render unto caesar
render unto caesar
You seem doomed to misread me.Originally Posted by Bertrand
I am very upfront about my sexual needs and express myself in a brash, colorful and lewd way. I do flirt often, but this should not be mistaken for disloyalty. I do not bounce from woman to woman and believe that sex has little meaning outside of a relationship.
I will repeat a comment I made earlier in this thread, which is that a genuinely strong and independent woman looks after herself. I admire women who are decisive and I expect my partner to challenge and push me - both inside the bedroom and out of it. I am not a bully, cruel, mean to or scared of women in my life. If I meet a woman who is into the same things I am, I won't put obstacles in her way; I will welcome her. Aggressive, focused women generally like me. However they know as I do that a strong woman doesn't need or want a daddy to pamper her, that she won't abandon her boyfriend for showing some emotional vulnerability, and she doesn't expect society to subsidize her lifestyle choices. Feminists will regularly do all three. They are like spoilt, entitled children, shaming other people until they get what they want.
So what I hate about feminism is the way it teaches women that they're helpless victims. Feminists weave a simplistic narrative about inequality which absolves women of any responsibility for their personal problems, and therefore of any need to improve. Even worse, feminists have made young women irrationally afraid of the opposite sex. "Rape culture" and the "white male patriarchy" are bullshit concepts without any empirical evidence, but they're responsible for rising levels of anxiety and commitment phobia. They are also both (and this is something feminists try hard to suppress) directly derived from Marxist, communist, anti-American theories about group conflict.
I strongly suspect that you are projecting when you call me a slimeball, as well. After all, liberal men really seem to enjoy groping a nice pair of tits and ass once the cameras are off.
yes inasmuch as anything teaches anyone to be helpless I likewise hate it... its almost like its bad by definition... the question is whether that is an accurate characterization that you're leveling
your critique, in general, seems to be on the level of "negging" which is really just an empty cry for attention, not a serious attempt to engage an issue
you're sort of like the retarded ethical version of peteronfire
Listen to the rhetoric and analyze the language that feminist activists use. The crux of their argument is that men (as a group) are actively oppressing women (as a group). However, as soon as you start observing the way that individual men and women actually behave, it becomes clear that oppression is rare and certainly not systematic. Thus it is very irresponsible to send such a negative message to young girls about their male peers. Most men are not rapists, we're decent people and we have good hearts.
My generation has become extremely apprehensive about relationships, marriage and parenthood in particular because of all this propaganda, which is rife in the education system as well as the entertainment industry. It leads to a vicious circle, because as women become more defensive and less trusting, men get rejected more frequently and thus approach women less often, which means that fewer and fewer people will manage to create intimate bonds. This fuels our loneliness epidemic (which progressives pretend to be so concerned about) and prevents self-actualization.
In short, feminism sows mistrust between men and women, and if you understood the ideological framework of modern feminism as I do, you would realize that this is not an accident.
Riiiiight.....
I feel like you do a pretty good job of being unattractive all on your own; why go after feminism when you could just work on much easier targets..? this is like a conspiracy theory of not getting laid. jet fuel can't melt steel beams, etc
you mean like a 5 year old?if you understood the ideological framework of modern feminism as I do
lolThe crux of their argument is that men (as a group) are actively oppressing women (as a group). However, as soon as you start observing the way that individual men and women actually behave, it becomes clear that oppression is rare and certainly not systematic. Thus it is very irresponsible to send such a negative message to young girls about their male peers.
not sure I want to...you would realize...
but anyway, I agree feminism can be bad, just that your framework is ridiculously unsophisticated and obviously self promoting, in any case
so to try to ride in on some indisputable nugget of truth and claim any sort of insight or altruism are what I see as false.. and people can generally detect that. I offer that that MO is the source of more trouble than feminism, so for your own sake consider that
Last edited by Bertrand; 10-24-2017 at 06:36 AM.
LSI-Se 836 Sp/Sx
Your feelings are not important to me. I do hope you realize that
As for why I have gone "after feminism", well, it's quite simple really. This thread happens to be about feminism.
Ah, more personal attacks...
Contrived outrage...
Ideological rigidity....
...and self-righteousness. Do you seriously think that you know what is best for me more than I do? At least make an effort to stay on topic.
