I'm pointing out hate from the other side.
This is a hateful statement. You've already given your 'enemies' the demeaning label of 'other'. We do not live in a feminist world, that is a hateful delusion you've been brainwashed with. That's the truth. If you think it's hate speech, that's on you. I don't hate you. I don't even hate your hate. I just want to understand how you ended up so misguided.
I'm not countering any of your arguments, I'm telling you what I've witnessed with my own eyes. Watching a bunch of propaganda that encourages me to see MY reality through someone else's hate sounds like a monumental waste of time. You're not going to see the propaganda when I point it out, or we wouldn't be here now. If you can't sum up the full argument for me in less than 1000 words, then YOU don't know the full argument either. What you're really saying here is 'You don't think the same way I do, so you must not be educated yet.'
Am I wrong? What's your endgame with this? Isn't it your goal to undermine and destroy feminism? Isn't that the EXACT SAME kind of hate you (wrongfully) accuse feminists of? Do you even know the point you're trying to convey, and why?
BTW: Your username translates from Latin as 'The wyrm that makes things worse'.
Just read the first 1000 words here:
http://blog.studiobrule.com/2022/02/early-feminists-pathologized-male.html
Janice is an english literature professor — her eloquence is beyond anything I could ever hope to archive. You will enjoy her writing much more then anything I can gobble together.
Saving society from collapse. But I'm well aware that mens rights will most likely fail. Gynocentrism is just to strong.
Maybe you should re-read that, because it 100% backs up my point that the hatred you see in feminism was a response to hateful activities by men. Let me sum up that article in 1000 words or less for you.
Laws were passed that subject women to unwarranted arrest and medical examination, because it was assumed that male sexual needs were so uncontrollable that making prostitution illegal was impractical. The law subjected ALL women to examination, because only SUSPICION was required for a woman to be assumed guilty. The article then goes on to vilify Josephine Butler for drawing the logical conclusion from the premise for these laws... that women must be subjected to men's desires, because men can't control themselves. It is literally the EXACT same premise that the Contagious Diseases Act used to justify themselves.
What this article says, basically, is that it's okay to pass laws that limit the freedom of women because men are unable to control themselves, but it is not okay for women to say out loud why men passed those laws. If you don't think that's hateful treatment of women, then you most likely hate women. I don't know why, and I don't care... I don't approve of your hate or your desire to spread it. If you don't want me intruding on your little 'hate bubble', then mute me. You wouldn't be the first bigot that didn't want to know the truth.
If telling the truth is hate then so be it.
FALSELY assumed. Most men are able to control there sexual needs and majority of those who can't where sexually abused as a child. Quite often by a women.
Note that the other direction is not true: The majority of sexually abused men do not become abuser themselves. We are talking about the minority of a minority.
Which wasn't true either. In realty only a suspicion was and still ist required for a MAN to be assumed guilty.
And rightfully so as her conclusions where based on false premises. If your starting point is wrong then all logical conclusions you draw from it are wrong as well.
This is the centre point: Feminism started from false assumptions and false premises and was wrong ever since. And if we continue to base and model our society on false assumptions, false premises and from that false conclusions then our society will fail.
And probably very soon. We are currently repeating The Spanish Flue, The Great Depression and World War I as a speed run.
Maybe it was FALSELY assumed, but I pulled all this info from the article YOU asked ME to read. If it wasn't a good representation of you 'beliefs', then maybe you shouldn't have picked it.
Whether it was falsely assumed or not, the problem I have is that when MEN falsely assumed it to limit rights for women, that was fine. When women used the same false assumption, it was vilified. That is discrimination against women, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you do.
You're not speaking truth, you're regurgitating a twisted version of the facts and spreading it as propaganda. If that's what you want to do with your life... good luck to you. I would try to point out to you that we are nowhere near the catastrophes of the Spanish Flu, Great Depression, or WWI, but I'm sure you'd rather believe the lies of your handlers. I could also point out that men still hold every position of power on the planet, but I'm sure you somehow think they're all being controlled by women.
Your center point is wrong, and based on a lie. You believe the lie because it supports what you want to believe. That doesn't make it right, or true.
Fun fact: I think the same about you.
The biggest difference between us is that I believe all humans should be bound by the same rules and reason, you seem to think there should be different rules and reasons based on gender.
You are wrong about that. I too want that all humans are be bound by the same rules and reason.
However, I believe that in order to archive true equality women need to take on more responsibilities and accountabilities and men should get more rights.
I only want for men what women already have.
About 1.: Google „The Order of the While Feather“ — You can't abolish the draft. If you don't have a draft in law then something worse will appear in it's absences through the means of peer pressure.
About 2. & 4.: For those you could go the other way as well. No safe heaven abandonment and there is no real reason to have a separate rape and sexual assault law. One law could cover both.
I'm looking forward to the cognitive dissonance needed to justify inequalities to the disadvantage of men