No, I've seen what you're talking about in this thread, even in real life, and I've watched (parts) of most of the videos, and I don't even disagree that behaving in this way is inappropriate or a problem.

What I'm saying is that this is not representative of the group. I could find much more that would be much better material for you argument. 18% is a huge number, that's 59 million people. That many people do not behave this way, obviously. Is it 18% of feminists that behave this way? That's still pretty high. I'm going to wager that it's more about 3% of that 18% (probably still high) which is approximately 1.8 million people in the United States. That doesn't seem all that unreasonable that there are 1.8 million people in the US, primarily women, who are anti-men.

Would that even be a surprise? What's the concern here?

I have met women who are very forth bearing with the fact that they are a feminist, and typically that is a "problem case". ie. someone comes up to you and says they're a feminist without asking and within a couple sentences. That's a problem no matter what though, people sometimes come up to me and talk about Jesus in the same way, or some other fixation. Sometimes people who hold those types of fixations get very irrational because it's so important to their identity. Often they've had trauma associated with it. That's not at all exclusive to feminism (as this thread shows, there are other topics people identify with and get irrational about).

My rebuttal was that "It is true, I have seen it." -- I have seen people who identify as Feminists who do not represent the broad brush strokes you've made in any fashion. Very few who do. You have provided very few examples (18%, remember). Therefore your assertion is incorrect.

There are plenty of feminists who do not behave poorly, but going on an attack like this is your demonstration of completely misunderstanding it, and that is about it.

This is getting exhausting. I don't think that Derezo's mind is open to hearing anything other than his own opinion. There is overwhelming evidence that the Feminist movement is disingenuous and generally harmful. The fact that many people consider themselves Feminists and are completely harmless doesn't change that. Those people aren't the ones making noise, forcing changes upon society that frankly are imbalanced and unequal. I think most anti-Feminists support an "equalism" movement whereby we literally aim to treat everybody equally. That comes with the understanding that rights are associated with responsibilities in society and you can't have one without the other. That's something that Feminists are especially oblivious to.

For your viewing pleasure, a well known vlogger woman enrolled in a university "gender studies" course with the aim of outing all of the ridiculous bullshit they were taught. She planned on doing a series, but after one of the other students realized who she was and reported it to the professor they told her she wasn't allowed to participate in the class if she discussed it outside of class... So she basically just shut up and waited until the end and gave us a summary. It's not like you really need an entire video series to recognize the invalidity of the course.

That is what Feminism is, and that's why so many people are opposed to it. Feminism isn't just bad for men and children. It's bad for any woman that disagrees with what the Feminist "majority" think. It wouldn't be a problem if not for women being such special snowflakes in society. They actually have a lot of extra power simply because we try to take care of them so when they start banding together and claiming something is a problem we tend to try to "fix" it without thinking too hard about who is hurt by it or whether it's actually reasonable. This is resulting in lots of harmful changes.

The movement wasn't all bad, but modern day "wave" is absolutely extremist. Any "Feminist" that isn't extreme probably only calls themselves a Feminist because they don't pay very much attention to the movement and generally believe that female human beings are people. That's probably what about 80% of the "membership" consists of. People that are not actively participating just claiming to be a member because they assume it's like an "I'm not a racist" sort of club. The active participants are generally extremist lunatics.

The exception would be the small group of people from previous waves (e.g., Christina Hoff Sommers) that still call themselves Feminists, but don't really believe in the current dogma being preached and work to be a sensible voice within the movement. I imagine the only reason that they don't abandon the title is because it is more powerful to be one than to say you aren't one (and Hell, it was their title first). In this day and age, saying you're not a Feminist sounds like "I beat my wife" to most people. I cannot count the number of times I've been called misogynistic or chauvinistic at the drop of a thought that doesn't treat women as special snowflakes. No rational conversation needed. Simply because people are "dumb, panicky, dangerous creatures":

Very few people actually care to learn about something. Most people just prefer to think they already know.

Hmmm, I'd say there remain a few points where women could be treated more fairly in western society. For example in sports, certain sports for men gets way more media attention than the equivalent for women. Just think about soccer, bike racing, etc...

