The SPLC is not objective. I don't know their previous history but as of now it's well known that it's essentially a propaganda machine that picks and chooses criteria for "hate groups" based solely on their political affiliation. Some of the things considered to be in the realm of "hate groups" include saying that children raised by same-sex parents turn out healthier, or saying that early childhood experiences can affect a person's sexuality. The former isn't clear as I'm seeing conflicting research on it but the latter is very well-documented as being true. They also refused to label Black Lives Matter or Occupy as hate groups despite their occasional connections with extremism and violence, making the claim that hate groups only count if they promote hatred against innate characteristics--skin color, race, disability, etc. Aaaaand then they proceed to include anti-muslim groups in their hate crime database. Oh, oh, I'm sorry. They include hatred of someone's religion in their hate group definition, but only religion. Class and political affiliation don't count, of course. Why this strange definition? Well according to a representative, the SPLC is "not set up to cover the extreme left". Perhaps that's why the FBI no longer considers them a legitimate source.
Anyway judging by the fact that the SPLC is clearly a non-objective political smear group rather than a legitimate political entity, let's take their theories with a grain of salt.
If you don't mind me breaking through the hilariously transparent facade of "I'm an attractive smart woman(or man, I have no way of knowing really) above all you fat stupid neckbeards" you put up to mask your daddy/self esteem issues, why do you find the need to "laugh" at the concept of a rights group? Males are benefitted by their gender in a LOT (many might say all!) of sectors, such as getting jobs, and one can recognize this without ignoring that in other sectors, whether you believe them to be minuscule or not, females are benefited by their gender. One could also argue that this is because of the evil group of men who meet around a table and decide how they'll oppress women for the next month, but does that make the point any less valid? Men get their reports of domestic abuse and rape taken less seriously, have a significant disadvantage in school, and are much less successful in child custody cases. And men are the ones affected the most by the US justice system, which I'm sure you believe is evil.
Even if men received absolutely no disadvantages from their gender, still why would a group looking out for them be bad? There are plenty of examples of the privileged of society suddenly losing their rights and later their lives, just look at what happened to the landowners in China or the Kulaks in Russia.
Please at least put some effort into the token "b-but feminism fights muh patriarchy so therefore its the only movement men will ever need" argument.
As we've already established the SPLC is not a credible source on hate groups as they're heavily biased towards one end of the political spectrum and they're not objective. Mind showing me the actual support for "male supremacy" movements, including members, prominent figures, public opinion, funding, etc? I'm not going to allow you to make things up.
Very hip and different. I'm taken aback by your ability to speak casually and informally at the same time! You should write bad "young adult fiction" novels about distant and edgy teens once you're done consistently shitting out hilariously desperate political posts on a chinese video-cockfighting simulator forum.
What exactly is wrong with that? Considering you haven't read it, probably because your sociology professor probably didn't include it in her curriculum, what are your answers as to why males are now falling behind females in terms of school? There's a significant gap between the genders in graduation rates, is this because of muh evil secret patriarchy or something else? By the way, why is it you're speaking so unconcerned about this? If feminism really is all about equality for men and women, as I'm sure you'll argue in your reply made 30 minutes after I post this, than why are you not fighting for equality in graduation?
Please please tell me you're talking about an actual "white supremacist media" site and not Fox News, for my sanity's sake and your reputation as a proud member of the lefty internet defense force.
I'm not sure which interview you're referring to here but she was likely arguing that the assertion that "women earn 77 cents to a man's dollar" is wrong, which according to every single legitimate report I've read on it, is true. The adjusted pay gap between men and women is around 96 cents to a man's dollar, not only is this much less significant than leftists would like you to believe, but the reason for the still-remaining 4 cents (still something we need to learn more about and combat if possible!) is attributed more to women tending not to be as assertive when it comes to asking for raises and such, not muh sexism, which isn't even quantifiable.
Elaborate? What's your definition of a "crisis actor"? Do you not believe that free speech and openness to new ideas is something desirable on college campuses?
Man nothing says "I'm against sexism" like saying traditional and biological male traits are "toxic".
When Peterson said this he very specifically said to the audience that it was his own personal opinion and they were not to interpret it as fact or backed by evidence. I'm not sure about the last part but research does show that traits such as assertiveness and confidence are among the most attractive traits to women in general.
That's a pretty big accusation. Can I get some direct quotations? In the ones I've heard, Peterson routinely advocates for gender equality in terms of equal opportunity, saying that it's "imminently desirable for everyone" and on one occasion speaking on the economic benefits of workplace equality.
Again, you're not showing enough to prove that this movement is legitimate. I'm a very politically active "white male" who often treads into right-wing extremist circles (for the sole purpose of trying to bring young people out of the grip of radicalism, something I've never seen the left even try to do) and I've never even heard of a "male supremacist movement".
I'm not getting into this because it's dumb and the left's pathetic attempts to put an entire entertainment industry in a generalist bubble with painfully vague accusations are nothing new. If the few trolls harrassing Anita or whoever are representative of the entire video game community, then the BLM police shooters are representative of BLM.
In that video, which I'm assuming you didn't watch (I'm sure you're VERY busy) she specifically criticizes the accusations that video games cause sexism and that they are disproportionately sexist towards women. I heard nothing about how men are superior and that an unequal patriarchy is desirable, but I guess when you put on outrage glasses anything seems like that.
But she specifically is speaking out against policies in education that make males suffer in terms of grades and graduation, why is this bad???? Are you really going to try and make the argument that you're not sexist while also brushing off legitimate concerns about males as if they don't matter?
Imagine how delusional one has to be to think that one LITERAL BLOGPOST is enough to discredit an entire field of science.
I'm sure your many fans will be waiting eagerly for your next soapbox in a thread for current news.
I ask that the mods treat all posts, regardless of political affiliation, to the same standard in terms of site rules.
Also fun fact: I wrote to Mrs. Sommers after reading the War on Boys book and actually got a response!
