“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I can't imagine a man saying "I'm going to rape you" to a woman in a typical conversation without it being an obvious joke.Originally Posted by totalize
Yeah it sounds very odd in isolation, but a lot would depend on the surrounding context and vibes in general.
Yeah and thank god most women arent stupid little snowflakes like you. Muh problems, must be opposite sexes fault. Jesus christ get a grip.
But my viewpoints are so boring. I would rather watch paint dry than talk about my values, let alone a cacophony of tedious uninteresting trivial shit all day. Who on earth wants to hear someone harp on about what they believe like a preacher.
Ah, I think shamelessly hitting on you will be far more entertaining, for both of us. So will it be beer, or wine?
Well, you're doing a poor job of clarifying that "joke" with all the degrading remarks you've made toward Kim and a few select others, mate.
It's interesting how the men most vehemently opposed to feminism tend to be the men who display the least respect toward women, which invalidates their argument insofar that it makes their accusations of perceived injustice seem like a blatant form of projection rather than a well thought-out critique worthy of taking into consideration. So, where in this post can you outline constructive critiques which aren't based around statistical drivel and blanket statements driven purely by personal indignation at perceived mistreatment at the hands of a movement aimed to liberate, not hinder, humanity?Most feminists already live in a country where men and women are equal before the law, so I do not believe for a moment that feminists desire equal rights. Why would you, when you already have them.
Why do you think so many feminists have become hostile to biology, if they don't consider the existence of sex differences to be a problem?
Why do you think so many feminists have become hostile to motherhood, if they don't consider the existence of families to be a problem?
I stand by my earlier definition of feminism. It is Marxist conflict theory applied to gender issues. The purpose of conflict theory is very simple; to sow division and mistrust in Western society.
If you want another reason to dislike feminists, look at the way they view the inequalities in society that negatively affect men. Here are some examples: men account for over 70% of suicide victims, and over 90% of workplace deaths in the U.S.. We also have a significantly lower life expectancy than women. Unlike the "gender pay gap", which is entirely due to different lifestyle choices between men and women, these inequalities are real, and they kill.
You only think most feminists live in a country where men and women are equal before the law because feminists that don't live in a country where men and women are equal before the law lack the necessary rights and/or resources to make their desire for equality publicly known, lest they be imprisoned or killed for operating against the law. You don't think pre-teen girls that are prostituted to old, abusive men in the Middle East desire equal rights, too?
You have a specific idea in mind of what a "feminist" is. You only acknowledge feminists that adhere to your personally contrived criteria - such as obnoxious misandrists - so feminists that don't adhere to your personally contrived criteria are caught in your blindside. You don't acknowledge them as feminists. Your arguments against feminism are targeted toward very specific demographic that doesn't resonate with the feminists of this forum.
In fact, most of your arguments against feminism don't even directly address feminism. "Men vs. Women - whose suffering is worse... in the West?"
This assumes that all feminists use twitter. #NotAllFeministsWhat do feminists have to say? #IBatheInMaleTears. #SmashThePatriarchy. #IHateWhiteMen.
*beep* Try again.I rest my case.
This would be a lot easier to take seriously if you didn't just agree with Cuivienen's stance against feminism which finds its roots in this exact mentality.
Last edited by wasp; 09-15-2017 at 06:54 PM.
I'm going to chime in on this issue after not delving into my full opinion previously. I think equality between men and women is a very complex issue and should not be oversimplified. The modern age has taken great strides towards equality for improving the rights and privileges of women to the point where it is almost "equal" more or less. I think a good way to put this is asymmetrical equality. Asymmetrical equality is when the positives and negatives for each group cancel each other out more or less towards equality. Of course, it would be a false equivalence to say that two groups are perfectly equal due to this because you are always going to have one side more or less that is slightly better off.