Or I do think there could be more women in IT and science? But the root cause isn't the bullsshit that is no wstated, that women are supposedly being scrared away by the big bad "bro"grammers. The issue is that it's still culturally difficult to get girls interested in science and IT from an early age on, which is essential, really. You really need to get interested into these things as a child to make any headway. What I see in my own daughter (sample of one, I know) is that she is quite perfectionist, but also easily frustrated. But in science and IT you need patience and the ability to correct your own mistakes... I have my work cut out it seems.

I can think of a few other similar problems, but nothing really dramatic. Many USA feminists tough seem to be focusing on making mountains out of mole hills on non-issues.

So yeah, there are games with sexy female characters for men to enjoy. It's called "entertainment". Likewise there are games with sexy male characters as well. Ok, admittedly, we do need more of those, but I think the ladies should rather try to join in and have fun as well. And Cosmo, that's in essence a soft porn magazine for women, with fashion and gossip mixed in for good measure...

It's normal that in every movement the followers are far less extreme then the leaders. I think that's that what Derezo is seeing. But to see where a movement is going you have to see what the leaders are doing... and at least in the USA it looks like most feminist "leaders" have really jumped the shark. And that's of course where such nonsense as the CCoC is coming from.

Uhh, I am not a feminist and don't follow these "Darker Sides of Feminists" or whatever, so I don't really see this stuff outside of the Allegro.cc Off Topic forum.

Sure, it's me that's closed.

The initial purpose of feminism, which was to bring attention to the rights problem back in the mid 20th century, has been successful and accomplished a great deal for womens rights -- that is true. That it is over is not true. Although women do share equal legal rights, they are still subject to more discrimination and targetting of crime than are men. It's not true of everywhere and everyone, but statistically crimes like rape, harassment, and household homicide have higher rates towards women. Women do not yet share an equal quality of life with men. Some of this really is due to social norms present in our culture, regardless of the arguments in this thread that are to the contrary.

I'm not "following the feminist crowd", I'm a man in Canada and I don't even personally identify as a feminist... but I don't have issues with the movement like you do.

I don't see or experience the problem either, but that doesn't mean that women don't currently face them more so than men do.

However, that's a whole new segment of the topic and one I don't care to get into.

You're focusing on a specific group of extremists. Mainstream feminist organizations have merit and are important to maintaining equal rights. Denying that there are not gender related problems, and that these problems are not primarily experienced by women, is to ignore the reality that many women face.

I have a track record of changing my mind and adjusting my ideas when presented with new evidence. It happens rarely, but it does happen. My reputation comes from talking about controversial subjects and taking the unpopular side of debates. For example, this one. I maintain that I'm right to be on it until presented with reliable evidence to the contrary.

Any kind of sport is entertainment. If women aren't as entertaining to watch then it makes sense there would be less media attention given to them simply because fewer people, men or women, are going to tune in to watch them and follow them. Women are mostly watched for their bodies. Nice asses. Etc. In terms of athletic performance men will usually dominate them so naturally if you want to watch the most exciting sports it will often be the men's group. That's not discrimination and nothing needs to change for it. Men's sports are not some kind of government protected career opportunity. Where there is money and therefore media involved it's because of consumers.

The minds of girls and women are simply different than boys. Even when girls are good at math and science, they usually choose a field in social sciences, care-giving, or teaching. They just have different interests than boys and men do. There are exceptions, but there's absolutely no evidence-based reason we should expect to get gender parity in all jobs. They make a big deal about STEM fields because they're well paid and well respected. They don't fuss about miners or sewer maintenance. While men dominate some of the best jobs, they have a monopoly on the worst jobs and feminists don't seem to mind.

Being frustrated is natural. It's about what you do with it that matters. Whether you persevere or give up. But that's more of a character thing than anything. That said, I don't think that you should expect your daughter to pursue a STEM field unless it's something that she's really passionate about. It might make you happy, but even if she's good at it, it might make her miserable. That's for her to decide. You shouldn't feel like it's the only desirable path in life.

Why do we need more games with sexy male characters? Is the target market for those games women? Markets decide content better than activists or governments do. When they say 50% of the video game industry is women they mean 50 year olds playing Candy Crush on their tablets. They don't mean Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto and Lara Croft. Lots of women play those too, don't get me wrong, but far far fewer than men. And most of the women that do play it aren't offended by it. Most girls that play Counter-Strike have a sick sense of humor and enjoy making jokes and teasing the boys. They are not discriminated against any more than boys (i.e., if you suck, you're going to get told you suck, and nobody is going to care about your "feels").

