My point was that the zeitgeist is what is the issue..not specifically particular women..for example the ad i posted was certainly made by graduates of a top tier college arts program who would certainly have been exposed to feminism in college..perhaps indoctrinated by taking some womens studies .
Therein lies the problem..the misandry is so pervasive it has become almost invisible even men find it normal or funny.
First of all, women's studies classes definitely do not teach "misandry." I think this is a case of you seeing the extremists used as tokens by the MRAs and generalizing from there. Additionally, the vast majority of people with liberal arts degrees are not required to take such classes, and don't.
As for the ad, you find it simply anti-men, whereas as I pointed out, the nagging, controlling wife stereotype is a longtime sexist trope used against women, so it's not a simple situation. Why would feminists, who rail specifically against those kinds of stereotypes, be an influence on an ad that uses them?
Its the anger of the oppressed..i certainly dont harbor it nor find it useful
I think "oppressed" is pushing it too far. When it comes to actual power, men still have the lion's share.
Hazardous work is done exclusively by men everywhere..usually to provide a living for his woman and children..its one of the reasons we live shorter lives
Exclusively, everywhere isn't true, and not just because of the recent push towards equality in many places. But regardless, that's an empirical fact- it doesn't really say much about anything one way or another, just like any other snapshot of society at a particular time.
I doubt my wife would ever want to switch places with me cutting and welding under greasy cars for a little more autonomy
Maybe, maybe not. The real question is whether she really has the choice or opportunity to pursue it, if she wants to.
My point was that the labor/risk/benefit curve has always worked against men since the days of clubbing wild animals for dinner..feminism has only made it worse
This universal history of men braving the elements and wild beasts thing is largely a myth. As I posted in the other thread, remember that when we were still hunter-gatherers living out in the wild, the division of labor was much more egalitarian than it would become after the agricultural revolution. Men and women were hunting, and men and women were gathering. This much, we know for sure. The idea that this was a universal role is largely the result of patriarchal religious teachings that arose much later- ironically, when settled farming became the main way of life and conditions in general were much less dangerous than when we were hunting/gathering out in the wilderness.
As for feminism making it worse, I'm not sure I understand your point. Have feminists strived to create a culture in which the division of labor is even more unequal than before? That's counterintuitive and antithetical to the history and definition of feminism, which has always been about reducing the social gap between men and women.
Perhaps you misunderstood my position..i have nothing against the stay at home moms per se ..i think its fantastic to take care of your own children... but these are arrangements that dont have to conform to gender and should be worked out by the parents not imposed on them
I agree completely, but I don't think it's women who have been mostly responsible for making those roles conform to gender or imposing them on society at large.
This could be a whole thread in itself but suffice to say the feminist movement of the 50s and is not the one we have now ...IMO every idealistic movement is inevitably always coopted and used against the very same people it should help
In the beginning it may have been about freedom and dignity and who could argue against that but somewhere it turned into a "some animals are more equal than others" animal farm moment and that was tolerable but then the demonising of men started and that was too much to bear so these guys started speaking out.
You'll have to explain further, and maybe show some evidence for this. As far as I'm aware, there are no major differences in the feminist movement now. It still has most of the same goals (since they were not achieved in the 60s, just like the modern racial equality movements) and most of the same flaws (white, middle-class women still dominate it.)
Im not too big on stats but by your own posted source 2-8% are false accusations..according to the FBI 90,000 rapes thats 7200 men EVERY YEAR who will themselves be raped in jail.. the women who make these malicious reports rarely get punished
This woman will even do it to a cop..what chance does a regular guy have
Well, let's assume that all these false accusers get sent to jail and raped (which isn't necessarily true.) That number still pales in comparison to the number of actual rapes that aren't dealt with. And as I said, we can assume the stats are skewed against men, and so to compensate you could triple or even multiply the number by 10... and it would still not compare. Of course, this is not to downplay the issue, but it has to be put in perspective.
Additionally, I agree that male rape doesn't get the attention it deserves, but I don't think women are mostly to blame for male rape being underreported and underserved as an issue, unless you think the modern image of masculinity, the (homophobic,) emasculating shame that is associated with with being raped, and the penal system are all controlled by women.
Note i said feminism...not women theres a distinction...and I came to that conclusion on my own..its actually pretty simple ..i can elaborate further if you wish
Please do.
I agree there are alot of wierdos on the bandwagon
some are even christian, some are right wing,some are homophobes ...thats why i would hesitate to self identify as an MRA but i do agree with some of the core issues that i laid out.
Yes, for a movement that is allegedly pro-men, it seems to only be ok with straight, stereotypically masculine men, which is part of the mass confusion that defines it as an entity.
) then co-signing (I thought) a blatant undeniable woman hater and his cockamanie unscientific drivel.
Who says that I'm against sexual equality? And what of my personal "failures" with women are you going to point to that explains my alleged adversarial stance to your views of sexual equality? This whole thread was based on a straw man maligning me with what some video that I've never even seen before has to say on this topic. This might surprise you, but the people that disagree with you aren't monolithic in thought, either. 
