Masculism

Being against male dominance is not being against the movement we've been discussing. In theory, both groups should be against patriarchy if they're both truly working for equality.

Yeah, exactly.

There's nothing wrong with being against masculinism if you define "masculinism" as "male chauvinism".

Ultrayellow, you're Completely Missing The Point of what I was saying and at this point I'm almost ready to give up on explaining it to you. Just read over what I've been saying and see if you can figure out for yourself what I mean.

neo, I think you're just overly eager to prove how totally not bigoted against gay people you are with your argument that "waaah, but girls will refuse to put out if they think I'm gay!" Speaking as a girl who once thought that one of her male friends was gay, and is now dating him, your argument makes no sense. If the possible damage to your romantic prospects bothers you that much, why not just calmly tell them you're not gay instead of throwing a hissy fit over the assertion that you might be? And if you do so, why wouldn't they believe you? Unless you start foaming at the mouth and screaming how you're totally not gay and you're sick and tired of being compared to those pansies, which starts to sound like a Suspiciously Specific Denial, so I can't really blame them for not believing you...

"neo, I think you're just overly eager to prove how totally not bigoted against gay people you are with your argument that "waaah, but girls will refuse to put out if they think I'm gay!"" - braka

Well, maybe if you had been paying attention you'd realize that wasn't my argument!

I think the issue in question here is "what constitutes fair treatment for a group that, historically, has had advantages and opportunities others have not?" At what point should people speak on behalf of those who still benefit from that inheritance? Other groups are now being given (compensatory?) advantages. At what point is that no longer necessary?