However, the main crux of this issue is that when analyzing an issue such as the equality between both genders we should try to look at each side of the issue. When you do this, you'll realize that both genders have a good amount of advantages and disadvantages. To zero in on the disadvantages for your own gender, while disregarding the other gender's disadvantages is being disingenuous and it is extremely easy to do. Western society has taken great leaps in the past century that have pushed the genders toward equality. Have we reached it yet?
I don't know and I am not going to pretend to know that, but I do know that the rights and privileges of both genders should be considered when it comes to achieving true equality, not just one of them or you will merely end up having one gender dominating over the other instead of equality because most people decided to have tunnel vision instead of looking at both angles. Both misandry and misogyny are two sides of the same coin that disturb me regardless because both see the other gender as generally oppressive or regarding themselves as superior, which will not solve the problem, but worsen it instead.
Those two extremes are far less likely to be stumbled upon and you'll find most people inhabiting the grey area in between. I think most importantly, both men and women need to be able to empathize with the other gender's problems in order to achieve true equality, which is easier said than done. Each gender has its own unique problems and disregarding them because you haven't experienced them isn't a fair way to treat the other gender.
Let us not discount the fact that women are treated poorly in Middle Eastern nations, which are clear cut patriarchal societies that oppress women severely and the world should unite to tackle this problem head on to bring up the women's rights living there to the level of the Western world in the near future. Just like how there is extreme poverty in parts of Africa that needs to be solved, there are areas of the world that do not have the luxuries and privileges that we have in the Western World and not only do we need to be grateful that we have them, but we should also help those areas that are struggling the most with these issues.
Last edited by Raver; 09-15-2017 at 09:49 PM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
So?
That is a myth. Unless the payroll is negotiable, then its not. Most women are not assertive enough to negotiate their payroll as aggressively as men. Their fault, not mensAnyway, the point is that women can do the exact same job, work the exact same hours and still get paid less than men.
Feminism is like women taking part in a running competition against men and asking them to run slower so that they can keep up. Pathetic
Agreed, but what has this to do with feminismAlso, it doesn't necessarily mean that making more money = contributing more to society. Wall street financiers, bankers and stockbrokers make 10s to 100s times the money than say, teachers or scientists, yet it doesn't mean that they're contributing to the society 10 to 100 times more.
LOL, you make it sound like I have sadistically humiliated them or something. Put things in perspective.
I treat the individual women around me with respect, and my comments about a group you belong to are not an attack on you personally. You are overreacting and thus proving my points about feminists for me.
Come now, you are being intolerant of cultural diversity. It would be racist to hold Muslims of all people to the same ethical standards that you expect of me.
I simply work backwards from the way feminists act/behave and thus discern their motivations. Feminism is no longer a movement driven by liberal impulses.
Fortunately for mankind, most of you just virtue signal online.
I framed my arguments deliberately to coax out your hypocrisy around social justice issues.
Be nice then. I am tempted to look elsewhere for fun.
hey that's not fair
you can't harp on me for beeping at you when you just hashtagged at me a few days ago
Ah, but a couple of days ago I had no idea that you disliked me. The situation has changed
I'm not keeping up with everything in this thread but I noticed the negotiating a raise thing brought up a few times and it's worth considering that maybe people behave based on how their actions are reinforced rather than on some brain pattern that signals for them to ask for less: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...49597806000884
(I also see studies going both ways wrt whether women ask as much as men)
I kind of regret arguing in the fashion I did now, because it seems to have confused some people about my position.
I am not bothered by inequality because it's a natural consequence of our differences. Nobody is holding anyone else back from achieving their potential, we just end up in different places. So long as our basic needs (food, water, sleep, sex) are met, these differences should not be a cause of concern to anyone.
However, those who do consider inequality to be a moral issue need to be far more consistent in their objections. Stop focusing only on those inequalities that affect women.
Daily reminder that the most radical ideologues at the extreme regressive end of third-wave feminism, as well as the full-on Nazis at the other end of the far right, are sponsored by US govt psyops to divert attention from real civic issues they will never be willing to address. And yes, constructing a society that's actually equitable between sexes would probably fall under these popular demands.
