'Feminism Won't Make A Victim Out Of Me'

All well and good and indeed there is nothing wrong with that. Just don't forget (or be ungrateful to) who is financing the whole thing.

It's good to see this lady feels able to take her place in the workplace, and that she supports the choices other women make, but I think her argument is a little anachronistic, since I have long believed men, not women are the intended victims of feminism.

Most of the laws resulting from feminist legislating target men, rather than women. It is men who suffer most under VAWA, men who suffer enforced lifetime alimony, misandrist child-support laws, and aren't even able to match their young, single female counterparts' earnings.

The question shouldn't be "does feminism victimise women" but "are we prepared to allow feminism to victimise men". So far the answer is a resounding yes.

"Most of the laws resulting from feminist legislating target men"

And they do so painting women as victims. She's not saying feminism victimizes women, she's saying feminism turns women into victims in order to play off that victimization to attain the power they want, and this author is unwilling to play that victim for feminists. She's tired of feminists portrayal of women, and is standing against it.

Yes you're right Kratch, but I admit to being a little oblique in my comment. Of course feminism wants to portray women as victims, so laws persecuting men will be waved through by lawmakers. My point is no matter how much some women might object to being victimised by feminism, they aren't the ones suffering most. It is men who ultimately suffer most, as intended, and women (and men) who object to the way feminism portrays them had better start asking why this is the case.

" they aren't the ones suffering most"

And she never made that claim. She also acknowledged feminisms assault on men, but that was not the focus of her article. Your reply concerns me for the reason that many feminists concern me, you seem upset because the focus isn't on your desired gender. She's told no lies, she denies no truths, she's just focused on the negative effect feminism has on women by making them victims. She's speaking out against feminism in a way that appeals to women. We should be OK with that. Speaking against feminism is a good thing. Your complaint that men have it worst, though, looks an awful lot like the standard feminist response to anything discussing men's issues, IE, "women have it worst, focus on us".

To be honest with you Kratch, I'm not particularly bothered about women. Call me a misogynist, but women have enough people concerned with their rights and welfare at the moment. You accuse me of, well to paraphrase saying "what about teh menz??", well damn straight I'm saying what about men! It seems even the MSM's main problem with feminism is about the negative impact on women; we have enough "Trad-Cons" complaining about what a shitty deal women get thanks to feminism. The last thing we need is another article written by a woman moaning about how feminism is holding her back. Boo hoo says I. This is supposed to be a website that supports men, not one for hand wringers concerned about what women lovers might think.

As for my original comment, well that was me caling her out. So what? I don't need to apologise to you, I offended nobody who would support the MRM and is concerned with the damage feminism does to men. If you can't accept that then it's your problem. I will not say anything else on the matter.

" I'm not particularly bothered about women."

Well, clearly you are, because when an article speaks about them, and feminism's impact on them, without ever actually lying about, or ignoring the impact (IE, pretending it doesn't exist) on men, you take offense.

"It seems even the MSM's main problem with feminism is about the negative impact on women;"

I don't see anywhere in this article where it claims the "MAIN" problem with feminism is about the negative impact on women. But rather, that A problem is the negative impact on women. But it seems to me you have become so much like the radical feminists that any discussion of gender not focused on your preferred gender is an attack against you. Yeah sure, it would be nice to see more MSM articles about the negative impact on men, but don't you think having more women turn against feminism will lead to an acceptance within the MSM of criticizing feminism in general, and will come to include it's negative impact against men? Has it become utterly unacceptable to you to have any conversation of gender that does focus on men, even if that discussion does include the negative effects on men, just not as a focus, and never actually lies? Seems rather androcentric if you ask me.

"This is supposed to be a website that supports men"

This website is, but the one where the article is found is not. Furthermore, I don't see how taking an androcentric stance, insisting all articles that don't put a primary focus on men, even if honest and not excluding of men, are somehow bad, is supporting men, it only makes men, or those standing up for them, look as bad as the feminists, worst, given societies tendancy to protect women and toss men aside.

This will be my last comment on this. I just wanted to point out you are being as radical and selfish as the radical feminists, and I don't think that is a good direction for the MRM.

"...you are being as radical and selfish..."

Calling someone 'selfish' falls just short of a personal attack, but comes close. What makes it fall short, just short, is that it is not an inherently rude word. But it is an ad hominem comment. So Kracth, I wouldn't consider this a "no personal attacks" warning as such. Just an observation about the comment you made to sirprince. Please, let's keep the focus on the ideas. Another way to word that and still get the point across would have been something more along the lines of:

'I just wanted to point out that such a position could be seen as being as radical and selfish as the radical feminists, and I don't think that is a good direction for the MRM.'

Am I picking nits? Maybe by some standards. But the word 'you' is not in there, which is what makes it an ad hominem comment.