There is an implied agreement in the social contract which allows the state to reliably tax its citizens: whatever money we take from you in taxes, we won't spend it in a way that undermines you, unless this is necessary for the vital functions of government.
Yes because in today's world, a military is necessary to maintain a stable society and to destroy our enemies. Funding for defense is in no way equivalent to funding birth control and abortions, which are essentially lifestyle choices.Do you think military defense should be publically funded?
I see. So when it comes to funding reproductive healthcare for women, "freedom of religion" is suddenly "violated" when the public is required to foot the bill.
But when it comes to national defense and "destroying your enemies", no problemo. Never mind the numerous religions that practice pacifism and their adherents who are required to pay taxes to governments who wage offensive wars.
Not only have you contradicted yourself, but you also hold a double standard for specific issues. Interesting... Typical, but interesting...
Last edited by Desert Financial; 10-24-2017 at 08:57 AM.
This discussion has gone a long way from where it originally was, but do you seriously believe that birth control pills are as necessary to the survival of a nation as a functional military? Thousands of years of history would suggest that this is not the case. You have created a false equivalence by comparing a essential function of government to a discretionary one.
We don't live in countries with "peaceful religions", either. Again that musing is not very relevant to our discussion.
You seem to treat every individual issue equally, whereas I prioritize to save time, and this is what you seem to consider "double standards".Not only have you contradicted yourself, but you also hold a double standard for specific issues. Interesting... Typical, but interesting...
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 10-24-2017 at 09:21 AM.
See above.[/QUOTE]This discussion has gone a long way from where it originally was, but do you seriously believe that birth control pills are as necessary to the survival of a nation as a functional military? W suggest that this is the case. You have created a false equivalence.
You seem unaware of the difference between essential and discretionary spending.
Not only have you contradicted yourself, but you also hold a double standard for specific issues. Interesting... Typical, but interesting...
You just invoke this "freedom of religion" crap when it's convenient for you. Lol.
Of course I do. So what's your point?
Do you feel the same way about police and prisons?
Its not about rights. Im very unwilling to live in a society without order so I am fine with appropriating a portion of other people’s resources in order to do that. Abortions are an order of magnitude less important but the principle applies. Who cares if its theft? Property ownership derives ultimately from theft. We assert a claim to ownership and power that’s backed by force - thats the very nature of politics.
CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM
strong Ti polr (maybe Ni?) vibe coming from Cuivienen
lol, so if there was a post about how black people are inferior would you be obliged to post in support of the idea (if you post at all)..? something being topical doesn't make it free from being right or wrong, or immune from criticism either way. does your mind really work this way? that is a huge non sequitur, kind of like most your posting... it feels like you say stuff just to "keep up" without there being any actual connection between the words and the issues or any sort of underlying coherent pictureAs for why I have gone "after feminism", well, it's quite simple really. This thread happens to be about feminism.
b-b-but muh feels, muh projection... I don't think you understand what those words mean or how they do or do not apply sometimes. anyway, understanding the above, I can see why maybe you generally spend most your time talking about your balls and what you find attractive, and I'm less apt to criticize that approach now
additionally, the country in which Cuivienen lives does not have any enshrined constitutional "rights"... rights are just things that people assert. If you assert you have a right to religion or whatever I can also assert that you don't. The only thing that matters is which person is going to win.
CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM
Your approach is unprincipled and your belief system is inconsistent.
Well, after reading this thread, it is clear why bertrand typed me as being similar, if not the same type, as Cuivienen. Our views are remarkably similar. It is good to see someone else around here who accurately sees modern day third wave feminism for what it is.
It is also interesting - and no surprise - to see Delta NFs primarily as feminism's guardians either. The stereotype of NF Beta SJWs/feminists never made much sense to begin with. Subjective, personal value judgments plus ungrounded, unrealistic imaginatory intuition and garbage extroverted sensation seems to be the recipe for a modern day feminist. The entire concept of "toxic masculinity" seems to be rooted in Se PoLR, as does... well, shit like this:
https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013...lways-rape-ok/
And let's not let silly logic, reason or facts get in the way of our personal feels. Modern day science is evil:
https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/09...s-constructed/
Perhaps if we just fought the patriarchy a bit more and threw off the shackles of those power-hungry "Bourgeois"... oh I'm sorry, "evil white cis scum men" then the world could live in perpetual peace and harmony forever. Don't forget to identify as a new, made-up gender too. Gotta love that Ne creative function in action.