There are some matters of life and death, basic needs, etc at stake in feminism, even in the west. Some are obvious, ie. domestic violence, and some are more convoluted ie. lack of access to reproductive options leading to poverty. You don't have to think those are serious, or widespread, or "as bad as what happens to men," or whatever, but just speaking to intent - from the pov of feminists who care about these things, they are concerned with basic needs and you probably aren't going to convince them that their concerns aren't important.
Its interesting that people concerned w/ women's issues are told they should broaden their scope, include everyone, stop being so self interested, etc, while other groups promoting for their interests don't face that sort of criticism, and I think it's because it's a particularly effective strategy against women. Feminism in particular is already more inclusive than other movements, with the concept of "intersectionality" and with a lot of people focusing more than anything else now on convincing men that feminism is sexy, fun, sex positive, "for men too!" etc. and it seems to me that the response to the guilting of women into being more inclusive & caring (hmm..) is a large part of what has diluted the movement into the petty internet & college culture thing (not focused enough on real issues, just wanting to take their tits out) that is now complained about. It's a double bind.
Last edited by ashlesha; 09-16-2017 at 03:54 PM.
@End, I can see where you are coming from. I, too, want to give my kid the advantage of a head start in this society. But I told him that he would never inherit the company I formed, for two reasons. One, he might not want it. Two, he might feel that he has no need to either work or find out what he himself is good at, and I don't want to cheat him of that.
A third reason for ending inheritance (aside from trying to create a meritocracy) is that when people inherit fortunes, they tend to abuse the power that comes with the wealth.
Also, the problem of inheritance creating an undemocratic society is real: http://robertreich.org/post/165403227390
We're not talking about you passing a few acres on to your kids. We're talking about a return to feudalism, where a few hundred families eventually own everything of any worth.
I will say that the abuse of power by those who inherit vast resources truly boils down to (and you knew I'd reference this again) r/K selection. "Free"/inherited resources=r-selection. r-selection=radical left wing communism which equals death, atrocity, and tyranny if a society ever experiences the grave misfortune of having an r-selected ruling elite (FYI, we're currently living this worst case scenario).
See, I wouldn't just auto pass on my lands and wealth to my children and if none of them proved "worthy" of it and if none of them did I'd flat out donate it to a charity I found more worthy than the sad failures of my line. Fun note is that my own family always has very, VERY bitter disputes when one of ours dies. Always fighting over the inheritance for no good discernible (to me) butt-fucking reason! Trust me you don't have to sell me on the dark side of Inheritance bullshit. I've LIVED it and I hate with every last fiber of my being. That said, I understand why it is, was, and ever will be a thing at the forefront of the minds of anybody who manages to claw their way out of the fetid swamp that is the lowest dregs of society.
Also, Adam, I must tell you that there are ample arguments against "Democracy" being "good" in the sense you seem to think it is. I suggest you read "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. He is one of the biggest influences in regards to my own political thought. Kings>Presidents all things considered and his case for that is VERY thorough. Just throwing that out there, always pays to read the works of those whom you are supposed to hate and all. I mean, if both sides of the political debate actually did that then we'd all be a lot more... respectful I'd think. We'd all at least be more able to "understand" the other's viewpoint. Understanding is the first step to humanization of the other, and once you do that, well, it's a LOT harder to pull the trigger and kill em' y'know.
Lots of the claims that HHH made in The God that Failed are not definite truths and are contestable. It's easy to see the intuitive correctness in a lot of what he says though. He's an appealing writer.
CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM
@Cuivienen
Re-reading your claims in the posts in the last-page.
(1) Large chunks of your arguments are comprised of subject-experience with feminists. I'm not really impressed with this.
The problem here is that if your argument rests on your experience of feminists being humourless and poorly educated, then of course you will come to the argument that feminism sucks. This isn't my experience of feminism though. I know feminists who are chemical engineers, wealthy academics, useful public servants. They are not necessarily humourless - they just don't like being insulted.
