic to me.
"Unfortunately, a polite message telling people they have a double-standard can be intellectually accepted and then ignored. Actually experiencing the outrage taught me to take my own anti-male sexism seriously.
"I hear messages about men every day, and it is only when I hear the same message said about women do I realise how offensive that message is. Removing the mental filters is always going to be a challenging and provocative experience."
"As local activists we are collectively speaking out against the horrific and vile hatred that A Voice for Men spreads on their website by blaming feminism as the root cause of men’s issues and not deconstructing how gender, class, race, sexual orientation, ability, body size etc distinctly impact the lives of people in our society."
"As you know feminists have, for decades, been saying that rape is about power and nothing to do with sex.
"In the wake of the Elliot Rodger's shooting there's now much hubbub in the 'femisphere' about male 'sexual entitlement'.
"And it's almost a certainty that more than a few feminists (perhaps even some of the most prominent) have said or alluded to the idea that such sexual entitlement is ....'rapey'.
"You, of course, see where I'm going with this?
"Let's not let them have it both ways.
"Either they have to dispense with the "rape=power not sex" meme OR we can ask "If rape has nothing to do with sex then what's all the fuss over male sexual entitlement?""