I've said it before I'll say it again
kill all men
Start with yourself then, bro. lolI've said it before I'll say it again
kill all men
@Capitalist Pig as you have learned now, since I am a feminist, I think you are white male straight cisgender scum. Sorry, man....I did not mean for you to find out this way...<3
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
A good video depicting modern day feminism's assault on marriage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRYzl6o0xks
because I came up with the idea I get to live
Can we even argue that male feminists are "men"? Sure, they claim to be born male but - and especially in their system - that would not make them "men."
Men = gender
Male = sex
So your original statement was not entirely facetious after all.
i think we could argue that male feminists are men
We could argue many things that are largely untrue.
ngbbs4f8a519390a8f.jpg
yeah, because slacktivists like "Sargon of Akkad" are totally at the apex of fuckability..
the "you're gonna be stuck with cats" thing just reeks of projected insecurity over the fact that cats are preferable to some men.
I think the point is, you (not you, but "them") will wind up alone and having to rely on animals for companionship vs a real life husband because you (they, whatever) cannot procure the type of man you(they) would hope for.
This holds true for anyone not willing to settle. It's just funny coming from men who insist that emotional and domestic work should be delegated to women because a cat is obviously less of a pain in the ass than a demanding and incompetent husband.
When women aren't financially and socially forced into marriage, there's just less reason for them to do it. I think men being freaked out by this leads to the projection about how feminists are gonna die alone. Maybe they'll still die happier.
No one is insisting upon anything. Everyone is free to do as he or she wishes. Just know that actions and choices carry consequences; some good, some not.
Yes, and without stable marriages as the building block for society, you have nothing. Just a big brother state that steps in and plays the role of the daddy/husband in the long run. You really think that works out better for men and women as a whole?
Most feminists WILL end up dying alone (i.e. without a partner I mean, as pretty well everyone dies alone). Most men will not be falling all over themselves to marry a 45 year old cranky overweight woman with an okay career, dried up eggs and nothing else of value to bring to the table. These women believe they are entitled to the rich, sexy, handsome, alpha male like Christian Grey (who also does all the housework, watches romcoms with her and is kind, sensitive, funny, charming, intelligent, strong and a whole host of other semi-contradictory traits) when they have little if anything to offer in exchange. And let's face it - relationships ARE an exchange. You don't go trying to shop for a Ferrari when you've got 1000 bucks to your name. It's absurdly unrealistic and this notion that ANYONE can have their cake and eat it too, is ridiculous. The feminists simply have not fully realized this yet... but they will, in time.
In the meantime, let's just enjoy the entertainment:
https://www.vogue.com/article/women-...elves-sologamy
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3...enough-men-253
https://mic.com/articles/125191/the-...gle#.bJfoW5KwS
Last edited by Retsu77; 11-07-2017 at 10:57 PM.
There is an evolutionary mechanism underlying this... Evolutionarily speaking men and women have different reproductive priorities - women are more interested in securing a stable flow of resources to provide for children. That directly ensures her survival reproductive success. Men are much more interested in ensuring marital fidelity - it ensures the children they are taking care belong to them, leading to their survival reproductive success. Research shows that women respond more adversely to a partners emotional infidelity than men do, while men respond more strongly to physical infidelity... thus the evolutionary mechanism is validated by evidence.
So what you are calling "the patriarchy" and "the system" is actually just a biological gender difference with a known evolutionary basis.
That isn't saying infidelity is acceptable, either. Men and women just think about it differently when it does happen and are effected differently. They engage in it differently, too.
This nebulous "patriarchy" you talk about is a simplistic, ignorant, crowd pleasing notion. It's not even clear how you define the term. Or what you aim to accomplish. You aren't going to undo the underlying biology.
If you were simply against infidelity that would be great, I would actually support you, but this nonsense concept of a patriarchy with attempts to tear down the foundations of society is where you go astray.
It is irrational, spiteful and aimless thinking which is the main reason most people are against feminism these days.
Women who make themselves into these obsessive fuck toys do it for control over men and control over the larger group.... They do it willingly. They do not do it because some nebulous patriarchal figure told them to do it. It is an attempt to reduce men to controlled, pathetic, groveling pawns - it works by and large.
