Cool? I'd say they're rather frigid. Don't sell yourself short!Originally Posted by woofwoofl
Cool? I'd say they're rather frigid. Don't sell yourself short!
OKAY, but LBR, how many bro dudes appreciate a woman like you just described?
Hard times don't really create feminine women though. You can't be a 50s housewife if you're getting attacked by a bear. Having a Real Man™ is a luxury, and a luxury is a wuss in a man suit.
Also, hard times are the good times. Everyone always goes out to ruin the easy times because they're boring.
k bro
Sabrina: The Animated Series (S1,E3) had an Episode where Sabrina casted a spell that made Norma, the uncool and bullied nerd, the new norm. The new cool. Everyone at school wanted to be like her. At first they included Norma in social activities until the Norma Ideology got out of hand. People constructed their own ideal image of “Norma”. In the end not even Norma was Norma enough.
The students chanted “You’re no a real Norma!” - or something like that. Which is the same as
“You’re no a real Feminist!”
“You’re no a real Christian!”
“You’re no a real Star Wars Fan!”
(...nobody hates Star Wars more than Star Wars Fans)
When Twilight was released it was cool to hate on the main character bella (and the Author) because she didn’t align with the now over the top ideology of a strong independent woman. Stephanie Meyer got abnormally amount of hate for a wrote a book in the wrong Era.
Eventually it became cool to be the opposite. “I don’t need feminism.” Is the new lign that people have to say to fit in. Women need to make fun of it; The ideology and especially the Feminists. Because when you use gross images of a minority you are able to discredit all people who sympathise with the movement. You dehumanise and distance yourself from them to save yourself from the image that die-hard feminists have created.
It’s nothing special. Some people start taking things to seriously and the result is Extremism. I think that’s normal and just the way things go. I guess you can’t find yourself in a healthy middle (that actually includes both sexes) without seeing both ends of the extreme.
Both extremes are pathetic though.
The worst people are those who subscribe to either extreme of the spectrum and think they are original/ sane/ rational by doing so.
As if there are only two sides. I mean come on
Just my thoughts. I’m not ranting against anyone specific. Neither on the forum or media. This topic is sooo old and people just can’t stop talking about it. They always seek the rational truth to it when in reality seeking something absolute like that is a waste of time. Social issues are not like math where we no with no doubt that 1 + 1 = 2. And Individuals who think they’ve got the ultimate answer by joining any ideology without adding any own thoughts and reason scare me.
I freakin loved twilight from the get go
Unbelievable. Me when I read too much freakin nonsense.
Last edited by Hope; 04-24-2018 at 02:05 AM.
And how supposedly someone is going to ask a non existent being if s/he wants to exist?
not only that but since no one gets a choice its strange to suggest someone is entitled to one, its like saying no one asked me about gravity. not only is it literally impossible its not even unfair
yeah but that's more about the circumstances and not consent to be born in general. what you really seem to be saying is people should be able to turn down being born into difficulty
what?
If an impoverished fourteen-year-old got pregnant and decided to keep it in the early term, assuming it's by no volition of her own, would you say that's a kind choice for the life of the infant she produces? Could that not be considered selfish under any circumstances?
So, you are basically saying that poor babies has no right to exist based in yours or others appreciation of their condition. So rich babies do have the right just because they had better luck. Oh.
Anyway, no mood for starting a debate, just pointed out how ppl who supports feminism (even if they dont know that their thoughts are what feminists fight for) falls into wrong and circular reasoning.
flies are natural humans are natural nature doesnt give a shit and if she did she has the power to do something about it. if you posit humans are somehow qualitatively different it also confers them with special rights, otherwise we're like any other overgrown weed or rabbit that has a right to exist until some predator comes along and takes care of us. extinctions are normal and if humans are that bad you should trust nature to survive and if not doesn't it imply humans are somehow greater than nature. this is a problem that takes care of itself. i feel like you're just mad cause life is hard. fair enough, me too. but I don't think this is the right line of thinking to solve that particular problem
I think that's just Malthusian pessimism. It's the belief that things will stay the same as now, and this trend will continue onto the future with no progress. And so of course that problems will remain unsolved.