Append:

I'd also like to point out that male characters in video games are sexy. You won't find many obese blobs with stained T-shirts and 3-day old underwear. They're physically fit, often exaggerated beyond conceivable reality, and often times their physical features are visible for the viewer to enjoy (or ignore). What a lazy interpretation misses is that women and men find different things sexy. Women are naturally drawn to "bad boys", strong men, guys that don't take no for an answer and get things done. Guys with money. Guys that seem like they would be good providers and protectors. Most male video game characters fit this model exactly because (surprise!) the boys and men that are fantasizing about being these male characters want to have the desirable traits that girls find sexy!

The women that are complaining about "sexy" girls in video games are complaining because the boys like it and they think that it is going to hurt their chances with boys. They're oblivious to the fact that the men that don't want to date them are either not attracted to their bodies or not attracted to their minds (or both). If they want to change things they need to change the thing that they can control: themselves.

Well said.

I'm really confused because your position in this discussion seems to be heavily in support of Feminism. You sound like you associate with Feminists and support their cause. Now you're telling us you aren't even a Feminist. Here I was thinking you were getting a cut of their profits. So which is it? Friends, girlfriends, anybody is a Feminist activist? Otherwise, how the fuck do you claim to know what the movement is about if you aren't involved and don't pay attention?

[Citation needed]

Men are far more likely to be the victim of violent crime. If you include rape statistics in prison men will likely outnumber women too. Of course, the law typically doesn't consider sexual assault or sexual harassment against men as a "thing" unless it's extreme so we may not really know just how frequent it occurs in the wild (i.e., perpetrated by girls or women). Men are also more likely to be harassed, but when they are they don't cry about it. Most of the time they have nobody to cry to. They're expected by society to take it and remain silent.

[Citation needed]

Western women enjoy every quality of life that men do, and then some. And they typically don't have to work as hard to get it. You didn't really elaborate so I look forward to you breaking it down into examples.

So then what makes you believe there is a problem at all? Shouldn't you at least question whether there is one until you've seen the evidence?

Well said too. You won't generally find "Feminists" in the hard sciences because the facts simply don't support the Feminist narrative and science has no room for "feelings".

That's ultimately what it comes down to. Girls and women are far more sensitive, emotional beings than boys and men. An innocent "no" could feel like abuse to them if you let their imaginations run wild with it. And that's exactly what is happening in society with the Feminist movement going unchecked. They're making claims that are difficult to prove and instead of assuming "innocent until proven guilty," because they're female and get special privileges in society, we assume "guilty until proven innocent," and make changes willy-nilly without the knowledge or experience to understand the long-term affects not only the system as a whole and the unprivileged groups being held back, but also on the girls and women.

Feminism is not science. That's why it's dogma. That's why you shouldn't give it any credence until you've seen reliable science to support it. There's a reason the "social sciences" are separated from the "real" sciences. You can't easily test social sciences. You can literally say just about anything and offer subjective evidence and it's nearly impossible to prove it wrong (just like religion). It's only problematic when you give it the same credibility as actual science.

I actually thought I was quoting Specter Phoenix, not you. My apologies.

edit:

The quality of one's life is not determined by it's length.

And yet if the roles were reversed and men typically lived longer, you can bet your bottom dollar that modern feminists would decry the existence of a "life span gap" and demand that the field of medicine rectifies it under threat of being considered a misogynistic system.

100 is an extreme though. Assuming Wikipedia stats are accurate, only about .022% of Americans live to be 100.

Well we are talking about a movement that claims their is a wage gap (which is illegal under the Equal Pay Act), claim that 1 in 5 (or 1 in 7) women are sexually assaulted on campus (while government numbers show it is actually 1 in 52 or 53), and claim that holding a door for a woman is sexist. So I wouldn't be surprised to see them use that as a proof of sexism or some other ridiculous claim.

I concede that there are a few people that are feminists that are calm, collected, logical, and fighting for women's rights where it is actually needed. The problem is that feminism is suffering the same image problem that Black Lives Matter is facing. The calm, rational, people in the groups are being quiet as mice while all the volatile people are getting camera time with their hate speeches, calls for violent or vile actions, and even sexist or racist remarks.

