1. I'm kind of unclear on why you quoted me the way you did. I didn't actually say that most feminism has a tenuous grasp on reality, I said exactly what you later quoted me as saying ("often (not always!)"). Yeah, it introduces antagonism, but it isn't, in my view, unwarranted. It's hard to have an argument without some antagonism.

2. If you really want to take that path, then yes, there's systemic something at play by virtue of the fact that the male-female distribution isn't always uniform across human activities. Is it marginalization? That isn't a given. You take it as a given.

e.g. 99.9% of women can have babies, 100% of men cannot. Is that marginalization? Or just systemic? 76% of US public school teachers are female. Is that marginalization, or just systemic? About 20% of congress/senate are female, 80% are male. Marginalization? Or just systemic? 92.2% of Federal inmates in the US are male, 7.8% are female. Put another way: one out of every eighteen men in America is locked up in a Federal pen. Is that marginalization? Or just systemic? [1][2][3]

Once again, my gripe is mainly with the type of feminism I originally, way back responded to. The kind that says we can't have men's groups because "every other group is a men's group".

And again again again, I don't have a problem with fighting female marginalization where it occurs. I have a problem with groups who say we should fight female marginalization and ignore men entirely because men aren't marginalized. That's bullshit, and needs to be fought vocally and persistently wherever it is encountered. Men need advocacy too, and groups who say otherwise are, frankly, an enemy to justice as far as I'm concerned.

3. Point taken.

4. Great, but I'm not advocating anyone to take some predefined MRA position and set it in opposition to feminism. I absolutely agree that often (not always!) MRA groups are victims of the exact same ideology-induced blindness that I'm complaining about in some feminisms.

Why I linked those articles is because they lay out events that objectively did occur where feminist groups or institutions actively tried blocking men from discussing men's issues. The men's groups that applied for funding at UoT and Ryerson had nothing to do with these controversial positions you're talking about. The instigators of the men's group at Ryerson included two women.

About the posters. If you're referring to the "just because you regret a one-night stand doesn't mean it wasn't consensual" one, I don't see how that's slut-shaming. It's turning a City of Calgary/Battered Women's Support Services campaign's own logic around. Their posters said stuff like "just because she's drinking doesn't mean she wants sex". If the men's rights poster implies that women are sluts, then the City's poster implies that men are rapists. That's the point. The drinking poster implies that all men are potential rapists; the one-night stand poster implies that all women are potential liars. Heads, meet tails.

Nobody wants to think about that one logically, though. People just want to react.

5. Yeah, and really I'm just pointing that out.

6. Point taken.

7. Well, if people want to react to what I'm saying that's fine. I'm equipped to handle that. I'm obviously not making these posts to have people not engage me in argument. It's having the argument that is important, imo.

I don't really understand what kind of warning bells "men need advocates too" claims would set off, and forgive me if after reading your posts I don't see what in your posts should have illuminated that for me. I still fervently believe that men do need advocates

[1] - http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...

[3] - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30261.pdf