There was an argument from a few scientists that color CRT TVs were pointless, because it required "europium", one of the rarest elements on Earth, to make the red phosphors on the screen. And there was only enough europium on the planet to make a few hundred million color TVs, and there would be no more, we would be back to monochrome TVs. And so there was the fear that this would create a new class divide, where the rich are wasting the precious elements just so they could view the TV in color. And who really needs color TVs? Monochromes are doing just fine, and we don't need the colors to enjoy them.
Well we know how that ended, we no longer depend on CRT displays, we now use LCD screens that don't even use europium. And the LCD screens these days are so cheap that practically anyone can have them. This is because people believed that they could solve problems, and so they did.
This is not say, that the problems would be magically solved in time, as that would simply be naive. But to go to the opposite extreme of being resigned to pessimism and think that nothing would be solved is simply just as irresponsible.
And anyway, in most of the developed countries, the population is decreasing, so they want to increase the population. The population stabilizes as the economy develops.
About children:
Nobody chooses to be born. We arrive in the world vulnerable, bloodied; thoroughly imperfect. I know this is obvious, but I mention it to make a point. However unpleasant your state of life may be, ask yourself: would you take your own life? Most of us have thought about it, yet here we are. That very fact proves that there is hope for the future. And if so, then you are a hypocrite to deny the unborn that same chance you've received - to be born despite your flaws, to feel pain and agony, to and suffer greatly; but also to rise above it.
"Many people who live deserve to die, yet many people who die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"
All too often, I see people on this forum assuming that they know what's best for others. Even though very few of you are true geniuses, many of you act like you have done something, or (worse still) merely are something so extraordinary that everyone around you should abandon their own reason and listen to you. Shove a dildo up your arses and learn some humility.
This is exactly my point. We don't have the right to decide who lives and who dies, and dehumanize them, strip them of all basic rights and threat them as less than garbage. We can't decide for others, and yes, its hypocrite to say or decide that others should not live because the earth can't handle it, while at the same time we still living. Is like vegans who eat meat. But ofc, we don't see feminists fighting for the right of taking their own lives, because that will be insane, inhumane and misogynist.
I'm not encouraging suicide either or saying that they should die. Just applying some reasoning to demonstrate how absurd are those postures and how this ideologies are not far from nazism.
A bunch of others solutions and policies should be applied before start thinking in killing babies to solve overpopulation problems. And the main problem of the world is not the number of humans living in the earth, is an environmental problem, especially contamination, originated in consumerism, the promotion of unnatural and unsustainable lifestyles and the greed of a minority who encourage it because is profitable. There is also being promoted an over sexualization of population (instead of raise awareness about the responsibility that sexual life entails), especially youth, so its absurd to flood kids with sexual content then limit the procreation. But sex sells and makes population more submissive, so its profitable, lets instead encourage and assist ppl to kill their babies and then get more money from it in the process.
Last edited by Hope; 04-24-2018 at 05:55 PM.
Hope in reality is the greatest evil, for it prolongs the torment of man.
Feminism in good ways are okay. But extreme feminists are SJWs who thinks they're contributing into something better but they only make things worst by their radical opinions. And they don't listen to anyone opinions and just bash everyone and just push their own opinion to the point that they will rise some war or whatever the fuck they're trying to prove which afterall does not make any sense.
What is feminism? How do you determine a "good" or a "bad" feminist, and how do they overlap with SJWs? Are the two one and the same? A feminist is now anyone who claims to be a feminist, so nobody knows where feminism begins and ends. You cannot just say feminism means "equality between men and women", unless you are also prepared to also explain what you mean by equality. More savvy feminists realise the movement has to stay nebulous to survive, because equality between the sexes would be such an undesirable outcome for both if taken to its logical conclusion. After all, you cannot make any two objects equal in value unless you remove the qualities that make them different, yet most women are not sexually attracted to androgynous, effeminate men.
Therefore, feminists will always resist attempts to categorise and structure their movement like a political ideology. Your average feminist projects her resentment for past grievances (usually paternal abuse and/or sexual rejection) onto men as a whole. Feminism is a means of security for these women, it allows them to outsource blame and not reflect on the uncomfortable truths of life.
if feminism is anyone who claims to be a feminist two people with totally contradictory beliefs and actions could both be feminists, in that case feminism loses all meaning as a label because it tells you nothing about the person
Yes Bert. You can be a 200 pound slut who gets gang banged by Mexicans, or a virginal, prudish waif who thinks all men are scary...
