God your formatting is fucking aids, I'm getting aneurysms reading this.
Plenty of fact driven literature behind anti-feminism! What do you want to know?
And Instead of throwing a bunch of out of context articles, how about you make up a point and grow off of that? Tell me what feminism has done positively for women, one singular thing.
The lack of self awareness
Correct, you have a severe lack of self awareness and education towards feminism and general academic literature surrounding gender politics.
Damn that's really stupid but also blatantly unprovable
False, my idiotic friend, here is an evolutionary perspective within psychology that found men are more altruistic towards women then they are men.
Sex Differences in the Ultimatum Game: An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020583425623
Don't have a stroke, just read it slowly. You'll be ok.
What I want to know is, what is your point?
False, it shows the pattern you people advance, that uh... "feminism is almost over" is likely fiction. The rest of the sources and links I provide go towards demonstrating that too.
I never said "feminism is almost over", the victimhood culture surrounding feminism is, and always will be prominent within society, what I am saying is, feminists have no general cause as most of the "women's issues" they trot out are bidirectional, meaning they do not affect women any more than they affect men, or are just academically fraudulent and blatantly misleading.
As proven by what? Being four times more often raped than men? And overwhelmingly, by men? Being forced to marry? Forced to bear children? Forced to give up their dreams to raise the children some loser like you shot inside them? Proven by being painted as the source of all evil by one of the major religions of the world? And then some mythology?
Here is that example of academic fraud!
Women are not more likely to be raped, that is a great myth of our general society, as feminists tend to define rape in a way that excludes men almost fully, for instance, Mary P. Koss, the advisor for the CDC who used her methodology defined rape as "forced penetration", meaning it leaves out a male victim who was forced to penetrate by a woman, which ends up with news reports on the topic reporting on the "rape" column while the "forced to penetrate" subsection is left tired on a graph table within a paper with 100 pages.
Here are the summarized findings of all four CDC NISVS studies, finding men are raped more, both heterosexually and homosexually.
https://i.imgur.com/J5AuzM7.png
Here are some previous comments on mine regarding rape and sexual assault, read them.
The rest of your examples are too stupid enough to address.
Ahahaha you're so fucking stupid it's incredible, I did link the wikipedia article's section of sources though. That's literally academic literature right there. Also most intellectuals and academics in general are on the side of progressivism and feminism.
How about this radical idea? Say what you want to fucking say so I can oppose your point head on.
And cool, you didn't like a paper, just a scholar search, lmao.
