Also, how is this hard to believe? I can understand saying countless, but citing examples, why do you need that? Is that hard to believe?
You said something that contradicts my personal experience. Why should I change my perceptions without evidence? If you don't want to provide any that's fine, just understand that I'm not going to change my beliefs without it.
When feminists talk about male issues, does it ever seem like not a true concern? I've never met a feminist personally that believes men have zero issues.
My problem is that most feminists' concern with men's issues is purely utilitarian towards their ambitions for women's interests. This tendency can be found in the issues that they focus on and for what reasons they purport to support them. You'll find feminists supporting men's issues where they can end up benefiting women and-- if they are feeling particularly gracious-- ones that are neutral to women. However, I've yet to meet someone who identifies a feminist support a men's issue where women stand to lose. At least not with massive strings attached, which basically entail the condition that the negatives for women no longer exist. (Example: "I'll only support LPS when women have all the support they need from the state.") So no, it rarely feels like a true concern.
Though lecturing me on lps without knowing my opinion, making assumptions on how women have it here, really just made me more certain of my previous statement.
That's not a fair characterization at all. All my comments were based on your own words about the subject from your previous post, so don't tell me that I don't know anything about your opinion on the subject. You even mentioned LPS by name.
I never said you did.
That's how you characterized one of my arguments. I'm not quite sure what the difference is.
I had so much trouble trying to pick points out of your response to me on the subject of moderation, so you're going to have to rework that one. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. The only thing I have to comment is that I've had this argument with about two other people who, while advocating for systemic changes in moderation, insisted that they were not advocating for systemic changes in moderation. This issue tends to get very confusing very quickly.
Do you really believe the sub is unbiased?
I said in that very statement that I concede that the user-base does have a bias, but I don't see that as an issue or necessarily an example of a power imbalance.
I am convinced of my previous statement that the mrm is highly male centered
The MRM is 100% male centered. That's different from being male biased, which what I dedicated a huge chunk of my previous post delineating the difference between. Did you not read it? Are you simply unwilling to respond to it?
is not a group that is kind to women's issues
I'm not "kind" to women's issues that rely on biased thinking in favor of women.