Recently, I received notice from Quora about one of my answers on their site:
👉(Read Online eBook): Alimony and Maintenance under Hindu Law👈
We recently found some of your content (Vivek Deveshwar’s answer to Is the term Feminazi overrated?) that violates Quora’s Be Nice, Be Respectful policy (See What is Quora’s “Be Nice, Be Respectful” policy?).
Not only that, Quora has requested me to update one of my other answers so that it answers the question more directly.
Quora Moderation has flagged your answer to “Women Safety: If someone is threatening a person via calls and messages , what charges can be pressed against him/her (in India)?” as not complying with policy.
Your answer doesn’t answer the question
This answer should directly respond to the specific question asked.
Most likely, some feminazi has reported my first answer about the term feminazi to be offensive (truth can be offensive too!), and now Quora is going with a toothcomb over all my answers, so that I get the re-education and answer the questions without offending any feminist’s sensibilities, and the second moderation flag suggests that I answer the questions in a spoon-feeding sort of way rather than make people think. I am not going to change my answers to satisfy some feminist’s sensibilities or spoon-feed-me-only-please’s needs on quora, and instead I will focus on putting all content on my own sites, where anyway my posts get 15 times the number of views as on quora right now. Maybe quora’s internal policy is to devolve into a nice-and-good-feelings-only and spoon-feeding type of Q&A site, if it is not going that route already.
Most likely, my answer will be removed (and I had already put a disclaimer), so the time has come that I remove it from quora and place it here where censorship will be a lot harder to apply than a cursory reference to a website’s policy.
I am an egalitarian and support equal rights for men and women. I sympathise with some aspects of feminists as well as MRAs.
A Nazi is a person who advocated for racial purity, genocide and carried out such proceedings. Feminism hasn’t launched a holocast yet.
Read comment for clarification
My original answer to above question on quora is reproduced below:
Note: as author of this answer, I retain the right to reproduce it anytime on any other forum/my own website etc. If this is against quora policies, this answer can be removed. Anyway I have enough readership outside of quora.
Now to the question.
Even during first wave feminism (suffragette times), some feminists were holding placards: “Castrate men now”. See pic below:
In modern times, it has evolved to #KillAllMen hashtag on twitter etc.
But anyway, the question is: “how many people actually killed by feminists” unlike nazis, so why add the suffix ‘nazis’ to feminists?
Let’s consider possibilities.
Let’s say a female wants her male neighbour killed, then she can either kill him herself, get him killed through a paid killer, boyfriend etc; but the best means might be to ‘allow’ him to be sent to to a war where he is very likely to be killed, and of course in that case the blame will never lie on the female for having killed that man. This scenario may not seem convincing on an individual basis, but on a societal and statistical basis, this argument has merits.
More real possibilities:
- Get the vote, but avoid the draft. Let men die in 2 world wars (and many other ‘minor’ wars), and continue to vote for such laws to continue where men get the ‘privilege’ to die while protecting everyone else. Keep crying about oppression, male privilege etc all the while though.
- Life expectancy gap (men living lesser number of years than women) has increased since just about the time first wave of feminism started
Source for above: http://slideplayer.com/slide/746…
Could feminism driven policies be the hidden reason behind rising gap between female and male lifespans?
Can men dying earlier be treated the same as killing them?
If a normal, healthy man gets murdered at the age of 35, it may be said his life was shortened by a cruel murderer. He would have lived probably till 50, 55, 75; but he got to live only till 35 due to the actions of this cruel murderer.
Now if the same logic of shortening of life is taken to men dying 7 years earlier than women (e.g. in US), then couldn’t it be said that so many men are being ‘killed’ before their time of death was due. If 7 years gap doesn’t seem too big a number, try increasing it to 10, 15; and the logic will become very apparent.
Now, taking the argument of life being shortened a bit further, into a most debated topic of abortions; it can safely be said that feminists are vociferous supporters of full ‘choice’ to women on whether to let an embryo live or be aborted. They apply the logic that the embryo is like a lump of tissue, nothing more, and so it’s the woman’s complete right on her own body to get rid of it anytime she wants to.
But will the same lump of tissue logic be applied by a criminal court judge when deciding on murder of a pregnant woman vs murder of a non-pregnant woman? Most likely not, society will scream murder if a judge gave same punishment for murder of a pregnant woman vs murder of a non-pregnant woman. The feminists will put their own spin on it, but in the end their arguments are always suited to whatever increases their OWN power (not even women in general), rather than coming to a sane conclusion which can benefit whole society.
If we include all above: deaths of men in war/workplace, lower lifetime of men inspite of rising living standards, abortions (of either gender); then it can be safely said that many tens of millions would have died due to effects of feminism. But it’s like the saying: “The death of a child is a tragedy, death of millions is a statistic”. Men are anyway disposable part of the species, both evolutionary speaking as well as in all cultures, so their dying etc doesn’t usually create much psychological trouble for either gender.