Both may identify as feminists. So what's a man to do?
sorry can you reformulate the question
I was being facetious, but my question is incomprehensible for a reason. If anyone can identify as whatever they want, we lose our ability to understand the world around us. Distinctions are necessary to confer meaning.
If two people who behave in opposed ways claim to be acting they way they do due to the same idea (feminism), clearly, no more than one of them can be correct in their interpretation. Feminists have run away from this quandary by declaring all perspectives equally valid. They give a subjective emotional response the same value as things we can observe, measure and disprove.
Am I really white? Am I really 190 lbs? And am I really lying in bed stinking of second hand smoke? lol
I guess in a way its not actually feminism I am critiquing here, but the notion that there's no way we can prove an idea to be true or false, that all possibilities are equally likely, and therefore that all objects are equally valuable. Right vs wrong therefore becomes a matter of opinion, and this will disadvantage those whose opinions are unpopular. The belief that status justifies the means seems to be very pervasive among the left today.
if feminism claims all perspectives are valid it still makes one identifiable claim, therefore a feminist is not anyone who claims to be a feminist, rather its someone who, by your definition, claims all perspectives are valid, and adheres to it
Sure but that very claim sabotages any meaning inherent in being a feminist.
Why identify as anything at all, if that identity is equal in value to all other identities?
how does it sabotage the meaning in being a feminist
For the 150,000th time: It's equality under businesses and the government and institutions with a lot of power; not "equality" in all areas in a general and vague campy way. It is about not institutionally or federally discriminating against anybody based on who they are.
Obviously we are all born with our natural strengths. On average straight men are probably better at logical/technical skills, and gay men have better affective empathy and pwn the fashion industry- but straight ppl have better cognitive empathy, and straight women have the best compassion, and lesbians have a positive can-do attitude. Black men can play basketball better, and they are better in bed- asians are good at math.
It fucking does not matter. But we shouldn't treat other people poorly for who they are and genetic things they cannot change. SJWness is of course bad when it's too petty, but it's a very good thing when it's needed.
Feminism is like Socionics, you can say anything you want about it, and no one cares.
I care
Look at what feminists today consider to be society's most pressing problems. The gender pay gap. Mansplaining. Rape culture. Creepy nice guys. None of these have anything to do with equality in the legalistic sense.
Women are not being institutionally discriminated against, quite the opposite. There are government grants for women's studies, scholarships are set aside specifically for women, and many businesses have quotas for women right up to the CEO level. So I see no evidence to support your claims. Women are not an oppressed group. If anything, it's the opposite.
This is why equality is a such poor goal for society to pursue.
Be careful not to entrap yourself.
For all the rhetoric, you actually don't practice these principles on an individual level. I have not forgotten our shout box interactions over the last few days.
To the bolded - you can have equality under law without being the same. Only individuals can be protected by law, and the whole point of a fair system is that everyone is protected the same, and since men and women are both individuals, they should have the same protections and (potentially, if they break the law)suffer the same consequences. The question whether men and women are different biologically or simply environmentally is therefore irrelevant. Not that it is un-PC to bring up those differences, but once you start arguing that people should have different laws apply to them due to biological differences, that is no longer what forms the basis of law in Western society. It resembles ancient societies much more where law was fairly arbitrary.
I agree, though, with your more general argument, the non-bolded parts of your post: the term "feminism" is really nebulous as to what it means, there is no consensus as to what it is or what its tenets are. You cannot just say that it "just means equality between men and women", since there is no general agreement as to what that would look like. The only equality is under law.
But I do get where the user you quoted (idontgiveaf) is coming from since you have moderates who call themselves feminists then you have the crazy SJW types who call themsleves the same. So it's very confusing to know who's who by their label.
Last edited by Ave; 04-27-2018 at 04:20 PM.
I feel we are going around in circles here.
I think equity is desirable, and I support women in countries like India where they lack fair treatment before the law. My point is that contemporary feminists in the West don't see equity as their goal. If they did, most women (and men) would be feminists because, again, everyone wants to be treated fairly.
