> Are we talking about how women were treated in the past, or how they are treated now? > Assuming the latter, we don't know this at all. Any law or behavior se

> Are we talking about how women were treated in the past, or how they are treated now? > Assuming the latter, we don't know this at all. Any law or behavior seen as sexist is now challenged, we have a well funded movement making sure this is so. Both, clearly it being normal in the past is part of what drives it now - culture was formed around it. Yes, clearly it has gotten better, but it's not a solved problem, and our understanding of what is a problem gets better over time. Saying sexism is a solved issue is like saying racism is a solved issue - just because it's far better than it used to be and we have general acceptance it's a bad thing doesn't mean it's gone. > Says who? Me. > Not that many - rape and abortion for example, do not just affect women. I never said they did - you are doing exactly what I discuss - straw-manning my argument to make me sound more extreme, then claiming I'm wrong. Of course rape and abortion affect men, but clearly they have a disproportionate affect on women. In an ideal world we could focus on equality in general and work it all out, in the real world we have limited time and resources, and focusing on the biggest disparities is the best way to get closer to the ideal scenario, which has benefits in terms of culture and expectation, inspiring future changes and understanding. > again, prove it. This is just a convenient characterization to shut alternate discourse. Tell me why you control the intent of the opposition better than they do? You literally just did it. I don't control it, but it's clear that it's happening - you can deny that intent all you want, and maybe you truly just don't see the problem, but you are doing it. By making out that feminists are crazy people pushing 'anti-men' agendas you are going to reduce the change that can happen. > What do you call a real MRA? The movement was hobbled from the beginning by claims that feminism was all that was needed, so that an new movement must be suspect from the beginning - if we allow men to have their own movement it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Men are well represented by their feminists sisters... I would say that a 'true' MRA (that is, someone who cares about men's rights, not someone using it to try and push down women's rights) is someone who tries to fix social issues that disproportionately affect men (which do exist), without trying to push down feminism. I would consider myself someone who cares about men's rights as much as I'm a feminist. I don't think the two are at all at odds. > By providing evidence for it? What's the difference between having a focus, and having an agenda? What, for example, is your opinion of "Geek Feminism Wiki"? I'd assume the same? I am using 'agenda' to mean a dishonest or ill-informed focus. I have never seen the "Geek Feminism Wiki" - it may or may not be reasonable. A quick glance at the main page doesn't look unreasonable, but who knows. They weren't the article being highlighted here. > Or is you opinion different because it "simply doesn't reflect reality" - if your conclusion is that therefore the site go away, aren't you biasing you own sources based on the conclusion not being the one you want? I am saying I looked at this source and found it to be biased. In my comment I linked an example of an article that is obviously and intentionally misleading. It's nothing to do with the conclusion I want. If a site claiming to be 'feminist' had a truly anti-male agenda I would be just as happy to dismiss that. > This is sometimes the case. There is a difference between "always"and "sometimes". Are you saying this site is pushing the hyperbole that womens' rights are always at the expense of men? Assuming our aim is true gender equality, then the only time that women's rights will come at the expense of men's is when men's rights are unequal. Just as the right of the ex-slave's freedom come at the cost of the rights of the slave-owner to own them. This site is clearly trying to create a fear of social change which benefits women. The articles are hyperbolic and focus on the issue at a rate that exaggerates the issue to readers. We are not at a point of gender equality yet, so to imply that feminism is wrong when it tries to push for more rights for women is misleading.