It's possible to find women who believe in gender equality in political principles, and who also have a good sense of humour. Sometimes that humour is also dark and irreverent. I know because I know lots of them. My ex was like that. She's a feminist and makes a lot of money making politically incorrect jokes. I'm dating a woman like that now too. If you can't find women like this then that's bad, but it's not a good argument against feminism, and not a good basis for a political perspective. You get chumps everywhere.
(2) Yes, women tend towards low-pay qualifications rather than high-pay qualifications and to some extent this explains why men are better paid (by the way, anti-feminism needs to sort out if it thinks that men are better at work and therefore better earners, or if the wage gap just doesn't exist: these are mutually exclusive positions). But wealth and income are not the same thing and net wealth doesn't = income. People become prosperous from a combination of: skills & work & saving.
I'm not too bothered that there is a glass ceiling or whatever. I am not bothered about a lack of female chief executives or hedge fund managers or whatever. Nothing in society will improve if women constitute half, rather than 1% or whatever it is now, of the 99th wealth percentile. You could fill the 99th-percentile with transsexual womyn of colour or whatever, and they would still be bad.
But (my final point) across the world you see that there are some jobs that are confined to women, and some that are confined to men. At all levels of the income scale, there are plenty of jobs like that. You don't see any Filipinos leaving their families and going overseas to be maids for wealthy families in Singapore and Hong Kong. You don't see any male cleaning staff in hospitals in this country, who work 14 hour shifts for under the national minimum wage and look after kids at the same time. However, women are not (yet) conscripted for pointless wars, don't do a lot of the most physically dangerous and poorly compensated work, and also some more degrading types of work. These people can not build skills or savings, the other two most important factors in increasing wealth.
There are some things that only apply to women, and some things we need to do in society specifically for women who need assistance and who have been historically exploited, degraded, or oppressed. That's not mutually exclusive with helping men and there's no reason to pretend it is, or that if you support that thing, that you can't support the other.
Probably all the white dominions (and the mother country) are heavy delta. The problem with NZ is it doesn't have big enough cities. You could probably cross the strait and go to Sydney or Melbourne because even if a country is delta its major cities are almost certainly more alpha/beta.
Last edited by totalize; 09-17-2017 at 09:28 AM.
CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM
Also, the children you meet in university who don't like your jokes don't represent or own feminism. There are some women struggling to be treated humanely. You don't have to ignore their voices because you don't like gender studies graduates. That's a conclusion I came to over the last year or two.
CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM
Apparently Delta feminists are responsible for Cuivienen's missed opportunities. The struggle be real.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
An interesting article about how women are often treated in business:
https://www.fastcompany.com/40456604...startup-sexism
I have had enough of your smug, malicious remarks. You are a nasty piece of work and it shows.
Reported.
PUSSY POWER!
It-s really funny how you can make fun and throw insults to anyone, while some sarcasm is banned as nasty by you. You rock Cuiv
Give me one example of a post where I have insulted you in the way you just did.
Bear in mind that general views/opinions I voice are not personal attacks on you. They do not justify this response.
I have had enough of your smug, malicious remarks. You are a nasty piece of work and it shows.
LOL
ure the smartest
Can you not comprehend cause and effect?
You started this by insulting me back there. If you had not done so, we'd be talking about something more productive right now.
Take a moment to think before you shoot your mouth off so self-righteously. There is nothing more to say.
What did I start smarty pants?
You called me a tool and whatnot in more than one occasion. That-s not an insult in your vocabulary I guess?
Yes, I started is thread, after you approached me, by calling you a sheep. My idea hasn-t still changed though.
Your, The Dolphin
It's retarded that's what it is.
Cancer disguised as equality.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 09-19-2017 at 02:15 PM.
I just read a multiple paragraphed outline on this subject, and then I read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
I need feminism because I was in class and some misogynist behind me starting going bzzzz. Bzzzzzzzt. Bzzzzz you little bee bzzzzzz. And I don't even look like a bee. #ineedfeminism #menaremean
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
It's no secret that our economic system perpetuates sexism.