It is reasonable to wonder if feminists have another agenda, because their actions don't align with their stated beliefs. I believe their agenda is hostile because all the feminist "influencers" I've listened to (Youtubers, bloggers, Tweeters, academics) heavily borrow from Marxist concepts like critical theory - even if they don't really understand it - to justify their worldview.
Have you been following the #MeToo hysteria lately? @idontgiveaf would be considered a sexual predator, based on the way she talks about courtship and sex.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 04-27-2018 at 11:16 PM.
I actually agree the feminist movement has become really radical and I think it has a huge agenda. Feminists seem to be attacking each other increasingly. It sometimes feels more pro-hate and pro-accusation and pro-think-the-way-I-think and pro-censor-everything-you-say than being about equity. And anti-men sentiments have been increasingly bothering me.
I don't know, if things are focused more on anti-this and anti-that rather than pro-this and pro-that, it seems like a destructive movement rather than a constructive one.
There is just so much hate in this entire movement.
Good feminism: Frankenstein
Bad feminism: stuff you see in Tumblr posts about oh noes the patriarchies
Basically what @inumbra said about constructive vs. destructive ideologies. This is why basically no one identifies as a feminist, not because "people believe everyone is biologically different!" or whatever. Individual phenotypes are biologically different and that's why we don't just have arbitrary laws. It's like when you go on a roller coaster and you have "You must be this tall to ride" signs. You don't have one for women and one for men and one for blacks and one for Asians.
When did the feminists movement get so convoluted. I thought it was about letting woman have a chance at things, work, career, jobs, opportunities, education, membership, and not being excluded by those things just for the SOUL fact she has a vagina and tits.
Yikes having to fight the chimerical human mind on this. Yeah there are actual differences in merit and abilities and potential, but do people have to monkey scream when a female makes a grab at something beyond her lot in life.
I definitely don't identify as a feminist. I want equity for everyone, but that's not what the movement feels like. It says that's its aim, but how it feels is HATE HATE HATE. It's toxic. And it's polarizing. If you say you are not on board with it then you are a sexist and misogynist who "others" people, and that you could actually want equity for everyone doesn't matter because "you're either with us or against us." Everything is a binary. If anyone tries to make it not a binary, just wait for the backlash and the hate and vicious verbal attacks. That's how this all feels to me.
This feels like a dogma, like a religion, like being brainwashed.
I was doing wildfire training yesterday and there was this chick, super smart, obv Forestry educated, and she was given a Polanski for the first time (basically just a tool used to dig and cut in one, like a pick ax with two axes instead of pick) and she didnt want to swing it between her legs because it felt uncomfortable. I don;t know why she felt uncomfortable, but that is the way you do it, there is no other way. If you can;t swing this tool for 12 hours out of the day, then you have no business being there. I appreciate its hard, but so is a lot of things and you just need to push through whatever is uncomfortable to get it done. Girl or not girl, its all the same.
Feminism says she should be given a chance and not judge. Great. Fine. That's awesome and pretty enlightened way of thinking for the puritanical western psyche (removing the biological differences which Petterson is obssesed with). But its only half the story. The other half is that you actually have to participate just like everyone else and if that means you need to be strong and swing that ax correctly, then that is what you do. Girl or no, boy or no, its all the same work. Can you do it, or not?
Dude, this shit toxic, its getting worse and worse. You got to unplug from it. You are being brainwashed.
The main idea of feminism was to reduce the born rate and to push women to work outside of households.
So called sexism is just norms which supported the situation when women were normal housewifes and borned ~10 children. When half of those children were dead before 5 y.o., people lived ~40 years and there seemed more of resources per human - such born rate looked better.
And such was always until 100-200 last years.
Feminism is the opposite to what woman's nature and psychology is. It may be called as antifeminism. Such unnatural life should to make women lesser happy and lesser feminine. It's interesting what is the level of psyche disorders between women at now, compared to not so far past. It was physically harder life, but probably happier for them.
is there any actual proof of this claim that you know of? This one is a bit of a stretch for me.
Logical resume by the results and social conditions.
As the hypothetical proof could be documents somewhere. Mb in some closed political/financial clubs which can buy medias propaganda and government decisions.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