Furthermore, the men who cave into this automatically relinquish their power and status to the women... they become very weak, worthless slaves for the women. You cannot claim this is a top down patriarchal control mechanism, it is pathetic groveling at best. They also artificially inflate the status of the women. Just think about it - have you ever been in a room where the 1 attractive woman has 7 men all responding to her and ignoring everyone else? One woman has enslaved all those weak men. The woman gets lavished with attention and loyalty and services... for pretty much doing nothing. How is that top down patriarchal control? That's a single woman in control.
Women do this willingly for power, it isn't a patriarchy - the explanation falls apart upon the most basic analysis.
Well it's actually pretty pathetic to see these enslaved, groveling men. It isn't powerful. You definitely couldn't call it a "top down control"... the woman is in control. I find it embarrassing and humiliating actually.
If you really have a problem with it you should be just as angry with the woman playing these little games - she's just as responsible as the pathetic men who gave in and were fooled by it. Why do you blame it on some undefined patriarchy? It must be a projection of your rejections at the hand of men - you weren't that one woman - that's my best explanation. I don't want to be mean about that but it's obviously what it is. You shouldn't see the men who do this as powerful, anyway, they are slaves. Why don't you recognize the men who don't fall for that? You act like the men who are engaging in this are the highest status, and at the top of society, I don't see why.
At best they are at the top of a broken, corrupt social group that's so dysfunctional it can't maintain itself, it's not really a desirable thing. It's ironic but this kind of corrupt, unstable, lawless society is probably best described as 'anti patriarchy' - your argument should actually be for the reestablishment of a patriarchy, a return of proper order.
Exactly - how can you say it is patriarchal dominance? It just isn't. (and maybe I want to pay for it in some cases. There are selection mechanism for men to provide and women to nurse children.. we see it all throughout the animal kingdom.)
Last edited by rat200Turbo; 11-07-2017 at 11:34 PM.
I disagree about "no one," but maybe you have a reasonable stance about it.
Personally? I don't need anybody playing a daddy/husband role in my life. Why does the state need to take on the role of the husband? Why do we need to choose one or the other? What is the mechanism driving this necessity?Yes, and without stable marriages as the building block for society, you have nothing. Just a big brother state that steps in and plays the role of the daddy/husband in the long run. You really think that works out better for men and women as a whole?
This is a creative story, but in reality it seems that the world is full of cranky overweight 45 yr olds who are perfectly happy with other cranky overweight 45 yr olds, as well as people of both sexes who have unrealistic standards. Maybe there's an epidemic of entitled women, I mean I hear about it all the time on the internet. But I don't see it in reality.Most feminists WILL end up dying alone (i.e. without a partner I mean, as pretty well everyone dies alone). Most men will not be falling all over themselves to marry a 45 year old cranky overweight woman with an okay career, dried up eggs and nothing else of value to bring to the table. These women believe they are entitled to the rich, sexy, handsome, alpha male like Christian Grey (who also does all the housework, watches romcoms with her and is kind, sensitive, funny, charming, intelligent, strong and a whole host of other semi-contradictory traits) when they have little if anything to offer in exchange. And let's face it - relationships ARE an exchange. You don't go trying to shop for a Ferrari when you've got 1000 bucks to your name. It's absurdly unrealistic and this notion that ANYONE can have their cake and eat it too, is ridiculous. The feminists simply have not fully realized this yet... but they will, in time.
Here's another funny article:In the meantime, let's just enjoy the entertainment:
https://www.vogue.com/article/women-...elves-sologamy
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3...enough-men-253
http://www.businessinsider.com/socie...o-happy-2017-1
Are you a feminist...?
Except that they're not. Those women are settling for poor, unattractive, unassertive, undesirable males (if any) and those men are constantly thinking about banging the hot 18 year old babysitter. Hardly what I'd define as a "happy" relationship.This is a creative story, but in reality it seems that the world is full of cranky overweight 45 yr olds who are perfectly happy with other cranky overweight 45 yr olds, as well as people of both sexes who have unrealistic standards. Maybe there's an epidemic of entitled women, I mean I hear about it all the time in the internet. But I don't see it in reality.
It's strange how YOU don't see it, yet articles speak to this fact, as does common sense, reason and evidence. You seem to see what you want, rather than the actual state of things between men and women.
Here's a good one for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRYzl6o0xks
I'm sure you will agree with a fat, middle-aged unattractive lesbian, no doubt a bastion of knowledge when it comes to heterosexual marriages.
