I am pretty sure that you still can get a monthly/yearly ticket for your local area. These are usually between 50-100 € in Germany. In Vienna you pay 1 € per day, so around 350 € for a year.
The idea here is that you have one ticket that can be used everywhere in the country, so you probably would only get it if you travel more than a local commute on a regular base.
I am currently reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy [1] where vulcanos and melting ice play some role in survival on mars. And in general it's a great read.
I don't think that means he's against the dictionary definition of feminism. Much more likely he's against the contemporary feminist movement, which is a pretty common sentiment. Here's a good explanation: http://www.feminisnt.com/2009/biography-of-a-pornographic-po... There's a lot on that page but start here:
Why would you NOT want call yourself a feminist? Barring being a feminist, the only option left is that you must be a misogynist.
I don't call myself a suffragette, either, but that doesn't mean I am against women being allowed to vote. I consider myself very much anti-sexist and pro-equality, because sexism is still a problem in my society. However, oppressive attitudes based on gender and sexuality are frequently perpetuated by people who call themselves feminists, and anti-male sexism (perpetuated by feminists in particular) is on the rise.
Not necessarily, but it's a decent heuristic for spotting a confused point of view and argumentative tendencies, which suit an irrational voice so well. Also, it's a fine reason not to bother reading something. ... I hadn't noticed the self-description; but the sophomorically sloppy, self-important, ungramatical writing style made it dismissable enough for me.
No, but he sounds like a complete dickwad. What sort of sane person is against the notion that women should be equal? I doubt his understanding of feminism is much deeper than some garbage he read on an MRA site once, and thus it follows that he's likely to be wrong about a lot of other things due to having an axe to grind whilst simultaneously being an ignoramus.
I mean look at the description of his YouTube channel:
"What is equality? We in the men's rights movement believe in equality of opportunity, that as long as the playing field is level then the outcomes should not matter. The feminists tend to believe that equality of outcome is what matters, that the columns under men and women must match for there to be no more sexism. So what really matters at the end of the day is what you are comparing. Rights or outcomes? This is the foundation of our debate."
So essentially his entire worldview is based on a complete strawman. Skills.
> What sort of sane person is against the notion that women should be equal?
What the hell does it even mean? Today "equal" is just a semantic stopsign [0]. His YouTube channel description at least attempts to explain how he understands the term 'equality'. You can agree or disagree with "equality of outcomes" vs. "equality of opportunity", but "men/women should be equal" is just plain meaningless.
> No, but he sounds like a complete dickwad.
Also, it's still an ad hominem. We should evaluate his arguments on their merits, not on his beliefs. Which we can do after we actually read them.
Well exactly, within feminism the issue of what equality is is a hotly debated thing, and even moreso is the way to achieve it. But I guess if he just wants to disregard that and keep hacking at the strawman it's his problem.
It's really irritating how feminists insist that anyone who disagrees with their very narrow and totally contradictory views of what it means for "women to be equal" is against equality for women.
Go away, troll. This does not contribute anything to the discussion at hand and only shows that you don't want to process information that may contradict your own idea of fairness.
I'm not sure that's fair. I think both the majority of MRAs and feminists are egalitarians. It's the vocal crazies that cause us to characterize entire groups. I've seen it from both sides.
In any case, as yummyfajitas points out it's an ad-hominem argument. We should discuss the argument itself rather than the merits of the man making them.
The better MRAs are more even-handed and rational than any feminists I've come across, and screw women over less too in some important regards. For instance, they actually consider female-perpetrated rape and abuse against other women to be just as wrong as any other form of rape or abuse, which is something feminists fairly consistently fail at.
I've even seen a major feminist blogger take her own experiences of abuse, conclude from them that all such abuse is caused by the abuser being male, then tell another woman who'd been abused in the same way by her mother that it was "irrational" for her to be upset by this and that she was "erasing" the blogger's own "lived experiences" by complaining about said blogger's conclusions, and bemoan how she'd been lead astray by the evil MRA community into thinking that her experiences actually mattered.
The idea here is that you have one ticket that can be used everywhere in the country, so you probably would only get it if you travel more than a local commute on a regular base.