Economic inequality = social problems
@Capitalist Pig
I think your confusion about feminism is stemming from the fact that it's an obsolete movement at this point. It served it's purpose a long time ago and now it's hard to figure out what it actually is at this point. As a woman I still don't know why I would need feminism at this point in history because as far as I know I was born free and can get whatever I want in life, there's no patriarchy stopping me from succeeding. So to answer your question, feminism is an outdated, irrelevant movement that has become a refuge for women (and men) with no sexual market value.
LSI-Se 836 Sp/Sx
I support women's social & political equality as much as possible. I'm dismayed whenever an otherwise rational, common-sense ideology takes a dive into identity politics, as in recently, when a few prominent feminists (like e.g. Gloria Steinem and Katha Pollitt) supported Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders just because she was a woman.
Hillary Clinton was the real joke candidate -- a war criminal, a Wall Street shill, and a carpetbagger who doesn't give a toss about the working poor, let alone working women. Does she offer something better than Trump? Marginally, arguably. Was she a better choice than Sanders? Hardly.
As a general rule of thumb, you should be reconsidering your life when the war criminal Madeline Albright gets up to support you at your rally. Clinton and Albright are to feminism what ISIS is to Islam.
More to the point, vote for someone like Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard in 2020 if you really want to make history.
Well said. IMO, Trump won the 2016 election partly because Hillary was awful overall and being someone slightly better than Trump is not going to be enough to win you an election. However, someone like Warren, Gabbard or even a respectable male Democrat has the potential to defeat Trump in 2020.
Last edited by Raver; 10-23-2017 at 12:08 AM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
You know, as long as institutions like PP fall under seige and pro-lifers pass legislation to hamstring women's reproductive rights, feminism will always have a substantiated reason to resurface in some form or another.
You do not have a right to taxpayer-funded birth control and abortions, as appropriating public money for these procedures would violate other citizens' freedom of religion. (I am not a hypocrite, I am opposed to a burka ban for this same reason.)
I don't think feminists quite appreciate that.
Nobody has a right to anything which already belongs to somebody else. That would be theft.
I can't make you have an abortion if you don't want to have one.
Therefore, you shouldn't be able to make me pay for an abortion if you want to have one.
That sounds fair to me.
look just because they don't have a "right" to a thing doesn't mean as a matter of policy there isn't a justifiable sense of entitlement [1]. and even if there weren't, "not appreciating" something is an ethical attack on the policy as some kind of benevolent dispensation when it may be wholly justified for economic and crime prevention reasons, and thus the benefit would be wholly collateral to "women" and not nearly as "benevolent" from the point of view of broader society--more like self serving. especially when birth control is really what unchained sexual activity, which you're admittedly almost exclusively about
i think what many people fail to appreciate is that women are likely not the primary beneficiaries of birth control... which is perhaps why male birth control has been so long in coming
so let's not try and spin this as other than a benefit, you, cuivienen, primarily receive, and then expect moral praise or capital on top of. are you going to charge women for a benefit you receive..? who is taxing who?
slimeball
this is the logic of SEE, by the wayI can't make you have an abortion if you don't want to have one.
Therefore, you shouldn't be able to make me pay for an abortion if you want to have one.
[1] the reasonable expectation that the government not act spitefully towards its own citizens. in other words, if they're going to provide birth control for their own benefit at least pay for it. to expect such is not some moral defect, rather the opposite
Last edited by Bertrand; 10-24-2017 at 04:22 AM.
"Freedom of religion" is irrelevant. Once taxes are paid, the money no longer belongs to the taxpayer. It is no longer in the taxpayer's possession. Therefore, members of religions that oppose government funded programs have no individual responsibility in what the funds are used for. They are not being forced to do anything against their religion.
Do you think military defense should be publically funded?
Posting Permissions
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"