Do you realize it is extremely easy to find proof after proof of feminists being anti-male, sexist, racist, et. al., but almost impossible to find anything that modern feminism has actually done for women?

When I pointed this out on one of my social media, I had one person (seriously, only one person) point to safe spaces as what modern feminists have given women. That is the big accomplishment! Feminists have given privileged kids a space where they don't get their views of the world challenged, but are instead coddled and nurtured for four years to where they come out of college the same way they came in; 18-20 year old mentality with the concept that the world is holding them back due to gender.

Look at how messed up this is; feminists are saying Hillary Clinton is making history by running for President. They are declaring it breaking the patriarchy. That is spitting in the face of the 104 women that hold seats in Congress, Sarah Palin who ran for VP, Carly Fiorina who ran for President in the Republican primaries, etc. Same goes for the game industry. I see feminists yelling that the game industry is sexist because there aren't more female programmers. That too is spitting in the face of the hundreds of women that are in or were in the industry; like Carol Shaw (programmed River Raid), Roberta Williams, Amy Hennig, Jade Raymond, Mari Shimazaki, and many more amazingly talented women.

The vocal feminist movement the world gets to see is the one that no longer builds women up, but rather tear men down and claim it is about equality. The logical ones are taking a back seat, watching, and ultimately denouncing the movement to declare they are egalitarian because the vocal ones have ruined the image of the movement. I base this off the facts I've seen that say that during second wave feminism about 36% of Americans said they were feminists compared to third wave feminism being at 18%.

This is more for entertainment purposes:

I think you are thinking about this the wrong way. Individual differences do not "cancel out" statistics. Societal differences largely build on intrinsic gender differences, I think it's misleading to say that they "outweigh" them. Society and culture can emphasize or de-emphasize certain traits, and often suppresses individual differences to a certain degree. More liberal societies let individual differences come into play more, obviously. Most places are not Saudia-Arabia, thankfully.

Here's a good article with lots of references Specific Toy Preferences: Learned or Innate?

And this, Female Developer's view on Norwegian Gender Paradox:

I think it's incredibly sexist to assert that girls and women are so feeble that their entires lives are decided for them by their environment. The girls' isle looks the way it does because that's what sells, and it sells because girls like it. Bright colors, dolls with shopping malls and changes of clothes, babies with diapers and bottles, kitchens and tea sets, etc. The apple doesn't fall far from their mothers.

There's little evidence that this is entirely environmental. On the contrary, there's plenty of evidence that it's at least partially natural. It stands to reason that millions of years of evolution would cause the brains of men and women to differ to better serve the roles required of them to survive.

Don't bother making an absurd claim that it would somehow be a good thing for there to be more women surgeons and men nurses unless you're also going to say that there should be more women sewer workers and men daycare workers.

Hell, you can't have more men daycare workers until society stops discriminating against men. Most of them today would probably be suspected of being some kind of a pervert. That's probably part of why male teachers are declining. Working with children in 2016 is a dangerous career choice for a man.

Experiments have shown that a man taking pictures at a park or a beach will quickly be identified by the crowd as a pervert and confronted. Meanwhile, a woman doing the exact same thing isn't even noticed. Sexism exists, but it's sexist in itself to believe it mainly affects women.

Women have had encouragement and opportunity for decades. Their behavior isn't changing. Take a hint. They now dominate college and university graduates, but they're graduating in "female" fields, often with useless degrees that won't even translate into a career.

The biggest wrench in the gears is the historical fact of women throughout history being successful and achieving careers in male dominated fields long before any kind of activism existed.

I hold the belief that the movement is less about activism or human rights and more about the "illuminati", or whatever you'd like to call the "elite" 0.0001%, controlling the population. Would we have been able to comfortably afford a household on one income if not for Feminism? With so much "diversity" and "feels" in society these days why is it that for the first time in history we're projected to fare worse than our parents' generations?

What makes sense to me is increased productivity for the same price. The only way to source extra workers is to convince the non-working demographics that they should be working, and that for some reason they should want to. I honestly can't understand that sell because if I had the opportunity not to I'd probably take it (mind you, I'd find something else to do productive, but freely).