[quote=thinkertron2000]
"Dick" does not equal to any of those words, largely because men aren't as as maligned as women are, and "bitch" as an insult for men is still sexist against women. When you call a man a "bitch", what you means is that he's like a woman, submissive and incompetent.[/quote]

Not really. Bitch has in common use become far closer to the usage seen when saying someone is bitching about something, so when most people use it they're talking about someone being a whiny little shit, not about them being like a woman in any way positive or negative. You could have made a better argument in this vein for the word cunt, but even that has surpassed its roots into being something else entirely.

[quote]hahahahaHAHAHAH! I love guys like this, people who've never actually spoken to a feminist, nor read any feminist articles. You're adorable. Look, one of the biggest tenants of feminism is getting rid of gender rolls, and a patriarchal* society, both of which certainly hurt women, but they hurt men as well. It's because of gender rolls that women get the children in divorces more often (well, that and a higher amount of male abusers than female), it's because of a patriarchal society that male victim rape is so often ignored (also the same reason that female victim rape is ignored).[/quote]

Nice false assumptions and ad hominems there, they really make me want to take you seriously and respond in a rational manner.

Nonsense aside, I've spoken to many feminists (both of the kind I spoke of in my previous post and the kind you're speaking of), and I've read all sorts of feminist articles and books over the years. If you go look back at my previous post you'll notice I phrased things very particularly, because I was and still am well aware that somewhere in the ballpark of 40-60% of feminists do not fit into the categories I mentioned. It's a very wide range, with no solid figures and only anecdotal evidence to support it, and it could even be far higher than 60% of them that are actually interested in equality rather than pro-women or anti-men things, but in my experience roughly half of self-identifying feminists are of those negative types so my range with a large margin for error rests right on the mid point. With this in mind I said I'm more focused on equality than "many (maybe most) of those who identify themselves as feminists, particularly the activist types." Notice the vagueness at the beginning because of my own lack of sure knowledge as to what portion of self-identifying feminists aren't really after equality. Also notice the clarification about activists, those who go out of their way to talk about feminism whenever possible, as those are the ones who most often (in my experience, at least) seem to be aiming for female dominance rather than a removal of gender roles.

I am perfectly aware of what reasonable and rational feminism is. Total eradication of gender roles is a logical approach to gender equality, and although I don't think it will ever be completely successful due to human nature, it's a fine goal and I'm cool with people pursuing it. However, not all of those who call themselves feminists are actually aware that this is what feminism started out as, just in the same way that most Christians don't actually know all of what the Bible says and for the same reason: they agree with the general stuff and don't bother to read things about it to learn further. Lots of those types are fine too, as they just have a vague notion of feminism = gender equality and that sounds like a good idea to them, so hooray they're a feminist. But there are others of that same lot who get those bad ideas (female superiority, anti-men stuff, etc.) and call themselves feminists as well. Feminism started off as a great social movement that was all about equality, working from the female side because they very obviously had it worse (which is still very true from a world-wide perspective, kind of up for debate in most first world nations), and it was all good times for a while. It has been infiltrated and corrupted by some very negative influences since then, and those influences and the people who follow them are the ones I'm talking about when I say I'm more focused on equality than a large segment of self-identifying feminists; on a related note, these corrupting influences in modern feminism are why I refuse to label myself as a feminist, because I refuse to be associated with those harmful negative parts. I refer to them as self-identifying feminists because I really don't see them as feminists, because pure feminism as it started (and as many still follow, thankfully) is indeed about seeking equality. I've got zero problems with those kinds of feminists, because they've got the same goals in mind as I do. My point is, simply put, that not everyone who calls themselves a feminist actually [i]is[/i] a feminist. To bring it back around to the original thread topic, you could say those are fake feminists, but rather than trying to fit in with a subculture they are attempting to co-opt a well meaning group for their own harmful purposes.

[quote]Do you want to know why feminists rarely talk about male problems? BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY FEWER OF THEM THAN FEMALE PROBLEMS. It's not that hard you guys.
[/quote]

Well, I would actually say feminists rarely talk about male problems because when talking about social inequality they tend to view everything from a female perspective, which would naturally make them focus on female problems. As for the number, well, that kind of depends on where you're talking about. If you're going for a world view, absolutely, no question about it, there are far more instances of discrimination against females than there are instances of discrimination against males. If you focus instead on a particular country, let's say the United States, ehhhhh, "many fewer" is probably an overstatement there. I would agree that women still have it worse than men in the US, but not by some massive margin like you see in a lot of other countries (particularly in areas like Africa and the Middle East). It's still a clear gap thanks to things like income inequality where women are paid less than a man doing the exact same job in some fields and the assault on female bodily autonomy that is the "pro-life" movement, but I wouldn't say it's a large enough difference to make male problems irrelevant. That in and of itself is actually a sexist stance, but it's pretty understandable to wave away male problems in regions of the world where women have acid thrown in their face for not dressing a certain way, for instance. The United States and other first world nations are nowhere near that bad, so dismissing male problems just because females have it worse to some degree really isn't helping the pursuit of equality.

[quote=thinkertron2000]
you're severely undereducated about the world (also about feminism, literally nobody talks like that dude)
[/quote]

You seem to resort to ad hominem attacks frequently. You should probably work on fixing that, as it isn't in any way conducive to a reasonable discussion.