An even better video, however, is this short response by someone more intelligent than either of us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmnruJhF8B8
Yes, a society of isolated old women with no one to look after them sounds great. You have much to look forward to, madam.
You say that women want alpha males, but when they willingly choose men who make less money or are unassertive you say that they are settling for undesirables. Seems like confirmation bias.
I'm making dinner and don't have time to watch videos. I really like both Julie bindel and Jordan Peterson, though. (:
a lot of alt right flagbearers would like to claim Jordan Peterson but they really don't understand him at all
so just because someone says Jordan Peterson is on their side doesn't make it true
It is what it is. I'd say my conjecture is perfectly reasonable and makes sense.
If you liked JP, you would not be a feminist or decrying marriage. And to like Bindel seems pretty antithetical to anything he has to say. Unless you just like hearing various opinions in general.
JP is pretty far from the alt-right, I'd say. He's more what you'd call a classical liberal.
I hold some differing opinions from Peterson but I like being challenged in a respectful and intelligent way. It's like lifting weights w ur brains lol.
Fair enough. I tend to read and interact a lot with feminists and other related material myself. I don't want to be ignorant of their positions.
I dont want to get bogged down in an irrelevant debate, the issue is you trying to associate him with anti feminist messaging which is the child of the alt right. you can say he's a "classic liberal" (because he himself says this of himself) but it would take understanding what the means--liberty as the basis for political doctrine--and the germ of feminism itself, before you could even begin to fairly leverage that. this idea that its all congruent with anti feminism in supporting you over what lungs is saying is a shell game of political labeling.
lungs is making a point about how men want to attribute a fate to women that women should be motivated to avoid, but the truth is its a prediction loaded with values on the part of the speaker leveled at someone who doesn't share those values and thus it loses all its force. rather, it operates as psychological self disclosure as to the speaker not the actual doom for the accused it purports itself to be. if these fore-tellers of feminist doom had any shred of self awareness they would realize their own claim reflects back on them as being the rejected inferior alternative to a life of cats, and see that perhaps as cause for reflection. instead they assume women don't somehow get it and offer their own psychological interpretations of the feminist mindset, which are juvenile in comparison. for the woman, its as if they're being lectured by a child, which only deepens the lack of attraction and confirms their decision to not get involved with them.
this isn't about men v women per se, its about specific men who make specific claims and specific women who see it for what it is
Jordan Peterson really has nothing to do with it because he's arguing about issues wholly removed from individual men's unattractiveness; to bring him into it, you'd have to first be capable of understanding the aforementioned dynamic and rising above it, because Peterson's thinking is based on a certain level of base sophistication. which is precisely what a lot of the people would like to "use him" lack but without which their entire line of thinking is a swindle
in other words,
this is a complete misrepresentationIf you liked JP, you would not be a feminist or decrying marriage.
JP is all for women rejecting weak men. Its just that the stereotypical "alpha" image is one such potential weak man. Men elevate it in their mind and impose it as the standard on all women and none of that is real. When women point that out, men who double down on it seal their fate. To put it succinctly a "true" alpha male doesn't dictate reality to women, he demonstrates it and women decide for themselves (because they are people, fully entitled to choose for themselves). all this political maneuvering by men to corner women misses the point and proves their weakness, because its an attempt to coerce via words women into believing something manifestly false. a "real man" doesn't resort to these tactics--they presuppose failure--and the size of his muscles or paycheck has little to do with it. its a cloud of words some men confuse themselves over and try to impose on women then throw a fit when it doesnt work out. then they double down on their theory, which is MGTOW, Redpill, PUA, and all this other shit.
JP has nothing to do with that, but you got people so far down the rabbit hole of self justification they grab at his words trying to parasitically attach some truth to their delusion. none of that is convincing to women and its precisely why when the choice is that or a cat, they choose the cat. JP is about sorting yourself out first, all this political sloganeering trying to impose things from the top down is the problem in the first place he'd say
sort yourself out. demonstrate the truth by your values and actions. let people decide for themselves. if they don't like it, improve or move on. it really has very little to do with feminism or even men v women. these are general principles for life. threats amount to: threatening the other person with a good time, if it means you won't be there and that's all you're good for
Last edited by Bertrand; 11-08-2017 at 12:32 AM.
Posting Permissions
